Church's 2023 Expenditures in Philanthropic/Humanitarian Relief

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

"The kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan will always remain two kingdoms; and so long as they are, you will find from time to time that the citizens of Satan's kingdom will be telling you of cats that are ready to leap out of the bag, of something that is wonderful and alarming in its nature…" (Pres. Brigham Young)

 

 

"Why should I not be proud of my religion? If a man be permitted to have pride at all; or if this people be permitted to indulge in it in the least degree, why not be proud of their religion? For God loves it, angels adore it, all the heavenly hosts delight in it; it is in the midst of an eternity of intelligence, and forms a part of it; while, on the other hand, all hell is opposed to it, all wickedness is opposed to it, all men and women who desire to make sin their refuge, hate it; and all hell, and all its votaries hate it, and the Lord Almighty, with all His subjects, loves it; and He will yet rule triumphantly over this earth." (Pres. Brigham Young)

*I also am proud of my religion and all the good it does for mankind- both spiritually and temporally.*

 

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

This is an interesting point and causes me to reconsider a related issue. 

It may not be in the best interest of either the Church or its partnering organizations for the Church to donate so much to a single entity that it becomes the predominant donor. If the partner cannot survive without ongoing support from the LDS church, then the church is left with no graceful exit strategy and the partner is held captive to the policy preferences of its majority patron.

If thats a valid concern, then it may be best for all parties concerned if church donations to its charitable partners scale with donations from other donors.

Good point. If globalization has taught me anything, it's that Perverse Incentives (aka the Cobra Effect) are ever and always to be watched for. Easy solutions are rarely what they seem. 

In the end, the thing that seems to matter most for me is that I never felt that the Church owed me an accounting of the returns of its investments on tithing funds. There was no duty to breach, not to me. But some things are fine in some relationships that would be dealbreakers for others. The roots of this particular disagreement are sentimental, I think, and essentially pre-rational. 

[Rain]

4 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Good point. If globalization has taught me anything, it's that Perverse Incentives (aka the Cobra Effect) are ever and always to be watched for. Easy solutions are rarely what they seem. 

In the end, the thing that seems to matter most for me is that I never felt that the Church owed me an accounting of the returns of its investments on tithing funds. There was no duty to breach, not to me. But some things are fine in some relationships that would be dealbreakers for others. The roots of this particular disagreement are sentimental, I think, and essentially pre-rational. 

When you talk about relationships here it reminds me of my relationship with my husband. I've for a long time have felt  not strong either way on the church sharing what it does with the money. I've seen reasons why it would be good and reasons why it wouldn't be.  But your post flips me into firmly thinking it should be shared.  As you say, some in a relationship don't share/account, but I could not imagine not fully sharing with my husband who I am closer to than anyone. True, this is supposed to be a parent child relationship with God, but the leaders who run it here on earth are still human and not our parents so it makes perfect sense for them to share about finances with their fellow brothers and sisters.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I never felt that the Church owed me an accounting of the returns of its investments on tithing funds

 

4 hours ago, Rain said:

I've for a long time have felt  not strong either way on the church sharing what it does with the money. I've seen reasons why it would be good and reasons why it wouldn't be.  But your post flips me into firmly thinking it should be shared. 

One positive of the disclosure that this church went through was the immense pressure that was brought to bear to both increase transparency and to increase its humanitarian work. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has responded to this pressure (who says critics never move this church!?) on both fronts. The 30% increase is probably actually understated since these numbers include members’ fast offerings. If fast offerings were removed, the year-over-year increase in humanitarian spend would be even more pronounced. 

Edited March 23, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

One positive of the disclosure that this church went through was the immense pressure that was brought to bear to both increase transparency and to increase its humanitarian work. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has responded to this pressure (who says critics never move this church!?) on both fronts. The 30% increase is probably actually understated since these numbers include members’ fast offerings. If fast offerings were removed, the year-over-year increase in humanitarian spend would be even more pronounced. 

Prove it without bias.

