As it stands now, this community serves mostly as a way to get money. That isn’t a bad thing, but cash is not a 1-size-fits-all solution to every problem. Taking care of a persons needs is always priority #1, but at times, said person is unfit to handle money in a way that reliably alleviates those needs. Traditional, local, mutual-aid networks can usually address this in the form of community pot lucks, clothing exchange, etc. Here we are more or less limited to advice and more money.

Making a rule about unsolicited advice and being critical of users, limits us to just money as a tool to solve problems. Sometimes people need a tough conversation to grow as a person, sometimes people need to be reminded of the situation they are in. Yes, the capitalist system is oppressive. Yes, there are systemic issues that prevent us all from succeeding. That doesn’t mean there is no situation where decision making is a factor. Sometimes, you do actually need help making better choices. This isn’t to shame people for making bad decisions, sometimes there are psychiatric reasons, sometimes they genuinely don’t know any better, but you still should speak up so they can potentially correct the problem and learn.

This rule effectively creates a hug-box where we all pretend that personal responsibility doesn’t exist, that there is simply nothing to be done. It’s incredibly infantile, it’s a cope, and the people in this community deserve better than that.

EDIT: I feel I may have had a change of heart after reading the comments left by @EelBolshevikism If you are looking for a somewhat comprehensive response, those comments are likely a good starting point.

  • EelBolshevikism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Yeah, but that isn’t a problem you can solve by “criticizing” them, either. That’s a person who is probably making those decisions because, to them, ??? could genuinely be a mental need or because they just don’t want to suffer in a universe without any sort of pleasure. You could give genuine advice, such as providing a different cheaper kind of shampoo they could use, or even telling them that you’re worried that they’ll starve if they spend everything on this non-basic-need thing. And that would make sense and not even be offensive or demeaning. But that isn’t how most people say things, or “criticize” things. I don’t know why but I feel like, especially here, there is an utter inability to criticize something without also hating it. And while you say that it wasn’t the case here, that simply means it was one of a smattering of exceptions. Exceptions that can only exist because of similar issues happening in aeons past and being responded to.

    There’s a difference between “criticizing” someone’s “lack of responsibility” and simply realizing someone else is easier to help, too.

    I understand that you want to give genuine advice. And I relate to that, a lot. But, just as in the case of “just asking questions” debatebros and smarmy chuds, if you give a single fucking inch to the people who take any chance to blame the poor for their predicament, they will take a light year. I know this because I’ve seen how people do this to autistic people, to gay people. How people use civility and what would otherwise be genuine questions or critiques to needle and bully others while pretending it’s in their “best interest”.

    And I know it’s an issue here because I saw it happen before on this very site. Does “rachel” ring a bell at all? She was poor, recently homeless, and a drug addict. We criticized her for valid reasons, yeah. But the ability to criticize was not just utilized for that. People got angry, and people get vindicative. Pretty soon we bullied a homeless woman off of our platform because the presence of someone we can’t help because of the sheer depth of their needs was too uncomfortable for us. People couldn’t properly externalize Rachel’s issues as being a result of numerous complex systems and I saw them continue blaming her for her entire situation. Not the FBI for flooding her neighborhood with drugs, not the systems of capital for grinding her amenities available into fucking nothing, not even her friends for making her homeless in the first place (because she made bad decisions if i remember correctly?? she didn’t kill anyone or anything justifying a death sentence though so it’s irrelevant to me). The Amerikkka brain just took over and all material analysis and the usual calm of this place was lost in a writhing hive of fucking hatred for this single homeless woman, not merely limited to overly hostile pleas or understandable anger from her for not getting the financial assistance she needs- If someone took personal offense to her lashing out that would be one thing. But as she retreated and went more and more on the defensive and stopped even asking for anything they continued to thrash her with constant hostility. Even mentioning her name was like mentioning furries on a Brotherhood of Steel roleplay discord server.

    That paragraph probably makes me sound like a Rachel alt but I genuinely am not, I just saw it happen and it fucked with my head

    I don’t know if I feel comfortable with this site taking any step even remotely toward allowing that kind of thing to happen again. I don’t feel like I can trust it. And I wish I could, but I can’t, and the only reason I’ve grown slightly more trusting over time since that incident is because of rules like this.

    Of course it is reasonable to analyze someone’s situation and realize giving them money is not effective. It would even, in theory, be reasonable to say it, to explain why you can’t give them money, even to point to others who you can help easier and therefore you don’t have the money for this harder case left-over, as long as it was said in a non-judgemental and normal way. But I don’t trust people to say it that way because I’m not sure if Amerikkkan-brained people even can. Even some of the best, most compassionate, and most kind people I know treat homeless and destitute people like they’re all scammers or going to stab them to death. I generally trust people but, in this case, that trust is not more powerful than the sheer strength of Amerikkkan brainworms.

    Tbf it could be effective to have a “Don’t judge or hate those asking even if you’re pointing out suboptimal decisions” rule, but I don’t even know if we could use that little leeway responsibly or if it devolve into weird passive-aggressive shit.

    • Sphere [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      5 days ago

      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.

    • radiofreeval [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 days ago

      Pretty soon we bullied a homeless woman off of our platform because the presence of someone we can’t help because of the sheer depth of their needs was too uncomfortable for us

      She got “bullied off” for calling people slurs and bragging about scanning people. She dug her own grave when it came to this site.

      • EelBolshevikism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        No, we went on the deep end either way. Even if she faked the whole thing and was scamming us that means we reacted the way we did (with a shitton of anger, and I remember seeing people respond this way before she was banned forever, and arguing about how she “scammed” them by buying drugs with the money, etc) to what we thought was a real homeless person

        Either that or I’m seriously misremembering things which is possible. Either way there was a weird amount of rhetoric about how she was too irresponsible with money and “scammed” donators that made me really uncomfortable

          • EelBolshevikism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            the anger before that was unwarranted. Not going to defend transphobia

            Nobody knew she was a shitty person before that. They were shitting on her for what they perceived as being a irresponsible homeless person

              • EelBolshevikism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                5 days ago

                Please stop reading my posts in bad faith. I am not defending homophobia either. I am not defending her bigotry or even her actions. I am just pointing out the sheer ghoulishness of people’s response before they knew HER ghoulishness.

                  • EelBolshevikism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 days ago

                    Wtf why would you assume that

                    Disliking how a site treats what they assume to be a normal homeless person, but alsp disliking that homeless person for being a bigot after they reveal themselves to be one, is a completely reasonable position from my perspective.

                    Why would you even assume I’m trying to defend her bigotry? What the fuck are you even trying to imply, where is this jump coming from

                    I genuinely didn’t even know she was a bigot until you mentioned it here, I checked out very early in the Rachel events it seems

        • Black_Mald_Futures [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          arguing about how she “scammed” them by buying drugs with the money

          but they bragged about doing that tho

          there’s a reason they were banned…

          • cosecantphi [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            5 days ago

            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.