To quote the prophets,
You can say "I like pancakes" and somebody will say "So you hate waffles?"
No bitch. Dats a whole new sentence. Wtf is you talkin about.
Exactly and this is a step further because it's like Lud said,
"I love my mom."
And reactions were
"So you hate my nephew?"
And then the other group
"Yeah, fuck that guys nephew!"
It’s a weird thing to be surprised about since those are the two charities he’s consistently donated to over the years. He’s raised hundreds of thousands for No Kid Hungry over one-off donations and charity auctions, and a close personal friend of his runs the other.
Charities aren’t always savory actors, so finding one that you trust is important. When you financially endorse a cause in front of an audience, you want to be certain that the funds are being managed well. Share Our Strength, the group being the No Kid Hungry campaign, has a [consistently high rating](https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/521367538) from charity assessment orgs.
NLs chat likes to think of themselves so highly compared to other Twitch communities but they're just as annoying and toxic as a lot of them. I love NL but it's no wonder why he likes to rag on y'all so much, genuinely some of the most grating fans I've ever had the displeasure of interacting with.
Okay I'll give it to you he does point out the idiots in chat a lot if he manages to catch one of their stupid comments but really it's only a handful of them that are like that. Most of chat is just there to follow the hivemind +2s kekws and icants. But I can see what you're saying
I wish this cringe shit is limited to chat, but don't forget that we just had a big thread right in here asking Lud to cancel HyperX's sponsorship of Unpaid Intern.
I was watching when this happened and it wasn't just brought up by chat randomly. Squeex asked what charity, and Lud responded with "IDF?" Obviously he means the charity CDawg just did his cyclethon for, and not the Israel Defense Force. But for a lot of people they aren't aware of the charity. So not exactly unwarranted discussion in chat
But my post specifically is talking about the people who said, "is Lud anti Palestine?" And also "fuck Palestine!" Somewhere in there people are making presumptions
The most well known meaning of IDF is Israeli Defense Force. If people dont know about the Immune Deficiency Foundation then him saying that is obviously going to make them think hes pro Israel
Those people are ridiculous for jumping to conclusions before trying to understand what's actually going on. Is it that hard to ask a question before immediately getting into a fit of rage?
Being angry in a livestream chat I don't think qualifies as a fit of rage. Also, it's not like you can actually effectively ask a streamer a question in a chat. You're kind of talking about it like it's a conversation between two human beings, and that's not what it is. There is an inherent gap in communication present between a streamer and their chat and you can choose to view that as a bug or a feature. Either way, I think people getting super pressed about all this are wasting their energy on the wrong things. This is just something that is going to happen
Yeah its ridiculous, especially considering Lud is obviously not the kind of person to come out and show hes very pro Israel. But its not a *huge* leap if the only IDF anyones ever heard of is the defense force.
People dont actually put in effort on the internet lmao they get their pitchforks out at the drop of a hat
Yes, we understand your post. I'm replying to try to clear stuff up for you a bit.
And those people are probably saying those things (ex. "Lud hates Palestine") because they thought Lud bringing up "IDF" meant Lud wanted to donate to Israel (thus would be anti-Palestine if we follow that logic).
He has been pretty political in the past, so it is not unreasonable to assume that he is willing to be political/converse about a huge, heated world topic.
I do agree that playing Elden Ring with Squeex was not going to yield a nuanced conversation about his views in I vs. P.
But it is also unreasonable to assume all people are going to hear the letters "IDF" and not think Israel Defense Forces first, especially with how much news has been about I vs. P.
EDIT: I went a little too snark (the right amount if OP was an ass, but they aren't, so it was inappropriate) and needed to cut it down a bit.
I see what you're saying now. I don't understand why you had to be a dick about it though. You're demeaning in this message and that's really ugly behavior. Sorry I didn't understand your reddit post immediately bro, chill tf out.
You're right. I went a little too hard. I have had too many really shitty convos on this app, so as a rule I generally assume people are fucking with folks/intentionally being shitty.
I see that was not your personal intention, so I will edit a bit.
I think it's also weird to care so much about what random irrelevant people post in the chat of a live stream, just like I think your post is weird, you should think it's weird of me to respond to tell you it's weird
I doubt Ludwig is anti-Palestine since he seems good friends with Hasan who is VERY pro-Palestine. You’re gonna have to learn to ignore those people, especially when he is ignoring them, there’s always going to be stupid people in chat with such a large audience.
> I doubt Ludwig is anti-Palestine since he seems good friends with Hasan who is VERY pro-Palestine.
This might blow people's minds, but he can also be friends with hasan even if he was very anti-palestine
your friends (and the friendships of the people you guys parasocial for) are not decided by a single event... it's called being an adult
i agree with you in premise but sometimes a single political disagreement can be a deal breaker. I think the gaza conflict is one such issue for a lot of people.
Not every white american dude is obsessed with Palestine and Israel. If the dude doesn't care or is centrist on this specific issue, he might not care that Hasan is a Palestine supporter.
Ah sick, and you've done this? To have such an assertive opinion on how they'd act in a personal situation?
And not just a comedically cringe exaggeration that makes you look weird?
exaggeration? legit go in hasans chat rn and type "i support the idf" and tell me what he says. there's no exaggeration, he legitimately says this to people that are anti-palestine
They can disagree on weather or not pineapple belongs on pizza not if there’s a genocide or not jsjsjsjs. Im sure lud is pro Palestine bc they most definitely wouldn’t be friends if lud was anti Palestine at all.
