4 ms·

I grant that the absolutist antiwork position fails to meet basic reality compliance standards. But does that give the current de-facto state religion -- cradl

by vanusa 5y ago

I grant that the absolutist antiwork position fails to meet basic reality compliance standards. But does that give the current de-facto state religion -- cradle-to-grave workaholism (wildly out of proportion to the amount of work we actually need to do to sustain ourselves) -- a pass? Why is the promotion one position an instance of 'sanewashing', while the normalization of other (no less insane in my view) position is just -- "the way it is"?

dgreensp 5y ago
Yeah, all the positions people are taking (progressives, anarchists) about work, here, are in the right direction from the status quo. But saying that wouldn’t fit with the author’s “aesthetic.” :)
wutbrodo 5y ago
This is completely orthogonal to the article's thesis. The entire piece is about optics, and doesn't take any position. In fact, the only time the piece departs from its neutral tone is to decry the latecomers accused of sanewashing the space and pushing its original community to its periphery. This is sympathetic to the radicals, albeit incidentally. You've also misunderstood what sanewashing is. Sanewashing is with reference to the mainstream, not some supposed absolute moral truth. It describes the transformation of a radical viewpoint into one that's palatable to the mainstream. It makes no claim about the moral truth of the radical view.
- vanusa 5y ago
  I understand what the word means. My point, which I thought was very clear, is simply: If what the r/antiwork community attempting to do in promoting their position an instance of an (attempted) "transformation of a radical viewpoint into one that's palatable to the mainstream" ... Then is not the normalization of an unhealthy addiction to overwork (as a kind of "virtue") -- arguably an instance of a successful transformation of a pretty much equally radical viewpoint? In other words: "If theirs is a 'radical' viewpoint -- how did this shit we actually live under (and which is slowly killing us and the planet with it) get to become a 'normal, sane' viewpoint"?
  - wutbrodo 5y ago
    > instance of an (attempted) "transformation of a radical viewpoint into one that's palatable to the mainstream" ... I again think this is misunderstanding the point. The "transformation" we're talking about is one that betrays the initial goal. It didn't become palatable by convincing the mainstream, it did so by _changing its goal_ to something the mainstream already agreed with, contradicting the core beliefs of the original cause and community. > "If theirs is a 'radical' viewpoint -- how did this shit we actually live under (and which is slowly killing us and the planet with it) get to become a 'normal, sane' viewpoint" Apologies, but I really do feel like you're misunderstanding both the article and my response. Your comment is full of claims that something that everybody believes is radical, while the whole framing of the article is defining radical as "things that few people currently believe" and mainstream as "things that many people currently believe". Your comment asked: > "Why is the promotion one position an instance of 'sanewashing', while the normalization of other (no less insane in my view) position is just -- "the way it is"? and the simple, clear answer is that "sane" and "radical" are being used throughout the article in the sense of "popular" and "unpopular". I'm quite familiar with the author, having interacted with him many times on a couple of small, related message boards for many years. I can guarantee you that he holds and can eloquently defend many views which would be considered radical. _That just has nothing to do with this particular article_, which is about the dynamics of how popular views wash out unpopular ones.
    - vanusa 5y ago
      Hmm - actually I was using "sane" and "radical" in the intrinsic sense, independent of their popularity at any time after another. Hence the view that the current workaholic "normal" as a radical departure from the social contract which preceded it. And that it's worth asking how, exactly, this came to pass -- and in effect become the "new normal", before most people were aware this shift had happened.
pmyteh 5y ago
The promotion of 'work reform' is not what the author is describing as sanewashing. It's the co-option of a more radical movement, followed by an explaining away of the radical parts of that movement to make it mainstream-acceptable. As someone who is sympathetic to anarchist positions while being temperamentally a reformist I can see the merit in both positions. But if I held the radical one and saw its slogans appropriated just as it had begun to get traction I'd be cross too, I think.
gruez 5y ago
>But does that give the current de-facto state religion -- cradle-to-grave workaholism (wildly out of proportion to the amount of work we actually need to do to sustain ourselves) -- a pass? It's not really a "religion" though. People aren't working "wildly out of proportion to the amount of work we actually need to do to sustain ourselves" so they end up in Valhalla or whatever. They're doing it because they want to be able to buy goods/services with that money, or for the FIRE crowd, doing it so they can stop working a decade or two later.

