Hello. I’m new here; this is my first post. I will jump right in. I agree with Rilchiam about the do-gooder attitude and all that. I can’t stand that, either. People who are basically well-to-do being moved to tears (so to speak) by their own generosity toward the Less Fortunate.
Recently, I sat in a diner in NYC. The party at the table behind ours included one woman who talked non-stop. She was carrying on about how she is a volunteer tutor in the Bronx, and those poor kids this and that and they’re so cute and they have to live with drive-by-shootings (lie - drive-by’s was a big thing 10 yrs. ago and it was mainly in LA). And then she jumped to another subject: She couldn’t quite make up her mind about whether she should build a deck or not build a deck and what kind of deck and so on ad nauseam.
The world is full of those types. They think they are treating the Less Fortunate as equals, but they are clearly not. As I was saying to my boyfriend who sat across the table from me, “The only way she wouldn’t be a hypocrite is if she would actually sit here in this very diner with some of those poor Bronx mamas and treat them as their equal, talk to them about her blasted deck or whatever, just like she is talking to her rich f’ing friends.” But of course that would never happen. She would have to avoid the subject discreetly because those poor mamas can’t afford a deck, can’t afford a house, don’t probably even know what a deck is. Any conversation with them that is initiated by rich people is dumbed down to whatever the rich think the poor probably care about and can comprehend. Condescending, pseudo-heart warming crap. Grrrrrrrr. Hate it.
Welcome to the boards, Suspenderzzz. I’m confused about your post. The way I see it, she’d be a real bitch if she did sit there with the “Less Fortunate” folks and talk to them about her deck. I don’t see anything wrong with what this woman was doing, and I don’t see how you got from a woman talking about her volunteer work to a haughty snob patronizing the underlings.
Besides, would you rather they didn’t help out at all?
Rilchiam, the show itself, and so many other programs on TV today, are offensive (to me) in the simple fact that I believe we can do better.
Some people find it entertaining, great! That in itself has some intrinsic value. I don’t really get it though, then again I never thought Married w/ Children, The Simpsons, B&Butthead, Jim Carey, etc.(really long list) were quality television either, just too dumb for my taste.
I’ve watched KotH a few times to give it a chance. It’s not as bad as some.
Suspenderzzz, your attitude reminds me of something I’ve encountered recently. I’m a do-gooder type in that I have been working to help the poor for years. I don’t do it because it makes me feel good about myself; I do it because it seems like the right thing to do. In fact, I hate it when people say, “That’s so noble.” So I guess that means I’m not the do-gooder type. Lately a friend who’s a wealthy, corporate, do-badder type has taken to criticizing me for not being as poor as the people I’m trying to help. The thing is, I’m pretty broke, which is pretty hard to deal with when I could easily get a high paying job. If everyone who helped the poor had to take a vow of poverty, no one would be helping the poor.
what? chula, could you run that by me again, a little more logically this time?
I’m not trying to be condescending, just trying to follow your reasoning. Seems like a NOT or two got misplaced.
I would think “his” criticism would be that you ARE as poor as the people you are helping.
AND… that if more people tried being poor they would do MORE to help those in need.
The biggest problem I’ve found in wealthy individuals and their charities is that many of them are involved for the social recognition. Evidenced by their names hanging everywhere. Many have very little to do actually, “old money” so they seek purpose through social projects. They really couldn’t care less about the individuals they are “helping”.
But, it matters not to those desperate for assistance.
Many had to swallow their pride a long time ago, often with no choice in the matter.
The point is that in an ideal world the poor would be better off all helping each other instead of depending on condescending charity from the suburbs. But they are too busy competing to stay alive to care about their neighbor. That is their downfall. (If anyone thinks that competition is fierce at the top, they would be mistaken. The competition in the professional world is a love-fest compared to how the poor compete and sell each other down the river at the drop of a hat if it gets down to raw survival.)
Anyway, if someone who is well off helps the poor, fine. But I find it tremendously tasteless to sit around and BRAG about it, especially while secretly thanking ones lucky stars about how well off you are and how grateful you are to be well-off and how you take so much for granted and puke puke puke.
