To me, that's because, when I buy the coffee, I'm paying for the coffee. Whatever it costs, I chose to buy it and the seller then donated from what's now their money. With a charity, I'm paying for a share of the cause, trading the time I spent toiling in an office to hopefully support whatever I don't have effective or efficient time to give to. When someone skims money off of that, it's like they're giving me a lesser "product" than what I paid for. Obviously there has to be an expectation of administrating fees and supporting the people dedicated to the work, but the example of 90K$ a year is far beyond a comfortable net income. Even if you're based in a high cost of living area, then why? If every dollar you take is less that goes to the cause, then why do you operate in such an expensive environment? He presents the position well, I just disagree.
@@alkaliwreck2474 You may not like it but charities are just providing a service. The fact that they are non-profit just means that any profits made do not go to an owner or shareholders. The service they provide is to make an impact to philanthropic/social well-being issues that (as you said) you do not have time to do yourself. When you pay for a service/product like a coffee/entertainment, you expect the employees who had a role in providing you with said service/product to be paid at a rate determined by the market. The exact same process occurs with a charity. The only difference is that any money left over goes back into providing the service (hence non-profit). The fact that a charity's managing director commands a large salary is a result of the fact that that is the market rate for their skills and experience. Charities still exist within a capitalist society.
Everyone who works for non-profits or social enterprises should watch this talk! This man knows what he's saying. Definitely a thought leader. Impressive insights and such a good speaker.
7 лет назад
Great validation of hypocrisy. First he appealed to everyone by stating correct facts, then once the mind was softened he pursued his agenda by making statements which have highly relative acceptability.
I believe that this is how the hypocrisy can be disguised as the no harm but merely good intention. The thing is there’s the gigantic gap between the behavior and idea as the repeat offender has showed the slight air of reflection while has repeated crime several times. It’s a matter of credibility, and we don’t wanna give a credit to the untrustworthy person bc it’s likely to wind up with the unexpected and unwanted outcome. I bet no one’s gonna deny the agenda, but probably taking advantage of it for him is unacceptable
Getting paid to do charitable work is not selfless or selfish, it's just getting paid to do your job. Also in my way of thinking telling people to "do as I say not as I do" is not a good strategy to get people on side with an issue. For me the speaker sounds like an apologist for the rich and powerful.
What I do, is to research the charitable organization to see its financial profile on a charity navigator website: how much actually goes to the cause and how much to "administrative costs." I also research their past behaviors, was there cheating, illegal use of funds, did they cause harm rather than help... and are there safeguards now, with better leadership.
Very insightful Nat Ware! Could one explanation for our harsh judgement be that the mind is intuitively risk averse preferring to be relieved that a person perceived to be uncharitable is sometimes charitable rather than being surprised that a person perceived to be charitable is sometimes uncharitable? We perceive people to be uncharitable or charitable based on representativeness heuristics supplied to us by word of mouth and/or media coverage of the individual. What I mean is if the media portrays a charitable or uncharitable image of someone, we will quickly label them as either bad or good. This is an error as you said but it is fundamental human nature that is here to stay for a good while. A good question then is how do we design news or encourage the use of vocabulary that takes these errors in human judgement into account?
If people actually want to support something, they will. What the speaker might have trouble understanding is that people aren't confused or distracted. They simply don't care 🤷🏿♂️
How strong is that message if you ask others to sacrifice for it while the leader plays by different rules. Transparency would kill the campaign wouldn't it?
I guess the problem with non-profits is if the CEO is taking home more money than most people esp if his salary is paid through donations. Esp if salary is not upfront
Honestly I was thinking about all the BS that is going on right now, but then I realized it's the same on all sides (including mine). It's an attack on the messenger and not the message. The message has always been good. But we never accepted the hard facts that were put forth by opponents because of their perceived loose morality.
Honest greed is better than dishonest altruism as you know exactly where your money is going. People embezzle money all the time so when non-profits have highly paid officials it smells fishy.
Wow. He sounds like he is building a case for people in power to tell others what they can or can't do without having to do it themselves. He's a hypocrite apologist. Not to mention he is missing the point in most of the examples he brought up for his own arguments.
I kind feel the same way, but at the end of the day everyone should know right from wrong and do the right thing regardless of what anyone else says or does.
A person saves water "+" = Good person. A person wastes water "-" = Bad person. A person does neither "0" = You dont exist. The "Good" and the "Bad" people have cornered off the stage, its all about them like the rest is non-existing.
Well thats only half the story isn't it? Do you know why people prefer a 10% charitable person than your supposed 90% one. Because the former has no claim. The former is a "yeah, I don't care" and we respect that. However when you declare that your goal is something, and you urge people around you to do it - then they find out you are holding back, it means you are not qualified to lead. For leading truly means - taking point and teaching other people to do something you can show them how. And throwing nuanced exceptions at them is not enough to cover the distance. And yes we prefer honest greed to dishonest generosity. Upon honesty you can build relationships. Dishonesty is just and endless abyss. (In the same manner you respect your fully honest - half-bad person friends more than you do your always nice but liar ones.) You go to the cinema friend A can go with you because they have nothing better to do and their other friends left them behind and are sort of stuck with you. Friend B however has wanted to go to the movie for a week. You don't need deduction to make an assessment now do you? Some times in the perfect situation you may be able to go to the movie with both of them. However the world is seldom that well arranged. Changing that dynamic of viewing people would entail a variety of effects that you have been unable to conceive so far it seems.
Im surprised this is not common knowledge... again its just the basic act of replacing emotional with rational and goal oriented thinking. Which should be obligarory in every situation!
Who is this Guy? As he ever heard of the GOLDEN RULE? The behaviour of a person is the message. Especially people with power & influence. Ordinary folk always aspire to what have what their heroes have. Surely if Bono, etc really cared they would change their bebaviour. Surely for them it would be a small price to pay bearing in mind how important the MESSAGE is for them.
I hear this. I hate PETA not for being hypocrites but for not doing what they claim to be in business for, for not being productive. In other words, donate to local shelter, not to the industrial production of commercials that seems to be the fare of this organization. I don't care if people feel this is useful, I just don't. It's not what they do, it's that they don't do anything and they claim so much moral ground.
Fair enough, yiur argument attempts to justify “Hypocrisy”. The criticism should not only address hypocrisy, but you never address the self gratification of these hypocrites virtue signaling. Nice try !!!
Does minimal hypocrisy excuse gargantuan levels of hypocrisy? He likes the word "supports," e.g. the politician saying they 'support' public schooling but send their children to private schools, to build his castle. That makes for a flimsy argument. My saying I support A is not the same as my saying 'we must undertake A...the former is a so-what while the latter is a firm stand, and it is the latter which lays one open to a charge of 'hypocrisy' should the advocated firm stand be circumvented somehow. I find his argument weak and, as another commenter said, makes him sound like an apologist for the rich, powerful hypocrites among us.
