or otherwise supposedly "pissing it all away" on luxuries anyone more rich and privileged would rarely if ever be judged for buying, even and especially here
The point is, it doesn't matter if you take the money and spend it on drugs. If you're addicted to drugs, drugs are a basic need. You have to have some amount of them while you're getting off of them, even if that's your plan. And if it's not, I really don't care except insofar as it keeps you from finding housing and handling your other basic needs.
The problem is not buying drugs with donated money. The problem is failing to take any measures to meet basic needs with the money. To take a $4000 donation and then spend it all on ??? and not use any of it to secure shelter, or food, or other basic needs is a problem. And it's a problem that cannot be solved by receiving more donated money. Maybe if they got the attention of a billionaire who could give them $50k, then they could satisfy all of their desire to spend money on ??? and still have some left over to spend on food and shelter. But since none of us are billionaires, we simply cannot fill this pit with money alone. If we here on /c/mutual_aid truly want to help the user in question, all we can do is try to convince them to change the way that they are handling what money they do acquire.
We're not mad that money we gave is being spent on stuff we don't prefer, we're not mad at the user in question at all. We're trying to get through to the user in question that this path they're walking leads only to an early death and that matters to us because all we want is for our comrades to be safe and healthy.
Does "rachel" ring a bell at all? She was poor, recently homeless, and a drug addict.
Funny you should ask. Those of us who have given to the venmo of the person this discussion is about, know that the first-name she gave on venmo (which I believe is not her real name, given a conversation about payment-app opsec she had shortly after joining this site) is Rachel.
I will note, however, that I recall the original Rachel being banned for violations of rules relating to trans issues (I seem to recall the term "truscum"), not run off of the site for making bad decisions. Not trying to argue about the broader point, just mentioning my recollection of those events.
Wati, what the fuck, it's the same fucking person? The same one who bragged about scamming people the first time? Goddamn, we're a bunch of fucking marks here
I somehow missed the scamming allegations, but yeah she posted a lot of personal details that matched up with the old storyofrachel on cth. I've just been assuming it was the same person but also I missed all this drama.
I recall her calling me a f****t at the same time she was bragging about scamming me, so I don't really appreciate you suggesting the anger was unwarranted
To my memory, Rachel was actually banned for unrelated instances of certain queerphobic comments. That's according to the modlog as I recall it. Ultimately it had nothing to do with the incident you described. There was also genuine evidence that her account was actually taken over by someone else, leading to that post. But ultimately that wasn't the reason she was banned.
Before that, there was an actual transphobic witch hunt directed against her and other trans users of this site by wreckers off the site. Back when this place was new and called chapo.chat, we had regular raids coming in from kiwifarms and transphobic harassment discords pulling shit like that all the time because their attention had followed us here from the reddit banning of r/chapotraphouse.
You have no idea what the person who donated that was thinking. As far as I am concerned, this is between that user and some rich donator who had too much money to spare and related to this user's struggle. This comm is for the good for the community, and this kind of directed anger toward one situation none of us can fully understand is not helpful to anyone else who has been sincerely helped by c/mutual aid.
You have no idea what the person who donated that was thinking.
It doesn't matter what the person who donated the $4000 was thinking, the money could have literally appeared from thin air and nothing relevant to us here on this comm would change. It doesn't matter where the money came from or what the person intended. It wasn't their money anymore. It was the money of the person who requested donations, and they could do with it whatever they wanted. What we're trying to do here is convince that person to change the way they spend their money so that they don't end up dead in a ditch or a drug den within the next few years. Because that would be a bad outcome and we'd prefer to see a better outcome for our comrades.
Yes, and what I am saying is that Hexbear does not have the power to help this person by changing the rules of this comm. Your criticism cannot touch anything you gleamed from them by their posting on this site because every day they are out there fighting for survival unhoused.
Ultimately Hexbear is not a crisis service, we have very little avenue for directing change in this persons life other than supporting their claimed efforts to live a healthier life. You can choose to not believe they are genuine and stop donating, but there is nothing Hexbear can do but ban them on the basis of speculation. What does that solve? All we can do is lend support in whichever ways we can, and one of those ways is by giving them spare cash.
