Toys 4 tots, wasteful stupidity?

[Britan]

(and honestly, who puts the lid on something without actually twisting it closed???)

*raises hand sheepishly*
I’ve had several water bottle spills this way in the last month. I have no excuse for myself haha.

[Chris Pascale]

(and honestly, who puts the lid on something without actually twisting it closed???)

*raises hand sheepishly*
I’ve had several water bottle spills this way in the last month. I have no excuse for myself haha.

I was going to isolate the same part!

[Chris Pascale]

As a very young man I put a couple presents in the T4T bin.

Today, I have a small amount of cash each month go to The Deskovic Foundation, which is like The Innocence Project, but its own thing.

[GuitarStv]

(and honestly, who puts the lid on something without actually twisting it closed???)

*raises hand sheepishly*
I’ve had several water bottle spills this way in the last month. I have no excuse for myself haha.

I was going to isolate the same part!

  . . . monsters.  That's who.  Monsters who set traps for other people in the house.  :P

[Britan]

(and honestly, who puts the lid on something without actually twisting it closed???)

*raises hand sheepishly*
I’ve had several water bottle spills this way in the last month. I have no excuse for myself haha.

I was going to isolate the same part!

  . . . monsters.  That's who.  Monsters who set traps for other people in the house.  :P

I won’t deny it lmao.

[Chris22]

Skimmed the thread so apologies if I missed it, but here’s another side of it: we use T4T to teach our own kids about giving. We give money to other charities, where it’s probably used “better”, but my kids, especially my 4y/o, doesn’t really understand that. Seeing me type a CC number into a web site or mail a check off doesn’t resonate with my kids. But we make a big show of going to Target and letting them each choose a couple toys, with a budget they have to manage, and then taking those toys to a place and giving them away, and we talk about why we’re doing it and that makes an impact on them. They look forward to the ritual every year. And it creates an environment where giving is important and a part of the holiday season. When they get older we can bring cost/benefit into it, and what charities they want to support and all that, but it will be built on the ground work of “it’s important to buy toys for kids who don’t have toys” that we do with T4T.

[Scandium]

Gotta say (as a non-thief) Judas has a pretty valid point.  Pouring perfume on someone's (even Jesus') feet is a waste.

Back before I gave up on the religion thing, always found that story a bit hard to make sense of.  But there is something to it I think.

Setting the specific religion aside, isn't there a point here that we all waste an enormous amount, and that anything at all that we do or enjoy for ourselves or for others is a waste in comparison to something better that you could do with the money? 

Pretty much everything in your fridge right now could be something cheaper and you could have given the difference in cost to the needy.  Hard to justify a roast chicken or lasagna compared to a pot of beans. I shudder to think what other extravagances you might be throwing money away on.  Your family could just eat oats for breakfast and lentils and rice the rest of the day and maybe some carrots or apples or something and you'd have three solid meals ...

Wait, what's that?  *Three* meals you say ...? 

Enjoying anything beyond the bare minimal needs for sustenance, or contributing to others enjoying the same, is an extravagance.

No matter what you do, you could always do something better. At some point you just have to draw the line. Peter Singer has given this a lot of thought and the whole question of how much is enough. His semi-recent book "The Life You Can Save" is thoughtful, and he's got a TED talk on what he calls "effective altruism" that likewise is worth a gander for anyone concerned about figuring out where to draw that line.

Regardless though, yeah, I totally agree with @warlord that it's hard and kind of sad to imagine poor kids getting toys for Christmas as cause for moral outrage. 

(edited for coherence)

This seems a confluence of "if you can't do it perfect do nothing at all", and missing the holistic picture. I don't understand why that seems so hard for people to grasp? It's not "kid gets toy, or not. Kid sad". It's kid gets toy, or other kid gets a meal (or even the same kid).

Yes you have to draw the line somewhere, obviously. No I'm not drawing it at give all my assets away and commit seppuku to spare the planet. Call me a monster.

I am drawing the line at giving brand new in box toys to kids who, on a global scale, have it pretty well, and instead giving that to someone lacking food or basic medicine that could save a life. A child dies so another kid who has a home, water, food and a bed can get Lego? Is that valid reason for moral outrage?

[Scandium]

Skimmed the thread so apologies if I missed it, but here’s another side of it: we use T4T to teach our own kids about giving. We give money to other charities, where it’s probably used “better”, but my kids, especially my 4y/o, doesn’t really understand that. Seeing me type a CC number into a web site or mail a check off doesn’t resonate with my kids. But we make a big show of going to Target and letting them each choose a couple toys, with a budget they have to manage, and then taking those toys to a place and giving them away, and we talk about why we’re doing it and that makes an impact on them. They look forward to the ritual every year. And it creates an environment where giving is important and a part of the holiday season. When they get older we can bring cost/benefit into it, and what charities they want to support and all that, but it will be built on the ground work of “it’s important to buy toys for kids who don’t have toys” that we do with T4T.

