Mr beast 100 wells in Africa

[BLoCKANDLOADED ⭕⃤]

shout out Youtuber, Mr. Beast. He went to Africa and built 100 water wells, providing half a million people with fresh and clean water

Still better than nothing

This proves that he's really helping just like the eye sight video.

Idk how people hate this dude. Its because he does it for "content" tbh it doesnt matter if he does it for content. Its still better than doing NOTHING.

[Dozer]

mr beast gives 100 redditors their virginity back (shocking) 🫨

[Birds]

apathy lähetti viestin:

I don't like that shill Mr Beast as much as the next person, but the hatred in helping out Africans is beyond hypocritical at this point.

You can't attack people for not being charitable, and then attack them, for being charitable.

I'd rather he learned how to use his money to become a surgeon for chairty, rather than slapping adhesive bandages on the problem over and over.

[Sir Seanicus, Esq.]

United Nations doesn't like it when people actually help Africa.

Executive Outcomes.

[Sidakte]

if we never knew who did it or why, would we react the same?

imagine the headlines: "Unknown benefactor, good Samaritan, "angelic" investor of unknown identity and origin appears in an African village and builds 250 wells, two schools, three hospitals, a kindergarden and two libraries."

idk. criticism for 2023 "see me giving a sandwich and applaud me with Heart reactions on FB" style of charity is valid and understood, but that's only because we have a context. we have a face and a name.

[Birds]

Sir Seanicus, Esq. lähetti viestin:

United Nations doesn't like it when people out do them in Africa.

Executive Outcomes.

The whole point of their charity operations in Africa is to take up the 'space' for charity with their half-assed 'help' that's designed to impoverish the entire contnent. So that nobody else can do anything about it, except dump like 1% of the irrigation infrastructure the continent needs like twice a year.

Sidakte lähetti viestin:

if we never knew who did it or why, would we react the same?

imagine the headlines: "Unknown benefactor, good Samaritan, "angelic" investor of unknown identity and origin appears in an African village and builds 250 wells, two schools, three hospitals, a kindergarden and two libraries."

idk. criticism for 2023 "see me giving a sandwich and applaud me with Heart reactions on FB" style of charity is valid and understood, but that's only because we have a context. we have a face and a name.

Yeah and the nature of modern charity is so self-serving that giving yourself a face and a name is painting a target for good reason.

That's why so many of the UK's fake charities are handled anonymously using intermediaries, and why more than 70% of the money winds up in the hands of warlords like Kony, who may as well be a scapegoat for the entire african warlord situation. Which Invisible Children was always kind of unwilling to address about their 'awareness charity,' which had the effect of rendering children who weren't involved with Kony invisible.

[Sidakte]

Birds lähetti viestin:

Sidakte lähetti viestin:

if we never knew who did it or why, would we react the same?

imagine the headlines: "Unknown benefactor, good Samaritan, "angelic" investor of unknown identity and origin appears in an African village and builds 250 wells, two schools, three hospitals, a kindergarden and two libraries."

idk. criticism for 2023 "see me giving a sandwich and applaud me with Heart reactions on FB" style of charity is valid and understood, but that's only because we have a context. we have a face and a name.

Yeah and the nature of modern charity is so self-serving that giving yourself a face and a name is painting a target for good reason.

That's why so many of the UK's fake charities are handled anonymously using intermediaries.

but there's also anonymous real charity. people who do it legit and we never find out anything about them. who keep it all quiet and only the results surface online @ some point.

[MinionJoe]

Sidakte lähetti viestin:

but there's also anonymous real charity. people who do it legit and we never find out anything about them. who keep it all quiet and only the results surface online @ some point.

How do those anonymous philanthropists make their money? Is their income dependent upon their social presence and online popularity?

[Birds]

Sidakte lähetti viestin:

Birds lähetti viestin:

Yeah and the nature of modern charity is so self-serving that giving yourself a face and a name is painting a target for good reason.

That's why so many of the UK's fake charities are handled anonymously using intermediaries.

but there's also anonymous real charity. people who do it legit and we never find out anything about them. who keep it all quiet and only the results surface online @ some point.

Most such people are simply lost to history, and once they're gone, or no longer have any money, it's as if they never existed.

[Sidakte]

MinionJoe lähetti viestin:

Sidakte lähetti viestin:

but there's also anonymous real charity. people who do it legit and we never find out anything about them. who keep it all quiet and only the results surface online @ some point.

How do those anonymous philanthropists make their money? Is their income dependent upon their social presence and online popularity?

beats me. i can't answer that. all i know is they're called "angelic" investors or "angelic" funds.
that's all i've found out all these years about them. supposedly they're really rich people who just go and do charities globally. and i'm not the State to know how they make their money either.

Birds lähetti viestin:

Sidakte lähetti viestin:

but there's also anonymous real charity. people who do it legit and we never find out anything about them. who keep it all quiet and only the results surface online @ some point.

Most such people are simply lost to history, and once they're gone, or no longer have any money, it's as if they never existed.

true. but what's done is done on now. on every "now". they know as well they'll be lost to history.
but anonymity at least ensures that no individual clout accusations surface around critical thinkers. which is good to have critical thinking but if someone wants to be legit about it, for me anonymity is the best way to do it. no point in advertising it.

[Birds]

Mr. Beast's parents made their money liquidating organ charities.

It's a public feud with his parents, where he's trying to make a charity that 'works' and is more valuable than the money put into it. But he's so blinded by his childhood trauma that he isn't able to understand his parents reasoning, and thus continues to engage with ineffectual and highly qeustionable means of doing charity in an effort to 'make reality work' again.

The immaturity of his foundational pursuit is reflected in his marketing, his persona, and his appeal.

But he won't succeed until he addresses the real issues, rather than trying to out-money them.

[TwisterCat]

MinionJoe lähetti viestin:

Sidakte lähetti viestin:

but there's also anonymous real charity. people who do it legit and we never find out anything about them. who keep it all quiet and only the results surface online @ some point.

How do those anonymous philanthropists make their money? Is their income dependent upon their social presence and online popularity?

They're not. They shouldn't exist. It's philanthropy vigilantism. They have no awareness of how their actions will actually effect the big picture. That goes for all of them, not just Mr. Beast.

Large philanthropic operations are best left to the non-profit charities you trust, not a single man operating on his own code of dubious morals and greed.

[Birds]

TwisterCat lähetti viestin:

MinionJoe lähetti viestin:

How do those anonymous philanthropists make their money? Is their income dependent upon their social presence and online popularity?

They're not. They shouldn't exist. It's philanthropy vigilantism. They have no awareness of how their actions will actually effect the big picture. That goes for all of them, not just Mr. Beast.

Large philanthropic operations are best left to the non-profit charities you trust, not a single man operating on his own code of dubious morals and greed.

The lone operative is the only one who can actually work efficently in the modern era. Large-scale conglomerates are too busy protecting their turf to get anything done.

[Sidakte]

npos have been accused of stealing money given to them so it could be diverted to charity too.
while there are questions regarding as to why these people do what they do, its not like that non-profit organizations are free of "sin" either. lots and lots of scandals of npos going rogue.

[TwisterCat]

Agree to disagree. He'll still do what he does, and nothing I say really matters anyways. Just exploring ideas.

[Birds]

Well, just for perspective on the African charity situation, it's estimated that 30% or less actually goes to people in need. Mr. Beast is crossing a very low bar here, whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.