Contact me for a Discord invite.
In some ways I really think Ramon is right, but I also understand Evrina’s point of view. People often want to help others before they take care of themselves, which is a very good, human, way to be. It doesn’t always serve well over time though. Ideally you should lean into charity after you are in a stable place in your life, but it seems like people tend to get there & then live in fear of falling back into poverty to the point that they want to wall themselves off in a safe fortress. I understand all of these feelings & I’m not 100% sure which one is the best. It’s probably some balanced mix. I’ve found that mixing stuff like this gets you the best results for the longest time. Evrina & Ramon are kind of the extremes that cancel each other out. Or maybe end up in a more stable middle ground.
I kinda like his Cool McCool moustache.
I want to see a spin-off with Ramon and Evrina before they got here.
I think they’re both right. Self preservation isn’t selfish. Take care of yourself as well as you would want to for others. You are in the best possible possible position to help others, then, in my opinion. Tho we should strive to help where we can, even if we can’t always go all-in.
Like they say on planes “Put your oxygen mask on first before helping others with theirs”
In case that’s not clear, if you don’t put your mask on first, you may become ubconscious before you get to help someone else with their mask.
There’s a fun ted talk about non profits. Essentially, people believe that if a charity takes anything for themselves, they are an evil waste of money. So they love bake sales, which produce, we’ll say $500 once a year.
I used to represent a charity that uses 10% of its gains for admin and marketing purposes (5% each) and is one of the largest charitable organizations in the world providing hundreds of millions annually. All I’m saying is there is a good balance of self care and honest dealings.
Btw this organization was CARE, they send care packages to poverty stricken lands and areas post natural disasters. I highly encourage anyone to check their profile on a neutral monitoring site like charitynavigator or charitywatch, and compare them with ones they are familiar with. Charities must release their financial data and its fun to look at, like seeing what percentage their leaders takes home.
10% admin costs is incredibly outstanding. That puts them at or near the top of charities for effective use of donations. They certainly deserve recognition.
In other, equally well-known “Charities”, 10% is what trickles down to their intended recipients, while 90% goes to the admin and costs. (I could name them, but there exists a possibility, however remote, that I could get sued for doing so) Suffice to say it’s one of the leading International charities.
Admittedly, that’s not a large section of charities, but I’ve read an analysis that the typical nonprofit uses around 60%-70% for admin and the rest goes to doing good.
If there is impartial and objective evidence showing that such charities operate under questionable circumstances, and they are exposed for it, it would only serve to harm them reputably more in the public eye if they were to file a libel suit against you.
The fact that we have, as a species flourished so virulently, and we are able to support an upper 1% who are so obscenely wealthy compared to the lower 90% demonstrates that individually, and as a group, we are able to produce far more than we need. It is also demonstrated via history and factories, that individuals produce far less per person than an equally sized group of people working as specialists that work together. Provided that you don’t jump in with a greedy selfish s.o.b., we each are better off collaborating. You can strive and achieve independence on your own, however that anyone thinks they are doing that in modern society is a fallacy.
n.b. none of this is an argument for capitalism or communism (or any 100% ism). The point is just that, it will take someone working independently far longer and far harder to achieve that idea of stability, than if you’re willing to work and share with others from the get go.
Just keep in mind, if you consider the whole world together, if you live here(USA), you are very likely one of the 1% (considering the whole world). Do you have a house? a car? a microwave? a flatscreen TV? We know you have a computer (or a smartphone or a tablet) 1% What’s it feel like to be wealthy? Most of the world could ask you that.
You know, it’s funny. When I ask my boss for a raise, he says the same thing: that compared to the rest of the world I already live like a king, so stop complaining. But when I ask for time off, he asks how can I afford to do so with what I’m earning? You just can’t satisfy some people…
If you’re American, you’re literally one of the 4%.
There is legitimately nothing wrong with collaboration and collective resolution for the benefit of all. If we’re supposed to reject such principles on the grounds of “evil” based upon what is tantamount to nothing more than cold war era grudges on account of abuses of the system by dictators against its own people and our nation, then I’m afraid we’re just only going to continue to be ignorant for the sake of a nationalist political agenda.
