Does charity actually help?

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

I used to use CharityWatch and Charity Navigator as shortcuts to verify the legitimacy of charities. I realized that while it is a good way to look at the financials of a charity and how transparent the charity is with how the money is spent, it tells nothing about what the charity does in private.

There is also a fun trick where charities “hire” other charities and they count it as entirely “helping”.

 

[No Batty Boys in Jamaica]

Yes it does. I know someone who got cancer and St. Jude’s paid for her treatment 100%. Another who got help with food and rent from a charity for a while. Can’t give the specific name because it’s kind of a small charity.

But others are sketchy, like I’ve heard the American Red Cross doesn’t do much besides taking photos of themselves. A lot of the breast cancer charities don’t do dick shit because venture capital is what funds breast cancer research, not individuals giving a few bucks.

 

[JosephStalin]

"Charity" given in public is for the giver's benefit. Charity given in private is for the recipient's benefit. I prefer to help people one-on-one, quietly. Treat people the way I'd like to be treated, not as a way to satisfy someone's ego trip.

 

[melty]

Define charity.

No really. I'm not trying to be smug.

Vainglory is a type of charity. The wealthy throw money at elaborate public works which may benefit some, but are done for the glory of the donor. Any philanthropy is secondary or a side effect. Vainglory traditionally helped the great, and academics via libraries to fly higher, but did little for the poorest.

Caritas is also charity. The divine demands/expects the great to tend to the weak as a Roman Patrician would mind his lessers. The Patron must keep his minions alive, but how well is a matter of personal choice and capacity. Recipients of Caritas in history were not generally distinct from serfs, they owed their sustenance to their Lord; but the limits of said charity ensured they could never separate and become independent. Recipients of Caritas in modern times generally do so knowing their vote is owed to their master, or else.

That's a good question. Most people interpreted this as meaning large charity organizations, but I've become pretty sour on helping even small groups or individuals 1 on 1 as it seems to be more enabling than helping. I suppose it depends on the situation.

I have been screwed over many times by donating to various causes. The first, and most infuriating, was during the 2010 Haiti earthquake. My grandfather had died and left me a small amount of money, with the request to donate at least 10% to charity. Since the earthquake had just happened, I thought that was a good place to donate it. unfortunately, I chose to donate it to the Clinton Foundation. I was much younger at the time and the information about the Clintons that we all know now was not widely known, and anything negative about them I chalked up to right wing conspiracy theories. Now, I look back and I'm horrified. I might as well have donated the money directly to child molestors. And on top of that, it was my grandfather's money, used to fulfil one of his last wishes.
But even if the Clintons weren't sponsoring child rape, and all of my money went to helping Haitians, what would it really accomplish? Say it managed to save some Haitian kid and they grow up and have five more kids. Now in 2024 all 5 of those kids would be supremely fucked, probably at least one would die horribly at the hands of President BBQ's gangs or some other thing. Was there any point in helping? They obviously cannot help themselves, any attempt to help them prolongs the situation and makes it worse. Now there's like 5 starving dying kids instead of just 1. This doesn't just apply to Haiti but many situations.

After that I mostly have given money to Kiva, which lends money to people in shitholes for their businesses. They give the money back and I have not had an issues or heard any issues with Kiva. I trust it a little more because at least the people are using the money to accomplish a specific goal. Usually it's something like buying new merchandise for their store or materials to make something to sell.

I have also had problems with other charities. I don't think I ever donated to them but Oxfam was recommended to me once, and of course they are yet another NGO in the business of sending rapists over to Haiti and Africa. I also donated to the ACLU at one point before they went super woke and started suing people for questioning if men should be in womens prisons. It's practically a joke. If some organization doesn't have a scandal yet, let me know and I will donate to it and you'll hear about them raping people in no time. I'm, I think, pretty understandably soured on giving any money to any of these places ever again.

Most recently, I had another gift from grandparents and again decided to honor them by donating a portion of it. This time I donated it to a local homeless cause with the theory that local organizations closer to the people they claim to be helping. But once again, I feel like it is enabling worse issues. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to punish homelessness heavily as it's enabling these people to continue living to the street to their own detriment and that of the community.

I even question the value of simple stuff like helping single mothers with groceries. Does creating an environment where they know they can receive help cause them to make riskier decisions knowing that there is a social safety net? Poorfags always complain about the lack of a safety net, but as many conservatives have written about and I'm increasingly convinced are right, there are already many social safety net programs and they seem to instead be enabling large swaths of people to do fuck all and raise their children like shit while blaming everyone else for their problems.

Of the various things I've given money to, the one I easily feel the best about giving money to is the Kiwi Farms. For such a hated place, at least I feel confident that Null won't use my money to rape African children, a guarantee that large charitable organizations are unable to provide.

I used to use CharityWatch and Charity Navigator as shortcuts to verify the legitimacy of charities. I realized that while it is a good way to look at the financials of a charity and how transparent the charity is with how the money is spent, it tells nothing about what the charity does in private.

This, and what I have found over time is even charities with stellar reputations become corrupt as seen with OxFam and ACLU which once had sterling reputations but went downhill very quickly.

Excluding situations involving natural disasters, I think foreign aid should have a strict time limit and come with conditions (eg: Foreign aid will only be given for X years, but country Y must improve in Z aspect (farming, etc.) within the timeframe, otherwise the aid will be reduced or terminated early).

Makes sense.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

I heard religious charities do more shit, however I wouldn't be surprised the last half decade it went from feeding the needy to pro nigger/trannies causes. But even looking back, all the charities allowing infinite niggers caused more harm than good, with shit like Africa using donated white western blood rather than their own blood.

 

[theTime15Nigh]

Charities do help.
They just don't help goys.