As it stands now, this community serves mostly as a way to get money. That isn't a bad thing, but cash is not a 1-size-fits-all solution to every problem. Taking care of a persons needs is always priority #1, but at times, said person is unfit to handle money in a way that reliably alleviates those needs. Traditional, local, mutual-aid networks can usually address this in the form of community pot lucks, clothing exchange, etc. Here we are more or less limited to advice and more money.
Making a rule about unsolicited advice and being critical of users, limits us to just money as a tool to solve problems. Sometimes people need a tough conversation to grow as a person, sometimes people need to be reminded of the situation they are in. Yes, the capitalist system is oppressive. Yes, there are systemic issues that prevent us all from succeeding. That doesn't mean there is no situation where decision making is a factor. Sometimes, you do actually need help making better choices. This isn't to shame people for making bad decisions, sometimes there are psychiatric reasons, sometimes they genuinely don't know any better, but you still should speak up so they can potentially correct the problem and learn.
This rule effectively creates a hug-box where we all pretend that personal responsibility doesn't exist, that there is simply nothing to be done. It's incredibly infantile, it's a cope, and the people in this community deserve better than that.
EDIT: I feel I may have had a change of heart after reading the comments left by @EelBolshevikism If you are looking for a somewhat comprehensive response, those comments are likely a good starting point.
Counterpoint: giving needy people money does not entitle you to anything in return. If you are going to be weird about it - don't give money. Miss everyone with the paternalistic nonsense.
Edit: and for the record I have given money to someone who was almost definitely scamming and I never mentioned it to anyone. Giving money anonymously is exactly what it says on the tin.
It's not a matter of entitlement, its a matter of making sure peoples needs are met. That is the entire point of mutual aid. Throwing money at problems indiscriminately is not a solution. If you feel like giving someone money, give someone money. That is not what this post is about.
Somewhat understandable but you are advocating for witch trials instead of an outright ban which would be a much more sensible solution.. which leads me to believe you haven't thought this through at all or aren't serious.
If it makes you ideologically mad that resources aren't being perfectly allocated or whatever... Maybe unsubscribe from the comm or at least propose a solution with some thought behind it. Jesus.
Who is advocating for witch trials and where did they advocate such a thing?
Ok are we going to appoint someone to vet everyone's claims or what. This is what I mean. Not a serious solution.
I feel like you have no idea of the context of this discussion and are just trying to stir shit. No one is talking about vetting claims.
I'm sure I don't know the context. Everyone should if we are discussing something important.
How is it advocating for witch trials? As far as I'm aware this wasn't even perceived as a problem until a 1 off situation. That 1 off situation being highly controversial in this community. I would rather people talk these things over and actively learn from each other, than to blanket ban criticism. Criticism is not inherently malicious, and its not saying "don't send money to this person" (and saying this IS wrong).
This is an online community, it has very little capacity to help, but one of the ways it can help is through conversations. Limiting the type of conversation, limits that capacity further. That is the point I am making.
You'd be wrong there, a similar situation with the same user (to my knowledge) being involved that happened at the start of hexbear/chapo.chat and a bunch of users got banned, including the user people donated/gave the money to. It's been ongoing since the chapotraphouse subreddit days.
Thanks for the info!
It really seems like you have entirely missed their point, to be honest. All they're advocating for is a rule change to facilitate discussion, not in any way trying to identify liars.
I am not trying to regulate anything
I am saying literally the opposite. Don't regulate what anyone has to say in critique of another person (unless its obviously malicious).
So you need to either tell me how you are going to verify people's claims or how you are going to protect against social engineering that reddit-like sites are famous for. It literally isn't possible. All the claims are true or they aren't. This isn't complicated.
This is a wild point to argue when you literally admitted not having context
Not my problem. Maybe include it in the post.
It’s not anybody else’s problem if they ignore/tell you to kick rocks for purposeful ignorance
So are you gonna link me the context or keep being obtuse
No, I will not
Ok well I am glad my instincts about this not being a serious post were correct then
“If context isn’t served to me on a silver platter, I will simply ignore”
Good faith huh
A user of this comm got a substantial amount of money from donations here and it didn't work out; they basically ended up in the same place as they were within a month without durably improving their situation. There were some people who thought this person might have squandered the money in various ways, potentially in ways that were not healthy.
It's difficult to separate those concerns from putting conditions on the aid, but I personally think some of those concerns were out of genuine desire to see the person not fall into self-destructive patterns. I don't know if it's appropriate or not to have those concerns, but this rule change prevents any discussion or suggestions that might be more constructive.
I hope this is helpful framing of the conversation without denigrating anyone.
Certainly better than grandstanding. Thank you. My points stand. There is no way to vet any of this. It is either caveat emptor or full ban. I am fine with either.
I'm not trying to do any of that at all. What do you think I'm advocating for? I think something is lost in translation.
Where in any post are they advocating for vetting? You have a really strong opinion about something everyone already agrees with but somehow that means you disagree with their point of offering advice instead of just money?
Somebody asks for a few bucks for some ramen.
The same somebody is pretty open about their use and/or addiction to things on the same forums that they've asked for a few bucks
Commenters chirp about "not being an addict" and "don't give money to this person because they are probably going to use it for drugs"
I'm hoping this is what the rule is in reference to. Could also be comfortable with it being in reference to comments telling them to go find a food pantry or shelter etc.etc. when they weren't asking for helping finding or navigating those services.
I am 99% positive, nobody is asking to vet the user who's asking for ramen money if, in fact, they are going to be using it for ramen instead of drugs or booze or socks or something.
Why the fuck is today suddenly Transphobia Day on hexbear