The Internet Didn’t Invent Conflict — But It Changed the Shape of It
Kill The Social Media In Your Head
When I was in my 20’s and squatting and living in leftist spaces they were imperfect, chaotic, and at times beautiful. I can't help but think about how online culture has shaped our interactions and conflict resolution with one another. Looking back we had disagreements but they were face to face. Conflict could have been slow or just brushed over quickly because at the end of the day it didn't always matter. This makes me think back, a bit nostalgic for growing up not in the digital age of social media (I didn't have a smartphone till I was In my late 20's). You didn’t get to disappear into a comment section or rally an audience before you had a conversation. And because survival and organizing were intertwined, we were forced, sometimes clumsily, to practice repair.
I notice something different now, and this isn’t a condemnation of a generation, just an observation. Every generation is shaped by its conditions, and many younger organizers grew up politically online in a way my peers didn’t. The internet is a training ground for conflict, identity, and accountability. And online culture rewards speed, visibility, and performance. It amplifies outrage. It turns moments of tension into public events. It teaches us that the sharpest critique wins attention, and attention feels like power. This has become normal for people who grew up in the digital world. Most are desensitized from it as well.
Add to that the very real trauma, harm, and systemic violence many people carry, especially those most marginalized — and it makes sense that hypervigilance shows up. Anger shows up. Fierce protection of the community shows up. None of that is wrong. In many ways, it’s a rational response to a brutal world.
But the container matters. When disagreements become a public spectacle, when call-outs replace conversations, when the first response is social exile rather than curiosity or repair, something shifts. We mistake intensity for strategy. And slowly, people become more afraid of each other than of the systems we’re trying to dismantle. This is the point they are trying to make us do - to continue to create hyper-individualism, insular groups and lack of cooperation.
There’s another piece here that feels important to name: validating people’s feelings does not mean abandoning shared expectations around behavior. Emotions are real. Rage is real. Grief, hurt, betrayal — all real. Especially for those who have been historically silenced or harmed. No one should be policed for having feelings. But movements are collective projects, and collective projects require agreements about how we treat one another inside the work.
Being angry doesn’t have to mean public humiliation. Accountability doesn’t have to mean social annihilation. Calling someone out or calling someone in can still happen within a framework that protects dignity, complexity, and the possibility of growth. We can hold space for intense emotions while also asking: how do we stay in relationship long enough to build something together?
Having shared community standards isn’t authoritarian, it’s stewardship. Every long-lasting movement in history has had some form of cultural agreements around conflict, repair, and communication. Not to suppress dissent, but to keep dissent from turning into fragmentation. Without that container, we burn through people fast.
Integrity in a collective space might look like this: you can be furious, but you don’t dehumanize. You can disagree deeply, but you don’t weaponize a crowd before having a conversation. You can call out harm, but you also leave room for learning and transformation. You can walk away from relationships that no longer feel safe — and still resist turning every rupture into a public trial.
The question isn’t whether we should feel deeply. We should. The question is whether we can build cultures where feelings are honored and relationships are treated as political infrastructure worth protecting. Because if we want liberation to be more than a slogan, we have to learn how to hold conflict without devouring each other in the process.
Liberation movements before us had a strong code of conduct for behavior. Black liberation organizers, Indigenous resistance movements, labor organizers, and women-led revolutionary spaces all developed clear cultural expectations around how comrades treated one another. Discipline was not about control, it was about survival, trust, and collective strength. They understood that internal chaos weakens movements faster than external enemies ever could.
We do not need to invent entirely new relational frameworks from scratch. The groundwork already exists. Our responsibility, especially for those of us organizing in predominantly white spaces — is not to co-opt or romanticize these traditions, but to study them with humility and apply the lessons with integrity. Lets look at a few movements with strong boundaries around behavior.
The Black Panther Party — Discipline, Respect, and Internal Conduct
Organizations like the Black Panther Party and grassroots civil rights groups operated under intense surveillance and state violence. They knew that internal conflict could be exploited to destroy the work. Because of this, many groups developed strong behavioral expectations.
