this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
1361 points (97.4% liked)
Clever Comebacks
1187 readers
1 users here now
Posts of clever comebacks in response to someone.
Rules:
- Be civil and remember the human. No name calling or insults. Swearing is allowed but when used to insult someone.
- Discussion is encouraged, but only in good faith. No arguing for arguments sake.
- No bigotry of any kind.
- Censor names/identifying info of everyone who isn’t a public figure.
- If you break the rules you’ll receive one warning before you’re banned.
- Enjoy this community in the light hearted manner it’s intended.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If the charity itself is doing proper work, that makes sense tbh. I mean, if you had billions to donate, would you give it to some random ass organisation... Or set up your own thing to do things that you personally agree with?
I would be utterly shocked if it was.
im sure its doing something like 'raising awareness' like all those breast cancer charities do where none of the money goes to actually helping people with breast cancer and straight into some ceo's pocket that makes 300k a year
You'll know when these billionaire charity trusts actually have an impact because they will do everything in their power to scream it in your ear.
I'd you want to see how it's done, check out what his Ex-wife did with her money from the divorce
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/15/mackenzie-scott-billionaire-donations-non-profits
It's not a charity. It's a way to stay in control of all of your money and not pay taxes on it. You pay yourself and your children salaries from it. You have it contract with your profitable businesses. You get to use that money to decide what the world's ideology is. You get to use it to own a segment of science itself by being where researchers need to go if they want funding. That's what Bill Gates did with public education the last 10 years. This is how NGOs that go on to hire death squads in South America are created. And in the meantime you spend a few decimal points on a press blitz to make yourself look like a saint.
All the while Amazon keeps using the streets we pay for, the USPS we pay for, the GPS we pay for, and on and on. That money should be taxed and returned to us and we should get to decide what it’s for.
Solving inequality through taxation in a capitalist system is like being on a boat with a gaping hole in its hull and using spoons to throw that water back in the ocean. The best it can do is slow the inevitable and inspire false hope
Agreed, and I’m find with the tax deduction if the charity works they do is legit, it’s not like he is paying taxes anyway.
That's... actually a good point.
Yeah and if he donates a majority of his wealth, thats more than he would have been taxed regardless.
This is exactly the issue. He doesn't "donate" shit. He opens a non-profit that does nothing but funnel his fortune to his children. It's all a sham. Same as with that other clothing company who "donated" their entire fortune.
Not sure about elsewhere, but in Canada a Charity is a special kind of non-profit that has more public oversight as to how they manage their money, and allowed to write charitable receipts. Non-profits might do some good things, but you don’t get a tax credit for donating money to them, and there’s less oversight of how they’re managed.
Bill Gates spends his charity money lobbying for privatized education and Eugenics programs.
Also paying hush money to Jeffery Epstein.
So...
Though I don't have all day to devote to determining if these sources line up with your claims and if they're worth a darn but I did attempt to skim.
Number 1. I dropped my subscription so I can't view the article. Can you share?
Source 2. "The Saviorism of Melinda Gates: Eugenics, Philanthrocapitalism, and the Perils of ‘Western’ Feminisms" . This is a senior honors thesis with some pretty big claims and I'm not sure the paper presents a strong enough argument.
Mind you, Eugenics is evil dog shit steeped in racism, classism and so on. Fuck that shit.
Anyway, the author attempts to draw a line between making birth control / family planning available (to third world countries) and eugenics via population control of certain groups.
Their argument traces a very long and winding path of rather tenuous links along the way and I don't find it very convincing. It seems more like a student grasping for straws to write a paper.
They seem to be suggesting that forced sterilization, forced sexual segregation, and similar despicable things are equivalent to ultimately voluntary family planning.
I see the point. If these programs are intended to control certain populations at a national level driven by eugenics, yeah that's fucked.
They may have shown it is plausible that this is what the Gates Foundation has been doing but I don't think they successfully proved it.
Source 3. Hush money... "Jeffrey Epstein allegedly tried to extort Bill Gates over extramarital affair" ... yeah that's not awesome.
Yes they are. I would have to write way too much on this bring you up to speed but, yes, Bill Gates is well known to be proponent of eugenics, of course he wouldn't state it like that but look to what his actions and focus is on. Clearly not about access to abortion and contraception in the US. He is a Malthusian fascist.
He believes in overpopulation and therefor the "non-white people just need to stop having more kids."
Appreciate the reply. I will dig more. I am usually more glad to be wrong and learn something new than merely being right.
PS: if I may prod a bit on this...
Is overpopulation a legit issue separate from bullshit eugenics?
Do you think access to contraception improves health and economic outcomes for individual families? Also separated from bullshit eugenics.
No, overpopulation is not a legit issue, underdevelopment and poverty and education are. Furthermore as more tangential evidence on this line: In the US there is a long history continuing to this day of the US forcibly or coercively sterilizing non-white people thus it is extremely suspicious when a white billionaire with a god complex is extremely concerned about birth rates in Africa.
Malthus' entire concept of overpopulation stemmed from examining early industrialization in the UK and Europe and believing that population would outstrip food production, but the opposite happened; Today we produce enough food to feed everyone, but these countries remain as colonies to western capital and the threat of military intervention and the occasional CIA backed coup keeps them under the boot of the west.
So no, they don't just need contraception they need liberation.
I've only done a little looking into things.
I can't believe you actually would say this. I could, maybe, see someone thinking it isn't the biggest issue or that our technological advancements will keep ahead of population growth ... but with this categorical statement you're essentially saying the world can support infinite population.
I don't dispute we have plenty of food for the time being (until impacts of climate change on food supply become more pronounced over the next century. Meanwhile, right now, resources are becoming scarce. The western US hasn't enough water for the people it already has and is just one of many such places. Fishing populations continue to be depleted by overfishing in numerous locations as another example, and so on.
I'm well aware of forced sterilization and it is absolutely horrifying.
But it sounds like you're unable to distinguish between forced sterilization and availability of contraception to be chosen (or not) by individuals voluntarily. These are not the same thing.
The undergrad paper made the same mistake.
Furthermore, though I don't disagree billionaires interested in the birth rates of brown people could be seen as suspicious by you and others, suspicion is not evidence.
Another possible interpretation is that Gates is interested in making contraception available because, as I stated in a prior comment, voluntary family planning reduces poverty, reduces mortality rates for moms and babies, and so on, and I even linked a few studies in a prior comment.
I don't disagree that imperialism is a major issue for many countries and I don't dispute that US foreign policy has royally fucked a number of countries around the globe. I agree that these countries should enjoy liberation and self determination.
But that is all a non sequitur with regard to whether family planning is an evil eugenics plot. Bill Gates isn't the US government or CIA or any of that. It may all feel like it proves something but it doesn't. In a few years we can look at studies of red vs blue states to see what impacts banning abortion has without brining any eugenics into it.
If contraception results in less poverty, lower mortality rates, (it does, as supported by studies, as previously mentioned) and a better economy in these countries it seems to me that it is one of the things poorer, developing nations could benefit from to gain self determination and get the boot off their collective necks.
Finally, in my brief research this far, I've come to find that this whole eugenics thing with Gates is basically Facebook conspiracy nonsense.
Gates is a favorite target of conspiracy nuts aka people with poor epistemological skills.
I will believe whatever theory is best supported by the best evidence. But so far I haven't seen any even minimally acceptable evidence support such claims about Gates.
Contrast to the mountain of good evidence supporting that he is a total asshole in terms of relationships, business, stuff like that.
I'm certainly open to being wrong at any time as I have demonstrated many times in my life.
You don't get to the truth by bending logic and searching for any scrap to support your pet theory. That's conspiratorial, superstitious baloney you see in the movies.
You get to truth by following logic, selecting the best evidence and considering multiple explanations, being self aware about many cognitive biases, and arriving at the explanation that fits best. That is what is required to be "intellectually honest".
Overpopulation is a myth that is constantly peddled by fascists. The problem is not too many people, the problem is the hegemonic system that keeps in place the conditions that cause people to have so many children, often out of necessity due to increased infant mortality and child mortality caused by conditions imposed by western imperialists.
The problem isn't people having kids, the problem is capitalism and colonialism. If the US disappeared right now the entire world would benefit more than any amount of just pushing birth control alone as a solution, when the people you are talking about, per capita, produce a fraction of the carbon and consume a fraction of the resources the average person in the west does.
You are the one that is not being intellectually honest here, by refusing to engage with the broader context of all of these conditions and actions and their dialectical relationship. I am trying to teach you, but you have to open yourself up to some self criticism and re-education.
And it's fine to admit you are wrong, nobody is going to ridicule you for that. But you have to start to acknowledge some of the chauvinist bullshit you have been saddled with that would bring you to such conclusions, otherwise our discussion is going to be fruitless.
Okay let me take a different and slightly less civil tact here: When you impose conditions on a population that make it a hostile environment to raise children, you have companies like Nestle doing genocide for profit through their pushing of infant formula knowing full well the people they are pushing it on do not have access to necessary clean water to make use of it, which is also a result of colonialism and the deliberate underdevelopment of the imperial periphery, and then after ALL THAT you have an organization that comes along and offers up a solution that "Oh well obviously the problem is you just have too many offspring".
And you can't recognize the overt fascist motives here?
Like what the fuck dude?
This is intentionally genocidal and you are over here like "well ackshually" when you should sit down shut the fuck up and learn something.
I didn't say I can't recognize colonialism / imperialism of west and east or bullshit Nestle and other giant corps pull or the myriad ways the US fucked all these countries.
I'm saying you're supporting evidence and arguments for Gates doing eugenics is lacking. And now you're pissed and have to resort to "you should sit down shut the fuck up and learn something". This is the same type of reaction as trying to have a discussion with a religious nut (used to be one, now atheist) or a cryptobro. That's hardly being open to being wrong or being intellectually honest. I'm out. I hold no hard feelings on my end. Plus I intend to continue to look into the topic but life is way too short and I don't care to "debate" further here. Thanks and peace to you.
