As it stands now, this community serves mostly as a way to get money. That isn’t a bad thing, but cash is not a 1-size-fits-all solution to every problem. Taking care of a persons needs is always priority #1, but at times, said person is unfit to handle money in a way that reliably alleviates those needs. Traditional, local, mutual-aid networks can usually address this in the form of community pot lucks, clothing exchange, etc. Here we are more or less limited to advice and more money.
Making a rule about unsolicited advice and being critical of users, limits us to just money as a tool to solve problems. Sometimes people need a tough conversation to grow as a person, sometimes people need to be reminded of the situation they are in. Yes, the capitalist system is oppressive. Yes, there are systemic issues that prevent us all from succeeding. That doesn’t mean there is no situation where decision making is a factor. Sometimes, you do actually need help making better choices. This isn’t to shame people for making bad decisions, sometimes there are psychiatric reasons, sometimes they genuinely don’t know any better, but you still should speak up so they can potentially correct the problem and learn.
This rule effectively creates a hug-box where we all pretend that personal responsibility doesn’t exist, that there is simply nothing to be done. It’s incredibly infantile, it’s a cope, and the people in this community deserve better than that.
EDIT: I feel I may have had a change of heart after reading the comments left by @EelBolshevikism If you are looking for a somewhat comprehensive response, those comments are likely a good starting point.
For what it’s worth the rule specifically says no unsolicited advice or critical comments in the mutual aid post.
You are welcome to make a separate post about it like this one while following the code of conduct as well as not pinging the person to harass them.
This post kind of grosses me out, especially with the (probably incomplete but w/e) context I’ve gathered from comments on this post, and ESPECIALLY with how I’ve seen it happen before on this site (without the site learning from it either…). I don’t mean that to insult you. While I understand it comes across as patronizing to say, I can’t really blame anyone for internalizing probably the most common brainworm in the Anglosphere.
But ultimately I disagree with your point. I don’t think personal responsibility… exists, actually. Even supposedly impulsive and random excessive purchases can usually be attributed to some unmet mental need or some sort of symptom of a common form of neurodivergency. Though, I don’t want to focus on that too much, because I know it’s a really controversial belief and I’d have to go into literally my entire worldview from scratch to explain how any of it makes sense to me - something I don’t want to do and would make this discussion (and comment lol) even longer and more painful than it already is. I do have a different problem with allowing criticism of the actions of those asking for help, though.
I can’t imagine being someone with a drug addiction, or who wants to numb their suffering by buying alcohol, or otherwise supposedly “pissing it all away” on luxuries anyone more rich and privileged would rarely if ever be judged for buying, even and especially here. Only to be met with disdain for daring to… ask for money with the hope of catching the eye of internet strangers with disposable income. Because buying these luxuries, despite being something others can afford, is seen as questionable merely because you are using the money others gave you (many of which would choose to buy said luxury in a heartbeat instead of giving you that money, and would not receive a single glance of judgement for it!)
Allowing people to criticize people for making the “wrong decisions” which leads to them being homeless (apparently, I think that’s silly and if someone is making decisions that lead to that than there are other extenuating conditions, including sometimes mental ones, that lead to those decisions) is problematic for the same reason allowing people to “criticize Wokeism” or “just ask questions” about race is problematic. It isn’t that actually asking questions about the sociological construct of race is inherently bad, or that *actually criticizing a community in a good-faith way is bad, but that the culture we exist in is so fraught with an inherently bad-faith and incorrect view of the subject that anyone who is trying to “just ask questions”, trying to “speak their mind about the Woke”, or trying to “just give advice to someone struggling” is vastly more likely than not
Do you think people are just born into this world homeless? I mean, some probably are, but a LOT of homeless people come from parents abandoning them after coming out, or running out of money due to (rent/addiction/other factor they can’t control well if at all). Am I going to withhold money from someone for making the “wrong decision” of coming out to a family they thought was safe? Of fucking course not. And I’d ESPECIALLY not dissuade others from helping them- And that’s the issue, the kind of “criticism” that people direct towards those asking for money (yes, even on a leftist forum. Plenty of people here, probably the majority, have just as many ableist and classist brainworms as the rest of the USS of Amerikkka, they’re just rarer and more advanced varieties) does not actually help people asking for help change their actions. Changing your actions is FUCKING HARD, especially when you’re talking about quitting an addiction or trying to figure out what the cheapest food is to buy, or where to sleep best without cops finding you and fucking ruining your life. People who are poor have to do way more shit to do and pay for way more shit than people who are rich have to (boots theory) and a poor person “pissing away” 4000 bucks so they can have the semblance of comfortable living is always going to be treated worse than a rich person who actually literally pisses away 4000 bucks in shitty overpriced beer because they pay for their large group of friends to go to a sports game and decide to pay for all the concessions, and that bias will hold true here, until either we bully everyone into not having that mindset (WHICH IT SEEMS VERY OBVIOUS TO ME IS THE POINT OF THE RULE) or the user base is no longer Amerikkkans.
