I rarely enjoy schadenfreude, but I will savor every moment of the fall of Mr. Beast, the cancer of YouTube.
Yeah, he always felt slimy to me. His “charity” videos that seem to take advantage of impoverished people and him convincing children to promote his chocolate brand (and sabotage competitors) as examples. I hate that someone who seems to be this bad was able to have this power in the first place but boy do I love seeing him be brought down. Hopefully it doesn’t just go away like so much else does.
In general he is not a nice person when criticized. This is usually obvious in his content and social media interactions.
His content is low quality, ‘feel good’, Reality TV garbage. Think like Dude Perfect; except they give out giant wads of cash and recruit random people. He has TWO FAILED BRANDS; Mr. Beast Burger, which is a chain of low quality ghost kitchens, and his Chocolate brand; which shows a clear lack of business acumen and capability. Much of his video content is clickbait; written explicitly to game the algorithm and garner attention with only minimally required guardrails to obey ToSes and relevant laws that are actually enforced. Frequently he invades other YouTuber’s channels for a video or more to “promote his brand” and spread his junky content around. This is sometimes fine; when the channel is celebrity centric or otherwise good at staying on it’s own topic; but I’ve heard…horror stories from certain youtubers about working with Mr. Beast…and even the Greens, (John and Hank, vlogbrothers) don’t seem to like him all that much it seems like; as evidenced by their large lack of interactions with him. Sure, they ‘professionally respect’ him; but that’s about as far as that seems to go. I think a lot of Nerdfighteria (Fans of the vlogbrothers) doesn’t seem to interact with Mr. Beast that much and it makes me wonder.
the cancer of YouTube.
One of. It’s pretty much cancer all the way down.
There’s still a ton of good content on YouTube, just because the big faces in the trending tab all suck shouldn’t discount people like Dan Hurd or Dustin Porter, no native advertising, good content made for the fans. You just have to dig
Sure there is. It’s just that the YouTube algorithm hides it from everyone. Somehow, YouTube wants people to watch the same shitty content.
YouTube promotes clickbait because it gets more engagement than other videos. Even if people comment on it to say it sucks or it’s wrong, bad, distasteful, doesn’t matter. That means, ad bids on these videos go for a higher amount because more people see them. As an advertiser, would you rather want your ad to play on the 20 click video from some obscure channel that infrequently puts up videos of varying focus or would you want them to show on the YT-play-button-in-the-background, engagement-optimized video?
Long gone are the days when YT was a video sharing platform. It’s a giant marketplace and the fanciest shop with the loudest criers gets the promotion while visitors are the product.
As an advertiser in YouTube, I’d… just question my life choices, to say the least.
Your Dinosaurs are Wrong is some high quality cancer.
Just his smile is all you need as an evidence.
I’m showing my teeth, thats how smiling works, and people like smiling people, right?
Guilty
Its funny, I came to the comments to write the same thing.
His smile is so fucking dead. It’s all in the eyes.
If you want to convincingly deceive people, you first need to deceive yourself.
It doesn’t matter how good your mouth muscles can stretch; if your eyes are lying, then you’re fucked.
Kind of reminds me of this.
“They’re the same picture.”
my man
The thing about Mr Beast, it’s got lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll’s eyes. When it comes at you it doesn’t seem to be livin’… until he bites you, and those black eyes roll over white.
this is the smiler
EDIT : I read kewjo’s post as “the thing about The Beast”
Ah another Transmetropolitan fan spotted in the wild.
I have not doctored this in any way. This is direct from a screenshot of the YouTube app.
he began in 2012 at 13 years old. Over two decades later
<Checks calendar>
“Holy shit its been over 20 years since 2012? Wait…”
It sure feels like it’s been that long
It also feels like that was yesterday though so
Fuck the inexorable passage of time, yo.
20 years… In base 6?
Decade refers to decimal 10 right in the name.
