5 ms·

It doesn't matter whether its a non-profit or for-profit, charity or business, or whether pg personally benefits from Watsi flourishing. He's using the events

by tbrooks 13y ago

It doesn't matter whether its a non-profit or for-profit, charity or business, or whether pg personally benefits from Watsi flourishing. He's using the events in Boston as a way to promote a service that has nothing to do with the horror occurring in Boston. I'm not saying Watsi isn't great -- it is. But this isn't the time or place to call attention to Watsi. It's tasteless and rude.

pjzedalis 13y ago
He only called attention to those who were not directly involved with the event. Nobody injured or within range to have a traumatic experience from the event was reading pg's twitter feed and getting offended. Only you were.
Aga 13y ago
I like the practicalness of the advice. It might actually lead to some good in this world. It's times like this when people stop to think about other human beings and might actually act on something. Unfortunately during normal times we are really bad at that.
- awj 13y ago
  I also like the practicalness of the advice, but it feels rather crass coming from someone deeply involved in Watsi. Good intentions or not, using a horrible event to promote something else altogether while the event is still happening is in terribly bad taste.
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    Well, one is more likely to mention an organization they know something about than one they don't, right?
    - awj 13y ago
      ...the obvious conclusion being that it would be appropriate for me to tell people to stop talking about the boston marathon so we could discuss the Mariners game that happened on Sunday.
tunesmith 13y ago
I think this is one of those things where utilitarianism can appear tasteless. If something like this dissuades someone from spending ten minutes creating another "pray for boston" twitter graphic in favor of learning about a service where someone can directly contribute to saving a life, then which ten minutes has a higher probability of leading to assistance in saving a life? But on the other hand, it looks like changing the subject when we all should be demonstratively supportive of Boston because something horrible happened and that's what we're supposed to do when something horrible happens.
opminion 13y ago
Do not forget that live media organisations, which promise yet another update of the "event" in a few minutes, are effectively promoting themselves, and profiting from it.
wavesounds 13y ago
Its 'tasteless and rude' because those people aren't on CNN? Orders of magnitude more people will die or be injured today from gun violence, car accidents or disease but 99.9% of them will not make the news, a reminder of this is anything but tasteless and rude.
csallen 13y ago
I completely disagree, and I'd be interested in hearing a defense of your beliefs. People are suffering the world over. Some suffering is less shocking and unique than other suffering (and therefore less newsworthy), but suffering is suffering just the same. Widely-covered events such as this one should serve as a reminder to us all of the constant suffering going on the world over that is not covered. For any moral person, the thought of living in a world in which less than 1% of human suffering garners more than 99% of the attention should be unbearable. I have no idea how you can say that helping people in one area "has nothing to do with" helping people in another.
- awj 13y ago
  > I have no idea how you can say that helping people in one area "has nothing to do with" helping people in another. That one's easy: what tangible benefit will people suffering from the events of the Boston Marathon get from a donation to Watsi? None? Then it has nothing to do with it. People are indeed suffering the world over. Objectively it would be better if people who want to do something donated to Watsi instead of wringing their hands, praying/sending thoughts, and reloading cnn.com. But people are not objective and trying to steal this kind of attention for your own cause is highly insensitive. Also, it comes off as crass and tasteless and generally won't work. Except on people who can keep their objectivity in this situation, which categorically aren't the ones pg is trying to reach. So this is crass, tasteless, highly insensitive, and ineffective.
  - csallen 13y ago
    > That one's easy: what tangible benefit will people suffering from the events of the Boston Marathon get from a donation to Watsi? None? Then it has nothing to do with it. This is becoming pure wordplay now. Sure, if you take the vague phrase "something to do with" and redefine it more specifically as "provides tangible benefits to", then you'd be right. But who gives you the authority to redefine it so? PG made the relation clear in his tweet: "When terrible things happen to people I can't help, I ... help people I can." In other words, he uses tragedies as a reminder to donate to the less fortunate. Seems pretty simple to me. As for the rest of your post, it seems that your argument rests on the belief that PG's tweet didn't cause anyone to donate. If so, your argument fails, because some people did donate as a result of PG's tweet (or at least claimed to). But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that, instead, your argument rests on the belief that getting a few people to donate is not worth causing offense to others. In that case, I would denounce your argument is immature, selfish, and immoral. I would gladly give offense to 10 or 20 people (and tell them to get over themselves) if it caused 1 person to donate to Watsi. Lastly, you haven't provided any evidence why people should be offended. I completely disagree that anything PG did was crass, insensitive, or tasteless. Au contraire, I think you are the one mistaken for interpreting it that way. You've misappropriated an arbitrary societal rule for reasons you likely cannot defend.
elliottcarlson 13y ago
Because people forget about the horrors occurring every day all around the world. People don't realize what is happening else where until it's in their own backyard, and even then, they will go back to sipping their lattes and living their lives in no time. I find the fact that there is is an argument over this far more tasteless and rude.

by tbrooks 13y ago

pjzedalis 13y ago

He only called attention to those who were not directly involved with the event. Nobody injured or within range to have a traumatic experience from the event was reading pg's twitter feed and getting offended. Only you were.

