I want to give them money but since my childhood my parents pretty much told me that they are all either faking it or are too lazy to go to work for money. I mean, I guess they can go to work but not everyone gets accepted to work as easy as it sounds like.
Having empathy is normal, yes.
I used to be homeless. (I am doing significantly better now though. Hard work and luck.)
I did actually have a job, it just didn’t pay enough to get me a place to live at the time. I was too ashamed to beg for money, but I did occasionally hang around restaurants and ask people for food. (So much shame because I had so many peers with family that helped them and they would look down on me for “failing to launch.”)
Why didn’t I go to a food bank? Because the bus system sucked and I couldn’t get everywhere I needed in the amount of time I had in the day. Additionally, I had no kitchen. No place to prepare food that isn’t ready made. The shelter did not allow me to store food.
Government help and charities were definitely not enough, but it did help. A lot of people in charity were good people, but there were quite a few that were just plain nasty. At the shelter, I would get yelled at for following their rules and asking for my phone that they held at the front desk so I could get to my job for instance.
It does not feel good when your family lets you down, your community lets you down, the government lets you down, and even the people that are supposed to fill in the gaps lets you down. Really makes you think that you are undeserving.
You are right that some homeless people have a hard time finding a job. A lot of places will discriminate against you if you do not have a permanent address (and some will even look for addresses of shelters). If you went to jail, a lot of places won’t consider hiring you. And if course wages are just really low compared to cost of living.
Yes, it is ok to feel bad for those people that don’t have what you have. That is human. Yes, some of them may have made some bad choices and some of them might not need the help. But a lot of those people are just victims of an uncaring system. If you do not help them (which is fine, it is not always possible), at least treat them with dignity. Being treated like a worthy person, rather than a second class citizen, means a lot to someone who society let down.
I’m glad that you are doing better now. Thank you for sharing your story and experiences.
Thanks for talking about it. It’s more than I could do. It’s interesting and aggravating to have spent most of your life in a certain situation, then working to help other people in that situation, then studying it…then reading a bunch of comments by people arguing over it who are so certain they’re all right when it’s obvious that most of them have never come close to experiencing it.
This must be what it feels like to be a lawyer and have to talk to a sovereign citizen or something.
And none of this addresses whether or not giving money to panhandlers helps them.
I’ve lived on the street before, it sucks, but what the typical visibly homeless person does isn’t sustainable and doesn’t help them. It’s just a rut of wasteful and irrational behaviour, if you are panhandling you’re not engaging in productive behaviour that will result in long-term changes.
While some people do fake it or some people may actually be too lazy, on the whole attributing homelessness to personality flaws or moral failings is just a coping strategy for lots of people - lies they tell themselves to make the situation be despicable instead of pitiful. Most homeless people aren’t faking it, and most homeless people wouldn’t be homeless if they had any choice in the matter. Many of them are homeless due to poor or temporary circumstances, many others due to mental health issues combined with lacking a support system.
This is the one of very few remotely empathetic takes here and it still feels a need to preface with “some people do fake it”.
I am hoping I stumbled upon a meme, because if not, holy crap.
Some beggars do indeed see it as a job and make substantial money, that is just a fact. Doesn’t mean that there are not people in real desperate situations and needing any help they can get.
deleted by creator
I like Kant’s take on this. He argued (roughly, by memory) that giving to people begging on the street directly was a selfish act, as it’s satisfying our own need to feel better about ourselves more than the needs of the homeless population, and would lead to an unfair distribution giving more money to those who are talented at evoking empathy rather than those that might need it the most. He argued that the unselfish thing to do would be to donate to the cause indirectly, responding not to the emotional response in the moment but to a rational consideration of the needs of the homeless population.
I think he has a point. That said, there’s nothing wrong with being selfish every now and then, especially not if your selfishness gives someone a warm meal. And empathy is a healthy human reaction.
