On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 10:31 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
My preference: choose organizations that do good, rather than organizations that divide our members along partisan lines.
If you really want to have Groups.io directly make in-kind donations to politically partisan organizations I'm not sure what to suggest. I appreciate your openness on this subject, but I don't know how to reconcile that with an apolitical group's need for a service that is feels welcoming to all of its members.
Following up on Shal's.
Let's be honest that "advertising" or "not advertising" supporting any cause, left right or center, isn't going to make or break you or IO. However, you stated the precise issue most succinctly - you don't want to make any group's life harder
. Don't worry, be happy. - life should be simpler not more difficult. Can't be more simply stated, only obfuscated by drawing in side issues.
That's the root
issue, not the $ or to which cause, or whether it's divisive, or how it's funded, or how many members (that we know of fewer than on one Labrador's paw) have been put off by any political advocacy. The effect is on the innocent, not to the objectors -- in the instant example a group owner who (I figure could care less but) has to dance a jig and bob and weave because of the advertisement, which also affects all group members.because of (one? maybe more, who knows) objections. I've suggested that they make it the objector's problem (in this instance) but that just ignores the root cause. The objector(s) must have too little hobbies because who researches the donation/advocacy policy of a forum group? Still, "that's not the point," as they say.
The obfuscation re: what other companies support (left right or center) or doesn't apply -- their policies might affect the bottom line but don't make innocents' lives more difficult. One could conjure up a scenario where an organizer of a MAGA picnic is forced to find another with ice cream supplier, but s/he chooses to be associated with that event -- but a policy doesn't really affect anyone involved -- and individuals can decide what they eat or not. Thousands of peeps on an IO or Y! group can't individually choose onto which ocean their Admiral moves their ship. Hell, a handful can't usually decide where to have lunch. Moreover, it's unproductive to force the Admiral to choose between values if it's a non-political group, and especially so if politics is banned from the forum discussions. That's would be pretty high up on the hypocrisy scale.
The particular smooth transfer of the instant group (whichever it is) already has a BBQ fork in it
. No change is going to erase the brain of Y! members who already object (to in their minds the "IO agenda") so to speak. And it has little to do with this topic -- it's not the current issue at all, merely evidence of the potential effect.
A question is really the solution. Is the intention -- and take this as a question not any sort of judgement -- simply to support a cause, which can be done w/o alienating anyone, or is it intended to be an "in your face" political statement -- and if so it should continue that way, but suggest it be well known to prospective group owners -- and to hell with the effect on an infinitesimal number of innocents it might affect in the future -- it's your right to make a group go elsewhere if members don't like your advocacy.