Most recent example: I was asked to participate/lead our team's Movember campaign at my company.
How I politely declined: oh sorry, I'm a bit too busy with my personal life and work projects this year.
My unpopular opinion I couldn't say: it doesn't align with my values.
Movember raises money and promotes awareness of Men's health. Nothing wrong with the organisation themselves, but frankly I think the paltry couple of thousand of dollars our (pretty large) company manages to raise each year is a waste of time.
If we taxed corporations a fraction of a percent more on corporate profits we would bring is orders of magnitude more money than individuals asking others, out of the kindness of the hearts, for money.
Health research shouldn't have to beg for money, the government should just fund it with tax dollars. Taxes that you don't get to choose to pay. Other than by voting.
I hate fun runs, and do subtly judge those who participate in them, especially because (I think) they skew towards wealthier people, and it's their way of making themselves feel good for raising money for cancer or whatever, and then turn around and vote for tax cuts, and use accountants to make their tax liability as low as possible - something poorer people can't afford.
I used to give money to charity when I was younger. But I honestly think it's silly now, and it ought not have to exist.
(Mods, this is politics adjacent, but I feel is general enough to be compliant, since I'd say most people view charity organisations mostly favourably)
I think there's a little difference between charity in general and "charity events" or "fundraisers".
One one hand, you've got people personally deciding to give some money towards something they chose to support, which is great.
But sponsored fundraisers are actually a bit weird.
Fundraiser: "Hi, would you like to donate £10 to help cure cancer?"
Potential donor: "I'm an incredibly wealthy man, so I can easily afford that... but... you just want me to give you some money in exchange for nothing?"
Fundraiser: "It's not nothing - you get to know you've helped a worthy cause, made the world a better place..."
Potential donor: "No... unless... no, sorry, that's ridiculous..."
Fundraiser: "No, wait! Tell me your idea!"
Potential donor: 'Well, I could probably give you some money... if someone suffered."
Fundraiser: "Suffered?!?"
Potential donor: "Yes, I want you to make a fat, asthmatic man run a marathon, dressed in a really awkward, incredibly warm costume that makes him look ridiculous. If he suffers enough, you can have your £10 for whatever it was you were on about."
Fundraiser: "Curing cancer is seen to be a good cause - are you sure you couldn't just donate the money?"
Potential donor: "Yes. I can only give away a tiny pittance of money if there is suffering. You could also make the man sit in a bathtub full of beans for a whole day. I imagine that's unpleasant enough to appease my hunger for suffering."
Surely we all agree this whole concept is a bit weird?
I have no idea about the bean thing, I assume there’s some missing context there. But charity runs are not about suffering, people do them because it’s a fun activity to organize around. It has nothing to do with forcing people to suffer lol that’s ridiculous.
In the UK, at least, the beans thing is simply:
Will you give money to charity?
No
If someone sits in a bathtub full of cold baked beans for eight hours, will you give money to charity?
Yes
As for the suffering, it might sound ridiculous, but it appears to be a recognised tactic for fundraisers.
The Conversation: The Martyrdom Effect - Why your pain boosts a charity's gain