Neat, hopefully the people he gave them to were financially prepared to own a home
Proof?
Neat, hopefully the people he gave them to were financially prepared to own a home
They're basically mobile homes. Probably cheaper than whatever they were doing before.
Neat, hopefully the people he gave them to were financially prepared to own a homethat's not his problem. how it impacts society or the culture isn't the point, it's that he has lots of money and makes youtube videos.
um he should be using his wealth and influence to advance leftist candidates and causesyou really think he could be the next Sam Bankman-Fried?
He claims he built 100 homes but he actually just paid contractors to do it... Well even from that angle, functionally what's the difference? He gave those contractors paid work and gave free houses to people.
you really think he could be the next Sam Bankman-Fried?
He's the emblematic "I'm rich so I donate to both sides equally to benefit myself" trope.you really think a billionaire would just go and do that
you really think a billionaire would just go and do that
have politicians in his wallet for his own benefit?
MAGA really do lose their minds when rich person does something good for the people.
So, how is this bad?I'm not sure it it's bad, but questions that immediately come to mind. Who is going to keep maintenance? Who will keep these homes from becoming crime dens?
Not just MAGA, I've seen left-wingers say he doesn't go far enough or that he doesn't use his money "properly".
Neat, hopefully the people he gave them to were financially prepared to own a home
I'm not sure it it's bad, but questions that immediately come to mind. Who is going to keep maintenance? Who will keep these homes from becoming crime dens?
He claims he built 100 homes but he actually just paid contractors to do it
If he's go great, why did he stop at only 100?Any more would have been unprofitable for him.
There's a fairly good reason why nobody talks shit about Dolly Parton's charity work compared to Beast.
Mostly because Dolly doesn't bring an entire camera crew with her.
There's a fairly good reason why nobody talks shit about Dolly Parton's charity work compared to Beast.
Mostly because Dolly doesn't bring an entire camera crew with her.
She also has a separate career not dependent upon a social media presence to generate that money/charity work. If Mr. Beast was a successful musician from the 60ss who's had decades building up his wealth and clout then he'd likely also not have a camera crew.I don't deny that he does good work, but that doesn't preclude him being a narcissist over a philanthropist, which is where most of the complaints arise.
What he does is funds good things and with no hate to Ms. Parton, I can't name anything tangible that her charity work has accomplished through her money, I can with him.
To be clear, I respect both of these people for what they do with their money, it's just not comparable imo.
There's a fairly good reason why nobody talks shit about Dolly Parton's charity work compared to Beast.
Mostly because Dolly doesn't bring an entire camera crew with her.
Charity is good. We'll just have to assume things like this are being done for good and not for publicity that will get the channel even more viewers.even if the entire thing was done to get more views, does that make the houses themselves any less useful?
Not just MAGA, I've seen left-wingers say he doesn't go far enough or that he doesn't use his money "properly".
I don't deny that he does good work, but that doesn't preclude him being a narcissist over a philanthropist, which is where most of the complaints arise.This. Hes a symptom and a symbol of whats wrong with the current system. All of what he does is a marketing stunt that exploits the less fortunate. Yes, its good that those people are now better off, but hes not helping out of the kindness of his heart. Its narcissism disguised as philanthropy. His claim that most of his profits go to his next video is also laughable. Hes worth $500million. Hes not living like the average Joe. I dont hate the guy, but Im not gonna pretend hes doing all this out of kindness.
I can applaud the end result while still finding the process distasteful.
All of what he does is a marketing stunt that exploits the less fortunate. Yes, its good that those people are now better off
I literally cannot comprehend these two sentences being back to back. "Yes, he helped the less fortunate, and they are objectively better off than before, but... He exploited them for a Youtube video!"Im not complaining for them. Im saying hes not doing it without getting a lot in return.
Unless they are complaining about being exploited, why do you think you have any place to complain for them? You ever think they might literally just be happy they're better off, and they don't care that he made a video?
Im not complaining for them. Im saying hes not doing it without getting a lot in return.