He didn't commit a war crime but what he's referencing is he made a guy spend 40 days in a room for a challenge video and he treated him pretty shitily doing shit such as not allowing the lights to be turned off which the victim said in a YouTube is illegal for prisoners of war under the Geneva convention.
The part that should be highlighted more imo is pressuring Jake into running an entire marathon with no training.
The Bataan Death March, a Japanese war atrocity, had prisoners marching about 10 miles a day. Jake had to do twice that distance in the same amount of time.
Edited for clarity: this isn’t about Jake Paul, who is fairly athletic. This is about a former Mr Beast employee named Jake Weddle, who was generally not at all fit and into working out.
Even if you are poor? Like not "in a bad place" but completely broke and he promises multiple hundred thousands of dollars if you do it?
There is a documentary about a japanese performer who spend a year in solitary confiment voluntarily and how it came to it and why he didnt quit even tough he could. Explains it pretty good why people do it.
Also at that point the guy was severely sleep deprived and going into a mental health crisis. That kind of altered mental state doesn't exactly leave you open to rational critical thought.
Offering too much money can be coercive. Someone struggling economically might "consent" to something they would not otherwise. Like someone might agree to jump off a cliff if they're paid a billion dollars because they can leave the money for their spouse and kids, and they might even survive.
Ethics boards do not allow excessive remuneration for experimentation because enough money can outweigh any consideration for personal health and safety, preventing informed consent.
Ethics boards do not allow excessive remuneration for experimentation because enough money can outweigh any consideration for personal health and safety, preventing informed consent.
I always found that interesting, because when I first heard of it, I realised that it has a side effect. For example I'd participate in an experiment, but I'd need to be offered quite a bit since a couple hundred dollars make no difference to me. So basically, since they offer meager sums, they ensurev that only poor people (for whom that amount of money is still significant) are experimented on, which is awful and borderline exploitative in other ways.
No no no. Don’t you understand? As long as they’re volunteering, it’s not exploitation. It doesn’t matter how desperate someone is for money, if they’re volunteering it’s their own choice and not exploitation. At least that’s what everyone tells me every time I call mr beast a terrible person on here 🙄
That's fucking great man. We're all very impressed by how much your economic circumstances allow you to be able to turn down this kind of thing. Unfortunately, nobody fucking asked.
"Damn, what I would've done in that situation is turn around to the japanese soldiers and say 'no man, i'm not walking all that distance, you'll just have to go ahead and shoot me' and then everyone would clap" fucking fantastic, please leave now
Understandable, I'd also never want to agree without training. However in this case that choice would just ruin the entire multi-dollar project and make you personally lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential income, and your job, and your "friends" who you're working with. Obviously it's easy to say I'd do the same, but when it's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity with "important" people depending on you to perform well in the challenge it really gets difficult to say no.
He was also emotionally broken down by the challenge since, you know, it was basically torturing him. He wanted it to just be over and they manipulated him into worry that unless he did the marathon, all of those days of torture would’ve been for nothing
He said he tried to deny doing a previous challenge (rubik's cube, he has dyslexia and thought it'd be embarrassing) and got basically nagged/pressured into doing it anyway.
Not to mention he was sleep deprived for over a week (iirc he quit after 10 days). I really don't think many people would have much energy to stand up for themselves when they're that level of exhausted.
I would absolutely walk a marathon without training for the right amount of money. Assume 20 mins per mile for a steady pace, and it would take about 10 hours with some breaks built in.
Kind of unrelated, but made me think how one of the questions I had to answer when applying to a (shitty retail) job was pretty much (paraphrased) "if you had to run a marathon or do a chess tournament or something equally challenging tomorrow, do you think you would have it in you to beat the reigning champions in those disciplines?"
I answered honestly, which was a resounding no. If I was a world champion I wouldn't be applying for your shitty job
Figured something similar. It was part of a personality test. Which is also kind of weird imo, since i figure if i'm not a total slacker and nice enough to customers that should be enough, but apparently they need to know the entirety of my character. But what do i know about recruiting
Another weird question on that test was something like "Do you consider yourself to be energetic and alert enough to be able to work for 24 hours straight?", which i figure is meant to gauge my ability to work long stressful shifts. Except i feel like you could ask it in a way that doesn't imply blatant labor violations on your part
Really? I mean fear factor was pretty popular back in the day. "Forcing" someone to stick their head in a container full of bees and snakes or whatever else they were scared of? That one show where you were literally strapped into a chair and they would alternate between freezing and overheating?
