5 ms·

That's why it's a mistake to oversimplify public figures into "hero" or "demon" or whatever. They are always just people. If Bill Gates is just a person and no

by Isamu 8y ago

That's why it's a mistake to oversimplify public figures into "hero" or "demon" or whatever. They are always just people. If Bill Gates is just a person and not a hero, you don't have to explain away any of his mistakes. You don't have to elevate him for his philanthropy. You don't have to make any judgments about him, unless it has any bearing on any decision or action you have to take.

nabla9 8y ago
Fanboyism is like a cognitive disease. Gates has himself admitted that he was a bully, yet people feel the need to defend him. Rockefeller ruthlessly destroyed lifes but he was also committed philanthropist that started to give six percent of his earnings to charity at age 16. As he grew richer he gave more.
- squarefoot 8y ago
  Some donations can be tax deductible, and even it they aren't they boost the donor public image as soon as it become news. I'm not saying Gates, Allen, Rockefeller or anyone else donated to charities only as a form of personal advertising, yet there's certainly a good incentive to do that which should be taken into account before making an opinion about someone.
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    Charitable contributions weren't tax-deductible when Rockefeller was 16. Hell, there was no income tax when Rockefeller was 16. He probably did it to gain favor with God (most of his charity was church-based until he got fabulously wealthy), but of all the things done in the name of God, charity is a pretty good one.
  - hueving 8y ago
    Being tax deductible doesn't somehow make it profitable or even free. It just means that on a million dollar donation, it actually cost you something like $600k in the end. You're still down that money in every scenario. Nobody is driven to donations because they are tax deductible. Deductions just allow you to donate more than you would have.
pastor_elm 8y ago
I don't pass judgement on Gates. It's just business. Same for Zuckerberg. Money winds up in somebody's pocket. Might as well be yours. He's doing good things with it too, so maybe his instinct was right.
jmspring 8y ago
As someone who has spent time at Microsoft, Ballmer did good for the company post-gates for awhile, but hit a plateau. He continued too long and thus brought in the stalled time that some refer to as the Ballmeriam era. And have qualms about how things were handled during that time. I have no public opinion on that. That said, Ballmer addressing employees, he bled the company on his sleeve. Even having disagreements on how things were, the genuine feeling coming from him - in person or on video - was actually contagious - for a time. Things are not black and white. My only knowledge of Paul Allen outside of stories about Vulcan ventures was knowing people that worked at one of his properties having to sign NDAs, which is understandable. No one is black and white. Faults should not be washed over, achievements over blown, hopefully we all add something net positive in our finite time.

by Isamu 8y ago

nabla9 8y ago

Fanboyism is like a cognitive disease. Gates has himself admitted that he was a bully, yet people feel the need to defend him. Rockefeller ruthlessly destroyed lifes but he was also committed philanthropist that started to give six percent of his earnings to charity at age 16. As he grew richer he gave more.

squarefoot 8y ago
Some donations can be tax deductible, and even it they aren't they boost the donor public image as soon as it become news. I'm not saying Gates, Allen, Rockefeller or anyone else donated to charities only as a form of personal advertising, yet there's certainly a good incentive to do that which should be taken into account before making an opinion about someone.
- nostrademons 8y ago
  Charitable contributions weren't tax-deductible when Rockefeller was 16. Hell, there was no income tax when Rockefeller was 16. He probably did it to gain favor with God (most of his charity was church-based until he got fabulously wealthy), but of all the things done in the name of God, charity is a pretty good one.
- hueving 8y ago
  Being tax deductible doesn't somehow make it profitable or even free. It just means that on a million dollar donation, it actually cost you something like $600k in the end. You're still down that money in every scenario. Nobody is driven to donations because they are tax deductible. Deductions just allow you to donate more than you would have.

pastor_elm 8y ago

I don't pass judgement on Gates. It's just business. Same for Zuckerberg. Money winds up in somebody's pocket. Might as well be yours. He's doing good things with it too, so maybe his instinct was right.

jmspring 8y ago

As someone who has spent time at Microsoft, Ballmer did good for the company post-gates for awhile, but hit a plateau. He continued too long and thus brought in the stalled time that some refer to as the Ballmeriam era. And have qualms about how things were handled during that time. I have no public opinion on that. That said, Ballmer addressing employees, he bled the company on his sleeve. Even having disagreements on how things were, the genuine feeling coming from him - in person or on video - was actually contagious - for a time. Things are not black and white. My only knowledge of Paul Allen outside of stories about Vulcan ventures was knowing people that worked at one of his properties having to sign NDAs, which is understandable. No one is black and white. Faults should not be washed over, achievements over blown, hopefully we all add something net positive in our finite time.