• @RememberTheApollo_
    link
    English
    34 days ago

    So you’re saying the objective take that billionaires suck is less accurate than your one billionaire sucks less?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      04 days ago

      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

      • @RememberTheApollo_
        link
        English
        44 days ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          03 days ago

          Yeah, and mine is that some suck worse than others.

          You keep pretending that’s not the case, though. It’s cute.

      • @sartalon
        link
        English
        24 days ago

        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.