this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023

65 points (100.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

42340 readers

970 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

Is Mr Beast a good person? (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 years ago by ArtVandelay@lemmy.world to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world

71 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I know this is going to sound like some clickbait bullshit title, but I'm genuinely curious, asking in good faith. My two oldest sons are enamored with him, and he seems like a genuine guy, so I'm asking - is he a nice guy? If you google the question, you get a bunch of reddit hate, which I don't always trust, because...it's reddit. I have not watched much content (not my thing, I'm old) but I'm just curious what the fediverse has to say.

(page 2) 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Arotrios@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Definitely better than Andrew Tate from what I've seen. While he's clearly a very savvy clout chaser, and he's overtaken Pewdie Pie as the most popular YouTuber, he has made a serious effort towards philanthropic acts. The fact that he's using these acts as a marketing tool to further increase his influence is clearly intentional, but he's doing real good with his clout. He's also shown considerable evolution throughout his career, including:

In an April 2022 interview with The Daily Beast, Donaldson announced that he was no longer an evangelical Christian and identified himself as an agnostic. He also stated that he had long disagreed with his church's position on homosexuality. He states that during the time he grew up in "the heart of the Bible Belt", he had religion "beat into [his] head every day", and was taught that "gay people are the reason God's going to come and burn this Earth". Although he considered anti-LGBT rhetoric to be normal growing up, he has disavowed it since then, stating: "I realized, 'Oh, this isn't normal. This is just a weird place I grew up in.' So, that type of thing, I [wish I could] go back in time and be like, 'Hey, stop'."

Donaldson considers himself strictly apolitical, saying that "I don't want to alienate Republicans and Democrats. ... I like having it where everyone can support [my] charity. My goal is to feed hundreds of millions of people ... it would be very silly of me to alienate basically half of America."

...and...

In April 2023, Chris Tyson came out publicly as gender non-conforming and revealed their struggles with gender dysphoria. In response to claims that they would become a "nightmare" and distraction for the channel, Donaldson defended Tyson and said, "Chris isn't my 'nightmare' he's my fucken [sic] friend and things are fine. All this transphobia is starting to piss me off."

This isn't to say he's perfect, but he's a helluva lot better than some other personalities your kids could be listening too.

[–] Kichae@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

he has made a serious effort towards philanthropic acts

Ehhhh. He engages in a mix of pity porn and charity-as-self-promotion/criticism shield. Never trust a wealthy person's donations when they have their name attached to them; there's always a reasonable chance that they came with strings. Doubly so when those donations are to charities they actively control.

I can appreciate that he's funnelled his money into things people actually need, instead of into grants so charities can buy supplies from tech companies he's invested in, but it's still PR, not philanthropy.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

it's still PR, not philanthropy

This is it right here.

[–] Eisenhowever@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Thats narrow minded, it can be both

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

If you publicise your philanthropy to gain my support for your philanthropy, does that magically make you non-philanthropic?

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

"I don't want to alienate Republicans and Democrats. ... I like having it where everyone"

So he's a fascist. If you have 11 people trying not to alienate a fascist, you have 12 fascists.

Donaldson considers himself strictly apolitical

Refusing to take a side when one side has made the extermination of swaths of the population their stated policy goal is taking the side of oppression.

[–] Arotrios@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

While I agree with your sentiment, it's not applicable in this context. He's stating a simple factor of most charity work (something I'm familiar with working in the non-profit world when I was younger). If you alienate your donators, you lose their donation. The easiest way to alienate someone is to declare a political stance, and the clumsiest way to do so is to do it by declaring an allegiance to a party rather than describing your support or opposition to policy specifics.

Ideological purity always conflicts with the tactical application of positive change. As an example, what would the US Senate look like if Franken hadn't resigned? What could have been accomplished? What positive changes were prevented? What would the Supreme Court look like now?

Secondly, your hyperbole obfuscates the fact that most Republicans are not pro-genocide, rather, extremists within their party are. Additionally, the identification of Republican or Democrat goes further than political identification in America - it's a cultural identification as well, one that splits along rural / urban lines. I know a number of rednecks from high school who are great guys, shoot their guns, love their gay and brown friends, support abortion, give to charity, and publicly identify as conservatives who hate Democrats... even when on a policy level, they agree with most progressive politics. A big factor in this is the conservative media landscape, which has actively fostered this level of cognitive dissonance, but that doesn't address the question of "how do you convince people to help you do good if they don't agree with your politics?"

Is it better to declare your politics and lose the donations that would allow you to do good?

