I am very obviously not “always at 110% aggression with comrades”, i have good and friendly interactions with most users on this site and whenever i have the spoons for it, i put criticism forward in a way that’s less confrontational and more of an effortpost. And guess what, it does not make a fucking difference in regards to how people reply to it. There’s people who can handle criticism and are capable of reflecting on their internalized biases and there’s people who can’t, and no amount of walking on eggshells turns the latter into the former. I’ve seen that over and over again, either you are arguing with somebody who can handle being called out or you don’t. So how hard i go into a discussion like this is dependent on if i have the capacity to write out a little essay about what i find problematic. And if i don’t have that, tough luck.

She does make good points sometimes, including against some of our own users who are being shitty (I wouldn’t say she’s accomplishing that now, though Euclid makes a good point), and I think that buys her a lot of credibility to get away with things.

Also the site still has a huge amount of the user base claiming “bullying works,” so being absurdly aggressive is just kind of par for the course if you can find a way of saying your interlocutor is “actually not a comrade but a social chauvinist” (not her words, just a summary of the idea).