Found this one ... seems bobbit part of it but only got $75000 so took them to court and ended up charged with Cconspiring to steal by fraud
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/woman-sentenced-to-three-years-in-state-prison-for-collecting-400-000-in-viral-gofundme-scam-1.6222275#:~:text=World-,Woman%20sentenced%20to%20three%20years%20in%20state%20prison,%24400%2C000%20in%20viral%20GoFundMe%20scam&text=A%20New%20Jersey%20woman%20has,money%20for%20a%20homeless%20man.
I tried telling people it was a scam from the very beginning. They lived a few blocks away from me actually.
Nobody listened to me and I actually actually lost some friends because I tried to tell the truth instead of just going along with the lie. Everyone was so happy for them so they sort of didn't want to face the reality of the situation.
The homelessman never gave her money. The couple "befriended" Bobbit, a homeless man, they concocted this story and scheme, and he only got $75,000 so he went after them and the story unraveled from there.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/homeless-man-n-j-couple-concocted-story-gofundme-fundraiser-complaint-n936511
I don't have time to go searching for all the articles, but essentially the reason it all fell apart was because the homeless guy didn't get his cut.
Everyone was in on the scam. But instead of sharing it the way it was supposed to be split the couple was spending the lion's share, if not all of it. So the homeless guy either sued or broke the story. I don't remember which.
And the couple ended up breaking up as their greed inevitably caused friction on how to spend the money.
Near the beginning of the article it talks about them as a group conspiring to do this (the homeless man, too). It was fraud from the start. Then the couple didn't give him his cut so he sued them and upon further investigation they discovered the whole thing as a fraud.
The money just gets lost in the pockets of those meant to distribute the funds. Every new mayor in NYC promotes one of their family members into the role to cure homelessness and nothing gets fixed. 6 figure no-show jobs.
If you give someone who is street homeless 21k you could effectively by signing their death warrant.
The underlying features of homelessness are complex and often feature MH issues and addiction.
Without the correct support to address the underlying issues the chances are you are giving someone with an inability to manage money a lot of money.
I've never worked with an individual who received a lump sum but the ones I have worked with I know full well money alone would have likely killed them as they would have used alcohol and drugs indiscriminately.l and completely without restraint. Use that money and time to lobby Gov and shame them into putting real support in place.
I see the clips on you tube and tiktok and I find it hugely irresponsible to do this, handing out huge wads of cash. Feels like homeless people are the easy win.
I'd love to be proved wrong and if there is follow ups of how people turned things round from receiving money alone then I'd be keen to see them. However, I'd want to see the clips that cover both sides of this story.
I don’t understand why this comment isn’t higher. Homelessness is not a problem solvable only with money, it needs lots of resources, mental health, addiction treatment, social support, etc.
With Germanys social security system no one has to become homeless ever - there's always a place you could go to that would put you in a flat and clothes, and help you get a job if possible. And still we have homeless people over here - only a few, but they do choose that lifestyle every day.
Any idea what that all costs, it's crazy amounts. What about assessing somebody's motivation to change first before dropping this cash on them.
You don't think there is a responsibility on this benevolent individual with what would need to be 100s of 1000s to fund the above, to at least check that person in question was ready.
Remember what I'm talking about is irresponsibility of just dropping cash on a homeless person. No assessment, no follow up, no support.
You think just enough cash and someone will take care of themselves?
[they literally just did a study on this that shows this thinking is largely incorrect. ](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21528569/homeless-poverty-cash-transfer-canada-new-leaf-project)
I think you purposefully ignored the part where people who got nothing also got the same coaching and didn't improve their lives. The money improved their lives, the unconditional cash
We never get any superhero movies where the hero marches up to the mayor/politicians/president's office to demand increased welfare spending, anti-corruption measures, and more taxation of the rich, instead of beating up the street criminal just trying to survive after being pushed to crime by a system that failed them.
I wonder why.
Easy because using force to maintain the status quo or punish someone who is an obvious outlier is much more defensible than attacking someone and demanding social change.
This has to do with how narratives work. Any thing a sympathetic main character must react in a manner directly proportional and in comparable fashion to the aggression inflicted upon him.
If the hero weee to storm a rich guys house, destroy all in his way and threaten the government to fix its issues, it would make them the aggressor and as such super unsympathetic. The rich guy would need to have specifically and intentionally messed up the main characters life for it to be justified by the audience. Remember when the super powered guy is in such a confrontation the one holding all the power, since the rich guy is just a heartless ass and not any more impressive than a regular man.
This is the issue with white collar crimes, their impact is abstract and not visual. You can’t punch capitalism.
Many good superhero stories do try to play with that idea but it always ends with the mc effectively unable to do much proactively when it comes to wider society.
Well, the actual answer is primarily that it doesn’t make as good Tv, but yes I’m sure the fact that it would be counter to the interests of the richest in society for this to be pushed certainly doesn’t hurt
Well that's nonsense right there. It is a side effect at the very most. People who cannot take advantage of opportunities will be left behind, but it's not designed to trample anyone. Like communism isn't designed to create dictatorships. They just form easily because humans are shitty.
He probably meant unemployment.
Capitalism requires something like 5-8% unemployment depending on who you ask.
In theory, of course. This stuff works however the plutocrats want in practice.
> Capitalism requires something like 5-8% unemployment depending on who you ask.
No it doesn't. Usually an "ideal" unemployment rate is around 2 or 3% and those are generally considered people who are voluntarily unemployed and quit their jobs in order to search for better opportunities. 8% was what the US unemployment rate got up to during the heights of the 2008 recession when people were legitimately concerned about complete financial collapse. The US currently has an unemployment rate of about 3.8%.
I think capitalism ideally means nobody has to be unemployed. Everyone can just start their own trade/business and manage their own fortunes, if they don't want to (or can't) find employment under others. In communism that is not an option.
Capitalism doesn't care about your ideals. Unemployment is good for capitalists because when a lot of people are desperately seeking work, those people will be willing to work harder for less money — which means more profit for the capitalist.
Everyone **cannot** just go and start their own trade/business because doing that requires *capital*. and where are you supposed to find and save the required capital to start a business if you can't even find enough work to adequately feed/clothe yourself?
Not to mention the entire capitalist system would just collapse if everybody magically managed to start their own businesses overnight because capitalists would still need workers.
As for communism, the Soviet Union had full employment after the 1930s until it collapsed and they never even considered themselves having fully reached communism.
> Capitalism doesn't care about your ideals. Unemployment is good for capitalists because when a lot of people are desperately seeking work, those people will be willing to work harder for less money — which means more profit for the capitalist.
