From the link (which I appear to be the first person to open - best feature of Discourse hands down):
That would make an excellent contribution to the “Stupid Progressive Idea of the Day” thread if one was created. Apparently all wealth is inherently built on “injustice” by definition and the only way to atone is to give it all up. And if that’s not the message you’re giving to donors, you’re apparently “coddling” them.
The idea is distinctly illiberal and I suspect most of the people who peddle such nonsense view “liberal” as a pejorative term.
You don’t have to “adhere to the comfort of donors” if you don’t want to, but then I wouldn’t recommend getting into a line of work where you literally rely on their charity.
I wouldn’t say “all”, myself, but something like 95%, sure. I mean of the 1% - the big donor class - here.
Well, yes. That’s the only kind of atonement that matters. As opposed to the performative windowdressing that trickles out of our modern robber baron and slaveholder descendants.
I wouldn’t say “pejorative” - “dismissive” or “skeptical” are possibly better fits.
You don’t have to “adhere to the comfort of donors” if you don’t want to, but then I wouldn’t recommend getting into a line of work where you literally rely on their charity.
You’re treating donor comfort as an unavoidable fact of life when it’s actually just the current power relationship. “f you don’t like the conditions, don’t take the money” is hardly a rousing defence of the current conditions from you.
Some PoCs in the NP space think that the power relationship can be changed (and since you read that article, you’ve read of at least one instance where that seemed to work). And that’s work that can only really be done from within the NP space. Those PoCs are asking their White colleagues to stand with them (as some are doing), not get in their way (as most will).
I’m still interested in whether @Spice_Weasel still thinks this is a White-led effort.
ISTM that the underlying problem is a society in which charity is necessary. A truly just society would take care of everyone, and charities would have no purpose.
I think you’ve made that comment before. Just an FYI, that counter isn’t accurate. I’ve had plenty of times where a link in a post doesn’t have a number next to it even though I know it must have at least one view since I clicked on it earlier or someone else quoted it in the thread.
I’ll sometimes copy a link — and read the material without updating the counter — and then see if the person who posted it will jump to the conclusion that I didn’t actually read the linked material.
It would, but nobody’s come up with such a system that enough people can live with. In pre-modern days, charity wasn’t necessary because the family unit could take care of things, and later smaller communities could pull together for the common good. The church, for all its flaws, is one manifestation of that. But of course none of these scales to society’s current size and heterogeneity. Family and community units aren’t nearly big enough, and religious groups always have competing agendas.
Charity fulfills people’s need to lift up people and causes of their choosing. There is much more we can and should do at the government level to provide a strong floor and a ladder, so that there’s only so far people can fall, and so they can climb out if they’ve done so.
But there are limits to how much people are willing to surrender their resources for the benefit of anonymous strangers under systems that they don’t really influence. The more alienated the effort becomes from the cause, the more the participants resist, and the more coercion and violence is required to make it work. Wev’e seen this over and over in every attempt to move that slider further toward state control and farther from individual autonomy.
It’s misguided to suppose that all public aid can be fobbed off on charity, but it’s likewise also misguided to suppose that self-directed charity has no place in a just society.
This is an overly rosy view of the pre-modern system. It is true that families and communities pulled together for the common good, because that was the only option not because it worked. Many a family and community was wiped out by famine, war and pestilence because there was no larger group they could turn to for support.
Or more precisely, “Why would you possibly expect them to give YOU money” - you, and not someone else? There are many, many charities out there, all of them just and noble, all of them competing for the same money. In such a cutthroat business, why should someone choose you instead of someone else?
All the other reason people donate to particular charities or causes, besides having their asses kissed.
“Worry about what they want” and “kowtow to them with ass-kissery” are not the same thing.
NPs needs money from donors, yes, but it’s not a one-way transaction.
The same reasons they do now: personal connection, genuine belief in the cause covered, ideological connections, desire for reputation or influence in that area, guilt, effectiveness, and - very rarely - simply wanting to help.
