this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2025
679 points (95.1% liked)
Games
22056 readers
269 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why? It's still bad. He still isn't taking societal input on whether the projects he invests his money into are actually the most wise and sound investments to help the future of all living humans. It's a distinction without a difference.
Why does he need society's input? Last I checked, charities didn't ask society at large, they just get funding from the people who care. Am I wrong to go to the park to pick up litter without asking society at large if that's the best use of my time?
We don't need to have everything go through a committee. If he wants to do a good thing, that's awesome.
That wooshing sound you hear is the point going over your head.
No, I'm explicitly rejecting your point.
It can be both, you're rejecting it because you fail to understand it. Dude, in a rationally organized world we wouldn't need fucking charities, because things would just be funded by reasonable tax structures and governments that care more about taking care of their own people instead of bombing foreign nations. Why would we need charities if things were funded well enough as it is? You're deliberately missing the point.
I don't misunderstand your point, I reject it. When have we ever seen a government care more about taking care of its people than gaining power for its rulers? The more money and responsibility you give to a government, the more corrupt it becomes.
That said, I do think something like UBI makes sense. Make it a simple cash pass-through where everyone is brought above the poverty line. I personally would prefer to structure it as a negative income tax, so you qualify if your income is below some amount, and everyone is brought between the poverty line and a "living wage" (say, 2X poverty line). It's equivalent to UBI, just with less sticker shock and a clearer paper trail (need to file a tax return). Look at the government shutdown, social security is still going out, I want NIT to be the same (and ideally replace SS).
I say we replace all welfare programs with a UBI-type system. Charities would then exist to help people manage that money, get out of addictions, etc... If people are mistreated at work, they'll have the option of leaving. If a child is mistreated, child protection services (could be a charity) can move the child and those tax dollars to a better home. UBI would solve a ton of problems just by ensuring everyone has enough.
If we touch billionaires' money, it should be with inheritance laws. I think we should tax all assets as if they were liquidated if they aren't donated to a qualifying charity. That's the biggest loophole I know about, and it should be closed.
Careful about worshipping at the altar rationality, it is as prone as any god to leading people astray.