If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

I'm not saying most or all of the money isn't going to the cause, but I think it's dishonest at best to act like there's no money involved. At the very least that money will be going towards hiring new activists and better paying underpaid activists.

Also that "some groups even began to turn away and redirect donors elsewhere" part was quite unspecific. All that the article cites is a Brooklyn bail fund that started asking doners to give elsewhere after it got 1.8 million in 24 hours.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not saying most or all of the money isn't going to the cause, but I think it's dishonest at best to act like there's no money involved. At the very least that money will be going towards hiring new activists and better paying underpaid activists.

Also that "some groups even began to turn away and redirect donors elsewhere" part was quite unspecific. All that the article cites is a Brooklyn bail fund that started asking doners to give elsewhere after it got 1.8 million in 24 hours.

But as you say, there has to be some money involved--the people who run these groups still need to eat and sleep somewhere. I'm simply objecting to the notion that they're underhandedly pocketing most or even a bunch of the cash and sending out little anarchist soldiers. Activist organizers aren't mob bosses.

As I said, pocketing cash does happen; it's been reported on. But I don't think it's most groups (or it hasn't been shown to be most groups), and if it does happen then that group outs itself as not really about activism. It's basically a front, and when caught it gets in trouble.

 

[CiG]

I'm not saying they're funding an army of anarchists (though they're certainly using those funds to bail them out). The only thing I'm saying is a crazy amount of money is now a big part of post-Floyd murder #BLM activism.

It doesn't have to be money pocketing for someone to make a killing off this either, this kind of money creates new jobs, pays previously unpaid volunteers, acquires office space for organizations, creates incentive to protect said jobs going forward (either by profit-seeking or perpetual fundraising efforts) etc.

 

[Dak]

we're in a recession and unemployment's up. Why are protests more to blame than economic circumstances?

Why would murders be up and (with the exception of the instances of mass looting, not sure how those are getting recorded), and property crime be down if this were primarily economic in nature? Why would black people be killing black people at an elevated rate in a summer of protests about the killing of black people by white people (or uh, "white adjacent" people, like black police) if it's about economic issues?

This by and large doesn't happen, Dak. You're repeating baseless conspiratorial "news" that my family shares on Facebook. These rumors originate on social media, and they're unsupported by evidence.

It's not that, though. You're imagining an organization that doesn't exist.

"By and large" doesn't happen doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all though, and I didn't say there was any one organization. But there actually are networks of activist organizations in the form of non-profits/"chapters". It would be bizarre to claim otherwise. I'm barely on FB but I do track Michael Tracey and Andy Ngo, who aren't exactly QAnon proponents, and at least Andy has documented material support for "Direct action", which sometimes arrives in uhauls, and iirc him or Tracey have documented tent camps.

Separately, despite trying to NTS activists "profiting", "non-profits" are specifically so structured as a classification so that all increases in funding can simply be funneled to those who work for them. Voila, no "profits". This is why you have charities that turn over like 2% of donations while their senior execs are pocketing YUGE salaries. There's nothing structurally noble whatsoever about non-profits, quite the contrary.

https://moneyinc.com/worst-charities-you-shouldnt-be-donating-to/
https://www.tampabay.com/news/natio...ke-in-nearly-1-billion-for-corporate/2339540/

Grift and Graft are actually big business operating under a veneer of "donations" and "nonprofit status." This is almost pure value destruction ie shrinking pie.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/isabel...millions-to-anti-racism-efforts/#304f81e437dc
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/black-lives-matter-network-establishes-12m-grant-fund/

Monetary incentives. Cui bono.

 

[Einherjar86]

Why would murders be up and (with the exception of the instances of mass looting, not sure how those are getting recorded), and property crime be down if this were primarily economic in nature? Why would black people be killing black people at an elevated rate in a summer of protests about the killing of black people by white people (or uh, "white adjacent" people, like black police) if it's about economic issues?

Phillip Atiba Goff, co-founder and C.E.O. of the Center for Policing Equity, points to increased domestic violence as one possible cause of the increase in murder. “The first explanation that I have is that this comes from people being locked inside (during quarantines) and a lack of social services,” he said. “All those things are things that we would expect to lead to higher rates of violence. That’s speculation, though. I have no evidence that that’s the right thing other than the rise in calls for domestic violence.”

Mr. Ratcliffe agrees that increased domestic violence may be playing a role. He also hypothesizes that “Covid-19 could have reduced the market and opportunities for recreational drug use/dealing, which puts stress on the drug markets and increases violence.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/upshot/murders-rising-crime-coronavirus.html

There are plenty of possibilities other than civil disobedience.

