Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2020 17:17:53 GMT -5
That is a stupid charity, then. I sure hope those kids can be fed on that charity's sense of self righteousness. Oh, come on. Most charities would take a scumbag's money and look the other way. You know how many "Humanitarian of the Year" awards Donald Sterling bought due to handing out cash? If anything it will encourage people to match this and then some to spite the rat fink.
|
|
|
Post by Limity (BLM) on May 12, 2020 17:22:41 GMT -5
That is a stupid charity, then. I sure hope those kids can be fed on that charity's sense of self righteousness. Oh, come on. Most charities would take a scumbag's money and look the other way. You know how many "Humanitarian of the Year" awards Donald Sterling bought due to handing out cash? If anything it will encourage people to match this and then some to spite the rat fink. We're in the middle of an economic downturn that rivals the great depression. There are miles long lines at food banks, people are pleading online to get money sent to them to feed their families. And this charity turns down 200k towards feeding kids???
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on May 12, 2020 17:24:49 GMT -5
Oh, come on. Most charities would take a scumbag's money and look the other way. You know how many "Humanitarian of the Year" awards Donald Sterling bought due to handing out cash? If anything it will encourage people to match this and then some to spite the rat fink. We're in the middle of an economic downturn that rivals the great depression. There are miles long lines at food banks, people are pleading online to get money sent to them to feed their families. And this charity turns down 200k towards feeding kids??? I can't blame them While he said some good words, that dude had sex with an underage girl and trying to donate to children is just not in the card. If he wants to make amends and atone, don't attach your name to any charity donation like that
|
|
|
Post by Limity (BLM) on May 12, 2020 17:26:57 GMT -5
We're in the middle of an economic downturn that rivals the great depression. There are miles long lines at food banks, people are pleading online to get money sent to them to feed their families. And this charity turns down 200k towards feeding kids??? I can't blame them While he said some good words, that dude had sex with an underage girl and trying to donate to children is just not in the card. If he wants to make amends and atone, don't attach your name to any charity donation like that I wonder if the kids that could be fed off that money care about the principle behind turning it down. Consider it a fine on a bad person if you want, but for f*** sake take the money and do some good with it.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on May 12, 2020 17:32:30 GMT -5
I can't blame them While he said some good words, that dude had sex with an underage girl and trying to donate to children is just not in the card. If he wants to make amends and atone, don't attach your name to any charity donation like that I wonder if the kids that could be fed off that money care about the principle behind turning it down. Consider it a fine on a bad person if you want, but for f*** sake take the money and do some good with it. It is never that black and white The organization just can't accept that from him with open arms. He admitted to having sex with an underage girl. You have touched a kid. His intentions and his heart may be in the right place in donating or he could be clout chasing but you can't recover from some shit like that I thought it was a nice gesture but as said he needs to do that indiscretion. Your name doesn't need to be attached to it. You don't need the glory or the kudos. If you want to do right, donate that money with no name or source because the optics of a charity for children accepting money from a man of had sex with a kid isn't great and that donation will hurt them in the eyes of the public
|
|
|
Post by EvenBaldobombHasAJob on May 12, 2020 17:47:07 GMT -5
I have never seen this shit before. They basically said f*** you, no matter how much you money you have we know what you are and that's crazy Another probable factor in declining it is because it would make them a target of his enemies as well. It's probably also bad form for a children's charity to take money from a god damn child molester.
|
|
|
Post by Ronny Rayguns Is All Elite on May 12, 2020 17:51:07 GMT -5
Who's even left for him to snitch on at this point?
