I never watched any of his videos but to friends that did I always said he would eventually make headlines for some kind of problematic behavior or involvement, and when asked what it was based on I just said I could tell by his face. Unnatural and disingenuous in appearance and actions if questioned further but none of them could see it.
This is what I should of told my friend when I told him Mr Beast was full of shit and after he became utterly shocked at the words coming out of my mouth. How would I dare insult the man that gave poor kids in Africa money on video.
My 10-year-old daughter recently mentioned Mr. Beast and I said what do you know about him? She said I don't know but my friends showed me his videos and I think the guy's a creep. I pretty much gave her a high five and said she can have all the ice cream she wants LOL.
If only I can send her some more money for even more ice cream, but then I would be the creep lol. Could you give her a high five for me and tell her she's the best 10yo kid in the world and she's awesome, please
You're getting downvoted because people don't like to have their poor critical thinking skills called out. They'd rather ignorantly eat up whatever BS is served to them.
Philanthropy porn is just disgusting to begin with. That alone should have ended him. But people think it's a "feel-good story" so they keep watching. A lot of times, the follow-ups to such stories feel less good since the people getting that philanthropy often can't afford to pay to maintain whatever they've been given.
I was going to say I got it from somewhere, but apparently the term is usually "charity porn." I think "philanthropy porn" works better though because it's just as much about the philanthropist themselves as it is about what they're offering.
But instead of just the best images of the subject matter like /cableporn or /earthporn, this has the negative connotation of voyeuristic performative prostitution. He’s the pimp, and he’s removed out his recipients to make his money.
I agree, but on the other hand the people he helps, well, get helped, and would be worse off if he didn't do that. Obviously it would be better if he wasn't making money off of it, but would it be better if he stopped?
As morally dubious as he is, I'm sure the people who have access to water after his "build 100 wells in Africa" stunt would disagree with opinions that he should stop.
So I don't know. I agree with the criticism, but I always think of the people who got help and I'm unsure what would be better.
I agree, but on the other hand the people he helps, well, get helped, and would be worse off if he didn’t do that.
This is fallacious and it plays into what I said. There is no follow-up on those people. You don't know if they would be worse off if they weren't helped.
He "built 100 houses and gave them away" earlier this year. Great. Is he going to pay to maintain those houses? Is he going to pay to insure them? Is he going to pay the property taxes? And, of course, now they're tied down to one specific area because they have a house and if they don't like their job and there isn't another job available? They're stuck.
Home ownership isn't necessarily cheaper or better than renting. They may very well have been better off before the IRS let them know what they owed for that house.
Obviously it would be better if he wasn’t making money off of it, but would it be better if he stopped?
Yes it would be. The accumulation of so much money into so few hands is a net evil, and his videos glamorize and are used to justify that evil. Even if some (and it's always a small portion) of that accumulation is used for good ends it's worse than if it weren't allowed to accumulate in the first place.
Put more simply, if wealth inequality weren't so out of control there would be much fewer people requiring the charity.
That's just not how sustainable charity or development works, especially when it comes to things like building wells. There are existing charities that can do more than he does with the money he spends and have sustainable methods of doing so. Maybe some of them aren't great, but if he actually wanted to address those issues he could set up a foundation with people who know how to do that work.
So his curing 1000 blind people video? Most of them were gonna get the surgery done anyway, he just made it happen faster
In exchange for being on video. Which is kinda gross. It’s making entertainment out of someone who needs help. If Jimmy was in it for good, he wouldn’t exploit the people he’s helping. He makes more money off each video than he spent. That’s exploitation
Yeah, he always felt slimy to me. His "charity" videos that seem to take advantage of impoverished people and him convincing children to promote his chocolate brand (and sabotage competitors) as examples. I hate that someone who seems to be this bad was able to have this power in the first place but boy do I love seeing him be brought down. Hopefully it doesn't just go away like so much else does.
In general he is not a nice person when criticized. This is usually obvious in his content and social media interactions.
