Edit: lol I missed the word capitalists so keep that in mind for the rest of this comment. I would guess that most of it still applies but they are clearly having a pro-class collaborationist space and that's pure garbage on their part.
There are a lot of discussions that could be interesting in the abstract but raising them can imply that you are devaluing the topic at hand. It sounds like the topic at hand was greater involvement of women and poc in revolutionary struggle (or maybe I'm reading too much into it), where an implicit devaluation would mean undermining their inclusion. As written, it even sounds like you were saying there were downsides to it, and only discussed those downsides, and like it or not that will come across as pure negativity about and criticism of the idea in general because humans are imprecise in their interpretations and communication - and hyper-aware of when they're personally potentially being criticized or excluded.
I don't know where their talk of meritocracy comes from, but I would say that you should always, always qualify a criticism in the context of support, assuming you do support the idea at hand, to help avoid this kind of misunderstanding. Not saying that would've prevented this (it takes two to tango!) or pass blame, but it might be helpful.
I just realized that I missed the word capitalists in your post, ha. I think a lot of what I said applies in left spaces generally but I've gotta hand it to you, it's good that you rejected their class collaborationism. And their class collaborationism is much worse than anything implicit in the topics you raised.
Agreed. If they are using the platform to talk about why diversity within the owner class is a goal, then they are not communists, If it is amounting to a general liberal line, then questioning it is necessary, though more clearly asking them to define if that's what they are implying first would be good
Edit: lol I missed the word capitalists so keep that in mind for the rest of this comment. I would guess that most of it still applies but they are clearly having a pro-class collaborationist space and that's pure garbage on their part.
There are a lot of discussions that could be interesting in the abstract but raising them can imply that you are devaluing the topic at hand. It sounds like the topic at hand was greater involvement of women and poc in revolutionary struggle (or maybe I'm reading too much into it), where an implicit devaluation would mean undermining their inclusion. As written, it even sounds like you were saying there were downsides to it, and only discussed those downsides, and like it or not that will come across as pure negativity about and criticism of the idea in general because humans are imprecise in their interpretations and communication - and hyper-aware of when they're personally potentially being criticized or excluded.
I don't know where their talk of meritocracy comes from, but I would say that you should always, always qualify a criticism in the context of support, assuming you do support the idea at hand, to help avoid this kind of misunderstanding. Not saying that would've prevented this (it takes two to tango!) or pass blame, but it might be helpful.
deleted by creator
I just realized that I missed the word capitalists in your post, ha. I think a lot of what I said applies in left spaces generally but I've gotta hand it to you, it's good that you rejected their class collaborationism. And their class collaborationism is much worse than anything implicit in the topics you raised.
deleted by creator
Agreed. If they are using the platform to talk about why diversity within the owner class is a goal, then they are not communists, If it is amounting to a general liberal line, then questioning it is necessary, though more clearly asking them to define if that's what they are implying first would be good