3 ms·

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

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.
  - burnished 4y ago
    Thank you for elaborating. I think part of where we differ here is in how we defined 'exploitation'. Your useage requires grooming or intent, mine does not. Treating some one as a means to an end does not require ill will, it works best when you do not consider their humanity at all. I think the kind of conduct you are describing I would probably label as abusive. To your 'would not otherwise do' point I think its important to note the context of a decision - agreeing to poverty wages because it is the best of your bad options is still exploitation without anyone having to mislead anyone else, for example. If you were on equal footing with the employers in the labour market you would not accept such wages. Similarly huge power imbalances also lead naturally to exploitation - the weaker party has no room to bargain, essentially cannot treat with the other person as equals. Yes, I think you broadly understand. We can recognize capitalism as being broadly exploitative, and I think you have highlighted how well intentioned organizations can become harmful for the community they sought to champion. It does seem a little like you are seeing unpleasant conclusions and assuming they are false instead of, well, just ugly. Reality can be mucky and full of tradeoffs. Oh, side note, I think a fair test for the exploitation criticism is 'what would happen if one group just disappeared'. In this case the answer is 'go along pretty much how they were before'. Contrast that with say, retail. If the unskilled labor pool had serious competition arise there would be a lot of businesses that would just fail because they are predicated on the ability to exploit their bargaining power in the labor market.
    - O__________O 4y ago
      Agree, it’s complex topic, would be foolish to think I fully understand it and also appreciate your response. Ultimately, likely agree with you, but given I don’t fully know the exact motives and reasoning of those people involved, I am reluctant to cast the situation as being exploitive without actual proof. As for free markets, labor rates of lower class or for that matter even the middle class, no, I don’t think for a second that the market would be able to bare fare market rates at this point; this based on numerous complex and interrelated factors, many of which have been on going for 40-50 years. Ultimately, real question is if the economic growth the world has seen last 100 years is sustainable, and while I assume everyone wishes it was, it’s unclear. Globally though, poorest of the poor and wealthiest of the wealthy are doing better, everyone else is being “exploited”; obviously it’s the ultra wealthy doing the exploiting, and I would 100% agree with that. I don’t though think capitalism is bad, just excessive capitalism that produces billionaire individuals, trillion dollar corporations, and multi trillion dollar nations.

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.
- burnished 4y ago
  Thank you for elaborating. I think part of where we differ here is in how we defined 'exploitation'. Your useage requires grooming or intent, mine does not. Treating some one as a means to an end does not require ill will, it works best when you do not consider their humanity at all. I think the kind of conduct you are describing I would probably label as abusive. To your 'would not otherwise do' point I think its important to note the context of a decision - agreeing to poverty wages because it is the best of your bad options is still exploitation without anyone having to mislead anyone else, for example. If you were on equal footing with the employers in the labour market you would not accept such wages. Similarly huge power imbalances also lead naturally to exploitation - the weaker party has no room to bargain, essentially cannot treat with the other person as equals. Yes, I think you broadly understand. We can recognize capitalism as being broadly exploitative, and I think you have highlighted how well intentioned organizations can become harmful for the community they sought to champion. It does seem a little like you are seeing unpleasant conclusions and assuming they are false instead of, well, just ugly. Reality can be mucky and full of tradeoffs. Oh, side note, I think a fair test for the exploitation criticism is 'what would happen if one group just disappeared'. In this case the answer is 'go along pretty much how they were before'. Contrast that with say, retail. If the unskilled labor pool had serious competition arise there would be a lot of businesses that would just fail because they are predicated on the ability to exploit their bargaining power in the labor market.
  - O__________O 4y ago
    Agree, it’s complex topic, would be foolish to think I fully understand it and also appreciate your response. Ultimately, likely agree with you, but given I don’t fully know the exact motives and reasoning of those people involved, I am reluctant to cast the situation as being exploitive without actual proof. As for free markets, labor rates of lower class or for that matter even the middle class, no, I don’t think for a second that the market would be able to bare fare market rates at this point; this based on numerous complex and interrelated factors, many of which have been on going for 40-50 years. Ultimately, real question is if the economic growth the world has seen last 100 years is sustainable, and while I assume everyone wishes it was, it’s unclear. Globally though, poorest of the poor and wealthiest of the wealthy are doing better, everyone else is being “exploited”; obviously it’s the ultra wealthy doing the exploiting, and I would 100% agree with that. I don’t though think capitalism is bad, just excessive capitalism that produces billionaire individuals, trillion dollar corporations, and multi trillion dollar nations.