I guess I'm politicaly incorrect, so sad

[SeaCat]

Localy there is a drive on to raise money and supplies for those in Haiti. I am approached on a regular basis for this and am reviled when I refuse to give.

Now don't get me wrong, I have donated for those in need in Haiti on more than one occasion. Then I started to learn about what is going on there when our Aide arrives.

Several months ago a local town had a major drive to raise food and other needed supplies for Haiti. This was spearheaded by the towns mayor after going on a fact finding trip to Haiti. The town gathered enough non-perishable foods and clothing to fill six shipping containers. The local port got in on the deal and shipped them for free. They were shipped four months ago.

Those six containers are still sitting on the docks in Haiti. Those supplies were never distributed, although the moneys did somehow vanish.

Cat

 

[SeaCat]

Hmm.

I can see we're talking past each other here.

We have completely different views of thart the word means and encompasses. So never mind.

Actually no. What is your idea of what being politicaly correct is?

To me it is having to watch everything you say so you don't offend. It is bowing to every group that claims to be repressed. To me it having to conform to what is considered to be the norm even if you don't agree with that norm.

Cat

 

[DeeZire]

If they wanted more donations in the Haiti box, they should have planted a braless babe in front of it, with a lot of cleavage showing, bending over and peeking in the box every time a guy walked by. Don't they know that sex sells?

Then, the Texans could have called a couple of Dallas cheerleaders, who would have shown up to hang around the other box, but that would have eventually turned into a catfight with the Haiti woman, and the guy getting it all on video could have sold the footage to one of the catfighting websites, and then donated to the money to the Obama campaign. At least, that's what I would have done.

(Now, is this a good example of non-PC or what?)

 

[redpaint]

Cat if your Politically incorrect, then I guess I am too. I would have done the same thing.

 

[DesertPirate]

Actually no. What is your idea of what being politicaly correct is?

To me it is having to watch everything you say so you don't offend. It is bowing to every group that claims to be repressed. To me it having to conform to what is considered to be the norm even if you don't agree with that norm.

Cat

To be politicaly correct you have to loose your honesty. That's all it is, tell lies so you don't offend anyone.
Cat stay honest, it's better in the long run!

 

[3113]

To me it is having to watch everything you say so you don't offend. It is bowing to every group that claims to be repressed. To me it having to conform to what is considered to be the norm even if you don't agree with that norm.

To me, that's defining yourself to victory.

I have no trouble with your story, Cat. I think you did the right thing. I do have trouble with you blaming "political correctness" on it, and prancing with pride at being politically "incorrect."

Why? Well, because people use the excuse that "Hey, I'm not politically correct" to say and do a lot of shit that is as rude and obnoxious as this (i.e. stealing)--and they get patted on the back for doing it because it makes them appear to be such rebels.

For example, let's imagine that the opposite had been true. That people from the Haiti box were getting more and people from the Texas box were switching it over. I've no doubt you'd have done the same thing, but would you have then proudly titled your thread "I guess I'm not politically correct"? And if those Texas folk who were stealing from that other box had yelled at you "I guess we're politically incorrect and that's why you hate us!"...what would you have said then? Would you have said, "Gosh, I made a terrible mistake! I'm politically incorrect too. I should have let the Texas folk steal from the Haiti box"?

Political correctness is one of those terms that has been turned into a form of name calling. Believe me, I do know where you're coming from. I *have* been the victim of such mentality and over-sensitivity myself. But I feel it's over used as the "boogie-man" in both directions. For as many people who use it to claim you're the villain, there are just as many, and you're making yourself sound like one of them, who use it to make those who don't think like them sound like the villains.

Accusations of being too PC are, too often, a quick way for someone to kill an argument they don't feel they can win. "You're just being PC!" they say, and thus, they don't have to listen to the evidence that says that they are doing something wrong. Just as these people, if they were indeed claiming that giving to Haiti was PC (which you never said they were), would be doing it to excuse their wrong.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Liar]

3113 said it better than me.

