Expain how this is a motte and Bailey.

"https://youtu.be/Cv3X1uoRulk?si=CPqbigCSOeJIm7Qo

In the beginning in the video he says he doesn't see no one have a good take on the male loneliness epidemic. So he makes it seem like he has this shocking take on the male loneliness epidemic in the video. But throughout the video he ends up having a common and very popular take on the male loneliness epidemic. 🤦

Even if you agree with TJ here. You would still have to agree that his take on the male loneliness epidemic is not new or ground breaking. Unless you are delusional of course.

His take is basically, that the male loneliness epidemic is due to men being mediocre, trash, entitled to women bodies, and don't have confidence.

Newsflash that's every other feminist/liberal take on the male loneliness epidemic. So what makes TJ Kirk take different here?

I hate this reasonability trolling people like (TJ/FD Signifier) on the left or even some Conservatives do. Where they say everybody has the wrong idea of the male loneliness epidemic. And then they end up having the most basic takes on the male loneliness epidemic.

This another motte and bailey tactic bad actors do with men issues.

Bailey: The bold, controversial claim TJ makes , that the male loneliness epidemic is because men are mediocre, entitled, trash losers lacking confidence. This is the harsh, confrontational position he tries to defend.

Motte: The safe, easy-to-defend claim, that no one understands the male loneliness epidemic or that his take is unique and groundbreaking.

This is why I call this reasonability trolling.

Reasonability trolling is when someone pretends to offer a reasonable, nuanced take, only to smuggle in condescending or mainstream views under the guise of being uniquely insightful.

TJ, FD, and similar liberals use reasonability trolling by acting like they’re debunking myths with fresh insight, but end up repeating the same mainstream takes while dismissing dissent as irrational.