I’d say my practical experience is that I’ve had bad luck with groups I’ve tried to work with. People do not like it when I point out flaws in plans and argue against certain actions. It’s hard to convey mannerism and speaking style in a format like this, but I’m socially well-adjusted and I pick up on cues. I mention that because want to be clear that I’m not just blithely walking into groups and telling them that they’re doing things wrong. I’m not one of those people who has to give input on everything, either. But sometimes groups are boneheaded and I feel obligated to point that out.
I’ll give you an example: I was asked to take part in actions against a local landlord that often takes advantage of people in the area using people’s naivete about the law and contracts. Cool beans.
I got an FB message that I was asked to repost about a particular landlord having bedbugs. I asked (using a different medium of communication) if that FB post was true–because guess what? There are libel issues if you’re going to spread that. I didn’t get a response. I didn’t expect 100% strict adherence to the law from this group 100% of the time. Hell, even the government has a shit track record with that. I did expect them to let me make informed decisions about the risks I wanted to take. If it was true, I’d post it from here to kingdom come, no problem. If it’s not true, I didn’t think it was worth the risk relative to the payoff. These people’s identity wasn’t secret, and it might open up non-activists to liability that they’re not prepared to handle. I expected a conversation. Especially because the landlords in question were (and STILL ARE because the actions of the group were so ineffective) vulnerable to legal action in addition to direct action.
Long story short–choose your group wisely. You can typically smell amateur hour a mile away.
