5 ms·

I applaud the practical impact of this act, however I do not view it as charity. Acts of charity are anonymous. Charitable donations made in a highly public man

I applaud the practical impact of this act, however I do not view it as charity. Acts of charity are anonymous. Charitable donations made in a highly public manner are publicity.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
darrenkopp 14y ago
No, charity is not defined by whether the donor is anonymous or not.
pkulak 14y ago
What a terrible world it would be if society rewarded giving so much that wealthy people and corporations climbed over each other to give as much as possible, just for the publicity. There'd be no more charity!
mikeash 14y ago
"Acts of charity are anonymous." That's not how other people use the word. You should pick a different word if you're going to have your own private definition.
- vectorbunny 14y ago
  How about karamat? "Charity does not mean that you give and you feel very good that you have given, that you give and you oblige the person to whom you have given. Then it is not karamat; then it is not charity. Charity is when you give and you feel obliged that the other has taken it; when you give with no idea that you are obliging anybody in any way; when you give because you have too much. It is not that the other needs.[1]" [1] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-08-05/edit-page/27820310_1_ego-charity-karamat http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-08-05/edit-...
  - mikeash 14y ago
    I don't know what a karamat is or why that would be more useful for this purpose than a dictionary.
    - vectorbunny 14y ago
      I have a deep, abiding, and life long love for dictionaries, though I have found their use as a tool to find meaning more valuable than their use as a cudgel to silence comment.
      - derleth 14y ago
        Disagreeing with you and trying to silence you are two very different things.
      - mikeash 14y ago
        You appear to be attempting a philosophical debate on the nature of giving, but have worded it as a definitional construct that's contradicted by common dictionaries and usage. That's all I'm after. If you want to argue that giving is best when anonymous, go wild, just don't frame it such that it looks like you're trying to use your own private definition of common words.
        vectorbunny 14y ago
        I truly apologize for responding to what I perceived to be your tone rather than to the substance of what you were saying. You are correct, and I should have given the initial comment more extensive and explicit context.
        mikeash 14y ago
        Civility on the internet! I appreciate it. I do think your greater point about the nature of giving is worth exploring... just perhaps with better words.
CapitalistCartr 14y ago
Charity definition in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_%28practice%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_%28practice%29 Nowhere does the word anonymous appear. Words are not defined by your view of them, but by common usage (in English). And charity and publicity are not mutually exclusive.
georgeorwell 14y ago
I largely agree. If you're making a donation and you aren't anonymous to everyone but the people who have some control over the money being donated, your ego is involved somewhere. I wouldn't say that non-anonymous donations aren't charity, but rather that they are charity with strings attached. And this does look like a publicity stunt, despite whatever the man's intentions may be. Also, vectorbunny has a deep philosophical and spiritual point here, as he later elaborates on, and I don't believe he deserves the downvotes simply for stating his view of true charity. Yes, in the United States, the word charity doesn't imply anonymous donations, but charity is an ancient concept going back to the dawn of civilization.
droithomme 14y ago
You bring up a good point about charity and anonymity. In general the act of making a wide public announcement about one's charitable acts is strong evidence that it's being done for publicity or is primarily self serving in some way. In this specific case however, he is financing a public health initiative in a geographical area where many residents read his blog, therefore getting the word out that the shots are available through one's blog is not an unreasonable way to make sure the effort is effective and makes a difference. Many who read his blog will reblog and word gets out. Let's compare this to a nun who arranges for free flu shots at Target instead. If no one knows about it, then it doesn't do any good. Those who can't afford the shots are not going to go in and ask on the off chance a donor has provided them. One wants to get the word out. Is she being self-serving by announcing to people that the shots are available? It seems unfair to make that assumption.
- georgeorwell 14y ago
  He could have set the entire thing up and then said, "I found out there are free flu shots at Target."
  - brianpan 14y ago
    Or he could make the statement more noteworthy by lending his celebrity to the cause like he did. The point is getting more kids flu shots. Is it so bad to spread word on this "obviously self-serving promotion"?
    - georgeorwell 14y ago
      The man's point is simply that in his view charity is supposed to be an act of selflessness, and selflessness is supported by namelessness. He is allowed to have this view of what constitutes charity; many people do. I disagree that "I paid for free flu shots at Target" is going to spread faster than "There are free flu shots at Target". Obviously I can't prove it, but even if you were right, I think the reduced amount of publicity might teach the man about the nature of humility and working quietly and diligently behind the scenes to effect change.
cafard 14y ago
1. Some authorities recommend anonymity (I think Maimonides spoke well of it) or at least discretion, as in the various New Testament injunctions. However, some acts of charity cannot be accomplished anonymously (cf. the parable of the Good Samaritan). 2. Larry Ellison needs more publicity about as much as Kevin Durant needs elevator shoes. If he wishes to spend the money on providing flu shots rather than on yacht or spouse upgrades, I'm not going to blame him.
- olavk 14y ago
  How is 1 relevant? Christianity didn't invent charity.
  - cafard 14y ago
    No, and Maimonides was not Christian. However, a large portion of the body of at least European and American thought on charity comes out of the Christian tradition.
- kylemaxwell 14y ago
  Um, this is Larry Page not Ellison. Very different men in many ways.
  - cafard 14y ago
    My bad.
protomyth 14y ago
Truthfully, most charitable organizations or causes would like celebrities to no donate anonymously because celebrity giving often stimulates other people to give.
zizee 14y ago
To all those downvoting vectorbunny's comment: The downvote is not meant to say "I disagree", it is meant to be used to get rid of spam, trolls or comments not adding to the discussion. If you disagree, respond to the comment with your reasons for disagreeing, like all the quality responses to vectorbunny's comment. Heck, you might even upvote comments you disagree with if you think they add value to the discussion.
- olalonde 14y ago
  I'd really like to agree with you but unfortunately, pg has previously stated that down voting was OK to express disagreement. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171
  - zizee 14y ago
    I see that you disagreed with my comment. If you had silently downvoted me (as is "ok" to do), the discussion goes nowhere. Instead you did the noble thing and responded to my comment with an counterpoint. So, I ask you, which makes for a better HN? One where people downvote to disagree, or where people respond explaining why they disagree? In my mind it is the latter behavior that makes HN a good place to be. So regardless of what pg has stated I will continue to believe that it is far better (for HN) to respond to comments I disagree with than to downvote them, for down-voting (aka punishing) someone for saying something I don't agree with doesn't help me, it doesn't help the commenter, it doesn't help HN. So what's the point?
craigmccaskill 14y ago
Kids get some flu shots, Larry Page gets some press. Who isn't a winner in this situation?
josephlord 14y ago
I very often get that feeling especially about corporate charity but I am somewhat torn as public examples can lead others to follow.
Evbn 14y ago
Please describe the mechanism by which Page could get a million people into [anonymous location, don't let Target advertise either] for flu shots without disclosing anyone's name.