Help the poor, but do it anonymously. I mean, tell nobody about it. Don’t tell your friends. Don’t tell your family. Don’t ever use your volunteer work on a resume or in any other way to collect brownie points for your own selfish purposes. That last one is especially important.
These people go home and say, “you won’t believe how those poor people live, man, the sights I’ve seen, I never thought anyone could live like that, all the things we take for granted…”
Anyone who finds that attitude not condescending needs to have a few adjustments made upstairs. If you can help someone in need, do it, but be completely mum about it (in other words, let the subjects of your generosity hang on to a shred of didnity and not have their private lives gossiped about by rich people, when they are not even there to defend themselves and add their own viewpoint). Only then are you not a hypocrite.
I find it interesting thatyou believe simply telling other people you’ve done a good deed is immediately selfish. Did it ever occur to you that by telling someone, for example, that you just donated blood, you will inspire them to do the same?
There would be far fewer people performing acts of charity if they never told a living soul about it.
dantheman, it is one thing to discreetly tell someone who might be interested in volunteer work about what you do and how to go about getting volunteer work. It’s a whole other animal to sit in a public place and bullhorn your “good deed” at high volume and in non-flattering (for the subjects) detail. That’s just being full of one’s self.
And not to mention the lies and incaccuracies. There are no more drive-by shootings in the Bronx. If there ever where. If there ever are any, it would probably be a freak, isolated, occurance that could happen anywhere (no, I’m not from the Bronx – I have no personal interest in any of this; I just hate liars and braggers).
Those suburbanites hear “ghetto”, and they automatically attach all the stereotypes without even veryfying the facts. I think your argument that this type of bragging would actually inspire someone else to do volunteer work in the ghetto is very thin at best. People who will do that don’t need to be told. They know how to take the initiative and find it on their own.
Granted, I didn’t hear the conversation in the Diner but I think you might be presuming a lot about “do-gooders”. How is it wrong to acknowledge that you are grateful for the things you have once you have seen someone else with a harder life? I think the more tasteless thing would be to see these things and to not be affected by it - to not see how fortunate you are.
Maybe what you perceive as “bragging” is actually someone talking about a situation that really moved them - maybe as dantheman suggested, they are trying to raise awareness for a cause that needs more volunteers.
Not everyone who volunteers is rich, though it shouldn’t really matter if they are or not.
I like to see things from the perspective of all involved. Try to see it from the perspective of the ghetto person.
If you were one of those people with a “harder life”, as you put it, how would you feel about being held up as a negative example? How would you feel about being used by someone for the sole purpose of reassuring themselves that their life is good? (And, to add insult to injury, they are usually not as enviable as they think they are, anyway. Half the time they suffer from delusions of grandeur.)
I like to see things from the perspective of all involved. Try to see it from the perspective of the ghetto person.
If you were one of those people with a “harder life”, as you put it, how would you feel about being held up as a negative example? How would you feel about being used by someone for the sole purpose of reassuring themselves that their life is good? (And, to add insult to injury, they are usually not as enviable as they think they are, anyway. Half the time they suffer from delusions of grandeur.)
Well, I’m glad you’re making the distinction, because it seemed to me that you were lumping all talk about good deeds into one pile.
Well, I made no mention of the ghetto; you did. But you’re deluding yourself somewhat, methinks, and are painting with quite a broad brush. I think it’s very unlikely that every person who has ever performed a charitable act did so simply because they took the initiative and did it all on their own. Have you never heard of food drives? Blood drives? Are you saying that because the people who participate in these drives heard about the drives through a third party (the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, advertising, etc.) are lesser people? Are you saying these contributions are basically worthless?
I don’t think you’re seeing it from the perspective of all involved at all. Do you honestly think that all needy people deeply resent the fact that people are doing nice things (i.e. donating time, energy, money, and goods) for them? Sure, they may resent the fact that they’re in that position themselves, but resent the people doing the deed? Not likely.
I think if I was on the receiving end of some charitable act, I wouldn’t really give a damn why anyone was doing it - if I needed help & they provided it, their motivation (if it is sinister and self-serving) is not important to me - so long as it gets done.
You didn’t really answer my question.
Again, I doubt that most who volunteer are rich, self-serving braggarts. And even if they were, who cares? Their money is being used to do good, regardless of their views.
