But I am not your "Both/And" friend.
What I do is tease out oppositions and isolate them, so I can look at them and their relationship to each other. To pose choices, and paradoxes and conundrums. Because I think doing so will make us smarter and better at what we are trying to do.
For example, I recently noted that our thought that "the community precedes the individual" does not exactly line up with a commitment to being "anti-oppressive."
After all, sometimes communities oppress individuals. In fact, most Unitarian Universalists are Unitarian Universalists because they felt the need at some point in their life to buck all sorts of pressure from their community to strike out, on their own, into a new religious community. If we said that people ought to give a higher respect to the communities that formed and nurtured them, some 80% of UU's should go back to the church of their grandparents. Except that it wouldn't be there, because a lot of those grandparents would be back in the old country, respecting their communities.
Some times you can "Both/And" and envision an anti-oppressive communitarianism. But sometimes you have to "Either/Or" it, and stand up for the non-conforming, non-compliant, and the defiant individual.
If I make you impatient with my persistent poking at what we all think, pointing out contradictions and misalignments, that's my intention. Save yourself the trouble of writing a comment to tell me that I am posing overly broad choices and that there are middle ways and that the situation is probably much more "Both/And" than I am thinking. I get it.
Sometimes, you can only get to "both/and" by doing some "either/or" first.