Or is it better to keep your politics private, accept donations from all comers, and use those resources to make the world a better place?

In my opinion, the best path (and the one Mr. Beast appears to be following) is a middle ground. Don't declare your politics, accept donations, but if a donor has an agenda that conflicts with your politics or morals (like publicizing the donation to whitewash their reputation), reject them on a case by case basis. This lays out your support or opposition in specific instances rather than aligning your actions to the whims of a political party, and thus risk being aligned with the views of extremists within that party.

[–] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (6 children)

most Republicans are not pro-genocide, rather, extremists within their party are

There is no moderate wing of a party which caucuses with people who proffer genocide as a policy position.
10 people having dinner with 1 nazi is 11 nazis and a party that has members pushing genocide is a genocidal party.

Is it better to declare your politics and lose the donations that would allow you to do good?

Legitimizing genocide as a "political belief" by refusing to call out, "We should do a genocide!" as bad is itself doing a bad.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Do you know his views on fascism, or are you simply saying you classify all republicans as facists?

[–] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What are you doing right now?

A party openly embraces fascism, throws anti-queer pro-insurrection planks in its official platform and you're back-and-forthing about if it's "ok" an 'I Like Ike' button was found among great uncle gerald's personal effects.

Why is that the side of the scale you feel needs weight?

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

For context, polling shows that around 50% of republicans support the Jan 6 insurrection in some way.

Now, I’m not an American, so I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I do know that simply painting all the supporters of a party as fascist, when many of those supporters have deep concerns about that party’s direction of travel is not the way to get them to jump ship.

Sure, it makes you feel good about yourself, and let’s you stoke your righteous hatred, but it just paints those people as irredeemably evil, shuts down debate and makes it harder for them to switch.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ah yes, the king of poverty porn.

Wrapping it up in warm fuzzies doesn't make it any less exploitative. Don't be confused - he is in it to make money, the people he helps are nothing but props to him, and people like him do nothing to solve the problems they claim to care so much about, they've just found a sympathetic way to profit from them while deepening the problem (because if we can't even treat fellow poor people as humans, not props, what hope do we have of uniting against those who exploit us?).

He is not a good roll model. Teach your kids real compassion (which includes among other things understanding that people who are less fortunate still deserve privacy and respect), teach them that kindness doesn't need to be broadcast or be produced (because that's what those videos are - productions), it is something we should all be engaging in all of the time, even, or actually especially, when no one is watching, not because we want more likes and followers. Teach them that if they're that impressed with his efforts, just imagine what they could do if they actually went out and volunteered or otherwise contributed themselves. That'd be significantly better not just for them, but for your whole community.

[–] spaceace@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm not saying there isn't some truth to your post, but it lacks so much perspective that it's off-putting. There are actual content creators out there spreading misinformation and dangerous ideas. Not using his platform in the exact way you want doesn't make him a bad person or influence on his viewers. You clearly have a very dogmatic world view and I'm sure you would say this about almost any content creator.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Talk about lacking perspective lmfao... 😂

N̶o̶t̶ u̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ h̶i̶s̶ p̶l̶a̶t̶f̶o̶r̶m̶ i̶n̶ t̶h̶e̶ e̶x̶a̶c̶t̶ w̶a̶y̶ y̶o̶u̶ w̶a̶n̶t̶

Being an exploitative profiteer who only has a platform due to being an exploitative profiteer

doesn't make him a bad person

maybe not intentionally or in his own eyes, no, but his actions and the impact of his brand of garbage tell a different story

or (bad) influence on his viewers

Yeah, it does, that's kind of part of the problem

You clearly have a very dogmatic world view

says the person licking the boot and pretending everything about this is fine lmfao

and I'm sure you would say this about almost any content creator

if they were making money by exploiting others for gain? Yeah, I would, because that's an actively shit thing to do.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Ballistic86@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Mr Beast is fine. His content is fine for kids to watch, that is his demo. He demonstrates that doing good things with the money you have is the best thing to do. Mr Beast gets a lot of flack for his videos but as far as online entertainers go, he’s a good one. Are his videos entertaining to me? No. Are they entertaining to millions of others? Yes. Is he a negative influence on children? No. The only real PUBLIC criticism for Mr Beast is he supports LGBTQ people and his video “exploit” medical problems of people.

Edit since it seems people think me mentioning he supports LGBTQ. Criticism for his support for Chris exists in the world. OP didn’t mention their politics, I mentioned the two things Mr Beast has received criticism for in the public space.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments