Charity is Ruining the World

[vannila-guerilla]

Someone has to say it. Yes, it may sound like an ignorant thing to say on the cover, but there's a very real reason I'm saying this.

Okay, first off, not all charity is ruining things for people. I just couldn't fit that into the subject bar because of the character limit. Quite a lot of charity is good, but a lot of it also isn't.

Let's start with things like Toms Shoes (where you buy one pair of shoes and they donate a pair to poor people in an underdeveloped nation), or clothes drives that send clothes to underdeveloped countries. You may think I'm being a heartless dick, but in reality I'm not. Just think about something: If we're giving people shoes and clothes, then who is making their clothes and shoes? The answer is corporations.

Let's put this into perspective: Corporations become the producers of clothing and shoes. They take jobs away from local developers and put them out of business. Simply put, by giving people free things they have no incentive to buy anything like they used to from local tailors or shoe cobblers and they're putting these people out of business. In doing this they're also disrupting the flow of the economy and only keeping these countries oppressed.

This isn't the only example of this. This is the only one I'm giving because I know how short people's attention spans can be on the internet.

[Boomstick]

but it makes me feel good and I can brag about it.

[SapphireLight]

damn op you're an idiot

[vannila-guerilla]

At 11/25/15 11:12 PM, SapphireLight wrote: damn op you're an idiot

Proof? Or, are you saying that because you just don't like it?

At 11/25/15 11:09 PM, Boomstick wrote: but it makes me feel good and I can brag about it.

Actually, that's pretty much the reason a lot of people do it and don't realize the harm they're doing. It makes them feel good, even if there are unintended consequences.

At 11/25/15 11:09 PM, KhanKhendo wrote: Sounds like a load of bullshit.

Well, it isn't. In fact, a lot of people have recognized this, even the Peace Corps.

Come to think of it, there are a lot of people that realize this form of charity is harmful for one reason or another. I just couldn't list them because I knew I'd lose users' attention.

A lot of these come from good intentions, but aren't practical.

Actually, here's a couple interesting videos that kind of call out this type of bullshit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX0g66MWbrk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbYInILDj6Q

[vannila-guerilla]

At 11/25/15 11:22 PM, Homicidee wrote: Hey, you never know this worlds fucked up , you may think some charity is good, but it could be a bunch a bullshit. I wouldn't say it's ruining the world though.

It absolutely is ruining parts of the world because of how it's affecting local economies and taking away jobs.

Again, I'm not referring to ALL charity, but select charities are.

I'm not saying anything anti-charity in general, just that we have to be aware of how our good intentions can have negative consequences.

[Profanity]

Žižek actually gives a few good lectures about this exact topic.

(Which you plagiarized from.)

( (Or you plagiarized from the person who plagiarized from Žižek.) )

But that's neithah he-yah norah the-yah.

There are good, working ways to perform charity, and there are bad, destructive ways to perform charity. However, the bad ways to perform charity are often more politically popular because the way people who are not familiar with charity measure and judge charitable efforts tends to favor those bad ways. Group 1 sees that a charity receiving X money then spends A + B + C = X on products to give to Group 2 who needs aid to raise their standard of living, and that is rewarded by giving the charity more money, and that charity is rated by the amount which is spent as if each dollar is doing more.

What people typically don't understand is that the more efficient use of every dollar given can reduce the amount spent and do more good for Group 2. The methods for doing this typically involve hiring people using the initial donation from Group 1, then using the expertise of those people to find volunteers and more funding from a larger number of groups in order to pay people to move to Group 2's region to help Group 2 to work to improve their own standard of living.

Organizations like Doctors without Borders, Habitat for Humanity, the Clinton Foundation, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are notable examples of effective charity.

Efforts like the NFL's Pink October for breast cancer, and well basically every sports-franchise-tied effort are examples of ineffective charities. You know the old joke: Superbowl shirts are manufactured in the month before the game, but half of all superbowl shirts get shipped directly to Africa.

[Gremlin]

Who is this Charity bitch and where can I find her!?

Gonna kick her ass!

[vannila-guerilla]

At 11/25/15 11:48 PM, Profanity wrote: Žižek actually gives a few good lectures about this exact topic.

(Which you plagiarized from.)

( (Or you plagiarized from the person who plagiarized from Žižek.) )

Actually, I didn't "plagiarize" anything. I didn't "plagiarize" anything from someone I've never heard of, either.

The fact is a lot of people have come up with the same conclusion using the same facts.

[Profanity]

At 11/25/15 11:59 PM, vannila-guerilla wrote:

At 11/25/15 11:48 PM, Profanity wrote: Žižek

Actually, I didn't "plagiarize" anything. I didn't "plagiarize" anything from someone I've never heard of, either.

It was a stab in the dark.

The fact is a lot of people have come up with the same conclusion using the same facts.

Yep. Isn't the truth amazing? It just peaks its ugly little head out no matter how many billions of dollars people spend trying to cover it up.

[vannila-guerilla]

At 11/26/15 12:10 AM, TylerFromTexas wrote: I would also ad that some charities barely contribute to their causes at all, making them eat up our money we want to donate. This is kind of why I want to stick reputable charities like the American Red Cross. Interesting argument about some charities doing more harm than good in the world, because I'll be honest, I never thought of it that way.

That's pretty much what I do. A lot of charities usually just meet the bare minimum to be called non-profits.

But, hey, at least you don't find charities that are just complete scams that rip people off. Oh, wait.

[MemeFiend2]

I think charity should be illegal and people who can't support themselves should be left to natural selection tbh

[vannila-guerilla]

At 11/26/15 02:33 AM, MemeFiend2 wrote: I think charity should be illegal and people who can't support themselves should be left to natural selection tbh

I wouldn't come close to saying anything like that. I wouldn't come close to supporting that. Letting people just die isn't natural selection.

[MemeFiend2]

At 11/26/15 02:44 AM, vannila-guerilla wrote:

At 11/26/15 02:33 AM, MemeFiend2 wrote: I think charity should be illegal and people who can't support themselves should be left to natural selection tbh

I wouldn't come close to saying anything like that. I wouldn't come close to supporting that. Letting people just die isn't natural selection.

That is quite literally what natural selection is though.
If they can't figure out how to survive without your constant intervention, they will die with their genetics, and somebody who was smarter and able to survive will get to pass on their superior genetics instead.
By not just letting them die, we're breeding inferiority tbh

[Radaketor]

At 11/26/15 02:44 AM, vannila-guerilla wrote: Letting people just die isn't natural selection.

It kinda is, if a gazelle isn't fast enough to escape a lion it gets killed, the other animals will surely not come to help.
We've just evolved past the phase of natural selection so we help eachother instead of being pricks.