His old crew is locked up
It's not like any new criminals are going to start associating with this fool
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on May 12, 2020 17:52:04 GMT -5
Another probable factor in declining it is because it would make them a target of his enemies as well. It's probably also bad form for a children's charity to take money from a god damn child molester. Oh, I didn't say it was a major factor, just a factor. And sadly, the truth is charities take money from predators all the time, but saying more will break my own board's rules on topics we can't discuss.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on May 12, 2020 17:58:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ronny Rayguns Is All Elite on May 12, 2020 18:01:57 GMT -5
He was actually donating money to that orphanage so they'd allow him to go into witness protection as one of the kids/hide from the Gangsters out to get him. Probably not, but that would have made a good plot for a 90s Disney comedy
|
|
|
Post by Ronny Rayguns Is All Elite on May 12, 2020 18:09:39 GMT -5
I have never seen this shit before. They basically said f*** you, no matter how much you money you have we know what you are and that's crazy Another probable factor in declining it is because it would make them a target of his enemies as well. Criminals do some off the wall shit, but you'd have to be extra grimy to go snatch donated sandwiches out of the hands of children.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on May 12, 2020 18:25:12 GMT -5
Another probable factor in declining it is because it would make them a target of his enemies as well. Criminals do some off the wall shit, but you'd have to be extra grimy to go snatch donated sandwiches out of the hands of children. People have done worse for less, and some of the people involved in this saga aren't exactly saints.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2020 18:30:26 GMT -5
Only been 4 days and he's in the headlines daily.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on May 12, 2020 18:34:50 GMT -5
Only been 4 days and he's in the headlines daily. He should known stuff was going to come back to bite him People are going to come after him to take him down for old shit and new shit
|
|
|
Post by Limity (BLM) on May 12, 2020 19:36:30 GMT -5
I wonder if the kids that could be fed off that money care about the principle behind turning it down. Consider it a fine on a bad person if you want, but for f*** sake take the money and do some good with it. It is never that black and white The organization just can't accept that from him with open arms. He admitted to having sex with an underage girl. You have touched a kid. His intentions and his heart may be in the right place in donating or he could be clout chasing but you can't recover from some shit like that I thought it was a nice gesture but as said he needs to do that indiscretion. Your name doesn't need to be attached to it. You don't need the glory or the kudos. If you want to do right, donate that money with no name or source because the optics of a charity for children accepting money from a man of had sex with a kid isn't great and that donation will hurt them in the eyes of the public It can absolutely be as black and white as it's more important to provide for hungry kids than to worry about how the money that does it makes us feel. Half the headlines in this story are the charity returning the money. The story would have already been forgotten and moved on from if they had just taken the money and done good with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2020 20:33:20 GMT -5
It is never that black and white The organization just can't accept that from him with open arms. He admitted to having sex with an underage girl. You have touched a kid. His intentions and his heart may be in the right place in donating or he could be clout chasing but you can't recover from some shit like that I thought it was a nice gesture but as said he needs to do that indiscretion. Your name doesn't need to be attached to it. You don't need the glory or the kudos. If you want to do right, donate that money with no name or source because the optics of a charity for children accepting money from a man of had sex with a kid isn't great and that donation will hurt them in the eyes of the public It can absolutely be as black and white as it's more important to provide for hungry kids than to worry about how the money that does it makes us feel. Half the headlines in this story are the charity returning the money. The story would have already been forgotten and moved on from if they had just taken the money and done good with it. The problem with that is that there's actually people who generally do work with charities and if they work with someone like 69 then the reputation of the charity changes and it might cause said people who donate to donate to other charities instead, other charities who help children as well. It's a bad look because you're supposed to be about saving the children, making sure they're fed and whatnot. Sure, it's money and you can "do good with it" but that's not to say that the backlash to that won't do more harm especially when there's other companies out there who can say "we won't accept this man's money" which would then give them an influx of donators who don't support him.
It's bad to work with someone like him even if he's donating money to kids because in the end you could be hurting more kids than helping them. Especially considering he was broadcasting to everyone that he's working with them.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on May 12, 2020 20:43:57 GMT -5
It can absolutely be as black and white as it's more important to provide for hungry kids than to worry about how the money that does it makes us feel. Half the headlines in this story are the charity returning the money. The story would have already been forgotten and moved on from if they had just taken the money and done good with it. The problem with that is that there's actually people who generally do work with charities and if they work with someone like 69 then the reputation of the charity changes and it might cause said people who donate to donate to other charities instead, other charities who help children as well. It's a bad look because you're supposed to be about saving the children, making sure they're fed and whatnot. Sure, it's money and you can "do good with it" but that's not to say that the backlash to that won't do more harm especially when there's other companies out there who can say "we won't accept this man's money" which would then give them an influx of donators who don't support him.
It's bad to work with someone like him even if he's donating money to kids because in the end you could be hurting more kids than helping them. Especially considering he was broadcasting to everyone that he's working with them.
