Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

Jonathan Barnes5 said:It doesn't really matter whether they lean left or right, or what specific niche they occupy. I am just as convinced that anyone can secure these funds because getting a hold of this list is relatively straightforward. The reason I find this so jarring is actually quite simple: you could just invent a name like "Guerrilla Girls"—which sounds incredibly juvenile, if you ask me🤣—toss a few vague objectives into a mission statement, and suddenly the money starts flowing.
It works exactly the same way if you call yourselves the "Guardians of Seventh-Century National Monuments" and suddenly there's a check waiting for you. Meanwhile, everyone on this forum is busy debating who gets more funding or whether progress comes from the left or the right🤦 🤣...
It is difficult to feel much affection for a government that functions this way, acting like a chaotic collection of nebulous administrative entries where nobody seems to have the public's best interests at heart.
Think of it like this: in a vast ocean of various special interest groups, there are undoubtedly both liberal and conservative organizations that genuinely want to improve this country and act constructively, spending their grants on meaningful activities for the common good. However, it’s impossible for those sincere groups to stay afloat when you see how many others have crowded into that space and what kind of public image they project.
Once the 2017 audit from our local watchdog group is released, we will see how many legitimate organizations the government actually supports versus how much is being funneled toward groups like the "Guerrilla Girls"🤣... it’s the kind of name a twelve-year-old gamer would come up with, claiming gaming existed back in 1982 after watching a few outdated documentaries.

Is it easy to get on the list? If it really is, maybe someone should just leak the whole thing, because what we're looking at here isn't a collection of publicly funded nonprofits; it's just a curated selection of Facebook groups. I actually searched for those "Guerrilla Girls" on Facebook, and turns out they're just some collective of American female artists. What on earth does that have to do with any of this?

Wouldn't it be much more honest to just pull the plug on all this funding entirely? You seem bothered by veterans' groups, while others are annoyed by those street philosophers hanging around downtown. Why don't we just cut everyone off and clear them all out of the budget? Why should we fund these phantom organizations just to maintain some rotting compromise? 🤷

And now, suddenly, they’ve decided to slap a sustainability levy on small and mid-sized businesses regarding forest management 🙏 It's practically a tax on breathing 🙏

Justin James10 said:Wouldn't it be much more honest to just pull the plug on all this funding entirely? You seem bothered by veterans' groups, while others are annoyed by those street philosophers hanging around downtown. Why don't we just cut everyone off and clear them all out of the budget? Why should we fund these phantom organizations just to maintain some rotting compromise? 🤷

And now, suddenly, they’ve decided to slap a sustainability levy on small and mid-sized businesses regarding forest management 🙏 It's practically a tax on breathing 🙏

Those are two completely different animals. Veterans receive compensation for service they actually performed, whereas these "street philosophers"—meaning any nonprofit outside the conservative spectrum—are getting grants for projects they're running right now. They aren't even the same conversation. First, there's the question of how much and for how long we should compensate veterans for their past sacrifices. Second, is the work these various nonprofits are doing actually necessary or worth the taxpayer's investment? In reality, you wouldn't have one single government agency splitting its budget fifty-fifty between veteran services and philosophy clubs anyway.

ruggedjackal46 said:Is it easy to get on the list? If it really is, maybe someone should just leak the whole thing, because what we're looking at here isn't a collection of publicly funded nonprofits; it's just a curated selection of Facebook groups. I actually searched for those "Guerrilla Girls" on Facebook, and turns out they're just some collective of American female artists. What on earth does that have to do with any of this?

Give me a break. You can't be expected to fact-check everything.
It goes without saying.
When people start claiming that certain movements mean men in dresses are going to be lurking in women's restrooms, you just take their word for it, don't you?

ruggedjackal46 said:Is it easy to get on the list? If it really is, maybe someone should just leak the whole thing, because what we're looking at here isn't a collection of publicly funded nonprofits; it's just a curated selection of Facebook groups. I actually searched for those "Guerrilla Girls" on Facebook, and turns out they're just some collective of American female artists. What on earth does that have to do with any of this?