His content is low quality, 'feel good', Reality TV garbage. Think like Dude Perfect; except they give out giant wads of cash and recruit random people. He has TWO FAILED BRANDS; Mr. Beast Burger, which is a chain of low quality ghost kitchens, and his Chocolate brand; which shows a clear lack of business acumen and capability. Much of his video content is clickbait; written explicitly to game the algorithm and garner attention with only minimally required guardrails to obey ToSes and relevant laws that are actually enforced. Frequently he invades other YouTuber's channels for a video or more to "promote his brand" and spread his junky content around. This is sometimes fine; when the channel is celebrity centric or otherwise good at staying on it's own topic; but I've heard...horror stories from certain youtubers about working with Mr. Beast...and even the Greens, (John and Hank, vlogbrothers) don't seem to like him all that much it seems like; as evidenced by their large lack of interactions with him. Sure, they 'professionally respect' him; but that's about as far as that seems to go. I think a lot of Nerdfighteria (Fans of the vlogbrothers) doesn't seem to interact with Mr. Beast that much and it makes me wonder.
There's still a ton of good content on YouTube, just because the big faces in the trending tab all suck shouldn't discount people like Dan Hurd or Dustin Porter, no native advertising, good content made for the fans. You just have to dig
This isn’t even a reaction to known allegations—apparently he’s just anticipating potential future trouble:
the reason that Donaldson hired the flashy lawyer is to conduct an internal audit of his company, the likes of which has recently come under fire as the result of various scandals.
So I think it’s fair to say it’s an admission that his conduct might be legally questionable, without taking it as a confession of guilt
First of all I don't like this guy and I find him as something wrong with him.
Secondly I'm a lawyer with over 20 years so, if I call you "fisco" a pedophile and you file a lawsuit against my claim by your own statement it's an admission of guilt and you should be legally registered as a pedophile.
Hey, let's not lower ourselves to Beast's level. Sociopathy is just Greek for "social illness". It refers to psychosocial disorders like autism. Beast is afraid of being called autistic because he's a bigot. We're not like him. We don't hate autistic people.
That whole underground bunker series is starting to get a little too reality TV like for me. I don't watch him often but when it shows make it outside of his channel I end up catching glimpses.
Jaden animation recently won a million dollars to give to her subscribers.
But he pit a bunch of the YouTubers in a squid game competition which makes the ratings but isn't a great look.
I’d watch that! A bunch of “influencers” get “killed off”, hopefully humiliated? Let them be exploited for money instead of just their victims? Let’s go!
Honestly, while I'm enjoying being vindicated, his main audience is children and the few adults I know who like him are "on that grind" and don't care about ethics. He may take a hit in viewership, but it's unlikely to effect his lifestyle. But we'll see if sponsors continue to back him.
Watch DogPack404's 3 videos on him on YouTube. Essentially, Jimmy is a massive loser who has rigged and faked challenges, caused sleep deprivation, knowingly hired and protected multiple sex offenders, commited illegal lotteries, having a degrading work culture:
(from one of his documents)
No doesn't mean no
And has attempted to silence anyone who speaks out about him with cease and desists, attempting to find any ways to discredit them using his employee's own Xitter accounts, accusing them of being mentally ill or distrustworthy. He is a complete sociopath and nobody should watch him
After watching the videos, and the analysis from Legal Eagle, I find the criticism a little dubious.
"Rigged challenges" is how he introduces surprise things mid-video, like "I'll give you $10,000 if you quit now, but your team loses a team member!" It's obviously part of the show and participants agree to it happening before hand.
"Knowingly hired a sex offender". Well? Should everyone on the sex offender registry be jobless forever, or what is the point? The person in question was convicted when he was 16, and was hired 7 years later with nothing indicating he would reoffend. Don't we have courts for justice? Instead they should never be hired as punishment? To me it sounds commendable he's not prejudiced against people's past.
"Attempted to silence anyone" Did he? There is tons of people criticizing him and I only heard about one cease and desist. Do we know that C&D was baseless?
That DogPack guy seems to have created his YouTube channel solely to attack MrBeast, do we have anyone more trusted?
Like many, I find the MrBeast videos a cancer of YouTube, which makes hearing any critique of him convenient. But I don't like assuming, and I have a feeling the DogPack guy has an agenda and isn't offering an objective view.
having a degrading work culture: (from one of his documents)
No doesn’t mean no
Let's not take stuff way out of context. There's plenty to criticize here (including a toxic work culture, but not because of this) so there's no need to misrepresent anything.
