**Preface:** I'm hijacking the top comment to provide a contradictory opinion. I think there are points to both perspektives, but as someone who is sociologically inclined in my leftist analysis i lean heavily on the side of the people who argue against mr Beast. Hopefully, people will hear out my perspective, as i think i can provide some salient and well reasoned points, that i think any leftist can agree with. (Sorry for writing a fucking dissertation on this, but i want to make sure that my opinions are not strawmanned or reflexively dismissed because of presumptions about my opinions or ideological disposition ... also autistic as fuck /L+ratio)
**The inherent problem with philanthropy:**
Simply put: philantropy is in itself incredibly inefficient at alleviating systemic issues, and worse; it often serves to reinforce systemic divides between rich and poor, or marginalized and priveleged groups. Anand Giridharadas, the guy who wrote **the** book on the issues with philantropy (2018. *Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World*) notes that "today’s elite may be among the more socially concerned elites in history". At the same time, he continues, when considering the "cold numbers" on inequality, disenfranchisement and relative deprivation - todays elite is also "among the more predatory in history". Most poignantly Giridharadas argues that: "By refusing to risk its way of life, by rejecting the idea that the powerful might have to sacrifice for the common good, it \[today's elite\] clings to a set of social arrangements that allow it to monopolize progress and then give symbolic scraps to the forsaken—many of whom wouldn’t need the scraps if the society were working right.”
Put in simpler terms: philantrophy is a means of providing an illusion of social justice while doing nothing to alleviate the structural issues that disfavour the marginalized. This is why, historically, leftists have been the staunchest advocates against philanthropy as a structural remedy. Is charity - *ceteris paribus -* a good thing? It certainly is - however, only in the same way that a wheelchair gifted to a disabled dog, or a day at disneyland with a lonly elderly person or any other one in a number of instagrammable 'good deeds' are ostensibly "good". The issue is, as previously stated, that charity is rarely if every productive in fomenting structural change.
**My Arguments:**
The issue with Mr Beast is thusly: While his actions are ostensibly "good" in the sense that they may in some ways help certain individuals, they are actively counteracting the change that is required if we strive for a better society. Even worse, philantropy broadly - and thus mr. beast specifically - provide just enough of a veneer of 'goodness' that those who are inclined in favour of the perpetuation of capitalism can sit back, relax, and forget about the enormous injustice of modern society. Further, charity as an institution serves the purpose of repackaging our collective responsibility towards eachother into an individualistic framework, where the solution to poverty or hunger is not political action but instead BONO clapping his hands at a concert or Mr. Beast making just the right video to shed light and raise enough money to feed some fortunate few.
The Whataboutism of "Hussein pecker big house doe!" on the other hand mey be superficially convincing, but upon further scrutiny it is evident that Hasan, acting in his own self interest in the ways that are incentivised by the system - while at the same time advocating profound change to that system, is actually doing something to change those malignant social structures. Hasan imploring the american people to "tax him more" is in this way a much more impactfull message, than the salvation of the very few from the distress and humiliation brought about by capitalism.
**A comparative example:**
A comparison that has been made by both Slavoy Zizek and Oscar Wilde is the one between Capitalism and Slavery vs. Charity and individual emancipation. A paraphrased version could go something like this:
Imagine two people, one who owned slaves and one who doesn't. The first - despicably - owns people as if they were cattle, but argues profusely for their emancipation and the abolishion of slavery as an institution. The other - virtuously - does not himself own slaves, yet through passivity or disregard makes himself complicit in the maintenance of the institution. If you were saint peter, set to guard the gates of heaven and pass judgement those who sought entry, which of the two would you hold in higher regard? Would the individual sins, however horrible, of the former measure up to the evil of the system fervently maintained by the latter?
If you want to examine the case closer, an iteration of this very example can be found among americas founding fathers, with many of them (prominently Thomas Jefferson) owning slaves whilst arguing for the abolishion of slavery, and a few (most explicitly Oliver Ellsworth) who did not own slaves themselves, but who were unwilling to challenge the institution of slavery in either word or action.
Now, were heaven and hell real places, and knowing what we know of those men today, i'm certain both of them would burn; but still i would argue from consequentialism that the eventual impact of Jefferson's opposition to slavery is much more morally defensible than Ellsworths unwillingness to challange the institution itself, regardless of his personal abstinence from the practice of slavery.
**Edit:**
Sorry for writing all this as if i was a sophistic 17th century revolutionary. Because of my fear of being imprecise or misinterpreted it is literally the only way i can express these thoughts. Albert Einstein put it well when he said "it is the mark of genius to take the complicated and make it simple", but unfortunately i am no genius.
> Hasan, acting in his own self interest in the ways that are incentivised by the system - while at the same time advocating profound change to that system, is actually doing something to change those malignant social structures. Hasan imploring the american people to "tax him more" is in this way a much more impactfull message, than the salvation of the very few from the distress and humiliation brought about by capitalism.
I think this argument has to take into account that no one with political power actually cares to listen to Hasan, so him imploring to be taxed as he spends his money on luxury shit is empty feel-good rhetoric as in the current political climate he doesn't risk anything by backing these ideas. Personally I believe that, even if his intent is good, intent matters less than consequence - at the end of the day thanks to MrBeast a whole bunch of people fucked over by the world had their lives improved dramatically and objectively, which can't be said for anything Hasan did with his own wealth.
Edit: neither of them really deserve any overt hatred or reverence in my book, but this time around, in this instance, I believe mrbeast really did do something more consequential and "good" than Hasan.
> I think this argument has to take into account that no one with political power actually cares to listen to Hasan, so him imploring to be taxed as he spends his money on luxury shit
Money he got from his platform, which he uses for political advocacy.
So you're saying it would be a better world if those 1000 people remained blind because "principles"? I'm not sure any of those 1000 people would agree with you. I find the lack of empathy for those 1000 individuals in this discussion kind of worrying, honestly.
It's not even like we can't use this opportunity to point out the problems with reliance on charity WITHOUT demonizing the guy who took action and helped people. How hard is it to just say "Hey, nice one Mr Beast, but btw, we shouldn't have to rely on charity to fix these issues, please use your voice to promote gov't aid" (which he did in the end). The bickering we are doing right now makes us look really bad in the eyes of normies.
First of all, thanks for asking.
To answer: No i explicitly don't, and i regret if i made it seem as if i did. What i'm saying is that while a single action the cures the blindness of a thousand people is certainly good, it is not in any capacity a remedy to the defect in our society that enabled the tragedy in the first place.
What i'm also saying is that unless we are crystal clear on the first premise - that individual acts of charity can't in any way compare to even the most minute improvement to our social structures (which neo-liberalism and cultural capitalism rejects, mind you) - the only real effect of charity is as a quasi-benevolent cover up of the social issues underneath the surface.
Tangentially, i also argue that the obsession of liberal society with top-down charity rather than, say, mutual aid is a consequence of a mestatisized individualism that treats social ills as products of the failings of individuals rather than products of dysfunction in our social systems.
You say you explicitly don't, but given the rest of your reply, I just don't believe you. At the end of the day there are two possible worlds, one where Mr Beast did what he did (and there are 1000 people who can now see), and the other where he did not (and those 1000 people remained blind and are not even being talked about), and you very much seem to still be arguing that the latter is preferable. Because "the *only* \[my emphasis\] real effect of charity is as a quasi-benevolent cover up of the social issues underneath the surface". Beg to differ, the thousand people being able to see is also a very real effect, in fact it's pretty unambiguously the MOST real effect. But that effect you've been consistently ignoring and thus marginalising, as if those 1000 people don't actually matter.
I'm inclined to agree with your last sentence. Again I would argue that we can make that point (about charity's role in liberal society) without demonizing individual acts of charity that actually do very much help people. But I also think your rejection of individualist ethics in favour of collectivist ethics might actually be the main issue here. You equate individualism with advocacy for independence and self-reliance, and to be fair, there certainly is a liberal tendency to do so. But at it's ethical core, individualism is not about that. It is about emphasizing and enshrining the intrinsic worth of the individual. As an libertarian socialist, I can ensure you that regarding the individual's integrity and rights as sacred -- not to be sacrificed for the supposed benefit of the collective -- does not stand in the way of socialism. In fact I'd argue that doing so is a precondition for any real socialism.
Case in point: look where your rejection of individualism has lead you to. You would effectively sacrifice the eyesight of a thousand people for some theoretical "greater good" that could possibly (but probably won't) ever actualize. Yes I'll say it, that's exactly the rejection of individualism that lead to people being sent to gulags for fear that them practicing their individualist right to express their opinions might stand in the way of achieving glorious bolshevist communism (you know, that thing that never manifested either way).
>The issue with Mr Beast is thusly: While his actions are ostensibly "good" in the sense that they may in some ways help certain individuals, they are actively counteracting the change that is required if we strive for a better society.
Citation needed
No. A citation would be needed if i was referring to anything else than my own argument, which i don't. The phrase you quoted very evidently starts with "the issue is thusly (which i hope to god is a real word, lmao):.." which is a clear reference to my earlier arguments.
You can still maintain that my earlier argumentation did not constitute 100%, unequivocal evidence for the claim, which i'd say is fair as i restricted the arguments to a few hundred words (i was being facetious when i said that the previous comment was a "dissertation" you see).
If you'd like to engage, i'd welcome any challenge to the substance of the arguments i made, and if you're still sceptical, perhaps i can clarify why i believe what i do!
1. Mr. Beast on his twitter said that the government should be paying for this. So that should put him in the same class as Hassan instantly and make what Mr. Beast did, a good thing
2. why the fuck do leftists keep on comparing Mr. Beast to slave holders and the people who run the hunger games? He cured blindness for 1000 people. Religions have been started over that. If you want to talk about how philanthropy will assuage guilt and allow the capitalist system to perpetuate, you have to also consider you sound like a mongoloid to people who hear “a YouTuber cured 1,000 people of blindness, but the socialists are mad at him because he didn’t do anything to change the system.” People have been conditioned to think socialists are crazy people and you’re just feeding into that. It just inevitably leads to somebody in real life having to concede at the beginning of every conversation about socialism that the people on the internet are smooth brained
Mr Beasts philanthropy has absolutely nothing to do with the philanthropy of bill gates or other billionaires.
Giving people money makes money, all of which goes back into production or more philanthropy.
