3 ms·

The split isn’t on intent. It’s on effectiveness. In one camp is ineffective philanthropy pretending to be effective. In the other camp is actually effective p

by ibash 2y ago

The split isn’t on intent. It’s on effectiveness. In one camp is ineffective philanthropy pretending to be effective. In the other camp is actually effective philanthropy. What makes is problematic is when the ineffective philanthropist is using the philanthropy to line their own pockets.

atoav 2y ago
I think the split is different one. It is between people who want to live in a world where they can imagine themselves being the generous philantropist and people who would like to live in a world where philantropists aren't needed because the need for them does not arise. We have halloween coming up. Imagine one kid taking all the candy first and then acting as a "philantropist" by giving out a fraction of what would pass as a fair share to other kids — oh and he is making videos of it — and he selects who gets something and who doesn't. Very "effective", especially compared to all kids just getting their fair share. As a parent I'd go with my kid to a psychotherapist if it did that, because it is not normal. Now that is of course an analogy and things are more complex in a capitalist world, but being an arsonist working in the firebrigade doesn't turn you into a hero even when you risk your life to extinguish the fire.
- thunky 2y ago
  > fair share Fair share doesn't (or shouldn't) mean even share because that's just not possible. Everyone has the same opportunity to do what Mr Beast is doing (and many try, some pretty successfully).
- em-bee 2y ago
  that's not what mr.beast is doing. he is taking money from google and advertisers. and yeah, he is not redistributing all of it, pretty much like any other business that donates some of their money for tax reasons. that mr.beast is heavily promoting his philanthropy is simply because it is part of his business model and it earns him more money from ads. he is producing entertainment, no more no less. morally questionable, maybe. but no worse than most entertainment.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tim333 2y ago
You assume it's ineffective but beyond the actual wells drilled and the like it has a big PR effect to make it look cool, if you make money, to use it help people rather than say the Kardashians making money and using it for huge mansions and plastic surgery for themselves. I watched the well drilling one and thought it was kinda cool, both for helping and also mucking around with cool drilling machines. (https://youtu.be/mwKJfNYwvm8 https://youtu.be/mwKJfNYwvm8). I'll admit not taking watching the Kardashians for more than about 30 seconds so I could be wrong there.

by ibash 2y ago

atoav 2y ago

I think the split is different one. It is between people who want to live in a world where they can imagine themselves being the generous philantropist and people who would like to live in a world where philantropists aren't needed because the need for them does not arise. We have halloween coming up. Imagine one kid taking all the candy first and then acting as a "philantropist" by giving out a fraction of what would pass as a fair share to other kids — oh and he is making videos of it — and he selects who gets something and who doesn't. Very "effective", especially compared to all kids just getting their fair share. As a parent I'd go with my kid to a psychotherapist if it did that, because it is not normal. Now that is of course an analogy and things are more complex in a capitalist world, but being an arsonist working in the firebrigade doesn't turn you into a hero even when you risk your life to extinguish the fire.

thunky 2y ago
> fair share Fair share doesn't (or shouldn't) mean even share because that's just not possible. Everyone has the same opportunity to do what Mr Beast is doing (and many try, some pretty successfully).
em-bee 2y ago
that's not what mr.beast is doing. he is taking money from google and advertisers. and yeah, he is not redistributing all of it, pretty much like any other business that donates some of their money for tax reasons. that mr.beast is heavily promoting his philanthropy is simply because it is part of his business model and it earns him more money from ads. he is producing entertainment, no more no less. morally questionable, maybe. but no worse than most entertainment.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

tim333 2y ago

You assume it's ineffective but beyond the actual wells drilled and the like it has a big PR effect to make it look cool, if you make money, to use it help people rather than say the Kardashians making money and using it for huge mansions and plastic surgery for themselves. I watched the well drilling one and thought it was kinda cool, both for helping and also mucking around with cool drilling machines. (https://youtu.be/mwKJfNYwvm8 https://youtu.be/mwKJfNYwvm8). I'll admit not taking watching the Kardashians for more than about 30 seconds so I could be wrong there.