For heaven's sake, you can't be expected to fact-check everything.
It goes without saying.
When they tell you that "IK" means men in dresses are going to be committing assaults in women's restrooms, you just take their word for it.

ruggedjackal46 said:Those are two completely different animals. Veterans receive compensation for service they actually performed, whereas these "street philosophers"—meaning any nonprofit outside the conservative spectrum—are getting grants for projects they're running right now. They aren't even the same conversation. First, there's the question of how much and for how long we should compensate veterans for their past sacrifices. Second, is the work these various nonprofits are doing actually necessary or worth the taxpayer's investment? In reality, you wouldn't have one single government agency splitting its budget fifty-fifty between veteran services and philosophy clubs anyway.

But let's be honest, those groups have their own projects too. Most of them are just running nonsense that's about as productive as the unemployed kids over at the liberal arts college. Personally, I wouldn't fund a single cent of that junk! I just don't understand where this idea comes from that some people deserve support while others don't. Why would a leftist non-profit be considered more valuable than a conservative one?

In my eyes, they're all just freeloaders. It seems to me that "your crowd" only ever complains when it's the conservative organizations being targeted.

ruggedjackal46 said:Is it easy to get on the list? If it really is, maybe someone should just leak the whole thing, because what we're looking at here isn't a collection of publicly funded nonprofits; it's just a curated selection of Facebook groups. I actually searched for those "Guerrilla Girls" on Facebook, and turns out they're just some collective of American female artists. What on earth does that have to do with any of this?

Sure, the government is obligated to be transparent about where taxpayer money goes. They fund everything under the sun. It reminds me of an artist receiving a grant from the Department of the Treasury for a film, only to turn around and lecture the President about foreign policy issues halfway across the globe.😁
But I think we’re missing the point. Personally, I couldn't care less about the specific names on the roster; my issue is simply the fact that seemingly anyone and everyone can snag a handout, often backed by some vague justification. I realize people aren't machines, and trying to quantify someone's social impact is a bit like trying to measure the wind, but it’s hard not to feel a sense of frustration when you look at the sheer scale of it. On that note, I’m genuinely curious about the "productivity" of these organizations that receive heavy donations from private sector executives. They claim to defend human rights, yet they seem completely indifferent to the plight of local fan clubs that face systemic pressure, all while these various NGOs soak up federal funding. It’s a glaring contradiction.
And honestly, the state can give money to whoever they want, including those Guerrilla Girls. After all, they did provide support to certain "rebels" during conflicts abroad.🤦 🤣

If you can grasp how much it actually hurts some of us to watch this funding happen—even though we all have our own political leanings—then you might understand why I find the whole "who belongs to which conspiracy" argument so exhausting. Just find the data; it isn't that hard. For instance, there are hundreds of veteran advocacy groups stemming from just one single military division, and while I have immense respect for our service members, seeing them operate in such a parasitic fashion is difficult. In this country, it seems everyone believes they are indispensable and entitled to a slice of the pie.
Once you strip away the endless, almost satirical debates about whether these organizations are truly "essential," I feel I have every right to call them what they are: classic parasites. Just a few weeks ago, I was heading home from work after another meeting, reading through endless messages of support for various fringe figures on social media as if they were some legendary historical icons. Then you see mainstream news outlets pick up the slogans, acting as if these kids are personally out there fighting on the front lines of every historical conflict. The media then flips the script, labeling anyone who questions this obsession with the past as "out of touch." It’s a circular logic. Ultimately, it all boils down to these repetitive forum arguments: where do the conservatives sit on this list versus the liberals, and how much is each side getting?

To make matters even more absurd, people cite mainstream news headlines as gospel, even though both the far-left and the far-right argue that the media shouldn't be trusted. It feels like a collective breakdown in societal logic.

Justin James10 said:Wouldn't it be much more honest to just pull the plug on all this funding entirely? You seem bothered by veterans' groups, while others are annoyed by those street philosophers hanging around downtown. Why don't we just cut everyone off and clear them all out of the budget? Why should we fund these phantom organizations just to maintain some rotting compromise? 🤷

And now, suddenly, they’ve decided to slap a sustainability levy on small and mid-sized businesses regarding forest management 🙏 It's practically a tax on breathing 🙏

I wasn't actually trying to steer the conversation toward that extreme; I was simply responding to the outcry regarding the supposed millions being wasted by specifically targeting those notorious anti-government elements.

