Blocking comments

[lederhosen]

Just to explain something I do now and then.



Every year, Australia has a SIDS-research charity event called Red Nose Day. (The idea comes from a UK charity of the same name with a different goal). You pay your money, the money goes to SIDS research, you get a red nose and you wear it on the day.

Now, I have nothing against the cause. Cot death is a tragedy, and research into prevention is a Good Thing. But the red nose thing always makes me feel a little uncomfortable. IMHO, charity should be motivated by the desire to do good, not for the feeling of approbation that comes from wearing a visible token of that donation. I feel uncomfortable when I feel somebody's trying to manipulate me into giving via social pressure, and so I tend to avoid that sort of charity; on the rare occasions when I do give them money, I don't take their tokens, because I have no earthly use for them.

Most of the time when I do it, blocking comments is my way of making the metaphorical 'red noses' invisible. If you want to actively want to say something to me, you're welcome, and there are plenty of ways to reach me. But I don't want people sitting there staring at an empty "Respond to post" window feeling they're obliged to fill it up with a friendship tax, if that makes any sense.

Comments

[cavalaxis]

And sometimes "hugs" are the last thing a person needs.

When I see disabled comments, I don't take it personally. And I don't feel like I need a red-nose either. I just say a silent prayer or blessing or send kind thoughts, as appropriate.

So, kind thoughts, my friend.

[bunny-hugger.livejournal.com]

IMHO, charity should be motivated by the desire to do good, not for the feeling of approbation that comes from wearing a visible token of that donation.

Kant would say that if you give to charity because you like the feeling of approbation, then you haven't acted morally.

A utilitarian would instead argue that if charities can get more people to donate by exploiting that type of social pressure, then they ought to do so. Those benefiting from the charity will benefit regardless of the motivation of the donors.

[corruptedjasper.livejournal.com]

And a realist will say they're both right simultaneously. Kant isn't saying the *charity* is acting immorally, after all, just the giver.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

I think a lot of the difference between utilitarian approaches and 'principle'-based approaches like Kant's there comes down to the scope at which one views the problem.

Viewed one year at a time, exploiting social pressure is a good way to get more SIDS research done, hopefully saving some lives. But in the longer term, I think it can potentially undermine charity by making its motivation less direct - "helping others makes me feel good, so I give", vs. "being approved of by others makes me feel good, being seen to do good makes others approve of me, so I give when others are watching". Of those, the second has more potential points of failure.

In the short term but wider scope, it can also cause harm by diverting money that was already earmarked for charity from more efficient causes to more popular ones.

[scascot.livejournal.com]

And then there's the people who send you Frithmas cards, after you've absolved them of any responsibility to do so, and even told them that you won't be reciprocating.

You're good people, Art. I don't take it personally when you disable comments - I take it as a sign that you want to be left alone, but that you cared enough about the rest of us to let us in on what's going on in your life.

Frithmas cards, on the other paw, are an entirely different matter...staring at them makes me feel guilty that I didn't participate.

[fluffy-cloud.livejournal.com]

And sometimes the personal pain is great enough that you don't want to share it with everyone until you've worked through some of it on your own.

[texas-tiger.livejournal.com]

I totally respect your right to not have comments thrown at you if you don't want them. I'm not about to complain! But, I don't know about anyone else, but this is the only place I know you, so for me at least, I don't have any other way to communicate.

Just pointing that out.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

That's what this post is for, among other things :-)

[silmaril.livejournal.com]

I've heard that sometimes disabled comments are taken as drama-starting, which I don't get at all. I've always assumed your reason was like what you outlined above. So.

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

I've never taken offense at a disabled-comments post of yours, my friend. I've often felt a need to at least express concern for you, but not to the point of sending you an email, because I felt that would be intrusive. I do know that sometimes just writing out your thoughts is thereapy enough, and so haven't worried too much.

You're OK, Art.

As for Red Noses, well, there is such a thing as "helper's high"--the release of endorphins when we do charitable acts, and yes, they are addictive.

*shrug*

I know I feel better for helping folks, especially when I am low.
Edie

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

I know that feeling well. I do the same thing myself sometimes - but it doesn't necessarily have to be visible to the rest of the world, which is what the red noses are about.

[djfiggy.livejournal.com]

Sometimes, I think it takes courage to be charitable, mostly if you feel any pressure from people who are going to think of you as sappy for doing it, or people who think you're wasting your time. The red nose can be more like wearing a bucket on your head, a type of humiliaton. Then again, if you're very secure in the idea that your charitable activity is "worth it", then you wouldn't worry about the sorts of people who think you're just not cold enough for their tastes.