I am what I torture

Why yes. Yes we do:

here's the sexual content guidelines saying nudity is ok

here's the bit from the termination email telling you you can make a new account as long as it doesn't break the same rule

here's the guidelines for what counts as explicit (not mature, aka grounds for content deletion)

here's the section telling us that you will always be able to respond to content getting flagged as explicit (lie)

here's the section where it says you will be notified when your accunt gets terminated, and that the appeals are reviewed by humans (both lies)

and by the way, posting a single thing against ToS isn't supposed to be grounds for deletion, (this is what the termination email is warning you about)

sharing content without content labels isn't either

The problem with claiming the label "ally" is that it subtly shifts the center of gravity from the cause to the self. It turns a verb (supporting) into a noun (an identity).

Once you've adopted the label, the point of the exercise often stops being about the marginalized group and starts being about your own membership in the Good People Club.

What if ally has just become another identity category - a performative merit badge we display to stay in the good graces of our social circles?

I'm not suggesting we should care less. I'm asking if we could care for better reasons. Could we support our moral positions without the expectation of a social reward?

A few years ago, I caught myself carefully drafting a social media post. I realized I wasn't trying to communicate something true, I was trying to communicate something acceptable. I was triangulating. I was checking the direction of the wind in my feed before committing to a stance.

That's...not moral conviction.

That's reputation management with a trompe l’oeil conscience painted on top. It looks like a window into the soul, but it's actually just a flat wall.

I don't think I’m alone in this.

When social reward is the primary driver, you will inevitably bend your principles toward whatever earns the most social approval (likes) from your specific tribe. Consistency goes out the window, because consistency doesn't care about your audience.

I oppose violence against civilians because targeting civilians is wrong - full stop.

Not because of which flag those civilians live under.

Not because of which conflict is currently trending on TikTok.

Not because taking that position will earn me a "yikes" or a "yas" from the people I respect (or the people I'm afraid of).

The principle holds universally, or it doesn't hold at all. If I only apply it when it's socially safe, I'm not operating from ethics, I'm operating from social conditioning.

The (valid) counterargument is that declared allyship has real utility. Public declarations normalize solidarity. They signal safety to vulnerable people. An LGBTQ+ teenager in a hostile town needs to know who the safe adults in the room actually are. Movements need visible bodies, not just private thoughts.

The problem isn't visibility. It's the direction the camera is pointing.

Are you showing up so that the vulnerable community knows you're there...or so your followers know you're one of the good ones?

The former is solidarity, the latter is branding.

I'm suggesting we support vulnerable communities for reasons that would hold even if no one was watching or following.

Moral consistency means opposing attacks on a community not to influence how we are perceived, but because our core principles (human dignity, rejection of collective punishment, the refusal to dehumanize) demand it.

It means the test isn't whether I like the victims or if my social circle thinks the victims are worthy.

If your commitment to a principle relies on a cheering section, a pat on the back or likes, you weren't driven by the principle - you were driven by the behavioral reinforcement - like a rat in Skinner's maze, waiting for the dopamine pellet of a notification.

I've realized I don't actually need anyone else to see me as an ally.

Have you guys seen that clip