the thing about how liberals demand purity from revolutions (remembering the yellow Parenti video) ties into a wider discussion—about how there seems to be a pendulum between extremes, where any "progressive" group or movement is expected by its opposition (usually the more liberal factions) to operate with either zero nuance and moral perfection or absolute nuance and constant hyperbole,
just like communists must be morally flawless to earn support from liberals —their revolution must be bloodless, their policies must accommodate former and current fascists, and there’s no room for nuance in revolutionary violence ("You’ll be just like your enemy!" and all that)—transfeminists, too, must be individually pure, their goals explicitly and hyperbolically inclusive of every possible group, their willingness to collaborate always at its peak.
this applies to any historically progressive movement today, whether communists, transfeminists, or others. Anti-Zionists must always account for poor little Israeli lives in every sentence. Anti-racists must always acknowledge poor/disabled/queer/whatever white people. Anti-imperialists must constantly remind everyone that poor (and Black, and Native, and queer, etc.) Americans exist. You either account for every possible exception in every statement, or you’re not truly progressive by liberal standards.
and god forbid you commit the unforgivable crime of an emotion-driven one-liner—then your reputation is forever ruined by the Serious Liberals. alternatively, you must be hyperbolic, swearing that everything will be perfect—no blood spilled, no convictions handed down—when prejudice and inequality are finally defeated, whether in a specific struggle (misogyny, racism, etc) or the broader class war.
with allies like these—who demand you be morally immaculate, completely disarmed, endlessly inclusive in every sentence, and terminally rational in even the slightest political remark—who needs enemies?
