Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When GoFundMe Gets Ugly

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 61 posts

Re: When GoFundMe Gets Ugly

#41

Post by oh_sigh »

nils-m-holm wrote: post #32
keiferski wrote: post #26

The problem with relying on crowdfunding and social media to address issues is the same problem with using voting systems to select government representatives - you mostly just end up with media-savvy, charismatic people - and not necessarily the most deserving, talented, or qualified. Perhaps the most deserving fundee (is that a word?) is not familiar enough with marketing tactics to build a fundraising campaign. An…

> But we'll never know, because our systems rely on popularity. And on self-confidence! I have worked hard my entire life, have written about 20 books, and have lived under the poverty threshold pretty my entire life. Why? Because I do not like to be at the center of attention. You do not even have to be charismatic (although that helps a lot). Just being able to be self-confident in the presence of people goes a lon…

I think there's more to it than that, at least for you. I just looked over your site and just guessing but you could almost certainly be making $200k+ at a FAANG as an individual contributor, which doesn't require you to be the center of attention at all.

Re: When GoFundMe Gets Ugly

#42

Post by Vaskivo »

stevespang wrote: post #4

“The White Savior Industrial Complex is not about justice,” Teju Cole wrote in 2012. “It is about having a big emotional experience that validates privilege.” You see this everywhere, like the wealthy people who sign up to feed the homeless Thanksgiving Dinner at the Salvation Army Kitchen. Then later they drive home to their warm mansions while the homeless go back to their cold makeshift cardboard tents under the o…

Yes, that is true.

But, do we want people doing charity for the wrong reasons or do we want them not to do it at all?

Related link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio...

Re: When GoFundMe Gets Ugly

#43

Post by oh_sigh »

9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #10
vorpalhex wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, they shouldn't of fed the homeless.

Give me a man a fish vs teach a man to fish. The system in the US is broken, the Thanksgiving dinner for the homeless is only a flimsy bandaid, and the real reason it's pernicious is because now the volunteer can sit back in the warm glow of approval on Facebook/Instagram and think "There! Now I've done my part".

Should you let a man starve while he is learning to fish?

Re: When GoFundMe Gets Ugly

#44

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

WalterBright wrote: post #29
onion2k wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a very strong argument that wealth inequality does in fact cause problems like systemic homelessness. One person hoarding massive amounts of wealth generates a much smaller number of jobs and opportunities than many people having a moderate amount of wealth. So, maybe they do cause these problems.

> One person hoarding massive amounts of wealth generates a much smaller number of jobs and opportunities than many people having a moderate amount of wealth. Wealthy people do not store money in Scrooge McDuck cash vaults. It's all invested, which creates jobs and opportunities.

Like, this seems to be empirically false. We can see this from the changes around 1980 (Reagan/Thatcher). We have seen that wealth concentration has increased, as have asset prices, whereas entreprenuership has not, and neither has small business creation.

Re: When GoFundMe Gets Ugly

#45

Post by WalterBright »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #44
WalterBright wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One person hoarding massive amounts of wealth generates a much smaller number of jobs and opportunities than many people having a moderate amount of wealth. Wealthy people do not store money in Scrooge McDuck cash vaults. It's all invested, which creates jobs and opportunities.

Like, this seems to be empirically false. We can see this from the changes around 1980 (Reagan/Thatcher). We have seen that wealth concentration has increased, as have asset prices, whereas entreprenuership has not, and neither has small business creation.

Where do you think the wealthy hoard their cash?

Re: When GoFundMe Gets Ugly

#46

Post by zozbot234 »

oh_sigh wrote: post #41
nils-m-holm wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But we'll never know, because our systems rely on popularity. And on self-confidence! I have worked hard my entire life, have written about 20 books, and have lived under the poverty threshold pretty my entire life. Why? Because I do not like to be at the center of attention. You do not even have to be charismatic (although that helps a lot). Just being able to be self-confident in the presence of people goes a lon…

I think there's more to it than that, at least for you. I just looked over your site and just guessing but you could almost certainly be making $200k+ at a FAANG as an individual contributor, which doesn't require you to be the center of attention at all.

The best part about that website is the OLED-optimized dark+green theme.

Re: When GoFundMe Gets Ugly

#47

Post by zozbot234 »

cyborgx7 wrote: post #24
cm2012 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: 'theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron'"

This quote doesn't apply to this at all. That quote is making fun of centrists. You are applying it from a centrist perspective to a leftist argument about individual acts of charity not contributing to the solution of systematic issues.

Sometimes you have to give a man a fish before you can teach them to fish, or even buy them a nice fishing boat. It's disingenuous to claim that the former is not "contributing to the solution of systematic issues", simply because it doesn't directly address those.

Re: When GoFundMe Gets Ugly

#48

Post by zozbot234 »

chii wrote: post #16
9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give me a man a fish vs teach a man to fish. The system in the US is broken, the Thanksgiving dinner for the homeless is only a flimsy bandaid, and the real reason it's pernicious is because now the volunteer can sit back in the warm glow of approval on Facebook/Instagram and think "There! Now I've done my part".

>"There! Now I've done my part". they indeed have done their part. The problem isn't caused by these people.

Nope, they really haven't. They're basically wasting their effort on largely pointless labor, whereas they could be achieving a lot more simply by donating an equivalent fraction of the income they earn via what work they've actually specialized for. But that wouldn't be as visible or salient, and thus rewarding from a pure virtue-signalling POV.

Re: When GoFundMe Gets Ugly

#49

Post by zozbot234 »

onion2k wrote: post #31
WalterBright wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That inefficiency is actually good if you want more jobs. Inefficiency does not create jobs. It means you can't compete and you spent the money and went out of business. > a billionaire buying a $100m yacht from a Korean shipbuilder is great for creating jobs in Korea, but it doesn't help much at home Because of the way trade works, equal value flows both ways.

Inefficiency does not create jobs. Of course it does, otherwise jobs would never be made redundant when companies merge.

The value that's created by making those jobs "redundant" flows back to investors, and is immediately put into other productive opportunities. Except that the companies are now doing more with less which is typically good for consumers, monopoly concerns aside.

Re: When GoFundMe Gets Ugly

#50

Post by cyborgx7 »

zozbot234 wrote: post #47
cyborgx7 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This quote doesn't apply to this at all. That quote is making fun of centrists. You are applying it from a centrist perspective to a leftist argument about individual acts of charity not contributing to the solution of systematic issues.

Sometimes you have to give a man a fish before you can teach them to fish, or even buy them a nice fishing boat. It's disingenuous to claim that the former is not "contributing to the solution of systematic issues", simply because it doesn't directly address those.

Nobody is against feeding the homeless in soup kitchens. And it's disingenuous to imply anyone said so. The problem is that this is usually all these rich people do. Often times actively working against the systematic changes that would be necessary to solve the problem.
Post reply on HN