However, we are not giving the homeless jackets because we want to laugh at them. We are trying to put a spin on the gamification of charity to see if we can get people to do more than they would otherwise.
It seems tacky, tbh: but if it puts jackets on backs then I'm all for it.
Clothing a homeless individual with a rival's garb as a means to insult one's rival reinforces the idea that it is ok to use a homeless person as an instrument of insult. It is not. It is dehumanizing, and treads dangerously close to the line of thinking that leads to projects like Bum Fights .
1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bum_fights
But is it more acceptable to see the unfortunate clearly wearing thin clothing when it's 20 degrees out and maintain the idea that they are people who must maintain their pride, or offer them the chance to sell out? It's a hard question to answer, but I think society has already answered that for us. Fast food restaurants already offer young professionals a chance to sell out by offering higher wages than many starting jobs in alternative industries .
1 - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/magazine/skills-dont-pay-t...
There is no way to use a homeless person as a prop that doesn't dehumanize them.
> But is it more acceptable to see the unfortunate clearly wearing thin clothing when it's 20 degrees out and maintain the idea that they are people who must maintain their pride, or offer them the chance to sell out?
I wholely reject this line of thinking. Doing one thing right does not absolve a wrong. By that line of reasoning, the people in the Bum Fights videos were better off, because they were paid. Net positive, am I right!?
And there's plenty of jumble sales, charity donations of old clothes, etc. This reminds me of that guy who did the (failed) million-tshirts-to-Africa project. Good intentions, bad idea.