Jul 4, 2022·edited Jul 12, 2022Liked by Inverse Florida
This kind of thing leads to a new type of progressive liberal I've started encountering in the wild: the "sanewashed". They've basically only ever absorbed Left (as in "Leftist", "Leftism", etc) ideas through sanewashing and social proof, which creates a distinct problem: they have no idea the original ideas actually exist. If you try to tell them about Abolish the Police or "ACAB means ACAB" or any similar matter on any other issue, they straight-up refuse to believe you until you sit them down and give them a potted educational session on the history of left-wing ideologies and ideas. Even then, some of them will continue to insist that the sanewashed position they were bullied into holding is the "real" one, and that the actual Leftists generating and disseminating the ideas are some kind of conspiracy theory.
Perfect, I had trouble articulating this thing exactly because I got lost in the mental weeds trying to diagram out the different social groups in my head, but you've nailed it. This is like a real, distinct faction in left wing politics today. Other features might include "Being big fans of AOC, and sites like Buzzfeed, but not knowing what the Justice Dems are or who Angela Davis is"? Or maybe just "Posting on Reddit".
Isn't sanewashing a version of the motte and bailey argument -- shifting between radical proposals and then retreating to "supposed" truisms or more benign versions of your argument?
No, because a Motte and Bailey is intentional deception. This is meant to be more of a social phenomenon. What a lot of progressives are trying to do is use a radical facade for what they say are moderate philosophies - they only want to use and defend the radical appearance and don't care about any other part of it. It's really more like sleepwalking into Bailey and Motte.
TLDR: I got the impression people wanted to defund the police because they engaged in mass violent riots and I saw several politicians join in and express support. If I was looting a cvs or burning down a police station, I wouldn’t want any police around.
This kind of thing leads to a new type of progressive liberal I've started encountering in the wild: the "sanewashed". They've basically only ever absorbed Left (as in "Leftist", "Leftism", etc) ideas through sanewashing and social proof, which creates a distinct problem: they have no idea the original ideas actually exist. If you try to tell them about Abolish the Police or "ACAB means ACAB" or any similar matter on any other issue, they straight-up refuse to believe you until you sit them down and give them a potted educational session on the history of left-wing ideologies and ideas. Even then, some of them will continue to insist that the sanewashed position they were bullied into holding is the "real" one, and that the actual Leftists generating and disseminating the ideas are some kind of conspiracy theory.
Perfect, I had trouble articulating this thing exactly because I got lost in the mental weeds trying to diagram out the different social groups in my head, but you've nailed it. This is like a real, distinct faction in left wing politics today. Other features might include "Being big fans of AOC, and sites like Buzzfeed, but not knowing what the Justice Dems are or who Angela Davis is"? Or maybe just "Posting on Reddit".
Actually, wait. This is also the social gentrification that Tracing Woodgrains wrote about, and what happened to r/antiwork. I feel like a way of making this more explicit about how this isn't just this one subreddit, but actually a large chunk of Young People Politics is important for interpreting Young People Politics. https://tracingwoodgrains.medium.com/r-antiwork-a-tragedy-of-sanewashing-and-social-gentrification-56298af1c1a7
This is one of the most enlightening things I’ve read. I’ve been stuck in conversations like this myself and I couldn’t figure out why. Thanks!
Isn't sanewashing a version of the motte and bailey argument -- shifting between radical proposals and then retreating to "supposed" truisms or more benign versions of your argument?
No, because a Motte and Bailey is intentional deception. This is meant to be more of a social phenomenon. What a lot of progressives are trying to do is use a radical facade for what they say are moderate philosophies - they only want to use and defend the radical appearance and don't care about any other part of it. It's really more like sleepwalking into Bailey and Motte.
That’s too many words to be a coherent idea.
TLDR: I got the impression people wanted to defund the police because they engaged in mass violent riots and I saw several politicians join in and express support. If I was looting a cvs or burning down a police station, I wouldn’t want any police around.
1. The core of it can be explained in very few words, but many words are needed to demonstrate the relevance of it in detail and show examples.
2. It has absolutely nothing to do with "oh I'm rioting, no more police please".
“Defund the police” ended up funding half the writers on Substack. It’s the gift that keeps on giving.
I have not made any money from Substack.
(But if I do then it will be because of Defund The Police)