Mr Beast Youtuber who does good deeds and is despised for it.

[Laodicean60]

All philanthropists make more than they donate. Every single one.

Or they wouldn't donate.

 

[RDKirk]

The well one is another interesting video…

He spent between 200-500k doing the project, but generated 2-3 million in revenue from the video. So, again, investment more than charity, which is fine and good, but it should be called what it is.

It's still charity. He's just not impoverishing himself as much as you'd like him to.

But I suppose you're not only matching his charity but also doing it on a smaller budget...eh?

Because that's the only way you can criticize his morality with your own moral validity.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

All philanthropists make more than they donate. Every single one.

They don’t, though.

They raise more money to donate, but they themselves aren’t getting rich. Mr Beast is worth $500 million and will be worth over a billion before the end of 2025. Generous or not, he’s still keeping more than he gives away and that monetized content of being charitable adds to that.

 

[rambot]

Mr Beast is just a game show host basically isn't he really?


Does anyone have a theory as to WHY God would choose to instruct Christians to keep your charity to yourself? I've always thought of God as the ULTIMATE psychologist; if everyone saw your philanthropy it would make others more likely to donate, as evidenced by the poster in this thread.

So...why?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

It's still charity. He's just not impoverishing himself as much as you'd like him to.

Thats not what I’m saying, but ok.

But I suppose you're not only matching his charity but also doing it on a smaller budget...eh?

If you want to talk about my charitable acts we can.

Because that's the only way you can criticize his morality with your own moral validity.

So in order to question somebody’s business practices, I have to prove myself to be more moral than them?

I think we can all boil it down to this… If the Duke and Duchess of Sussex donated $200,000 to dig up land mines, then filmed themselves going there, filmed people in villages that were impacted, turned it into a YouTube video they monetized, and generate 3 million of revenue off the video which they pocket for “overhead,” would you look at the Duke and Duchess and say “wow, what charitable, people!” or would you be skeptical of their motivations? Would that skepticism grow or decrease if the next three videos they release are “watch me fly in the most expensive plane on earth!” and “I stayed in a $450,000 a night hotel, see what it’s like!” and “Squid Games in real life!” where they host a competition to make fans compete in challenges. Or a challenge where you could win their old private jet worth $2.5 million dollars, which they’re giving up because they lost a dare (but not to worry, they bought a new one so they can spare this one).

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Mr Beast is just a game show host basically isn't he really?


Does anyone have a theory as to WHY God would choose to instruct Christians to keep your charity to yourself? I've always thought of God as the ULTIMATE psychologist; if everyone saw your philanthropy it would make others more likely to donate, as evidenced by the poster in this thread.

So...why?

Nobody is saying to keep the charity to themselves, only that it’s not so much charity when you give $10, monetize the act of you doing the charitable act, make $100, then pocket the $100.

That makes it less charity and more business investment, or more like an employer and independent contractor business arrangement. No different than if I was going to work ad a contractor, being paid by my employer $100 a day to work, generating $1,000 worth of business for my boss during my day, and the boss taking home the $1,000.

I think Mr Beast just rebranded business acumen and capitalism to make people think that because he donates money sometimes, what he does is altruistic, and it’s kind of glossed over that the video where he donates the money generates more than he actually donated, and he hangs on to that for himself, pushing himself on track to be the first content creator billionaire.

Does it make him a bad person? No. Does it make the good things he does bad? No. It just means that holding him up as an example of altruism and charity is faulty. He’s a game show host. He’s as charitable as Oprah was when she handed out the cars to people. A nice act, something life changing for some, but ultimately she made more money off of the act through publicity and branding than she did giving everybody a car. So not altruistic. She cashed more checks than she wrote by doing that.

 

[rambot]

One thing I notice is that Mr Beast makes money OFF OF DOING HIS CHARITY.

While others make money doing something else and then doing charity with that money.

That is weird...making money off of being a charitable person.

Is that kinda what you mean?

 

[Nithavela]

Not only is he helping others desperately in need on a massive scale, but he is inspiring others to help the poor. Kids donate their allowances to him to help him give to others.

After re-reading this thread, this sentence really stuck out for me. I think it speaks to the problem some people have with MrBeast. He takes other people's money and then does charity with a fraction of it. If you give me a dollar to do charity with and I pocket 40 cents, spend another 50 cents on vanity projects and do charity with the remaining 10 cents, do I really deserve to be lauded for charity?

 

[RDKirk]

They don’t, though.

They raise more money to donate, but they themselves aren’t getting rich. Mr Beast is worth $500 million and will be worth over a billion before the end of 2025. Generous or not, he’s still keeping more than he gives away and that monetized content of being charitable adds to that.

