The risks can be a dilution effect, I guess. Or a fragmenting of messaging. The 'silliness' will be how it's presented, which I think we could explore but needn't really. There's a risk of someone learning each term and then snorting because eventually some term is just too snowflaky, I guess, which then paints the whole acronym. Like I said, I think of it as a defense league. But two pieces of confusion about the name have, I think, made questions available. One poster said that it didn't matter if 'others' learned the letters, implying it's some type of internal reference. But another poster talked about needing the letters because of risk of physical violence (which resonates with my view, which is probably old. These things move fast). How many of the downstream letters are easily identifiable for being targeted? How many are at risk from physical violence? And if the bigots can't distinguish between the two categories, is there perceived upside in distinguishing them?