Wow.. Where do I begin with your comment? I very rarely get upset about comments on the internet, but yours is particularly revolting. When was the last time you stopped in your day-to-day life to try to help someone? And, I don't mean give money to a homeless person or donate to a charity.
I have imagined myself doing what the "privileged narcissistic clown" -- as you call him -- did in this story. I haven't done it yet, but one of these days I am going to push myself enough to do it. I fail to see how he was patronizing the homeless gentlemen. It seems to me that he was treating the guy as a fellow human deserving of respect, and as having potential. If he didn't think he had potential, he would not have bothered. Seriously... what is wrong with you?
I have a very close family member who went missing and eventually was found homeless. In the course of the investigation we found that several people exploited and took advantage of him for personal gain.
If you study the issue (like we did) you will find that this is a common and recurring problem, as homeless people are mentally vulnerable and open to narcissistic individuals.
Nothing against helping others -- I myself volunteered for social-change tech ngos for several years. My problem is in exploiting a vulnerable person for personal gain, which this guy is obviously doing.
we found that several people exploited and took advantage of him for personal gain.
which this guy is obviously doing.
You're not projecting your own personal experience into this story at all, are you? The only way for you to draw this conclusion is to have spoken directly with Patrick McConlogue, and for him to confirm to you that his motives were to exploit this guy.
Two people can have wildly different internal motives that produce similar-looking behaviors. Careful with your snap judgments.
While I'm sorry about what happened to your family member, that doesn't mean the same thing is happening here.
I think McConlogue's point is that homeless people aren't all stupid, stoned-out losers. And that some are capable of learning pretty complex stuff. Sure, plenty of homeless are screwed up, some hopelessly so, but we can't blanket them all with that label.
Here's a guy who's acting locally. And it takes some guts to do something risky. McConlogue may not be thinking globally, but he's doing what he can. Which is far more than a lot of us can claim.
From your perspective, what should McConlogue do or have done differently? He's obviously going to benefit from the exposure but I don't see any evidence that he's throwing Leo under the bus in the process.
It seems like a mutual gain to me, compared to a do-nothing approach. If the news story were "Leo goes back to square one after software engineer ditches him after getting publicity" then it would be a different story, but for now, the cynicism feels pregnant but premature.
Why the choice is between exploitation vs. do-nothing? Why not the old-school approach? Interview experienced professionals in the area (people who actually work with homeless people) and then interview homeless people in order to find out what are the problems they face, then design a repeatable and sustainable plan and implement it.
I'm not accusing McConlogue to throw Leo under the bus. I am accusing McConlogue to throw technology professionals under the bus: People who believe in the cause of technology for social development and environmental change. People who make real sacrifices and take their job seriously instead of making up little games. People who would not call a homeless person "unjustly homeless" as if others were "justly homeless".
Given that he doesn't seem like a soup-kitchen kind of guy (from reading his Medium), why not take a new approach where you try one thing, understand one person in depth, see what you can do, and work from there? That's how you learn and get in-touch with anything.
There's more than one way to skin a cat. People do methods A, B, and C all the time. This guy is trying method D, and doesn't seem to be gunning for repeatable or sustainable or "solve the homeless problem in one fell swoop". He comes across as arrogant and out-of-touch on his blog but he's basically got the dude's back. IMO, at the end of the day all of that adds up to a good thing.
Also, I've worked with some NGOs and I've found them to be generally ineffective at solving problems but great at making volunteers feel good about themselves so the last place I'd want to go if I wanted to understand homelessness would be aid workers, and the first place would be some reading, my own instincts, and working with one individual homeless person. I personally like the "ballsy n=1 experiment" approach he's taking - even though his language makes him come across as kind of a dick.
Also, he is making a real sacrifice - one in terms of time/effort teaching him to code, and two in terms of reputation/job risk. If Leo fails, or if the media twists it the wrong way, McConlogue looks like a jackass and he seems smart enough to understand that.
This might sound obvious - but he was really teaching the man to catch fish, rather than feed him with it. He might turn out to be good, or bad fishermen, but at least he's trying.
I leave money to homeless people, but I do it since it makes me feel good. I do it for me first (to be honest), then for them. I wish I have the dedication to do what this young man did, because I often think how cool it would be, but I end up just giving money. huh...
I have imagined myself doing what the "privileged narcissistic clown" -- as you call him -- did in this story. I haven't done it yet, but one of these days I am going to push myself enough to do it. I fail to see how he was patronizing the homeless gentlemen. It seems to me that he was treating the guy as a fellow human deserving of respect, and as having potential. If he didn't think he had potential, he would not have bothered. Seriously... what is wrong with you?