What is Mr Beast? Is he like a new form of Pewdiepie who just does shit and gets assloads of money to film himself doing some script stuff with the caption “I DID THIS TOTALLY WEIRD THING AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED”
Well I’ve had a similar anti-most-popular-youtuber phase too with Pewdiepe too. Logic really went through the window with me, and I’ve also felt this phenomenon with MrBeast, and idk why.
I mean it’s better than reaction channels who say you should disable Adblock because they do this for free and you are a bad person if you enable Adblock (Michelle debris or something like this said this in a video)
People definitely go overboard with their criticisms, but there are legitimate criticisms to be made. While his philanthropy is objectively good and makes a positive difference in people’s lives, it does nothing to address the systemic causes of the problems he highlights.
His content is also completely apolitical, which rubs people the wrong way when he covers topics a lot of people see as inherently political like extreme poverty, homelessness, and healthcare.
I suspect people watch it because it gives them that dopamine hit of helping someone, without actually doing anything. “Oh my gosh, he’s so charitable!”
Commodified charity is a very effective way to get views and followers, so many people copy his format, doing “charity” for personal fame and gain - i’ve heard of some “charity” tubers/tokers that start selling ad space to fucking online casinos once they get enough viewers.
He often does the reverse, paying people exorbitant sums to do mundane things like spending 3 days in a circle. He practically started and got famous of that genre.
They’re leaving out that philanthropy is a big part of his videos. Sometimes it’s game show style where the winner(s) get huge rewards and sometimes it’s direct charity like the “I built 100 houses” video. People watch them because they’re often feelgood stories.
It can be a bit controversial as well because people who are more politically engaged often get frustrated by charity when they believe the problem the charity purports to solve is systemic. Whenever he posts philanthropy videos it triggers a huge shitstorm on Twitter of people expressing that frustration and a bunch of people coming to his defense.
He started out doing challenge videos like “counting to x” and it was literally like a multi-hour long video where he counted to 10,000 I believe. It’s insanely boring but it showed his “dedication to the bit”. Another is saying " pewdiepie like 10,000 times. I may have exaggerated, I’m not at a computer to look up the numbers. Eventually, after tormenting himself and gaining some followers and he got paid some money from youtube. With his first paycheck he made a video of him taking that check and giving it to a homeless person (IIRC). His philosophy was always to take any money he makes and dump it right into the next video. This has allowed him to slowly make bigger and bigger videos. He still regularly does challenge videos (buried himself alive for multiple days, not eating for several days, etc.) But, him dumping all of the money he makes, into the next video has grown from giving his first, probably couple hundred dollar check, to a homeless man, into giving literally millions away per video.
He also kind of pioneered the thumbnails you are talking about. And yelling at the beginning of the video to grab your attention by showing enthusiasm was also really his thing too. I mean some people had probably used it before. But, he used it regularly and had the type of content that really was that exciting.
Whether you care for challenge content, giving away money, some combination of both, or neither he also has Beast Philanthropy. That’s his channel where he does good “because he can”. He puts a bunch of money and gets sponsors to give money for causes like, building wells, building houses, paying for surgeries, building hospitals, etc. I thought it was a bit gross to make videos out of charity work at first. But, it helps a lot of people in under served countries, and raises awareness to them and the charities that try to help them. Also, all the money they make on that channel goes to the charity of each episode.
That was more than I thought I would type for sure…
If he had done it quietly without a video crew, Google wouldn’t have given him millions to do his next project which was building free homes for the homeless.
You would have more respect for him if he stopped doing charity work???
He gets money for charity from the advertisers. If he stops the videos the charity stops.
He funnels a greater percentage into charity than any other charity like habitat for humanity or the Red Cross. Would you be happier if he funneled his YouTube profits into a prostitution ring like Andrew Tate?
He seems incredible fake and artificial. I get zero trust from him. Just because someone hide some shit to charity doesn’t mean shit. ESPECIALLY, if you consider his charity as a % of his wealth.
If you look at it that way, he gives less to charity than most of us, I would imagine.