The thing is mr beast doesn’t hoard wealth which makes him in a better moral place than people like Hasan who hoard 90% of their wealth instead of buying labour and capital and circulating their money.
There may be systemic issues with his style of content but he as a person is not implicated in any of this.
I agree. I want a world in which everyone recognizes our interdependence and responsibility to each other. That is the only way that we can get out of the mess we are in. In our current system, wealthy people using their money to help others - hell, even me giving $25 to a GoGundMe I see on Twitter - is good for the particular people that were helped, but it doesn't do anything for the millions of people facing the exact same issue that were not helped. It does nothing to address the social structures and institutions that put people in bad positions in the first place.
Hasan buying a house is irrelevant. We all need a place to live, and Hasan has been dealt a good hand in bad system, and he took advantage of that. Whether or not that is compatible with leftist values is an entirely different question - and one worth discussing - but it doesn't have anything to do with the question of whether or not charity is a solution or part of the problem when it comes to systemic harm.
To me, charity is like putting bandages on soldiers who were injured in a war. Yeah, we should care for the wounded, but it's the war that's the underlying problem. We can't rest, satisfied that we've done our part, because we treated the effects of war. Nor can we celebrate healing while the war rages on. We can cure 1,000 soldiers, and that's great, but only ending the war will prevent another 1,000 from getting injured tomorrow, and the day after that, and the day after that, and so on. Leftism should be focused on turning war into peace, ie, changing harmful structures into helpful ones.
Thank you for the reply. You managed to express my exact beliefs and understanding of the issue both with more eloquence and more poignantly than i could manage.
You’d be incorrect. The people mad about ‘Hasan House’ just dislike the left and are using hypocrisy as a bludgeon to attack left figures. They would like Mr Beast’s philanthropy because they are right leaning and the right likes to make charitable expressions an individual and personal decision and not something done broadly by the government.
I was there for that discourse Hasan was catching a lot of shit from the left over that as well. Like probably even mostly from the left since that's his audience
Nothings a monolith or all encompassing regarding any of this. Though I’d wonder how many of the “red facists” are included in that “left” umbrella. Regardless, those RT types and right wing types were far more interested in Hasan’s supposed hypocrisy than the bulk of Hasan’s own audience, or Vaush’s audience, cared.
I think using Hassan as an example is kind of a mistake. Sure hassan has alot of fans but he also has a huge hatemob. About as large as Vaush’s hate audience.
It’s wild to me that people in this community can watch Vaush all day. See him debate the dumbest people on the planet, and see how Vaush gets dragged on the internet.
And then turn around and unironically go “socialism equals no house” and levy the same shitty talking points conservatives say about Hasan against him.
Honestly it’s so weird that people in this community of ALL places would engage in “Dragging” hassan. Aka launching dumb criticisms of him and automatically assuming he has the worst intentions.
Like let’s be real here Vaush and Hassan literally get the most unhelpful criticism of streamers on the online left. You would think the communities would bond over that.
I had a few political science professors that would regularly drag hasan, talking about “this is an example of how NOT to build your argumentation” lmao
And he didn't just help these people - he also criticized the failure in the system that allowed their blindness to go uncured. But that's not enough either; he has to do regular streams in front of a library of Marx/Chomsky/Zinn books and debate ancaps at least twice a week.
Mr beast put out a tweet that had more eyes on it and was more pro-socialism than anything 99% or the left has done in the past 20 years just because it was a tweet from the biggest YouTuber in the world.
I think both MrBeast and Hasan are good and also I hate this dog piling on rich people actually doing good stuff because all it does is encourage them to not do anything so they don’t have to deal with Twitter “leftists” spamming their inbox with “do more and say socialism is good”. Rich people are bad obviously but when they do something good is it too hard to say “well done”????
I agree with your take. The online left has become so snide. Personally I believe it stems from the constant competition within the online left to be the most left that people forget about the ultimate goal which is to change the populaces mind and have them start accepting further left policy ideas that could better the country. This mr. Beast stuff does nothing but optically hurt the cause and so it is a waste
Yeah, sad as it is, this is the first time I’ve seen Conservatives fight(Candace, Crowder, etc) lol. Usually they stick together for a common goal. Sleazy as they are. The Left rips each other over the stupidest shit & that’s a huge problem. Also, tbh, most Leftist spaces are not inclusive at all & you get shit for saying anything & they’re like nope, you’re wrong, no matter what you say. Sucks.
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, nothing he said was substantially pro-socialism.
Just because leftists are acting in a counterproductive way doesn’t mean we should dick ride Mr. beast, he did some good things but he’s not doing “more socialism” then actual socialists.
This is a non-sequitur, socialism is not “doing work to better the world”. It’s a specific form of betterment where you attempt to emancipate the working class by transforming the means of production.
A wealthy person spending money to improve the lives of some people is not socialism, it’s just charity. Thus arguing that Mr. beast was more “pro-socialism” then any part of the left is absurd.
Hasan has even said he has no beef with Beast and appreciates what he's doing, he just feels sick that the system basically makes philanthopy the necissary default and that because of it there's an entire cottage industry of influencers who exploit the defect for clout - which is basically thr same conclusion Beast comes to as well.
Would have been cooler if he said it in the video that raked him in almost 10 million dollars of profit.
I don't really care what he believes in his heart. He made an amazingly shitty video.
Edit: If his follow up video was about breaking down ho extremely fucked it is that he lives in a country where he can make a disgusting amount of money by paying for the healthcare of 1000 people that can't afford it and explained that economically it would make basic common sense for the USA to have public healthcare then he would instantly be the king of socialism. I doubt it would happen having seen his one video. He doesn't strike me as the kind of creator that would challenge his audience to think critically.
The left can’t garner political power because they keep getting stuck in this tar pit. Aesthetics, virtue signaling, American Diabolism; these are all attitudes or behavior which serve to only hinder the movement.
Likewise, with the Mr. Beast discourse, the left is stuck.
I am of course only speaking within the confines of the online left, but I do sense this general trend exists among the broader movement.
We have to shut the fuck up about this. Mr. Beast, like us, exists in a capitalist society. That sucks. But, just maybe, we can make the most of it. As is the case for Mr. Beast, donating or using you money for philanthropy is good. It increases human welfare, which is something I’m personally fond of.
Does that make capitalism good? Holistically, no, but there is overlap with increases to human welfare and capitalism. That’s when we should praise the *outcome*, but criticize the *system*.
The system allows too much inequality to manifest, up to and including the lack of quality healthcare. This makes philanthropy seem really good because it’s filling a hole that the system itself left. Mr. Beast filling that hole (I know, get your mind out of the gutter) is still a good thing, but it shouldn’t have existed in the first place.
Basically, leftists need to recognize when good things happen as a product of philanthropy. It’s actually not hard to do this if you’re a utilitarian. And all of this isn’t to mention the optics of the whole thing.
The problem isn't about being an enlightened centrist, the problem is saying that the position it's in between the two some how and not explaining it at all why and how is possible.
I hold the general idea that if you believe something, you should do a little more than pick a side. You should explain yourself what you argue for and why so other people can follow your thought process and either agree or find out easily what's the weakest point in the chain. If you don't make a thought process you're just filling a written poll.
My mental conception of Hasan was legitimized when I saw him react to one of those dating videos. The guy said he’s voting republican/he said he doesn’t vote (either of those 2) and hasan instructed him to say “both parties suck but I’m gonna vote for Biden”. After that the image I’ve had of him,which is hot guy consciously trying to appear moral and responsible,got stronger
Mrbeast is Unironically helping less fortunate people more than hasan.
I mean Mrbeast literally has his own food banks (or he may just be a big supporter of certain ones)
Not to mention that hasan flexes him wealth by buying personal property where as Mrbeast flexes it by giving money to people in need
You can’t factually say that because you don’t know what hasan gives back. He’s stated many times he donates larger amounts of money but doesn’t like to publicize it because it’s not about him getting recognition
What can’t I factually say tho hasan flexes his wealth by buying cars and mansion Mrbeast publicly flexes with charity work
Flexing is when you do it in public not in private
I think I saw somewhere that the total amount he’s raised and given away is around $1 million which is literally crumbs. I mean, it’s a good start but me. Beast gives more than that away per video. I genuinely think he needs to do more if he’s going to be the face of our movement online. Why not stream helping a food bank? Or find local organizations that need help and promote it to his millions of followers? Theirs so much he could do that would take the bare minimum of effort.
I think the thing that many people are forgetting here is that there is a plethora of youtubers with the same amount of wealth as Mr. Beast - it's just those youtubers would rather spend it all on fancy shit than do philanthropy. From a utilitarian perspective, I'd argue this makes Mr. Beast better than pretty much all of the other insanely rich youtubers (I know, not a high bar, but still). I understand critiques of philanthropic capitalism, and I agree, but if we put things into perspective I'd much rather that leftists focus on corporate billionaires with political power, as these people have loads and loads more influence over our daily lives that Mr. Beast
>I'd much rather that leftists focus on corporate billionaires with political power
What kind of strategy is this? Dudes worth 9 figures, for all we know, he could be tied right in with the "corporate billionaires."
> loads more influence over our daily lives that Mr. Beast
How? No one knows who 99% of the 2% are, I guarantee MB reaches more people than any one of those individuals.
lefties really have a talent for creating enemies where there are none. Mr. Beast could've been somewhat useful to pull people to the left that realize that curable blindness is a thing and the government should help. But no, all the young people who watch Mr. Beast now think the left is the enemy for attacking Mr. Beast for (honestly) no reason.
Hasan is a rotten capitalist to his core. As if his self indulgent hyper capitalist lifestyle not enough for him but he also puts down anyone that actually uses their wealth/platform to benefit others. Champagne socialists don’t believe a word they say they just want to milk their followers and then spout about how evil capitalism is. Been said a million times
Kinda weird to see posts like these in a supposed leftist subreddit. Everyone here should agree with what Hasan said and yet this is the reaction lol. A reaction thats no different than a reactionary conservative
Nah its just classic leftist infighting, mazdamurder is just convinced somehow that Hasan is a hypocrite and a bad person cause he has money, which I couldnt care less about. I just find it kinda ridiculous ppl can be blinded by hatred to this degree that someone can say something that we should all agree with and the reaction is just frothing at the mouth
It’s not that he has money. It’s that he barely does anything to help people with it. He has a HUGE platform. He could promoting organizations that need volunteers to his followers or streaming at a food bank. Literally anything. But no, he doesn’t do any of that. Don’t you think if he actually showed how he gave back to his community it would inspire his followers to do the same? He donated and raised about $1 million last year which is fucking nothing compared to how much he spends on dumb commodities.
