Hey Uncle Tim. Thanks for taking the time to be a role model. Many of us outside of game dev are applying your lessons not only to other disciplines, but our personal lives/relationships.
Not knocking you or your comment but very few people want to be role models as that's a lot of pressure to have on oneself. Calling someone an inspiration is fine, but we're all human, we all fail, and as they say, "never meet your heroes" as once you see them as the humans they are, they might not seem so heroic anymore.
@@Jvid752sure. I should clarify that I only did so because he's introduced himself as Uncle Tim to the audience in previous videos, and my comment was an attempt at speaking for all of us. Parasocial in a different way, I know.
@@CharlesSweet Understandable. My comment could have been worded better. I didn't mean to insinuate that "role model" is an identity that Tim is purposely taking on with this channel and the videos. But I do feel pretty strongly that taking the time to reflect on oft-forgotten aspects of creativity, like working with others, and in turn sharing the wisdom, is role model behavior.
The two types of people you mentioned are finding excuses to avoiding taking responsibility for their actions because they have to overcome to cognitive dissonance created by being confronted with information that conflicts with their view of themselves. In their heads they are a goods person so if confronted with irrefutable evidence that they did a bad thing, a thing that in their mind would make them a bad person, their brain will make excuses to square the two new information with their internal narrative. It comes down to some people just being on autopilot because introspection is difficult and not very many people are good at it. Their brains take shortcuts instead of doing the hard work of listening, understanding and processing.
I feel like the 'I don't remember that' thing is an extension of the 'my truth' and 'my reality' mentality. Somehow the cultural zeitgeist has taken a really fast shift towards everything just being marketing with no room for objectivity or consideration of nuance if those will put their own self-image/confidence in jeapordy.
I struggle with this one. I think your decision was right, and I do the same. Imo, cancelling is just a reframing of a culture of domination outlined by bell hooks. I think we need a restorative society, and to let go of punitive attitudes. I have been hurt a lot in this life, but I only think this kind of punitive justice should be aimed at people like my mom and stepdad, who actually broke moral codes I become more sure of as I age. But the kids who bullied be for being queer, the people who let me down, they should just be able to live. The "i dont remember that" types are such an issue!!! I hate that, it bothers me so much. It has put me in some dicey situations, because I want to help people as much as I can, help as many people be better. Those people who pretend to forget will really really take advantage of me, and I am having to learn to put up hard boundaries there.
you can acknowledge someone for being a bad person, but when it comes to media, art, entertainment we only know them through the lense of their work. I wouldn't judge my bus driver for cheating on his wife, im just happy to get to my destination in a peaceful and swift manner. I wouldn't judge the employee i ordered food from at mcdonalds because maybe she was guilty of stealing from her family at one point in time, i just want my food to be of the quality i paid for. I think it changes when you actually know someone personally, because then those sort of things can end up affecting you directly but when it's just a transaction of a product or service it falls more on a parasocial interaction. I don't blame people for lumping it all together, but trying to police what others do and label them as bad people is where i believe things get harmful. But anyways ly tim ur still the goat
Hey Tim, cool video as usual. Sometimes I think about those things myself. I believe that a lot of people have issues with nuance because they've been taught they need to be right. Sure, it is a very good guideline to seek. But in reality we simply cannot achieve it. Take a look at how many people on the internet think they are ALWAYS right, when they're not. Perhaps we should be teaching people on how to deal with being wrong. There is a very important and distinct line between wanting to be right, and wanting to improve.
@Schiersner Yeah, that's also what I thought about when he said "as if - for them - being kind is a lot worse than being mean" - it's not worse than being mean, it's worse than acknowledging they were in the wrong, and not just admitting it to the victim, but even to themselves. Being wrong sucks, it hurts our pride. All of us feel that, to some degree, so I suspect most of us are guilty of not admitting our mistakes, at least on occasion.
The problem with being good is something missing from games, to few games punish you for being good. There is sacrifice if you avoid things for personal morals, it's not easy.
I like how the first Bioshock handled it, if you were bad you got immediate benefit, but saving all the girls the good way gave you a better benefit in the long run.
The "problem with altruism" definitely has a place in some games, especially ones where morality and politics feature heavily as themes and such. But I don't miss it from most games. For fantasies of fun, and doubly so for something like games which largely appeal to younger audiences, 'skepticism of selflessness' is something I might argue isn't the kind of social narrative or commentary it's wise to prioritize. Exaltations of pro-social behavior may produce better outcomes. But then again isn't that exactly the kind of exploration which is necessary to introduce? After all, we need only look into moral paragons like Mother Teresa or Gandhi, and many nonprofit orgs, to realize what you are told is good and moral is often among the most evil and contemptable.
@@harpernerys7345 Your comment is well thought out, but I would argue that the reason so many moral choices in games appear superficial-such as merely looking evil-is that you receive an equivalent reward regardless of your choice. Additionally, in a realistic game, real-life consequences often punish those who do the right thing. Historical figures like MLK and Malcolm X were assassinated, and even philosophers like Socrates faced execution-it’s an integral part of doing what’s right.
Tim, as long time fan of your work and aging millennial dad, I feel compelled to thank you for this channel. You're musings really brighten my work day, even when you are speaking about programming which might as well be Latin to me. Excellent work sir, both in your games and on this channel.
Hey Tim, Thank you for sharing those thoughts with us. Despite having less wisdom or life experience than yourself, I feel compelled to comment to support what you are experiencing. I would like to begin by saying that it is lovely for you to be willing to listen to people whom have hurt you and extend your empathy. Though it is a shame that we can't always acknowledge what we do with one-another, it is that freedom to apologise genuinely which makes it mean even more. On the same note, I think you should be proud of yourself for just trying to take notes of companies and brands which you believe that you shouldn't give business to. I resonate deeply with that feeling of being overwhelmed by the list of people and things which have done something wrong or might do wrong. I do want to say that worrying about who might do something wrong is way outside reasonable bounds of worry. You're already doing plenty and trying your best. There will always be people around us who try to encourage us to be evermore morally responsible and their heart is in the right place. Being deliberately ignorant or uncaring is not a great way to be. There is no silver bullet. I hope you just continue to acknowledge that the scope-creep of this problem should not be an impediment for you to be realistic about what you can actually do as a human. Extend yourself a little grace like you have to others. Much love from Australia, Jarrod
1. Judging too fast - Yeah, it's a common problem lately. Does anyone still remember the Amber-Johny thing? People just jumped between camps, but the torches were lit for the whole time. It's pretty sad, let the judge be the judge. 2. Canceling - I'm generally strongly against cancelling. I believe it may have something to do with cultural differences, but where I'm from, the "Cancel Culture" is considered harmful by many people. 3. Not remembering - yeah, that's a hard one. If the person doesn't remember, then it doesn't change his or her guilt. But in that person's perspective, the guilt is questionable. And the witnesses are not something too believable, especially if the case is against you and if it happened, it was many years ago. I understand that it might be frustrating but the most you could demand is imo acknowledgement that "X is bad" and something like "If it really happened, then I'm sorry, but I can't honestly say that I really FEEL sorry at the moment, because I really don't remember doing anything like that." It's not really satisfying now, is it? But for the person on the other side, if the "not remembering" is truthful, it's probably the maximum that can be said honestly. 4. I believe a creation is separate from a creator. Even if you, Tim, had done some terrible things, I would still enjoy Fallout and say it's one of my favourite games. If I like the song, I don't care if the author said or did some horrible things, I'm not saying he's great as a person when I'm saying that he's a great artist. A great 3rd Reich tactician is still a great tactician, even if he fought for the wrong side.
