I understand being upset with AMNESTY, but having people pull support is exactly what JK Rowling’s goal is. This call to action is a house dividing against itself.
If a wall has a hole in it, you patch the hole, or build a new wall. Tearing it down before building a new wall would demonstrate a level of recklessness bordering on suicidality.
That seems very radical. Why entirely abolish an organization that generally fights for the greater good, just because it failed once or a few times? What is going to take its place?
Have I ever implied that nothing should be done?
Of course we need to fight for change.
I simply doubt that axing the entire organization is a good solution. That would be like fighting your potential ally.
We’re not axing them, we don’t have that power it’s just rhetoric. We’re pressuring them. They need to know that the general public will NOT stand for billionaire bigots sticking their ugly noses in our affairs. That’s the position we’re in now because THEY caved.
Most of the people who enabled the Holocaust did so by convincing themselves what they were doing was for the greater good.
The ordinary German police officers who did most of the actual grunt work of rounding people up? Those who didn’t actively support it probably told themselves, “I’m just enforcing the law. I may not agree with it, but I can’t judge the law. And if I don’t follow orders, I’ll lose my job. Then I won’t be able to do any good at all in the community, including arresting actual thieves and killers.”
The university professor that handed a list of Jewish students to the Gestapo? “I don’t support this. I have nothing against Jewish people. But if I don’t do this, I’ll lose my job, and then I won’t be able to help any students at all.”
Sure, the worst crimes of the Holocaust were carried out by true monsters that fully supported it. But the vast majority of the actual work was carried out by people “just following orders.” And I’m sure they told themselves all sorts of stories about how they were picking the least evil or destructive path.
There’s a reason in On Tyranny, the first rule is Don’t Comply in Advance. Authoritarians can accomplish some of their goals through direct state power, but most of their authority is just given to them by cowards not wanting a fight. Look at Trump’s attempts targeting the healthcare of minors. He issued a completely illegal executive order trying to ban minors from receiving trans healthcare. He has absolutely no authority to do so. Those hospitals that have fought back have won easily in court. But a lot of hospital administrators, even those in blue states, are craven cowards. We saw a lot of hospitals in blue states complying with this illegal order rather than put up a fight.
What Amnesty should have done is use this as a fundraising opportunity. Do you have any idea what kind of funding and publicity they could have achieved if they had stood up to the witch? Sure she’s a billionaire, but Amnesty is not some small operation on a ragtag budget. They have 2500 employees and a budget in the hundreds of millions. They have the money to hire lawyers. And they could easily have used the fight as a massive fundraising opportunity. The ads write themselves. “We stand for the rights of even the most vilified people!”
Instead they chose the path of cowardice. They’ve damned themselves.
Why support an organisation that won’t support us? That’s just pointless. They’ve made their position clear: They don’t care about us enough to stand by us.
What they should have done is take up the fight and start a fundraiser if needed. Instead they decided to be useless cowards and run away.
The idea is to put pressure on them in hopes they’ll do the right thing, and if not (as is most likely), then put your support towards someone who will, instead.
It’s as mercenary as deciding they didn’t want to spend the financial and political capital on a war against child-wizard-nazi-Karen given the way the shit winds are blowing, Randy
No, they caved to legal threats. That’s an entirely different thing to agreeing with these anti-rights people. Their opinion is in the documents that got pulled but they’re not strong or brave enough to stand by them.
Or they may really be reviewing them to republish when they’re sure they can legally defend every statement in there.
Not having the guts to follow through when attempting to fight for a cause is not collaborating against that cause. Sheesh.
E: What you are teaching Amnesty, and anyone else watching, is that it is better not to try to fight for human rights. Because if you ever have to take a step back, you will be dragged through the mud.
I understand being upset with AMNESTY, but having people pull support is exactly what JK Rowling’s goal is. This call to action is a house dividing against itself.
No JKs goal was to get Amnesty to pull support for trans people, which she succeeded at.
Now it’s our turn to use our voices and throw our weight at Amnesty to do the right thing.
If Amnesty is incapable or unwilling to care, it must fall.
If a wall has a hole in it, you patch the hole, or build a new wall. Tearing it down before building a new wall would demonstrate a level of recklessness bordering on suicidality.
Sorry this made me laugh in Ukrainian
How do you spell lol in Ukrainian?
Лол
Removed by mod
Did you just call human rights a pet cause?
I sure am glad that my rights to exist are only a pet cause and not something important! I’m so lucky that a cis person was here to tell me that!
