Probably the people who have it worst are the minor or niche celebrities. They tend to have the downside of people digging into their personal lives (and you always find something if you dig hard enough), but they're usually not wealthy enough to have the option of just disappearing. They can also run into a situation where most people outside their particular space know them more for their scandal than their actual work.
It always intrigues me how many people with shady private lives become famous to begin with? Take for example politicians who have history of sexual harassment allegations. Why place yourself in the spotlight if it just means the press are going to start digging into your past? It just feels either incredibly arrogant, that they assume they can just buy off anyone who finds anything, or incredibly stupid, that they assume no one will ever know, or incredibly hypocritical, that they assume because of their public persona they will just be forgiven and there will be no consequences. It’s like in the 30’s when gay celebrities went to incredible lengths to keep it quiet. You would think the sensible thing to do was to just not draw attention to yourself in the first place?
@@androstempest The press used to ignore the sins of politicians and celebrities and to protect the reputations of some, especially if they liked them or if it did not appear to affect their job. The press corps in Washington or London knows who the alcoholics are, who cheats on their spouses, who have a gambling problem. The only people who don't always know are the suckers back home who vote for them. And sometimes these people have power and abuse it by forcing people to keep their secrets.
@@androstempest It's a really good question. I think it has a lot to do with the corruption of power. When some people gain a semblance, or even a whole heap, of power they think it makes them invulnerable to harm ...until they find out, to their own cost, that it doesn't! Essentially the power goes straight to their head.
I’ve noticed that people who’s work I don’t care about, or was only potentially tangential to my interests are the easiest to “cancel” out of hand. I think this is because I’m just not invested enough in their work to think critically about them at all. Good or bad, I hear the rumblings of their cancellation and I move on to other things. 🤷🏻♀️ At the same time, since I’ve never cared that much about anything either way, I think I’m pretty easily un-swayed from that cancellation is it’s “unfounded” (ie the James Charles is a predator scandal) or there’s evidence of a change (ie James Gunn).
@@lunaskies624 I'd actually invert that. I like the saying that power doesn't corrupt, it reveals. I don't think people in powerful positions commit sexual assault because they become corrupted or their egos get overinflated, I think people who enjoy violating others gravitate towards positions of power.
I was a big Louis C.K fan, I found it hard to believe the accusations about him (that first started as rumours). Then everything was confirmed, it was a big disappointment, but I believe in second chances. His comeback was... well, it had a couple of bad transphobic jokes, not a great start. But the final straw was when he addressed the accusations. So, he made jokes at his own expense, but none of them seemed to be actually self-reflective, he basically dismissed the case as "well, we all have fetishes, now you know mine". But Louie, it's not about your exhibitionist fetish, it's about how you did it without consent from the other person. We're not angry about your kink, we're angry about the people you wronged. In this, he did not address the issue at all. As talented as he is, I don't think I can go back to Louie and enjoy it the same way. It's as funny as it was, but now it's "tainted".
@@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770 He was famous. The women did not feel that they could say no. His actions were almost on the same level as a creep who exposes himself on the bus. Most men seem to understand and accept the idea that you don't ask someone you are not in a relationship with to witness or participate in a sex act. So how is this ok? Louis didn't ask his male buddies to watch him. He didn't pay a sex worker to watch him. These were not random acts. He specifically asked women, including female comedians, to watch him. His actions were not the worst thing in the world, but they are still unacceptable and unethical.
Yeah, that's actually why I don't give some second chances to celebrities. If they can't recognize that what they did was wrong and try to fix it/themselves, then you don't deserve forgiveness. (like louie or chris brown)
@@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770 I absolutely accept that Louis CK has apologized. His fans can accept that. I have questions. Some who defend him think his behavior was acceptable and try to hinge this on consent. I reject this. I don't know any man who was brought up to believe that it was acceptable to ask someone you were not dating or in a relationship with to witness you performing a sex act. This was not ok even in my teen peer culture growing up. But here is what makes this unethical. The women interviewed consistently and independently said that they felt that they could not say no, and feared that Louis CK might harm their careers. He didn't ask friends or random women. He did not ask male comedians. He asked female comedians whose careers might be in jeopardy if they refused him. We know from the Harvey Weinstein case that at least two women lost jobs because they refused his advances.
the louie situation has little to do with consent as the people he jerked it to gave consent, the problem arises when you afction in the power dynamics and the workplace it happened in
I think it’s important I add this about Rosario Dawson. She has actively been boosting trans voices and fighting alongside us. She just helped produce the documentary La Queencianera on one of our greatest living transgender activists, the president of the Trans Latin@ Coalition, Bamby Salcedo, who is not one to be taken a fool. Maybe it’s just PR, but I think she genuinely supports us.
Matthew Perry and Robert Downey Jr are prime examples of how things worked before social media. Both had their issues shared everywhere on entertainment shows, but both were also shown to at least try and do better. Not only were there stays in rehab public knowledge, they were being held accountable by the people in charge of their current projects. The producers on Friends gave Perry the choice of rehab or being fired. They helped him through his issues and you can see Perry's struggles in each season of Friends. When it comes to beliefs, that is harder. If the person has shown they are not the same as they were when younger, I'm willing to give them a second chance. I said things in my childhood that were common place that I would NEVER say as an adult because I know how wrong I was so who am I to judge.
But Matthew Perry and Robert Downey Jr had drug addictions. It's a disease. It's a very, very different kind of behavior - much more self-destructive than anything - then a Joss Whedon's or Louis Ck or even the plagiarist C.o.G. mentioned. They were always going to be much more readily forgivable, social media or not.
RDJ is an interesting case. He won an Oscar before everything was released to the public, he did time in jail, sobered up completely, and was given a major chance by a few friends which paid off in literal millions. He was a white guy in Hollywood but he also very visibly paid for what he did wrong. I don’t feel like he was ultimately rewarded; he was just very very lucky.
Just my opinion, but both of them would have probably been ok in the era of social media, as they both acknowledged their issues and spent considerably amounts of time working to overcome them.
I just realized something, have I been subbed so long that I witnessed your digital comming out, and your later on evolution into the fashionista you are today? I do miss the flat cap, but I love your style.
Other things that made an issue with Gunn is the obvious bad faith nature of the charge. There weren't exactly victims who were hurt coming forward, just a hypocritical edgelord with a grudge & a few people he stirred up who may be offended, but not really victimized. Also, Gunn was himself a victim of child abuse coping through humor, which think made him a lot more sympathetic,
It baffles me when people equate all scandals. "This person was allowed to keep going why not this other guy" more often then not when I hear that the difference between the two scandals is freaking huge. Look at the recent debacle with Barrowman and what's his face who played Mickey, those two scandal are worlds apart you can't possibly expect them both to be treated the same way. It's very much a case by case with those and mostly it's all about how people react to them.
I dont even mind barrowmans because he hasnt apparently done it for years. I literally just expect an apology from him. Mickeys actor did this shit up to 2019 and you know he would have done it in 2020 if not for covid
@@Quirderph that and Mickey's actor definitely made a point to bring it up again when accusations against him were brought up. I think they're more linked from that.
I think another thing that determine whether a public figure is provided a certain amount of forgiveness is the time period when the harmful actions/beliefs happened. I think people had an easier time forgiving James Gunn because much of internet culture around the late 00's was edgy dark humor. What we find socially acceptable as a society is always changing and for people who did things that in the past were acceptable but now aren't, particularly if they have adjusted their behavior to reflex social changes, it is a bit easier to forgive them.
idk, i think it has to do a lot more with his popularity as well, acting as a shield for his actions. Hartley Sawyer basically had the same situation and likely won't get the reprieve because his fan base isn't strong enough to bring him back into the fold. Whether that's right or wrong, idk, but I've never personally understood backlash at attempted comedy, even if its in poor taste in retrospect or just isn't particularly funny. Intent should matter.
@@phil1500 Have you ever heard of Justine Sacco? One tweet ruined her life, for at least a few years. People delighted in her termination. ... Only she was joking. A bad, offensive, tasteless joke? Yes, awful. But she thought "this is so offensive, no one will *think* that this is not a joke." It was not intended as white supremacy. In my opinion, her, Hartley Sawyer, and James Gunn should be very much forgiven. With James Gunn it felt like kind of a hit job because Disney already knew about the tweets... a conservative pundit with hostile intentions just brought them to public attention. With Sawyer, I hope he bounces back. I think he should. It's just.. the recency of the tweets (2012-2014)... the lack of a narrative of an "apology" (James Gunn had already apologized for the tweets before this happened)... and the ugliness of the tweets (In James Gunn's situation, from most of what I read, you could still tell he was joking, in Sawyer's.. some of them really read serious. I really wish the WB wouldn't have fired him. He played a gay man in a short film, I really don't think he has homophobic intentions. Just my opinion. Where a distinct line is? Tweets that *attack* specific people at current time, even if they are jokes. Case in point: Roseanne Barr. She may have meant it in jest, but it was still a direct racist attack on a specific person. That's kind of my take on it.
think that and he already been through the applogie thing years and years ago. Disney knew about it before they hired him. That and right or wrong people just brush it off as edgy humor that at most cringe
Not sure time alone is enough if the situation involved violence. Should we forgive a serial rapist because their last crime was twenty years ago? Some offences just stick with you forever.
Agreed. It's a lot like what is usually done with historical figures. A lot of people like to tell others to "view their actions in context of their time", as if the person in question couldn't have known better
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes." This deliciously ironic Obi-Wan Kenobi line is an efficient way to emphasize the urgency for the return of rationality, nuance, and plain old humanity to proceedings and conversations. This is a topic that needs to be examined exhaustively and I thank you for bringing it to a platform like Yuzentüben.
I think another interesting example might be ProJared, who was accused of quite a bit of wrongdoing. He admitted to some, but denied others, went silent for a while, but eventually came back with evidence that he hadn't committed the most egregious offenses. The evidence part is something you don't see very often (Maybe just because of how hard it can be to prove that something didn't happen).
Definitely. Although, as sad as it is that it happened the way it did, I think it's thanks to ProJared's experience and his receipts that the casual UA-cam gaming community is a lot more hesitant to join in on the dogpiling before more info is known. I noticed this when Dan from GameGrumps was falsely accused of grooming. Many fans offered words of support for him, others simply waited for more details and/or a comment from Dan--not that there was much to say, since it didn't happen. I distinctly remember quite a few commenters citing ProJared as the reason they didn't want to jump to conclusions.
I think if she changed her mind and openly campaigned to help trans people, I'd maybe forgive her. But she hasn't done that and is still openly transphobic.
@@thatadambyrne the only way I could forgive her is if she started donating proceeds from her books to charities like Mermaids (a uk trans charity) and pulled her book about a man dressing as a woman to kill people from shelves. That will never happen though
@@nicolebee3283 I agree. She's not like James Gunn who just made some edgy tweets, she actively wrote big long blogs. I'd expect her to donate money ect too
To misquote James Stephanie Sterling - "Thank the goddesses for Vera." I don't think I've ever agreed with you more on your points about how to handle these situations. FYI, when I saw the thumbnail, I thought it was Tom Cavanagh and had to look up what he'd been accused of (given that he recently left The Flash). Thankfully it wasn't him but James Gunn. Gunn's tuff should never have been dragged up or given any credence, especially for the reason of it being from a butthurt individual. Rowlemort and Whedon have had their opportunities to gain a second chance. One has doubled down and the other is in hiding, neither giving an apology (please correct if I'm wrong). They're out for me, although as someone who got into Potter through the films, Rowlemort never had the relevance to me that she does for book fans. Whedon's actions still sting.
'...a GODDESS. Praise me.' Noted! I love when you sit down and talk through issues like in this vid. I'm someone that's terrible for tending towards 'separate the artist from the art' because that's easier and more convenient, so I find it important to watch videos like this and try to make myself think more. Also, I met one of my closest friends yesterday for the first time in several years, and he's now living with a gender fluidity he'd never shown before. I am CERTAIN that following your channel is the reason I showed no shock or strange reaction, because watching, listening and thinking has helped me become less sheltered/ignorant over the years. So, a little bit weird but a personal thank you from me to you for opening my world and worldview that little all. (Also, my friend was pulling off his look incredibly well, and let me try on his heels by the end of the wedding.)
