I am so weary of academics and activists just shredding each other. It’s one thing if someone is really writing in bad faith. But when people are clearly really trying to do their best at solidarity and you see a way they fucked up, is the viciousness necessary?

Do we have to always critique by saying “You are a fucking irredeemable -ist”? Esp when talking to other marginalized people (who, again, are clearly Trying)? I am not saying don’t critique! But there’s almost glee in pointing out how ppl have “missed” YOUR point of view.

“AHA! A likely theory of how the world is fucked up and how we might make it better, but you have failed to account for MY issues, and therefore you are really guilty of perpetuating anti-Indigenous/queer/feminist/working class/etc sentiment!”

This isn’t trying to tone police, either. But it’s one thing to read something and get mad because you’ve noticed a blindspot that reveals ignorance and even implicit prejudice. It’s another thing to write and publish a vicious journal article in response.

It might be true! Maybe they missed something important! But why do we have to attack so harshly? Why not instead frame our critiques as attempts to just make better theories?

Maybe I am naive. Or something like that. But I don’t see how this is sustainable or even really beneficial. Unless you want to end up with just you and your three friends fighting for liberation and trying to see who’s the last one standing :/

I just feel like the way this whole system of infrastructure as well as social norms currently exists, we’re encouraged to tear apart relationships rather than try to build them. We are trained to spot each other’s flaws, to assume the worst, and to attack.

Dunno. Might delete this thread tomorrow. How is what I’m saying different than asking people not to be mean to crying white liberals “who are just trying their best ” for example? Because I don’t mean that. Maybe I’m messed up too. IDK. Just feeling down about this.