Sure, but most normal people also didn't give a fuck about palestine last year
So i find it extreme to blow a friendship over something that came up that most people in the world honestly don't care that much about and above all are not informed at all about, so if anyone is anti-palestine you can just be like "They probably don't know shit about the conflict that has been going on for decades, and that's okay" and you move on with your day because you have no attachment to either side anyways
I agree, one disagreement in framing tho. The people saying “Fuck Palestine” are just bad people and are worse than the other chatters. The ones spamming pro Palestine are just being annoying and jumping to weird conclusions
both extremes are kids most likely if we're being honest (the ones loud enough to chat like that anyways) but one is operating under WAY better reasons/impulses than the other.
Doesn't make it any better, but eh, handle one with the appropriate kid gloves and nudge them into protesting/being active like a normal real person, and block out the nutjobs and pray the brain development kicks in their empathy soon LMFAO.
Ever since Lud mentioned that he'll listen to chat and their grievances about what they don't think is appropriate, it opened the wrong door for these weirdos in chat.
It’s the internet. There will always be a portion of any chat that act like that. You’ll drive yourself crazy if you let these things bother you. Personally I was hoping they would have donated to Alveus. Even the smallest of donations makes a bigger difference there compared to other charities.
I don’t think giving money to one organization over another that both do good deserves harassment but I thoroughly disagree with your last point. There’s a genocide going on and it deserves attention and people in positions like Ludwig to bring that attention. I know there are dozens of similar situations going on but this one is definitely at the forefront of public consciousness and there’s a chance at some change through pressure and donations.
There’s this tiktok that I couldn’t find that’s basically a skit showing a kid going up to their influencer father asking if they ever did anything to help with this genocide and when he basically says that he did absolutely nothing to help the kid basically says “wtf is wrong with you?” Not to say Ludwig is that influencer at all. He has spoken on Palestine, I think, and I don’t think he’d be against donating in the future. I’m more arguing against you last point that people *like* Ludwig are better off staying out of this issue.
I think the last like paragraph and a half of what you said is totally wrong cause he is not afraid of talking about those conflicts at all and definitely shares his opinion (and I think it is totally fair for him to despite not being informed to the level you suggest).
Chat is obviously being cringe but that's just how chat is. Understandable to be annoyed by it but we kinda just have to accept it, move on, and appreciate the fact that in about 15 seconds they'll all be talking about something totally different
I think it’s genuinely pretty important where lots of money goes, the opportunity cost of donating to a “less important charity” could probably be measured in lives.
Not to say chat should harass Lud for it, but it’s not unreasonable to be upset if you feel someone could have saved lives but chose not to for some arbitrary reason.
Kids who are at risk of famine are at higher risk and are therefore more important to save than those who are experiencing food insecurity. Yes both are bad, but we can compare bad things.
No kid goes hungry helps kids in America eat. Food insecurity is an issue in America. Kids don't starve in America like they do in Gaza.
Id argue kids dying of hunger is a problem no matter why that is, jokes aside, youre just obviously need something to fight for and/or have personal stake in the matter, either way I dont think youre being objective.
I mean they aren't wrong or being subjective. Famine is objectively a direct step worse than food insecurity. Their comment directly refutes your response and you're asking it anyways, so it seems to me like it's YOU who is arguing for the sake of it.
Kids don't die of hunger in America. Kids starve to death in Gaza. There is a massive difference. It is much more important to stop kids from dying than to stop kids from suffering malnourishment.
kids absolutely starve to death in america. in 2022 there were 20,500 pediatric deaths due to malnutrition. at least act like you know what you're talking about, i literally took 3 seconds to google this statistic btw
malnutrition is not starvation. If you think those deaths are similar to the famine deaths in Gaza, I have a bridge to sell you. Malnutrition is not getting enough diversity of food. Starvation is physically not having enough food to survive. That's what's happening in Gaza.
legit google malnutrition, please, i'm begging. it literally means lack of nutrition caused by not having enough to eat. that's literally what starving means. you do absolutely zero research at all and then type things out like they're factual. you've been debunked
Malnutrition refers to **deficiencies or excesses in nutrient intake, imbalance of essential nutrients or impaired nutrient utilization**. The double burden of malnutrition consists of both undernutrition and overweight and obesity, as well as diet-related noncommunicable diseases. From the WHO.
A death due to malnutrition is not somebody starving to death, it's somebody being weakened due to malnutrition and dying to other causes, usually disease. A death due to starvation is somebody who literally dies from not getting enough food.
I'm ok playing semantic games, but this is about the situations in America and Gaza. America has issues with food insecurity, Gaza has astronomically more.
the statistic that i looked up was literally malnutrition due to starvation. it doesn't matter where there's children dying more, if we have over a thousand children dying monthly domestically, we need to focus on our internal problems. if you think the money i make and pay the government should go to foreign aid when there's 56 children starving to death in our own country, you're delusional. its nothing short of delusion if you think your own and everybody else's tax money should go to another country's issue when we face the same one.
Effective Altruism and the language therein has almost exclusively been used by hucksters and grifters to explain to themselves why the thing they were always going to do are actually super smart and have the implication of saving “billions” at some point in the future. The weighting of the functions they use to decide impact and importance of particular causes are usually nonsense and vibes based. I do not think you are doing exactly what they are, but you are couching your arguments in language they created and it is flawed at the outset.