I applaud the practical impact of this act, however I do not view it as charity. Acts of charity are anonymous. Charitable donations made in a highly public manner are publicity.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

darrenkopp 14y ago

No, charity is not defined by whether the donor is anonymous or not.

pkulak 14y ago

What a terrible world it would be if society rewarded giving so much that wealthy people and corporations climbed over each other to give as much as possible, just for the publicity. There'd be no more charity!

mikeash 14y ago

"Acts of charity are anonymous." That's not how other people use the word. You should pick a different word if you're going to have your own private definition.

vectorbunny 14y ago
How about karamat? "Charity does not mean that you give and you feel very good that you have given, that you give and you oblige the person to whom you have given. Then it is not karamat; then it is not charity. Charity is when you give and you feel obliged that the other has taken it; when you give with no idea that you are obliging anybody in any way; when you give because you have too much. It is not that the other needs.[1]" [1] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-08-05/edit-page/27820310_1_ego-charity-karamat http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-08-05/edit-...
- mikeash 14y ago
  I don't know what a karamat is or why that would be more useful for this purpose than a dictionary.
  - vectorbunny 14y ago
    I have a deep, abiding, and life long love for dictionaries, though I have found their use as a tool to find meaning more valuable than their use as a cudgel to silence comment.
    - derleth 14y ago
      Disagreeing with you and trying to silence you are two very different things.
    - mikeash 14y ago
      You appear to be attempting a philosophical debate on the nature of giving, but have worded it as a definitional construct that's contradicted by common dictionaries and usage. That's all I'm after. If you want to argue that giving is best when anonymous, go wild, just don't frame it such that it looks like you're trying to use your own private definition of common words.
      - vectorbunny 14y ago
        I truly apologize for responding to what I perceived to be your tone rather than to the substance of what you were saying. You are correct, and I should have given the initial comment more extensive and explicit context.
        mikeash 14y ago
        Civility on the internet! I appreciate it. I do think your greater point about the nature of giving is worth exploring... just perhaps with better words.

