A billionaire giving shit away to lower their tax burden and engage in more philanthropy porn to make themselves even more money is even shittier.
If you want to force the conversation toward semantics to make yourself right over a relative determination that one is better (less shitty), go ahead. If that’s what constitutes “better” for you.
To your argument, Kim Kardashian has actually helped people, she has helped get innocent people exonerated and released from prison.
I would argue her charitable work is VASTLY more substantial than Mr. Beasts’.
Having said that… They are both terrible people and the world would be a better place without either one of them. They are both absolute whores for attention and could have achieved the same amount of charitable service without throwing themselves in front of a camera for it. Arguably stealing attention away from the people that did the actual work.
Not really. He treats the people who work for him like complete garbage, denying them basic human rights during some production situations. Not just workers rights, basic human rights like water and access to their own medications.
Still better than Kim Kardashian or Elon Musk.
There is no “better” here.
They all suck.
That’s a silly argument. You can objectively compare virtually any two things.
You’d really not care if someone said they’d clone Kim Kardashian or Elon Musk but you had to choose one?
Well my diarrhea yesterday was chunky and today it’s straight liquid. Both are shit. Kinda like Mr.Beast and any of the other fame whores.
Do you honestly not find one preferable?
That’s the discussion we’re having: do lessers of two evils exist?
Obviously they do. Anyone arguing otherwise is just arguing for arguing’s sake or is painfully and hilariously naive.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Were you under the impression I said different or are you just trying to be poetic?
You keep saying one of them tastes better, I’m sure it does but I’m not going to consume them to find out. They are shit.
Okay so you agree with me.
So you’re saying the objective take that billionaires suck is less accurate than your one billionaire sucks less?
You seem to have forgotten the context of the conversation and fallen in love with fighting with me.
Which is better:
A rich person who gives to charity
A rich person who does not
My premise is that billionaires suck.
Philanthropy porn sucks.
A billionaire giving shit away to lower their tax burden and engage in more philanthropy porn to make themselves even more money is even shittier.
If you want to force the conversation toward semantics to make yourself right over a relative determination that one is better (less shitty), go ahead. If that’s what constitutes “better” for you.
Yeah, and mine is that some suck worse than others.
You keep pretending that’s not the case, though. It’s cute.
To your argument, Kim Kardashian has actually helped people, she has helped get innocent people exonerated and released from prison.
I would argue her charitable work is VASTLY more substantial than Mr. Beasts’.
Having said that… They are both terrible people and the world would be a better place without either one of them. They are both absolute whores for attention and could have achieved the same amount of charitable service without throwing themselves in front of a camera for it. Arguably stealing attention away from the people that did the actual work.
Not really. He treats the people who work for him like complete garbage, denying them basic human rights during some production situations. Not just workers rights, basic human rights like water and access to their own medications.
You have no reason to defend him.
Luckily I’m not.
Saying a turd sandwich isn’t as bad for you to eat as a glass sandwich isn’t defending the turd sandwich.