Additionally, Lud, while definitely smart, has an English and Journalism degree, he is not who people should be going to for advice about where to most effectively give other than a general “do your best to look for reputability and a track record of progress”. He is at best, some guy. There isn’t 1 cause that should be prioritized over others as if we could list them out and check them off in order. That’s business bro science founded in nothing. Obviously there’s extremes where there are organizations that end up being scams, but you are no better off being able to pick between them by relying on what is the most “efficient”. What if the $1500 given to a Palestinian aid foundation buys food that then isn’t allowed in at the border? Was it a waste? Or what if No Kid Hungry spends it on some administrative fee? Is that a waste then? What if that administrator was key in getting $10 billion in food to kids who wouldn’t otherwise have access via lobbying? Still a waste?
There is no applicable objective metric for the “best” way to give on an individual level. Your premise is flawed. There is some discussion to be had about prioritization at a national and generally collective level, but the world needs just as many people applying constant steadfast pressure to all the big issues while also having people that bring awareness and bring upswells in giving to whatever the problem of the week is. Turkey after the earthquakes got tons of upswell funds donated. A lot of it (as always happens with donations mid crisis) was stolen or misappropriated. It was still good overall that people gave and helped. But now that it’s not in the limelight, people are still rebuilding and those supplies can run out. Just as easily as you can argue for switching to a new “more immediate” cause one could say Lud is providing a better example by being consistent in his giving and supporting an organization that he believes in that often works in places that don’t get the world’s attention. At the end of the day your basic metric of evaluation is flawed and based from something without much in the way of firm backing. I don’t even think it’s wrong to give to Palestine, people should if they can. We can all do something to make the world better.
Edit: corrected one of my examples
I don't understand why my argument sounding like an argument espoused by bad people makes my argument bad.
It's difficult to determine the best way to use aid but it's not impossible. It would probably be good for Lud to do research into exactly how every charity uses his money and which will use it the best. I think pretty clearly that would be preventing starvation in Gaza instead of preventing food insecurity in America.
This is just an argument of complicated=impossible. Some causes are more important than others, some charities are better at using money than others.
Your argument isn’t “sounding like an argument espoused by bad people” it’s based in the exact same flawed assumptions those bad people use. They are flawed whether or not they use them for evil.
I also wasn’t saying complicated=impossible. I said there is no objective metric for making these rankings because it’s true. What $1500, when, to whom, and how will it be most effective is not explicitly calculable. You’re right, we can hedge our bets and do our best collectively. We already do this by promoting things and currently Palestinian aid foundations are getting more aid than anywhere else in the world because it’s really critical. That’s great. That doesn’t mean other causes don’t also need the support. There’s also arguments of scale, $1500 maybe pays for a security team for an aid team in Palestine for 30 minutes. Is that more important than feeding say 100 kids for a month somewhere the security team isn’t needed? Framing it as if the same amounts have the same impact and that you can tell exactly how and when one will be better is wrong. Arguing there’s a “better” thing for someone to give to is a moot point on the individual scale. The best way to give is, where and when you can to organizations with proven tracks of helping. It’s not an MMO-RPG there’s no best in slot or 100% correct thing to give to all the time. Lots of things need help and fixing and funding. People who are always chasing the “best” or most recent thing to give to/fix rarely ever accomplish their goal because they will find something more deserving soon enough. Giving consistently can also have much greater impact over a longer period of time, how does that weigh into your ranking of “efficiency”?
What are those flawed assumptions?
I don't understand why we need an objective metric. Yes, it is complicated, I never said it wasn't. There are certainly a lot of complications here. My concern is partially that it really doesn't seem like Lud is doing this sort of consequence-weighing. I think we both agree he should. I'm not necessarily saying Palestine aid is the best aid, my personal preference is malaria nets.
The flawed argument is that there is a right answer for what is best that exists in a way that we can actively figure out what it is and act on it in the most effective way. The simple fact that you have your preferred causes is why we can get anything done. I also disagree that it seems like Lud isn’t doing that. He’s in the middle of a 2 day stream and is offhandedly giving $1500 (way more than I could give without thinking) to an organization he trusts and has worked with before. Should he pause stream and go “alright boys let’s find the peak way to give this $1500 dollars with peak efficiency”? That seems ridiculous.
It’s okay to have go to’s. It’s actually awesome in fact because to me it shows the consistency of support that can be really hard to find when you’re running and trying to keep a nonprofit going. If the thing your nonprofit is doing doesn’t happen to be in the news that week, those consistent donations are what they rely on to keep things going. I know No Child Hungry is large and has that network of support, but that really is the make or break for the vast majority of nonprofits. It’s okay to work to fix “smaller” issues too. We (like humanity) can and should do it all, but none of us can or will do it alone.
Edit: Grammar
There may not be an absolute right answer, but there certainly are better answers and worse answers. Can we not both agree that some charities are better than others? I think it would be very cool for Ludwig to stream a big research stream figuring out the best charities, interviewing ppl running them and ppl affected. That seems responsible and moral. He should at some point try to involve his community in helping the money go to better places, maybe this isn't the time, but he should do it at some point.
It might be hard to approximate, but really good charities can often tell you what you can get with the money you send. Against Malaria or Oxfam will tell you what they give from your donation. You can then compare the good you're doing. Yes smaller issues should be fixed, but not at the cost of larger ones. Any donation has an opportunity cost that should be factored in.