This is valid and useful, we've been wondering how we can teach this in a more tangible way. We have taken the kids to volunteering doing physical labor at a local community farm. But giving stuff is a different lesson.

[LaineyAZ]

The way these toys-for-Christmas charities are set up are sometimes for a reason.

The time and effort to sort through donations can be substantial.  If you let people give whatever they want you will get a whole bunch of unusable junk, and disposing of that takes up resources.  Is it wasteful to only take new-in-box donations?  Yes.  It's also wasteful to expend employee or volunteer hours sorting through a wide range of crap dumped on your doorstep.  Those person-hours are finite, too.

People donate what gives them a psychological return.  There are people who will only give a certain thing (toys for kids, a can of food in a food drive box) because that's what makes them feel good.  You'll never get the monetary equivalent from them for faraway, conceptual charitable projects.  It will stay in their pockets.  Donors requiring satisfactory gratitude for their donation is a substantial part of the giving calculus.

There is also a high level of trust needed in charitable giving.  I can see donating a toy feeling far safer than giving hundreds or thousands of dollars that can be more easily misused or stolen.  Again, in many cases it's the tangible thing being given or nothing.

You can argue against the "rightness" of any of this but it's the reality of charitable giving.

Seconding all of this.

I don't think I've ever given to T4T. I usually make a donation to the local Goodfellows chapter, which has very little overhead and uses volunteers and nearly all donations to deliver food, hygiene products, clothes, and yes, a toy or two to poor kids in our community. My dad grew up in a poor immigrant family in Detroit, and he's always said that the Goodfellows were the only reason why he and his siblings got Christmas gifts. My grandparents could barely afford the basics. Getting gifts made the kids feel like they were as deserving as the richer kids whose parents could afford more.

Otherwise, I'm a big fan of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. That's another one with very little overhead, a focus on relieving emergency situations (feeding families that have run out of food for the month, helping keep heat on in a cold snap, securing shelter and clothing for people escaping abusive situations, setting up appointments for longer-term help), and a direct impact in the community. We also have a couple of orgs who help resettle refugees in the community.

This thread is a good reminder to start sending out donations.

Is it Goodfellows, or Oddfellows?  I've heard of Oddfellows lodges, and their sister group, Rebekahs.

[Sailor Sam]

Gotta say (as a non-thief) Judas has a pretty valid point.  Pouring perfume on someone's (even Jesus') feet is a waste.

Back before I gave up on the religion thing, always found that story a bit hard to make sense of.  But there is something to it I think.

Setting the specific religion aside, isn't there a point here that we all waste an enormous amount, and that anything at all that we do or enjoy for ourselves or for others is a waste in comparison to something better that you could do with the money? 

Pretty much everything in your fridge right now could be something cheaper and you could have given the difference in cost to the needy.  Hard to justify a roast chicken or lasagna compared to a pot of beans. I shudder to think what other extravagances you might be throwing money away on.  Your family could just eat oats for breakfast and lentils and rice the rest of the day and maybe some carrots or apples or something and you'd have three solid meals ...

Wait, what's that?  *Three* meals you say ...? 

Enjoying anything beyond the bare minimal needs for sustenance, or contributing to others enjoying the same, is an extravagance.

No matter what you do, you could always do something better. At some point you just have to draw the line. Peter Singer has given this a lot of thought and the whole question of how much is enough. His semi-recent book "The Life You Can Save" is thoughtful, and he's got a TED talk on what he calls "effective altruism" that likewise is worth a gander for anyone concerned about figuring out where to draw that line.

Regardless though, yeah, I totally agree with @warlord that it's hard and kind of sad to imagine poor kids getting toys for Christmas as cause for moral outrage. 

(edited for coherence)

This seems a confluence of "if you can't do it perfect do nothing at all", and missing the holistic picture. I don't understand why that seems so hard for people to grasp? It's not "kid gets toy, or not. Kid sad". It's kid gets toy, or other kid gets a meal (or even the same kid).

Yes you have to draw the line somewhere, obviously. No I'm not drawing it at give all my assets away and commit seppuku to spare the planet. Call me a monster.

