MeatCanyon takes on Mr. Beast's "blindness controversy" in a new video

Originally published at: MeatCanyon takes on Mr. Beast's "blindness controversy" in a new video | Boing Boing


I don’t really have a dog in this race but if capitalism/profits is what it takes to help people that’s gotta be better than nothing. Mr Beast probably could’ve quietly helped some folks but maybe he would’ve helped less people, the potential views on a video gave him the confidence to do as many people as he did. Either way it’s the internet and people will find reasons to yell at each other.


BTW, the artist (Hunter Hancock - aka Pappa Meat) does livestreams on twitch. They’re pretty fun to watch.

1 Like

This is basically why we can’t rely on capitalism to create equality.

Mr Beast has done quite a few charitable things, but like all very wealthy people, it’s only done after they’ve run out of ways to spend their money on themselves. When you can’t possibly spend another cent, then you start looking for other thrills, especially if you’re already famous. Public recognition for being “good” is a popular choice, so in comes the charitable works which are notably always done very loudly. Wealthy people make sure their name is on the building they donate or the foundation they start. They make sure they’re all over the media for this nice thing they did and throw fancy parties to celebrate who how awesome they are.

So yah, he gave some money to people in need after he finished buying himself five houses, ten cars, and three boats. Yay, I guess, but I struggle to feel good about this. Even though real people were helped, they end up basically being props in his play.


I think there’s plenty of fodder for outrage here, but my concern is less “what kind of creepy rich guy cures a thousands of blind people just to generate clicks?” than “what kind of society leaves the fate of such people up to the whims of a philanthropic YouTuber?”


Shes Not Wrong Reaction GIF by MOODMAN

mood GIF


That was exactly my point, but you said it much more succinctly, which I appreciate. :grin:


Definitely an argument showing wealth inequality, if i needed any kind of medical care i know i’d be screwed. I have decent health insurance but it would still be a huge financial burden for me.


I think that’s true for most of us… it’s really super-fucked up…


Okay, now I have serious questions I’d not considered before. How does a blind person – say, someone who has been blind since conception – sign their name to official documents? Do they learn the hand movements and hope for the best? Do some utilize the aid of others to witness that what they are signing is valid and legitimate? To me, it doesn’t seem as easy as earmarking specific denominations of money to avoid being ripped off.


I don’t think his reasons matter much to the people who can now see. We can debate the ethics of WHY this was done but, at the end of the day, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons…is that so terrible?

I think so, yes. There is a long-standing critique of these sorts of charitable acts by the capitalist class merely reinforces the capitalist system in the first place.

For example…

So, what @Brainspore said above is the heart of why it’s kind of problematic. No one is saying “don’t do acts like this” rather that why should acts like this be necessary when we can create a system that just… takes care of all of us? What about the millions of people who did not receive this kind of help? Are they somehow less worthy of intervention? Etc… Lots of angles to unpack in this situation that is absolutely worth discussing, because it can help us to think about actually fixing our shit instead of putting band aids sold to us by the very people putting boots on our necks in the first place…



Congratulations America, instead of a human interest story, you somehow managed to make it more dystopian by having an argument about someone who paid to keep orphans away from the orphan-crushing machine.


So, it seems to me that people should be (and are) upset about the need for such acts, but I still fail to understand why Mr. Beast’s actions have brought him ill-will. I’m talking about doing the right thing for the wrong reason but it seems you are speaking more of doing the right thing the wrong way - which is a societal issue, not an individual one…and THAT is something I agree with you on.

1 Like

Obviously we’re all happy for those people.

The issue is that wealthy people should not be in charge of deciding who gets help and who doesn’t. All of society is a task of resource allocation. There’s never enough for everyone to get absolutely everything they need. So we have to pick who gets what. I don’t want Zuckerberg or rando YouTubers making those decisions for us.

The assumption people make is “these people would not have been helped if Mr. Beast hadn’t done it, so it’s all upside”. That’s too narrow of a view of society. The real issue is that Mr. Beast was insufficiently taxed and thus society didn’t get the chance to help those people in a fair and just way (or to help other people who needed it more).

Wealthy inequality is inherently inefficient and undemocratic.


I see JamieR was involved too! He has singular style.

(He had a fine bit recently on The Paloni Family Halloween Special, available on Hulu.)

1 Like

I, for one, continue to be grateful for “Nye” Bevan and Clement Attlee and single payer healthcare.


A real Mr Beast.


Lots of angles to unpack in this situation that is absolutely worth discussing, because it can help us to think about actually fixing our shit instead of putting band aids sold to us by the very people putting boots on our necks in the first place…

This is true. Yes, there are many ways that you can slice this, and some need more attention than others.
I totally agree that having people rely on the “altruism” of some celebrity to be taken care of, or to have their basic needs met, IS NOT the way it should be. It’s not their responsibility and the fact that something like this “blows up” just highlights the problem even more.

I read another take (which I can’t find now) that what Mr Beast did is wrong because removing a disability from someone is discriminating against disabled people… okay, I guess?

So, tomorrow you win the lottery and money is not an issue and you decide to do something for a small community; now, suddenly, you’re an asshole for that. That’s the part I don’t get… yes, maybe he didn’t have to make it public, but then people would still shit on him because he keeps all his money for himself.

At the end, I just think you can never win in this society… no matter what you do, someone will call you out for being an asshole.

1 Like

Don’t forget the Tredegar Medical Aid Society, which inspired Nye Bevan to start the NHS.


Did I say I was “upset” about him helping these people? My (and @VeronicaConnor’s and @Brainspore’s ) point is that it indicates deeper issues that this is necessary. And, yeah, we SHOULD talk about this, especially given how many Americans are in bankruptcy thanks to medical debt. Millions of people can not afford health care, even with what is considered decent health insurance. We will not fix that problem without addressing events like this. It in fact reveals more about our healthcare system than it does about Mr. Beast, who frankly, I really don’t care about at all. He did something nice - good for him. I give to charity too, but that doesn’t mean we can’t talk about the structural problems in our society that need attention.