He is an evil individual who fails to address systemic issues or assist people for their own benefit.
As a game show host, he humiliates and exploits participants, boasting about his own virtues without any regard for the contestants.
Examples:
- https://youtu.be/9RhWXPcKBI8
- https://youtu.be/tnTPaLOaHz8
- https://youtu.be/gHzuabZUd6c
- https://youtu.be/DuQbOQwVaNE
I believe legal intervention is necessary to limit his actions towards people and prevent him from exploiting them for personal gain.
Quick note: while I believe that results of some of his videos is good ( which he did to show how good of a person he is), that does not change the facts about his evil videos, the same way bezoz donations does not make him a good person.
I only know a little bit about Mr. Beast and saw a couple of his early videos about giving away thousands of dollars in cash to homeless people. I haven’t followed what he did after that except heard some controversy about him being involved in either hamburgers or chocolate (or both?).
However, if THIS is your metric…
He is an evil individual who fails to address systemic issues or assist people for their own benefit.
…it begs the question, what are you doing to address systemic issue or assist people for their own benefit. If nothing, does that mean you are evil using your logic?
A fair point, but I think OP means that this guy already has the means to make a difference but chooses to dangle it in front of needy people and make them dance for it rather than tackle poverty problems from a different angle
Not sure what OP would do with this guy’s wealth, but I’m sure there isnt a magic wand Mr Beast could wave to solve poverty even if he wanted to
but I think OP means that this guy already has the means to make a difference but chooses to dangle it in front of needy people and make them dance for it rather than tackle poverty problems from a different angle
But then if he’s not getting any returns from it, it’s going to dry out.
Well the returns he gets are the views on his videos. People love to watch people fight to survive. So he pits them against each other in order to draw eyes (and therefore advertisers) while positioning himself as a “humanitarian” making “donations” out of the goodness of his heart. Obviously it’s working because his wealth is growing, not shrinking. That’s part of what I think makes it “evil” in OP’s eyes. If you’re profiting off of it, is it really charitable?
Edit: Oh wait, I can’t read. I see what you are saying. Disregard the above. I think you and I agree there. I don’t think it would be easy for him to just give all his money away for free because then it would be gone and people would still be poor
I’m just trying to play devil’s advocate
Hahah no yeah I do agree with you. I was just saying that if that’s what OP is thinking then that’s pretty silly.
I took the OP as saying: I think X is an evil, so I didn’t do X. Therefore it is an evil, and so is the person doing X . MORAL PROJECTION
I think more than anything it’s that he could use his platform to make people vote to change things. No matter what he does he can’t fix things as an individual. He does have the influence to change voting habits though.
The Beast Burger thing is largely a brand protection thing and disputes with the company the handles the operations and logistics of it.
Beast Burger did help to keep restaurants open during the pandemic(expressed intent of the project) and the money made was either reinvested in marketing Beast Burger or donated to charities dealing with food insecurity.
He has literally given people back their sight and dug wells in Africa. The only way the people who are negative of him will be happy is if he gives away every dime he has, which means he won’t be able to keep helping people. Can’t please everybody, especially when you are making millions helping less than everybody.
Mr. Beast has harnessed the worst parts of modern capitalism to help the most left behind. Profiting while helping people is better than profiting off of hurting people, e.g. raising the cost of insulin.
Seems to me that in order to continue helping people, he needs to play within the confines of the rules of the system he is working in. Gotta make that money to give that money away. He doesn’t appear to be doing it by allowing some 12-70 year old Amazon warehouse slave get heat stroke, or some other god awful situation. Apart from envy why are people complaining again?
There is a huge hate campaign by fundamental Christians against Mr Beast. No1 is his name. No 2 he does charity without making it part of praising God.
People complain because he is making money off of helping people and he isn’t as well off as the complaintants are.
They expect piety and philanthropy, which is a diametric opposition within the system. Mr. beast, by all accounts, lives in a nice but “modest” home with some nice, but attainable, cars.
I feel if you pay for 1,000 people to fucking see again for free, you deserve to drive an absolutely nice car, but his critics think he deserves to drive a 10 year-old Honda Civic with bald tires because he has made an invaluable difference in the lives of people who couldn’t have a fraction of the quality of life that he makes possible.
His interviews give an insight into his mindset, and that paints a picture of genuine concern for the wellbeing of others. Yes he generates views, but he does something of value to the subject that is beyond what they would have had of he had not existed.
OP isn’t profitting off anybody’s misfortune like Mr. Beast.
It’s not a virtue to “not profit off of things”. I don’t care about Mr. Beast and a lot of charity is just whitewashing someone’s legacy. But you can simply “not profit” by sitting in your underwear eating Cheetos. Does that help anyone?
Still, these dumb game shows are better than a lot of entertainment. Are you equally angry at “The Price is Right” or “Wheel of Fortune”? People go nuts about a basic ass car that they would normally shrug their shoulders at.
If you want to be angry at something, pick “Fear Factor”. That made people do a lot of crazy shit. There’s a reason it’s cancelled.
It’s not a virtue to “not profit off of things”.
I strongly disagree with this assertion. If you do X and make $100k off of it vs doing X and making $0 off of it, the latter is much better morally and for the universe.
How is it better? You’ve done X either way.
Also they’re making money from their subscribers and likely creating a lot more awareness. Which is better for the “universe”
Ignore them. When people talk about “morals” and “the universe” they are signalling that they can’t be convinced otherwise.
There’s no point in trying to convince someone who doesn’t want to change their mind. They may not even believe what they’re saying. Just a desire to believe is enough to harden someone’s mind against outside ideas.
Everyone has things they want to be true. This person probably wants to be “moral” and in touch with “the universe”. So you can’t convince them that profit isn’t bad. They have decided that profit is never moral, so by arguing with that you argue that their deepest beliefs are false. You can’t win.
I strongly disagree with this assertion. If you do X and make $100k off of it vs doing X and making $0 off of it, the latter is much better morally and for the universe.
Do you consider that an absolute or would other factors make that stated stance invalid to you?
Are you more likely to do x again if you got 100k for doing so vs nothing?
We both know the answer to that.
So does getting paid mean x gets done more often?
Does that mean it’s better to be paid?
OP isn’t profitting off anybody’s misfortune like Mr. Beast.
I think we’re getting to the crux of the argumet. The concept of “net good”.
OP has done nothing positive for these people that need help, but also nothing negative = net good of zero
If someone offers the people that need help (Gross Good) if they participate in an activity you don’t agree (Gross bad) the outcome could very well be = net good being positive. Meaning there is more good than bad, so the end result is good being done.
From what I understand (again, I’m not a Mr. Beast follower), all involved are doing so voluntarily and meaning they believe the activities they’re participating in are not negative enough and they are benefiting in the end, that sounds like a net good. Now if you’re making an argument about “integrity” or “humiliation” I’d question whether we have a position to raise these when the folks receiving the needed help have rent paid or full stomachs.
In other words, its easy for us (who aren’t giving any money to help) to criticism some that is, in some fashion, giving money to people that need it.
“net good” is about as morally sound as saying you can’t criticize multi hundred millionaires (i.e. obscenely rich people) for having that much money and not spending 99%+ on helping people. I don’t know enough about Mr beast to criticize him myself but I wanted to point out that your arguments are either not in good faith or rooted in logical fallacies and moral quandaries.
“net good” is about as morally sound as saying you can’t criticize multi hundred millionaires (i.e. obscenely rich people) for having that much money and not spending 99%+ on helping people.
I’m not sure if you accidentally used a double negative. If it wasn’t accidental, we agree with one another.
I believe pragmatically that “net good” (any amount spent to help those that need it) is better than “zero good” (no amount spent to help those that need it). Do you agree with that or disagree?
Chiming in, I don’t agree in the general case that goodness and badness can be spent or converted, ie. saving two lives doesn’t give you license to kill someone random because the net good is positive. But in this case since all his actions are related per video the help he gives to people outweighs their voluntary (although coerced via incentive) participation and any of its negative effects, if any.
Chiming in, I don’t agree in the general case that goodness and badness can be spent or converted, ie. saving two lives doesn’t give you license to kill someone random because the net good is positive.
Of course not. We’re not talking about murder here, we’re talking about three possible outcomes: donating money, not donating money, and generating money and donating some of that money.
But in this case since all his actions are related per video the help he gives to people outweighs their voluntary (although coerced via incentive) participation and any of its negative effects, if any.