I am drawing the line at giving brand new in box toys to kids who, on a global scale, have it pretty well, and instead giving that to someone lacking food or basic medicine that could save a life. A child dies so another kid who has a home, water, food and a bed can get Lego? Is that valid reason for moral outrage?

Only if you’re prepared to acknowledge the moral outrage of those who judge you for not giving away all your assets. If you accept that, then sure, draw your line. If you get butthurt about it, then acknowledge your own line is arbitrary.

Easy peasy.

[Scandium]

Gotta say (as a non-thief) Judas has a pretty valid point.  Pouring perfume on someone's (even Jesus') feet is a waste.

Back before I gave up on the religion thing, always found that story a bit hard to make sense of.  But there is something to it I think.

Setting the specific religion aside, isn't there a point here that we all waste an enormous amount, and that anything at all that we do or enjoy for ourselves or for others is a waste in comparison to something better that you could do with the money? 

Pretty much everything in your fridge right now could be something cheaper and you could have given the difference in cost to the needy.  Hard to justify a roast chicken or lasagna compared to a pot of beans. I shudder to think what other extravagances you might be throwing money away on.  Your family could just eat oats for breakfast and lentils and rice the rest of the day and maybe some carrots or apples or something and you'd have three solid meals ...

Wait, what's that?  *Three* meals you say ...? 

Enjoying anything beyond the bare minimal needs for sustenance, or contributing to others enjoying the same, is an extravagance.

No matter what you do, you could always do something better. At some point you just have to draw the line. Peter Singer has given this a lot of thought and the whole question of how much is enough. His semi-recent book "The Life You Can Save" is thoughtful, and he's got a TED talk on what he calls "effective altruism" that likewise is worth a gander for anyone concerned about figuring out where to draw that line.

Regardless though, yeah, I totally agree with @warlord that it's hard and kind of sad to imagine poor kids getting toys for Christmas as cause for moral outrage. 

(edited for coherence)

This seems a confluence of "if you can't do it perfect do nothing at all", and missing the holistic picture. I don't understand why that seems so hard for people to grasp? It's not "kid gets toy, or not. Kid sad". It's kid gets toy, or other kid gets a meal (or even the same kid).

Yes you have to draw the line somewhere, obviously. No I'm not drawing it at give all my assets away and commit seppuku to spare the planet. Call me a monster.

I am drawing the line at giving brand new in box toys to kids who, on a global scale, have it pretty well, and instead giving that to someone lacking food or basic medicine that could save a life. A child dies so another kid who has a home, water, food and a bed can get Lego? Is that valid reason for moral outrage?

Only if you’re prepared to acknowledge the moral outrage of those who judge you for not giving away all your assets. If you accept that, then sure, draw your line. If you get butthurt about it, then acknowledge your own line is arbitrary.

Easy peasy.

Yes of course the line is arbitrary. They all are. I will gladly accept the judgment of my evil actions by anyone who has committed suicide to reduce their carbon footprint. This site is full of moral judgements of other's environmental impact, and happiness-reducing spending.

I arbitrary draw the line at life and health above material possessions. But as we've seen here, not every one does. Not to mention during this pandemic ("TX grandma will gladly sacrifice herself for the economy")

[PMG]

Going back a page or so to the conversation about looking at an orgs spending and overhead, I agree that it is important, but I want to point out that low overhead alone is not a good way to make a decision. A low overhead could indicate that the org is volunteer lead, but it can also be an indicator that staff are underpaid, overworked and don't have benefits.  Now, I don't want to see my gift spent on the ED's third yacht, but staff paid market wages with good benefits and opportunity for growth are going to be able to run an organization effectively and efficiently and make the kinds of long term plans and data grounded decisions (also mentioned above) that I want to support. 

Charitable organizations, even if it's not clearly stated in their mission, often employ people who have or are overcoming the obstacles that they are working to combat, or live in the community that they are serving. I want the staff at my local food pantry to earn a family sustaining wage. It's so discouraging to see part time low wages just perpetuating the problem in the name of spreading the resources and doing good. I know there's not an easy solution, but it does bear some thought and attention.

I'll also suggest that a gift to your local community college can fit well with mustachian ideals. Greatest Need funds at most orgs really do go to greatest needs, and at CC you can direct your gift easily to scholarships for students in need, first gen, single mom, wherever your interest lies, there is probably an easy way to do it and a couple hundred dollars can make a huge difference for someone in that position. Ask me how I know.

I hope you all are able to experience the joy of giving this year.  Thanks for the conversation.

[Sailor Sam]

Gotta say (as a non-thief) Judas has a pretty valid point.  Pouring perfume on someone's (even Jesus') feet is a waste.

