What's the ugly part? The article talks about successful and unsuccessful GoFundMe campaigns. Is the ugly part that some deplorables got millions from other deplorables?
One of the "ugly" parts is how some things can go viral, and much more serious things don't at all, and it can feel like a bizarre system of faux meritocracy:
> What’s wrong with you also influences whether you score big with medical crowdfunding, according to the University of Washington at Bothell medical anthropologist Nora Kenworthy and the media scholar Lauren Berliner, who have been studying the subject since 2013. Successful campaigns tend to focus on onetime fixes (a new prosthetic, say) rather than chronic, complicated diagnoses like Laila’s. Terminal cases and geriatric care are also tough to fundraise for, as are stigmatized conditions such as HIV and addiction- or obesity-related problems...
> ...As Laila’s GoFundMe sputtered out, Richard grew to resent the people raising tens of thousands for sick pets. At his lowest moments, he wondered whether the campaign would have been more successful if Laila had been a cat.
> Richard’s bitter feelings reminded me of something Berliner had observed when we spoke: “There’s a lot of secrecy and shame around the ones that don’t receive funding. If it’s a way to perform need, how must it feel to put yourself out there and not receive anything in return?”
That society and human nature seems to pay more attention to quick fixes and happy surface story is "ugly", though that's something that has long been a facet of society well before GoFundMe.
It can get ugly. I did a gofundme to raise money for my daughter's stem cell treatment. Half my extended family doesn't talk to me anymore. I'm sorry I was short 20k in savings and couldn't figure it out on my own guys but I had to swallow my pride and do whatever it took.
That is horrible! Families can be really nasty like that. For whatever a random comment on the internet is worth, I believe you did the right thing. And people who put this above the life of your daughter are not worth associating with.
Deplorables? Are we doing Hillary Clinton references or something?
Hey, downvoters, it was a genuine question, if I've missed something, please let me know. The term deplorable is rather odd, and I can only recall it being used in in recent pop culture by Hillary Clinton wrt Trump supporters.
The term has entered the popular lexicon since the 2016 election and is commonly used to refer to the subset of Trump supporters who also broadly agree with his more odious statements.
“The White Savior Industrial Complex is not about justice,” Teju Cole wrote in 2012. “It is about having a big emotional experience that validates privilege.”
You see this everywhere, like the wealthy people who sign up to feed the homeless Thanksgiving Dinner at the Salvation Army Kitchen. Then later they drive home to their warm mansions while the homeless go back to their cold makeshift cardboard tents under the overpass.
Give me a man a fish vs teach a man to fish. The system in the US is broken, the Thanksgiving dinner for the homeless is only a flimsy bandaid, and the real reason it's pernicious is because now the volunteer can sit back in the warm glow of approval on Facebook/Instagram and think "There! Now I've done my part".
What's pernicious is the attitude that helping people and treating them likes humans, in the real world, can be turned into some act of malice where we can assume the worst about the intentions of the people doing it.
That said, I do think it's silly and pointless to "help" on Thanksgiving. These places are overrun with volunteers on Thanksgiving but not at other times of the year.
There's a very strong argument that wealth inequality does in fact cause problems like systemic homelessness. One person hoarding massive amounts of wealth generates a much smaller number of jobs and opportunities than many people having a moderate amount of wealth. So, maybe they do cause these problems.
the thing is, these rich people aren't storing their wealth under their mattress or burying their gold.
their wealth is tied in stocks, so a lot of it is on paper. They also would invest their wealth (as inflation would erode it). Investment means more jobs, more work opportunities for those who don't have any.
the problem lies in policy. Things like stock buy back schemes and tax "loopholes". But these have nothing to do with the rich, and everything to do with government.
Investment means more jobs, more work opportunities for those who don't have any.
The point I was making is that having lots of small investors usually leads to more job creation than one big one because small investors tend to invest in smaller, less efficient companies. That inefficiency is actually good if you want more jobs.
Also, a billionaire buying a $100m yacht from a Korean shipbuilder is great for creating jobs in Korea, but it doesn't help much at home. Having a bigger middle class means more of the money goes in to the local economy. Another reason against individuals hoarding huge amounts of money.
The value that's created by making those jobs "redundant" flows back to investors, and is immediately put into other productive opportunities. Except that the companies are now doing more with less which is typically good for consumers, monopoly concerns aside.
Scaling up usually increases efficiency up to a certain point, more scale then starts decreasing it, as larger and larger bureaucracy tends to make the organization less and less able to adapt. This is one reason why monopolies in the free market, unless propped up by the government, tend to be pretty short lived.
> One person hoarding massive amounts of wealth generates a much smaller number of jobs and opportunities than many people having a moderate amount of wealth.
Wealthy people do not store money in Scrooge McDuck cash vaults. It's all invested, which creates jobs and opportunities.
Like, this seems to be empirically false. We can see this from the changes around 1980 (Reagan/Thatcher). We have seen that wealth concentration has increased, as have asset prices, whereas entreprenuership has not, and neither has small business creation.
It doesn't matter, as they spend less of it than the poor do, and hence the same amount of money will circulate less, causing the economy to grow less.
