Ok, sure, I do call both men and women dude, but thanks for clarifying! It makes sense that after an experience like that, you'd be turned off from radical feminism as a whole. Totally. I think what happened here is that you want to distance LGB from radfems as a whole movement after your crappy experience, and what I want to happen is for people in this sub to think about radfems as individuals, some of whom are driven by hate and some who spend a lot of time keeping their beliefs in check and thinking about how to express them effectively to others, rather than a hive mind who are just not worth engaging no matter what. That's why I said I wasn't interested in hearing about your reasons: I assumed you'd interacted with radfems and it ended badly, it just wears me out to be lectured because of something other people did that I don't support & I'm working to change.

Yeah, I'm taking that possibility into consideration too. I do spend a lot of time reflecting on my own beliefs and motivations. And I know you have no reason to trust my take on my own motivations at this point. That said, I'll tell you what my interpretation is, and you're free to look at the data we both have available to us, which is my comment history, to draw your own conclusions. So. A major part of my personality is that I get massively stressed out by conflict or having any aggression directed at me; I also get stressed out when talking to people who have a motive to interpret everything I say in the worst possible light. My comment history should reflect this. Every time I say something that might incite conflict, I disappear for months.

Starting conflict for the sake of feeling morally superior would be rough for that type of person. That is, in an environment like the internet where the norm is to be combative and try to 'win,' the person being challenged will feel like the challenger is trying to insult them in some way, and is likely to double down and lash out at the challenger. That's a huge disincentive for people who are scared of aggression, don't really care about 'winning,' and already accept that some of their core beliefs must be faulty.

The only time I chime in is when there's something in the discussion that feels off and I think I have some shot at redirecting it. Here, I decided to engage because it seemed like you were frustrated with the state of things and had good intentions, and---most importantly---were talking politely with other people, some of who disagreed with you. Sure, I'll admit to rolling my eyes at the sentence writing off radfems as a group, but it's how I've learned to expect to be treated, and I don't hold it against anyone personally b/c it's safe to shit on radfems in like 99% of spaces. But that's just one statement, and you said a bunch of other things that were interesting. So I thought we might be able to have a nice discussion on strategizing about how we could approach conflict with people we don't agree with, but not about changing your mind on radfems. That's why I specifically asked not to talk about it. Unfortunately, it backfired. Next time I won't even bring it up in the first place.

Interesting take about the discussion. Thank you for still being open to those ideas! Because the ideas are really the important part, not the person who proposed them. Any mistakes advocating for them effectively are my fault. (This exchange has taught me a lot, so I'm grateful for that. I'm probably also going to let this sit for a year and then re-read it to see what else I can learn.)