this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
201 points (90.7% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35311 readers
1000 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

it's still PR, not philanthropy

This is it right here.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Thats narrow minded, it can be both

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Exploiting others for self promotion is always going to cause more overall harm than good.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes. Yes it does.

It's not charity then. It's paid advertising.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Charities do a lot of paid advertising.