JC yeah, he’s like a family friendly Andrew Tate… hahaha good one
That got him mainstream because the religious right started publicly denouncing him
He’s constantly being front-paged on YouTube and getting shoved into everyone’s recommended feeds. I have never heard anyone on the religious right mention his name positively or negatively. I doubt the Zoomers and GenAlpha folks who subscribe to him have either.
I hate that this is true, plus he’s already said he would “take the best of the left and the best of the right” as some nonsense enlightened centrist candidate.
It’s centrist nonsense, if someone says a waterfall flows downstream and someone else says the waterfall flows upstream, that doesn’t mean the waterfall is stagnant, or that the person who said it flows upstream has a good point.
The left and right aren’t arbitrary collections of disorganized and incoherent positions you can combine ad-hoc.
Your comment makes it seem like there can only be two sides, that’s the entire issue with the US democracy from an outsider, where’s the other parties? Why only two, and why are you defending that there should be only two on divided lines?
And neither are they, so what’s your point? They’re just saying that both sides have good points, and they’re the “party” that will get what the nation wants done. Is trying to do what the nation wants as whole centrist to you? Or are trying to smear someone who doesn’t align fully with you? That’s the issue that they are also trying to bring to light, you are saying there is sides, there shouldn’t be… since to be centrist requires sides… or parties… you’ve no contradicted yourself in your explanation.
What’s centrist about that? I think you’re just reading way too far into this or trying to make it into something it’s not. Both sides have points, both are wrong, and you’re trying to decry someone saying this. That’s frankly wrong dude.
There shouldn’t be sides, and that makes centralism impossible, it’s only possible with the two party system.
They’re just saying that both sides have good points
Which is wrong. What “good points” do right-wingers legitimately have?
Is trying to do what the nation wants as whole centrist to you?
Saying “both sides have good points” places a mystical property on whatever is in the middle, as though the middle is inherently correct.
You’re batting a bit too hard for someone that thinks correct answers come from finding the midpoint. If someone says 2+2=4, and someone else says 2+2=6, the answer is still 4, not 5.
Which is wrong. What “good points” do right-wingers legitimately have?
This is why US politics are wild.
Saying “both sides have good points” places a mystical property on whatever is in the middle, as though the middle is inherently correct.
And you’re saying only the left is right in both of your statements, obviously you aren’t impartial and have a bias, as pointed out in my previous comment
You’re batting a bit too hard for someone that thinks correct answers come from finding the midpoint. If someone says 2+2=4, and someone else says 2+2=6, the answer is still 4, not 5.
That is some fallacious strawmanning right there, you’re saying only one side can be right, that’s not someone who is willing to have a discussion, you’re obviously just throwing shit at anything you don’t agree with.
Which is the entire point of his joke running, it’s hilarious that you can’t see this, but not surprising since you think there’s only one party. This is American politics people.
This isn’t unique to the US. The US did not invent the concept of a midpoint.
And you’re saying only the left is right in both of your statements, obviously you aren’t impartial and have a bias, as pointed out in my previous comment
I never said I wasn’t biased. Of course I am biased, I am biased because I have a coherent worldview and set of values that aligns to the left.
That is some fallacious strawmanning right there, you’re saying only one side can be right, that’s not someone who is willing to have a discussion, you’re obviously just throwing shit at anything you don’t agree with.
Generally, yes, there is a correct side.
Which is the entire point of his joke running, it’s hilarious that you can’t see this, but not surprising since you think there’s only one party. This is American politics people.
Not sure where you got the idea that I think there’s only one party, but keep cooking, it’s funny lol
This isn’t unique to the US. The US did not invent the concept of a midpoint.
What other countries have a two party democracy? And what other countries smear the other parties to the degree of US politics?
I get you have an axe to grind, but I said I was an outsider, how am I supposed to know one side is right and one side is wrong? If one is right and one is wrong, that really only makes one party now doesn’t it? You seem to want to point out math to others, but have an issue understanding it yourself.
I get the sense that you don’t follow politics super often… if you’re an outsider, I understand that “you must be biased to say that only one side has any good points” seems like the obviously correct position, but trust me, it’s not. Don’t attack people who have spent time in politics and developed a more accurate viewpoint just because it’s counterintuitive.
