Oh look, a biased Fox News article. Should be a great source of information. /s
tl;dr - the SJW groupthink claims Salvation Army is bad and supporting the Salvation Army makes you bad.
WastelandCowboy posted...
Oh look, a biased Fox News article. Should be a great source of information. /s
Yep. Definitely a neutral article filled with an unbiased report of the facts and absolutely no partisan pathos.
Lokarin posted...
tl;dr - the SJW groupthink claims Salvation Army is bad and supporting the Salvation Army makes you bad.
To be fair, the Salvation Army is well-documented as being discriminatory, and there's no shortages of other charities to support that would be doing the same thing. Funding the SA over other options does suggest a certain degree of either ignorance or apathy toward their discrimination, neither of which is good.
Donating to a charity is not an endorsement of the charity. Even if they discriminate, they are helping a non-zero sum of people.
like "even if they're responsible for the death of at least one LGBT person they still help people!!!"
foh
I agree that the article is biased, but I didn't see anyone else reporting on this.
When it comes to the SA, they are highly Christian and are known to kick people out of their shelters for drug use and other offences.
by the same token, progressive movement is just as discriminatory, and using strong-arm tactics to harass and devastate innocent well-intentioned folks. QED we can all please ignore their cause.
Donating to a charity is not an endorsement of the charity. Even if they discriminate, they are helping a non-zero sum of people.
All charities are pretty discriminatory. It's in the nature of giving. You want to set up something to help your own, since you're down in there with them, you see a need, and your own tends to happen to be like you.
So you're a biker, your son or friends has leukemia, so you end up with bikers against lukemia, helping those in that situation within the community.
However, for regular people who just wanna do something nice for the community - they're gunna give to the charity or organization they are closest too, often literally - it's VERY easy to help the Salvation Army because they are everywhere.
Lokarin posted...
However, for regular people who just wanna do something nice for the community - they're gunna give to the charity or organization they are closest too, often literally - it's VERY easy to help the Salvation Army because they are everywhere.
And that's the problem. It's good will that's being tainted by laziness, ignorance, and/or apathy, and letting it be so tainted is certainly worth criticizing.
Fair enough, but that's no reason to form a mob.
Imagine if a mob formed because you gave presents to your own family and not their families who may need presents more... should you just, NOT, give?
> Bad analogy is bad.
> Eh, gift-giving and charity are distinct concepts. That analogy doesn't really work.
Ehhh, possibly - I'm trying to come up with a middle ground that expresses my point accurate since I don't words well.
Unless I'm mistaken, your point is that there will always be a better way to spend charity money than what people choose, so getting on people's cases for not perfectly optimizing their donations is unreasonable. Which I do agree with, to a certain extent. People can definitely do better than throwing money at the most obvious and convenient option, especially when that obvious option has a documented history of discriminatory behaviour, so I don't think it's unreasonable to hold people to a higher standard than that, especially if one makes a bit of effort to help them find better alternatives.
I'm arguing over nothing
Oh look, a biased Fox News article. Should be a great source of information. /s
To be fair, the Salvation Army is well-documented as being discriminatory, and there's no shortages of other charities to support that would be doing the same thing. Funding the SA over other options does suggest a certain degree of either ignorance or apathy toward their discrimination, neither of which is good.
Oh look, a biased Fox News article. Should be a great source of information. /s
