2 ms·
I don't think calling it "silly" is the right thing to do. "Elites" have ecosystems that keep them rich, powerful, and elite of which these charities are enabl
by kodah 6y ago
I don't think calling it "silly" is the right thing to do.
"Elites" have ecosystems that keep them rich, powerful, and elite of which these charities are enabling. When you donate fortunes to charities it allows you a certain voice both within the domain of that issue and more broadly. This leaves the shaping of society up to people seeking popularity, not people calculating what the "right" thing to do is. That voice, their money, and their influence have proven problematic in society or at a minimum are more problematic to the every day person who checks none of those boxes.
If you are an "elite" you will be rightly criticized at every turn, unless you keep to yourself which, as you pointed out, will likely lead to your demise as an elite.
- protomyth 6y agoI am talking about the effectiveness of a charity and what it needs to maximize its effect. I did not say anything about or point out anything about their demise as an elite. That is just an uncharitable reading of my words. Thinking "elites" are more corrupt than the average bureaucrat who manage the money if we took it away is just not reality.
- kodah 6y agoI was talking about the role of elites and why they use charities like this, it's parallel to your point. > Thinking "elites" are more corrupt than the average bureaucrat who manage the money if we took it away is just not reality. I don't think they're more corrupt, just probably as corrupt because often they're the same people or run in the same circles.