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Having or identifying a need is not the same thing as being prepared to address that need.

My guess is World Food program is prepared to address a need as are other organizations.

 

20 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I work in local government, and I am currently in the process of preparing a number of applications for some federal grant programs.  Our organization has done a swell job of identifying the needs that these federal programs could fill, but in about half of these cases, we are still a year or two away from actually being ready to use those funds.  

I am not sure I get the correlation.

20 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

There really is a network of institutional infrastructure that needs to be built in order to efficiently transfer, process, and utilize large donations of capital.  That infrastructure can take a number of years to build.  And even if that infrastructure could be built overnight,  it would still be best to build it out incrementally.  In that way, an organization can build institutional knowledge and experience among their work force and identify vulnerabilities in their process chains which can then be solved before those processes are carrying much higher stakes. 

In other words, institutions, like people, have to walk before they can run.   

Sure.  And there are numerous organizations that have institutional infrastructure in place to deliver resources where needed.  And the Church has huge resources it could deploy to start to build its own infrastructure over time, if the leadership wanted to invest those resources. 

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Challenging truth - this statement will remain true, even if the entire sum total of GNP of the entire world is permanently handed to charitable organizations.

So?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

58 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Prove it without bias.

lol! Literally, nothing is provable to 100 percent.
 

But sure, Ensign peak is leaked in Dec 2019 and then in a completely unrelated matter, the church decides 2020 is the first year ever to release its new giving report! Can’t find it online but here is a write up: https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/3/26/22352403/report-church-aid-in-2020-featured-more-than-1000-covid-19-relief-projects-mormon-lds/

 

It doesn’t provide a total giving number for 2020. It said the church averaged 80 million annually in humanitarian giving from 1985. 
 

In 2021, the church reported 906 million, in 2022 1,060 million in giving. An increase of over 100 million in a year! Over doubling the long term average. What a coincidence! Then in 2023 1,360 million. An increase of over 400 million from the long term average. 

If you have any actual data that contradicts this narrative, I’m all ears.

 

Edited March 23, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[LoudmouthMormon]

13 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I might be inclined to listen to you if 1)I can get the portion of the reserve fund payed for unwittingly by me without my consent and 2) The church starts paying taxes. Deal?

"I paid tithing but I disagree with how the church used it"?  That's your complaint?  I would assume you and I share an understanding of the definition of the word "consent", but you somehow seem to think it applies with voluntary contributions and I don't.  No deal.  In other news, I paid for my groceries and then later found out the Kroeger company donates to causes with which I disagree.  I demand my money back.

 

13 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

That’s big talk from a guy whose church doesn’t trust him enough to provide him adequate financial disclosure.

"The church isn't as transparent as a secular corporation with it's finances, and therefore I have a gripe and you should too."  Yawn.   I've made a lifetime habit of considering every notion, every criticism, every opinion, and letting the truth decide what I should think and believe.  I'm LDS because I believe God wants me to be one.  I can't not believe that.  It's a testimony.  I get that folks without testimonies like to look at/evaluate/criticize other reasons to be LDS, but when stacked up against my testimony they all fall flat.  Tomorrow, if I learn that a member of the 12 was secretly embezzling funds and escapes to some island nation with no extradition and they Ex him, I'd still pay tithing.  Because I trust God to be God, and man to act like man.

 

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

This is an interesting point and causes me to reconsider a related issue. 

It may not be in the best interest of either the Church or its partnering organizations for the Church to donate so much to a single entity that it becomes the predominant donor. If the partner cannot survive without ongoing support from the LDS church, then the church is left with no graceful exit strategy and the partner is held captive to the policy preferences of its majority patron.

If thats a valid concern, then it may be best for all parties concerned if church donations to its charitable partners scale with donations from other donors.

See the Boy Scouts for the best example of this in regards to the Church.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

"I paid tithing but I disagree with how the church used it"? 
 

Is there a reason you use quotes here?