Fuck that narcissist
That’s how you get super gonorrhea.
…all the ‘rrheas
This is what I should of told my friend when I told him Mr Beast was full of shit and after he became utterly shocked at the words coming out of my mouth. How would I dare insult the man that gave poor kids in Africa money on video.
His face is oh so punchable. He has the weirdest fake smile and it creeps me tf out
He also has the most generic milquetoast white dude face ever. I know about 8 guys in my town alone who could be his twins, going by the face alone.
doesn’t smile with his eyes
deleted by creator
I never watched any of his videos but to friends that did I always said he would eventually make headlines for some kind of problematic behavior or involvement, and when asked what it was based on I just said I could tell by his face. Unnatural and disingenuous in appearance and actions if questioned further but none of them could see it.
I’m so glad to see my exact feelings of him shared by so many people. My gut feeling about people like him is never wrong.
Always that stupid fucking grin
That vocab isn’t in alignment with the APA’s inclusive language guidelines.
Effectively an admission…😅
First of all I don’t like this guy and I find him as something wrong with him. Secondly I’m a lawyer with over 20 years so, if I call you “fisco” a pedophile and you file a lawsuit against my claim by your own statement it’s an admission of guilt and you should be legally registered as a pedophile.
It’s real dangerous to look at someone seeking legal representation and take that as an implication of guilt.
Not defending Mr Beast at all, I’m sure there is no shortage of actual evidence of wrongdoing
The allegations are that he is a dickhead, and him resorting to hiring a flashy lawyer to fight it pretty much confirms that.
He is not a defendant here he will be a plaintiff in those suits.
This isn’t even a reaction to known allegations—apparently he’s just anticipating potential future trouble:
the reason that Donaldson hired the flashy lawyer is to conduct an internal audit of his company, the likes of which has recently come under fire as the result of various scandals.
So I think it’s fair to say it’s an admission that his conduct might be legally questionable, without taking it as a confession of guilt
IIRC there was significant backlash over the Squid Games clone, or what was supposed to be. This is probably a wise decision.
If you wait until you need a lawyer, you waited too long.
I don’t like Mr. Beast. But I’m a lawyer and it’s not strange that someone taking legal action to determine if there is something wrong either it’s as a person or a corporation. Considering he is using his persona for his business audits of his business is nothing out of the norm. On the other hand calling it an admission of legally questionable behavior because someone went to a court of law so that it can be decided legally is same as calling someone guilty because others felt like it. Law doesn’t work like that. You can say it’s ethically problematic but than you can’t single him out because many people joined him in such bullshit.
Of course law doesn’t work that way. Law is inherently complicated because it needs to be abused only by those with the proper resources. Also - literally nobody fucking cares how the law works unless it’s a step between where you are and where you need to go. At which point rich people will hire others to get over the step, and poor people will just jump over the step. Rich people will get away with it and get a slap on the wrist, and poor people will suffer the full wrath of the system, to make sure everyone else knows it’s for real and doesn’t question the authority of those in charge. Rich people are free, poor people are held hostage within the system and cannot break out. Law doesn’t establish morality of actions or justice, it doesn’t prevent or punish what society deems evil, it just separates those who can get away with their actions from those who can’t.
Kill your masters.
What a childish and ignorant opinion. Do you know how many people executed in history without even hearing about what they were accused of? Or do you know how many people didn’t even have the chance to defend themselves because ignorant people like you felt like that they know they are guilty? Or how many people are lynched in the streets because someone said they are guilty? History is full of such examples. Blaming the law and asking for anarchy is not a solution. Who’s going to stop the powerful in your utopia from taking everything from you? How it’s different than your rich gets to do all claim? Law is complicated because law deals with human relations, action and their results when you come up with a simple human civilization you can make simple laws. This modern society that you despise that gave you all these amenities came as a result of laws that you despise. You wanna go back be my guest go establish your own state let’s see how long you and your like minded people will stay alive.