I feel this video explains how John Borrowman came out quite ok: His behavior had been quite public before the recent outcry, it was years ago, he did apologize and then went out of the public eye for some time.
There is a NASCAR driver named Kyle Larson who has seemed to kinda redeem himself after he said a racial slur during an iRacing event last year, by actually going to places and talking with civil rights leaders on why relaxed use of the n-word is a bad thing.
To me it kinda boils down to a few things - did the person respond to it with what seems like genuine remorse and have they tried to make things right? I want to veer away from politics here but there is a pretty obvious example here - when presented with problems biden apologized and seems to genuinely be attempting to change his behavior. Trump handwoven it away as a joke and tried to attack the accusers. Biden gets forgiveness and trump doesn't.
My whole problem with scandals comes down to 'trial by public'. Especially on social media, where it is so ridiculously easy to act in bad faith. If it's something criminal, let the courts deal with it. That's their whole reason to exist. And if it's not criminal, it's probably none of my business. Unless it's something that should be a punishable offence, but isn't, in which case targetting the celeb in question is probably counterproductive. Just look at what is happening in the UK right now, probably as a direct result of the controversy surrounding the creator of Voldemort. The problem is, we feel celebs are answerable to us, and it's up to 'us' to hold them accountable. Reality doesn't agree. Case in point: James Gunn. Held 'accountable' for things that were very likely jokes posted in a time when such jokes were common. Or Lindsay Ellis, held 'accountable' for not being as liberal as she 'should' be (to sum up something that's far more complex than I'm making it sound here.) Point is...nobody can ultimately by held accountable on the shifting sand of public acceptability. That's the entire reason we have laws in the first place, and trained people (appropriately called 'Judges') to make judgement calls (unless you live in a country where the trained professional outsources judgement right back into the hands of a small slice of the unqualified public, now known as a jury.) I can't help but wonder how much of this is an American problem. I also can't help but feel that if people poured half the energy they reserve for social media outrage into pressuring legislators for meaningful equality laws, the vast majority of scandals could be dealt with in a way that resulted in actual, real accountability.
One of the more freeing thoughts I've ever had is getting myself away from the concept of second chances all together. I'm an adult, if someone's presence in my life makes me uncomfortable, then I'm going to the best of my ability to not associate with them. Even if they haven't done anything wrong (like how I often avoid more masculine content creators because those spaces make me feel discomfort). So, when taken to people who have done something wrong, no one deserves a second chance, a second chance isn't something I owe anyone because no one is owed my time/support. The question becomes very simple then, Do I still feel uncomfortable about them? If yes, they don't get to be a part of my life, if no then I might start watching their stuff again. But this is just a personal philosophy that centres my own mental health, when it comes to bigger questions about whether they should have a platform this line of thinking doesn't give useful answers. Still, it's really helped me mentally and I think it's important to remind people, second chances aren't deserved, they're gifts.
A scandal for a celebrity is like a relationship where you cheated. You need to be honest, get ahead of accusations, actually never do it again, give them space, and maybe they will take you back
I really really love your more scripted material. I think your intelligence and articulation come through beautifully in a more structured way. And your personality is great in every form, so is a great match. Congrats!
One of the best responses I've seen was Neil Degrasse Tyson. No denial that he did things the women didn't want, even as from their own descriptions you can easily see how he could have sincerely just misunderstood their intentions. And he's been able to move on perfectly well from it.
@@SidheKnight "Thchiya Amet El Maat accused Tyson of drugging and raping her while both were graduate students at UT Austin in 1984." Second sentence in that paragraph buddy. Do YOUR research.
@@keelanbarron928 Misogyny is one of the oldest forms of oppression and societies around the world are built on the subjugation of women. Violence against women is INCREDIBLY common and is rarely taken seriously. If you think society doesn't hate women you're either a man or you're in for a seriously rude awakening.
Thank you for such a calm, well-reasoned and researched video. This is an important phenomenon in online culture right now and it's great to see a calm discussion.
And sometimes controversies affect such a small portion of people nobody cares. Wanda Maximoff is a jewish-romani immigrant and Marvel cast the whitest actress and completely erased her identity. Elizabeth Olsen even repeatedly used a romani slur to describe her. Romani are one of the biggest and most hated minorities, but they are so small they aren't acknowledged.
BoJack Horseman's 6th season did a really great take on apologies, and abuse, and second chances and I really like that this video covers many of the same subjects.
The writing on the show was truly incredible, and even more so for the fact that pretty much every season just got better and better. I love what they covered in the final season. The second chance storyline with Bojack and I believe the good damage stuff with Diane
Finally watched the entire post. I commend you for your thoughtful, well considered and humane video essay. I appreciate the lack of rancor or need to fingerpoint simplistically at people who have done questionable things.
I mostly agree but for the more severe cases, I'd say that atonement is required as well. Some do things that are offensive, upsetting and so on, where an honest apology is enough. For me, Gunn falls into this category, and he gave his years before it was all dragged out again. While others, Whedon comes straight to mind, actually verbally and mentally attacked/abused people. AFAIK, he hasn't said anything about it and is effectively in hiding. In his case an apology isn't enough IMO.
@@BlackCover95 For me (in no order), it would be murder, rape and paedophilia or any sexual abuse to a minor. That's a start but there's probably more, especially if they were ongoing over a sustained period of time.
Thank you for actually bringing up the conversation of forgiveness. In this day and age, it seems like there's no room for the condemned to actually change. If they genuinely realise what they've done was wrong and makes the effort to redeem themselves, then I think they should at least given the chance to do so. Obviously it depends on the severity of their actions but that's just my thoughts on the matter.
Dan Harmon did it right, I think. He was called out by some toxic behaviour if I remember correctly, and instead of a public display of contrition, he engaged the person acusing directly to apologise personally. Unless there's been more instances that I am not aware of, that's a good way to handle things
I've been working on an apology methodology for my book on toxic masculinity, based on a number of models, for how to make - and how to recognize - a genuine apology. Steps 3 to 5 make it impossible to fake it with this method. 1) Apologize to those you've wronged. 2) Admit what you did, without excuses. 3) Explain what you've learned about what you did wrong, to show you've changed - again without making excuses. 4) NEVER. DO. IT. AGAIN! 5) Make amends whenever possible.
That's a good model! For 1: I might include something about knowing that not everyone will accept your apology. I think it's an important point people often refrain to make. Because genuine apologies - like forgiveness - are not about other people, they're about the apologizer: an act you do for yourself to alleviate your guilt, help yourself grow, and move on.
That's a nice list, but I see some potential problems with #4: Sometimes, not doing it again is quite difficult to achieve. Such is the nature of addictions, substance abuse and other compulsive behaviours that require professional help. I suppose a good substitute would be "take steps to make sure it never happens again", like seeking medical help.
@@JRA6192 Very true. Although I'd argue that, sometimes, the person in question _is_ completely blameless. For example, a person with Tourette's syndrome literally can't help but utter swear words or weird noises at inconvenient times. But even in those cases those people should acknowledge other people's discomfort.
I heard the saying a while ago, that someone's apology needs to be louder than what they're apologizing for. And I agree with this whole-heartedly. To use the Pewdiepie situation as an example, not only did he continue with these actions, he also payed MONEY to make his original action, and ruined the careers of the people who he payed to hold the sign. His apology was just words (from what I know, he was going to donate money, but was persuaded out of it?) but his actions were so much louder.
Can't forget the current issues with NY Governor Andrew Cuomo, aka the only Democrat I've ever voted against in a general election, doubling down on his innocence and refusal to step down in the face of overwhelming evidence of his sexual misconduct. Also, yes, you are a goddess.
What about his careless decision to send COVID-positive people to a nursing home? People are so busy focusing on the sexual harassment scandal that the nursing home scandal has been swept under the rug. I won't forget about either one, and I want him to be held accountable for BOTH sets of wrongdoings.
Thank you for a well researched, thought out and resoned analysis. Been hoping for a broader detailed look from you. You have a very rare ability to present objective viewpoints.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this. Whilst I think everyone should be accountable for their actions and words, there comes a point when it becomes Trial by Social Media, and at that point it becomes impossible for that person to get a fair trial. I remember the jury selection process for OJ Simpson, and how difficult it was to find people who weren't influenced by the hype in the media. There were fears that any trial could be declared a mistrial as it would be impossible for the defendant to get a fair hearing. A similar problem nearly happened with Harvey Weinstein. Can you imagine the backlash that would have happened if his trial failed because of all the hype and social media attention prior to the court case? I'm all for calling out people who do wrong, letting them know that their behaviour and words are unacceptable and for letting victims know they aren't alone. But at some point, Cancel Culture has become less about saying No More to jerks, and more about the witch hunt to find more wrongness (both real and perceived) to be angry at. Your video comparing Noel Clarke and John Barrowman covers that extremely well. As I said at the start, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this, and I'm sure that even if we disagree (although I doubt that will happen), you will present your thoughts in a way that I will definitely respect.
Thoroughly enjoyable, thought provoking and extremely well put. You didn't go into cancel culture as much as I thought you might (I guess you've covered it pretty well in other videos), but I would be very interested in seeing more videos on where to draw the line when going back through people's past work. I will confess that I don't know the full story, having only heard a brief bit on the news, but recently the Director of the Opening Ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics was dropped from directing it a few days before the ceremony... because of tweets he posted when he was a teenager. There may well be a lot more to the story than what was broadcast in the news item I heard, but on the face of it, surely that's Cancel Culture going too far? Anyway, whether you do or don't cover this topic, that's up to you. After all, I only attend the meetings as a Council Member, it's YOU who runs the meeting! 😄
@@Stephen_The_Waxing_Lyricist i will just say, as a rumor i watched (can't find source), he was sacked because wanna put the former head (who was a woman and wanna use characters like mario, tsubasa and anime) in a costume with a sign that says "Olim-pyg" and make her parade in the opening, that was a rumor that one news channel in my country talk for a reason to sack the head, but i don't know if is real or not, i believe that the real reasons was just disagreament of ideas (at least i hope so)
@@Ezeka93 I really should have read up before I posted; turns out it wasn't something on Twitter, but a comedy sketch he did with another comedian in the 90s. The "Olym-Pig" suggestion was a different person, who got the sack for it back in March. Here's some of the report from the BBC news report: ____ The show director of the Olympics opening ceremony has been dismissed, one day before the event is due to be held. Footage of Kentaro Kobayashi from the 1990s recently emerged in which he appears to make jokes about the Holocaust. Japan's Olympic chief Seiko Hashimoto said the video ridiculed "painful facts of history". The dismissal is the latest in a string of scandals to hit the Games. Since the start of the year, three other organisers have been forced to step down from Tokyo 2020 - and the games have already been postponed because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Earlier this week, a composer quit the team creating the ceremony after it emerged he had bullied classmates with disabilities at school In March, Olympics' creative chief Hiroshi Sasaki quit after suggesting that plus-size comedian Naomi Watanabe could appear as an "Olympig". He later apologised And in February, Yoshiro Mori was forced to step down as the head of the organising committee after he made remarks about women that were criticised as "inappropriate". Mr Mori was quoted as saying women talked too much and that meetings with many female board directors would "take a lot of time". This latest scandal has seen former comedian Mr Kobayashi strongly criticised for a sketch he performed 23 years ago, in which he and another comedian pretend to be children's entertainers. In the sketch Mr Kobayashi turns to his colleague, referring to some paper dolls, saying they are "the ones from that time you said 'let's play the Holocaust'", according to AFP news agency. Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga described the comments as "outrageous and unacceptable". Meanwhile Rabbi Abraham Cooper, of the US-based Holocaust research body Simon Wiesenthal Center, said: "Any person, no matter how creative, does not have the right to mock the victims of the Nazi genocide." Mr Kobayashi himself has issued a statement responding to his dismissal. "Entertainment should not make people feel uncomfortable. I understand that my stupid choice of words at that time was wrong, and I regret it," it said. Olympics chief Seiko Hashimoto said she was not aware of the sketch before Mr Kobayashi's appointment, and apologised for "causing concern to those involved in the Olympics, to the citizens of Tokyo and the Japanese public". Despite the last-minute change of leadership, Japan's prime minister said the event should proceed as planned - kicking off two weeks of competitive events. But since Mr Kobayashi's removal, organisers are reassessing plans for ceremony.
