Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

donate his old coats and shoes to the school

and explain to him, if he sees a kid with his old stuff it's no big deal and such 

 

my entire dating and sex life is based on the concept of charity, does that count ?

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, South Austin said:

I think I lost my virginity to a girl who felt sorry for me.

Was her name Charity?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
On 12/3/2025 at 6:06 PM, Gil Bang said:

the local schools here do free lunch for all students.  I think it's a great idea.  Get rid of the stigma, and the accounting. 

My parents were quite poor so I received free lunch growing up, but I was friends with all the rich kids. Twice a year or so they had to send out some letter giving us information (or maybe requesting information) about the program. The letters went out to every kid at the same time and were delivered in classrooms, so once one kid in the class opened the letter, everyone knew who the poor kids were. I always thought there had to be a better way to do that.

Edited by KYHorn
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted

I mean I like your thought process but probably over thinking it a little bit. If you returned the coat to the school/organization could someone who needed it benefit from it? If so quietly return the coat and go buy your kid a coat from Kohl's or Goodwill. If not, or it's too late or whatever, keep it until he outgrows it and donate it to a similar organization. 

Posted

I have in the past donated where possible.  Had a good month during hail season a few years back & a single Mom with 2 kids (one a solidly autistic teen boy) was asking if anyone had received the junk mail coopin for a "buy 1 / get one 50% off" haircut from Great Clips (she thinks the one she got had been tossed into recycling & lost).  Her ex husband wouldn't contribute because in his mind, "I already give you enough $ in child support".

I met her @ the parking lot here in Drip (across from H.E.B. & in addition to the coupon, I gave her $ 250 cash & said she should get the kids some Schlotky's or TCBY next door & maybe pay a bill or 2.

Now here I am having the wreck last year & income has trickled... I have benefitted GREATLY from the largesse of the Surly community & others & that has kept us afloat in our time of need.

We visit the food bank(s) here in Drip & every time we go, my wife feels like it's a pride swallowing event (we were there just today after my 2nd round of retinopathy (eye) injections.

I remind her that we should feel extremely appreciative these resources are available here instead of needing to go 1 hour away into Austin.

In specific answer to your question, YES.  & In so many ways, it is a life & mentally / emotionally changing event.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 5
Posted

1. Yes
2.  I ate and was clothed because of it.  I knew  we had a roof over our heads in part because of it.
3.  I was never ashamed.  I was ingratiated.  I was also inspired to pay it back.  
4. Among other things, it is an experience that pushed me to be better or challenge myself on the hard times.  I am inspired to help others through what was done for me.  I am grateful that I have been able to pay it forward many X's over. It is something that will never be "completed" or "over" for me.

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)

Other than pity sex, I don't think I've received any charity of any substance (not counting any number of small acts of kindness and generosity folks may show throughout your life).  But I'm certainly the beneficiary of it - my mother and grandmother fled an abusive man in NOLA, and ended up in Kingsville.  But for (1) gov't subsidized housing and food aid, (2) one of the leading families in the area setting my grandmother up with a bookkeeping job at a car dealer, and (3) that family also flat-out giving them things like some furniture, occasional money gifts, etc., there's no way they would have made it.

It certainly helped me see that no matter how proud you might be, and how much you might want to think "I've earned everything I've got," you almost certainly didn't.  Other people helped out with pure generosity along the way, and you quite often don't even realize it.  And that's okay -- both the helping and the you not realizing it.  Just understand that it's true, and that it's but one piece of evidence in the long line of truth that is "we all do better when we help each other."

And I got to see it in action the other way numerous times, but one time in particular made a big impression on me as a kid.  One of my cousins, a good bit older than me, but we were running buddies when we'd visit down in Mexico, had a store that failed.  He was in a bit of debt, and at that time, Mexico had legit debtor's prison.  I remember my folks sitting at the table crunching numbers, real concerned looks on their faces.  I asked what was up, and my mother explained that cousin Julio was in jail, and his family couldn't get him out.  He had a wife and a daughter on the outside who were just a wreck.  I asked how much he needed to get out?  $6k.  My eyes got kinda big, because even at that young age, I knew that was a lot for our family -- maybe more than we had.  I asked, anxious, if we were going to do it.  My mother answered yes.  I then asked if we were giving it, or was it just a loan.  She explained that it was a loan, but we also knew that it wouldn't be paid back.  She then explained that this is family, they need help, we can help, so that's what we're going to do.

Even though it was a stretch for us.  Even though it surely meant we went another year without a replacement car.  Or we went another year without an actual vacation trip (not that we really took many of those).  I'm sure things were tight for a while.  But it made an impression on me.

