this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
535 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

238 readers
16 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Seraph@fedia.io 143 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It's not a donation if they get to dictate what the organization does - it's a bribe.

[–] hannesh93@feddit.org 22 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So someone donates money to their city's library with the specific purpose that they can expand their building to have more space that's a bribe?

[–] MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca 12 points 4 months ago

Maybe that person hates books and likes seeing them locked away in book prison?

[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The question is; does this give the anonymous donor that ability? Being anonymous implies not.

[–] GreatBlueHeron@lemmy.ca 20 points 4 months ago

I'm fairly certain it is only anonymous "on paper". Behind closed doors, they know where it came from and what is expected in return.

[–] memfree 29 points 4 months ago

It sounds like the donor had requirements. From The Tribune:

The University of Chicago has received a $100 million gift from an anonymous donor to support free expression, marking what may be the largest-ever single donation to support such values in higher education, the university announced Thursday.

And:

Discussions surrounding the donation have been ongoing for over a year, according to a university spokesperson.

From https://chicago.suntimes.com/education/2024/09/26/university-chicago-donation-free-speech-expression-forum :

The gift was ridiculed by advocates involved in the encampment that highlighted abuses against Palestinians in the Israel-Hamas War and torn down by the university in the spring.

“It’s truly a slap in the face,” said Yousseff Hasweh, a U of C grad who’s diploma was withheld by the university for two months, allegedly for his involvement in the protest.

[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Not publicly supported enough though lol. *leers at 40k of student debt

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Gotta pump them up... but they're a function of time?!

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 4 points 4 months ago

Student loans function as power laws.

[–] hannesh93@feddit.org 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Should it? I get that political parties should report donors - but for nonprofits and other institutions I feel it's not that necessary since they are directly investing that money in projects (that the donor may choose - but if that's not the case then that investment isn't happening) - for political parties and politicians it can be seen as a bribe as the things they invest in usually don't have a direct return of investment.

And there should be rules and regulations making sure that that donation is not ending up in some kind of contract for the company of the donor but that whatever that investment is funding has a transparent process

Where do we draw the line? Should donors to libraries be made public even if that person wants to remain anonymous but fund an expansion? Should donors to non-profits be made public?

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago

Agree in general. Ez fix: strings attached that it's anonymous and unattached. A third party manages the exchange, and everyone is under oath. A step in the right direction at least

[–] monk@lemmy.unboiled.info 2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Can you get through a working day without a burning unneeded desire to regulate yet another thing that shouldn't be regulated?

The amount of stuff governments are already regulating is, like, 5000% of what actually should be regulated. The remaining stuff can get by with the 20% of the existing regulation. And don't even begin to play the game of regulating private education into shape when what you need is a working public one.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 10 points 4 months ago

I would call myself an Anarchist. You're the stupid person people think of when they hear the word, and it's sad. Government regulation is absolutely required to protect people from losing power. Power structures are generally bad, which is why we need government to prevent them from forming in the background. When this doesn't happen then people lose power because their options are removed so others can profit off of them easier.

[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 8 points 4 months ago

I think that's a poor take. What governments? There's a million things that are poorly regulated because of corporate interests in any country

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Depends where you are. If youre of the 90% of US americans here in Lemmy, you regulate too less and too reactionary.

[–] monk@lemmy.unboiled.info 2 points 4 months ago

Let's just say my home country is transitioning away from authoritarian and into dictatorship.

[–] Illecors@lemmy.cafe 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

You won't win this one here. Lemmy is disappointingly facebook-like in terms of their seemingly endless desire to be told what to do every step of their lives.

I realise the numbers are sort of made up, but in general I fully agree. I do sometimes think that politicians regulate for the sake of it, as if justifying their existence.

[–] ReversalHatchery 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Lemmy is disappointingly facebook-like in terms of their seemingly endless desire to be told what to do every step of their lives.

I would be surprised if that was actually the case. most of the visitors are here because they got fed up with reddit's decisions.

What makes you think that way?

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 4 months ago

I think there are three groups. There's the tankies that got deplatformed and created Lemmy to have a platform with no corporate owner. There's the reddit refugees who wanted to get away from corporate controlled social media. Finally, there's assholes who got deplatformed because they're assholes. They aren't philosophically in favor of the freedom of the fediverse, just that it gives them a means to keep being bad people that no one else allows.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Here's the issue. Lemmy users are very against people losing control of their lives in general, contrary to what you imply. Most people here are against people losing control. The issue is, it's not only the government that can do this. Corporations, businesses, and other entities can take it away too. We need the government to regulate these things to protect people. I don't care to protect businesses. People should be free to do damn near anything they want as long as it doesn't hurt others. A company/their employer should not be able to prevent them from doing what they want.

You don't want freedom. You want another kind of control over you.

[–] within_epsilon 2 points 4 months ago

I find it eloquently said that oppressors can be public and private. People seem keen to trade public for private oppression. Humanity deserves less oppression of all forms.