me and this dude have absolutely had issues in the past & i doubt we will ever see eye to eye but he’s under attack for hosting an open platform alt righters occasionally hang out on. $30k they raised for st.jude was REFUNDED & his channels deleted. what the fuck?https://twitter.com/TheRalphRetort/status/1058481266885099521 …
-
-
Replying to @shoe0nhead
Honestly, is anyone really shocked that St Jude's refunded the $? Really? They want nothing to do with the Alt-right or any racist ideals. Of course they're going to refund the $. Can you imagine the PR nightmare it would be for them if they kept it?
44 replies 3 retweets 99 likes -
Replying to @memorie_holiday
i guess. i dont know. it’s just upsetting to me. $28,000 could have helped a lot of people. if the WSJ didnt tattle tale on them they would have received that money.
14 replies 3 retweets 154 likes -
Replying to @shoe0nhead
It's not that much compared to the usual amount. + as someone else stated, what headline will more likely lose them consistent donors? "ST Jude's accepts donations from the alt-right" or "ST Jude refunds donations from the alt-right"? The 1st one would be a huge mess for them.
35 replies 2 retweets 58 likes -
Replying to @memorie_holiday @shoe0nhead
Shouldn't the question actually be why there needs to be a headline either way? There are lots of small groups that don't get press for their small donations, so why would there have to be a headline?
2 replies 0 retweets 28 likes
Because this is really about putting new media out of business. The morality-policing is really just a convenient excuse.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.