Official Chris Donation Fedora Throwdown Debate Thread

[The I Scream Man]

I'm starting to think that Batman and Greg are incapable of believing that people have empathy for Chris.

Even if people feel good about their donations, who cares? When you really get down to it, is there really such a thing as an unselfish action? If you want to take any sort of contribution or sacrifice and turn it into a masturbatory act, then really the entire concept of being selfless evaporates.

You're telling people they need to get over themselves, but you two need to do that way more than anyone else. From my perspective, it really seems like you have so little compassion that your brain will jump through hoops to understand why anyone else would genuinely want to try and help Chris and his mother. And I'd like to point out something: The money order is made out to Barb. There's no way in hell she'll let Chris spend it on a PS4. He'd be lucky if he got enough to buy even one game with it.

Thank you so much, like this is precisely what I was trying to say. I can't understand how its possible to not believe that hey, maybe I saw another human being suffering and didn't take whether or not he fucking deserved it due to past actions into consideration, especially when the worst thing he did was hit a dude with his car. Not to minimize the impact (lol) of that, because that really was a terrible thing to do, but seriously, I just can't countenance not sending some money to a scared little boy and his awful mother, no matter what they're going to spend it on or anything like that. He suffered a terrible loss, no matter which way you slice it.

Batman and Greg, yall are entitled to your opinions and you guys are good posters, but I honestly can't believe you've never seen a wholly selfless act ever in your lives, and that this is the place you have to see it. Because mine was. I derived satisfaction from it, it's true, but so what? That doesn't mean the act wasn't selfless.

I seriously can't believe I'm doing this but, here's a quote from Google on the definition of selfless:

concerned more with the needs and wishes of others than with one's own; unselfish.

By that definition, donating to Chris is selfless. Millions of things people do are selfless, shit I committed two selfless acts on the drive home today: I slowed down when a guy was passing me so he'd get around me quicker and then waved another guy out from a stop sign at a busy intersection so he could get where he was going. I did so because the first guy was obviously in more of a hurry than me, and the second guy would probably have waited there for a long time if I hadn't stopped, and it cost me nothing to do either, and I didn't appreciably gain anything either, save the knowledge that I did the right thing, which is what my parents instilled in me from a young age.

Sorry for the novel but the whole "Chris doesn't deserve it because he'll waste it/because he's a bad person/because his mom is awful/because he started the fire/etc. etc." response to the Chris Question doesn't ring true for me, because I really, seriously, 110% believe just about everyone deserves a second chance, and by God I'm going to give them those chances when it's in my power to do so. Worst case is that he changes nothing, or slides further down the slope, in which case I can say I tried, that I didn't sit back and watch another human being suffer needlessly, when I was in a position to help.

 

[DrChristianTroy]

Voted yes. People can spend their own money however they want. They're no better or worse than me choosing to buy DVDs instead.

 

[MrTroll]

What other people do with their money isn't any of my business. What I do with my money isn't anyone else's business.

It's ridiculous that a discussion like this even needs to be had, but some people just can't stop derailing other threads with this shit so I guess it's better to contain it all in one place.

 

[Greg Sestero]

What other people do with their money isn't any of my business. What I do with my money isn't anyone else's business.

It's ridiculous that a discussion like this even needs to be had, but some people just can't stop derailing other threads with this shit so I guess it's better to contain it all in one place.

But of course it needs to be had. "Should Chris have gotten donations" is entirely, completely different from "Should individuals have been stopped from giving donations to Chris". Obviously people can spend their money however they want. I don't care if you spend it on drugs. But in a place where Chris is discussed to no end, and where the biggest recent news is Chris receiving and then complaining about donations, those donations are going to be discussed. And since there are people who think it won't help Chris - again, entirely different from saying that people should actively be stopped from trying to help him - there's two sides to the discussion. It's no more or less worthwhile a discussion than anything else about Chris, but it so happens to be quite relevant right now. All the new updates are Chris's comments on the donations. What else do you expect people to talk about?

I don't understand this obsession with not seeing or hearing things you disagree with. Oh my god, there is so much discussion about so-and-so! Just scroll down right past it. That's what I do with conversations that don't interest me. That's the beauty of all communication over the internet.

 

[EI 903]

It's relevant, but I agree that too many threads were getting derailed. Best to confine the debate here.

 

[Greg Sestero]

It's relevant, but I agree that too many threads were getting derailed. Best to confine the debate here.

Yeah, I'll concede that.

 

[Coldgrip]

I didn't donate. Mainly because I felt that it's a violation of the whole 'Do not interfere' rule when it comes to dealing with Chris. I know others have pointed out that that's only suppose to apply to weens attempting to troll Chris, but I feel that whatever fate befalls Chris it's his own problem to deal with. I'll neither help nor hinder him. Only watch.

