3 ms·
That's an awfully dishonest way to describe and frame their donations. If you've ever donated to the Salvation Army, you too "fund LGBTQ oppression".
by thoughtexplorer 8y ago
That's an awfully dishonest way to describe and frame their donations.
If you've ever donated to the Salvation Army, you too "fund LGBTQ oppression".
- rcw4256 8y agoThis is a perfectly honest way to describe and frame it. And you're right about the Salvation Army. A lot of people, myself included, avoid supporting them for this reason.
- sincerely 8y agoI mean, that's true as well. How is it (in your eyes) dishonest?
- prepend 8y agoTo me, it’s dishonest because it presents a small aspect as a primary driver without giving proper context. So it was frustrating to me because I had to spend time researching the potential issue to learn it is a very insignificant aspect that I don’t think was worthy of my time. It’s like posting “Don’t eat ground beef as it is full of rat feces.” any time someone posts about hamburgers. It’s true that the FDA allows a small amount of fat feces in ground beef, and all food [0]. But it’s really insignificant and almost always irrelevant to the conversation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Food_Defect_Action_Levels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Food_Defect_Action_Levels