Can you help?

Then help.

I told that story at my father's memorial this year.  And I learned that he had done similar things countless times.  You need help?  Here you go.  He did that over and over.  Maybe it was just giving $200.  Another time it was him giving the company-paid first-class upgrades on a long intercontinental flight to his two subordinates who were flying with him from Buenos Aires to London for work.  Or taking in my cousin and her (troubled and druggie) mother when they were on the edge of being on the streets.  And goddamn, so many other things.  And there's no shame in asking for or taking that help.  It's why we're here.  Fuck, if it's not why we're here, than what is the goddamned point of any of this?

Goddammit.  My dad wasn't soft, he was an engineer and a man of his generation.  And he was a good man, and I fucking miss him and wish I'd done better by him.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Like 3
Posted

This time of year has me reminded: when I was around 10 years old, my mom divorced an abusive 2nd husband.  She had 2 kids & the decree required HER to pay the maxed ot CC bills he had accrued (high quality 35mm camera equipment, SCUBA gear, etc).

Christmas comes along & we had next to Ø.  Tinfoil on the windows vs. "Proper" blinds or curtains, basic bed setups as provided by the Nuns @ Saint Jerome's (9th Avenue & 2 blocks S of State Road 84 in Fort Lauderdale) & not much else.

 

A neurologist @ Broward General had somehow become aware of our situation (no idea on the connection as she was a Respiratory Therapist & those 2 professions rarely coincide).

Anyway, he provided me & my brother with our only "Santa" gift, a Lionel HO gadget train set & even to this day, 49 years later, his generosity is still a *very* resonant memory.  [Dabs eye with fondness]

 

image.thumb.jpeg.7261acf5592edf0d458d6d600b9bc6fc.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted

I think you just roll with it. If you are choosing to send your kid to a school with enough economically disadvantaged and at risk population that they are being airdropped free coats for the winter and what not, and you are not in that type of need, then it's likely because the school draws from a very diverse area. At his age it's no big deal to have designer logos and he shouldn't be bullied on basis of style, so I wouldn't worry about that. 

I think you hit the nail on the head, swallow your pride, be an equal party in the community of your school and teach your kids to show no partiality, as it sounds like you are. The issues are the parents insecurities more than the kids at this age.

Posted

Another way to explain it to your kid (by not actually "explaining it") is to simply say nothing.  "That's the thing school does.  Everyone gets a new coat.  Why do you ask?  It's like a crayon... you need a green one to draw grass, you pick up a green one & go back to drawing.  This is part of the "beginning of school" stuff we provide some $ for (assuming there is a pre-packaged supplies kit you can buy & is then bundled for all kids in the class to draw from).

  • Like 1
Posted

the donating organization should've piloted giving the coats only to the best looking kids at school first, to destigmatize the garment.

Posted
On 12/3/2025 at 5:06 PM, Gil Bang said:

the local schools here do free lunch for all students.  I think it's a great idea.  Get rid of the stigma, and the accounting. 

 

On 12/3/2025 at 8:18 PM, KYHorn said:

My parents were quite poor so I received free lunch growing up, but I was friends with all the rich kids. Twice a year or so they had to send out some letter giving us information (or maybe requesting information) about the program. The letters went out to every kid at the same time and were delivered in classrooms, so once one kid in the class opened the letter, everyone knew who the poor kids were. I always thought there had to be a better way to do that.

This thread is a pretty important topic imo. It alludes to a very significant American issue today. Historically, one of America’s greatest strengths was its generosity and charity for citizens in need. 

For a long time, America reduced a lot of human suffering through charitable programs. It worked because the population felt a certain amount of shame about needing help, and that kept people from taking advantage of the resources unfairly, taking away help for others in need. 

However, today we do have a lot of people (amount unclear) who see charity as an entitlement. That lack of stigma has two negative effects. It results in abuse of charity resources and it takes away from others who are truly in need. 

So the more you reduce or eliminate the stigma, the more you risk having people take advantage of the charity unfairly. 

I don’t quite know what the answer is, but the political wars of today between the right and left stems from, among other things, these types of issues.

People who do everything possible to avoid charity do not like seeing others take unfair advantage of charity. It’s a deep seated anger. I don’t know what the solution is to this problem. 

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

 

This thread is a pretty important topic imo. It alludes to a very significant American issue today. Historically, one of America’s greatest strengths was its generosity and charity for citizens in need. 

For a long time, America reduced a lot of human suffering through charitable programs. It worked because the population felt a certain amount of shame about needing help, and that kept people from taking advantage of the resources unfairly, taking away help for others in need. 

