>>104051881You cant be this obtuse.
Alright, let me summarize where we are right now so you can get caught up.
You believe the alt-right donation was ill intentioned, and that the alt right is seeking to gain social acceptance via charity donations.
I compared this to celebrities and other organizations who donate for moral grandstanding purposes. Both parties seek to gain social or political acceptance with this tactic.
The point I make to address this comparison is that the morally reprehensible nature of this action is independent of the politics of the donator, but rather the intentions.
IF you believe the politics are the morally reprehensible factor, THEN, as I said before, you only dislike the donation because you disagree with the politics, not their intention, which you complained about earlier.
IF, instead, you believe the dishonest intentions are the problem, THEN logically speaking all non-anonymous donations are the problem, and you dislike the vast majority of all charity work rather than jsut alt right charity work.
So, in conclusion you either are only against the donation because of your personal distaste for the donator, or you would disavow all non-anonymous donations. For the third time, which is it?
