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:
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
You'll have to include whatever point you think you're making there too.
I'm not the one who made genocide the official party platform, nor am I someone who seems to think a person can vote for a party doing a genocide while remaining morally inculpable for doing so.
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.
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.
Self-interest is clearly a factor in his actions, but anyone who instills a sense of community commitment and betterment in their followers is a better influence on children than those who use racism, misogyny and bigotry to advance their careers. In a world full of fallen heroes, where where we see villains succeed every day, having a younger generation see a powerful man turn his popularity towards good work is something that should be celebrated and encouraged.
Perhaps, with enough positive influence and wisdom, he'll begin moving from doing charity stunts to addressing the systemic flaws that have led to the suffering he seeks to alleviate, but I believe he should be applauded for what he's done thus far, regardless of how much self-interest is intertwined with his charity. He shows the potential to become a leader for real positive change in the upcoming generation if he continues on his current trajectory.
“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
Genuinely I need a better explanation of this. Philanthropy as PR just means that someone who only cares about clout is engaging in Philanthropy when they otherwise wouldn't.
Is there some controversy about the Cataract Patients I don't know about, beyond just calling it charity porn? As a theoretical, what are our chances of success if we were able to go back in time and intercept the benefactors of this stunt, and try to convince them "MrBeast doesn't actually care about your well being or your vision. He's just using you to promote his brand. You should turn down this surgery, because you're being exploited for clout"?
Frankly, I don't think they care. They got financial assistance with restoring their vision, something that otherwise would not have happened.
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.
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.
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?
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.
General takeaway is: letting your kids be enamored by mr beast is teaching them to get clout. Teaches them that to do nice things, they must be recording themselves doing it. Its different if youre an adult that can think for themself
“If i cant record myself helping this person out then ill wait till i can find a camera.” Theres a good chance thats the type of thing your kids are gonna unconsciously think about.
I feel like it might show them that doing nice things is a way to get attention. Maybe that'll encourage them to do nice things. Is probably more favourable than influencers that teach doing mean things is ok because it's on camera or it's funny or just a joke, and that being mean is a way to get attention. Though its important for children to know that attention isnt everything.
It's an interesting dilemma. I don't disagree with anything you've said but, at the same time, Mr Beast is helping people, even if he's also personally benefitting. And the only reason he's in a position to help as many people as much as he does is because of his "clout" - without his platform and the sponsors he attracts, he wouldn't be able to have nearly as much of an impact as he does. And I'd rather influencers like Mr Beast exist than the Andrew Tate of the world, or the nasty "prank" influencers.
But, at the same time, you're right that it teaches people they'll be rewarded more if they wait until they're on camera before doing any acts of charity. If he can inspire people to do charitable things just for the the sake of helping make the world better then that's great, but if people are only doing charitable things for "clout" then it's definitely not ideal.
There's definitely not a black and white answer or solution. I think Mr Beast has a positive impact on the world overall, but there are definitely both good and bad things people could take away from watching his videos if they don't consider things correctly. It's something that touches on a number of philosophical subjects: capitalism, materialism, individualism versus collectivism, the influence of social media, external validation versus internal satisfaction, to name but a few.
The best thing OP can do is to teach their sons the nuances of it all.
I wish there were some way to know the net impact of this. Once helping the poor becomes entertainment, do people actually get up and go do it themselves anymore? Very often these days people don’t actually do things but rather watch others do them online. You can say sure that one person did get money and help, but what is the larger impact of this phenomenon? Are more people inspired to go give? Or do more people “get that itch scratched” and walk away from the video feeling all warm inside just from watching it? And what is the impact to the poor person of their publicity? This stuff is hard to know but I point it out to say there is more to it than “well one person did get help so it must be good.”
One thing it reminds me of is prosthetics viral videos. People love videos where a kid with one arm sees their new robotic prosthetic for the first time. We get all misty watching their excitement. But many people actually go on to have a crappy experience with their prosthetic. There’s one woman I heard on the radio who said she tried many of them and they were heavy, painful, and hard to make work right. She just prefers to use her stump now. And she wishes people would watch a video celebrating that, instead of everyone telling her she should get a cool robot arm. People are icked out by her stump and they all ask her why she doesn’t get a cool robot arm like in the video they saw.
I only know him from the TeamTrees and TeamSeas projects. Using his huge viewer base to promote projects like this is one of the best possible things an influencer can do IMO.