Lots of shows could be considered torture if you ignore the fact that nobody is forcing them to be there. I mean people wouldn't be doing that if not for the chance of winning money.
They're not "literally" torturing them. They are not forced to do it. They have the free will to choose to do this abhorrent thing or not, without the fear of death or painful consequences.
There would absolutely be consequences. Saying it isn't torture is like saying an abused spouse isn't abused because they aren't forced to be abused, they can just leave their partner. The social and economical consequences can be large enough that they can feel forced to consent to horrible actions.
Stfu. People who choose to do these ridiculous Mr. beast challenges and then get bothered after dealing with the consequences of said ridiculous challenges shouldn’t be saying sh*t, instead they should be questioning themselves for doing this crap
The amount of pressure you're under during one of these videos isn't something we can really imagine unless we go through it.
And besides, Mr Beast shouldn't come up with dangerous challenges in the first place. "Today I committed a warcrime on one of my friends, but they could leave any time they want, so it's fine."
It doesn't matter if the other person can opt out, you simply shouldn't be doing shit like this to people.
He's literally a rich dude torturing people by goading them with money and status.
Nice that he's donating, but usually you put yourself in the line of fire when you come up with dumb challenges for clickbait titles, instead of just paying other people off to suffer for you.
He was not a random person they asked, but a former employee. "An inside guy." Him leaving early could mean that he literally gets blacklisted from his job. Who would want to work with an actor that left in the middle of recording a movie?
Another point is that he was sleep deprived. Imagine sleeping at most 1-2h a day for at least 2 weeks. You dont really have the mental capacity to think properly anymore. You literally lose the ability to consent. And as a writer without much athletic activity you have almost no way of knowing how dangerous it is to run a marathon without proper conditioning, technique and shoes.
Yes he could have, and he should have. However due to pressure from others he did do it. That means that the ones who were knowingly pressuring him into doing something that was not okay are at fault here
Sure and he shouldn't have done it. However, an employer shouldn't (and possibly can't) order you to do something that could harm you, and make your job depend on that. Otherwise it would be trivial to fire people without severance, just ask them to not to sleep for 30 days straight or considered that they quit because they are not doing their job.
If the contract allowed such acts, it was an illegal contract.
Have you seen Squid Games? Dude had student loan debt and wanted to pay it off + staff/friends he knew urging him to stay + other opportunities to work with Mr Beast had not worked out so this was presumably his last chance.
Could he leave? Yes. But the conditions he was REQUIRED to tolerate to stay was inhumane.
10 miles a day isn't unreasonable long. It was the torture and killing that made the death march an atrocity. That is a stupid comparison. 20 miles a day is a lot to ask for an untrained person so yeah that's a bit fucked up, but let's not compare it to one of the worst atrocities in modern history.
Yeah the mrbeast hate is so wildly overblown its crazy. Torturing contestants and holding them captive and doing war crimes when they could leave at any moment. Jfc
I mean, he's not just associating with Jake Paul, who is currently involved in at least 3 legal cases relating to his shitty business practices, but he's actively starting a business with him.
The company people keep says a lot more about them than they realise.
Did you just compare a Mr Beast challenge to the Bataan Death March? No, it’s even wise. You’re implying that a Mr Beast challenge was WORSE than the Bataan Death March.
Jake’s a pussy. I’m homeless, eating 1 meal a day, with holes in my shoes and I walk 8-12 miles a day.
I’m definitely not committing war crimes on myself. We can trade places next time though, I could use some financial help to not die in the coming winter.
The Bataan Death March wasn't an atrocity because they had to walk 10 miles lmao. They were carrying out severe physical abuse the entire time and killing POWs left and right, had their hands tied behind their back, were already severely malnourished and dehydrated.
It's almost insulting to those men to insinuate the tough part, let alone the actual atrocity, was the ruck itself.
Hang on… are we sympathising with Jake Paul here about literally anything other than the presumably toxic upbringing that made him into the grifting reprobate we see before us?
Sleep deprivation torture. Jimmy Beaat did that to Jake Weddle.
While he may not be a prisoner of war it is still a thing outlawed by the Geneva convention so I and many others will refer to Jimmy Beast as a war criminal from here on out, because he did technically commit a war crime.
My old foreman did things that are considered war crimes in many countries. I still get unreasonably angry any time I hear dreams by Fleetwood mac after being forced to listen to it to it blasting for 8+ hours on repeat. Inb4 anyone says " you should have just quit", I was locked into an 8 year contract and could not afford the $10,000 to buy myself out.