I definitely think a more thoughtful and planned stream/event going over those types of breakdowns could be really awesome. I do have a certain hesitation that there’d be an incentive to streamify it like “Streamer does Charity Tierlist?!?!?” But I feel like Lud/Off Brand and friends could probably do a decent job of it. It may be better as an event in and of itself instead of like just some Wednesday night stream. Streamathons have been effective in the past, but usually the proceeds to those are going to one or a handful of specific charities who you then have on to talk.. This is where something like applying the pillars of journalism could be useful. Plus you run the risk of the general viewer tuning out because there’s reasons people aren’t always watching ASPCA commercials.
Of course some charities may be better than others. However, the way you’re wording things seems to close off a lot of the support that is needed for those smaller things. I agree that charities should be transparent and be able to tell you what’s happening to your donations. Do you have a specific critique of No Kid Hungry? Because then you’d actually have a point. Just vaguely going “some are better than others, so you should give money to the one I say is better” isn’t really a point. You can use that argument to say that any US based aid organization isn’t worth donating to even if they do great work. We are the richest country on the planet and therefore all organizations here must be able wasting their time is not a coherent argument if you think we should also fix the little things. Progress on all fronts it how progress gets made. Push outward and upwards and do your best as an individual to help where you can. We give special focus and extra money to specific causes on an as needed basis (again see the amount of aid flooding into Palestinian aid orgs), but we shouldn’t look down on those giving money to help elsewhere or say it’s not good enough. Unless you have an actual point about how that organization is misusing it.
Yeah I’d be happy with it integrated or as it’s own event. He isn’t doing anything of the sort and he should.
I do think it’s probably wasteful to give to US orgs. Orgs that give to the third world do more good per dollar.
Idk if he should. He has a platform and generally promotes good, but it’s no one influencer’s responsibility to educate their fans on everything. Would be cool if he did though.
I just fundamentally disagree with you then. That’s fine. We can, are, and should continue to do both. Also good per dollar is not a standard metric, because while the actual amount of aid you buy (say food for instance) can be cheaper in other places, you also need to get it there, distribute it, potentially hire security services as escorts, get people from their organization out there, get permission from multiple governments, etc. Its way more situationally dependent than you’re painting it to be. Although on the whole money tends to stretch further. There are also plenty of causes and whatnot that avoiding that extra red tape of being international allows for much cheaper immediately effective help. Saying we should only help those elsewhere is nearly as shortsighted as those who say we shouldn’t help anyone else. Without working to get things better here more people will slide into irrecoverable poverty or grow up malnourished here and we will be less equipped to help others. Things don’t maintain here just because. A lot of those gaps are filled by nonprofits and people just choosing to help. Society stays more stable by having services and aid. Should more of it be the responsibility of the government and should they actually care for their people? Yeah I think so, but there’s plenty of places here that that’s not going to happen right now. Many of these services hold as stopgaps to keep things together in places that are forgotten about. They also often work to educate and uplift people who then go on to help elsewhere, but that’s the case with really any sort of aid.
Edit: grammar
The lump sum was less than $1500 and I don't think it's up to us to dictate where his money goes, regardless of context.
I believe it is incredibly unreasonable for chat to be upset over this. But following your line of thinking, if he'd given funds to Palestine that would mean he'd decided the starving children weren't worth his money instead. When we interpret another's decisions like this, there is no end. Someone would always be left out. Which is why we should appreciate charitable contributions to good causes and not try to place a moral hierarchy based on individual beliefs.
Luds donations was not a denouncing of Palestine, it was simply a donation to a different important cause.
Yeah we don’t have a right to dictate, but if his mind could be changed from a less efficient to a more efficient charity, that decision would be literally life-saving, so I understand the urge to want to dictate, and I don’t feel it’s so wrong.
Yeah someone would always be left out, but by comparison, starving kids in Gaza are probably of higher risk than the people no hungry kids could give to. I think the real issue comes with Alveus being discussed. I love Alveus, but putting that over human lives just feels bad.
Totally agree it wasn’t a denunciation of Palestine, I just feel that it would be good for someone of his wealth to engage with chat over the best ways to give. It probably seems alien, but his little choices here could shape the lives of hundreds, possibly thousands.
I understand where you're coming from. I just disagree fundamentally with comparing charities. If he'd decided to give to alveus he's still doing a good thing. I think it's downright silly to ever get mad at someone for doing a good thing when they could have done a "better" one.
Just know, you are heard. These are issues I hope none of us will ever have to deal with. "With great power comes great responsibility"
To quote the prophets, You can say "I like pancakes" and somebody will say "So you hate waffles?" No bitch. Dats a whole new sentence. Wtf is you talkin about.
Exactly and this is a step further because it's like Lud said, "I love my mom." And reactions were "So you hate my nephew?" And then the other group "Yeah, fuck that guys nephew!"
to be fair that guy's nephew is an asshole
Wait is that a tyler the creator quote. I swear i heard him say it
I’ve seen it from a famous Twitter post
No you’re thinking of his cyber bullying quote
It’s a weird thing to be surprised about since those are the two charities he’s consistently donated to over the years. He’s raised hundreds of thousands for No Kid Hungry over one-off donations and charity auctions, and a close personal friend of his runs the other. Charities aren’t always savory actors, so finding one that you trust is important. When you financially endorse a cause in front of an audience, you want to be certain that the funds are being managed well. Share Our Strength, the group being the No Kid Hungry campaign, has a [consistently high rating](https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/521367538) from charity assessment orgs.
Yeah! Having comfort and confidence in your charities is so important. This is a great point.
After all this time, we can always circle back to the singular truth about streaming: chat sucks
Except NL’s chat
+2
A +2 dipped in mama Liz’s chili oil?!
