Well if he is on my side than I guess I can just wait for him to declare that we have won, and I don’t need to add anything else.
Ogre, for what it is worth, I still don’t see what harm the other thread was doing anyone, and why you felt the need to get that upset over it. I don’t see why it matters how donations are made, as long as they are getting made (by those who can). Having said that, my first post in this thread certainly added nothing of worth, and for that I apologize.
Actually, he posted his real name so long ago most people have now forgotten. Thus, while he is not anonymous, he is still not being more self-congratulatory then the rest.
It’s smug, immodest, and tacky. Hardly enough to warrant a world war, but enough to make me angry about it. Especially the “well, I hardly have enough to eat, and my mom needs her pills, and my little brother will have to wear newspaper for shoes, but I donated my last two coppers. I’m so going to heaven.” posts. Yech.
Since I don’t think I’ve ever had an exchange with you in my entire life, you’ll have to pardon me if I don’t particularly overvalue your indictment of my character.
My last post to Scott just about covers it. I read the “Oh woe is me. Guess I’ll have to eat sawdust and rat urine for a week, but never mind that! I donated all my money to the victims of Katrina! Observe my halo!” posts and rolled my eyes. Just donate and spare me the homily. It’s possible that I am generalizing from my reaction to those posts, but I was raised to value modesty and action with a minimum of fuss and bother. It grates on my nerves.
Option one: Spare yourself the homily by means of not reading such threads.
Option two: admit you have a problem. When you read statements like “I donated $20. Wish I could give more.” as "“Oh woe is me. Guess I’ll have to eat sawdust and rat urine for a week, but never mind that! etc.”, than you need to realize that somthing ain’t right.
P.S. You have never met me, true, but I have read your past posts. Everything fits together.
I will say this: I don’t have a lot of money, I will have to scrimp on a few things, but I’m glad I donated, and it made me feel better to be able to share that feeling with other people who were doing the same thing.
I really don’t see the harm it’s doing, and I think it is doing some good – Bricker mentioned that it induced him to donate more, I feel less worried about the expenses I’m cutting back on now that I know other people are doing the same thing. “It’s tacky” isn’t a real problem, if the thread is getting more donations to come in than otherwise.
Here’s how this thread SHOULD have gone. Immediately after Bricker’s post, Ogre should have said “well, I initially thought it was immodest, but I now see that it actually caused more money to be donated, and since that tangible real-world result, which does good things for people who needs it, FAR FAR FAR FAR outweighs the bunch that my panties are in, I apologize to everyone and admit that I was wrong”.
Oh, and Bricker is a fucking good guy. And (even before reading this thread and having something to prove), seeing how generous he was caused me to reconsider whether I couldn’t afford to give some more, which I will in the next few days. And when I do, that will ALSO be enough of a direct positive benefit from the other thread to make any amount of snooty hurt feelings irrelevant.
I too understand where Ogre is coming from.
I’m very familiar with this verse. My parent’s drummed it into me. But I wasn’t looking to get repaid.
I struggled with my self as to whether or not I should start the thread. I did not want to be accused of blowing my own horn. I was aware however that my history of donating hasn’t exactly been consistent and when it occured it was more often than not because of some impulse resulting from the efforts of others.
Carrying this thought further, I reasoned that a rally of sort in this community could have positive results in terms of extracting more money for the victims of Katrina through challenge and the desire of others to participate in a positive event and be part of the community. And this has been born out. The downside for me is Ogre’s contempt for me and others who have published their contribution. Well, that is a very small price to pay.
Let me add that I absolutely trust each and every contribution posted in that thread is accurate, however I never believed the total would be an accurate representation of the total contribution of all dopers. Many will be too uncomfortable to publish their donation and many will be unaware of this particular thread. The total is just a score Ogre that represents a minimum.
But hell, those of us who are participating along with our desire to help are having fun and getting connected in a common drive to get the total up.
But what’s wrong with that? Having the support and admiration from a community for charitable acts seems a very good motivator and reward. No? Don’t they deserve patting on the back?
I think so. To that end: Bricker et al, good show!
Bolding mine.
I have no dog in this fight. I also don’t know Bricker other than from his posts. (in which he sounds like a great guy) My thoughts are not about Bricker, as much as the process as a whole.