Justin James10 said:But let's be honest, those groups have their own projects too. Most of them are just running nonsense that's about as productive as the unemployed kids over at the liberal arts college. Personally, I wouldn't fund a single cent of that junk! I just don't understand where this idea comes from that some people deserve support while others don't. Why would a leftist non-profit be considered more valuable than a conservative one?

In my eyes, they're all just freeloaders. It seems to me that "your crowd" only ever complains when it's the conservative organizations being targeted.

Veteran organizations are groups meant to bring together people who served in the 90s, not necessarily a bunch of experts eager to launch a new startup today. When we talk about veteran associations, let's stick to that specifically, rather than making sweeping statements about all right-wing groups in general.

As far as I'm concerned, they're all parasites. It seems like "you people" only find it an issue when it's a conservative organization.

Going back to my earlier point: "Those are two distinct issues—first, how much should veterans be compensated for past service? And second, are the actual activities these organizations carry out necessary and worth the funding?"

I think when it comes to nonprofits, it doesn't make much sense to jump to broad generalizations. You really need to look into what these specific groups actually do and why they receive taxpayer money. To take an extreme example, a foundation for the blind gets funded because they perform essential work that simply can't be turned into a profit through the free market.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:Sure, the government is obligated to be transparent about where taxpayer money goes. They fund everything under the sun. It reminds me of an artist receiving a grant from the Department of the Treasury for a film, only to turn around and lecture the President about foreign policy issues halfway across the globe.😁
But I think we’re missing the point. Personally, I couldn't care less about the specific names on the roster; my issue is simply the fact that seemingly anyone and everyone can snag a handout, often backed by some vague justification. I realize people aren't machines, and trying to quantify someone's social impact is a bit like trying to measure the wind, but it’s hard not to feel a sense of frustration when you look at the sheer scale of it. On that note, I’m genuinely curious about the "productivity" of these organizations that receive heavy donations from private sector executives. They claim to defend human rights, yet they seem completely indifferent to the plight of local fan clubs that face systemic pressure, all while these various NGOs soak up federal funding. It’s a glaring contradiction.
And honestly, the state can give money to whoever they want, including those Guerrilla Girls. After all, they did provide support to certain "rebels" during conflicts abroad.🤦 🤣

If you can grasp how much it actually hurts some of us to watch this funding happen—even though we all have our own political leanings—then you might understand why I find the whole "who belongs to which conspiracy" argument so exhausting. Just find the data; it isn't that hard. For instance, there are hundreds of veteran advocacy groups stemming from just one single military division, and while I have immense respect for our service members, seeing them operate in such a parasitic fashion is difficult. In this country, it seems everyone believes they are indispensable and entitled to a slice of the pie.
Once you strip away the endless, almost satirical debates about whether these organizations are truly "essential," I feel I have every right to call them what they are: classic parasites. Just a few weeks ago, I was heading home from work after another meeting, reading through endless messages of support for various fringe figures on social media as if they were some legendary historical icons. Then you see mainstream news outlets pick up the slogans, acting as if these kids are personally out there fighting on the front lines of every historical conflict. The media then flips the script, labeling anyone who questions this obsession with the past as "out of touch." It’s a circular logic. Ultimately, it all boils down to these repetitive forum arguments: where do the conservatives sit on this list versus the liberals, and how much is each side getting?

To make matters even more absurd, people cite mainstream news headlines as gospel, even though both the far-left and the far-right argue that the media shouldn't be trusted. It feels like a collective breakdown in societal logic.

Every non-profit operates on project-based funding, where the money you get is supposedly tied to your results. That’s just how the system works. Sure, there’s probably plenty of embezzlement happening during both the allocation and the reporting phases, but the system isn't designed to just grab a few billion dollars and toss it at random charities; it’s distributed quite specifically in relatively small increments.

As for the sports fans, I don't know what to tell you, other than the prejudices work both ways. Just as fans ask why certain academic groups get funded while they get treated like criminals, the other side asks why stadium hooligans get any attention at all while the groups doing actual work get nothing but crumbs. Divide and conquer, right?

I’ll just mention how we handle our contributions to the arts here ☕

Whatever, man. People are out there making culture happen, so it’s only right we keep them fed. It's the decent thing to do.

Paul Sanders5 said:I’ll just mention how we handle our contributions to the arts here ☕

Whatever, man. People are out there making culture happen, so it’s only right we keep them fed. It's the decent thing to do.