If someone is suffering from being fucking poor, than the only kind of valid and not inherently harmful criticisms you can give would hardly ever register as criticism to most people, and would be closer to providing free information, like helping with finances by helping them figure out how they can spend less while still getting the same quality of life and things they care about, or giving tips about working out, or sharing cheaper recipes or ways to get drugs in safer and more reliable ways than they already are or giving them information about cheap addiction treatment you happen to have useful info about from the area. And these are all things, again, that would hardly register and hardly anyone would ever report, let alone ban (minus maybe the drugs thing so they don’t get the website swatted, but you know what I mean).
So I see very little purpose to allow people to give unwanted criticism to those who are fucking starving, or getting threatened with arrest for being trans, or struggling with fucking drug addiction, because unless those people are afraid of free numbers and columns there’s probably only a few situations where someone would take offense to something that isn’t just motivated by the same ambient fucking classism everyone has everywhere and to be completely frank I don’t think those exceedingly rare situations are worth the risk of allowing people to simultaneously shit on homeless people while hiding under a veneer of “civility”, which the remanding or removal of this rule would cause.
If you think giving money to the person is a bad idea, than just don’t do it, and everyone “responsible” will do the same thing as you.
And to be even more completely honest, this is a trend I see repeatedly and it is blatantly created by the discomfort of the privileged (like you or I probably are in comparison to many people on this comm who post) needing to have a constant stream of money to live, because they want the discomfort of seeing a struggling person to go away after they “buy” it with enough money. And I understand that impulse, because seeing people struggle sucks. But this is fundamentally a form of punching down; It’s a response that blames the one struggling for your discomfort (and, no matter how reasonable it seems to blame them, no it fucking isn’t), instead of the systems and people who put them and you in this fucked situation in the first place.
or otherwise supposedly “pissing it all away” on luxuries anyone more rich and privileged would rarely if ever be judged for buying, even and especially here
The point is, it doesn’t matter if you take the money and spend it on drugs. If you’re addicted to drugs, drugs are a basic need. You have to have some amount of them while you’re getting off of them, even if that’s your plan. And if it’s not, I really don’t care except insofar as it keeps you from finding housing and handling your other basic needs.
The problem is not buying drugs with donated money. The problem is failing to take any measures to meet basic needs with the money. To take a $4000 donation and then spend it all on ??? and not use any of it to secure shelter, or food, or other basic needs is a problem. And it’s a problem that cannot be solved by receiving more donated money. Maybe if they got the attention of a billionaire who could give them $50k, then they could satisfy all of their desire to spend money on ??? and still have some left over to spend on food and shelter. But since none of us are billionaires, we simply cannot fill this pit with money alone. If we here on /c/mutual_aid truly want to help the user in question, all we can do is try to convince them to change the way that they are handling what money they do acquire.
We’re not mad that money we gave is being spent on stuff we don’t prefer, we’re not mad at the user in question at all. We’re trying to get through to the user in question that this path they’re walking leads only to an early death and that matters to us because all we want is for our comrades to be safe and healthy.
Yeah, but that isn’t a problem you can solve by “criticizing” them, either. That’s a person who is probably making those decisions because, to them, ??? could genuinely be a mental need or because they just don’t want to suffer in a universe without any sort of pleasure. You could give genuine advice, such as providing a different cheaper kind of shampoo they could use, or even telling them that you’re worried that they’ll starve if they spend everything on this non-basic-need thing. And that would make sense and not even be offensive or demeaning. But that isn’t how most people say things, or “criticize” things. I don’t know why but I feel like, especially here, there is an utter inability to criticize something without also hating it. And while you say that it wasn’t the case here, that simply means it was one of a smattering of exceptions. Exceptions that can only exist because of similar issues happening in aeons past and being responded to.
There’s a difference between “criticizing” someone’s “lack of responsibility” and simply realizing someone else is easier to help, too.