Leftists generally accept the systemic nature of social conditions. Individual circumstances are given, inherited from the past. Social problems like poverty cannot be reduced to mere individual choices.
On the other hand, the given-ness of our lives does not imply determinism and a lack of free will. Marxism depends on the existence of free will, for without free will there cannot be revolution and social change.
I agree that if someone asks for money, then it is valid for someone to use that money on “vices” just so they can feel human once in a while. I believe that money given freely should be spent freely.
I feel that in this comm, the requests tend to be specific. “I need money to buy some Chipotle” or “need a place to stay tonight” etc. Those requests do impart a responsibility on the recipient. Not an abstract “individual responsibility” that erases social conditions, but a direct personal responsibility to real Hexbear users who probably themselves do not have a lot of money to give.
To say that responsibility does not exist is to say that free will does not exist, that misusing the money was determined from birth and inevitable. I think this is ultimately a destructive view and does not actually help people long term.
Whether advice is helpful really depends on where it comes from; is it paternalistic, or does it contain an empathetic understanding of socially given circumstances?
I tend to agree with lifting the rule, but there would have to be moderation against comments that are paternalistic, and that will be a tough line to walk since it is such a gray area.
Marxism depends on the existence of free will, for without free will there cannot be revolution and social change.
You are very much misunderstanding Determinism, comrade. Determinism is less about worrying that the future is set in stone and more about understanding that the trajectory of the future is determined by the forces applied in the present.
There are of course many degrees of determinism depending on the philosopher. In western philosophy (which includes Marx) I think it is accurate to contrast determinism with free will. Marx and Marxism are often accused of holding mechanical-deterministic views of history in which revolution is seen to be inevitable in a mechanical sense. This is plainly not the way in which Marx conceived of history, in fact it is exactly the opposite. For example, writings like his Theses on Feuerbach, especially Theses 1 and 3, in which he criticizes the deterministic views of the mechanical materialists which neglect the essential role of human activity (free will).
I'm not looking to start a philosophical debate in the middle of a mutual aid struggle session, comrade. But if you are immediately assuming human activity = free will, you have already put the cart before the horse.
deleted by creator
The point is, it doesn't matter if you take the money and spend it on drugs. If you're addicted to drugs, drugs are a basic need. You have to have some amount of them while you're getting off of them, even if that's your plan. And if it's not, I really don't care except insofar as it keeps you from finding housing and handling your other basic needs.
The problem is not buying drugs with donated money. The problem is failing to take any measures to meet basic needs with the money. To take a $4000 donation and then spend it all on ??? and not use any of it to secure shelter, or food, or other basic needs is a problem. And it's a problem that cannot be solved by receiving more donated money. Maybe if they got the attention of a billionaire who could give them $50k, then they could satisfy all of their desire to spend money on ??? and still have some left over to spend on food and shelter. But since none of us are billionaires, we simply cannot fill this pit with money alone. If we here on /c/mutual_aid truly want to help the user in question, all we can do is try to convince them to change the way that they are handling what money they do acquire.
We're not mad that money we gave is being spent on stuff we don't prefer, we're not mad at the user in question at all. We're trying to get through to the user in question that this path they're walking leads only to an early death and that matters to us because all we want is for our comrades to be safe and healthy.
deleted by creator
Funny you should ask. Those of us who have given to the venmo of the person this discussion is about, know that the first-name she gave on venmo (which I believe is not her real name, given a conversation about payment-app opsec she had shortly after joining this site) is Rachel.
I will note, however, that I recall the original Rachel being banned for violations of rules relating to trans issues (I seem to recall the term "truscum"), not run off of the site for making bad decisions. Not trying to argue about the broader point, just mentioning my recollection of those events.
Wati, what the fuck, it's the same fucking person? The same one who bragged about scamming people the first time? Goddamn, we're a bunch of fucking marks here
I somehow missed the scamming allegations, but yeah she posted a lot of personal details that matched up with the old storyofrachel on cth. I've just been assuming it was the same person but also I missed all this drama.
Also her display name on her payment info
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I am pretty sure "rachel" bragged about getting one over on all of us etc etc? or did I imagine that? p. sure they went off the deep end, not us
deleted by creator
I recall her calling me a f****t at the same time she was bragging about scamming me, so I don't really appreciate you suggesting the anger was unwarranted
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
but they bragged about doing that tho
there's a reason they were banned....