15 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

That's your complaint?  I would assume you and I share an understanding of the definition of the word "consent", but you somehow seem to think it applies with voluntary contributions and I don't. 

Without disclosure there can be no consent. 

15 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

 

No deal.  In other news, I paid for my groceries and then later found out the Kroeger company donates to causes with which I disagree.  I demand my money back.

More like if I gave money to the Red Cross because they said their stated purpose was to aid in disaster relief. I later find out that less than half of the money they receive each year goes to this purpose and the rest they use to grow a hedge fund. That they hid from everyone. They want to grow a hedge fund? That’s fine, but I can do that on my own. I wanted my dollars used to aid people now. This is why disclosure is so important. 

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Presiding Bishopric has repeatedly indicated this is an issue.

Yes.  But the Church also has potentially some billions of dollars it could spend every year in perpetuity.  Are these "dozens of trusted and vetted organizations" situated to facilitate meaningful and responsible utilization of such huge amounts of money?  

I have previously commented on this here:

 “The members of the church have a right to trust that {their tithes and offerings are} going to be managed and handled well and not just thrown at issues.”

Yep.  

Right.  And the NGOs in California "still need more money" for their missions, yet the graft and corruption and incompetence in that state's "homelessness" efforts are staggering and persistent.  So need is not the sole factor here.

My sense is that the Church has more money to spend on humanitarian/philanthropic causes than it has vetted and competent partner organizations situated to meaningfully and responsibly and effectively spend such funds.  I think the Church values its mandates.  And I think it's trying very hard to fulfill them, including those pertaining to philanthropic and humanitarian service to people worldwide. The effectiveness of the Church's humanitarian efforts is, I submit, a vastly more important consideration than whether the Church hits a "spend an arbitrary percentage of its accumulated principal, regardless of whether such spending is efficient and effective" benchmark. 

I don't know what you mean by this.  It's a far-from-established proposition, and one that does not seem to jibe with the various statements from the Presiding Bishopric.  From this 2020 Deseret News article:

The Church could just give money away and not give much attention to whether or not such expenditures are effectively and competently utilized, but then it would not be a wise steward.

Honestly, I don't think this is quite correct.  I think the Church has pretty good reasons for managing its philanthropic expenditures in the ways it does.  

I could see all sorts of problems arising with NGOs being fully subsidized by the Church.

What a crutch, too.

And what a huge risk it is for the Church to end up causing more harm than good by contributing to irresponsible and/or unintentionally harmful humanitarian efforts (see below).

And what a temptation for the functionaries at these organizations to start thinking of the Church's largesse as a convenient personal piggy bank for themselves.

We are, or should be, aware of widespread corruption and malfeasance in non-profit entities focusing on humanitarian efforts, which is one of the reasons I believe the Church is fairly cautious in this sector.  We discussed this last year:

 

Because their need for money is not our concern.  Their ability to competently and efficiently use it to help our fellow man is our concern.

From the above article: "{R}eaching out and helping those in need is 'a very complex endeavor,' he said.  The Church can’t just send out cash and checks to people, he said. 'It has to be done in an organized way, and with follow up, with training, a lot of expertise and good partners. Otherwise, you just don’t get any results.'"

That's not the way tithing works.

That's not the way tithing works, either.

Hmm.  Where to begin.

UN agency suspends food aid to Ethiopia’s Tigray amid theft

Does this affect your assessment about your money "being put to better use"?

If a program as well-heeled as the WFP is having problems like this, perhaps the Church's caution is justified?

From 2010: How Corrupt Is the World Food Program?

Huh.  Misappropriation and corruption involving the WFP.  Perhaps the Church's caution is warranted.

From 2019: Popular U.N. Food Agency Roiled by Internal Problems, Survey Finds

Internal misconduct at the WFP.  

From 2023: The World Food Program’s Boss Faces Backlash for Attending an Event Honoring Israel

Politicking by WFP employees.

This next one, though, is a real eye-opener.  From 2020: Food Crimes: Why WFP Doesn’t Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize

WFP staff are "paid generously."

