This is charity, not Socialism. This is providing help at the whim of one person’s desires or beliefs. Charity has its place but society should use its resources to offer help to everyone in need.
Edit: And just to be clear, when we talk about socialism, we are talking about democratic socialism. That doesn’t mean there isn’t free market commerce, it just means that the market is regulated. Even the U.S. regulates its free market.
PB&J, fresh veggies and water? I rather dig the trash.
But if we have socialism, how will the rich give the poor people the breadcrumbs to stroke their ego and appear like a benevolent monarch? Think of their feelings!
These people love the sense of broadcasting their “selfless giving”, and totally not for attention and influence.
I’d like to push back on this notion.
Fundamentally it feels like saying, “a good deed is only good if done for the right reason”.
That might be important for religion or some other way to measure individual morality, but as a society it really doesn’t matter. In fact, having some sort of reward for helping others is useful, since it encourages people to be kind.
I would be pleased as punch if the wealthy and powerful were admired for how much they made the world a better place, instead of because of the size of the swimming pool filled with gold coins in their basement.
I’m sorry, this is nice, but a bit problematic?
- Really means gtfo of our dumpster
- At our convenience ie. Opening hours
- limited menu (!)
- “no questions asked” is this some American thing, maybe they would like a chat, is this necessary?
They could just point them in a helpful direction where they can get a selection of food, rn, for free. Does this not exist in America? It’s an attempt at “socialism” but it’s very pb&j fisted
I can’t tell if this is hilarious satire or the dumbest take imaginable
“Yes, gtfo of our dumpster. When we are here we will give you free food, including protein and fresh produce, without hassling you about whether you deserve it or are ‘needy enough’.”
…but that’s not good enough for you because instead of fixing an immediate need like someone’s currently growling stomach, this establishment should tell them to go somewhere else?
My immediate reaction is that the owner probably took the picture himself trying to go viral and immediately took it down. Nothing gets solved in this country anymore unless there’s a dollar to be made and looking like a good person is somehow more important than being a good person. Why would the person even read it on the front door? Why not discretely package some food and put it next to the dumpster with a note stuck to it? Nothing about this makes sense when you analyze it. The few real heroes of this country are unsung, the rest is just virtue signaling.
If there weren’t poors wallowing around in the street, who are they supposed to toss spare change so they can feel Grateful™?
Fundamental misunderstanding. Conservatives would actually call this a win for their side IMO. This is because conservatives believe charity > socialism. If I were to be, er, charitable toward conservatives, I would say it’s because they distrust government but believe in human generosity. They often really do believe in charity though, at least the comparatively sane ones that I know; it’s not something that they just say to deflect.
The problem with charity IMO is that it typically performs quite poorly. The average charity is 100x less effective than the best charities (Givewell), and IIRC this is essentially true regardless of what metric you use for “best.” It’s also fundamentally not a fair way to distribute wealth; it doesn’t help people with different problems equally; and it doesn’t necessarily come from different sources in relation to how much they can give. Most people who donate have a narrow moral circle – they care about some strangers much more than other strangers, based on questionable things like race, proximity, or religion. (Some might object to me citing Effective Altruism here, fair enough, but if you’re already coming from the perspective that charity is the best way to improve the lives of those less fortunate, then it’s really hard to argue with the research EA has done.)
The way I see socialism is essentially scaled-up, fair, and mandatory charity.
But mandatory charity is not charity at all, it’s just highway robbery. Doesn’t matter how fairly the spoils are divided.
Conservatives would actually call this a win for their side IMO.
Abstractly. But as soon as they see it happening in person, they begin frantically dialing the police.
That’s why Houston Food Not Bombs needed to get a court order forbidding the police for repeatedly ticketing them for no reason.
it’s really hard to argue with the research EA has done.
Effective altruism distills all of ethics into an overriding variable: suffering. And that fatally oversimplifies the many ways in which the living world can be valuable. Effective altruism discounts the ethical dimensions of relationships, the rich braid of elements that make up a “good life,” and the moral worth of a species or a wetland.
But setting that aside, the idea of charity is rooted in the theory that you need a popular buy-in before you can achieve significant lasting change.
That’s not wrong on its face. But the modern incarnations of charity are so heavily focused on the populism (flashy PR campaigns, obnoxious and invasive marketing strategies, charity as spectacle to drive more engagement) that they often fail to deliver their states goals.