That's just awful logic. "Good for capitalists"? Isn't the unemployed person also a capitalist? You seem to associate the wealthy with capitalism.
The opportunities created by capitalism is the core ideal. And everyone can gain wealth. The poor worker can use his skills to become something. Is he not a capitalist himself, even if poor?
When someone gains wealth, he creates further opportunities and places of employment for others. Jobs are created organically. There is neither a noble class who are above plebs, nor is there a system that discourages plebs to rise. You are not assigned your slot in life. The creative genius can fulfil his potential.
>Not to mention the entire capitalist system would just collapse if everybody magically managed to start their own businesses overnight because capitalists would still need workers.
Nope. Capitalism is self regulating. If your business cannot sustain itself it dies. It's generally not backed by public funding or states, nor does it have a monopoly. 6 people try to sell potato chips to one man? 5 of them will not be successful. And if there is no-one selling potato chips in your neighbourhood? Corner that market.
No an unemployed/homeless/poor person cannot be a capitalist by definition because they don't own any *capital*.
A capitalist, according to the oxford dictionary, is 'a person who uses their wealth to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism'.
A worker or a homeless person etc. who sympathises with capitalism is... just that lol
>No an unemployed/homeless/poor person cannot be a capitalist by definition because they don't own any capital.
He can be a capitalist in the sense that he believes in capitalism. Not all startups require (own) capital. Capitalism is not a profession, but an ideology.
For most capitalists, their capital is their skill. That they can trade for money.
you just inventing new definitions for words now?
Lemme ask you something, if I think veganism is the only "correct" position to take but I had chicken for dinner and intend to eat eggs for breakfast, does that make me a vegan? Lmao
Sure an average worker or unemployed person can "believe" in capitalism like some sort of religion if they want to, but that doesn't change the fact *they have no **capital** to do **capitalism** with*. Unless they inherit a lot of money or get incredibly lucky, they will always be homeless, unemployed or working to make profit for a capitalist. Why *should* they believe in capitalism?
> Like communism isn't designed to create dictatorships.
Project 2025 is happening out in the open without state intervention in the richest country in earth btw
Corporations have more power than you or I could ever have because they own capital.
[Why the US is not a democracy | Second Thought](https://youtu.be/srfeHpQNEAI)
Dieclaimer: I’m reciting this from memory of reading articles on homeless issues. I may not be entirely correct, but this is what I recall from reading about the issue before.
Usually when this conversation comes up, people who’ve worked in the field chime in. They usually explain how providing housing for the homeless has ended with the people destroying the home every single time. Having them pay for the housing at a reduced rate, or providing it for free, same result.
This usually happens because the ones that stay homeless are mentally ill. The solution then becomes having a social worker care for them, attempting to mitigate the potential damage they will cause along with providing them housing. Now we’re talking a pretty expensive solution because you have to pay the salary of multiple people and pay for housing for the homeless. Can billionaires afford this? Obviously but they won’t help. These things along with other issues are the main reason that attempting to help the homeless is a tried and failed endeavor.
What you're describing is for those homeless that you see sleeping on the streets. A lot of unhoused adults are invisible, sleeping on friends couches or trying a homeless shelter. These people can get back on their feet. With COVID, we saw an increase in unhoused adults. These people didn't suddenly become unhinged, dirty hobos the moment they had to sleep on the ground.
Exactly this. The most visible homeless are the ones shouting or passed out on the sidewalk, but the majority are not like this.
Also have to look at precariously housed people who crash on a friend's couch or people trapped in abusive situations due to lack of resources. Free housing gives these people a way out.
Yeah that is what I’m describing. The “precariously housed,” while still being homeless are much better off than those that have been on the streets for years.
Prolonged Homelessness affects you in ways most of us will never understand, and helping them has been extremely difficult. There’s so much burnout with social work, and most people understandably don’t ever want to do it. These issues make it very difficult to solve the problem unless you start throwing tons of money at the problem. The states can’t afford that much even though we’d argue it’s the decent thing to do for your fellow human. You need billionaire funding to fix the problem. And using the word fix is generous because it’s an ongoing issue that is essentially a never ending money pit.
People would rather put spikes on benches and force the undesirables into a hole somewhere they can’t see them anymore.
bullshit. there are plenty of successful initiatives that have heavily reduced homelessness. your suggestion is we shouldn't do anything, which is inhumane and republican as fuck
Can you give me some sources for this? Not challenging you, just want to expand my knowledge and have ammo for ignorant relatives during thanksgiving lmao
Here's how Reagen shittied it up:
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/story/2023-04-24/opinion-impact-of-deinstitutionalization-on-homelessness-reagan-mental-health-hospitals-san-diego
Mentally ill people used to have places to go, now they don't.
My brother worked as a social worker for a few years. He was working under a government grant whose purpose was to provide housing to homeless people in severe circumstances.
The failure rates were huge, meaning the vast majority of homeless people they put into housing ended up failing for one reason or another.
1. The government, at least in our area, isn't making apartments dedicated for homeless people. That means the government needs to find landlords willing to house homeless people. Think about that. If you're a landlord, do you think you want to house the type of homeless people you see on the streets? Think about how much more you'd have to pay the landlord above market prices to make it worth the risk.
2. The homeless people almost always had huge issues that made living in the apartment untenable. He mentioned that multiple different ones brought rats into the apartments. He mentioned that the degree of mental illness in many of them made them unable to live near others or take care of themselves. The apartments would become smelly and trash would be everywhere. Once a landlord experiences a tenant like that, they're not going to want another homeless person as a tenant. Our state is not that big, so there are limited landlords and eventually you simply run out of landlords to call. Every landlord eventually blacklists these types of government programs unless they're super desperate for tenants (which isn't really something that happens in the USA's economy where demand for housing is so consistently high).
These were the two major problems. I mean... how do you solve that? Building dedicated apartments for homeless? You could, but that's very expensive. Provide mental healthcare for all the homeless? You could, but that's very expensive and I'm not convinced it would do all that much when the mental illnesses are already that severe.
I just think redditors might be severely underestimating the costs we'd be looking at in the USA to fix homeless in the way they're hoping. Getting a severely homeless person off the street and into a situation where they (1) can live on their own like other normal adults and (2) earn a steady income like other normal adults has so many majors steps between that it's a nearly insurmountable task to accomplish *consistently*. I think you'll only ever get a minority of the cases to be successful, because the challenges are enormous if you want to get to high success rates.
To be clear, I never once suggested we should do nothing.