You're the one that already admitted you don't know much about this stuff and have only reacted dismissively to actual sources and confronted by people that DO know a lot about these topics. You had your worldview challenged and reacted with hostility.
Sir, this is not your Facebook conspiracy theory group.
zifnab's comment has links to:
These seem to me like sources that wouldn't usually be prominent in facebook conspiracy theory groups.
Can you please tell me what the issue is with zifnab's comment? Why do you feel like the comment would be more at home in a facebook conspiracy theory group?
"A paper from Duke University". This is a random, non-peer-reviewed, undergrad honors thesis. Having supervised honors theses myself, they are not exactly the height of sociological research. Also note that the author only proposes "throughlines" between eugenics and Melinda Gates' work, by definition flimsy and tenuous, at best.
This is a perfect example of a Facebook conspiracy theory, based on shoddy, non-peer-reviewed, amateur "research", but appealing to authority by attributing the paper to "Duke University", with no understanding of the academic context of the paper in question.
Jesus Christ you can smell the hexbear from a mile away. Go sealion somewhere else.
For anyone else reading this, the problems with the other two "sources" are that the WaPo article is just an opinion piece disguised as "analysis", and the Guardian source (an editorialized version of a much better Wall Street Journal piece) seems to actually imply that Gates didn't pay any hush money to Epstein. Either way, it does make it clear that Epstein had nothing to do with Gates' affair whatsoever, and was just trying to profiteer off it.
Note the fact that the language used by the hexbear above effectively claims the opposite of what their source implies, and leaves out the fact that there's no evidence for any of these assertions. Never blindly trust a source from a hexbear. Actually, never trust a "source" from a hexbear at all, for that matter.
Edit: Also, for anyone reading this, only ever comment on the errors in a hexbear's sources and arguments - don't ever actually engage with a hexbear themselves, because your good faith will be wasted on their disingenuousness. This comment is just a fact-checking PSA for anyone who wondered about the reliability (or lack thereof) of the above sources. Note also the bullshit asymmetry principle well at work here.
As a moderator of Hexbear, I would like to formally apologize for our users committing the Preconceived Prejudice Bias, link if you're unfamiliar.
As we all know, multi-billionaires do not have control of our media institutions and are unable to shut down, directly or indirectly, research and investigations into their activities. They do not have the ability to portray themselves in an extremely positive light. Therefore, you are quite right to assume that all these rumors that they are committing acts like our other users implied are frankly entirely false.
I generally take a similar tack when arguing against conspiracists in Russia who argue in the Russian media that Russian oligarchs are committing evil acts in support of the war - this is obviously untrue, as if they were, they would surely be reported in reputable journals and peer-reviewed as you rightfully point out must be done before putting ANY information onto the internet. Any accusations against Putin himself are, similarly, completely bizarre - the Russian media rightfully portrays him as a shining beacon of light. All other "accusations" are from discredited media and crank Telegram and Facebook groups that oppose Putin and the oligarchs, and I am working to try and get them shut down. It's a similar situation in China, as far as I can tell.
Have a great day, and stay classy, my good friend!
Preconceived Prejudice Bias, god dammit you fucking got me too
Well I guess I should apologize for myself and others making the mistake of wanting to see claims being supported by, of all things, evidence. What were we thinking?
Apology accepted.
I can't see your image over on Hexbear.
Lmao you didn't even look at the links before dismissing them you dweeb
I believe the proper nomenclature for this individual is "doorknob" as I have demonstrated below through the rigorous scientific thesis of my insult got more upvotes.
What can I say; you've been proven correct
Thanks for this. I wasn't able to read the wapo article but unfortunately devoted time to the second source. It definitely reads like an undergrad thesis paper written by someone trying to make a very tenuous connection at all costs despite a paucity of solid evidence. Kind of the written version of this:
In addition to being a senior undergrad thesis it's kind of shit. I don't know why I spent the time to skim it but I did. I think it can be tossed right out.
These are well documented facts you sentient doorknob.
Regardless of whether or not the commenter or I are sentient doorknobs, "fact" #2 about eugenics is certainly not proven by the strained logic in that paper. The claim is plausible but that's as far as one can take it with that as a source.
I mean fuck billionaires and Gates is as much a ruthless, sociopathic douche-nozzle as any other billionaire.
But he and others like him have done plenty of harmful shit without resorting to using the weakly supported arguments of undergrad thesis papers. I mean c'mon. That's the best we can come up with? Really?
Noted conspiracy rags The Washington Post, Duke University, and The Guardian
I'll cede that the WaPo is a total shit rag, if I'm pressed to it.
It's not a conspiracy if it's not a crime
Honestly, I’d go for the middle option: donate to existing charities that appeal to me. I don’t want to run a charity, it sounds like a massive headache.
You’re probably a different demographic. I’d guess the kind of people that become billionaires, assuming they actually want to be philanthropic, think that they can do a better job of managing their charities than existing charities would do managing their donations.
It’s definitely fair to say I’m in the “extremely unlikely to ever be a millionaire, let alone a billionaire” demographic!
And if the charity is donating to other charities that donate to it as part of a money laundering/tax fraud scheme, what would you say?
i would definitely do the latter but that is not whats happening here