Often times leftists like to play a certain game where they say something crazy, gay or stupid and after being called out for it they’ll weasel around and tell you that what they meant isn’t really what they meant. For example: Twitter user and (obviously) a troon @Katabassist recently wrote a thread about how the Marxist goal of abolishing the family isn’t actually literally about abolishing the family as a social unit. They privated the account on account of the backlash before I could take any screenshot but below is the crux of what they said and why it is manifestly stupid hence the backlash
Given the backlash the the troon who posted it had to face you’d think that the case is done and dusted so we move on, right? The answer to this rhetorical question is no, because this has to be addressed. We’re, mainly I, am tired of lefitist playing games about what they’re trying to achieve. I know their tactics is what gave them power but we’ve seen this before and I’m sick of it Robbie. The point of this article is not to point and how unfair the left is in the game of power politics but rather to say that I’m tired of watching it and I want someone to inject some life into this and start being as shrewd and pragmatic as the left. But first, let me get you up to speed on what I’m talking about.
The tactic of the left of trying to tell the public that what they said isn’t really what they said is a tactic that most in the know are familiar with, it’s called a motte and bailey fallacy. Simply put the tactic of the motte and bailey is equating two positions, one which is easy to defend i.e. the “motte” and another which is much harder to defend i.e. the “bailey”. The fallacy gets its name from the medieval European structure called the motte-and-bailey castle which was used for military and defence purposes in the high Middle Ages. The use of this tactic was perhaps most prominent in the “abolish the police” movement that came out of Black Lives Matter after the death of George Floyd in May of 2020. The concept of abolishing the police is not as recent as George Floyd’s death, since many articles on this subject suggest it goes back to black activists in the 1970s, however, with the protests and riots following the death of George Floyd this phrase got memed into the public consciousness and academics had to explain what it meant.
Here is where we began to see the use of the motte and bailey, where we had many saying that “defund” and “abolish” the police did not literally mean those things in common language but rather they meant reforming or reimagining what policing means and how it’s done. The idea of police reform is not new, and is a much easier position to hold since words like reform are have better PR with people because people are generally opposed to change so positing that what you’re arguing for is a slight change (‘reform’) and obviously not a drastic change (‘abolition’) is the “motte” in this case, while at the same time you hold to the bailey of “we really want to abolish the police“.
There are other examples of motte and bailey e.g. abolish marriage actually means marriage should be a cultural practice and not a legal one etc. If you want to see someone who is king at doing this go and look at the walking contradiction known as Vaush on YouTube and Twitter, that is if you can stomach some of his antics, tread carefully.
Ignoring that digression, time to go back to the point of the article, which is this: We’re tired of seeing this played out. It is quite clear that many on the left hold to monstrous positions that are at their core anti-human (abolish the family, abolish marriage, LGBT etic). We’re not going to fall for it anymore since we’ve seen it all before. We must vehemently oppose it and our methods of opposition must be pragmatic since, as many of us know, the left does not play fair, they play to win. This does not mean adopting leftist tactics, as they are both immoral and ineffectual for people who are not the left, however, we must be willing to resist them by any means necessary.