Agreed.
the burger stuff isnt that big its just the idea that ghost kitchens don’t have a standardized consistency between store to store because of chef and logistics. logistics is the bigget factor when it comes to food from a chain tasting the same from one branch to another, and historically speaking, the people best at logistics typically become the strongest.
deleted by creator
I really don’t care about MrBeast or his channel and obviously he’s doing it for the views and to grow his brand but, evil? That’s quite a stretch. If that’s considered “evil” then we’re all evil.
As others have mentioned, what are you doing?
Not only are you evil everyone you know is evil.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KVl5kMXz1vA&pp=ygUMeW91IGFyZSBldmls
I watched the whole 34 minutes. Doesn’t this whole argument get lost in relativism? At what point am I giving enough? When I give up my health insurance? When I move into group home?
If you did watch the whole thing you already know the answer.
but everything suffers from relativism. is health insurance a luxury if not having it could lead to you being unable to give to charity, Hell in places like America it could lead to you needing charity. And why move into a group home when you could move into your car?
Weeell shit.
Fallacy fallacy.
Mm, no. They’re not attacking you as a person, they are asking a relevant question to defend their argument against yours.
👍
Well I think of it this way.
If Mr beast didn’t exist:
A few thousand people wouldn’t have been embarrassed on the internet
Tens of thousands of people wouldn’t have been given access to clean water.
Hundreds would have never received medical care.
Amazing charities like ocean clean up and team trees would have never gotten the level of support they did.
Many were lifted out of poverty both on main channel, games channel, and philanthropy. They wouldn’t be.
Thousands wouldn’t be employed in jobs they like.
So given the fact that we are in the system we are in, I’m glad we have him.
As annoying as it is, to help people, you need money. People who help people without monetizing it, run out of money. It’s just what it is. He’s playing the game, and unlike 99% of billionaires, the game involves enriching others.
I’m fine with a system where building a home for the needy rewards you with the money to do it again. Better than the alternative.
We shouldn’t be depending on rich people to do things the government should be doing. The more they do this, the less the government will do their actual job.
See: Elon Musk talking about a hyper loop as soon as California starts considering a large public rail system, effectively destroying the rail system plan and allowing him to sell more cars for way longer.
Except that was malicious and blocked a solution.
Beast isn’t preventing in a solution. He went and gave water to villages that had been searching and begging for a solution for years. He gave cataract surgery to people who couldn’t afford it. He gave them exactly what they wanted, not something worse then didn’t deliver.
In a better world, either Mr Beast couldn’t exist because people couldn’t have 100,000 times more wealth thqn others, or there would be no one for him to help.
We don’t live in that better world. To me it looks like the world is a better place because of him. He’s helped many directly, and inspired others to help. The harm he has done seems to either be hypothetical, or claiming people were harmed who they themselves say are fine.
So it seems like the world is better because he is in it.
Do you honestly think if Mr beast blipped out of existence that the government would step in to do all those things?
Hyperloop fucked us, true, but it feels like the campaigns Mr beast goes on aren’t really interfering with government decisions.
This is a hop skip and a jump from “the more you feed the homeless at a soup kitchen, the less they went to go out and get a job”
Edit for clarity: I’m not espousing that opinion, I’m targeting it.
Huh? We should feed the homeless, and we should encourage philanthropy.
Separately, we should improve our governmental systems.
Edit edit
Im specifically targeting the line about government not doing its job.
Corporate fuckery is not philanthropy, and the implication that charity diminishes governmental progress is a source I’d like to read.
Removed by mod
Huh? We should feed the homeless, and we should encourage philanthropy.
Separately, we should improve our governmental systems.
I’d like a source of charity bring a net detriment to social progress.
Edit Elon’s Hyperloop is not philanthropy charity or anything near it.
Equating what mr beast does to the regularity and systemic fuckery Elon does is inaccurate
Wanting people to suffer is horrible. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I’m literally calling for more and better charity you silly goose
That’s… That’s not what they said at all LOL.
Agreed. No need to make him a scapegoat. He’s just supplying money from corporations into the hands of people who could use it. It would be better if we didn’t have to do it this way but I’d rather that then corporations just keep the money.
Something about him rubs me the wrong way, I can’t put it into words. I won’t be surprised if we find out he eats people or fucks kids or something.
That fake grin he plasters all over his videos tickles that “uncanny valley” part of my brain.