Your parents seem to have failed to grasp the challenges facing the homeless population. A better take would be “don’t give that guy money, start donating regularly to a local charity instead and help make sure that help is given to all those who need it”.
Oh, and also, rally for political change.
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.
The thing about “Don’t do X, because we SHOULD do Y”
Is that nobody’s doing Y, and we’re nowhere close to getting there, so, until we are, we should support the X.
So then we should ignore Kant and give money to individuals because it’s better than nothing
Sure - if your alternative is doing nothing. It’s not like he’s saying giving money to beggars is immoral, it’s just amoral.
Amoral means not morally relevant. Something that is morally neutral is not amoral, it’s morally neutral.
E.g it is morally neutral to pet a dog, it is amoral to like the colour blue.
Normally in moral philosophy one would avoid this confusion by classifying morally relevant actions/outcomes as “bad”,“neutral”, or “good”.
And Kant would, if I read him correctly, argue that giving money to a beggar is not a moral action - it’s a selfish action, and not morally bad or good as such. It doesn’t have to do with morality, it has to do with our need to feel better about ourselves. :)
Or what if we support anyone who can help in the way that they are able and feel comfortable helping?
Trying to help, helps, even if they aren’t helping how you think they should.
That was the point of my comment.
I’ve been involved as a treasurer for a number of “medium” charities in Australia. Most recently one providing free legal services to the disadvantaged, and another running a refuge for homeless youth.
As an aside, bear in mind that I as a treasurer as well as the entire board are volunteers - well qualified and experienced professionals donating their time to ensure that the organisation is run efficiently and is maximising the benefit to the community.
Your comments really grind my gears. They’re born of shallow social media type thinking. These falsehoods are commonly used as a “reason” why one ought not to donate to charities.
Certainly there are overpaid CEOs, but these are a minority. Recently the charity running the refuge got a new CEO. He had been a police superintendent. He took a pay cut of about two thirds in order to be our CEO. He said that he had spent most of his career locking people up, and wanted to spend the last part of his career changing kids trajectories before they got involved with the law.
Imagine saying that this organisation would be more efficient of it were subsumed by the government, so the CEO-equivalent could be paid 3x as much.
I read @bustrpoindextr as not criticizing the charities directly, but rather reflect that they represent a systematic failure of government structures. We shouldn’t need homeless shelters or soup kitchens - there shouldn’t be homelessness or hunger. Taxation and sensible public spending should render charity unnecessary.
Which is a nice thought - I wouldn’t judge people for giving their money to political interest organizations promoting solidarity rather than directly to charities.
It’s a fine balance between patching the flaws of the system and trying to replace it all together. In some extreme cases charity might make the system just bearable enough that it’s not overthrown, which might occasionally do more harm than good in the long run.
A refuge isn’t really a shelter for people who are “homeless”.
How would a government provide temporary accommodation to a 12 year old who is at risk of abuse?
The need for this type of refuge isn’t the product of a shitty housing market.
Note also, most of the funding comes from government agencies.
He should name the charity with which he speaks of, “United way”
The rest are mostly as you describe
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.
Sorry mate you’re kind of embarrassing yourself a little bit here.
Of course the CEO equivalent exists in government. It’s just a management position. Equivalent services will need equivalent management.
Do you realize how little a CEO does?
I’ve sat on hiring committees for CEO’s. Refining their job descriptions and interviewing candidates. I know exactly what CEO’s of non-profits and charities do. I suspect that you do not.
Do you realize how little the actual money donated to an organization trickles down to the cause?
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.
In recent years grant funding for charities has been extraordinarily difficult to obtain. Often it’s not indexed. Where grant funding is not indexed for a number of years, it becomes impossible to maintain the same services because wages and other costs are always getting more expensive. I’ve had to have that very difficult conversation with social workers - that their hours need to be reduced and as a result their client numbers will be cut. It’s a ridiculous absurdity to suggest that volunteers like myself would be taking those measures without first seeking to maximise the efficiency of the entire organisation.