A minor reason is I kinda feel he doesn't deserves the charity, but I can understand why people would donate.

 

[Greg Sestero]

But I also see it as two people who live at or below the poverty line, who lost the one person who loved them (or at least cared for them) a couple of years ago and who haven't been able to recover from that loss, and who are now basically homeless.

I don't think that the Chandlers are living below the poverty line. Federal guidelines dictate that the threshold for a household of 2 is $15,510. The tugboat already nets him more than $10,000, I believe, and Barb has supplemental income (retirement or social security or something, right?) They're not exactly loaded, but they can stay above the poverty line while literally not doing any work. They would have to not cash their checks to become impoverished.

The international poverty line is $1.25 a day, or an annual income that's about two weeks' worth of Chris's tugboat - a level of misery that the Chandlers could have no familiarity with (neither do I, to be fair).

 

[MrTroll]

But of course it needs to be had. "Should Chris have gotten donations" is entirely, completely different from "Should individuals have been stopped from giving donations to Chris".

Spare me your strawman. Nowhere did I suggest that anyone here was contemplating whether people should be forcibly prevented from giving money to Chris.

And since there are people who think it won't help Chris - again, entirely different from saying that people should actively be stopped from trying to help him - there's two sides to the discussion.

If that really was the essence of the discussion I wouldn't be bothered by it. But certain individuals have made it a point to attack the intelligence, or even worse, the character of the donators, implying or outright stating that they only gave money to feel good about themselves, or for some other ulterior motive. Not only is it thread-crapping but it's offensive too.

I don't understand this obsession with not seeing or hearing things you disagree with. Oh my god, there is so much discussion about so-and-so! Just scroll down right past it. That's what I do with conversations that don't interest me. That's the beauty of all communication over the internet.

That might be a fair point if this shit had been previously constrained to a single thread or two, which obviously is not the case or Null would not have made this one.

 

[4Macie]

5) did you donate? I don't care, so please stop saying "this was totes worth the $13 I sent"

Uhh. Sorry? I didn't say that to gloat about being omg such a good person or anything, my point was that I wasn't expecting Chris to change his ways because of it, in response to people like Greg calling us stupid and naive.

I said $13 because I just did... though I guess if I had seen someone say they donated 13 it would explain why I picked it. It's not just you or even one other person who's saying it though. There are a lot of people that are saying "It's worth the money I paid because I'm laughing" or "It's worth the money because _________" . Even that is expectable I guess; or at least it's half as annoying as those saying "I regret donating because ___________" . Those ones are really getting old quick. It's like... I don't care how much you donated, I really don't. Personally I think it's a waste, but people are allowed to do what they want to do with their money and I don't judge.

My main issue here is this: people are literally hating on others because they donated or because they don't understand why people donated. To me, that's the most pathetic part of this. It's like... let's say there's a debate on which finger on Chris's left hand is the most important, and then hate on the people who say the pinkie over the ring finger. Like, really? Really? Are we debating about this and then hating on people? Either one of those opinions are stupid things to hate over. Same thing here. You donated or you didn't. You had your reasons, now let's just move on.

 

[Null]

No I understand. I understand perfectly.

What I don't appreciate is people acting high and mighty because they have empathy for Chris. That isn't selflessness, and it's not unique. Whether you like it or not, we all feel empathy for Chris. We all see ourselves in Chris. It's like that time you asked people whether or not they're afraid of turning into Chris. You said there's no such thing as a selfless act. I've belaboured this point time and time again. It's other people who have argued differently.

Also, I'm perfectly aware of who the money order is made out to. Doesn't mean you didn't just free up $500 of his own money by proxy.

I don't understand your point. It comes off to me that you're genuinely upset people have donated to Chris. Maybe because you fear he'll spend it in a way you don't approve of? If so, I'm pretty sure people donated expecting him to spend it incorrectly if he did receive any cash.

When I first started the charity I expected no more than $200. I expected my $25 donation to be the highest amount put forth and that it would beat the next highest by $10 or more. I had no idea what to do with $900. I walked up and down the isles of different stores and only came up with $150 worth of products. I went on Amazon and bought some arts and crafts, along with extra giftcards, and I still only ended up at like $250. I had over $500 left, so I took the round chunk and put it as cash for Barb, using the rest to help pay for shipping. There was no way for me to spend everything that 60 people had given to Chris and put into product, but I had to honor the donations.

