= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
brazil84 comments on Mark Zuckerberg plans to give away 99% of his facebook wealth over his lifetime - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (50)
It's a bit surprising that anyone is arguing over this issue. Clearly if Zuckerberg can convince people that he is giving 99% of his fortune to (worthy) charity, it will enhance his reputation and status. This is obvious to anyone, and therefore it opens up the reasonable possibility that his primary motivation is in fact to enhance his reputation and status.
Maybe the problem is that people are getting hung up on the word "publicity." When people say "He's doing it for the publicity," the charitable interpretation is "he is doing it to enhance his reputation and status."
If a debate is obvious with the charitable interpretation it makes sense to have the debate about the actual reasons why people take the positions they take.
The underlying battle is about what Zizek calls liberal communism. The steelman is: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n07/slavoj-zizek/nobody-has-to-be-vile It's about whether a person should be applauded for doing earning-to-give or whether earning-to-give should simply be seen as a way to "enhance his reputation and status". Those cultural norms matter. Having the wrong cultural norms make people die who would otherwise be saved.
If it's in your morality to pratice charitable reading at the cost of human lives, feel free to live with that moral decision.
I'm not sure what your point is here but it sounds like you agree with me. The real question to discuss is how much it matters if Zuckerberg is doing this primarily to enhance his reputation and status.
I have no idea what your point is here.
If I misunderstood you and we agree that's great.
The critical media reaction to Zuckerberg announcement likely cost more lives through reduced donations than lifes were lost in Paris during the recent attacks.
Well what did you think I was saying?
And in what way did the media "practice charitable reading"?
That it's right of the media to say that Zuckerberg made the donation to increase his own reputation and status.
I didn't say any such thing. Please read what I say carefully before responding.
And please answer my other question:
In what way did the media "practice charitable reading"?
I already said that I might have misunderstood you. You suggested that further explanation is helpful. What do you expect to gain from another answer?
I'm trying to understand YOUR point now. Regardless of whether you misunderstood me, you said something and I am trying to understand it.
Here's what you said:
So you were talking about someone practicing charitable reading at the cost of human lives. When I stated that I did not understand your point, you said this:
So apparently your point is that the media (or some part of the media) "practiced charitable reading" which cost human lives.
So how exactly did the media "practice charitable reading"? It's not a very complicated question.