donations pleas - what's the difference?

[powder]

I think that Stef is doing remarkable and valuable work, and I respect his business model of relying on donations.  

 

Asking for people to help out the show, telling them how much it is needed and appreciated, and so on, brilliant.  

 

At some point in the past year I think, I noticed that he started doing something different.  He made appeals to integrity and virtue with statements like, "you know it is the right thing to do..."  "you should..."  I won't try to quote or paraphrase what he said here any more than that, but just want to make the point.  

 

Then I heard him respond to a listener who told him he should not use tactics to make people "feel guilty".  He said, "I do not have the power to make people feel anything, that is on them, I can ask for a million dollars if I want,..."  Understood.  

 

Then in a recent call in conversation he criticized priests for using tactics of chastising and guilt to get people to donate.  He said that it was not good, not because they don't have freedom to say what they will but because they knew that it was a 'button' that they could exploit.  When someone knows you are sensitive in a certain area and knows they can manipulate you by targeting that 'weakness', not cool.  I am not seeing how what he was doing was different, I was raised with the Catholic thing so it did make me cringe when he started to go there with his requests for donations.  

 

I have not heard Stef use these tactics lately, but I don't listen to everything by any means.  I don't like it or respect it, but I would be curious to know if it was an effective strategy for getting donations.  

 

I would like to get some comments and feedback on this.  

[andkon]

I was raised with the Catholic thing so it did make me cringe when he started to go there with his requests for donations.

 

But Stef is not an irrational priest. Priests may exploit and tap into most people's innate charity and desire to be good. They say, "This is a good thing. Do the right thing." But is it a good thing? That's the fundamental question. So I don't think it's exploitation to say the same thing as a priest ("This is good thing. Do right thing.") when it is in fact a good thing.

 

 

Stef previously used a story in which a dog runs off when it sees someone lift up a rake. (A rake was probably used to beat the dog and thus the dog has a negative association.) But is a rake an inherently bad thing? Well, no. It's a tool that can be used for good. It may be that requests to do the right thing is your rake. You were told to do the right thing before but it was for exploitative ends, so you associate ANY request to do the right thing with the inevitable con that follows.

[Wuzzums]

But there's a clause with FDR donation pleas which is "you should donate if you get value in return". With religion it's more like "you should donate or else".

[powder]

thanks for the responses, but I don't think my query has been addressed.  

 

I get it, it is good to support.  Value for value.  

 

I don't feel guilty, FDR is not a religion and Stef is not a priest, I get that.  

 

"please and thank you"  are different from "you should"  and "do the right thing"  NOT DONATING = BAD PERSON.  And no, pastors and priest are not saying 'or else', there is no damnation for being cheap, those that say it are implying that you are bad for not donating.  

 

Was Stef criticizing the priest for doing what he himself was doing?  I am not seeing the difference.  

[andkon]

If FDR was a medical podcast that 1) helped you personally to reduce your risk or eliminate a disease entirely and 2) offered to help more people do the same in the future, would you be a bad person if you didn't donate?

[powder]

If FDR was a medical podcast that 1) helped you personally to reduce your risk or eliminate a disease entirely and 2) offered to help more people do the same in the future, would you be a bad person if you didn't donate?

andkon, you need to read my post again.  

[Blackout]

My own personal experience is that the Christian narrative against material self interest and promotion of the interests of the church bias the cost benefit analysis against the individual. Add on the tendency of Christians to self criticize , judge others, and the public nature of passing donations baskets around and I certainly felt pressure to donate.

 

Not sure if people feel that way about Stephan's show, but I find he often promotes callers to assert their own preferences and have a healthy level of self interest.

[powder]

no one has addressed the argument I am trying to make.  you can try reading my posts again or ask questions to help me re-frame it in a way that is helpful.  

[Joe the Hobo]

Oh wow, I see what you're talking about powder, it does seem to be a contradiction or hypocrisy (I can feel the trolls jumping on it now with desparate glee).