Companies hire outside auditors all the time. If you grew super fast and don’t retain legal counsel, that’s a great reason to give a full shakedown when you finally do hire lawyers to help with compliance.
And yet, auditing for scandals in your inner circle is also something you might do if you’re trying to do the right thing. I’m not saying he is, nor that I support him, just that y’all are following other lemmings off this cliff for insufficient reasons
You don’t hire a well known “PR Superstar”-level lawyer without being super worried that your conduct might be viewed as wrong in a court of public opinion, regardless of whether or not you broke the law. The Lawyer ensures public opinion doesn’t affect the possible legal case mess that’s likely going on.
Until those legal tangles are resolved, we really won’t know more; and oftentimes details left for public record will be minimal if no wrongdoing was found.
Personally; I think it’s possible that the allegations might not be 100% legitimate, I do believe people would love to smear him if it meant potential financial gains and social notoriety. But I also think it’s equally as possible that he is in fact as bad of a person as is alleged; and I believe he’s likely to be very much a self-serving person who hides that dark side with his very public persona. There are a number of people in creator circles who whisper stories of negative interactions with him.
Wait, won’t Elmo’s lawyer EMBRACE sociopath claims?
I’m OOTL and the article is not really helping, what is going on with Mr. Beast? Why is he so hated atm?
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
Watch DogPack404’s 3 videos
Yeah no thanks I’ll just stay ignorant if that’s the only option.
After watching the videos, and the analysis from Legal Eagle, I find the criticism a little dubious.
“Rigged challenges” is how he introduces surprise things mid-video, like “I’ll give you $10,000 if you quit now, but your team loses a team member!” It’s obviously part of the show and participants agree to it happening before hand.
“Knowingly hired a sex offender”. Well? Should everyone on the sex offender registry be jobless forever, or what is the point? The person in question was convicted when he was 16, and was hired 7 years later with nothing indicating he would reoffend. Don’t we have courts for justice? Instead they should never be hired as punishment? To me it sounds commendable he’s not prejudiced against people’s past.
“Attempted to silence anyone” Did he? There is tons of people criticizing him and I only heard about one cease and desist. Do we know that C&D was baseless?
That DogPack guy seems to have created his YouTube channel solely to attack MrBeast, do we have anyone more trusted?
Like many, I find the MrBeast videos a cancer of YouTube, which makes hearing any critique of him convenient. But I don’t like assuming, and I have a feeling the DogPack guy has an agenda and isn’t offering an objective view.
Knowingly hired a sex offender". Well? Should everyone on the sex offender registry be jobless forever, or what is the point?
I generally agree with this point, except, Mr.Beast channel is specifically catered to and often involves minors. In that particular environment there should be an absolute zero tolerance for any kind of sex offender. That’s a no brainer. If you somehow find out after already hiring the individual the correct response is to publicly and candidly let that person go.
I understand what you’re saying and to a degree I agree but do we know why he was labeled a sex offender? I’m not here to necessarily defend him but I know of people who have had to register when their offense was whipping out their dick near a school to pee. Nothing sexual, they were just drunk and didn’t realize it was a small elementary the building over, the cop wasn’t having a good day and he got fucked by the law.
Again, I’m not necessarily defending him but there’s at least a bit of wiggle room in my opinion depending on circumstances.
https://sexoffender.dsp.delaware.gov/?/Detail/00004788
Rape of a child between the ages of 1-11. There is no ambiguity in this.
Hey fair enough, fuck that guy.
I don’t know, I feel something that you did as a teenager, and that you have already went to court about, shouldn’t haunt you for the rest of your life any more than it already does with the legally mandated registry.
The guy was accused of raping a child between the ages of 1-11. Do you think that person should ever have anything to do with children? Being 16 does not make this excusable.
I’m not from the US, but I assume they have laws for this. I’m against vigilante justice against people who were already judged by the legal system. Do you also support not hiring any felon?
