I saw that happen a few times. I'm fortunate enough to be high masking but sometimes I can see myself in someone being a called liberal or reactionary because they can't help but being technical on some random definition

One of the masking skills I acquired in activists circles was to always check if a level of factuality is needed for struggle purposes

[–] canthangmightstain@lemmy.today 6 points 2 weeks ago

Same. It’s hard to learn that some parts of a movement are more about tribal cohesion and less about factual accuracy. That doesn’t mean the overall vision isn’t important, it just means that you don’t start “fixing uniforms in the middle of a firefight” so to speak.

[–] jorge@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I didn't understand the last sentence:

One of the masking skills I acquired in activists circles was to always check if a level of factuality is needed for struggle purposes

Could you elaborate?

[–] EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The masking/social skill is that you double check if your desire for technical correctness is actually needed.

Is it helpful? Is it necessary? Does it advance the cause? Or are you getting hung up on minutiae?

Typically the issue is that the clarification is being discussed at an inconvenient time for the group, and you are interrupting the discussion. If you determine that it is helpful and necessary and does advance the cause, the right move is to come back to it later on in a smaller group or individually to gain clarity. If not, just drop it.

[–] lil_tank@hexbear.net 3 points 2 weeks ago

When I want to correct someone because they omitted a certain nuance, I ask myself if this error may lead to taking wrong decisions in the future, or if it is a small inaccuracy that isn't worth the debate. It's especially important if the nuance in question will make you look more moderate. Correcting people for not being radical enough is more acceptable in good orgs