fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4485 ]

[ SECRET POST #4485 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4485 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[The Rookie]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Good Omens]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Jonathan Van Ness (Queer Eye) and ex-boyfriend Wilco Froneman]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Pennyworth]

__________________________________________________

06.

[The IT Crowd]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Rise of the Guardians and Carmen Sandiego]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 15 secrets from Secret Submission Post #642.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

... how is that 'injustice'? People have every right to give their money to causes that have a personal significance to them. If someone wants to give a million dollars to an animal shelter, that's entirely within their rights and they shouldn't be shamed for doing so because there are starving children in Africa, how dare you.

No one is owed anyone else's charity and frankly it's pretty disgusting to act like they are.

I'll substitute "inequity" for "injustice" with regards to the wealthy, if that makes any difference to you. But the fact that we live in a society that is constructed in a way that allows people to become billionaires at the expense of everyone else, and where our ability to accomplish important social tasks is then entirely dependent on the whims of those billionaires, I think that is a deeply inequitable and bad state of affairs. And I stand by "injustice" with regards to governments acting that way. And I don't give a rat's ass if you think that's disgusting.

For governments, sure. But individuals can do what they want and they shouldn't be shat on for choosing to give their money to one cause over another. Charity of any sort should be encouraged.

Nah, while charity is good, Notre Dame is set. More money won't help the situation. Thoughtful charity is better than feel good charity.

... you do realize that things like cathedrals cost an enormous amount of money to keep up, right? it's not like it's no longer going to need any money once the reconstruction is done.

Unless it somehow stops being one of the greatest cultural sites of Christianity, it'll get the money the money to maintain it and plenty more.

Was it hurting for funds before the fire then?

NAYRT Sorta. The cathedral was undergoing repairs before the fire and they were having trouble raising money for it.

I heard they were having trouble raising money for the conservation/repair efforts that may have accidentally started the fire, so maybe?

It was physically crumbling and no one was swooping in to donate hundreds of millions to fix the problem.

I don't think you can necessarily treat the amount of money (and hence power) that some people have as a morally neutral thing. And I think once you do have people with that level of power and money, there are some choices they can make that are just so disportionate and useless, compared to the opportunity cost of what else could be done with the money, that I do think you can be critical of it.

If only things were truly as simple as, "Here are all these important causes which are equally visible and it's entirely people's choice that dictates what they support."

There's also the fact that "starving children in Africa" problems are usually far too wide-reaching and complex to be solved just by having rich people throw money at the problem. You're talking issues of environment and geography, geo-politics and conflict, infrastructure, culture, and all kinds of other underlying and intersecting issues. There are NGOs and such doing good work who should be supported, absolutely, but while your donation helps to alleviate certain specific problems for individuals, it will never solve the bigger problems.

Meanwhile, restoring a damaged building is a smaller, more discrete problem that CAN be solved by throwing money at it.

One, harm amelioration for specific individuals is still a moral good, if it's done in a way that doesn't cause larger problems.

Two, I think there are some very good and thorough-going critiques of the way that billionaire philanthropy is actually carried out compared to what could be done, but that's probably beyond the scope of the thread.

Three, there's still the issue of operating in a system where making changes is depend on the will and the ability of billionaires in the first place.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #4485 ]

Re: Notre Dame backlash...

Re: Notre Dame backlash...

Re: Notre Dame backlash...

Re: Notre Dame backlash...

Re: Notre Dame backlash...

Re: Notre Dame backlash...

Re: Notre Dame backlash...

Re: Notre Dame backlash...

Re: Notre Dame backlash...

Re: Notre Dame backlash...

Re: Notre Dame backlash...

Re: Notre Dame backlash...

Re: Notre Dame backlash...

Re: Notre Dame backlash...