I don’t think he should or shouldn’t be allowed near anyone, I assume if there was a reason to be barred from it by the judge, he would be. Clearly he wasn’t, so I’m not going to be an armchair legal expert and override the judge.
You have a very optimistic view of the American legal system and it does not include nuance such as this. It depends from state to start but generally a sex offender is not legally prohibited from holding just about any position beyond teacher/day care. Some states make it difficult for them to obtain professional licenses. I do not believe any of them actually prohibits “children’s entertainer”.
Typically that would be considered the purview of the employer.
Hey, man… I like playing devil’s advocate as much as the next guy, but maybe Jimmy’s got enough money to hire his own, yeah? Not to mention that the stuff you come up with is pretty weak.
Should everyone on the sex offender registry be jobless forever, or what is the point?
Should I be hired as a mechanic if I’ve ever tampered with cars before? Should I be hired in finance if I ran a ponzi scheme? Should I be hired producing content for children if I raped an 11 year old? Yeah, some questions are absolute mysteries.
There is tons of people criticizing him and I only heard about one cease and desist.
The man literally has you sign an NDA to work for him. That’s attempt to silence.
That DogPack guy seems to have created his YouTube channel solely to attack MrBeast, do we have anyone more trusted?
I trust a labrador retriever to retrieve better than other dogs. Who would you like to have on Jimmy’s heels? The pope? Trump? There’s nobody that can’t be discredited or dismissed with a "that guy’s just a <random insult> trying to hurt MrBeast.“
I have a feeling the DogPack guy has an agenda and isn’t offering an objective view.
Oh, great. What an objective assessment to go on - your feeling. Listen, unless it’s a third party that is not involved in the situation, that is incorruptible and that is tamper proof, you won’t find objective reality. All you’ll find is a subjective view of past events. Consume both sides of the argument and make up your mind where exactly the truth is, cause it’s probably somewhere in-between everyone’s claims. Or don’t, there is no reason to get involved in the subject.
That being said - I am willing to believe someone who films themselves giving money to homeless people and uses it to get more money and views is a total fucking asshole whose basic mechanism of shame has been overridden by whatever type of greed made him turn into this soulless husk in the first place.
having a degrading work culture: (from one of his documents)
No doesn’t mean no
Let’s not take stuff way out of context. There’s plenty to criticize here (including a toxic work culture, but not because of this) so there’s no need to misrepresent anything.
This is the paragraph that comes from. I’d say it’s absolutely shitty to whoever they’re bothering though.
NO DOES NOT MEAN NO
When dealing with people outside MrBeast Productions never take a No at face value. If we need a store to buy everything inside of and you call the local Dollar tree and the person that answers says “No, you can’t film here”. That literally doesn’t mean shit. Talk to other employees and see if any are fans or if any have kids that are fans, try talking to their boss, their bosses boss, have me dm them on twitter and try their social team, etc. If after all avenues are exhausted you are left with a no, that doesn’t mean don’t try the other dollar trees because the manager of those could be huge fans and willing to bend the rules. Basically what I’m trying to convey is what we call “pushing thru no”. Don’t just stop because one person told you no, stop when all conceivable options are exhausted. This is one of many tools that when combined dramatically improve your probability of success when producing here.
(source)
Ok. So he wants his sales guys to be pushy. Not good behavior but how is this different from anyone else?
I don’t have a previous opinion because I don’t watch that kind of shit (“philanthropy porn” is a great term for it), but you guys aren’t really selling me on it. I see a bunch of online people jumping right to sociopath and slime, then describing behavior that is all too common, almost normal, and certainly better than most internet slime and sociopaths.
Seriously? Someone who works for him might be a pedophile so he’s clearly a sociopath?
deleted by creator
I’m not trying to sell anything to you.
huh damn. Thank you :)
Oh lordy.
That’s never a good sign.
I saw one a week ago that said it was Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer.