"{F}ood aid is, in fact, detrimental in the long run because it suppresses local food production, making it harder for poor or conflict-ridden countries to feed themselves."

"{S}tudies have found that direct cash transfers are a much more efficient and effective method to alleviate hardship and improve the overall welfare of beneficiary communities."

Food aid may be doing more harm than good.

"{A}id became a political tool in Somalia that was manipulated by both the donors and the recipient country."

"{F}ood aid to Somalia may have actually prolonged the civil war in the country."

"'{A}id could be worse than incompetent and inadvertently destructive. It could be positively evil.'"

"{T}raditionally, Somalis never relied on food aid, even during droughts."

"Aid essentially destroyed a centuries-old system that built resilience and sustained communities during periods of hardship."

"Food aid also suppresses local food production. Many Somali farmers have reported that NGOs working with WFP are notorious for bringing in food aid just before the harvest, which brings down the price of local food."

"{F}ood aid is big business and extremely beneficial to those donating it."

"US food aid often distorts local markets and disrupts agricultural activity in recipient countries."

"As earthquake relief, the US rushed 27,000 metric tons of wheat to Guatemala. The US gift knocked the bottom out of the local grain markets and depressed food prices so much that it was harder for villagers to recover."

"One of the most evident distortions caused by food aid (apart from the fact that farmers have no incentive to grow food when the market is flooded with free food) is the temptation to steal it."

"WFP’s international staff usually do not distribute food directly in conflict or disaster zones; instead they hire local NGOs to do the work. Many of these NGOs are not vetted."

"{A}bout two-thirds of the food went missing."

"Aid thus became a profitable source of income for criminal elements within Somalia."

"Maren believes that international aid not only sustained the dictator’s regime but also facilitated the unravelling of Somali society."

"{I}t was not just the warlords who profited from food aid; corrupt NGO cartels also benefitted."

"When an international humanitarian agency comes in to provide food to starving people, bad governments are let off the hook, and are allowed to continue with their bad policies that can lead to more famines in the future."

"In a world that is being ravaged by the coronavirus pandemic, increasing xenophobia, racism and sexism, a global recession and climate change (all of which threaten peace and security), couldn’t the Committee have picked a more worthy candidate?"

As you note, the Church is already donating money to the WFP, and this is despite the WFP's various defects and flaws.  Might it be that the Church has reasonable grounds for not giving the WFP unlimited money?  The foregoing articles describe a variety of detrimental effects that humanitarian aid can have.  I suspect the Church works with WFP programs that have a substantial "self-reliance" component.  See, e.g., here:

You are the steward of your own charitable donations.  The Church is steward of the charitable donations of millions of people, so it makes sense that it pays attention to how cuh funds are spent.

I do.

In their ability to competently and efficiently use donated funds.

In their objectives and methods coinciding with the Church's "core principles {pertaining to charitable giving} of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability."

I think the Church has more money available to spend than it has vetted partners to spend it with and effective programs to spend it on.  I think the bottleneck issue is real.

Thanks,

-Smac

You excel and arguing for all the reasons why the Church cannot do more to bless the lives of humans beings. All while it while it sits upon a mountain of wealth.  I am not going to debate it.  I think your doubling down on this is an immoral argument.  Nobody says deploying large resources is easy. It is not.  But it is doable and the church has the resources both financially and intellectually to make great progress to do more to relieve human suffering.  But keep making excuses.

For those who are really serious about donating their $$ to relieve humansuffiering I suggest you take the money you donate the church and find organizations whose priority is relieving human suffering.  Three such groups I like are:

https://www.givedirectly.org/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIy5Kw1OuKhQMVNHBHAR10TgHOEAAYASAAEgKzXvD_BwE

This group actually give your donation directly t individuals in need.  No middle man. Based on my research they are making a huge difference in peoples lives.

Another:

https://www.givewell.org/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlpeYguyKhQMVL-bjBx0fKAFZEAAYASAAEgLT2_D_BwE

And I also like Kiva which does micro loans:

https://www.kiva.org/

@pogi check them out.