Back before I gave up on the religion thing, always found that story a bit hard to make sense of.  But there is something to it I think.

Setting the specific religion aside, isn't there a point here that we all waste an enormous amount, and that anything at all that we do or enjoy for ourselves or for others is a waste in comparison to something better that you could do with the money? 

Pretty much everything in your fridge right now could be something cheaper and you could have given the difference in cost to the needy.  Hard to justify a roast chicken or lasagna compared to a pot of beans. I shudder to think what other extravagances you might be throwing money away on.  Your family could just eat oats for breakfast and lentils and rice the rest of the day and maybe some carrots or apples or something and you'd have three solid meals ...

Wait, what's that?  *Three* meals you say ...? 

Enjoying anything beyond the bare minimal needs for sustenance, or contributing to others enjoying the same, is an extravagance.

No matter what you do, you could always do something better. At some point you just have to draw the line. Peter Singer has given this a lot of thought and the whole question of how much is enough. His semi-recent book "The Life You Can Save" is thoughtful, and he's got a TED talk on what he calls "effective altruism" that likewise is worth a gander for anyone concerned about figuring out where to draw that line.

Regardless though, yeah, I totally agree with @warlord that it's hard and kind of sad to imagine poor kids getting toys for Christmas as cause for moral outrage. 

(edited for coherence)

This seems a confluence of "if you can't do it perfect do nothing at all", and missing the holistic picture. I don't understand why that seems so hard for people to grasp? It's not "kid gets toy, or not. Kid sad". It's kid gets toy, or other kid gets a meal (or even the same kid).

Yes you have to draw the line somewhere, obviously. No I'm not drawing it at give all my assets away and commit seppuku to spare the planet. Call me a monster.

I am drawing the line at giving brand new in box toys to kids who, on a global scale, have it pretty well, and instead giving that to someone lacking food or basic medicine that could save a life. A child dies so another kid who has a home, water, food and a bed can get Lego? Is that valid reason for moral outrage?

Only if you’re prepared to acknowledge the moral outrage of those who judge you for not giving away all your assets. If you accept that, then sure, draw your line. If you get butthurt about it, then acknowledge your own line is arbitrary.

Easy peasy.

Yes of course the line is arbitrary. They all are. I will gladly accept the judgment of my evil actions by anyone who has committed suicide to reduce their carbon footprint. This site is full of moral judgements of other's environmental impact, and happiness-reducing spending.

I arbitrary draw the line at life and health above material possessions. But as we've seen here, not every one does. Not to mention during this pandemic ("TX grandma will gladly sacrifice herself for the economy")

Then I dunno what you want? You posited that T4T was wasteful stupidity. Some people said yah, some people said nah. You got self righteous towards the nah’s, which pretty much stops discussion and turns the whole thing into an ego-protective fight.

If you’d like to convince people of the superiority of your way, you’re doing a bad job. If you’d like to be morally superior, then you’re doing a fine job. If you’d like to be morally superior while also lording it over others, then you’re getting the exact push back that you just said you were fine with.

What’s the goal here?

[OtherJen]

The way these toys-for-Christmas charities are set up are sometimes for a reason.

The time and effort to sort through donations can be substantial.  If you let people give whatever they want you will get a whole bunch of unusable junk, and disposing of that takes up resources.  Is it wasteful to only take new-in-box donations?  Yes.  It's also wasteful to expend employee or volunteer hours sorting through a wide range of crap dumped on your doorstep.  Those person-hours are finite, too.

People donate what gives them a psychological return.  There are people who will only give a certain thing (toys for kids, a can of food in a food drive box) because that's what makes them feel good.  You'll never get the monetary equivalent from them for faraway, conceptual charitable projects.  It will stay in their pockets.  Donors requiring satisfactory gratitude for their donation is a substantial part of the giving calculus.

There is also a high level of trust needed in charitable giving.  I can see donating a toy feeling far safer than giving hundreds or thousands of dollars that can be more easily misused or stolen.  Again, in many cases it's the tangible thing being given or nothing.

You can argue against the "rightness" of any of this but it's the reality of charitable giving.

Seconding all of this.

I don't think I've ever given to T4T. I usually make a donation to the local Goodfellows chapter, which has very little overhead and uses volunteers and nearly all donations to deliver food, hygiene products, clothes, and yes, a toy or two to poor kids in our community. My dad grew up in a poor immigrant family in Detroit, and he's always said that the Goodfellows were the only reason why he and his siblings got Christmas gifts. My grandparents could barely afford the basics. Getting gifts made the kids feel like they were as deserving as the richer kids whose parents could afford more.

