People definitely go overboard with their criticisms, but there are legitimate criticisms to be made. While his philanthropy is objectively good and makes a positive difference in people’s lives, it does nothing to address the systemic causes of the problems he highlights.
His content is also completely apolitical, which rubs people the wrong way when he covers topics a lot of people see as inherently political like extreme poverty, homelessness, and healthcare.
Yes, because it’s not enough. It’s possible to acknowledge good work while also criticizing the ways that it falls short, otherwise we risk cheering for the drop-in-the-bucket charity that doesn’t challenge the status quo and credulously thinking our problems are being solved when more needs to be done.
People definitely go overboard with their criticisms, but there are legitimate criticisms to be made. While his philanthropy is objectively good and makes a positive difference in people’s lives, it does nothing to address the systemic causes of the problems he highlights.
His content is also completely apolitical, which rubs people the wrong way when he covers topics a lot of people see as inherently political like extreme poverty, homelessness, and healthcare.
Were you also critical of Jimmy Carter for building homes for habitat for humanity?
Because Carter helped build homes for decades after retirement without politicizing it or addressing the systemic causes.
Yes, because it’s not enough. It’s possible to acknowledge good work while also criticizing the ways that it falls short, otherwise we risk cheering for the drop-in-the-bucket charity that doesn’t challenge the status quo and credulously thinking our problems are being solved when more needs to be done.