Cat, I have no doubt that you're a nice and rigteous dude. I just thought you used that specific expression in a weird way.

Looking, as you say, past race, religion, sexuality and treating everyone equally, is what is publically considered good decorum everywhere. Also respecting other peoples' choices, like in your charity bin case. Common decency. It's pretty normal to claim those things. And those who don't do it feel compelled to wriggle around with explanations and excuses to justify themselves.

That some people don't live up to those claims, that's another story. But it's the pressure to be politically correct tht makes even the racist say "I'm not a racist..." ("...but all black people are lazy.")

 

[gauchecritic]

first I don't understand where stealing comes in. 'Diverting' charitable aid from one box to another is just as charitable as donating in the first place.
Those doing the diverting are being more encompassingly charitable. They're presumably Americans and are acting on America's behalf to donate internationally. If anyone is un-PC then it is the box swappers.

Giving is giving. The word charitable is mainly concerned with those that donate. Those in receipt of charity aren't being charitable.

What if those in Texas decide that the people of Haiti are worse off than themselves and then put their received donations in a charity box for Haiti. Are they stealing from the original donators?

I heartily agree that those who donate to the Texas box should have their donations sent to Texas, this was their intent but once an item leaves the donator's hand their part of charity is done and they can feel all warm and fuzzy but I fail to see that the donation going elsewhere to others as needy takes anything away from the charitability.

The actions of the box swappers gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling too. It's not like they're taking these things home and selling them.

 

[carrie-on]

Hubby and I fully agree with what you did,Cat! Too many people are trying to tell us what to do with our money instead of doing what they want us to do with it!

 

[IsabellaKing]

You know what struck me about your story? That the police took an interest and actually did something about it. I don't think that would have happened over here - they'd claim they were too busy dealing with more important things.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Wait a minute. It's early in the morning and I'm kind of slow. But the only way this story makes sense as non-PC is if these bin redistributors were black. Is that what this is about?

 

[SweetWitch]

first I don't understand where stealing comes in. 'Diverting' charitable aid from one box to another is just as charitable as donating in the first place.

Those doing the diverting are being more encompassingly charitable. They're presumably Americans and are acting on America's behalf to donate internationally. If anyone is un-PC then it is the box swappers.

Giving is giving. The word charitable is mainly concerned with those that donate. Those in receipt of charity aren't being charitable.

What if those in Texas decide that the people of Haiti are worse off than themselves and then put their received donations in a charity box for Haiti. Are they stealing from the original donators?

I heartily agree that those who donate to the Texas box should have their donations sent to Texas, this was their intent but once an item leaves the donator's hand their part of charity is done and they can feel all warm and fuzzy but I fail to see that the donation going elsewhere to others as needy takes anything away from the charitability.

The actions of the box swappers gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling too. It's not like they're taking these things home and selling them.

Gauche, it's not about being warm and fuzzy and taking from one box to put in another is theft. If I want to help John Smith and his family and someone takes my donation and sends it George Jones, it's theft. I assigned my donation to help someone of my choice and that's where I want my money to go.

It's my money, what I worked to earn, and I should be able to spend it or donate it as I see fit, not how someone else sees fit. Someone taking from John's box and putting it in George's is not being charitable. If they were, they would be putting their own money and goods into that box. They would be making the sacrifice that I and my family had to make to donate. Instead, they're climbing up on their high horse and telling me I have to give to George because I have no right to give my own money, that which I worked for, to John. They're telling me I have no choice and no right to make my own decisions.

Now, once the goods are in John's hands and he sees that George needs help, it's up to him to decide to share with George. My donation went where I wanted it to go. It's just that by the time it got there, John no longer had such great need, so he decided to pass it on. That's being charitable. Those goods were given to him and his family to do with what they wish. It's their choice, not the choice of some activist, government official or general busy-body.