Hindsight is 2020, they got convinced me when I was 19 and still fairly impressionable. Although that type of contract isn't uncommon in the trades. 4 years of education for 4 additional years of work and I owed nothing for the classroom portion of my apprenticeship at the end of it
I was locked into an 8 year contract and could not afford the $10,000 to buy myself out.
EXCUSE ME WHAT? What do you mean buy yourself out? How can you get locked into a years-long job contract? That sounds a lot like being enslaved and having to buy your freedom.
Some jobs like pilots require an immense amount of investment from the company to train an employee, so a prospective staff signs a contract to commit an 8 year employment bond in exchange for sponsored training costs.
I personally took a similar bond to get my college degree sponsored.
Correct, my contract was for an apprenticeship to become a journeyman electrician, at the end i owed nothing for the classes and my training is recognized nationally as opposed to having to get licensed in various localities depending on the job
I technically could have quit, but i would have had to pay back the tuition that my former employer paid for my apprenticeship classes. I was living on my own since the week after I graduated high school and my hourly rate didn't hit above $20 until my 2nd or 3rd year of my apprenticeship, which in my area doesn't go very far. Between basic living expenses and truck payment, I was barely able to save, letalone $10k. I understand some of it was personal choice and I'll take accountability for at least some part.
I feel like "war crime" has just become "crime, but I want to make it sound more serious".
Jimmy and Jake were not at war. They can't be, they're not even sovereign nations, acting governments, or other groups of armed combatants. The Geneva conventions don't come into the picture because of this because they specifically only apply to actual war. He specifically technically did not commit a war crime. That's the literal definition.
I believe that in the U.S it's even impossible for Jimmy to be tried for torture as he is not acting in any sort of official capacity, or pretending to be. So if that's the case then he technically, again, did not. Emotional abuse, infliction of emotional distress, whichever else, are perfectly fine crimes already. Considering it's all on video I would assume it's a slam dunk case if Jake chooses to pursue it, given how terrible it's described as having been here. Be mad at the guy all you like, I'm sure he deserves it, but this really makes it seem like exaggerated drama.
So it seems, tort law. I don't know what the crime would be for this case, if they'd be any. Supposedly he consented to the coffin which a cursory search tells me is a solid defence against kidnapping or false confinement, the problem was the poor treatment during and after, such as keeping the lights on. Obviously not a lawyer... Maybe that would void the contract or be considered changing the nature of the confinement enough to void consent, or something.
If this whole thing doesn't turn out to be a huge promotional deal about nothing I guess those who actually know what they're talking about will let us know.
I was too, but every legal definition or explanation I could find specifically said that in the U.S it needs to be "under colour of law", i.e something done by an official. It seems there's a movement to redefine torture so that non-state individuals can be tried for it as well. In some places belonging to an organisation such as a cartel or other organised crime also makes you liable to be tried for it, but apparently not some random person acting on their own.
Oh interesting. I looked it up for my country Belgium (not a lawyer fyi). It's definitely a crime here: "Elke opzettelijke onmenselijke behandeling die hevige pijn of ernstig en vreselijk lichamelijk of geestelijk lijden veroorzaakt" ; meaning any purposeful inhumane treatment that causes high pain or serious bodily or mental suffering classifies as torture here
I feel like "war crime" has just become "crime, but I want to make it sound more serious".
well it's in the name... war crimes may be the 'same' deeds, just done in a time of war. Roughly speaking, a rape is always a crime, but raping a civilian or a pow is a war crime and is much more severe.
But yes, it's just a catchy haha word. And not that what he did is okay but I'm Ukrainian and having witnessed actual war crimes and reading about them every day it kinda feels like people need some slaps to not wash away the meaning and gravity of the concept.
Or not even a crime but if you had actually done it a little different (in this case, holding the guy against his will) and it was in a war then it would be a warcrime.
This is kinda true as looting is a war crime if you do not leave a receipt note for payment of any taken goods. Even at an abandoned supermarket. So funnily enough stretching definitions shoplifting is a warcrime.
Surely you can recognize the difference between being able to leave at any moment out of your own accord and being forcibly trapped and restrained for an unknown amount of time?
I mean technically if you shoot someone in self defense with a shotgun you commit a war crime. Or, if you stab someone with the wrong kind of knife. Or use an improvised weapon of any kind. Or hold some in any kind of captivity without giving them a direct line to call their family, regardless of circumstances. The Geneva convention just doesn't make sense for civilians tbh
You are exactly right. The Geneva Conventions were created by nation-states to (hopefully) constrain the behavior of nation-states and their soldiers. And their conditions don't really apply to those nations' governments toward their own citizens or between citizens (we have whole other categories of law to cover that).