That, and many years of working in hospitality has taught me that the people who make the biggest deal about their grace and charity tend to secretly be the shittiest people. There are exceptions, and I don’t have any proof Mr. Beast is a secret asshole, but the pattern is there, and it remains to be seen if he’s a part of it.
i agree, something about his videos is off
He’s a man-child with too many resources. There was recently an interview with him, where he just suddenly left in anger, because a set piece was not the way he imagined it. Instead of trying to communicate his disappointment he just got angry and left. You could see on his crew that this is how he acts all the time, and that they were fed up with having a child as a boss.
There is something wrong with how we have structured society when a POS like him can get that successful.
Do you have a link to the interview? I’ve always been suspicious of him because he never seems “off”. Always the same click bait friendly face.
Sure! It’s this one right here
that permanent smile… even when he talks!
Who would have guessed the man who found success by counting to 100,000 isn’t a well developed people manager and leader?
Not trying to defend the guy, but in the video you posted he did admit he’s not good at making those kinds of videos. He seemed overwhelmed.
Not to mention someone like Elon Musk (horrible human) shooting to the VERY TOP of the “economic ladder”.
Bullshit joke of a “society”.
I’ve said much the same many times (I wouldn’t go quite so far too say he’s “evil”, but he’s very clearly not a good person) and it’s wild how many people will leap to the defense of the multi-millionaire. “He’s helping people” they say, as if he’s not explicitly aiming to enrich himself further with even his most philanthropic videos. That he did a straight up squid game enactment is completely tasteless.
I think you’ve hit it. He’s not evil as much as opportunistic and amoral.
I saw this mini documentary about him where he simply admitted he would do anything to be famous. If the documentary is to be believed, he started filming random acts of kindness because he tried everything else and failed to achieve his goal of being famous.
I have always felt he is a bit of a psychopath. Not the evil, serial killer TV trope psychopath, but still one with that blinded, single vision, relentless pursuit mentality.
From watching interviews, he’s absolutely the epitome of grind culture, but he’s not doing it for cash or influence. He seems to legitimately be doing it because he wants to see how far he can go with it. But, he’s so calculated and single minded with it, if feels borderline unhinged on the outside looking in. He’s probably not trying to make a skin suit, but if he thinks it’ll get views, he’ll do anything.
I don’t know anything about him but he has that cold look in his eyes. Sorta like Terrence Howard and Kanye West. But with a fake smile. Creeps me out.
Yeah I don’t care if he does an amount of good. I just don’t like the guy, there’s something off.
I think it’s plainly just sketchy when someone is doing good things but making it extremely publicly open and obvious to anyone that it’s happening. There’s an argument to be made around publicity = ads = more funding for similar stuff but it still feels a little icky. Not to say his contributions are negligible of course
Dude has “I have a basement of unspeakable horrors” kinda vibes. He looks dead behind his eyes, like truly soulless. We are 100% finding out some nonsense sometime in the near future.
Oh shit, this is close to the perfect unpopular opinion.
Does MrBeast employ any PR services that do astroturfing?
Edit to add: MrBeast is a fascist. If I wind up choked to death on some ghost kitchen MrBeast branded meal, avenge me
deleted by creator
I would not haunt you for this. Secure the bag
gotchu fam
can you elaborate with more information?
If we can’t protect you, you can be damned well sure we’ll avenge you!
Honestly a lot of people complain about Mr Beast, saying that his charity/etc is done purely for attention and views.
But I figure there are a ton of high profile YouTubers who make a ton of money, and just spend it on themselves or doing elaborate set ups for videos. It seems weird that Mr Beast gets more criticized for doing some good than all the comparative YouTubers who are doing nothing good. It’s like by trying to do anything good he’s gotten himself judged by a much higher standard than everyone else.
I think that performative charity pisses people off more than people who don’t pretend to be a philanthropist.
Meh, it’s still money for charities.
That’s what I say when people go crazy criticizing corpo charities. Sure it’s corpo but to the people who received the aid help is help. I’m not saying to not criticize but chill out a smidge.
The problem with corporate charities is they don’t allocate the majority of the funds to their stated cause. More often than not that money is funneled into a myriad of other organizations controlled by the corporation/groups of corporations. Large non profits aren’t very transparent and there are a lot of tricks they can use to divert funds away from their stated cause.