Members were expected to treat one another with dignity even during deep political disagreement. Internal conflict was often addressed through structured conversations, political education, and collective reflection rather than public humiliation. Gossip, rumor-spreading, and undermining comrades were discouraged because they weakened the movement’s integrity.
Discipline was not about suppressing anger — it was about directing energy toward collective liberation rather than internal destruction. Accountability existed, but it was rooted in transformation and political growth rather than reactionary punishment.
Some internal codes & practices:
Members followed a Code of Conduct: respect for community members and each other was non-negotiable.
Internal conflicts were expected to be handled inside the organization first, not through public humiliation.
Gossip and public undermining of comrades were discouraged because they were seen as weakening collective struggle.
Political education was required: conflict was supposed to be rooted in shared analysis, not just reaction.
Members could be disciplined or removed for behavior that harmed community trust.
The goal wasn’t politeness, it was organizational integrity and survival in a highly surveilled environment.
SNCC & Civil Rights Organizing — Beloved Community + Nonviolence Codes
The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and other civil rights groups had very explicit training on how to behave toward one another and toward opponents.
Core principles:
“Beloved Community” treats comrades with dignity even in conflict.
Practice self-discipline under stress (they literally trained for verbal attacks and emotional escalation).
Criticism was often done through structured group reflection, not public shaming.
Emphasis on collective decision making and deep listening.
Conflict processes that prioritized reconciliation when possible.
Labor Movements & Early Unions — Solidarity Ethics
Labor organizing, especially in the early 20th century, relied on strong internal cultural expectations. Early labor movements and many autonomous organizing spaces operated with strong solidarity ethics. Disagreements happened, often intensely,but members were expected to handle conflict within collective structures rather than through public factional attacks.
The principle of solidarity was not abstract. It was behavioral. Members were asked to avoid actions that weakened trust, fractured organizing capacity, or prioritized
individual ego over collective survival.
Common norms:
“Don’t cross a picket line” wasn’t just strategic, it was relational loyalty.
Internal disagreements were expected to be handled in meetings and assemblies, not through factional public attacks.
“An injury to one is an injury to all” was a behavioral ethic, not just a slogan.
Members were expected to avoid actions that weakened collective bargaining power — including internal sabotage or ego battles.
Anarchist & Autonomous Movements — Affinity Group Agreements
Even movements that rejected hierarchy had very intentional internal agreements.
Common practices:
Affinity groups created shared agreements on:
conflict resolution
communication expectations
how to address harm
confidentiality
Many used consensus models with strong facilitation to prevent domination or bullying
“Criticism and self-criticism” practices, borrowed from various revolutionary traditions — aimed at growth, not punishment (though sometimes misused).
Strong cultural norms around not publicly trashing comrades without attempts at direct communication first.
Anti-authoritarian didn’t mean anti-structure, it meant shared responsibility.
Zapatista & Rojava Movements — Collective Ethics
Women-Led Revolutionary Spaces & Militias — Discipline and Collective Protection
Across many global struggles, women-led militias and organizing spaces developed strong internal agreements around conduct, mutual respect, and collective responsibility. These spaces often emphasized discipline not as hierarchy but as protection, of each other, of the community, and of the movement itself.
Leadership rooted in women and gender-oppressed people frequently prioritized relational awareness, shared accountability, and a refusal to tolerate internal bullying or domination. Conflict was expected, but cruelty toward comrades was not.
In today’s context, it is important to recognize that simply labeling a space “women-led” does not automatically communicate inclusivity. Many contemporary liberation spaces are intentionally women-led and explicitly trans-inclusive, nonbinary-inclusive, and welcoming of gender-expansive people. Inclusive leadership is not about exclusion, it is about building power rooted in collective liberation.
Shared ethical principles:
“Lead by obeying” (Zapatistas) leadership accountable to the collective.
Communal codes against domination, harassment, and ego-driven leadership.
Conflict addressed through collective dialogue circles, not immediate exclusion when possible.