I saw one last month that said he represented Hitler at The Hague
you literally can’t make this shit up
I could have made that up
Could not
here watch: 45 minutes ago, both CNN and Fox reported that Mr. Beast had hired the hologram of Johnnie Cochran.
Well fuck me, you actually pulled it off, you crazy bastard!
Could to
Could not! Could not! Could not times ten!
The firm the lawyer is from is the top trial firm in the world. They don’t mind avoiding settlements. Lots of probably-guilty people hire them.
Philanthropy porn is just disgusting to begin with. That alone should have ended him. But people think it’s a “feel-good story” so they keep watching. A lot of times, the follow-ups to such stories feel less good since the people getting that philanthropy often can’t afford to pay to maintain whatever they’ve been given.
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.
The guy he mentally tortured by keeping him isolated would disagree
So his curing 1000 blind people video? Most of them were gonna get the surgery done anyway, he just made it happen faster
In exchange for being on video. Which is kinda gross. It’s making entertainment out of someone who needs help. If Jimmy was in it for good, he wouldn’t exploit the people he’s helping. He makes more money off each video than he spent. That’s exploitation
Most of them were gonna get the surgery done anyway, he just made it happen faster
Well, that’s good isn’t it?
In exchange for being on video.
I didn’t watch the video, but skimmed through it now. In the wide shot it shows around 200 people. Meaning 800 people got it without having to appear on video. It’s likely they just got the money and a question if they want to appear on a video. 20% said yes, 80% said no, still got the money. What’s wrong with that? Looks completely voluntary.
If Jimmy was in it for good, he wouldn’t exploit the people he’s helping.
In that video, it doesn’t look to me like he did. Clearly people got the money no strings attached, and an option to appear in a video in they want to, which most of them didn’t take.
He makes more money off each video than he spent.
Which gets spent on the next stunt. If not for the 1000 blind people video, he would have no money for the 100 free houses video, without which he would have no money for the 100 wells in Africa video, ad infinitum. If you say what he does cannot be packaged into profitable media, then that’s fine, but that means it can’t be done at all. Filming people getting helped is how more people get helped next time. As long as it’s voluntary for the people getting help, as it seems to be, I don’t see anything wrong with it.
I agree with many of his criticisms, but to me he seems far from actual problems with this world caused by politicians and corporations. A YouTuber making a show of helping people seems like the last thing wrong with this world today. And people wouldn’t need the help if we solved the actual issues.
Just because they were cut out of the video doesn’t mean it wasn’t filmed. I want to see what contract they signed before he payed for their surgery.
I want to see what contract they signed before he payed for their surgery.
Guilty until proven innocent, eh?
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.
I’d still take a free house from a massive piece of shit, tho.
And that’s pretty much my argument.
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.
Maybe if it’s just me, but if you’re unable to do the research to become financially literate after being gifted a $200k investment for free… I’m not really going to turn your problems into ill will for the person that gave it to you. Library’s are free.
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.
Most of those “houses” were three room shacks in third world countries. No way they were worth 200k. They were roofs over peoples’ heads yes, but not investment vehicles.
And please, explain to a war ravaged town in sub-saharan africa financial literacy. See how that goes.
Fair enough, I see how it could all fall apart if not done properly. And based on what people are saying… it’s unlikely that he did things properly.
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.
You also don’t know they weren’t given ongoing support. We can both play this game.
Why wouldn’t that be made clear?
Because an 8 part youtube series with 7 parts detailing their monthly budget and giving the update, “yeah, they still own the house” doesn’t get views or make money?
Home ownership isn’t necessarily cheaper or better than renting.
If you’re given a house, paying property taxes and insurance is almost certainly better and cheaper than renting.
I agree with your other points and overall with your perspective, but not this one.