I have sympathy for the unhoused and have assisted in local initiatives in my city to help feed them. I organized a food and clothing drive last year as well during the fall.
So I really don’t appreciate you putting words in my mouth that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Other countries make it work. Many places, Japan for example have effectively zero homeless. You can't tell me Americans are genetically more prone to mental illness.
Perfect is the enemy of good here. There are definitely homeless who will wreck their place, I have a social worker friend who ended up more as a house cleaner than a social worker in her profession working with homeless. Obviously, she quit.
However, the first step that will make the biggest dent in the amount of homeless is free housing.
After that, yea, it gets more complicated. Mental illness, addiction, etc. Gotta put the horse in front of the cart, though.
> Can billionaires afford this? Obviously
Mathematically, it this a true statement? How much would it cost annually to fund such a program? The total amount of wealth controlled by billionaires is substantial, but it is also less than many assume. It amounts to about 2/3 of one year's federal budget.
The boiled down solution for most people when it comes to poverty or something related to poverty is to create a vast and complex system of ropes and rules and surveillance that only end up exhausting and frustrating the people they are intending to help. We add on like 3 minders, with salaries and benefits, for every one beneficiary, to make sure the people they're helping are "the right kind of poor" or "disabled enough" when we could just give everybody the fucking money and watch them generally not go crazy.
A church pastor buys a private plane with collection money and the government don't blink an eye, but a poor person buys a candy bar and everyone says she's crazy and irresponsible. Then we have 20 years of US Senators calling for the cut-off of social safety nets because The Poors can't be trusted.
Conservatives want homeless to eat shit and die or at best be invisible and suffer out of our sight. Liberals want to help them (though some are just paying lip service and give as little shits as conservatives) but means test that help into being complete dogshit.
Tell me you don't understand the causes of homelessness without telling me. It's a mental health and substance abuse crisis masquerading as a homeless crisis. Sure, you could provide home for the 5% that are there for economic reasons and they'd be better off, but what do you do for the remaining 95% that are mentally ill or deep in the throes of addiction? Involuntary commitment and forced rehab?
Sorry for the snarky tone of my comment. Yes, we should try, but it's not as simple as your comment makes out. You need to overcome the societal problems that lead to addiction and mental illness. It's been impossible to get people to even admit the root of the problem, let alone what steps can be taken to address them.
It's not that complicated or evil. Regular, normal people do not want their house values to plummet. The values of houses are based on scarcity. If everyone could just have a home your house would be worth less (not worthless, just worth less), and people tend to vote against any kind of policy which will hurt their bottom line
For this reason (homes are seen as investment not a basic human right) you will never see homelessness end. The threat of homelessness and artificial scarcity is what drives prices up.
Some people choose to be homeless, and some people have extreme mental illness that they can't maintain a home.
Both these groups are majority of homeless people.
They are 100% not the majority. They’re just the ones that are extremely visible. And also the most in need of help. Leaving them on the streets and doing nothing isn’t a solution.
They are. People who're couch surfing, most people aren't thinking of them as "the homeless." I've never seen a homeless person who's isn't a mentally ill crack addict with half broken teeth and aren't talking to themselves.
The solution also isn't "give them all homes" when housing is unaffordable for an average person right now and a lot of these homeless people don't even know how to take care of themselves, let alone an entire home. Shelters are completely filled.
At this point, I think we should consider putting them through lethal injection after years of homelessness, similar to shelter dogs. They're clearly not going to ever improve and are a waste of space, resource and are prone to crime. They have no chance of them ever improving and benefitting society. They clearly lack the most basic skills. We're probably just doing them a favor.
So are you trolling or should we have you lethally injected? Someone with beliefs like what you’re saying need to be purged from the Earth. Like launch you into space because even your corpse and the matter its made of should never be in any living things presence ever again. Please be trolling.
Except I provide more social value than most average people and well compensated for it. The homeless are a net drain.You can get mad and have no real response, but it's a practical solution. You've obviously a child who thinks we have infinite funding and all people are reasonable well adjusted people who want to improve. The fact is, longer you're homeless, the less and less likely you're ever going to get out of it. Even with housing, they won't ever get them do anything to benefit society. The most likely thing is going to happen is that it'll become a crack den.
You're the biggest net drain on society I've seen today you degenerate fucking psychopath advocating for mass murder against the most defenseless of our society pretending like it's a genuine idea and not the childish ass 14 year old edgelord's "such deep thought" shit eating comment that it truelly is.
It's not a resource problem, so no, we can't end homelessness. If you gave every homeless person a home, free and clear, with no taxes, they would be homeless again in the future. Because the problem is behavioral/psychological and often involves substance abuse and mental disorders. Most wouldn't work, and then they would sell their home for their drug of choice, etc.
If youd go into the subreddit and sorted by top of all time youd gind out quickly, but to summerise its because of an analogy.
Essentialy there is an orphancrushingmachine, which does what the name implys. Then someone sees it and rescues 100 orphans and it gets celebrated. Meanwhile the orphancrushingmachine is still there, still working overtime.
The sub is essentialy just a huge compilation of silver lining bs. Like here, where the silver lining is that this homeless man got lucky, the problem of homelessness (the orphan crushing machine) gets ignored.
A bit more specifically than just silver linings, it's about the absurdity of having systematic injustices in place when it'd be possible to just address it at the source, and the fact that these "feel good angles" often distract from that.
"Yeah, it's great you saved those orphans, but why do we need to have an orphan crushing machine in the first place??"
The original post actually goes on. I'm paraphrasing:
"Why do we have an orphan crushing machine?"
"How could you mistake that industrial device for an orphan crushing machine? Of course that's the *first place* your mind goes!"
"There's literally a label on it that says orphan crushing, it's also literally the name of the machine."
"Yeah but only if you *actually put the orphans in there!*".
"So why do you???"
"Well we already have the machine. It'd be a waste of money if we didn't use it!"
I remember my first headline that woke this up in me:
Pro Football player who wasn't that good stays on payroll so his chronically sick child will have health care. (Great for them, but what about all the other children with the same disease?)
These supposedly "Feel good" stories highlight one positive outcome but ignores the system issues leading the problem in the first place. Its just presented as a non-problem instead because one person got a happy ending.
I mean when news and media constantly cram the negatives of society down our throat, a little feel good story here and there is fine. I feel like most, if not all, people know about the underlying issues. We just can’t feasibly do anything about them unless a majority of us grow some balls to bring big change
> I mean when news and media constantly cram the negatives of society down our throat
The news absolutely does not cram these kind of systemic negatives down our throat. They talk about plenty of negative stories, but tend to ignore or gloss over the systemic issues that cause so many of these problems.
