> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://reflections-on-reframing-revolutions.ghost.io/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Motivations - URL: https://reflections-on-reframing-revolutions.ghost.io/motivations/ - Published: 2026-10-06T20:25:12.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-06T20:25:12.000Z - Description: Here, I want to focus on those thoughts, feelings, and impressions I have surrounding the political left wing, particularly leftists (but liberals as well).... We agree this system is not working for the vast majority of people… So why does the left spend so much time and energy infighting? - Author: Molly Perry There have been many times throughout the years that I've had interactions around potential change where I've left feeling extremely conflicted. These are largely of primarily political bent, some more directly than others, but generally they speak of cultural changes and a perspective that is believed to be the best or only approach to achieve that change. I truly enjoy political conversations—both practical and philisophical—with most anyone wiling to genuinely engage. I generally align most with the label of "radical commie leftist", a funny coincidence of the common strawman being an unintentionally accurate descriptor of myself. Right-wing bit aside, I am an advocate of communism (a specific kind of leftist) and fundamental forward-looking change, i.e. radical change, though hold no loyalties to the particular dogma of any specific ideology. Similarly, I do not limit my discussion partner(s) or topic(s), as no one, no ideology, and nothing human is always 100% good or bad, incorrect or correct. Civil discussion is foundational to education of all parties who participate, directly or indirectly, education which I believe is a necessary part of achieving a more equitable, just, and empathetic society. Honestly, a more developed society in just about every sense of the word. Of all the discussions, arguments, and debates I've had with the people of various ideologies, there is one ideology that I find consistently leaves me the most conflicted at the end of the interaction, and that is my own. Different flavors of ideologies leave me with different emotions: the farther right, the more frustrated and sad; the more avoidant of politics, the more exasperated and incredulous; but the further left, the more conflicted and irritated. These are broad generalizations, but are surprisingly consistent. I do want to be very clear that I do not think my ideas or beliefs are better than anyone's by virtue of being my own. Depending on what the goal is, some beliefs are objectively better with data to back them up, but nothing is ever perfectly black and white. I almost constantly wish things were less grey, but we're dealing with people and societies, some of the most notoriously "grey" things. Ultimately, beliefs are defined as "good" or "bad", beneficial or detrimental, desirable or undesirable, by the baser goals and values supporting them, and those are subjective in many ways. It is that exact subjectivity of belief, definition, and priority that pushes us to pursue certain actions to achieve certain goals. Here, I want to focus on those thoughts, feelings, and impressions I have surrounding the political left wing, particularly leftists (but liberals as well). There are certainly areas and topics where we have different perspectives and differing beliefs, but overwhelmingly the fundamentals are shared amongst leftists. Ideals of equity, justice, human value, support for each other, the construction of systems that support equal opportunity access for all, protected rights that are enjoyed by all, and fair treatment no matter your identity and position in society. The phrasing may change from person to person, how they are prioritized, or even some of the definitional details and methods of implementation, but we share far more than we do not. We agree this system is not working for the vast majority of people; we agree it's actively hurting all of us to extract whatever value we can provide to the rich and powerful. So why does the left spend so much time and energy infighting? So many of the same people proclaiming radical equality seem to constantly be trying to find a definition and corresponding "purity test" that shows they are the best. They care the most about equity, about human value, about society and progress at large. They are the most epitomic leftist that everyone else should look up to if they want to be a "true" leftist. And that's often the best case scenario. These ideas often include criteria that—if missed or stated incorrectly—result in excommunication, repulsion, and ostracism from the in-group, or even allyship. There could be near-complete consensus, but one misstep sends you off the cliff, both unworthy to represent the cause and antagonistic to those who are. But I argue this is wrong, actively harmful to necessary progress, and intrinsically hypocritical. When I say my interactions with the left often lead me conflicted and irritated, an analogy might help to better illustrate why. --- We are climbing a mountain, traversing steep and precarious switchbacks, while forging a path so that all people so desiring may stand on the summit together, regardless of backcountry skill or resources. We stop for a drink. Someone pulls out a CamelBak waterbottle. The group gasps. We are, after all, Nalgene water bottle users. Who knows what such a blasphemer may do, what they may think, what purpose they have for joining this grand challenge! Obviously the only way we ensure success is if everyone uses Nalgene bottles! So we throw the CamelBak user off the trail, cheering as they tumble. (We didn't even let the Teva users join the excursion of course. They obviously hate Chacos.) With each stop, others are shunned and abandoned or sent flailing off the edge. Perhaps it was a choice of snack that did them in, a decision to pull out trekking poles, slowing to put moleskin on blisters, the wrong sleeping pad or bag, or the lack of ground cover. Maybe it was whistling or singing while they hiked, a manifest demonstration of frivolity that cannot be allowed to sully this expedition or its reputation of solemnity! Whatever it was, every one clearly didn't share the dedication and values of the only possible group capable of success. In time, the final members may make it, celebrating a "win for the people". Potentially there will be some final scuffle that results in impasse, each surviving member believing the other(s) not devoted enough and so preventing them from continuing, no one side capable any longer of enforcing their beliefs. Conceivably, someone does eventually "purify" the group, but are now alone. The only "true" hiker left. --- I think we can all agree that this is a silly group of hikers, to put it lightly, one that is unlikely to make it to the summit let alone establish a route that would enable anyone to achieve that dream. So why do we allow differences in phrasing, in the radicality, the methodology, the selflessness, or any number of other things to lead to dissension and schisms? It seems we often say we are equitable, compassionate, empathetic, not because we are now, but because the final ideology is, that light at the end of the tunnel, our envisioned utopia. That is not the same, nor is it close. We are well aware of that when it comes to other beliefs! A promise that you'll get rich in the future does not mean you are rich