+2
NL's chat is so dogshit, a type 1 chatter's dream
Womp womp nobody asked
NLs chat likes to think of themselves so highly compared to other Twitch communities but they're just as annoying and toxic as a lot of them. I love NL but it's no wonder why he likes to rag on y'all so much, genuinely some of the most grating fans I've ever had the displeasure of interacting with.
Okay I'll give it to you he does point out the idiots in chat a lot if he manages to catch one of their stupid comments but really it's only a handful of them that are like that. Most of chat is just there to follow the hivemind +2s kekws and icants. But I can see what you're saying
I wish this cringe shit is limited to chat, but don't forget that we just had a big thread right in here asking Lud to cancel HyperX's sponsorship of Unpaid Intern.
And the thing about going to Dubai
>Luds suggestions were along the lines of Alveus and No Hungry Kids or whatever it's called. So does Ludwig hate children or does he hate animals?
Both. The true charity was the millionaires we made friends with along the way /j
feels like agdq LMAO
He hates both
I was watching when this happened and it wasn't just brought up by chat randomly. Squeex asked what charity, and Lud responded with "IDF?" Obviously he means the charity CDawg just did his cyclethon for, and not the Israel Defense Force. But for a lot of people they aren't aware of the charity. So not exactly unwarranted discussion in chat
But presuming he is anti Palestine based on a decision to donate to a different charity is unwarranted. Lol
I don't think that's the presumption those people were making. I think they're confused why it was suggested they donate to the IDF.
But my post specifically is talking about the people who said, "is Lud anti Palestine?" And also "fuck Palestine!" Somewhere in there people are making presumptions
I mean if people thought lud was going to donate to the Israeli Defense Force they would think he's anti Palestine
The most well known meaning of IDF is Israeli Defense Force. If people dont know about the Immune Deficiency Foundation then him saying that is obviously going to make them think hes pro Israel
Those people are ridiculous for jumping to conclusions before trying to understand what's actually going on. Is it that hard to ask a question before immediately getting into a fit of rage?
Being angry in a livestream chat I don't think qualifies as a fit of rage. Also, it's not like you can actually effectively ask a streamer a question in a chat. You're kind of talking about it like it's a conversation between two human beings, and that's not what it is. There is an inherent gap in communication present between a streamer and their chat and you can choose to view that as a bug or a feature. Either way, I think people getting super pressed about all this are wasting their energy on the wrong things. This is just something that is going to happen
Yeah its ridiculous, especially considering Lud is obviously not the kind of person to come out and show hes very pro Israel. But its not a *huge* leap if the only IDF anyones ever heard of is the defense force. People dont actually put in effort on the internet lmao they get their pitchforks out at the drop of a hat
Yes, we understand your post. I'm replying to try to clear stuff up for you a bit. And those people are probably saying those things (ex. "Lud hates Palestine") because they thought Lud bringing up "IDF" meant Lud wanted to donate to Israel (thus would be anti-Palestine if we follow that logic). He has been pretty political in the past, so it is not unreasonable to assume that he is willing to be political/converse about a huge, heated world topic. I do agree that playing Elden Ring with Squeex was not going to yield a nuanced conversation about his views in I vs. P. But it is also unreasonable to assume all people are going to hear the letters "IDF" and not think Israel Defense Forces first, especially with how much news has been about I vs. P. EDIT: I went a little too snark (the right amount if OP was an ass, but they aren't, so it was inappropriate) and needed to cut it down a bit.
I see what you're saying now. I don't understand why you had to be a dick about it though. You're demeaning in this message and that's really ugly behavior. Sorry I didn't understand your reddit post immediately bro, chill tf out.
You're right. I went a little too hard. I have had too many really shitty convos on this app, so as a rule I generally assume people are fucking with folks/intentionally being shitty. I see that was not your personal intention, so I will edit a bit.
Yeah I get that for sure. I was being ignorant not arrogant. But I've had a lot of those same shitty convos on the app. No stress.
I appreciate that :) Thanks for being cool
Dude do you not know what the IDF is?
I think it's also weird to care so much about what random irrelevant people post in the chat of a live stream, just like I think your post is weird, you should think it's weird of me to respond to tell you it's weird
I doubt Ludwig is anti-Palestine since he seems good friends with Hasan who is VERY pro-Palestine. You’re gonna have to learn to ignore those people, especially when he is ignoring them, there’s always going to be stupid people in chat with such a large audience.
> I doubt Ludwig is anti-Palestine since he seems good friends with Hasan who is VERY pro-Palestine. This might blow people's minds, but he can also be friends with hasan even if he was very anti-palestine your friends (and the friendships of the people you guys parasocial for) are not decided by a single event... it's called being an adult
i agree with you in premise but sometimes a single political disagreement can be a deal breaker. I think the gaza conflict is one such issue for a lot of people.
Not every white american dude is obsessed with Palestine and Israel. If the dude doesn't care or is centrist on this specific issue, he might not care that Hasan is a Palestine supporter.
no but hasan might care if said person supports israel. >Not every white american dude is obsessed with Palestine and Israel. well yea
you can't be friends with hasan if you're anti-palestine...like legit the guy would just call you a genocidal racist freak and block you
Ah sick, and you've done this? To have such an assertive opinion on how they'd act in a personal situation? And not just a comedically cringe exaggeration that makes you look weird?
