I can't tell who's worse - the people being salty over the chair or the people being salty because other people are salty over the chair.
Either way - fuck that chair.
Either way - fuck that chair.
Lmao on god! lolYou better be feeding the homeless with one hand and cleaning oil from a bunch of seagulls with the other one as you post on a videogame forum on the internet with your toes or whatever about how fucking butthurt you are that some rich guy got a free chair cuz boy would you look pretty damn sad otherwise.
I save my social outrage for other venues; there's a reason I stick solely to the Gaming side of Era.In the same way that saying we're mostly lucky to live in developed countries; we're the equivalent of Reggie, does not maker poverty morally passable. As I said to the poster, we're in that reality, play the system if you'd like. But don't pretend it's not morally fucked up. At least acknowledge that on your videogame forum.
Uhh.. you are acting like reggie asked for the chair. His fans wanted him to have it. And in the grand scheme of things Reggie was nowhere near the most overpaid CEOs or COO's with his net worth around 40 million and he didnt even get all that from Nintendo..Yes and people can correctly acknowledge that poverty is not right, and neither is the amount of money the top 1% have. There are doctors earning a fraction of what he earned annually.
By all means, accept the reality of the situation in your actions; even try to be that 1% if you'd like, but for the love of humanity please acknowledge that it's not right.
And we cannot change the world, that is what the reality is for the moment. CEOs will be paid extortionate amounts, however they don't need free chairs and they've not EARNED free chairs. They've earned their money they can fucking buy the chair.
As a bit of a chair buff I don't think an Eames Aeron chair is a thing :P
An Eames Time Life chair is fricking lovely though. Google that bad boy!
It's the thought that counts when it comes to gifts and the thought that just because you have money, you cant recieve a gift is fucking stupid.
I forget we're in the dark era of of the 2000s where acknowledging the morality of a situation can only be done in a state of outrage. As much as that might seem like a cheap swipe at you, unfortunately (or fortunately in the sense my intention is not to piss you off) I really mean it.I save my social outrage for other venues; there's a reason I stick solely to the Gaming side of Era.
Uhh.. you are acting like reggie asked for the chair. His fans wanted him to have it. And in the grand scheme of things Reggie was nowhere near the most overpaid CEOs or COO's with his net worth around 40 million and he didnt even get all that from Nintendo..
It's the thought that counts when it comes to gifts and the thought that just because you have money, you cant recieve a gift is fucking stupid.
Sure, but it would have also been bad form for him to decline the gift as well. "Why are you giving me a free chair when Puerto Rico is still recovering?" It's a completely unrelated matter.You can think Reggie is great (as I do) and agree that he didn't need the free chair.
I can't tell who's worse - the people being salty over the chair or the people being salty because other people are salty over the chair.
Either way - fuck that chair.
I forget we're in the dark era of of the 2000s where acknowledging the morality of a situation can only be done in a state of outrage. As much as that might seem like a cheap swipe at you, unfortunately (or fortunately in the sense my intention is not to piss you off) I really mean it.
I can't claim to know nor do I pay attention to his net worth. But it's irrelevant. I don't want my point to get muddied, I agree no matter his net worth it's not any kind of moral issue that Reggie receives gifts.
I think it IS a moral issue to say that he's earned this gift and then justify it by pointing out that poverty exists.
I'm not a fan of the story of the millionaire getting a free chair and a simple comment pointing that out would have sufficed for me. But people defending it out of respect to the man they've never met is the ugly part for me. You can think Reggie is great (as I do) and agree that he didn't need the free chair.
Sure, but it would have also been bad form for him to decline the gift as well. "Why are you giving me a free chair when Puerto Rico is still recovering?" It's a completely unrelated matter.
I hope you decline every gift given to you if you are above the UN poverty line.
Not wrong there.
I'd rather spend my morality-questioning time wondering how "god-fearing Christians" support locking children in cages over innoculous gifts to former CEOs, but you do you.However we ARE allowed to question the morality of an action such as Herman Miller gifting a chair to an ex-CEO.
I'd rather spend my morality-questioning time wondering how "god-fearing Christians" support locking children in cages over innoculous gifts to former CEOs, but you do you.
Not wrong there.
I mean ultimately what is your point here - that if someone earns a lot they should no longer receive gifts? You say you're not asking him to refuse it, so what exactly do you want? You want it not to be gifted? Why? It's good marketing. This thread is going in circles, for real though, what is the point you're trying to make?
I'd rather spend my morality-questioning time wondering how "god-fearing Christians" support locking children in cages over innoculous gifts to former CEOs, but you do you.
I'd rather spend my morality-questioning time wondering how "god-fearing Christians" support locking children in cages over innoculous gifts to former CEOs, but you do you.
I love how you said: "No no, this was the point I was making!" and then went on to make the point "its stupid he gets it for free" which I can only imagine is because of the reasons I outlined the first time I asked you what point you were trying to make, which was:People aren't reading my posts. The point I was trying to make is that the 'stick in the mud's here were asking a valuable question. It is that simple. Please go back and read my posts here, it's been that simple all along.
I do think it's silly that it was gifted to a CEO who doesn't need it, the world isn't better off or worse off for that happening though. I do think it's better off for people acknowledging it's stupid that he was given a free, and fairly expensive gift.
See below, beautifully put.
I mean ultimately what is your point here - that if someone earns a lot they should no longer receive gifts? You say you're not asking him to refuse it, so what exactly do you want? You want it not to be gifted? Why? It's good marketing.
How dare he be successfulThank god that multi-millionaire was finally gifted a free luxury item.
There's an appropriate time and place for everything.The human brain is capable of caring about lots and lots of things (aka, you can wonder about both!)
I love how you said: "No no, this was the point I was making!" and then went on to make the point "its stupid he gets it for free" which I can only imagine is because of the reasons I outlined the first time I asked you what point you were trying to make, which was:
So you want me to be happy that you acknowledged it was a "stupid gift", but you don't actually want to make any other point beyond that. Really the only way I can interpret this is that you want to be celebrated for being concerned about something that you don't actually want to do anything about. What bollocks.
See, this is where I disagree.Personally, I think its appropriate to say that a rich dude getting a free chair is bad in a thread about a rich dude getting a free chair.
There are shades and gradients between black and white, you know...I'm saying that people participating in a mass campaign to have someone be given a luxury item is something I don't consider to be good, i.e. I think it is bad.
See, this is where I disagree.
"A rich dude getting a free chair" is (IMO) neither intrinsically good or bad. It just IS. It is (based on the evidence we have available) an act between the giver and the receiver. It has no more intrinsic moral value than me giving you a cookie from my lunchbox.
As I understand it, some people feel that "A rich dude getting a free chair" is bad because the rich dude doesn't need a free chair. But that's a silly argument to make, because it assigns an arbitrary value on a perceived "need". That's like saying it's bad if I give you a cookie from my lunchbox because you're not a starving child, and I should have given the cookie to that kid instead. What, I can't give deadbass one of my cookies because I felt like it? It's the start of a slippery slope of arbitrary arguments, where any gift-exchange should be ranked based on how much the recipient needs the item in question.
Sometimes a gift is just a gift.
I know it's a dumb gotcha, but I feel inclined to point out that you necessarily are budgeting that. We all only have so much time.
I know it's a dumb gotcha, but I feel inclined to point out that you necessarily are budgeting that. We all only have so much time.
I'd rather spend my morality-questioning time wondering how "god-fearing Christians" support locking children in cages over innocuous gifts to former CEOs, but you do you.
I know it's a dumb gotcha, but I feel inclined to point out that you necessarily are budgeting that. We all only have so much time.
I'm sure there's more than a hint of malice involved as well.What if I told you both of them had intrinsically linked causes (hint: it's capitalism)
Were some of you guys really this unaware that famous people get free stuff?
Lebron probably hasn't bought a meal in a decade.
you don't need a $1000 to get a good chairWell I'm a tall person with a shitty chair that has a low back and I deal with crippling back pain due to it, but I gotta admit I am real happy to hear that this millionaire got a free $1,000 chair, made my day a lot better.
I don't think I did. People are mad that a rich dude got a free chair. It's pretty blatant to see on any of these 8 pages ITT