Things I Don’t Understand

So a year or so ago, there was a little campaign against sex trafficking of kids and a few of the more social justice sorts in Celebville got together to do stuff like this on social media:

It recently got recirculated in response to the kidnapping of Nigerian girls by Boko Haram and the threat to seel them into sex slavery.  My thought, when I saw the pic, was “seems like a good thing to say”, give thanks that somebody is speaking against such obvious evil, and move on. Sort of like when a Patricia Heaton says something about the sanctity of human life. I prefer famous people using their fame to try to do something good rather than, say, to encourage more twerking or drug use.

But for some reason, over on FB stuff like this draws derision of the “Lookit them dumb liberal actors with their empty social consciousness gestures. What a bunch of maroons” variety.

This sort of insane tribalism reaches its apex with the kind repellent behavior on display from America’s Spokesman for the Thing that Used to Conservatism:

No thanks.

I don’t get that. Sure, it’s not going to end sex slavery, but so what? Patricia Heaton won’t overturn Roe either. But what’s wrong with making a statement about an obvious moral evil? If it influence one person, seems worth it to me.  Shouldn’t we be thankful that somebody is speaking against that evil instead of spending their fame on hookers and cocaine?

Baffling. It’s like saying “Caravaggio was a murderer, so his paintings are lousy” or “Obama supports abortion *and* says that 2+2=4. I guess we all know what a load of bull mathematics is now.”