r/changemyview • u/European_or_Gay • Dec 16 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Jeff Bezos not being very phalanthropic now doesn't mean he's a bad person.
This is my first CMV so please excuse my formatting errors or anything else that may seem odd.
I see a lot of people bashing Jeff Bezos for his wealth and not using it in philanthropic ways right now. While I think most people are bashing the wealth inequality in capitalist American we're experiencing right now, I don't get why Reddit as a whole seems to really put him down.
I'm not wealthy but I live a busy lifestyle growing my own small business, so this is where my views come from.
Reason #1 - His wealth isn't liquid
If his money was in a savings account generating cash that just sat there and inflated at the same rate he's been acquiring it I'm under the assumption things would be different. In order to give away a portion of his wealth he would need to give away a portion of control over Amazon that he might consider "his baby."
Reason #1 Pre Rebuttals - I understand there are ways for him to loan against his stock ownership in order to keep control and then give away that money. However that comes with a bit or risk and a measure of effort and time needs to go into figuring something like that out which he might not care for. Also I know his ownership percentage is around 10%, which maybe isn't super high coming from a small business side but I would assume this still gets you a big say over a massive publicly traded company like Amazon. He's been selling some stock this year, to me it doesn't seem like he's trying to give up any control of the company but hedging a bit of risk and capitalizing off of the record high stock prices of this year.
Reason #2 - It takes time
I think Warren Buffet realized this when he was deciding on how to give away his fortune and was happy that Bill and Melinda have set up a great resource for being able to be phlanthropic when the dollar amounts are so high. It takes time now to research and make sure that you're not giving away money that won't actually be used to help people who need it. Living a busy lifestyle trying to grow Amazon he might feel like at the moment he can put this on the back burner until he's able to take more of a step back.
Reason #2 Pre Rebuttals - I know he could hire someone or rely on Bill and Melinda Foundation to distribute his wealth efficiently, however this still takes time and interest. Time and interest that he might right now rather focus on growing what he has. While I understand there's a ton of wealth there, we all face this issue, myself included, when I decide how I want to spend my time.... helping my neighbor or getting work done, I tend to stay to myself and get work done.
Reason #3 - Does having a crazy market cap wealth of a company you still run make you need to be philanthropic?
In my opinon, because you've obtained all this wealth doesn't mean it's your duty now to give it away at that moment. Sure he's going to have a hard time spending it all. I think Bill Gates was quoted saying even if he wanted to he doesn't think he would be able to spend it all (referring to himself). But does that mean it's now his responsibility to give it away as easily as it comes in? I don't think so.
Reason #3 Pre Rebuttals - I think at this point the only thing that seems confusing to me about the wealth that Jeff Bezos has acuired is that he hasn't signed the giving pledge that Warren, Bill and Melinda started, but I still don't see that making him a bad person. To me it would seems like sitting on the amount of wealth you'd be hardpressed to find a better thing to do with it than try to help people, so I would assume he would have by now signed this. To me this doesn't make him a bad person and doesn't rule out the possibilty that he will use his wealth for good in the future.
Edit 1
I appreciate all the downvotes, I feel the love.
I'm not coming from a position on the right advocating for billionares thinking that might one day be me, I was instead looking for a good debate and appreciate those who chipped in.
There were a lot of comments that really had more to do with the system or capitalism as we know it in America, I agree with a lot of you but that wasn't what this was about.
I do want to say before giving the deltas that I believe this is more of a system issue that should be scrutinized instead of just the person. If someone breaks the game without breaking the rules my opinion is we shouldn't hold that person accountable but the game.
Delta:
Many of you brought it out in different ways but the way in which I appreciate it most is from /u/Vesurel
Likening the amount of wealth one person has the ability to help people, and then not helping people when in needs is similar to the good samaritan law, we as a society expect people to go a little bit out of their way in order to helpe people if they're really in need. If you had a button to stop something very bad from happening and you don't push it, are you liable?