To my memory, Rachel was actually banned for unrelated instances of certain queerphobic comments. That's according to the modlog as I recall it. Ultimately it had nothing to do with the incident you described. There was also genuine evidence that her account was actually taken over by someone else, leading to that post. But ultimately that wasn't the reason she was banned.
Before that, there was an actual transphobic witch hunt directed against her and other trans users of this site by wreckers off the site. Back when this place was new and called chapo.chat, we had regular raids coming in from kiwifarms and transphobic harassment discords pulling shit like that all the time because their attention had followed us here from the reddit banning of r/chapotraphouse.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
You have no idea what the person who donated that was thinking. As far as I am concerned, this is between that user and some rich donator who had too much money to spare and related to this user's struggle. This comm is for the good for the community, and this kind of directed anger toward one situation none of us can fully understand is not helpful to anyone else who has been sincerely helped by c/mutual aid.
It doesn't matter what the person who donated the $4000 was thinking, the money could have literally appeared from thin air and nothing relevant to us here on this comm would change. It doesn't matter where the money came from or what the person intended. It wasn't their money anymore. It was the money of the person who requested donations, and they could do with it whatever they wanted. What we're trying to do here is convince that person to change the way they spend their money so that they don't end up dead in a ditch or a drug den within the next few years. Because that would be a bad outcome and we'd prefer to see a better outcome for our comrades.
Yes, and what I am saying is that Hexbear does not have the power to help this person by changing the rules of this comm. Your criticism cannot touch anything you gleamed from them by their posting on this site because every day they are out there fighting for survival unhoused.
Ultimately Hexbear is not a crisis service, we have very little avenue for directing change in this persons life other than supporting their claimed efforts to live a healthier life. You can choose to not believe they are genuine and stop donating, but there is nothing Hexbear can do but ban them on the basis of speculation. What does that solve? All we can do is lend support in whichever ways we can, and one of those ways is by giving them spare cash.
Leftists generally accept the systemic nature of social conditions. Individual circumstances are given, inherited from the past. Social problems like poverty cannot be reduced to mere individual choices.
On the other hand, the given-ness of our lives does not imply determinism and a lack of free will. Marxism depends on the existence of free will, for without free will there cannot be revolution and social change.
I agree that if someone asks for money, then it is valid for someone to use that money on “vices” just so they can feel human once in a while. I believe that money given freely should be spent freely.
I feel that in this comm, the requests tend to be specific. “I need money to buy some Chipotle” or “need a place to stay tonight” etc. Those requests do impart a responsibility on the recipient. Not an abstract “individual responsibility” that erases social conditions, but a direct personal responsibility to real Hexbear users who probably themselves do not have a lot of money to give.
To say that responsibility does not exist is to say that free will does not exist, that misusing the money was determined from birth and inevitable. I think this is ultimately a destructive view and does not actually help people long term.
Whether advice is helpful really depends on where it comes from; is it paternalistic, or does it contain an empathetic understanding of socially given circumstances?
I tend to agree with lifting the rule, but there would have to be moderation against comments that are paternalistic, and that will be a tough line to walk since it is such a gray area.
deleted by creator
You are very much misunderstanding Determinism, comrade. Determinism is less about worrying that the future is set in stone and more about understanding that the trajectory of the future is determined by the forces applied in the present.
There are of course many degrees of determinism depending on the philosopher. In western philosophy (which includes Marx) I think it is accurate to contrast determinism with free will. Marx and Marxism are often accused of holding mechanical-deterministic views of history in which revolution is seen to be inevitable in a mechanical sense. This is plainly not the way in which Marx conceived of history, in fact it is exactly the opposite. For example, writings like his Theses on Feuerbach, especially Theses 1 and 3, in which he criticizes the deterministic views of the mechanical materialists which neglect the essential role of human activity (free will).
I'm not looking to start a philosophical debate in the middle of a mutual aid struggle session, comrade. But if you are immediately assuming human activity = free will, you have already put the cart before the horse.
EXCELLENT post
GOOD post