If you drop a few thousand bucks into a homeless addict's lap and expect them to snap their fingers and magically get all their shit together, you're as naive as a toddler. Of course a chunk of it is going to go towards vices and self-care. What were you expecting? "Ah yes, this has immediately solved all my problems, let me put down a security deposit on a condo and invest the remainder in my 401k."
Sending a stranger money on the Internet is very rarely going to solve anything other their immediate, base level needs. I'm not saying it isn't helpful (and it is in fact extremely cool), but expecting a shot of cash to be as transformative or revolutionary as a real life mutual aid network is magical thinking.
If you drop a few thousand bucks into a homeless addict's lap and expect them to snap their fingers and magically get all their shit together, you're as naive as a toddler.
Haven't there been city and state programs that do almost exactly this and found that, broadly, they are pretty successful and improved the living conditions of most recipients?
there's a difference between something having a statistically positive effect on most recipients, and being able to outright expect that positive effect from a single instance
Oh no I understand that, but I think saying "just dropping money in a homeless persons lap WONT fix their problems" is maybe reinforcing certain turbo lib, anti-public assistance talking points.
In reality, dropping money in their laps often CAN HELP, potentially a lot. Not always but it clearly often does and hence such programs are a good thing even if there are certain individuals for whom that assistance alone isn't enough.
I think the point is that money almost always helps, but it isn't a transactional thing when you give money to someone asking for aid. You aren't actually owed correct behavior from them or for them to recover and have a better life (this doesn't mean scammers pretending to be in need are good, either, just that those asking in good faith shouldn't be judged for their decisions with money given to them willingly with full information). But
If you drop a few thousand bucks into a homeless addict's lap and expect them to snap their fingers and magically get all their shit together, you're as naive as a toddler. Of course a chunk of it is going to go towards vices and self-care. What were you expecting? "Ah yes, this has immediately solved all my problems, let me put down a security deposit on a condo and invest the remainder in my 401k."
Sending a stranger money on the Internet is very rarely going to solve anything other their immediate, base level needs. I'm not saying it isn't helpful (and it is in fact extremely cool), but expecting a shot of cash to be as transformative or revolutionary as a real life mutual aid network is magical thinking.
Haven't there been city and state programs that do almost exactly this and found that, broadly, they are pretty successful and improved the living conditions of most recipients?
there's a difference between something having a statistically positive effect on most recipients, and being able to outright expect that positive effect from a single instance
Oh no I understand that, but I think saying "just dropping money in a homeless persons lap WONT fix their problems" is maybe reinforcing certain turbo lib, anti-public assistance talking points.
In reality, dropping money in their laps often CAN HELP, potentially a lot. Not always but it clearly often does and hence such programs are a good thing even if there are certain individuals for whom that assistance alone isn't enough.
I think the point is that money almost always helps, but it isn't a transactional thing when you give money to someone asking for aid. You aren't actually owed correct behavior from them or for them to recover and have a better life (this doesn't mean scammers pretending to be in need are good, either, just that those asking in good faith shouldn't be judged for their decisions with money given to them willingly with full information). But