While I get the point this is trying to make there is a great deal of dysfunction in most of the ways we fight for causes, so we do kinda need to be able to examine our approaches and behavior critically 😅
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2026
215 points (96.1% liked)
People Twitter
10163 readers
257 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, assuming everyone with criticism Hates You and Your Cause is not very productive.
If I could force every online person to understand one fact, it's this. Goddamn we need to understand that...
And false dichotomies are also really unhelpful
What false dichotomy?
Yeah, assuming everyone with criticism Hates You and Your Cause is not very productive.
This. The person you're responding to opened up the conversation to include a measured response in using the OP's advice. And then you come in to add emphasis, but your emphasis turns the position from "we do also need to be open to criticism" to "those who agree with OP apply this advice to all critics"
OP's advice is for not listening to haters on how to advance your cause. You twisted it into "all criticism is haters, who you should never listen to". Which then implies the other position is to be open to all criticism, thus the false dichotomy.
but your emphasis turns the position from “we do also need to be open to criticism” to “those who agree with OP apply this advice to all critics”
I don't think you understood what I said. It's not a dichotomy at all
You twisted it into “all criticism is haters, who you should never listen to”.
That's the implication of the OP. Someone says this isn't helpful -> they hate you and what you believe in. If you disagree with that, congrats we agree.
Which then implies the other position is to be open to all criticism, thus the false dichotomy.
You inferred that, I didn't imply that; my statement had no either-or. It's really the same message. I never said anything about accepting all criticism or rejecting all criticism, the dilemma is in your head. The meaning behind what I said is "don't assume the worst of criticism," you are twisting that into whatever you came up with.
You twisted it into “all criticism is haters, who you should never listen to”.
That's the implication of the OP. ...
Which then implies the other position is to be open to all criticism, thus the false dichotomy.
I never said anything about accepting all criticism or rejecting all criticism, the dilemma is in your head.
Read what you said above and then understand this. OP is about people who hate your cause giving you advice (aka concern trolling, the title of this post). You have twisted that in your own head to be "criticism is from people who hate me". By strawmanning OP into that position (cause, again, that's not what they're saying) you force your interpretation of their words to juxtapose against your implied position, creating the false dichotomy. You either agree with OP that all critiques come from haters so you should ignore them all, or you don't. Which, again, isn't what they said.
For example, criticizing a public figure is good, and public figures should listen to constructive criticism when they can, so that they can grow. This doesn't mean that Hasan Piker should take to heart the criticism that Fox News loves to heap on him, cause they want to see him fail. Does that make sense?
OP is about people who hate your cause giving you advice
Yes, and the person I replied to is about how sometimes we need to take advice to communicate better. I simply agreed by saying assuming the worst of all criticism (using the same phrasing as the OP, because it's applicable to more than just concern trolls) is not conductive to functional communication.
You have twisted that in your own head to be “criticism is from people who hate me”.
No, you've inferred that. I don't think the OP meant that, but what they said could very easily be used that way, which is why I borrowed the phrasing. Because there are absolutely people that think that way.
By strawmanning OP into that position (cause, again, that’s not what they’re saying)
But that is the actual wording of the post. Someone gives criticism -> they hate you and your cause. OP may only specifically be thinking about concern trolls, but that is a rationale one can use to dismiss all criticism, which is what I asserted to be counterproductive.
you force your interpretation of their words to juxtapose against your implied position, creating the false dichotomy. You either agree with OP that all critiques come from haters so you should ignore them all, or you don’t
I think you're the one forcing an interpretation here, and that's still not a dichotomy. Even if I accused OP of saying all criticism is from haters, I'm not advocating listening to all criticism, just to not make assumptions.
This doesn’t mean that Hasan Piker should take to heart the criticism that Fox News loves to heap on him, cause they want to see him fail. Does that make sense?
Of course it does, and it fits entirely within what I've said. If you want to continue this analogy, my reply says "don't assume everyone criticizing Hasan is Fox News"
I never said, or implied, that OP is applying "hates you and your cause" to all criticism, just that some people do, and it should be avoided.
If you think my statement is unspecific and implies that of OP, fair enough, but then you should also accept that the OP is unspecific enough be misapplied to all criticism.
...my reply says "don't assume everyone criticizing Hasan is Fox News"
I never said, or implied, that OP is applying "hates you and your cause" to all criticism, just that some people do, and it should be avoided.
If you think my statement is unspecific and implies that of OP, fair enough, but then you should also accept that the OP is unspecific enough be misapplied to all criticism.
Just wanted to say this last section is especially well articulated, I always really appreciate when people can use language with great clarity and precision
You're the one with the twisted logic.
Completely agree. I've argued with people about the ways they're trying to advocate for causes that i very much care about. If you're advocating for a cause I care about in a way that actually hurts our cause instead of helps it, then you for damn sure are rightfully gonna hear it from me
Yeah same. Though I try really hard to empathize with them just as much as I try to empathize with the folks I disagree with so that I can be effective in building bridges in advocating for my cause
I think much of the dysfunction in the ways we fight for progress is rooted in the way that online platforms have socialized us to adress the audience of people on the sidelines who already agree with us rather than the person we're ostensibly speaking to, and to try and find the perfect clapback, or most publicly show what "side" you're on. And unlearning your socialization is hard.
I have to work really hard not to let it get under my skin though, its agonizing watching someone "advocate" for your cause by actively doing damage to it 🥲
Yeah, and it's refreshing to see other people feel this way too
If we can't improve our approach, we will fail to make as much progress as possible!
The ability to critically self examine is so deeply important. Often we choose the emotionally cathartic choice and I think its important to examine whether those choices are functionally effective at accomplishing our ideals :)
I've run into this issue so many times. I've never been much of a conformer, and most people really tend not to like anyone who doesn't (or can't) conform to their social scripts. Even sub-cultures have their own norms that they expect others to conform to.
So I butt heads with a lot of people. Especially people I generally agree with. I don't waste my time on right-wingers, cause there's no point in arguing with someone who's worldview is so diametrically opposed to your own, or someone who rejects facts and refuses to see reason.
But when I see leftists trying to make a good point, but using a terrible argument to do so, I'll tell them why their argument is bad and they'll fly off the handle accusing me of everything under the sun.
Or when someone advocates for methods that would be wrong, for a goal that seems right. The ends don't justify the means. But they'll call me a fascist for saying that, ironically. Or when someone has an armchair idea that sounds great in theory but simply isn't practical and would be impossible to implement. I might offer some critique or constructive criticism, but it's the same story.
Like, sometimes zealotry does more harm to a movement than good. I think leftists need to be the cool, calm, rational, factual beings who can combine logic and empathy to reach conclusions that are not only beneficial but also reasonable. Otherwise, what makes us any better than right-wing populist reactionaries?
I'm sure that's how a lot of vegans online think about me but it's actually not true. I support the cause, but not the crazy shaming that happens online about it. Actually had to block a few people over that issue. The last person was practically foaming at the mouth and making loads of assumptions. They fucking hated me for basically nothing. Someone telling people like that their approach is bad shouldn't be viewed in a negative light. That's absolutely the thing they need to be told.
Yeah, people like that are unfortunately common in left-wing spaces. I say this as a leftist. We need to stop pretending that zealots don't exist on our side of the spectrum. They only give ammunition to the caricaturist right-wing pundits.
There are a lot of people who flock to social justice issues not because they give a shit about the issue, but they want to feel like they are morally superior to others for being on the right side of that issue. When somebody melts down at constructive criticism like that, it signals to me that they are the latter category and can be safely ignored. You cant make people grow up on the internet, best you can do is block them so you don't have to hear their tantrum
I fully agree with all this. I mean, it is possible that people like that also care about the issue itself, but the way it manifests for them places the priority on feeling superior and it's pretty awful. But yeah blocking is the only answer...
Literally velma.
wrong
Yup, a few years ago i told a vegetarian that i was trying to eat meat less frequently and they said something like "if you're still eating meat then you aren't doing anything". Seriously? Such a militantly blind all-or-nothing nonsense take. Most people's reaction to that type of tactic is to say fuck it I'm purposely gonna eat even more meat now
If it helps, I doubt most online vegans think about you at all.
I'm not talking about them then... ?
These are mostly trolls. They don't care what makes you angry, they just want you angry. People are easier to manipulate when they're angry and it's harder to think about the issues they're deflecting from.
Even if this sounds too nuts, it's a better way to look at it anyway. It'll be easier to either make one comment and move on or just block them at the first signs of this type of abuse.
They sure spend a hell of a lot of time talking about it.
Most people aren't smart enough to think for themselves and will believe whoever is nicer to them.
That's it. That's the whole game that conservatives are better at.
This does not help your effect
When someone decides they hate someone else, they'll make up whatever shit they need to to continue to hate them.
Your cause? This doesn't help our cause.