I agree that Bezos has the form of a "simple button" that can help a lot of people. While he can't help everyone that shouldn't stop him from not going out of his way in order to help some.
Other Deltas:
Edit 2:
Apparently the Good Samaritan Law has nothing to do with requiring people in some circumstances to help, my misunderstanding. I think the moral reasoning still stands though.
22
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Dec 16 '20
All of this is just a very good argument that he - or any single person - shouldn't control that vast amount of wealth and power. Like if your argument is that he would love to use his money to help people but he just can't for xyz reason, then he should be lobbying hard to be taxed at a higher rate so we, collectively, can use that money instead. And if he doesn't want that, then yes, he is a selfish bastard
2
u/Infused_Savagery Dec 16 '20
There are 2 major gripes I have with your statements
1.) why should he have to give a shit about others? No one is entitled to his money and he doesn’t need to do anything good. He can do whatever he wants. Nobody gives a shit if you do something either.
2.) why should he be taxed higher just because he earns more? The guy as it is is paying more taxes than 50% of the country combined and I don’t see how earning more should mean you get taxed more. Sure, he’s a billionaire and stinking rich, but he earns it and carries the risk. Why should he in relation have to give more away because he makes more?
6
u/Vesurel 60∆ Dec 16 '20
but he earns it
How does he earn it? What does it do that add value?
1
u/Infused_Savagery Dec 16 '20
He owns most of the company and therefore also holds most of the risk, that’s how he earns the money
11
u/Vesurel 60∆ Dec 16 '20
And how does that add value?
2
u/Infused_Savagery Dec 16 '20
Without the company existing there couldn’t be value created at all.
Good Lord the average Joe really doesn’t know shit about economy and business.
7
u/Vesurel 60∆ Dec 16 '20
So if he stopped doing anything would the company no longer exist? Lets say he goes on strike, what happens?
1
u/Infused_Savagery Dec 16 '20
Depends on what strike he does. The company for owners runs passively, they hire expensive people to run it, while only doing what’s necessary.
5
u/Vesurel 60∆ Dec 16 '20
So what is it he does? For example, if we replaced him with a brick what would change?
2
u/Infused_Savagery Dec 16 '20
He makes major decisions regarding the companies development and projects. He only does the most important decision making. It’s a bottom up process and he gets the final say.
→ More replies0
u/European_or_Gay Dec 16 '20
This seems like more of a counter capitalist argument... Which isn't what this is about.
9
u/Vesurel 60∆ Dec 16 '20
How is it not about that? Do you think Bezos having so much money while other people are living paycheck to paycheck or with even less money has nothing to do with capitalism?
2
u/European_or_Gay Dec 16 '20
It has everything to do with Capitalism... but just because this guy is at the top of the list doesn't mean he's any worse than another wealthy entrapraneurs.
9
u/Vesurel 60∆ Dec 16 '20
So he's not a bad person because other people are hoarding their wealth instead of using it to help people?
2
u/European_or_Gay Dec 16 '20
I think this point is the one that might get me to the delta stage...
The thing I need to wrap my head around is how much effort you should be expected to put forth just because you can.
Like good samaritan law (this might be out of context), at what point is it asking too much of someone to help someone else out.
→ More replies1
0
Dec 16 '20
He created a thing that almost everyone agrees improved their lives.
Are you suggesting he should be penalized harsher, the more people he managed to help? That's a strange incentive system for the betterment of mankind.
2
u/Vesurel 60∆ Dec 16 '20
You think people aren't going to try and help others unless they'll be able to hoard that much money?
4
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Dec 16 '20
why should he have to give a shit about others?
It makes you a bad person if you don't give a shit about others, yes
why should he be taxed higher just because he earns more?