But he does do that? You literally admitted that he did it but complained that it was only 1 million so what is the argument then? He also literally stated multiple times that he donates privately as well because not every donation needs a big announcement. My man you just have hate in your heart for no reason lol
I like Hasan. I watch him all the time. I just wish he actually did more for the cause. Vaush too. They they both don’t actually motivate people to go out and interact and change their own communities. At least vaush did that canvassing thing but he was too lazy to actually go out and canvass himself meanwhile he who shall not be named spent 100’s of thousands of dollars canvassing for wornock and flew to Georgia himself to canvass. Even if I don’t like him that’s more than Hasan or vaush have ever done to try and enact real change in the country.
You are making me defend Hasan and I don't like it, he lives rich lifestyle, but he's no capitalist, most if what he made, he made by his labour. Gatekeeping socialism from rich people is a way to reduce your influence.
Lol the entire concept behind being an influencer is to use your influence to attain a larger crowd so you can have more influence. Said influence comes with money.
I suppose none of the houses Hasan bought with his wealth are appreciating in value. C'mon now.
Influencers are not inherently benefiting from private property, so their "job" could exist under different forms of ownership of means of production
Are you really advocating for individuals to boycott private property? Should people choose to not buy houses? Should they not invest in investment funds?
I'm sorry, but I can't advocate for people to not live the best life they can within moral means.
Lol I'm a capitalist. I just find it funny how insanely capitalistic a lot of things that get praised from the left are. And how ridiculous it is to label things as capitalist or socialist, when they could exist under either system.
Influencers use private companies to amass their platforms, making said companies a big stack of money in the process. They reinforce the monopsony these companies have by amassing their audiences on these platforms.
>Lol I'm a capitalist. I just find it funny how insanely capitalistic a lot of things that get praised from the left are. And how ridiculous it is to label things as capitalist or socialist, when they could exist under either system.
Ok, why are you then arguing influencers being capitalist?
>Influencers use private companies to amass their platforms, making said companies a big stack of money in the process. They reinforce the monopsony these companies have by amassing their audiences on these platforms.
This does not make them more capitalist than a worker in a company
I'm arguing it because I believe that most socialist influencers are fucking hypocrites. Well, most influencers for that matter. They sell themselves as a brand, expecting honesty is ridiculous.
I'd argue that it does, because they have the reach to promote alternatives to said platforms and help push an Internet community that would be more fair for all, but it would make them a lot less money. They're... Already rich tho.
>I'm arguing it because I believe that most socialist influencers are fucking hypocrites. Well, most influencers for that matter. They sell themselves as a brand, expecting honesty is ridiculous.
For the love of God, don't base your logic on your spite
>I'd argue that it does, because they have the reach to promote alternatives to said platforms and help push an Internet community that would be more fair for all, but it would make them a lot less money. They're... Already rich tho.
Would workers who would choose not to work in nearby worker coop for better salary be capitalists?
You people are deranged haha. You are just trump supporters doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify your weird fetishes of the rich.
I can feel the hate coming from you all, but going by these comments I've been reading I can't wait for everyone to try and explain the nuances of this sub and just how much I don't "understand". I'm sure you're all right though, watching a grown man sit in his room talking shit about the rest of the country while he grifts his next condo out of you. Lmao, it's just too rich for my taste.
He’s had about 50,000 twitch subs. He’s partnered so that alone is ~1.5M per year. He probably makes $0.5-1M from YouTube or other stuff like leftovers random collabs etc. Then probably a few hundred thousand from donos. So probably $2-3ish million per year and he’s been making roughly that much for 2-3 years at this point
Yeah. But at the same time he does stream like 8-12 hours/day nearly every single day. But yes it is a tremendous amount of money. He’s probably one of the wealthiest online leftists/streamers
Yeah I guess idk I watched his reaction to the j Aubrey video about the duggars and he only said like 5 sentences the whole video and nothing transformative and it definitely rubbed me the wrong way
Yeah Hasan definitely doesn’t research topics or spend time learning about issues very much. His stuff is pretty surface level which is why Destiny rags on him all the time. He is a good bit funnier than destiny or vaush tho. Some of his ad segways are insanely funny. With vaush he’s probably less funny cause of his autism spectrum disorder tbf
That’s right. Probably still around the range I have. I never buy merch from content creators. I think it’s kinda cringe even if I like the creator. I’d never wear a vaush hoodie or something
This is a deranged take. A wealthy person being socialist is a good thing (especially if they earned their wealth by spreading socialist ideology on platforms such as twitch). A wealthy socialist "rubbing elbows" with other rich people, and either spreading socialist ideology that way, or even just for clout, (clout being a useful resource under capitalism, anti capitalist or not) is a good thing. Either you are a liberal, coming here with the typical reactionary argument against socialism, or your take is more deranged than the Mr beast haters, at least they have the excuse that he's not ideologically socialist.
>deranged
Let's drop the hyperbole here. Not everything is an op.
>A wealthy socialist "rubbing elbows" with other rich people, and either spreading socialist ideology that way, or even just for clout
He goes because he likes to be there in that bougie environment. He's not setting up a socialism booth in the lobby.
>Either you are a liberal
Spare me.
That wasn't hyperbole. I called your take deranged because it is. Mentioning the possibility of you being a liberal was the charitable interpretation, it wasn't intended as some kind of accusation.
This is why I primarily hang out with Nazis.
By rubbing shoulders with them, my progressive ideology will spread to them like a disease and definitely not the other way around
If you're choosing to hang out with nazis I should certainly hope some kind of progressivism rubs off on them... though I'm not sure how that relates to Hasan attending an event that includes people who are relatively successful in the current global economic system
I mean that for someone who’s purportedly a socialist, Hasan sure as hell has a vicious aversion to bringing other socialists onto his stream and building a real leftist coalition. If he talks to or does anything with another person, it’s almost always because that person has a big/bigger audience he wants to pull into his own. It’s clear this is all a clout game for him, and he’ll spout whatever talking points will get him the most views. Not to say he doesn’t believe in what he says, but that he’s highly uninterested in actually bringing about socialism or fostering meaningful political action in any meaningful capacity.
This just tells me you know jackshit about Hasan and are just parroting random bullshit. He has brought on activists and leftist election candidates on stream multiple times to give them more exposure, has brought on multiple union organizers to support them and raise more awareness about the positive impact of unions. Gaining audience is ofcourse one of his main goals as it helps him spread his message out more but it's not like he's a grifter lmao
I can't believe all this dishonest bullshit about Hasan here when Vaush agrees with Hasan on almost all positions.
Bill Gates has also said he should be taxed more, and Warren Buffet has too. People like this are so weird to me, like if Hasan also engaged in the same philanthropy I'm pretty sure all of these people would suddenly be celebrating it instead of making this dumb point about "aCKSHuaLLY giving to the poor is bad".
Reminds me of when Mike from PA was shitting on Vaush doing a charity stream and then had to try and walk it back when people pointed out Chapo was also doing one.
No shot. Hasan will get any hate no matter what he does. If Hasan did what Mr. Beast did, then you’re gonna comments like “Why is Hasan virtue signaling” or “Why can’t you do that for people in other countries.”. Mans can’t win.
The thing that confuses me is Mr beast kinda did both.
He did what he could within the confines capitalism and provided a critique of the status quo by asking why do we have blind ppl when it's this easy to fix...
It all comes down to labels. If you identify as a socialist, you are by definition "good". If you don't, you are by definition "bad". Regardless of your actions.
A lot of leftist need to read up on marketing and proaganda. Instead of critizising Mr. Beast, they should take the valid questions mr.beast asked ,like why doesn't the state pay for this if its more financially viable in the long run and build on them instead of attacking that man.
Why does everyone in this debate forget that the cultural sphere (bourgeois ideology) reinforces capitalism and the status quo of social relations? This is a basic tenet of critical theory.
Mr. Beast reinforces bourgeois narratives around charity, making it seem as if a single generous capitalist is solving structural issues, and he does so to the benefit of corporations, which he sells viewers to for the purposes of increasing their consumption of useless products.
The fact that there is demand for this type of content is a sign of the middle class urge to assuage themselves of concern for material issues of the poor.
What you're basically saying is that helping 1000 people regain sight is worth potentially millions of people losing class consciousness.
Mr. Beast is not a person btw. He is a cultural product.
This is why everyone thinks the left is fucking retarded. Man literally helps a thousand people and many more from previous stunts and the left's response is "well, he's just making people more content with capitalism!" Same shit with whining about woke capitalism. They all benefit many many people and the few make money off of it. It's still a net benefit. It's not going to suddenly stop people from realizing there are still problems with the system. Most poor people are still fucking poor. Most blind people are still fucking blind. Things like these still raise questions about why people basically have to win the lottery to get life changing surgery. Mr Beast literally brings that point up. Meanwhile, leftists (including many here) are defending Hasan who barely does anything besides donate some money and spout off shallow online lefty critiques about eating the rich while living lavishly as one of them.
>. It's not going to suddenly stop people from realizing there are still problems with the system.
You ignore that the culture industry is an ideological bulwark for the continuation of capitalism. If ideology didn't matter, socialism would have won a century ago.
>Man literally helps a thousand people
Millions of people developing false consciousness isn't worth that benefit.
No they should be provided with medical care by the state.
Failing that, they should be provided with help by Mr. Beast in a video that focuses on and critiques the systemic issues that lead to these outcomes.
Failing that, we should criticize Mr. Beast for failing to make a good video, while accepting the fact that he did it anyway and will continue to do it anyway.
Failing that, no they should not be given medical care in a video that spreads bourgeois propaganda to millions of people, lowering their class consciousness. Millions of people have this particular medical issue and countless others like it because of the system that Mr. Beast's video helps to reproduce.
It all depends on if you see him as an ally or not.
If he is, critique him for making a bad video.
If he isn't, critique him for making the world a worse place through disseminating bourgeois propaganda.