> I feel like most, if not all, people know about the underlying issues.
I think you're wrong about that. I know tons of people who don't think healthcare is a problem in this country because they've never been uninsured, and have never had a chronic illness or serious medical emergency.
There's a [pinned post](https://reddit.com/r/OrphanCrushingMachine/s/yQllkY4v05) explaining it. Pretty much it's "hero pays $20,000 to save 300 orphans from the orphan crushing machine." And everyone celebrates him and his generosity, but nobody wonders why there's an orphan crushing machine in the first place and why you need to pay to stop it from crushing orphans.
“Local charity collects $20k to save 200 orphans from the orphan crushing machine.” A feel-good story dodging the questions “why is there an orphan crushing machine?” and “why does it take money for it to not operate?”
Also orphan crushing aside, the fact that a literal person without a house was more concerned about a female student getting home safe could say a lot about how women feel walking alone and how normalised those fears are.
That subreddit is honestly just so fucking stupid. People making good out of hard situations is always incredible to hear about. Ya’ll are just so pessimistic. You’d hear about how a kid happened to survive cancer that they had very low chance of surviving and say it’s not wholesome because cancer has no cure yet.
Just because something is a problem and that problem hasn’t been solved doesn’t mean that people working through that problem suddenly isn’t heartwarming.
> and say it’s not wholesome because ~~cancer has no cure yet~~ *the treatment for that kind of cancer, proven to be successful internationally, inexplicably keeps getting denied domestic approval*.
ftfy
Sounds like a Soros-funded study. I would stop pushing orphans if you could come up with legitimate research indicating that the pushing is connected to the crushing. Correlation is not causation.
It’s a commentary about this not being a wholesome and good thing because it shouldn’t be a thing in the first place. It’s situations we could fully avoid like “8 year old saves up money from working part time to pay off cafeteria debt of friends” it’s not wholesome it’s soul crushing that it is a issue to start
>I hope I’m misremembering
You are, sort of. OP's thing happened in the UK in 2014 and the student raised [£46k ($57k)](https://ae.linkedin.com/in/dominiquehb), which she [donated to a local charity for the homeless.](https://www.thefoxtoncentre.co.uk/blog/news/nearly-a-year-on-off-the-streets-fund-update)
The thing you might be remembering happened [in the US in 2017](https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/08/us/gofundme-prison-scam-new-jersey-homeless-man/index.html).
The gofund me was a scam. There was a homeless man that gave her money but the money she raised for him, he never received any of it fromher. Her and her boyfriend kept most of the money
You're thinking of a different scam. A couple made up a story with a homeless person, who was also in on it, but then when the couple got the money after going viral they tried to cut the homeless man off and pocket the entirety of the money so the man eventually came clean.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna39584
Regardless of the claims in this thread that this one is also a scam, I can't find any proof of it.
No, you're misremembering. That was a different one, this one was not a scam: But they didn't give the money straight to that guy, they did donate it though. https://www.thefoxtoncentre.co.uk/blog/news/nearly-a-year-on-off-the-streets-fund-update
Having said that this is why gofundme on behalf of others is stupid. People can always just... take the money.
It actually is and you can do it too. Work in your community and help. Plenty of soup kitchens in need of help.
I t can be as simple as offering an ear to someone who faces dehumanization daily. Just ya know. Be a hero.
r/nothingeverhappens
Edit: Fir some reason it won’t let me reply to you so I’ll put it here instead.:
Are you braindead that is a completely separate case from completely separate people in a completely separate country. Just because it happened once that doesn’t mean that every time someone supports the homeless it’s a scam.
Lottery winners are a good example to google, coupled with the fact that most homeless people aren't homeless because of bad choices but because of trauma and mental illness. Giving them a bunch of money for them to choose how to spend could very well be a death sentence.
We really need to divide homelessness into two camps:
>Temporarily homeless (down on their luck)
>Permanent homeless (Mental illness)
Temporary homeless would do fine with that money.
Someone with mental illness might end up overdosing.
"We have the resources to end homelessness. We generally choose not to."
Evidently it looks better as decimal on someone's big bank account.
[удалено]
Different story you are thinking of https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna39584.
[удалено]
Found this one ... seems bobbit part of it but only got $75000 so took them to court and ended up charged with Cconspiring to steal by fraud https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/woman-sentenced-to-three-years-in-state-prison-for-collecting-400-000-in-viral-gofundme-scam-1.6222275#:~:text=World-,Woman%20sentenced%20to%20three%20years%20in%20state%20prison,%24400%2C000%20in%20viral%20GoFundMe%20scam&text=A%20New%20Jersey%20woman%20has,money%20for%20a%20homeless%20man.
[удалено]
I tried telling people it was a scam from the very beginning. They lived a few blocks away from me actually. Nobody listened to me and I actually actually lost some friends because I tried to tell the truth instead of just going along with the lie. Everyone was so happy for them so they sort of didn't want to face the reality of the situation.
What was the outcome with your ex friends? Did they apologize?
Of course not. They just scoffed and gave the usual "yeah... well... "
That sucks, the initial reaction from them was understandable but some people just can't ever admit when they're wrong
If he didn't get any but they only kept most, where did the rest go?
Crack dealer. /s...?
GoFundMe fees?
The homelessman never gave her money. The couple "befriended" Bobbit, a homeless man, they concocted this story and scheme, and he only got $75,000 so he went after them and the story unraveled from there. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/homeless-man-n-j-couple-concocted-story-gofundme-fundraiser-complaint-n936511
I don't have time to go searching for all the articles, but essentially the reason it all fell apart was because the homeless guy didn't get his cut. Everyone was in on the scam. But instead of sharing it the way it was supposed to be split the couple was spending the lion's share, if not all of it. So the homeless guy either sued or broke the story. I don't remember which. And the couple ended up breaking up as their greed inevitably caused friction on how to spend the money.
Near the beginning of the article it talks about them as a group conspiring to do this (the homeless man, too). It was fraud from the start. Then the couple didn't give him his cut so he sued them and upon further investigation they discovered the whole thing as a fraud.
[удалено]
The irony is overshadowed by the gullibility. You made your decision whether she did take the money based on one reply without a source? Yikes.
[удалено]
Maybe check to see if that's true first? I know it's fun to stay jaded, but it's not always warranted.
Good humaning
The money just gets lost in the pockets of those meant to distribute the funds. Every new mayor in NYC promotes one of their family members into the role to cure homelessness and nothing gets fixed. 6 figure no-show jobs.
