This is very problematic, isn't it? -
- It implies that once someone advocates for a political cause or community, they are now obligated to make substantial personal and financial sacrifices related to that cause going forward. Their past advocacy locks them into standards they may not have fully considered initially.
- This means public advocacy for controversial issues becomes very risky - it's hard to know where it may impose serious burdens down the line as social views change. This could have a "chilling effect", discouraging that advocacy.
- It sets up an expectation that other people (in this case Daniels) get to police your life choices based on their interpretation of your past advocacy and whether your actions now align. This imposes an invasive moral judgment.
- This approach provides little room for context, nuance, or thoughtful disagreement when an activist claims someone has contradicted past support. It becomes close to a black-and-white moral litmus test enforced through public shaming.