I understand that you want to give genuine advice. And I relate to that, a lot. But, just as in the case of “just asking questions” debatebros and smarmy chuds, if you give a single fucking inch to the people who take any chance to blame the poor for their predicament, they will take a light year. I know this because I’ve seen how people do this to autistic people, to gay people. How people use civility and what would otherwise be genuine questions or critiques to needle and bully others while pretending it’s in their “best interest”.
And I know it’s an issue here because I saw it happen before on this very site. Does “rachel” ring a bell at all? She was poor, recently homeless, and a drug addict. We criticized her for valid reasons, yeah. But the ability to criticize was not just utilized for that. People got angry, and people get vindicative. Pretty soon we bullied a homeless woman off of our platform because the presence of someone we can’t help because of the sheer depth of their needs was too uncomfortable for us. People couldn’t properly externalize Rachel’s issues as being a result of numerous complex systems and I saw them continue blaming her for her entire situation. Not the FBI for flooding her neighborhood with drugs, not the systems of capital for grinding her amenities available into fucking nothing, not even her friends for making her homeless in the first place (because she made bad decisions if i remember correctly?? she didn’t kill anyone or anything justifying a death sentence though so it’s irrelevant to me). The Amerikkka brain just took over and all material analysis and the usual calm of this place was lost in a writhing hive of fucking hatred for this single homeless woman, not merely limited to overly hostile pleas or understandable anger from her for not getting the financial assistance she needs- If someone took personal offense to her lashing out that would be one thing. But as she retreated and went more and more on the defensive and stopped even asking for anything they continued to thrash her with constant hostility. Even mentioning her name was like mentioning furries on a Brotherhood of Steel roleplay discord server.
That paragraph probably makes me sound like a Rachel alt but I genuinely am not, I just saw it happen and it fucked with my head
I don’t know if I feel comfortable with this site taking any step even remotely toward allowing that kind of thing to happen again. I don’t feel like I can trust it. And I wish I could, but I can’t, and the only reason I’ve grown slightly more trusting over time since that incident is because of rules like this.
Of course it is reasonable to analyze someone’s situation and realize giving them money is not effective. It would even, in theory, be reasonable to say it, to explain why you can’t give them money, even to point to others who you can help easier and therefore you don’t have the money for this harder case left-over, as long as it was said in a non-judgemental and normal way. But I don’t trust people to say it that way because I’m not sure if Amerikkkan-brained people even can. Even some of the best, most compassionate, and most kind people I know treat homeless and destitute people like they’re all scammers or going to stab them to death. I generally trust people but, in this case, that trust is not more powerful than the sheer strength of Amerikkkan brainworms.
Tbf it could be effective to have a “Don’t judge or hate those asking even if you’re pointing out suboptimal decisions” rule, but I don’t even know if we could use that little leeway responsibly or if it devolve into weird passive-aggressive shit.
Does “rachel” ring a bell at all? She was poor, recently homeless, and a drug addict.
Funny you should ask. Those of us who have given to the venmo of the person this discussion is about, know that the first-name she gave on venmo (which I believe is not her real name, given a conversation about payment-app opsec she had shortly after joining this site) is Rachel.
I will note, however, that I recall the original Rachel being banned for violations of rules relating to trans issues (I seem to recall the term “truscum”), not run off of the site for making bad decisions. Not trying to argue about the broader point, just mentioning my recollection of those events.
I am pretty sure “rachel” bragged about getting one over on all of us etc etc? or did I imagine that? p. sure they went off the deep end, not us
Pretty soon we bullied a homeless woman off of our platform because the presence of someone we can’t help because of the sheer depth of their needs was too uncomfortable for us
She got “bullied off” for calling people slurs and bragging about scanning people. She dug her own grave when it came to this site.
You have no idea what the person who donated that was thinking. As far as I am concerned, this is between that user and some rich donator who had too much money to spare and related to this user’s struggle. This comm is for the good for the community, and this kind of directed anger toward one situation none of us can fully understand is not helpful to anyone else who has been sincerely helped by c/mutual aid.
You have no idea what the person who donated that was thinking.
It doesn’t matter what the person who donated the $4000 was thinking, the money could have literally appeared from thin air and nothing relevant to us here on this comm would change. It doesn’t matter where the money came from or what the person intended. It wasn’t their money anymore. It was the money of the person who requested donations, and they could do with it whatever they wanted. What we’re trying to do here is convince that person to change the way they spend their money so that they don’t end up dead in a ditch or a drug den within the next few years. Because that would be a bad outcome and we’d prefer to see a better outcome for our comrades.
Leftists generally accept the systemic nature of social conditions. Individual circumstances are given, inherited from the past. Social problems like poverty cannot be reduced to mere individual choices.