Do you realize that there are multiple charities for the same thing, which just means more and more waste?
For example?
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.
You’re talking about public vs private institutions. That just doesn’t make any sense applied to charities because they’re already public institutions.
Look I’m not saying your service is useless, but I am saying it would be more efficient elsewhere.
Sorry mate, this is just an absurd thought bubble borne of naivety. Get involved in a charity and you’ll understand why it exists. Until then maybe just start with the assumption that the people who are involved have a better understanding of it’s context and it’s objectives and how best to serve those objectives than you do. It’s incredible arrogant to suppose that entire organisations ought not to exist because the people involved just haven’t realised how inefficient they are. Seriously, pull your head out of your ass.
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.
Goodness me. One of us is certainly getting defensive. There’s not much point continuing this. Feel free to have the last word while continuing to assume anyone with a better understanding than you is a liar.
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.
On the contrary. Many charities benefit from volunteer work hours that simply would not be possible on a normal government contract. The efficiency of some charities simply cannot be matched by State institutions, as people don’t want to volunteer working for the state.
Some volunteer positions could possibly be replaced with well-paying jobs to lower unemployment rates at the benefit of the economy, but people also get a sense of purpose from volunteering. The charitable economy ran by volunteering and donations is an incredible asset for any society, no matter how great the social security net is. And in my experience, a better security net is often correlated with more charity.
That’s not to say shitty charities don’t exist. But good luck financing all the activities of the Red Cross through a state budget, paying everyone for their work.
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.
I’m not sure this is a valid critique of Kant - he invites us to step back and consider how we would address the problems more rationally and in ways that could be universal rules, rather than merely as an emotional response. We might very well conclude from this reflection that we should organize politically and deal with systematic injustice rather than donating to the local soup kitchen.
Personally I think there’s room for both - in an ideal world the public should guarantee a baseline, but there might still be room for charities. The soup kitchen might not only help the people it serves food to - it might also give a sense of purpose to those volunteering for it.
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.
Yes, I think I got your point - the soup kitchen should be financed by taxes rather than volunteer contributions by charitable souls. And I of course completely agree.
Even then, there might be room for a charity providing a social space for those with fewer means or who find themselves in a rough spot in life. I think no matter how well the state is doing in guaranteeing for people’s needs, there’ll be some room for civil society to make a contribution; if nothing else because the sense of purpose it can give the helpers is in its own right a goal worth pursuing.
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 🤷♂️
You trust the government enough to properly provide for those most in need, but the government has pushed the work onto the very charities that you are arguing against. The government leaks tens of billions annually on preserving the needs of the richest members of our society, a quarter of which could have made a massive impact on world hunger.
I don’t think the government or private organizations generally have anyone’s best interest in mind when they do what they do, besides those who have the most influence.
Source on charities being extremely inefficient?
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.
Government programs are literally no better when it comes to administrative costs. In fact way worse in the vast majority of cases.
CEO’s are only a thing with very large charities on the order of the Red Cross, (or rich people money laundering charities). Your local shelter or food bank isn’t going to be having a high overhead, in fact it’s going to be much lower than the government agencies because of almost entirely free volunteer work. The point where the government is more efficient is due to the fact that welfare fraud is a crime, so people are naturally less inclined to lie to receive benefits.
Yes, it’s normal to feel like shit about driving past the homeless, that’s your humanity working.
We are not faster or stronger than bears, so we evolved to work together as tribes.
Seeing other humans abandoned by your own tribe should make us feel bad.
No, it is not YOUR individual responsibility to assist others beyond your own means. Retiring in the U.S. costs millions of dollars and that may seem far away for some, but time comes for us all and most can’t afford to help others with their oxygen mask before putting on our own.
When I drive by someone who needs help, knowing I’m not equipped to help them, I get angry at every politician and lobbyist whose life work is making sure meaningful social programs never get started.
