• Dorkyd68@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      74
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      His face is oh so punchable. He has the weirdest fake smile and it creeps me tf out

      • Grass@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

      • suction@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        He also has the most generic milquetoast white dude face ever. I know about 8 guys in my town alone who could be his twins, going by the face alone.

    • demizerone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think you coined the term “philanthropy porn”.

      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 whoring out his recipients to make his money.

    • dev_null@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • nyctre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          Can’t they sell the house and do whatever they want with the money? Or rent it out and use that to pay for the maintenance/taxes, etc? Feels like it’s hard to argue against giving people a free house.

          That being said, if even a small part of what is being said about him is true, then he’s a massive piece of shit.

          I’d still take a free house from a massive piece of shit, tho.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Can’t they sell the house and do whatever they want with the money?

            Possibly. If they didn’t sign some sort of contract agreeing not to do so and if there would be a market for that house. And then there’s just the psychological burden of having to give up a free house because it turns out you can’t actually afford to own a free house.

            Or rent it out and use that to pay for the maintenance/taxes, etc?

            That is not a simple thing. And it puts you legally on the line for a lot. That’s why corporations tend to do it.

            Feels like it’s hard to argue against giving people a free house.

            I can show you so many stories of people who inherit valuable things only to end up in more debt than they started with. Did MrBeast make sure all of those people actually were good at managing their money before he gave them a house? If they weren’t, did he give them some way to become financially literate? We have no idea because he won’t tell us. We also have no idea what will happen to these people and their houses in one year or five years or ten.

            • nyctre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              Fair enough, I see how it could all fall apart if not done properly. And based on what people are saying… it’s unlikely that he did things properly.

          • dev_null@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’d still take a free house from a massive piece of shit, tho.

            And that’s pretty much my argument.

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Home ownership isn’t necessarily cheaper or better than renting.

          If you’re given a house, paying property taxes and insurance is almost certainly better and cheaper than renting.

          I agree with your other points and overall with your perspective, but not this one.

          Typical property taxes run about 1-2% of the home’s overall value. Unless they were all given multi-million dollar mansions they’ll be paying like 2-4k a year in property taxes. That’s far less than the cost of renting a place of equivalent size basically anywhere. You can probably afford basic homeowner expenses on a job at McDonald’s if you own your place outright.

        • dev_null@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Well they are not forced to keep the house. They can sell it, or if they don’t want it at all, they can give it away. But then why did they sign up for it in the first place?

          You are saying as if they were forced against their will to get a free house.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Would you say no to a free house? People do things against their interest all the time.

            You also don’t know that they weren’t required to hold on to the house for a certain amount of time in order to accept the house. I would be surprised if there weren’t such conditions. Maybe you are financially literate enough to turn down a deal like that, they aren’t necessarily.

            They’re also only one job loss away from a tax lien against the house they thought they could afford to live in because they got it for free.

        • dev_null@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          The random people in Africa that got wells drilled are part of the scam? His employees, sure, but I’m not arguing with that.

  • linearchaos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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!

  • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    He’s finally cooked. Enjoy the long slow ride into irrelevance. Enjoy the fake friends fading away as the money tap dries up.

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • DrDickHandler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Mr. Beast is not cooked. This is pure copium pathetic copium. Seems like you aren’t mature enough to see the big picture.

  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    You don’t get to where he is by being normal. So his success alone is proof he is divergent. He should just own it and move on.

  • DogWater@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Upper echelon on YouTube has been covering this.

    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