#slacktivism

[cardassiangoodreads]

There is no “anti imperialist” case for defunding USAID if you actually understand imperialism, which is what is primarily at fault for the dire poverty and lack of health infrastructure in many former colonies around the world. USAID and similar programs (in the U.S. and other imperial powers) are essentially a form of reparations.*

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?

*update for the reading comprehension lacking: obviously I don’t mean this literally in the sense of being the reason why groups like USAID exist — of course it originated as a form of soft power, designed to improve the US’s standing abroad. But the effect of these programs as they are practiced in 2025 is reparative, for all the reasons previously stated. There’s nothing so far in the notes that disputes this (the one that seems to is contradicted by their own sources, lol, which reveal the info they’re conveniently leaving out to further their particular narrative) and plenty from people actually involved with aid that backs it up — because there just isn’t any coherent anti imperialism that is okay with millions of people in imperialized countries dying of preventable diseases. You don’t actually care about them if you think they are that disposable. No amount of buzzwords can bring them back.

[unsolicited-opinions]

Maybe I'm not an ally?

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.

I don't need the noun - I just want to keep doing the verb consistently, regardless of who's watching or which way the wind is blowing.

[the-medicated-artist]

Biden dropped out of the race; if you don’t vote for Kamala, you’re a racist and a sexist. I don’t make the rules 🤷🏾‍♀️

[myfandomrealitea]

Its no coincidence that its only in recent years fandom spaces are expected to be effective and synonymous with activism, by the way.

[elder-millennial-of-zion]

It occurred to me, I haven’t had Starbucks or McDonald’s since before October 7, and during that “global strike week” in January I didn’t go to work because I hadn’t started my new job yet. So if you think about it, I’m doing just as much to free Palestine as any “anti Zionist” activist.

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

Now all I have to do is yell at some cancer patients.

[freegazafromhamas]

BDS is like PETA for Palestinians instead for animals.

[deaddee-anime-brownfanlady]

Well..... if America and the whole world ends up going to Hell. If this is truly the beginning of the end of human rights, reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, women's rights, trans rights, black and brown people's rights, better yet all of humanity as a whole.

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.

FUCK ALL OF YA'LL and FUCK OFF TO HELL.

[madamefeu]

Some people on this site have such an idiotic victim complex. If you say, ‘I like bananas!’ some dumbass will chime in saying, ‘but what about strawberries? Don’t you care about strawberries? You’re excluding strawberries!’ This isn’t about strawberries STFU.