Here’s a thing: Almost every political decision that benefits marganilized people in some way is a compromise. 

Organisations that work for the marganilized within the political system almost never get 100% of what they asked for and almost always change their demands in some way to win over enough politicians. In the pursuit of striking a deal that makes a bit better for those it represents (and scoring the successes is depends upon for it’s image, sponsors etc) organisations sacrifice details, principles or whole groups. 

This compromise then gets presented as a total victory by both the state and the organisation so both can score maximum reputation points. 

And often people from the actual marganilized group effected are the only ones informed enough on the issue to notice what has been sacrificed in the compromise, so they will be the ones writing about it. 

So if it seems like someone’s ‘always negative’, or ‘always has something to complain about’ or there is ‘always in-fighting when something good happens’, consider that the people that seem negative to you are probably participating in the vital work of pointing out the dark sides of political compromises. 

We need them to see the battles that were lost and the people that were thrown under the bus because the organization that struck the deal certainly isn’t going to tell us about that.