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.

  • Procapra [comrade/them]
    ·
    8 days ago

    I am not trying to regulate anything

    I am saying literally the opposite. Don't regulate what anyone has to say in critique of another person (unless its obviously malicious).

    • Dickey_Butts [none/use name]
      ·
      8 days ago

      So you need to either tell me how you are going to verify people's claims or how you are going to protect against social engineering that reddit-like sites are famous for. It literally isn't possible. All the claims are true or they aren't. This isn't complicated.

                  • Moonworm [any]
                    ·
                    8 days ago

                    A user of this comm got a substantial amount of money from donations here and it didn't work out; they basically ended up in the same place as they were within a month without durably improving their situation. There were some people who thought this person might have squandered the money in various ways, potentially in ways that were not healthy.

                    It's difficult to separate those concerns from putting conditions on the aid, but I personally think some of those concerns were out of genuine desire to see the person not fall into self-destructive patterns. I don't know if it's appropriate or not to have those concerns, but this rule change prevents any discussion or suggestions that might be more constructive.

                    I hope this is helpful framing of the conversation without denigrating anyone.

                    • Dickey_Butts [none/use name]
                      ·
                      8 days ago

                      Certainly better than grandstanding. Thank you. My points stand. There is no way to vet any of this. It is either caveat emptor or full ban. I am fine with either.

      • Procapra [comrade/them]
        ·
        8 days ago

        I'm not trying to do any of that at all. What do you think I'm advocating for? I think something is lost in translation.

      • eight [it/its]
        ·
        8 days ago

        Where in any post are they advocating for vetting? You have a really strong opinion about something everyone already agrees with but somehow that means you disagree with their point of offering advice instead of just money?

      • D61 [any]
        ·
        8 days ago

        • Somebody asks for a few bucks for some ramen.

        • The same somebody is pretty open about their use and/or addiction to things on the same forums that they've asked for a few bucks

        • Commenters chirp about "not being an addict" and "don't give money to this person because they are probably going to use it for drugs"

        I'm hoping this is what the rule is in reference to. Could also be comfortable with it being in reference to comments telling them to go find a food pantry or shelter etc.etc. when they weren't asking for helping finding or navigating those services.

        I am 99% positive, nobody is asking to vet the user who's asking for ramen money if, in fact, they are going to be using it for ramen instead of drugs or booze or socks or something.