Permanently Deleted
the "kick people out at the barest pretense of interpersonal conflict" meme is the greatest innovation the FBI's ever developed. just fully accelerate the left's ability to continually de-organize itself without having to do the hard work of infiltration.
I agree with the idea that "everything is an op" in the sense that once capital, 3 letter orgs, military and police use mainstream media to push a certain narrative, they no longer need to continue to push the narrative, people who simply engage with the media do it for them by repeating it. Constantly.
:citations-needed:
I don't believe that anyone who simply creates conflict is an FBI agent. I'm not that paranoid or naive. Conflicts are a natural part of organizing and human existence. However, it becomes increasingly difficult to work with succ Dems / liberals who want to become debate bros, equivocate and "well actually" about every issue. If I'm going to be putting myself at risk in some action, I don't want Elizabeth Warren, JD Vance, and Malcolm Gladwell organizing along side of me. Because to me, that's the path these people are taking. It's the same shit that liberals fall for again and again.
I'm not looking to kick anyone out or assume the worst, I really try to give people the benefit of the doubt - - moreso than others I know. It just feels extremely hopeless when an org that has been otherwise effective starts engaging in dumb conflicts that seem to serve no purpose and are started by a relatively new individual.
Like, I said I'm just a concerned nobody.
the org should have a way to mediate / kick people who are getting in the way of things. if they don't, then it was a matter of time before this happened either due to dipshits, feds, or both.
Focus always on the consequences of their behavior, not their intentions, which are both harder to discern, and also less important anyway. If a person is acting in a way that has the same result as a wrecker, they need to be removed from whatever they're wrecking.
When you address them and their behavior, you don't need to be mean about it (especially if you suspect they mean well), but explain to them that there behavior has been disruptive / harmful, and why it has been so. If they have the right priorities, you'll see them either change their behavior, or at least have the sense to accept why they're being moved away from a particular activity.
He saved you the trouble of leaning forwards in your armchair.
im real big on looking at account age and posting :farquaad-point: emojis at them, sometimes its a real old account and i just let them do their shit
Functionally there is no difference - acting like a cop by accident is still acting like a cop. Tread carefully and try to steer things in the right direction
In that case, there is in fact a functional difference. A wrecker operates from a bad faith position, they have no potential to play a part in productive processes within a party. Someone who is ideologically misguided or socially awkward is not operating from a bad faith position, they want to be a part of the movement and contribute positively, but presently cannot do so because they are not well integrated to socialist values; on some level this is going to be a problem with all newcomers to serious socialist organizing. All of us suffer the consequences of alienation under capitalism. Getting people on the same page is like 90% of the struggle for bringing about class consciousness, there’s no getting around the difficult social work that has to be put in.
this is why many orgs have required lessons + education before they grant full membership.
This is a very important point. Disruption is disruption. It's not productive regardless of the identity or intention of the individual.
Also, if these people are members of other organizations you're familiar with you might want to cross reference your experiences with members of other organizations. I was in an org a while back where we found out that a small group of individuals were basically going from org to org wrecking shit and also doing this in other cities.
Obviously snitchjacketing is wack and you shouldn't be jumping to conclusions about people's intentions, but when people repeat patterns like this from org to org it's definitely not a good sign. Again regardless of intention or purpose they're still fucking things up so they may as well be cops.
Also people need to have room to grow and learn. In the best case scenario that someone is just awkward / uninformed, if they're willing to learn and be better that's great. If they just want to argue and be little shits then...yeah, not someone anyone wants in their org and you likely wouldnt be the only person to have that opinion
Sort of a lot of awkward thoughts here but hopefully it makes sense, idk
You will never be able to know what people's true intentions are. All you can do is judge their actions.
I think you should either talk with whoever is in charge of the org and raise your concerns that this person is disruptive, or, if you feel like it, try and let this person down gently and ask them to refrain from stirring the pot all the time
Thanks. I feel like this is a good point for other aspects of life as well.
no problem. Instead of editing my comment, I'd like to add that if you are going to talk to the disruptive person, do it privately, that'll be your best chance to reach them. If you do it publicly, that'll backfire and cause them to dig their heels in.
I’m not a leader or mod, just a concerned nobody.
Okay, officer. :fedposting:
Waiting for that federal Healthcare I keep hearing about to kick in...
Online? it doesn't matter. if they interrupt discussions and work with shit-for-brains behavior, they're functionally the same as a fed / wrecker. kick them out.
IRL? if someone you know in real life, talk to them about it being disruptive. if they can correct their behavior, great. if they keep it up and/or get massively defensive / disruptive after getting this feedback, kick them out.
If a person has a shit take are they stating it as general opinion/fact or as something they themselves think? Doing accidental wrecker shit from the perspective of "I think this..." or "What about that...?" does give them an out to be criticized and corrected.
Does the person want to bring up their shit takes in the middle of other projects or discussions where it isn't relevant, demand attention, and derail the group? Do they persist in doing this after being told their shit takes can be an issue for a later time/project? Probably leaning towards wrecker.
If attempts at honestly addressing the shit take at an appropriate time/place result in the person getting angry, offended, or acting personally hurt every time, they might be a wrecker.
In non-pandemic times I'd recommend focusing on irl discussions because written ones are low resolution and it's hard to correct someone without it being very public, personal, and putting them on the defensive. Unless it's something heinous or alienating for people in the org (id pol sounds like it could be).
But we don't really have that luxury in pandemic times. In that case, assume everyone is acting in good faith, firmly disagree, and offer to have a chat about it. It's important to be welcoming while also drawing a clear line on some topics. Provide the opportunity for correction without embarrassment until they make it impossible (some people will). Then there is no option but to cleanly disagree and attempt to shut shit down.
This is an important point and I think mental health absolutely plays heavily into these kind of situations.
It's usually easy to tell because even if the person gets defensive after receiving pushback for a bad take, a genuine person's defensiveness reads differently than an obviously bad faith "Oh, so you're saying X then huh?"
Ah wait just saw you meant offline
the way you respond to shit stirring is the same either way, tell them to cut the shit or get kicked out