Emphasis on dignity, even when people made mistakes.
They frame relational ethics as part of revolutionary practice, not separate from it.
Indigenous Liberation & Resistance — Relational Accountability
Many Indigenous resistance movements emphasized relational responsibility as a core political value. Conflict was often addressed through community dialogue, listening circles, and collective reflection rooted in accountability to the whole community rather than individual ego.
Leadership was frequently understood as service rather than dominance. Dignity and respect were foundational, not optional. Even during disagreement, the focus remained on maintaining relationships strong enough to continue resisting together.
These traditions remind us that liberation is not only about opposing oppressive systems — it is also about practicing relational cultures that reflect the world we are trying to build.
Big Patterns Across Movements
Conflict handled internally first when possible.
Criticism paired with political education and growth.
Behavioral expectations separate from emotional expression.
Discipline understood as care for the collective.
Public accountability used strategically — not as default.
Strong norms against dehumanizing comrades.
Recognition that internal culture is part of revolutionary infrastructure.
If movements are supposed to model the world we’re trying to build, then we have to ask — what are our shared agreements around how we treat each other when conflict happens?
Ironically over the last few months I have been working on a set of codes for a space I was working on. These codes are designed to center the leadership, labor, and care of women, women of color, queer, and trans people, while maintaining accountability, mutual respect, and structural awareness in our movement spaces. They are rooted in historical matriarchal and liberation-based practices, and designed to dismantle behaviors normalized in online culture, liberal organizing, and patriarchal structures.
Feelings Are Valid. Harmful Behavior Is Not.
We recognize that anger, grief, fear, and frustration are real, especially for those most impacted by systemic oppression. No one is policed for their emotions.
At the same time, emotional intensity does not justify attacking, dehumanizing, or humiliating other members of the community.
No Bullying, Public Shaming, or Social Dog-Piling
We do not tolerate:
personal attacks
name-calling or verbal abuse
rumor-spreading or misinformation
coordinated online call-outs
attempts to socially exile people without attempts at direct communication when safe and appropriate
Accountability is not harassment.
Address Harm Directly Whenever Possible
When harm occurs:
corrections should be made with the person involved whenever it is safe to do so
conversations can happen within a facilitated group context when needed
private, direct dialogue is prioritized over public spectacle
Direct communication builds stronger movements than public performance.
Marginalized People Are Not Responsible for Educating or Mentoring
If a marginalized person offers correction:
they are not obligated to provide emotional labor, education, or extended mentorship
their boundary to disengage must be respected
The responsibility for growth belongs to the person receiving the correction.
Centering Leadership and Presence
Women of color are not guests in this movement. Their presence requires no explanation, justification, or gratitude.
Women of color may lead without consensus, apology, or translation. Leadership is not contingent on making power comfortable.
When decisions affect everyone, those most impacted speak first; others listen before responding.
Silence from women of color is respected as a choice, not a gap to be filled. Visibility is never required to belong.
Women are central, not isolated. Liberation is inseparable from women’s presence and empowerment.
Boundaries and Emotional Labor
Women of color are never obligated to educate. Learning is the responsibility of those who benefit most from the systems being challenged.
Women of color are not responsible for managing the emotions of others. Discomfort is not harm.
We will not use women of color as moral compasses, educators, or emotional laborers.
Elevating women symbolically while sidelining them structurally is not tolerated.
Critique, Analysis, and Accountability
Critique from women of color is treated as analysis, not conflict. It is received without defensiveness, delay, or demands for clarification.
Critique = analysis of power, patterns, and impact.
Correction = individual language policing; discouraged unless it comes from those directly impacted.
White members are discouraged from performative correction. Intent matters less than impact and pattern.
Discussion is prioritized over punishment. Conversation and reflection come before retribution.
Care, Resistance, and Safety
Care without resistance is containment; resistance without care burns out.
We check in with on another, we celebrate when we can, and we care.
Safety is not delegated to institutions that harm.
