Comment by vector_spaces | Hacker News Reader

Comment by vector_spaces | Hacker News Reader

It's an interesting phenomenon, but I feel that the article begs us to pass judgement on this behavior, and that makes the article less interesting to me.

The West and much of the rest of the world have built societies with few strong kinship bonds. Not everyone has a family they can lean on for support, and we tend to lose friends as we get older rather than make new ones. So, yes, of course people will resort to eliciting support from the internet, and when it works even once people will start to learn and game the dynamics. Framing it in these terms may make it sound malicious and disingenuous, but it needn't be either. Given functional kinship bonds, humans are generally good at eliciting support from the people around them and learning what needs to be done to get the support we need. This is just a generalization to strangers.

This isn't to say that there aren't disingenuous people lying to game these mechanics, of course there are. But for the sake of those that aren't, maybe let's leave them be and not raze to the ground what's emerged as a stand-in for actual social support and strong kinship ties?

> But for the sake of those that aren't, maybe let's leave them be and not raze to the ground what's emerged as a stand-in for actual social support and strong kinship ties?

Who is that "we" that could raze social media pity to the ground? In places infested by fake beggars we don't hold council meetings where we decide to stop giving them money.

When I see that my compassion is being taken advantage of, I become less compassionate. Chances are, so do you. Social media pity won't be destroyed by those that complain about it. It'll be destroyed by those that abuse it.

Rather than allow my compassion to be decimated, or chipped away bit by bit, I simply outsource my compassion.

I never take pity on individuals, whether they are begging at the train station, a grocery store, or somewhere on the Internet. No pity for individual situations. I absolutely cannot and will not trust someone's claims and I absolutely cannot judge their worthiness for charity.

I give generously to charitable organizations that do the most good. This is my religious obligation, and it's also the best way to maximize my bucks. Any suitably large charitable organization will have policies and guidelines for determining who is in need, and how much they deserve. It's simply a matter of trusting that they know how to vet people's needs, and how to distribute aid most effectively in the region that they serve.

I have seen it myself first-hand. I volunteered for a charity that serves the poor, and right in the middle of downtown. It was my job to interview people to find out their immediate needs: socks, bag lunch, shower, bus ticket. And we had intricate and firm rules for how much they could get, and how often they could get it. Some people even received a bicycle, if their needs could be matched with its availability. But obviously, we only had so much to give, and needy people are, unfortunately, experts at squeezing free stuff out of everyone they could. So, we had rate limits and daily/weekly limits on everything. No bus passes without proof of need; that sort of stuff.

So it's the same with all the other charities I support, and they are often organizations I've worked with directly, and I know their reputation for service, and I trust their ability to manage money that I give them. No pity, no guilt, no stress.

> I give generously to charitable organizations that do the most good. This is my religious obligation, and it's also the best way to maximize my bucks.

And they maximize your bucks with outlandish purchases for executives and "fund raising" parties for their selected few. I stopped caring for large NGOs when I found out how deeply corrupt their management is, including middle management.

If you want to help, don't give them money, donate your time or goods, instead. The vast majority of your money goes into managerial salaries, bonuses and needless services and purchases.

Look up the red cross or any other large organisation you may have in your area, they all do this without exceptions.

Hey, randunel, thanks for mentioning the American Red Cross! In fact, I have anecdotes about them as well!

So about two weeks into the COVID-19 lockdowns, one of my upstairs neighbors set his apartment, and the unit next door, on fire. Like a big fire. The resultant fire, smoke, and water damage affected six units altogether, and the American Red Cross was right there on the scene, to render assistance and ensure that these families would not be turned out onto the streets. I didn't look closely at the news reports, but I didn't see any mention of randunel being there to help.

Then last year, an ex of mine suffered a fire in her very own flat in SF. She has been disabled with a major stroke, and her roommate was also displaced, escaping with only what they could carry and their cats. After the fire was doused, thieves wasted no time in breaking in to take whatever wasn't nailed down. Again, the American Red Cross was on the scene (randunel conspicuously absent) and a GoFundMe was launched.

As I stuck to my principles of donating to the best agency possible, I decided to send a few bucks to the AMR. In fact, I accidentally donated first to my local AMR, and then I doubled that by donating to the correct regional one in charge of San Francisco. I thought it to be quite appropriate to give back a little, since after all, they had helped my neighbors in need not long ago.

