Mr.Beast Hires Elon Musk's Favorite Attorney to Fight Sociopath Claims
Mr.Beast Hires Elon Musk's Favorite Attorney to Fight Sociopath Claims
Oh lordy.
That’s never a good sign.
Your comment reads kinda like:
That friends name? Einstein, everyone clapped, and gave you a hundred dollars.
These are what I’d recommend:
The videos have been not monetized, so the creator is making mo money from this, and is taking all the risk of litigation.
I’ve met sociopaths and at least 2 psychopaths. They do not feel like an autistic person (although someone can be both). They are distinct and sharp, like swords. Autistic people are pretty “normal” to me, I think of Kristen Stewart, Elliott Page, or Temple Grandin - pretty straightforward people who aren’t malevolent or malicious. Temple is actually quite famous for her empathy.
My personal opinion is that Mr Beast is probably not a good person based only on the one clip I’ve ever seen of him - talking about how he would pick a girlfriend. It was very objectifying. He talked about women like they were property. The sociopath allegation doesn’t surprise me, because he definitely has something not right with him. Which is being confirmed by his own staff having serious concerns about messed up things he did.
I’ve met sociopaths and at least 2 psychopaths
Psychopathy is Greek for “mental illness”. I’ve met sociopaths with autism, and every one of them was definitionally a psychopath too. But I’ve also met psychopaths with mental illnesses like depression or PTSD, who were not sociopaths. I’m pretty sure every sociopath is also a psychopath. And if you’ve only ever met 2 mentally ill people, you are definitely not an expert on psychopathy and you shouldn’t be spreading misinformation on the internet.
Watch DogPack404’s 3 videos on him on YouTube. Essentially, Jimmy is a massive loser who has rigged and faked challenges, caused sleep deprivation, knowingly hired and protected multiple sex offenders, commited illegal lotteries, having a degrading work culture: (from one of his documents)
No doesn’t mean no
And has attempted to silence anyone who speaks out about him with cease and desists, attempting to find any ways to discredit them using his employee’s own Xitter accounts, accusing them of being mentally ill or distrustworthy. He is a complete sociopath and nobody should watch him
the cancer of YouTube.
One of. It’s pretty much cancer all the way down.
I agree, but on the other hand the people he helps, well, get helped, and would be worse off if he didn’t do that. Obviously it would be better if he wasn’t making money off of it, but would it be better if he stopped?
As morally dubious as he is, I’m sure the people who have access to water after his “build 100 wells in Africa” stunt would disagree with opinions that he should stop.
So I don’t know. I agree with the criticism, but I always think of the people who got help and I’m unsure what would be better.
I agree, but on the other hand the people he helps, well, get helped, and would be worse off if he didn’t do that.
This is fallacious and it plays into what I said. There is no follow-up on those people. You don’t know if they would be worse off if they weren’t helped.
He “built 100 houses and gave them away” earlier this year. Great. Is he going to pay to maintain those houses? Is he going to pay to insure them? Is he going to pay the property taxes? And, of course, now they’re tied down to one specific area because they have a house and if they don’t like their job and there isn’t another job available? They’re stuck.
Home ownership isn’t necessarily cheaper or better than renting. They may very well have been better off before the IRS let them know what they owed for that house.
Can’t they sell the house and do whatever they want with the money? Or rent it out and use that to pay for the maintenance/taxes, etc? Feels like it’s hard to argue against giving people a free house.
That being said, if even a small part of what is being said about him is true, then he’s a massive piece of shit.
I’d still take a free house from a massive piece of shit, tho.
Can’t they sell the house and do whatever they want with the money?
Possibly. If they didn’t sign some sort of contract agreeing not to do so and if there would be a market for that house. And then there’s just the psychological burden of having to give up a free house because it turns out you can’t actually afford to own a free house.
Or rent it out and use that to pay for the maintenance/taxes, etc?
That is not a simple thing. And it puts you legally on the line for a lot. That’s why corporations tend to do it.
Feels like it’s hard to argue against giving people a free house.
I can show you so many stories of people who inherit valuable things only to end up in more debt than they started with. Did MrBeast make sure all of those people actually were good at managing their money before he gave them a house? If they weren’t, did he give them some way to become financially literate? We have no idea because he won’t tell us. We also have no idea what will happen to these people and their houses in one year or five years or ten.
Lots of people “do the research” on such things and end up becoming things like sovereign citizens.
That’s the problem with doing your own research with no one to guide you. That’s especially dangerous in areas like financial literacy.
Well they are not forced to keep the house. They can sell it, or if they don’t want it at all, they can give it away. But then why did they sign up for it in the first place?
You are saying as if they were forced against their will to get a free house.
Would you say no to a free house? People do things against their interest all the time.
You also don’t know that they weren’t required to hold on to the house for a certain amount of time in order to accept the house. I would be surprised if there weren’t such conditions. Maybe you are financially literate enough to turn down a deal like that, they aren’t necessarily.
They’re also only one job loss away from a tax lien against the house they thought they could afford to live in because they got it for free.
“Trust me bro, do your own research”
Even if you’re right that’s still not at all helpful. Burden of proof is on the person making a claim.
Obviously it would be better if he wasn’t making money off of it, but would it be better if he stopped?
Yes it would be. The accumulation of so much money into so few hands is a net evil, and his videos glamorize and are used to justify that evil. Even if some (and it’s always a small portion) of that accumulation is used for good ends it’s worse than if it weren’t allowed to accumulate in the first place.
Put more simply, if wealth inequality weren’t so out of control there would be much fewer people requiring the charity.
This is the kindest article I could find on his wealth and ot still brings the ethics of his money into question
Philanthropy porn
What an excellent description of this kind of behavior.
he began in 2012 at 13 years old. Over two decades later
<Checks calendar>