Understanding that a range of tactics is probably going to be necessary.

All successful movements have to have a radical flank in order to make the moderates look moderate. Otherwise, the moderates look radical and the Overton Window doesn't shift.

Solidarity forever.

If this is a difficult principal for you, remember to rank your battles appropriately:

Number One will always be the people you actually disagree with on a fundamental level, the people you mean to be resisting. Way down on the list is the people on your side who are resisting in ways you don't condone, but resisting nonetheless.

Never fight a low priority battle when a high priority fight is still going on.

This part, this part.

It’s not like they have to come out and tell the media, oh, we approve of our more sort of confrontational colleagues. They just keep quiet. They just keep quiet.

You don't have to tell everyone your business and why you're right. "Divide and Conquer" is a long time phrase.

Fred Hampton understood this principle very well, which is why the US government murdered him.

I may not agree with an anarchist but we can sort that out once the fascists are gone.

I will totally butcher this and I can't remember where I heard it but "An imperfect ally is better than a perfect enemy".

The way I understood it was basically what you are saying here. If someone is on your side don't push them away, use their talents to advance your cause.

Something else I appreciated:

“You know, and this point of view, you probably came into contact with through the work of people like Gene Sharp, who was, you know, kind of the main theorist of nonviolent resistance.

But then someone said he got revealed now that Gene Sharp, someone did a book, that Gene Sharp was revealed as a neoliberal apologist.

Well, it isn't a book. But what has happened is that the researchers that took up his sort of project of let's establish that this was the goal, really. Let's establish that nonviolent resistance is the primary way in which successful social movements are successful.

A person named Erika Chenoweth and her and their colleague Maria Stevan wrote a book called Why Civil Resistance Works in 2011. But as a sociologist of street rebellion named Ben Case has shown, they really are working with a very poor data set because they fail to disambiguate between things like armed violent resistance from a violent militant like Gorilla Flank and unarmed violent resistance as in rioting within a protest movement where there are marches or there are protests or there are various gatherings that might involve stuff that we're seeing in LA recently, right? Like people throwing stones at cop cars and setting waymos on fire and shit like that.

And so the problem with with Chenoweth's book is that it convinced a whole bunch of people that if you are trying to smash the windows of cop cars that you're actually doing a form of violent resistance that will not work. But actually, according to the classification of their data set, smashing the windows of police cars are within the nonviolent category because they're not armed, right? So there's a big confusion about the actual data.

This is all well and good, especially in the far more dire situation of Hong Kong.

I don't think we're quite there yet globally, or at least not in the US. Could be there fucking tomorrow, but not quite yet today.

There are times when open criticism is warranted. I don't agree at all that more tribalism is the true solution to the situation we see at least in the US. We can't just mass execute the people who voted Trump into office.

I don't think most people have trouble keeping their mouth shut when appropriate.

So yeah, don't get in the way of good things happening in imperfect ways. But I swear if I start seeing this shit bandied around as a thought terminating stopper of valid criticism I'm going to blow a gasket.

Not everyone on your side of the political divide is an ally. Not everyone on the other side has to be an enemy. This also applies to the more complex mult-axis political compases.

"Splitter!" as a pejorative:

https://youtu.be/WboggjN_G-4#t=1m09s

This reminds me of the 100th South Park episode, "I'm a Little Bit Country." Although the original topic was about the Iraq War (and I'm not looking to unpack that right now), the same point of the episode can apply here - those who want to fight and those who don't want to fight ultimately need each other. One side provides the action and muscle, while the other side provides the heart and compassion.

If South Park can find a way to apply that lesson to the US as a whole, there's no reason leftists can't support each other the same way. As long as we have the same interests at heart, you can choose to fight or choose to protect your own - society needs people who do both. The only thing we don't need is the in-fighting that artificially separates us.