I said before that it's not about political correctness. It's a moral issue. It is immoral to steal from John to give to George. It's immoral to steal from the Texas box to give to Haiti. The items in that box were not given to Haiti. They were given to Texas. It's that simple.

 

[DG Hear]

Gauche, it's not about being warm and fuzzy and taking from one box to put in another is theft. If I want to help John Smith and his family and someone takes my donation and sends it George Jones, it's theft. I assigned my donation to help someone of my choice and that's where I want my money to go.

It's my money, what I worked to earn, and I should be able to spend it or donate it as I see fit, not how someone else sees fit. Someone taking from John's box and putting it in George's is not being charitable. If they were, they would be putting their own money and goods into that box. They would be making the sacrifice that I and my family had to make to donate. Instead, they're climbing up on their high horse and telling me I have to give to George because I have no right to give my own money, that which I worked for, to John. They're telling me I have no choice and no right to make my own decisions.

Now, once the goods are in John's hands and he sees that George needs help, it's up to him to decide to share with George. My donation went where I wanted it to go. It's just that by the time it got there, John no longer had such great need, so he decided to pass it on. That's being charitable. Those goods were given to him and his family to do with what they wish. It's their choice, not the choice of some activist, government official or general busy-body.

I said before that it's not about political correctness. It's a moral issue. It is immoral to steal from John to give to George. It's immoral to steal from the Texas box to give to Haiti. The items in that box were not given to Haiti. They were given to Texas. It's that simple.

I still agree with you Molly! You say it so much better though. Scary isn't it, an old man and a cute witch agree. haha

 

[gauchecritic]

I said before that it's not about political correctness. It's a moral issue. It is immoral to steal from John to give to George. It's immoral to steal from the Texas box to give to Haiti. The items in that box were not given to Haiti. They were given to Texas. It's that simple.

It's even simpler than that. The charitable donations were made. End of story. As long as the donations go to charitable causes there is no moral issue.

Or are you saying that charitable intent by one who donates has more credence than one whose charitable intent is redistribution?

Are you given choice as to whom receives your blood donations?

When you take your books and pencils with you to distribute to schoolchildren whilst on holiday in a third world African nation do you give only to those that keep a diary or to those that only have chalk and slate?

Charitable discrimination by the donator is not charity at all.

 

[Saucy_Sage]

It's even simpler than that. The charitable donations were made. End of story. As long as the donations go to charitable causes there is no moral issue.

Or are you saying that charitable intent by one who donates has more credence than one whose charitable intent is redistribution?

Are you given choice as to whom receives your blood donations?

When you take your books and pencils with you to distribute to schoolchildren whilst on holiday in a third world African nation do you give only to those that keep a diary or to those that only have chalk and slate?

Charitable discrimination by the donator is not charity at all.

Of course there is a moral issue. If a charity represents that it will put your money toward a certain purpose, it is offering a quid pro quo: you give us the money and we will see that it gets where you want. If, however, it represents that it will generally use the money to satisfy whatever needs it considers appropriate, the quid pro quo is different. The idea of "charitable discrimination," that you may not choose the first charity over the second , is laughable. Similarly, the idea that the first charity (or some third persons with a wholly different concept of need - perhaps they consider themselves needy - perhaps they really are needy) may engage in some sort of bait and switch is repugnant.

As for the blood analogy, if I donate blood to the Red Cross, I am giving them permission to use it wherever they like. If I donate blood at my local hospital to help a friend with the same blood type, I am not giving the hospital permission to give it to somebody else. So I do indeed care where the blood goes.

You may not like my idea of charities. But whether to give my money to environmental do-gooders or property-rights enthusiasts ought to be completely up to me.

 

[gauchecritic]

Of course there is a moral issue. If a charity represents that it will put your money toward a certain purpose, it is offering a quid pro quo: you give us the money and we will see that it gets where you want. If, however, it represents that it will generally use the money to satisfy whatever needs it considers appropriate, the quid pro quo is different. The idea of "charitable discrimination," that you may not choose the first charity over the second , is laughable. Similarly, the idea that the first charity (or some third persons with a wholly different concept of need - perhaps they consider themselves needy - perhaps they really are needy) may engage in some sort of bait and switch is repugnant.

