|
The Kingfish posted:It's actually pretty good. It depends on if he's doing the pro bono work during his normal work hours. If he is, it's no different than any other wealthy person donating a small percent of their earnings to charity (which is hardly laudable). If he does it on the weekend or something...at least it's a more than what most people do, though he has some gall to be telling a Westerners in general that they're rich from his position (I also seem to remember the calculation for being in the global 1% doesn't take into account cost of living, which basically makes it worthless.)
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
on the left posted:Don't you think the standard of living makes a big difference? People in poor countries generally live in lovely houses with poor services and a lot of social problems, they aren't getting some sort of special deal on living expenses. You're right, it does, but the calculations I've seen for the "global 1%" just blindly take average income. The_Book_Of_Harry posted:Oh, come the gently caress on. All (beneficial) charity work is good, but whether it actually warrants any exceptional praise depends upon how much it impacts the person's lifestyle. If a person is wealthy and chooses to give up some of his/her money (but not time - thus the "doing pro bono work during normal work hours" thing), that is certainly better than if they didn't, but it doesn't exactly represent a notable sacrifice on their part. Someone who lives paycheck to paycheck and still squeezes in an hour or two of charity work on the weekends is far more laudable. Think of it this way - if someone went out of their way to say "well I donated $20 to a charity" in the context of other people being "poseurs" it would not be unreasonable to think "lol seriously dude?" Like, the donation itself is a good thing, but it's such a minor good thing that you have to question why someone would feel the need to specifically bring it up in that context. Another element to this issue is the fact that charity is objectively far easier for the wealthy than it is for the poor (or even many middle class), so using it as a benchmark for moral righteousness is questionable, to say the least.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Possibly if someone were asked what sort of activism they'd suggest, that someone would respond "well, I do..<this thing> that at least has a tangible impact compared to being Really Mad on the internet." The problem is this implicitly assumes that the person they're talking to doesn't do any sort of activism (and as a result comes off as being incredibly condescending). Also, I would argue that saying political stuff on the internet is not entirely worthless. Every single person who expresses a particular political belief in any setting helps add to a general perception that their opinion is mainstream and popular.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 17:39
|
|