Comment by lionhearted | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lionhearted | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> He acknolwedged all your points in his article, and he didn't call you a jerk.

He acknowledged that charity-as-is is currently failing, largely thanks to poor leadership by people like him?

He acknowledged that he dislikes wealthy people as an almost fundamental belief (as opposed to just having it be an undertone of the article)?

No, he didn't. And you know, when you take time to write a series of articles encouraging people to "Dial Down our Enthusiasm over the Billionare Giving Pledge" - that deserves being called a jerk. He could be building the world, doing things, but no - he's slinging mud. That qualifies as jerk behavior.

Edit: He also doesn't mention the conflict of interest here - he's currently a philanthropy director who stands to lose a lot of influence, power, and prestige as a result of this. He used to be a top dog in philanthropy, and now he's slinging mud at people who are doing different, probably more effective things than him.

It is hard to have an intelligent discussion about charity with someone who's main point is that someone else is a jerk. We can only have a conversation about whether someone (or someone else) is a jerk, or something better, or something worse.

Try again, Sebastian.

It's hard to have an intelligent discussion when the opposing side makes comments like these (from the article):

"UNTIL the money is given away, It amounts to very little more than air. Better that we raise their taxes to pay down the deficit and fix the infrastructure that they helped destroy NOW and worry about what lucky people get their giveaways or more importantly those in need who don't."

This kind of thinking baffles me - where did this entitlement culture come from?

One person who I think disagrees with you is Warren Buffett.

> It is hard to have an intelligent discussion about charity with someone who's main point is that someone else is a jerk. ... Try again, Sebastian.

Is "Try again, Sebastian" really the best tone to try to settle down a conversation and have an intelligent discussion?

But okay - the main point isn't that he's a jerk - there's 3-4 points about mudslinging at people who are doing good things, conflict of interests with the old guard in philanthropy, the ineffectiveness of the old models of charity, and entrenched worldviews being defended.

We can discuss those, if you like? I do think his behavior is uncool and that that's worth pointing out - but there's plenty of other points worth discussing too.

Maybe the discussion could start with the conflict of interest here, how a philanthropy director is throwing mud at people involved in philanthropy that stands to make him less personally prestigious and important?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com