Otherwise, I'm a big fan of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. That's another one with very little overhead, a focus on relieving emergency situations (feeding families that have run out of food for the month, helping keep heat on in a cold snap, securing shelter and clothing for people escaping abusive situations, setting up appointments for longer-term help), and a direct impact in the community. We also have a couple of orgs who help resettle refugees in the community.

This thread is a good reminder to start sending out donations.

Is it Goodfellows, or Oddfellows?  I've heard of Oddfellows lodges, and their sister group, Rebekahs.

It is very definitely the Goodfellows: https://www.detroitgoodfellows.org/

I've never heard of the Oddfellows. The Goodfellows aren't organized in lodges; rather, Detroit and various suburbs have their own chapters. The members are usually local elected officials, municipal employees, business owners, and other dignitaries.

[OtherJen]

Going back a page or so to the conversation about looking at an orgs spending and overhead, I agree that it is important, but I want to point out that low overhead alone is not a good way to make a decision. A low overhead could indicate that the org is volunteer lead, but it can also be an indicator that staff are underpaid, overworked and don't have benefits.  Now, I don't want to see my gift spent on the ED's third yacht, but staff paid market wages with good benefits and opportunity for growth are going to be able to run an organization effectively and efficiently and make the kinds of long term plans and data grounded decisions (also mentioned above) that I want to support. 

Charitable organizations, even if it's not clearly stated in their mission, often employ people who have or are overcoming the obstacles that they are working to combat, or live in the community that they are serving. I want the staff at my local food pantry to earn a family sustaining wage. It's so discouraging to see part time low wages just perpetuating the problem in the name of spreading the resources and doing good. I know there's not an easy solution, but it does bear some thought and attention.

I'll also suggest that a gift to your local community college can fit well with mustachian ideals. Greatest Need funds at most orgs really do go to greatest needs, and at CC you can direct your gift easily to scholarships for students in need, first gen, single mom, wherever your interest lies, there is probably an easy way to do it and a couple hundred dollars can make a huge difference for someone in that position. Ask me how I know.

I hope you all are able to experience the joy of giving this year.  Thanks for the conversation.

I love the idea of donating to a community college scholarship fund. Our local CC does amazing work.

[Scandium]

Gotta say (as a non-thief) Judas has a pretty valid point.  Pouring perfume on someone's (even Jesus') feet is a waste.

Back before I gave up on the religion thing, always found that story a bit hard to make sense of.  But there is something to it I think.

Setting the specific religion aside, isn't there a point here that we all waste an enormous amount, and that anything at all that we do or enjoy for ourselves or for others is a waste in comparison to something better that you could do with the money? 

Pretty much everything in your fridge right now could be something cheaper and you could have given the difference in cost to the needy.  Hard to justify a roast chicken or lasagna compared to a pot of beans. I shudder to think what other extravagances you might be throwing money away on.  Your family could just eat oats for breakfast and lentils and rice the rest of the day and maybe some carrots or apples or something and you'd have three solid meals ...

Wait, what's that?  *Three* meals you say ...? 

Enjoying anything beyond the bare minimal needs for sustenance, or contributing to others enjoying the same, is an extravagance.

No matter what you do, you could always do something better. At some point you just have to draw the line. Peter Singer has given this a lot of thought and the whole question of how much is enough. His semi-recent book "The Life You Can Save" is thoughtful, and he's got a TED talk on what he calls "effective altruism" that likewise is worth a gander for anyone concerned about figuring out where to draw that line.

Regardless though, yeah, I totally agree with @warlord that it's hard and kind of sad to imagine poor kids getting toys for Christmas as cause for moral outrage. 

(edited for coherence)

This seems a confluence of "if you can't do it perfect do nothing at all", and missing the holistic picture. I don't understand why that seems so hard for people to grasp? It's not "kid gets toy, or not. Kid sad". It's kid gets toy, or other kid gets a meal (or even the same kid).

Yes you have to draw the line somewhere, obviously. No I'm not drawing it at give all my assets away and commit seppuku to spare the planet. Call me a monster.

I am drawing the line at giving brand new in box toys to kids who, on a global scale, have it pretty well, and instead giving that to someone lacking food or basic medicine that could save a life. A child dies so another kid who has a home, water, food and a bed can get Lego? Is that valid reason for moral outrage?

Only if you’re prepared to acknowledge the moral outrage of those who judge you for not giving away all your assets. If you accept that, then sure, draw your line. If you get butthurt about it, then acknowledge your own line is arbitrary.

Easy peasy.

