Lilly Allen Revisited
February 22nd, 2009humanity, lilly allen
Most people have never heard of the Lilly Allen saga, but it was one night of plurking that has left me in contemplation for months, and I have decided finally to post my thoughts.
If you have no idea what I’m talking about, dotlizard has collected some background information. In a nutshell, a message was posted on plurk supposedly by Lilly Allen’s 16 year old daughter saying her mother needed money for an emergency medical treatment. The story told by the young girl was heart breaking, and a paypal account was set up for her to collect money on her mother’s behalf. Literally over 1000 plurk responses later, it was essentially decided that it was a con. People from the medical profession chimed in, and others found holes in the meticulously constructed story. Then the original plurks were mysteriously deleted. I spent over an hour reading responses to the original plurk, fascinated as I watched the conversation unfold. The entire story of who really posted that plurk may never be known, but what happened because of it may stick in my mind for the rest of my life.
People began donating money to the paypal account. $10, $20, even $100. Before the holes in the story were pointed out to me, I thought about giving something for the supposedly dying woman, but I didn’t. I didn’t give a drop, and that has always bothered me. The people who discovered the con felt triumphant, and those who had given the money were made to feel foolish, but I think they were the real heroes. In the heat of the moment, they had to make a decision about whether or not they trusted, whether or not they believed, whether or not they would act, they came through and said “yes, I trust humanity, I will help.” While I was sitting there like a log, these people were giving.
I’ve wondered countless times since that night about the biggest difference between the people who gave and the people who sat. Is it as simple as all of humanity being divided into doers and watchers? I hope not, because that means I’m just taking up space. I wish so much now that I had purchased my peace of mind from that con artist for a mere $10 or $20, and secured my place in this ‘verse as a giver.
i totally appreciate your generosity of spirit on this, but i also disagree, philosophically, and the reason is very simple and basic: no matter how good it might feel to be a giver and a doer who gives & does without reservation, what it means in the end is that the con artists win, while people with real need, go without. skepticism might not feel good, but, in a world where con artists abound, it helps keep the world in balance by keeping them from prospering at the expense of those who are genuine. in the guest post i wrote on Tamar’s blog here: http://www.techipedia.com/2008/social-media-scandals/ my last two paragraphs were aimed at reassuring people that giving is still good, but due diligence helps make sure the giving is directed where it will do the most good.
the basis of this philosophy is that all of us, no matter our financial condition, have finite resources for giving. every time we expend these resources, we allocate a portion of our limited power to do good, leaving less for the rest. every time a con artist gets a share, there is less for everyone else, and to me that negates the moral appeal of feeling like a giver. it’s not the person doing the giving who suffers, it’s the people who could have been helped but weren’t.
i do not look down on those who gave before the story came out, i respect their generosity of spirit and think they are awesome. but i do wish their awesomeness hadn’t gone to someone who makes their living lying and cheating and plagiarizing, instead of someone who has lived an honest life and has an honest need.
@dotlizard you know, I’ve thought about this for months and I never thought about what you just said. Oh hell! I guess I’ll have to think about it for another ten years to figure out how I feel!