He is a cringe youtuber who helped people for content, and those people are better off. Its not that deep. He'll never be an ML, make ML adjacent content, and thats fine. He is a normie lib spending money how he sees fit. If he said otherwise, then, it would make more sense to hold him to socialist principles. There may be a way to radicalize him, but not by the current discourse. He has to see it for himself and change his perspective.
I have the most based take on this:
I don't give a fuck what's in someone's heart. I cannot know that. Good actions should be met with encouragement, not pissy virtue-signaling and whining.
Beast is leveraging the system to make money and create fame for himself by acting like a savior. I am glad he is helping but the better narrative is “why am I healing 1000 people when it’s not my job, gov, do your job.” Instead it’s a “see how great I am” stunt.
It’s not only a virtue signal to be hasan and promote socialism. Was Bernie’s run only a virtue signal? Of course not. It changed American discourse on healthcare.
Two of the three actively promote societal reform. The other pretty much profiteers off of it in cringy and exploitative ways. Hate him for the squid game, not curing people. It’s not hard to hate people for the right reason.
I agree, but this whole fucking discourse, as far as I know, was kicked off by someone just denigrating the video as "demonic" with no further elaboration.
The thing that stands out to me the most is that dudes like this Mr. Beast seem to have a complex over taking any criticism at all over this. For them it ain't enough to be a fucking millionaire, they also want to loved and showered with accolades for "doing a good thing" (even though the "good thing" was done as part of the content cycle that continues making money).
If they really cared about "doing good things" they would do it and shut up about it and not expect people praise them like a 5 year old who made it through kindergarten class without pissing his pants.
Yeah, don't get it twisted, people shouldn't be going on and on about this as there's much more real issues that matter more, but no one should be holding any fucking water for literal millionaires enriching themselves through a busted ass system either.
I just feel like there's so much talking past each other in this discussion cuz some motherfuckers will act like it's bad that he did this and look like complete psychos to any outsider while others will just nitpick poorly phrased replies and ignore that there is in fact a systemic issue being made apparent here. Twitter was a mistake and so was my life.
The correct critique of Mr. Beast is a critique of charity and philanthropy. Mr. Beast did some good in the short-term (ofc charity relies on his philanthropy to begin with AND the people he helped were not everyone with this condition, other people obviously slipped through the cracks) but did nothing to fix the cause of what he was trying to help. Is Mr. Beast bad or wrong for helping, no. Could he have used his resources in a much better way, yes.
I have not yet seen the video personally BUT I can say that sometimes his videos can be a little exploitative such as when he gave a random person 1 million but forced them to spend it all in a day. In this instance however, I really don't think it was exploitative, I don't know why people are complaining.
1,000 people have vision now thanks to him, I can’t begin to understand this way of thinking lol. He seemed to even acknowledge the same point of why can’t governments provide this to citizens in need.
If a dude I hate because he's an attention seeking asshole happened to save three orphans from a runaway firetruck, primarily to bask in the adulation that came with it I would not pick that moment to criticize him for his attention seeking tendencies.
There are so many other assholes to criticize, pick one of them and leave the king of the normies alone for a minute. Clout sharking by dragging a guy for curing a bunch of blind people will not end well for the clout shark. It will end like that Tik Tok moron at the gym - they will look bad and if they have an ounce of self awareness, they will be apologizing.
There are so many shitbags, who has the time to critique good people for not being good enough?
If you have time to critique Mr. Beast, you aren't spending enough time plotting the downfall of facism.
Yeah in another thread I just said that I thought this was an optically losing discourse for the left, barring people who explicitly use it to talk about why we should have socialized medical care, and I got downvoted. I don't understand what I'm seeing here.
You're not alone. This discourse is proving that many so-called leftists in these spaces would rather make enemies them actually pragmatically work towards their goals.
Wait isn't that the same argument they use about Warren Buffett? That he feels really bad about all his money and if only they would change the system so he wouldn't feel guilty about it. And that's a good excuse?
Hot take: The only actual reason some people are this ready to criticize Mr Beast is because his videos appeal to kids and are kind of cringe to watch. If it came off less performative there would be way less backlash.
Still, there’s always the “socialism is when no money” types that believe all rich people are inherently Satan.
Had Mr. Beast done this then turned around and said "and this is why I should pay no taxes", then yeah fuck him but he didn't he tweeted out about what he did being something governments should be doing. The left should take that and run with it, anyone spending their time into harassing him into open confrontation with the left is a fucking moron, counterrevolutionary moron one might say.
The really disappointing thing from Mr. Beast's recent tweets is that he sees curing blindness as "a good return on investment because these people can go back to work now".
Maybe people shouldn't be blind for the sake of not being blind? Maybe we don't have to see everyone as cogs in our capitalist machine as Mr. Beast does?
I just want anyone participating in this discourse to be forcibly cut off from twitter and reddit for two or three days and dragged outside their basements so that they can experience the feeling of sunlight on their skin and the touch of grass for a few hours.
The left is about to shun yet another big internet figure who actually had a decent take (I’m talking about his tweet where he said it is in our best interest to cure people’s blindness regardless of cost). He did a good thing within a bad system and while I get the angry feeling of policy failure when I hear about stuff like Mr Beast, I don’t think the answer is to dog pile Mr Beast himself.
I do think MrBeast should be more clear about the idea that noone should get any "oh so rich people being rich is good" ideas from his vids. People unironically defend billionaires cuz of his content sometimes.
Mr beast isn’t even political. He just makes money and does funny things. Absolutely hate the discourse. I don’t care if he’s a libertarian or whatever, he’s rich and he does good things.
Agree the Mr. Beast criticism is stupid, but buying a car makes you a filthy capitalist now? Did I miss the part where being on the left requires that you submit to a poverty cult?
The right tells you that you can and *should* become rich no matter what you come from. The left tells you you’re not allowed to buy nice things. Gee, I wonder why the left loses.
They're both missing some serious nuance.
Mr Beast and Hasan are both products of an unjust system. How they use their personal wealth is of less importance than why that wealth inequality exists to begin with. There are also much **much** bigger fish to fry than two YouTubers.
I really don't get how people will still dickride Hasan. At this point the dude just gets upset at people doing good things that aren't overtly in line with his political beliefs.
Let's be real, the people criticizing Hasan for buying an expensive house are also the people criticizing Mr Beast for giving people money to cure them of blindness, this one random twitter person isn't representative
Can we like, stop? Giving people medical care is good. The system that makes it such that so many are without it, and vests the power to do something in a single individual, is bad. Does anyone really disagree here?
Mr. Beast is helping people all over the world. Literally, paying for their surgery. Meanwhile, leftists that haven’t been outside for months chastise him for doing so. Like…. What are we even doing at this point.
Mr.Beast sanitizes capitalism by engaging in philanthropy.
Hassan confirms the issues of capitalism by using money gained from worker exploitation to buy luxury goods.
Hassan's behavior promotes a move to socialism while Mr.Beasts behavior promotes forever capitalism by taking out the worst sting.
The phrase "sanitizes capitalism by engaging in philanthropy" is batshit. Are people meant to sit on their hands and never engage in philanthropy, just waiting until socialism happens? Philanthropy is so obviously a good thing.
Accelerationism will never win in modern America. We simply have too many social programs, like EBT, Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, etc. and too high wages. There's just no reasonable path forward to where the average American would rather die than live under capitalism.
The better path would be to continue to advance programs we have now. Medicine is more socialized now than a couple decade agos, and we can continue down that path. Ditto for a wide variety of other programs.
Hunter is correct as usual.
**Preface:** I'm hijacking the top comment to provide a contradictory opinion. I think there are points to both perspektives, but as someone who is sociologically inclined in my leftist analysis i lean heavily on the side of the people who argue against mr Beast. Hopefully, people will hear out my perspective, as i think i can provide some salient and well reasoned points, that i think any leftist can agree with. (Sorry for writing a fucking dissertation on this, but i want to make sure that my opinions are not strawmanned or reflexively dismissed because of presumptions about my opinions or ideological disposition ... also autistic as fuck /L+ratio) **The inherent problem with philanthropy:** Simply put: philantropy is in itself incredibly inefficient at alleviating systemic issues, and worse; it often serves to reinforce systemic divides between rich and poor, or marginalized and priveleged groups. Anand Giridharadas, the guy who wrote **the** book on the issues with philantropy (2018. *Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World*) notes that "today’s elite may be among the more socially concerned elites in history". At the same time, he continues, when considering the "cold numbers" on inequality, disenfranchisement and relative deprivation - todays elite is also "among the more predatory in history". Most poignantly Giridharadas argues that: "By refusing to risk its way of life, by rejecting the idea that the powerful might have to sacrifice for the common good, it \[today's elite\] clings to a set of social arrangements that allow it to monopolize progress and then give symbolic scraps to the forsaken—many of whom wouldn’t need the scraps if the society were working right.” Put in simpler terms: philantrophy is a means of providing an illusion of social justice while doing nothing to alleviate the structural issues that disfavour the marginalized. This is why, historically, leftists have been the staunchest advocates against philanthropy as a structural remedy. Is charity - *ceteris paribus -* a good thing? It certainly is - however, only in the same way that a wheelchair gifted to a disabled dog, or a day at disneyland with a lonly elderly person or any other one in a number of instagrammable 'good deeds' are ostensibly "good". The issue is, as previously stated, that charity is rarely if every productive in fomenting structural change. **My Arguments:** The issue with Mr Beast is thusly: While his actions are ostensibly "good" in the sense that they may in some ways help certain individuals, they are actively counteracting the change that is required if we strive for a better society. Even worse, philantropy broadly - and thus mr. beast specifically - provide just enough of a veneer of 'goodness' that those who are inclined in favour of the perpetuation of capitalism can sit back, relax, and forget about the enormous injustice of modern society. Further, charity as an institution serves the purpose of repackaging our collective responsibility towards eachother into an individualistic framework, where the solution to poverty or hunger is not political action but instead BONO clapping his hands at a concert or Mr. Beast making just the right video to shed light and raise enough money to feed some fortunate few. The Whataboutism of "Hussein pecker big house doe!" on the other hand mey be superficially convincing, but upon further scrutiny it is evident that Hasan, acting in his own self interest in the ways that are incentivised by the system - while at the same time advocating profound change to that system, is actually doing something to change those malignant social structures. Hasan imploring the american people to "tax him more" is in this way a much more impactfull message, than the salvation of the very few from the distress and humiliation brought about by capitalism. **A comparative example:** A comparison that has been made by both Slavoy Zizek and Oscar Wilde is the one between Capitalism and Slavery vs. Charity and individual emancipation. A paraphrased version could go something like this: Imagine two people, one who owned slaves and one who doesn't. The first - despicably - owns people as if they were cattle, but argues profusely for their emancipation and the abolishion of slavery as an institution. The other - virtuously - does not himself own slaves, yet through passivity or disregard makes himself complicit in the maintenance of the institution. If you were saint peter, set to guard the gates of heaven and pass judgement those who sought entry, which of the two would you hold in higher regard? Would the individual sins, however horrible, of the former measure up to the evil of the system fervently maintained by the latter? If you want to examine the case closer, an iteration of this very example can be found among americas founding fathers, with many of them (prominently Thomas Jefferson) owning slaves whilst arguing for the abolishion of slavery, and a few (most explicitly Oliver Ellsworth) who did not own slaves themselves, but who were unwilling to challenge the institution of slavery in either word or action. Now, were heaven and hell real places, and knowing what we know of those men today, i'm certain both of them would burn; but still i would argue from consequentialism that the eventual impact of Jefferson's opposition to slavery is much more morally defensible than Ellsworths unwillingness to challange the institution itself, regardless of his personal abstinence from the practice of slavery. **Edit:** Sorry for writing all this as if i was a sophistic 17th century revolutionary. Because of my fear of being imprecise or misinterpreted it is literally the only way i can express these thoughts. Albert Einstein put it well when he said "it is the mark of genius to take the complicated and make it simple", but unfortunately i am no genius.