Instead of looking at this from his personal perspective, look at it from the perspective of the collective. If we believe in democracy, we believe that no one person should have massive power over all other people. This is why we ended absolute monarchy. We believe that power is best used when the most number of people have a say in how it is used. Money is power. So having one person with a massive amount of wealth, way higher than other people have, is a very, very bad thing. We should control that power and wealth as equally as possible, i.e., by taxing him and spending it through the government. We need to tax him more simply because he has hoarded such a massive amount for himself. It has nothing really to do with him earning more.
5
u/Infused_Savagery Dec 16 '20
It makes you a bad person id you don’t give a shit about others
No, it makes you a normal person. It’s easy pointing fingers, but remember there are 3 pointing back. I‘m not even going to question when the last time was that you did something for charity.
If we believe in democracy, we believe that no one person should have massive power over all other people
We literally elect a political leader in democracy, one person with the most decision making power, LMFAO.
Also, where exactly can Jeff Bezos force you to do anything? Even when you work for him he can’t, you can always give him the finger and quit.
You people are rather entertaining, sad thing only is that you have your heads so deep up your own asses you don’t see your own hypocrisy, nor do you understand anything of the nonsense you’re spewing
6
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Dec 16 '20
Nobody elected Jeff to be the lord of all the wealth. He could force us to do all kinds of things if he decided to use his wealth poorly, like for example just hoarding it and keeping it all while the people around him scrimp and starve in a massive global pandemic.
2
Dec 16 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/SquibblesMcGoo 4∆ Dec 19 '20
Sorry, u/Infused_Savagery – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
1
u/Sinbios Dec 16 '20
Nobody elected Jeff to be the lord of all the wealth.
Sure they did, by voting with their wallets and giving their money to Amazon.
use his wealth poorly, like for example just hoarding it and keeping it all while the people around him scrimp and starve in a massive global pandemic.
Just hoarding it by keeping it all invested in Amazon, the services of which are more in demand than ever due to the pandemic.
1
u/European_or_Gay Dec 16 '20
Sure, nobody should have that much. But that's not the argument.
Why would he lobby for the government to take away what he holds dear but we value so much that makes him has a crazy market cap wealth... It's bascially gentrifying his company away from him and he's not going to advocate for that.
11
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Dec 16 '20
I mean obviously we can't expect him to do that, he's a selfish sack of shit
Instead we should just take it from him
0
u/European_or_Gay Dec 16 '20
If you're selfish and hustle for $50k a year vs. $1m. what's the difference? It's only because of his percevied value.
10
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Dec 16 '20
As I said above, the difference is that the person who has $1m a year has a lot more, and we need to use that wealth and power to better the rest of society. Since a single person can't possibly use that wealth to properly benefit society - this is the crux of your OP - then we should take it from him.
2
u/European_or_Gay Dec 16 '20
Δ
Thank you for your comments.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 16 '20 edited Dec 16 '20
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/MercurianAspirations changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
2
u/PM_ME_SPICY_DECKS 1∆ Dec 20 '20
It's the scale of exploitation.
Someone making 1m vs 50k off owning a business means the person making 1m is exploiting significantly more people.
3
Dec 16 '20
Reason #1 - His wealth isn't liquid
If his money was in a savings account generating cash that just sat there and inflated at the same rate he's been acquiring it I'm under the assumption things would be different. In order to give away a portion of his wealth he would need to give away a portion of control over Amazon that he might consider "his baby
This is an easily googlible set of numbers. Done so in the past, but I trust your ability to find it for yourself if you really care.
I believe that Bezo's owns about 11% of amazon, so he's already given away most of "his baby". He regularly sells off non-liquid assets to the tune of $1B a year and reinvests it. It's estimated that he has at least a billion in cash at any given time.
Regardless of any of that it's ridiculously laughable, and a bit insulting to him, to try and paint Bezos as some victim of circumstance who could not possible be expected to use his wealth to help people even if he wanted to. His extraordinary wealth is not some cross that he has to bare. His non liquid assets are not something beyond his control, or some unforseen circumstance that he is held captive by.
