4 ms·

The charitable take is he's still a socially awkward nerd. The uncharitable take is he's still as ruthless as he was during the embrace, extend, extinguish days

The charitable take is he's still a socially awkward nerd. The uncharitable take is he's still as ruthless as he was during the embrace, extend, extinguish days and since the pandemic has been great business for him why shouldn't he be happy.

zeusk 6y ago
what business? His networth has been flat-ish compared to Bezos. Maybe someone else needs to be a bit more charitable.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
bluedevil2k 6y ago
What are you taking about? The man devotes his time and considerable resources to public health and solving the tough to solve issues instead of spending his time owning sports teams and racing yachts. Yet...you still look for the negatives in his motives? “Great Business?” The man is literally giving away his money, all this pandemic is doing is taking more of his precious time up than normal.
- EarthIsHome 6y ago
  I would not call it "giving away money." This is what giving away money is and what really makes a difference in people's lives: John Oliver buys and forgives $15m worth of medical debt [0]. Now, just imagine what a billionaire like Bill Gates could do. Actual material change in people's lives. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/06/john-oliver-medical-debt-forgiveness-last-week-tonight https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/06/john-oliver-...
  - bluedevil2k 6y ago
    Nonsense, it’s almost like you’ve never heard the “give a man a fish, teach a man to fish” parable. Yes, he can pay off debt of we’ll say 1M Americans. Then he’s out of money and people are still getting sick. Now what?
    - Minor49er 6y ago
      So John Oliver's $15 million donation was worthless because people still get sick?
      - conro1108 6y ago
        I don’t think that’s the point anyone’s trying to make. $15mm probably isn’t enough to make big systemic changes to humanity and Oliver’s donation surely alleviated a lot of suffering and should be applauded. However, Gates has resources on a very different scale than $15mm. Especially with billions to deploy to try to do some good in the world, it seems reasonable to me that someone would attempt a more ambitious plan that essentially tries to address the root cause of something rather than addressing symptoms.
        Minor49er 6y ago
        You're missing my point. EarthIsHome is arguing that someone with that amount of money could give it directly to people in need, which would do the most good for those people right now. bluedevil2k is arguing that it's better to fund research that might help a potentially greater number of people who would need it at some point in the future. bluedevil2k noted that even if Bill Gates helped a million people today, it would be futile because sickness would still exist. The dismissal implies that regardless of how many people's suffering could be alleviated today, it's still preferable to invest in future research. My comment is meant to underline that point. I want to see if there's a point of compromise between these standpoints.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  You really thing he's all altruism now? Remember how he got there. It wasn't on the backs of good things. He crushed all of his competition. I don't understand how people see him as some kind of hero now. He wants more power. The Gates funded oral polio vaccine in India was a fucking disaster!
  - bluedevil2k 6y ago
    People can’t change? That’s silly, people are always changing. People mellow out as they get older. They’re less combative, more willing to help and be part of a community.
    - dbtc 6y ago
      I used to think people changed, but as I've gotten older I'm no longer sure that is true.
- JasonFruit 6y ago
  The worst tyrannies are those that are initially put in place for the public good. They're the least scrutinized and hardest to resist. I worry that he and others like him see COVID-19 as an opportunity to remake the world in the technocratic mold they for a number of reasons prefer.

zeusk 6y ago

what business? His networth has been flat-ish compared to Bezos. Maybe someone else needs to be a bit more charitable.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

bluedevil2k 6y ago

What are you taking about? The man devotes his time and considerable resources to public health and solving the tough to solve issues instead of spending his time owning sports teams and racing yachts. Yet...you still look for the negatives in his motives? “Great Business?” The man is literally giving away his money, all this pandemic is doing is taking more of his precious time up than normal.

EarthIsHome 6y ago
I would not call it "giving away money." This is what giving away money is and what really makes a difference in people's lives: John Oliver buys and forgives $15m worth of medical debt [0]. Now, just imagine what a billionaire like Bill Gates could do. Actual material change in people's lives. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/06/john-oliver-medical-debt-forgiveness-last-week-tonight https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/06/john-oliver-...
- bluedevil2k 6y ago
  Nonsense, it’s almost like you’ve never heard the “give a man a fish, teach a man to fish” parable. Yes, he can pay off debt of we’ll say 1M Americans. Then he’s out of money and people are still getting sick. Now what?
  - Minor49er 6y ago
    So John Oliver's $15 million donation was worthless because people still get sick?
    - conro1108 6y ago
      I don’t think that’s the point anyone’s trying to make. $15mm probably isn’t enough to make big systemic changes to humanity and Oliver’s donation surely alleviated a lot of suffering and should be applauded. However, Gates has resources on a very different scale than $15mm. Especially with billions to deploy to try to do some good in the world, it seems reasonable to me that someone would attempt a more ambitious plan that essentially tries to address the root cause of something rather than addressing symptoms.
      - Minor49er 6y ago
        You're missing my point. EarthIsHome is arguing that someone with that amount of money could give it directly to people in need, which would do the most good for those people right now. bluedevil2k is arguing that it's better to fund research that might help a potentially greater number of people who would need it at some point in the future. bluedevil2k noted that even if Bill Gates helped a million people today, it would be futile because sickness would still exist. The dismissal implies that regardless of how many people's suffering could be alleviated today, it's still preferable to invest in future research. My comment is meant to underline that point. I want to see if there's a point of compromise between these standpoints.
djsumdog 6y ago
You really thing he's all altruism now? Remember how he got there. It wasn't on the backs of good things. He crushed all of his competition. I don't understand how people see him as some kind of hero now. He wants more power. The Gates funded oral polio vaccine in India was a fucking disaster!
- bluedevil2k 6y ago
  People can’t change? That’s silly, people are always changing. People mellow out as they get older. They’re less combative, more willing to help and be part of a community.
  - dbtc 6y ago
    I used to think people changed, but as I've gotten older I'm no longer sure that is true.
JasonFruit 6y ago
The worst tyrannies are those that are initially put in place for the public good. They're the least scrutinized and hardest to resist. I worry that he and others like him see COVID-19 as an opportunity to remake the world in the technocratic mold they for a number of reasons prefer.