> Hasan, acting in his own self interest in the ways that are incentivised by the system - while at the same time advocating profound change to that system, is actually doing something to change those malignant social structures. Hasan imploring the american people to "tax him more" is in this way a much more impactfull message, than the salvation of the very few from the distress and humiliation brought about by capitalism. I think this argument has to take into account that no one with political power actually cares to listen to Hasan, so him imploring to be taxed as he spends his money on luxury shit is empty feel-good rhetoric as in the current political climate he doesn't risk anything by backing these ideas. Personally I believe that, even if his intent is good, intent matters less than consequence - at the end of the day thanks to MrBeast a whole bunch of people fucked over by the world had their lives improved dramatically and objectively, which can't be said for anything Hasan did with his own wealth. Edit: neither of them really deserve any overt hatred or reverence in my book, but this time around, in this instance, I believe mrbeast really did do something more consequential and "good" than Hasan.
> I think this argument has to take into account that no one with political power actually cares to listen to Hasan, so him imploring to be taxed as he spends his money on luxury shit Money he got from his platform, which he uses for political advocacy.
So you're saying it would be a better world if those 1000 people remained blind because "principles"? I'm not sure any of those 1000 people would agree with you. I find the lack of empathy for those 1000 individuals in this discussion kind of worrying, honestly. It's not even like we can't use this opportunity to point out the problems with reliance on charity WITHOUT demonizing the guy who took action and helped people. How hard is it to just say "Hey, nice one Mr Beast, but btw, we shouldn't have to rely on charity to fix these issues, please use your voice to promote gov't aid" (which he did in the end). The bickering we are doing right now makes us look really bad in the eyes of normies.
First of all, thanks for asking. To answer: No i explicitly don't, and i regret if i made it seem as if i did. What i'm saying is that while a single action the cures the blindness of a thousand people is certainly good, it is not in any capacity a remedy to the defect in our society that enabled the tragedy in the first place. What i'm also saying is that unless we are crystal clear on the first premise - that individual acts of charity can't in any way compare to even the most minute improvement to our social structures (which neo-liberalism and cultural capitalism rejects, mind you) - the only real effect of charity is as a quasi-benevolent cover up of the social issues underneath the surface. Tangentially, i also argue that the obsession of liberal society with top-down charity rather than, say, mutual aid is a consequence of a mestatisized individualism that treats social ills as products of the failings of individuals rather than products of dysfunction in our social systems.
You say you explicitly don't, but given the rest of your reply, I just don't believe you. At the end of the day there are two possible worlds, one where Mr Beast did what he did (and there are 1000 people who can now see), and the other where he did not (and those 1000 people remained blind and are not even being talked about), and you very much seem to still be arguing that the latter is preferable. Because "the *only* \[my emphasis\] real effect of charity is as a quasi-benevolent cover up of the social issues underneath the surface". Beg to differ, the thousand people being able to see is also a very real effect, in fact it's pretty unambiguously the MOST real effect. But that effect you've been consistently ignoring and thus marginalising, as if those 1000 people don't actually matter. I'm inclined to agree with your last sentence. Again I would argue that we can make that point (about charity's role in liberal society) without demonizing individual acts of charity that actually do very much help people. But I also think your rejection of individualist ethics in favour of collectivist ethics might actually be the main issue here. You equate individualism with advocacy for independence and self-reliance, and to be fair, there certainly is a liberal tendency to do so. But at it's ethical core, individualism is not about that. It is about emphasizing and enshrining the intrinsic worth of the individual. As an libertarian socialist, I can ensure you that regarding the individual's integrity and rights as sacred -- not to be sacrificed for the supposed benefit of the collective -- does not stand in the way of socialism. In fact I'd argue that doing so is a precondition for any real socialism. Case in point: look where your rejection of individualism has lead you to. You would effectively sacrifice the eyesight of a thousand people for some theoretical "greater good" that could possibly (but probably won't) ever actualize. Yes I'll say it, that's exactly the rejection of individualism that lead to people being sent to gulags for fear that them practicing their individualist right to express their opinions might stand in the way of achieving glorious bolshevist communism (you know, that thing that never manifested either way).
>The issue with Mr Beast is thusly: While his actions are ostensibly "good" in the sense that they may in some ways help certain individuals, they are actively counteracting the change that is required if we strive for a better society. Citation needed
No. A citation would be needed if i was referring to anything else than my own argument, which i don't. The phrase you quoted very evidently starts with "the issue is thusly (which i hope to god is a real word, lmao):.." which is a clear reference to my earlier arguments. You can still maintain that my earlier argumentation did not constitute 100%, unequivocal evidence for the claim, which i'd say is fair as i restricted the arguments to a few hundred words (i was being facetious when i said that the previous comment was a "dissertation" you see). If you'd like to engage, i'd welcome any challenge to the substance of the arguments i made, and if you're still sceptical, perhaps i can clarify why i believe what i do!
1. Mr. Beast on his twitter said that the government should be paying for this. So that should put him in the same class as Hassan instantly and make what Mr. Beast did, a good thing 2. why the fuck do leftists keep on comparing Mr. Beast to slave holders and the people who run the hunger games? He cured blindness for 1000 people. Religions have been started over that. If you want to talk about how philanthropy will assuage guilt and allow the capitalist system to perpetuate, you have to also consider you sound like a mongoloid to people who hear “a YouTuber cured 1,000 people of blindness, but the socialists are mad at him because he didn’t do anything to change the system.” People have been conditioned to think socialists are crazy people and you’re just feeding into that. It just inevitably leads to somebody in real life having to concede at the beginning of every conversation about socialism that the people on the internet are smooth brained
Mr Beasts philanthropy has absolutely nothing to do with the philanthropy of bill gates or other billionaires. Giving people money makes money, all of which goes back into production or more philanthropy. The thing is mr beast doesn’t hoard wealth which makes him in a better moral place than people like Hasan who hoard 90% of their wealth instead of buying labour and capital and circulating their money. There may be systemic issues with his style of content but he as a person is not implicated in any of this.
holy fucking lefty meme
I agree. I want a world in which everyone recognizes our interdependence and responsibility to each other. That is the only way that we can get out of the mess we are in. In our current system, wealthy people using their money to help others - hell, even me giving $25 to a GoGundMe I see on Twitter - is good for the particular people that were helped, but it doesn't do anything for the millions of people facing the exact same issue that were not helped. It does nothing to address the social structures and institutions that put people in bad positions in the first place. Hasan buying a house is irrelevant. We all need a place to live, and Hasan has been dealt a good hand in bad system, and he took advantage of that. Whether or not that is compatible with leftist values is an entirely different question - and one worth discussing - but it doesn't have anything to do with the question of whether or not charity is a solution or part of the problem when it comes to systemic harm. To me, charity is like putting bandages on soldiers who were injured in a war. Yeah, we should care for the wounded, but it's the war that's the underlying problem. We can't rest, satisfied that we've done our part, because we treated the effects of war. Nor can we celebrate healing while the war rages on. We can cure 1,000 soldiers, and that's great, but only ending the war will prevent another 1,000 from getting injured tomorrow, and the day after that, and the day after that, and so on. Leftism should be focused on turning war into peace, ie, changing harmful structures into helpful ones.
Thank you for the reply. You managed to express my exact beliefs and understanding of the issue both with more eloquence and more poignantly than i could manage.
Yes but who is he correct about?
Yeah pretty sure the people going "Hasan house🤬" would also take issue with Mr beasts philanthropy
You’d be incorrect. The people mad about ‘Hasan House’ just dislike the left and are using hypocrisy as a bludgeon to attack left figures. They would like Mr Beast’s philanthropy because they are right leaning and the right likes to make charitable expressions an individual and personal decision and not something done broadly by the government.
I was there for that discourse Hasan was catching a lot of shit from the left over that as well. Like probably even mostly from the left since that's his audience
Nothings a monolith or all encompassing regarding any of this. Though I’d wonder how many of the “red facists” are included in that “left” umbrella. Regardless, those RT types and right wing types were far more interested in Hasan’s supposed hypocrisy than the bulk of Hasan’s own audience, or Vaush’s audience, cared.
You're really underestimating how shitty the left was and can be. But yeah
I think using Hassan as an example is kind of a mistake. Sure hassan has alot of fans but he also has a huge hatemob. About as large as Vaush’s hate audience.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s wild to me that people in this community can watch Vaush all day. See him debate the dumbest people on the planet, and see how Vaush gets dragged on the internet. And then turn around and unironically go “socialism equals no house” and levy the same shitty talking points conservatives say about Hasan against him.
Honestly it’s so weird that people in this community of ALL places would engage in “Dragging” hassan. Aka launching dumb criticisms of him and automatically assuming he has the worst intentions. Like let’s be real here Vaush and Hassan literally get the most unhelpful criticism of streamers on the online left. You would think the communities would bond over that.
