6 ms·

How about Bill Gates? Nobody could have seen him being the most prolific philanthropist of all time back when he was leading Microsoft in the 90's.

by muzzio 10y ago

Hydraulix989 10y ago
I don't know if those are orthogonal though (ruthless business leader and philanthropist). Andrew Carnegie is another great example.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  Those qualities aren't necessarily orthogonal, but think about what it implies about how you should treat that ruthless capitalist. Every dollar you gave to Bill Gates ended up being rather effectively used for good.
  - codr4life 10y ago
    Really? Where is the proof, except from a lot of hot air from Bill and his prostitute media; about any good being done? Good for anyone except Bill and his elite buddies, I mean.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      Why don't you try pointing out where one of the numerous listed accomplishments[1] are incorrect, or only helpful to Bill Gates and his friends, rather than making unsubstantiated claims? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat...
      - codr4life 10y ago
        Seriously? Who do you think wrote the Wikipedia entry, and why?
        kbenson 10y ago
        Then it should be easy to disprove, should it not? If you bothered to actually read cited sources, you might find that there's criticism there as well. There is criticism at Wikipedia, backup up in some of the 153 cited sources. Congratulations, by dismissing it out of hand without justification all you've done is remove any doubts as to whether you should be listened to on the topic at all. Hand-waving away massive amounts of information as propaganda because it's inconvenient to your view is not the action of a credible person.
codr4life 10y ago
He's not though. He's turning worse, owning the media makes it easier to pretend being mr Nice Guy. Bill has his head so far stuck up the elite ass by now that he's helping killing off less fortunate parts of the global population for profit to invest in oil and weapons. http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/02/23/bill-gates-admitted-eugenicist-warns-bioterrorism-kill-30-million/ http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/02/23/bill-gates-admitted-eu...
- kbenson 10y ago
  > He's not though. He's turning worse, owning the media makes it easier to pretend being mr Nice Guy. Bill has his head so far stuck up the elite ass by now that he's helping killing off less fortunate parts of the global population for profit to invest in oil and weapons. http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/02/23/bill-gates-admitted-eugenicist-warns-bioterrorism-kill-30-million/ http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/02/23/bill-gates-admitted-eu... Stop trolling. The only reasons you would post that link is if you either didn't read it, didn't care how truthful it was, or are truly incapable of seeing how irrational the statements in it are. That article is employing a classic "I'll prolifically link to sources which don't back my claims at all or have no credibility" tactic, and you, by linking to it are using the fake news tactic of hiding bad sources by burying then a few layers deep. You didn't do a very good job at it though, as the source article you linked to is far too irrational and willing to use unrelated appeals to emotion in lieu of actual reasoning.
  - codr4life 10y ago
    I've followed Bill around, bad trees don't give good fruit; just because the information comes from a non-bought source and contradicts what you imagined to be true; that doesn't make it fake or turn the comment into trolling.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      I didn't call out the source because it contradicted me, I called it out for poorly backed sources, wild exaggerations, and unfounded assumptions. The article starts with "It isn’t clear if Bill Gates was veiling a threat[1] to help depopulate[2] the planet by 30 million people, if he was simply scare-mongering...". The links go to articles about how Bill Gates dad was the head of eugenics group planned parenthood. That one needs to be backed up, or perhaps they just don't know what eugenics means? Nope, apparently the second link going into the history and details, they know exactly what eugenics is, they just have a hard time between disassociating the (somewhat fictionalized!) history of the group from the current actions. An organization's founding and past actions don't necessarily factor in to their current goals and actions. Tying Margaret Sanger to Nazi policies (which she was against) without backing it up when there's evidence to the contrary[3] is yet one more reason to discount this source. "[Bill Gates] who has been kicked out of India[4]". The linked article is about how India is funding a key component of an immunization program that used to by funded by the Gates foundation, because there was growing public sentiment that the local government should be handling certain needs itself to protect from outside influence. It goes on to say "[Senior health ministry official] Swaminathan, however, stressed there were no instances of influence found and the decision was only in part prompted by a wider perception about foreign funding of the program." And that's just the first paragraph. The trolling accusation is actually the least damning possibility I could come up with as to why you posted that, because the alternative is that you believed everything in the article at face value, and seriously, what the fuck? Do you really think that an interlocking web so self-referencing propaganda blogs, which either never link to a reputable source or when they do wildly misinterpret (or misrepresent) that source are a substitute for critical thinking and actual news? You've linked to the blogosphere version of the Weekly World News, and have done the equivalent of trying explain to everyone the wonders of Bat Boy[5]. Hopefully you were as self aware about it as the Weekly World News was. 1: http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/02/25/10-disturbing-facts-african-americans-should-know-about-eugenics/6/ http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/02/25/10-disturbing-facts-a... 2: http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/bill-gates-and-eugenics-the-world-needs-fewer-people/ http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/bill-gates-and-eugenics-the-w... 3: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/articles/sanger-hitler_equation.php http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/articles/sanger-hitler_eq... 4: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-health-bmgf-idUSKBN15N13K http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-health-bmgf-idUSKBN1... 5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character)

How about Bill Gates? Nobody could have seen him being the most prolific philanthropist of all time back when he was leading Microsoft in the 90's.

by muzzio 10y ago

How about Bill Gates? Nobody could have seen him being the most prolific philanthropist of all time back when he was leading Microsoft in the 90's.

