this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
302 points (100.0% liked)
Not The Onion
16508 readers
1697 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
ah yes, mr beast, the world renowned humanitarian
He has genuinely given a ton of money to charity, to be fair.
He puts himself first with his charitable exploitation porn. I’m sure he deserves to be a billionaire.
Still better than Kim Kardashian or Elon Musk.
There is no “better” here.
They all suck.
That's a silly argument. You can objectively compare virtually any two things.
You'd really not care if someone said they'd clone Kim Kardashian or Elon Musk but you had to choose one?
Well my diarrhea yesterday was chunky and today it’s straight liquid. Both are shit. Kinda like Mr.Beast and any of the other fame whores.
Do you honestly not find one preferable?
That's the discussion we're having: do lessers of two evils exist?
Obviously they do. Anyone arguing otherwise is just arguing for arguing's sake or is painfully and hilariously naive.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Were you under the impression I said different or are you just trying to be poetic?
You keep saying one of them tastes better, I’m sure it does but I’m not going to consume them to find out. They are shit.
Okay so you agree with me.
So you’re saying the objective take that billionaires suck is less accurate than your one billionaire sucks less?
You seem to have forgotten the context of the conversation and fallen in love with fighting with me.
Which is better:
A rich person who gives to charity
A rich person who does not
My premise is that billionaires suck.
Philanthropy porn sucks.
A billionaire giving shit away to lower their tax burden and engage in more philanthropy porn to make themselves even more money is even shittier.
If you want to force the conversation toward semantics to make yourself right over a relative determination that one is better (less shitty), go ahead. If that’s what constitutes “better” for you.
Yeah, and mine is that some suck worse than others.
You keep pretending that's not the case, though. It's cute.
To your argument, Kim Kardashian has actually helped people, she has helped get innocent people exonerated and released from prison.
I would argue her charitable work is VASTLY more substantial than Mr. Beasts'.
Having said that... They are both terrible people and the world would be a better place without either one of them. They are both absolute whores for attention and could have achieved the same amount of charitable service without throwing themselves in front of a camera for it. Arguably stealing attention away from the people that did the actual work.
Not really. He treats the people who work for him like complete garbage, denying them basic human rights during some production situations. Not just workers rights, basic human rights like water and access to their own medications.
You have no reason to defend him.
Luckily I'm not.
Saying a turd sandwich isn't as bad for you to eat as a glass sandwich isn't defending the turd sandwich.
Only less than the profit he made. He’s also a fraudster and abuser and deserves to be in jail.
The sweepstakes fraud is just... Rampant. I'm surprised he's gotten away with it for so long.
That’s why they target children.
Children can’t tell when they’re being scammed
Has he really or has he just directed sponsors money to organizations he likes?
What's the difference?
This is a legitimate question.
One is his money, the other isn't.
But both result in a charity getting money?
There isn't a difference in the end result, and they're desperate to find a reason to hate the guy.
He's not a likeable character, to be fair.
Hard to be desperate, there are plenty of reasons to dislike him.
Honestly just believing some pseudo-philanthropic character some guy made up for clicks if fucking weird and people need to learn to think critically about things.
I mean, he's a slimy character, and I don't like the guy at all, but he's either given or raised huge amounts of money to charity through his stunts.
And denying that happened just looks bad for you, to be honest.
I'm sure Jimmy doesn't profit at all from all the money funneled into Beast Philanthropy.
Diddy raised a bunch of money too what's your point?
I'm genuinely baffled as to what your point is here. Do you think the fact he's making money doing this is news to me?
Really? My point is it's not hard to find reasons to dislike him. He's got a lot of fans (mostly kids) but I'm definitely not one of them, I guess you are, that's allowed.
Good night.
I've explicitly said I'm not a fan of the guy, but believe what you want to believe, I guess.
He takes credit for the sponsor's donation. So I would argue it is worse.
A chunk of both, I think.