On the other hand, the given-ness of our lives does not imply determinism and a lack of free will. Marxism depends on the existence of free will, for without free will there cannot be revolution and social change.
I agree that if someone asks for money, then it is valid for someone to use that money on “vices” just so they can feel human once in a while. I believe that money given freely should be spent freely.
I feel that in this comm, the requests tend to be specific. “I need money to buy some Chipotle” or “need a place to stay tonight” etc. Those requests do impart a responsibility on the recipient. Not an abstract “individual responsibility” that erases social conditions, but a direct personal responsibility to real Hexbear users who probably themselves do not have a lot of money to give.
To say that responsibility does not exist is to say that free will does not exist, that misusing the money was determined from birth and inevitable. I think this is ultimately a destructive view and does not actually help people long term.
Whether advice is helpful really depends on where it comes from; is it paternalistic, or does it contain an empathetic understanding of socially given circumstances?
I tend to agree with lifting the rule, but there would have to be moderation against comments that are paternalistic, and that will be a tough line to walk since it is such a gray area.
Marxism depends on the existence of free will, for without free will there cannot be revolution and social change.
You are very much misunderstanding Determinism, comrade. Determinism is less about worrying that the future is set in stone and more about understanding that the trajectory of the future is determined by the forces applied in the present.
There are of course many degrees of determinism depending on the philosopher. In western philosophy (which includes Marx) I think it is accurate to contrast determinism with free will. Marx and Marxism are often accused of holding mechanical-deterministic views of history in which revolution is seen to be inevitable in a mechanical sense. This is plainly not the way in which Marx conceived of history, in fact it is exactly the opposite. For example, writings like his Theses on Feuerbach, especially Theses 1 and 3, in which he criticizes the deterministic views of the mechanical materialists which neglect the essential role of human activity (free will).
Unsolicited advice from Internet randos is probably the least effective form of “aid.” Why would anyone consider or care what a stranger has to say?
Realistically, outside of money, people in a public anonymous forum could:
-
Pretend to be job references for people applying for jobs.
-
Help people pass certification exams or even do their homework.
That’s pretty much it.
I personally think this comm should be more geared towards raising funds for any gofundmes, not just for people from this website. There’s so many gofundmes from Palestinians, and it’s kinda weird that we don’t have a sticky about it. There’s an entire website dedicated to vetting those gofundmes: https://gazafunds.com/. If you think they’re all scams or whatever, there’s a gofundme by the municipality of Gaza itself: https://gaza-city.ensany.com/campaign/6737
Yes, not all anonymous randos asking for money on a public anonymous forum actually need the money, which is why this comm should be geared towards gofundmes that can be vetted on some level. All those “uh aktually I don’t want to give you money because you’re a junkie who will blow the money on drugs” whiners can be redirected to donate to the Gazan gofundme instead.
Good idea, but this comm should still be open to regular users too, can’t forget about them. This comm has helped me so much in tight spots and generally speaking it seems the same for most users. I tend to think people coming here for help do need it.
Outside of that we do from time to time get posts raising money for indigenous comrades.
I don’t have a problem with gofundmes or anything, but I feel like that kinda thing falls into charity and not mutual aid. Still good of course, but different. (which opens up the conversation of if an internet forum can even be effective mutual aid but that’s off topic)
I don’t have a problem with people asking for money they don’t need, lying, using all their money on drugs, idc. I’m just asking that conversations be allowed to happen when they happen. Even if the OP ignores the criticisms entirely, it brings engagement to a persons post, which might potentially get more people interested in supporting them.
Taking care of a persons needs is always priority #1, but at times, said person is unfit to handle money in a way that reliably alleviates those needs.
this has been on my mind a lot but I don’t think there’s really a good way to articulate my thoughts or a good solution for it, it’s just hard for me to wrap my head around someone posting
spoiler because I'm not trying to call out a specific person but I mean, it's kind of a specific instance and might be recognized
about getting like literally two months’ worth of my wages as a donation and then asking for more money a week later, like
I guess I feel a mix of jealousy, disbelief, and just like loss by proxy that this mana from heaven seemed to just disappear without benefit lasting even longer than a week
but i’m going to shut up about it because I’m not trying to be an asshole, it’s just like, idk, really wack to me that that happened
I’ve given people money through here from time to time, and this definitely made me less likely to do so in the future
Absolutely, the flippancy some users have with our comrades’ hard work is really disappointing. To say that $4k is some miniscule amount of money, or being like “actually I spent hundreds of dollars on doordash ” wtf
I don’t think anyone is genuinely thinking or saying that in a smug tone (except tbf maybe this specific incident because it appears they’re also a bigot and possibly a scammer). Anyone spending hundreds on DoorDash because they actually want to, and not as some sort of weird scammer power play, is probably either not thinking through their financial decisions entirely or has some other reason to do so that isn’t malicious or even purposely dismissive of the people that donated to them.