So you don't know. I'll help. The money is invested. Even money in a bank account gets invested, as that's what banks do with deposits - they loan the money out to people who spend it.
The only idle cash would be the reserve requirement put on the banks by the government.
Wealthy people tend to be good with managing their money, which means they "put it to work", i.e. invest it in economically productive endeavors, which is how it grows.
Nope, they really haven't. They're basically wasting their effort on largely pointless labor, whereas they could be achieving a lot more simply by donating an equivalent fraction of the income they earn via what work they've actually specialized for. But that wouldn't be as visible or salient, and thus rewarding from a pure virtue-signalling POV.
They shouldn’t feed the homeless on a marquee holiday and then ignore the problem the other 364 days of the year; nor should they feel like feeding them directly does anything to address the underlying systemic issues that create or sustain the problem in the first place.
The main criticism of Thanksgiving charity is that it’s about making the privileged feel generous without solving any problems at all, and in fact blinds the privileged to any need to do more than they are on one day a year.
This quote doesn't apply to this at all. That quote is making fun of centrists. You are applying it from a centrist perspective to a leftist argument about individual acts of charity not contributing to the solution of systematic issues.
Sometimes you have to give a man a fish before you can teach them to fish, or even buy them a nice fishing boat. It's disingenuous to claim that the former is not "contributing to the solution of systematic issues", simply because it doesn't directly address those.
Nobody is against feeding the homeless in soup kitchens. And it's disingenuous to imply anyone said so. The problem is that this is usually all these rich people do. Often times actively working against the systematic changes that would be necessary to solve the problem.
It also parallels the billionaire philanthropy complex (and related tax avoidance) that Rutger Bregman called out at Davos, ruffling the feathers of the billionaires attending.
>> It is about having a big emotional experience that validates privilege.
I'm not sure about that, the privilege is already validated. The emotional experience is there to amp up appreciation for what they have. If that makes them less likely to road rage the following week then we can call that a win-win.
It's very much like the parable of the man throwing starfish back into the sea - "I made a difference to that one" - except some people throw exactly one starfish and then blame the rest for their laziness.
The problem with relying on crowdfunding and social media to address issues is the same problem with using voting systems to select government representatives - you mostly just end up with media-savvy, charismatic people - and not necessarily the most deserving, talented, or qualified.
Perhaps the most deserving fundee (is that a word?) is not familiar enough with marketing tactics to build a fundraising campaign. And perhaps the most effective government leader is a monotone guy who gets nervous in front of cameras. But we'll never know, because our systems rely on popularity.
> But we'll never know, because our systems rely on popularity.
And on self-confidence!
I have worked hard my entire life, have written about 20 books, and have lived under the poverty threshold pretty my entire life. Why? Because I do not like to be at the center of attention. You do not even have to be charismatic (although that helps a lot). Just being able to be self-confident in the presence of people goes a long way.
I think there's more to it than that, at least for you. I just looked over your site and just guessing but you could almost certainly be making $200k+ at a FAANG as an individual contributor, which doesn't require you to be the center of attention at all.
That's not what you need to do at one of those companies. I know this because I am at one of those companies and am somewhat likeminded from what I've read of your site and comments(though, if I'm a 7 on some scale, you might be an 11). As long as your actual performance is good, managers will not hassle you if you self direct.
And even if it is painful for you, it takes about a year to fire you for not communicating with your manager. Why not put up with maybe a year of pain if it lets you save up enough money to live 10 years at near poverty level, but choosing your own work and not struggling to earn money? I would write you a recommendation if you want that would get you an in person interview if you want.
I like your pragmatic approach, but I'm torn! Wouldn't any recommendation reflect back on you if things go south? But then, I'm also curious. Maybe we should continue this conversation via email? See http://t3x.org/contact.html
"By the grace of God, Janelle was introduced to me and we put her on the whole Breakthrough Coaching System. She got rid of all the expensive supplements and focused on a step by step strategy to healing. Janelle decided to find a doctor who would monitor her progress while we worked together. After a year of consistent effort her hard work paid off, Janelle went back to her oncologist for the good news: no breast cancer detectable. Her body had spontaneously healed itself.
As of today, Janelle is still cancer free and has become a cancer coach for Breakthrough Cancer System. She offers her expertise and first hand knowledge to every client we work with. Janelle knows first hand what it takes to cross the bridge of cancer and come out healed. And if she can do it, so can you!"
There's a book called "Toxic Charity" that really changed my views on giving, charity, and helping others in general. The upshot is that most of our quick-hit solutions like this just end up creating more problems and leaving people feeling worse. Help that doesn't hurt is about empowering people and letting them take ownership. Easier said than done.
60 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 122 ms ] threadI deem the title click bait.
I feel like the "White Savior Inferiority Complex" quote might explain a bit.
> What’s wrong with you also influences whether you score big with medical crowdfunding, according to the University of Washington at Bothell medical anthropologist Nora Kenworthy and the media scholar Lauren Berliner, who have been studying the subject since 2013. Successful campaigns tend to focus on onetime fixes (a new prosthetic, say) rather than chronic, complicated diagnoses like Laila’s. Terminal cases and geriatric care are also tough to fundraise for, as are stigmatized conditions such as HIV and addiction- or obesity-related problems...
