Interesting conversation. I would like to raise some more questions and thoughts.

Could it also be that people who are quick to side with a particular grouping do so out of an assumption that they want to be seen as good people? I think this is the cheapest and most superficial of all reasons. From my point of view, it has to do with the fact that people want to please everyone and in doing so fall into the trap of not being able to please anyone. The BLM and LGBT movements, as well as Climate Gretel and so on, are all, in my view, mere PR balloons that reduce people to an attitude that, by its very nature, they cannot maintain when they find themselves in individual situations. There is a real compulsion behind the whole identification machinery that has taken on pathlogical proportions and is - for me - a collective expression of mental confusion.

Instead of looking for character weaknesses, identity traits in the encounter with a person, wanting to classify him or her immediately, what need does this follow? I see this as "people shopping". I want to be sure in the first minutes of a meeting who I am dealing with. This "wanting to be sure" is already a lack of composure and the gift of giving oneself enough time to have experiences that lie outside the debate space. People talk a lot of superficial stuff and then take it for reality, don't they? Instead of confusing surface with depth, wouldn't they be better served to refrain from any attribution or unconditional wanting to find out whose brainchild someone is?

Even before the increasingly absurd debates about race and good people, people asked each other about their names, titles, professions in their first encounters, they looked at their outfits, their outward appearance and thought they "got to know each other" by revealing their profession, what car they drive or to whom they donate their money. In fact, however, it can be said that despite this supposedly revealing information, you don't know very much about someone unless you are really interested in that person.

Isn't it also true that in order to know someone, they have to know themselves well first?

If I don't know who I am, what my own history is, where my parents and grandparents come from, what secrets there are in the family, about the depth-psychological dynamics of my imprint and origins, what authentic interest can I have in another person at all if I am so little interested in myself?

And is it not a consequence of this that I first set out to understand the highly personal aspects of my past, which then frees me from the compulsive categorisation and labelling of my fellow human beings?

My experience with my fellow human beings has repeatedly shown me that asking about the origins of my counterpart is often met with silence. To a deep unwillingness to open up to the difficult questions of the questioner. I asked a friend of mine, "Do you think that your quick willingness to use coercion on other people might be because you grew up under certain doctrines in your childhood (by your parents and other adults)?" She pretended not to know what I was talking about and said that if that were so, then yes, she would be just as God-believing as her mother, which she was not. My question was not about her belief in God, but about her unwillingness to look at her dark side, just as I told her that she would think very badly of herself if she thought that the ruthlessness she assumed of herself had to be exorcised by means of coercion. And whether she was really such a ruthless person? Wouldn't it be enough to give reasonable reasons for or against something instead of punishment?

Instead of throwing in the towel and asking "Whose brainchild are you?", isn't it wiser not to ask such questions in the first place? Could you even answer the question? Wouldn't it be much more interesting to ask the counter-question: "Why is it important for you to hear such things from me?" Or "And if I answer you, do you think you will know enough about me?"

Just in the same way that if you complement the appearance of another woman in front of your wife, you should probably think strongly about quickly clarifying your deep devotion to her before she makes the wrong inference.

Why should one do such a thing? If I see a beautiful man whom I like and I make a remark about his beauty, why should I assure my husband that I appreciate him despite the beauty of another? I would be implying to my husband that he suffers from such low self-esteem that he could not cope with me complimenting another man in his presence.

I would consider it unnecessary for my husband to use such appeasement towards me and would have to think that he considers me a woman who is only sure of herself when others tell her that she can be sure of herself.

I wouldn't have married my man, if that was what he thought of me or vice versa.

Conversely, would you expect your wife to raise your self-esteem if she said something kind to another man?

So, complementing a movement like BLM and at the same time complementing an ALM position, isn't that "pleasing all sides"? Which you did not, as I interpret your comment.

I myself don't like to please any of it, neither BLM nor ALM, for I am unable to generalize - or I should better say, to come to terms within my individual encounters with this mind set.

Greetings to you.