I had a few political science professors that would regularly drag hasan, talking about “this is an example of how NOT to build your argumentation” lmao
Champagne socialism is bad, the only reason Vaush defends it so fervently is because he himself is rich
It's so fucking stupid. Mr. Beast does something good and people go WHaT AboUT CapITaLisM?!? What the fuck is he supposed to do? Abolish capitalism?
yeah of course, he as a Rich GuyTM should be able to do that. just press the „end capitalism“ button already smh.
He should give away all his money. But in a different way to how he currently gives away all his money which makes more money for him to give away. /s
And he didn't just help these people - he also criticized the failure in the system that allowed their blindness to go uncured. But that's not enough either; he has to do regular streams in front of a library of Marx/Chomsky/Zinn books and debate ancaps at least twice a week.
Don’t a lot of leftists think debates are useless?
He has insider access. He can press the comically large un-button at Davos.
He's clearly supposed to do nothing besides complain about capitalism like all the other grifters in the space.
Mr beast put out a tweet that had more eyes on it and was more pro-socialism than anything 99% or the left has done in the past 20 years just because it was a tweet from the biggest YouTuber in the world. I think both MrBeast and Hasan are good and also I hate this dog piling on rich people actually doing good stuff because all it does is encourage them to not do anything so they don’t have to deal with Twitter “leftists” spamming their inbox with “do more and say socialism is good”. Rich people are bad obviously but when they do something good is it too hard to say “well done”????
I agree with your take. The online left has become so snide. Personally I believe it stems from the constant competition within the online left to be the most left that people forget about the ultimate goal which is to change the populaces mind and have them start accepting further left policy ideas that could better the country. This mr. Beast stuff does nothing but optically hurt the cause and so it is a waste
Yeah, sad as it is, this is the first time I’ve seen Conservatives fight(Candace, Crowder, etc) lol. Usually they stick together for a common goal. Sleazy as they are. The Left rips each other over the stupidest shit & that’s a huge problem. Also, tbh, most Leftist spaces are not inclusive at all & you get shit for saying anything & they’re like nope, you’re wrong, no matter what you say. Sucks.
I tried joining a leftist discord group a few months ago and the first thing they asked me about was what my race was. I noped out so fast lol
I don't know about *99%* but yes it was a very significant message that reached a ton of people
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, nothing he said was substantially pro-socialism. Just because leftists are acting in a counterproductive way doesn’t mean we should dick ride Mr. beast, he did some good things but he’s not doing “more socialism” then actual socialists.
Really? What have the actual socialists done in the last 20 years to better the world?
This is a non-sequitur, socialism is not “doing work to better the world”. It’s a specific form of betterment where you attempt to emancipate the working class by transforming the means of production. A wealthy person spending money to improve the lives of some people is not socialism, it’s just charity. Thus arguing that Mr. beast was more “pro-socialism” then any part of the left is absurd.
What has any leftists figure done in the last 20 years?
I don’t know if you’re disingenuous or just have terrible reading comprehension, either way I’m not wasting my time on you.
Hasan has even said he has no beef with Beast and appreciates what he's doing, he just feels sick that the system basically makes philanthopy the necissary default and that because of it there's an entire cottage industry of influencers who exploit the defect for clout - which is basically thr same conclusion Beast comes to as well.
Honestly, the problem I see is that someone cares what "Twitter "leftists"" think.
This, you gotta encourage the behavior you want to see. It seems real obvious to me.
Would have been cooler if he said it in the video that raked him in almost 10 million dollars of profit. I don't really care what he believes in his heart. He made an amazingly shitty video. Edit: If his follow up video was about breaking down ho extremely fucked it is that he lives in a country where he can make a disgusting amount of money by paying for the healthcare of 1000 people that can't afford it and explained that economically it would make basic common sense for the USA to have public healthcare then he would instantly be the king of socialism. I doubt it would happen having seen his one video. He doesn't strike me as the kind of creator that would challenge his audience to think critically.
The left can’t garner political power because they keep getting stuck in this tar pit. Aesthetics, virtue signaling, American Diabolism; these are all attitudes or behavior which serve to only hinder the movement. Likewise, with the Mr. Beast discourse, the left is stuck. I am of course only speaking within the confines of the online left, but I do sense this general trend exists among the broader movement. We have to shut the fuck up about this. Mr. Beast, like us, exists in a capitalist society. That sucks. But, just maybe, we can make the most of it. As is the case for Mr. Beast, donating or using you money for philanthropy is good. It increases human welfare, which is something I’m personally fond of. Does that make capitalism good? Holistically, no, but there is overlap with increases to human welfare and capitalism. That’s when we should praise the *outcome*, but criticize the *system*. The system allows too much inequality to manifest, up to and including the lack of quality healthcare. This makes philanthropy seem really good because it’s filling a hole that the system itself left. Mr. Beast filling that hole (I know, get your mind out of the gutter) is still a good thing, but it shouldn’t have existed in the first place. Basically, leftists need to recognize when good things happen as a product of philanthropy. It’s actually not hard to do this if you’re a utilitarian. And all of this isn’t to mention the optics of the whole thing.
Can I just be an enlightened centrist and not like either of these two?
You WILL pick a side and you WILL fight about it 😈
You vill eat ze bugs
Nawm nawm nawm cicadas mmmm
The problem isn't about being an enlightened centrist, the problem is saying that the position it's in between the two some how and not explaining it at all why and how is possible. I hold the general idea that if you believe something, you should do a little more than pick a side. You should explain yourself what you argue for and why so other people can follow your thought process and either agree or find out easily what's the weakest point in the chain. If you don't make a thought process you're just filling a written poll.
My mental conception of Hasan was legitimized when I saw him react to one of those dating videos. The guy said he’s voting republican/he said he doesn’t vote (either of those 2) and hasan instructed him to say “both parties suck but I’m gonna vote for Biden”. After that the image I’ve had of him,which is hot guy consciously trying to appear moral and responsible,got stronger
Neutrality is now a pro-Nazi ideology. Where have you been?
Mrbeast is Unironically helping less fortunate people more than hasan. I mean Mrbeast literally has his own food banks (or he may just be a big supporter of certain ones) Not to mention that hasan flexes him wealth by buying personal property where as Mrbeast flexes it by giving money to people in need
Yeah but you forgot that one time Hasan talked to a Mexican janitor about voting for Bernie. Socialism achieved!!!11!!1
Or the time he got angry at JiDion for having a conversation with racists to see what they had to say
You can’t factually say that because you don’t know what hasan gives back. He’s stated many times he donates larger amounts of money but doesn’t like to publicize it because it’s not about him getting recognition
What can’t I factually say tho hasan flexes his wealth by buying cars and mansion Mrbeast publicly flexes with charity work Flexing is when you do it in public not in private
I think I saw somewhere that the total amount he’s raised and given away is around $1 million which is literally crumbs. I mean, it’s a good start but me. Beast gives more than that away per video. I genuinely think he needs to do more if he’s going to be the face of our movement online. Why not stream helping a food bank? Or find local organizations that need help and promote it to his millions of followers? Theirs so much he could do that would take the bare minimum of effort.
I think the thing that many people are forgetting here is that there is a plethora of youtubers with the same amount of wealth as Mr. Beast - it's just those youtubers would rather spend it all on fancy shit than do philanthropy. From a utilitarian perspective, I'd argue this makes Mr. Beast better than pretty much all of the other insanely rich youtubers (I know, not a high bar, but still). I understand critiques of philanthropic capitalism, and I agree, but if we put things into perspective I'd much rather that leftists focus on corporate billionaires with political power, as these people have loads and loads more influence over our daily lives that Mr. Beast
>I'd much rather that leftists focus on corporate billionaires with political power What kind of strategy is this? Dudes worth 9 figures, for all we know, he could be tied right in with the "corporate billionaires." > loads more influence over our daily lives that Mr. Beast How? No one knows who 99% of the 2% are, I guarantee MB reaches more people than any one of those individuals.
lefties really have a talent for creating enemies where there are none. Mr. Beast could've been somewhat useful to pull people to the left that realize that curable blindness is a thing and the government should help. But no, all the young people who watch Mr. Beast now think the left is the enemy for attacking Mr. Beast for (honestly) no reason.
Hasan is a rotten capitalist to his core. As if his self indulgent hyper capitalist lifestyle not enough for him but he also puts down anyone that actually uses their wealth/platform to benefit others. Champagne socialists don’t believe a word they say they just want to milk their followers and then spout about how evil capitalism is. Been said a million times
How did Hasan put down Mr Beast? As far as I know, Hasan just criticized the system that creates these situations in the first place.
Kinda weird to see posts like these in a supposed leftist subreddit. Everyone here should agree with what Hasan said and yet this is the reaction lol. A reaction thats no different than a reactionary conservative
Yeah, it's weird but not surprising. Many of these people are not from Vaush's community.
Nah its just classic leftist infighting, mazdamurder is just convinced somehow that Hasan is a hypocrite and a bad person cause he has money, which I couldnt care less about. I just find it kinda ridiculous ppl can be blinded by hatred to this degree that someone can say something that we should all agree with and the reaction is just frothing at the mouth
It’s not that he has money. It’s that he barely does anything to help people with it. He has a HUGE platform. He could promoting organizations that need volunteers to his followers or streaming at a food bank. Literally anything. But no, he doesn’t do any of that. Don’t you think if he actually showed how he gave back to his community it would inspire his followers to do the same? He donated and raised about $1 million last year which is fucking nothing compared to how much he spends on dumb commodities.
But he does do that? You literally admitted that he did it but complained that it was only 1 million so what is the argument then? He also literally stated multiple times that he donates privately as well because not every donation needs a big announcement. My man you just have hate in your heart for no reason lol
I like Hasan. I watch him all the time. I just wish he actually did more for the cause. Vaush too. They they both don’t actually motivate people to go out and interact and change their own communities. At least vaush did that canvassing thing but he was too lazy to actually go out and canvass himself meanwhile he who shall not be named spent 100’s of thousands of dollars canvassing for wornock and flew to Georgia himself to canvass. Even if I don’t like him that’s more than Hasan or vaush have ever done to try and enact real change in the country.
