There’s also old videos of Jimmy where he’s being openly misogynistic.
And it recently came out that after Ava moved out, Jimmy kept the problematic poster.
This is not a good guy.
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.
My 10-year-old daughter recently mentioned Mr. Beast and I said what do you know about him? She said I don't know but my friends showed me his videos and I think the guy's a creep. I pretty much gave her a high five and said she can have all the ice cream she wants LOL.
If only I can send her some more money for even more ice cream, but then I would be the creep lol. Could you give her a high five for me and tell her she's the best 10yo kid in the world and she's awesome, please
also giving a way free money is a pipeline to becoming Mr Beast
I'm going to use this next time I don't tip
Just admit you want to date his kid
Your comment reads kinda like:
That friends name? Einstein, everyone clapped, and gave you a hundred dollars.
You are not getting any ice cream.
Nah
You're getting downvoted because people don't like to have their poor critical thinking skills called out. They'd rather ignorantly eat up whatever BS is served to them.
Nope. Everyone's entitled to theirs opinions, but I downvoted them for being wrong (and because I thought their comment was kind of dumb).
It's no pinnacle of storytelling, but it reads exactly like a parent telling a casual mini-story about their kid to strangers on the internet. It's a recounting of someone else's words, but being a creep is a totally reasonable conclusion for a ten year old to reach and it's also not all that uncommon for parents to praise and reward children for being able to think for themselves or at the very least form a "good" opinion. Ergo, OP's comment does not read like they're trying to pass off a tall tale or spin out bullshit.
Now if the kid had allegedly said something like "the guy's emblematic of everything wrong with celebrity culture and philanthropy as entertainment is a scourge on society", we'd be having different conversation.
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.
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.
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.
Spend $1,000,000 in 24 hours!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'd still take a free house from a massive piece of shit, tho.
And that's pretty much my argument.
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?
Maybe it could have been made clear before the house was given to them in the first place? Game shows have to put all the catches in fine print when they give prizes. Mr.Beast doesn'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?
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.
This is the kindest article I could find on his wealth and ot still brings the ethics of his money into question
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.
The guy he mentally tortured by keeping him isolated would disagree
The people he helps are mostly part of the scam.
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.
The random people in Africa that got wells drilled are part of the scam? His employees, sure, but I'm not arguing with that.
What a sociopathic thing to do.
Hey, let's not lower ourselves to Beast's level. Sociopathy is just Greek for "social illness". It refers to psychosocial disorders like autism. Beast is afraid of being called autistic because he's a bigot. We're not like him. We don't hate autistic people.
If we lived in ancient Greece, you may have a point, but that word has a specific, medical meaning today. It does not refer to Autism.
If we lived in ancient Greece, you may have a point
No, they wouldn't.
Socio- is from Latin socius meaning companion or ally. Only the suffix has Greek roots. The term was coined way after the ancient Greeks and Romans.
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.
Just his smile is all you need as an evidence.
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.
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.
he began in 2012 at 13 years old. Over two decades later
\
"Holy shit its been over 20 years since 2012? Wait..."
20 years... In base 6?
He certainly smiles like a sociopath.
Because he doesn't smile, he snarls, we've just lost out prey instincts after being on the top of he food chain for so long.
Tell that to my chronic anxiety.
sign of a true sociopath
Fuck that narcissist
His face is oh so punchable. He has the weirdest fake smile and it creeps me tf out
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.
Always that stupid fucking grin
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.
doesn't smile with his eyes
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.
That vocab isn't in alignment with the APA's inclusive language guidelines.
Oh lordy.
That's never a good sign.
He's finally cooked. Enjoy the long slow ride into irrelevance. Enjoy the fake friends fading away as the money tap dries up.
I mean he's probably rich af and set for life
People like to pretend that karma is somehow real. It's not. In real life, the bad guys win and live long and happy lives.
Karma is horseshit, yes. But I do feel a little nicer when I find out one of the mega wealthy is perpetually unhappy. It's proof that all the money in the world can't save people from themselves.
If I could do something to piss people off and make life changing money I'd probably do it
Want to know why karma is real? Karma isnt some mystical force that keeps the world in balance.
If you live your life pissing people off, one day you will piss someone off who doesn't take kindly to being pissed off. The more you do it, the more likely it is to happen to you.
this guy seems to care about his image and status so airing the dirty laundry is poison to him
But not to his account.
If he's even remotely smart, he put away quite a bit of money, or has some investment vehicle that keeps generating money for him.
He may be irrelevant in 5 years, but also wealthy enough to not care.
