He is an evil individual who fails to address systemic issues or assist people for their own benefit.

As a game show host, he humiliates and exploits participants, boasting about his own virtues without any regard for the contestants.

Examples:

I believe legal intervention is necessary to limit his actions towards people and prevent him from exploiting them for personal gain.

Quick note: while I believe that results of some of his videos is good ( which he did to show how good of a person he is), that does not change the facts about his evil videos, the same way bezoz donations does not make him a good person.

  • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • stinerman [Ohio]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s not a virtue to “not profit off of things”.

      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.

      • Lmaydev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        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”

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

        Do you consider that an absolute or would other factors make that stated stance invalid to you?

      • papertowels@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        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?