Thread by @ArkylieZaniida

So apparently
a channel raised $26mil
for @StJude
to help sick kids

but bcuz they value #FreeSpeech
& invite even ppl they strongly disagree w/
to discuss controversial issues

the donations got canceled
probably by @YouTube
possibly by @WSJ

$26mil gone

https://twitter.com/GuysDumbOpinion/status/1059269181860954116

I find this PARTICULARY intriguing
because you know how @Google owns @YouTube?

Guess what I was suspicious of the other day:

https://twitter.com/ArkylieZaniida/status/1055454860856840192

A link to GOOGLE's site
on the bottom of ads I was seeing FOR GOOGLE

but the link said @StJude
like it was a charity link.

As vid points out, a simple pattern cld be coincidence.

But the paranoid might think
Google has it in for St. Jude.

They piggyback their own content off links labeled "St. Jude"
Weird database error?

They cancel 26 MILLION DOLLARS in donations
"bcuz RACISTS!" or some such shit

But the general takeaway lately seems to be
"we can't possibly let people say THOSE THINGS!"
"We can't possibly allow people to discuss THOSE THINGS!"

"We can't possibly allow viewers to make up their own minds about controversial issues! They need guidance to avoid WRONGTHINK."

And the thing is
there are some people who think that WRONGTHINK
includes

questioning what everyone thinks is True

or holding to a position outside the group

or saying positive things about Trump

or saying negative things about a person who happens to be a minority

...or questioning the efficacy of sunscreen

or criticizing Islam (even if you're Muslim yourself!)

or questioning certain laws (definitely question THESE laws! just don't ever question THOSE laws! they wouldn't be laws if they weren't important!)

(e.g. Age of Consent)

...or claiming that you're not a Feminist, and that you can hold for equal treatment of both men and women without being a Feminist (that Feminism has baggage beyond that basic Egalitarian position)

or decrying Affirmative Action
or handicapped parking (even if you're disabled)

...or not believing a woman who claims to have been raped

or, heck, some people think that men can't be raped
and that a man who accuses a woman of raping him (forced to penetrate) should be DISbelieved

or how about claiming that White Privilege doesn't exist?

WRONGTHINK

And who gets to decide what sort of WRONGTHINK is bad enough that it shouldn't be heard at all, by anyone, in public channels?

Because when you cut out a certain viewpoint entirely
you leave the door wide open to corruption
and worse.

Mills has it right:
heterodoxacademy.org/mill/

If Alice says people should never hear what Bob has to say
then one of two extremes can happen:

Either everyone says "Okay, we trust you, Alice"
and Alice is free to cut out ANYONE she wants
because no one will double-check her work

or ppl who didn't care before
take Bob's side

dailycaller.com/2018/11/03/you…
"...when she contacted St. Jude, she was informed that the organization “was aware of the chats and was making arrangements to reverse any donations... we had no intention of receiving or accepting any of the funds associated with the live stream.”"

So it may have been initiated by @StJude?

Look, if some people mouthing off in chat is enough to get you to cancel millions of dollars in donations
you probably shouldn't be accepting ANY donations from ANY internet activity AT ALL.

"This is why we can't have nice things" etc.

And if you're refusing millions of dollars in donations
because the channel happens to seek out controversial opinions
and talk over those ideas like rational human beings

you devalue both the lives of sick children
AND the concept of free speech
in one fell swoop
like... wow.

I don't even know the channel whose concept I'm defending;
they likely go farther with their content than I'd be comfortable watching.

But they should EXIST.
It's important for people to challenge what everyone else takes for granted.
(I'm reminded of "whitewashed tombstones!")

All I can say is:
If it does turn out that St. Jude dropped donations
over the fact that the channel happens to allow racists to discuss their asshole positions publicly
(and maybe have their thinking challenged a bit)

then I know one charity
I'm never gonna fundraise for....

(For clarity: There are a ton of charitable causes.
Anyone who wants to fundraise for charities HAS to be choosy (can't do it all).
And I would not want to put effort into fundraising for a group who puts politics ahead of lives and might refuse the effort.
That's my reasoning.)

And it really bugs me that this comes up right as I'm trying to raise money for sick kids in the hospital.

If I were a little more strategic with my social media
I'd probably erase all these tweets
and just stew on the issue

so it doesn't negatively impact my own fundraising.

But one thing I do on social media
(Twitter especially)
is fly off the handle at current social issues that outrage me

and having some combination of forces
drop MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
over ideological issues that I was ALREADY incensed at

is kinda straw-camel-back right now.
sigh

I can see refusing to take money for yourself
"I'd rather die than accept blood money."

I can KINDA see
"We trust that God will arrange a better sacrifice" kinda thinking.

Maybe that's what their mindset is.

If a murderer on his death bed
tried to hand me his fortune
as some way of making up for his horrible crimes

I'd take it
because it doesn't make up for his crimes
(that's between him and God)

but I favor pragmatism
which says the money exists
and I can put it to some good use.

I could be the only person who ever knows where the money came from.
But that money could go to cancer wards
soup kitchens
foster kids

could establish fresh water and reduce disease
establish infrastructure for community growth
fund a breakthrough in AIDS research

possibilities

Hey @threadreaderapp can you unroll this so I can easily save it, in case it gets deleted or I decide to get rid of it later on? thx