Hence maybe why I’m pointing out that there shouldn’t be any sort of party or candidate that should be referred to as “centrist”…?
In other countries and political systems, that would be someone who would stand in the middle and actually have both good points as their platform.
In the US it’s used as smear to refer to people who don’t align politically with you. Same with the terms “left” and “right”. Other democracies have parties in these sides, but A there’s more than one, and B, the term isn’t used to smear and slander people or parties.
Hence this being a uniquely American thing…. Other countries use terms like progressive and conservatives instead, much more friendly and correct terms.
No, I’ve never seen an article or comment about US politics use those terms. Which is odd for how often they get posted in other places.
And no, your country and politics specifically avoid those terms, since they want a two party system and that’s part of how it works.
It’s republican and democrats, not progressive and conservatives, that’s the “marketing”. Would love some articles from the US that use these terms though.
Really? You’ve never heard that? I’m sure if you searched around for some articles you’d hear people or even ideas described as “progressive” or “conservative” equally if not more often than by their parties.
And no, your country and politics specifically avoid those terms, since they want a two party system and that’s part of how it works.
Again, as someone who self-admittedly doesn’t usually follow US politics, you should really stop telling me, a politically-involved US citizen, how you think our politics works. I don’t presume to know more than you about your country’s politics.
Ideas, but not the party themselves since they want to distance themselves…
Yes I don’t follow, but it’s shoved down everyone’s throats.
I’m telling you how your politics look to OUTSIDERS… this is how WE view the shithole that you claim is democracy. None of those terms are used how you’re claiming they are.
Sure YOU use the terms, but anything that escapes to other people doesn’t, because that’s how they want to be presented. As you say, they only use the term for “ideas”, that’s distancing dude… yeeesh.
Politics is literally entirely composed of ideas. The parties are named the way they are because that’s what they’ve been named for like a billion years.
None of those terms are used how you’re claiming they are.
The onus is on you, you claimed the terms are used and I already asked and you decided to not oblige and tell me to Google it.
So you Google it, or provide the proof you claimed of first.
The terms the US wants and uses is democrats and republicans, since they don’t really follow ideologies at all.
In a healthy political system the right will have some left ideas and left will have some right. Maybe educate yourself on other politcal systems first if you want to discuss and call me out? Your democracy is a sham, others don’t operate that way, yet you want to claim they do…? What….?
I’ve made literally no claims about anyone else’s democracy.
As a matter of principle I refuse to use Google for you, you’re the one who originally made the claim that we don’t use progressive or conservative as terms, and if you’re going to insist on playing the Burden of Proof game then that’s what you’re going to get. Educate yourself on this topic or leave.
Again, when did I mention parties? You keep bringing them up when nobody else did.
If one is right and one is wrong, that really only makes one party now doesn’t it?
You’re confusing concepts like leftism and rightism with parties. Parties can have incoherent collections of ideas, they usually serve their donors alone.
You seem to want to point out math to others, but have an issue understanding it yourself.
You’ve mentioned left and right, are those not the party lines? You can’t claim you’re not mentioning parties when you’ve only done it using different terms in every comment. You can’t have someone who is “centrist” in democracies with more than 2 candidates, it’s a uniquely US issue, especially with the smear campaigns instead of actual politics.
I mean you described them that way, and you’re using them to describe the two different parties. Claiming otherwise is asinine. If they aren’t parties, and they aren’t sides, then what are they?
Without parties or sides, you can have left, right, or center. I’m sorry you got called out on this and are now flinging shit and making yourself look like biased bigot.
Now can you answer my questions or are you just going to deflect because you can’t answer simple questions without decrying people who don’t align politically with you…?
You’ve mentioned left and right, are those not the party lines?
Nope, I am referring to positions, not parties, ie Socialism vs Capitalism, as an example.
You can’t claim you’re not mentioning parties when you’ve only done it using different terms in every comment.
I haven’t brought up parties a single time.
You can’t have someone who is “centrist” in democracies with more than 2 candidates, it’s a uniquely US issue, especially with the smear campaigns instead of actual politics.
You absolutely can. Centrist does not mean someone purely in between 2 and only 2 concepts.