Totally agree with your points and do watch how people behave going forward. I feel like if you've acknowledged wrongdoing, are taking steps, time is passing and behavior is progressively changing, that's chill. But if it's just about their image and not about the harm they've caused, not causing further harm... that's not going to be as helpful or genuine. Extrinsic vs intrinsic Your Goddess definitely shines bright on your channel, blessed be 😊
The only thing I want to add, Mel Gibson, has been donating money to the Holocaust survivors. Unless something else has happened, he has been working on changing. I don't know if that means he's redeemed or not.
On the topic of controversial beliefs, I actually welcome them, with one notable caveat: discourse only works when people act in good faith. People expressing divergent beliefs and others expressing disagreement in rebuttal is useful and justified. I much prefer when people are open and honest about their beliefs and are willing to hear opposing arguments. For far too long, we have been striving for agreement by fiat. How’s that working for us? Not well, I would argue as we become increasingly tribalistic and refuse to discuss issues with people unless we agree with them. I prefer public discourse to involve more listening and understanding than dismissal and rejection. Consequently, I welcome any response that challenges my position here. I promise I’ll do my best to hear you out respectfully.
I meant to tell you this in another video of yours, but here is as good as any. I remember when I first started watching you on this channel. I saw when you came out and eventually start presenting more feminine or fluid in your rainbow videos (particularly with the purple flower clip which I haven't seen in a while). Then I lost you for a few years and only recently came back... and oh my god I'm so proud of you. You not only look amazing, you feel amazing. You feel different, you feel better, you feel freer, you feel like you are happier than I've ever seen you be on this channel. When you described yourself as "presenting like a goddess, frankly." I literally screamed YES! into the ethos. YES YES YES I am SO proud of you for leaning into yourself and feeling more confident with who you are. It's been a joy to see and I truly hope the best for you.
I have a question: What is the appropiate response if you believe that you have nothing to apologize for? Should you try to explain why you don't believe you should apologize? Or just remain silent? If there was a misunderstanding, should you try to clarify your original intentions? Or is 'explaining = losing' as true in the world of apologies as it is in the world of debates? What if you don't think your words/actions were wrong, but still feel sorry for the other person not taking it so well? This might be a hot take, but I actually believe there is a legitimate place for the much maligned "I'm sorry you were offended" apology. That place being, when the person did nothing wrong that merits apologizing, but still regrets that other people felt hurt, even if their feeling is completely unjustified (either because they misunderstood what the celebrity said or did, or because they're just extremely sensitive and/or paranoid people).
Hypothetically, unless you intended to inflict harm, when it’s brought to your attention that you have done so, why wouldn’t you apologise? Even if it’s a misunderstanding, shouldn’t you apologise for expressing yourself poorly? You can’t judge what’s over-sensitive because you haven’t lived the life of the person who was hurt. What’s just a joke to you might be the last straw to someone who has suffered a lifetime of micro aggressions. I suppose if your hypothetical gaffe is harming a group somehow deserving of harm that might be different but I’m having trouble thinking of an example that isn’t ridiculous. In 2015 Benedict Cumberbatch used the term ‘coloured’ for POC in a TV interview. He wasn’t intentionally being racist and it didn’t occur to him that the term might be offensive. He’s a white, upper class Brit - it’s just the language he was used to. But when he was called out, he didn’t say that. He acknowledged that his words unintentionally caused harm and apologised for that harm. It’s worth googling his statement because I think it’s a good answer to your question.
Speaking as a therapist in a trauma and crisis recovery program, there's a raw truth we have in the mental health profession: When someone has hurt you, they have no right to say that they didn't.
In my opinion, they should be forgiven if they actually recognise what they did was wrong and really try to fix it. I think the best example of someone who has clearly not learned from their mistake and doesn't care was chris brown. His "apologies" were crap and obviously false, so i would never forgive him. But someone like john Barrowman, i would since he has recognised that what he did was wrong (YEARS AGO by the way) and wanted to fix it.
have just come across your channel and really enjoyed the subject and the way you explained things so clearly, thanks I will be watching out for you as I have a short attention span and was engaged with your very intelligent comments to the very end .
Ok. 1.) I think I might have initially found your channel during one of those "celeb scandal discussion" videos that you acknowledge as not really being your intended brand. So there's that. Obviously I stuck around. 2.) This is low key one of the best breakdowns of a super complicated and often exhausting issue. I'm especially fond of your point about the conundrum of "forgive me now, and I'll do better later." You were remarkably and effectively neutral, but not in a way that reads as betraying your beliefs. This playful, earnest, and intellectually curious tone is really something I would like to see in more content creators. 3.) I'm super interested in your view on the flip side of this discussion. Namely, what is the role of our potentially unhealthy public engagement with those topics on social media. Or as Lindsay Ellis put it, Twitter's algorithmic need to have a villain of the day.
Thank you for such a well-worded and explained take on the cycle! I really enjoy your topic explorations and just generally your take on things. Thank you so much
Aziz Ansari is a good example. Male feminist who behaved like a typical douchebro. He apologized. No new reports of bad behavior. Still has a career, but it took a hit for a while.
This was an excellent analysis and a very thorough approach, IMHO. I feel like you give some great points for everyone to consider concerning "forgiveness vs moving on", as well as some important factors to consider when engaging in [what may lead to or result in] "cancel culture". Concerning CK, I think it's worth noting that many of the websites that reported on the allegations against him included exaggerations that would change the severity of his actions (such as saying he had blocked a door when he did not, which would drastically change how one viewed his intentions, of course). I'm not saying this excuses him, but rather many times the public won't have the conversation they intend to, as they have an incomplete representation of the facts. Depending on what a person has heard/read on the subject, they could think of him like Harvey Weinstein or they could think of him like David Letterman (fun fact, CK was the writer for Letterman who quit the fastest apparently, and there's a scene in his show that has a different "Letterman" antagonist, though he did say that character isn't meant to be considered David). That said, I feel the [potentially] greatest source of discourse in these types of proceedings is that the public is taking on the roles of both judge and jury, so often we have more bias and less review (and therefore inadequate understanding) as the ensuing result. Again, great video on the subject of "second chances" and I really enjoy the depth you bring in all of your videos I've seen so far - keep up the great work!
Just to point this out. Pewdiepie has changed. He made quite a bit of edgy jokes for a period (worth noting that edgy jokes were very popular in youtube at the time. Doesn't excuse his behavior, but explains why). He has now had very family friendly content for multiple years. I must say that I'm quite forgiving of edgy jokes in general. It's very common and often (not always) representative of personal beliefs. In pewdiepie's case all other evidence points to him having very typical swedish moderate political opinions.
This was really well done. Well thought out, researched, written and edited. I'd compare the Gunn scandal for long ago twitter posts to Chrissy Teigan's recent scandal over long ago twitter posts. She already had a lot of outspoken and cruel critics about her over-sharing (which I actually applauded). She chose to withdraw from social media because of the fuckton of internet outrage, and growing "real" print media attention she was getting. Myself, I learned drunk facebooking was a bad thing long ago, and always checked all my accounts in the morning after a night of drinking so I could delete whatever. And that was before Trump, the red hats, covid and all the rest of the planetary shit storm we've seen blow up over the last 5-10 years. It just got too exhausting to even sit back and watch. So I quit. There is a business model and plan that covid put off, but I'll be using a different name and probably never showing my face on screen. I purposefully removed most of my googlibility, and will probably remove more. Then start over. But as of right now, I'm nobody, and you are a fine example of how to do it right. Thank you!
It's the same question you need to ask of anybody who's made mistakes in their life: "Is this person willing to listen, and is this person willing to change?". To me, that's what separates toxic people from those who simply fucked up. But then, how do you determine what kind of person you're dealing with? How many fuckups do you allow somebody before you say "no more"? Those are also good questions.
None of these people have committed offenses that are horrific enough for them to not deserve a second chance. Everyone besides the most depraved and violent people deserve to be allowed to learn, grow, and move forward. That’s what life is about. Constantly evolving and becoming richer of spirit.
Did you like actually watch this video? More often that not these ppl aren’t just given a singular second chance, they’re give DOZENS of free passes. More often then not they don’t actually try to change. They just keep adding to and perpetuating that same harm. Also How is trump distinctly talking about physically harassing women not the epitome of an unforgivable offense? Or Activision/Blizzard harassing & belittling hundreds of women and even pushing one to the point of suicide even remotely redemption worthy? Cause your statement none of these ppl Vera listed have committed acts not to be given a second chance feels totally divorced from the Grim reality. Some ppl need to be cut off and stopped. Otherwise there will be more victims and then it won’t just be the fault of the perpetrators, but also be the fault of those who heard of these egregious acts and did nothing.
I find it interesting that the punishment meted out by the media in general as well as social media can be quite disproportionate to the alleged behaviour (see me cover my arse there). Kevin Spacey, for instance. No, I haven't researched him specifically but I seem to recall that his offending was minor in comparison to others' and yet he was dropped like the proverbial hot potato immediately the story broke. Just a thought. I enjoy the Council of Geeks videos very much. Keep 'em coming! Oh, and you are a goddess in your own universe :D Blessings, P
Pewdiepie is a intresting example of having friends in the industry being important for getting a second chance, because he collabs and is friends with so many creators from groups that his past controversies might have hurt, that it creates a shield around him. The general youtube audience has forgiven and given him a second chance because the most of the biggest minority creators have nothing against him or forgiven him (KSI, H3H3, Markiplier, OTV youtubers, etc), and anyone who tries to attack Pewdiepie for his past controversies will loose credibility and turn that general UA-cam audience against themselves, so going after Pewdiepie becomes counter productive. And Pewdiepie has time on his side, because the longer the gap since his last controversy gets, the more his critics will be seen as unreasonable and he as a changed man whether he actually changed or is the same and just avoiding controversies. Kinda of demonstrates that ability to make friends can be very useful at getting a second chance because the more big name celebrities (or in this case youtubers) the more likely you're to recover.
I truly hate when people are sorry, not for the actions, but for the consequences they face for their actions. Like you denied it and denied it and denied it and now when you are fully exposed for what you did and are being held accountable suddenly you are sorry. Nope. Too late.
What a goddess!! I think the real problem with this whole thing is fame and the adoration we have for famous people (I'm not saying I don't do this, because I really do - see Pedro Pascal!) When you have that amount of support and are surrounded by "yes men" you feel untouchable, no matter what terrible things you might end up doing. On a side note, we've all f'd up and been idiots in our lives, but if people can show real change then I think they deserve a second chance. We're (mostly) all just trying to be less of a dickhead than we were yesterday xxx
When the public start judging individual's beliefs and actions, it is inevitable that they will bring in their prejudices, tribal loyalties and hidden assumptions that even they do not realise they hold. Minorities of various types and people from weaker sections of society will generally be dealt with much more harshly, and it will be harder for such people to be successful than those from more accepted backgrounds. In particular when justifying treating cases differently, if you really break down the reasons they will generally come down to hidden assumptions about different types of people. Also we tend to give too much weight to multiple similar allegations, not taking into account the human tendency to sense when an individual is being turned on by society, and join in with the witch-hunt. As humans we tend to be at our worst when we feel righteous, and that others have transgressed. Such feelings tend to be held by the groups who currently hold power, and when the power moves, the people for and against boycotting "undesirables" tend to swap around. The courts are far from perfect in these regards, but at least they try to enforce consistent rules, based on logical reasoning. As such they often make unpopular decisions. The best we can do is leave matters of impropriety to them, and give each other the benefit of the doubt and accept each others differences, however abhorrent our society deems those differences.