This is the paragraph that comes from. I'd say it's absolutely shitty to whoever they're bothering though.
NO DOES NOT MEAN NO
When dealing with people outside MrBeast Productions never take a No at
face value. If we need a store to buy everything inside of and you call the local
Dollar tree and the person that answers says “No, you can’t film here”. That
literally doesn’t mean shit. Talk to other employees and see if any are fans or if
any have kids that are fans, try talking to their boss, their bosses boss, have me
dm them on twitter and try their social team, etc. If after all avenues are
exhausted you are left with a no, that doesn’t mean don’t try the other dollar trees
because the manager of those could be huge fans and willing to bend the rules.
Basically what I’m trying to convey is what we call “pushing thru no”. Don’t just
stop because one person told you no, stop when all conceivable options are
exhausted. This is one of many tools that when combined dramatically improve
your probability of success when producing here.
Not sure about him outside of this story, but he seems to be doing a decent job if you are looking for something to watch with all details. He's got 4 or 5 videos in the series in the past month or 2
I don’t have a lot of time to dive into fluff, I mostly see the scroll and hear what the kids say. Last I really heard about this guy he was planting trees and giving away homes, then I think some vegan teacher hated him? Now every headline I see about him has a negative slant, but nothing bad enough to make NPR or BBC.
Sociopathy is nothing to be ashamed of. It's just Greek for "social illness". Autism is a psychosocial disorder, which means all autistic people are sociopaths. Beast's mad dash to avoid being labelled neurodivergent is a very bad look on him. Only an asshole would feel the need to "defend" himself against being called a sociopath.
Sociopathy is about lacking specific traits, like empathy for example. At least with respect to the diagnosis criteria they are quite different and calling everybody with ASD sociopaths is actually not a good look.
I don't believe you. Show me sociopathy in the DSM. And no cheating, I don't want to hear you say that sociopathy is actually a colloquialism for some other disorder.
I've met sociopaths and at least 2 psychopaths. They do not feel like an autistic person (although someone can be both). They are distinct and sharp, like swords. Autistic people are pretty "normal" to me, I think of Kristen Stewart, Elliott Page, or Temple Grandin - pretty straightforward people who aren't malevolent or malicious. Temple is actually quite famous for her empathy.
My personal opinion is that Mr Beast is probably not a good person based only on the one clip I've ever seen of him - talking about how he would pick a girlfriend. It was very objectifying. He talked about women like they were property. The sociopath allegation doesn't surprise me, because he definitely has something not right with him. Which is being confirmed by his own staff having serious concerns about messed up things he did.
Psychopathy is Greek for "mental illness". I've met sociopaths with autism, and every one of them was definitionally a psychopath too. But I've also met psychopaths with mental illnesses like depression or PTSD, who were not sociopaths. I'm pretty sure every sociopath is also a psychopath. And if you've only ever met 2 mentally ill people, you are definitely not an expert on psychopathy and you shouldn't be spreading misinformation on the internet.
I've seen the word sociopath used plenty on Lemmy, but never you attached with it, like you are in this thread. Makes your little personal crusade seem fake.
Sociopathy is the inability to feel empathy. This is not inherently a bad thing, it’s only bad when people use that to harm others.
A common trait for sociopaths is seeking success, which is defined differently in different cultures. In the US, success is usually defined by fame, money, or power, so we see a lot of sociopaths in government, C-suites, and Hollywood. However, in India, success is more defined around family involvement, and so sociopaths there are often seen establishing those strong family ties and working to fit in.
Some studies suggest that 4% of the population have the brain profile of sociopathy. That doesn’t mean 1/25 people is evil. But when someone who is sociopathic uses that lack of empathy to harm people, that’s when they become a danger and should be called out for it.
Source: The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout, Ph.D (and my memory thereof)
Since you posted this twice in the thread, you must be very proud of your thought process. However, I see it as my duty to inform you that you are incorrect.
Socio- is from Latin socius meaning companion or ally. The term sociopath is both Latin and Greek because it got coined at one point in the late 1800s.