@
HoochieTheClown If safety in numbers goes hand in hand with people not wanting to speak up to their fellow members either for the real or the perceived notion that they will be ostrecized for it OR that the other side might use it against you. Radicalisation in numbers is just a step further away.
Because it's smart opposition, that keeps people rooted in reality. These echochambers, where opposition is rooted out, are the worst.
I'm also a bit puzzled that you don't see that this knife cuts both ways:
With speaking out against one's own people, reason that hurts is because then the opposition tends to be like, "See, even their own people are against them!" and use that as a way to push their own opposition.
'cause if the own people don't speak up, the assumption that dishonest actors go: "see, they are all equally radical and dangerous", is just as valid. I also find it totally r*tarded when people use other peoples critisms on a radical element, to put the entire movement in a bad spotlight. I honestly think, that no one should treat people that do this any more notice then the damadge that they do because they are dishonest actors. Worying how dishonest actors are going to frame any criticism, is exactly what dishonest actors like to achieve with their own radical vieuws. And no matter what side you are on, if you preach revolution or radical reactionairy standpoints, chances are that I'll be against you.
