Socialism has absolutely nothing to do with this. Socialism is worker democracy and this guy is unlikely to be a worker. What you want is government social services, thats got nothing to do with socialism.
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
816 points (98.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
8514 readers
3960 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
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^(tm)^
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.
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?"
There may well be much healthier stuff in their dumpster than peanut butter and jelly. Why not offer to make an arrangement with the person in question to let them take stuff that's about to expire? Or, like, separate food that's being marked out into its own bag and maybe even put it in a cooler or something?
There was a time in my life when I did a fair bit of this myself and I was mostly getting like prepared foods that had been marked out the same day I was getting them. Peanut butter and jelly would have been a downgrade from pulling a couple of days worth of meals with like meat and cheese and veggies and stuff rather than just sugar and nuts and bread.
Not to say that this isn't nice, but it may well be a less viable option on its own in the long term. I suppose they could always do both.
Orphan crushing machine
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!
It's a design flaw that many people get more satisfaction out of other people's charitable actions than their own.
Really? I would have said that was a learned behaviour, with all those feel-good stories (& the hype & how it makes them respectable).
I have noticed I initially immediately distrust "charitable" people bcs at best I discovered their empathy is purely visual (like the shellshock of a crying child, but directly confronting to or advancing the causes of that are outside of view so fuck that child, we all gotta do what's best for us). Not to mention, it has to be public charity, ie they need to get something in return.
Beyond emotional support, charities are only for cases when society already grossly failed, not something we want to see more of.
So many people needing charity for things that arent even scarce, is just horrific & should make us want to make whether changes needed to fix the system.
OOP better take that post down (and our OP probably should, too) before they get arrested for inducing potentially fatal aneurysms in the conservatives who happen to see this.
What’s with the Windows 95 style inset border and black border on this?
It's called style, honey
Screenshots have gone too far. Time to learn how to save images properly.
That's right.
Press the Print Screen button and then paste into a new Word Document.
First time I read “incest border”. Time to lay off the pornhub.
Help me step-border, my arm is stuck in the drain again.
Where else should it be stuck? 👀
“But I want credit for my acts of kindness.”
-The Righteous Right
How can I get into heaven if I don't get the points myself? Collective good works are only half credit.
America was so horrified at the sight of bread lines that we stopped giving the bread
Socialism? But that's the opposite of capitalism, which is the cause of all our problems and why billionaires have usurped rule of law and democracy!
Playing devil's advocate: Being required to pay the government to fund social programs is no good if said government is corrupt.
Always reminds me of the classic Brecht piece "Saint Joan of the Stockyards" whenever I see celebrations of "charity" like this.
Yes because this isn't socialism. Giving things away to the needy isn't a political system. It's just being a good person doing the right thing.
Keep going, you are almost there...
No they ain't.
Anybody saying that type of dumb shit is doing the opposite of scientific and rational thought.
They are fanatics, they will presume anything that goes against their indoctrination is demonic and come up with any and all excuses to vilify it.
Also see: religion