Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
"net good" is about as morally sound as saying you can't criticize multi hundred millionaires (i.e. obscenely rich people) for having that much money and not spending 99%+ on helping people. I don't know enough about Mr beast to criticize him myself but I wanted to point out that your arguments are either not in good faith or rooted in logical fallacies and moral quandaries.
I'm not sure if you accidentally used a double negative. If it wasn't accidental, we agree with one another.
I believe pragmatically that "net good" (any amount spent to help those that need it) is better than "zero good" (no amount spent to help those that need it). Do you agree with that or disagree?
Chiming in, I don't agree in the general case that goodness and badness can be spent or converted, ie. saving two lives doesn't give you license to kill someone random because the net good is positive. But in this case since all his actions are related per video the help he gives to people outweighs their voluntary (although coerced via incentive) participation and any of its negative effects, if any.
Of course not. We're not talking about murder here, we're talking about three possible outcomes: donating money, not donating money, and generating money and donating some of that money.
Agreed.