> ...As Laila’s GoFundMe sputtered out, Richard grew to resent the people raising tens of thousands for sick pets. At his lowest moments, he wondered whether the campaign would have been more successful if Laila had been a cat.
> Richard’s bitter feelings reminded me of something Berliner had observed when we spoke: “There’s a lot of secrecy and shame around the ones that don’t receive funding. If it’s a way to perform need, how must it feel to put yourself out there and not receive anything in return?”
That society and human nature seems to pay more attention to quick fixes and happy surface story is "ugly", though that's something that has long been a facet of society well before GoFundMe.
You did what you had to do given the realities, but I'm sorry and ashamed that as a society we put you in that position.
Hey, downvoters, it was a genuine question, if I've missed something, please let me know. The term deplorable is rather odd, and I can only recall it being used in in recent pop culture by Hillary Clinton wrt Trump supporters.
You see this everywhere, like the wealthy people who sign up to feed the homeless Thanksgiving Dinner at the Salvation Army Kitchen. Then later they drive home to their warm mansions while the homeless go back to their cold makeshift cardboard tents under the overpass.
That said, I do think it's silly and pointless to "help" on Thanksgiving. These places are overrun with volunteers on Thanksgiving but not at other times of the year.
they indeed have done their part. The problem isn't caused by these people.
their wealth is tied in stocks, so a lot of it is on paper. They also would invest their wealth (as inflation would erode it). Investment means more jobs, more work opportunities for those who don't have any.
the problem lies in policy. Things like stock buy back schemes and tax "loopholes". But these have nothing to do with the rich, and everything to do with government.
The point I was making is that having lots of small investors usually leads to more job creation than one big one because small investors tend to invest in smaller, less efficient companies. That inefficiency is actually good if you want more jobs.
Also, a billionaire buying a $100m yacht from a Korean shipbuilder is great for creating jobs in Korea, but it doesn't help much at home. Having a bigger middle class means more of the money goes in to the local economy. Another reason against individuals hoarding huge amounts of money.
Inefficiency does not create jobs. It means you can't compete and you spent the money and went out of business.
> a billionaire buying a $100m yacht from a Korean shipbuilder is great for creating jobs in Korea, but it doesn't help much at home
Because of the way trade works, equal value flows both ways.
Of course it does, otherwise jobs would never be made redundant when companies merge.
Scaling up usually increases efficiency up to a certain point, more scale then starts decreasing it, as larger and larger bureaucracy tends to make the organization less and less able to adapt. This is one reason why monopolies in the free market, unless propped up by the government, tend to be pretty short lived.
Wealthy people do not store money in Scrooge McDuck cash vaults. It's all invested, which creates jobs and opportunities.
So you don't know. I'll help. The money is invested. Even money in a bank account gets invested, as that's what banks do with deposits - they loan the money out to people who spend it.
The only idle cash would be the reserve requirement put on the banks by the government.
Wealthy people tend to be good with managing their money, which means they "put it to work", i.e. invest it in economically productive endeavors, which is how it grows.
The main criticism of Thanksgiving charity is that it’s about making the privileged feel generous without solving any problems at all, and in fact blinds the privileged to any need to do more than they are on one day a year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ijiLqfXP0
I'm not sure about that, the privilege is already validated. The emotional experience is there to amp up appreciation for what they have. If that makes them less likely to road rage the following week then we can call that a win-win.
But, do we want people doing charity for the wrong reasons or do we want them not to do it at all?
Related link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio...
Perhaps the most deserving fundee (is that a word?) is not familiar enough with marketing tactics to build a fundraising campaign. And perhaps the most effective government leader is a monotone guy who gets nervous in front of cameras. But we'll never know, because our systems rely on popularity.
And on self-confidence!
I have worked hard my entire life, have written about 20 books, and have lived under the poverty threshold pretty my entire life. Why? Because I do not like to be at the center of attention. You do not even have to be charismatic (although that helps a lot). Just being able to be self-confident in the presence of people goes a long way.
That does not mean I do not want to do the work, I am just not able to talk about it all the time.
And even if it is painful for you, it takes about a year to fire you for not communicating with your manager. Why not put up with maybe a year of pain if it lets you save up enough money to live 10 years at near poverty level, but choosing your own work and not struggling to earn money? I would write you a recommendation if you want that would get you an in person interview if you want.
"By the grace of God, Janelle was introduced to me and we put her on the whole Breakthrough Coaching System. She got rid of all the expensive supplements and focused on a step by step strategy to healing. Janelle decided to find a doctor who would monitor her progress while we worked together. After a year of consistent effort her hard work paid off, Janelle went back to her oncologist for the good news: no breast cancer detectable. Her body had spontaneously healed itself.
As of today, Janelle is still cancer free and has become a cancer coach for Breakthrough Cancer System. She offers her expertise and first hand knowledge to every client we work with. Janelle knows first hand what it takes to cross the bridge of cancer and come out healed. And if she can do it, so can you!"
I don't think it needs more evidence.