"By and large" doesn't happen doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all though, and I didn't say there was any one organization. But there actually are networks of activist organizations in the form of non-profits/"chapters". It would be bizarre to claim otherwise. I'm barely on FB but I do track Michael Tracey and Andy Ngo, who aren't exactly QAnon proponents, and at least Andy has documented material support for "Direct action", which sometimes arrives in uhauls, and iirc him or Tracey have documented tent camps.

OK, but this feels different than what you said. Also, you used the word "busing," which has been flying around Facebook conspiracy theories about antifa protesters being brought in on buses (which Snopes points out always turn out to be something else).

Insofar as people organize, sure. But I don't see it being as problematic as you pitched it, or are still suggesting it is.

Separately, despite trying to NTS activists "profiting", "non-profits" are specifically so structured as a classification so that all increases in funding can simply be funneled to those who work for them. Voila, no "profits". This is why you have charities that turn over like 2% of donations while their senior execs are pocketing YUGE salaries. There's nothing structurally noble whatsoever about non-profits, quite the contrary.

Thanks for the info, but this is basically what I mean; one of the articles is titled "charities you shouldn't be donating to." Other groups come under legal fire. There are orgs that masquerade as charities but aren't.

I'm not saying they're funding an army of anarchists (though they're certainly using those funds to bail them out). The only thing I'm saying is a crazy amount of money is now a big part of post-Floyd murder #BLM activism.

It doesn't have to be money pocketing for someone to make a killing off this either, this kind of money creates new jobs, pays previously unpaid volunteers, acquires office space for organizations, creates incentive to protect said jobs going forward (either by profit-seeking or perpetual fundraising efforts) etc.

OK, but as I said to Dak above: why is this problematic?

Initially, this came off as crime ring-ish orgs taking money under the table (bigger slices of the pie and whatnot) and assigning would-be soldiers to "anarchist zones" or something. Based on what I'm seeing now, it doesn't seem nefarious.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'm increasingly of the opinion with all of the benefit of hindsight that the American Revolution was probably a net-negative.

 

[Dak]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/upshot/murders-rising-crime-coronavirus.html

There are plenty of possibilities other than civil disobedience.

I don't have access to the NYT so not sure what possibilities are listed there. I want to be clear that I'm not saying that ""the riots" are the direct cause of additional deaths (although there have been murders connected to the riots/CHAZ etc). I'm saying that the atmosphere, at least partially created by anti-police demonstrations, is creating a permissive and/or encouraging atmosphere.

OK, but this feels different than what you said. Also, you used the word "busing," which has been flying around Facebook conspiracy theories about antifa protesters being brought in on buses (which Snopes points out always turn out to be something else).

Insofar as people organize, sure. But I don't see it being as problematic as you pitched it, or are still suggesting it is.

Thanks for the info, but this is basically what I mean; one of the articles is titled "charities you shouldn't be donating to." Other groups come under legal fire. There are orgs that masquerade as charities but aren't.

The two things I'm referring to here are tied to the money involved. Large efforts require money for both logistics and supporting/coordinating personnel. This money also draws people in chasing it. I'm not saying BLM is a charity or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that nonprofits aren't special. In fact they are structurally problematic for the reasons I've listed, and BLM or any other activist organization is just as flawed and full of people/attracting people responding to these and related moral hazards.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't have access to the NYT so not sure what possibilities are listed there. I want to be clear that I'm not saying that ""the riots" are the direct cause of additional deaths (although there have been murders connected to the riots/CHAZ etc). I'm saying that the atmosphere, at least partially created by anti-police demonstrations, is creating a permissive and/or encouraging atmosphere.

I quoted them: increases in domestic violence (which have been documented), and potential disruption of supply in the domestic drug trade. Both of these would appear to be impacted more by economic circumstances and the pandemic and less by anti-police demonstrations.

The two things I'm referring to here are tied to the money involved. Large efforts require money for both logistics and supporting/coordinating personnel. This money also draws people in chasing it. I'm not saying BLM is a charity or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that nonprofits aren't special. In fact they are structurally problematic for the reasons I've listed, and BLM or any other activist organization is just as flawed and full of people/attracting people responding to these and related moral hazards.