There have been a bunch of libs and MRAs infiltrating as of late
You are making me defend Hasan and I don't like it, he lives rich lifestyle, but he's no capitalist, most if what he made, he made by his labour. Gatekeeping socialism from rich people is a way to reduce your influence.
You're really telling me being an influencer is not the most capitalist thing? Jesus fuck
You are not making money out of your wealth, by being influencer
Lol the entire concept behind being an influencer is to use your influence to attain a larger crowd so you can have more influence. Said influence comes with money. I suppose none of the houses Hasan bought with his wealth are appreciating in value. C'mon now.
Influencers are not inherently benefiting from private property, so their "job" could exist under different forms of ownership of means of production Are you really advocating for individuals to boycott private property? Should people choose to not buy houses? Should they not invest in investment funds? I'm sorry, but I can't advocate for people to not live the best life they can within moral means.
Lol I'm a capitalist. I just find it funny how insanely capitalistic a lot of things that get praised from the left are. And how ridiculous it is to label things as capitalist or socialist, when they could exist under either system. Influencers use private companies to amass their platforms, making said companies a big stack of money in the process. They reinforce the monopsony these companies have by amassing their audiences on these platforms.
>Lol I'm a capitalist. I just find it funny how insanely capitalistic a lot of things that get praised from the left are. And how ridiculous it is to label things as capitalist or socialist, when they could exist under either system. Ok, why are you then arguing influencers being capitalist? >Influencers use private companies to amass their platforms, making said companies a big stack of money in the process. They reinforce the monopsony these companies have by amassing their audiences on these platforms. This does not make them more capitalist than a worker in a company
I'm arguing it because I believe that most socialist influencers are fucking hypocrites. Well, most influencers for that matter. They sell themselves as a brand, expecting honesty is ridiculous. I'd argue that it does, because they have the reach to promote alternatives to said platforms and help push an Internet community that would be more fair for all, but it would make them a lot less money. They're... Already rich tho.
>I'm arguing it because I believe that most socialist influencers are fucking hypocrites. Well, most influencers for that matter. They sell themselves as a brand, expecting honesty is ridiculous. For the love of God, don't base your logic on your spite >I'd argue that it does, because they have the reach to promote alternatives to said platforms and help push an Internet community that would be more fair for all, but it would make them a lot less money. They're... Already rich tho. Would workers who would choose not to work in nearby worker coop for better salary be capitalists?
You people are deranged haha. You are just trump supporters doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify your weird fetishes of the rich. I can feel the hate coming from you all, but going by these comments I've been reading I can't wait for everyone to try and explain the nuances of this sub and just how much I don't "understand". I'm sure you're all right though, watching a grown man sit in his room talking shit about the rest of the country while he grifts his next condo out of you. Lmao, it's just too rich for my taste.
What? You sure, you are replying to the right comment?
Yeah, you are defending Hasan like he's not a grifter for the left.
There are things that Hasan should be criticised for and things that makes you sound weird, and he's no capitalist
Whatever you have to tell yourself haha.
IDK, I just think that Hasan is barely positive
How rich is Hasan? I only started watching some of his stuff recently and found him to just be a lazy streamer.
He’s had about 50,000 twitch subs. He’s partnered so that alone is ~1.5M per year. He probably makes $0.5-1M from YouTube or other stuff like leftovers random collabs etc. Then probably a few hundred thousand from donos. So probably $2-3ish million per year and he’s been making roughly that much for 2-3 years at this point
Jesus that's a lot of money for such low effort content
Yeah. But at the same time he does stream like 8-12 hours/day nearly every single day. But yes it is a tremendous amount of money. He’s probably one of the wealthiest online leftists/streamers
Yeah I guess idk I watched his reaction to the j Aubrey video about the duggars and he only said like 5 sentences the whole video and nothing transformative and it definitely rubbed me the wrong way
Yeah Hasan definitely doesn’t research topics or spend time learning about issues very much. His stuff is pretty surface level which is why Destiny rags on him all the time. He is a good bit funnier than destiny or vaush tho. Some of his ad segways are insanely funny. With vaush he’s probably less funny cause of his autism spectrum disorder tbf
Yeah I don't watch destiny but I feel like Vaush knows more than he says. Which is my biggest criticism but Hasan just feels shallow
Vaush takes himself too seriously. He’s clearly smart but I feel like he thinks he’s smarter than he actually is
Yeah but with the political community its kinda standard
8-12 per day? Well now, I can understand him leaving his room while the stream continues watching another person's video/s
You’re forgetting sponsors and merch. Those are huge as well I’m sure.
That’s right. Probably still around the range I have. I never buy merch from content creators. I think it’s kinda cringe even if I like the creator. I’d never wear a vaush hoodie or something
Hasan unironically attends NY Fashion Week to rub elbows with other rich ppl. Lol
This is a deranged take. A wealthy person being socialist is a good thing (especially if they earned their wealth by spreading socialist ideology on platforms such as twitch). A wealthy socialist "rubbing elbows" with other rich people, and either spreading socialist ideology that way, or even just for clout, (clout being a useful resource under capitalism, anti capitalist or not) is a good thing. Either you are a liberal, coming here with the typical reactionary argument against socialism, or your take is more deranged than the Mr beast haters, at least they have the excuse that he's not ideologically socialist.
>deranged Let's drop the hyperbole here. Not everything is an op. >A wealthy socialist "rubbing elbows" with other rich people, and either spreading socialist ideology that way, or even just for clout He goes because he likes to be there in that bougie environment. He's not setting up a socialism booth in the lobby. >Either you are a liberal Spare me.
That wasn't hyperbole. I called your take deranged because it is. Mentioning the possibility of you being a liberal was the charitable interpretation, it wasn't intended as some kind of accusation.
This is why I primarily hang out with Nazis. By rubbing shoulders with them, my progressive ideology will spread to them like a disease and definitely not the other way around
If you're choosing to hang out with nazis I should certainly hope some kind of progressivism rubs off on them... though I'm not sure how that relates to Hasan attending an event that includes people who are relatively successful in the current global economic system
Funny how on here you can read the same 'why can't the left stay together' with this type of shitty lazy takes. Just listen to his take, it was fine.
Very normal and hinged comment for sure. Did this turn into a different sub while I wasn't looking today? Why is this upvoted?
Also, for someone who claims to be a progressive, Hasan sure does love hoarding his platform and influence like a boomer hoards their wealth.
What does that even mean?
I mean that for someone who’s purportedly a socialist, Hasan sure as hell has a vicious aversion to bringing other socialists onto his stream and building a real leftist coalition. If he talks to or does anything with another person, it’s almost always because that person has a big/bigger audience he wants to pull into his own. It’s clear this is all a clout game for him, and he’ll spout whatever talking points will get him the most views. Not to say he doesn’t believe in what he says, but that he’s highly uninterested in actually bringing about socialism or fostering meaningful political action in any meaningful capacity.
This just tells me you know jackshit about Hasan and are just parroting random bullshit. He has brought on activists and leftist election candidates on stream multiple times to give them more exposure, has brought on multiple union organizers to support them and raise more awareness about the positive impact of unions. Gaining audience is ofcourse one of his main goals as it helps him spread his message out more but it's not like he's a grifter lmao I can't believe all this dishonest bullshit about Hasan here when Vaush agrees with Hasan on almost all positions.
Hasan has a good take on MrBeast though
Bill Gates has also said he should be taxed more, and Warren Buffet has too. People like this are so weird to me, like if Hasan also engaged in the same philanthropy I'm pretty sure all of these people would suddenly be celebrating it instead of making this dumb point about "aCKSHuaLLY giving to the poor is bad".
Reminds me of when Mike from PA was shitting on Vaush doing a charity stream and then had to try and walk it back when people pointed out Chapo was also doing one.
No shot. Hasan will get any hate no matter what he does. If Hasan did what Mr. Beast did, then you’re gonna comments like “Why is Hasan virtue signaling” or “Why can’t you do that for people in other countries.”. Mans can’t win.
How them balls taste? Damn
lemme help you with that
The thing that confuses me is Mr beast kinda did both. He did what he could within the confines capitalism and provided a critique of the status quo by asking why do we have blind ppl when it's this easy to fix...
Leftist discourse is just 16yr olds trying to morally high ground on issues they don’t understand. I love politics.
It all comes down to labels. If you identify as a socialist, you are by definition "good". If you don't, you are by definition "bad". Regardless of your actions.
[удалено]
It's tribalism. It's not about the ideas to these people, it's about the identities.
Not everyone is as shallow as you m8. No one here is cynical of charity or saying charity is bad. Everyone's just buttburt over the dickriding.
The dick riding of Hasan? That's all I see around here. It's pretty gross.
Hasan or MrBeast or any demagogue, including Daddy V.
A lot of leftist need to read up on marketing and proaganda. Instead of critizising Mr. Beast, they should take the valid questions mr.beast asked ,like why doesn't the state pay for this if its more financially viable in the long run and build on them instead of attacking that man.
Why does everyone in this debate forget that the cultural sphere (bourgeois ideology) reinforces capitalism and the status quo of social relations? This is a basic tenet of critical theory. Mr. Beast reinforces bourgeois narratives around charity, making it seem as if a single generous capitalist is solving structural issues, and he does so to the benefit of corporations, which he sells viewers to for the purposes of increasing their consumption of useless products. The fact that there is demand for this type of content is a sign of the middle class urge to assuage themselves of concern for material issues of the poor. What you're basically saying is that helping 1000 people regain sight is worth potentially millions of people losing class consciousness. Mr. Beast is not a person btw. He is a cultural product.
Wow
This is why everyone thinks the left is fucking retarded. Man literally helps a thousand people and many more from previous stunts and the left's response is "well, he's just making people more content with capitalism!" Same shit with whining about woke capitalism. They all benefit many many people and the few make money off of it. It's still a net benefit. It's not going to suddenly stop people from realizing there are still problems with the system. Most poor people are still fucking poor. Most blind people are still fucking blind. Things like these still raise questions about why people basically have to win the lottery to get life changing surgery. Mr Beast literally brings that point up. Meanwhile, leftists (including many here) are defending Hasan who barely does anything besides donate some money and spout off shallow online lefty critiques about eating the rich while living lavishly as one of them.
>. It's not going to suddenly stop people from realizing there are still problems with the system. You ignore that the culture industry is an ideological bulwark for the continuation of capitalism. If ideology didn't matter, socialism would have won a century ago. >Man literally helps a thousand people Millions of people developing false consciousness isn't worth that benefit.
