Yeah there's no way I'm going to support this message. If you honestly want money to go to charity, you will promote another method that people can use to donate. I disagree with both sides of this thing.pic.twitter.com/k1K3x47XkF
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Why. Even if you think Ralph is a total POS, how is giving money to cancer-kids a bad thing?
It's not, but the "WSJ Kills Kids" message is garbage. If he cared about those kids, he'd promote another way to donate to them.
Assuming that this is happening because of a WSJ hitpiece (in which they presumably contacted st judes for comment), I think it's absolutely appropriate to lay the blame for this squarely at their feet. It really isn't Ralph's prerogative to come up with a solution.
The problem is that Ralph obviously doesn't give a damn about those kids. This is not an act of charity, it's a political weapon. Some good can be done in the name of political weaponization, but it doesn't mean Ralph is some good person who cares about kids.
I don't think you can make that determination based on these events but even if that were the case, he's not the one who threw a spanner into the gears. He's not the one preventing the cancer kids from receiving the money, so to get mad at him is just tribal BS.
I'm not mad at him. I'm just pointing out that not making any sort of effort to circumvent Youtube's weird superchat moderation is selfishness. Obviously it would be better if Youtube never decided to reject these donations.
It's not YT doing these refunds, it's st Judes. This doesn't have anything to do with superchat moderation, if I had to guess the WSJ pestered the hospital's communications/PR dept to disavow the icky gross racist donations and they cucked.
But even if it were YT's fault, that's still some A+ victim blaming to blame the censored for having their speech stifled. Why.
Ralph isn't a victim here, the kids are.
I don't think they'll be able to amass it all a second time - presumably people will hesitate in case the same thing happens again. And there's no guarantee it won't.
I agree but that's neither here nor there. I think it's perfectly fair to lay the blame on the WSJ hitpiece if that is indeed the reason st Jude's is refunding the money.
Certainly seems to be. Can't really envision a mindset that thinks those optics are worse than this. The 'wsj kills kids' thing is pretty hyperbolic, though. Hopefully it gets people looking into the situation.
It is, but they fucking deserve that albatross around their necks: Taking money from cancer kids to Own The Alt-Right.pic.twitter.com/a5bRE89VpR
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.