Without parties or sides, you can have left, right, or center. I’m sorry you got called out on this and are now flinging shit and making yourself look like biased bigot.
What are you cooking here? Parties are not sides, parties are groups of people with a shared position. People don’t get their values and views from party lines.
Now can you answer my questions or are you just going to deflect because you can’t answer simple questions without decrying people who don’t align politically with you…?
Not a single one of your questions has made sense, like when you keep referring to parties.
You are comparing basic addition with extremely complex social economics. You can’t just do A and guarantee B will happen. But if B actually happens it can be good for one group of people and bad for another one. Often the best solution is some kind of compromise. That said there surely can be some obviously bad ideas.
The Right are denying scientific consensus on anything that doesn’t make them money or own the libs.
Forget the “social economics” which is also bunk, because the majority of Americans want lower healthcare costs, gun control, freedom of choice, better economic equality, and better education.
These are all things the right (and written down in Project 2025 btw).
If Mr. Beast knew anything, he’d claim to work with the popular majority, but he’s been trained by social media that controversy equals popularity. Basically it’s an algorithmic version of “no such thing as bad press”. So he won’t do the best thing for the world, he’ll do whatever he thinks will be a net gain in popularity. Which is why he said what he said, so he doesn’t lose and right wing viewers of his clickbate.
I seriously wish this were the case. As someone who genuinely finds policy and political theory fascinating I wish I could have actual good faith policy discussions with people who don’t mostly agree with me, but the unfortunate fact is the Republican party doesn’t have any clear policy other than “whatever is good for the party members individually” or more currently “whatever Trump wants this week” (seriously, what isn’t listed at all on the shiny new Republican Party Platform speaks volumes to how the party doesn’t have any coherent political ideology to even pay lip service to)
Looks like overanalysis to me. Not sure the massive metaphor was necessary to attack ‘them centrists’.
That being said - the notion that centrism is a compromise is only something I’ve seen from people who are not partaking in said centrism. Not that I give a shit or anything.
Why is it “overanalysis?” It’s a common problem, people who grow up privledged and don’t consider themselves to be very “political” tend to think politics is about listening to everyone and compromising. It isn’t limited to Mr. Beast.
As for the metaphor, it was, like, 2 sentences. I don’t think that’s “massive,” and it seemed to get the poijnt through.
As for Centrism, why is Centrism good? Why are Centrists Centrists?
Why are you calling people who want to do what’s good for the nation, centrists?
You’re smearing them since they are wanting to do something different than what you want, that doesn’t automatically make them bad.
This is the state of US politics… can’t even have someone poke their head in without being insulted since they aren’t fully in the left or right. Two party democracy doesn’t work, and you’re perpetuating and making it harder for your country to try and accept this needed change.
Don’t just insult and call people names who don’t agree with you politically, that just makes you an ass.
Why are you calling people who want to do what’s good for the nation, centrists?
People who want to do good for the nation are Leftists, not centrists.
You’re smearing them since they are wanting to do something different than what you want, that doesn’t automatically make them bad.
I’m smearing people who think politics is about taking midpoints from incompatible solutions.
This is the state of US politics… can’t even have someone poke their head in without being insulted since they aren’t fully in the left or right. Two party democracy doesn’t work, and you’re perpetuating and making it harder for your country to try and accept this needed change.
This is not a US issue.
Don’t just insult and call people names who don’t agree with you politically, that just makes you an ass.
When have I insulted anyone or called them names? Centrist nonsense is nonsense, correct, but I haven’t personally insulted anyone here, unlike you.
In a functioning political system both the “left” and “right” are competent and have good ideas.
Who said midpoints from incompatible solutions? Thats unique US issue as we’ve already discussed and pointed out, in other countries and political systems, that’s what you would want, since they are combing good ideas, not 2+2=6 as you’re claiming. Yes that’s apparently what happens in US political, not in healthy democracies.
Uh… yes it is, that’s why I would like for you to point to any other countries with these two party democracy issues.
You seriously can’t see how calling people “left”, “right”, or “centrist” is insulting them? Is that how ingrained and indoctrinated this stuff is in US politics?
