4 ms·
Notice that these are two distinct things; talking about a charity (even saying you gave) and telling people how much you gave. Sometimes you don't even have to
by verylittlemeat 9y ago
Notice that these are two distinct things; talking about a charity (even saying you gave) and telling people how much you gave. Sometimes you don't even have to say how much you gave because your name on the Harvard dining hall speaks for itself.
It's not exactly a secret that donating money is often about more than altruism or stopping "preventable deaths."
Even if you believe in the cause you're donating to in the purest most altruistic sense you should know that the conversation is tainted for any rational person living in the real world. No one but people either kissing your ass or trying to get their hand in your pocket is going to hear "I give 10% of my income to save lives" no matter how dignified you think that sounds.
Or as your link says:
>You can't have a good friendship if you hide your true beliefs or feelings, including about effective giving.
I wouldn't be a good friend if I didn't say everything I said above about the "10% donation" proposal. The question is would you be a good friend to someone who disagreed? Or are your friendships predicated on "when I share something I feel strongly about you either agree or are basically complicit in killing 40 people?"
- Veedrac 9y ago> you should know that the conversation is tainted By no means do I think people should pretend the stigma isn't there. What I take issue with is the George Steinbrenner quote that's pasted every other discussion on charity, as if there was anything remotely noble about constantly reminding people that if anyone else so much as happens to hear about their actions, people would judge them for it. It is hard to take your last question in good faith. Why do you still feel the need to paint me with that brush?