Since my other posts criticizing billionaires started controversy on whether or not “progressive” and “charitable” ones are better than the rest, I’ll lay it out simple:
There is nothing stopping the world’s richest people from combatting poverty at its source except the cheap labor they know they and their friends need to exist.
I repeat: The reason billions of people are living in destitution despite an abundant amount of wealth is because capitalism is reliant on it. Billionaires are reliant on it. Bill Gates will not go to Bangladesh and campaign for wage increases and safety standards for multinational corporations responsible for the collapse of the Rana Plaza, which killed thousands of innocent people. Warren Buffett will not consult the World Bank about its manipulation of global poverty statistics, which is responsible for the narrative that what these multinational corporations do is just.
That’s because like anything under capitalism, charity is an investment. Billionaires investing in charity do so expecting a profit in return. Economic imperialism; cheap labor, is the reason we have such extreme inequality around the world.
If billionaires cared, they’d stop being the imperialists in chief, knowingly befriending and investing in corporations and their leaders responsible for what horrors we witness under capitalism.
It’s just business to them, and human life is a cost-benefit analysis.
Instead of angrily defending them, think about their motives.
That’s not even mentioning that also when “progressive” billionaires say they want higher taxes there is nothing stopping them from doing what taxes are designed to do. But they’d have to stop evading taxes first.
disney meme [2/9] characters➞ lilo pelekai “hey! three days ago, i bought stitch at the shelter. i paid two dollars for him. see this stamp? i own him. if you take him, you’re stealing.”
2018 Grinch has no edge. He’s got no bite. He’s not even that much of an asshole. He’s just a sassy gay furry with unusually nice teeth despite his famous theme song declaring otherwise.
1966 Grinch? Now that was a mean, scary bastard. He was a crusty old fuck who hated society so much that he only came off his shitty frozen mountain to commit crimes and terrorism out of spite.
Bennyhoo Cumberland Grinch comes down from his mountain to buy groceries.
You can round the edges off a character to make them more “relatable” or whatever, but you also run the risk of losing what defined them in the first place. The end result is bland and generic.
2018 Grinch is a reflection of modern society’s rejection of real character flaws in the interest of being “unproblematic” and in this essay i will
I’m sorry, are you insinuating that the 1966 Grinch committed acts of TERRORISM against the town of Whoville??
He specifically attempted to destroy a culture’s religious holiday
Molly's Monsters 