So if it weren't for the American Red Cross and their good deeds, many Americans would be homeless and lost after disasters, and I'm thankful to them for being there in our times of need.

The grandparent spoke of corruption. In your comment you ignored the corruption comment and instead commented how your community had benefited and that therefore you supported the organization.

By not addressing the corruption it could be interpreted that you're okay with corruption as long as you benefit from it. Was that your intention?

alleged, unsubstantiated corruption, is that what you meant to write?

Ehh, the Red Cross’s budget is 3 Billion and they spend 670 million on disaster relief and 360 million on admin.

If your goal is to support disaster relief then they are an inefficient use of your resources. However, they also run blood drives and then sell the blood which is part of their overall budget independent of donations. $921 million is just salaries for people running blood drives, with similar expenses for overhead on supplies and equipment.

In fairness, internal combustion engines are an inefficient use of resources. They just happen to be the best option.

It is basically impossible to design an organisation that directs resources to economically unproductive people. $700 / $3,000 going to the right spot could be reasonably effective. I mean, at least the Red Cross won't take a fraction of the money and use it to fund ruinous, murderous and pointless rampages across Afghanistan. So they're doing better than the US government. And I think they might be outperforming the major churches for number of abuse scandals although that sort of thing is hard to measure.

So it is less efficient than personally doing something locally, but if the local community is going OK then I could imagine the Red Cross might be the next best alternative.

Spending only $700 out of $3000 on the stated mission is doing a decent job, since when?

They aren’t allocating 2/3 of monetary donations to blood drives.

Running blood drives is a major part of their mission, it’s also largely self sustaining because they are selling the blood.

Don't diss without actual links. "outlandish purchases for executives and fund raising parties" is shit-slinging and i'm tired of it from the minority of destructive wankers on HN (and elsewhere) that they can't see anything good, even a little, but have to presume the worst and pull it down. Your value in society is a net negative.

https://www.g4media.ro/crucea-rosie-romana-cumpara-telefoane...

Of course, you can't help the Ukrainians unless you're sporting the latest iphone.

Check out this charity... https://www.givedirectly.org/ Their goal is to give as much money as possible to the poorest people as efficiently as possible.

Data supports that this works and simply giving money helps those people. The charity also openly publish their data on how efficiently they are operating, currently at about 90%.

Fuck straight off with trying to call the Red Cross corrupt. You are an absolute ignorant wretch. Never in my life have I run into a batch of people I would trust more. Every single person in that org is highly underpaid or unpaid and they work relentlessly actually helping people. Saints, the lot of them.

I worked there for years and had intimate access to detailed branch financials and operations.

When you're older, try being hosted by the Red Cross for the remainder of your years https://adevarul.ro/stiri-locale/focsani/camin-de-batrani-al...

https://www.jurnaldevrancea.ro/noi-amanunte-despre-caminul-d...

> I stopped caring for large NGOs when I found out how deeply corrupt their management is, including middle management.

This happened for me at a bar in Seattle when I was sitting next to two women when were literally giggling about how the Gates Foundation paid them $300k a year for nothing.

When I was in the military, I learned about the Combined Federal Campaign, which aggregates charities and allows federal employees to contribute through payroll deductions.

https://cfcgiving.opm.gov/offerings

One tool they offer is a calculation of AFR, which is the Administrative and Fundraising Expense Rate. It basically measures the overhead you're talking about. You can look it up for any charity that's part of the CFC at the link above.

The EFF's AFR is over 30%. The Red Cross's AFR is a touch over 9%.

> Look up the red cross or any other large organisation

American Red Cross - 90% of funds spent on program; 3% on admin/staff

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/530196605

Feeding America - 98% of funds spent on program; 0.3% on admin/staff

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/363673599

United Way Worldwide - 95% of funds spent on program; 2.6% on admin/staff

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/131635294

St. Jude Hospital - 95% of funds spent on program; 3.9% on admin/staff

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/951643325

Charities an both be effective and useful while also paying executive staff handsomely, these are not mutually exclusive. There's no rule that says non-profit/not-for-profit employees have to live as chaste or castigated monks.

