Yeah. I guess that raises the question of "Who offers the peace branch first?" and "In what circumstances is it offered?"
Will abstaining leftists be willing to offer a peace branch and vote for an anti-fascist candidate, even one that disagrees with their wider views, if abstaining against fascists as a moral act is normalized?
Likewise, would centrist ghouls be willing to offer a peace branch and vote for a progressive primary candidate, even one that disagrees with their wider views, if voting as a personal sacrament instead of a strategic decision remains normalized?
The fighting I'm doing here is on the actual, practical actions we need to be doing, and, specifically, the ones that are controversial here (see: nearly a thousand comments in this meme about abstaining being bad, Jesus Christ), rather than the ones that are generally accepted (like "FOR GOD'S SAKE WE NEED TO ORGANIZE A GENERAL STRIKE", which has a much less controversial mien in this community).
Can we actually reduce infighting without addressing the issue of the willingness to compromise for strategic purposes in a still very right-wing country? Or will promises to stop fighting just mean we remain divided and isolated and pursuing different strategies which none of us are willing to 'compromise' our own 'purity' of action to support, since in this case the cessation of infighting is 'agree to disagree' rather than resolving the fundamental issue of being unwilling to cooperate which this meme is criticizing, leading none of our left-wing attempts to reach critical mass, so to speak, and the fascists continuing to dominate society and murder whomever they want to?