A celebrity being an advocate for a charity is honestly the very last thing on my list of problems that need to be addressed. Most Hollywood types we all know are several orders of magnitude less wealthy than our billionaire overlords. At least they’re trying to do something beneficial
Yeah maybe the average person can’t be bothered to make a distinction between billionaires and millionaires (most celebs) even though the difference happens to be 1000 to 1.
But they should, if working class solidarity matters and isn’t a one-way street.
1 - it usually gets them a tax write off
2 - they do little other than talk about it and any explanation of their involvement is usually heavily exaggerated (except maybe John Cena’s make a wish work)
3 - they view their name attachment as worth enough, and people aupplaide them for the lip service, further feeding their narcissism
4 - it is wielded around with their superiority complex, leveraged against others more often than not
5 - the orgs themselves mostly go to funding their leadership groups. Where the largest cost (overhead) is paid before money actually makes it claimed place of benefit. The largest part of the overhead are the leadership and executive members. And they make CRAZY money for “non-profit” positions.
That’s a lot of generalizing. Sure, there are dysfunctional nonprofits and some overall bad people, but there are also some amazing nonprofits and people doing great work. I don’t like painting this with a broad brush like that
Im Not defending the billionaires but the reason the Hollywood types are even brought up at all is they are 100 times more peachy than billionaires who just bank roll some dark money super PAC so you never actually hear from the person themselves
A celebrity being an advocate for a charity is honestly the very last thing on my list of problems that need to be addressed. Most Hollywood types we all know are several orders of magnitude less wealthy than our billionaire overlords. At least they’re trying to do something beneficial
Yeah maybe the average person can’t be bothered to make a distinction between billionaires and millionaires (most celebs) even though the difference happens to be 1000 to 1.
But they should, if working class solidarity matters and isn’t a one-way street.
1 - it usually gets them a tax write off 2 - they do little other than talk about it and any explanation of their involvement is usually heavily exaggerated (except maybe John Cena’s make a wish work) 3 - they view their name attachment as worth enough, and people aupplaide them for the lip service, further feeding their narcissism 4 - it is wielded around with their superiority complex, leveraged against others more often than not 5 - the orgs themselves mostly go to funding their leadership groups. Where the largest cost (overhead) is paid before money actually makes it claimed place of benefit. The largest part of the overhead are the leadership and executive members. And they make CRAZY money for “non-profit” positions.
That’s a lot of generalizing. Sure, there are dysfunctional nonprofits and some overall bad people, but there are also some amazing nonprofits and people doing great work. I don’t like painting this with a broad brush like that
Having worked for them - I am okay with guilty until proven otherwise. Because those who are legit prove so quickly.
When you say “them,” like who are you talking about? That’s what I’m talking about, using the term “them” to mean “all nonprofits” is fucking awful
Most non-profits. And if you want to continue to support them as though most of them are good or a net positive then you are a fool.
Im Not defending the billionaires but the reason the Hollywood types are even brought up at all is they are 100 times more peachy than billionaires who just bank roll some dark money super PAC so you never actually hear from the person themselves