My responsibility is to vote for the most humanitarian candidate possible at every opportunity, and to share my values of “people first” any way I can.
We all struggle, and the struggles of others doesn’t disqualify your own. It’s healthy to spend your personal resources on your personal problems, and use your social/political power (vote) to address social/political problems.
Props on being a human being.
Yeah, it’s pretty normal for someone that has empathy to feel bad when they can’t do much/anything to help someone else that they would help if they could.
The problem is that you can’t help everyone, so you’d have to pick and choose which individuals you do help, which is going to make you feel just as bad as not giving them any money at all.
The real answer to resolving the feeling is to provide help in a more general fashion. Volunteering with any of the local homeless support programs/charities is a good way to help individuals and homeless people in general
If you can’t do that, or do other support that’s similarly broad, that’s okay. Just do what you can, when you can.
Make eye contact and give a little nod, as a minimum, instead of ignoring. I’ve known homeless people to say the hardest most frustrating part was feeling invisible.
That feels somewhat worse. Interacting with homeless people and not helping them kind of feels worse than just ignoring.
Yeah, I think there’s something there.
It feels worse to acknowledge a suffering sector of humanity than to ignore it.
But, it feels worse to be ignored when suffering than it does to feel seen when suffering.
You’re choosing to feel uncomfortable so they can feel a bit more comfortable. And you do so knowing that by and large, you can afford the discomfort more than they can.
Yes. That’s the point. It feels worse for you, but better for them. If you want to be kind, deal with the discomfort. Otherwise just admit it’s not about the money and you’re just looking after yourself :)
Now that you say it, it does indeed seem like that.
What a genuinely and entirely selfish statement. 🤢
With statements like these it feels like you’re not trying to change the situation. It feels like all you’re trying to do is tear down this person, who is pretty obvious having moral issues over this thing.
If your goal is to help homeless people you’re doing a shit job.
If you’re trying to induce apathy, no notes. You’re doing a bang up job.
Yes, it’s normal. Even if they are faking it, it’s still a bad situation that they feel the need to do it. Most of them have mental problems and can’t find or even look for work. Without work you have to apply for benefits in most countries and some are not capable of this beurocratic process. Without benefits they have no health insurance in most countries and therefore can’t get treatment. Also, without a home address and internet it’s difficult to find or apply for a job in many regions abd without a job it’s difficult to get a home address and internet.
However, there’s too many to help them individually. This is not your problem as a person, but our problem as a scociety. You’ll be overwhelmed caring for all of them. Instead, you should try and help passing laws and regulations to help them in your region. In the EU, for example 2016 a law has been made so everyone may create a basic bank account, even if they are homeless or foreigners. This is important, because before that in many regions you couldn’t get hired or payed because the banks required your home address and without pay or a bank account you couldn’t get a home or work.
Instead, you should try and help passing laws and regulations to help them in your region.
no, because -
In the EU, for example 2016 a law has been made so everyone may create a basic bank account, even if they are homeless or foreigners
that is literally less than bare minimum and only provides help to those already getting support (applying for benefits takes much more than a bank account, without additional support, and a societal framework to end homelessness instead of making it “more manageable”, being able to get an account is still useless).
The only action any individual can take to end homelessness is to become an active anti-capitalist, since as long as capitalism exists, so will homelessness.
So i saw this response of yours first, and wondered why you’re coming in so hard against someone that: 1) proposed a solution, 2) did not insist it was the only solution, and 3) was opening a dialogue of how to help, instead of dismissing the homeless as most of society does.
Then i saw your responses in the rest of the thread and realized either
A) You’re a troll Or B) You’re socially inexperienced
Your responses to other people show that you think your opinion is the only correct one. Before you immediately bang away on the keyboard defending yourself, please take a moment to reflect on how your speech affects your cause. The adage “you attract more flies with honey than vinegar” may not be scientifically correct, but it is socially accurate.
