Why Charity Should Be Abolished

Kali and Ardinius seem pretty firmly against it. Or at least it seemed that way.

Eh my point still stands. Against Ardinius at least. And just in general.

Look, vote for what you want and give to charities if you want; I won't stop you and I have already stated why doing so is stupid. However, at least recognize the "post"-imperialistic racism that's so plainly evident in your reasoning. Helping people to help people is one thing, but that's not what anyone here is going on about, or at the very least, definitely isn't at the core of their reasoning. All that's being tossed around is this idea of racial "guilt", and the "solution" offered comes as part of the omnipresent ethnocentric privilege that people love to scorn when they see, but universally fail to recognize in their own arguments.

The fact that it's even mentioned, let alone used as an actual argument, without provocation shows just how incredibly twisted your perception is and how deeply embedded this form of racism is in European thought. You aren't seeing these people as people, you're seeing them as, as Ardinius put it, 'poor ethnics.' Maybe you can get away with blaming part of that on your upbringing, but what you can't blame on how you were raised is your complete and utter failure to even recognize your own ethnocentrism.

I think this video made alot of good points and I have always been a supporter of charity since it does make you feel good and make you feel like you are helping someone, This video however really changed my mind about that obviouslly we should have a change in some basic way, however we should still give to charity until that change can be reached we cant have people suffer for our sins even though we continue to commit them. I try to do my part though for example i have had the same pair of shoes for 3 years and I really dont want to buy new ones because I know what kids I might be hurting somewhere. To me though this system(capitalism) makes us or forces to be hypocrites especially since everything we have is either from the third world or asian sweat shops. We probably kill someone everythime we buy new clothers. I feel sad now....

Yes it's sad. I bought a pair of cheap shorts yesterday and felt bad about it. But those problems can only be solved by governments and businesses, who need to do more to treat their workers fairly.
Now I don't even see that as charity, simply paying workers fairly and giving them conditions we all should have.

But I also don't think it is impossible for capitalism to change to how the video would like charity to be, although obviously the man in the video doesn't favour capitalism.

@Kali, I believe you were the one that brought up this white burden bullshit....

Define "Nation Building".

It's what you want as opposed to band aid solutions. Actual economic development with a real ends in mind.

I would be against it if it in any way diluted the culture of the countries you are trying to help. They should take the lead in developing their own country, with our economic help, we should not try to shape the future of their country by implementing our own cultures and practices.
So no McDonalds, and no 'President'.

'Actual' economic development with specific and measurable ends in mind have been implemented by institutions like the IMF and the World Bank in various countries (take continents like Africa and South America as an example) since the end of the second world war - and have largely had disastrous effects on those nations. By opening up economies to the world market and having foreign investors buy up national assets, many countries have not had the ability to develop their economies independently - It is no surprise that countries that have been largely shielded from U.S. hegemony and it's influence through institutions like the IMF (i.e. Russia and China) are now posing a significant economic rivalry with the U.S.

Furthermore, In addition to Impeccables statement above, the assumption that 'Actual' economic development would naturally be in the interest of such nations (even if this truly were the case) comes from the same ethnocentric position of privilege.

Alright. Ardinius is more of a "let them do it themselves" kind of guy.

This is where my views start to stray from Kali's. I like the idea of forcing countries into the global market where they would be at a disadvantage just as much as I like the idea of wealthy nations being obligated to aid poorer nations at their own expense.

Never really seemed all that great for long term stability. Which is a big issue for me as I wish to continue enjoying the benefits of the hegemony without any unexpected shifts in the immediate future that would prevent me from doing so.

Everyone would be much better off if with we just stuck to the principle of value for value.

Precisely, precisely.

That's what I meant.