Okay but like, how often do I actually have to wash a hoodie?

Yeah I have to agree with everyone else. If this is a question you’re actually asking, it’s probably a question for your doctor, because the actual answer should just be “just breathe dude”

I mean you attacked me because you didn’t like a logical, obvious, critique of something. Which again, I never said it was bad, I just said it could be improved. And you said things that I just repeated back at you, and now you can’t handle your own words?

Goodness me indeed.

Of course the CEO equivalent exists in government. It’s just a management position. Equivalent services will need equivalent management.

A CEO is not a manager. You’re already embarrassing yourself here 😉

Perhaps you didn’t read my comment. I’ve been a treasurer for a number of medium size charities. I know exactly how much money is needed to support the charities objectives.

I did read your comment, but I kinda assumed you either were lying or getting really defensive. There’s a lot of waste that wouldn’t exist if they were consolidated into the government.

Do you realize that there are multiple charities for the same thing, which just means more and more waste?

For example?

Yeah sure, since it’s already been brought to. The red cross does blood donations, but they’re only 35% of America’s non profit blood donations, there’s also America’s blood centers and vitalent and more! So much overhead! If they were all one organization, you could eliminate much of the overhead and more effectively coordinate the blood donations.

Sorry mate, this is just an absurd thought bubble borne of naivety. Get involved in a charity and you’ll understand why it exists.

Sorry mate, but you’ve got your head up your ass and you’re getting defensive.

I have been involved in both charities and government.

I mean, you can look anywhere, whether it’s upwards of 70% of medical donations not being used: https://academic.oup.com/inthealth/article/11/5/379/5420717?login=false#151492984

Also you can dive into the problems with definitions of “the cause” https://hbr.org/2009/06/beware-of-highly-efficient-cha

A charity can loosely define what counts as their cause which means they can tell you that 95 cents on the dollar go to the cause, even if it’s only 20 cents.

Moreover it’s really suspect that the rich keep getting richer even in the “nonprofit” sector: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/4/24/15377056/big-charities-best-charities-evaluation-nonprofit

Furthermore, even from an innocent standing. When you have multiple charities working on the same thing, that’s crazy inefficient.

Let’s talk about the Red Cross, great organization. One of the things they do is blood donations. They’re responsible for about 35% of the blood donations in the US, the rest come from other non profits.

That means there’s competition among the non profit blood donation organizations to provide blood for emergencies. Whether they want to compete or not, they have to.

Just from a blanket statement, if you moved all of those blood donations under a single entity, you remove a lot of inefficiencies.

You don’t need to advertise for multiple organizations, you don’t need to coordinate with all those different organizations during a crisis, you don’t have the same overhead for the same problems across multiple organizations. It’s just by design, inefficient. It’s not their fault.

So first off, you can totally volunteer for government things. I mean, I can volunteer at my local government library for instance, there’s nothing about a government contract that removes the ability to volunteer.

But I wouldn’t need to have volunteers if the red cross and all competing charities were swallowed up into one thing.

There are a bunch of organizations that do the same or part of what the red cross does. That’s a lot of wasted time of resources, that would be better spent lumped together as a collective unit.

Charity is simply one of the places you absolutely don’t want competition/capitalism. You want oversight and efficiency, that’s the government.

That was the point of my comment.

I think ideally the point of charity organizations should be a stop gap measure that identifies issues the government needs to address, and then temporarily addresses them.

How that works in practice 🤷‍♂️

I’m not saying the soup kitchen shouldn’t exist. It’s absolutely necessary, it should just be part of the guaranteed baseline, provided by the government.

The CEO equivalent doesn’t exist in government. Your entire argument is pointless.

Do you realize how little a CEO does?

Do you realize how little the actual money donated to an organization trickles down to the cause?

Do you realize that there are multiple charities for the same thing, which just means more and more waste?

In fact in pretty much every instance of a modern government taking over a service, it becomes cheaper and more efficient. That’s why many governments run utilities, and healthcare.

Look I’m not saying your service is useless, but I am saying it would be more efficient elsewhere.

So then we should ignore Kant and give money to individuals because it’s better than nothing

Kant had a point there, but I think he also fails to address the problem.

The existence of charitable organizations means that the government has failed that group of people. Charitable organizations are extremely inefficient and sometimes are prone to the exact problems he brings up with donating directly to individuals, or they may prioritize certain individuals with certain religious beliefs over others.

Charitable organizations need to be folded and replaced with government programs. We don’t need to be paying CEOs salaries when we’re just trying to help someone on the street.

That’s why instead of “good morning” I just send SYN

Always have been

deleted by creator

Soooo miniclip still exists, they’re just in the app store now

HOAs have excessive rights especially newer ones and this is probably actually legal. The city likely owns none of it btw.

HOAs are a blight on American home ownership, John Oliver did a segment on it, but new HOA contracts are crazy if you haven’t had a peek at one.

Okay, not my point. The point is that part of the human condition is that the more urban you are the more liberal you will be.

Someone in a rural environment does not see the problems that someone in an urban environment does which means the two groups have different priorities, look at New York. You see the same trend of blue in the cities and great big swaths of red everywhere else. Same for Washington State, same for California, really just pick a state and you’re going to see this trend.

It’s in no way a uniquely Southern thing. It’s just the fact that if your closest neighbor is 3 miles away and you know everyone in town, the scope of your problems are going to be pretty limited. That’s because you don’t know anyone who has the problems the city folk are complaining about, so the magnitude of the problems are lost on you.

By that logic Pennsylvania is Southern… And Washington State… And probably most of the country.

Y’all is not Texan. Y’all is Southern and Texas is Southern wannabe.