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.
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:
…and…
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.
Being better than Andrew Tate is like, the lowest possible bar that I could think of. 😆
But I don’t disagree with your points.
Overtaking PDP without being a flaming bigot like his predecessor makes him at least ok in my book.
Yes there is substantial criticism to be made. No, he did not pay people in third world countries to hold up signs with antisemitic texts.
It’s a low bar, but that’s the bar.
That’s my position as well. He does good, even if it’s for self serving reasons, it’s still good being done, but I don’t know enough about him as a human being to make a statement either way.
So he’s a fascist. If you have 11 people trying not to alienate a fascist, you have 12 fascists.
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.
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.
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.
Legitimizing genocide as a “political belief” by refusing to call out, “We should do a genocide!” as bad is itself doing a bad.
Again, you’re not acknowledging the reality of the non-profit world or donor behavior. You also conflate my examples with the most hyperbolic policy as a defense of ideological purity on party lines, when in my comment I precisely draw out that policy specifics should and can be challenged on a case by case basis.
In other words, you’re avoiding the context of the argument and repeating the old “if one nazi enters a bar, it’s a nazi bar” trope, which simply doesn’t apply in this scenario.
For instance, I am Democrat with $500k to donate. I am not a communist. If you were a white male conservative, running a charity to help the homeless, would you turn down my donation because of my possible communist ties? There are certainly Democrats that are communists, and many of them hold extreme views that would curtail the rights that you currently enjoy. Does accepting my donation make your charity a communist supporting organization? Is it worth losing out on the chance to do $500k worth of good to tell me to fuck off because you don’t like my politics? Is it worth kicking out all of your Democratic donors to make a point?
No. It’s an absurd conflagration of hyperbole, ideology and over-reaction to extreme views that the donor could possibly accept. There’s no conversation as to whether the donor actually holds the views you oppose - you simply assume they do because they hold a party identification that conflates politics with regional and culture, and judge them on it without attempting to understand their actual political views or taking into account the positive impact you can make if you find common ground.
And assumption is the path to failure in any endeavor.
The only reality I need to acknowledge is that genocide is bad.
One party is currently enacting genocide and should be made to feel bad about that.
You can feel however you want about propping up the Non-Profit Industrial complex with money sourced from puppy kickers. Your “pragmatism” doesn’t make genocide ok, nor does it render a refusal to call it out as anything but harmful moral cowardice.
Harmful.
Refusing to shun evil does real world harm.
Legitimizing evil as not evil because “evil money spends” bolsters evil.
Reducing opposing genocide to “ideological purity” is flippant, and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing it.
The fact that the only reality you acknowledge is one you choose puts you in the same bracket of comprehension of those you oppose. An inability to consider oppositional viewpoints is the hallmark of a fanatic.
The world is not made up of good and evil people. No matter how hard you search, you will never find someone who has done only good, or someone who has done only evil. The world is made up of people who do good and evil things. The hardest challenge in this world is encouraging people who do mostly evil things to start doing good things, mainly because the evil things that people do make them rich and powerful.
You can’t do that if you’re not willing to find common ground. Assuming someone is pro-genocide removes your capacity to find that common ground and work cooperatively. It isolates both of you, leaving neither the wiser and creates a net negative for both parties. On the other hand, working from a stance of knowledge, action, and proven fact rather than assumption allows not only the immediate benefits of cooperative action, but lays the groundwork for discussing and exploring the policies you don’t agree on in further detail, and encourage the other participant to see your viewpoint.
You can’t encourage people to do better if you won’t have a conversation with them, and no conversation is going to be productive if you assume the other person is evil.
Finally, your insinuation that I find genocide “ok” is a repulsive misreading of my statement in a transparent attempt to justify your unwillingness to engage with the argument in a constructive manner. At no point did I justify not calling out genocide. You conflated Republicans with genocide, which is subject to wide debate even amongst the most liberal of circles. It’s not moral cowardice to acknowledge this - it’s an analysis of the state of the Republican party.
In conclusion, it’s not a charity’s job to make someone feel bad about themselves - a charity’s job is to do good.
Given your language and dedication to calling people out for the most extreme positions of their party, it’s clear you’ve chosen the former.
Why do you want to find common ground with people who are actively engaging in genocide?
There is certain ground you shouldn’t want to be in common with.
Certain positions you just oppose.
You are carrying water for people who want good friends of mine executed and you should stop doing that.
A charity’s job is to get donations.
He said:
You said:
The whoosh of his point going over your head can be head from states away.
Do you know his views on fascism, or are you simply saying you classify all republicans as facists?
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?
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.
If “you’re caucusing with nazis” makes a person nazi harder, that person was always a fash.
How, when they can always leave the dinner table?
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.
This is it right here.
Thats narrow minded, it can be both
That’s naive. Leaving the rich in a position to “save” the poor is nothing more than enabling a power fantasy for them. It leaves them with all of the power and control.
You cant force someone to save anyone, its their choice
You seem to truly believe theres no rich person who would give out of the kindness of their heart
Do you think the people who get the help see it the same way, or is just us privileged folk who feel uneasy?
Exploiting others for self promotion is always going to cause more overall harm than good.
How?
By that thinking Bill Gates has done nothing but harm, yet he has done leaps and bounds for health research. They’re one of the few reasons malaria is even getting research money. He’s probably a narcissistic ass, and I’m sure he’s partially supporting the foundation for taxes/clout, but he’s actually saved the lives of people. If they want to spend their millions and billions on helping people for clout, then go for it. It’s better than whatever the fuck Musk is doing.
Exactly, it’s like Jeff Bezos thinking the best he can do with his money is go to space.
Regardless of the motivation, surely if that money is going to a better cause that will help others that’s a good thing
The last sentence feels a little “perfect being the enemy of the good.” Outside of wanting purity of intention, what is the issue here, if the result is people being helped?
It reinforces the system that leave people needing help, and draws attention away from the need for changing that system.
People are getting helped, but none more so than the one getting good PR. And that’s not charity, or philanthropy. That’s just marketing.
We don’t need more marketing. And relying on the graces of self-helping benefactors isn’t “being helped”. It’s being financially abused.
None of this is ever going to change until regular people start voting for their own betterment, at least in America. There are more of us than them, but half of us are trapped in the idea that we’re going to be millionaires someday. Or apathy.
Yes, indeed. I’d heavily recommend Thoreau’s critique of philantrophy: https://thecuriouspeople.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/thoreau-philanthropy-is-overrated-walden-44/ . While it’s written 200 years ago and on a religious foundation, he has a point.
“Philanthropy is almost the only virtue which is sufficiently appreciated by mankind. Nay, it is greatly overrated; and it is our selfishness which overrates it.” — Henry David Thoreau, “Economy,” Walden
If you publicise your philanthropy to gain my support for your philanthropy, does that magically make you non-philanthropic?
Yes. Yes it does.
It’s not charity then. It’s paid advertising.
Charities do a lot of paid advertising.