this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2026
42 points (97.7% liked)
Music
8906 readers
3 users here now
Discussion about all things music, music production, and the music industry. Your own music is also acceptable here.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thanks, I guess? 0.001% of their net worth
https://rockinformer.com/metallica-net-worth/
Donation shaming is bad form.
The right move is to give them the credit and move on, because regardless of PR, it is a net positive.
Bootlicking the Epstein class is even worse.
The right move is making sure their donation is a pittance of their actual worth and is literal virtue signaling.
Call it what you want, but $100k is $100k.
For the people who are actually affected, any donation is appreciated.
In any case, do you intend to use shame to force higher donations?
Shame? Calling out those whose righteousness is meaningless unless it actually means something to them...then yes.
What I'm saying is, unless it is actually a proportional donation we shouldn't even hear about I, and I bet you they pay thier PR firm more than this pittance of their wealth.
What I'm also trying to make clear is that disproportionate wealth should have disproportionate donations if they truly want to be philanthropic, otherwise its just lip service and should be treated as such.
Buddy, billionaires don't care about whether you shame them.
But they do care about the prestige of looking charitable.
It makes far more sense to play along and let them feel like heroes if it means the next tragedy gets $100k.
Consider this: donation shaming contributes to a cost/benefit analysis.
Consider that Taylor Swift could donate $100k for every single tragedy that occurs this year and be no worse off.
But that would get her more bad press than it's worth. People would say "why does this tragedy get $100k when its obviously far worse" or "The amount of people affected are more than this other tragedy, why are you racist?" Etc.
So, they stay quiet, and even then people get shamed for not using their platform to speak up.
If you actually give a shit about seeing the most amount of money going to help people, you should realise the path forward is to lower the bar to access, and make donation as beneficial as possible to the people donating.
So we should: continue down the path, heads in the sand, cheering when multi billion dollar corporations are fined millions to little effect, lauding the money class when they sprinkle us with trinkets as their wealth managers invest in poor infrastructure and lobbying governments to undo safety regulations that make building deathtraps for the poor....
OR
We can spread awareness that its too little, too late.
Holy strawman
Oh please, it's all the same shit, it just depends on how big a bite you want to take.
Credit where credit is due, that is a lot more than what most people have donated.
What is 0.001% of your net worth? I bet %wise you've donated more.
Fuck rich people who donate the bare goddamn minimum and expect us to all sing their praises.
I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. Most people (musicians, rich people, poor people) have donated nothing. 0% of their net worth. Less than a fart.
I'd love to see rich people take more responsibility and I agree that Metallica could give more too, but at least they gave something, so this is not the time to complain about Metallica specifically. Whine to... i don't know... Limb Bizkit. Tell them that Metallica gave only 100k and it would look douchy to donate less than that.
I don't think they need any publicity at all for such a relatively small amount of their net worth.