272

this always works. (lemmy.sdf.org)

submitted 3 weeks ago by dosuser123456@lemmy.sdf.org to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

trust me bro

all 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 21 points 3 weeks ago

Please don't invoke the Bill Gates apologists 😑

[-] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 11 points 3 weeks ago

They exist??

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 3 weeks ago

Sadly yes. Ever since he became a "philanthropist", people come out of the woodwork to say he's "one of the good ones". I have to remind them that he may be "good" now but he can still pay his fucking taxes and be better.

[-] zea_64 17 points 3 weeks ago

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation lobbied against waiving intellectual property laws that would've let countries produce the vaccines themselves. Instead, only the pharma companies that owned the IP could produce it, and those vaccines were immediately gobbled up by wealthy countries leaving millions in poorer countries without a vaccine. So no, he's not one of the good ones, his philanthropy is still evil with a hint of good purely to launder his reputation.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I'm probably one of the people OP is thinking of. Before my time he was apparently a massive bastard, and he even admits to it. These days, as far as I can tell, he rescues Africans and doesn't do much else. Every other famous billionaire is higher on my shit list.

[-] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Almost certainly, he's saved far more lives than he's taken at this point.

He scalped Western technophobes pretty hard and tried to hobble a lot of early FOSS efforts (although we came through in the end). Few of the idiots buying Windows XP licences needed that money more then the recipients of the Gates fund, though, so if that's his lifetime transaction it's based.

so what’s your threshold for being a scumbag piece of shit?

It's not clear good people exist at all.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

I killed 5, now I gave blood and saved 3, only 2 to go to be "morally clean" am I right?

Pfff.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Hey, it's a pretty popular ethical philosophy. Generally, people like to leave caveats, but fully rejecting all consequentialism is similarly uncommon.

If you're going to be a pure deontologist, you have to pick out single actions he's done that went against your chosen rules. One hurdle there is that most of his activities were legal in their time or place. Another is that seeking personal profit is almost universal and often commended.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Have you heard of the trolley problem? You should check it out instead of trying to "get me" with some slop. Also, legit isn't moral!

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The fact I know what deontology means should suggest that I've heard of the trolley problem.

Also, leg[al] isn’t moral!

Correct. But, you'd have to figure out an alternative system of rules that he broke. And it may very well capture people you like as well. Most people would have no problem killing a technical standard for a very large sum of money.

I can't say it's impossible to do reasonably, but I can't say it is possible either. Most people just acknowledge that sometimes the ends justify the means.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

You're just moving the goalpoast, as you most probably know what that is too, you know what you're doing and this acts in bad faith.

Go bootlick a billionaire if you want to but don't come here try to convince anyone that they are in any way good people, that's just propaganda, and if you're not paid to do it then you are also a fool.

Edit: it's clearly just ai slop now, I'm not answering that lol.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It's not clear what goalpost you mean, exactly. Any consequentialism being bad, or pure consequentialism?

I was pretty careful not to set a goalpost of any kind on pure consequentialism, if you go back and double check, exactly because it has well-known problems.

Go bootlick a billionaire if you want to but don’t come here try to convince anyone that they are in any way good people

Don't flatter them with the evil genius shit either. That's how they want to be seen.

[-] RiQuY@lemmy.zip 18 points 3 weeks ago

I prefer to blame every big company, like "fuck Google", "fuck Microsoft". Sounds better.

[-] c0dezer0@programming.dev 10 points 3 weeks ago

Fuck Nestle

[-] dosuser123456@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 weeks ago

......fsck cocacola, apple, valve and walmart then

well maybe not walmart, no need to, they did it themselves

[-] Ephera@lemmy.ml 14 points 3 weeks ago

I mean, he did fuck up a good chunk of everything...

[-] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

HE is a gigantic POS so why not?

[-] Adalast@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Eh, I would have agreed 20 years ago, but of late he seems to be at least trying to right the books before he shuffles off this mortal coil.

Besides, we have new oligarchs to shit on and blame for things and they are infinitely more culpable and shitty than he ever was really.

[-] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

He isn't.
Many of those who get called 'philanthropists' or claim to be don't do it for altruistic reasons.
Plenty of profits from the Gates foundation.
1 example, Billy makes a deal with African governments where his foundation funds a small percentage of medicine (with many tax advantages), the bulk by the respective states.
Invariably the medicine is the one Billy has invested in.
There's plenty more if you look into it.
I don't bcs I know that scumbag will never change.
But looks like plenty people are easily fooled.

[-] lime@feddit.nu 3 points 3 weeks ago

wait... you back up your statement with "i've not looked it up"?

[-] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Comprehensive reading?
i’ve not looked it up FURTHER since, as I explained, I know of plenty facts, not "claims" before that.
So I know he's also scum even in his BS 'philanthropist' capacity.
You can keep simping for the billionaires all you want, IDC

[-] Adalast@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

I wasn't simping so much as arguing we have much more relevant set of billionaires to direct ire to.

Even in your example, he is helping get states to invest in medicine for their populace. Is it wholly altruistic, no. Could it end up as a net positive, possibly. I only said he was trying to get his karmic balance sheet to look better, not that he had miraculously become a good person.

[-] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

" I only said he was trying to get his karmic balance sheet to look better" not even that. These sociopaths don't believe in karma or accountabillity.
He was, is and always will be evil.