4 ms·
The fact that he's already independently wealthy makes this act far less impressive. If it was a first time founder making a humble salary doing this, that woul
by endlessvoid94 11y ago
The fact that he's already independently wealthy makes this act far less impressive. If it was a first time founder making a humble salary doing this, that would be completely different.
- yarou 11y agoThe same logic as: donating a kidney is less charitable if you have an extra. When will the meme of moral relativism die?
- pg_is_a_butt 11y agowhy are you relating moral relativism to life? i'm pretty sure you're the problem.
- bottled_poe 11y agoIt shouldn't be surprising that we tend to measure charity by the sacrifice a persons makes, rather than the impact they have on the world.
- justinmk 11y ago> we tend to measure charity by the sacrifice a persons makes, rather than the impact they have on the world. A perhaps unintentional critique of charity itself.
- fredkingham 11y agodonating a kidney when you only have 1 is vastly more impressive
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- madeofpalk 11y agoThe point is the kidney isn't more or less useful. It's two different ways of looking at charity. "Glass half empty" type of thing.
- pc86 11y agoAlso illegal and something no doctor would ever do.
- ZeroGravitas 11y agoIs this even charity? Does any kind of employee bonus scheme or pay raise now count as charity?
- pc86 11y agoIt's not charity, it's a CEO trying to increase staff retention. It doesn't need to be "impressive," but regardless, your cynical view of what constitutes charity is depressing to say the least. Weiner was under no obligation to do anything. He could have taken $14 million and chose not to. The fact that he already has money is irrelevant. Also, I challenge you to find anyone who has been CEO of a publicly traded company for more than a year who isn't also independently wealthy.