Just say you don’t care about everyone equally and own your shittyness you fucking shitmuncher
That seems very radical. Why entirely abolish an organization that generally fights for the greater good, just because it failed once or a few times? What is going to take its place?
Because next time it will be gay people.
Next time it will be Muslims.
Next time it will be Black People.
Next time it will be Women.
Because Fascism does not stop and must not be tolorated.
Ok cool. We’ll do something while you do nothing. 🤝
You could also say that Amnesty is doing something, and if you tear it down, then nothing will be done.
Have I ever implied that nothing should be done? Of course we need to fight for change. I simply doubt that axing the entire organization is a good solution. That would be like fighting your potential ally.
We’re not axing them, we don’t have that power it’s just rhetoric. We’re pressuring them. They need to know that the general public will NOT stand for billionaire bigots sticking their ugly noses in our affairs. That’s the position we’re in now because THEY caved.
Agreed.
Tearing down amnesty international is not doing something lol
I’ve already answered this criticism. You’re too late.
You don’t have the ability to build anything that does anything nearly as useful as amnesty international does for humanity.
You’re punching the wrong people. Way to “do something”, jfc.
No we’re not. Eat shit.
Who did the nazis target first?
Most of the people who enabled the Holocaust did so by convincing themselves what they were doing was for the greater good.
The ordinary German police officers who did most of the actual grunt work of rounding people up? Those who didn’t actively support it probably told themselves, “I’m just enforcing the law. I may not agree with it, but I can’t judge the law. And if I don’t follow orders, I’ll lose my job. Then I won’t be able to do any good at all in the community, including arresting actual thieves and killers.”
The university professor that handed a list of Jewish students to the Gestapo? “I don’t support this. I have nothing against Jewish people. But if I don’t do this, I’ll lose my job, and then I won’t be able to help any students at all.”
Sure, the worst crimes of the Holocaust were carried out by true monsters that fully supported it. But the vast majority of the actual work was carried out by people “just following orders.” And I’m sure they told themselves all sorts of stories about how they were picking the least evil or destructive path.
There’s a reason in On Tyranny, the first rule is Don’t Comply in Advance. Authoritarians can accomplish some of their goals through direct state power, but most of their authority is just given to them by cowards not wanting a fight. Look at Trump’s attempts targeting the healthcare of minors. He issued a completely illegal executive order trying to ban minors from receiving trans healthcare. He has absolutely no authority to do so. Those hospitals that have fought back have won easily in court. But a lot of hospital administrators, even those in blue states, are craven cowards. We saw a lot of hospitals in blue states complying with this illegal order rather than put up a fight.
What Amnesty should have done is use this as a fundraising opportunity. Do you have any idea what kind of funding and publicity they could have achieved if they had stood up to the witch? Sure she’s a billionaire, but Amnesty is not some small operation on a ragtag budget. They have 2500 employees and a budget in the hundreds of millions. They have the money to hire lawyers. And they could easily have used the fight as a massive fundraising opportunity. The ads write themselves. “We stand for the rights of even the most vilified people!”
Instead they chose the path of cowardice. They’ve damned themselves.
Thank you for putting it in perspective like this. I agree, this should have been an opportunity. My take was not well considered, my apologies.
Why support an organisation that won’t support us? That’s just pointless. They’ve made their position clear: They don’t care about us enough to stand by us.
What they should have done is take up the fight and start a fundraiser if needed. Instead they decided to be useless cowards and run away.
The idea is to put pressure on them in hopes they’ll do the right thing, and if not (as is most likely), then put your support towards someone who will, instead.
It’s as mercenary as deciding they didn’t want to spend the financial and political capital on a war against child-wizard-nazi-Karen given the way the shit winds are blowing, Randy
Buddy they agreed with her that we’re not people. They’re not in the house anymore.
No, they caved to legal threats. That’s an entirely different thing to agreeing with these anti-rights people. Their opinion is in the documents that got pulled but they’re not strong or brave enough to stand by them.
Or they may really be reviewing them to republish when they’re sure they can legally defend every statement in there.
Abandoning trans rights should be a financial threat to any organisation. Don’t donate to collaborators!
Not having the guts to follow through when attempting to fight for a cause is not collaborating against that cause. Sheesh.
E: What you are teaching Amnesty, and anyone else watching, is that it is better not to try to fight for human rights. Because if you ever have to take a step back, you will be dragged through the mud.
They already divided the house by betraying the people they are supposed to speak for in an effort to appease bigots.
Sorry, I’m not in the business of forgiveness.