One of the greatest privileges we have in this life is to learn from the people around us. Whether it’s passive or direct, it happens if we’re open to it. I love the way you closed the video, trying to be better is the kind of energy we all can benefit from. Thanks as always for the video and sharing your thoughts!
I tend to separate artistry from its artists. People I don't like can have good views on individual topics. It's pretty rare that I wholesale don't like an entire human from nose to toes. It's even more rare that I like every aspect of any person.
The problem is when the artist is a living person using your appreciation of their art to accomplish things you don't support. If you separate the art from the currently active artist, you financially support causes you don't want to financially support. If I buy a Diddy album because I like the song, I am financially supporting his crimes.
Do you think you'd be able to name a single artist, company, or any entity that has never done a wrong? What is the level of crime or moral indiscretion that you are willing to support? If you've ever bought a Nirvana album, are you now supporting heroin use? If you've ever once shopped at Walmart in your life, are you now supporting tax evasion? I won't support artistry that actively sends a message of hatred, but unfortunately you're perfect business / artist doesn't exist. I guess it's just a matter of what is your line that you're willing to ignore wrongdoing for the sake of personal enrichment? Even our friends and family do wrong but we don't just discard them right out the gate.
@@theebulllYeah its pretty much where your line in the sand is. So people are fine if the CEO says something stupid about taxes but not fine with them using child labor. Seems pretty reasonable to be selective and spend your energy on not supporting bad people when you can afford to, even if that's not philosophically consistent.
@@Doople you are 100% correct. That's why I tend to not weigh in their personal opinions and actions. The judgement is philosophical by nature and there is no way to be consistent with it. It turns into a problem of how many degrees of separation from the problem does it need to be. Diddy produced Biggy and makes money from him, should I not listen to Biggy anymore? Even using TH-cam has its ties to horrible things, but here we all are. I'll watch Harry Potter but I'm not out consuming trans hate content. I'm fine with deplatforming a person who uses their voice to spread hate in an egregious way (not confusing hate with an opposing opinion to mine), but not listening to a good song they put out 5 years ago won't do that. If you see hate, speak against it, don't just run away from it. People fall into those traps of hate because they likely didn't have that opposing perspective when they formed that judgement. The best thing you can do is give that perspective to them and hopefully they can think critically, even if it takes time.
@@theebulll I don't really feel it's about if they've done no wrong. More, are they causing an impact with their money, from their art, that is harming others. I'd dare say, that's a SMALL list of artists out there. I only know of one who's dumb enough to be overtly vocal about it, to the point I had to change my spending habits. ty Rowling, for that? I'm sure there's other examples, but that's the one that hit me the hardest. (I'm not big on media in general, and got into reading her before the movies came out) At that point, I think it's fair to discard - because it's not a mistake or act made out of desperation for financial security. I'd even say you owe it to yourself and others to discard friends and family who engage in harmful behavior, more than a public figure. Because you can intimately know just how bad they are, on a personal level. Doesn't mean we can't pick them back up again- just that there are things so bad, that dumping the whole person in the trash, is the right answer.
You brought up Michael Schur and that's a fantastic example, because in the The Good Place, while the system of interdependencies we live in make us complicit in its failings, one of the lessons of the show is we can try to be better than we were before. It is exhausting trying to keep up with what's known about all the things we interact with, but you're not going to help anyone if you burn yourself up trying to hit perfects in the rhythm game of morality under capitalism. Your best is all you can do
I rewrote this comment a bunch of times so I hope it's nuanced enough. When it comes to comedians and musicians, I can think of people who straight up can't book shows, but they're people who I think 70% of people would be confused or frustrated as to why they aren't in jail (BIll Cosby, the now-TH-cam musician who tried to assassinate Reagan). Most people who tell an offensive joke or maybe write some edgy lyrics when they're young will get a chance to own up to it, apologize and continue their career. Just like in real life, some people won't hear an apology if they feel they've been harmed. Some careers are smaller now than they were, but I think it's a system that works itself out towards fairness over time. When it comes to people who are a part of a huge team, if you're in a position to be canceled, you're either some sort of public-facing performer or an influential creative lead, writer, producer etc... Being one of those people and being "canceled" is pretty much a career death sentence, and saying sorry probably isn't going to help. I think we're watching in real-time to see what happens if "being legally vindicated" undoes the damage when it comes to the video games industry across a few notable cases. Those are all people who are responsible for an amount of manhours that might be larger than their individual lifespan. They're also working on projects that might succeed or fail for reasons that have nothing to do with how well-written, well-directed, or well-acted something is. Unless the QA benefits are a lot better than I imagined, large teams to create video games exist in part because people trust that all that work they're putting in is in the right hands. It's kind of the same when it comes to how art (movies, video games, comedy, any creative project whose purpose is for other people to enjoy it) exists in the public consciousness. Gary Glitter- Rock and Roll is still a great song but it's not so transcendently great that a movie scene isn't better suited by something similar that doesn't bring up unpleasant associations with the audience. Staying open to there always being more talented people who are unrecognized than talented people who "make it" helps lessen some of that sense that a song or movie we like is "lost" when associations with it are tainted. I'm sad about treasured childhood memories that are bound up in Harry Potter, but it helps that I didn't get stuck on those books, I used them as a springboard to explore stories and worlds in other books and mediums to keep finding that sense of wonder and magic. Once you take into consideration that there's so much information overload, and potential for misunderstanding, and intentional misinformation, and chaos from content creators who make money farming for crumbs of drama to turn into outrage, it's easy to be like "What even is the point of any of this?" Trying to come up with a solution to all of this would drive someone to madness, but I think it's actually totally fine to just say "it is what it is" and if you've forgotten why you're mad at a company, you're not failing to uphold meaningful solidarity by removing it from the list and going in. I probably will never go into Chik-Fil-A even after they stopped donating to conversion therapy programs. Just because a company might survive a poorly organized boycott that runs out of steam in 3 months doesn't mean they want to, and they're taking small steps to avert it. None of this is utopia but it's all fine, I think. Outrage happens, the consequences aren't always precise but we have shown as a society to be able to adjust and course correct when an obvious mistake was made.
I tend to look at roughly the first three information/experience I have with someone and make my judgement from that. As for forgiveness I don't think you can make a rule for all situations. You have to make your own evaluation on the severity and intention of the offense and sincerity of the apology, and see if their actions match their words. We must make mistakes in order to learn! These days we have tons of people just going with the crowd rather than thinking for themselves. I don't like the idea that I'll get shamed or criticized if I don't automatically go along with a "cancel".