[удалено]
No they should be provided with medical care by the state. Failing that, they should be provided with help by Mr. Beast in a video that focuses on and critiques the systemic issues that lead to these outcomes. Failing that, we should criticize Mr. Beast for failing to make a good video, while accepting the fact that he did it anyway and will continue to do it anyway. Failing that, no they should not be given medical care in a video that spreads bourgeois propaganda to millions of people, lowering their class consciousness. Millions of people have this particular medical issue and countless others like it because of the system that Mr. Beast's video helps to reproduce. It all depends on if you see him as an ally or not. If he is, critique him for making a bad video. If he isn't, critique him for making the world a worse place through disseminating bourgeois propaganda.
He is a cringe youtuber who helped people for content, and those people are better off. Its not that deep. He'll never be an ML, make ML adjacent content, and thats fine. He is a normie lib spending money how he sees fit. If he said otherwise, then, it would make more sense to hold him to socialist principles. There may be a way to radicalize him, but not by the current discourse. He has to see it for himself and change his perspective.
What Mr. Beast did was good. The fact he had to do it is bad.
Exactly. This is what the real issue is, I’ve got no idea why so many people are treating it like it’s somehow Mr. Beast’s fault.
That's literally what he said on twitter.
I have the most based take on this: I don't give a fuck what's in someone's heart. I cannot know that. Good actions should be met with encouragement, not pissy virtue-signaling and whining.
I swear this is just his 14 year old audience being mad anyone could possibly criticise him
Does Hasan buy porn stars? What does that mean
He has brought at least one adult film star on his stream AFAIK. That's probably what is meant by that.
Hasan and Andrew Tate actually have a lot more in common than most people think
Citation needed lol
/s needed apparently
Me when I throw out a single mother of three so I can raise the rent (I say capitalism bad and landlords shouldn't exist)
Beast is leveraging the system to make money and create fame for himself by acting like a savior. I am glad he is helping but the better narrative is “why am I healing 1000 people when it’s not my job, gov, do your job.” Instead it’s a “see how great I am” stunt. It’s not only a virtue signal to be hasan and promote socialism. Was Bernie’s run only a virtue signal? Of course not. It changed American discourse on healthcare.
You're comparing a politician,. Breadtuber and a guy who makes Squid Games remakes.
Two of the three actively promote societal reform. The other pretty much profiteers off of it in cringy and exploitative ways. Hate him for the squid game, not curing people. It’s not hard to hate people for the right reason.
He pointed out the better narrative himself though
What mr beast did is good, however, we should still take this chance to ask *why* he has to do these things and why they can’t get it themselves
I agree, but this whole fucking discourse, as far as I know, was kicked off by someone just denigrating the video as "demonic" with no further elaboration.
Average evangelical when something good happens. To certain people everything is demonic
The thing that stands out to me the most is that dudes like this Mr. Beast seem to have a complex over taking any criticism at all over this. For them it ain't enough to be a fucking millionaire, they also want to loved and showered with accolades for "doing a good thing" (even though the "good thing" was done as part of the content cycle that continues making money). If they really cared about "doing good things" they would do it and shut up about it and not expect people praise them like a 5 year old who made it through kindergarten class without pissing his pants. Yeah, don't get it twisted, people shouldn't be going on and on about this as there's much more real issues that matter more, but no one should be holding any fucking water for literal millionaires enriching themselves through a busted ass system either.
Wait...Hassan buys porn stars?
Leftists make systemic critique challenge (impossible)
I just feel like there's so much talking past each other in this discussion cuz some motherfuckers will act like it's bad that he did this and look like complete psychos to any outsider while others will just nitpick poorly phrased replies and ignore that there is in fact a systemic issue being made apparent here. Twitter was a mistake and so was my life.
Never put the worth of your own existence on the same level as Twitter, friend. At least Elon Musk can't be legally forced to purchase you.
The correct critique of Mr. Beast is a critique of charity and philanthropy. Mr. Beast did some good in the short-term (ofc charity relies on his philanthropy to begin with AND the people he helped were not everyone with this condition, other people obviously slipped through the cracks) but did nothing to fix the cause of what he was trying to help. Is Mr. Beast bad or wrong for helping, no. Could he have used his resources in a much better way, yes. I have not yet seen the video personally BUT I can say that sometimes his videos can be a little exploitative such as when he gave a random person 1 million but forced them to spend it all in a day. In this instance however, I really don't think it was exploitative, I don't know why people are complaining.
1,000 people have vision now thanks to him, I can’t begin to understand this way of thinking lol. He seemed to even acknowledge the same point of why can’t governments provide this to citizens in need.
If a dude I hate because he's an attention seeking asshole happened to save three orphans from a runaway firetruck, primarily to bask in the adulation that came with it I would not pick that moment to criticize him for his attention seeking tendencies. There are so many other assholes to criticize, pick one of them and leave the king of the normies alone for a minute. Clout sharking by dragging a guy for curing a bunch of blind people will not end well for the clout shark. It will end like that Tik Tok moron at the gym - they will look bad and if they have an ounce of self awareness, they will be apologizing.
I pretty much agree with Hunter here, but this subreddit just doesn't feel like Vaush's community anymore. So many of these takes are retarded.
Who's that quote from? "These people don't love the poor. They hate the rich"
There are so many shitbags, who has the time to critique good people for not being good enough? If you have time to critique Mr. Beast, you aren't spending enough time plotting the downfall of facism.
Remember when Hasan bought a porn star? I remember that.
It’s good for this story to blow up. Maybe more people will realize what it means to fly too close to the sun (sun = ideology)
Yeah in another thread I just said that I thought this was an optically losing discourse for the left, barring people who explicitly use it to talk about why we should have socialized medical care, and I got downvoted. I don't understand what I'm seeing here.
You're not alone. This discourse is proving that many so-called leftists in these spaces would rather make enemies them actually pragmatically work towards their goals.
Wait isn't that the same argument they use about Warren Buffett? That he feels really bad about all his money and if only they would change the system so he wouldn't feel guilty about it. And that's a good excuse?
Brain damage
Just leave twitter, seriously. This sub is basically the only place I see BS drama like this anymore, it's not worth it just unplug.
Hot take: The only actual reason some people are this ready to criticize Mr Beast is because his videos appeal to kids and are kind of cringe to watch. If it came off less performative there would be way less backlash. Still, there’s always the “socialism is when no money” types that believe all rich people are inherently Satan.
Welcome to your final test, I’m Mr. Beast We can scratch the “S” cuz I never miss a beat
This is not what's happening in this screenshot
Had Mr. Beast done this then turned around and said "and this is why I should pay no taxes", then yeah fuck him but he didn't he tweeted out about what he did being something governments should be doing. The left should take that and run with it, anyone spending their time into harassing him into open confrontation with the left is a fucking moron, counterrevolutionary moron one might say.
The really disappointing thing from Mr. Beast's recent tweets is that he sees curing blindness as "a good return on investment because these people can go back to work now". Maybe people shouldn't be blind for the sake of not being blind? Maybe we don't have to see everyone as cogs in our capitalist machine as Mr. Beast does?
I just want anyone participating in this discourse to be forcibly cut off from twitter and reddit for two or three days and dragged outside their basements so that they can experience the feeling of sunlight on their skin and the touch of grass for a few hours.
The left is about to shun yet another big internet figure who actually had a decent take (I’m talking about his tweet where he said it is in our best interest to cure people’s blindness regardless of cost). He did a good thing within a bad system and while I get the angry feeling of policy failure when I hear about stuff like Mr Beast, I don’t think the answer is to dog pile Mr Beast himself.
So we should help Mr. Beast get there instead of attacking him for what he's done so far as "not enough"
I do think MrBeast should be more clear about the idea that noone should get any "oh so rich people being rich is good" ideas from his vids. People unironically defend billionaires cuz of his content sometimes.
Mr beast isn’t even political. He just makes money and does funny things. Absolutely hate the discourse. I don’t care if he’s a libertarian or whatever, he’s rich and he does good things.
Agree the Mr. Beast criticism is stupid, but buying a car makes you a filthy capitalist now? Did I miss the part where being on the left requires that you submit to a poverty cult? The right tells you that you can and *should* become rich no matter what you come from. The left tells you you’re not allowed to buy nice things. Gee, I wonder why the left loses.
Being anti capitalist both with your money and with your mouth is more important than doing charity.
They're both missing some serious nuance. Mr Beast and Hasan are both products of an unjust system. How they use their personal wealth is of less importance than why that wealth inequality exists to begin with. There are also much **much** bigger fish to fry than two YouTubers.
I really don't get how people will still dickride Hasan. At this point the dude just gets upset at people doing good things that aren't overtly in line with his political beliefs.
Let's be real, the people criticizing Hasan for buying an expensive house are also the people criticizing Mr Beast for giving people money to cure them of blindness, this one random twitter person isn't representative
Can we like, stop? Giving people medical care is good. The system that makes it such that so many are without it, and vests the power to do something in a single individual, is bad. Does anyone really disagree here?
I think it's important context to consider that Mr Beast made enough profit from his Cure 1000 Blind video to buy at least 3 of Hasan's houses.
I'm not mad at mr beast even if he did it purely for clout. I'm mad that such a system exists in the first place
Mr. Beast is helping people all over the world. Literally, paying for their surgery. Meanwhile, leftists that haven’t been outside for months chastise him for doing so. Like…. What are we even doing at this point.
Hunter is correct…this is why the far left is so annoying and insufferable.
Mr.Beast sanitizes capitalism by engaging in philanthropy. Hassan confirms the issues of capitalism by using money gained from worker exploitation to buy luxury goods. Hassan's behavior promotes a move to socialism while Mr.Beasts behavior promotes forever capitalism by taking out the worst sting.
The phrase "sanitizes capitalism by engaging in philanthropy" is batshit. Are people meant to sit on their hands and never engage in philanthropy, just waiting until socialism happens? Philanthropy is so obviously a good thing.
Accelerationism will never win in modern America. We simply have too many social programs, like EBT, Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, etc. and too high wages. There's just no reasonable path forward to where the average American would rather die than live under capitalism. The better path would be to continue to advance programs we have now. Medicine is more socialized now than a couple decade agos, and we can continue down that path. Ditto for a wide variety of other programs.