do you really get that much clout from canceling people over tiny mistakes? I'm genuinely confused as to why people actively try to do it
like I get why would want to post something like for example "x show is racist" or something cause thats like a take!! like I get why you would get clout from that it could be wrong or overstated but it's still analysis. but comrades within your community? it seems less stressful to just tell them if you disagree with like one of their posts or something
to clarify: obviously it's good to expose abusers and the like and if someone starts posting full-on racist stuff out of the blue I understand why you'd rather not engage. but if they use, say, an ableist term that there's a chance they don't know is ableist. or if they post a political take which you disagree with. it's probably less stressful to at least find out if they're acting in good faith
how can anybody get better if you're only allowed to be perfect
I don't think I've ever seen people claim that they've always been perfect in their opinions and actions. So how do they think they learned to get better. Was sudden, violent othering and exclusion really what made them a better person. Was it finding out that others thought what they were doing was bad that changed them? Or was it finding out *why* others thought what they were doing was bad?
