I know this is going to sound like some clickbait bullshit title, but I’m genuinely curious, asking in good faith. My two oldest sons are enamored with him, and he seems like a genuine guy, so I’m asking - is he a nice guy? If you google the question, you get a bunch of reddit hate, which I don’t always trust, because…it’s reddit. I have not watched much content (not my thing, I’m old) but I’m just curious what the fediverse has to say.

  • Kichae@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    he has made a serious effort towards philanthropic acts

    Ehhhh. He engages in a mix of pity porn and charity-as-self-promotion/criticism shield. Never trust a wealthy person’s donations when they have their name attached to them; there’s always a reasonable chance that they came with strings. Doubly so when those donations are to charities they actively control.

    I can appreciate that he’s funnelled his money into things people actually need, instead of into grants so charities can buy supplies from tech companies he’s invested in, but it’s still PR, not philanthropy.

    • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you publicise your philanthropy to gain my support for your philanthropy, does that magically make you non-philanthropic?

    • Treedrake@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, indeed. I’d heavily recommend Thoreau’s critique of philantrophy: https://thecuriouspeople.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/thoreau-philanthropy-is-overrated-walden-44/ . While it’s written 200 years ago and on a religious foundation, he has a point.

      “Philanthropy is almost the only virtue which is sufficiently appreciated by mankind. Nay, it is greatly overrated; and it is our selfishness which overrates it.” — Henry David Thoreau, “Economy,” Walden

          • lamentforicarus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            By that thinking Bill Gates has done nothing but harm, yet he has done leaps and bounds for health research. They’re one of the few reasons malaria is even getting research money. He’s probably a narcissistic ass, and I’m sure he’s partially supporting the foundation for taxes/clout, but he’s actually saved the lives of people. If they want to spend their millions and billions on helping people for clout, then go for it. It’s better than whatever the fuck Musk is doing.

            • HipPriest@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Exactly, it’s like Jeff Bezos thinking the best he can do with his money is go to space.

              Regardless of the motivation, surely if that money is going to a better cause that will help others that’s a good thing

        • Kichae@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s naive. Leaving the rich in a position to “save” the poor is nothing more than enabling a power fantasy for them. It leaves them with all of the power and control.

          • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Do you think the people who get the help see it the same way, or is just us privileged folk who feel uneasy?

          • Eisenhowever@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You cant force someone to save anyone, its their choice

            You seem to truly believe theres no rich person who would give out of the kindness of their heart

    • DreamerofDays@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The last sentence feels a little “perfect being the enemy of the good.” Outside of wanting purity of intention, what is the issue here, if the result is people being helped?

      • Kichae@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It reinforces the system that leave people needing help, and draws attention away from the need for changing that system.

        People are getting helped, but none more so than the one getting good PR. And that’s not charity, or philanthropy. That’s just marketing.

        We don’t need more marketing. And relying on the graces of self-helping benefactors isn’t “being helped”. It’s being financially abused.

        • lamentforicarus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          None of this is ever going to change until regular people start voting for their own betterment, at least in America. There are more of us than them, but half of us are trapped in the idea that we’re going to be millionaires someday. Or apathy.