2 ms·

I'm not that badly off and have never watched a Mr. Beast video prior to this. I would gladly stay within a 300ft circle for 100 days while some dude blasted cl

by strken 4y ago

I'm not that badly off and have never watched a Mr. Beast video prior to this. I would gladly stay within a 300ft circle for 100 days while some dude blasted clown noises at me in return for $500k. There's a library, a garden, some exercise bands, stationery, and 3000cal/day of food. I did 21 days isolation in an apartment at the start of the pandemic, which is 20% of the way there except with less floorspace. There's a really good essay titled The Copenhagen Interpretations of Ethics[0], which makes an argument that the moment you interact with a problem you become responsible for it in the eyes of the world, even if you strictly improved it in a utilitarian sense, and even if the people judging you have done exactly nothing to fix the problem. Reminds me a bit of this. [0] https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...

isitmadeofglass 4y ago
Sure, people enter in willingly. And you’d be able to find quite a lot of Poot people who’d do really shitty stuff and let you be extremely shitty to them for money. But so what? He’s still kidnapping and terrorizing poor people and excusing it by paying them off. And Better yet he’s doing so for profit, but he’s effectively have them sign a contract that means they don’t get paid if he gets them to break. It screams of what a shitty person he is in setting this up. If it was just about giving money to poor people there would be no need for the sick games he plays with them, just do a feel good show about how much the money change their lives. But propably not as much add money in it for him doing that. He used to plant trees, now he brutalizes poor people. It’s sick even if it is with consent from the victims.
- warent 4y ago
  You can dislike his work, but FYI you cannot repurpose the word "kidnapping" like this. First, it's a lie. Second, it diminishes the traumatic experience of real kidnapping survivors. Stop repurposing real words and making a joke of real experiences to satisfy for your own emotional position. Don't bother quoting the definition here and bending around the truth to further your distortion.
- strken 4y ago
  "So what" is that pretty much everyone I know, poor or not, would do it. It's $500k for hanging out in a house reading and digging in the garden all day for 100 days and occasionally having kids mess with you. That's not necessarily easy, but it's a hell of a lot easier than the other things I'd have to do to earn $500k in four months. I think you're getting offended on behalf of other people, when most of the world would think it was a sweet deal. This is just reality TV for people who were born after 2000, except the prize is better, the format is shorter, and it's less cut-throat. Nobody's kidnapped, there are no victims, and "sick games" is a bit of a stretch.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  > He’s still kidnapping No he literally is not kidnapping anyone. Shawn could have walked out of the circle at any time. I don't understand why you think more choices is a bad thing. Let people labor however they want. If that means "humiliating" themselves for 100 days for millions on youtube so be it. > If it was just about giving money to poor people there would be no need for the sick games he plays with them No one would watch the video if he was just giving away money and therefore he wouldn't be giving away the money.

by strken 4y ago

isitmadeofglass 4y ago

Sure, people enter in willingly. And you’d be able to find quite a lot of Poot people who’d do really shitty stuff and let you be extremely shitty to them for money. But so what? He’s still kidnapping and terrorizing poor people and excusing it by paying them off. And Better yet he’s doing so for profit, but he’s effectively have them sign a contract that means they don’t get paid if he gets them to break. It screams of what a shitty person he is in setting this up. If it was just about giving money to poor people there would be no need for the sick games he plays with them, just do a feel good show about how much the money change their lives. But propably not as much add money in it for him doing that. He used to plant trees, now he brutalizes poor people. It’s sick even if it is with consent from the victims.

warent 4y ago
You can dislike his work, but FYI you cannot repurpose the word "kidnapping" like this. First, it's a lie. Second, it diminishes the traumatic experience of real kidnapping survivors. Stop repurposing real words and making a joke of real experiences to satisfy for your own emotional position. Don't bother quoting the definition here and bending around the truth to further your distortion.
strken 4y ago
"So what" is that pretty much everyone I know, poor or not, would do it. It's $500k for hanging out in a house reading and digging in the garden all day for 100 days and occasionally having kids mess with you. That's not necessarily easy, but it's a hell of a lot easier than the other things I'd have to do to earn $500k in four months. I think you're getting offended on behalf of other people, when most of the world would think it was a sweet deal. This is just reality TV for people who were born after 2000, except the prize is better, the format is shorter, and it's less cut-throat. Nobody's kidnapped, there are no victims, and "sick games" is a bit of a stretch.
colinmhayes 4y ago
> He’s still kidnapping No he literally is not kidnapping anyone. Shawn could have walked out of the circle at any time. I don't understand why you think more choices is a bad thing. Let people labor however they want. If that means "humiliating" themselves for 100 days for millions on youtube so be it. > If it was just about giving money to poor people there would be no need for the sick games he plays with them No one would watch the video if he was just giving away money and therefore he wouldn't be giving away the money.