I think this is where I can point towards "there's no ethical consumption under capitalism" And to be clear, I don't mean that as a scold, or a call to revolution, or whatever. It is the unfortunate reality of our world that pretty much whatever you do it's going to benefit some people you don't agree with in some way. All you can do is try and act according to your own moral compass. And accept that you won't be objectively consistent, because it's impossible for someone to care about everything all the time, and that's okay. To adress my personal stance on the first part of the video: I tend to be less lenient towards people representing an inherently exclusionary stance than those representing inclusion. Because the former is coming from what I consider negative points before they've even said whatever they may or may not deserve to be cancelled over. On a final note, this is one of the reasons I listen to and read quite a bit of old music and books. I don't have to feel bad about, for example, tacitly endorsing HP Lovecraft's views, because he's long dead.
Memory is a funny thing. A memory is really just a reconstruction of an event, and every time we try to put a memory back together it comes out a little bit different to the last time we tried to remember. Sometimes it's us that change so much we wonder why we even would care to remember a thing in the first place. Memories are also snapshots of ourselves and how we perceived the world at that time. Rather than relying on memory, I think it is better to build a good instinct for things. It probably doesn't do us any good to carry around all that baggage with us anyway.
I like it when I forget something and then attempt to do the exact same thing or have the same opinion on it later. For example, I had apparently bought a DVD of some series awhile back, and then recently mentioned I thought it was a series actually worth buying... Then got told I already own it. 😅 Made me feel like I'm me.
If you haven't already watched it, I'd really recommend watching "The Good Place", I don't want to spoil it but it's an amazing, funny show that that really gets into nuance, utilitarianism, being the perfect person etc.
I was about to write the same comment! Definitely watch The Good Place! Also, I live relying on my memory (which is not good). If someone has done something bad enough, I'll remember it and avoid it. If I don't remember the bad thing, either the thing wasn't so bad, or enough time has passed
The product isn't devoid of the artist's influence, intentions, etc. Not that it is always attributed to an artist's beliefs, wants, etc. but it is generally so whether the artist intended or not because humans are naturally biased. Nevertheless, a product's quality can still possess value on its own, and that value is dependent on the viewer. Thus, some products may stand alone as 'objectively' high or low quality, or the subjective perception of the quality/worth of a product may outweigh the 'objectiveness,' dependent on the context, individual, etc. There may exist a moral justification that the pragmatic/utilitarian meaning, value, purpose, etc. of a product by (in Mr. Cain's case) a not-so-good artist is worthy to keep consuming either because that artist's creation is truly valuable for a wide range of people (such as with the examples of 19th century industrialism, colonialism, imperialism, etc.) despite the shortcomings of the artist, or, the product of an artist belongs inside a larger popular-society framework that largely does not derive from the artist. For example, if the lyrics "go with the flow" are widely appreciated by most people, then quoting a song that contains those words and further spreads that message should/could be morally justifiable and an at least 'alright' thing to do. An additional factor is that the individual's principles and beliefs may easily outweigh popular-societal beliefs or objectiveness in the value of a product. Simply put, beyond depending just on who the artist is and the context(s), it also depends on the meaning/purpose/value of the artistic creation. In this case, the lyrics of a song.
Consumers of industrial societies in the 19th century probably indirectly benefited from morally bad actions/events. Nevertheless, they still consumed and lived their lives. Boycotting products/places/organizations can only go so far because humans are mortal. It is a noble thing to want to influence things for the better, but making effective changes is usually better than micro changes. Balance is key, etc. etc. etc... Like a lot of people may say, "just live your life Tim!"
While inaction or indecision can certainly bring about devastating consequences, I think so too can impulsive action, or taking a stance on every single thing. I think more people ought to find the courage to say “I don’t know”. People are much more complex than what we can ascribe from words alone. For example, my father has said very hurtful things to me that have cut deeply and stay with me. However, he has also saved my life multiple times. Similarly, art can help us when we are in very bleak places. So when an artist says or does something terrible, it’s not so easy or simple to altogether dismiss them from our lives.
John Lennon did a lot of bad things, but we still celebrate his music. Tmk he repented, but even if he didn’t, I wouldn’t intentionally stop listening to his music - it would just color it in an even more negative way, and I’d probably gravitate away from it.
It's cool to hear you say that. I have a very hard time with doing what's best, and everyone around me always seems so confident that they know what's best about everything, like they've never found out they were wrong before
I honestly don't bother with this mentality at all. Liking music from a "bad" person doesn't make me bad IF the reason I like it is because of the music. Pulling a "gotcha" on me doesn't matter to me personally because their accusation is off base, and I don't believe in guilt by very loose association. Life is hard enough without keeping a list of stores you won't buy from. You don't have the buying power to impact the bottom line of these companies, either. I get trying to improve the world, but at some point, you have to let it go. If one bad company dies, another one will fill the void.
About the struggle with nuance, I won't push my intrusion into how other people might want to treat the question beyond this: personally, I feel I can only try to be fair when direct interactions with actual persons is concerned. While I don't see how it can be solved when esoteric things like companies, or artists, or other unreachable entities are to be "assessed" (I mean, there are points, but they're shifting and not completely formed, for me). On a more tangible topic from the video, one thing I painfully learned long ago could be of good use, though: when you write notes, of ANY kind, you have to do it as if they were meant for ALIENS to understand. It takes longer as it requires more explicit explanations, and because you have to set your mind to it before writing, but doing otherwise has proved to be just a waste of time for me, time and again, on the long run. Thanks for your videos!
This is quite a broad topic, but generally I tend to weigh my decisions on stuff like this based more on what harm will be caused if I'm wrong, rather than the potential benefits of me being right. Because the last thing you want to do is make the world a worse place. The worst you want to be is neutral. If you're 100% sure of something then you can just do whatever you think is right, but often you won't be. This is especially important when dealing with individuals, since you mentioned cancelling people lol. The cost of being wrong about that, or even just unreasonably immovable beyond the point where the person has atoned for their wrongdoing, can be unfairly damaging to say the least. I think when it comes to big companies and stuff, the cost of being wrong is probably negligible. Like they're not going to collapse if you, alone, take your business elsewhere. You could probably do some damage if you go as far as leaving negative reviews or social media feedback, in which case you'd certainly want to take more care to make sure you've got your facts straight, but if it's just you boycotting them on your own then it's not a big concern imo.
I'm...half heartened that someone else has had trouble keeping track of all the things/places/people one is supposed to avoid...and also half disheartened that I'm not just some weirdo who can't keep up when everyone else can do it easily. I guess all we can do is try our best to do good where we can, "be better", as you said, and generally leave things in an improved (or at least equal) state to when we arrived.
Tim is giving the exact reasons why a company should just focus on their products and not do anything outside of making their product the best it can be. Otherwise a company is going to end up on someone's morality boycott list. Now, what's funny is when someone's boycott list becomes another's buyer's guide. It works both ways.