However, today we do have a lot of people (amount unclear) who see charity as an entitlement. That lack of stigma has two negative effects. It results in abuse of charity resources and it takes away from others who are truly in need. 

So the more you reduce or eliminate the stigma, the more you risk having people take advantage of the charity unfairly. 

I don’t quite know what the answer is, but the political wars of today between the right and left stems from, among other things, these types of issues.

People who do everything possible to avoid charity do not like seeing others take unfair advantage of charity. It’s a deep seated anger. I don’t know what the solution is to this problem. 

To be honest, I'm not sure any of that is actually true.

It is a story that we have been fed.  I no longer trust the motives or veracity of those who told us that story.

I think there are certain people that are going to feel a stigma or shame, or at least gratitude for charity private or public.  And then there are others that are not.  And so it has always been and will always be.

I do think perhaps that urbanization has concentrated the latter in ghettos, where they are more noticeable and perhaps promulgate a culture of it.

And if anything has increased the latter mentality, it is more likely wealth inequality than social programs.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

To be honest, I'm not sure any of that is actually true.

It is a story that we have been fed.  I no longer trust the motives or veracity of those who told us that story.

I think there are certain people that are going to feel a stigma or shame, or at least gratitude for charity private or public.  And then there are others that are not.

I do think perhaps that urbanization has concentrated the latter in ghettos, where they are more noticeable and perhaps promulgate a culture of it.

And if anything has increased the latter mentality, it is more likely wealth inequality than social programs.

I guess I don’t understand your point. You started by saying you disagree. But then you acknowledge that people are doing it. The only thing I can surmise from your post is that you think that people taking advantage of charity is due solely to wealth inequality and not because of reduced stigma? If that’s your argument, it doesn’t make sense. By definition the stigma hasn’t stopped their behavior. I’m confused. 

Posted
Just now, Dbeasy said:

I guess I don’t understand your point. You started by saying you disagree. But then you acknowledge that people are doing it. The only thing I can surmise from your post is that you think that people taking advantage of charity is due solely to wealth inequality and not because of reduced stigma? If that’s your argument, it doesn’t make sense. By definition the stigma hasn’t stopped their behavior. I’m confused. 

To the extent clarification is required, you seem to be arguing that overextension of charity (implicitly through government programs) has increased dependency because it has reduced stigma.  I.e. "social programs incentivize laziness and poverty."

I argue that the number of dependent people is about the same as it ever was, but they are more noticeable because they're now concentrated in urban ghettos rather than being dispersed over a rural-agrarian area.

The poverty percentage in the US has been pretty stable for a good long time now, indicating that there really isn't an increase in the dependent.

And, if there is an increase in dependency, it is probably more due to other factors, like wealth inequality and bad housing policy than to "incentivization" through social programs.

Now, if you want to extend the discussion to those who view themselves entitled to various government benefits that aren't dependent on them, like corporations, I might buy that.

Posted

I'm not trying to pick a fight, really.

The notion that government charity (but why not private as well?) incents poverty and dependency is conservative orthodoxy.  Much like trickle down.

Maybe it does, but there are plenty of indicators that maybe it doesn't.  

And as a recovering conservative, I am skeptical of that orthodoxy.

Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

To the extent clarification is required, you seem to be arguing that overextension of charity (implicitly through government programs) has increased dependency because it has reduced stigma.  I.e. "social programs incentivize laziness and poverty."

I argue that the number of dependent people is about the same as it ever was, but they are more noticeable because they're now concentrated in urban ghettos rather than being dispersed over a rural-agrarian area.

The poverty percentage in the US has been pretty stable for a good long time now, indicating that there really isn't an increase in the dependent.

And, if there is an increase in dependency, it is probably more due to other factors, like wealth inequality and bad housing policy than to "incentivization" through social programs.

Now, if you want to extend the discussion to those who view themselves entitled to various government benefits that aren't dependent on them, like corporations, I might buy that.

Where did I ever say an increase in social programs is incentivizing lazy people? I never said anything like that, nor do I believe that. 

What I said was that if there is a conscious effort to reduce stigma, or for whatever reason the stigma drops, then people are more likely to start taking advantage of the system. That’s a completely different concept. 

48 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not trying to pick a fight, really.

The notion that government charity (but why not private as well?) incents poverty and dependency is conservative orthodoxy.  Much like trickle down.

Maybe it does, but there are plenty of indicators that maybe it doesn't.  

And as a recovering conservative, I am skeptical of that orthodoxy.

