Of course there can. The problem is that incentivized donation is intended to provide the illusion of fundraising. "For every ___ breast cancer awareness will receive ___" is the model of a walk or run that actually raises money that doesn't currently exist in the company. The walk or run is necessary to the donation.
I feel like you're fighting the right battle, but on the wrong battlefield.
gumby_trucker said:
gumby_trucker said:
I'm not saying that part of their reasoning for making the video was to get their face in some boobs, it obviously was, along with more attention to their channel. But you're acting as if the charity is somehow bad because they were getting something out of it too. Which makes zero sense. Just because they wanted to have fun and get Youtube views doesn't mean that they don't also want to raise awareness to cancer.
Neither did I, so I'm not sure what your point is.
"But you're acting as if the charity is somehow bad because they're getting something out of it too." ??
Yeah, I'm talking about the Youtubers. You're acting as if they can't want to motorboat some boobs, get Youtube views for their channel AND care about breast cancer and giving money to cancer awareness. I literally haven't said a thing about BCRF.
What you meant was the act of charity, which is fine, because the act of charity isn't bad and I never implied it was. The method of charity is, however, and here is the most important point: incentivized donation is by its very nature coercive. This is the first thing I'll say and the last thing I'll say on the matter, but when you mix a coercive charitable strategy with something sexual you cannot be surprised or angered when people are offended.
When the people involved in the strategy are all consenting adults I certainly can be surprised. At that point it's just a bunch of people being offended that people approach sexual actions in a different manner then they do.
Except they can? Is this your first exposure to Simple Pickup? Has to be otherwise you would know how wrong you are.
Any coercive tactics are completely assumed by people in this thread. Just because you have a camera and ask someone if you can do something doesn't mean anyone is forcing you to do anything. There's no reason that any of those women couldn't have just said no, in fact I'd bet money that there were plenty of women they asked that did just that.
Incentivized donation is implicitly coercive, as I've explained. That's why it works. That's why large corporations do it instead of donating sums of money just for the good will.
The implication is that they can't because they're women. It's pretty much the basis of all threads like these.
That's circular logic. They've made videos already and thus have the money already. This particular video is not necessary for the funding strategy.
Okay?
I don't know the context of the discussion but you are right.
Large companies do it because they see an opportunity to promote their product along with donating the money and making their company look good. Donating money without telling anyone doesn't give them any credit. No one is forced to do anything. No one is forced to like Starbucks on Facebook. They might feel some small sense of pride for doing it because they feel like they did something noble, but no one is forced to do anything.
Coercion isn't force. This isn't going to go anywhere with two separate definitions of coercion.
Those aren't the only options in the slightest.
I'm the one talking about coercion and I'm not white knighting, I'm explaining charitable funding strategies and why people would find this offensive, but please continue.
What about definition two is any different?
There is no reason you can't say no to someone trying to compel you into doing something.
