4 ms·

This is an institutional reflection of the individual tendency to talk about problems rather than solving them. Or, an important variant, where the urge to help

This is an institutional reflection of the individual tendency to talk about problems rather than solving them. Or, an important variant, where the urge to help those in need is expressed as directing them to "appropriate resources", which are also services that direct those seeking help to other appropriate resources, ad infinitum. The net result is a whole army of people who's expressed goal is to help people but who's effect is to send needy people into a loop of endless communication. We'd all be better off if they all quit and helped out at a soup kitchen, volunteered to visit with house-bound elderly, or something similarly physical and real. (This is in part driven by an individual need to "scale". We praise this desire to "change the world", but we pay no heed to the cost when ONLY world-changing action is praised.)

BolsunBacset 1y ago
[flagged]
brightball 1y ago
There are a lot of other contributing factors too. If a potential reader pre-assumes bias from the report, they may just choose not to invest the time. It's the same way bad faith political discussions play out with people making assumptions about the stance of a person voting the opposite way.
EA-3167 1y ago
It must be said that as far as that goes, the UN is designed to be a place to talk about problems, to air grievances, and the idea of it as a universal problem-solver and half-assed world government isn't particularly a part of how it started. Unfortunately as we're seeing what the UN has become is a plodding bureaucracy that occasionally has good intentions, and rarely sees them through. Mostly the UN is a clearing house for NGO organization and directing aid, which isn't a terrible thing, although their history of corruption, abuse of locals, ineptitude, and so on doesn't inspire confidence. There's also the reality that the UN suffers from being an open forum, it means that the Qaddafi's of the world get to air their... unique perspectives as well. The rise of China and the decline of Russia has also created a pretty grim dynamic, but IMO the worst of the present state of affairs is the travesty of having countries like Iran chairing the Human Right's Council! All in all I don't think I have a better idea for a substitute, and any ideas I did have would probably just reflect my own beliefs and desires rather than some universal principle. All in all I feel like the state of the UN does at least mirror the state of the world pretty well though. The US is all over the place depending on administration, Western Europe just plods along, Russia is a butcher, China is extremely complex in both its internal and external dealings (I don't want to generalize and I'm no expert, obviously there's some problems there however), and the Middle Eastern countries like the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia use the limitless power of vast wealth to warp and twist everything they touch.
- deepsun 1y ago
  > UN is designed to be a place to talk about problems Uhm, my understanding is that the main UN purpose is to prevent WW3. It was thansformed from the League of Nations that was created after The World War, but obviously failed on its mission with the WW2.
  - p_ing 1y ago
    Preventing WW3 usually starts by airing grievances so the collective body can talk about said problems and come to a peaceful, diplomatic solution.
    - deepsun 1y ago
      I don't think that works anymore, UN can only issue "deep concerns" (c). The real prevention starts when the collective body deploys troops (or authorize the deployment). The last such real deployment, authorized by UN, was for Iraq (Saddam Hussein), who really could start the WW3. But you know how it's portrayed now by authoritarians, so I doubt we will see any real action from UN anymore until the WW3 happens.
  - delusional 1y ago
    Nope, the UN charter predictably was pretty concerned with war, but all the equality and progressivism is in there too. As the very first paragraph of the original 1945 UN charter reads: "WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom"
- Spooky23 1y ago
  I’d argue that the ridiculous aspects are a feature. By having a bureaucratic process select Iran, you’re removing the editorial element.
ants_everywhere 1y ago
As someone who's done a lot of volunteering at soup kitchens and such as well as things like public policy research, my take is exactly opposite. Typical soup kitchen volunteering is pretty low impact. It's the first thing a lot of people think about when it comes to volunteering, and people like that they get to interact with the less fortunate. So they show up with their church group a few times, ladle some soup and that's about it. Running a soup kitchen is different and higher impact. The things the UN is doing matter to millions of people. If you work with the UN food program, you're dealing with food by the truck load instead of by the spoonful.
- hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
  Completely agree. The important corollary to that is that policy, in many cases, matters a lot more than boots on the ground (obviously good policy and manpower together are usually required). I've volunteered with a prominent animal rescue charity for over 2 decades. While the work does require a lot of people, after you do it long enough you quickly realize bad policy is a giant contributor. For example, Texas is the only state in the US where it's illegal for shelter vets to do care on animals unless the animal is fully surrendered: https://www.humananimalsupportservices.org/blog/why-cant-vets-at-texas-animal-shelters-treat-owned-pets/ https://www.humananimalsupportservices.org/blog/why-cant-vet... . So there are a lot of poor people who can't afford vet care, and then their only option is to surrender the animal at a shelter, where in many cases the animal may be euthanized. If your goal is to reduce the unnecessary killing of pets in shelters, fixing this policy is worth like thousands of volunteers.
  - mschuster91 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - CMCDragonkai 1y ago
      Texas is ran by property owners.
    - philipallstar 1y ago
glitchc 1y ago
That's a great way of phrasing it, thank you. People have confused talking about the thing with doing something about the thing. It's an endemic in the liberal mindset. It's nice to have good ideas, but it needs to be followed through with actions. Otherwise the words simply amount to empty gestures.
vr46 1y ago
The UN is operating at a different scale doing something quite unique, and the reports don’t need to be widely-read to be important or influential. I ran kitchens at a series of homeless shelters for ten years and the difference between cooking/serving food, and actually procuring supplies and dealing with the supply chain - was the difference between something that took one hour and something that took nine months. It is much like this with the UN and other international trans-governmental organizations, they work with ridiculously complex systems and get real shit done, even if it’s not as visual as handing out a plate of food.
egorfine 1y ago
> endless communication Having worked with WHO and ILO in Geneva... so much this. People have no idea - literally no idea - how mind-boggling the bureaucracy is inside the UN. This is a dysfunctional org.
usmur 1y ago
Having collaborated with UN it gave me the impression of a corporate. There the tendency of dereponsibilising tasks and delegate the hard part to someone else, as you say "directing to appropriate resources".