Yes of course the line is arbitrary. They all are. I will gladly accept the judgment of my evil actions by anyone who has committed suicide to reduce their carbon footprint. This site is full of moral judgements of other's environmental impact, and happiness-reducing spending.

I arbitrary draw the line at life and health above material possessions. But as we've seen here, not every one does. Not to mention during this pandemic ("TX grandma will gladly sacrifice herself for the economy")

Then I dunno what you want? You posited that T4T was wasteful stupidity. Some people said yah, some people said nah. You got self righteous towards the nah’s, which pretty much stops discussion and turns the whole thing into an ego-protective fight.

If you’d like to convince people of the superiority of your way, you’re doing a bad job. If you’d like to be morally superior, then you’re doing a fine job. If you’d like to be morally superior while also lording it over others, then you’re getting the exact push back that you just said you were fine with.

What’s the goal here?

You're taking this waaay to seriously. This is the anti/comedy section of a forum, with a pretty jerk attitude to the rest of the populace. There's no "higher goal"

[Scandium]

Yes you have to draw the line somewhere, obviously. No I'm not drawing it at give all my assets away and commit seppuku to spare the planet. Call me a monster.

We all have to draw the line as best we can. We all have to draw the line both in how much to give and do and where to give it and do it based on our own best judgment. And no matter where we draw it, it could be drawn further.  None of us can fix the entire world. 

No one has called you a "monster" for where you personally draw the line.

You, on the other hand, are calling those who don't personally draw the line where you do, short of children having needs beyond basic sustenance, "wasteful" and "stupid."

Correct

[Villanelle]

Gotta say (as a non-thief) Judas has a pretty valid point.  Pouring perfume on someone's (even Jesus') feet is a waste.

Back before I gave up on the religion thing, always found that story a bit hard to make sense of.  But there is something to it I think.

Setting the specific religion aside, isn't there a point here that we all waste an enormous amount, and that anything at all that we do or enjoy for ourselves or for others is a waste in comparison to something better that you could do with the money? 

Pretty much everything in your fridge right now could be something cheaper and you could have given the difference in cost to the needy.  Hard to justify a roast chicken or lasagna compared to a pot of beans. I shudder to think what other extravagances you might be throwing money away on.  Your family could just eat oats for breakfast and lentils and rice the rest of the day and maybe some carrots or apples or something and you'd have three solid meals ...

Wait, what's that?  *Three* meals you say ...? 

Enjoying anything beyond the bare minimal needs for sustenance, or contributing to others enjoying the same, is an extravagance.

No matter what you do, you could always do something better. At some point you just have to draw the line. Peter Singer has given this a lot of thought and the whole question of how much is enough. His semi-recent book "The Life You Can Save" is thoughtful, and he's got a TED talk on what he calls "effective altruism" that likewise is worth a gander for anyone concerned about figuring out where to draw that line.

Regardless though, yeah, I totally agree with @warlord that it's hard and kind of sad to imagine poor kids getting toys for Christmas as cause for moral outrage. 

(edited for coherence)

This seems a confluence of "if you can't do it perfect do nothing at all", and missing the holistic picture. I don't understand why that seems so hard for people to grasp? It's not "kid gets toy, or not. Kid sad". It's kid gets toy, or other kid gets a meal (or even the same kid).

Yes you have to draw the line somewhere, obviously. No I'm not drawing it at give all my assets away and commit seppuku to spare the planet. Call me a monster.

I am drawing the line at giving brand new in box toys to kids who, on a global scale, have it pretty well, and instead giving that to someone lacking food or basic medicine that could save a life. A child dies so another kid who has a home, water, food and a bed can get Lego? Is that valid reason for moral outrage?

I don't think anyone is outraged that you choose the food and water over the toy.  You are the one who was expressing moral judgment about the choices of others, not the other way around.  I think that's the issue most people have.  You made a choice and are comfortable with your choice, and then you had to take that further and call other people's altruistic choices "wasteful stupidity".

If you'd have come here and told us about your line, said you can't quite understand how people who draw it in a different place--one that includes new toys for kids--come to that decision, and asked in a truly curious, non-judgmental way for them to talk you through that, I think you'd have gotten a very, very different response. 

And you try to spin it to people calling you a monster for your choice, or judging your choice, when I haven't seen one person in this thread do that.  It's not your choice of charity people are calling out; it's your judgmental attitude about other's choices.  You seem to be trying hard not to see the difference so you can keep refusing to look at your attitude and instead make yourself a martyr. 

