Image of post by ginnydi:
Okay, here’s the problem with the idea that oppressed groups can “alienate allies” by not being nice enough:
You shouldn’t be an ally because oppressed groups are nice to you. You should be an ally because you believe they deserve basic human rights. Hearing “I hate men” shouldn’t make men stop being feminist. Hearing “fuck white people” shouldn’t make white people stop opposing racism.
Your opposition to oppression should be moral, and immovable. Your belief that all humans should be treated with equal respect shouldn’t be conditional based on whether or not individual people are nice to you.
No, you’re either an ally or you’re not, and it isn’t even you who gets to decide (precisely for this reason), it’s the people you claim to support that make that call.
can you not see how that kind of black and white, all-or-nothing attitude is unrealistic in the extreme, and probably harmful to your cause itself?
i support you… as long as it won’t cost me my life savings.
I support you… so long as you don’t expect me to actually die for the cause.
I support you… as long as you promise not to persecute me, In turn, should you ever come to power.
These are all conditions attached to support. do any of them strike you as unreasonable?
By spouting things like this, you turn away potential support which could prove the difference between success and failure. if someone is willing to financially contribute to a movement, but not have their name publicly associated with that movement, they are still offering support, just not unconditional support.
if you refuse any ally who doesn’t offer their unconstitutional support, I guarantee you will alienate nearly 100% of your actual supporters.