Hello ladies, enbies and gentlemen.
Legitimate dissent is vitally important to any community that doesn’t wish to be bound by groupthink.
A group in which people are keeping their true feelings repressed for the supposed greater good of the community is a group whose unity is superficial, not substantial.
Such a group probably shouldn’t really be a group and would be better off splitting off into smaller groups that reflect their mindset more accurately.
If a group wants to increase its membership (formally or informally) then they need to put the effort in convincing people of the validity of their group, not create some false impression of unity by process of shaming dissenters.
It’s also worthy of note that bigger groups aren’t necessarily better groups.
As Margaret Mead said:
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it’s the only thing that ever has.”
I’m not particularly convinced of the contrasting notion: that a large group of thoughtless, reactionaries can bring about effective change… though such groups do seem very adept at obstructing it.
You can call legitimate dissent “infighting” if you so desire, but that doesn’t make it any the less legitimate.
That’s something you have to demonstrate, through argumentation, not through dismissal.
Thanks for watching.
Captain Andy 