In general, kindness is never wrong. Be kind to others, including strangers on the internet. OTOH, if you can’t play nice, go touch grass and let the adults have a conversation.
Oh, and you’re not wrong about capitalism being part of the problem. You are wrong that working for policy change is “less than bare minimum”. Doing nothing, that is less than bare minimum
deleted by creator
I can see multiple through their profile, which seems more easy than searching the comments. However, going there just confused me 😆 I’ll just go look on some cat pics or so.
I can see the comments, but no worries. They’ve got some good ideas, just need a little polish on expressing them. I get a real ‘offended for the sake of other people’ vibe. It usually comes from seeing injustice and being angry about it. It’s unfortunate, but often the maladaptive result of those feelings is to be a bully. My opinion might be skewed though, because I’ve had to learn how to manage those feelings myself.
At any rate, I wish them peace and long life
Must not be showing on your side because I can see it
Empathy exhaustion is real. It feels like everyone is demanding you fret over their pet ailment, group, etc. You have to be “aware” of every disorder or super rare genetic defect. Same goes for walking around cities where the homeless are constantly demanding your attention and money. Even if you give them anything they will demand it as you walk by again. Emotions are like muscles, they eventually get exhausted.
It’s normal. And they’re not all faking.
Calling them lazy is just ridiculous. Anyone who believes that should try going out there and begging to earn enough to eat that day (let alone pay rent) and see how ‘easy’ it is.
No, it’s a completely normal feeling to feel bad about not being able to help people that are suffering.
I don’t buy the line that people are faking being poor just to make extra income. Yes, there are people that drive up to foodbanks in fancy cars who are abusing charity supports meant for the needy, but your average beggar isn’t one of those who abuses supports.
When I see people pick out food from a trash bin, no well off person would do that. I try to help out them with change where I can.
Life is extra cruel to those that are already down on their luck. If you find yourself where rents are $2000+ a month, trying to even up and move yourself to somewhere you might be able to get a job and afford to live on it, takes several weeks of hitchhiking or several hundred dollars in travel expenses. (Canada)
Having helped some homeless people out, the other thing is that because of the brutal conditions they’ve been through, often they’re easily stressed out, can’t fill out forms or express themselves very well. Sometimes the one thing keeping them from getting help is someone in their corner who can properly advocate for what they need. For many people having a temporary rough streak, this can be a family member or friend. For many chronically homeless people they don’t have anyone to lean on.
I don’t buy the line that people are faking being poor just to make extra income.
I didn’t either until i was walking around Chicago and a big dude started asking for money. I couldn’t help as i didn’t have cash and the guy i was with made a comment that upset the beggar. Then the beggar pulls out a wad of $20s and started flexing about how he didn’t need our money anyways. After that, I’ve had a really hard time wanting to hand out money.
Yeah, but I see enough people around that don’t act like that, they don’t even have the energy to sit up and beg people for money. I leave snacks and money that I can spare for them.
Even some with $800 in twenties, how far will that get them in downtown Chicago? A month of smokes? A month of rent in a dingy basement in the suburbs?
I know around the world there are scam artists that hang about especially in touristy areas I’ve encountered quite a few, but they are a small number compared to the number of homeless people in genuine need. I had no more change for a guy in LA, so instead I gave the man a small piece of a pie I was eating, and he was so grateful for it.
I’d still be happy to give my money away 10 times if it genuinely helps 9 people and once it falls to a scammer.
They are homeless, which means they can’t get jobs (which require an address) and they might not be able to get bank accounts (also required for a job, also require an address). Even if they have access to showers and laundry facilities and a place to keep their stuff, they still can’t get a job without an address and bank account.
Your parents did something many people do, which is make excuses for why it’s ok to not care about others. It’s rare for someone to fake it. Most people are not lazy enough to forgo shelter, and when they are it’s usually classified as a mental illness or low IQ. There are also many who are down on their luck. They might have not had great upbringings and were not taught the skills needed to organize their lives, or they could have no family left except responsibilities and they couldn’t afford (money or time to) college/University. Lower income jobs don’t pay enough for someone to live on their own many places.