by vanusa 5y ago

dgreensp 5y ago

Yeah, all the positions people are taking (progressives, anarchists) about work, here, are in the right direction from the status quo. But saying that wouldn’t fit with the author’s “aesthetic.” :)

wutbrodo 5y ago

This is completely orthogonal to the article's thesis. The entire piece is about optics, and doesn't take any position. In fact, the only time the piece departs from its neutral tone is to decry the latecomers accused of sanewashing the space and pushing its original community to its periphery. This is sympathetic to the radicals, albeit incidentally. You've also misunderstood what sanewashing is. Sanewashing is with reference to the mainstream, not some supposed absolute moral truth. It describes the transformation of a radical viewpoint into one that's palatable to the mainstream. It makes no claim about the moral truth of the radical view.

vanusa 5y ago
I understand what the word means. My point, which I thought was very clear, is simply: If what the r/antiwork community attempting to do in promoting their position an instance of an (attempted) "transformation of a radical viewpoint into one that's palatable to the mainstream" ... Then is not the normalization of an unhealthy addiction to overwork (as a kind of "virtue") -- arguably an instance of a successful transformation of a pretty much equally radical viewpoint? In other words: "If theirs is a 'radical' viewpoint -- how did this shit we actually live under (and which is slowly killing us and the planet with it) get to become a 'normal, sane' viewpoint"?
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  > instance of an (attempted) "transformation of a radical viewpoint into one that's palatable to the mainstream" ... I again think this is misunderstanding the point. The "transformation" we're talking about is one that betrays the initial goal. It didn't become palatable by convincing the mainstream, it did so by _changing its goal_ to something the mainstream already agreed with, contradicting the core beliefs of the original cause and community. > "If theirs is a 'radical' viewpoint -- how did this shit we actually live under (and which is slowly killing us and the planet with it) get to become a 'normal, sane' viewpoint" Apologies, but I really do feel like you're misunderstanding both the article and my response. Your comment is full of claims that something that everybody believes is radical, while the whole framing of the article is defining radical as "things that few people currently believe" and mainstream as "things that many people currently believe". Your comment asked: > "Why is the promotion one position an instance of 'sanewashing', while the normalization of other (no less insane in my view) position is just -- "the way it is"? and the simple, clear answer is that "sane" and "radical" are being used throughout the article in the sense of "popular" and "unpopular". I'm quite familiar with the author, having interacted with him many times on a couple of small, related message boards for many years. I can guarantee you that he holds and can eloquently defend many views which would be considered radical. _That just has nothing to do with this particular article_, which is about the dynamics of how popular views wash out unpopular ones.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    Hmm - actually I was using "sane" and "radical" in the intrinsic sense, independent of their popularity at any time after another. Hence the view that the current workaholic "normal" as a radical departure from the social contract which preceded it. And that it's worth asking how, exactly, this came to pass -- and in effect become the "new normal", before most people were aware this shift had happened.

pmyteh 5y ago

The promotion of 'work reform' is not what the author is describing as sanewashing. It's the co-option of a more radical movement, followed by an explaining away of the radical parts of that movement to make it mainstream-acceptable. As someone who is sympathetic to anarchist positions while being temperamentally a reformist I can see the merit in both positions. But if I held the radical one and saw its slogans appropriated just as it had begun to get traction I'd be cross too, I think.

gruez 5y ago

>But does that give the current de-facto state religion -- cradle-to-grave workaholism (wildly out of proportion to the amount of work we actually need to do to sustain ourselves) -- a pass? It's not really a "religion" though. People aren't working "wildly out of proportion to the amount of work we actually need to do to sustain ourselves" so they end up in Valhalla or whatever. They're doing it because they want to be able to buy goods/services with that money, or for the FIRE crowd, doing it so they can stop working a decade or two later.