> So you are willing to make it impossible for people to boycott organizations as a means of social change, as long as those organizations had an arms-length re

> So you are willing to make it impossible for people to boycott organizations as a means of social change, as long as those organizations had an arms-length relationship with anything "political". No. Please try to respond to what I actually say instead of making stuff up; this is a straw man argument. There are plenty of other ways we could find out about organizations supporting odious causes and boycott those organizations, without violating the privacy of their members. In fact the the point of "organizational transparency" is to make it hard to hide when organizations do bad things. In addition to accusing me of saying things I didn't say, you're ignoring what I actually did say. Are you willing to make it impossible for people to privately donate to virtuous causes as a means of social change, when donating to support those causes publicly so would be a risk to their careers and reputations? I'm not going to continue this conversation further if you won't respond to this point.