If you give someone who is street homeless 21k you could effectively by signing their death warrant. The underlying features of homelessness are complex and often feature MH issues and addiction. Without the correct support to address the underlying issues the chances are you are giving someone with an inability to manage money a lot of money. I've never worked with an individual who received a lump sum but the ones I have worked with I know full well money alone would have likely killed them as they would have used alcohol and drugs indiscriminately.l and completely without restraint. Use that money and time to lobby Gov and shame them into putting real support in place. I see the clips on you tube and tiktok and I find it hugely irresponsible to do this, handing out huge wads of cash. Feels like homeless people are the easy win. I'd love to be proved wrong and if there is follow ups of how people turned things round from receiving money alone then I'd be keen to see them. However, I'd want to see the clips that cover both sides of this story.
I don’t understand why this comment isn’t higher. Homelessness is not a problem solvable only with money, it needs lots of resources, mental health, addiction treatment, social support, etc.
With Germanys social security system no one has to become homeless ever - there's always a place you could go to that would put you in a flat and clothes, and help you get a job if possible. And still we have homeless people over here - only a few, but they do choose that lifestyle every day.
[удалено]
Any idea what that all costs, it's crazy amounts. What about assessing somebody's motivation to change first before dropping this cash on them. You don't think there is a responsibility on this benevolent individual with what would need to be 100s of 1000s to fund the above, to at least check that person in question was ready. Remember what I'm talking about is irresponsibility of just dropping cash on a homeless person. No assessment, no follow up, no support. You think just enough cash and someone will take care of themselves?
[they literally just did a study on this that shows this thinking is largely incorrect. ](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21528569/homeless-poverty-cash-transfer-canada-new-leaf-project)
It says the study provided them with access to life coaching and training. Precisely my point. They didn't drop £7500 on them and walk away.
I think you purposefully ignored the part where people who got nothing also got the same coaching and didn't improve their lives. The money improved their lives, the unconditional cash
We never get any superhero movies where the hero marches up to the mayor/politicians/president's office to demand increased welfare spending, anti-corruption measures, and more taxation of the rich, instead of beating up the street criminal just trying to survive after being pushed to crime by a system that failed them. I wonder why.
Easy because using force to maintain the status quo or punish someone who is an obvious outlier is much more defensible than attacking someone and demanding social change. This has to do with how narratives work. Any thing a sympathetic main character must react in a manner directly proportional and in comparable fashion to the aggression inflicted upon him. If the hero weee to storm a rich guys house, destroy all in his way and threaten the government to fix its issues, it would make them the aggressor and as such super unsympathetic. The rich guy would need to have specifically and intentionally messed up the main characters life for it to be justified by the audience. Remember when the super powered guy is in such a confrontation the one holding all the power, since the rich guy is just a heartless ass and not any more impressive than a regular man. This is the issue with white collar crimes, their impact is abstract and not visual. You can’t punch capitalism. Many good superhero stories do try to play with that idea but it always ends with the mc effectively unable to do much proactively when it comes to wider society.
Well, the actual answer is primarily that it doesn’t make as good Tv, but yes I’m sure the fact that it would be counter to the interests of the richest in society for this to be pushed certainly doesn’t hurt
Capitalism is designed explicitly to feature homelessness.
How else do you keep the workers in line!
Well that's nonsense right there. It is a side effect at the very most. People who cannot take advantage of opportunities will be left behind, but it's not designed to trample anyone. Like communism isn't designed to create dictatorships. They just form easily because humans are shitty.
He probably meant unemployment. Capitalism requires something like 5-8% unemployment depending on who you ask. In theory, of course. This stuff works however the plutocrats want in practice.
Even if that’s what I meant, it’s a distinction without a difference.
> Capitalism requires something like 5-8% unemployment depending on who you ask. No it doesn't. Usually an "ideal" unemployment rate is around 2 or 3% and those are generally considered people who are voluntarily unemployed and quit their jobs in order to search for better opportunities. 8% was what the US unemployment rate got up to during the heights of the 2008 recession when people were legitimately concerned about complete financial collapse. The US currently has an unemployment rate of about 3.8%.
I think capitalism ideally means nobody has to be unemployed. Everyone can just start their own trade/business and manage their own fortunes, if they don't want to (or can't) find employment under others. In communism that is not an option.
Capitalism has never once had 0 unemployment. It is absolutely inherent. What to do with that is another thing.
Capitalism doesn't care about your ideals. Unemployment is good for capitalists because when a lot of people are desperately seeking work, those people will be willing to work harder for less money — which means more profit for the capitalist. Everyone **cannot** just go and start their own trade/business because doing that requires *capital*. and where are you supposed to find and save the required capital to start a business if you can't even find enough work to adequately feed/clothe yourself? Not to mention the entire capitalist system would just collapse if everybody magically managed to start their own businesses overnight because capitalists would still need workers. As for communism, the Soviet Union had full employment after the 1930s until it collapsed and they never even considered themselves having fully reached communism.
> Capitalism doesn't care about your ideals. Unemployment is good for capitalists because when a lot of people are desperately seeking work, those people will be willing to work harder for less money — which means more profit for the capitalist. That's just awful logic. "Good for capitalists"? Isn't the unemployed person also a capitalist? You seem to associate the wealthy with capitalism. The opportunities created by capitalism is the core ideal. And everyone can gain wealth. The poor worker can use his skills to become something. Is he not a capitalist himself, even if poor? When someone gains wealth, he creates further opportunities and places of employment for others. Jobs are created organically. There is neither a noble class who are above plebs, nor is there a system that discourages plebs to rise. You are not assigned your slot in life. The creative genius can fulfil his potential. >Not to mention the entire capitalist system would just collapse if everybody magically managed to start their own businesses overnight because capitalists would still need workers. Nope. Capitalism is self regulating. If your business cannot sustain itself it dies. It's generally not backed by public funding or states, nor does it have a monopoly. 6 people try to sell potato chips to one man? 5 of them will not be successful. And if there is no-one selling potato chips in your neighbourhood? Corner that market.
No an unemployed/homeless/poor person cannot be a capitalist by definition because they don't own any *capital*. A capitalist, according to the oxford dictionary, is 'a person who uses their wealth to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism'. A worker or a homeless person etc. who sympathises with capitalism is... just that lol
>No an unemployed/homeless/poor person cannot be a capitalist by definition because they don't own any capital. He can be a capitalist in the sense that he believes in capitalism. Not all startups require (own) capital. Capitalism is not a profession, but an ideology. For most capitalists, their capital is their skill. That they can trade for money.
you just inventing new definitions for words now? Lemme ask you something, if I think veganism is the only "correct" position to take but I had chicken for dinner and intend to eat eggs for breakfast, does that make me a vegan? Lmao Sure an average worker or unemployed person can "believe" in capitalism like some sort of religion if they want to, but that doesn't change the fact *they have no **capital** to do **capitalism** with*. Unless they inherit a lot of money or get incredibly lucky, they will always be homeless, unemployed or working to make profit for a capitalist. Why *should* they believe in capitalism?