He owns a chocolate factory that if his image goes bad he'll just make a different candy bar name to sell under. They sell at Walmart so you know they reach a large audience and he already is worth a shit ton, nothing will ever make him less than a multi-millionaire now. Dude can retire before 40 and laugh at all the people who think "oh they got him good now"
Maybe, but i doubt he's selling at Walmart based on the chocolate quality.
Not sure what you mean? He picked a fast food chain (Zaxbys) and a large retailer (Walmart) to access as many people as possible. The chocolate tastes just fine, melting point is lower than Hershey's, so it doesn't make sense that they place it in a box with hot chicken and fries.
this guy seems to care about his image
How do you know? Are you just hoping he does because it would make you feel better if you thought he was stressing about this? Rich people don't actually give a shit. You may think they do, but they don't. When public perception of them goes down, they can disconnect and sit on their yacht drinking Mai Tai's for the next several months until it all blows over and the peasants have moved on to something else.
They do not have the same worries or concerns as us. They are above it.
Worked for Notch! 🙃
Lot’s of trashing on Jimmy lately, is it the new fashion?
Have you not seen what's come out in the last 2 months regarding him? He deserves every bit of it
I don’t have a lot of time to dive into fluff, I mostly see the scroll and hear what the kids say. Last I really heard about this guy he was planting trees and giving away homes, then I think some vegan teacher hated him? Now every headline I see about him has a negative slant, but nothing bad enough to make NPR or BBC.
The videos have been not monetized, so the creator is making mo money from this, and is taking all the risk of litigation.
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.
Those were never random people they are his friends lol
Effectively an admission..😅
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 saw one a week ago that said it was Harvey Weinstein's lawyer.
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.
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.
"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.
I'm engaged in what B F Skinner called operant conditioning. It's such a simple psychological effect, it works on all manner of animals. When an animal does something you don't want, you do something the animal doesn't want. Then the animal does it less. When someone platforms the idea that we're all supposed to hate "sociopaths", I create a pointless, annoying, and frustrating argument that pisses everyone off. Then people do it less. It doesn't matter if I change anyone's beliefs, this technique changes habits.
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:
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.
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.
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.
There’s also old videos of Jimmy where he’s being openly misogynistic.
And it recently came out that after Ava moved out, Jimmy kept the problematic poster.
This is not a good guy.
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.
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.
My 10-year-old daughter recently mentioned Mr. Beast and I said what do you know about him? She said I don't know but my friends showed me his videos and I think the guy's a creep. I pretty much gave her a high five and said she can have all the ice cream she wants LOL.
If only I can send her some more money for even more ice cream, but then I would be the creep lol. Could you give her a high five for me and tell her she's the best 10yo kid in the world and she's awesome, please
also giving a way free money is a pipeline to becoming Mr Beast
I'm going to use this next time I don't tip
Just admit you want to date his kid
Your comment reads kinda like:
That friends name? Einstein, everyone clapped, and gave you a hundred dollars.
You are not getting any ice cream.
Nah
You're getting downvoted because people don't like to have their poor critical thinking skills called out. They'd rather ignorantly eat up whatever BS is served to them.
Nope. Everyone's entitled to theirs opinions, but I downvoted them for being wrong (and because I thought their comment was kind of dumb).
It's no pinnacle of storytelling, but it reads exactly like a parent telling a casual mini-story about their kid to strangers on the internet. It's a recounting of someone else's words, but being a creep is a totally reasonable conclusion for a ten year old to reach and it's also not all that uncommon for parents to praise and reward children for being able to think for themselves or at the very least form a "good" opinion. Ergo, OP's comment does not read like they're trying to pass off a tall tale or spin out bullshit.
Now if the kid had allegedly said something like "the guy's emblematic of everything wrong with celebrity culture and philanthropy as entertainment is a scourge on society", we'd be having different conversation.
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.
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.
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.
Spend $1,000,000 in 24 hours!
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.
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
Well, that's good isn't it?
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.
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.
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.
Guilty until proven innocent, eh?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And that's pretty much my argument.
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?
Maybe it could have been made clear before the house was given to them in the first place? Game shows have to put all the catches in fine print when they give prizes. Mr.Beast doesn't do that.
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.
This is the kindest article I could find on his wealth and ot still brings the ethics of his money into question
https://screenrant.com/mr-beast-money-millions-rich-explained/
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.
The guy he mentally tortured by keeping him isolated would disagree
The people he helps are mostly part of the scam.
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.
The random people in Africa that got wells drilled are part of the scam? His employees, sure, but I'm not arguing with that.
What a sociopathic thing to do.