But your reward comment got my attention. I quoted Matthew earlier. Here’s the fuller context of those verses:
I still believe that charity should be characterized by anonymity. It’s where you want your reward to come from.
I also noted that if, in the end, the MPSIMS thread does more good, than it’s all good.
OK. After reading grienspace’s and Bricker’s posts, let me dial back my contempt and apologize. If what they say is true, then it’s inarguable that the thread had positive effects.
I have very strong beliefs about charity, and any sort of self-promotion in the context of someone else’s need or tragedy makes me profoundly uncomfortable. I generally have a traditional Southerner’s loathing of attention-seeking and immodesty. I no doubt would have had no problem with an email-oriented approach to a “minimum running tally” of donations, but I’m repelled by anything that smacks to me of “Oo! Oo! Look at me! I’m wonderful!” It invariably makes me think that the person is ghoulishly trying to experience part of the tragedy vicariously.
Having also seen the slimy, dark underbelly of the Dope on more than one occasion, there is little doubt in my mind that there are people in this community who are perfectly capable of lying about whatever donation they claim for the sake of a few cyber-kudos. The belief otherwise is simply naive. I’ve seen behavior here at least as dishonest as this in the past. There are plenty of attention-whores and Munchausen Syndrome gasbags here. I should say, however, that I have absolutely no suspicions in this regard about any specific poster in this or the other thread. I merely state that it has, and does, happen…and is perhaps a contributing factor to my cynicism.
Having said all that, yes, I’m a cynic. Obviously.
However, I apologize for my highjack of the other thread, and I also apologize for the assumption that posters’ motivation might be less than pure, when I had no specific knowledge otherwise, and that such a thread could do no tangible good.
So, raindog… what you (or rather Matthew) are saying is that those who give anonymously will get a reward from an almighty god, but those who announce their donations on a message board get no reward beyond a fleeting recognition from others who bother to read that thread? Seems to me that the non-anonymous ones are the most selfless, then.
(To save the Father in Heaven from the inconvenience of shipping a reward to me in Hell (I’m an atheist, so if Matthew & co are right I won’t miss my mittens in the afterlife), I’d better announce that I donate to several charities, although I don’t think I’ll give to the Katrina victims. It’s a worthy cause, and I don’t doubt that they need it, but, well, so does others. There is, unfortunately, no shortage of misery on this planet.)
Um, and if I’d bothered to preview, I wouldn’t have posted a snarky comment to another poster right after a gracious apology from the OP. Sorry about that, Ogre.
Well, I have to admit I really don’t understand the reasoning your present, but then again I’m not religious at all. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to want to earn the respect and admiration of your peers, and I think it would be a great thing if people thought that charity was praise worthy. I mean, hell, if giving to charity not only did good for the world, but made people treat you better, where’s the harm done? Even if someone is doing it only for the ‘glory’, people are still getting helped.
I don’t think it’s a matter of harm. (nor is the element of harm a pre-requisite as to whether something is appropriate or not)
Nor is my opinion (and apparently Ogre’s) necessarily the only [valid] one. The country is full of hospitals and universities that have wings built by alumni money. When a significant donor is involved, the whole building is named after them.
On a smaller scale, many companies have regular United Way drives. I think most people would consider it in poor taste if they posted each employees contribution on the company intranet.
It is my simple opinion that charity should be characterized by anonymity, whether you’re giving $50 to the ARC or building a wing on your alma mater.
Charity is a self-less act. In the spirit of self-lessness, many people feel it is best to remain anonymous, even among those who are not religious.
But I agree----and I’ve noted twice in this thread— that ultimately it’s the results that count. The victims of Katrina have been helped by members of our community. And that’s a good thing.
You pretty much nailed my sentiments here, although…
It seems to me to be intellectual contortion-ism to imply (if I understand you correctly…) that by accepting the lesser (comparitively speaking) of the “rewards” one is being more “self-less.”
That works for me only by assuming that someone would make no qualitative distinction between instant gratification and deferred gratification; and between a temporal reward vs a spiritual reward.
A non-spiritual person places little or no value, in relative terms, to the supposed spiritual reward articulated in Matthew 6. A religious person may place a much greater value on the spiritual reward and may opt for deferred gratification. (requiring anonymity)
No matter who is right or wrong (and they may both be right) I don’t know of anyone who would value them the same.