Some people will continue to offend. There are many others whose offenses are not known. And often, whether you believe in a second chance is irrelevant. If someone thinks the person can make money for them, they will be given a job. And in some cases, people really do deserve a second chance. But in reading the biographies of notable people, it is sad to see how often they become even more terrible people later in life. And yet, their work, what we want to praise them for, still stands, still is good. No easy answers.
Girl, you're gorgeous. I started watching you for your Doctor Who content and didn't know any of your gorgeousness; goodness was I missing out. I'm really glad you are being true to yourself.
The strangest thing to me about that is it’s now largely remembered as a sex tape scandal, because where it happened had the age of consent set at 16 at the time.
What never made any sense with Gunn is his jokes were in keeping with the humour of Super or some of his other published scripts. You then have the issue that Disney had the people who wrote the songs for Book of Mormon doing all the frozen music and other really crude or lewd comedians or actors who have done work attached to several of their animated films. So why is humour on stage/tweets considered different to reading lines in a script
Easy. It was all about timing. Disney felt they were backed into a corner they made a knee jerk decision. Had they waited a week or two. It would have all blown over. They knew about Gunn's previous work. Feige definitely knew. And Disney made the situation 10x worse as it was a knee jerk reaction to make themselves look clean. My theory is they thought possible allegations would arise (it was the perfect time for it to) so they severed ties, but nothing came of it beyond that. Most people with a brain saw they were jokes and they had egg on their face when it was reported every studio wanted him to do stuff. And the tweets were very much in line with SUPER and anyone who has seen that film knows that was the case. Unless the Disney Film division is completely unaware of their talent (which could be the case), it was more for optics. And from my personal point of view, James Gunn hadn't made a single joke like that since before he was ever hired (had he made them in the present, fair enough), so IMO he shouldn't apologies in the present as he is clearly not that but if he feels like he has to/wants to then fair enough. And the reason why James Gunn wasn't blacklisted and honestly feels like a life lesson: he never doubled down, he never blamed anyone (and is well documented that it was a campaign against him, so he had the defence card ready), he accepted being fired. (Also worth adding, everything surrounding the cast as well and no one wanting to touch Vol.3 at all), he never burned any bridge he had. All of that played into Gunn's favour by being asked by everyone in Hollywood to make stuff with. Taking on The Suicide Squad, getting Vol.3 back plus other things. With the addition his name in Hollywood and in the film viewing landscape catapulted into sky. So the greatest irony of the Gunn situation...It was the best thing to happen to him. I think every time a situation of heat arises, its best to not take every situation as a binary. There is so much nuance to everything and most of all its about how the person in question takes the heat. EDIT: In the case of James Gunn it isn't even a story of second chance or redemption. He never had to change. It was just more of a reinforcement of who his public image was, and by the sounds of it himself too.
@@JamesMcQueenMedia was anyone actually openly angry? Again I go back to Super or PG Porn which all contained as edgy material. Even if allegations had arisen they still market a bugs life and powder is on Disney plus
@@c17sam90 No. The people who tried and succeded with getting Gunn fired were either Alt Right figureheads and followers who wanted a 'woke liberal lefty' fired even though those same people proclaim freedom of speech or they were people who had been cancelled under similar circumstances but in their case made their situation worse because of the doubling down and usually saying stuff in the present. And the humour was no different to Super, like most of the jokes would have made sense with context to them too. Hell the tweet he made about Jared Leto is still up and that was a month before he was fired. And PG Porn is just genius with its humour and again not out of the line with the tweets.
@@c17sam90 Yes, he would. Offensive comedians are very much still a thing. Dave Chapelle is probably the biggest he's ever been and everybody loves Bill Bur. On top of that, in terms of film, in 2019 there was a film about a Hitler Youth who had Hitler as an imaginary friend, with the director being the one to play that imaginary Hitler. And that same director is the guy who made Thor Ragnarok and is currently making Thor Love and Thunder.
Curious what your thoughts are on the Dan Harmon apology from a few years ago. I remember that one standing out to me as actually sounding like a real genuine apology to the person he harmed moreso than a publicity stunt.
@@CouncilofGeeks that’s fair, His work does have its problematic elements and I don’t fault anyone for avoiding it. I do think Community and Rick and Morty do have very relevant things to say that are sometimes obscured by the more toxic elements of their fan bases, but even without those as context, I would strongly recommend checking out his apology. There is a full video of it as it was done as a part of his live podcast harmontown (not a great start, I know), but at the time it was held up as the pinnacle of how public figures should go about apologizing for their wrongdoing. Would be super curious to hear your thoughts if you do get a chance to check it out!
I'm so glad you brought up Filip! I started watching him after he was plugged by another UA-cam creator (before he was even hired by IGN) and I so wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt on the plagiarism thing when there was only the one instance known.
Just had a thought about Rowling. While I've no doubt that she absolutely believes what she believes, is there ANY chance at all that the reason she keeps on piping up is to remain somewhat relevant? I only ask as, besides from the Fantastic Beasts movies, which haven't been doing well, and the Hogwarts Legacy game, which probably should have been made years ago, and hard core fans, do many people actually CARE about the Harry Potter franchise any more? I mean, I know it was important for people's childhoods, including mine. Don't get me wrong. I'll always have a soft spot for it and have nice memories of the series. However, I've, and probably many more people, have moved on from it and focused on other franchises, like the MCU and the DCEU. Compare that to Harry Potter, which always had a shelf life, as we all knew it would end with Book 7. That was the end point. After that though? Harry Potter lost its relevance a bit. Those are my thoughts on this anyway :)
Her Strike books have been successful but not massive hits. I think she’s just old tbh and a bit like a ageing politician her politics haven’t really evolved. She would probably say she’s quite liberal and I’m sure she was for the era that formed her political beliefs. But hers possibly haven’t evolved past the era that formed them. If you read casuals vacancy it’s her political beliefs laid out and while I like it it’s very 1980’s and it was published in the late 2000’s. When you look at her involvement in British politics it’s very left leaning centrist and I don’t think she’s ever been seen as super liberal in the U.K. however internationally she possibly was. I think that’s possibly why there was bigger reaction outside of the U.K. in terms of celebrities then there was in the U.K. when it was more of “oh look she’s being all centrist again” and I don’t think anyone held her up high except for when she donates to charities.
My end point of Harry Potter was dated all the way back to bloody movie's 1 through 4 where he was a bloody villian in his own home for things out of his control. I lived that shitstorm of a life. It ain't a bloody reason to hate him
She's using her considerable audience as a celebrity to bring awareness to issues she cares about, a large issue to her being "the potential of men identifying as women to attack women." It's not so much... a desire to remain relevant, as it is a perk of her status as a celebrity that people pay much more attention to her tweets / blog - which she updates because she likes to write - than Jane-average. That said, any work she's ever going to release in the future is going to be actively boycotted by a substantial amount of people. Fortunately, she hasn't released anything good since 2008. I've never seen an example in recent history of so much goodwill burned away for such a stupid, stupid reason. J.K. Rowling has beliefs that are easily completely discredited if she would do a little research and speak to a few transgender people.
@@dante6985 I’ve heard good things about her Strike books but I haven’t yet got round to reading them. I don’t honestly know anyone who liked her (bar when she donated to various charities) but they liked the work she did. I don’t think this boycott will be as big as some people think. Just look at the case of Mel Gibson a lot of his work had be highly profitable. The same thing happened with Bohemian Rhapsody for all the we will not support terrible people making films chatter the public makes Bryan Singer’s (likely final big film) possibly the biggest of his career snd it’s only the lead up to major awards when the studio stripped him of producing credit so if it won he didn’t win and people could feel fine voting for it.
@@c17sam90 I appreciate your comments and thoughts, but that comes to mind when reading this comment. is in the video, Council of Geeks has basically said "do not compare cases, nothing is ever always the same"... and you've analogized Jk Rowling to Mel Gibson and Bryan Singer. Mel Gibson apologized almost immediately for his words (JK Rowling hasn't.) Bryan Singer has a completely different set of controversies and is blacklisted from directing. Substantial doesn't mean tremendous. It just means of substance, enough to make a difference. variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-book-sales-harry-potter-1234708777/ Her book sales have been adversely affected by her comments. I'd encourage all people who support trans issues to not continue to support the work of a woman with a hurtful narrative. And it's not that hard since the only good stuff is probably things you've already read.
What about 'by association'? The unease about supporting someone who surely knew about the offending behavior of someone else and was either complicit or willfully ignorant. That seems like it would be even tricker to address, esp if the person wasn't explicitly brought up.
Honestly I feel like the same patterns apply in terms of whether they ever addressed it, was there an apology, is the associated party guilty of toxic behavior or beliefs, etc. just perhaps to a slightly lesser degree.
When it comes to believes it's complicated, because one can't so easily blame people for their believes. The attitude: "Drop/pick this belief or you are a bad person" is exactly how bigotry is born. So when addressing a belief that leads to harmful actions one has to address whether the person did their research and whether they are willing to have their belief challenged. If not, that is something one can and should be blamed for.
The fact that this thumbnail indicates that they are all about 6’8” is terrifying. I’ve never met any of these people, it could be true.
Praise the Goddess of Geeks!
Probably the people who have it worst are the minor or niche celebrities. They tend to have the downside of people digging into their personal lives (and you always find something if you dig hard enough), but they're usually not wealthy enough to have the option of just disappearing. They can also run into a situation where most people outside their particular space know them more for their scandal than their actual work.
It always intrigues me how many people with shady private lives become famous to begin with? Take for example politicians who have history of sexual harassment allegations. Why place yourself in the spotlight if it just means the press are going to start digging into your past? It just feels either incredibly arrogant, that they assume they can just buy off anyone who finds anything, or incredibly stupid, that they assume no one will ever know, or incredibly hypocritical, that they assume because of their public persona they will just be forgiven and there will be no consequences.
It’s like in the 30’s when gay celebrities went to incredible lengths to keep it quiet. You would think the sensible thing to do was to just not draw attention to yourself in the first place?
@@androstempest The press used to ignore the sins of politicians and celebrities and to protect the reputations of some, especially if they liked them or if it did not appear to affect their job. The press corps in Washington or London knows who the alcoholics are, who cheats on their spouses, who have a gambling problem. The only people who don't always know are the suckers back home who vote for them. And sometimes these people have power and abuse it by forcing people to keep their secrets.
@@androstempest It's a really good question. I think it has a lot to do with the corruption of power. When some people gain a semblance, or even a whole heap, of power they think it makes them invulnerable to harm ...until they find out, to their own cost, that it doesn't! Essentially the power goes straight to their head.
I’ve noticed that people who’s work I don’t care about, or was only potentially tangential to my interests are the easiest to “cancel” out of hand. I think this is because I’m just not invested enough in their work to think critically about them at all. Good or bad, I hear the rumblings of their cancellation and I move on to other things. 🤷🏻♀️ At the same time, since I’ve never cared that much about anything either way, I think I’m pretty easily un-swayed from that cancellation is it’s “unfounded” (ie the James Charles is a predator scandal) or there’s evidence of a change (ie James Gunn).
@@lunaskies624 I'd actually invert that. I like the saying that power doesn't corrupt, it reveals. I don't think people in powerful positions commit sexual assault because they become corrupted or their egos get overinflated, I think people who enjoy violating others gravitate towards positions of power.
I was a big Louis C.K fan, I found it hard to believe the accusations about him (that first started as rumours). Then everything was confirmed, it was a big disappointment, but I believe in second chances. His comeback was... well, it had a couple of bad transphobic jokes, not a great start. But the final straw was when he addressed the accusations. So, he made jokes at his own expense, but none of them seemed to be actually self-reflective, he basically dismissed the case as "well, we all have fetishes, now you know mine". But Louie, it's not about your exhibitionist fetish, it's about how you did it without consent from the other person. We're not angry about your kink, we're angry about the people you wronged. In this, he did not address the issue at all.