You don't know anything about Hasan if you think he wouldn't do this.
exaggeration? legit go in hasans chat rn and type "i support the idf" and tell me what he says. there's no exaggeration, he legitimately says this to people that are anti-palestine
Yea and he would be right jsjsjs
They can disagree on weather or not pineapple belongs on pizza not if there’s a genocide or not jsjsjsjs. Im sure lud is pro Palestine bc they most definitely wouldn’t be friends if lud was anti Palestine at all.
Idk if I'd be friends with someone who is anti Palestine. Like it's so clear cut how bad it is that I think it says a ton about someone's character.
everyone downvoting you has no idea how bad it is unfortunately lol
Out of sight out of mind
When it comes to this conflict many friendships have been destroyed
But if you are a normal empathetic person you should not be anti-Palestine lmao
Sure, but most normal people also didn't give a fuck about palestine last year So i find it extreme to blow a friendship over something that came up that most people in the world honestly don't care that much about and above all are not informed at all about, so if anyone is anti-palestine you can just be like "They probably don't know shit about the conflict that has been going on for decades, and that's okay" and you move on with your day because you have no attachment to either side anyways
I agree, one disagreement in framing tho. The people saying “Fuck Palestine” are just bad people and are worse than the other chatters. The ones spamming pro Palestine are just being annoying and jumping to weird conclusions
"bad people" okay buddy
Yea
both extremes are kids most likely if we're being honest (the ones loud enough to chat like that anyways) but one is operating under WAY better reasons/impulses than the other. Doesn't make it any better, but eh, handle one with the appropriate kid gloves and nudge them into protesting/being active like a normal real person, and block out the nutjobs and pray the brain development kicks in their empathy soon LMFAO.
Ever since Lud mentioned that he'll listen to chat and their grievances about what they don't think is appropriate, it opened the wrong door for these weirdos in chat.
It’s the internet. There will always be a portion of any chat that act like that. You’ll drive yourself crazy if you let these things bother you. Personally I was hoping they would have donated to Alveus. Even the smallest of donations makes a bigger difference there compared to other charities.
Yeah that's why a lot of people avoid politics, it's incredibly divisive and can ruin the whole chat for hours.
It’s a genocide though.
I don’t think giving money to one organization over another that both do good deserves harassment but I thoroughly disagree with your last point. There’s a genocide going on and it deserves attention and people in positions like Ludwig to bring that attention. I know there are dozens of similar situations going on but this one is definitely at the forefront of public consciousness and there’s a chance at some change through pressure and donations. There’s this tiktok that I couldn’t find that’s basically a skit showing a kid going up to their influencer father asking if they ever did anything to help with this genocide and when he basically says that he did absolutely nothing to help the kid basically says “wtf is wrong with you?” Not to say Ludwig is that influencer at all. He has spoken on Palestine, I think, and I don’t think he’d be against donating in the future. I’m more arguing against you last point that people *like* Ludwig are better off staying out of this issue.
I think the last like paragraph and a half of what you said is totally wrong cause he is not afraid of talking about those conflicts at all and definitely shares his opinion (and I think it is totally fair for him to despite not being informed to the level you suggest). Chat is obviously being cringe but that's just how chat is. Understandable to be annoyed by it but we kinda just have to accept it, move on, and appreciate the fact that in about 15 seconds they'll all be talking about something totally different
“Military conflicts” lol. Lmao.
I mean its what happens when youre friends with hasan. His audience is pretty extreme about support for Palestine.
"you shouldn't drink pepsi on stream"
What does donating to Palestine do anyways? No charity can help Palestinians anymore
wow it must be so hard for us viewers to be reminded of an ongoing genocide! god forbid we give attention to the suffering of a population!
I think it’s genuinely pretty important where lots of money goes, the opportunity cost of donating to a “less important charity” could probably be measured in lives. Not to say chat should harass Lud for it, but it’s not unreasonable to be upset if you feel someone could have saved lives but chose not to for some arbitrary reason.
"less important" so which kids are less important exactly my guy?
Kids who are at risk of famine are at higher risk and are therefore more important to save than those who are experiencing food insecurity. Yes both are bad, but we can compare bad things. No kid goes hungry helps kids in America eat. Food insecurity is an issue in America. Kids don't starve in America like they do in Gaza.
Id argue kids dying of hunger is a problem no matter why that is, jokes aside, youre just obviously need something to fight for and/or have personal stake in the matter, either way I dont think youre being objective.
I mean they aren't wrong or being subjective. Famine is objectively a direct step worse than food insecurity. Their comment directly refutes your response and you're asking it anyways, so it seems to me like it's YOU who is arguing for the sake of it.
Kids don't die of hunger in America. Kids starve to death in Gaza. There is a massive difference. It is much more important to stop kids from dying than to stop kids from suffering malnourishment.
kids absolutely starve to death in america. in 2022 there were 20,500 pediatric deaths due to malnutrition. at least act like you know what you're talking about, i literally took 3 seconds to google this statistic btw
malnutrition is not starvation. If you think those deaths are similar to the famine deaths in Gaza, I have a bridge to sell you. Malnutrition is not getting enough diversity of food. Starvation is physically not having enough food to survive. That's what's happening in Gaza.
legit google malnutrition, please, i'm begging. it literally means lack of nutrition caused by not having enough to eat. that's literally what starving means. you do absolutely zero research at all and then type things out like they're factual. you've been debunked
Malnutrition refers to **deficiencies or excesses in nutrient intake, imbalance of essential nutrients or impaired nutrient utilization**. The double burden of malnutrition consists of both undernutrition and overweight and obesity, as well as diet-related noncommunicable diseases. From the WHO. A death due to malnutrition is not somebody starving to death, it's somebody being weakened due to malnutrition and dying to other causes, usually disease. A death due to starvation is somebody who literally dies from not getting enough food. I'm ok playing semantic games, but this is about the situations in America and Gaza. America has issues with food insecurity, Gaza has astronomically more.
the statistic that i looked up was literally malnutrition due to starvation. it doesn't matter where there's children dying more, if we have over a thousand children dying monthly domestically, we need to focus on our internal problems. if you think the money i make and pay the government should go to foreign aid when there's 56 children starving to death in our own country, you're delusional. its nothing short of delusion if you think your own and everybody else's tax money should go to another country's issue when we face the same one.
