Excess Money & Charity

[chenda]

Hmmm, I thought these types of discussions weren’t allowed here?

A wise man once said:..

Indeed!

[jennypenny]

I dunno, I feel like it's ok to discuss how/why/whether to give money to charity without discussing or supporting specific charities (unless only given as examples to make a point).


In recent years, I've given much more to people in my immediate circle of influence. That doesn't really feel like 'charity' to me though. If someone in Stepford has fallen on hard times, it's terrible for them and I want to help them, but they aren't really deserving of charity, are they? My helping them is what family/friends/communities are supposed to do as part of that group ... it's not really charity in the 'giving selflessly' or 'poverty-stricken' sense. Honestly, it's very rare for western people with any kind of piggy bank to encounter true poverty or need first hand, so it's hard to find opportunities that would count as true charity. It is for me, anyway. I can find plenty of people who need help and I help them more than I used to, yet I classify that as being a supportive member of my own little world. That's why I distinguish between what I do for people 'in my world' and what I do for people who are truly in need.

I'm not a big fan of giving to large NGOs, but it's the only way I know how to help make a difference in places where I have no influence. They use a fairly large percentage of donations for overhead, but in essence, that % is what you're paying them to administer your charity dollars so you don't have to do it yourself. Could they be more efficient? Sure. Should you be careful to choose only the ones with the best results and transparency? Yes. Should you do some research to learn what kinds of assistance produce the best outcomes? Yes. But to write them off entirely because they use some of the money to do the legwork that most people don't have time for seems unfair to the potential recipients of the charitable efforts.

I personally don't see donating to organizations like Planned Parenthood or AARP as charity since most of the point of the donation is to influence policy regarding a particular group. OTOH, I do see doing things like sponsoring and escorting disadvantaged women to PP appointments or offering meals and companionship to needy elderly as charity. Maybe this is all my own quirky world view ... how I distinguish between charity and support, or how I distinguish between political support and charity ... and why I don't see this as crossing the line re: political discussions.

[jacob]

Hmmm, I thought these types of discussions weren’t allowed here?

Indeed!

I guess it's unresolved conflict day on the forum (again) then...

Let me try to explain what the [ERE] forum is and how it actually works as an online community and an aggregation of knowledge.

You might have heard the proverb about "not seeing the forest for the trees". A analogy for a healthy forum is a forest where people plant trees and bushes around the place to support the growth of other trees and thus becomes something BIGGER, an ecology or a culture, than a simple collection of individual trees.

Based on some conversations I've had over the years---as I said, this is not my first rodeo, more like the 5th or 6th---some people simply don't see the forest or act as if the forest matters to them.

It used to be (pre 2015) that we could discuss anything on the forum more or less objectively---analyzing and eventually agreeing to disagree or simply moving on. However, after 2015 controversial topics became increasingly more tribal or ethnocentric with "us good vs them bad"-type arguments leading the way. Instead of trying to understand the scene, it became about group-validation, feeling good about one's beliefs, and making others feel bad about theirs. In conflict resolution, there are three approaches and people took all of them. Many ignored the threads (what does this have to do with ERE anyway?), some responded aggressively ("No, it is YOU who're the problem"), and some tried the adult approach trying to get people to understand each other like in pre-2015 instead of fighting or winning territory for their cause.

What began to happen after 2018 was that people on the losing side of these random tribal wars began to rage quit and in the process some would burn down half or all the trees they'd ever planted. Almost every time there was an issue 1 or 2 people would leave and proceed to destroy their part of various threads they'd been active in.

I personally have a hard time forgiving someone who deletes a ton of posts on the way out given how much time I've put into this place. I can understand if someone wants to leave the club house, but shredding one's contribution to the projects one has been working on with others as the final act seems callous and unethical.