Please keep having empathy and caring about others. You can’t help everyone but you can vote to change policy local or otherwise, and you can donate or volunteer. Everyone deserves kindness.
I mean, just give them money?
Put it this way: getting a job is just one of many challenges facing homeless people.
For example, if you get a job but are already living absolutely hand-to-mouth, can you actually afford to have that first month of work with no money coming in on a day by day basis. If you cannot afford to even eat how will you make it to that first paycheck?
Even if you do, where will your job put that money? Many, many homeless people do not have a bank account, and what do you need to open a bank account? A home address and ID!
Were you fortunate enough to become homeless with a copy of your birth certificate or other form of ID? If not oh that’s not a problem sir, it’ll cost you £35, and then it’ll arrive by recorded delivery to your home address. Where was that again?
Pretty much no person is homeless by choice. Most are there by a combination of bad luck, violence, a lack of a social security net, mental illness, and many many other factors. Very few people would choose a life of danger and unprovoked violence. You wouldn’t want to be without a home, they don’t want to be without a home for the exact same reasons.
So in conclusion, it is the very basics of human decency to feel bad for them. I would urge you to go further and try to help them, whether that be by direct contribution, by volunteering, by donating to a housing charity, or something else.
One compromise I use is to give them food instead of money. I usually carry with me one of those mashed fruit packets (usually marketed for kids to take to school) in case I get hungry and if I come across someone asking for money I just give them that. Or ask them if they want something from the nearby convenience store/cafe/vending machine. That removes the argument of “they’ll just use it for drugs” that I hear and honestly believe is true to some people. Addiction is hard. Everyone has to eat, it’s always useful to get them food (especially if it’s non perishable)
I’ve seen some cafés where you can give extra money for a coffee or a snack to be given to a homeless person when they ask for it. It’s pretty nice and it rounds up the bill!
I’m sure you’d love some stale snack someone has been carrying around in their bag for weeks on end waiting for the person giving it to you to find someone desperate enough… Or to have someone walk you in to a store at their convenience_ while they glow with pride for helping you, and you, like a child have to humbly pick something you may not even want or like just to make them feel better…
Homeless people are humans who deserve respect and agency, if you have it, just give them the fucking money
The type of fruit I was talking about does not get stale at all. It’s completely sealed until it’s opened to eat. I eat them all the time myself, why can’t they? I let them choose what they want when I offer to buy something for them. IMO if that’s the way I’m confortable giving it’s better than nothing at all, and someone that’s confortable giving them money can if they want. Not to mention that I very rarely carry cash anymore
Don’t take this person’s criticisms too hard. They posted a lot of strongly opinionated comments on this thread.
For whatever reason they’re being antagonistic mostly to people on this thread like you who clearly do care, at least enough to not do literally nothing. Not sure if that’s some sort of strategy, or bad social skills , or potentially just trolling.
I think what you’re doing is fine - it’s something I’ve done a couple times.
Thank you for your kind words of understanding. I think gatekeeping acts of kindness will result in less people doing them. Even if the person I gave the fruit to doesn’t like it or can’t eat it for some reason it’s still kindness from a stranger and being treated respectfully for a change. It’s still better than the people who just ignore them and walk away.
Almost every time I’ve offered a homeless person a meal that have declined. I’ve physically seen a “homeless” begger walk his bike from the median, to a parking lot and load it into the back of a band new truck and drive off. If you want to give you just have to take the risk you may be getting scammed.
I have only once had a guy ask for food and truly want it. I actually had a friend who was giving up smoking offer a pack to a guy who got mad at him because it “wasn’t his brand”.
load it into the back of a band new truck and drive off.
Reminds me of the guy who asked me for gas money at a gas station while driving a brand new Harley.
