this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2024
944 points (97.8% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

35751 readers
1030 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I was planning to donate the couple bucks I had left over from the year to the charity called “San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance”, I was doing a background check on CharityNavigator and they gave the charity full ratings so it seemed good.

Then I stumbled upon the salary section. What the fuck? I earn <20k a year and was planning to contribute to someone’s million dollar salary? WHAT.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/951648219

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

While not ideal, I would like to note that the charity has a revenue of 392 M$. Spending 1-2% on salaries of top exec is not that bad if it prevents them from misusing the funds. A lot of the time, the alternative to high salaries for people in power is those people giving in to corruption since the risk/benefit encourages it. Just look at politics for an example.

That being said, wtf is chief philanthropy officer?!

[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Spending 1-2% on salaries

These greedy cunts are probably 1% of the workforce though. How much is actually spent on salaries?

Stop defending them

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

How much would you prefer they made? Do you think the world would be a better place if they shut down their charity businesses?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Stop defending them

Idk anything about them, so it is not my intention to defend anyone. I am just pointing out that having bad execs (whether incompetent, careless or outright embezzlers) is far worse than paying 1-2%. As far as I know, no one has came up with a better reusable way to get good execs than paying them a lot. I have no idea if these execs in particular are good.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Chief Philanthropy Officer probably heads their fundraising team. Aka sales

[–] Corkyskog 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's exactly what they do. They also usually act as a liason between their mega donors to ensure the money is spent in the way it's ear marked for. Mega donors usually donate conditionally, basically a type of private grant.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Thanks for the extra info.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

That makes sense, thanks for the info.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

What you are describing is blackmail.

"Pay us exorbitant salaries or we'll be forced to embezzle the funds"

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It's also human nature for the kind of sociopath executive positions attract.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

So we should just accept that and pay them off rather than putting in mechanisms to prevent that and hiring people who are motivated by something other than the payout?

It might seem like we have no choice but we do, collectively, hold the power of the purse here. And I think this post is a great example of that.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

No, we shouldn't, but that's what is happening.

And yes, I agree.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

You are not necessarily paying of the same people. Even most honest/righteous people like to be paid well. So the charity willing to pay them get those and the charities that don't pay well risk getting the kind of people who don't mind embezzling.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I am not an exec, so no it is not. It is just statement of fact.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What is "it" in your comment?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

What I am describing is not blackmail. It is the same as saying that leaving unguarded food next to starving people encourages theft of said food. That is not blackmail. I am saying anything beyond that. I am not commenting on morality of the situation or what the right thing to do is. Just pointing out a fact.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It amazes me that somehow all that makes sense in your brain. Interesting.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Sorry, do I need to handhold you through it? Are you unable to figure out what the definition of blackmail is? "If you don't bring an umbrella, you will get wet since it is supposed to rain." is not blackmail. Unless you are 10, I am very concerned that you can't comprehend this.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 weeks ago

I am very concerned that you can’t comprehend this.

What's not comprehensible here is your argument. I'd suggest you consider how you might learn to be a better communicator.

Good bye.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Last time I checked prison was the real alternative.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

For the little people.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Would be nice if that worked. If you embezzle the money smartly, e.g. giving lucrative contracts to friends consultancy firm, there is pretty much no way to prove it.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

That salary should be elevated, but a more reasonable value would be $250-350K. At least in my extremely expensive market. That's the guy that asks rich people for money. He generates multiples of his salary in value. He's connected to the very wealthy. When I contributed to such efforts, I was invited to dine with Peter Lynch (who served lamb chops at his penthouse in Boston, it was an experience. Nice guy.).

He could get a well-paying job at virtually any large nonprofit.

Edit: CFO is also extremely competitive but that much at a nonprofit is fucken wild. $600K is what we pay our CFO at my very large and consequential nonprofit (like, we do innovative shit that saves lives across the world).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Don't want to dox you or anything but are you comfortable saying the nonprofit you work for? I'm just curious.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Haha fair enough! Love it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Interesting. Our local art museum pays their philanthropic director about $170k. Smaller org of course.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Who cares for your funking CFO? No way he's the guy doing "innovative shit that saves lives across the world", it's the guys below him making a fraction of his salary.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

You try running an org without a CFO and see how it goes.