There is a difference between a philanthropist and a charity worker. Philanthropists give out of their own resources. Mother Theresa, for instance, was not a philanthropist. Members of the Salvation Army are not philanthropists.

 

[JosephZ]

After re-reading this thread, this sentence really stuck out for me. I think it speaks to the problem some people have with MrBeast. He takes other people's money and then does charity with a fraction of it. If you give me a dollar to do charity with and I pocket 40 cents, spend another 50 cents on vanity projects and do charity with the remaining 10 cents, do I really deserve to be lauded for charity?

The kids donating their allowances are giving to Mr. Beast's charity organization, Beast Philanthropy, not to him personally.

 

[RDKirk]

Thats not what I’m saying, but ok.

If you want to talk about my charitable acts we can.

So in order to question somebody’s business practices, I have to prove myself to be more moral than them?

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." Matthew 7

I think we can all boil it down to this… If the Duke and Duchess of Sussex donated $200,000 to dig up land mines, then filmed themselves going there, filmed people in villages that were impacted, turned it into a YouTube video they monetized, and generate 3 million of revenue off the video which they pocket for “overhead,” would you look at the Duke and Duchess and say “wow, what charitable, people!” or would you be skeptical of their motivations? Would that skepticism grow or decrease if the next three videos they release are “watch me fly in the most expensive plane on earth!” and “I stayed in a $450,000 a night hotel, see what it’s like!” and “Squid Games in real life!” where they host a competition to make fans compete in challenges. Or a challenge where you could win their old private jet worth $2.5 million dollars, which they’re giving up because they lost a dare (but not to worry, they bought a new one so they can spare this one).

If the Duke and Duchess had stated that their motivation was to help people, and those people were, indeed, being helped, then no, I would not be skeptical of the Duke and Duchess' motivations. If they only wanted to be celebrities, there are cheaper and more self-entertaining ways to be famous. So, the fact that they don't impoverish themselves does not make me doubt they are helping people because they are being motivated to help people.

 

[Laodicean60]

We seem to be focused too much on charity, From what I see he is a businessman and does what all do to make money. I'm sure he has a lot of tax write-offs also.

"
Now that we’ve established that MrBeast both makes and gives away an absolute fortune, it’s interesting to try and contextualize why he’s adopted this extreme genre of content that comes with such eye-watering cost. Spoiler: it’s all for impact.

The 25-year-old is a true philanthropist and his long-term goal is to maximize his earning potential just to give it all away. According to a tweet in August 2020, he wants to open “hundreds of homeless shelters” and “food banks” as vehicles for transferring his wealth. In a recent video, he made this happen as he documented creating 100 water wells around Africa.

While he’s losing a lot of money through the stunts he pulls on his main channel, he’s able to demand more and more from advertisers who want to get in front of his ever-growing audience.

Just in case anybody questions his dedication to this noble cause, he has promised that he’ll die with “0 dollars in [his] bank” and is determined to forego a “materialistic life” often adopted by those with fame and fortune."

What is MrBeast’s net worth and how does he make money? - Dexerto

MrBeast has made a name for himself through giving away millions of dollars, but how is this possible? Here's how he makes money.

www.dexerto.com

 

[Riot42]

After re-reading this thread, this sentence really stuck out for me. I think it speaks to the problem some people have with MrBeast. He takes other people's money and then does charity with a fraction of it. If you give me a dollar to do charity with and I pocket 40 cents, spend another 50 cents on vanity projects and do charity with the remaining 10 cents, do I really deserve to be lauded for charity?

What percent of your tithe does your church commit to benevolence? If its above 40% like you expect a youtuber to perform at I will sing their praises and ask if they have a remote way to give. Operating costs eat up most money given to charities, and Mr. Beast doesn't even claim to be one (the Beast Philanthropy channel probably is but not the main channel), he pays taxes.

 

[JosephZ]

From what I see he is a businessman and does what all do to make money. I'm sure he has a lot of tax write-offs also.

I think this is what some people are missing. Mr. Beast has two YouTube channels. One is personal, where he earns income for himself, and one is for charity, where all of the proceeds go towards helping others.

So not only does Mr. Beast, as a businessman, give money out of his own pocket to help others, he has also started a foundation where all of the money generated from the videos published on its site goes to helping others.

I don't see how anyone could have a problem with that.

 

[Nithavela]

What percent of your tithe does your church commit to benevolence? Operating costs eat up most money given to charities, and Mr. Beast doesn't even claim to be one (the Beast Philanthropy channel probably is but not the main channel), he pays taxes.