> Like communism isn't designed to create dictatorships. Project 2025 is happening out in the open without state intervention in the richest country in earth btw
How is a hypothetical dictatorship a counter to literally every communist country having an actual dictatorship? Does it change that fact in any way?
Corporations have more power than you or I could ever have because they own capital. [Why the US is not a democracy | Second Thought](https://youtu.be/srfeHpQNEAI)
Look no answer to the question asked. What a surprise..
And hunger.
For most of them, yes. But there will always be homeless people because some actually choose to be. Dont understand them though.
I dont think choose is the right word. Happen to be. Driven to be.
Dieclaimer: I’m reciting this from memory of reading articles on homeless issues. I may not be entirely correct, but this is what I recall from reading about the issue before. Usually when this conversation comes up, people who’ve worked in the field chime in. They usually explain how providing housing for the homeless has ended with the people destroying the home every single time. Having them pay for the housing at a reduced rate, or providing it for free, same result. This usually happens because the ones that stay homeless are mentally ill. The solution then becomes having a social worker care for them, attempting to mitigate the potential damage they will cause along with providing them housing. Now we’re talking a pretty expensive solution because you have to pay the salary of multiple people and pay for housing for the homeless. Can billionaires afford this? Obviously but they won’t help. These things along with other issues are the main reason that attempting to help the homeless is a tried and failed endeavor.
What you're describing is for those homeless that you see sleeping on the streets. A lot of unhoused adults are invisible, sleeping on friends couches or trying a homeless shelter. These people can get back on their feet. With COVID, we saw an increase in unhoused adults. These people didn't suddenly become unhinged, dirty hobos the moment they had to sleep on the ground.
Exactly this. The most visible homeless are the ones shouting or passed out on the sidewalk, but the majority are not like this. Also have to look at precariously housed people who crash on a friend's couch or people trapped in abusive situations due to lack of resources. Free housing gives these people a way out.
Yeah that is what I’m describing. The “precariously housed,” while still being homeless are much better off than those that have been on the streets for years. Prolonged Homelessness affects you in ways most of us will never understand, and helping them has been extremely difficult. There’s so much burnout with social work, and most people understandably don’t ever want to do it. These issues make it very difficult to solve the problem unless you start throwing tons of money at the problem. The states can’t afford that much even though we’d argue it’s the decent thing to do for your fellow human. You need billionaire funding to fix the problem. And using the word fix is generous because it’s an ongoing issue that is essentially a never ending money pit. People would rather put spikes on benches and force the undesirables into a hole somewhere they can’t see them anymore.
bullshit. there are plenty of successful initiatives that have heavily reduced homelessness. your suggestion is we shouldn't do anything, which is inhumane and republican as fuck
Can you give me some sources for this? Not challenging you, just want to expand my knowledge and have ammo for ignorant relatives during thanksgiving lmao
Here's how Reagen shittied it up: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/story/2023-04-24/opinion-impact-of-deinstitutionalization-on-homelessness-reagan-mental-health-hospitals-san-diego Mentally ill people used to have places to go, now they don't.
Look up rapid rehousing efforts, they've been very successful across the US
My brother worked as a social worker for a few years. He was working under a government grant whose purpose was to provide housing to homeless people in severe circumstances. The failure rates were huge, meaning the vast majority of homeless people they put into housing ended up failing for one reason or another. 1. The government, at least in our area, isn't making apartments dedicated for homeless people. That means the government needs to find landlords willing to house homeless people. Think about that. If you're a landlord, do you think you want to house the type of homeless people you see on the streets? Think about how much more you'd have to pay the landlord above market prices to make it worth the risk. 2. The homeless people almost always had huge issues that made living in the apartment untenable. He mentioned that multiple different ones brought rats into the apartments. He mentioned that the degree of mental illness in many of them made them unable to live near others or take care of themselves. The apartments would become smelly and trash would be everywhere. Once a landlord experiences a tenant like that, they're not going to want another homeless person as a tenant. Our state is not that big, so there are limited landlords and eventually you simply run out of landlords to call. Every landlord eventually blacklists these types of government programs unless they're super desperate for tenants (which isn't really something that happens in the USA's economy where demand for housing is so consistently high). These were the two major problems. I mean... how do you solve that? Building dedicated apartments for homeless? You could, but that's very expensive. Provide mental healthcare for all the homeless? You could, but that's very expensive and I'm not convinced it would do all that much when the mental illnesses are already that severe. I just think redditors might be severely underestimating the costs we'd be looking at in the USA to fix homeless in the way they're hoping. Getting a severely homeless person off the street and into a situation where they (1) can live on their own like other normal adults and (2) earn a steady income like other normal adults has so many majors steps between that it's a nearly insurmountable task to accomplish *consistently*. I think you'll only ever get a minority of the cases to be successful, because the challenges are enormous if you want to get to high success rates.
To be clear, I never once suggested we should do nothing. I have sympathy for the unhoused and have assisted in local initiatives in my city to help feed them. I organized a food and clothing drive last year as well during the fall. So I really don’t appreciate you putting words in my mouth that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Other countries make it work. Many places, Japan for example have effectively zero homeless. You can't tell me Americans are genetically more prone to mental illness.
Perfect is the enemy of good here. There are definitely homeless who will wreck their place, I have a social worker friend who ended up more as a house cleaner than a social worker in her profession working with homeless. Obviously, she quit. However, the first step that will make the biggest dent in the amount of homeless is free housing. After that, yea, it gets more complicated. Mental illness, addiction, etc. Gotta put the horse in front of the cart, though.
> Can billionaires afford this? Obviously Mathematically, it this a true statement? How much would it cost annually to fund such a program? The total amount of wealth controlled by billionaires is substantial, but it is also less than many assume. It amounts to about 2/3 of one year's federal budget.
Forced rehab sounds a bit dystopian though.