There’s also the whole “paternalism” thing for lack of a better word. They use what’s left of the money for flashy, headline grabbing things that may not be beneficial or even wanted by the people they’re supposed to be helping. They tell those that need help how they need to be helped instead of asking them what they need. Clothes donations to various African countries come to mind. It looks good in articles when we ship all of our worn out novelty T-shirts to a bunch of poor people. But in the areas they go, it puts local manufacturers out of business, and oftentimes a lot of the clothes get thrown out. So sure, those people have “clothes” but their local economy is worse off. Had you asked the people of these counties how they would liked to be helped, they’d probably ask for investment in the local textile industry over getting a boatload of our leftovers.
I mean, the concept of corporate charities is sort of fucked to begin with. It’s a PR front for terrible companies. Nestle does charity work in Africa. A continent that they literally killed babies in back in the 70s. In counties that they are currently stealing their water from, leaving many of the citizens in said country without clean or safe drinking water. But they threw $50 at a farmer somewhere on the continent so help is help right? It’s just frustrating that they can get away with this shit
In a world with Andrew Tate and Joe Rogan OP goes after the most popular YouTuber simply because he makes videos that sometimes only help poor people a little. Instead of actively corrupting our youth and making men more likely to commit violent acts.
Those other YouTubers don’t make their fortunes convincing much poorer people to make fools of themselves for a miniscule sliver of what beast is making by monetizing it.
But he uses the monetization to reinvest into future charity.
Ah yes. He must be the first ever ethical multi-millionaire to make their money by giving it away. He keeps trying, but he just can’t help being a millionaire, near billionaire. It’s a curse!
And as he gets richer, he increases the amount of money he puts into his charity videos. Him having more money is pretty directly a good thing for those he helps. It’s also a good thing for him, but that’s not wrong.
Ok, bud.
“Hmm, I don’t have a good response to this. Let’s imply I simply have more intrinsic wisdom by assuming a false position of authority! That’ll show him!” - You
You’re the one defending a millionaire. What more do I need to say?
This is the inverse of what I call “the Donald Trump effect”. If you’re a horrible person, and do something morally neutral, people will be amazed at your good deed. But if you’re a generally good person, everything you do is held to a significantly higher standard. I think people just aren’t used to and/or don’t like seeing people do good for some reason.
Exploitation is the essence of capitalism. There are worse than Mr Beast.
I had a discussion here on Lemmy about him and was pretty roundly downvoted. His exploitation of the recipients of his actions to make more money to repeat the feat really just rubs me the wrong way. Yeah, he does good. He also gets really rich off of it. No different than charities that consume a far larger portion of their income than ever gets delivered to those they help. Do they help? Sure. But they pay themselves first.
Evil? No. I don’t think so. Many charities just take care of basic needs without messing with the system that created the problem. Mr Beast is self-aggrandizing and profitable? Sure.
It is evil. If it was good virtue it wouldn’t be filmed. It’s an exploration of human emotion for money. It’s sick imo.
Filming it is what generates the income to make it happen though. That doesn’t make it evil.
I think evil has lost all meaning with people. We just apply it to everything and it becomes diluted.
Right. It doesn’t start as evil.
A bum fight organizer and promoter.
He is just indoctrinating kids into being materialist muppets…
Buy my chocolate!
Honestly, those Feastibles are better tasting than 90% of the other chocolate crap on the shelves.
I always see Mr. Beast get a lot of hate every once in a while…and I get that he has a accumulated an insane amount of wealth and fame as a kid which has given him a “unique” look on this world.
But as far as we know the know… Now in adulthood, the guy has yet to actually do anything horrible.
I mean the only thing he is guilty of is having a massive following of mindless people that feed him more eyes.
Yet people keep constantly hating on him for this. Idk if they wish they had his money, fame or what the deal is.
I see true evils happening in the world all the time yet someone always posts this focused hate on this Mr. Beast dude.
I don’t think the hate is gonna stop until he is as destitute as the rest of us.
Being in obnoxious is not a crime.
Majority of jobs here in the USA exploit and humiliate a lot more than any of these videos.
That’s all for my rant. Ty.
I can guarantee you and I are on vastly opposite ends of a wide variety of opinions and views, but one thing everyone should be able to collectively agree on is this right here. Mr beast needs to be purged from the internet.