Hydraulix989 10y ago

I don't know if those are orthogonal though (ruthless business leader and philanthropist). Andrew Carnegie is another great example.

smallnamespace 10y ago
Those qualities aren't necessarily orthogonal, but think about what it implies about how you should treat that ruthless capitalist. Every dollar you gave to Bill Gates ended up being rather effectively used for good.
- codr4life 10y ago
  Really? Where is the proof, except from a lot of hot air from Bill and his prostitute media; about any good being done? Good for anyone except Bill and his elite buddies, I mean.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    Why don't you try pointing out where one of the numerous listed accomplishments[1] are incorrect, or only helpful to Bill Gates and his friends, rather than making unsubstantiated claims? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat...
    - codr4life 10y ago
      Seriously? Who do you think wrote the Wikipedia entry, and why?
      - kbenson 10y ago
        Then it should be easy to disprove, should it not? If you bothered to actually read cited sources, you might find that there's criticism there as well. There is criticism at Wikipedia, backup up in some of the 153 cited sources. Congratulations, by dismissing it out of hand without justification all you've done is remove any doubts as to whether you should be listened to on the topic at all. Hand-waving away massive amounts of information as propaganda because it's inconvenient to your view is not the action of a credible person.

codr4life 10y ago

He's not though. He's turning worse, owning the media makes it easier to pretend being mr Nice Guy. Bill has his head so far stuck up the elite ass by now that he's helping killing off less fortunate parts of the global population for profit to invest in oil and weapons. http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/02/23/bill-gates-admitted-eugenicist-warns-bioterrorism-kill-30-million/ http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/02/23/bill-gates-admitted-eu...

kbenson 10y ago
> He's not though. He's turning worse, owning the media makes it easier to pretend being mr Nice Guy. Bill has his head so far stuck up the elite ass by now that he's helping killing off less fortunate parts of the global population for profit to invest in oil and weapons. http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/02/23/bill-gates-admitted-eugenicist-warns-bioterrorism-kill-30-million/ http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/02/23/bill-gates-admitted-eu... Stop trolling. The only reasons you would post that link is if you either didn't read it, didn't care how truthful it was, or are truly incapable of seeing how irrational the statements in it are. That article is employing a classic "I'll prolifically link to sources which don't back my claims at all or have no credibility" tactic, and you, by linking to it are using the fake news tactic of hiding bad sources by burying then a few layers deep. You didn't do a very good job at it though, as the source article you linked to is far too irrational and willing to use unrelated appeals to emotion in lieu of actual reasoning.
- codr4life 10y ago
  I've followed Bill around, bad trees don't give good fruit; just because the information comes from a non-bought source and contradicts what you imagined to be true; that doesn't make it fake or turn the comment into trolling.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    I didn't call out the source because it contradicted me, I called it out for poorly backed sources, wild exaggerations, and unfounded assumptions. The article starts with "It isn’t clear if Bill Gates was veiling a threat[1] to help depopulate[2] the planet by 30 million people, if he was simply scare-mongering...". The links go to articles about how Bill Gates dad was the head of eugenics group planned parenthood. That one needs to be backed up, or perhaps they just don't know what eugenics means? Nope, apparently the second link going into the history and details, they know exactly what eugenics is, they just have a hard time between disassociating the (somewhat fictionalized!) history of the group from the current actions. An organization's founding and past actions don't necessarily factor in to their current goals and actions. Tying Margaret Sanger to Nazi policies (which she was against) without backing it up when there's evidence to the contrary[3] is yet one more reason to discount this source. "[Bill Gates] who has been kicked out of India[4]". The linked article is about how India is funding a key component of an immunization program that used to by funded by the Gates foundation, because there was growing public sentiment that the local government should be handling certain needs itself to protect from outside influence. It goes on to say "[Senior health ministry official] Swaminathan, however, stressed there were no instances of influence found and the decision was only in part prompted by a wider perception about foreign funding of the program." And that's just the first paragraph. The trolling accusation is actually the least damning possibility I could come up with as to why you posted that, because the alternative is that you believed everything in the article at face value, and seriously, what the fuck? Do you really think that an interlocking web so self-referencing propaganda blogs, which either never link to a reputable source or when they do wildly misinterpret (or misrepresent) that source are a substitute for critical thinking and actual news? You've linked to the blogosphere version of the Weekly World News, and have done the equivalent of trying explain to everyone the wonders of Bat Boy[5]. Hopefully you were as self aware about it as the Weekly World News was. 1: http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/02/25/10-disturbing-facts-african-americans-should-know-about-eugenics/6/ http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/02/25/10-disturbing-facts-a... 2: http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/bill-gates-and-eugenics-the-world-needs-fewer-people/ http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/bill-gates-and-eugenics-the-w... 3: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/articles/sanger-hitler_equation.php http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/articles/sanger-hitler_eq... 4: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-health-bmgf-idUSKBN15N13K http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-health-bmgf-idUSKBN1... 5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character)