Typical property taxes run about 1-2% of the home’s overall value. Unless they were all given multi-million dollar mansions they’ll be paying like 2-4k a year in property taxes. That’s far less than the cost of renting a place of equivalent size basically anywhere. You can probably afford basic homeowner expenses on a job at McDonald’s if you own your place outright.
And in a lot of states you don’t need full home owners insurance if you own the place. Would be even easier to live in a home on a McD’s job.
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.
I agree, but he’s far from the enemy here, he has no money compared to the billionaires we should be fighting.
deleted by creator
The people he helps are mostly part of the scam.
The random people in Africa that got wells drilled are part of the scam? His employees, sure, but I’m not arguing with that.
They are part of the ancient tribe of Mr Beast. Little did we know he is like Mumra and just keep resurrecting over and over.
My guy, I’m willing to believe thus but you just can’t spew massive claims like this without proof. I’ve seen the accusation videos too and at best a handful of people there were plants but definitely not most. Just give me some links and I’ll easily believe it.
Just pay attention. There have been several articles about how the winners of a lot of his contests are family members of his cronies. They don’t get traction but I have no reason to doubt them.
“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.
Okay you claim he is the greatest thing ever. prove it.
No I seriously heard him claim you owe me $50.
That’s just not how sustainable charity or development works, especially when it comes to things like building wells. There are existing charities that can do more than he does with the money he spends and have sustainable methods of doing so. Maybe some of them aren’t great, but if he actually wanted to address those issues he could set up a foundation with people who know how to do that work.
But that’s what he did, he gave the money to existing charities who build wells (probably in exchange for being able to film them being built).
Philanthropy porn
What an excellent description of this kind of behavior.
I was going to say I got it from somewhere, but apparently the term is usually “charity porn.” I think “philanthropy porn” works better though because it’s just as much about the philanthropist themselves as it is about what they’re offering.
Spend $1,000,000 in 24 hours!
This would be simple, just have a room filled with more guitars I don’t play and buy a few more pairs of cargo pants.
🤘Dad life
Basically the plot of a Richard Pryor movie.
Edited to add: yeah, and a play, and like a dozen film adaptations, but as a GenXer it’s Richard Pryor or bust for me.
I think you coined the term “philanthropy porn”.
But instead of just the best images of the subject matter like /cableporn or /earthporn, this has the negative connotation of voyeuristic performative prostitution. He’s the pimp, and he’s whoring out his recipients to make his money.
I keep seeing his chocolate in stores. Seems overpriced.
I think the chocolate may actually be one of the few things he did that’s a net positive. It’s not bad.
Did you watch dogpack’s video? It stopped sucking once they made it as bad as regular chocolate.
The old feastables was actually good. The new stuff tastes like rebranded Hersheys.
I didn’t, I did watch foodgeek test it, and he’s won a bunch of awards for his chocolate recipes.
Maybe beast pay him off I don’t know. I have tried all this chocolate and I don’t find it disagreeable.
That whole underground bunker series is starting to get a little too reality TV like for me. I don’t watch him often but when it shows make it outside of his channel I end up catching glimpses.
Jaden animation recently won a million dollars to give to her subscribers.
But he pit a bunch of the YouTubers in a squid game competition which makes the ratings but isn’t a great look.
I’d watch that! A bunch of “influencers” get “killed off”, hopefully humiliated? Let them be exploited for money instead of just their victims? Let’s go!
Apparently a lot of people want to watch it because he’s still getting followers.
I don’t think being a sociopath is illegal?
I get the feeling that lawyers do a lot more for rich people than they do for us…
no, but the things he allegedly did are extremely illegal.
Is he still giving away lots of money to random people?
Everyone he “gave money to” was either a friend of his or an employee of his company. He never gave any to strangers. It’s all a show.
All the random people on the street too?
Nah, there were plenty of instances where it went to a decent charity.
He’s basically running a game show on YouTube money.
And yes a lot of the money went to people he knows.
Well yeah, it was just him and his friends a lot of the time.