Resistance is disruptive, not polite. Polite protest is easily absorbed by power.
We rise to make power unrecognizable, disrupting structures that demanded our silence.
Resistance happens in many forms: teaching each other, feeding each other, healing each other, making decisions together.
Inclusion and Protection of Queer and Trans Members
Queer and trans bodies are targeted first; centering their safety is non-negotiable.
Spaces should be explicitly trans- and gender-expansive inclusive alongside women-led leadership.
Liberation cannot be selective; it must protect and empower all members at risk of structural violence.
What We Will Not Do
We will not police each other laterally.
We do not use women of color as emotional buffers or repeat harm explanations.
We do not elevate them symbolically while sidelining them structurally.
Language will not become the battlefield; our focus is our shared mission to keep each other safe.
Correction without context, relationship, or structural understanding is discouraged.
Survivors Shape the Rules
Survivors set the standards because they understand safety as lived, not theoretical. Boundaries are informed by real experience, not abstractions, and guide how we care for each other and maintain accountability. This ensures the community does not replicate harm internally, and that those most at risk are prioritized in decision-making and conflict resolution.
Survivors of state violence
Survivors of sexual harm
Survivors of exclusion
Responsibility of the Person Being Corrected
When someone is called in or corrected, their role is to:
listen without defensiveness
reflect honestly on their behavior
do independent learning and political education
engage in self-reflection and inner work
return to the conversation when ready with accountability and growth
Growth is demonstrated through action, not just apology.
Accountability Is a Process, Not a Performance
Accountability is not:
instant public confession
online self-flagellation
proving moral purity to an audience
Accountability is:
sustained behavior change
repair when possible
rebuilding trust over time
Shared Agreements Protect Collective Power
We commit to:
speaking to each other with dignity even during conflict
assuming complexity rather than jumping immediately to bad intent
resisting reactionary escalation shaped by online culture
prioritizing relationship over ideological performance
Our internal culture should reflect the world we claim we are trying to build.
Collective Stewardship
Every member is responsible for maintaining a space where:
people feel safe to make mistakes and grow
harm is addressed without cruelty
conflict is navigated with courage and integrity
the focus remains on liberation — not internal destruction
These agreements are not about silencing anger or avoiding accountability. They are about remembering that liberation movements have always required discipline, relational care for one another, nuance, and shared expectations. When we allow reactionary online behaviors, public humiliation, rumor-spreading, social exile — to become normalized, we weaken our own movements. The question is not whether we will have conflict. We will. The question is whether we will develop the skills and agreements necessary to move through conflict without devouring one another in the process.
I also think that this is very prevalent in white movement spaces, and A solution is that black, brown and indigenous people are the ones who should be leading.
None of these movements were perfect. They struggled with internal tensions, power imbalances, and human complexity just like we do today. But they understood something we are in danger of forgetting: liberation requires shared relational culture.
Personally, I don’t organize my identity around a fixed ideological label, not anarchist, not Marxist. What I align with are core values and lived actions from a little of it all but most importantly: collective care, accountability, dignity, liberation, and community resilience. Ideological language can be useful; it helps us communicate ideas and locate ourselves within historical movements. But when labels become rigid identities, they can also deepen division and gatekeeping. We start defending categories instead of practicing the values those categories were meant to represent. Many of these strict classification systems mirror colonial frameworks, defining people through fixed boxes, drawing hard boundaries between who belongs and who doesn’t, reducing complex humans into simplified political identities. What if instead we centered shared values and material actions over ideological branding? Moving toward values-based organizing doesn’t erase political analysis, it grounds it in lived practice rather than identity performance. And in a time when movements fracture easily, returning to shared principles rather than rigid camps might be one way we rebuild trust and move beyond the constant internal divisions that weaken our collective power. All in all, I think now is a good time to find those groups you align with. But also remember that yes, we are in serious exhausting times and we have and had a long road ahead of us, but in-between the seriousness think about also laughing with those people, relaxing a bit around them so that its easier to build trust and come from a place of understanding.