The word is just used when they really mean "lying", and it annoys me. It specifically means convincing someone they're crazy, or to doubt themselves. This article suggests Bezos types are just being regular old dishonest, which I find plainly true, although the breathless media coverage is probably doing more than half the work. Beyond that, applying terminology meant for interpersonal relationships to public relations doesn't make sense.
agreed. I think it's something that all people should be aware of as it's a huge red flag for abusers, but people have overused it so much it basically just means "being an asshole" or "lying"
The rich are gaslighting us by commissioning articles that misuse the word gaslighting so that we don't understand what it means and how they are actually gaslighting us.
It’s pretty clear from the comments that nobody read the article. It’s about the use of charitable foundations primarily to avoid paying the same tax that everyone is supposed to pay with the charitable benefit being secondary or, more scandalously not a thing because the money never leaves the trust.
In my opinion, it’s fine to donate to whatever charity you like, or none at all. It’s your money. But pay your damn taxes like the rest of us.
Whether you agree with the article or not, there are some eye-popping numbers mentioned in the article. It is hard not to think about those
United States takes up 39% of all military spending globally
Harvard, for instance, has an investment fund worth over $59 billion. Or put another way — $2.6 million per enrolled student.
Elon Musk is while he takes $4.9 billion in government subsidies and pays $0 in federal taxes in 2018
And on and on. I find that Harvard number especially hilarious. Isn't it supposed to be a non profit? How can they justify stockpiling 59 Billion dollars??!!
Having enough money will make you behave similarly just to avoid taxes. Billionaires will employ similar lawyers, accountants, and use the same practices and loopholes without agreeing beforehand.
There are already trodden paths to avoid taxes, and they won't risk opening unknown paths when the current ones are safe.
I want to like this article, because it does make some nice (to my non-expert eyes) points about being more skeptical of private foundations and donor-advised funds. But it's hard to wade through all the vitriol about "genetic lottery winners and fake-tanned narcissists", the one-sentence-per-paragraph organization, the setting up and knocking down of a shrill strawman ("“How dare you? Charitable donations step-in where the government fails!”), and the pretty facile arguments against some of the donation categories ("$56 billion was given to help provide child services and family care, something that should probably be paid for by society").
But yeah, random private foundations seem suspicious.
If they give it to the Red Cross that’s one thing.
If they self-manage the funds that’s another thing.
Microsoft is good. It pays taxes. It is accountable to customers. (Even if competition is imperfect). It is required by law to have a meaningful annual report.
The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is bad. It doesn’t pay taxes to pay for the costs it incurs. It is accountable only to Bill and Melinda Gates. It does not face competition in any way. It is not required to tell anyone much at all about what they did.
I'm not sure in what conceivable way this could be considered gaslighting.
Donations to charity need not be altruistic to be good for society. Sometimes charitable organizations support causes that you don't just as the government often pumps money into things you disagree with. The difference of course is that one has a choice in the matter when they're making charitable donations while at most you have an extremely indirect say of how your taxes are spent (through electing public officials).
Charitable donations are also not only for the rich. Everyone is eligible to make charitable donations (and they should!) to organizations of their choice and that donation is tax deductible for schmucks like me just like it is for Jeff Bezos.
> We shout at the top of our lungs in praise while Amazon pays next to nothing in taxes and kills thousands of small businesses across the world.
Who exactly is doing this? Does the author live in a fantasy world where he's just happens to be so lucky to be one of the "enlightened ones?" This isn't just hyperbole, this is idiotic.
The one thing I'd be down is some kind of AMT for billionaires.
The sticky bit is when to force them to recognize capital gains- if a founder is trying to retain a certain control over their company, forcing him/her to sell to pay their taxes seems unfair.
But, otherwise, if billionaires are cashing out, but then diverting money to various foundations/DAFs, require a certain minimum payout in taxes, regardless of deductions, don't let it get to zero regardless.
Now, unlike the frantic assertions in the article, the lack of this isn't suddenly going to fund universal healthcare, but it does restore a sense of basic fairness and stake-holding to the public.
There's a meme floating around that elucidates this well, I think: Celebrities with a freezer full of candy bars guilting you into giving all of yours away. I don't think there are really any wealthy people who are giving away money for truly altruistic means. Maybe I'm jaded, but there always seems to be a benefit, a catch, for the rich person. Otherwise, why announce the fact you're giving the money away? That in of itself should raise cause for concern.
It's interesting to watch language trends, I wonder what other words have picked up more recent frequent usage. I suspect forms of social media and online forums drive a lot of this.
After looking at location data for gaslighting, I'm now curious if some people are actually searching for "gas lighting" literally. Lots of very northern and highly rural areas that may be interested in gas as a source for lighting or general fuel source.
It's probably quite demotivating/depressing for the employees who worked hard directly or indirectly for Mackenzie Bezos to see her rather give her money to some strangers or random charities than raise their salaries to something decent or above. I find it very strange.
Someone brave enough should write a handbook for average people to learn how they can do it too. Once average people start doing it, the government will finally try to close the loopholes.
Yes. If the former Mrs Bezos wanted to help students, she would pay tuition directly, not donate a million dollars to the chancellor of a university. If she wanted to help artists, she would buy art, not donate money to the trust fund of a museum.
Gaslighting has been collectively redefined to “when someone says or does something which evokes emotions inside me in the case where I generally dislike that person”
It’s been almost 20 years since Bill Gates committed to giving away his money, and somehow he is worth more now than when he made that public commitment.
The man deserves recognition for the scale of his lie, and he is hoisted up as some reliable resource on vaccination and global pandemics. Serious topics deserve credible spokespeople.
Here's the tact that I take on HN: If you disagree with me but you don't tell me why then I automatically assume that you have nothing good to say because my argumentation is unassailable. Therefore, it's a win for me.
Not everyone can deal with reality, so they have to camouflage those comments for lower minds.
Downvotes can mean that your position is unassailable. More often, though, it means that we think your position is stupid, but it's not worth the time it would take to explain why. Other times it means that we think you're being a jerk, whether or not your position is correct.
"Unassailable"? "Not everyone can deal with reality"? "Lower minds"? As Jane Austin said, "You tell yourself that if it gives you comfort."
Yes, unassailable is a word. It means indisputable, unable to be attacked, questioned, or defeated. As a programmer, I like knowing as many words as possible.
As for the rest, if you take offense at a little bit of undirected glib hyperbole, then perhaps seeking comfort would benefit you the most.
> More often, though, it means that we think your position is stupid, but it's not worth the time it would take to explain why.
Where did you get your stats? I'd like to see them please.
I know what unassailable means. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of you thinking that the word applies to your posts because you're receiving downvotes.
First you tried stating that "Most often" it meant that "we" thought my position was stupid. Who is we and how often is often though?
Then you quoted some words that I had used and made your opinion about them known. Not a great argument...
I'm left wondering what's so absurd? Feel free to go through my comment history, pick out something random and tell me how stupid my position is. I'll wait.