As talented as he is, I don't think I can go back to Louie and enjoy it the same way. It's as funny as it was, but now it's "tainted".
With Louis CK it never felt like he realized why what he did was wrong.
@@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770 He was famous. The women did not feel that they could say no. His actions were almost on the same level as a creep who exposes himself on the bus. Most men seem to understand and accept the idea that you don't ask someone you are not in a relationship with to witness or participate in a sex act. So how is this ok? Louis didn't ask his male buddies to watch him. He didn't pay a sex worker to watch him. These were not random acts. He specifically asked women, including female comedians, to watch him. His actions were not the worst thing in the world, but they are still unacceptable and unethical.
Yeah, that's actually why I don't give some second chances to celebrities. If they can't recognize that what they did was wrong and try to fix it/themselves, then you don't deserve forgiveness. (like louie or chris brown)
@@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770
I absolutely accept that Louis CK has apologized. His fans can accept that. I have questions. Some who defend him think his behavior was acceptable and try to hinge this on consent. I reject this. I don't know any man who was brought up to believe that it was acceptable to ask someone you were not dating or in a relationship with to witness you performing a sex act. This was not ok even in my teen peer culture growing up.
But here is what makes this unethical. The women interviewed consistently and independently said that they felt that they could not say no, and feared that Louis CK might harm their careers. He didn't ask friends or random women. He did not ask male comedians. He asked female comedians whose careers might be in jeopardy if they refused him. We know from the Harvey Weinstein case that at least two women lost jobs because they refused his advances.
the louie situation has little to do with consent as the people he jerked it to gave consent, the problem arises when you afction in the power dynamics and the workplace it happened in
I think it’s important I add this about Rosario Dawson. She has actively been boosting trans voices and fighting alongside us. She just helped produce the documentary La Queencianera on one of our greatest living transgender activists, the president of the Trans Latin@ Coalition, Bamby Salcedo, who is not one to be taken a fool. Maybe it’s just PR, but I think she genuinely supports us.
Matthew Perry and Robert Downey Jr are prime examples of how things worked before social media. Both had their issues shared everywhere on entertainment shows, but both were also shown to at least try and do better. Not only were there stays in rehab public knowledge, they were being held accountable by the people in charge of their current projects. The producers on Friends gave Perry the choice of rehab or being fired. They helped him through his issues and you can see Perry's struggles in each season of Friends.
When it comes to beliefs, that is harder. If the person has shown they are not the same as they were when younger, I'm willing to give them a second chance. I said things in my childhood that were common place that I would NEVER say as an adult because I know how wrong I was so who am I to judge.
But Matthew Perry and Robert Downey Jr had drug addictions. It's a disease. It's a very, very different kind of behavior - much more self-destructive than anything - then a Joss Whedon's or Louis Ck or even the plagiarist C.o.G. mentioned. They were always going to be much more readily forgivable, social media or not.
RDJ is an interesting case. He won an Oscar before everything was released to the public, he did time in jail, sobered up completely, and was given a major chance by a few friends which paid off in literal millions. He was a white guy in Hollywood but he also very visibly paid for what he did wrong. I don’t feel like he was ultimately rewarded; he was just very very lucky.
@@gateauxq4604 He never won an Oscar, only nominated. I agree with all else :)
Just my opinion, but both of them would have probably been ok in the era of social media, as they both acknowledged their issues and spent considerably amounts of time working to overcome them.
I just realized something, have I been subbed so long that I witnessed your digital comming out, and your later on evolution into the fashionista you are today? I do miss the flat cap, but I love your style.
Other things that made an issue with Gunn is the obvious bad faith nature of the charge. There weren't exactly victims who were hurt coming forward, just a hypocritical edgelord with a grudge & a few people he stirred up who may be offended, but not really victimized. Also, Gunn was himself a victim of child abuse coping through humor, which think made him a lot more sympathetic,
IIRC Gunn was outed not by an edgelord, but by a right wing troll looking to target those he perceived to be on the left.
It baffles me when people equate all scandals. "This person was allowed to keep going why not this other guy" more often then not when I hear that the difference between the two scandals is freaking huge. Look at the recent debacle with Barrowman and what's his face who played Mickey, those two scandal are worlds apart you can't possibly expect them both to be treated the same way. It's very much a case by case with those and mostly it's all about how people react to them.
It’s almost a shame Barrowman and Clarke were on the same show at the same time, because that made their scandals irrevocably linked.
Wait, John Barrowman? Jack Harkness? What happened? I missed that
@@fightingfaerie He got called out for being a bit too touchy with his co-starts.
I dont even mind barrowmans because he hasnt apparently done it for years. I literally just expect an apology from him. Mickeys actor did this shit up to 2019 and you know he would have done it in 2020 if not for covid
@@Quirderph that and Mickey's actor definitely made a point to bring it up again when accusations against him were brought up. I think they're more linked from that.
I think another thing that determine whether a public figure is provided a certain amount of forgiveness is the time period when the harmful actions/beliefs happened. I think people had an easier time forgiving James Gunn because much of internet culture around the late 00's was edgy dark humor. What we find socially acceptable as a society is always changing and for people who did things that in the past were acceptable but now aren't, particularly if they have adjusted their behavior to reflex social changes, it is a bit easier to forgive them.
idk, i think it has to do a lot more with his popularity as well, acting as a shield for his actions. Hartley Sawyer basically had the same situation and likely won't get the reprieve because his fan base isn't strong enough to bring him back into the fold. Whether that's right or wrong, idk, but I've never personally understood backlash at attempted comedy, even if its in poor taste in retrospect or just isn't particularly funny. Intent should matter.
@@phil1500 Have you ever heard of Justine Sacco? One tweet ruined her life, for at least a few years. People delighted in her termination.
... Only she was joking. A bad, offensive, tasteless joke? Yes, awful. But she thought "this is so offensive, no one will *think* that this is not a joke." It was not intended as white supremacy.
In my opinion, her, Hartley Sawyer, and James Gunn should be very much forgiven. With James Gunn it felt like kind of a hit job because Disney already knew about the tweets... a conservative pundit with hostile intentions just brought them to public attention. With Sawyer, I hope he bounces back. I think he should. It's just.. the recency of the tweets (2012-2014)... the lack of a narrative of an "apology" (James Gunn had already apologized for the tweets before this happened)... and the ugliness of the tweets (In James Gunn's situation, from most of what I read, you could still tell he was joking, in Sawyer's.. some of them really read serious. I really wish the WB wouldn't have fired him. He played a gay man in a short film, I really don't think he has homophobic intentions. Just my opinion.
Where a distinct line is? Tweets that *attack* specific people at current time, even if they are jokes. Case in point: Roseanne Barr. She may have meant it in jest, but it was still a direct racist attack on a specific person. That's kind of my take on it.
think that and he already been through the applogie thing years and years ago. Disney knew about it before they hired him. That and right or wrong people just brush it off as edgy humor that at most cringe
Not sure time alone is enough if the situation involved violence. Should we forgive a serial rapist because their last crime was twenty years ago? Some offences just stick with you forever.
Agreed. It's a lot like what is usually done with historical figures. A lot of people like to tell others to "view their actions in context of their time", as if the person in question couldn't have known better
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes." This deliciously ironic Obi-Wan Kenobi line is an efficient way to emphasize the urgency for the return of rationality, nuance, and plain old humanity to proceedings and conversations. This is a topic that needs to be examined exhaustively and I thank you for bringing it to a platform like Yuzentüben.
A lot of what you say here also rings true for forgiving people in your life as well
Yeah this whole thing scales big or small.
I think another interesting example might be ProJared, who was accused of quite a bit of wrongdoing. He admitted to some, but denied others, went silent for a while, but eventually came back with evidence that he hadn't committed the most egregious offenses. The evidence part is something you don't see very often (Maybe just because of how hard it can be to prove that something didn't happen).
Definitely. Although, as sad as it is that it happened the way it did, I think it's thanks to ProJared's experience and his receipts that the casual UA-cam gaming community is a lot more hesitant to join in on the dogpiling before more info is known. I noticed this when Dan from GameGrumps was falsely accused of grooming. Many fans offered words of support for him, others simply waited for more details and/or a comment from Dan--not that there was much to say, since it didn't happen. I distinctly remember quite a few commenters citing ProJared as the reason they didn't want to jump to conclusions.
@@Blade9blood Same with the Vinny Vinesauce stuff. Nobody really went after him. He just vanished for a bit until things calmed down.
Joanne was offered many second chances and kept making it even worse for herself.
I think if she changed her mind and openly campaigned to help trans people, I'd maybe forgive her. But she hasn't done that and is still openly transphobic.
@@thatadambyrne the only way I could forgive her is if she started donating proceeds from her books to charities like Mermaids (a uk trans charity) and pulled her book about a man dressing as a woman to kill people from shelves. That will never happen though
@@nicolebee3283 I agree. She's not like James Gunn who just made some edgy tweets, she actively wrote big long blogs. I'd expect her to donate money ect too
@@thatadambyrne another thing about Gunn is he had come out and apologized for those tweets before the scandal. It was no a sorry I was caught
@@tecjohnson I didn't know that tbf. Either way I think James Gunn's tweets pale in comparison to all the harm JK Rowling has done.
To misquote James Stephanie Sterling - "Thank the goddesses for Vera."
I don't think I've ever agreed with you more on your points about how to handle these situations.
FYI, when I saw the thumbnail, I thought it was Tom Cavanagh and had to look up what he'd been accused of (given that he recently left The Flash). Thankfully it wasn't him but James Gunn. Gunn's tuff should never have been dragged up or given any credence, especially for the reason of it being from a butthurt individual. Rowlemort and Whedon have had their opportunities to gain a second chance. One has doubled down and the other is in hiding, neither giving an apology (please correct if I'm wrong). They're out for me, although as someone who got into Potter through the films, Rowlemort never had the relevance to me that she does for book fans. Whedon's actions still sting.
That followup for "stuck a pin in it" with "ow ow ow" was fantastic and I love it.
'...a GODDESS. Praise me.' Noted!
I love when you sit down and talk through issues like in this vid. I'm someone that's terrible for tending towards 'separate the artist from the art' because that's easier and more convenient, so I find it important to watch videos like this and try to make myself think more.
Also, I met one of my closest friends yesterday for the first time in several years, and he's now living with a gender fluidity he'd never shown before. I am CERTAIN that following your channel is the reason I showed no shock or strange reaction, because watching, listening and thinking has helped me become less sheltered/ignorant over the years. So, a little bit weird but a personal thank you from me to you for opening my world and worldview that little all. (Also, my friend was pulling off his look incredibly well, and let me try on his heels by the end of the wedding.)
I feel this video explains how John Borrowman came out quite ok: His behavior had been quite public before the recent outcry, it was years ago, he did apologize and then went out of the public eye for some time.
The implication of the thumbnail is that JK Rowling is nearly 7 feet tall and this was not an image I was prepared to conjure up.
This was a really great deconstruction of this element of the cultural landscape. Thanks for always being so thoughtful and smart. It's refreshing AF.
There is a NASCAR driver named Kyle Larson who has seemed to kinda redeem himself after he said a racial slur during an iRacing event last year, by actually going to places and talking with civil rights leaders on why relaxed use of the n-word is a bad thing.
Vera, thanks again for a very thoughtful discussion. I think the notion of time being vital to second chances resonates very strongly with me.
The Naan-Apology: Where you apologize for bringing the wrong type of flatbread required.
To me it kinda boils down to a few things - did the person respond to it with what seems like genuine remorse and have they tried to make things right?
I want to veer away from politics here but there is a pretty obvious example here - when presented with problems biden apologized and seems to genuinely be attempting to change his behavior. Trump handwoven it away as a joke and tried to attack the accusers. Biden gets forgiveness and trump doesn't.