I think you are absolutely wrong about that. People DO resent it, even if it is at a deeply subconscious level and they are not aware of it themselves. They feel they have to act grateful (guilt factor), and human nature dictates that that gives a person an inferiority complex in the long run. It may never make its way to the surface in the recipient’s lifetime, but being consistently (I’m not talking about a one-time lended hand) at the receiving end of “good deeds” breeds a sense of rage and potentially violence. I have never been in that position myself, but it takes just an ounce of social awareness to see what a lifetime of being a charity recipient can do to a person’s morale.
And don’t get blood drives and such mixed up with helping the less fortunate and less educated. Those are two completely different types of charity.
To echo what dantheman said, how do you get there from this?
I totally agree with dantheman and Slainte. There’s nothing wrong with anyone talking about their volunteer work or donations. Sure, there are some rich snobs who probably do it just to make themselves feel good. But I’m sure there are also plenty of truly kind-hearted, compassionate ones who give.
So I’m still not seeing your point. As for being a negative example, I’m not sure where this is coming from. If someone says or implies that they don’t want to wind up like a particular homeless person, what’s wrong with this? It’s not condescending, it’s the truth. It’s the human instinct to be comfortable. I’ll go back to what I said earlier: If someone has a problem with me donating overtly, it’s just that: their problem.
On preview I see you’ve made another post, of which I have more issues, but I’ll just point out one. If you’re talking a lifetime of charity reception, then I suspect any rage or low morale issues are a bit more deep-rooted than a subconscious resentment of said charity.
Um… You’ve never been in this position yourself, but you feel supremely confident that all people in that position feel that way? Explain the logic underlying this conclusion. I think it’s particularly arrogant to presume to speak for an entire people when you’re not one of them and never have been.
Explain how they’re different. Are you trying to say blood drives do not help the less fortunate?
And what’s the education level have to do with anything? There are no educated homeless people?
Okay, I’m not budging from my opinion, and you have a right to yours. I think I have made my point, and everything else is just repetition. This subject is beginning to bore me. You go on and keep on beating your dead horse. Onward and upward.
So I guess that references to:
-Pablo Neruda
-Gore Vidal and Susan Sontag
-Rashomon
-Norman Mailer
-Stephen Hawking
-Toni Morrison and Amy Tan
-The Birth of Venus
-Ernest Hemingway
-Taylor, Tyler, Fillmore, Hayes, and William Henry Harrison (I died in thirty days)
-The battle of New Orleans
-Gilbert and Sullivan
-Hamlet
-Stephen Gay Gould
and
-Edgar Allen Poe
are really quite lowbrow compared to most of your pursuits? (And that was just off the top of my head)
Crikey.
Dear Max, I realize that many of these shows contain deeper messages within the episodes from time to time. I also recognize some of the more subtle aspects and references the writers attempt to bring to their audience.
It’s similar to a person watching the movie instead of reading the book. While the movie may captivate your attention, it lacks the depth attained in the author’s original work(usually). I enjoy a few sitcoms(very few). But, I don’t try to fool myself into thinking that they are enlightening.
A casual reference to Kierkegaard in a cartoon isn’t a substitute for studying his works. Simply repeating Stephen Hawking’s name a few times or quoting Hemingway doesn’t make a show worth watching.
If I could get through all the ignorant shit that takes place on many of these programs and cut to the meat, as it were, then I could probably justify the time spent in front of the TV.
(It adds up quick) think about it!
When/if you go to a video store, do you look at the choices and say to yourself, “I’ve seen them all.” ? I hate to think I spent that many years of my life sitting in front of the tube.
As I said before,“it’s just my opinion.” This is IMHO, right?
So, don’t get too upset about. I’m probably wrong anyway,
The Simpsons is probably the greatest show in history.
They’ll be running it long after I’m gone and nobody’ll know my name.
Peace~ t-keela, that’s a good idea, think I’ll go have a shot.
The hamsters are out of their cages tonight! I posted the previous message over two hours ago and it still hasn’t shown up on the boards. It’s in the thread, but the board shows the last thread posted by Max at 9:46…(aaagh…come here you furry little fu**)