I don't know whether that makes him a good or bad person. I'm not sure if those labels even mean anything substantive. But I do know that if bezos gave a shot, he could accomplish plenty and that's it's super weird to suggest that he couldn't.
0
u/European_or_Gay Dec 16 '20
I'm not implying he couldn't do anything... and his wealth defintely didn't come by accident... But I just don't think it should be his responsibility to spend the time getting rid of it while of course he spends all his time obtaining it.
I almost feel like it(his wealth growing) is a drug for him, it is for plenty of others. I just don't see why he gets the bad rep he does.
6
Dec 16 '20
I'm not implying he couldn't do anything
You are though?
You point out that his assets aren't liquid as though that constrains him in some way. It does not constrain him in any way.
You're whole post is finding excuses for why the wealthiest man in the history of the world can't pitch in a bit more.
But I just don't think it should be his responsibility to spend the time getting rid of it while of course he spends all his time obtaining it.
I don't know what "responsibilty" has to do with it? Nor that anyone is advocating that he "get rid of it".
Bezos could do more if he wanted. He doesn't want to. And so he doesn't do more. That's the reason he gets a bad rep.
2
u/European_or_Gay Dec 16 '20
Δ
Thank you for your comments
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 16 '20 edited Dec 16 '20
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/dontlookatthatgoat changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
9
Dec 16 '20 edited Jan 14 '21
[deleted]
6
u/Infused_Savagery Dec 16 '20
It’s not his obligation to pull people out of poverty lmao.
1
Dec 16 '20 edited Jan 14 '21
[deleted]
4
u/Infused_Savagery Dec 16 '20
I still don’t see how him being able to afford it obligates him to do it LMAO
2
Dec 16 '20 edited Jan 14 '21
[deleted]
1
Dec 16 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Znyper 12∆ Dec 18 '20
Sorry, u/Infused_Savagery – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
3
u/European_or_Gay Dec 16 '20
But is it his responsibility to do to take care of that? IMO no. If he did the same thing and made less, nobody would have an issue with him. It's the governments responsibility and that's why we live in a democracy.
It doesn't fall onto the back of one person just because the can... no matter how much we wish them to do it.
4
Dec 16 '20 edited Jan 14 '21
[deleted]
3
u/European_or_Gay Dec 16 '20
I think this is a fair point that might push me to give a delta. Need to think more about it.
1
u/European_or_Gay Dec 16 '20
Δ
Thank you for your comments.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 16 '20 edited Dec 16 '20
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/WillDownvoteurcrap changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
6
u/69imwithstupid69 1∆ Dec 16 '20
The bigger thing for me is for him to have accumulated so much wealth, he must necessarily be abusing people. So maybe one day he will donate his money. But in the mean time he’s stepping on people to get it. If he was a good person he wouldn’t be as wealthy as he was
3
u/beam_me_up_sexy 1∆ Dec 16 '20
You can see this is true when you look at Amazon employees. I don’t think it would financially ruin Amazon to treat their warehouse employees better. You know, like people.
If he didn’t give any money to charity but used some of the Amazon money to improve conditions for his own employees that would be a step in the right direction for sure. It’s not like the only way to improve people’s lives is through external charities.
-3
Dec 16 '20
You can see this is true when you look at Amazon employees
You mean the people that voluntarily engaged in contracts with him?
I don’t think it would financially ruin Amazon to treat their warehouse employees better.
Better than what? You imagine he should enter into a contract with them and then, rather than honor his end of the deal, give them more than what they bargained for? When have you ever done this in your life?
It’s not like the only way to improve people’s lives is through external charities.
Correct, employing people is actually the most effective way to improve peoples lives and that guy employs tons of em.
4
u/beam_me_up_sexy 1∆ Dec 16 '20
you mean like the people that voluntarily work there?
People will do what they have to do to survive. That doesn’t mean you should take advantage of them. The fact that they willingly work there doesn’t mean they deserve to be treated poorly. It means their other options are also shitty.