If someone has done or said something, within reason, and the person makes an active effort to change or rectify the things they've done- I think it's important to not deem people unforgivable. Again within reason. I think you approached this really empathetically and rationally. There's only so much we can do as people, we learn, we grow, we can't boycott everything, we just have to be as kind as we are able without burning ourselves out with this intense guilt and stress.
I always separate the creator from the creation because to not do so is to miss out on content that I might enjoy. If a creation or product is good and I enjoy it, I'll buy it and if I don't care for it, I won't buy it. I do however take note of what aspect of the product or art I didn't care for, so that I may learn from what the creator did wrong, so I don't make the same mistake when I create things. This is coming from me though, I'm cynical.
Man, it's so refreshing to hear somebody be honest about trying to be a good person and not really being able to apply momentary judgements across large temporal spaces.
The closest thing to an answer i have is that i will always give people the benefit of the doubt if i can see that they're trying to do good or be better. Often that's meant that i've been let down by people pretty hard. But just as often, i've seen that people can grow when given the space and allowance to make mistakes. As an extra bonus, when people see that you're the kind of person who does that, they'll often start doing the same for you. I've learned a lot and grown a lot because the people in my life have been kind enough to be patient and give me the benefit of the doubt for some shitty behaviour.
I often listen to political arguments I don't agree with. Sometimes they make a good point. Sometimes they make a Freudian slip and that can be interesting.
Great video, Tim. Uhm, sorry for a potentially self-centered question (I think you know why), but are you planning on doing a vid about all the Fallout-related memorabilia/merch/... you own? :D Have a great day!
I certainly plan to do that. Currently I have several weeks of videos in the queue, so it might be next month when it appears. Btw, because of that queue, I think it’s funny when people think my video is a reaction to something that happened the day (or week) before. If I made a video today, it would air in mid July.
Ignorance is bliss. Sometimes, i'm jealous of the type of people you mentioned. They live vicariously without caring about the consequences of there action, even if they make more harm then good in the world. There is sadly no solution....my philosophy has been actually the one schools taught us: be better than the average. And that mentality applies to everything in life; how nice you are to the people around you, how good you should be at your job, how much you should exercices ,etc. Not a perfect way to see things, but im doing more good then harm without the mental strain on thinking about nuances of things all the time. Like you said, at some point, it gets exhausting.
You ask some really great questions here Tim and I don't think there are definitive, satisfying answers that are universal for everyone. "To what extent can we separate art from the artist?" is a question I know as a heavy metal fan I've had to ask myself often. My thinking comes down to this: How much does consuming their art/creative output advance their position and or ability to do what it is that is so worthy of "canceling" them for? There's little to be gained from never listening to records you've already paid for. (Unless listening now makes you feel differently) However, I think you're right to think twice about shining a spotlight on someone who gives you pause like that since you have a bit of a public influence on this platform yourself. No reason to give them a potential boost if you don't need to.
Tim's discussion of how new information can alter our opinions and decisions made me think of Bayesian statistics. Not sure if that is useful to anyone, but there it is.
The problem is when the artist is a living person using your appreciation of their art to accomplish things you don't support. If you separate the art from the currently active artist, you financially support causes you don't want to financially support. If I buy a Diddy album because I like the song, I am financially supporting his crimes. 'Separate the art from the artist" is a fine concept when referring to past and dead artists, but we live in a time where the creator IS the product. It's a different situation.
The problem with this mentality is you don't control where your money goes as soon as it's changed hands, you may buy something from a company you support & that goes towards paying the wages of a worker who then uses that money to support things you don't support. If you follow this logic to its inevitable conclusion you would have to track every single purchase everyone has ever made which not only is impossible but you would quickly find out that no matter how careful you are with your financial support eventually it will go to a cause you don't support. The much better solution is to make sure you are actually supporting your causes, if you find out an artist you like supports a cause that you don't then make sure you are supporting the opposing cause. You can't control what other people do with their money but you can control what you do with yours.
You're not financially supporting any crimes if you buy, cuz if that's the case then we would all be criminals for supporting the United States government which we have to pay taxes to
Super simple. Quote whatever I want. Even if someone is bad, that doesn't translate to what they say as a rule. If I'm a "bad" person and I say something that is moral, that doesn't change morality just because I said it. So clearly they aren't related. The reverse is tribalistic and borderline superstitious.
"You do what you can, that's all you can do" is my go-to take on this. The world is too big for any one of us to shoulder such a burden; perfection is too idealistic a goal. Try to think about whether you should listen to an artist or talk about an artist. Think about which brands are good to buy and which aren't. You'll miss some, not know about some, or even just be wrong. And that's okay. What's important is that you're making the effort in the right direction, so that hopefully, collectively, we can try to influence society to move in a better direction. If you make a mistake, course-correct. If you find new information, reevaluate. Don't worry about the things you can't do anything about, and focus on the things you can at that moment.
For me, it all comes down to proximity. Temporal, physical, social, emotional, etc. The closer we are in proximity, the more nuance I will consider. And the reasoning for this is the same reason I don't break down and weep every time there's a tragedy that happens on the other side of the world: we simply don't have the capacity, the time or the mental ability to handle life while trying to juggle the nuance and tragedy of everything going on all across the globe. So I'll try to remember what companies do the worst practices and avoid them to the best of my ability, I'll try to remember people who've been real shitty, etc. and not support them. But I'm also not going to make big lists or spreadsheets because it would simply be a huge drag on my own limited time for minimal benefit and minimal impact. Now, the closer we are in one of those proximities I mentioned, the more nuance I consider, but also the more stringent my criteria on "passing judgment" (or, in less loaded terms: my opinion on you and how I react): I might forget that celebrity X was a child molesting psycho simply because I'm not big into celebrity gossip and that shit might as well be happening on the moon, but if you're my best friend and I find that out about you, well, my opinion is going to be orders of magnitudes stronger, and while I'll consider with a lot more nuance than the celebrity (whom I have no problem casting casual judgment, because, as I said, minimal impact, and I don't go around gossiping so I'm not "tarnishing reputations" and even if I did I have essentially no voice) but for an extreme example like that, I can't see any amount of nuance making me think of you as anything less than a monster that I'd like to see arrested. Now of course, as the examples get less extreme, that nuance has greater and greater weight, so for me I like to think the "judgement" and the nuance are paired, and both rise and fall in consideration with proximity. It's not a perfect system, and I'm sure there's wacky exceptions, but so far I think it's been working out well.
Trying to be better, learning from mistakes, apologizing and working on oneself is what counts. No one is perfect. I recently said something stupid about Adobe and had to apoligize because I was misinformed on the matter.
Trying to do good is a Sisyphean task. It's the mark of a good person. It's also a balancing act. I agree that it's good to avoid interacting/doing business with hateful people or groups, but forgiveness is good, too. Thanks for the nuance!
I will still listen to Michael Jackson because his message is so positive but someone like R Kelly talked about what he went to prison for in his music, thats the difference to me it just comes down to how someone conducts themselves.
