It depends what you are talking about, in theory we could have our own version of The free speech union, which more accurately would run as an anti-defamation organisation. This could take small donations from thousands and larger donations from more participating members.
This all makes sense and serves to sober the conversation about what can be done, but all the same, as recognized here, this must be paired with a clear idea of who we are. It must be clear and obvious who the organization exists to benefit. If such an organization can not stand while making its intentions clear, people, arguably rightly, will have no faith in its ability to fight the given fight.
That all regards a public facing organization. A private organization can rely on personal relations, but requires members and goals able to inspire the patronage of private sources of funding.
This all brings back memories of when AA proposed writing up action plans should one be granted, say, a million dollars to spend towards our goals. That never took off, but I wish it had.
If I had a million I wouldn't know where to begin except in theory. I don't know any lawyers we could trust, for example. This brings us back to needing to get to know each other. Given this, I'd spend that million creating excuses for our guys to meet each other and work together on short term tangential goals with the purpose of identifying those who can be relied on to receive funding to act in other capacities on a longer term.
In practice this would involve one or more confidants at each event with the express purpose of identifying said characters of talent and loyalty, recording as much, and establishing communications. Further scrutiny is had in the process of working further with these people, not trusting them with too much too soon. I could continue, but the gist is conveyed.
Key to all this is understanding that we must be willing to involve ourselves in small and tangential matters first in order to get something significant off the ground. The based twitter take in its brevity fools one into thinking its realization could be swift.
It depends what you are talking about, in theory we could have our own version of The free speech union, which more accurately would run as an anti-defamation organisation. This could take small donations from thousands and larger donations from more participating members.
Excellent speech and you raise valid points long overdue. Thank you for uploading this
This all makes sense and serves to sober the conversation about what can be done, but all the same, as recognized here, this must be paired with a clear idea of who we are. It must be clear and obvious who the organization exists to benefit. If such an organization can not stand while making its intentions clear, people, arguably rightly, will have no faith in its ability to fight the given fight.
That all regards a public facing organization. A private organization can rely on personal relations, but requires members and goals able to inspire the patronage of private sources of funding.
This all brings back memories of when AA proposed writing up action plans should one be granted, say, a million dollars to spend towards our goals. That never took off, but I wish it had.
If I had a million I wouldn't know where to begin except in theory. I don't know any lawyers we could trust, for example. This brings us back to needing to get to know each other. Given this, I'd spend that million creating excuses for our guys to meet each other and work together on short term tangential goals with the purpose of identifying those who can be relied on to receive funding to act in other capacities on a longer term.
In practice this would involve one or more confidants at each event with the express purpose of identifying said characters of talent and loyalty, recording as much, and establishing communications. Further scrutiny is had in the process of working further with these people, not trusting them with too much too soon. I could continue, but the gist is conveyed.
Key to all this is understanding that we must be willing to involve ourselves in small and tangential matters first in order to get something significant off the ground. The based twitter take in its brevity fools one into thinking its realization could be swift.
Where would we contribute money to?