,
17 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
I'm not ashamed of any donations I've made, and don't think anyone (it goes without saying) should make donations they'd be ashamed of. And I like that donation information is public. *But* there's no need to tweet Trump donors' names. That's not the right way to win an argument.
1/ Not only does what Castro did risk encouraging the abuse of specific people, which isn't what social media should be for (a critique of public figures being different from abuse of private citizens), but it only *hardens* the hearts of those with whom we're disputing politics.
2/ Tweeting out business names is fine; consumers *should* have access to that information if they want it. But *no individual* will actually feel "shamed" by the public disclosure of information they knew would be public when they made a donation. They'll just go donate *more*.
3/ Remember, Trumpism—which is a cult—runs on *victimization*. These cultists believe they're victims—and are waiting and hoping to be victimized again so they can feel even *more* aggrieved. So why play into that pathology when it'll only make them dig in their heels more?
4/ I don't think Castro has ill intent. I get the point he's making: that people who support Trump deserve some shaming. And they do. But by folks from whom that shaming will *mean* something: people they know. Posting lists of strangers who donated to Trump achieves nothing.
5/ *None* of us—when we make the (stupid) decision to argue with the cultists on Twitter—believe we're "shaming" them into better behavior. C'mon, let's be honest about that. We're arguing to make *ourselves* feel better. To me, that's really all Castro posting that list did.
6/ This feed has no value if I tweet what I think people want to hear, not my values. So—again—just my two cents:
(1) Tweet out any business names you want—that's how capitalism works.
(2) Argue with Trumpists if you like.
(3) Don't pretend donor lists shame anyone effectively.
(1) Tweet out any business names you want—that's how capitalism works.
(2) Argue with Trumpists if you like.
(3) Don't pretend donor lists shame anyone effectively.
7/
(4) Donor names are public, and should be public; anyone who likes has every right to look up that info and judge people based on what they see (this is America); but it's not an honorable or useful or smart or brave way to argue to tweet out donor lists—it's a waste of time.
(4) Donor names are public, and should be public; anyone who likes has every right to look up that info and judge people based on what they see (this is America); but it's not an honorable or useful or smart or brave way to argue to tweet out donor lists—it's a waste of time.
8/ Happy to listen to feedback, and happy to be ratioed. I'll never—*ever*—tweet anything on this feed I don't believe, or hold back on saying something because I think it'll be unpopular. I think I owe that to readers of the feed. And however people react, they can/should react.
PS/ The only thing I ask is, if you respond, please do read what I wrote. Those—and *only* those—are my views. For instance, I *don't* think Castro was doxxing; I *don't* think Castro had ill intent; and I *don't* take the view I do because I don't want to hurt racists' feelings.
PS2/ I applaud those who, like me, want to fight Trump and his cultists' racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and anti-democratic impulses. But I haven't heard *one person* argue in these comments that publishing *citizen*—not business—donor lists *does* anything. What's *that* case?
PS3/ I see many saying "we should be aware which people"—again, we're not talking about businesses, which I agree should be exposed—"are Trump supporters." What exactly does that mean? Where's this giant secret cabal of people supporting Trump just waiting for us to uncover them?
PS4/ And once these average folks are uncovered... so what? Oh, Betsy Kline of Topeka gave $10 to Trump? Heavens me! I can do a lot with that!
....
I just want to hear the refined, smart, *activist* argument for tweeting *citizen* donor lists—all I'm hearing now are platitudes.
....
I just want to hear the refined, smart, *activist* argument for tweeting *citizen* donor lists—all I'm hearing now are platitudes.
PS5/ Here's the argument someone I care about (who disagrees with me) makes on this: many didn't know their donations were public, so they made them thinking they could pretend to be apolitical in public when in fact they're supporting racism/Trump's agenda. That's interesting.
PS6/ If that's true—that most folks are giving money thinking it's private, *and* are then also *pretending* to be apolitical in public, I see the benefit of educating people as to (a) donations being public and (b) the fact your friends *are* going to look up who you donated to.
PS7/ And I'm cool with that: I think letting people know their donations are public—and that people they care about *will* find out if they're supporting racism with their money—is a good thing. I don't think we need to name specific individual (non-corporate) donors to do that.
PS8/ So I likely agree with 90% of the commenters on 90% of this: a) expose corporations, b) let individuals know the people they care about can see if they're supporting white supremacy with their dollars. The only dispute I have is with the efficacy of naming individual donors.
