When Thing Z is problematic

I have seen this argument happen over and over again, especially in progressive spaces.

Person A supports Thing Z.  Thing Z is problematic in some way.

Person B critiques Thing Z and says no good person - including Person A - should support it.  This implies Person A is a bad persion, and naturally Person A is offended.

Person A defends Thing Z and says that all Things have problems, don’t be a purist, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, etc.  This implies Person B is naive or an idiot, and naturally Person B is offended.

The discussion then becomes about how Person A is not evil and Person B is not an idiot, rather than about Thing Z.

Because Person A and Person B have a lot in common.  They both agree that whatever makes Thing Z problematic is a bad thing.  If they could get past the initial fight, they could discuss:

• how to make Thing Z better
• alternatives to Thing Z
• why Thing Z is problematic in that specific way and how they can change the environment that fosters those problems
• how to mitigate the impact of Thing Z
• the overall question of how we draw the line of “not acceptable” vs “good enough” and how our personal experiences influence it

Next time you find yourself slipping into an argument like this, consider giving the other person the benefit of the doubt and steering the discussion towards better questions.