The thing to consider is that people will support enertainment and charity more easily than they will support charity. When you have a group of entertainers essentially providing small incremental goals where people can immediately see their involvement count and they can feel involved in silly competitions and shows with engaging content they're simply more likely to do so.
One of the complaints many people brought up with regards to today stream was that if people all donated the $2 that people were asking for with regards the streams voting goals, that it might add up to more than the total prize money for actually winning the event. That might very well be true. The thing is that it's absurd to assume everyone would be willing to donate on a page with no fanfare, no numbers increasing and without any 'prize'. People who watch charity streams like this might not even support the charity (though I imagine a lot might) but the overall package of entertainment, content and a good cause they might think is worth their time.
Also, this was a weekend charity stream where a lot of people were taking time off work to relax and enjoy themselves before going back to work during the week. They might be able to use that time to support a charity event like this where they wouldn't necessarily want to add another work day to the week.
So...the stream stars are streaming and doing their own thing, having fun and entertaining viewers (since that's how they GET viewers in the FIRST place), and are giving the money they earn off of that to charity, and OP complains?
If the OP would have researched a little bit he would have know that Husky and Friends were donating their time to Rosanna Pansino. Rosanna "Ro" Pansino, has a YouTube channel where he could have learned that she has been donating her time to several charities for some time now. This drive was just another project. To name a few of her undertakings: Picking up trash on "Earth Day", Helping to build houses for 'Habitat for Humanity", Running in "Course of the Force" for the "Make-A-Wish Foundation".
I see NO problem with people having fun, while doing something for charity. Even if that event means that they stroke their own ego's (which they did not do) or made a bit of cash on the side (which they did not). IT IS BETTER THAN DOING NOTHING.
I really dislike people complaining about what other people are doing for charity. Why should the amount of good they do be measured. Either you do charity or you do not.
On July 16 2012 06:28 ticklishmusic wrote: option 1. they can sit on their butts and help the world
option 2. or they could get up and help the world
most people are lazy and will choose option 1.
How is giving away money "sitting on your butt" though? I mean assuming you earned that money by hard work?
A relatively well paid person giving away a sizable portion of his salary to charity is probably doing more good than a full time charity worker.
option 1 being that watching husky's stream can help by helping husky win money which he will give to charity. option 2 being you could go out and actually help build a house.
actually, that money itself can't do anything. there need to be people who are actually spending it and using it to help people. while in some cases what you say is true, there are many organizations of skilled individuals, like doctors w/o borders, where those "charity workers" could be pulling like 300k a year if they weren't volunteering.
The sort of "we can do better than this" parts of the OP make it sounds very negative, as if there's something wrong with what's currently happening. Oddly, that's what is implied by "we can do better than this" in english. I don't think that was the intent. Maybe we should try to think of it as more of an inspirational "we can do even better than this" which implies what we are already doing is beneficial.
On July 16 2012 06:28 ticklishmusic wrote: option 1. they can sit on their butts and help the world
option 2. or they could get up and help the world
most people are lazy and will choose option 1.
How is giving away money "sitting on your butt" though? I mean assuming you earned that money by hard work?
A relatively well paid person giving away a sizable portion of his salary to charity is probably doing more good than a full time charity worker.
option 1 being that watching husky's stream can help by helping husky win money which he will give to charity. option 2 being you could go out and actually help build a house.
actually, that money itself can't do anything. there need to be people who are actually spending it and using it to help people. while in some cases what you say is true, there are many organizations of skilled individuals, like doctors w/o borders, where those "charity workers" could be pulling like 300k a year if they weren't volunteering.
...Which is why you donate money, to help pay for those doctor's salaries. I don't think a lot of people mind working in charity, it's just hard to manage without stable incomes. But if charitable organizations were able to offer competitive salaries, they could attract a lot of good/intelligent people.
Hey, having the guys win and donate all the money to charity, even if it's not the most efficient way of giving to charity or making the world better, is actually BY FAR better than spending all the prize money on purchasing gaming gear and giving it away in a big raffle. I mean, seriously..
I don't see the purpose of adding "Husky's stream." The unfortunate truth is most people are not willing to spend their time with charities but would gladly donate money instead. I agree that there are more direct approaches to helping a charity or spending your time more wisely to help others. Raising awareness of ways to help charity is a good thing so I don't mean to take away from your points regarding that.
However, doesn't a stream for charity function the same way a city walk for charity does? They both serve to create awareness. Yes the city walk is different but I'm using it since both have a audience aspect. Since you decided to aim this at "Husky's stream" I guess I am more confused. I don't see a downside to a group of people providing entertainment in the hopes that it will generate votes and it led to Rosana winning and thus 7500$ is being donated to a charity. As I said before I truly do believe that if someone really wanted to make a more obvious impact they could be donating their time and physically be helping other but I don't see a "downside" to them having streamed over the past few weekends.
giving $7,500 to a charity that is expert in the field your donating to will do a lot more than getting 5 people to volunteer for a week. In addition to the $7,500, it raises awareness to the cause and will get more people involved.
edit: I really hate the idea that 'money is the root of all evil' that's been growing popular lately. Are people really getting pissed off that people are donating money to charity instead of doing physical labor.
Let's do the math here: To raise the $7,500 that Ro is aiming for, you would need to work ~833 hours at a rate of 9USD an hour. Are you really trying to convince me that is better than doing a 24hour live stream once a week that entertains people and gets even more people involved that otherwise would not have given a care?
Unfortunately, most charity work is not fun for most people (although a useful CV point!), whereas watching a stream and by proxy donating is fun.