The issue isn’t merely of one’s moral circle, it is of one’s visual range and economic heft. When you’re relying on a few plutocrats to dictate philanthropic social policy, you’re banking heavily on their omniscience.
I’ll read the rebuttal of EA, but I’ll trade you if you read this EA unmanifesto.
Effective altruism distills all of ethics into an overriding variable: suffering.
This is actually not true. Givewell, for instance, publishes their findings as spreadsheets and lets you set weights on different aspects of human experience you consider to be good or bad.
Effective altruism discounts the ethical dimensions of relationships, the rich braid of elements that make up a “good life,” and the moral worth of a species or a wetland.
This is also just objectively not true and suggests to me you’ve never even talked to an effective altruist. But it is generally believed by EAs that horrible suffering, such as the kinds of suffering caused by easily-preventable illnesses, is much worse than any of the subtle and varied experiences of a good life which can be bought with the same amount of money are good. So if you just want to “do good,” donate to stopping horrible illnesses before donating to subtler causes.
But setting that aside, the idea of charity is rooted in the theory that you need a popular buy-in before you can achieve significant lasting change.
I actually think this is the idea of socialism, not charity. Ozy Brennan again, on difference between leftism and EA:
I think neglectedness is actually the core disagreement between effective altruists and many leftists […] Leftists emphasize organizing and mass participation. From a leftist perspective, all things equal, the fact that a movement is big is a point in favor of joining it. Leftists believe that nothing you do is going to do much good unless it’s part of a broad, coordinated effort to permanently shift the balance of power. […] From an effective altruist perspective, all things equal, the fact that a movement is big is a point against joining it: if lots of people are working on janitorial justice, probably the problem is already well-handled.
I don’t actually believe this about leftism personally, but I think this should be taken evidence against charity being rooted in the need for a popular buy-in.
When you’re relying on a few plutocrats to dictate philanthropic social policy, you’re banking heavily on their omniscience.
Agreed. You may have missed this, but I’m advocating for socialism, not charity.
It’s true, most conservatives want to be entertained and heart-warmed by the idea of feeding the homeless but they don’t want to do it themselves.
And they’re willing to pay more money to not do it rather than do it!
That’s what Jesus is for, outsourced Goodness™
Unless it’s to give them physical support getting through a voting line designed to make people wonder if they should leave the line for survival sake. In which case they don’t want anyone doing it, homeless or not.
Another poor soul saved from the orphan crushing machine. How heartwarming.
A bit off topic, but this is why I avoid communities for “uplifting news”. It sounds like a good concept at first, but then most of the news are based on that.
I don’t want my tax money saving people from destitution. I want that guy to do it so I can read about it on social media.
And they call it doomscrolling! I do it to pat myself on the back!
The love the idea of performative goodness which costs them less than a dollar one time which they can then milk endlessly for good vibes with their fellow man buuuuut they really don’t want to come off $300 every month so that the young woman who works in the same establishment can have enough to feed her kids well. It costs a lot more it scales and nobody personally thanks them or sees them being a good person when they pay the IRS to fund this. If they pay the IRS that is.
Why would the person that goes through the bins go to the front of the shop to look at a piece of paper on the glass. Surely you’d post this on the bin that night?
Feels like I could write a hand written receipt from oxfam, thanking me for the 8 figure donation, and put it on my tinder profile.
My first thought as well.
“Why is this on the front door instead of the dumpster?”
“But I want credit for my acts of kindness.”
-The Righteous Right
From a Christian perspective, I fell like this is actually quite a difficult issue. While Matthew 6:1-4 is very clear that charitable deeds should be done in secret in order to be rewarded by God, but in a cutthroat society such as ours, sometimes I feel like even the idea that someone, somewhere out there is at least trying to do some good in the world can be a worthwhile reminder that kindness is not dead.
Shame on him if it was an attempt to virtue signal to his paying clients, but if it was a genuine attempt to do some good, I can’t condemn him.
Oh, agreed. I’m not condemning the owner for charity. I’m condemning those who are critical of social programs as a form of ‘forced charity.’
How can I get into heaven if I don’t get the points myself? Collective good works are only half credit.
Orphan crushing machine