Again, as I stated in the previous post, I’ve never said that and I’m not sure how you interpreted my previous post to suggest that. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

What I said was that if there is a conscious effort to reduce stigma, or for whatever reason the stigma drops, then people are more likely to start taking advantage of the system. That’s a completely different concept. 

That's not all wrong, but study seems to indicate that it's not a material issue.  There always have been and always will be people with a "freeloader" mentality, in every system.  Note that many of these people are at the TOP of the ladder as well.

That said, there are some complex risks and downsides with charity that are related to the kind of "takeaway" that you are concerned about.  This is a really good and important read:

71yLibRs76L._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg

 

Quote

In “Toxic Charity,” Lupton explains that, “when we do for those in need what they have the capacity to do for themselves, we disempower them.” He goes further: “Giving to those in need what they could be gaining from their own initiative may well be the kindest way to destroy people.” Yikes. This isn’t to say we can’t help. But the findings noted in both “Toxic Charity” and “Poverty, Inc.” caution us that we shouldn’t help because it makes us feel good. Naturally, when we help others, it does feel personally fulfilling. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s human nature. But, this book and film caution us that while we’re doing good, we should be centrally focused on what is going to improve the lives of those in need and help them find meaning. We shouldn’t be the ones directing the outcomes we want to see; we should be empowering those in need to ultimately find their own solutions.

One example that both “Toxic “Isn’t it time we admit to ourselves that mission trips are essentially for our benefit? ... The community must be empowered to act, initiate, make decisions, and respond.”  One example that both "
Toxic Charity” and “Poverty, Inc.” discuss is mission trips. They point out that, while mission trips have value, so many resources are wasted on them. As Lupton says, “isn’t it time we admit to ourselves that mission trips are essentially for our benefit?” He suggests we rename them to “insight trips” or “exchange programs.” When we are trying to impact people in need, “the community must be empowered to act, initiate, make decisions, and respond,” says Lupton.

 

Posted

And as a follow-on on that, there's striking a balance.

People who have immediate needs for basic elements of life: food, shelter, etc.....you have to help them have those in the immediate term as a baseline, but you want to be thoughtful as to degree and term.

Because your most EFFECTIVE charity is creating connection, facilitating education and work, and equipping people to advance themselves.

 

That said, a kid who is cold today needs a coat today.  A person who is hungry today needs to eat today.  If at all times you are focused on doing things to help that actually maximize the best outcome for the person on the receiving end, then you're doing it both for the right reason and are more likely to be doing it in the right way.

  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

And as a follow-on on that, there's striking a balance.

People who have immediate needs for basic elements of life: food, shelter, etc.....you have to help them have those in the immediate term as a baseline, but you want to be thoughtful as to degree and term.

Because your most EFFECTIVE charity is creating connection, facilitating education and work, and equipping people to advance themselves.

 

That said, a kid who is cold today needs a coat today.  A person who is hungry today needs to eat today.  If at all times you are focused on doing things to help that actually maximize the best outcome for the person on the receiving end, then you're doing it both for the right reason and are more likely to be doing it in the right way.

It's no wonder then, that the concept of charity in society began with the church and not government.

Dear friends, do you think you’ll get anywhere in this if you learn all the right words but never do anything? Does merely talking about faith indicate that a person really has it? For instance, you come upon an old friend dressed in rags and half-starved and say, “Good morning, friend! Be clothed in Christ! Be filled with the Holy Spirit!” and walk off without providing so much as a coat or a cup of soup—where does that get you? Isn’t it obvious that God-talk without God-acts is outrageous nonsense?

Posted
4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

That's not all wrong, but study seems to indicate that it's not a material issue.  There always have been and always will be people with a "freeloader" mentality, in every system.  Note that many of these people are at the TOP of the ladder as well.

That said, there are some complex risks and downsides with charity that are related to the kind of "takeaway" that you are concerned about.  This is a really good and important read:

71yLibRs76L._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg

 

 

Interesting view. I’ll put that on my read list. 

I feel like the whole charity system, whether it’s government provided or private, is cloaked in mystery when it comes to who is getting this help, for how long, and how they fit or don’t fit the criteria of need. 

Many of the arguments on Surly, and between the political parties, isn’t often data based, because there isn’t enough reliable data. Some people believe everyone is a freeloader, and some believe very few are freeloaders. A lot of the data comes from the charities themselves who have an extremely strong interest in demonstrating there are a small number.

I used to believe in the good of most people, but the last 8 years have taught me there are way way more dumb and shitty people on this country than I ever imagined. 