Yea, like it is real hard to say no to that money but the possible backlash could possibly not make it worth it. No telling what regular donators you have would pull out because you accepted money from him and his history On the flip side this possible gesture could bring in help. People seeing you take a "noble stand" could be compelled to give and you might even match that 200K you gave up. It is a chance they took and one that will be divisive but maybe the payoff could be bigger. Who knows
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2020 20:51:32 GMT -5
The problem with that is that there's actually people who generally do work with charities and if they work with someone like 69 then the reputation of the charity changes and it might cause said people who donate to donate to other charities instead, other charities who help children as well. It's a bad look because you're supposed to be about saving the children, making sure they're fed and whatnot. Sure, it's money and you can "do good with it" but that's not to say that the backlash to that won't do more harm especially when there's other companies out there who can say "we won't accept this man's money" which would then give them an influx of donators who don't support him.
It's bad to work with someone like him even if he's donating money to kids because in the end you could be hurting more kids than helping them. Especially considering he was broadcasting to everyone that he's working with them.
Yea, like it is real hard to say no to that money but the possible backlash could possibly not make it worth it. No telling what regular donators you have would pull out because you accepted money from him and his history On the flip side this possible gesture could bring in help. People seeing you take a "noble stand" could be compelled to give and you might even match that 200K you gave up. It is a chance they took and one that will be divisive but maybe the payoff could be bigger. Who knows Yep. Say the charity is a sponsor for a school's sporting events. Say they find out that 69 donated money to them and they took it, say they find out that they're working with him given everything he did. The school would want to put an end to having a working relationship with the charity given who 69 is and move onto someone else, the charity loses their support, that's an L. That's just one option, there's many more. Basically nah, that's not cool.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on May 12, 2020 20:58:29 GMT -5
Yea, like it is real hard to say no to that money but the possible backlash could possibly not make it worth it. No telling what regular donators you have would pull out because you accepted money from him and his history On the flip side this possible gesture could bring in help. People seeing you take a "noble stand" could be compelled to give and you might even match that 200K you gave up. It is a chance they took and one that will be divisive but maybe the payoff could be bigger. Who knows Yep. Say the charity is a sponsor for a school's sporting events. Say they find out that 69 donated money to them and they took it, say they find out that they're working with him given everything he did. The school would want to put an end to having a working relationship with the charity given who 69 is and move onto someone else, the charity loses their support, that's an L. That's just one option, there's many more. Basically nah, that's not cool. Agreed. You don't want to f*** up what you do have coming to you already for a very generous dollar from an unsavory person Would they been wrong to take the money? Probably not because this shit happens all the time and no doubt their is some dirty deals under the table but they took a public stand and that is their prerogative
|
|
|
Post by Limity (BLM) on May 12, 2020 21:20:56 GMT -5
It can absolutely be as black and white as it's more important to provide for hungry kids than to worry about how the money that does it makes us feel. Half the headlines in this story are the charity returning the money. The story would have already been forgotten and moved on from if they had just taken the money and done good with it. The problem with that is that there's actually people who generally do work with charities and if they work with someone like 69 then the reputation of the charity changes and it might cause said people who donate to donate to other charities instead, other charities who help children as well. It's a bad look because you're supposed to be about saving the children, making sure they're fed and whatnot. Sure, it's money and you can "do good with it" but that's not to say that the backlash to that won't do more harm especially when there's other companies out there who can say "we won't accept this man's money" which would then give them an influx of donators who don't support him.
It's bad to work with someone like him even if he's donating money to kids because in the end you could be hurting more kids than helping them. Especially considering he was broadcasting to everyone that he's working with them.
Might this, maybe that, what if this... To me it is more moral to use that money to feed kids, than to worry about where it came from. And if there are other people that say it's more important to project a certain image than to do what it is you're supposed to do as a charity, then I will say they too are at fault. However, this is devolving into a circular argument where none of us are going to see eye to eye. And I will say I'm not a nonprofit, I'm not a charity, and I'll guess you aren't either. So it very well could be that taking the money would in some way be ultimately detrimental. I have the luxury of looking at it from the outside, from a pragmatic standpoint of judging your actions based upon what the end result is. And the end result could be 200k towards feeding kids that might not get to eat otherwise. And plus a bad man now has 200k less in his bank account.
|
|