Hey Tim, it’s me, Martin. You made me remember something about world renowned painter Salvador Dalí: I love his art, but he had some dubious life choices, like expressing his support for spanish dictator Francisco Franco, who allegedly sent Federico García Lorca, Dalí’s friend, to his untimely death. I don’t know if it was out of pragmatism or a change of heart from Dalí, but overall, it seems like a dick move. In the end, can we just separate the artist from the art? I like to try, and besides, why not? I love Dalí’s work. That doesn’t mean I heve to love him. Olso, even if I personally didn’t like the guy, it doesn’t have to lead me to abstain from enjoying something that that have made. Just my two cents.
I believe its more sensible to be good and correct our own actions, rather than trying to judge/exile everyone around us. If you tried imagining yourself in that situation, you'd probably prefer the opportunity to apologize and correct your misbehavior rather than being ostracized from the rest of society. That infinitely growing blocklist you mentioned is the proof that shows the opportunity for forgiveness is more reasonable than making the decision to cancel someone
For me I think, I like to have systems and hard lines.. but I’ve had to accept that these things are so incredibly grey and varied, that I can’t set down useful systems or lines. So at some point I have to go with my gut in many cases, especially regarding “uncancelling”. I can only do my best, and I can’t dedicate all my energy to it. At the end of the day I pick my battles, and like you, I try. I also don’t like to hold grudges forever. I certainly have many times been a jerk, especially in my youth. I’d want people to judge me by the ways I’m a jerk today, not by the person I was then. So sometimes I’ll just uncancel because of time alone, and give the person a chance to show that they’re not still the same. There is no set amount of time. I’m looking forward to reading other takes on this, this comment section will be interesting.
A couple of thoughts on this issue: 1) A lot of the time there will be people that will pretend to be smart by saying something is "complicated" or "nuanced" to either avoid expressing an opinion or to muddy the waters in order to bamboozle you and prevent you from having a view that might be against them, especially when the situation is actually clear cut and they don't have an actual argument in the face of evidence. You will see this a lot in politics and I highly recommend reading Orwell's essay 'Politics and the English Language' for more on this type of thing if you haven't already read it. Yes, there can be lots of nuance to things but if you are well informed with reliable information on a given issue, your opinion shouldn't be a shrug of the shoulders and saying 'its complicated', there should be some kind of opinion and judgement as an outcome, otherwise everyone's time has just been wasted. It is incredibly difficult for any individual to get absolutely perfect information about something and if we were to wait until perfect information for every issue, we would never develop a point of view on anything at all, let alone do anything. At the same time, if you're not well informed and you know you're not well informed it is completely reasonable to say that you don't know enough about the topic yet to come to any kind of judgement when people ask for your opinion on this or that. 2) Many companies don't act consistently when they moralistically grandstand. For instance, Sony grandstanded about pulling out from Russia as a result of the war and recently Russian steam users have had their steam accounts get in trouble for activating keys for newer sony releases from third party key sites (as sony pulled their games from sale in Russia) because of Sony's moralistic position regarding the Ukraine war. Yet Sony won't restrict Israeli or American accounts even as these two governments are actively conducting a genocide. Companies should not publicly justify changes like this based on irrelevant moralistic reasoning if they don't want to be held up to scrutiny in relation to other conflicts around the globe, especially well known ones. 3) When it comes from boycotting say, an individual musician for expressing things you find abhorrent, the question i ask is to what extent does that impact my enjoyment of their work and to what extent are these abhorrent things expressed in their work? If the things I dislike are expressed in their work going forward in a prominent way, then it is quite easy to simply not engage with this material and engage with things I do like or I will be more weary of future products from them (as is the case for future Naughty Dog projects helmed by Neil Druckman.) However, it is much more difficult in regard to larger enterprises as you run into the 'ethical consumption under capitalism issue' that other commenters have described, since it is completely unreasonable to expect individual people to keep track of, or research into, all the possible unethical practices enterprises that produce products they use or want may or may not engage in, since people don't have the time or mental bandwith for it. Its like with chocolate. I think it would be good if say brands didn't have slavery somewhere in their supply chains, but it is not reasonable to expect me to research every single brand of chocolate for information on this and keep a mental spreadsheet of which brands do or don't have slavery in their supply chains (if this information is even easily accessible in the first place) for when I'm in the chocolate section of a shop. We can only make decisions based on limited information and reasoning that can be somewhat arbitrary sometimes. Although I wouldn't worry about quoting from a song of someone who said something abhorrent but unrelated. I doubt most people would care.
This is where the expression that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism comes from - it’s impossible to know what every company is doing, especially once you start taking the supply chain into account.
The problem with the lack of nuance is that people nowadays forgot some ideals are not mutually exclusive, and when someone says it is, that's when war begins.
11:05 The trick is to never look for facts :P Realistically, the best you can do is take a breath and think things over again. It doesn't apply to everything but will cover the majority of situations you're jumping to conclusions. Some truly terrible people spend time and money to do good things. Why should we stop someone from doing something good, that may even actually help, just because they're terrible? If a person isn't given a chance to do something good, or even have that good thing acknowledged, then the world we live in will only get worse and who would even bother trying to improve if there's no redemption?
This happens all the time, public figures on social media who post something really offensive or stupid. I try to keep the art and the artist separate. 😂
Whether a person is good or bad often happens to be completely unrelated to the reason why they are being mentioned. If person has a wonderful song, this song wouldn't change in any measurable way no matter how many times said person has beaten their wife or how many children they might have abused. Thinking otherwise is not productive and is usually caused by one's desire to think less or to appear more righteous in front of their friends and family or to appeal to such people. If people do bad stuff then it's either none of your business or illegal (and might also be none of your business). In the latter case justice system should take care of it. If it doesn't work, then it should be fixed/improved and not randomly reimplemented by common folk. People who acknowledge saying something bad to you and refusing to apologies might be thinking that if they apologize they would admit that their actions were of any significance. They seem to disagree that this is the case (e.g. saying "it's been 20 years who cares") and for some people it is a matter of principle to never admit something they think is false.
You’re awesome tim but you can only control yourself, don’t worry about these people, the ones who won’t apologize are clearly insure so they see it as a power play. You have a brilliant mind, thus is not the best use of it! The best way is to live an example of a good person. That’s how I’ve been infected the most to better myself
"I don't remember" in the context you provided that I see more and more these days is simply an unwillingness to accept responsibility, or the experience of people other than themselves. We live in a society that has far too many people for what we're used to and being able to hold each other accountable on a more individual basis, so adaptations (arguably maladaptations such as cancel culture) pop up to try and deal with it as a larger collective. For better or for worse. I feel like, with many situations like that, I look for patterns. There's more than one way to apologize, and there's ways to see if an apology is genuine or not. Do they change their behavior? Do they keep doing the same thing? Do they proactively try to change? Have they become a different person from whatever not so great thing they did some time in the past? Are they exhibiting behaviors that other offenders have done? It's a web, but there are common traits that tend to pop up in those situations; unfortunately, they can be difficult to see online. And the older I get, the more I realize that no one is perfect, and sometimes we fall into things that hurt others, other times we see something as horrible that we do anyway because we have a more serious problem that has no better solution to our knowledge. Then there are moments where we just... don't do the right thing. One of the many things I appreciate about you Tim is the fact that you see things in nuance, and want to see things in nuance - despite also wanting an easy answer. The difference is, you don't accept an easy answer if it doesn't actually help anything, and you are trying to improve. I always appreciate seeing it, and I hope more people come into that state of mind.
