Yes, as @CWuestefeld seems to suggest, the construction and maintenance/perpetuation of the entirely artificial antithetical divide doesn't have to be tolerated/accepted or "bought into" by the people - that would certainly not have been the purpose of the plebiscite - people were not being asked to vote for that, nor would they probably have imagined that they were voting for such a negative and nonconstructive end.
At best the current situation would seem set to hinder the progress towards the peaceful completion of proper democratic due process, and at worst it's going to risk potentially fomenting unrest and further antithetical division. Sure, maybe the latter might be a deliberate and ulterior unscrupulous objective for some in the game, and if it is, then it certainly seems to be succeeding in tightly winding up an awful lot of people and even apparently inciting them toward violence, but that's another matter - one cannot control events, but one can control how one responds to events. One does not have to let other people wind one up to the point of becoming a hothead where one could even consider committing violence towards one's fellows who have a differing point of view - if one doesn't want that to happen.
Either way, whilst things like the Snowden legal aid fund are apparently being misused as a sort of political football by proponents of one side of the divide or the other, then an unknown number of the silent majority are likely to look askance and withhold their $donations - I mean, it currently seems as though the people making the request for funds could be less interested in actually using it for Snowden's ultimate benefit than they are interested in using it as a gravy train for unscrupulous lawyers whilst they kick the political football around as a distraction. (Hey, it's a living - right?)
So the concern would be that one's donation could very probably end up being not very well-spent for the deserving purposes one had thought it would have properly and legitimately been intended for.
For example, this politically agnostic non-American was going to press the button to donate to the Snowden legal aid fund, until he saw that unfortunate gratuitous line, whereupon the brakes went hard on.
I mentioned above the work I had done on contracts with charitable organisations (including oxfam.org, lepra.org.uk, orderofstjohn.org). They operated along unambiguous, transparent, strong and consistent principled and ethical guidelines.
Donating to them was thus very much a matter of trust that one's $donation would fund delivery of service/support to the object of the charity, and similarly for the Snowden legal aid fund, though it is not a charity nor of similar type. However, by their own actions, the Snowden legal aid people have essentially ensured that not only will this potential donor withhold making a $donation now, but also probably in his lifetime.
I have only once before taken such a course of action, and that was with an NZ charitable organisation (no names, no pack drill) which was eventually exposed as having for several years apparently knowingly supported a parasitic, greedy and unscrupulous CEO who basically rode on the back of the charity, living the life of O'Reilly, including (from memory) excessive personal credit card spending, house loans, first class air travel everywhere on needless/pointless international trips, etc. It seemed to be a clear case of systemic corruption and tolerance of corruption, with very little proper prudential or fiduciary oversight/governance.