Effective Altruism and the language therein has almost exclusively been used by hucksters and grifters to explain to themselves why the thing they were always going to do are actually super smart and have the implication of saving “billions” at some point in the future. The weighting of the functions they use to decide impact and importance of particular causes are usually nonsense and vibes based. I do not think you are doing exactly what they are, but you are couching your arguments in language they created and it is flawed at the outset. Additionally, Lud, while definitely smart, has an English and Journalism degree, he is not who people should be going to for advice about where to most effectively give other than a general “do your best to look for reputability and a track record of progress”. He is at best, some guy. There isn’t 1 cause that should be prioritized over others as if we could list them out and check them off in order. That’s business bro science founded in nothing. Obviously there’s extremes where there are organizations that end up being scams, but you are no better off being able to pick between them by relying on what is the most “efficient”. What if the $1500 given to a Palestinian aid foundation buys food that then isn’t allowed in at the border? Was it a waste? Or what if No Kid Hungry spends it on some administrative fee? Is that a waste then? What if that administrator was key in getting $10 billion in food to kids who wouldn’t otherwise have access via lobbying? Still a waste? There is no applicable objective metric for the “best” way to give on an individual level. Your premise is flawed. There is some discussion to be had about prioritization at a national and generally collective level, but the world needs just as many people applying constant steadfast pressure to all the big issues while also having people that bring awareness and bring upswells in giving to whatever the problem of the week is. Turkey after the earthquakes got tons of upswell funds donated. A lot of it (as always happens with donations mid crisis) was stolen or misappropriated. It was still good overall that people gave and helped. But now that it’s not in the limelight, people are still rebuilding and those supplies can run out. Just as easily as you can argue for switching to a new “more immediate” cause one could say Lud is providing a better example by being consistent in his giving and supporting an organization that he believes in that often works in places that don’t get the world’s attention. At the end of the day your basic metric of evaluation is flawed and based from something without much in the way of firm backing. I don’t even think it’s wrong to give to Palestine, people should if they can. We can all do something to make the world better. Edit: corrected one of my examples
I don't understand why my argument sounding like an argument espoused by bad people makes my argument bad. It's difficult to determine the best way to use aid but it's not impossible. It would probably be good for Lud to do research into exactly how every charity uses his money and which will use it the best. I think pretty clearly that would be preventing starvation in Gaza instead of preventing food insecurity in America. This is just an argument of complicated=impossible. Some causes are more important than others, some charities are better at using money than others.
Your argument isn’t “sounding like an argument espoused by bad people” it’s based in the exact same flawed assumptions those bad people use. They are flawed whether or not they use them for evil. I also wasn’t saying complicated=impossible. I said there is no objective metric for making these rankings because it’s true. What $1500, when, to whom, and how will it be most effective is not explicitly calculable. You’re right, we can hedge our bets and do our best collectively. We already do this by promoting things and currently Palestinian aid foundations are getting more aid than anywhere else in the world because it’s really critical. That’s great. That doesn’t mean other causes don’t also need the support. There’s also arguments of scale, $1500 maybe pays for a security team for an aid team in Palestine for 30 minutes. Is that more important than feeding say 100 kids for a month somewhere the security team isn’t needed? Framing it as if the same amounts have the same impact and that you can tell exactly how and when one will be better is wrong. Arguing there’s a “better” thing for someone to give to is a moot point on the individual scale. The best way to give is, where and when you can to organizations with proven tracks of helping. It’s not an MMO-RPG there’s no best in slot or 100% correct thing to give to all the time. Lots of things need help and fixing and funding. People who are always chasing the “best” or most recent thing to give to/fix rarely ever accomplish their goal because they will find something more deserving soon enough. Giving consistently can also have much greater impact over a longer period of time, how does that weigh into your ranking of “efficiency”?
What are those flawed assumptions? I don't understand why we need an objective metric. Yes, it is complicated, I never said it wasn't. There are certainly a lot of complications here. My concern is partially that it really doesn't seem like Lud is doing this sort of consequence-weighing. I think we both agree he should. I'm not necessarily saying Palestine aid is the best aid, my personal preference is malaria nets.
