this post was submitted on 17 May 2026
802 points (99.3% liked)
Political Memes
11833 readers
1544 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
MacKenzie Scott actually helped found Amazon, she married Bezos before Amazon even existed and literally worked on it with him from the very beginning. The whole idea that she married into wealth or "got it from the divorce" reeks of sexism.
She's also rapidly giving away her money with no strings attached, and she's supporting underserved communities all over the US. The HBCU in my city got a massive grant from her that's totally transformed what it will be capable of, for example. I just don't get why you're choosing this person to rag on out of all the truly vile billionaires out there
It's just not ragging on her at all, it's holding her up as a great example of a billionaire doing good things and still making a profit because they can't help it due to the sheer size of her fortune.
I don't see it as ragging on her. I think she is being used as an example as she has given away more in proportion to her total wealth than most other billionaires yet is now worth more than ever. The point I believe this meme is making is billionaires will still continue to be obscenely rich even if they are heavily taxed.
I see it as pointing out that even after giving away around 2/3rds of her wealth, the remaining third managed to generate more than what was given away.
In other words, an example of the axiom that you need money in order to make money, and if you have an obscene amount like $10 billion , it can double itself easily without any real effort on your part required
I respect her contributions and philanthropy. I just don’t think essential social support should depend on the generosity of billionaires instead of stable public systems.
No argument here
No human needs a billion dollars. It's an utterly obscene amount of money and just because you give away $26 billion does not mean that the remaining 10 billion is an acceptable amount to keep.
A million seconds is 11 days or so. A billion seconds is 31 YEARS.
just to put it in perspective of how big a billion truly is
I don't disagree, but my points still stand
To counter your actual point, they might have picked her because there isn't another billionaire who gave away such a big part of their wealth at once. Bill Gates could have given away more over time, i don't know really, but her giving away so much proves even with just a few billion you can multiple your wealth in a few years. I guess that has to do with the fact any one that rich only needs like >0,01% of their wealth to fund their extremely comfortable life.