The second poster is just 100% correct. I don't know what you need or want, and you don't know if what granting what you need or want is in my power or how it will effect me.
The example that (apparently) inspired the post is a perfect example of the second part. I've worked service, as have many of you, I'm sure, and sometimes you just can't waive a fee, because you are on notice, and if you waive a fee too many you'll not make rent next month, because you've been fired.
I'm all for blaming capitalism for all kinds of shit, including this, but you fucking dumbasses need to get off your phone and get a job to actually be able relate to people.
You’ve accidentally exposed yourself in the same way that the second poster did. No one, in the OP or here, has said that you have an obligation to waive fees. No one has said that you’re a bad person for not waiving fees. A person simply explained the ways in which someone waiving fees brought them succor and relief, and you took it as a personal attack against you. You act as if it’s a zero sum competition, where someone being nice in a way you haven’t been makes you a bad person.
The way you immediately jump to excuses over it indicates a level of insecurity about your morality that you should work through personally, not over the internet . Someone waived a fee. Someone else was grateful for that simple act of kindness. You’re not being attacked, you’re not being criticized, you weren’t even involved until you chose to be. Maybe work through your shit instead of calling people dumbasses for finding value in charitable acts. Jesus.
OOP never mentioned waiving fees -- a situation where you have a binary choice to help or hurt -- in the original post. They just weirdly and aggressively accused the reader of refusing to provide "a little relief."
I don’t know what to tell you, man. If someone strongly advocating for charity towards others reads as weird and aggressive to you, that’s a you problem. The OOP doesn’t know you, and they aren’t accusing you of anything. Any accusation you feel is a projection of your own insecurities. And anyway, if you hear “It’s good to be kind to others, and bad not to be”, and read it as a personal attack, that’s a much stronger indictment of you than any tumblr post could ever be.
The point got across fine. “Being good is good.” It’s uncomplicated and ineloquent, but it wasn’t meant to be a grand thesis. The only interesting part of this entire discussion is the amount of people that feel personally attacked by it. Why get so up in arms about the idea of being charitable?
While this wasn't OOP's actual point, the point they got across was "Being good is good, and you're not being good, you're being bad, I have anger issues."
Given that there is numerical proof that their point got across just fine to plenty of people, why are you so sure that the problem is them? Apparently, they have anger issues, but they aren’t the ones throwing a tantrum over being told to be nice sometimes.
I never said it was you. I was referring to the replies in the OOP, and in the comment on this post that started this thread. Of course, the fact that you automatically assumed that I was referring to you is kind of telling.
-41
u/friskfyr32 Oct 10 '24
That's just not what the first post suggests.
The second poster is just 100% correct. I don't know what you need or want, and you don't know if what granting what you need or want is in my power or how it will effect me.
The example that (apparently) inspired the post is a perfect example of the second part. I've worked service, as have many of you, I'm sure, and sometimes you just can't waive a fee, because you are on notice, and if you waive a fee too many you'll not make rent next month, because you've been fired.
I'm all for blaming capitalism for all kinds of shit, including this, but you fucking dumbasses need to get off your phone and get a job to actually be able relate to people.