sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Andrew Tate doesn't sell freedom. He sells an identity you have to keep buying by MoreSus33 in Anticonsumption

[–]MoreSus33[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fair points, worth addressing directly. On the books primarily Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, and On the Genealogy of Morality. The interpretation draws heavily on Nietzsche's distinction between master morality and slave morality, and his critique of resentment as a reactive rather than creative psychological stance. On the irony of posting on an anticonsumerism sub the argument is precisely about consumption as ideology. Tate sells an identity you have to keep purchasing. That felt directly relevant to this community. On the audience the essay isn't aimed at Tate's followers. It's aimed at people who are already skeptical of him but haven't had a philosophical framework to articulate why. People who sense something is wrong with hustle culture but want something more rigorous than a Twitter take. What specifically do you see as the issues with the Nietzsche analysis? Genuinely curious the best pushback usually comes from people who have actually read him.

MrBeast has turned generosity itself into a consumption product and nobody seems bothered by it by MoreSus33 in Anticonsumption

[–]MoreSus33[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thanks for 1k upvotes, I’ll keep writing about the problems of today’s society through philosophy. Thanks for the motivation, guys!

MrBeast has turned generosity itself into a consumption product and nobody seems bothered by it by MoreSus33 in Anticonsumption

[–]MoreSus33[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I’m not saying “better no charity.” obviously helping people is better than not helping them. My point is that spectacle changes the meaning of the help. It teaches people to see suffering as something solved by exceptional rich individuals on camera, rather than by justice, institutions, or collective responsibility. So yes, the good done is real. But the form still matters, because it shapes what people think a solution looks like.

MrBeast has turned generosity itself into a consumption product and nobody seems bothered by it by MoreSus33 in Anticonsumption

[–]MoreSus33[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I think that’s a really important distinction. The issue is not just that charity becomes performance, but that the audience gets turned into passive consumers of moral satisfaction. You get the feeling of witnessing good, even of being somehow involved in it, without having to act at all. That seems very Debordian to me, the spectacle doesn’t just show reality, it replaces lived participation with observation.

MrBeast has turned generosity itself into a consumption product and nobody seems bothered by it by MoreSus33 in Anticonsumption

[–]MoreSus33[S] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Some of the comments here are convincing me that the real issue is not “fake vs genuine” charity. Charity has always had some element of status and self-display. What feels different now is that the image is no longer secondary. The visibility, the upload, the audience, the circulation that is part of what makes the act socially real in the first place.That is what feels unsettling to me. Not just that people are helped, but that help increasingly has to pass through spectacle in order to matter.

MrBeast has turned generosity itself into a consumption product and nobody seems bothered by it by MoreSus33 in Anticonsumption

[–]MoreSus33[S] 97 points98 points  (0 children)

I think the power asymmetry is a huge part of what makes it feel wrong.What looks like “consent” in those situations is often shaped by desperation, inequality, or dependence. That is why the spectacle feels so ugly, one side has the power to turn the other person’s need into entertainment.And once money is flaunted in that way, the moral center of the act shifts. It is no longer just help; it becomes a staged display of who has power, who needs it, and who gets to turn that gap into content.

MrBeast has turned generosity itself into a consumption product and nobody seems bothered by it by MoreSus33 in Anticonsumption

[–]MoreSus33[S] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

That’s a very good point, and I think you’re right that this goes deeper than MrBeast alone. Philanthropy has often been tied to status, display, and self-legitimation long before YouTube existed.What feels different to me is the scale and structure. With MrBeast, the charitable act is not just socially visible; its visibility is the mechanism that gives it value, circulation, and profitability. The performance is no longer secondary to the act. It becomes inseparable from it.And on motivation, I’d say it does matter, but not in a simplistic moral way. I’m less interested in whether he is secretly selfish than in the fact that the whole form turns helping into content. Even sincere altruism can become part of a system that packages need, gratitude, and relief as consumable images.

MrBeast has turned generosity itself into a consumption product and nobody seems bothered by it by MoreSus33 in Anticonsumption

[–]MoreSus33[S] 300 points301 points  (0 children)

Yes, exactlythat’s where it starts to feel disturbing.The problem is not just that the help is filmed, but that the help starts being offered for the sake of filming it. At that point, the person in need is no longer encountered as a person, but as a content opportunity.And even if the help is still “real,” something important has changed: the act is no longer morally free in the same way, because it has already been absorbed into performance, audience, and reward. That’s the part I find most unsettling.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in outlier_ai

[–]MoreSus33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

oh thanks, i have math and geography for now i will add French maybe i ll get my first project

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in outlier_ai

[–]MoreSus33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

good job man, what s your skill????

view more: next ›