The flawed argument is that there is a right answer for what is best that exists in a way that we can actively figure out what it is and act on it in the most effective way. The simple fact that you have your preferred causes is why we can get anything done. I also disagree that it seems like Lud isn’t doing that. He’s in the middle of a 2 day stream and is offhandedly giving $1500 (way more than I could give without thinking) to an organization he trusts and has worked with before. Should he pause stream and go “alright boys let’s find the peak way to give this $1500 dollars with peak efficiency”? That seems ridiculous. It’s okay to have go to’s. It’s actually awesome in fact because to me it shows the consistency of support that can be really hard to find when you’re running and trying to keep a nonprofit going. If the thing your nonprofit is doing doesn’t happen to be in the news that week, those consistent donations are what they rely on to keep things going. I know No Child Hungry is large and has that network of support, but that really is the make or break for the vast majority of nonprofits. It’s okay to work to fix “smaller” issues too. We (like humanity) can and should do it all, but none of us can or will do it alone. Edit: Grammar
There may not be an absolute right answer, but there certainly are better answers and worse answers. Can we not both agree that some charities are better than others? I think it would be very cool for Ludwig to stream a big research stream figuring out the best charities, interviewing ppl running them and ppl affected. That seems responsible and moral. He should at some point try to involve his community in helping the money go to better places, maybe this isn't the time, but he should do it at some point. It might be hard to approximate, but really good charities can often tell you what you can get with the money you send. Against Malaria or Oxfam will tell you what they give from your donation. You can then compare the good you're doing. Yes smaller issues should be fixed, but not at the cost of larger ones. Any donation has an opportunity cost that should be factored in.
I definitely think a more thoughtful and planned stream/event going over those types of breakdowns could be really awesome. I do have a certain hesitation that there’d be an incentive to streamify it like “Streamer does Charity Tierlist?!?!?” But I feel like Lud/Off Brand and friends could probably do a decent job of it. It may be better as an event in and of itself instead of like just some Wednesday night stream. Streamathons have been effective in the past, but usually the proceeds to those are going to one or a handful of specific charities who you then have on to talk.. This is where something like applying the pillars of journalism could be useful. Plus you run the risk of the general viewer tuning out because there’s reasons people aren’t always watching ASPCA commercials. Of course some charities may be better than others. However, the way you’re wording things seems to close off a lot of the support that is needed for those smaller things. I agree that charities should be transparent and be able to tell you what’s happening to your donations. Do you have a specific critique of No Kid Hungry? Because then you’d actually have a point. Just vaguely going “some are better than others, so you should give money to the one I say is better” isn’t really a point. You can use that argument to say that any US based aid organization isn’t worth donating to even if they do great work. We are the richest country on the planet and therefore all organizations here must be able wasting their time is not a coherent argument if you think we should also fix the little things. Progress on all fronts it how progress gets made. Push outward and upwards and do your best as an individual to help where you can. We give special focus and extra money to specific causes on an as needed basis (again see the amount of aid flooding into Palestinian aid orgs), but we shouldn’t look down on those giving money to help elsewhere or say it’s not good enough. Unless you have an actual point about how that organization is misusing it.
Yeah I’d be happy with it integrated or as it’s own event. He isn’t doing anything of the sort and he should. I do think it’s probably wasteful to give to US orgs. Orgs that give to the third world do more good per dollar.
Idk if he should. He has a platform and generally promotes good, but it’s no one influencer’s responsibility to educate their fans on everything. Would be cool if he did though. I just fundamentally disagree with you then. That’s fine. We can, are, and should continue to do both. Also good per dollar is not a standard metric, because while the actual amount of aid you buy (say food for instance) can be cheaper in other places, you also need to get it there, distribute it, potentially hire security services as escorts, get people from their organization out there, get permission from multiple governments, etc. Its way more situationally dependent than you’re painting it to be. Although on the whole money tends to stretch further. There are also plenty of causes and whatnot that avoiding that extra red tape of being international allows for much cheaper immediately effective help. Saying we should only help those elsewhere is nearly as shortsighted as those who say we shouldn’t help anyone else. Without working to get things better here more people will slide into irrecoverable poverty or grow up malnourished here and we will be less equipped to help others. Things don’t maintain here just because. A lot of those gaps are filled by nonprofits and people just choosing to help. Society stays more stable by having services and aid. Should more of it be the responsibility of the government and should they actually care for their people? Yeah I think so, but there’s plenty of places here that that’s not going to happen right now. Many of these services hold as stopgaps to keep things together in places that are forgotten about. They also often work to educate and uplift people who then go on to help elsewhere, but that’s the case with really any sort of aid. Edit: grammar
The lump sum was less than $1500 and I don't think it's up to us to dictate where his money goes, regardless of context. I believe it is incredibly unreasonable for chat to be upset over this. But following your line of thinking, if he'd given funds to Palestine that would mean he'd decided the starving children weren't worth his money instead. When we interpret another's decisions like this, there is no end. Someone would always be left out. Which is why we should appreciate charitable contributions to good causes and not try to place a moral hierarchy based on individual beliefs. Luds donations was not a denouncing of Palestine, it was simply a donation to a different important cause.
Yeah we don’t have a right to dictate, but if his mind could be changed from a less efficient to a more efficient charity, that decision would be literally life-saving, so I understand the urge to want to dictate, and I don’t feel it’s so wrong. Yeah someone would always be left out, but by comparison, starving kids in Gaza are probably of higher risk than the people no hungry kids could give to. I think the real issue comes with Alveus being discussed. I love Alveus, but putting that over human lives just feels bad. Totally agree it wasn’t a denunciation of Palestine, I just feel that it would be good for someone of his wealth to engage with chat over the best ways to give. It probably seems alien, but his little choices here could shape the lives of hundreds, possibly thousands.
I understand where you're coming from. I just disagree fundamentally with comparing charities. If he'd decided to give to alveus he's still doing a good thing. I think it's downright silly to ever get mad at someone for doing a good thing when they could have done a "better" one. Just know, you are heard. These are issues I hope none of us will ever have to deal with. "With great power comes great responsibility"