How to Respond When the Leftist You Love Accuses You of Policing Them

Inspired by this conversation. And then discussions around it online.
To begin, I hope it goes without saying — my hypothetical, reasonable, and caring reader — that you are only calling someone out for either saying something cruel or mistaken.
Now, the original speaker will feel entitled to their ignorance or cruelty because of some pain they feel or have felt, or someone else in the argumentative eco-system will want to defend them, so you will then be told to not police the community.
The reason the template of “don’t police us” works so well, and in particular with our young adults, is that feeds into the mental groove that all authority figures are bad. It invokes latent mental images overbearing cops in uniform, threats of punishment, or even police brutality. Very few people in leftist circles want to be that, so it stifles a response. It is a complete thought-stopper.
Unfortunately, it is a bad argument in terms of logic, consistency, and the good of a group. The first thing you, the accused, need to understand is that you are probably not acting in the role of the police. You don’t have the ability to detain them, or even take away their platform. So the first rhetorical strategy is to draw out the differences between you and a police-man (isn’t the image in the mind of the nearly always an archetype of a man? With infinite wealth, I’d absolutely love to fund experimental tests on this).
So, here is the first waves of rhetorical choices you could make:
I’m not a policeman. I’m a friend of the cause.
I’m not policing you. I agree with 90% (or even 99%, if appropriate) of what you are saying.
I’m not policing you. I’m a big fan of your work.
I’m not policing you. I’m just expressing an opinion, same as you.
I’m not poling you. I am questioning your tactics.
One problem with this set is that the subconscious mind processes language through images, archetypes, and connections. The word “not” doesn’t process anywhere near as deeply. The example used by George Lakoff is though Nixon repeatedly said “I am NOT a crook,” he was re-engaging the frame “crook”; years later the first word people thought when they heard the name “Nixon” was, and will continue to be, crook.
So, instead of repeating the word “police,” and thus engaging the frame, try these responses:
I wish you wouldn’t accuse me of that. And then insert some of the second sentences from the first set I’ve given you above.
Though this tweak is better, if not significantly better, than re-invoking the p-word, you are still better off than not challenging the frame. If you give up the frame, you lose the argument from the start.
(Another good thing about “I wish you wouldn’t accuse me of that” is that it subtly brings up how most contemporary Americans don’t want to be seen making judgments. However, I wouldn’t necessarily make it more explicit than that by something like “so you’re judging me for my judgments?” or “you’re chastising me for chastisement.” Though they are both options, they probably come off a bit too robotic unless worked into a longer train of thought.)
This is where relationships also matter. My friend who I had the debate with over the merits of cheering McCain’s cancer also brought up the concept of “policing.”
Him: don’t really disagree with you but policing irony and leftist twitter into respecting someone they fundamentally hate seems pointless (not saying you’re policing, but people in general)
Me: Since I’m doing it in private and we have a long-standing relationship, I would certainly hope this would not be a police action.
This was honestly the first time I had seen the phrase — it sure wasn’t going to be the last. Also, at the time I wrote that, I had no idea I would want to turn it into an article.
Honorable Mentions for Responses to the Accusation.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
This one is good far as it goes because it’s true. But As David Foster Wallace asks in Infinite Jest, “Why is the truth usually not just un- but anti-interesting?”(358) A big reason for being in a leftist tribe is to be beyond such platitudes that even a child could say.
Hating X won’t improve Y.
Example: “Hating John McCain won’t bring about universal healthcare.”
[Response chain: “If he dies, then there is a higher chance for universal healthcare.” Counter: “I want my opponents defeated. I don’t want them dead.”]
“That doesn’t make any sense. I’m not taking away your platform.”
This does get to the heart of the matter in some ways, but it’s a bit too analytical.
The Inner Game
If your comment is given in a genuine, honest spirit, then you are not policing. It’s also not concern trolling if you have what you feel is a genuine concern coupled with a positive regard for the group or person.
If someone has said something ignorant or cruel they are valuing a) their own individualistic, consumer right to do whatever they want, damn the externalities that other people have to put up with over b) a social construction of truth based on multiple perspectives, and awareness of how something is taken by an audience.
If you are dealing with a leftist, this is really odd. Often what they are expressing is a symptom of our system, call it late capitalism or what you will, the very system they see as the disease. Not needing to think about your audience or about manners is what made Donald Trump so “refreshing’ to the his followers. The strength of his tone helped to make some true believers. That the new leftists are going to be “refreshing” in the same way is telling. I am sorry that basic manners are so hard for people to maintain in late capitalism, but manners are like paying taxes — the cost of living in a civilization that actually functions.
I wouldn’t throw this verbal hand grenade, however. Instead, just keep in the back of your mind about what is going on
Why so much focus on the inner game? Until or unless real policing is actually used — which really means the initiation of force, economic intimidation, or taking away of a platform — the purposes of engaging in a discussion are a) to gain and understanding of the world, and b) how you feel at the end. In most cases, the satisfaction and peace of mind you leave a discussion should the most important thing. I know that is not the case for most people, and so much the pity. You don’t have to live in an endless cycle of reaction to stimuli. If online debates leave you run down and weary, then you really should take a break. I assure you people arguing on the internet will still be there when you return.
Conclusion.
You’re not going to convince someone to stop using the “you’re policing me” template. It’s far too potent, and has worked too many times. But now at least you have some good counters.
Also, you most likely wont be responded to, as the pattern of discussions have increasingly become to find the weakest arguments possible and respond to those.
If you think someone is policing you, consider investigating the reality of the situation before leveling an accusation. It’s easy to see push-back as someone expressing some ideology that is hindering your project. And yes, when you get a lot of push-back at once some of that certainly is some kind of ideological conflict. But you are going to get a lot of false-positives with that kind of thinking, and you may proceed in ways that alienate people who could have helped you. My advice is to extend some charity and give people ways out. Instead of the rhetorical stance of “don’t police me” + [name calling] try:
I feel personally hurt by this system, are you trying to police my expression of how I feel?
Or
Okay, you don’t like what I said, but can you see where I am coming from?
Or
You may not like that, but then again, do you agree with anything else I say?
Or even.
You’re right. I’m sorry.
The odds are good you’ll never see that from someone else. But don’t worry. Respect can be given, but not taken. Unless, of course, you were engaging in real policing, or, rather, real tyranny.
Final note: I do not consider myself culturally part of the left anymore, though in the short- to-medium term I would really like to see more generous social programs (I also would not bet on that happening). I, however, like understanding politics as a kind of armchair anthropologist.
With that said, I think this piece could be useful to more and more people, as the cultural left continues the circular firing squads and the Oppression Olympics.
=================
If you liked this, please hit like. Also consider visiting my homepage.