There's this saying that goes something like "there is no ethical consumption" and while I see a lot of truth in that, I think the closest thing to an 'answer' is to finish that statement with "but we should try our best anyway." To expand on that, we should always try our best while also acknowledging we are not perfect beings. Just going off of what I've seen in videos and interviews, I would personally consider Tim a good person, because from what I've seen, he puts in that effort.
What you've described is at the heart of the sentiment some people express about there being no ethical consumption under capitalism. Also its a thing I think everyone struggles with to a certain extent in terms of living their life not being in some way complicit in some form of human suffering. The only sane way to deal with it is what most people do which is some form of moral relativism. We all draw our lines in the sand differently based on a lot of factors. You also mentioned having to rely on wisdom rather than intelligence well for me the first step towards wisdom is knowing that there is no singular answer to these problems. There is only the best you can do as an individual. And no one is any more right than anyone else inherently.
Good video and good thought experiments. Personally I think funding investigative journalism groups is your best bet for figuring out who is/isn't worthy of redemption because nowadays so few people are challenged by journalists who are looking deeper than just the front facing events. Personally there are some people in my life I will never forgive no matter the scenario or apology because the scars they left on my psyche have in turn caused indirect pain and suffering to others because of the after effects of dealing with the trauma they created. And unfortunately others and myself live with the consequences that there is a better than zero chance my actions have caused someone else trauma and psyche scarring for which they will never forgive me even if I apologized sincerely immediately. It's frustrating that I can see people hypocritically demanding apologies from others for slights to them but never or only begrudgingly acknowledging the slights they gave to others. I'm with you Tim there is no good answer and nothing we can do but try to be better and accept that occasionally we're going to have to be hypocrites.
For what it's worth and while I'm still struggling with the results from EU elections and quite frankly, pretty much arguing with everyone, both the people who have voted for very right wing and nationalist parties or for very left leaning parties who are basically saying that the parties on the right are stupid and evil and so are their voters (because they basically deny the problems that lead to the rise of the rights and a lot of stuff was mishandled by their parties): I think you are doing exactly the right thing. Nuance is hard. Being fair to people who you disagree with fundamentally is hard. Doing tough things out necessity is hard. Staying empathetic with "bad" people is very hard. But for me, I don't really see an option if I don't want to become a "bad" person of a different flavor or at least part of the general problem. Also: Hey Tim, you're awesome :)
I appreciate your videos like this. Some of what you say reminds me of an episode of The Good Place that struck me, seems almost too hard to really be a good person. I try to scope control myself in that regard and focus more on the people immediately around me just because it's too much for me to handle what's outside that.
"Too many people have opinions on things they know nothing about. And the more ignorant they are, the more opinions they have" and in another layer of irony, the character who said this quote is a very flawed person too. I'm with you Tim, nuance is one of the higher level skills that is incredibly hard to master, what with everyone around us sapping away at our intelligence and sanity. But it's what differentiates us from wild animals.
That sort of fatigue you mentioned in the latter part of the video is why I basically gave up on boycotting most things and instead switched to a method of just evaluating the merits of the product now vs when I first came across it. I greatly enjoyed the first few Halo and Fallout games but by the time they'd reached their 4th entry they'd changed in many ways that I actively disliked so I simply stopped purchasing the games and spent my money elsewhere. If we get a 1:1 version of F3 or NV that doesn't crash every 5 minutes in the future then I'd be happy to purchase them again but I'm not gonna throw away money on something and simply hope it improves. For foods I think it's even easier, it doesn't really matter if coke is more pro-LGBT than chikfila, neither of them are particularly healthy for you and so if you consume either then you're being personally harmed.
Yeah, I've run into similar problems keeping track, so I just resorted to the principle of, if I've boycotted a company for so long I can't remember why, they they've done their sentence. It ends up with me avoiding companies that are unforgettably bad, frequently bad or recently bad, and gives possibly reformed or changed ones another chance.
Tim asking the hard questions... I personally trust by business practices. It applies at a broad and individual scale. Business practice are one of the first impressions you're left with. If a store is constantly skimming on sales, or charging for everything, or just generic customer service it's ultimately terrible to let yourself internalize being treated that way. With regards to the artist, i don't know what he said but if that's what you think about whenever they come up, you as a fan have been let down. You shouldn't hate something forever because it's bad for you in the end. 🤔 Can't elaborate because the details were vague. Personally i hate companies that pretend they are too high and might to grant favors to long time loyal customers. There aren't many which makes it easy to avoid.
Funny that you mentioned for people to "Be better." Every now and then I see people criticizing on stories that tell the audience directly "what you did is wrong, be better" which seemingly lacks nuance. It's hard to understand what it takes or even means to "be better", let alone understand yourself and know when you're in the wrong, and it also takes humility to admit when you're wrong. That sort of thing is inherently filled with nuance, but people prefer to reduce things down to a yes or no/good or evil situation, which actually is insanely easy to pick a side and never think about it again. Instead of arguing that X is morally better or Y is always wrong, I prefer to just ask "Why do you think X?" or "Are there cases where Y can be logically incorrect or correct?". I value discussion in itself, yes the conclusions (if any) may be important and of value, but the act of discussing is what allows nuance to be understood, or at least mentioned. Discussions are also forms of duplex communication; both nodes transmit and receive information. With internet content you can consume, podcasts are really the only medium that allows for discussions, but since members must both have an online presence and agree to be on it, it's much more likely to get stuck in echo chambers where both parties agree on something and don't have to really discuss the grey area topics. Forums and comment sections theoretically allow this, but they are more often than not filled with attention seekers and echo chambers. Watching the live chat from that xbox showcase easily shows that only the most outlandish, loud, and repeatable messages will be noticed. Nuance will only exist in mediums which allow for it and only be found by those who may listen.
