4 ms·

I wonder whether you would post a comment similar to this if it turned out that the donation money had been funnelled to right-wing think tanks and had then sub

I wonder whether you would post a comment similar to this if it turned out that the donation money had been funnelled to right-wing think tanks and had then subsequently been distributed to right-leaning commentators?

input_sh 4y ago
You are equating supporting minorities in journalism to right-wing think tanks? In your view that's a completely cool and normal comparison to make? Yes, you're right. I wouldn't react the same way. One of those is clearly better than the other.
- f1shy 4y ago
  Can you please elaborate on why one is better than the other?
  - input_sh 4y ago
    Cause being BIPOC while in journalism isn't a political ideology and their existence is not "woke" nor "political". On top of that I happen to believe a wider range of voices within journalism is incredibly important and see nothing controversial there. That seems way better to me than giving money to those hostile towards damn near every marginalized and underrepresented minority. Does it not seem that way to you? It's not my fault (nor is it Wikimedia's) that this specific historically marginalized and oppressed group of people as a collective leans a certain... less confederate-flag-waving way. Were they supposed to find a hypothetical centrist group of BIPOC journalists that will therefore then over-represent right-wing BIPOC population?
- ajvs 4y ago
  So because they're donating to your political leaning, it's fine. Do realise that half the population leans the opposite way to you, and you'll see why encouraging more organisations to get political is a disastrous thing for society.
  - fleddr 4y ago
    It's far more than 50%. When specifically considering "woke" politics, centrists and moderate progressives reject it too. I'd say it's in the range of 70-90% rejecting. Pretty much anybody outside California rejects it.

4 ms·

I wonder whether you would post a comment similar to this if it turned out that the donation money had been funnelled to right-wing think tanks and had then sub

by motogpjimbo 4y ago

input_sh 4y ago
You are equating supporting minorities in journalism to right-wing think tanks? In your view that's a completely cool and normal comparison to make? Yes, you're right. I wouldn't react the same way. One of those is clearly better than the other.
- f1shy 4y ago
  Can you please elaborate on why one is better than the other?
  - input_sh 4y ago
    Cause being BIPOC while in journalism isn't a political ideology and their existence is not "woke" nor "political". On top of that I happen to believe a wider range of voices within journalism is incredibly important and see nothing controversial there. That seems way better to me than giving money to those hostile towards damn near every marginalized and underrepresented minority. Does it not seem that way to you? It's not my fault (nor is it Wikimedia's) that this specific historically marginalized and oppressed group of people as a collective leans a certain... less confederate-flag-waving way. Were they supposed to find a hypothetical centrist group of BIPOC journalists that will therefore then over-represent right-wing BIPOC population?
- ajvs 4y ago
  So because they're donating to your political leaning, it's fine. Do realise that half the population leans the opposite way to you, and you'll see why encouraging more organisations to get political is a disastrous thing for society.
  - fleddr 4y ago
    It's far more than 50%. When specifically considering "woke" politics, centrists and moderate progressives reject it too. I'd say it's in the range of 70-90% rejecting. Pretty much anybody outside California rejects it.