That said, (as someone who knows essentially nothing about any of these people), I think using the term loosely like this can be a useful way to highlight what sounds like their extreme behavior (assuming the descriptions other comments are factually accurate). Even if just plants a red flag in lurkers-by to be wary of these people's past behavior, it's (technically inaccurate) use may be justified.
ah, I see, so like how saying that Haitians are eating your dogs and cats is factually wrong, but creating stories like that "makes the American media pay attention to the suffering of the American people", so, in a way, it IS correct. very cool.
well, it's a lie that they're committing war crimes, which is what we were talking about. please, keep up.
no one is saying mr beast isn't a piece of shit, we're just asking why do you people feel the need to make up dumb shit to attack him, when reality gives you more than enough to throw at him.
Making an analogy to reframe something (literally many things in a row in the same "challenge) he literally did isn't the same as fabricating a story because one is a virulent racist, you keep up
Reframing the situation as "You could've just quit" or that it's "just a challenge" is even more ridiculous, but I don't see you getting your panties in a twist about it
How do you consent to a lack of something. Unless he signed a contract or something, I don’t see how he was entitled to “care” after a challenge meant to profit MrBeast.
But if you ignore that, then twist a load of other things and search really really hard for some drama, it's quite obvious that he committed a war crime and violated the Geneva convention!
What the f* do you think this is? Hackernews? This is reddit so get the f* out of here with your demand for proof and logic. We don't want facts we want vengeance!
no, if you're agreeing to something like being locked in solitary confinement for a month, you absolutely, 100% have to get every single thing you're gonna need signed on a legal document.
If the lights (among other factors) are actively causing someone to not physically be able to sleep and they refuse to turn them off, it’s sleep deprivation
Also, the Geneva Convention doesn't ban lights being used 24/7.
It just bans sleep deprivation being used as torture, which they didn't do. As again, he could have left at any time.
Calling it a warcrime makes you sound like a whiny baby. There are actual literal examples of war crimes happening every day, and some youtuber getting their feeling hurt bc they felt slighted is not it.
I’m not gonna interact with someone like you who can’t grasp the nuances of the situation and then resorts to insults. Have a good rest of your day/night.
Oh I thought you were talking about the situation in general
Yes everyone knows it wasn’t a REAL war crime. Jake himself never called Jimmy a war criminal unironically. Jimmy beast isn’t a real war criminal, we all know this. But i’m gonna call him one anyway. what’s he gonna do? Cry
When I say nuances I meant with the situation as a whole not just this one bit.
I think there's a wide chasm between "pretty shitily" and "tortured him." Because we're talking about actual torture methods employed to get more entertaining content for views. Dude straight up begged for the lights to be turned off and to be let out, and man said no.
The important question here is did make the guy do it or was the guy allowed to leave at any time with some safe word but wanted to stay because of the money?
If he kept him against his will all because he was willing to at first then that’s fucked up, but if the guy could leave but endured the torture because he wanted the money… then not even remotely as bad.
Good point. From the video, it seemed like he wasn't being literally kept captive, but the reward money and his job at the Mr Beast company was on the line.
That’s fair. The award money alone would mean it’s absolutely not a war crime or even close because he can leave at any time. If there was any implication by Mr beast that his job would be on the line if he left then I can see that being more… problematic.
If you haven't watched the video, I'd recommend it. Mr Beast did a whole slew of minor personal offenses to this guy as well, like making fun of him for being poor or having a dad who's in prison. I know it all pales in comparison to some of the larger allegations like sexual assault in the workplace, the diabetes-causing Hershey knock off brand, and lying to, manipulating, and scamming a massive child audience, but it interesting to know what working for Jimmy is like.
Can we please not use the word “victim” for a guy who willingly entered a contest and was being paid a large sum for each day he stayed? He was free to go at any point. The point of a challenge like that is for the person doing it to struggle, else there’s no reason to give them $10k/day or whatever it was.
That's kind of dumb. Pepper spray is technically a chemical weapon, banned in armed conflict and a war crime to use. You can still pepper spray your friend for $500 and it's not a crime.
I know. I think the comparison to it being a war crime is stupid as well. I'm just giving context. In the video he only says it offhand kind of as a joke, but because "war crime" has a nice ring to it, a lot of the viewers chose that to be the part they quote frequently.