But back to the original comment, does reducing the stigma of charity result in much more freeloading? I don’t know.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

One of the things my employer does is match charitable donations dollar for dollar. They have to be legit entities, like not your kid's baseball team; but rather YMCA or Big Brothers-Big Sisters

Through the years we have gotten them to match when we hit a team goal for giving to local food bank or women's shelter, for example. 
 

That's a good way to drive dollars, which matter dearly; but volunteering time is also a tremendous way to give back. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I feel like the whole charity system, whether it’s government provided or private, is cloaked in mystery when it comes to who is getting this help, for how long, and how they fit or don’t fit the criteria of need. 

Many of the arguments on Surly, and between the political parties, isn’t often data based, because there isn’t enough reliable data. Some people believe everyone is a freeloader, and some believe very few are freeloaders. A lot of the data comes from the charities themselves who have an extremely strong interest in demonstrating there are a small number.

There's actually some really good data out there on micro-loans, for example.  Incredibly effective at helping people pull themselves out of the depths of poverty.

There's also tons of great data on education.  Scholarships and such - private or state-funded - are both incredibly effective charity and a really smart social investment ($1 invested in educating someone yields many more dollars in economic benefit and activity for society as a whole).

Some other items get more complex, but even things like "free school lunches" have pretty good data.  They are cheap, and there's lots of data on how much better a fed student performs compared to a hungry one.

Charity of investing in infrastructure is another one.  Helping a community develop a clean, local clean water source is a force-multiplier: it frees people up from being a "water procurer" to becoming someone who can engage in productive, paying economic activity.

In short, there is lots of data out there that's pretty reliable and makes sense.  It's a good idea to vet any project and any charity provider.

But none of that takes away from some baseline humanity, too.  If I see you shivering, I should help you get warm.  If I see you hungry, I should offer you food.  Does it make me feel good?  Sure.  But that's not why I'm doing it (or, it shouldn't be).  I should do it because it that is what humanity - as we should all want it to be - behaves.

And yeah, I can't deny that it matters to me, selfishly.  That I measure myself against what I think I SHOULD do.  And I guarantee you, I only find myself lacking.  Every time I think about it.  I am positive that in my last days, I'll absolutely ask the question Pvt. Ryan asked at the end: 

il_1080xN.6281960337_mjin.jpg

And I guarantee you, even if my loved ones tell me "yes, of course," I won't believe them.  Because there is always something more we could have done.  Humanity could have done better, and been better.  But it fell short, because I fell short.  Is that selfish of me?  Almost certainly.  Add it to the pile of "ways in which Brisketexan is shitty."

We're a messy bunch, we humans.  Even when we're trying to do good, it turns out that we're shitty.

Posted
41 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

It's no wonder then, that the concept of charity in society began with the church and not government.

Dear friends, do you think you’ll get anywhere in this if you learn all the right words but never do anything? Does merely talking about faith indicate that a person really has it? For instance, you come upon an old friend dressed in rags and half-starved and say, “Good morning, friend! Be clothed in Christ! Be filled with the Holy Spirit!” and walk off without providing so much as a coat or a cup of soup—where does that get you? Isn’t it obvious that God-talk without God-acts is outrageous nonsense?

The book of James has a great answer to this:

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without [a]your works, and I will show you my faith by [b]my works. 

 

I'm not offering that scripture to proselytize -- it's just a solid rebuke of those who wear their faith loudly, but don't LIVE their faith.  "Christianity" isn't a belief.  It is a way.  A way to BE.  Which requires action.  Show your faith BY your works.

The most effective evangelism I have ever observed does not involve preaching a single word.  It's people walking the Way, demonstrating their faith by example.

Posted
29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The book of James has a great answer to this:

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without [a]your works, and I will show you my faith by [b]my works. 

 

I'm not offering that scripture to proselytize -- it's just a solid rebuke of those who wear their faith loudly, but don't LIVE their faith.  "Christianity" isn't a belief.  It is a way.  A way to BE.  Which requires action.  Show your faith BY your works.

The most effective evangelism I have ever observed does not involve preaching a single word.  It's people walking the Way, demonstrating their faith by example.

It's not a way, but the way (at least as it was described by early Christians before the term Christian was....Christened? Say that 3 times fast.)

Also my quote was directly from the Book of James as well, so unsure if you thought I disagreed?

Posted
2 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

It's not a way, but the way (at least as it was described by early Christians before the term Christian was....Christened? Say that 3 times fast.)

Also my quote was directly from the Book of James as well, so unsure if you thought I disagreed?

Not disagreeing at all -- just filling in the on-point stuff from the other verses.

  • Hook 'Em 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...