[Sailor Sam]

You're taking this waaay to seriously. This is the anti/comedy section of a forum, with a pretty jerk attitude to the rest of the populace. There's no "higher goal"

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Anyway, it’s after 1600 on Friday. My holiday leave has officially begun. Commence the festival of lights, family, puppies, hot toddies, and skiing. I ain’t got time for much forum’ing. This thread has been strange, but there have been stranger.

[Scandium]

Gotta say (as a non-thief) Judas has a pretty valid point.  Pouring perfume on someone's (even Jesus') feet is a waste.

Back before I gave up on the religion thing, always found that story a bit hard to make sense of.  But there is something to it I think.

Setting the specific religion aside, isn't there a point here that we all waste an enormous amount, and that anything at all that we do or enjoy for ourselves or for others is a waste in comparison to something better that you could do with the money? 

Pretty much everything in your fridge right now could be something cheaper and you could have given the difference in cost to the needy.  Hard to justify a roast chicken or lasagna compared to a pot of beans. I shudder to think what other extravagances you might be throwing money away on.  Your family could just eat oats for breakfast and lentils and rice the rest of the day and maybe some carrots or apples or something and you'd have three solid meals ...

Wait, what's that?  *Three* meals you say ...? 

Enjoying anything beyond the bare minimal needs for sustenance, or contributing to others enjoying the same, is an extravagance.

No matter what you do, you could always do something better. At some point you just have to draw the line. Peter Singer has given this a lot of thought and the whole question of how much is enough. His semi-recent book "The Life You Can Save" is thoughtful, and he's got a TED talk on what he calls "effective altruism" that likewise is worth a gander for anyone concerned about figuring out where to draw that line.

Regardless though, yeah, I totally agree with @warlord that it's hard and kind of sad to imagine poor kids getting toys for Christmas as cause for moral outrage. 

(edited for coherence)

This seems a confluence of "if you can't do it perfect do nothing at all", and missing the holistic picture. I don't understand why that seems so hard for people to grasp? It's not "kid gets toy, or not. Kid sad". It's kid gets toy, or other kid gets a meal (or even the same kid).

Yes you have to draw the line somewhere, obviously. No I'm not drawing it at give all my assets away and commit seppuku to spare the planet. Call me a monster.

I am drawing the line at giving brand new in box toys to kids who, on a global scale, have it pretty well, and instead giving that to someone lacking food or basic medicine that could save a life. A child dies so another kid who has a home, water, food and a bed can get Lego? Is that valid reason for moral outrage?

I don't think anyone is outraged that you choose the food and water over the toy.  You are the one who was expressing moral judgment about the choices of others, not the other way around.  I think that's the issue most people have.  You made a choice and are comfortable with your choice, and then you had to take that further and call other people's altruistic choices "wasteful stupidity".

If you'd have come here and told us about your line, said you can't quite understand how people who draw it in a different place--one that includes new toys for kids--come to that decision, and asked in a truly curious, non-judgmental way for them to talk you through that, I think you'd have gotten a very, very different response. 

And you try to spin it to people calling you a monster for your choice, or judging your choice, when I haven't seen one person in this thread do that.  It's not your choice of charity people are calling out; it's your judgmental attitude about other's choices.  You seem to be trying hard not to see the difference so you can keep refusing to look at your attitude and instead make yourself a martyr.

Geez. Monster thing was a joke. Obviously nobody had said that.. For being in the "comedy" section people keep taking this waaay to seriously!

[Villanelle]

Nice; resort to, "It was just a joke" when you say ridiculous shit and are called on that ridiculous shit.  I guess on a forum that values bike riding, such a back peddle is to be applauded. 

[Sibley]

If it's really just a joke, go buy a toy and donate it to T4T.

But I don't think it's a joke. I think you showed us a piece of who you are, and a lot of people pushed back. Me included. Kindness matters. Whether you show it by buying a cheap toy and giving it to some kid, or by not thinking (or at least not verbalizing it) poorly of people who buy a cheap toy.

[Cranky]

If you want an alternative to Toys For Tots, they’re out there but you’ll probably have to hunt for them locally.

My church collected new and used books all year and took them to an inner city school at Christmas and every kid got to choose 3 books to keep. There are lots of book donation programs, both to individual kids and to schools.

My church also did an angel tree program as part of a prison ministry. The kids all had an incarcerated parent, and the gifts were “from” that parent. They were often the only gifts the kids received and often the requests were for school clothes or winter coats. Part of the goal of the program was to maintain family connections, which I think has some long term impact.

I know several people who participate in a program where they sew and knit a wardrobe for a like new thrift store doll, but darned if I can think of what that project is called. I also know someone who sees quilts for children in foster care.

