Message from @DrYuriMom
Discord ID: 508111050915184641
Damn right!
(both of you)
4 poor pipl lik me
There's no way this is the real article. This is the most poorly written slapdash piece of shit I've seen out of any publication in a long time
Have you ever heard tim bash/flame Mainstream outlet for grammar/wording, @Beemann ? 😉
Nothing is stopping the individuals from donating directly. If they don't turn around and donate directly to St Jude then that is their decision. The "terrible" person is the donator who is unwilling to give except through a controversial site.
And there's no onus on the link in the chain that decided to break?
yes im sure donators are the terrible people, that makes a hell of a lot of sense, why didint i think of it.
All the WSJ did was report. It would be St Jude's who would have decided they didn;t want to be associated with killStream
and insentivized donating is a pretty common occurence
That is their right
@Stefan Payne it honestly looks like a botched copy-paste job
Just as it is the right of each individual to decide whether they will follow up by donating via an alternate mechanism
were not talking about rights
were talking about ideology getting between children and charity
Sure, they have the right, but what is right isn't always laudable or socially acceptable.
I'm seeing blame on the WSJ, maybe Google, St Jude's, and nebulous "other players" but no mention that the people who are seeing their money returned can then do whatever they decide to do with it
```@Stefan Payne it honestly looks like a botched copy-paste job```
So like a standard Low Effort Mainstream Media Article 😉
You can run around the streets yelling at everyone and calling them faggots, but that's not really okay.
who the fuck said there was stealing here?
This person
is that the person i shared a video about?
I'm just referring to the event and giving my take on it
I never said anything about you
You did refute a claim that, to my knowledge, no one in the discussion brought up.
It's a bit jarring.
Fair enough
In any case as a leader for a non-profit I can sympathize with the dilemma St Jude's faced here.
indeed, its almost like you needed something to argue about when your other arguements wernt effective so you brought someone else who wasent in the room who said something you could argue about that was related to the topic so you could maintain your postition
"were talking about ideology getting between children and charity" is what you said. I am responding to say that this is not the case since the money is being returned and the donors can still give directly.
WSJ may be responcible for pressuring various people into actions, they have done so in the past along with the entire mainstream media. adpocolypse. theres no proof that they were responcible or did that but i think those who do blame WSJ arnt unfounded in their reasoning
It can, that's true. But there was an action taken that, had it not been done, would have allowed the money to already be where it was going.
It did add a complication but it is the media's role to report.
as for ideology getting between children and charity, this event delayed the donations by time, that is technicly getting in the way. additionally it put hoops to jump through that naturally in terms of hundreds of people will cause a loss in donation
I't not exactly sure what the WSJ was trying to accomplish here. I can think of other things that seem more appropriate for the "illuminating light".
it IS putting idology between children and charity by making it more difficult
The the organization at fault would be St Jude's themselves and not the WSJ.