Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Agreed.