out (mostly just reading recommendations) seems fine to me. BUT this can be dangerous when im assessing conflict between members that have different ways of understanding what the org is doing. if you see this org as a place to spearhead a progressive movement for change,

it will matter to you when things are uncomfortable and don't live up to expectations. Even though my initial reaction might be like "lol why would you expect that" i dont think thats very empathic, realistic, or helpful at assessing the situation. and it doesnt excuse execs for

acting in shitty ways. also when i was first analyzing stuff i was operating in pretty "color blind" mode even if unintentionally, which is really fucked up. I think what also contributed to this attitude was me already suspending my judgement "trying to see it from within pov"

which led to abstractions like only seeing things on the "logical" and not "rhetorical" or "emotional" level when the distinction is not at all obvious or useful. i only noticed once the treatment got really bad and thats super fucked. i was way way wayyyyy too overly confident

in my perspective, especially since irl organizing is something i am completely unfamiliar with. i have no perspective to judge how realistic or effective bringing in outside advisement or speakers are, why am i so dismissive right away?

overall i think my judgements were pretty exceptionally misinformed. im not trying to say it was obvious or easy how i should have gone about assessing the situation, because i still dont really know how. but i think it was an important moment and experience for me to play