(1) Once cannot take an ideological position on that which one has not sufficient critiqued. (2) One cannot sufficiently critique, with any degree of credibility or accuracy, that which they do not adequately understand. (3) One cannot adequately understand that which they have interrogated by the gathering of evidence and questioning which requires humility and is impeded by the ego. When one attempts to do (1) without addressing (2) and (3) to a reasonable degree, one will inevitably end up as an agent provocateur fomenting disagreement rather than common ground, and misunderstanding rather than understanding. The movement is full of too many people currently who start with 1 and think you work to three, rather than the inverse which is the correct methodology. They start with disagreement and ideological positions and then try to use them for critique and understanding.