this post was submitted on 10 May 2025
1079 points (96.9% liked)

Lemmy Be Wholesome

8672 readers
1759 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Be Wholesome. This is the polar opposite of LemmeShitpost. Here you can post wholesome memes, palate cleanser and good vibes.

The home to heal your soul. No bleak-posting!

Rules:


1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. No NSFW Content


-Content shouldn't be NSFW

-Refrain from posting triggering content, if the content might be triggering try putting it behind NSFW tags.


7. Content should be Wholesome, we accept cute cats, kittens, puppies, dogs and anything, everything that restores your faith in humanity!


Content that isn't wholesome will be removed.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Mildly Infuriating

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Jokes

7.Credible Defense

...

Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grue@lemmy.world 112 points 1 day ago (10 children)

I see no reason to believe that letting this guy make unilateral decisions is somehow better than taxing him appropriately and using the revenue to build public housing.

[–] Sc00ter@lemm.ee 101 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Did anyone say that it was better this way? He could just go buy another yatch instead.

Dont let perfection be the enemy of better

[–] anonproxy00@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

millionares($) wouldn't be able to afford multiple yachts, or even so large of a yacht. billionares, those who offshoring wealth makes sense for, are the problem.

not the docter nor lawyer, but the whale.

millionares pay about 48%-49%, at least where im from.

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Man, Im starting to think I'm tarded. Something about this isn't letting my brain work, please do more sentences

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

People are downvoting because "retarded" is increasingly considered a slur or hateful term (just providing context, do with that what you will)

Did anyone say that it was better this way? He could just go buy another yatch instead.

No one is saying it's better for rich people to independently spend money on charity pet projects. Appropriate taxation is better but this was still a good way for him to spend his money, it's still good for him to help his community (he could have just spent that money on a yacht)

Dont let perfection be the enemy of better

This is a variation on the saying "don't let perfect be the enemy of good". Which means don't reject good things just because they aren't perfect. Perfect is an ideal that doesn't exist, and good is still worth celebrating.

In this case, the commenter is saying that perfect would be better taxation and government programs that provide this service to the people. But a private citizen helping people with their private wealth still helps people. That's a good thing even if it's not the perfect ideal solution

Personally I am a huge advocate of the "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" mentality :) hope this helps and I hope you have a good day!

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I probably shouldn't have said that. I'm gonna double down though a little and say I'm not out here to hurt anyone or make anyone feel hurt, I'm just trying to add voice to my writing. Sort of a tension cutting tool. Some of my favorite people are tarded, like my wife. She's a pilot now.

Joking aside though, I appreciate the effort of you ELI5ing this to me, and I should have been more direct. I just don't get why this guy commented this when what he's commenting on essentially said the same thing. I'm just more surprised that almost the same amount of people upvoted both. They're both valid in the same way.

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If you carefully read the negatives and positives he's saying kinda the opposite of the first guy :)

I see no reason to believe that letting this guy make unilateral decisions is somehow better than taxing him appropriately and using the revenue to build public housing.

"I don't believe letting them just spend their money this way is better than doing it with taxes"

And then even more simplified (obviously loosing nuance)

"I don't think this is as good as doing this with taxes"

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Dude, you are just a gem.

I've been drinking a bit tonight, and I'm going to look at this tomorrow. I imagine that it's all going to flow together nicely, but it's never going to be as nice as you've been.

Thank you, and just be proud of how kind you are. I'm astonished currently. I'll see you tomorrow, and we'll get to the bottom of this:)

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Lol, I really appreciate that. Drink some water and rest well man!

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

Not enough water was had last night

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 37 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This statement might be true, but we're not taxing him. Should he just donate his money to the government?

[–] bold_atlas@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I don't even think you can do that.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago

If every billionaire did this and ended homelessness perhaps they would have a point about their wealth hoarding. I won't be holding my breath for this to happen though. Tax the rich!

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Absolutely. We don’t need kings making decisions like this. The downside is the difficulty in forcing government and the anti-help-anyone segment of our society to spend such taxation correctly to actually help people.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

I’m also angry he did a good thing despite the government’s abject failure to tax the rich.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago

Sure there are lots of failures to the way we govern ourselves. This shouldn't be a need. The reality is that it is a need and that person did what he could. Have you?

[–] eskimofry@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

I see one: he actually did something instead of a council that blows all of the money on meetings

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

What makes you think Trump's administration will make better use of that money?

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 day ago

Especially because his unilateral decision is optional. Someone got lucky with his choice vs someone was guaranteed an outcome.

[–] Suoko@feddit.it 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Corruption could make that money go to some people's 3rd, 4rd or their relatives houses UNFORTUNATELY . The question here is: what about those who pay a rent???

[–] Signtist@lemm.ee 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Corruption already makes most millionaires' and billionaires' money go to that anyway. At least if it's taxed some of it will actually go to toward necessary housing, maybe even frequently enough that it's not newsworthy when it does, the way it is now.

[–] Suoko@feddit.it 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I did not understand what you said, sorry

[–] Signtist@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You're worried that if we collect money from the wealthy through taxation, it might not be used to reduce homelessness. However, if we don't tax the wealthy, they'll spend the money on their own goals, which definitely won't be to reduce homelessness. While you're right that taxes are largely wasted, they do still fund important things such as fire departments, medical research, and yes, government housing. It's true that we need to implement better tax management systems, but we also need a wealth tax.

[–] Suoko@feddit.it 1 points 1 day ago

I never said we don't need a taxation system, I'm just reporting what's happening almost everywhere.

Alternatively a possibility is to give the public sector to woman, they should be a little bit more immune to corruption (I might be wrong though).

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

So we're so scared of corruption that (checks notes) we stop even trying for fairness and instead just let rich fucks make all the decisions and hope for the best?

[–] Suoko@feddit.it 1 points 1 day ago

It's clear that a lot of people switched to that way of thinking, thanks to those corrupted people.

That's what current voting results say all around

[–] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

This is obviously way better, come on. Why involve middle men in something like this? Add more layers and it becomes less efficient. Less of the money goes to helping people and it gets spread around to different agencies, or even worse goes to government contractors who can charge ridiculous rates because they know someone and didn't have to compete for the contract. I worked at a place once where we got a couple hundred thousand dollars for a useless study because if the money didn't get used it would make their budget smaller for next year. That kind of thing happens all the time.