My whole problem with scandals comes down to 'trial by public'. Especially on social media, where it is so ridiculously easy to act in bad faith. If it's something criminal, let the courts deal with it. That's their whole reason to exist. And if it's not criminal, it's probably none of my business. Unless it's something that should be a punishable offence, but isn't, in which case targetting the celeb in question is probably counterproductive. Just look at what is happening in the UK right now, probably as a direct result of the controversy surrounding the creator of Voldemort. The problem is, we feel celebs are answerable to us, and it's up to 'us' to hold them accountable. Reality doesn't agree. Case in point: James Gunn. Held 'accountable' for things that were very likely jokes posted in a time when such jokes were common. Or Lindsay Ellis, held 'accountable' for not being as liberal as she 'should' be (to sum up something that's far more complex than I'm making it sound here.) Point is...nobody can ultimately by held accountable on the shifting sand of public acceptability. That's the entire reason we have laws in the first place, and trained people (appropriately called 'Judges') to make judgement calls (unless you live in a country where the trained professional outsources judgement right back into the hands of a small slice of the unqualified public, now known as a jury.) I can't help but wonder how much of this is an American problem. I also can't help but feel that if people poured half the energy they reserve for social media outrage into pressuring legislators for meaningful equality laws, the vast majority of scandals could be dealt with in a way that resulted in actual, real accountability.
One of the more freeing thoughts I've ever had is getting myself away from the concept of second chances all together.
I'm an adult, if someone's presence in my life makes me uncomfortable, then I'm going to the best of my ability to not associate with them. Even if they haven't done anything wrong (like how I often avoid more masculine content creators because those spaces make me feel discomfort). So, when taken to people who have done something wrong, no one deserves a second chance, a second chance isn't something I owe anyone because no one is owed my time/support. The question becomes very simple then, Do I still feel uncomfortable about them? If yes, they don't get to be a part of my life, if no then I might start watching their stuff again.
But this is just a personal philosophy that centres my own mental health, when it comes to bigger questions about whether they should have a platform this line of thinking doesn't give useful answers. Still, it's really helped me mentally and I think it's important to remind people, second chances aren't deserved, they're gifts.
A scandal for a celebrity is like a relationship where you cheated. You need to be honest, get ahead of accusations, actually never do it again, give them space, and maybe they will take you back
I really really love your more scripted material. I think your intelligence and articulation come through beautifully in a more structured way. And your personality is great in every form, so is a great match. Congrats!
One of the best responses I've seen was Neil Degrasse Tyson. No denial that he did things the women didn't want, even as from their own descriptions you can easily see how he could have sincerely just misunderstood their intentions. And he's been able to move on perfectly well from it.
He raped a woman and then denied it. He was able to move on because society hates women. Were you born yesterday?
@@DucktorDoom He did no such thing. Do your research.
Here, let me help you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Sexual_misconduct_allegations
@@DucktorDoom "society hates women." a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?
@@SidheKnight "Thchiya Amet El Maat accused Tyson of drugging and raping her while both were graduate students at UT Austin in 1984." Second sentence in that paragraph buddy. Do YOUR research.
@@keelanbarron928 Misogyny is one of the oldest forms of oppression and societies around the world are built on the subjugation of women. Violence against women is INCREDIBLY common and is rarely taken seriously. If you think society doesn't hate women you're either a man or you're in for a seriously rude awakening.
Along the lines of looking like a goddess: you're hair looks so silky in this video and I'm obsessed.
right?
Okay it's not just me.
@@tiberiuspierce6165 same
And this teal in hair and pink glasses combo is perfection
Thank you for such a calm, well-reasoned and researched video. This is an important phenomenon in online culture right now and it's great to see a calm discussion.
And sometimes controversies affect such a small portion of people nobody cares.
Wanda Maximoff is a jewish-romani immigrant and Marvel cast the whitest actress and completely erased her identity. Elizabeth Olsen even repeatedly used a romani slur to describe her. Romani are one of the biggest and most hated minorities, but they are so small they aren't acknowledged.
Usually, when it's brought up, Whedon is scape coated as the guilty party. Not sure if it's accurate, but it sure seems convenient.
BoJack Horseman's 6th season did a really great take on apologies, and abuse, and second chances and I really like that this video covers many of the same subjects.
The writing on the show was truly incredible, and even more so for the fact that pretty much every season just got better and better. I love what they covered in the final season. The second chance storyline with Bojack and I believe the good damage stuff with Diane
Finally watched the entire post. I commend you for your thoughtful, well considered and humane video essay. I appreciate the lack of rancor or need to fingerpoint simplistically at people who have done questionable things.
As long as a person owns up to their past behaviour and genuinely, sincerely apologises I feel it’s okay.
I mostly agree but for the more severe cases, I'd say that atonement is required as well. Some do things that are offensive, upsetting and so on, where an honest apology is enough. For me, Gunn falls into this category, and he gave his years before it was all dragged out again. While others, Whedon comes straight to mind, actually verbally and mentally attacked/abused people. AFAIK, he hasn't said anything about it and is effectively in hiding. In his case an apology isn't enough IMO.
@@Elwaves2925 Yeah, totes agree with you
The elephant in the room is: Which crimes are truly unforgivable?
@@BlackCover95 For me (in no order), it would be murder, rape and paedophilia or any sexual abuse to a minor. That's a start but there's probably more, especially if they were ongoing over a sustained period of time.
Thank you for actually bringing up the conversation of forgiveness. In this day and age, it seems like there's no room for the condemned to actually change. If they genuinely realise what they've done was wrong and makes the effort to redeem themselves, then I think they should at least given the chance to do so. Obviously it depends on the severity of their actions but that's just my thoughts on the matter.
Dan Harmon did it right, I think. He was called out by some toxic behaviour if I remember correctly, and instead of a public display of contrition, he engaged the person acusing directly to apologise personally. Unless there's been more instances that I am not aware of, that's a good way to handle things
I've been working on an apology methodology for my book on toxic masculinity, based on a number of models, for how to make - and how to recognize - a genuine apology. Steps 3 to 5 make it impossible to fake it with this method.
1) Apologize to those you've wronged.
2) Admit what you did, without excuses.
3) Explain what you've learned about what you did wrong, to show you've changed - again without making excuses.
4) NEVER. DO. IT. AGAIN!
5) Make amends whenever possible.
That's a good model!
For 1: I might include something about knowing that not everyone will accept your apology. I think it's an important point people often refrain to make. Because genuine apologies - like forgiveness - are not about other people, they're about the apologizer: an act you do for yourself to alleviate your guilt, help yourself grow, and move on.
That's a nice list, but I see some potential problems with #4: Sometimes, not doing it again is quite difficult to achieve. Such is the nature of addictions, substance abuse and other compulsive behaviours that require professional help. I suppose a good substitute would be "take steps to make sure it never happens again", like seeking medical help.
@@JRA6192 Very true.
Although I'd argue that, sometimes, the person in question _is_ completely blameless. For example, a person with Tourette's syndrome literally can't help but utter swear words or weird noises at inconvenient times.
But even in those cases those people should acknowledge other people's discomfort.
I find myself often saying "when I was young" and I die a bit inside xD I feel you about the "back in my day"
I heard the saying a while ago, that someone's apology needs to be louder than what they're apologizing for. And I agree with this whole-heartedly.
To use the Pewdiepie situation as an example, not only did he continue with these actions, he also payed MONEY to make his original action, and ruined the careers of the people who he payed to hold the sign. His apology was just words (from what I know, he was going to donate money, but was persuaded out of it?) but his actions were so much louder.
Not much to add since you pretty much said everything I was thinking, brava 👏👏
Can't forget the current issues with NY Governor Andrew Cuomo, aka the only Democrat I've ever voted against in a general election, doubling down on his innocence and refusal to step down in the face of overwhelming evidence of his sexual misconduct. Also, yes, you are a goddess.
What about his careless decision to send COVID-positive people to a nursing home? People are so busy focusing on the sexual harassment scandal that the nursing home scandal has been swept under the rug. I won't forget about either one, and I want him to be held accountable for BOTH sets of wrongdoings.
Thank you for a well researched, thought out and resoned analysis. Been hoping for a broader detailed look from you. You have a very rare ability to present objective viewpoints.
"evidence of change"
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.
Whilst I think everyone should be accountable for their actions and words, there comes a point when it becomes Trial by Social Media, and at that point it becomes impossible for that person to get a fair trial.
I remember the jury selection process for OJ Simpson, and how difficult it was to find people who weren't influenced by the hype in the media. There were fears that any trial could be declared a mistrial as it would be impossible for the defendant to get a fair hearing.
A similar problem nearly happened with Harvey Weinstein. Can you imagine the backlash that would have happened if his trial failed because of all the hype and social media attention prior to the court case?
I'm all for calling out people who do wrong, letting them know that their behaviour and words are unacceptable and for letting victims know they aren't alone.
But at some point, Cancel Culture has become less about saying No More to jerks, and more about the witch hunt to find more wrongness (both real and perceived) to be angry at. Your video comparing Noel Clarke and John Barrowman covers that extremely well.
As I said at the start, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this, and I'm sure that even if we disagree (although I doubt that will happen), you will present your thoughts in a way that I will definitely respect.
Thoroughly enjoyable, thought provoking and extremely well put.
You didn't go into cancel culture as much as I thought you might (I guess you've covered it pretty well in other videos), but I would be very interested in seeing more videos on where to draw the line when going back through people's past work.
I will confess that I don't know the full story, having only heard a brief bit on the news, but recently the Director of the Opening Ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics was dropped from directing it a few days before the ceremony... because of tweets he posted when he was a teenager. There may well be a lot more to the story than what was broadcast in the news item I heard, but on the face of it, surely that's Cancel Culture going too far?
Anyway, whether you do or don't cover this topic, that's up to you. After all, I only attend the meetings as a Council Member, it's YOU who runs the meeting! 😄
@@Stephen_The_Waxing_Lyricist i will just say, as a rumor i watched (can't find source), he was sacked because wanna put the former head (who was a woman and wanna use characters like mario, tsubasa and anime) in a costume with a sign that says "Olim-pyg" and make her parade in the opening, that was a rumor that one news channel in my country talk for a reason to sack the head, but i don't know if is real or not, i believe that the real reasons was just disagreament of ideas (at least i hope so)
@@Ezeka93 I really should have read up before I posted; turns out it wasn't something on Twitter, but a comedy sketch he did with another comedian in the 90s. The "Olym-Pig" suggestion was a different person, who got the sack for it back in March.
Here's some of the report from the BBC news report:
____
The show director of the Olympics opening ceremony has been dismissed, one day before the event is due to be held.
Footage of Kentaro Kobayashi from the 1990s recently emerged in which he appears to make jokes about the Holocaust.
Japan's Olympic chief Seiko Hashimoto said the video ridiculed "painful facts of history".
The dismissal is the latest in a string of scandals to hit the Games.
Since the start of the year, three other organisers have been forced to step down from Tokyo 2020 - and the games have already been postponed because of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Earlier this week, a composer quit the team creating the ceremony after it emerged he had bullied classmates with disabilities at school
In March, Olympics' creative chief Hiroshi Sasaki quit after suggesting that plus-size comedian Naomi Watanabe could appear as an "Olympig". He later apologised
And in February, Yoshiro Mori was forced to step down as the head of the organising committee after he made remarks about women that were criticised as "inappropriate". Mr Mori was quoted as saying women talked too much and that meetings with many female board directors would "take a lot of time".
This latest scandal has seen former comedian Mr Kobayashi strongly criticised for a sketch he performed 23 years ago, in which he and another comedian pretend to be children's entertainers.
In the sketch Mr Kobayashi turns to his colleague, referring to some paper dolls, saying they are "the ones from that time you said 'let's play the Holocaust'", according to AFP news agency.
Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga described the comments as "outrageous and unacceptable".
