Saw recent thing where that paying to cure blindness video, one only the surgeries involved never got paid 8 months later and only when they made a video about it and you had guys like Asmongold talking about it did they suddenly get paid and it turns out a third party was at fault.
The unfortunate thing about all this is it seemed like a good model for philanthropy, using the money gained by videos (and sponsors because of views) about helping people in a dramatic way to then make bigger videos helping more people.
Maybe it'd still work, but Jimmy ISN'T the guy to make it work, he's too compromised and incompetent that he's no different from the average NGO.
People getting attention and praise for altruism and deeds might not be morally that great, and downright selfish a lot of the time, but if it ends up with more people helped then the end result is a net good.
Problem being, the guys who do it that way often are not fully on the level about it and seem to be addicted to also never following through on that altruism beyond the surface level. Which ends with it having none of that balancing act.
Its like raising children. The attention and praise must be doled out to get many people to actually do something, but if you do it too easy or often then it ends with them only emulating the trappings of the good deed.
ends justifying the means is never correct morally.
If everyone followed the Bible "Don't do your good deeds among men where everyone can see, but do it where your right hand not knowing what your left hand is doing, knowing that your Father sees it" [highly paraphrasing multiple teachings], the world would be a much better place.
So much so that there'd be far less people suffering.
My grandpa did all sorts of things that nobody except my grandma knew about. Same with my dad. That's the Christian way.
The fact that we feel like pharissee like highly seen good deeds are needed because of how crappy things are is an indictment on how uncharitable the world is and how secular it's become.
I'd also argue it does harm because people see those videos and vicariously feel like a good person not helping them.
The proper way to highlight is to show how bad a certain country or village is and then show how you can help. Then others can participate.
Instead, one guy gets all the praise and he is glorified instead of God (I will not share my glory with another) Isaiah 42:8
and others get the dopamine hit of feeling like good people as they watch it so they themselves don't go out and help or give.
The problem should be highlighted publicly, but the helpers should remain basically workers who are doing it for God's glory and if they're seen or not seen, it doesn't impact them because that's not what they're doing it for and in that situation the Father is glorified because we can tell people who are doing something for genuine reasons of God's love vs someone who's doing something for themselves.
I'd also argue it does harm because people see those videos and vicariously feel like a good person not helping them.
That is a real problem that's hard to combat, but that's a problem bigger than this one dilemma. Its a major flaw in the human mind.
For example, half the people here who quote the Bible do nothing but repeat verses over and over to justify things they wanted to do. This makes them feel like a good person, so they don't go out and volunteer or give to charity or do any of the parts they don't want to do. Just acting holier than the sinful masses fulfills their need to feel like a good person and then they don't do anything further.
Not to put that label on you because I don't know your life, but its just as bad on this side of the "glory to God" aisle as it is over there.
others get the dopamine hit of feeling like good people as they watch it so they themselves don't go out and help or give
The balance here is that how much will their cumulative help equal to compared to the one? For a lot of guys like Mr. Beast if their charity was true, it would equal to more overall people helped than probably their entire audience combined both in terms of willingness to do (most of them wouldn't do shit regardless, let's be honest) and monetary accumulation (5$ to a dozen charities goes nowhere as far as 60$ to one).
To bring it all together, its a question of "do you want the most people helped?" Some argue utilitarian and that helping people is the number one goal. This isn't a case of justifying committing evil to justify a good end, its impure intentions creating one.
Probably only marginally more impure than someone who goes out and volunteers/helps just because it'll make him look better to God and feel good about what a good Christian they are. Because even if you never let anyone know you did it, that is the mindset and to pretend otherwise is to assign godly perfection to flawed humans.
Vanity has preceded virtue. Before social media, people actually had to do good to become recognised in their community. The same dopamine hit can now be achieved though receiving 'likes' on posts with little to no value.
Before social media, people actually had to do good to become recognised in their community.
