Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
Honestly a lot of people complain about Mr Beast, saying that his charity/etc is done purely for attention and views.
But I figure there are a ton of high profile YouTubers who make a ton of money, and just spend it on themselves or doing elaborate set ups for videos. It seems weird that Mr Beast gets more criticized for doing some good than all the comparative YouTubers who are doing nothing good. It's like by trying to do anything good he's gotten himself judged by a much higher standard than everyone else.
I think that performative charity pisses people off more than people who don't pretend to be a philanthropist.
Meh, it's still money for charities.
That's what I say when people go crazy criticizing corpo charities. Sure it's corpo but to the people who received the aid help is help. I'm not saying to not criticize but chill out a smidge.
The problem with corporate charities is they don't allocate the majority of the funds to their stated cause. More often than not that money is funneled into a myriad of other organizations controlled by the corporation/groups of corporations. Large non profits aren't very transparent and there are a lot of tricks they can use to divert funds away from their stated cause.
There's also the whole "paternalism" thing for lack of a better word. They use what's left of the money for flashy, headline grabbing things that may not be beneficial or even wanted by the people they're supposed to be helping. They tell those that need help how they need to be helped instead of asking them what they need. Clothes donations to various African countries come to mind. It looks good in articles when we ship all of our worn out novelty T-shirts to a bunch of poor people. But in the areas they go, it puts local manufacturers out of business, and oftentimes a lot of the clothes get thrown out. So sure, those people have "clothes" but their local economy is worse off. Had you asked the people of these counties how they would liked to be helped, they'd probably ask for investment in the local textile industry over getting a boatload of our leftovers.
I mean, the concept of corporate charities is sort of fucked to begin with. It's a PR front for terrible companies. Nestle does charity work in Africa. A continent that they literally killed babies in back in the 70s. In counties that they are currently stealing their water from, leaving many of the citizens in said country without clean or safe drinking water. But they threw $50 at a farmer somewhere on the continent so help is help right? It's just frustrating that they can get away with this shit
In a world with Andrew Tate and Joe Rogan OP goes after the most popular YouTuber simply because he makes videos that sometimes only help poor people a little. Instead of actively corrupting our youth and making men more likely to commit violent acts.
Those other YouTubers don't make their fortunes convincing much poorer people to make fools of themselves for a miniscule sliver of what beast is making by monetizing it.
But he uses the monetization to reinvest into future charity.
Ah yes. He must be the first ever ethical multi-millionaire to make their money by giving it away. He keeps trying, but he just can't help being a millionaire, near billionaire. It's a curse!
And as he gets richer, he increases the amount of money he puts into his charity videos. Him having more money is pretty directly a good thing for those he helps. It's also a good thing for him, but that's not wrong.
Ok, bud.
"Hmm, I don't have a good response to this. Let's imply I simply have more intrinsic wisdom by assuming a false position of authority! That'll show him!" - You
You're the one defending a millionaire. What more do I need to say?
I don't know, something intelligent preferably. Make an actual point, don't just jump to insulting people when you run out of things to say.
Edit: I should practice what I preach. What makes millionaires bad? Their exploitation of other people to get to their position of wealth? Or just the act of having money? Surely it's the former, which makes being a millionaire itself not an immoral act; it would depend on your method of gaining money?
This is the inverse of what I call "the Donald Trump effect". If you're a horrible person, and do something morally neutral, people will be amazed at your good deed. But if you're a generally good person, everything you do is held to a significantly higher standard. I think people just aren't used to and/or don't like seeing people do good for some reason.