Meanwhile Rabbi Abraham Cooper, of the US-based Holocaust research body Simon Wiesenthal Center, said: "Any person, no matter how creative, does not have the right to mock the victims of the Nazi genocide."
Mr Kobayashi himself has issued a statement responding to his dismissal.
"Entertainment should not make people feel uncomfortable. I understand that my stupid choice of words at that time was wrong, and I regret it," it said.
Olympics chief Seiko Hashimoto said she was not aware of the sketch before Mr Kobayashi's appointment, and apologised for "causing concern to those involved in the Olympics, to the citizens of Tokyo and the Japanese public".
Despite the last-minute change of leadership, Japan's prime minister said the event should proceed as planned - kicking off two weeks of competitive events.
But since Mr Kobayashi's removal, organisers are reassessing plans for ceremony.
Totally agree with your points and do watch how people behave going forward.
I feel like if you've acknowledged wrongdoing, are taking steps, time is passing and behavior is progressively changing, that's chill.
But if it's just about their image and not about the harm they've caused, not causing further harm... that's not going to be as helpful or genuine.
Extrinsic vs intrinsic
Your Goddess definitely shines bright on your channel, blessed be 😊
The only thing I want to add, Mel Gibson, has been donating money to the Holocaust survivors. Unless something else has happened, he has been working on changing. I don't know if that means he's redeemed or not.
I was just thinking about this while rewatching Serenity - for obvious reasons.
I really enjoyed this take - thanks for making it.
This was a fantastic video essay. Extremely well done. And you are a goddess!
On the topic of controversial beliefs, I actually welcome them, with one notable caveat: discourse only works when people act in good faith. People expressing divergent beliefs and others expressing disagreement in rebuttal is useful and justified.
I much prefer when people are open and honest about their beliefs and are willing to hear opposing arguments. For far too long, we have been striving for agreement by fiat. How’s that working for us? Not well, I would argue as we become increasingly tribalistic and refuse to discuss issues with people unless we agree with them.
I prefer public discourse to involve more listening and understanding than dismissal and rejection. Consequently, I welcome any response that challenges my position here. I promise I’ll do my best to hear you out respectfully.
So well presented... Thank you!
I meant to tell you this in another video of yours, but here is as good as any. I remember when I first started watching you on this channel. I saw when you came out and eventually start presenting more feminine or fluid in your rainbow videos (particularly with the purple flower clip which I haven't seen in a while). Then I lost you for a few years and only recently came back... and oh my god I'm so proud of you. You not only look amazing, you feel amazing. You feel different, you feel better, you feel freer, you feel like you are happier than I've ever seen you be on this channel. When you described yourself as "presenting like a goddess, frankly." I literally screamed YES! into the ethos. YES YES YES I am SO proud of you for leaning into yourself and feeling more confident with who you are. It's been a joy to see and I truly hope the best for you.
I have a question: What is the appropiate response if you believe that you have nothing to apologize for?
Should you try to explain why you don't believe you should apologize? Or just remain silent? If there was a misunderstanding, should you try to clarify your original intentions? Or is 'explaining = losing' as true in the world of apologies as it is in the world of debates?
What if you don't think your words/actions were wrong, but still feel sorry for the other person not taking it so well?
This might be a hot take, but I actually believe there is a legitimate place for the much maligned "I'm sorry you were offended" apology. That place being, when the person did nothing wrong that merits apologizing, but still regrets that other people felt hurt, even if their feeling is completely unjustified (either because they misunderstood what the celebrity said or did, or because they're just extremely sensitive and/or paranoid people).
Hypothetically, unless you intended to inflict harm, when it’s brought to your attention that you have done so, why wouldn’t you apologise? Even if it’s a misunderstanding, shouldn’t you apologise for expressing yourself poorly? You can’t judge what’s over-sensitive because you haven’t lived the life of the person who was hurt. What’s just a joke to you might be the last straw to someone who has suffered a lifetime of micro aggressions. I suppose if your hypothetical gaffe is harming a group somehow deserving of harm that might be different but I’m having trouble thinking of an example that isn’t ridiculous. In 2015 Benedict Cumberbatch used the term ‘coloured’ for POC in a TV interview. He wasn’t intentionally being racist and it didn’t occur to him that the term might be offensive. He’s a white, upper class Brit - it’s just the language he was used to. But when he was called out, he didn’t say that. He acknowledged that his words unintentionally caused harm and apologised for that harm. It’s worth googling his statement because I think it’s a good answer to your question.
Speaking as a therapist in a trauma and crisis recovery program, there's a raw truth we have in the mental health profession: When someone has hurt you, they have no right to say that they didn't.
In my opinion, they should be forgiven if they actually recognise what they did was wrong and really try to fix it. I think the best example of someone who has clearly not learned from their mistake and doesn't care was chris brown. His "apologies" were crap and obviously false, so i would never forgive him. But someone like john Barrowman, i would since he has recognised that what he did was wrong (YEARS AGO by the way) and wanted to fix it.
Loved the video! You were able to articulate a lot of what I think about giving second chances but could never really find the right words for. :)
Really liked this video, it covered a lot of ground and was well thought out. Excellent work.👏👏👏
As always great video Vera😀 both insightful and entertaining.
... Back in my day.. Haha😂very relatable
have just come across your channel and really enjoyed the subject and the way you explained things so clearly, thanks I will be watching out for you
as I have a short attention span and was engaged with your very intelligent comments to the very end .
A goddess! Niiice.
I enjoy listening to your perspective, even when I don't know much about a topic. I'm willing to learn.
Ok. 1.) I think I might have initially found your channel during one of those "celeb scandal discussion" videos that you acknowledge as not really being your intended brand. So there's that. Obviously I stuck around.
2.) This is low key one of the best breakdowns of a super complicated and often exhausting issue. I'm especially fond of your point about the conundrum of "forgive me now, and I'll do better later." You were remarkably and effectively neutral, but not in a way that reads as betraying your beliefs. This playful, earnest, and intellectually curious tone is really something I would like to see in more content creators.
3.) I'm super interested in your view on the flip side of this discussion. Namely, what is the role of our potentially unhealthy public engagement with those topics on social media. Or as Lindsay Ellis put it, Twitter's algorithmic need to have a villain of the day.
This was very balanced and insightful. I appreciate you covering this. :D
Thank you for such a well-worded and explained take on the cycle! I really enjoy your topic explorations and just generally your take on things. Thank you so much
Aziz Ansari is a good example. Male feminist who behaved like a typical douchebro. He apologized. No new reports of bad behavior. Still has a career, but it took a hit for a while.
I think the most important point is that when or if you forgive is SOLELY UP TO YOU.
This was an excellent analysis and a very thorough approach, IMHO. I feel like you give some great points for everyone to consider concerning "forgiveness vs moving on", as well as some important factors to consider when engaging in [what may lead to or result in] "cancel culture".
Concerning CK, I think it's worth noting that many of the websites that reported on the allegations against him included exaggerations that would change the severity of his actions (such as saying he had blocked a door when he did not, which would drastically change how one viewed his intentions, of course). I'm not saying this excuses him, but rather many times the public won't have the conversation they intend to, as they have an incomplete representation of the facts. Depending on what a person has heard/read on the subject, they could think of him like Harvey Weinstein or they could think of him like David Letterman (fun fact, CK was the writer for Letterman who quit the fastest apparently, and there's a scene in his show that has a different "Letterman" antagonist, though he did say that character isn't meant to be considered David).
That said, I feel the [potentially] greatest source of discourse in these types of proceedings is that the public is taking on the roles of both judge and jury, so often we have more bias and less review (and therefore inadequate understanding) as the ensuing result.
Again, great video on the subject of "second chances" and I really enjoy the depth you bring in all of your videos I've seen so far - keep up the great work!
I had no idea about Warren Ellis. One of my favorite comic writers.
This is some of your best work.
This video could be used as a great guide for people who are involved in a scandal :D
Just to point this out. Pewdiepie has changed. He made quite a bit of edgy jokes for a period (worth noting that edgy jokes were very popular in youtube at the time. Doesn't excuse his behavior, but explains why).
He has now had very family friendly content for multiple years.
I must say that I'm quite forgiving of edgy jokes in general. It's very common and often (not always) representative of personal beliefs. In pewdiepie's case all other evidence points to him having very typical swedish moderate political opinions.
Interesting stuff, thanks!
This made me realize i need to turn the bell on for your channel Vera!
I think this is one of my favourite videos from you, very well researched and written 😊 also yes you do look like a goddess, praise you 🙌
Dan Harmon is often used as a good example. He acknowledged his behavior and worked on forgiveness from his victim.
Doubling down, the “ et alors” or “so what” from french president Mitterrand was the best reaction to a scandal ever
Idk James Gunn deserved his second chance, he made those comments a long time ago. And forgive me if I'm wrong, he did apologise.
This was really well done. Well thought out, researched, written and edited. I'd compare the Gunn scandal for long ago twitter posts to Chrissy Teigan's recent scandal over long ago twitter posts. She already had a lot of outspoken and cruel critics about her over-sharing (which I actually applauded). She chose to withdraw from social media because of the fuckton of internet outrage, and growing "real" print media attention she was getting. Myself, I learned drunk facebooking was a bad thing long ago, and always checked all my accounts in the morning after a night of drinking so I could delete whatever. And that was before Trump, the red hats, covid and all the rest of the planetary shit storm we've seen blow up over the last 5-10 years. It just got too exhausting to even sit back and watch. So I quit.
There is a business model and plan that covid put off, but I'll be using a different name and probably never showing my face on screen. I purposefully removed most of my googlibility, and will probably remove more. Then start over. But as of right now, I'm nobody, and you are a fine example of how to do it right. Thank you!
It's the same question you need to ask of anybody who's made mistakes in their life: "Is this person willing to listen, and is this person willing to change?". To me, that's what separates toxic people from those who simply fucked up.
But then, how do you determine what kind of person you're dealing with? How many fuckups do you allow somebody before you say "no more"? Those are also good questions.
None of these people have committed offenses that are horrific enough for them to not deserve a second chance. Everyone besides the most depraved and violent people deserve to be allowed to learn, grow, and move forward. That’s what life is about. Constantly evolving and becoming richer of spirit.
A lot of people feel that Rowling has had enough second chances to see that she's probably never going to back down from her shitty opinion.
Did you like actually watch this video?
More often that not these ppl aren’t just given a singular second chance, they’re give DOZENS of free passes. More often then not they don’t actually try to change. They just keep adding to and perpetuating that same harm.
Also
How is trump distinctly talking about physically harassing women not the epitome of an unforgivable offense? Or Activision/Blizzard harassing & belittling hundreds of women and even pushing one to the point of suicide even remotely redemption worthy?
Cause your statement none of these ppl Vera listed have committed acts not to be given a second chance feels totally divorced from the Grim reality. Some ppl need to be cut off and stopped. Otherwise there will be more victims and then it won’t just be the fault of the perpetrators, but also be the fault of those who heard of these egregious acts and did nothing.
@@ALtheuncommonicedragon8360 "Did you like actually watch this video?" that had to be rhetorical.
It's amazing that someone managed to make Kotaku look good through sheer incompetence.
Can't wait
Engagement for the engagement god!
I find it interesting that the punishment meted out by the media in general as well as social media can be quite disproportionate to the alleged behaviour (see me cover my arse there). Kevin Spacey, for instance. No, I haven't researched him specifically but I seem to recall that his offending was minor in comparison to others' and yet he was dropped like the proverbial hot potato immediately the story broke. Just a thought.
I enjoy the Council of Geeks videos very much. Keep 'em coming! Oh, and you are a goddess in your own universe :D Blessings, P
Pewdiepie is a intresting example of having friends in the industry being important for getting a second chance, because he collabs and is friends with so many creators from groups that his past controversies might have hurt, that it creates a shield around him. The general youtube audience has forgiven and given him a second chance because the most of the biggest minority creators have nothing against him or forgiven him (KSI, H3H3, Markiplier, OTV youtubers, etc), and anyone who tries to attack Pewdiepie for his past controversies will loose credibility and turn that general UA-cam audience against themselves, so going after Pewdiepie becomes counter productive. And Pewdiepie has time on his side, because the longer the gap since his last controversy gets, the more his critics will be seen as unreasonable and he as a changed man whether he actually changed or is the same and just avoiding controversies. Kinda of demonstrates that ability to make friends can be very useful at getting a second chance because the more big name celebrities (or in this case youtubers) the more likely you're to recover.