And honestly, it's more than just being able to see yourself as Chris. I've been through a housefire and I know what that's like. However, Chris is autistic and his mom is over 70 years old. They have no family. If you want to try and think of individuals less capable of dealing with a loss, you'd be grinding splinters of the bottom of the barrel. People genuinely wanted to help two people that they knew couldn't handle themselves, despite them being total assholes. That's the good of humanity. Greg wants to call it masturbation, go for it. You want to call it a waste, go for it. I don't care, and neither do 60 other people.

It seems like the entire point of this incredibly unwarranted scorched earth policy that a select few exceptional individuals have started across every discussion thread is to make other people feel bad for having donated. That's it. Greg even explicitly states "I know this is hard for you to accept" like he's arguing from a position of unalienable righteousness and I'm just some dumbass that threw his money away. When I see people going "See! This update means Chris doesn't deserve anything!" I find it insulting. I don't need other people telling me what is and is not a worthy cause; I just wanted to get some stupid asshole a pancake dinner and a bar of soap after he lost his home.

 

[Greg Sestero]

Spare me your strawman. Nowhere did I suggest that anyone here was contemplating whether people should be forcibly prevented from giving money to Chris.

If that really was the essence of the discussion I wouldn't be bothered by it. But certain individuals have made it a point to attack the intelligence, or even worse, the character of the donators, implying or outright stating that they only gave money to feel good about themselves, or for some other ulterior motive. Not only is it thread-crapping but it's offensive too.

That might be a fair point if this shit had been previously constrained to a single thread or two, which obviously is not the case or Null would not have made this one.

1. You said "What other people do with their money isn't any of my business." That implies that I have a desire to control what other people do with their money, which is only tangentially (but necessarily) related to the question of whether Chris specifically would have benefited from donations.

2. It's unfortunate if people are stating that others are stupid because they donated money. I haven't seen that myself but if it happened that's so great. I think I might have said something like "you'd have to be stupid to think Chris is going to appreciate this or change his behavior", but I don't think that's at all controversial - the donors seem to be in agreement with that as well. As for saying that they gave the money to feel good about themselves, it's a semi-impolite way of expressing some that's essentially true. I think a lot of people gave money just because Chris is known to them, or brought them amusement. Several people have even expresses feelings to the effect that Chris's angry reactions made the money worthwhile.

To the donors' credit, most of them seem far less concerned about the perceived righteousness of donating to Chris than some of their defenders. You can do what want with your money if you feel like it, but if you tout it as some act of heartfelt charity, then whether you could have donated to someone far needier actually becomes relevant. Charitable organizations usually frown on giving money to a place without making sure that it will effectively and efficiently benefit people, and giving money to Chris isn't exactly tax deductible.

3. One of the reasons this has been in so many topics is because all the new updates are Chris's facebook comments on the donations. Talk about Chris demanding donations (or complaining about donations) for so long, and the question of whether he should get donations inevitably becomes relevant. It's also not just the one side bringing it up. In the topic that Null locked down, I and a couple other people responded to a guy who said it was the right thing to do, and you need to do the right thing without expecting gratitude. I'm sure this wasn't his intention, but the inverse implication was that people who donated behaved in a way that was morally superior to the people who didn't. There was even talk of people being "saints" in a couple topics. When the issue of morality gets brought up like that, you're going to hear the other side of the coin.

Hell, I'll grant that giving Chris money was an act of kindness, pity, even altruism. Altruism towards those we're familiar with, or confronted with, is stronger than altruism towards strangers, and statistics about impoverished nations isn't going to change that. It's the same reason that I'll give a bum a dollar sometimes instead of to an organization that's statistically had the most impact on reducing homelessness (except that bums are needier than Chris). But throwing a tenner to some really lazy fat guy who made you laugh doesn't need to be accompanied by sermons on unrewarded righteousness.

That's it. Greg even explicitly states "I know this is hard for you to accept" like he's arguing from a position of unalienable righteousness and I'm just some dumbass that threw his money away.

That's very unfair of you. I said it was hard for you to accept because, even though I told you otherwise, you accused me of wanting to spite Chris because I lack compassion. We can agree to disagree, but the notion that money isn't good for Chris - or that whatever level of compassion you've judged me to have is better spared elsewhere - is not so outlandish as to warrant the assumption that it's a front put on to conceal a lack of human empathy.

And the quote was "I know this is hard for you to accept, but I really mean [what I meant]". I am absolutely entitled to speak from a position of unalienable righteousness regarding my own intentions.

 

[Null]

unrewarded righteousness

I will give you a giftcard code or steam game up to $50 in value if you find any post from someone who has donated to Chris that is more pretentious than anything you've posted about it.

 

[Batman]

unrewarded righteousness

I will give you a giftcard code or steam game up to $50 in value if you find any post from someone who has donated to Chris that is more pretentious than anything you've posted about it.

Define 'pretentious'.

 

[Null]

unrewarded righteousness

I will give you a giftcard code or steam game up to $50 in value if you find any post from someone who has donated to Chris that is more pretentious than anything you've posted about it.

Define 'pretentious'.

Something along the lines of this:
"I am better than you because I donated to Chris." or
"People who chose not to donate are bad people."

I've determined that all of this ranting is directed at some strawman where people who have contributed towards Chris feel somehow superior to those who have not. I've not seen any of that. I have seen at least two people say that, not only does Chris not deserve donations, but he deserves death or serious injury for his angry facebook message about the money order. Show me your strawman is real and I'll ban that person and give you a giftcard.

 

[Greg Sestero]

unrewarded righteousness

I will give you a giftcard code or steam game up to $50 in value if you find any post from someone who has donated to Chris that is more pretentious than anything you've posted about it.

Come now. You're trying to bait me. I really don't understand why we can't civilly discuss Chris getting donations without developing personal rivalries. Calling me out by name with an out-of-context quote, calling me pretentious? I may have been vocal but I've been vocal about an issue, not about you or any other user. I've been down that internet forum road where you see people disliking each other because they disagree about something, and I really can't be bothered to deal with it.

 

[Null]

unrewarded righteousness

I will give you a giftcard code or steam game up to $50 in value if you find any post from someone who has donated to Chris that is more pretentious than anything you've posted about it.

Come now. You're trying to bait me. I really don't understand why we can't civilly discuss Chris getting donations without developing personal rivalries. Calling me out by name with an out-of-context quote, calling me pretentious? I may have been vocal but I've been vocal about an issue, not about you or any other user. I've been down that internet forum road where you see people disliking each other because they disagree about something, and I really can't be bothered to deal with it.

I am ending this. Either find me the source of the issue (obnoxious Chris donators that feel self-righteous because of their contribution) or stop arguing strawmans and shut up.

 

[Greg Sestero]

I am ending this. Either find me the source of the issue (obnoxious Chris donators that feel self-righteous because of their contribution) or stop arguing strawmans and shut up.

I really hate to bring specific people into this, because again, I'm into this personal rivalry crap, but here goes:

"I said a while back while everyone was putting together their donations that anyone who donated was doing so because it was the right thing. Not for gratitude. I still stand by opinion that all of you who donated are better people than me who are willing to do the right thing regardless of who its for. And sometimes you need to do the right thing even if someone spits in your face for doing so. Thats what we should all take from this. Doing the right thing because its right."

From the other topic. The people who donated are better people who are will to do the right thing regardless of who its for? They might be better people than me, but I don't think throwing a fattie a few bucks proves that. I don't want to single the guy out and I don't think it was his actual intention but it clearly implies that if you donated, you are morally superior to me and Batman.

And yes, this is relevant and the sort of post I'm talking about even though he's not a donor. I already said before in this very topic that there seem to be far more donor-apologists than actual self-righteous donors.

 

[Null]

"I said a while back while everyone was putting together their donations that anyone who donated was doing so because it was the right thing. Not for gratitude. I still stand by opinion that all of you who donated are better people than me who are willing to do the right thing regardless of who its for. And sometimes you need to do the right thing even if someone spits in your face for doing so. Thats what we should all take from this. Doing the right thing because its right."

The person you quoted didn't donate, though. He's saying he respects the people that did because they even bothered. How is that obnoxious? That's being humble. Are you seriously offended that other people who didn't donate respect those that did?

A stretch:

Can you quote any specific point in this post that sounds pretentious? I want to know exactly what part of this is upsetting to you.

 

[Greg Sestero]

Define 'pretentious'.

Something along the lines of this:
"I am better than you because I donated to Chris." or
"People who chose not to donate are bad people."

I've determined that all of this ranting is directed at some strawman where people who have contributed towards Chris feel somehow superior to those who have not. I've not seen any of that. I have seen at least two people say that, not only does Chris not deserve donations, but he deserves death or serious injury for his angry facebook message about the money order. Show me your strawman is real and I'll ban that person and give you a giftcard.

A stretch:

http://www.cwckiforums.com/viewtopic.ph ... 05#p168410

Even if this person does satisfy your criteria, I think a ban might be a bit harsh.

"but the fundamental reason why I gave is because it was the right thing to do, regardless of who he was. I feel that I do have an obligation to better and enrich the lives of those around me, and to leave the world a better place than I found it."

Quite a high horse to climb off of. It implies a lack of moral fortitude in people like me that apparently don't live up to the obligation to do the right thing.

"If you disagree with him receiving charity and feel that his attitude or actions don't warrant it, then you have a fundamental problem with charity in general..."

I'm a socialist. I applaud personal charity and believe in huge systems of obligatory social charity for every human society.