Nah, every community had at least one person whose entire persona was being seen as the most moral and given the most attention but they were never doing it for anything but vanity.
HOAs existing is a testament to that fact, but every church in America has that one middle aged woman whose entire life is being a busybody and getting asspats for "doing the right thing" as she gives nothing of value beyond causing drama.
Social media has made it more widespread because its easier to do now, but its a common human failing and has been so for as long as we have been able to think.
It has. One of the best benefits of things like religion historically is helping contain the worst traits of humanity or at least help channel them into positive results, such as letting a narcissist get accolades for helping the power even if he only did it to get praised.
I dunno. Something about filming your good deeds. I get that it raises more revenue to perform more good deeds, but......l dunno. Something about it.
That argument has some validity, but this guy never struck me as filming it so he can do more good later. He and his fake-as-fuck smile always seemed to be exploiting people for his own self-aggrandizement.
They benefit from the exchange, sure, sometimes substantially. But it never felt like he cared about helping them. I always got the overwhelming feeling that he was purchasing their dignity, and in in the process turning them into unwitting prostitutes.
A redirect might be appropriate but I think much of the text might be skirting ethical issues so it should be deleted first so it doesn't appear in the history.
The only possibly appropriate content is already covered in the MrBeast article, though I'm not convinced that even that is justified.
already covered and the article history has too many BLP vios to justify preserving . Can be recreated as a redirect afterwards (ideally with EC protection to prevent this from being re-created again)
Amazing how that happened. I wonder if Ollie's and Dollar Tree are going to have to send back all the Mr Beast branded chocolate bars and drinks, since no one was buying them before.
I don't believe anyone meaningful was fired. He already did this shit before by moving people around while keeping them on payroll while knowing about the shit that was happening.
And that doesn't even get into the scams that his company as a whole engages in.
Saw recent thing where that paying to cure blindness video, one only the surgeries involved never got paid 8 months later and only when they made a video about it and you had guys like Asmongold talking about it did they suddenly get paid and it turns out a third party was at fault.
The unfortunate thing about all this is it seemed like a good model for philanthropy, using the money gained by videos (and sponsors because of views) about helping people in a dramatic way to then make bigger videos helping more people.
Maybe it'd still work, but Jimmy ISN'T the guy to make it work, he's too compromised and incompetent that he's no different from the average NGO.
Man with screenname of Mr. Beast turns out to be part of the hellmouth.
Film at 11.
Well he is a greedy narcissist after all. He only gives a shit about being famous and lining his own pockets.
I dunno. Something about filming your good deeds. I get that it raises more revenue to perform more good deeds, but......l dunno. Something about it.
Its a question of morality versus pragmatism.
People getting attention and praise for altruism and deeds might not be morally that great, and downright selfish a lot of the time, but if it ends up with more people helped then the end result is a net good.
Problem being, the guys who do it that way often are not fully on the level about it and seem to be addicted to also never following through on that altruism beyond the surface level. Which ends with it having none of that balancing act.
Its like raising children. The attention and praise must be doled out to get many people to actually do something, but if you do it too easy or often then it ends with them only emulating the trappings of the good deed.
ends justifying the means is never correct morally.
If everyone followed the Bible "Don't do your good deeds among men where everyone can see, but do it where your right hand not knowing what your left hand is doing, knowing that your Father sees it" [highly paraphrasing multiple teachings], the world would be a much better place.
So much so that there'd be far less people suffering.
My grandpa did all sorts of things that nobody except my grandma knew about. Same with my dad. That's the Christian way.
The fact that we feel like pharissee like highly seen good deeds are needed because of how crappy things are is an indictment on how uncharitable the world is and how secular it's become.
I'd also argue it does harm because people see those videos and vicariously feel like a good person not helping them.
The proper way to highlight is to show how bad a certain country or village is and then show how you can help. Then others can participate.
Instead, one guy gets all the praise and he is glorified instead of God (I will not share my glory with another) Isaiah 42:8
and others get the dopamine hit of feeling like good people as they watch it so they themselves don't go out and help or give.
