This whole "inaction is actively malicious" kick the youngs and/or the libs are pushing lately makes no sense to me. It's not scalable at all, both on the individual (I need to be screaming about my beliefs 24/7) and societal levels (everyone needs to be screaming?)
It's a disconnect between the costs of posting something on Twitter (almost nil), the benefits of posting something on Twitter (almost nil) and a desire for a certain subset of the population that lives on Twitter to fit everyone into boxes of either Entirely Good or Entirely Bad. Dunkey posting about any of this doesn't do anything but change who his audience is, but for people who are obsessed with the topic his not posting means they can't tell which box he fits in so they're afraid if they should be in his audience or not.
Also we know at this point that anything is never enough, Dunkey posting sometimes on the topic would be held against him ("oh, he only posts during Pride Month? He only posts about his queer friends? Why hasn't Dunkey posted about student loans? Does Dunkey not care about Ukraine?"), instead until Dunkey submits his entire being to The Cause he's suspect and therefore probably Entirely Bad so everything he does should he be viewed through that lens. No matter what support he may have shown in the past at some point there will always be new reasons to demand he stop focusing on whatever he wants to focus on and wear the ribbon. They want a permanent claim on Dunkey's Twitter existence. (And it will expand from there.)
It's really fascinating how much Modern Twitter facilitates authoritarian (and cult) practices and I'm surprised there's seemingly so little research being done about it.