However, there's one main question which comes to mind for me:

 

Are the priests giving you anything more than a delusion and a threat of torture? Stef is giving us something actionable, real insight and personal development the likes of which can be found nowhere else. Stef is giving us real scientifically and empirically verifiable valuable information and help.

Preists are just tricksters and illusionists, often attempting to manipulate with guilt based in lies they've made up.

 

Now here's a load of rambling thoughts

 

I think if you feel guilt in response to what stefan was saying then you don't understand one very important fact: all the stuff stefan gives away is free and you don't have to pay for it. I don't feel guilty for one second regardles of what stef says because he has made the choice to give things away for free.

Personally I'd love to donate but I'm too poor, even if I wasn't too poor, I'd feel the same way... but then I'd donate because I want to. Not because of any guilt or manipulation, but because I understand that stef has provided value to me and I'm grateful for it and want the show to continue- I would be donating because I undestand the rationality behind stef's request for donations, not because I feel guilty because I'm "being immoral".

 

You know what, that still doesn't shake this contradiction, maybe Stefan would like to make a revision and admit fault here?

 

Of course all these emotions come from within but many people will feel guilty in response to such statements like "it's the right thing to do" so if you're aware of the "guilt button" some people have and use language which could push said button, without intention of pushing that button, is that just the same as the preists religious guilt-trips?

 

P.S. I worry that I'm coming accross as one of those critics who has no interest in the truth but only in bashing Stefan. if this is a contradiction it is so minor as to not matter, anyone with any degree of self knowledge and thought won't be susceptible to button pushing and stef gives us all the tools we need to overcome any such personal vulnerabilities. Get some perspective people, this doesn't undermine any of the important stuff.

[Frosty]

I've seen a few of his requests for donations as somewhat heavy handed, I think saying things like it's the "right thing to do" suggests that it's somehow the morally correct thing to do and so not doing it would not be moral. Maybe there's an issue of ambiguity with respect to the word "right" in this context, I'm not sure.

 

My general rule of thumb is that if I feel someone is trying to pressure me to donate to something then I do the opposite and withhold a donation that I might otherwise give, and that's probably the case with FDR. I won't donate with appeals to it being the "right" thing to do. Donations are supposed to be voluntary and when I donate to anything I want to know that I made the conscious choice to make that donation and not that I was in any way manipulated into it, I've seen stef make appeals to emotion like this before "c'mon you know you'll feel better if you donate" etc.

[powder]

to be clear, I feel no guilt.  

 

and for the record I agree with Stef, donating IS the right thing to do (with FDR that is).  

 

It really is not a big deal, I just don't like when people contradict themselves, if that is in fact what is going on here.  

 

To do be clear again, I expect most people to contradict themselves, its disappointing when it comes from someone I respect for having integrity and consistency.  

[Joe the Hobo]

I've noticed a few little contradictions like this, just minor stuff which doesn't undermine any of the significant things like UPB or RTR or other three letter abbreviations for core things stefan has propvided us.

 

However, I get these feelings too, these minor contradictions are like a sour berry in the basket of delicious philosophy fruit. Maybe we'e just picking up on it because we're stringent scientists but maybe it's a pattern, I know part of my dysfunction is ignoring significant things/problems and distracting from them with insignificant things. so maybe these minor contradictions play into my "pattern". Gotta take a moment to absorb some of the deep stuff after this post

[MrNlul77]

Priests using chastising and guilt to get people to donate is an initiation of force, it plays upon irrational people's fears of eternal damnation/smiting "God" to coerce them.

 

Stef's appeals for donations don't initiate force.

 

If I went to a restaurant and the manager States "if I enjoy the meal, the right thing to do, would be to pay the chef for his efforts", the manager is not forcing me to pay or implying that if I don't pay, bad things will happen, he is simply appealing to my integrity.

 

Stef puts out these podcasts for free, it takes time, effort and money to do so, if a person has the means, they "should" at least, "buy the philosopher lunch", if they're able they will hopefully support the show.