On social media I saw someone share a post about a political topic (broadly defined). Someone else replied with a comment that - apparently - exhibited insufficient indignation, although the responding party indeed with in sympathy with everyone involved, against the case under discussion. For this insufficient indignation, and perceived lack of righteous anger, the original poster chastised the other person, saying - in essence: "If this doesn't make you furious enough to act out, you are no better than the people we're criticizing here." Keep in mind, there was nothing in the content of the respondent's own post to indicate a decisive lack of anger. It was simply a short message, and foregrounded an emotion other than anger. Also, as far as I am aware, all the original poster had done to "act out" was to share the post. Clicktivism, dudes.
What the topic was doesn't even matter. Exchanges like this are common, and I am allergic to their spirit. You can see it across the self-identified political spectrum, but I ultimately think of it as deep-seated and perhaps narcissistic authoritarianism - this impulse to demand and police people's emotional responses. "Your words and feelings do not mirror my own! You are not following through on the same actions that I am, or that I secretly wish I myself had the strength to do!" This all strikes me as a profound distrust of and hatred for the Other, even though sometimes it is cloaked in language that labels itself radical, feminist, socialist, etc.
I do not mean to say that other people's speech or patterns of thought can't be criticized. Far from it. But for some people, the impulse to police others' self-presentation, and to insist they know what another person is feeling and thus judge them on their perceived lack of righteous militance, becomes a more powerful motivation than actually to follow through on the activism they loudly proclaim.