Tek Syndicate has a philosophical breakdown of Mr. Beast's content that's really interesting, but as far as being an example to your kids goes, it's a tough one. I think his charitable acts are fundamentally good, but the fact that he does them all on camera is fundamentally icky. He's a complicated figure. He's not using hate speech or indoctrinating kids into cults or anything, so he's clear of at least the bare minimum of alarming behavior. lol
The camera portion is literally how he makes the money in the first place. The only way we’ll really know for certain how he is beyond that is to see what he does with his money after “retirement”.
I don’t expect much, but it’s pointless to guess about his actual character now.
I watched some really interesting video essays on him and his style and I think the general sense that his philanthropy is good holds true. I think there are two consequences of his videos and content that are negative and have had negative consequences for the rest of YouTube as channels copy his style. The first being the glorification of money and materialism as many videos feature expensive products and piles of money. While they are used in a positive way, they are promoted in a light which I think is negative especially for kids and which has created a genre of YouTube videos focusing on giving and spending huge amounts of cash. The second is the loud jumpy editing style which has spread similarly to copycats. That seems less existentially negative and more just annoying. But ultimately, I think he contributes good to the world, perhaps more in the way that Oprah does than a charity.
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.
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.
And the exploiting them that you're talking about, that's giving them cash and cars and stuff? Just trying to be clear on what you're choosing to be upset about and what you are choosing to use YOUR platform for. The rest is just you throwing spaghetti at the wall.
says the person licking the boot and pretending everything about this is fine lmfao
I think the fact that when challenged you instantly said this this says it all about you and the way you choose to judge people. Which is by just inventing whatever fiction suites your narrative and then insisting that is true because you said it. Someone saying "Mr. Beast is not actually literally hitler" is all it takes for you to assume and fill in the blanks for everything else. It takes zero evidence, zero knowledge of a subject or person for you to feel you have the moral authority on it. That's who you are. Reminds me of those reddit guys who ruined all those lives after the Boston bomber.
It would be good to know. But then Austin does it matter? There are plenty of terrible celebrities, as long as they are putting out decent role modelling for the kids, they get to keep their private life
This comes down to the old debate over which philosophical framework is the basis for ethics and morality.
If you’re a deontologist, you might say that Mr. Beast is not a good person because he intentionally exploits people when he provides medical care for someone, by uploading their reactions for engagement.
However, a consequentialist would say that the outcome is more important; the means by which people receive medical care is irrelevant, and in this case, their treatment essentially necessitates compensation via engagement.
There is at least one video (maybe an interview, not necessarily on his main channel) where he talks out of character about how he runs the channel etc.
His on screen persona is just that, a persona. This is something your kids should understand (and they can, if you find one of those out of character videos).
That said, I believe Jimmy Donaldson (the person behind the on-screen persona) does genuinely seem like a good guy, who is also smart and knows how to run a successful business while entertaining people. He also talks a bit about clickbait and how he tries to not make it too extreme but has to play the game.
Depending on how old your kids are, it may also be worth talking about the business aspect (sponsors, merch, the various brands he creates, how Beast Burgers actually works with ghost kitchens etc., Feastables) - no need to criticize or put it in a negative light, just explain that it's also a business.
Wikipedia has some notes about controversies and criticism.
Since it’s not a financially good idea to be seen as a douche, I think it’s in his best interest to put videos on the internet that look good- but is he really? Nobody knows that but him.
He seems pretty genuine, but I can’t watch his content because I personally find the cult of money… repelling?
I mean, obviously under capitalism money will have cult following, duh. But this stereotypical handing over tons of cash to someone and someone loosing all their shit makes me feel very uneasy.
Colin and Samir did and excellent behind the scenes hour long interview on Jimmy’s life. He seems to be a genuine guy who just wants to do nothing but entertain. Check it out on YouTube.
We can go into big depths on how he’s actually a corporate slave making his business on sponsorships instead of promoting big systemic changes, but that misses the case you make on how it affects kids.
On the kid side, he can be a somewhat good role model, a generous philanthropist sharing what he has to make people’s lives better. I’d say the effect his may have on kids is mostly positive.
Even if he is not the same person off camera, he’s still helping a lot of people in his videos. Sure it might be to “make money” but he turns around and uses a large portion of that money to do more good things on camera in other videos. He does far more for others than the vast majority of people in this world.
Add comment