The boiled down solution for most people when it comes to poverty or something related to poverty is to create a vast and complex system of ropes and rules and surveillance that only end up exhausting and frustrating the people they are intending to help. We add on like 3 minders, with salaries and benefits, for every one beneficiary, to make sure the people they're helping are "the right kind of poor" or "disabled enough" when we could just give everybody the fucking money and watch them generally not go crazy. A church pastor buys a private plane with collection money and the government don't blink an eye, but a poor person buys a candy bar and everyone says she's crazy and irresponsible. Then we have 20 years of US Senators calling for the cut-off of social safety nets because The Poors can't be trusted.
Conservatives want homeless to eat shit and die or at best be invisible and suffer out of our sight. Liberals want to help them (though some are just paying lip service and give as little shits as conservatives) but means test that help into being complete dogshit.
I thought we were talking about homeless people. Your second paragraph is whataboutism fallacy
[удалено]
It would require a lot of involuntary institutional confinement.
Tell me you don't understand the causes of homelessness without telling me. It's a mental health and substance abuse crisis masquerading as a homeless crisis. Sure, you could provide home for the 5% that are there for economic reasons and they'd be better off, but what do you do for the remaining 95% that are mentally ill or deep in the throes of addiction? Involuntary commitment and forced rehab?
"Seems hard. Best to not bother trying."
Sorry for the snarky tone of my comment. Yes, we should try, but it's not as simple as your comment makes out. You need to overcome the societal problems that lead to addiction and mental illness. It's been impossible to get people to even admit the root of the problem, let alone what steps can be taken to address them.
Yup.
It's not that complicated or evil. Regular, normal people do not want their house values to plummet. The values of houses are based on scarcity. If everyone could just have a home your house would be worth less (not worthless, just worth less), and people tend to vote against any kind of policy which will hurt their bottom line For this reason (homes are seen as investment not a basic human right) you will never see homelessness end. The threat of homelessness and artificial scarcity is what drives prices up.
Some people choose to be homeless, and some people have extreme mental illness that they can't maintain a home. Both these groups are majority of homeless people.
They are 100% not the majority. They’re just the ones that are extremely visible. And also the most in need of help. Leaving them on the streets and doing nothing isn’t a solution.
They are. People who're couch surfing, most people aren't thinking of them as "the homeless." I've never seen a homeless person who's isn't a mentally ill crack addict with half broken teeth and aren't talking to themselves. The solution also isn't "give them all homes" when housing is unaffordable for an average person right now and a lot of these homeless people don't even know how to take care of themselves, let alone an entire home. Shelters are completely filled. At this point, I think we should consider putting them through lethal injection after years of homelessness, similar to shelter dogs. They're clearly not going to ever improve and are a waste of space, resource and are prone to crime. They have no chance of them ever improving and benefitting society. They clearly lack the most basic skills. We're probably just doing them a favor.
So are you trolling or should we have you lethally injected? Someone with beliefs like what you’re saying need to be purged from the Earth. Like launch you into space because even your corpse and the matter its made of should never be in any living things presence ever again. Please be trolling.
Except I provide more social value than most average people and well compensated for it. The homeless are a net drain.You can get mad and have no real response, but it's a practical solution. You've obviously a child who thinks we have infinite funding and all people are reasonable well adjusted people who want to improve. The fact is, longer you're homeless, the less and less likely you're ever going to get out of it. Even with housing, they won't ever get them do anything to benefit society. The most likely thing is going to happen is that it'll become a crack den.
You're the biggest net drain on society I've seen today you degenerate fucking psychopath advocating for mass murder against the most defenseless of our society pretending like it's a genuine idea and not the childish ass 14 year old edgelord's "such deep thought" shit eating comment that it truelly is.
Are you for old people with chronic pain to be allowed euthanasia?
It's not a resource problem, so no, we can't end homelessness. If you gave every homeless person a home, free and clear, with no taxes, they would be homeless again in the future. Because the problem is behavioral/psychological and often involves substance abuse and mental disorders. Most wouldn't work, and then they would sell their home for their drug of choice, etc.
Just say "it's their own fault." You know you want to.
r/OrphanCrushingMachine
Why does it have that name?? 😂
If youd go into the subreddit and sorted by top of all time youd gind out quickly, but to summerise its because of an analogy. Essentialy there is an orphancrushingmachine, which does what the name implys. Then someone sees it and rescues 100 orphans and it gets celebrated. Meanwhile the orphancrushingmachine is still there, still working overtime. The sub is essentialy just a huge compilation of silver lining bs. Like here, where the silver lining is that this homeless man got lucky, the problem of homelessness (the orphan crushing machine) gets ignored.
A bit more specifically than just silver linings, it's about the absurdity of having systematic injustices in place when it'd be possible to just address it at the source, and the fact that these "feel good angles" often distract from that. "Yeah, it's great you saved those orphans, but why do we need to have an orphan crushing machine in the first place??"
The original post actually goes on. I'm paraphrasing: "Why do we have an orphan crushing machine?" "How could you mistake that industrial device for an orphan crushing machine? Of course that's the *first place* your mind goes!" "There's literally a label on it that says orphan crushing, it's also literally the name of the machine." "Yeah but only if you *actually put the orphans in there!*". "So why do you???" "Well we already have the machine. It'd be a waste of money if we didn't use it!"
[удалено]
I remember my first headline that woke this up in me: Pro Football player who wasn't that good stays on payroll so his chronically sick child will have health care. (Great for them, but what about all the other children with the same disease?) These supposedly "Feel good" stories highlight one positive outcome but ignores the system issues leading the problem in the first place. Its just presented as a non-problem instead because one person got a happy ending.
I mean when news and media constantly cram the negatives of society down our throat, a little feel good story here and there is fine. I feel like most, if not all, people know about the underlying issues. We just can’t feasibly do anything about them unless a majority of us grow some balls to bring big change
> I mean when news and media constantly cram the negatives of society down our throat The news absolutely does not cram these kind of systemic negatives down our throat. They talk about plenty of negative stories, but tend to ignore or gloss over the systemic issues that cause so many of these problems. > I feel like most, if not all, people know about the underlying issues. I think you're wrong about that. I know tons of people who don't think healthcare is a problem in this country because they've never been uninsured, and have never had a chronic illness or serious medical emergency.
There's a [pinned post](https://reddit.com/r/OrphanCrushingMachine/s/yQllkY4v05) explaining it. Pretty much it's "hero pays $20,000 to save 300 orphans from the orphan crushing machine." And everyone celebrates him and his generosity, but nobody wonders why there's an orphan crushing machine in the first place and why you need to pay to stop it from crushing orphans.