I don't get where the initial objection was/is. Non-profits aren't perfect, no--neither are private businesses. But we acknowledge that private businesses are necessary, so it seems to me that, pursuant to this logic, we can say that non-profits are necessary too. Both fulfill a function. Are there those who will exploit that function? Sure. So what's the argument? That there are shitty people who take advantage of structural gaps and weaknesses?

 

[Dak]

I quoted them: increases in domestic violence (which have been documented), and potential disruption of supply in the domestic drug trade. Both of these would appear to be impacted more by economic circumstances and the pandemic and less by anti-police demonstrations.

Ah I see. I'm not saying the demonstrations are a direct cause, ie, people are being murdered via the demonstrations (although this has occurred). I'm saying that when anti-police sentiment is up, cops hole up, which then creates an atmosphere that is conducive to settling scores. Same phenomenon occurred during/after the Ferguson riots.

I don't get where the initial objection was/is. Non-profits aren't perfect, no--neither are private businesses. But we acknowledge that private businesses are necessary, so it seems to me that, pursuant to this logic, we can say that non-profits are necessary too. Both fulfill a function. Are there those who will exploit that function? Sure. So what's the argument? That there are shitty people who take advantage of structural gaps and weaknesses?

I'm saying that non-profits' function is perverted, structurally, and that this attracts a really bad mix of naive and narcissistic, manipulative people. There's plenty of perverse incentives created in types of for-profit industry as well (like finance, and the current structure of the broader economy in supporting TBTF megacorps is its own issue), but the pressure of profit making acts as a constraint (where this pressure is removed to varying degrees is where you get the most egregious abuses, ie finance).

What I will carve out in reference to non-profits are something like a Moose Lodge. While a national structure is relatively redundant and creates moral hazard, fostering local community enhancement is nominally valuable.

 

[CiG]

OK, but as I said to Dak above: why is this problematic?

Initially, this came off as crime ring-ish orgs taking money under the table (bigger slices of the pie and whatnot) and assigning would-be soldiers to "anarchist zones" or something. Based on what I'm seeing now, it doesn't seem nefarious.

It depends what you mean by "problematic" but I was simply answering your question about who is making a killing. I might disagree here and there with how the money is used or with the messages/goals the money is funding, but that doesn't mean I think there's a crime happening.

I should have been more clear.

 

[rms]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ed51e2-e244-11ea-ade1-28daf1a5e919_story.html

 

[CiG]

 

[Einherjar86]

Ah I see. I'm not saying the demonstrations are a direct cause, ie, people are being murdered via the demonstrations (although this has occurred). I'm saying that when anti-police sentiment is up, cops hole up, which then creates an atmosphere that is conducive to settling scores. Same phenomenon occurred during/after the Ferguson riots.

I get what you're saying, but in the communities you're referring to people have always been hesitant to call the cops, and murder in Chicago has been a worsening problem for years. I can't make the claim that the violence is unrelated to the riots, but it just feels like the connection is so tenuous, unverifiable, and better explained by other factors.

I'm more prone to believe that the crimes and protests are both effects of an increased and overarching sense of panic and uncertainty.

I'm saying that non-profits' function is perverted, structurally, and that this attracts a really bad mix of naive and narcissistic, manipulative people. There's plenty of perverse incentives created in types of for-profit industry as well (like finance, and the current structure of the broader economy in supporting TBTF megacorps is its own issue), but the pressure of profit making acts as a constraint (where this pressure is removed to varying degrees is where you get the most egregious abuses, ie finance).

Again, I understand, but I don't see where the significant evidence is for this. It's true that a lot of money has been going to charities and nonprofits lately, but that doesn't mean they're distributing the funds illegally or even inappropriately. There are cases in which this has been discovered, but they're in the minority.

This strikes me as similar to when I said (to borrow your words) that the police force is perverted, structurally, and that this attracts a bad mix of naive and narcissistic, manipulative people. You objected to that based on available evidence, as I am now re. nonprofits.

 

[Dak]

I get what you're saying, but in the communities you're referring to people have always been hesitant to call the cops, and murder in Chicago has been a worsening problem for years. I can't make the claim that the violence is unrelated to the riots, but it just feels like the connection is so tenuous, unverifiable, and better explained by other factors.

I'm more prone to believe that the crimes and protests are both effects of an increased and overarching sense of panic and uncertainty.

I think you're making a Dunning-Kruger error here, particularly in the final sentence. Over-estimating the intelligence/appreciation of nuance and media-awareness of the types of people who tend to commit violent crime.

