I’m sure the kids who need help a really worried about the perceived hypocrisy of someone in the organization… /s
What if he wasn’t part of this before, but wrote the letter for Danny, got the backlash, then apologized and joined an organization like this to help make right where his friend did wrong? Would he still be a hypocrite or just someone trying to right some of the wrongs in the world?
Sometimes this moral outrage does more harm than good. Pushing people with means away from good causes is not a good outcome.
The kids who need help might not associate Kutcher with the organisation, but donors and supporters sure as hell will.
At this point, he has written a letter of support, lauding the moral upstanding of a convicted rapist. Any way you slice it, it’s not a good look from a fundraising perspective. Why would I support the anti-sex trafficking group that has a rape apologist as it’s figurehead? The nuance of writing a letter to support a friend who has done terrible things is it’s own murky issue. But from a purely business standpoint, Kutcher is a liability for the moment.
Your example ignores the trajectory of the situation. If Kutcher had supported the rapist, received backlash, and joined the org, it would be an individual taking steps to make better choices. As it stands, he is this organisation to many people (I couldn’t name anyone else involved). His actions reflect directly on the org, and ignoring his actions is not a good look.
I’m sure the kids who need help a really worried about the perceived hypocrisy of someone in the organization… /s
What if he wasn’t part of this before, but wrote the letter for Danny, got the backlash, then apologized and joined an organization like this to help make right where his friend did wrong? Would he still be a hypocrite or just someone trying to right some of the wrongs in the world?
Sometimes this moral outrage does more harm than good. Pushing people with means away from good causes is not a good outcome.
The kids who need help might not associate Kutcher with the organisation, but donors and supporters sure as hell will.
At this point, he has written a letter of support, lauding the moral upstanding of a convicted rapist. Any way you slice it, it’s not a good look from a fundraising perspective. Why would I support the anti-sex trafficking group that has a rape apologist as it’s figurehead? The nuance of writing a letter to support a friend who has done terrible things is it’s own murky issue. But from a purely business standpoint, Kutcher is a liability for the moment.
Your example ignores the trajectory of the situation. If Kutcher had supported the rapist, received backlash, and joined the org, it would be an individual taking steps to make better choices. As it stands, he is this organisation to many people (I couldn’t name anyone else involved). His actions reflect directly on the org, and ignoring his actions is not a good look.
Imagine if he was asked to write a letter of support, but then thought, “No. That’s a bad idea”.
Would people still be angry then?
Idiot.