But what does that actually look like in raw numbers? We’re talking about a few bucks per person annually in taxes, yet more than a third of my gross salary just vanishes instantly. People lose their minds over every tiny little project that gets public funding, but honestly, do we even have any real transparency regarding where our tax dollars and surcharges are actually going? Or where the massive chunks of cash are being funneled? I mean, sure, we get a glimpse when we see an indictment against some corrupt governor or a shady CEO, but for some reason, those local politicians who run the city hall or the big university systems don't seem to trigger the same level of taxpayer rage.

ruggedjackal46 said:Every non-profit operates on project-based funding, where the money you get is supposedly tied to your results. That’s just how the system works. Sure, there’s probably plenty of embezzlement happening during both the allocation and the reporting phases, but the system isn't designed to just grab a few billion dollars and toss it at random charities; it’s distributed quite specifically in relatively small increments.

As for the sports fans, I don't know what to tell you, other than the prejudices work both ways. Just as fans ask why certain academic groups get funded while they get treated like criminals, the other side asks why stadium hooligans get any attention at all while the groups doing actual work get nothing but crumbs. Divide and conquer, right?

Who is actually auditing these projects to ensure the money is being spent as intended? Are they required to submit feasibility studies for their investments? And if they fail to meet their projected goals, are they hit with financial corrections or clawbacks?
There has to be some level of accountability. It would be like walking into a major bank like JP Morgan with a solid business plan, failing miserably, and then simply telling them, "Well, I had good intentions," and expecting them to let it slide😁. The same logic applies to any government agency or federal institution.

But regardless of what people think about the fanbases, the reality is quite stark. They are systematically sidelined—truly pushed to the margins—while certain individuals accept government assistance and then complain about being oppressed. It’s a bit like someone eating butter straight from the tub and then complaining about the cost of living. In my view, they aren't much better than those who claim they don't support a corrupt tycoon, only to follow his every move anyway. It's all part of the same mindset.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:Who is actually auditing these projects to ensure the money is being spent as intended? Are they required to submit feasibility studies for their investments? And if they fail to meet their projected goals, are they hit with financial corrections or clawbacks?
There has to be some level of accountability. It would be like walking into a major bank like JP Morgan with a solid business plan, failing miserably, and then simply telling them, "Well, I had good intentions," and expecting them to let it slide😁. The same logic applies to any government agency or federal institution.

But regardless of what people think about the fanbases, the reality is quite stark. They are systematically sidelined—truly pushed to the margins—while certain individuals accept government assistance and then complain about being oppressed. It’s a bit like someone eating butter straight from the tub and then complaining about the cost of living. In my view, they aren't much better than those who claim they don't support a corrupt tycoon, only to follow his every move anyway. It's all part of the same mindset.

The donating institution handles the auditing too. If you can't justify the expenses properly, you end up with a partial payout, getting blacklisted from future grants, or being forced to pay the money back.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about sports fans, the reality is pretty grim. They get systematically crushed—literally steamrolled—while some people take government money and act like they're being oppressed. I doubt they could even manage to eat a meal without someone handing them a silver platter. They aren't any better than those types who say, "Look, I'm not a fan of the NFL owner, BUT..." It's all the same mindset.

That's all well and good, but I fail to see how point number one connects to point number two. Is the government supposed to wait until an organization is practically bankrupt before they have the right to protest?

ruggedjackal46 said:The donating institution handles the auditing too. If you can't justify the expenses properly, you end up with a partial payout, getting blacklisted from future grants, or being forced to pay the money back.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about sports fans, the reality is pretty grim. They get systematically crushed—literally steamrolled—while some people take government money and act like they're being oppressed. I doubt they could even manage to eat a meal without someone handing them a silver platter. They aren't any better than those types who say, "Look, I'm not a fan of the NFL owner, BUT..." It's all the same mindset.

That's all well and good, but I fail to see how point number one connects to point number two. Is the government supposed to wait until an organization is practically bankrupt before they have the right to protest?

Brilliant. It’s like a chaotic wedding guest acting as the coordinator, failing to help the one person who was simply too overwhelmed to finish their registration.😁

Well, there's always another side to the coin. Most of these organizations are genuinely dedicated to human rights and building a better community. They just need to be reminded that things aren't stuck in the 1970s anymore, and sports fans aren't some invading force from a border town.

