Geeky tornado relief fundraisers

Alan sez, "Two items here on the same theme: Ruben Bolling, comic author of Tom The Dancing Bug, contributor to JoCo Funnies, etc. has a raffle posted on his blog. If you donate to the American National Red Cross through a page he has set up, you will be entered into a drawing for a personal comic from Bolling; Greg Pak, creator of the 'Code Monkey Save World' visuals and co-conspirator in the recent Kickstarter with Jonathan Coulton is offering free CMSW stickers to people who make a donation to any recognized organization helping tornado victims."


  1. I know this is going against the grain, but the world would be better served of we had a charity that was for everybody who didn’t have the national spotlight.  Barring that, I beg everybody to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing.

    Yes, there is suffering there, but the national spotlight is on them, local and federal governments and tons of charities are swooping in as we speak. So what about all the other people who died elsewhere? Every day thousands of people die, and orders of magnitude more are hurt and are suffering. But most of them don’t have the virtue of a national spotlight, and their suffering goes unnoticed (unless they’re particularly pretty or something media-worthy happens)Do you care about them? They’re people too. Just because you don’t know who they are or where they are doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Many of them are in your neighborhoods. Some may be people you know who are putting on a brave face.If you’re going to help anyone, if you REALLY want to use your conscience, then help somebody who’s not getting help. Comfort somebody who’s been left behind. Do something that matters for those who don’t have the benefit of an exciting trauma that everybody’s talking about.On top of that, some of them might want to be left alone, and right now they don’t have that choice, but if we can stop feeding the horror lottery machine we might be able to give them that choice and help some other people along the way.

      1. I don’t think it is, but I may have misread the definition, that’s certainly not my intent.

        I’m trying to say that people are taking resources that could be used to help people who need it and instead sending it in the direction of people who don’t. I’m not wrong, am I?  If you could tell me how to make the same point without being accused of concern trolling it would greatly appreciated.

        1. …taking resources that could be used to help people who need it and instead sending it in the direction of people who don’t.

          These people don’t need help?

          1. They’re already getting help.  Every media outlet is focusing on charities that only send money and resources there, and they already have federal and local resources dedicated.  That’s a lot of resources per person.

          2. It doesn’t work like that. The attention will dry up in a week, and none of them will receive even a fraction of the value of what they lost.

          3. (This is a reply to the below reply, there’s no little reply thingy there)

            The people left behind were already covered by State, Federal, and Local resources, insurance companies, and the tiniest fraction of the charities from the news coverage.  How many of them are there?   I bet half the people on this forum are capable of coming up with ways to harness a tiny fraction of that energy to help somebody closer to home, you and I included.  

            How about getting homeless people into foreclosed homes or something (we’ve got like five for each of them!), or finding somebody who’s suffering in silence and not asking for help, or just a donation to the Red Cross or Oxfam so they can put it to better use elsewhere would be better.  

            I fell for the same thing back on 9/11.  Somebody far wiser than me straightened me out.  There shouldn’t be some big suffering lottery.

      2. Okay, having read the definition a few times, I can say definitively that . . .

        1) I’m completely sincere.
        2) I’m using my own identity
        3) I have attempted to present a solid explanation of my variant belief.
        4) I have tried my best to make sure I wasn’t being reactionary.
        5) I’m fairly confident that there are some facts that back me up here.
        6) I’m not saying ‘don’t help people’, I’m just trying to be a good citizen.
        7) To me, that does mean occasionally risking offending somebody, if there’s even the slightest chance that one person may be helped that would not have otherwise been helped.I’m certain that’s quite far from the definition of concern trolling!  So apologies for giving the wrong impression. I wouldn’t have nitpicked but I’ve been very focused on logical fallacies lately, so I wanted to make sure I wasn’t screwing something up myself!  I’ve never been accused of concern trolling before!  It was a novel experience.

        So, anyway. . .
        If out of every thousand people here who thinks to give to people in Oklahoma, instead only one gives to Oklahoma, five hundred do nothing, and 499 help people locally or give to the united way that’s 499 efforts that REALLY make a difference.  That’s still better than zero, right?And I really don’t believe that the other 500 people HERE of all places would just do nothing, do you?

        So, is there maybe a chance I’m just a nice guy who’s trying to pass on some wisdom because he himself was horrified at himself when he was showed the same thing? Because I’m pretty sure that’s what really is happening here.  I mean, I’m busy being me almost all of the time, and am uniquely qualified to detail the activities within said self!

Comments are closed.