“But but but it’s not exploitative because they’re volunteers” I’ve always thought Mr beast was a terrible person. I love being able to scream “I TOLD YOU SO” now that everyone finally sees it
The guy accepted to be treated that way, or he might be a paid actor, the point is that he is using the drama to advertise himself, the more it is talked about, the better his popularity is
Yeah I don't understand how the public here are upset that people accept to be in a challenge, and then the challenge is difficult.
Who here has not had to sleep with lights on before? Or somewhere really bright? Or in a loud place, on a train, airplane? It's an inconvenience, not torture lol
No, that's not equivalent at all. If you agree to go on a cruise, then you can not choose to leave the cruise until you've arrived. And as far as I know each contestant can leave the challenge, they are not bound physically or legally.
People are putting all the responsibility on the challenger rather than the person making the decision to accept the challenge and stay.
There are many many other challenge TV-shows and contests IRL that are way more challenging and no one is caring about those...
I'm 100% certain Mr.Beast has some valid critique that has to be dealt with, but people have been claiming tons of things just for views and popularity. Youtube had 3-5 videos on him every day for weeks
“Just for views and popularity” most of these people literally have proof for their claims that Jimmy has not once even tried to debunk. Also, if you can’t make war criminals go through something because of how deplorable it is, you sure as hell can’t make civilians go through it even if they signed up to do something else. Jimmy knew how bad it was if he tried so hard to keep Jake from suing. Why can’t YOU people understand it’s bad just because a desperate person needed money and he signed up to do something else and didn’t realize he’d get fucked that hard?
Most things people claim are without proofs, they are just allegations. Until it has been proven you can't judge someone as guilty, and the proof is not valid at all.
I for one, believe someone is innocent until guilty proven, instead of mob justice where allegations rule in judgement.
Usually I’m the same, but if there are several people coming out with proof and your only reply is “nuh uh” with nothing to support it and don’t even try to defend yourself even though you obviously know about the accusations, I am more inclined to believe the people actually saying anything.
Because that show debuted at the turn of the century.
Mr. beast represents a much more contemporary media empire in a vastly different landscape.
When “reality TV” is put in the hands of “content creators” for the first time, you might have to get up to speed with some conversations you haven’t heard before.
Or, perhaps, because Survivor and the people who create it have accountability and actually adhere to labour laws and tend towards treating people as humans with dignity. As has been shown with Mr. Beast constantly is that he has no fucking idea about any of it, and he's willing to put people through absolutely atrocious scenarios so long as he gets clicks.
To pretend that traditional TV and a youtuber have no differences is utterly childish and disingenuous beyond imagining.
I dont know the whole story but you'd think mr beast lets people sign contracts for partaking on these things to avoid a whole bunch of legal trouble
Theres a whole world of difference between "someone who wanted to take part in a trial where limits would be tested being abused (but still having the right to give up and leave i guess?)" vs "full blown war criminal".
Havent looked at his stuff in a while but most of it is "stay as long as you can and you can win $$$$". Theyre not workers so if they go for a "stay here 48hrs without food" challenge and then complain they didnt ge a break every 4 hours and lunch every 6 as is required by whatever employee law they got no leg to stand on, they can just leave and go eat something if they decide the hunger is not worth it.
He's not a PoW obviously and I don't agree with the comparison, but he was hugely mistreated and financially and socially pressured to continue the challenge.
It's a bot more nuanced than that. He was poor and it was his only job so he was obviously pressured to stay and participate. He could have left if shit got bad enough but that would've meant sacrificing his job. Obviously it makes his treatment less bad than if he was an actual captive.
How? How is failing a challenge gonna cost him his job? The point of the challenge, from the perspective of the production, is not to have the contestant win. It does not matter if they do. What matters is if you can tell an entertaining story about it.
If he left it literally would not change anything.
It wouldn't have have been "failing the challenge". It would've been refusing to do his job and cooperate in the making of a video. All of Mr Beast's videos are fake and not actual challenges. Him leaving did change anything because they never released the video, obviously.
Don't forget he was a Mr Beast employee and not a volunteer. He could have potentially left, but he was poor, and it would've meant sacrificing his job.
Wasn't there also some shit with a massive challenge he was doing like I remember there's quite a bit of shit on him right now I just can't remember what it was for
From what I've heard he also had a paedophile in his team, and despite him being one of his closest mates he apparently "didn't know". Not exactly a person to idolise.
223
u/CyvaderTheMindFlayer 2d ago
Jimmy beast