Hi Tim, very interesting topic and talk. My thoughts on it (without getting too political): I tend to separate the art from the artist. Think I have to. Otherwise, I probably could not watch most of my favourite films, play most of my favourite games, listen to music etc. Yes some people are worse than others, but at the end of the day - how many actors or directors we've heard of being bad people - cheating on their partners, having 'bad' political views (however we define bad in this case), are nasty and difficult to work with etc. Yes, there are extremes - I probably wouldn't be able to look at Hitler's paintings without thinking of what kind of person he was, but generally I tend to separate these. Chances are, if I knew all your opinions, they'd be very different from mine - but I don't need to know them to enjoy Fallout. Many of my favourite artists probably did drugs or are / were bad people in some way - the law should punish them if they got things too far but other than that, there's no reason to enjoy their art. I'd be careful about boycotting companies because of a moral stance. First of all, as you rightly say, there are many 'bad' companies out there - we just don't know it (yet). Even the companies which seemingly 'only' sell products and services, without any political message / virtue signalling are often treating employees like garbage or do other 'bad' things in the background (late payments to vendors, firing hundreds of people only for the CEO then to give himself a nice bonus etc.). Or might be virtue signalling just for the sake of it, as a PR stunt, and still treat employees (or even customers) like garbage - such as many utility companies I had the 'pleasure' of having to interact with. It can also a bit of a slippery slope potentially - just last week, a violent mob decided to break windows of a bank in UK because they decided that just boycotting this evil bank (for doing business with Israel in this case) was not enough - more violent action needed to be taken, apparently. Same with the kids destroying statues of historical figures because they were involved in slave trade, or destroying art to protest against the climate. I'd be very careful about 'forcing' my political views on the world like this. It is everyone's choice not to buy from a company which doesn't align with one's views, but it often leads to many issues further down the line (for example to many companies nowadays feeling like there's only one 'right' opinion - the woke one). Finally, none of us is perfect. Some of us are dishonest, some make bad jokes (including racist / homophobic) that can hurt people, some are cheating on their partners, slack at work, lie to their friends... The older I get, the more I realise that very few people are actually evil - most of us are 'just' weak. Weak to resist temptation, weak to stand up to evil, or just too stupid to differentiate between what's evil and what's just someone's different opinion. Let's all find the strength to fight evil within our own hearts, forgive others and find a way to live with one another - despite our (many) flaws.
Hey I just finished the other worlds and I loved it. Loved the romance with junlei and those quests around it. Loved the ending of the game. Can't wait for the next installment and I hope I get to visit earth again.. See what's going on since it's been quiet..
I don't find it difficult. I know it's impossible to never cause harm, so I simply seek to minimize the harm I do. If both choices are harmful, I choose what I judge to be the least harmful. I don't sweat it either way.
There is a saying, "There is no ethical consumption under capitalism" and I think this is a good illustration of how that can be true in a sense. Companies, in our current business paradigm, are going to do anything to increase profits that they think they can get away with. In a way that's good, we can companies to constantly be pushing the envelope on what's possible but the flip side is when they find a loop hole or weakness in the safety mechanisms they are going to do a lot of harm. It is almost like getting angry at a bear for mauling you because you walked too close to their cubs. That's why we put things in place to protect us from the bears... I think my analogy went off the rails at some point. Sorry. Anyways, what I wanted to talk about was how to accept apologies from things like companies. When a company screws up and they get added to my black list there are two things they have to do to get off of it. First, they have to apologize. Easy enough but also too easy. Second, they have to repair the damage they caused. A good example would be a company that donated money to anti-LGBT groups would need to donate twice the amount of money to pro-LQBT groups to make up for it. Maybe not exactly double but clearly an amount that shows they are trying to do better and fix any harm they caused.
I think it’s important to remember that people exist along a continuum. People aren’t binary good or bad. We all have different mixes of (subjective) good or bad traits and behaviors. And these are not locked in for life. I know I’m not proud of the person I was even 5 years ago. I would hope that most of us are changing and growing every day.
My main compass is that, whenever minority or victim create a tool to protect themselves, if such tool works, it will be used against them after a while, because people who like power will seize it for their own agenda, that's the meaning of pendulum swings. Currently meetoo and cancelling are failing prey to this. The only solution is imagination to anticipate and build resilience, to not be overwhelmed, by building support structure. Punching the bad guy is the easy way out, better is to make sure people are safe. It's easier to keep track people and things that matter, than whom and which to cull. Eventually, support structure become mature enough to replace the old structure of power, that's how democracy won over kings. When the ground got fertile, the seed were ready to be sown.
In recent experience I'm seeing that there are disagreements that stem from very fundamental concepts that are the roots to these burgeoning expressions that differ. For example, I had to recently dive into having decision makers describe: A) what is an immutable property of an individual vs an inherently changeable philosophy a person holds. B) what's the difference between discrete and continuous? C) what is relative vs absolute morality?
I've long since stopped trusting my memory. I know it's faulty: I don't remember a lot of stuff people usually remember (while apparently prioritizing stuff like "names of Transformers"), I've discovered a bunch of false memories etc. But… It almost never hurts to apologize. Some people seem to think they lose something by saying they're sorry. Some kind of status or respect. They seem to live in perpetual fear of "losing face". Seems like a very stressful way to live.
I don't understand this media addiction that puts people in these self-inflicted dilemmas in the first. If I find out someone's horrible, I stop supporting them. Point blank. No single penny out of my pocket. I don't hand-wring or twist myself into a pretzel because I like his song/book/game/whatever. I can live perfectly fine without it. Why is that so hard for so many people?
The sad truth is most people don't care about being "good" they just care about appearing "good", they care more about the product than the cause the creator is going against but they don't want to be seen as supporting the creator. In most cases they'll either pirate the product or pretend they didn't buy it which just shows them to be complete hypocrites.
If the person has *actually changed, they have earned their second chance. If they pull the "that was 10 years ago, forget about it" card, they are still probably a piece of shit, and they don't need to be in my life. If they are someone that produces something that you bought, and they are not gaining anything from me to continue to use it, then I still use the thing. If they would be getting a kickback somehow, it's to the garbage bin. As for corporations, they are likely all evil. Even if they aren't responsibly for the deaths of tens of thousands, wage theft is the largest form of theft. So like you said, you still need to exist in society, so we need to choose the least-bad options that we can, with the information that we have, knowing and accepting that not all of our choices are going to be the optimal one. Hell, this video, and my comment, are on a site owned by Google. A company known for tax evaision, and bowing down to counties like Russia to remove content or apps that are against the government's beliefs. But where else are we going to have video with comments? Something owned by Meta, a company that's probably more evil than Google? Peertube, something that's probably not evil, but no one uses?
To be honest, I think most people's behavior is so dictated by their surroundings and various things happening to them in that moment, that I don't "hold people accountable" for most actions if they seem to have changed.
I have two general philosophies regarding this. First, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, so while I will boycott some companies that demonstrate egregious behavior (WotC is one example), I know I can’t avoid giving money to all corporations who do terrible things, because there’s so many and I have to survive in the world they’ve created. As far as individuals go, when it comes to celebrities I try to remember not to hero-worship anyone (anyone still living, anyway), and keep in mind the limitations of parasocial relationships. If someone demonstrates bad behavior, I’m not gonna be their booster, but I’m also not appointed to be their judge. I’ll probably never meet them, so it’s a bit of a moot point. If it’s enough to turn me off of their work (music, movies, etc.) then I probably just won’t enjoy them any longer. If it’s someone in my life, I want to balance compassion and patience with keeping myself (and those I care about) safe from any further abuse. In all cases (well, maybe not corporations), if they show themselves contrite about their misdeeds, I’m likely to take them at their word and forgive them. As for people who say “I just don’t remember that,” I tend to agree with you-it seems like someone people have picked up from politicians because they’ve seen that there are rarely ever consequences for just flat-out lying and denials. Older parents seem to do it a lot, too, though I’m never sure if they’ve just forgotten or if it’s a defense mechanism (I read an article talking about how many of them go based on emotions rather than facts, so if something doesn’t match up with their emotions surrounding an event, the factual details are irrelevant to them. This is a common tactic of abusive parents, apparently…). In any case, I stop trusting them and probably avoid them in general.
