Theologically Sound. Culturally Relevant.

Michael O'Fallon

Michael O’Fallon Claims He Popularized Motte and Bailey Fallacy. AD Robles Exposes Him.

Michael O’Fallon was a staunch advocate against Cultural Marxism and even one of the initial signers of the Dallas Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel. Yet the fervor he has against Cultural Marxism he has turned against Christian Nationalism, causing him to be mocked by Christian Nationalists on social media for offering no solution alternative to the growing movement.

Reacting to such derision, Michael O’Fallon took aim at AD Robles chiding him for joking about the idea of a protestant pope.

He then pointed to a Twitter thread stating:

It’s worth providing a reality check here. I did not learn the term “Critical Race Theory” or “Standpoint Epistemology” from Michael O’Fallon and I don’t know what “Derridean Deconstruction” is (neither does AD Robles). O’Fallon then states that Christian Nationalists are using the same tactics as the woke, drawing a fallacious moral equivalency. 

O’Fallon erroneously claims that James Lindsay popularized the acronym DARVO (which stands for Deny. Attack, Reverse roles of Victim and Offender). It’s a stupid acronym that I first saw used by the Rachael Denhollander, Amber Heard crowd. Is it really a grand tactic, or is it just basic steps people take in denying accusations made against them that someone gave a special acronym to?

Michael O’Fallon then erroneously claims that Evangelicals first heard the term Motte and Bailey from a conversation that he had with James Lindsay.

The Motte and Bailey Fallacy is where a person defends an indefensible position by switching back and forth between two different meanings of a word or concept. The fallacy is named after the motte-and-bailey castle, a medieval fortification consisting of two parts: the motte, a raised mound of earth or stone, and the bailey, a surrounding courtyard or defensive wall.

In the context of argumentation, the “motte” represents a defensible position that is easy to justify and difficult to attack, while the “bailey” represents a more controversial or extreme position that is harder to defend but more appealing to the person making the argument.

The fallacy occurs when the person making the argument defends the controversial position (the bailey) but, when challenged, retreats to the more defensible position (the motte) and then switches back to the bailey once the heat dies down. By doing this, the person can avoid engaging with criticisms of the more extreme position and maintain the appearance of being reasonable and open to discussion.

This fallacy is often used in political debates, where a person may present an extreme or controversial position and then retreat to a more moderate or defensible position when challenged. It can also be used in other contexts where people are attempting to defend a position that is difficult to justify or has weak evidence to support it.

AD Robles then comes out with a video exposing Michael O’Fallon for erroneously suggesting he discovered the Motte and Bailey strategys. In this video, AD Robles shows that neither Michael O’Fallon nor James Lindsay wrote on this topic until 2021. AD Robles showcased a video clip from 2018 whereby he explained this tactic in use.

AD Robles makes the point that Michael O’Fallon feels entitled to loyalty for his past good works, and that we “should sit at his feet.”

Though as long as Michael O’Fallon makes erroneous claims about his contributions while offering no viable solutions, Christian Nationalists are simply going to Christian Nationalist even harder.

Support the Evangelical Dark Web

By becoming a member of Evangelical Dark Web, you get access to more content, help drive the direction of our research, and support the operations of the ministry.
Receive the Evangelical Dark Web Newsletter

Bypass Big Tech censorship, and get Christian news in your inbox directly.

Facebook
Twitter
Telegram
Reddit
LinkedIn

3 Responses

  1. You don’t have to know the name of a fallacy in order to understand that an argument is fallacious.We name the fallacies in order to quickly point them out and address them, rather than necessarily using up time to explain. Which is pretty much the purpose of words.

    For example, “What I’m saying is true because I knew the name of a fallacy before you did” is a fallacious argument (lol). I don’t know what it’s called – something akin to appealing to authority, status, knowledge, or whatever – but it’s fallacious.

    1. Exactly. He took a philosophy course in college, so therefore we should listen to him.

Leave a Reply

Get Evangelical Dark Web Newsletter

Bypass Big Tech censorship, and get Christian news in your inbox directly.

Join 5,117 other subscribers

Trending Posts