now. A commitment to reducing emissions by 2030 does not mean we are currently greener or putting in the necessary resources to achieve the goal. These things are functionally quantitative and continuous, though, so perhaps some more apt examples? If I say I am honest because I plan to be next week, am I? If I promise my dentist I floss daily and brush twice a day because I'm planning to after this appointment, does that mean I don't have the seven cavities directly resultant from my lack of oral care, that the dentist can't see just how blatantly I am lying? So if someone says they are empathetic, caring, compassionate, and so on because they have the political beliefs that govern a perfect world where those are true, but say that the opposition should be killed for not endorsing a world without the current systemic power imbalance actively benefiting them, is that actually compassionate and humanistic? These issues are not always so obvious, though. Often they exist within the choice of words, which I know on the surface sounds hypocritical given the extent to which I just wrote about division caused by seemingly inconsequential choices and semantics. Hear me out, though—I'm not saying that those who choose or like these words should be excluded, that they don't mean well, that we shouldn't work with everyone we can to realize a more egalitarian society. What I am hoping for is a reframing of these various revolutions, a new perspective and expression of how we might effect the fundamental change society needs to be fair and tolerant, or better yet, humanistic and accepting. Some ways in which I think we may start: 1. Anti vs Pro "Anti" is harsh, negative language, destructive and combative. "Pro" is gentler, it highlights the goal, not simply the dismantling of the current systems. Think about the fight around abortion, it's not anti abortion, it's pro life. Negative language has demonstrable effects on people's choices. 1. Be cautious of attribution biases and derived ad hominem attacks People say and do controversial, incorrect, hurtful, problematic, or disgusting things. But ad hominem arguments, i.e. attacks on character or another personal attribute instead of the action or argument itself, are not helpful. They make people defensive and double down, and they are not what we believe in. Humans have value, all of them, and should be respected. Should the ideas and actions? That depends, but there's a surprisingly large difference between "that action is bad" and "that person is bad". It's easy to associate those two. That's attribution bias, of which there are many types and nuances, but it's a systemic error where people try to justify actions and behaviors. "That person acted bad" leading to "that person is bad" is a very simple example. Bad people do bad things, that person did a bad thing, so therefore they must be bad. 1. Describe with objectivity, not subjectivity Perhaps you already decided to say that an idea or choice is idiotic instead of the person. But is that really both accurate in description and scale? Can you back it up without using personal feelings and values? Feelings and values are certainly valid, and can be used, but name them as such. "That's heartless" versus "I think that's heartless", "I don't think that would be empathetic", or "That wouldn't be empathetic because...". The first alternative is a simple statement, recognizing subjectivity, but with harsher and more negative wording. The second uses less negatively biased phrasing, but remains succinct and subjective. The third allows for the subjective opinion with the less fraught language, like the second, but links the opinion to objectivity or even more nuanced subjectivity. 1. Doing something right versus not doing something wrong Similar sounding, and both are things that can and should be done on some level, but be reasonable and proportionate. Oftentimes actively doing something good is more impactful than not doing something bad. Action is generally better over inaction when possible. Admittedly, both are subjective, but if you have decided to never buy anything with palm oil in it, and so refuse to interact with Girl Scouts selling Tagalongs because they contain it, could the good of building community (and having delicious cookies to improve your mood) not outweigh that moral sin of palm oil or your perception of the organization? Could the commitment to not supporting massive corporations be outweighed by helping someone who was food insecure, buying larger amounts of cheaper food than a smaller amount from a small shop? Could non-ideal language be used in situations where the common phrasing may trouble some people for the sake of clear communication, or not correcting the same in others where it might be seen as moral superiority and detract from personal connections (e.g. hysterical, long time no see, grandfathered in)? 1. Try and find out why Most statements we hear are levels of abstraction higher than our foundational values and beliefs, so if you want to understand, connect, or even try and convince someone how smart you are, it is immensely beneficial to know "why". Why do they believe gay people shouldn't be allowed to be married? Why do you believe they should? Is it just about the people, are there consequences they see, is it religious, what sort of beliefs do they hold, why do they hold them? I'd argue people are fundamentally good, but again, good is subjective. We believe in what we do and say, or at least we think we do. If you can understand what "good" and "bad" mean, you may be surprised at what you share, and you can connect and build on a common foundation. There are so many others, but these are some that I see repeated incredibly often. I've seen how not using just one of these principles can break down conversations, relationships, and connection, not just between groups, but within them. This is the sort of reframing I want to dig into and pull apart. I want to be able to put them out into the world both because writing them will help me, but also in the hope that it will help people with similar outlooks feel a bit less alone, less conflicted, less irritated, less whatever negative emotions they may have been feeling about their own interactions. Because this is also to help me, some posts may be a little less targeted towards politics, may be a bit more of a place to ramble and pour out some of the thoughts reverberating in my head. But overall, I want it to be a place where I (and maybe we) can take a different look at how we want the process of change to actually happen. Perhaps we have a little fun and entertainment along the way, maybe sometimes a bit more solace, venting, or processing. Some topics may be large, some small, some current, some abstract, I guess we'll see how it plays out. Finally, I want to be very clear that I welcome scrutiny and discussion so long as it remains reasonably civil. Passion is great, but lashing out, ad hominem attacks, and the other more harmful behaviors above aren't. It can be difficult. Maybe "it" here refers to containing that passion, or maybe just to life, or something else. Most things are difficult at some point in time for someone, so I'm not going to tell you what is or is not difficult, but I hope we can all support one another, whomever we may be. Even then, as nice as perfection sounds, but we all know it's not achievable. Improvement is all we can hope and strive for, and improvement at whatever rate we can realistically manage is enough.