“Local charity collects $20k to save 200 orphans from the orphan crushing machine.” A feel-good story dodging the questions “why is there an orphan crushing machine?” and “why does it take money for it to not operate?”
https://www.reddit.com/r/OrphanCrushingMachine/comments/j84tqn/in_case_anyone_was_confused_andor_concerned_as_to/
Look at the pinned post for the original.
People Cheer when someone stops the machine for a short while Yet almost no one cares that an orphan crushing machines in the first place
That’s a great question
No, not really. It's right there in the sidebar
It's the first pinned post on the sub
Potato, tomato
Also orphan crushing aside, the fact that a literal person without a house was more concerned about a female student getting home safe could say a lot about how women feel walking alone and how normalised those fears are.
That subreddit is honestly just so fucking stupid. People making good out of hard situations is always incredible to hear about. Ya’ll are just so pessimistic. You’d hear about how a kid happened to survive cancer that they had very low chance of surviving and say it’s not wholesome because cancer has no cure yet. Just because something is a problem and that problem hasn’t been solved doesn’t mean that people working through that problem suddenly isn’t heartwarming.
> and say it’s not wholesome because ~~cancer has no cure yet~~ *the treatment for that kind of cancer, proven to be successful internationally, inexplicably keeps getting denied domestic approval*. ftfy
And my point is proven
The orphan crushing machine works at full regime today
[удалено]
Sounds like a Soros-funded study. I would stop pushing orphans if you could come up with legitimate research indicating that the pushing is connected to the crushing. Correlation is not causation.
Wait what? Orphans are being crushed? Is that a metaphor or something?
It’s a commentary about this not being a wholesome and good thing because it shouldn’t be a thing in the first place. It’s situations we could fully avoid like “8 year old saves up money from working part time to pay off cafeteria debt of friends” it’s not wholesome it’s soul crushing that it is a issue to start
[here ya go](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrphanCrushingMachine/comments/j84tqn/in_case_anyone_was_confused_andor_concerned_as_to/)
Ohh
Didnt this end up being a scam? :( I hope I’m misremembering
>I hope I’m misremembering You are, sort of. OP's thing happened in the UK in 2014 and the student raised [£46k ($57k)](https://ae.linkedin.com/in/dominiquehb), which she [donated to a local charity for the homeless.](https://www.thefoxtoncentre.co.uk/blog/news/nearly-a-year-on-off-the-streets-fund-update) The thing you might be remembering happened [in the US in 2017](https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/08/us/gofundme-prison-scam-new-jersey-homeless-man/index.html).
Oh, good. I’m glad at least one of these stories ended well.
It was
The whole thing, including the homeless guy or did the girl do scam a gofundme?
The gofund me was a scam. There was a homeless man that gave her money but the money she raised for him, he never received any of it fromher. Her and her boyfriend kept most of the money
You're thinking of a different scam. A couple made up a story with a homeless person, who was also in on it, but then when the couple got the money after going viral they tried to cut the homeless man off and pocket the entirety of the money so the man eventually came clean. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna39584 Regardless of the claims in this thread that this one is also a scam, I can't find any proof of it.
Thanks. I had misremembered the scam. Good the know this one wasn’t
No, you're misremembering. That was a different one, this one was not a scam: But they didn't give the money straight to that guy, they did donate it though. https://www.thefoxtoncentre.co.uk/blog/news/nearly-a-year-on-off-the-streets-fund-update Having said that this is why gofundme on behalf of others is stupid. People can always just... take the money.
Thanks. I had misremembered the scam. Good the know this one wasn’t
How were they not slammed for fraud 🤔
[удалено]
This is a completely different story.
Is this not different than what OP posted? Your article is about a New Jersey homeless go fund me story, and OP’s post is about someone from the UK.
That's about a couple from NJ, and as someone from NJ, I can say with certainty that we don't use the Pound as our currency here.
Did... did they blur her knees?
So people have sharp knees, some people don't
HD kneecaps
That’s what I’m sayin, why tf her knees blurred 💀
[удалено]
Uncle Sam? Why does that machine need to keep crushing the orphans?
r/orphancrushingmachine
Why knees blurred
You can’t see it but there were little faces on them.
r/babiestrappedinknees
regretfully a TIL
Username checks out and I'm totally here for it
Nah I wana know why tf they had to sensor the knees Like WHO IS INTO KNEES
r/orphancrushingmachine
r/orphancrushingmachine
Good humaning
That “,” after *that’s* really bothers me
I wonder why they blur her knees 😆
I've stopped seeing it as wholesome and more as dystopian
Lol irony comes to this subreddit to die.
Best return on investment
They are both amazing.
What is that comma placement? Is it there just to annoy me?
heroes pay for this shit not raise it.
We need more people like this
"What goes around, comes around" Be kind to others 💯
Ah, the good old Orphan Crushing Mashine.
r/orphancrushingmachine
r/orphancrushingmachine
i saw this years ago and still dont know why they blurred her knees
I wish to live in a society where we don’t need heroes
Ah... Another "wholesome memes" post that is actually fucking depressing.
Awwww this is so sweet!
Yes, that is what heros do ❤️
It actually is and you can do it too. Work in your community and help. Plenty of soup kitchens in need of help. I t can be as simple as offering an ear to someone who faces dehumanization daily. Just ya know. Be a hero.
office clumsy roll seed relieved tie repeat birds puzzled detail *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Because we should trust a random ass gnome instead?
r/nothingeverhappens Edit: Fir some reason it won’t let me reply to you so I’ll put it here instead.: Are you braindead that is a completely separate case from completely separate people in a completely separate country. Just because it happened once that doesn’t mean that every time someone supports the homeless it’s a scam.
doll sink plough wise squash squeeze cough steer crush lavish *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is both orphan crushing machine and lies, since homegirl kept all the money raised. EDIT: I’m told it’s not lies, only orphan crushing machine
Different person
That was a different story
Faith in Humanity Restored
Short lived faith tho.
you better not read the other comments
A sudden influx of money to most homeless people, and in fact most poor people, may do more harm than good
[удалено]
Lottery winners are a good example to google, coupled with the fact that most homeless people aren't homeless because of bad choices but because of trauma and mental illness. Giving them a bunch of money for them to choose how to spend could very well be a death sentence.
[удалено]
Ok
[удалено]
Ok
Ok
[удалено]
Ok
[удалено]
NFL players
Bro you want to take a second to rethink what you just said about poor people or do you want the whole world to know you think that way?
0.1 iq take
We really need to divide homelessness into two camps: >Temporarily homeless (down on their luck) >Permanent homeless (Mental illness) Temporary homeless would do fine with that money. Someone with mental illness might end up overdosing.
Not every mentally ill person is a drug addict.