I truly hate when people are sorry, not for the actions, but for the consequences they face for their actions. Like you denied it and denied it and denied it and now when you are fully exposed for what you did and are being held accountable suddenly you are sorry. Nope. Too late.
What a goddess!!
I think the real problem with this whole thing is fame and the adoration we have for famous people (I'm not saying I don't do this, because I really do - see Pedro Pascal!)
When you have that amount of support and are surrounded by "yes men" you feel untouchable, no matter what terrible things you might end up doing.
On a side note, we've all f'd up and been idiots in our lives, but if people can show real change then I think they deserve a second chance. We're (mostly) all just trying to be less of a dickhead than we were yesterday xxx
Me: clicks video
UA-cam: Have a Harry Potter ad
Me: 😕
Dawson’s silence was also connected to Cory Brooker’s then presidential run. Silence makes the scandal go away is even more true in politics.
What if you acted or believed in a certain way you neither apologize or deny the behavior but it’s clear that you are not that way now?
When the public start judging individual's beliefs and actions, it is inevitable that they will bring in their prejudices, tribal loyalties and hidden assumptions that even they do not realise they hold. Minorities of various types and people from weaker sections of society will generally be dealt with much more harshly, and it will be harder for such people to be successful than those from more accepted backgrounds.
In particular when justifying treating cases differently, if you really break down the reasons they will generally come down to hidden assumptions about different types of people.
Also we tend to give too much weight to multiple similar allegations, not taking into account the human tendency to sense when an individual is being turned on by society, and join in with the witch-hunt.
As humans we tend to be at our worst when we feel righteous, and that others have transgressed. Such feelings tend to be held by the groups who currently hold power, and when the power moves, the people for and against boycotting "undesirables" tend to swap around.
The courts are far from perfect in these regards, but at least they try to enforce consistent rules, based on logical reasoning. As such they often make unpopular decisions. The best we can do is leave matters of impropriety to them, and give each other the benefit of the doubt and accept each others differences, however abhorrent our society deems those differences.
Some people will continue to offend. There are many others whose offenses are not known. And often, whether you believe in a second chance is irrelevant. If someone thinks the person can make money for them, they will be given a job. And in some cases, people really do deserve a second chance. But in reading the biographies of notable people, it is sad to see how often they become even more terrible people later in life. And yet, their work, what we want to praise them for, still stands, still is good. No easy answers.
Girl, you're gorgeous. I started watching you for your Doctor Who content and didn't know any of your gorgeousness; goodness was I missing out. I'm really glad you are being true to yourself.
This is the first time of me hearing about the Rob Lowe incident...
I have no trust anymore in any celebrity.
The strangest thing to me about that is it’s now largely remembered as a sex tape scandal, because where it happened had the age of consent set at 16 at the time.
What never made any sense with Gunn is his jokes were in keeping with the humour of Super or some of his other published scripts. You then have the issue that Disney had the people who wrote the songs for Book of Mormon doing all the frozen music and other really crude or lewd comedians or actors who have done work attached to several of their animated films. So why is humour on stage/tweets considered different to reading lines in a script
Easy. It was all about timing. Disney felt they were backed into a corner they made a knee jerk decision. Had they waited a week or two. It would have all blown over. They knew about Gunn's previous work. Feige definitely knew. And Disney made the situation 10x worse as it was a knee jerk reaction to make themselves look clean. My theory is they thought possible allegations would arise (it was the perfect time for it to) so they severed ties, but nothing came of it beyond that. Most people with a brain saw they were jokes and they had egg on their face when it was reported every studio wanted him to do stuff. And the tweets were very much in line with SUPER and anyone who has seen that film knows that was the case. Unless the Disney Film division is completely unaware of their talent (which could be the case), it was more for optics.
And from my personal point of view, James Gunn hadn't made a single joke like that since before he was ever hired (had he made them in the present, fair enough), so IMO he shouldn't apologies in the present as he is clearly not that but if he feels like he has to/wants to then fair enough.
And the reason why James Gunn wasn't blacklisted and honestly feels like a life lesson: he never doubled down, he never blamed anyone (and is well documented that it was a campaign against him, so he had the defence card ready), he accepted being fired. (Also worth adding, everything surrounding the cast as well and no one wanting to touch Vol.3 at all), he never burned any bridge he had.
All of that played into Gunn's favour by being asked by everyone in Hollywood to make stuff with. Taking on The Suicide Squad, getting Vol.3 back plus other things. With the addition his name in Hollywood and in the film viewing landscape catapulted into sky. So the greatest irony of the Gunn situation...It was the best thing to happen to him.
I think every time a situation of heat arises, its best to not take every situation as a binary. There is so much nuance to everything and most of all its about how the person in question takes the heat.
EDIT: In the case of James Gunn it isn't even a story of second chance or redemption. He never had to change. It was just more of a reinforcement of who his public image was, and by the sounds of it himself too.
@@JamesMcQueenMedia was anyone actually openly angry? Again I go back to Super or PG Porn which all contained as edgy material. Even if allegations had arisen they still market a bugs life and powder is on Disney plus
@@c17sam90 No. The people who tried and succeded with getting Gunn fired were either Alt Right figureheads and followers who wanted a 'woke liberal lefty' fired even though those same people proclaim freedom of speech or they were people who had been cancelled under similar circumstances but in their case made their situation worse because of the doubling down and usually saying stuff in the present.
And the humour was no different to Super, like most of the jokes would have made sense with context to them too. Hell the tweet he made about Jared Leto is still up and that was a month before he was fired.
And PG Porn is just genius with its humour and again not out of the line with the tweets.
@@JamesMcQueenMedia yeah. Face it there’s no way Don Rickles would be allowed to voice a cartoon character today
@@c17sam90 Yes, he would. Offensive comedians are very much still a thing. Dave Chapelle is probably the biggest he's ever been and everybody loves Bill Bur. On top of that, in terms of film, in 2019 there was a film about a Hitler Youth who had Hitler as an imaginary friend, with the director being the one to play that imaginary Hitler. And that same director is the guy who made Thor Ragnarok and is currently making Thor Love and Thunder.
Curious what your thoughts are on the Dan Harmon apology from a few years ago. I remember that one standing out to me as actually sounding like a real genuine apology to the person he harmed moreso than a publicity stunt.
I honestly don't know enough about the details to have an opinion, as I don't follow his work.
@@CouncilofGeeks that’s fair, His work does have its problematic elements and I don’t fault anyone for avoiding it. I do think Community and Rick and Morty do have very relevant things to say that are sometimes obscured by the more toxic elements of their fan bases, but even without those as context, I would strongly recommend checking out his apology. There is a full video of it as it was done as a part of his live podcast harmontown (not a great start, I know), but at the time it was held up as the pinnacle of how public figures should go about apologizing for their wrongdoing. Would be super curious to hear your thoughts if you do get a chance to check it out!
Wait, people can get second chances on social media? Since when?
I'm so glad you brought up Filip! I started watching him after he was plugged by another UA-cam creator (before he was even hired by IGN) and I so wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt on the plagiarism thing when there was only the one instance known.
I was really hoping to see something about Dan Harmon here, because the guy literally has given a masterclass on how to apology
Just had a thought about Rowling. While I've no doubt that she absolutely believes what she believes, is there ANY chance at all that the reason she keeps on piping up is to remain somewhat relevant? I only ask as, besides from the Fantastic Beasts movies, which haven't been doing well, and the Hogwarts Legacy game, which probably should have been made years ago, and hard core fans, do many people actually CARE about the Harry Potter franchise any more? I mean, I know it was important for people's childhoods, including mine. Don't get me wrong. I'll always have a soft spot for it and have nice memories of the series. However, I've, and probably many more people, have moved on from it and focused on other franchises, like the MCU and the DCEU. Compare that to Harry Potter, which always had a shelf life, as we all knew it would end with Book 7. That was the end point. After that though? Harry Potter lost its relevance a bit.
Those are my thoughts on this anyway :)
Her Strike books have been successful but not massive hits. I think she’s just old tbh and a bit like a ageing politician her politics haven’t really evolved. She would probably say she’s quite liberal and I’m sure she was for the era that formed her political beliefs. But hers possibly haven’t evolved past the era that formed them. If you read casuals vacancy it’s her political beliefs laid out and while I like it it’s very 1980’s and it was published in the late 2000’s. When you look at her involvement in British politics it’s very left leaning centrist and I don’t think she’s ever been seen as super liberal in the U.K. however internationally she possibly was. I think that’s possibly why there was bigger reaction outside of the U.K. in terms of celebrities then there was in the U.K. when it was more of “oh look she’s being all centrist again” and I don’t think anyone held her up high except for when she donates to charities.
My end point of Harry Potter was dated all the way back to bloody movie's 1 through 4 where he was a bloody villian in his own home for things out of his control. I lived that shitstorm of a life. It ain't a bloody reason to hate him
She's using her considerable audience as a celebrity to bring awareness to issues she cares about, a large issue to her being "the potential of men identifying as women to attack women." It's not so much... a desire to remain relevant, as it is a perk of her status as a celebrity that people pay much more attention to her tweets / blog - which she updates because she likes to write - than Jane-average.
That said, any work she's ever going to release in the future is going to be actively boycotted by a substantial amount of people. Fortunately, she hasn't released anything good since 2008. I've never seen an example in recent history of so much goodwill burned away for such a stupid, stupid reason. J.K. Rowling has beliefs that are easily completely discredited if she would do a little research and speak to a few transgender people.
@@dante6985 I’ve heard good things about her Strike books but I haven’t yet got round to reading them. I don’t honestly know anyone who liked her (bar when she donated to various charities) but they liked the work she did. I don’t think this boycott will be as big as some people think. Just look at the case of Mel Gibson a lot of his work had be highly profitable. The same thing happened with Bohemian Rhapsody for all the we will not support terrible people making films chatter the public makes Bryan Singer’s (likely final big film) possibly the biggest of his career snd it’s only the lead up to major awards when the studio stripped him of producing credit so if it won he didn’t win and people could feel fine voting for it.
@@c17sam90 I appreciate your comments and thoughts, but that comes to mind when reading this comment. is in the video, Council of Geeks has basically said "do not compare cases, nothing is ever always the same"... and you've analogized Jk Rowling to Mel Gibson and Bryan Singer. Mel Gibson apologized almost immediately for his words (JK Rowling hasn't.) Bryan Singer has a completely different set of controversies and is blacklisted from directing.
Substantial doesn't mean tremendous. It just means of substance, enough to make a difference. variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-book-sales-harry-potter-1234708777/
Her book sales have been adversely affected by her comments. I'd encourage all people who support trans issues to not continue to support the work of a woman with a hurtful narrative. And it's not that hard since the only good stuff is probably things you've already read.
What about 'by association'? The unease about supporting someone who surely knew about the offending behavior of someone else and was either complicit or willfully ignorant. That seems like it would be even tricker to address, esp if the person wasn't explicitly brought up.
Honestly I feel like the same patterns apply in terms of whether they ever addressed it, was there an apology, is the associated party guilty of toxic behavior or beliefs, etc. just perhaps to a slightly lesser degree.
When it comes to believes it's complicated, because one can't so easily blame people for their believes. The attitude: "Drop/pick this belief or you are a bad person" is exactly how bigotry is born. So when addressing a belief that leads to harmful actions one has to address whether the person did their research and whether they are willing to have their belief challenged. If not, that is something one can and should be blamed for.
is our defence and disappointment more about our own self-image or the perps acts/behavoiour?