Since we're on the topic of less than transparent fundraising, matched donations are also usually misleading. For the most part the matching donors are already planning to donate up to a certain amount regardless of other donations, and if the match from other people comes up short they'll donate the amount they planned to anyways.

Yes, but it is the kind of white lie that I think is morally ok? If people get a thrill out of “free money” and charity X gets more funding, not the worst thing in the world.

That’s how it starts. Pretty soon you’re clandestinely funding woke causes and undermining decades of trust:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33611094

> woke causes

I wonder what, in your estimation, makes a specific cause a "woke" one?

Does it make it better to say "political"? I'm fairly sure that is the implication.

For anyone considering donating, read this first: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33611094

Interesting, this isn’t the first time I’ve encountered comments feigning ignorance of the meaning of “woke”.

In any case the surrounding threads have copious examples.

I would interpret that as a genuine personal inquiry. “Woke” has become a nebulous word used to define whatever bogeyman the author feels threatens their way of life.

> “Woke” has become a nebulous word used to define whatever bogeyman the author feels threatens their way of life.

I don't think that is accurate. "Woke" still retains its original meaning of "aware of racial discrimination," and its subsequent generalized meaning of "aware of social inequalities." What happened was very similar to what happened with the word "liberal," which also retains its original meaning, namely, "tolerant," in that those threatened by equality or inexplicably opposed to awareness of inequality inscrutably use it as a pejorative. This doesn't make a lot of sense because "woke" used pejoratively strongly signals, "I am a racist and/or sexist and/or opposed to equality and/or opposed to awareness of inequality."

> This doesn't make a lot of sense because "woke" used pejoratively strongly signals, "I am a racist and/or sexist and/or opposed to equality and/or opposed to awareness of inequality."

You're confusion is imagining that we care that's what it signals.

It's difficult to guess what you're trying to convey here. Are you saying that you don't care if you represent yourself in a way that makes people around you assume the worst? Or you are racist/sexist and proud of it? Or you're so into the team-sports aspect of american politics that you just use those words in the same way as, like "Pats suck, go Bears!"?

Honest question - I've heard people using that line in all of those contexts.

I think that is an accurate take. I have just observed “woke” to indicate any manner of positions with which the author disagreed (eg environmental protection).

I didn't say I don't know what it means. I asked YOU what it means to YOU.

The way I use it, it means "alert to injustice in society, especially racism". But I suspect a lot of people on a certain political team use it to mean "liberal and stupid". There's a wide range of uses of the term, which is why I asked.

Meant in a merely descriptive way to describe the new breed of lefty extremists. In other words a bit of both of your meanings. This is a prime example of folks who think pushing their identity politics is a higher priority than ethics, and have gone a bit too far.

Not meant pejoratively outside of how poorly the current example speaks of the movement.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33610704

Is clandestinely funding anti-woke causes any more, or less, nefarious in your opinion?

If it's the same, why did you choose only to call out that "side" of the spectrum?

Clandestinely is more nefarious obviously. I'd have called out trumpers if they had been involved. Both-sides-ism is a waste of time when both-sides aren't involved.

I am not the parent comment here, and I do not know specifically what they meant. However, I will say, it would not be the first time a charitable donation ended up going to lining pockets instead of doing the good it was intentioned for.

The BLM scandal and all the mansions is just one of the most recent examples that come to mind.

All of these huge companies and thousands of individual donors giving money to what they believed to be a just cause - only to end up buying mansions and sports cars for the organization leaders.

Another older example was the Red Cross shinanigans in Haiti.

These sort of things erode trust in opaque charitable organizations.

It's fine to accuse a charity of corruption. But when someone uses "woke" in that sense, I doubt that's really what they're trying to convey.

> However, I will say, it would not be the first time a charitable donation ended up going to lining pockets instead of doing the good it was intentioned for.

That has nothing to do with 'woke'ness though.

Wounded Warrior Project[1] or any other charity with poor ratings, can be candidates for this, including conservative and similar leaning groups. But your comment and examples at least imply, if not necessarily intentional, that this is a trait of 'woke causes', and not an issue across the entire spectrum.

[1] at least before they were forced to do a wholesale housecleaning after having one of the lowest percentages of funds donated to a 501(c)3 that reached or helped their designated recipients.

This is not true in my experience. Matching donors donate up to the amount they state if, and only if, you received the donations to be matched. While there may be some nice donors who will donate above their pledge, it is in no way something the organization can count on. If a donor makes a pledge to match, it's solely up to the donor whether they donate above and beyond.

on the flip side a donor planning on donating $1m anyway may be persuaded to allow them to use it as a "matched" donation to try to get another $1m out of others.