Okay but like, how often do I actually have to wash a hoodie?

Yeah I have to agree with everyone else. If this is a question you’re actually asking, it’s probably a question for your doctor, because the actual answer should just be “just breathe dude”

I mean you attacked me because you didn’t like a logical, obvious, critique of something. Which again, I never said it was bad, I just said it could be improved. And you said things that I just repeated back at you, and now you can’t handle your own words?

Goodness me indeed.

Of course the CEO equivalent exists in government. It’s just a management position. Equivalent services will need equivalent management.

A CEO is not a manager. You’re already embarrassing yourself here 😉

Perhaps you didn’t read my comment. I’ve been a treasurer for a number of medium size charities. I know exactly how much money is needed to support the charities objectives.

I did read your comment, but I kinda assumed you either were lying or getting really defensive. There’s a lot of waste that wouldn’t exist if they were consolidated into the government.

Do you realize that there are multiple charities for the same thing, which just means more and more waste?

For example?

Yeah sure, since it’s already been brought to. The red cross does blood donations, but they’re only 35% of America’s non profit blood donations, there’s also America’s blood centers and vitalent and more! So much overhead! If they were all one organization, you could eliminate much of the overhead and more effectively coordinate the blood donations.

Sorry mate, this is just an absurd thought bubble borne of naivety. Get involved in a charity and you’ll understand why it exists.

Sorry mate, but you’ve got your head up your ass and you’re getting defensive.

I have been involved in both charities and government.

I mean, you can look anywhere, whether it’s upwards of 70% of medical donations not being used: https://academic.oup.com/inthealth/article/11/5/379/5420717?login=false#151492984

Also you can dive into the problems with definitions of “the cause” https://hbr.org/2009/06/beware-of-highly-efficient-cha

A charity can loosely define what counts as their cause which means they can tell you that 95 cents on the dollar go to the cause, even if it’s only 20 cents.

Moreover it’s really suspect that the rich keep getting richer even in the “nonprofit” sector: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/4/24/15377056/big-charities-best-charities-evaluation-nonprofit

Furthermore, even from an innocent standing. When you have multiple charities working on the same thing, that’s crazy inefficient.

Let’s talk about the Red Cross, great organization. One of the things they do is blood donations. They’re responsible for about 35% of the blood donations in the US, the rest come from other non profits.

That means there’s competition among the non profit blood donation organizations to provide blood for emergencies. Whether they want to compete or not, they have to.

Just from a blanket statement, if you moved all of those blood donations under a single entity, you remove a lot of inefficiencies.

You don’t need to advertise for multiple organizations, you don’t need to coordinate with all those different organizations during a crisis, you don’t have the same overhead for the same problems across multiple organizations. It’s just by design, inefficient. It’s not their fault.

So first off, you can totally volunteer for government things. I mean, I can volunteer at my local government library for instance, there’s nothing about a government contract that removes the ability to volunteer.

But I wouldn’t need to have volunteers if the red cross and all competing charities were swallowed up into one thing.

There are a bunch of organizations that do the same or part of what the red cross does. That’s a lot of wasted time of resources, that would be better spent lumped together as a collective unit.

Charity is simply one of the places you absolutely don’t want competition/capitalism. You want oversight and efficiency, that’s the government.

That was the point of my comment.

I think ideally the point of charity organizations should be a stop gap measure that identifies issues the government needs to address, and then temporarily addresses them.

How that works in practice 🤷‍♂️

I’m not saying the soup kitchen shouldn’t exist. It’s absolutely necessary, it should just be part of the guaranteed baseline, provided by the government.

The CEO equivalent doesn’t exist in government. Your entire argument is pointless.

Do you realize how little a CEO does?

Do you realize how little the actual money donated to an organization trickles down to the cause?

Do you realize that there are multiple charities for the same thing, which just means more and more waste?

In fact in pretty much every instance of a modern government taking over a service, it becomes cheaper and more efficient. That’s why many governments run utilities, and healthcare.

Look I’m not saying your service is useless, but I am saying it would be more efficient elsewhere.

So then we should ignore Kant and give money to individuals because it’s better than nothing

Kant had a point there, but I think he also fails to address the problem.

The existence of charitable organizations means that the government has failed that group of people. Charitable organizations are extremely inefficient and sometimes are prone to the exact problems he brings up with donating directly to individuals, or they may prioritize certain individuals with certain religious beliefs over others.

Charitable organizations need to be folded and replaced with government programs. We don’t need to be paying CEOs salaries when we’re just trying to help someone on the street.

Jimmy cracks corn

Also like the time after he won the election and his trumpets were chanting “lock her up” and he said something like “nah, I just said that because it sounded good”

I don’t support a ban like this, but I also don’t find the judges reasoning convincing

“Additionally, there are many ways in which a foreign adversary, like China, could gather data from Montanans,” including purchasing it from data brokers, open-source intelligence gathering, and hacking, Molloy pointed out. “Thus, it is not clear how SB 419 will alleviate the potential harm of protecting Montanans from China’s purported evils.”

Because the law in question is for consumer protection, for the sake of the argument we have to assume for the sake of the lawsuit, that tiktok is as bad as they say.

There’s a fundamental difference between the Chinese government spending huge amounts of money to try to hack into both Apple and Google (who both have impressive security measures) to get your citizens data and those citizens paying the Chinese government to unknowingly collect that data.

Like, I think the judge ended up at the right answer, but got there in an irresponsible manner.

A floating frog adorned in royal garb appears in front of the canary and calls him “Lemmywinks”

That’s why instead of “good morning” I just send SYN

Well lead did a pretty big number on a certain generation that has been in power for quite some time, and you actually can’t fix that.

Always have been

Never said they did