@Nengo_Flow said:
lol yeah token black kid.... lol
I just mean he's got it pretty much covered if he wants to look good to the people, by having a diverse family.
No offense dude, but that's a pretty pessimistic and $hitty way of looking at the world. I mean, maybe the black kid was adopted into the Romney family purely for PR reasons, maybe rich celebrity actors adopt poor African kids purely for PR reasons. Or maybe someone genuinely wanted to try to give the kid a better life. Or maybe it's a mix of the two: "I get good PR and I help a kid to get a better life, so everyone wins on multiple levels."
But dude...who knows? Do you pick apart every seemingly good act the same way? A kid got adopted. Absent clear evidence to the contrary (like, the adoptive parents being child molesters or something), adopting a kid is genuinely seen as a good thing. Why go around looking at such acts as if the people involved have some sinister motive? There's no evidence that being part of the Romney family is going to make this kid's life worse, so why $hit on an apparent good deed with unfounded assumptions? People do this all the time and it f***ing irritates the living $hit out of me, because it's usually a way for people to justify doing nothing of value. And at this point I'm not even referring to you specifically, because I have no idea what your accomplishments or deeds are. But it goes like this...it's a LOT f***ing easier to destroy than it is to create. Meaning and value are defined by comparisons, and it's a LOT f***ing easier to mentally lower that gap by bringing someone else down rather than elevating one's self. I'm not saying that ulterior motives don't exist; many good people have probably been good people in large part because they don't like people thinking that they are assholes. That's self-interest. But a good deed is still a good deed, and the people who try to $hit on the accomplishements and good deeds of others often tend to be the kind of people who haven't done $hit to make the world any better. Like, I'll be the first to criticize Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie for adopting kids once I've seen evidence that they were bad parents or made the kids' lives worse (and for all I know, there may be such evidence). But until then, how many f***ing kids have I adopted? Yeah, NONE. Some kids really do need adopting, some people are out there adopting kids, so what the f*** kind of position am I in to just $hit all over other people for doing what needs to be done and that I'm not willing or able to do myself? Some wealthy philanthropist might donate millions of dollars to a worthy cause just to make himself look good and gain PR and political connections. But by comparison, how much money have I donated to cancer research or funding for the arts or to education? Not f***ing much. Seems like a pretty dickish move to point at the guy who is donating LOTS of money to worthwhile causes and then say, "yeah, but he's only doing it to make himself look good." SO WHAT? Even if that's the case, it's still a worthwhile cause and he's still doing a f***ton more to support it than I am.
Log in to comment