Hey, let's not lower ourselves to Beast's level. Sociopathy is just Greek for "social illness". It refers to psychosocial disorders like autism. Beast is afraid of being called autistic because he's a bigot. We're not like him. We don't hate autistic people.
If we lived in ancient Greece, you may have a point, but that word has a specific, medical meaning today. It does not refer to Autism.
No, they wouldn't.
Socio- is from Latin socius meaning companion or ally. Only the suffix has Greek roots. The term was coined way after the ancient Greeks and Romans.
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.
Just his smile is all you need as an evidence.
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.
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.
\
"Holy shit its been over 20 years since 2012? Wait..."
20 years... In base 6?
He certainly smiles like a sociopath.
Because he doesn't smile, he snarls, we've just lost out prey instincts after being on the top of he food chain for so long.
Tell that to my chronic anxiety.
sign of a true sociopath
Fuck that narcissist
His face is oh so punchable. He has the weirdest fake smile and it creeps me tf out
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.
Always that stupid fucking grin
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.
doesn't smile with his eyes
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.
That vocab isn't in alignment with the APA's inclusive language guidelines.
Oh lordy.
That's never a good sign.
He's finally cooked. Enjoy the long slow ride into irrelevance. Enjoy the fake friends fading away as the money tap dries up.
I mean he's probably rich af and set for life
People like to pretend that karma is somehow real. It's not. In real life, the bad guys win and live long and happy lives.
Karma is horseshit, yes. But I do feel a little nicer when I find out one of the mega wealthy is perpetually unhappy. It's proof that all the money in the world can't save people from themselves.
If I could do something to piss people off and make life changing money I'd probably do it
Want to know why karma is real? Karma isnt some mystical force that keeps the world in balance. If you live your life pissing people off, one day you will piss someone off who doesn't take kindly to being pissed off. The more you do it, the more likely it is to happen to you.
this guy seems to care about his image and status so airing the dirty laundry is poison to him
But not to his account.
If he's even remotely smart, he put away quite a bit of money, or has some investment vehicle that keeps generating money for him.
He may be irrelevant in 5 years, but also wealthy enough to not care.
He owns a chocolate factory that if his image goes bad he'll just make a different candy bar name to sell under. They sell at Walmart so you know they reach a large audience and he already is worth a shit ton, nothing will ever make him less than a multi-millionaire now. Dude can retire before 40 and laugh at all the people who think "oh they got him good now"
Maybe, but i doubt he's selling at Walmart based on the chocolate quality.
Not sure what you mean? He picked a fast food chain (Zaxbys) and a large retailer (Walmart) to access as many people as possible. The chocolate tastes just fine, melting point is lower than Hershey's, so it doesn't make sense that they place it in a box with hot chicken and fries.
How do you know? Are you just hoping he does because it would make you feel better if you thought he was stressing about this? Rich people don't actually give a shit. You may think they do, but they don't. When public perception of them goes down, they can disconnect and sit on their yacht drinking Mai Tai's for the next several months until it all blows over and the peasants have moved on to something else.
They do not have the same worries or concerns as us. They are above it.
Worked for Notch! 🙃
Lot’s of trashing on Jimmy lately, is it the new fashion?
Have you not seen what's come out in the last 2 months regarding him? He deserves every bit of it
I don’t have a lot of time to dive into fluff, I mostly see the scroll and hear what the kids say. Last I really heard about this guy he was planting trees and giving away homes, then I think some vegan teacher hated him? Now every headline I see about him has a negative slant, but nothing bad enough to make NPR or BBC.
These are what I'd recommend:
https://youtu.be/NHFvR0ArXPs
https://youtu.be/k5xf40KrK3I
The videos have been not monetized, so the creator is making mo money from this, and is taking all the risk of litigation.
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.
Those were never random people they are his friends lol
Effectively an admission..😅
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
This isn’t even a reaction to known allegations—apparently he’s just anticipating potential future trouble:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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 saw one a week ago that said it was Harvey Weinstein's lawyer.
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.
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.
"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.
I'm engaged in what B F Skinner called operant conditioning. It's such a simple psychological effect, it works on all manner of animals. When an animal does something you don't want, you do something the animal doesn't want. Then the animal does it less. When someone platforms the idea that we're all supposed to hate "sociopaths", I create a pointless, annoying, and frustrating argument that pisses everyone off. Then people do it less. It doesn't matter if I change anyone's beliefs, this technique changes habits.
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:
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
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/wiring-the-mind/201408/psychopaths-the-worst-people-who-dont-exist
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/laurenstrapagiel/what-is-difference-between-sociopath-pyschopath
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.
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.
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.