CapitalistCartr 14y ago

Charity definition in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_%28practice%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_%28practice%29 Nowhere does the word anonymous appear. Words are not defined by your view of them, but by common usage (in English). And charity and publicity are not mutually exclusive.

georgeorwell 14y ago

I largely agree. If you're making a donation and you aren't anonymous to everyone but the people who have some control over the money being donated, your ego is involved somewhere. I wouldn't say that non-anonymous donations aren't charity, but rather that they are charity with strings attached. And this does look like a publicity stunt, despite whatever the man's intentions may be. Also, vectorbunny has a deep philosophical and spiritual point here, as he later elaborates on, and I don't believe he deserves the downvotes simply for stating his view of true charity. Yes, in the United States, the word charity doesn't imply anonymous donations, but charity is an ancient concept going back to the dawn of civilization.

droithomme 14y ago

You bring up a good point about charity and anonymity. In general the act of making a wide public announcement about one's charitable acts is strong evidence that it's being done for publicity or is primarily self serving in some way. In this specific case however, he is financing a public health initiative in a geographical area where many residents read his blog, therefore getting the word out that the shots are available through one's blog is not an unreasonable way to make sure the effort is effective and makes a difference. Many who read his blog will reblog and word gets out. Let's compare this to a nun who arranges for free flu shots at Target instead. If no one knows about it, then it doesn't do any good. Those who can't afford the shots are not going to go in and ask on the off chance a donor has provided them. One wants to get the word out. Is she being self-serving by announcing to people that the shots are available? It seems unfair to make that assumption.

georgeorwell 14y ago
He could have set the entire thing up and then said, "I found out there are free flu shots at Target."
- brianpan 14y ago
  Or he could make the statement more noteworthy by lending his celebrity to the cause like he did. The point is getting more kids flu shots. Is it so bad to spread word on this "obviously self-serving promotion"?
  - georgeorwell 14y ago
    The man's point is simply that in his view charity is supposed to be an act of selflessness, and selflessness is supported by namelessness. He is allowed to have this view of what constitutes charity; many people do. I disagree that "I paid for free flu shots at Target" is going to spread faster than "There are free flu shots at Target". Obviously I can't prove it, but even if you were right, I think the reduced amount of publicity might teach the man about the nature of humility and working quietly and diligently behind the scenes to effect change.

cafard 14y ago

1. Some authorities recommend anonymity (I think Maimonides spoke well of it) or at least discretion, as in the various New Testament injunctions. However, some acts of charity cannot be accomplished anonymously (cf. the parable of the Good Samaritan). 2. Larry Ellison needs more publicity about as much as Kevin Durant needs elevator shoes. If he wishes to spend the money on providing flu shots rather than on yacht or spouse upgrades, I'm not going to blame him.

olavk 14y ago
How is 1 relevant? Christianity didn't invent charity.
- cafard 14y ago
  No, and Maimonides was not Christian. However, a large portion of the body of at least European and American thought on charity comes out of the Christian tradition.
kylemaxwell 14y ago
Um, this is Larry Page not Ellison. Very different men in many ways.
- cafard 14y ago
  My bad.

protomyth 14y ago

Truthfully, most charitable organizations or causes would like celebrities to no donate anonymously because celebrity giving often stimulates other people to give.

zizee 14y ago

To all those downvoting vectorbunny's comment: The downvote is not meant to say "I disagree", it is meant to be used to get rid of spam, trolls or comments not adding to the discussion. If you disagree, respond to the comment with your reasons for disagreeing, like all the quality responses to vectorbunny's comment. Heck, you might even upvote comments you disagree with if you think they add value to the discussion.

olalonde 14y ago
I'd really like to agree with you but unfortunately, pg has previously stated that down voting was OK to express disagreement. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171
- zizee 14y ago
  I see that you disagreed with my comment. If you had silently downvoted me (as is "ok" to do), the discussion goes nowhere. Instead you did the noble thing and responded to my comment with an counterpoint. So, I ask you, which makes for a better HN? One where people downvote to disagree, or where people respond explaining why they disagree? In my mind it is the latter behavior that makes HN a good place to be. So regardless of what pg has stated I will continue to believe that it is far better (for HN) to respond to comments I disagree with than to downvote them, for down-voting (aka punishing) someone for saying something I don't agree with doesn't help me, it doesn't help the commenter, it doesn't help HN. So what's the point?

craigmccaskill 14y ago

Kids get some flu shots, Larry Page gets some press. Who isn't a winner in this situation?

josephlord 14y ago

I very often get that feeling especially about corporate charity but I am somewhat torn as public examples can lead others to follow.

Evbn 14y ago

Please describe the mechanism by which Page could get a million people into [anonymous location, don't let Target advertise either] for flu shots without disclosing anyone's name.