Some would argue that they were only cutting down their own trees, but it's not hard to see what this kind of destruction did to the forest or the culture of the forum. Holes in threads that had been burned out leaving only ".."-stubs. Why bother leaving a detailed response that others may benefit from if there's a significant risk that the original question or context is simply gone because someone not only got mad and quit but also felt like being destructive on the way out the door. I think of it as a kind of arson on the culture. But some clearly think they should be able to do whatever they want with their own posts---that the forum is but a strangely tolerant platform where statements can be made without concern on how it affects others; that there's basically no community or "paying it forward" when asking for help. It is the only way I can explain why some rage quitters who torched multiple threads come back a few weeks or months later as if nothing happened.

This behavior got worse and worse and so last year, I banned politics and also told people not to try to sneak it in the backdoor elsewhere. The ban was a sad loss because for many politics was the one reason they came to the forum (forest). Politics is the one subject that attracts 99% "us vs them" debates, but it is not politics that's bad. It's "us vs them"-thinking that's bad. Guns don't kill people but they sure make it a lot easier for people to kill people. Similar politics doesn't cause conflicts but politics sure makes it a lot more likely that some people will start a tribal conflict because that's the only way they know how to frame the problem.

Likewise, it's not charity that's bad. It's "us vs them" arguments where charity just becomes a proxy for starting the "us vs them"-argument. There's a big difference between "I'm giving $$$$ to XYZ", where everybody would think "live and let live", and "I've decided to support XYZ because of the atrocities blabla and please tell what else can I do to help these poor people" which would surely trigger some response to the contrary.

Insofar some get the impression and cry bias that some topics are randomly banned or don't understand why some people seem to "get away with it", you're figuratively missing the forest for your favorite tree. This is not a "topic"-problem. It's as if Ann hit Bob with a toy and the teacher told Ann "we don't fight with toys" and then later Ann sees Carl playing with the toy and complains that "I thought toys weren't allowed". It's not WHAT you're talking about, so I can't give you a list of approved topics. It's HOW you're talking about it and to some extent WHY you're talking about it (relevance, like "this forum is not a place for campaign drives").

The forum's rules are almost all written in order to increase the forum's repository of knowledge and tie the community together. However understanding the rules requires understanding and VALUING what the rules are trying to achieve. This seems to be the hardest part to understand. Insofar everybody understood it, we wouldn't need rules.

[steveo73]

That's why I distinguish between what I do for people 'in my world' and what I do for people who are truly in need.

Good point. I don't give a lot even like this but we don't spend a lot. We are paying for an expensive to me event this week for my nieces/nephews/SIL. I just feel this is the right thing to do.

I'm not a big fan of giving to large NGOs, but it's the only way I know how to help make a difference in places where I have no influence. They use a fairly large percentage of donations for overhead, but in essence, that % is what you're paying them to administer your charity dollars so you don't have to do it yourself. Could they be more efficient? Sure. Should you be careful to choose only the ones with the best results and transparency? Yes. Should you do some research to learn what kinds of assistance produce the best outcomes? Yes. But to write them off entirely because they use some of the money to do the legwork that most people don't have time for seems unfair to the potential recipients of the charitable efforts.

I didn't like the posts that are going against this idea. There are lots of people across the world who suffer, it's not their fault and maybe giving away some money to help them provides the best benefit for society.

[GandK]

I'd just like to point out that one need not give money to a charity to be of use to that charity. My husband, 11yo and I have volunteered full time with a religious organization since the beginning of December, and are on the lookout for our next stint. Early retirement enables things like 40 hours a week doing hurricane cleanup, or planting trees, or volunteering on a campaign you believe in. If religious, tithing one's time is also a possibility.

There's always another way.

[steveo73]

I guess it's unresolved conflict day on the forum (again) then...

Good post. I read every word. I feel it's somewhat off topic but my personal opinion (which means diddly squat) is that off topic conversations are cool. I think this is how people communicate.

[steveo73]

I'd just like to point out that one need not give money to a charity to be of use to that charity. My husband, 11yo and I have volunteered full time with a religious organization since the beginning of December, and are on the lookout for our next stint. Early retirement enables things like 40 hours a week doing hurricane cleanup, or planting trees, or volunteering on a campaign you believe in. If religious, tithing one's time is also a possibility.

There's always another way.

You can but it's not me or better put it's not me at this stage of my life.