The problem should be highlighted publicly, but the helpers should remain basically workers who are doing it for God's glory and if they're seen or not seen, it doesn't impact them because that's not what they're doing it for and in that situation the Father is glorified because we can tell people who are doing something for genuine reasons of God's love vs someone who's doing something for themselves.
That is a real problem that's hard to combat, but that's a problem bigger than this one dilemma. Its a major flaw in the human mind.
For example, half the people here who quote the Bible do nothing but repeat verses over and over to justify things they wanted to do. This makes them feel like a good person, so they don't go out and volunteer or give to charity or do any of the parts they don't want to do. Just acting holier than the sinful masses fulfills their need to feel like a good person and then they don't do anything further.
Not to put that label on you because I don't know your life, but its just as bad on this side of the "glory to God" aisle as it is over there.
The balance here is that how much will their cumulative help equal to compared to the one? For a lot of guys like Mr. Beast if their charity was true, it would equal to more overall people helped than probably their entire audience combined both in terms of willingness to do (most of them wouldn't do shit regardless, let's be honest) and monetary accumulation (5$ to a dozen charities goes nowhere as far as 60$ to one).
To bring it all together, its a question of "do you want the most people helped?" Some argue utilitarian and that helping people is the number one goal. This isn't a case of justifying committing evil to justify a good end, its impure intentions creating one.
Probably only marginally more impure than someone who goes out and volunteers/helps just because it'll make him look better to God and feel good about what a good Christian they are. Because even if you never let anyone know you did it, that is the mindset and to pretend otherwise is to assign godly perfection to flawed humans.
Vanity has preceded virtue. Before social media, people actually had to do good to become recognised in their community. The same dopamine hit can now be achieved though receiving 'likes' on posts with little to no value.
Nah, every community had at least one person whose entire persona was being seen as the most moral and given the most attention but they were never doing it for anything but vanity.
HOAs existing is a testament to that fact, but every church in America has that one middle aged woman whose entire life is being a busybody and getting asspats for "doing the right thing" as she gives nothing of value beyond causing drama.
Social media has made it more widespread because its easier to do now, but its a common human failing and has been so for as long as we have been able to think.
Yes, that's better put. Social media has become a gateway drug to those susceptible to narcissism :)
It has. One of the best benefits of things like religion historically is helping contain the worst traits of humanity or at least help channel them into positive results, such as letting a narcissist get accolades for helping the power even if he only did it to get praised.
Trappings of a good deed? Hey, I'd recognise that leftism anywhere.
Is it a popular phrase elsewhere? Because I wasn't referencing anything myself.
Public charity is vanity.
Maybe if he wore a deadpool mask and we didn't know his real identity.....
That argument has some validity, but this guy never struck me as filming it so he can do more good later. He and his fake-as-fuck smile always seemed to be exploiting people for his own self-aggrandizement.
They benefit from the exchange, sure, sometimes substantially. But it never felt like he cared about helping them. I always got the overwhelming feeling that he was purchasing their dignity, and in in the process turning them into unwitting prostitutes.
As a reminder of what the allegations were about: https://archive.ph/dr8aT#selection-1949.0-1949.11
Wikipedia just deleted the article, of course. Here are some of the arguments the weasels there made to justify the decision:
Amazing how that happened. I wonder if Ollie's and Dollar Tree are going to have to send back all the Mr Beast branded chocolate bars and drinks, since no one was buying them before.
Twitter's been having a giggle doing the Mold-Free Cheese Challenge with Mr. Beast's knockoff Lunchables.
I don't believe anyone meaningful was fired. He already did this shit before by moving people around while keeping them on payroll while knowing about the shit that was happening.
And that doesn't even get into the scams that his company as a whole engages in.
Supports and advocates for, and actively defends and champions, the "reset-the-clock" pronoun folk.
Is suspect in wrongdoings, both business and sexual.
Surprised Pikachu Face.