Actual Discussion

I think we should be calling out these criticisms, and promote an environment where people can take baby steps in the right direction. It's a marathon not a sprint.

Supportive and constructive "yes! And.." feedback is a skill lots of people would benefit from adopting.

Online spaces often have purity testing and gatekeeping you wouldn't see in real physical conversations between peers.

Some of it is just people being very focused on their goal, and losing sight of the human meeting them half way.

Some of it is performative, the message isn't for the person they are speaking at, but rather the silent ocean of lurkers who might come along later.

Some of it is good old fashioned elitism "you are doing it wrong"

I imagine a lack of empathy and ability to map strangers incentives when they differ from the commenter. People can do good things for bad reasons, or they value things you dont like, etc.

Empathy would go a long way to making online spaces more enriching for all

Thing is, everyone has their own limits as to where the line is between an imperfect ally and not being an ally at all, and even when that line shifts into an indirect enemy.

I'm relatively liberal in who I'll consider an ally. As long as the goal is similar enough, I'll work with people that differ on the details. As an example, I don't necessarily believe that anarchist details will hold up long term, but would have zero issue working with anarchists to achieve a goal. The goal being a significant change in socioeconomic structure. I accept the fact that compromises will be necessary to achieve that goal, and that they will also be necessary after (if) that goal were achieved. I'm pragmatic in that regard.

That's true for me on prettymuch every front because there's not enough people in any of the movements I could support to make anything useful happen by themselves. It's like how LGB turned into LGBT, then the Q+ got added. You know, apes together amd whatnot. Since I genuinely believe that the struggle for human rights is fully intersectional with those specific groups' rights needing to be recognized as human rights, anyone that's on board even tangentially is an ally.

It's a fuck ton easier to talk a partial ally into compromising and meeting your goals at least short term than it is to conquer enemies.

Part of that pragmatism is recognizing that any ism has zealots. Tankies, terfs, nazis, ultra-radical feminists, whatever; there's always going to be people that will never, ever compromise because it's about their faith, the belief becomes their religion, and they simply can't work with anyone else at all. There's fucking radical moderates and centrists that genuinely believe that middle ground is the only acceptable and allowable form of structure, and will not work with anyone else, period.

But I'd still work with them as imperfect as zealots inherently are, because you use the tools you have.

But that doesn't mean you can't critique. It's just that you have to choose your battles. You have to decide when and where to apply critique as a form of communication. And there's no single answer for that

You don’t change someone’s mind by criticizing them

Sometimes you do, if they are self aware enough to accept constructive criticism. I don't recall ever changing anyone's mind by being polite, they just 'agree to disagree'.

Tone matters of course, but it depends on the person and whether or not they respect the other person's opinion.