#slacktivism

I am guessing some of this is rooted in reasonable critiques of like, other kinds of Western charity "voluntourism" that sweep in and help people for a few weeks or months and then leave nothing behind to keep those programs going. But that stuff is fundamentally different from what USAID and similar government aid programs do, much of which involves not just handing out vaccines and medicine but also building lasting health infrastructure in those countries. The fact that organizations like Partners in Health that are specifically devoted to building things like medical schools, state-of-the-art hospitals, and other institutions devoted to ensuring poorer countries will one day no longer require foreign aid, are strong supporters of those countries giving that aid now and opponents of the DOGE cuts, should prove that to you.

Also, how is it not "imposing your Western values" on another country if you say "you may want vaccines, but we're not going to give it to you because it looks bad and imperialist for us to do that? because it flatters my belief that America is evil?" How is that not rooted in a worldview that sees poor and sick people in other countries as not fellow human beings who want to live, but as political symbols? How is the mentality behind that not the very essence of imperialist ideology?

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.

And work was busy today so I had a late lunch, which is basically like the Harvard hunger strike.

I deeply hope ya'll Fuckers that voted third party and willingly refuse to vote for Kamala Harris due to your self-righteous and moral purity bullshit will hopefully die a slow and painful death under Trump with the hell and chaos he'll will unleash on the world.

Because ya'll pieces of shit refuse to vote against Fascism happening in America because Harris wasn't your " Pure and Perfect candidate ".

I pray that Hell will have a special place for all of you bastards and so-called ActiviSts and fake Leftists that choose your pretend moral purity over doing actual real good.