All thosee other charities are also kissing their asses now, so why do they choose the ones they do now?
They chose the ones they did for a variety of reasons, including flattery. People are people, and most of them like it when other people are nice to them. It’s a cynical take, but its pretty much true: if all of the charities are selling the same product, at the same price, then the only place they have to compete is in service - and service means kissing people’s asses.
No, that’s why they would give money to charity in general. That’s not what I asked; I asked why you would expect them to give money to you.
You made it clear that when you say “having their asses kissed” you actually mean “not lecturing them about how their wealth is ontologically unjust and they should be ashamed of themselves”. Why would you expect them to give money to someone who despises them publically?
Again, this is what we are talking about here:
Why would they give their money to you and not to a different charity that doesn’t hate them and think that they shouldn’t exist?
I mean, don’t get me wrong, if that’s how you want to run your charity, relying on the handful of nutcases who inherit a bunch of money they’re disgusted by like the examples in the linked article, you can go right ahead. But if that charity fails, and you whine about how it’s because the system is evil, I’m not gonna have much sympathy for your stupidity.
If it was true that “ass kissing” (read: “not going on a tirade about wealth being ontologically evil”) was some enormous and destructive burden that prevents charities from doing good work, then charities that don’t bother with that should be performing much better (in the sense that per dollar spent they can achieve much better results) and they could use that as a selling point. But I’ve seen absolutely no evidence that this is the case.
That said, viewing charities as products and services, I’m sure that there IS a market for self righteous self flagellation, so maybe insulting your donors isn’t such a bad idea after all…
My wife was working as a sous-chef at the Russian Tea Room on September 11, 2001. On September 12, while the kitchen staff were spending every free moment they had making free sandwiches for rescue workers, the Red Cross reserved the entire second floor of the restaurant for a week so it could wine and dine potential donors. A big catastrophe means big money, don’t you know.
So first of all, fuck the Red Cross. Second of all, apparently that’s how the business works. Big charities spend more of the money they raise on fundraising (including executive salaries) than they do on the causes they actually raise money for.
That’s not the case. Some charities cover the same issues, but they don’t all cover the same ones and the ones that do, don’t all do it the same way. Or at the same price.
There are other kinds of service besides ass-kissing: competence, transparency, effectiveness, responsiveness, visibility, just to name a few.
No, like I said - particular charities. See the rest of my response - where I responded to Alessan was also in response to you.
No, I meant what I said. The lecture, or not, is orthogonal to the ass-kissing, or not.
I’m not going to kink-shame.
Telling that that’s your gloss on letting people know the facts about the source of their wealth. Nothing about the actual cites I gave speak of hate - in fact, the PoCs frequently speak of the donors as friends.
Hate is what you brought to the table, there, not the PoC workers in the industry.
There are some bizarre ideas here about how charities work. There’s no difference in charities except how the donors get treated? Getting donors to believe in your mission means nothing? Treating donors to a dinner is the same as kowtowing to them?
Bloviating about how wealth is inherently acquired through unjust means is not “letting people know the facts about the source of their wealth”. Neither is randomly bringing up slavery as if it has anything to do with anything. A quarter of billionaire wealth in the US is held by foreign born immigrants, and the percent is much higher if you include anyone whose family immigrated after after 1866.
That’s not “hate” in the same sense that Christians “hate the sin not the sinner” when it comes to gay people.
I work at a private school. Even with the tuition we charge, we still rely on donations to support our budget. Every year we have a big gala to woo donors, and last year I won a couple of seats at it in the faculty raffle.
It struck me as incredibly inefficient: Here we are renting out a hotel and catering a fancy meal and so on, when we could just be sending the donors an email that costs nothing asking them to donate. But the thing is, it works. We get a lot more donations through our big gala than we do through all of the humbler fundraisers, even when you consider the costs of putting it on. We could choose to forego the gala, but then we would get in a lot less money, and would need to either raise tuition or cut costs, neither of which we want to do.