I just thought people were saying the whole thing was
deleted by creator
Those were never random people they are his friends lol
Sociopathy is nothing to be ashamed of. It’s just Greek for “social illness”. Autism is a psychosocial disorder, which means all autistic people are sociopaths. Beast’s mad dash to avoid being labelled neurodivergent is a very bad look on him. Only an asshole would feel the need to “defend” himself against being called a sociopath.
Sociopathy is about lacking specific traits, like empathy for example. At least with respect to the diagnosis criteria they are quite different and calling everybody with ASD sociopaths is actually not a good look.
I don’t believe you. Show me sociopathy in the DSM. And no cheating, I don’t want to hear you say that sociopathy is actually a colloquialism for some other disorder.
DSM’s current edition doesn’t specifically diagnose sociopathy, but it does address it as a corollary to ASPD. I suspect you know that. But sociopathy is well known to be a condition regarding the disregarding of the needs for others and it really isn’t socially advisable to label all autists as sociopaths despite your misunderstanding.
So you’re saying that the made up disorder you’re describing has been discredited and no longer exists in the DSM? Okay, thanks for playing.
No, I’m saying the manual itself calls the diagnosis for sociopaths “ASPD”, while specifically referencing by name, sociopathy as a direct corollary. You may also see the following references with respect to what the term means outside of DSM 5:
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sociopathic
- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sociopath
The terms “psychopath” and “sociopath” were often used interchangeably to describe individuals displaying traits associated with ASPD.
I’m not saying the official diagnosis itself is called sociopathy, but rather that the diagnosis for what is generally described as sociopathy (ASPD) is very different than the criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder. So now perhaps your can provide references to those with Autism being correctly referred to as sociopaths.
https://medium.com/@lillieefranks/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-psychopath-4992690a0044
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/signs-sociopath
Now, with the source game out of the way - you cheated. You said sociopathy is actually a different disorder. I specifically told you not to cheat like that. You’re arguing for garbage medicine. You’re saying sociopathy is a real and very important diagnosis, and not just a Greek buzzword, and your source is a completely different entry in the DSM. You’re a pseudoscientist.
You’ve probably guessed that, in my opinion, this category already exists. It’s called Antisocial Personality Disorder, or ASPD, and it is in the DSM-V.
– https://medium.com/@lillieefranks/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-psychopath-4992690a0044 regarding psychopathy
Sociopath is an outdated, informal term for someone who has antisocial personality disorder (ASPD).
He contrasts these people with autistic children who are unable to conceptualize the internal lives of others, but distressed when they are able to tell that another person is in pain.
Basically, sociopathy is a layman’s term for antisocial personality disorder, but it’s an outdated one.
Have you considered even reading those articles. They all clarify the same thing. Psychopath and sociopath are informal terms used to describe what is medically called ASPD. Further, only one even mentions Autism and only to illustrate that it is in contrast to this condition. So do you have any links that say people with Autism are sociopaths as you have asserted?
And to address your edit, I said neither of those things. What I’m saying is that sociopath means something different than Autism. You are being intentionally obtuse, and I tire of it. You said “all autistic people are sociopaths” which is a hurtful, ignorant comment which you have failed to substantiate.
While “sociopathy” isn’t a scientific term, claiming that all autistic people are sociopaths is a harmful false equivalence. Associating autism with the stigma of sociopathy based on your own definition doesn’t hold up. Your sources confirm that “sociopathy” isn’t scientific but don’t support your claim about autism.
ASD and ASPD are distinct conditions, and the colloquial use of “sociopath” generally refers to traits associated with ASPD, not autism. Language evolves over time—consider how “literally” now also means “figuratively” due to ironic use, or how “antisemitism” specifically refers to discrimination against Jews, despite its broader etymological roots. Similarly, “sociopath” today typically refers to ASPD-related traits, not just any “social illness.”