[NaN]

This site is full of moral judgements of other's environmental impact, and happiness-reducing spending.

This is the anti/comedy section of a forum, with a pretty jerk attitude to the rest of the populace.

I guess you just learned about a line then @Scandium.

There is talking about a random person who we see online, at work, Facebook, neighborhood, etc. and bought their $80k truck to tow their upcoming camper trailer one time a year and say they want to use it in retirement but then don't have any savings to get to retirement and complain about it.

There is then your approach which is talking about behaviors that clearly many here don't have an issue with and widely participate in and shaming it as if you are better than everyone else. I guess finding that line is controversial, huh? This is not the controversial "stupid and wasteful" opinion section. Now that would be a new interesting forum section.

There are legitimately things that make people laugh here, and there is a lot of shaming certain behaviors (MLMs for example). I think the thing that makes a good post here is it generally hits a pretty resounding agreeable response. It is mostly an echo chamber, for better or worse. What is funny is that your post did not meet that, and be honest whether you intended it to be controversial or a joke. Clearly there are enough people here who are not shamed by what you think is wasteful and stupid, and draw some happiness donating a toy each year. Take that feedback how you wish.

[former player]

What looks like "wasteful and stupid" at any particular time is a societal construct.  "Boxes of plastic garbage from China"  (a phrase used in OP's first post) may only look wasteful and stupid to a minority at the moment, perhaps even on this forum, but it looks to me to be likely to be on the right side of environmental history.

Another phrase from that first post is "maybe the receiving family would have had more benefit from just getting the cash".  Giving the poor autonomy over what they do with the value of the charity they receive, rather than limiting them to a choice between poor outcomes (ie allowing them to choose one item of plastic crap over another) may be less satisfying to the giver but it also less controlling and condescending.   After all, it is received wisdom on this forum to not lend money or put strings on gifts of money, right?  Because it's a bad idea all round, particularly for the recipient but also for the giver?  The same applies to charitable gifts: give in as general a manner as possible, attach no strings, and move on.

[Captain FIRE]

What looks like "wasteful and stupid" at any particular time is a societal construct.  "Boxes of plastic garbage from China"  (a phrase used in OP's first post) may only look wasteful and stupid to a minority at the moment, perhaps even on this forum, but it looks to me to be likely to be on the right side of environmental history.

I'll add that if you choose to donate to T4T, surprise, surprise, you do not need to donate a "box of plastic garbage from China".  You just need to donate new.  You could: buy a wooden toy from a craftsman or a handmade clothing/baby blanket from seamstress supporting local artists.  You could search out toys without packaging (e.g. a deck of cards, which provided my family with countless hours of excitement - our classic family game is multi-player cutthroat solitaire, even played at my grandfather's funeral reception to "send him" off in proper style).  A craft kit which teaches life skills...gardening or camping items for an outdoor enthusiast, a soccer ball for the active kid, tickets/family passes to the local zoo or kids museum that is on public transportation...I'm sure you can think of more plastic free items, considering this is your passion!

The thing is, there are loads of places people can get used toys.  I'm part of two freebie type sites where I've given and received used toys.  This is for new toys specifically so kids from poor backgrounds don't think they are worth less than kids from rich backgrounds when they get a toy that is partially working/missing parts.  I'm not an expert on this, but even I can see that pays back multitude for society: improved self esteem and self worth can lead to things such as fewer suicides and reduced gang involvement, thus meeting your check box the only worthy charities are those "saving lives".  It's indirect, but it still saves lives.

*At one point, I helped a local program that provided counseling and assistance getting jobs for kids at risk of gang violence.  The economic savings of the reduced gang involvement more than paid for the cost of these programs.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

I've intentionally used T4T to advance my evil and nerdly agenda.

I buy and donate low-priced but educational toys such as Spirograph, Tinkertoys, Legos, and other things that make you use your brain. Art supplies? Coloring books? You bet. These are the things to go in the bin, to be distributed to kids whose minds are going to be expanded by having them.

Sadly, T4T won't allow homeless parents to register their kids. The poorest of the poor don't have recent utility bills (for proof of address) because they're living in tents or in a shelter. Same goes for grandparents who are raising their grandkids but who don't have legal custody. T4T helps the children of the working poor and the moderately poor, though.

[Cassie]

So a poor child believes in Santa and is being good hoping for a few Xmas gifts. He gets none and his better off peers at school get many gifts. What does that teach the poor kid?  Nothing but maybe some self loathing. I have always given my time, money and things to help others. Yes I donate money to worthwhile mostly local charities but usually also do a toy drive. The OP is a grinch!!