 

 

 

Edited March 23, 2024 by Teancum

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Regarding the Church's humanitarian expenditures and efforts, I have previously characterized the position of, IIRC, Analytics and Teancum, and perhaps you, as being essentially a "Just Throw Money At It!"-style approach.  Analytics things the Church should give away a fixed percentage of its principal every year, apparently with no regard for whether such expenditures are sensible.  Similarly, I think your proposal for the Church to fully bankroll this or that NGO or other types of groups is a similarly unwise course of action.  

Just for those who care about honesty, the comment bolded above is a total mischaracterization as to what I have argued as well as @Analytics, if not a blatant lie.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nor is the Church.  This is just an ugly characterization on your part.

Yes the church is hoarding money and yes they do try to hide it.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think you are giving this sufficient consideration.

In other words @pogi, because you do not agree with this (immoral) doubling down pandering excuse for the church working towards deploying more of its resources to relieve human suffering, you and not giving it sufficient communication. Do you feel marginalized yet?

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

For advocates of the "Just Throw Money At It!" approach, there is no bottleneck. 

And the lie continues.  Nobody is advocating for this. Does it soothe your conscience to keep saying this?  You really need to stop saying this.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Smac's reasoned, sourced, smart response might be the best response to criticisms of what the church does with it's means, but it's hardly the only response.  I'm still partial to my overall response.

Get bent.  Mind your own business.  Your criticisms about how my church needs to do more x and less y, mean absolutely squat to us.  Just another useless pile of armchair quarterbacks telling other people how to run their affairs.  Ya bunch of green-eyed jealous covetous spenders of other's money.  You see a pile of cash and think your opinions on what should be done with it is somehow relevant.  It isn't.  Your opinion and five bucks is worth five bucks.  You wanna do things differently, go start your own church.  Leave us alone, we're mormoning.

I mean, rude sarcasm is usually not effective.  But the perspective expressed by my rude sarcasm is, I assure you, heartfelt.  No really, we don't answer to you.  We don't need to defend our actions.  I'm so utterly unimpressed by your secular reasonings and never ending criticisms, words just fail me.  Go find some other deep pocket to criticize. 

(Not thinking of any particular poster, just replying to the critical perspectives.)

Such a wonderful cuddly message. Sure. Do what you want with your own money.  The Church can do the same.  I gave them plenty over the years. Well into six figures so hundreds of thousand. So parson me if I really don't give a rats rump about what you think about my opinion on this. Hundreds of thousands buys me the right to have an opinion.  But as I have noted before, the church will never get a bloody cent from me ever again. And I have plenty to give and I do give it. And even after I stopped paying tithing I gave fast offering and to the humanitarian aid fund.  But no more. Not based on the massive wealth the Church accumulates as compared to what they do for humanitarian aid. I suggest other like minded people do the same.  FInd places where the organization's primary purpose is to relive suffering. And apostle of the so called Church of Jesus Christ said the church is really not in the business of relieving human suffering.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Prove it without bias.

If the church believed in financial transparency he probably could.

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Nobody says deploying large resources is easy. It is not.  But it is doable and the church has the resources both financially and intellectually to make great progress to do more to relieve human suffering.  But keep making excuses.

This is why critics of the Church's charitable giving earn the reputation of never being satisfied.  The Church IS making great progress in relieving human suffering.  It's charitable donations went from $900 million in 2021 to $1 billion in 2022 to $1.3 billion in 2023. We know that deploying large resources is doable because the CHURCH ACTUALLY HAS BEEN DEPLOYING LARGE RESOURCES AT AN EVER INCREASING RATE.  

