Online left-wing infighting seems to me to be about applying labels to people because they argue or have argued one thing on a particular topic, and then use it to discredit an unrelated argument topic or paint their overall character. I know there are pot-stirring trolls and compulsive contrarians, but I do witness users I personally judge to have genuine convictions do this amongst each other.
Within US politics, CA Gov. Newsom is an illustrative example (plenty of examples exist too for other countries and around Lemmy/Fedi). I don't particularly like him, he has done things I think are good, some things I think are funny, something things I think are bad and some things I think are downright horrible. Yet I have encountered some users online who will say they can't ever applaud a move of his if one specific other policy or set of other unrelated policies crossed a line for them. I'm not asking people to change their mind on what they think of a person because of an isolated good thing they do, but to at least acknowledge it as a good thing or add nuance describing what about it you like or don't. I can accept saying "I don't think this is a good thing in this circumstance", "this person will not follow through with this thing I think is good thing because ___", or "they are doing a good thing for wrong and selfish reasons" too. But to outright deny any support for an action because of a wildly extrapolated character judgement of the person doing it, when that user would support it otherwise, vexes me greatly.
I know this is not every or most interactions on Lemmy, but these are just some thoughts I have to get out of my head. You don't have to agree with me. I'm using 'left-wing' because the definition of 'leftist' or 'liberal' is wide-ranging depending on who you talk to. And on the side of the spectrum I'm calling left to left-centre, we seem to let the fewer things we disagree with get in the way of the many more things we would agree with each other. That's all, thanks for reading.
Weaponized sincerity is a term defined by Katherine Cross ("Log off") as an online behavior opposite to trolling, and genuine in intent, but equally harmful as malicious trolling. The example she herself gives is about a woman who cooked a meal for her refugee neighbors or sth, and after a couple hours people were at each other throats, fighting about her infantilizing immigrants or not. It is ubiquitous in Lemmy and once you learn about it you can't unsee it.
Extracts from Katherine Cross's Log off: Why posting and politics almost never mix. Pasted verbatim.
BTW while looking for this I found out she also defines sincerity like this:
So, all in all, I can figure she draws a continuum from irony culture, like people "so deep in layers of irony they don't know who they are anymore" to weaponized sincerity, like, people who will take everything literally to the exteme of its political and ideological severity. She seems to be placing "real" sincerity to a point closer to the center than its "weaponized" counterpart. But I am no expert, I just have seen this happening over lemmy and it clicked, so I think she is onto something.
Also a disclaimer, I am personally more on the weaponized sincerity side.
I did a cursory search but couldn't find too much on weaponized sincerity or Cross' writings on that. The best I can make out from what you wrote, is that weaponized sincerity is someone's act of goodwill getting contorted or (charitably) misinterpreted by others as an injustice upon them. You can tell me if I got it wrong.
I think it is rather adding a very purist angle to everything while still having good intentions. This then pushes everyone to a more purist direction. I am bad at keeping track of sources, but I will try to quote the relevant context later if I can.
Thanks!
Posted above. No worries.