Hypothesizing about a concept, wondering if it works overall. The problem (well, I think it is) of liberals/progressives attacking other liberals/progressives for being insufficiently pure or enthusiastic (or whatever) in their #liberal or #progressive attitudes or behavior (e.g., "How can you talk about democracy when you don't support seizing the means of production?", "Everyone who has never actually sabotaged a cop car needs to shut up"). Or policing them for what amounts to their identity (e.g., "White ladies need to sit down and listen", "As a non-trans person you don't get to have opinions about legislation affecting trans people", etc.).
These are probably necessary interactions as we constantly shape ideology and culture. Sometimes I feel they're valid and helpful, as well. However, IMO that's not always true. In any case, they feel bad for one of the parties involved. They cause rifts between people; they can create an extra interpersonal barrier (in addition to the existing ideological and cultural barriers) to be overcome for some people to participate in building liberal/progressive structures.
I often think of these interactions as "friendly fire" incidents. This phrasing seems to work for me, in many cases.
Here's the hypothetical piece: I suspect that what happens, at least sometimes, is a person yelling at those who will listen and are something of a captive audience (i.e., allies, potential colleagues or co-activists) because they can't reach the right-wingers who they know will never hear their words.