BolsunBacset 1y ago

[flagged]

brightball 1y ago

There are a lot of other contributing factors too. If a potential reader pre-assumes bias from the report, they may just choose not to invest the time. It's the same way bad faith political discussions play out with people making assumptions about the stance of a person voting the opposite way.

EA-3167 1y ago

It must be said that as far as that goes, the UN is designed to be a place to talk about problems, to air grievances, and the idea of it as a universal problem-solver and half-assed world government isn't particularly a part of how it started. Unfortunately as we're seeing what the UN has become is a plodding bureaucracy that occasionally has good intentions, and rarely sees them through. Mostly the UN is a clearing house for NGO organization and directing aid, which isn't a terrible thing, although their history of corruption, abuse of locals, ineptitude, and so on doesn't inspire confidence. There's also the reality that the UN suffers from being an open forum, it means that the Qaddafi's of the world get to air their... unique perspectives as well. The rise of China and the decline of Russia has also created a pretty grim dynamic, but IMO the worst of the present state of affairs is the travesty of having countries like Iran chairing the Human Right's Council! All in all I don't think I have a better idea for a substitute, and any ideas I did have would probably just reflect my own beliefs and desires rather than some universal principle. All in all I feel like the state of the UN does at least mirror the state of the world pretty well though. The US is all over the place depending on administration, Western Europe just plods along, Russia is a butcher, China is extremely complex in both its internal and external dealings (I don't want to generalize and I'm no expert, obviously there's some problems there however), and the Middle Eastern countries like the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia use the limitless power of vast wealth to warp and twist everything they touch.

deepsun 1y ago
> UN is designed to be a place to talk about problems Uhm, my understanding is that the main UN purpose is to prevent WW3. It was thansformed from the League of Nations that was created after The World War, but obviously failed on its mission with the WW2.
- p_ing 1y ago
  Preventing WW3 usually starts by airing grievances so the collective body can talk about said problems and come to a peaceful, diplomatic solution.
  - deepsun 1y ago
    I don't think that works anymore, UN can only issue "deep concerns" (c). The real prevention starts when the collective body deploys troops (or authorize the deployment). The last such real deployment, authorized by UN, was for Iraq (Saddam Hussein), who really could start the WW3. But you know how it's portrayed now by authoritarians, so I doubt we will see any real action from UN anymore until the WW3 happens.
- delusional 1y ago
  Nope, the UN charter predictably was pretty concerned with war, but all the equality and progressivism is in there too. As the very first paragraph of the original 1945 UN charter reads: "WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom"
Spooky23 1y ago
I’d argue that the ridiculous aspects are a feature. By having a bureaucratic process select Iran, you’re removing the editorial element.

ants_everywhere 1y ago

As someone who's done a lot of volunteering at soup kitchens and such as well as things like public policy research, my take is exactly opposite. Typical soup kitchen volunteering is pretty low impact. It's the first thing a lot of people think about when it comes to volunteering, and people like that they get to interact with the less fortunate. So they show up with their church group a few times, ladle some soup and that's about it. Running a soup kitchen is different and higher impact. The things the UN is doing matter to millions of people. If you work with the UN food program, you're dealing with food by the truck load instead of by the spoonful.

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
Completely agree. The important corollary to that is that policy, in many cases, matters a lot more than boots on the ground (obviously good policy and manpower together are usually required). I've volunteered with a prominent animal rescue charity for over 2 decades. While the work does require a lot of people, after you do it long enough you quickly realize bad policy is a giant contributor. For example, Texas is the only state in the US where it's illegal for shelter vets to do care on animals unless the animal is fully surrendered: https://www.humananimalsupportservices.org/blog/why-cant-vets-at-texas-animal-shelters-treat-owned-pets/ https://www.humananimalsupportservices.org/blog/why-cant-vet... . So there are a lot of poor people who can't afford vet care, and then their only option is to surrender the animal at a shelter, where in many cases the animal may be euthanized. If your goal is to reduce the unnecessary killing of pets in shelters, fixing this policy is worth like thousands of volunteers.
- mschuster91 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - CMCDragonkai 1y ago
    Texas is ran by property owners.
  - philipallstar 1y ago

glitchc 1y ago

That's a great way of phrasing it, thank you. People have confused talking about the thing with doing something about the thing. It's an endemic in the liberal mindset. It's nice to have good ideas, but it needs to be followed through with actions. Otherwise the words simply amount to empty gestures.

vr46 1y ago

The UN is operating at a different scale doing something quite unique, and the reports don’t need to be widely-read to be important or influential. I ran kitchens at a series of homeless shelters for ten years and the difference between cooking/serving food, and actually procuring supplies and dealing with the supply chain - was the difference between something that took one hour and something that took nine months. It is much like this with the UN and other international trans-governmental organizations, they work with ridiculously complex systems and get real shit done, even if it’s not as visual as handing out a plate of food.

egorfine 1y ago

> endless communication Having worked with WHO and ILO in Geneva... so much this. People have no idea - literally no idea - how mind-boggling the bureaucracy is inside the UN. This is a dysfunctional org.

usmur 1y ago

Having collaborated with UN it gave me the impression of a corporate. There the tendency of dereponsibilising tasks and delegate the hard part to someone else, as you say "directing to appropriate resources".