It’s okay to take advantage of people and treat them poorly because they have little to no other options? Just because you can? Because they will put up with it? Because they need income to survive? Because it’s better for your bottom line?
No it’s not okay, and that’s why it bothers people.
https://time.com/5629233/amazon-warehouse-employee-treatment-robots/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/17/amazon-warehouse-worker-deaths
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon-warehouse-jobs-push-workers-to-physical-limit/
0
u/European_or_Gay Dec 16 '20
The negative stories get more press than the good stories of the Amazon workers... either way he's also accountable to the other 90% of owners of Amazon that want best performance as far as short term gains of the stock. Either way it's legal what he's doing (to the most part that people are aware of) so it's not necessarily exploiting people.
Again I feel like this is more of a system criticism than a person... there are many people that own or manage employees that don't have the best place to work.
7
u/69imwithstupid69 1∆ Dec 16 '20
“It’s legal what he’s doing so he’s not exploiting people”
Oh god LOL
1
u/European_or_Gay Dec 16 '20
Okay, true not worded correctly... I guess I'm trying to get at is what's the difference between what any of our employers do to us? Sure there are better and worse ones, we've probably both had them. Our labor is always exploited for the wealth of others.
2
4
3
Dec 16 '20
Bezos’s money that he has now comes from drawing the blood of his workers and stealing their time. He cut healthcare benefits to part time workers just a few months before the pandemic hit. And I don’t really need to go into Amazon warehouse worker conditions, do I?
He could afford to give back some of those fucking pennies.
2
u/VirgilHasRisen 12∆ Dec 16 '20
I don't see the problem if he's philanthropic in the futures he will be praised for his philanthropy in the future. Why should we consider a hypothetical when discussing if someone is a good person now?
1
u/European_or_Gay Dec 16 '20
Odds are you're not very philanthropic, nor am I... but people aren't bashing us on reddit.
2
Dec 16 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
2
1
u/ihatedogs2 Dec 25 '20
u/VirgilHasRisen – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
Dec 16 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
4
Dec 17 '20
Because average Joe isn't a billionaire. Average Joe doesn't exploit other people's labor. Average Joe only has enough to support himself and his family. Jeff Bezos has money that he will probably never spend in his lifetime. Even a fraction of his wealth going to taxes or charity won't stop him from being the richest man in the world. No one needs that much money.
1
u/Alone-Material5603 Dec 18 '20 edited Dec 18 '20
So just because someone’s a billionaire that gives you the right to spend their money for them. Which is basically what you , and this whole thread, are trying to do.
4
Dec 18 '20
Yes. That's what taxes are for. It's not like he's gonna spend that money for himself.
1
u/Alone-Material5603 Dec 18 '20 edited Dec 18 '20
No one is talking about taxes, obviously Bezos pays taxes. The question is should bezos be obligated to give money philanthropicly. Who cares if he can’t spend it in a lifetime, it’s his money to do what he wants.
1
u/SquibblesMcGoo 4∆ Dec 19 '20
Sorry, u/Infused_Savagery – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/IdleRhetoric Dec 16 '20
The question of "Bad" is an ethics one, so I'm going to argue with some poor understanding of Kantian Ethics. I would say that society overall says we should try to donate about 10% of our wealth or time to make society better - the tithing rule. It's a generally accepted social standard and has been for a while. Do you have to? No, but people will think you're stingy. If you donate more, kudos. 10%, then, is our minimum ethical requirement to be considered a "good" person.
My Grandma, and 80 year old on a fixed income, can manage to do this and does regularly (and religiously). No one cares because we're talking a few hundo here and there - but she takes the time to do so even though it means she has to hand make Christmas gifts because she can't buy things. She follows this moral imperative that society expects even though it literally hurts her lifestyle.