There's also the very real issue where to attract anyone with skills and talent, any non-profit will need to achieve parity of compensation with comparable for-profit officers. If they try to be altruistic and pay a pittance, or get volunteers, they simply aren't going to attract or retain good leadership.

> the article begs us to pass judgement on this behavior

The people behaving like this are the ones who are begging for judgement, probably feeling "safe" that anyone condemning them for doing it will be mobbed by the majority who will not miss their chance to virtue signal their support for the self-pittying person.

The deeper analysis here is more interesting imo. How much of what ails society is downstream of the increasing atomization of individuals?

the need for community hasn’t gone away, but I can’t help but wonder if we’re pursuing it in the wrong places.

> The West and much of the rest of the world have built societies with few strong kinship bonds.

Lies. The West had boundless kinship bonds as deep as they were wide, in fairly recent memory. The West brazenly wrecked them in the name of the profit motive.

This pity culture stuff is utterly despicable and no self-respecting individual should have any patience for a society where such blatant decadent is excused.

Wow. This is such an original take. I think it's utterly fascinating and borderline genius - no joke - to tie this alleged impulse for pity/sympathy to the abandonment of family bonds in western culture. That abandonment is what allows individuals to pursue all these artistic and footloose paths without having to care for their elders, but it's also what alienates them from a framework of people who would care about what they do.

In my experience, so much of what you do for kinship is based on guilt, that I find it hard to trust that my kin actually care for anything I ever did. (This could just be because I'm Jewish, but go with me here for a second). My first and last fans have always been my brother and my mom, since I was 12 years old strumming a guitar, all the way through sort-of-rock touring status with a few hundred people per show, up til I'm no longer playing music but for late night solo demos to a few people. One has to ask: Are my kin only kind to my efforts out of some sense of mutual support rooted in guilt if they don't respond?

I think that question kind of answers itself.

So then, what about people who don't have anyone who they can email music to at 3am who has to pretend to like it? What becomes of those people?

It all jives. I think you nailed it. The public pity party is directly related to lacking a family who'll bullshit and pacify you for your own good.

This might surprise you, but as a parent, I can tell you that seeing my daughter happy makes me happy. Yes, sometimes you do things out of guilt, but that's not the prime mover most of the time.

> One has to ask: Are my kin only kind to my efforts out of some sense of mutual support rooted in guilt if they don't respond?

I am not sure what you expect from your relatives... do you expect them to tell you objectively whether you're good? Are they experts guitar critiques?? Even if they were, do you think asking them for feedback would get you the most honest answer?

Do you have children? Would you tell them honestly if you thought they sucked? And "honestly" here is impossible, you'll be totally biased if you're like most parents and will probably actually believe your children are great even when most other people would disagree.

If you truly wanted actual feedback, you would seek that from your peers, not your mom. That can of course be brutal, but that's what you should really seek if you're interested in knowing just how good you are. Your peers can be unjust, of course (and if they're your friends, they will also be too biased or too embarrassed to give you real feedback)... but at least you have a better chance of knowing the truth, and hopefully where you need to improve, by asking people who actually know the stuff and been through the same journey as you're trying to embark on.

Finally, to know whether you were actually good is impossible, and as the article says, perhaps you just weren't as good as you thought and having people cheer you on out of pitty would just prolongue your illusion?!

I used to play as well, and it did come as a shock when I finally understood that I (and my band - except one of the guys who went on to become moderately successful years later, and is still a professional musician) just weren't very good compared to the big bands getting more success than us, and that perhaps that outcome was not actually unfair at all.

I think you're reading me wrong. I'm saying that I've accepted exactly this: I was never as good as I wanted to be as a musician. I did always judge myself more quickly and more harshly than anyone else would. I did accept that it wasn't going to be a sustainable career.

I'm writing, in all earnestness, to say that I'm glad my 80 year old mom is still my biggest fan. For what it's worth, my father told me when I was 15 that I'd never be any good and I should give up music, so family isn't all roses. I was just drawing on this as an example of how family can alleviate that itchy need to be recognized which can lead people down a path of self-pity as opposed to a balanced view of their own importance (or lack thereof).

Sorry... comments on the Internet are always without any context so everyone just goes into the direction they see given their own context (which is what I did).

Totally cool. I think I went off a bit half-cocked on the original comment as well. I didn't communicate what I meant very clearly. Probably a better conversation to have over a beer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com