It’s progressives and conservatives, the fact that you don’t even comprehend you’re refering to sides while using these insults and slurs to refer to political parties is quite frankly wild. You’re calling anyone who doesn’t agree with you politically names, I never mentioned in here dude lmfao, that makes you an ass. But yeah that shows your intent with this discussion, I’m gonna block you now instead.
In a functioning political system both the “left” and “right” are competent and have good ideas.
Why? The Left is correct regardless of where you are.
Who said midpoints from incompatible solutions? Thats unique US issue as we’ve already discussed and pointed out, in other countries and political systems, that’s what you would want, since they are combing good ideas, not 2+2=6 as you’re claiming. Yes that’s apparently what happens in US political, not in healthy democracies.
Logic. The left and right aren’t incoherent groups of random positions from people genetically labeled “left” or “right.” If leftists want prison reform, privitizing prisons gets in the way of that and can make it worse.
Uh… yes it is, that’s why I would like for you to point to any other countries with these two party democracy issues.
It doesn’t matter how many parties you have, centrism is still nonsense. This isn’t a two-party democracy issue. Having multiple leftist and multiple rightist parties doesn’t change that the midpoint is not inherently a good thing, and can make things worse by combining incompatible policies.
You seriously can’t see how calling people “left”, “right”, or “centrist” is insulting them? Is that how ingrained and indoctrinated this stuff is in US politics?
Nowhere are these considered insults inherently. Stop making this about the US. I’m a Communist, why would I be insulted by “left?”
It’s progressives and conservatives, the fact that you don’t even comprehend you’re refering to sides while using these insults and slurs to refer to political parties is quite frankly wild. You’re calling anyone who doesn’t agree with you politically names, I never mentioned in here dude lmfao, that makes you an ass. But yeah that shows your intent with this discussion, I’m gonna block you now instead.
They are smearing “centrists” and the “right” in every comment dude…
And no, they just have an axe to grind for anyone who doesn’t align politically with them.
In a functioning democracy a “centrist” would have the good ideas of both the progressives and conservatives. So there isn’t anything about denying probable facts, and the rant they’re going on about 2+2=6 is a strawman fallacy to derail the conversation. Since that’s the uniquely US issue…
You’re really proving their point here. You’re starting with the false assumption that both sides have good ideas, and the best solution must be somewhere in the middle. If one side’s platform is based entirely on lies, this is an idiotic position to take. It’s an ideology for privileged autofellatio enthusiasts who haven’t bothered to really figure out what’s going on, because it’s much easier to just pretend you’re the smart one, and everyone’s getting upset over nothing.
Yup. He had a community post saying he was too young to run but if he could run it wouldnt be about left or right, he’d sit down with both sides and work out a compromise. Previously i thought the minimum age should be lowered but after seeing something so naive i reconsidered.
Two badgers in my asshole says leadership is a quality we’ve lost. I just wanted to say two badgers in my asshole and don’t know where I was going with this.
I really wonder what would happen if, say, Taylor Swift or MrBeast actually ran for president.
Who could compete with that? You can say the parties would try to oust them, but look how that worked out for Trump, and he had far less name recognition back then.
He’s actually on the very short list of “republicans I actually kinda respect somewhat” - Adam kinzinger and Liz Cheney too, largely because they very clearly do not like fascists, even if I strongly disagree with a TON of their politics.
the advtage they have is that they wouldnt be able to be easily be influenced by money, because well, they have a lot already. it would probably be the main reason why neither poltical party would want them to run, because they wouldnt be able to be controlled as easily. a lot of powerful people would not want a populist to gain control.
More likely though, they would just pass the reigns after a day or a week or something. Being a President is exhausting, your daily schedule is constantly meeting and travelling nearly all the time. Even the presidents who would go golfing and the like were signing off on stuff and answering urgent phone calls.
The problem is that the very wealthy have either gained that through the exploitation of others or born into it. And neither create a healthy mindset as for how the general population should be treated.
We’re long overdue for a new reform party to run on few or single issue platforms, eg. to end FPTP and institute national ranked choice or star voting. They’d certainly be immune from corporate bribe money trying to drop these policies.
If they ran as independents to do just that, they’d have my vote. And it’s crazy enough it just might work.
media.tummy.town
Hot