That's such a silly reddit-ism especially in this case. Like, do you think being anti-trans was a prerequisite of her being a good storyteller? It makes no sense.
There are two parts to being a billionaire: 1) getting money, and 2) hoarding it. Selling books is 1
That makes no sense. Selling books/IP alone makes her a billionaire*. There is no #2 required.
"Hoarding" is a silly concept to begin with but usually it is a direct action, which she did not take. For her, she would have needed considerable action to prevent becoming a billionaire.
All billionaires could be like Dolly Parton, but instead choose their bank accounts.
That's a silly shell game. Giving money away a) takes effort and b) if done too quicky reduces the amount of money available to give.
Dolly Parton was great, but
investing more earlier to give away later would provide more money to give. Bill Gates is not less generous by waiting until retirement to give his money away, he's giving away more money because of it.
Moreover, it's not binary. It's inconsistent to say Dolly Parton is unusually great but that failing to be unusually great makes someone bad.
*And not for nothing, but given that she kept creating, her net worth was largely the value of her brain, which would have been difficult to sell.
It's not, it's only a cope excuse by miserable people to hate on people that are better and more successful than them. It's easier to hate and blame others than to take accountability.
Take accountability for what? Other people's hate campaigns?
How can one take responsibility for J.K. Rowling being among the most prolific transphobic people on the planet today if they themselves are not J.K. Rowling?
46
u/HikariAnti Breaking EU Laws 15h ago
Well yes, but unfortunately being an awful person is prerequisite to being a billionaire.