Linus looks old now

I guess that's how time works but still...

What if they both did

I said in another thread about this, he looks like an older Tom Scott.

Lol no. Of all the sleazy and greasy millionaires, Gates is one of the few whose actions speaks for themselves. Dude has been doing noble causes for most of my life.

I'm all for talking shit about the rich, but it better be true.

lol what is with the pube art

It's more nuanced though. Here's how rich people use charities to gain wealth:

Rich person has tons of money that would be taxed if bill Y passes. Rich person creates a charity and donated 20% of what they would had to pay to the IRS to the charity, with that money the charity uses half for good causes and half is given to X lobby company, which then lobbies politicians to avoid passing that bill.

In the end, the rich person saved 80% of what they would had to pay.

Yeah, 10% went to good causes but imagine what the society could afford if 100% went through instead of 0.

This is a very rough outline of how they do it, but the summary is that they use charities to donate to lobbies while skipping taxes on the donation itself.

I hate billionaires as much as the next gal, but I think comparing Bill Gates to Hitler is a bit extreme

Welcome to Lemmy, heh.

I hate to sound preachy, but this is a good example of “rivals” peacefully meeting.

So many people I meet IRL seem conditioned to think this person they hate on the internet would be someone they’d shout at like they’re an axe murderer, in the middle of a murder. It’s the example they see. Death threats are, like, normal on Facebook or TV News or whatever they’re into, apparently.

Again at risk of reaching... this feels like positive masculinity to me.

And leaders acting like adults.

Tom Scott with receding hairline

When did I say the ends justified the means? I explicitly said that Bill Gates is a bad person and I didn’t say the foundation was clean or something. I don’t think you understand what that phrase means.

Now kithhh

He is not a good person. But the foundation has done some good work.

seems like a justification to me dude. you're literally justifying his indiscretions, that you even call out, by saying the charity he heads "has done some good work".

And I sure as hell don’t white wash Bill Gates. You don’t get to that level of wealth and dominance without cracking skulls and ruining lives every step of the way.

I don't know if you're actually being misleading or confusing by accident but calling attention to it being "nuanced" is a clear indicator that your argument supports that the "ends justify the means".

It’s not justification. He is a person. It is a non-profit. The non-profit has vaccinated countless people, for instance. That is a good thing. Bill Gates still sucks.

Why is this complicated? You can’t be serious right now, this is such obvious nonsense on your part.

I didn't compare them, but in your mind you understood it that way.

I used Hitler as an example, an extreme one, but still an example of "the ends justify the means".

could have use any number of examples, but I went with one I thought everyone could relate to. clearly I miscalculated the selfishness of modern day philosophies.

You literally used Nazis as an argument against Gates. That’s comparing. What is your deal?

It’s not selfish philosophies, you shoehorned in Nazis so damn fast. That’s not relatable, it’s a cheap tactic.

it's a nonprofit he directly benefits from because it has his name on it. he directly benefits from it by using it as a way to sway political power. he directly benefits from it through financial gains paid through the organization.

the entire concept of the foundation is contingent on his financial success. something of which he is well known for destroying lives for.

so tell me, how many of those ruined lives were acceptable for the good that his charity does? how many more lives must be ruined for the good to continue to be acceptable? would you find it acceptable if your life was destroyed to continue the good his charity does? would you be willing to accept your life to be ruined or ended to support the continuation of his charity?

I don't understand why you don't see the obvious correlation between the two so I'll over simplify it.

bad man makes bad money making people suffer. bad money makes good stuff happen under bad man name. bad man still bad man doing good stuff for bad reasons.

you sit and justify his actions by arguing he's doing good things. I question if he's doing good things just to do them or if they're a byproduct of him "cleansing" his name. after all, bad men do bad things. Ever heard of Alfred Nobel?

Because they are tax avoidance mechanism first and charity seconds.

Money is a brokering system of power, charitues being tax free makes these entities unaccountable to democratic institurions.

That's how we ended up with this infection of corrupt megachurches.

The "prosperity gospel" is billionaire-serving propaganda. It empowers their formation, growth and necessary abuses that come from such widespread exploitation.