 

Edited March 23, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[Smiley McGee]

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

The church isn't as transparent as a secular corporation with it's finances, and therefore I have a gripe and you should too."  Yawn.   I've made a lifetime habit of considering every notion, every criticism, every opinion, and letting the truth decide what I should think and believe.  I'm LDS because I believe God wants me to be one.  I can't not believe that.  It's a testimony.  I get that folks without testimonies like to look at/evaluate/criticize other reasons to be LDS, but when stacked up against my testimony they all fall flat.  Tomorrow, if I learn that a member of the 12 was secretly embezzling funds and escapes to some island nation with no extradition and they Ex him, I'd still pay tithing.  Because I trust God to be God, and man to act like man.

You don’t get bonus points for conflating faith in God with trust in men. A person can have tremendous faith in God and still require that the Brethren be held strictly accountable. That you fail to appreciate the difference and even boast in your indifference for how tithing is used doesn’t make you any more faithful or any more wise a steward of your finances.

Edited March 23, 2024 by Smiley McGee

[SeekingUnderstanding]

47 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

This is why critics of the Church's charitable giving earn the reputation of never being satisfied.  The Church IS making great progress in relieving human suffering.  It's charitable donations went from $900 million in 2021 to $1 billion in 2022 to $1.3 billion in 2023. We know that deploying large resources is doable because the CHURCH ACTUALLY HAS BEEN DEPLOYING LARGE RESOURCES AT AN EVER INCREASING RATE.  

 

I can’t speak for all critics. I agree that your church is making progress. Maybe even as quickly as possible given their starting point (impossible to say because your church doesn’t believe in disclosure). I also think they are giving too little compared to their massive fund. If they had started giving because it was the right thing to do when they started ensign peak they would not being playing catch up now. 

Edited March 23, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CV75]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

lol! Literally, nothing is provable to 100 percent.
 

But sure, Ensign peak is leaked in Dec 2019 and then in a completely unrelated matter, the church decides 2020 is the first year ever to release its new giving report! Can’t find it online but here is a write up: https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/3/26/22352403/report-church-aid-in-2020-featured-more-than-1000-covid-19-relief-projects-mormon-lds/

 

It doesn’t provide a total giving number for 2020. It said the church averaged 80 million annually in humanitarian giving from 1985. 
 

In 2021, the church reported 906 million, in 2022 1,060 million in giving. An increase of over 100 million in a year! Over doubling the long term average. What a coincidence! Then in 2023 1,360 million. An increase of over 400 million from the long term average. 

If you have any actual data that contradicts this narrative, I’m all ears.

 

See?

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If the church believed in financial transparency he probably could.

This is weird on so many levels.

[Stormin' Mormon]

32 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I can’t speak for all critics. I agree the church is making progress. Maybe even as quickly as possible given their starting point (impossible to say because your church doesn’t believe in disclosure). I also think they are giving too little compared to their massive fund. If they had started giving because it was the right thing to do when they started ensign peak they would not being playing catch up now. 

I think there was a lot of institutional inertia within the Church itself that had to be overcome to get to this point. The financial mismanagement of the McKay years cast a very long shadow across the organization. To illustrate just how long that shadow lasted, consider that the last apostle to have been called during the McKay Administration only passed away six years ago.

And during most of those years, the three-fold mission of the church limited the activities that leadership would consider for funding. It was only in 2009 that "care for the poor" was added to that mission, which I think enabled Church leaders to think outside their previous box and consider using the sacred funds entrusted to their care for things other than temples, lesson manuals, or missionary airfare.

I firmly believe that having "care for the poor" entrenched within the mission of the Church has made a lasting change to the trajectory of church expenditures. But the Titanic doesn't turn on a dime, so it will still be a number of years before we are moving in this new direction under full steam. 

We'll get there, Ive no doubt. And I am beyond excited to see what great things the Church will accomplish in the world when this part of its mission starts firing on all cylinders. 

Edited March 23, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[Calm]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Prove it without bias.

Don’t ask the impossible if you want to be taken seriously.  There is no such thing as without bias.  And as seeking points out, there is a problem with “prove” as well.

Something like this looks like a easy way to dismiss someone’s approach as unworthy of attention to me.

Edited March 23, 2024 by Calm