I was asked yesterday to mind my nephew/niece one day per fortnight/month. I don't really want too. I definitely don't want to donate my time to charity. I'm lazy. I smoke pot. I play guitar.

[Ego]

There are lots of people across the world who suffer, it's not their fault and maybe giving away some money to help them provides the best benefit for society.

There are certainly many who suffer.

I struggle with the proximity problem. The closer I get to the sufferer the better I understand the true nature of their suffering. And when I get really close, I rarely find myself believing that the underlying cause - the real reason the problem exists in the first place - is something that can be solved with money or things money can buy.

When faced with the proximity problem people often shift their focus from closer problems they can understand and know are intractable to more distant problems that they cannot possibly grok. This ungrokability is a feature not a bug. They want the good feelings a donation provides. The inability to fully grasp the problem allows the consequences of the donation to remain a mystery.

Others take a different approach by ignoring the complexity and focusing entirely on the suffering. Their goal is to minimize or eliminate the suffering that they see before them. Consequences be damned. It is the rare individual who can continue on this path for long without truly believing that it is all part of God's plan.

That said, of course in the heat of the moment I would risk ruining my shoes to wade into a shallow puddle to save a drowning child, as the Peter Singer example goes. And I would hope that I would do the same for a child halfway around the world. I just feel like the world is never quite that simple.

[Humanofearth]

I smoke pot. I play guitar.

What about finding people with terminal cancer and donating them some pot and playing music for them?

[steveo73]

What about finding people with terminal cancer and donating them some pot and playing music for them?

That made me laugh. It's also pretty accurate and would suit me to a tee.

You should hear me sing. It ain't pretty.

[ffj]

@jacob

You have a blind spot on this topic regarding "rage quitters" and the like.

I haven't posted in over a year under my old name ffj. I asked you to delete my posts as part of a transition in which you complied. That opened up a flood gate of resentment which concluded with members calling me selfish and ultimately a Jan 6th insurrectionist. I'm not making that up. I wish I were.

My original intention was to continue posting new content but with a much more guarded attempt at privacy, but the mob soured that for me.

Enough about me but it's important to know I write the above for context.

Nobody doubts that you've (jacob) put a ton of work into this forum or that it's an incredible tightrope walk to mediate topics and discussions. But you are ignoring the other half of this equation in that without contributors you wouldn't have a forum. What motivates someone to contribute to the standard this forum normally dictates? Why would someone feel the need to delete posts? Is it as simple as being angry or vindictive or is there more to it? Why do you view it as an assault on you and not a potential indicator that something is wrong with the forum?

I would posit that the contributor is probably hurt in some manner and feels rejected. Why don't they feel like they are part of the community anymore? I have watched mob behavior towards some posters and it was quite ugly to be honest and now they are gone. And their posts.


Anyway, food for thought...

[steveo73]

I struggle with the proximity problem. The closer I get to the sufferer the better I understand the true nature of their suffering. And when I get really close, I rarely find myself believing that the underlying cause - the real reason the problem exists in the first place - is something that can be solved with money or things money can buy.

I see suffering as well but in the world I'm in it's a highly judgemental opinion and I don't think money helps.

So my brother is massively in debt but it's because his wife wants to live a certain lifestyle. My SIL and BIL are hopeless with money but they live the high life. My brother in law for instance has had botox. I find that bizarre.

I have a lower level of consumption than basically everyone I know.

I also get exposed to the high life or fancy food and restaurants and it really doesn't do that much for me. I don't travel. My brother is going on a holiday this week.

And I would hope that I would do the same for a child halfway around the world. I just feel like the world is never quite that simple.

I agree. That is why giving to me is a really tough topic. I've avoided it my whole life and lived by the principle of taking care of myself and family. My approach to get here has been lowering my cost of living.

[Western Red Cedar]

Nords at the Military Guide is a pretty interesting case study on charity and philanthropy in retirement. In his case, he leveraged the knowledge from his career to focus on giving in an area with which he was familiar. I believe he gives all the royalties from his writing to charity. This podcast gets into his approach to angel investing, which is an alternative to traditional charity:

https://www.madfientist.com/the-militar ... interview/