The person you’re responding to provided reputable sources disputing your definition, while your own sources lack expertise in psychology or linguistics. In fact, your third source even contradicts your argument; the article cites a contemporary psychologist who directly contrasts psychopaths with autistic children, highlighting the differences between the two conditions. If you’re calling others “pseudoscientists,” it’s important to evaluate your sources more carefully.
People aren’t downvoting the idea that “sociopathy is nothing to be ashamed of”—that’s a valid point. But instead of playing word games, you could focus on that truth directly.
“Sociopathy” as a concept predates the DSM. Although these days it’s not considered a “diagnosis” anymore, the set of disorders that were considered typical for sociopaths has now been grouped under ASPD. Nonetheless, the term “sociopath” stuck around and still refers to people who we would now likely give an ASPD diagnosis under the DSM.
Your claim that people with autism are considered sociopaths is just plain wrong. The etymology of a word doesn’t necessarily define its meaning. As an example, take the word “retard”. It used to have a diagnostic meaning, though these days it’s obviously not in the DSM anymore. Etymologically it just means “someone who is slow/late”, but if you call your colleague who is a little late for a meeting a retard, you’re going to get called to HR.
You’re correct, sociopathy is a social construct defined by use. And I’m using it to refer to autistic people and people with other sociopathies, in a blatantly transparent attempt to manipulate the general public into having some sympathy for those who have been historically branded with this slur.
The problem is that you’re coming across as extemely insensitive by branding people with autism with what we now consider a slur. Your attempt at sympathy is considered insulting because these days we don’t consider people with autism to be sociopaths. And in fact, we historically didn’t really do that either, as sociopathy historically required a total lack of empathy, which autistic people don’t have (they have trouble expressing or understanding it, but they don’t lack it entirely). That’s why, as our understanding of these conditions improved, sociopaths were mostly diagnosed with ASPD, whereas people with autism were diagnosed with ASD instead.
I’m willing to brand myself as a sociopath if it gets people to treat others with respect. I’m not going to abandon my fellow neurodivergents for self-preservation. We’re in this together.
But… Why? Nobody is calling autistic people sociopaths these days. Mr Beast is being called a sociopath due to his apparent lack of empathy evidenced by several videos he (attempted to get) made. He also doesn’t smile with his eyes, suggesting a lack of genuine emotion to people.
Your claim that people with autism are sociopaths also doesn’t lead to people treating neurodivergent people with more respect, because you yourself come across as uninformed and disrespecting of neurodivergent people.
You might have good intentions but I sincerely recommend you try a different approach.
Since you posted this twice in the thread, you must be very proud of your thought process. However, I see it as my duty to inform you that you are incorrect.
Socio- is from Latin socius meaning companion or ally. The term sociopath is both Latin and Greek because it got coined at one point in the late 1800s.
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.
And pedophile is ancient Greek for lover of children. I know lots of people who would say they love kids, but it’s simply incorrect to call them pedophiles.
It’s almost like the literal translation of Greek words isn’t our point of reference at this stage. Weird.
Also, are you an expert on psychopathy? What gives you this expertise?
removed by mod
Sociopathy is the inability to feel empathy. This is not inherently a bad thing, it’s only bad when people use that to harm others.
A common trait for sociopaths is seeking success, which is defined differently in different cultures. In the US, success is usually defined by fame, money, or power, so we see a lot of sociopaths in government, C-suites, and Hollywood. However, in India, success is more defined around family involvement, and so sociopaths there are often seen establishing those strong family ties and working to fit in.
Some studies suggest that 4% of the population have the brain profile of sociopathy. That doesn’t mean 1/25 people is evil. But when someone who is sociopathic uses that lack of empathy to harm people, that’s when they become a danger and should be called out for it.
Source: The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout, Ph.D (and my memory thereof)
I’ve seen the word sociopath used plenty on Lemmy, but never you attached with it, like you are in this thread. Makes your little personal crusade seem fake.
