Right now, most people in the US work for free 3-4 months out of the year via taxes. This is theft as well, but interestingly enough it has a smaller overhead then taxes, which nearly all of the funds are transferred to the 1%.
GoodWill ransomware forces victims to donate to the poor
131–140 of 366 posts
Re: GoodWill ransomware forces victims to donate to the poor
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone apparently got arrested for offering candy to kids though, so I wouldn't count on it. https://www.shawlocal.com/2020/10/26/man-charged-with-disord...
I mean, rolling down the window offering candy to strangers is the literal textbook example of a 70s predator, so it’s extremely suspicious. Hand out candy while walking and it won’t be that bad.
It's a comical stereotype of a pedophile that it's almost laughable that police took it seriously. I wonder what came out of that "disorderly conduct" charge, because what did he do other than remind someone of a stereotype?
Re: GoodWill ransomware forces victims to donate to the poor
#133Tangentially, I dislike strongly when people record videos of themselves doing "goodwill" for others—especially for social media; it always reeks [to me] of insincerity. Not to mention the often unwanted spotlight it casts onto the receiver of said goodwill. If one cares, one does acts of goodwill privately, without thinking about how others will react—including and especially—on the internet. "The true test of a man…
"Oh, the best charity is to give and not let other people know. But what if your example encourages others to give?"
I've personally been inspired by seeing these acts in real life. I don't get the same feeling when the person is holding a camera phone in the face of a bewildered recipient. Sorry.
Re: GoodWill ransomware forces victims to donate to the poor
#134Tangentially, I dislike strongly when people record videos of themselves doing "goodwill" for others—especially for social media; it always reeks [to me] of insincerity. Not to mention the often unwanted spotlight it casts onto the receiver of said goodwill. If one cares, one does acts of goodwill privately, without thinking about how others will react—including and especially—on the internet. "The true test of a man…
I think the primary reason for this reaction is not just the inclination to be suspicious of virtue signaling when it's too obvious, but the fear of social pressure these public displays of charity might cause. We don't want to have to feel like we're forced to imitate.
That's totally fair but then we also complain all the time that media is only filled with negativity and despair. Let's be rational and appreciate public displays of good deeds for what they are, good. If some people use these as a distraction from mischievous deeds on the backside, that's an other matter.
Re: GoodWill ransomware forces victims to donate to the poor
#135Tangentially, I dislike strongly when people record videos of themselves doing "goodwill" for others—especially for social media; it always reeks [to me] of insincerity. Not to mention the often unwanted spotlight it casts onto the receiver of said goodwill. If one cares, one does acts of goodwill privately, without thinking about how others will react—including and especially—on the internet. "The true test of a man…
100%. Amen to that. I've read somewhere that all donations that Paul McCartney makes come with a rider that if his name is leaked, the donation is withdrawn. Regardless of whether this is true, I think that's the way to donate if it comes from your heart.
There is nothing less charitable than threatening a charity. If that rider is true then he is a jerk. The only reason to do that is because he wants the charity to congratulate him, yet keep quiet. If he wanted to make an actual anonymous donation then he could do so though a shell company. But no, he wants them to see where the money is coming from so they can shake his hand and smile at him for his benevolence. Want to be actually anonymous: cash in an envelope in the donation bin.
Re: GoodWill ransomware forces victims to donate to the poor
#136Tangentially, I dislike strongly when people record videos of themselves doing "goodwill" for others—especially for social media; it always reeks [to me] of insincerity. Not to mention the often unwanted spotlight it casts onto the receiver of said goodwill. If one cares, one does acts of goodwill privately, without thinking about how others will react—including and especially—on the internet. "The true test of a man…
[deleted]
Re: GoodWill ransomware forces victims to donate to the poor
#137What is next? Be healthy ransomware? Forcing people to exercise on camera, for keys?
[deleted]
Re: GoodWill ransomware forces victims to donate to the poor
#138This is probably obvious to anyone but there isn't anything "good" about this, I expected this to be something along the lines of a crypto donation to GiveDirectly but this is just a sick wannabe Blackmirror power play.
It's the specifics that give it away. "Take 5 poor children from your neighborhood to Pizza Hut." Screaming kids at Pizza Hut aside, we can't make other people have empathy. They have to find it and explore it themselves, perhaps by seeing others do the same. It's especially ironic that someone with lowered empathy would be demanding someone else show fake empathy publicly before giving them back control of their own…
I just can imagine how I'd convince 5 kids to go to lunch with me, without outright kidnapping them. This sounds like Black Mirror material.
Re: GoodWill ransomware forces victims to donate to the poor
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems to come from India, though the only identifiers seem rather weak. I'll admit I know little about poverty in India, but all three seem possible there.
Doesn't India still have universal healthcare?
Again, I'll admit I know little, but the answer seems like "sort of." Wikipedia says 23% of people can't afford treatment, and hospitalization forces many of people into poverty or lifelong debt.
Re: GoodWill ransomware forces victims to donate to the poor
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can just as well say that property is coercion. Like I get that you won't agree, but you are asserting a value system when you do that.
taking something with the threat of force is not the same as owning something that you traded for in a mutually agreed upon transaction
My point is that it's perfectly valid to argue that ownership itself is coercive.