As for the blood analogy, if I donate blood to the Red Cross, I am giving them permission to use it wherever they like. If I donate blood at my local hospital to help a friend with the same blood type, I am not giving the hospital permission to give it to somebody else. So I do indeed care where the blood goes.

You may not like my idea of charities. But whether to give my money to environmental do-gooders or property-rights enthusiasts ought to be completely up to me.

Giving money to charities and picking which isn't the issue. The issue is moving donated items from one box to another. There is no effective difference nor moral question that rises between either group.
Both are being charitable, both are making choices.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Giving money to charities and picking which isn't the issue. The issue is moving donated items from one box to another. There is no effective difference nor moral question that rises between either group.
Both are being charitable, both are making choices.

Does that give them the right to negate my "choice"?

 

[Saucy_Sage]

Giving money to charities and picking which isn't the issue. The issue is moving donated items from one box to another. There is no effective difference nor moral question that rises between either group.
Both are being charitable, both are making choices.

If these are third persons who are moving the items, they are "giving" items that do not belong to them, but to the group who put the box there in the first place. One homeless person stealing money given to another homeless person person is still stealing.

If it is the group itself that is "redistributing" its own collections, they are engaged in bait and switch - collecting money for one purpose with the intent of using it for another. You could argue that all hurricane relief is the same. That's a question for the donor, however. The people who dropped supplies in the "Texas" box made a different choice, one that is eminently defensible as a matter of morality, even if it is not one that you (or I) would have made.

 

[nicole_quinn26]

Does that give them the right to negate my "choice"?

Exactly. We as humans are usually good people, I always do my best to help out whenever I can. Bet it donating a dollar when I'm on the supermarket checkout line or donating my clothing to good-will. However it is my choice to pick whom I'm helping and it's not anybodies right to judge that decision. The people who were taking from Texas and 'giving' to Haiti I feel though they were playing Robin Hood and stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. In their minds anyway. This is not the case at all, because weather the Haiti government is the best or not doesn't mean help won't get to them. Our government is shit, what makes you think that Texans are getting all the help they can? I feel like as Americans we do place a lot of stress on giving over seas, not to say we shouldn't help when we can. That would be wrong not to help, but we're drowning here too (absolutely no pun intended). So if I choose to send my can goods to the local soup kitchen and not to a third world country I don't feel like that should be frowned upon in the least. On the same coin if I choose to donate a chicken to a third world country instead of spending it on a canned good donation for a local soup kitchen that as well should not be frowned upon.

Who said these people were making a bad choice by giving to Texas? Maybe they feel more passionately about it because they were directly effected by it? Yeah those people who were moving goods should be fined at least because it's not their contribution. If they're so worried why aren't they giving into the box themselves? (Or was it said they were? I might have missed that...)

I mean how many people supported PETA and how many people think they're nut jobs? It's a personal choice. That's all it is, everyone has things they care about where others don't so long as someone is getting help I don't see why people need to play God and determine who is 'worse off.'

 

[neonlyte]

Does that give them the right to negate my "choice"?

It really depends. I guess G, like me, is slightly embarrased by cultural difference. I didn't respond earlier not wishing to upset anyone.

In the UK, we denote to Charity organisation, Oxfam, Children in Need, etc. The stuff goes in through the front door and we have no say what happens to it there after, other than we know it goes to where it is most needed because each of our charities publish annual audited accounts.

Oxfam, and many others, recycle 'cast offs' through their own shops generating cash that can be put to better use than cast off clothing, books, etc. My wife dresses herself from Oxfam. I don't think she has ever paid more than £5 for a dress yet wears designer labels.

That is how the system works in the UK, once it is given to 'charity', it is given. Your promise to your fellow citizen, refuges, God, is fulfilled. What happens thereafter to the GOODS is the affair of the charity. Now, if I want to give to a specific disaster appeal, say Texas Hurricane Relief, I go to any bank and ask for a paying in slip and slide them a few quid (£).

