You should probably take your own advice lol

There's no advice being given there

You're just unable to meaningfully respond to what I said because, as I and many others have pointed out, you have no idea what you're talking about outside of emotional conjecture and parasocial emotional attachment to wealthy people.

Didn’t iron man sacrifice his life to save the world? Even before he was doing philatrophy that wouldn’t have been done without his company

You’re clearly tryharding to use big words and prove me wrong while contradicting yourself on more than one occasion, i think i got my point across good enough

You’re essentially saying all people with more accumulated wealth than the norm are evil 🤣🤣

I don't have an answer for this, but I think the question just begs more questions (all hypothetical):

• Is a billionaire evil if he is "worth" over a billion, but the money is not liquid/is locked into shares of their own company and they live off of a meager salary and live humbly?
• Is a billionaire evil if they are constantly distributing their wealth, but continue to quickly make it back?
• Who is more evil? An extremely charitable billionaire (always spreading their wealth to others, doesn't exploit their workers, sets up multiple organizations for charity, has directly saved lives, personally volunteers a lot, etc) or someone who is very stingy and selfish but makes 80k a year
• Are they perceived as evil as soon as they earn more than $999,999,999?
• Is a multi-millionaire, or "hundred-thousandaire" who hoards their money more or less evil than a billionaire who hoards their money if they distribute the same percentage of their income to others

Anti communist complaining about words being hard.

Every single time.

It's an entire philosophy, you're going to have to read the theory for it to make sense. Big cheese is trying to condense 10s of thousands of pages for you

Why are you attempting to present yourself as this infallible character ? Bro let’s say you really are a millionaire who started “ from the bottom “ or , as you put it , from “ a pretty low point “ . You realize that having 50M in liquid cash still puts you closer to us peasants than a billionaire , right ? I’m not even gonna attempt to convince you you’re wrong about what you’re saying , just stop all the cap bra seriously

life sxn discussion always turns into pseudo intell fencesitters “asking questions”

In which post of mine EXACTLY did you see me complain about words being hard?

Guy replies to me with a whole angry paragraph based on stuff i never even implied

the ceo of LA fitness is evil asf

imo if you treat people with respect and do right by the people in your life then you can not be an evil person. that's not to say that all billionaires are like that. i'm sure most of them suck. but the s*** that people do on a micro scale matters and i hate how this sort of revolutionary language totally disregards that for the sake of proving a political point.

”is there a 99.99999% probability that they made their money by exploiting cheap labor and partaking in unsavory business practice? yes. but i don't think that makes you an evil person.”

deleted bc my second post articulated my point better. but i still stand by that.

As long as I take care of my people, f*** everyone else

also not the point. the point is that to assign the label of "evil" to someone who does good things on a micro level is wrong. there are other words.

iron man lol

Like?

ignorant
dangerous
selfish
shortsighted
violent
tyrannical

but not evil, that's going too far

selfish, unjust, exploitative, gross, etc.

really my only point is that calling someone an "evil person" implies that they are evil in every way. it carries a lot of weight. there are just other labels--that aren't positive either--that are more appropriate and have less pervasive connotations.