4 ms·

Exploitative? Probably, but I have trouble being very unhappy with what he did. Nothing was destructive, and he was upfront about it. Dunno, blame the game, n

Exploitative? Probably, but I have trouble being very unhappy with what he did. Nothing was destructive, and he was upfront about it. Dunno, blame the game, not the player?

O__________O 4y ago
If finding an existing cause to amplify impact and sustain yourself is exploitative, then what nonprofit isn’t exploitative? To you, what would be best example of how he is exploiting the viewers, cause, nonprofit, any of people he helped, their families, public, media, donors, etc?
- burnished 4y ago
  He is gaining direct benefit from this yes? And their direct benefit does not really tie into his - he would still benefit from the appearance of charity right? And there is a huge power imbalance here right? I think that is what would lend this situation to an analysis of exploitation. Nothing to do with outcomes, which is what you are focused on, because exploiting something/some one doesnt depend on outcomes. Think of how we talk about natural resources - whether you are a careful custodian bringing prosperity to your region or some shit heel, it still starts with exploiting some resource.
  - O__________O 4y ago
    Generally speaking, any action of significance for a cause that helps others requires key individuals within it to benefit in some way. Further, Jimmy’s making no claims of being a nonprofit entity, nor in my opinion is there any non-consensual aspect or for that matter abuse of power. The related non-profit is legitimate, the agreed to help, there’s no way he would have been able to accomplish this without them, and they & the people helped are clearly grateful too. If there’s an alternative approach that might generalized and scale, please let me know.
    - burnished 4y ago
      None of that changes that the relationship is fundamentally exploitative. You dont need to lie, cheat or otherwise mislead people to exploit them - it seems much easier if you can offer them a deal that is genuinely compelling compared to their other options. I'm genuinely sorry to tell you this because it seems to bother you a lot. I dont think it needs to though - "a lot of people that were blind can now see" can shoulder an awful lot of criticism. You've been asking for alternatives throughout this comments sections which I admire, but I think you are also assuming that either better approached exist or that the inability for youtube royalty to help people without exploiting them means that they cannot be exploiting them, and neither really holds. Consider a hypothetical ideal company town - whose existence was practically predicated on exploiting workers - where you have hired a really excellent medical team and people are getting a level of care that they couldnt access before. You might ask similar questions that you have been - how else do you propose to provide this benefit, why is it bad if everyone agrees to it, etc - but that still wouldnt change that the nature of the relationship was exploitative. I don't think comparisons to a company town would be fair overall, but I think it does a fair job surfacing the sticking point about exploitation.
      - O__________O 4y ago
        Believe your saying “symbiotic consensual exploitation” is possible, but if so, I disagree. Exploitation involves a victim being groomed, forced, coerced, etc - into doing something that that they would not have done of themselves if they were of sound mind for someone else’s gain. Using what I believe is logic you’re presenting, any staff at a nonprofit, any government, community organization, NGO, etc — is exploiting someone if there’s any form of intrinsic benefit. For that matter, any company that profits from there employees or customers is exploiting them. Maybe missing your perspective, but I reread you comment three times and don’t understand what I am missing. I do appreciate you acknowledge I am open to constructive alternatives and highlighted my interests in them. Also, to be fair, it’s very common even for nonprofits to have suboptimal motives and objectives, but rare for truly exploitative nonprofits to have a sustained existence.
        4y ago

Exploitative? Probably, but I have trouble being very unhappy with what he did. Nothing was destructive, and he was upfront about it. Dunno, blame the game, not the player?

O__________O 4y ago

If finding an existing cause to amplify impact and sustain yourself is exploitative, then what nonprofit isn’t exploitative? To you, what would be best example of how he is exploiting the viewers, cause, nonprofit, any of people he helped, their families, public, media, donors, etc?

burnished 4y ago
He is gaining direct benefit from this yes? And their direct benefit does not really tie into his - he would still benefit from the appearance of charity right? And there is a huge power imbalance here right? I think that is what would lend this situation to an analysis of exploitation. Nothing to do with outcomes, which is what you are focused on, because exploiting something/some one doesnt depend on outcomes. Think of how we talk about natural resources - whether you are a careful custodian bringing prosperity to your region or some shit heel, it still starts with exploiting some resource.
- O__________O 4y ago
  Generally speaking, any action of significance for a cause that helps others requires key individuals within it to benefit in some way. Further, Jimmy’s making no claims of being a nonprofit entity, nor in my opinion is there any non-consensual aspect or for that matter abuse of power. The related non-profit is legitimate, the agreed to help, there’s no way he would have been able to accomplish this without them, and they & the people helped are clearly grateful too. If there’s an alternative approach that might generalized and scale, please let me know.
  - burnished 4y ago
    None of that changes that the relationship is fundamentally exploitative. You dont need to lie, cheat or otherwise mislead people to exploit them - it seems much easier if you can offer them a deal that is genuinely compelling compared to their other options. I'm genuinely sorry to tell you this because it seems to bother you a lot. I dont think it needs to though - "a lot of people that were blind can now see" can shoulder an awful lot of criticism. You've been asking for alternatives throughout this comments sections which I admire, but I think you are also assuming that either better approached exist or that the inability for youtube royalty to help people without exploiting them means that they cannot be exploiting them, and neither really holds. Consider a hypothetical ideal company town - whose existence was practically predicated on exploiting workers - where you have hired a really excellent medical team and people are getting a level of care that they couldnt access before. You might ask similar questions that you have been - how else do you propose to provide this benefit, why is it bad if everyone agrees to it, etc - but that still wouldnt change that the nature of the relationship was exploitative. I don't think comparisons to a company town would be fair overall, but I think it does a fair job surfacing the sticking point about exploitation.
    - O__________O 4y ago
      Believe your saying “symbiotic consensual exploitation” is possible, but if so, I disagree. Exploitation involves a victim being groomed, forced, coerced, etc - into doing something that that they would not have done of themselves if they were of sound mind for someone else’s gain. Using what I believe is logic you’re presenting, any staff at a nonprofit, any government, community organization, NGO, etc — is exploiting someone if there’s any form of intrinsic benefit. For that matter, any company that profits from there employees or customers is exploiting them. Maybe missing your perspective, but I reread you comment three times and don’t understand what I am missing. I do appreciate you acknowledge I am open to constructive alternatives and highlighted my interests in them. Also, to be fair, it’s very common even for nonprofits to have suboptimal motives and objectives, but rare for truly exploitative nonprofits to have a sustained existence.
      - 4y ago