just wondering

  • Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    23 days ago

    I will leave it at people can, if they have the means and want to. You’re never obligated, even if someone is using aggressive panhandling tactics.

    I play pinball, so I’m one of the disappearing folks that often has a little bit of pocket change left over. If I see someone panhandling and I am feeling generous, I’ll share some. If I don’t have any, am still feeling generous, and they’re outside of somewhere serving food, I’ll ask if they want something. Usually people say yes, sometimes they say no. Never buy something with the specific intent to give it to a panhandler without asking them first - it’s rude to presume. If you legit have something extra that you didn’t expect that is fair game to offer - in those circumstances I always add “If you don’t want it, that’s cool” to make it clear I’m not forcing it on them/I won’t think they’re rude for not taking it.

    If I’m not feeling generous, I don’t give anything.

    Whatever anyone does with anything I gift them is their business. It’s fucking rough out there.

  • tetris11@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    24 days ago

    In this world of digital payments, I don’t have cash on me. When I do, I give a little here and there and its usually met with thanks.

    I wish there was an easier way give 50p or something digitally by tapping my card against a reader of theirs, but the setup cost and the chance of misuse is high

  • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    23 days ago

    It’s better to buy them food or give them homeless care packs. There are good lists online of things you can give to homeless folks that will help them a lot, socks are a main staple.

    I give all three depending on the scenario. I almost never have cash on me, so I don’t hand out money very often just because of that.

    It’s important to show them compassion and care. Homeless people are often treated like trash by most people. Saying a kind word to them and giving them a small gift might be the only instance of kindness they experience for days, possibly weeks.

  • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    24 days ago

    Here is the reality:

    The person is going to use money, whether it is yours or someone else’s, to buy whatever it is that they feel is the best use of that money.

    Disconnect yourself from any ideas of what the money is going to be used for, and just understand that it will be used to reduce their suffering. If that is a satisfactory use of the money that you give them, then give them the money. Consider, at the same time, putting money aside to donate to local causes, some of whom may be helping the homeless.

    Above all though, your money is somewhat valuable, but nowhere near as valuable as your time and effort. Volunteering at these same local causes is even more valuable than whatever spare pocket change.

    Just don’t turn into a “but they’re going to buy drugs with it!” person

      • howrar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        24 days ago

        Why do we do drugs at all if it isn’t to reduce our suffering on this planet?

        • BCsven@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          24 days ago

          I never have used any, so I don’t know what the drugs would help with. I see it as just biding time and not reducing suffering long term. A person involved with homeless here in BC said drug use just prolongs the inevitable path to suicide. Oof.

  • ubergeek@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 days ago

    I do. I get the “but they’re just gonna buy drugs!” thing, let’s be honest: I was gonna spend it on that, anyways.

    If a 40 is what they need, right now, to numb the pain of existence, in this moment, why not?

  • SanndyTheManndy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 days ago

    A good charity would be able to get the most out of your money. At least you know the chances of your $20 turning into drugs, alcohol, or gambling is minimal that way. Making money takes time and effort, and you owe it to yourself to see it spent wisely.

  • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 days ago

    There’s a lot about direct giving here, but consider donating to local shelters instead. Especially in the winter. The more they have for supporting bus fare in and out of town or food, being sheltered is a good thing. And the local shelter has very little overhead compared to charities.

  • Nemoder@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 days ago

    Would I rather live in a world where sometimes people take advantage of kindness or a world where nobody helps anyone in need? I’ll take the former.

  • finderscult@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    24 days ago

    Yes.

    Yes, they might use it for drugs or alcohol, that’s fine, it’s as important as food sometimes.

    Non profits and charities are great in theory, but most redirect less than 10% of what they receive towards the homeless look at LA’s projects as the most glaring example, it “takes” 10 million+ per single housing unit for temporary housing. Not due to cost, but simply corruption at every level. From the non profits involved to the government itself.

    Giving directly to the homeless skips all that.

    Or to put it another way, you can’t fix the problem or treat symptoms by continuing to give money to the cause of the problem. Giving directly at least treats the symptom.

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      24 days ago

      most redirect less than 10% of what they receive towards the homeless

      this is a very very bad way to think about charitable giving. if your aim is to get as much money to solving homelessness as possible, you want advertising and marketing campaigns, you want efficiency (but people working on a problem is “overhead” whilst their solutions to make things cheaper mean less money that “makes it to” solving the problem at hand)

      this video does an excellent job at describing the problem

      https://youtu.be/bfAzi6D5FpM

      • finderscult@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        24 days ago

        That’s nice, but there is no excuse for higher overhead than the amount of money actually spent on the problem, when the problem objectively can be solved by direct expenditure.

        We know how to eliminate homelessness and the causes behind it even in a capitalist society. It doesn’t cost a billion per 100 transitional housing units.

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          23 days ago

          and that all requires organisation, and organisation isn’t free - in fact the structures required to organise things like that are more expensive than the cost actually spent on the problem … you don’t just up and build houses - that’s not how any of this works… ask anyone that’s built a house, and they’re not even doing it on a large scale where complexity goes up significantly, or dealing with distributing money in a manner that they have to makes sure their expenditures are justified rather than just being able to make decisions for themselves

  • m0darn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    24 days ago

    I don’t give money to panhandlers because I don’t like being solicited. (Also why I don’t buy things at my door, or via telemarketing) however I do support the idea of programs distributing funds directly to those in need.

  • hahattpro@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 days ago

    You are sponsoring the RICH and the GOVERMENT to fuck up the miniority part of society.

    Dont do it. Let’s government do their job. You already do your share: Your TAX and your community work.

  • Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 days ago

    I really can’t see a downside. If they seem to be obviously homeless or they’re actively asking for help, they probably need it. Though it’s extremely unlikely that your meager contribution will be the change that suddenly allows them to magically overcome poverty and become middle class home owners with well paying jobs, that doesn’t really make them need it any less. Whatever they use the money on, it’s going to be what they need in the immediate term, be it drugs or food or anything really and unlike others this is the only way they can really get that money so they do need people to occasionally part with it. You’d only give it to them because you had it spare anyway and it’s not going to make them more homeless than they already were. If the concern is that it’s not addressing the root personal problems that put them individually on the street or the root social problems that put many on the streets, that’s completely true but if you’re serious about doing that you’re going to need more than the couple of bucks in your pocket anyway. That’s going to be concerted massive political will and financial effort and several people’s lifetimes worth of work all at the same time, besides you can always involve yourself in some way in such efforts and hand over spare change. The only times I can really think of where it makes sense not to give directly are: you can’t afford to do it, the physical circumstances of handing it over are dangerous/impractical, you don’t care about homeless people or other people in general or you subscribe to some nasty Malthusian ideas and think yourself somehow benevolent for condemning people to destitution as some kind of “cruel to be kind” doctrine in which case you’re unlikely to have given this a lot of thought anyway and don’t really face much of a dilemma.

  • johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    24 days ago

    Do you think the best way to help homeless people is to give them money directly, or donate it to organizations that help them? Not sure if there’s a right answer.

    • C A B B A G E@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 days ago

      The right answer is “yes”. Some cash in the moment is a nice thing to do, and will alleviate an immediate want or need potentially.

      Donation to an organisation that will help the problem long term is a worthwhile thing to fund.

      Why not give a man a fish to eat while you’re teaching them to fish for themselves, if you’re in a position to do so?