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?
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
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
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.
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”.
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.
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?
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!
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?
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.
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?
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.
Just a reminder, these donations go to his own charities as a tax deduction.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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”.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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?
It makes a billionaire “good one” look bad, so they reject it.
“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!
Removed by mod
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
Removed by mod
What can I say; you’ve been proven correct
deleted by creator
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.
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.
Removed by mod
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?
chef’s kiss
It’s not a conspiracy if it’s not a crime
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?
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!
It makes so much sense to be a vampire parasite that writes their own kickbacks and gets PR and praise from sycophantic media and bootlicking rubes.
i would definitely do the latter but that is not whats happening here
Because of course they do. Thanks for the additional info!
And there it is…