Yeah, the rich people thing was a sort of tangential aside.

My point as regards The Oatmeal is that the charity donation basically had nothing to do with the original issue. Again, I do think The Oatmeal is in the right, but what he has done is take a demand for $20,000 dollars of [i]his[/i] money and said "Actually, I'm instead going to not spend any money and encourage a bunch of other people to give to charity."

I think the purpose of the charitable donation is to bring the court of public opinion to his side, and create more positive coverage of the situation. I can't help but wonder if the situation would have been different if he'd instead just said "Actually I'm just not going to give you the money." I think people would still be on his side, just not quite so loudly.

I am not sure what "this" is.

This is tangentially related, but fascinating.
I thought of it because he gets into the idea of people behaving reasonably. I wonder what he would have to say about this situation.

http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_howard.html


Forgot to post the link!

As far as I can tell, the guy at the oatmeal isn't rich. He had this guy running a crap site that was just pulling other people content syndicating everything he did. After sending a DMCA takedown to the guy, who didn't take down stuff, he took a shot at him in a funny way, the guy asked for 20k to keep from suing him. (All prior to the whole charity thing)

In my book, the guy from the oatmeal is definitely in the right here. The lawyer was practicing the a "legal" form of extortion.

Not if 1% of your net worth is enough to live comfortably on and never work.

My point in that case is that beyond a certain level of wealth, any extra wealth is completely meaningless. Sure, they're giving up 10% of their net worth - but it's money they would probably never spend. I doubt it makes any difference at all to their lives.

well, in that example you are donating 10% of your net worth... that's fairly generous by any standards.

Although I'm totally on The Oatmeal's side in this, have you noticed how people often start up charity campaigns to paint themselves as "good guys" in a public debate?

Basically The Oatmeal has had an issue with this lawyer asking for money, and has subsequently sought to donate a bunch of [i]other people's[/i] money to charity and come out looking like a saint. The reality of the charity thing is that he's actually putting very little into it and getting a lot of credit. It's a technique I've noticed used a couple of times recently. Immediately anything the opposing party says makes them seem like more a douchebag because they're standing in the way of charity.

Of course the net result is that money gets donated to charity which wouldn't otherwise, so that's a good thing. I still don't necessarily think it's a particularly shining example of altruism to encourage people to donate money to charity to make you look good. I notice similar things with incredibly rich people donating a lot of money to charity. There comes a point when you have way more money than you know what to do with, at that point there's no reason [i]not[/i] to donate to charity - especially because people will generally think better of you for it. But, really, if I have $10 billion and I donate $1 billion to charity, that's not really actually making any sacrifice is it? That would be like me offering a homeless person a chewing gum or something.

He raised so much money ($211,000 after the fundraising site takes its 4% cut) that he wanted to divide between 4 charities instead of the 2 originally mentioned. Can't do that now because of the lawsuit, which claims The Oatmeal is running an "illicit fundraiser". Essentially, the basis of the claim is that The Oatmeal will not be giving the money donated to the charities, and he's worried that this will be proved true if he splits the funds between extra charities not mentioned at the time people made their donations.

The current plan (once the lawsuit goes away and the funds are unfrozen), is to withdraw all the money in cash, photograph it and send the pictures to the lawyer, then give it to the charities.

This is indeed crazy. Suppose all that energy were directed into something productive rather than suing charities. Hopefully something good will come out of this yet. Some people need to get a life.

Wow. I'd read the stuff on The Oatmeal, but I'd not heard he was now suing the charities as well. This will not end well for FunnyJunk.