Bad post. It appears you've identified a random article which doesn't advocate the overthrow of the evil capitalist system, and criticized it for not doing so. A major point of his essay is that even if you believe "rich people bad, working class good", criticizing philanthropy is a harmful way to show off your wokeness.

>What could be better than having a hardworking life, at least 10 hours a day away from home and knowing that a part of your output is going to help populations from other parts of the globe you've never heard of ?
Dunno, but what could be worse is knowing that that same money is instead going towards bombing similar third-world populations or whatever other retarded shit Our Democracy dreams up next.

This article is quite good, but misses one fundamental problem: applying purely utilitarian perspective to human interactions is extremely difficult and fuels exploitative practices.

You start by worrying how many units of suffering are caused by billionaires capitalizing on cheap and hard work in your country, and how it compares to the benefit of charities' target groups. What if the domestic workers (will) actually suffer more, because compared to the citizens of developing countries, they're money-rich and time-poor, live in an atomized, consumerist culture, and have to struggle with low status or a lack of meaning? What if this is some kind of a self-sacrificing scheme that won't pay back in the long run because of mass immigration, demographic shifts, social conflicts, or 100 other scenarios? What if I'm playing "cooperate" when people and institutions that don't care about me play "defect"?

Billionaires can always argue that they just follow fixed market incentives and participate in an unregulated capitalist race: many of them make astronomical profits by keeping their workers miserable, monopolizing niches and offering addictive or harmful products/services. They can treat the expected value of charities as a kind of blackmailing shield: "Oh, so you want me to raise the hourly rate in Big Corporation? It would cost many lives of these poor African children I genuinely care about. Now be a good sla… employee and get back to your cubicle." You don't have to be "woke" to see the dangers - actually, embracing woke capitalism is a predatory strategy criticized by many centrists and conservatives.

Scott makes a very good case for not criticizing billionaires specifically for their philanthropic efforts (sometimes it's really the game, not the players it selects for), but we should carefully investigate how they fit the big picture.

> Man, if only I can make some more money, then I could probably also join some EA-type organization but I can't right now because my boss keeps promoting only women.

Not that I want to discourage you, but according to my buddy's brief experience, many EA organizations seem dogmatic about promoting women at the expense of "privileged" men. Paradoxically, the further from insider circles you are, the more this supposed privilege applies to you.

>Bad post. It appears you've identified a random article which doesn't advocate the overthrow of the evil capitalist system, and criticized it for not doing so.
I love capitalism in idea, just not the regulated braindead controlled capitalism "lemme get a monopoly, then lawyer up to keep the monster alive, say no to unions, lobby that shit murrica style" TM that cucks suck up to. I'm the kind of guy that says real capitalism has never been tried.
> A major point of his essay is that even if you believe "rich people bad, working class good", criticizing philanthropy is a harmful way to show off your wokeness.
I believe "rich people bad, I good", harmful for whom ?
>Dunno, but what could be worse is knowing that that same money is instead going towards bombing similar third-world populations or whatever other retarded shit Our Democracy dreams up next.
I actually don't care as long as it doesn't help people I don't care about.

I'm tired of being fucked in the ass so children can not starve or whatever.

>>6640
Which is more dysgenic for a country, feeding it or bombing it?

>>6644
>harmful for whom?
"Society", in terms of opportunity costs. I doubt wagecucks end up with any of the money even if billionaires successfully get bullied out of philanthropy. And some of their projects could actually be useful. At the very least, I consider the ceiling of good that a billionaire can do with their money higher than what a democracy would do with it.

>>6646
Very bespoke, anon. But I don't think it actually matters much either way because The Singularity Is Near.