this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
1324 points (98.1% liked)
Microblog Memes
8617 readers
2731 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Localized charity like that just increases inequality in the bigger picture. Individuals and individual businesses tend to help the issues they see around them, but they are blind to stuff they don't know about, and no individual can keep tabs on everything. So people they don't see (like people who live farther away) are less likely to get help.
Of course, this is a feature to some people, for whom it's really important to only help people they deem worthy. This unsurprisingly often means only helping their in-group, like their church congregation or their local community. But the people in most need of assistance and the ones the most capable of providing it rarely live in the same area.
It would be far more efficient if a larger-spanning entity (like a larger non-profit charity or government) provided assistance to everyone in a larger area, ensuring everyone has a baseline standard of living. In my experience the Nordic model, where money or subsidized housing is provided by the government to everyone needing it, works quite well. This does not in fact trash the economy, because most people are willing to work to achieve a higher than baseline standard of living.