@adamgreenfield @tsvga It's always when we think that the politics are "self-evident" that situations like that happen, even among people who do self-identify as anarchist. I know a lot of people don't want to act like authcoms and force people to follow a party line, but the alternative is people coming in with unspoken assumptions and then having those record scratch moments show up as rude surprises. It's impossible (and IMO, undesirable) to completely avoid disagreements in praxis, but it takes discernment to figure out how wide or narrow of a shared baseline is necessary for a certain project, as well as how to actually navigate those disagreements when they show up.
I find that unfortunately the vast majority of the time, you can't expect a commitment to mutual, autonomy-affirming conflict resolution from everybody, not even comrades—because there's not enough of a personal bond for them to trust you with their vulnerability (or sometimes, because there's too much of a bond and they're too scared of losing you), because they're traumatized by multiple oppressions, because they can't separate their own sense of self from "being correct" and so every critique comes across as a personal attack and every time they deliver a critique it feels like one of you has to die to the other...this shit's fucking hard. These days when I'm exploring the possibility of working with a new comrade, I ask them questions about how they navigate conflict resolution in organizing spaces and I tell them about what I want to avoid (and even when you have that conversation and it seems ok it's not a perfect preventative 
) (people can and will throw out their principles when they stop liking you)