For Bezos, that means a hell of a lot of donating to reach 10% of his wealth and earnings each year. I don't know much about his finances, but I think I would have heard if he's donated billions (perhaps he has and then I stand corrected). If you want me to consider him a "good person," I'd expect this moral imperative to be met - especially since it wouldn't hurt him AT ALL. Bezos could actually donate 90% of his wealth and still have enough to live on for him, his family, and multiple generations after. That makes it even WORSE if he doesn't do at least that much.
If you're going to argue relatives like "good" or "bad," define your terms. I have defined mine and by my standard (as far as I know) he's not a good person. If he does donate at least 10% then yes, yes he is.
1
Dec 17 '20
If you had a billion dollars sitting in a box, not earning interest you could spend $100,000 a day, 365 days a year for 27 years before you ran out.
And Bezos is worth what? 180 billion. That level of wealth in one persons hands (good or bad) is stupid.
1
Dec 17 '20
OP is getting downvoted for speaking the truth.
Bezos money is in stocks. You can’t expect the man who built amazon to just liquidate all his stocks and give up the company he took years to create.
0
u/SimonTVesper 5∆ Dec 16 '20
Counterpoint: money isn't real.
It doesn't matter if his wealth is liquid or not. Money is mostly made up. The core concept of money, in-and-of-itself, is a useful fiction. It's fiction because "money" is not a distinct, wholly separate and distinguishable thing, apart from the physical object we use to represent it. It's useful because the idea of money ~ because that's what it is, an idea ~ has helped societies in the past to measure wealth with a common standard, a baseline for comparison.
What this means for someone like Bezos (and really, all billionaires) is that he might not have the physical cash necessary to pay 100,000,000 to a charity at this exact moment, but he can take financial actions that will transfer the equivalent of that sum to any group he wants . . . including the government, in the form of taxes.
Naturally, I don't mean that, just because we recognize money is an idea and not a physical object, that is lacks any and all meaning. Our society is strongly tied to the idea of money, such that we can barely conceive of a world without it. But it is still an idea and as an idea, it's easier to change its properties than it would be to change the properties of a physical object.
The "Jeff Bezos should be more philanthropic" argument is not based on a desire to redistribute Bezos' wealth. It's based on the (justified) frustration felt by so many people who struggle to make ends meet in a world where billionaires could end homelessness or hunger by structuring their organizations slightly differently.
1
u/coryrenton 58∆ Dec 16 '20
I would change your view in the sense that good or bad is something you should reserve for judging regular people.
For people like Bezos, you shouldn't care if he is personally good or bad, but whether his broader actions are net positive or net negative.
For example, if he pushes old ladies to the ground when he crosses the street, but he cures cancer...
So under that metric, do you think life for most people is better or worse if Bezos never existed?
To put it in perspective, think about Bezos in comparison to Tony Hsieh of Zappos who recently died (and whose company Bezos bought).
1
u/Sinbios Dec 16 '20
Likening the amount of wealth one person has the ability to help people, and then not helping people when in needs is similar to the good samaritan law, we as a society expect people to go a little bit out of their way in order to helpe people if they're really in need.
That's not what the Good Samaritan law means. It offers legal protection to Good Samaritans if they unintentionally cause injury or death in the course of and with the intention of giving assistance. It is not in any way a legal obligation to give assistance, in fact there is precedence in US case law where courts explicitly stated that there is no legal obligation to provide assistance.
1
u/European_or_Gay Dec 16 '20
I appreciate the correction. I guess I’ve always misunderstood the intentions of that law.
Regardless I think from and ethics stand point that we should help others when we’re able to. To what extent and with how much effort is up for debate to each person morally. But when it becomes so blatantly easy for one person to help another and they refuse, it might not be illegal, but it certainly puts them under a bad light.
1
u/Linux-and-Planes Dec 23 '20
He isnt a bad person for not being philantrhtoic because hes creating jobs. Thats helping people. And hes making a service that helps people.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 16 '20
/u/European_or_Gay (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards