432
submitted 3 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Billionaire philanthropist and author MacKenzie Scott announced Tuesday she is giving $640 million to 361 small nonprofits that responded to an open call for applications.

Yield Giving’s first round of donations is more than double what Scott had initially pledged to give away through the application process. Since she began giving away billions in 2019, Scott and her team have researched and selected organizations without an application process and provided them with large, unrestricted gifts.

In a brief note on her website, Scott wrote she was grateful to Lever for Change, the organization that managed the open call, and the evaluators for “their roles in creating this pathway to support for people working to improve access to foundational resources in their communities. They are vital agents of change.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I don't think I've ever agreed with any usage of that phrase, correct or incorrect. People just use it to dismiss counter-evidence to their pet theories.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Why would you disagree with correct usage?

[-] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Because she is simply an "exception." Use of the phrase would require there to be a general understanding that "billionaires are bad except when...", but the prevailing notion is simply that "billionaires are bad." Therefore, she is an "exception", and a good one at that, not an "exception that proves the rule".

edit Oops, replied to the wrong one, but leaving this here because I'm lazy. I am the rule.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I'm not sure what the tone/intention was here but I'll take it as a normal question. I disagree because I think people use it as an easy way to improperly dismiss evidence that disagrees with their views, even when they use it correctly in a sentence.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Can you provide an example of correct usage that does this?

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I think we have a mismatch of definitions. By "correct usage", I mean it's grammatically correct, but not necessarily that the exception does actually "prove the rule". Anything that fits the sentence but doesn't actually provide a rule-proving exception is what I'm referring to as "incorrect usage".

Although come to think of it, I don't think any exception can prove a rule by itself, actually. The only time it would work is if the entity enforcing the rule explicitly calls something out as an exception-- in which case, the thing proving the rule is that they acknowledged the rule by explicitly calling something an exception.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

The definition you provided in the second paragraph is the correct usage.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Oh, okay. I guess that works, but in that case people use it incorrectly nearly every time.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Yeah, that's part of the problem.

[-] Loki@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Iirc, the word "prove" in this context is the archaic definition "test" e.g. the proving ground. This would imply the original meaning of the phrase is in fact the opposite of how it is normally used today: "the exception proves the rule "means 'an exception tests [whether or not it is] a rule.' As you say, people now use it in this strange fashion where the existence of counter evidence somehow proves the point

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Ooh that's interesting

this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
432 points (97.6% liked)

News

21700 readers
4786 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS