This seems wildly overthought and an unnecessary invocation of Girard. Everything about in-group contrarians appears more parsimoniously explained by simply obs

This seems wildly overthought and an unnecessary invocation of Girard. Everything about in-group contrarians appears more parsimoniously explained by simply observing that groups must be ambivalent about 'loyal oppositions' because 1. such people need to be kinda jerks or autistic personalities to overcome the extremely powerful social pressures towards conformity and express criticisms where they are not wanted; and 2. while they are 'traitors to the cause' in the short run by giving the enemies ammunition & splintering the group costing it momentum, in the long run they are critical to a healthy movement in keeping it honest & prepared for its enemies' arguments & innovations.