Honestly, the most disappointing part is that no one seems to engage with posts like mine in a constructive way.😳There are certainly many such organizations, but can anyone articulate a better way forward? What should our starting positions be, and how would you actually restructure this? What are the fundamental questions regarding how these grants are generated and distributed?
In a country where grant money has historically been mismanaged, I shouldn't suddenly have to rely on nothing but "take my word for it" arguments to believe everything is legitimate. It feels as though we are being treated as if we are all collectively incompetent or just a malicious mob that doesn't grasp how social activism benefits the wider community. It reminds me of seeing someone fly a political flag for an old dictator on a college campus back in 2018.🤦.
If none of the people running these groups could tell those troublemakers to go take a vacation on a tropical island instead of causing damage with such nonsense, then there's a real problem.
It feels like a dialogue between the deaf. My only concern is who will step up to fund these types of groups in the future. They'll likely end up getting support from colleagues in Dublin or Munich, because no sane person in this country is going to tolerate paying a ransom for someone else's hobby—whether that's posting outdated political slogans or driving around downtown Los Angeles with gas canisters.

The same thing was said about federal grants—that Washington would oversee them directly. But look at the reality: they only step in after someone has already won the bid, leaving our own government with massive influence over who gets what in the first place.
So the logic follows: better to let "insiders" scoop up 80% of the contracts, then we can play fair with the remaining 20% by selecting the highest quality applicants...

When it comes to public funding, I honestly struggle to wrap my head around how anyone thinks amateur sports—you know, those youth leagues we all grew up in—could actually function without support from the government or local community organizations, whether that’s through logistics or direct funding. It’s the same story with literature.

But I suppose those things don't carry much weight for you all; after all, you can't exactly eat them, wear them, or use them to get ahead in life, can you?

Yet, the moment a nation like Sweden starts paying for translations of their authors into obscure languages like ours, suddenly they're viewed as a cultural superpower exerting dominance over us.🙏

ruggedjackal46 said:But what does that actually look like in raw numbers? We’re talking about a few bucks per person annually in taxes, yet more than a third of my gross salary just vanishes instantly. People lose their minds over every tiny little project that gets public funding, but honestly, do we even have any real transparency regarding where our tax dollars and surcharges are actually going? Or where the massive chunks of cash are being funneled? I mean, sure, we get a glimpse when we see an indictment against some corrupt governor or a shady CEO, but for some reason, those local politicians who run the city hall or the big university systems don't seem to trigger the same level of taxpayer rage.

I don't know what kind of "huge sums" you're imagining, but you'll realize pretty quickly that paying people who pull in tens of thousands of dollars per concert—or even those getting fat payouts from slush funds—is just plain idiotic.😬

brightpilot6 said:When it comes to public funding, I honestly struggle to wrap my head around how anyone thinks amateur sports—you know, those youth leagues we all grew up in—could actually function without support from the government or local community organizations, whether that’s through logistics or direct funding. It’s the same story with literature.

But I suppose those things don't carry much weight for you all; after all, you can't exactly eat them, wear them, or use them to get ahead in life, can you?

Yet, the moment a nation like Sweden starts paying for translations of their authors into obscure languages like ours, suddenly they're viewed as a cultural superpower exerting dominance over us.🙏

Are you talking about the money being diverted toward massive salaries for foreign basketball players? That entire side of the sport is basically built on that model, but that's a whole different conversation. If you actually look at who receives those grants and where the money is being funneled, it's clear that the entire US Basketball Association is a complete mess.
And once again, you're acting as if we're just simpletons who don't grasp basic public finance. We are pointing out that the system itself is broken, yet you talk to us as if we're just uneducated laborers working abroad who complain about everything without reason.😁

The reality is that when the core system fails, any attempt to distribute funds to various associations becomes equally ineffective. When the government is disorganized, the organizations it supports tend to be just as chaotic.

But tell me one thing: how am I supposed to buy that book? Between paying rent, utilities, and groceries, there isn't much left over for extras. I'd settle for maybe two good titles, which is almost $167. Where am I supposed to find that kind of money? You tell me.

Oh, please... everyone loves to talk about those massive Scandinavian social safety nets, but nobody ever wants to discuss the actual grind it took to build that kind of prosperity. It’s such a classic case of wanting the prize without acknowledging the work 🤦