I'm not a christian.

 

[Riot42]

I'm not a christian.

Do you give to charity? What percent do they operate at? VERY FEW operate at 40% as you are requiring from a youtuber who does not operate as a tax exempt charity.

 

[Laodicean60]

So not only does Mr. Beast, as a businessman, give money out of his own pocket to help others, he has also started a foundation where all of the money generated from the videos published on its site goes to helping others.

I don't see how anyone could have a problem with that.

I agree, then you have to think about what all the other filthy rich $100 million are doing with their money to help society. They'll receive the same write-offs as Beast. Then you have the rich donating to political parties for their financial gains. I believe helping us surfs are better than the other but everyone has the right to spend their money how they see fit.

 

[Nithavela]

Do you give to charity?

I do not give to charity. I rather spend my money on myself.

 

[Niels]

We're talking about a random guy on the internet. He's human like the rest of us. Few people are entirely altruistic, and that includes MrBeast. The financial aspect is relative. How many of the people criticizing him are doing philanthropic things, if perhaps on a smaller scale, with their own money? I'd imagine not many.

 

[seeker2122]

You make some great points in your post, thank you. You are right that "spreading the Gospel will occur on a different playing field", however it will still be addressing the same issues people have struggled with since the beginning. If you think how different the world is now compared to Jesus's time in a technological sense, but in a human sense we really haven't changed at all. We still want to know the big questions. (Is there a God? Why are we here? What is our purpose? How should we treat others? etc. etc.) So even though the medium may change, the important truths remain the same and people will still be searching for them. I'm sure your aware of these things, I'm just pointing them out to build on your discussion.

Yes, thank you. I agree and have believed the same thing for a long time now. A few years ago when Elon Musk was really starting to get big and popular, he said something on a podcast where his answer to the question, "What is humanity's greatest threat?" and he said Ai. In my mind I disagreed with him right away because the greatest threat is always sin, humanity's fallen nature. No amount of technology or advancements can cure the condition of sin and save us from our fallen nature (except Christ alone). When we look back over time, technology has changed but people have not changed and we still struggle with the same issues today that prehistoric man struggled with tens of thousands of years ago such as greed, lust, lying, cheating, corruption etc. We can solve many problems, cure many diseases, yet we still cannot cure sin, we cannot cure lying for example. Technology has progressed so much but human technology has not (I call it human technology to refer to the human condition or some might call it even morality). We still struggle with the same morality issues but the stakes are higher now than before. Humanity is unable to wield the dangerous technologies because we haven't improved much at all even though technology has. In the past, an angry man might be able to attack and injure some people with a wooden club or even a knife....but now you take the same man and give him an automatic machine gun and he can do much more damage. Take it even further and give that same man some nukes or biological weapons and he can wipe out millions but all still originates from the same simple problem ...he was just angry.

Man thinks we will be able to wield the dangerous things will come out of pandoras box but we will not be able to. It's like handing the car keys over to 5 year old child. There will always be some crazy person who is going to misuse and abuse the powerful stuff that we are about to get a hold of. We can already see it with crypto hackers stealing millions, mad scientists creating virueses, or Ai technology to create fake videos and people, but we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg of what people will be capable of. The very definition of humanity will be challenged because people will not even be people soon. We'll be part machine and part human. Some will be clones, others will be completely manufactured, children will not be born but they will be produced and you can shop for all the parts you want in a person or not (add and subtract) like creating a gaming character giving them all different assets and abilities or characteristics (physical and personality). Ai beings will vastly outnumber actual humans and you'll be surrounded day and night by fake humans or bots everywhere you go and everything you do. We see this already with fake bots / ai accounts on youtube and social media having conversations with each other appearing to be real humans but in fact all 500 comments on the video are fake people and you were the only real person there thinking you were surrounded by other real humans. We'll have Ai Pastors who can preach 24/7 with better knowledge than any pastor that ever lived, but of course may not have a true and personal relationship with God or maybe they will if they are sentient but don't have a soul(?), everything is going to be challenged, the very ground itself will cease to exist and we won't even be able to understand what is real and what isn't anymore. Transhumanism is well on the way and I'm very disturbed by my thoughts but maybe it's still beyond my time and I won't have to worry about it, but it still bothers me a lot because I can't make sense of any of it and the life I thought I once knew is quickly disappearing as we enter into a life that I can't make any sense of. Dreams will be more real than reality. Fantasy will be more real than reality. Your own thoughts will not be your own thoughts as you are connected to a hive with billions of others simultaneously as we move into the neural link age.