Again, I understand, but I don't see where the significant evidence is for this. It's true that a lot of money has been going to charities and nonprofits lately, but that doesn't mean they're distributing the funds illegally or even inappropriately. There are cases in which this has been discovered, but they're in the minority.

This strikes me as similar to when I said (to borrow your words) that the police force is perverted, structurally, and that this attracts a bad mix of naive and narcissistic, manipulative people. You objected to that based on available evidence, as I am now re. nonprofits.

The police force may attract some of the wrong types of people, but at least they have filters (not always perfect to be sure). I've recently talked with someone who has done work on the psych filtering done for the police and I feel slightly better now than before, although no filter is perfect. But nonprofits aren't even structured in any way to filter against the type of problem I'm referring to. Rather, the structure encourages for selecting for people who will perpetuate the nonprofit and more importantly, divert funds inward rather than outward. This is because nonprofits are functionally barely distinct from pure bureaucracy, and Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy explains the problem.

 

[CiG]

 

[Einherjar86]

I think you're making a Dunning-Kruger error here, particularly in the final sentence. Over-estimating the intelligence/appreciation of nuance and media-awareness of the types of people who tend to commit violent crime.

The second claim might make that error, but I don't think the first does. Not calling the cops doesn't have anything to do with media-awareness; it's often a learned feature of communities.

The police force may attract some of the wrong types of people, but at least they have filters (not always perfect to be sure). I've recently talked with someone who has done work on the psych filtering done for the police and I feel slightly better now than before, although no filter is perfect. But nonprofits aren't even structured in any way to filter against the type of problem I'm referring to. Rather, the structure encourages for selecting for people who will perpetuate the nonprofit and more importantly, divert funds inward rather than outward. This is because nonprofits are functionally barely distinct from pure bureaucracy, and Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy explains the problem.

Some funds have to be diverted inward though. Also, there are social and legal incentives for nonprofit organizers to operate ethically. Finally, what do you mean by "perpetuate the nonprofit"--as in, after there's no more social need for it? Can you give an example of this happening?

 

[CiG]

http://twitter.com/joebegos/status/1269444151747080192

Joe Begos involved in a pinch of controversy.

 

[Dak]

The second claim might make that error, but I don't think the first does. Not calling the cops doesn't have anything to do with media-awareness; it's often a learned feature of communities.

That's fair re: DK. But I don't think the hesitancy to call the cops is purely learned. There's an unlearned cultural piece (at least unlearned in the sense you mean). Protecting the communities worst elements because insider/outsider bias is a tribal common constant that is pre-Enlightenment in nature. One can claim cultural relativity here which is fine as far as it goes, but it means that in at least this case, diversity is not a strength.

Some funds have to be diverted inward though. Also, there are social and legal incentives for nonprofit organizers to operate ethically. Finally, what do you mean by "perpetuate the nonprofit"--as in, after there's no more social need for it? Can you give an example of this happening?

Sure, some. But multi-sixfig salaries for a mountain of administration? I don't think so. There are, as evidenced by donations, few social incentives for ethical operation. I can't speak to the legal incentives. I'm not sure what you mean by an example of perpetuation of the non-profit. Do you mean how many non-profits achieved their aim and dissolved voluntarily? If that's the case, I'm not aware of any, which is to my point.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

View attachment 26232
http://twitter.com/joebegos/status/1269444151747080192

Joe Begos involved in a pinch of controversy.

That was part of a much larger shitshow that involved Cinestate (Zahler's main backers). Fangoria ended up getting new management, podcasts ended, hosts got MeToo'd, ect... Massive headache for basically what had become "Horror Inc.", so to speak.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's fair re: DK. But I don't think the hesitancy to call the cops is purely learned. There's an unlearned cultural piece (at least unlearned in the sense you mean). Protecting the communities worst elements because insider/outsider bias is a tribal common constant that is pre-Enlightenment in nature. One can claim cultural relativity here which is fine as far as it goes, but it means that in at least this case, diversity is not a strength.

I’m not sure I understand the difference between “learned” and tribalism.

Sure, some. But multi-sixfig salaries for a mountain of administration? I don't think so. There are, as evidenced by donations, few social incentives for ethical operation. I can't speak to the legal incentives. I'm not sure what you mean by an example of perpetuation of the non-profit. Do you mean how many non-profits achieved their aim and dissolved voluntarily? If that's the case, I'm not aware of any, which is to my point.

Do a lot of nonprofit founders make six figures with no income from anywhere else? I’m sure some do, but is it common...?

Also, there’s a Wikipedia page for defunct U.S. nonprofits.