In Laymen’s terms: Capitalism good because “American dream”, communism/socialism bad because “Russia not like American dream plus Russia threatened west with nukes”.
Capitalism IS collaboration.
No one likes admitting that though. Henry Ford ensured 500 people could collaborate on a car together, but they don’t call him a communist because he pays them.
A perfect exchange between idealism and realism. Well written, Jackie! <3
Nothing to say, here. It’s all been said, but, “yeah, this.”
Those two need to be a couple. I think their kids would be beautiful
SOMEone has to take care of you, and typically, you’re the best qualified. The tricks are those times when you’re not qualified, and that once you do take care of yourself, go help someone else. Get those two sorted, and the rest is details.
My philosophy when it comes to helping others is as follows:
1) The person in question must be attempting to help themselves. A person who expects everything to be done for them will just end up in the same situation again as soon as help stops coming.
2) The person in need of help must not have put themselves in the needy position in the first place. Exceptions can be made for truly unforeseeable consequences as long as they have learned from the mistake.
3) I will not help someone to the detriment of myself. I define detriment as “putting myself in a position where I can no longer help others”. There is no point in putting all of my eggs in one person’s basket if I can put an infinite number of eggs in many people’s baskets.
These rules keep me from bringing harm to myself (monetarily or otherwise) while helping people whom I think it will do the most good to help.
…To end [hunger], all we have to do is- put all the world’s food in one field, and then everyone just takes one piece of it!
– The Upright Citizen’s Brigade [TM].
Helping people is a good thing, but not every idea of helping people is practical.
Gotta say, i love ramon. I aspire to be as chill and hopefull as him.
Garfield the cat can defeat the entire MCU. Share your thoughts.
I’m disappointed no one has shared their thoughts about this, so I’ll share my own. First of all Garfield is shown to be able to move extremely quick, at speeds faster than, or near to, the speed of light. This immediately gives him a leg up on the competition, given that even the Flash cannot achieve speeds of that caliber. Next, Garfield is qute strong, being able to throw Nermal the kitten at velocities high enough to break solid oak wood doors. While this may seem to pale in comparison to feats of strength by MCU characters, remember to note that when Garfield threw Nermal through a door, he threw Nermal from across his house with unwavering accuracy, and may posses more strength than it appears, due to several other, less significant, feats of strength. Third, Garfield appears to have telepathy with Jon and other animals, due to all his dialouge appearing in thought bubbles. This skill would be valuable during large battles, due to him being able to command his troops easily and securly. Finally, Garfield seems to posses super-healing, or some variant of it. Given that Garfield strips happen on a day-to-day basis, we can see that Garfield gets grievously injured on some days, but appears the next day perfectly fine. In addition to this, Garfield has 8 lives, due to him losing one after eating bad baloney. In conclusion, Garfield could easily take down the entire MCU due to his immense strength, super-healing, telepatjic abilities, and multiple lives. The only way he could possibly be defeated is if Thanos were to use the infinity stones to wish him out of existence, but even then, Garfield would likely just rip the gauntlet off his hand before he could snap. Don’t mess with Garfield.
The lack of response might be my fault. We’ve been tracking your comments since you first appeared on Discord. The others might have just been waiting to see what you did if left to your own devices. I kind if thought you wanted validation & weren’t getting it from the archive so you jumped ahead in hopes of drawing out some interaction. You succeeded at least in so far as I felt bad for you. Usually someone will respond to most every comment but since we were observing your antics I might have ruined your chances for natural progression.
I’m sorry about my comment, but I’m on the Discord server for this glorious webcomic? I don’t remember joining one.
I let my participle dangle. I meant the discord members were looking at your comments here. Also there isn’t anything to apologize for really. The random subject was odd & might have contributed to the lack of engagement though.
I apologize, I’ll try not to leave a giant, irrelevant, text bloxk in the future.
(Previous apology is more of a promise to myself)
Both of them are right.