I don’t think you should pretend it’s only “kind of” a specific incident. We literally all know who you mean and saying you’re going to shut up about it and then posting it anyhow doesn’t really change what you’ve said. Not that you shouldn’t have said anything, clearly you aren’t the only one to feel off about it, but don’t pretend it can be anonymized, it’s just subtweeting.
I don’t know what, if anything, should be done, but I also don’t see how a rule that didn’t exist when that happened is a factor.
This comm is ultimately 95% just charity for people in our little online community. I still think that’s a good thing on the whole, but I think we all would prefer if it could be a more structured form of aid, but it can’t unless people organize a structure (and mods allow it ig).
idk I just tried to do what I could to semi anonymize it while still gripe about it and give an opportunity for someone to not read about it, idk what else I coulda done other than say nothing :/
I don’t know what, if anything, should be done, but I also don’t see how a rule that didn’t exist when that happened is a factor.
yeah I wasn’t trying to say whatever rule change happened was a factor, I just thought to mention it because of the part I quoted from the OP because idk when else, if ever, it’d be appropriate to mention. I don’t want to make a post about it y’know
This comm is ultimately 95% just charity for people in our little online community. I still think that’s a good thing on the whole, but I think we all would prefer if it could be a more structured form of aid
I mean I agree, this place is a truly bright light in an otherwise bleak present, and although I’m not in a position to really help out others I am so grateful to see the help that’s been given
I just really wish in this case that money could have gotten this person into a better situation for at least a month or two
I just really wish in this case that money could have gotten this person into a better situation for at least a month or two
Yeah, I’m sure they wished for that too. Idk what griping does to help them or anyone else is all, besides make them feel bad. A one time cash infusion is good but its not enough to overhaul a life, to overcome all the barriers put in front of a person. I don’t really have a point here I guess.
Edit: EelBolshevism put it better above.
If you needed that money, you are free to ask for support as well. If you don’t need it, then why do you care where it went? its not your money nor are you seeking similar donations. Straight up if I became homeless I’d be fucked. I’d probably just die. I have like every leg up in the world but I still can’t kick any of my bad habits even when they’re self destructive. If I got an influx of money I’d 100% spend it on fast food or something. And people would judge the fuck out of me for it. I do more indulgent shit than that now, but nobody judges me because I didn’t have to beg for that money, I work a job. But I don’t deserve this any more than anyone else, I’m stuck in the same mental rut but with different life circumstances. And so unless/until there’s a program that’s going to care for homeless people outside of capitalism, giving them shit is a standby to keep them afloat at least, and if they are lucky, maybe a leg up and out (but that can’t be an expectation, they have to be ready to change and its pretty hard to get your shit together when you don’t have reliable food and shelter)
Counterpoint: giving needy people money does not entitle you to anything in return. If you are going to be weird about it - don’t give money. Miss everyone with the paternalistic nonsense.
Edit: and for the record I have given money to someone who was almost definitely scamming and I never mentioned it to anyone. Giving money anonymously is exactly what it says on the tin.
It’s not a matter of entitlement, its a matter of making sure peoples needs are met. That is the entire point of mutual aid. Throwing money at problems indiscriminately is not a solution. If you feel like giving someone money, give someone money. That is not what this post is about.
Somewhat understandable but you are advocating for witch trials instead of an outright ban which would be a much more sensible solution… which leads me to believe you haven’t thought this through at all or aren’t serious.
If it makes you ideologically mad that resources aren’t being perfectly allocated or whatever… Maybe unsubscribe from the comm or at least propose a solution with some thought behind it. Jesus.
you are advocating for witch trials
Who is advocating for witch trials and where did they advocate such a thing?
How is it advocating for witch trials? As far as I’m aware this wasn’t even perceived as a problem until a 1 off situation. That 1 off situation being highly controversial in this community. I would rather people talk these things over and actively learn from each other, than to blanket ban criticism. Criticism is not inherently malicious, and its not saying “don’t send money to this person” (and saying this IS wrong).
This is an online community, it has very little capacity to help, but one of the ways it can help is through conversations. Limiting the type of conversation, limits that capacity further. That is the point I am making.