Aga 13y ago

I like the practicalness of the advice. It might actually lead to some good in this world. It's times like this when people stop to think about other human beings and might actually act on something. Unfortunately during normal times we are really bad at that.

awj 13y ago
I also like the practicalness of the advice, but it feels rather crass coming from someone deeply involved in Watsi. Good intentions or not, using a horrible event to promote something else altogether while the event is still happening is in terribly bad taste.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  Well, one is more likely to mention an organization they know something about than one they don't, right?
  - awj 13y ago
    ...the obvious conclusion being that it would be appropriate for me to tell people to stop talking about the boston marathon so we could discuss the Mariners game that happened on Sunday.

tunesmith 13y ago

I think this is one of those things where utilitarianism can appear tasteless. If something like this dissuades someone from spending ten minutes creating another "pray for boston" twitter graphic in favor of learning about a service where someone can directly contribute to saving a life, then which ten minutes has a higher probability of leading to assistance in saving a life? But on the other hand, it looks like changing the subject when we all should be demonstratively supportive of Boston because something horrible happened and that's what we're supposed to do when something horrible happens.

opminion 13y ago

Do not forget that live media organisations, which promise yet another update of the "event" in a few minutes, are effectively promoting themselves, and profiting from it.

wavesounds 13y ago

Its 'tasteless and rude' because those people aren't on CNN? Orders of magnitude more people will die or be injured today from gun violence, car accidents or disease but 99.9% of them will not make the news, a reminder of this is anything but tasteless and rude.

csallen 13y ago

I completely disagree, and I'd be interested in hearing a defense of your beliefs. People are suffering the world over. Some suffering is less shocking and unique than other suffering (and therefore less newsworthy), but suffering is suffering just the same. Widely-covered events such as this one should serve as a reminder to us all of the constant suffering going on the world over that is not covered. For any moral person, the thought of living in a world in which less than 1% of human suffering garners more than 99% of the attention should be unbearable. I have no idea how you can say that helping people in one area "has nothing to do with" helping people in another.

awj 13y ago
> I have no idea how you can say that helping people in one area "has nothing to do with" helping people in another. That one's easy: what tangible benefit will people suffering from the events of the Boston Marathon get from a donation to Watsi? None? Then it has nothing to do with it. People are indeed suffering the world over. Objectively it would be better if people who want to do something donated to Watsi instead of wringing their hands, praying/sending thoughts, and reloading cnn.com. But people are not objective and trying to steal this kind of attention for your own cause is highly insensitive. Also, it comes off as crass and tasteless and generally won't work. Except on people who can keep their objectivity in this situation, which categorically aren't the ones pg is trying to reach. So this is crass, tasteless, highly insensitive, and ineffective.
- csallen 13y ago
  > That one's easy: what tangible benefit will people suffering from the events of the Boston Marathon get from a donation to Watsi? None? Then it has nothing to do with it. This is becoming pure wordplay now. Sure, if you take the vague phrase "something to do with" and redefine it more specifically as "provides tangible benefits to", then you'd be right. But who gives you the authority to redefine it so? PG made the relation clear in his tweet: "When terrible things happen to people I can't help, I ... help people I can." In other words, he uses tragedies as a reminder to donate to the less fortunate. Seems pretty simple to me. As for the rest of your post, it seems that your argument rests on the belief that PG's tweet didn't cause anyone to donate. If so, your argument fails, because some people did donate as a result of PG's tweet (or at least claimed to). But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that, instead, your argument rests on the belief that getting a few people to donate is not worth causing offense to others. In that case, I would denounce your argument is immature, selfish, and immoral. I would gladly give offense to 10 or 20 people (and tell them to get over themselves) if it caused 1 person to donate to Watsi. Lastly, you haven't provided any evidence why people should be offended. I completely disagree that anything PG did was crass, insensitive, or tasteless. Au contraire, I think you are the one mistaken for interpreting it that way. You've misappropriated an arbitrary societal rule for reasons you likely cannot defend.

elliottcarlson 13y ago

Because people forget about the horrors occurring every day all around the world. People don't realize what is happening else where until it's in their own backyard, and even then, they will go back to sipping their lattes and living their lives in no time. I find the fact that there is is an argument over this far more tasteless and rude.