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.
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’m not from the US, but I assume they have laws for this. I’m against vigilante justice against people who were already judged by the legal system. Do you also support not hiring any felon?
I don’t think he should or shouldn’t be allowed near anyone, I assume if there was a reason to be barred from it by the judge, he would be. Clearly he wasn’t, so I’m not going to be an armchair legal expert and override the judge.
You have a very optimistic view of the American legal system and it does not include nuance such as this. It depends from state to start but generally a sex offender is not legally prohibited from holding just about any position beyond teacher/day care. Some states make it difficult for them to obtain professional licenses. I do not believe any of them actually prohibits “children’s entertainer”.
Typically that would be considered the purview of the employer.
Hey, man… I like playing devil’s advocate as much as the next guy, but maybe Jimmy’s got enough money to hire his own, yeah? Not to mention that the stuff you come up with is pretty weak.
Should everyone on the sex offender registry be jobless forever, or what is the point?
Should I be hired as a mechanic if I’ve ever tampered with cars before? Should I be hired in finance if I ran a ponzi scheme? Should I be hired producing content for children if I raped an 11 year old? Yeah, some questions are absolute mysteries.
There is tons of people criticizing him and I only heard about one cease and desist.
The man literally has you sign an NDA to work for him. That’s attempt to silence.
That DogPack guy seems to have created his YouTube channel solely to attack MrBeast, do we have anyone more trusted?
I trust a labrador retriever to retrieve better than other dogs. Who would you like to have on Jimmy’s heels? The pope? Trump? There’s nobody that can’t be discredited or dismissed with a "that guy’s just a <random insult> trying to hurt MrBeast.“
I have a feeling the DogPack guy has an agenda and isn’t offering an objective view.
Oh, great. What an objective assessment to go on - your feeling. Listen, unless it’s a third party that is not involved in the situation, that is incorruptible and that is tamper proof, you won’t find objective reality. All you’ll find is a subjective view of past events. Consume both sides of the argument and make up your mind where exactly the truth is, cause it’s probably somewhere in-between everyone’s claims. Or don’t, there is no reason to get involved in the subject.
That being said - I am willing to believe someone who films themselves giving money to homeless people and uses it to get more money and views is a total fucking asshole whose basic mechanism of shame has been overridden by whatever type of greed made him turn into this soulless husk in the first place.
having a degrading work culture: (from one of his documents)
No doesn’t mean no
Let’s not take stuff way out of context. There’s plenty to criticize here (including a toxic work culture, but not because of this) so there’s no need to misrepresent anything.
This is the paragraph that comes from. I’d say it’s absolutely shitty to whoever they’re bothering though.
NO DOES NOT MEAN NO
When dealing with people outside MrBeast Productions never take a No at
face value. If we need a store to buy everything inside of and you call the local
Dollar tree and the person that answers says “No, you can’t film here”. That
literally doesn’t mean shit. Talk to other employees and see if any are fans or if
any have kids that are fans, try talking to their boss, their bosses boss, have me
dm them on twitter and try their social team, etc. If after all avenues are
exhausted you are left with a no, that doesn’t mean don’t try the other dollar trees
because the manager of those could be huge fans and willing to bend the rules.
Basically what I’m trying to convey is what we call “pushing thru no”. Don’t just
stop because one person told you no, stop when all conceivable options are
exhausted. This is one of many tools that when combined dramatically improve
your probability of success when producing here.
Ok. So he wants his sales guys to be pushy. Not good behavior but how is this different from anyone else?
I don’t have a previous opinion because I don’t watch that kind of shit (“philanthropy porn” is a great term for it), but you guys aren’t really selling me on it. I see a bunch of online people jumping right to sociopath and slime, then describing behavior that is all too common, almost normal, and certainly better than most internet slime and sociopaths.
Seriously? Someone who works for him might be a pedophile so he’s clearly a sociopath?
No, someone was definitely a pedophile and he still kept them around. Sexual misconduct with a minor aged 1-11. I believe he was even a manager at a point.
He had them regularly on video, used a fake name, and they even wore a face mask (not surgical/COVID style).
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’m not from the US, but I assume they have laws for this. I’m against vigilante justice against people who were already judged by the legal system. Do you also support not hiring any felon?
I don’t think he should or shouldn’t be allowed near anyone, I assume if there was a reason to be barred from it by the judge, he would be. Clearly he wasn’t, so I’m not going to be an armchair legal expert and override the judge.
You have a very optimistic view of the American legal system and it does not include nuance such as this. It depends from state to start but generally a sex offender is not legally prohibited from holding just about any position beyond teacher/day care. Some states make it difficult for them to obtain professional licenses. I do not believe any of them actually prohibits “children’s entertainer”.
Typically that would be considered the purview of the employer.
Hey, man… I like playing devil’s advocate as much as the next guy, but maybe Jimmy’s got enough money to hire his own, yeah? Not to mention that the stuff you come up with is pretty weak.
Should I be hired as a mechanic if I’ve ever tampered with cars before? Should I be hired in finance if I ran a ponzi scheme? Should I be hired producing content for children if I raped an 11 year old? Yeah, some questions are absolute mysteries.
The man literally has you sign an NDA to work for him. That’s attempt to silence.
I trust a labrador retriever to retrieve better than other dogs. Who would you like to have on Jimmy’s heels? The pope? Trump? There’s nobody that can’t be discredited or dismissed with a "that guy’s just a <random insult> trying to hurt MrBeast.“
Oh, great. What an objective assessment to go on - your feeling. Listen, unless it’s a third party that is not involved in the situation, that is incorruptible and that is tamper proof, you won’t find objective reality. All you’ll find is a subjective view of past events. Consume both sides of the argument and make up your mind where exactly the truth is, cause it’s probably somewhere in-between everyone’s claims. Or don’t, there is no reason to get involved in the subject.
That being said - I am willing to believe someone who films themselves giving money to homeless people and uses it to get more money and views is a total fucking asshole whose basic mechanism of shame has been overridden by whatever type of greed made him turn into this soulless husk in the first place.
Yeah no thanks I’ll just stay ignorant if that’s the only option.
huh damn. Thank you :)
Let’s not take stuff way out of context. There’s plenty to criticize here (including a toxic work culture, but not because of this) so there’s no need to misrepresent anything.
This is the paragraph that comes from. I’d say it’s absolutely shitty to whoever they’re bothering though.
(source)
Ok. So he wants his sales guys to be pushy. Not good behavior but how is this different from anyone else?
I don’t have a previous opinion because I don’t watch that kind of shit (“philanthropy porn” is a great term for it), but you guys aren’t really selling me on it. I see a bunch of online people jumping right to sociopath and slime, then describing behavior that is all too common, almost normal, and certainly better than most internet slime and sociopaths.
Seriously? Someone who works for him might be a pedophile so he’s clearly a sociopath?
No, someone was definitely a pedophile and he still kept them around. Sexual misconduct with a minor aged 1-11. I believe he was even a manager at a point.
He had them regularly on video, used a fake name, and they even wore a face mask (not surgical/COVID style).
“Why’s he called Delaware?”
“Because he’s not allowed back in Delaware.”
I’m not trying to sell anything to you.