Semantics - it's a bugger isn't it

 

[gauchecritic]

Does that give them the right to negate my "choice"?

Does the fact of two boxes give you the right to deny one charity over the other?

If these are third persons who are moving the items, they are "giving" items that do not belong to them, but to the group who put the box there in the first place. One homeless person stealing money given to another homeless person person is still stealing.

There is no moral question. Both boxes are for charity. A third party is being as charitable as they want to be, possibly in the only way they can be.

Choosing to swap boxes is no worse than choosing a box in the first place. Choosing a box is just as morally deficient as swapping a box. Swapping a box is as equally charitable as giving in the first place.

The act of giving is the charitable thing. There is no choice involved in an act of charity.

 

[Shwenn]

Haiti, though I'm sure is a deserving place, is not my neighbor. Texas is. If I wish to donate goods, money or time to Texas, no one has the right to tell me that I have to give half of it to Haiti. I don't know anyone there. They don't pay the taxes that educate my child, build my highways or feed social security.

I believe the Haitians have been very clear about this. They would gladly give up our aid if we would just let them have Aristide.

They just want us to let them be led by the leader they elected.

They want us to leave them alone.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Does the fact of two boxes give you the right to deny one charity over the other?

Yes, as a matter of fact it does.

If I give money to the United Way I do it with full knowledge that it is going to be sub-divided; possibly to an organization, such as the Boy Scouts, who I believe have a homophobic doctrine. That's why I do not donate to them. If I give the same amount of money to the NAACP I know that it will not be sub-divided.

You see I believe that charity is a choice, not an obligation. I choose to help a certain group of people over another. That does not make my choice bad or wrong. If I had wanted to donate to both, I would have chosen to put half in each box. There is nothing wrong with either way EXCEPT when someone "disagrees" with MY decision as to what I have CHOSEN to do with MY money and or possessions and has the gall to "change" MY decision.

 

[gauchecritic]

Yes, as a matter of fact it does.

So you're allowed to deliver charity to one group over another but the box swappers aren't?

If I give money to the United Way I do it with full knowledge that it is going to be sub-divided; possibly to an organization, such as the Boy Scouts, who I believe have a homophobic doctrine. That's why I do not donate to them. If I give the same amount of money to the NAACP I know that it will not be sub-divided.

Which is perfectly legitimate. And as you say is your choice. But in doing so you are using a prejudiced view of these organisations which goes against the concept of charity as an action.

You see I believe that charity is a choice, not an obligation. I choose to help a certain group of people over another.

Although one could argue that society, as an organism, must include charity in order to survive.

That does not make my choice bad or wrong. If I had wanted to donate to both, I would have chosen to put half in each box. There is nothing wrong with either way EXCEPT when someone "disagrees" with MY decision as to what I have CHOSEN to do with MY money and or possessions and has the gall to "change" MY decision.

If your choice isn't bad or wrong (and I agree) then how is the swappers choice bad or wrong?

No one is disagreeing with your charity. No one is altering your charitable act. It's the giving that is charitable not the destination.

 

[Safe_Bet]

So you're allowed to deliver charity to one group over another but the box swappers aren't?



Which is perfectly legitimate. And as you say is your choice. But in doing so you are using a prejudiced view of these organisations which goes against the concept of charity as an action.



Although one could argue that society, as an organism, must include charity in order to survive.



If your choice isn't bad or wrong (and I agree) then how is the swappers choice bad or wrong?

No one is disagreeing with your charity. No one is altering your charitable act. It's the giving that is charitable not the destination.

Okay let's try a different approach:

I give $100 to Planned Parenthood. Operation Rescue sneaks into their offices and steals the $100. THEY use the money to pay for food for their protestors.

Are you saying they didn't commit a crime and that they did not negate my choice by using the money for an organization that I disagree with?