chat

Historically, from what I understand, it was people who understood theory but sat on the sidelines while Monday morning quarter-backing revolutions. While revolutionaries were out doing stuff, testing ideas, coming up with new theory, the ultras would nitpick every action as wrong. They were always around for a debate and criticism but conspicuously didn't have much to contribute otherwise. They're overly academic about action and dogmatic about theory.

The reason it comes up is because people think they're doing something useful (whether they are or not) and are criticized for it (whether valid or not). It feels like someone being unnecessarily critical of a productive action (whether actually productive or not). Since it's an internet debate and nobody wants to be owned, the person doing the action will never see it as unproductive or the criticism as necessary. The ultra will always want to see the action as unproductive and feel there is nothing harsh about their criticism.

We had a self-proclaimed ultra at one point. They would write paragraphs every week about why ultras are the correct tendency. They were banned several times. I assume they're still around under an alt and learned not to be so obvious. But I also assume people are looking for ultras when criticized because it's the internet and nobody wants to be owned.