Therefore doing the latter is better than doing fuck all. Of course the world would be fantastic is everyone gave up their weekends to do whatever charitable act, but I know I wouldn't enjoy it.
That said, I'd take streaming events over shitty "sponsor me to skydive" events any day, since the stream at least gives something back to the donators and avoids a super wierd situation of "pay me money and I'll do something super fun for me"
Yeah I'm a dick, but I'm happy. Also think this is more of a blog thread.
Everytime i see someone telling me to do charity work i am in a conflict:
A: I really should go do something good for someone else B: I don't want to Often i come to the conclussion "Okay, i'll donate some money so someone else can afford to do charity work".
But "forum posts" like this "Unpaid social work instead watching charity stream" post makes me cry. In my opinion its only a post with much promotion for the post(er) with the little side-effect people feel bad about themselves because they don't do work for free.
The problem with making people feel bad about giving money instead of doing unpaid charity work is that they're essentially the same thing. I have to spend time to obtain money, which makes my time equal to how much money I make. Therefore, giving a charity my money without being given anything in return is the same thing as giving them my time for free. So while I could be out there doing unpaid charity work, I don't want to. So instead I give them my money. That doesn't make someone who volunteers their time instead of their money any better than me, or any more charitable than me, assuming we give in an equal time/money ratio.
On July 16 2012 07:38 Iteachextra wrote: The OP has to be a troll
"Husky's way of helping charity is not as good as my way of helping charity let me show u how to properly help charity hurdur"
This whole thread is about dumplings promoting himself and his way of thinking. That is the exact thing he is mad about Husky doing.
Except he gets next to nothing for doing so? I am not sure why you think he's a troll. It's opinionated for sure, but that's made plenty clear in the post and he doesn't claim his view as the only view accepted. He's using Husky as an example and not as THE example. So I don't see why you would be undermining the post with baseless claims?
On topic, the OP doesn't have a realistic view of how charities function in society. Ideally, we would promote the prominent individuals in their respective fields of social work, and we do, but no where as much as for media personalities. I do think that what Husky and others are doing is equivalent to the old telethons you would see on TV (think PBS on TV and NPR on the radio) except just on the internet. It's not so much a side-effect as long as the intent is to raise both awareness and funds for the charity in question. The OP should not view the situation as an end-all to the charity process but rather a gateway.
On July 16 2012 08:05 Golbat wrote: Everytime i see someone telling me to do charity work i am in a conflict:
A: I really should go do something good for someone else B: I don't want to Often i come to the conclussion "Okay, i'll donate some money so someone else can afford to do charity work".
But "forum posts" like this "Unpaid social work instead watching charity stream" post makes me cry. In my opinion its only a post with much promotion for the post(er) with the little side-effect people feel bad about themselves because they don't do work for free.
The problem with making people feel bad about giving money instead of doing unpaid charity work is that they're essentially the same thing. I have to spend time to obtain money, which makes my time equal to how much money I make. Therefore, giving a charity my money without being given anything in return is the same thing as giving them my time for free. So while I could be out there doing unpaid charity work, I don't want to. So instead I give them my money. That doesn't make someone who volunteers their time instead of their money any better than me, or any more charitable than me, assuming we give in an equal time/money ratio.
Well said my friend. This is a concept so many people seem to miss. People love to think that what they choose to do is somehow more important than what anyone else does. You can look in the NASL day 2 LR thread and see while they were showing the Tribes thing a bunch of people bitching because "this game is a waste of time, requires no skill, only my game requires skill whatever." No matter what people are doing they love the concept of saying to someone else essentially "I am better than you are," rather than appreciating the contributions that people give regardless of how small or large that it is.
It is not one's moral obligation to spend their life giving away their time and money. You might do so because you personally feel it is right, but your personal views do not reflect the views of everyone. The word "charity" is aptly defined.
Moreover, the idea that you can only be "truly" charitable is by the exclusion of enjoyment is an idea that's completely preposterous. It's one of the core aspects that society at large has come to define as the "hipster" culture. You're attempting to look down upon or otherwise diminish the goodwill acts of others because you don't agree with some aspect of how they're accomplishing them. You feel it has to be YOUR way or it's the WRONG way. This is simply fallacious.
You need to stop trying to define charity as a black and white notion where you're either 100% invested with all your time and money or you should simply do nothing at all.
Your logic is absurd. You create a choice between things that are completely independent.
Why do you want people to skip charity events and do social work? Would it not be better to suggest they skip playing SC2 and do social work, or skip watching that TV show tonight and do social work, or skip browsing TL and do social work? Why do you pick out this very specific and small part of their life which is viewing charity streams and suggest that they don't? It makes no sense. Why don't you just say "Watch whatever charity event you want, but also do social work"?
Or even better "Do social work."
Or maybe even better "I shouldn't lecture you on your life decisions."
Considering no one can be forced to give anything beyond their taxes, you should cease complaining about what is given. Ever hear of the saying "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth"? Extremely applicable here. Finding people who donate money through a charity, or hold streaming events which result in large sums being donated to chairty, and saying "fuck you, stop that" isn't incredibly nice or smart.
What is Husky supposed to do? Wear a mask, change his voice, and stream under an assumed named and raise $0.01 for charity? Big names round up big dollars. I have never once seen any of the pros who do this go around bragging about the fact that they did it. They are actually extremely humble about it.
Take Athene for example, who through online work raised $1,000,000.00+ for charity. Do you have any idea how many lifetimes it would take you to work off that much through random social work, even if you worked 40 hours a week? That's 66 years of social work based on my local minimum wage.
EPT