I, too, have this conversation with a buddy all the time. Unfortunately it's a paradox. To be a tolerant person you end up needing to either tolerate intolerance or become intolerant yourself. I read a great article many years ago that compared communities (online or otherwise) to walled gardens that caused me to really evaluate how I thought about tolerance. Sadly I have no answers either 😅
Think of it like this: tolerance is a social contract. A person preaching intolerance has broken that contract and is therefore not covered by its terms. That person can and should be excluded, without that exclusion being an act of intolerance. Because they're no longer covered by the contract.
I think at the end of the day spending $5 at say, chik-fil-a, isn't the end of the world. Start with supporting the people that do stuff you like. For example, I'm part of a CSA. My plumber is a family friend. Etc. Then avoid the people that hurt you on a personal basis. Then try to be good on the big things, don't sweat the little ones.
I go by "If they continue to be an a-hole. Then they're an a-hole." (Ex. Dave Chappelle continues to be an a-hole.) If someone said or did something in the past and then immediately or later apologized for it, I would still be skeptical of them, however this was if the person did it against a group of people and the majority accepted the apology. I will never forgive those that has done or said anything to me. For me, it's been years, and the damage is done, there's no going or taking it back. Corporations is another thing, definitely tricky. Especially if their fingers/claws are in practically everything...
"At some point Intelligence fails you and you gotta go with Wisdom."
*checks S.P.E.C.I.A.L. chart*
Shit.
He’s using the D&D system
If wisdom were a perk, would it rely more on Intelligence, Perception, or Charisma?
@Anubis1101 Wisdom would be proportional to your experience level.
Each year we live is a level up.
@@CainOnGames so that's what it is? Dang, guess I got some grinding to do
Hey Uncle Tim. Thanks for taking the time to be a role model. Many of us outside of game dev are applying your lessons not only to other disciplines, but our personal lives/relationships.
Not knocking you or your comment but very few people want to be role models as that's a lot of pressure to have on oneself. Calling someone an inspiration is fine, but we're all human, we all fail, and as they say, "never meet your heroes" as once you see them as the humans they are, they might not seem so heroic anymore.
@@Jvid752sure. I should clarify that I only did so because he's introduced himself as Uncle Tim to the audience in previous videos, and my comment was an attempt at speaking for all of us. Parasocial in a different way, I know.
@@CharlesSweet Understandable. My comment could have been worded better. I didn't mean to insinuate that "role model" is an identity that Tim is purposely taking on with this channel and the videos. But I do feel pretty strongly that taking the time to reflect on oft-forgotten aspects of creativity, like working with others, and in turn sharing the wisdom, is role model behavior.
I have to agree his open mindset and willingness to give people chances and be a leader in a positive way are very inspirational
The two types of people you mentioned are finding excuses to avoiding taking responsibility for their actions because they have to overcome to cognitive dissonance created by being confronted with information that conflicts with their view of themselves. In their heads they are a goods person so if confronted with irrefutable evidence that they did a bad thing, a thing that in their mind would make them a bad person, their brain will make excuses to square the two new information with their internal narrative. It comes down to some people just being on autopilot because introspection is difficult and not very many people are good at it. Their brains take shortcuts instead of doing the hard work of listening, understanding and processing.
I feel like the 'I don't remember that' thing is an extension of the 'my truth' and 'my reality' mentality.
Somehow the cultural zeitgeist has taken a really fast shift towards everything just being marketing with no room for objectivity or consideration of nuance if those will put their own self-image/confidence in jeapordy.
I struggle with this one. I think your decision was right, and I do the same. Imo, cancelling is just a reframing of a culture of domination outlined by bell hooks. I think we need a restorative society, and to let go of punitive attitudes. I have been hurt a lot in this life, but I only think this kind of punitive justice should be aimed at people like my mom and stepdad, who actually broke moral codes I become more sure of as I age. But the kids who bullied be for being queer, the people who let me down, they should just be able to live.
The "i dont remember that" types are such an issue!!! I hate that, it bothers me so much. It has put me in some dicey situations, because I want to help people as much as I can, help as many people be better. Those people who pretend to forget will really really take advantage of me, and I am having to learn to put up hard boundaries there.
This video reminds me of this quote from The Good Place "Life now is so complicated, it's impossible for anyone to be good enough for the Good Place."
you can acknowledge someone for being a bad person, but when it comes to media, art, entertainment we only know them through the lense of their work. I wouldn't judge my bus driver for cheating on his wife, im just happy to get to my destination in a peaceful and swift manner. I wouldn't judge the employee i ordered food from at mcdonalds because maybe she was guilty of stealing from her family at one point in time, i just want my food to be of the quality i paid for.
I think it changes when you actually know someone personally, because then those sort of things can end up affecting you directly but when it's just a transaction of a product or service it falls more on a parasocial interaction. I don't blame people for lumping it all together, but trying to police what others do and label them as bad people is where i believe things get harmful.
But anyways ly tim ur still the goat
Hey Tim, cool video as usual. Sometimes I think about those things myself. I believe that a lot of people have issues with nuance because they've been taught they need to be right. Sure, it is a very good guideline to seek. But in reality we simply cannot achieve it. Take a look at how many people on the internet think they are ALWAYS right, when they're not. Perhaps we should be teaching people on how to deal with being wrong. There is a very important and distinct line between wanting to be right, and wanting to improve.
I agree. I’ve learned so much from being wrong.
@Schiersner
Yeah, that's also what I thought about when he said "as if - for them - being kind is a lot worse than being mean" - it's not worse than being mean, it's worse than acknowledging they were in the wrong, and not just admitting it to the victim, but even to themselves.
Being wrong sucks, it hurts our pride.
All of us feel that, to some degree, so I suspect most of us are guilty of not admitting our mistakes, at least on occasion.
The problem with being good is something missing from games, to few games punish you for being good.
There is sacrifice if you avoid things for personal morals, it's not easy.
This.
Agree. Games should explore this concept instead of making it a "good vs evil" binary choice the majority of the time.
I like how the first Bioshock handled it, if you were bad you got immediate benefit, but saving all the girls the good way gave you a better benefit in the long run.
The "problem with altruism" definitely has a place in some games, especially ones where morality and politics feature heavily as themes and such. But I don't miss it from most games. For fantasies of fun, and doubly so for something like games which largely appeal to younger audiences, 'skepticism of selflessness' is something I might argue isn't the kind of social narrative or commentary it's wise to prioritize. Exaltations of pro-social behavior may produce better outcomes. But then again isn't that exactly the kind of exploration which is necessary to introduce? After all, we need only look into moral paragons like Mother Teresa or Gandhi, and many nonprofit orgs, to realize what you are told is good and moral is often among the most evil and contemptable.
@@harpernerys7345 Your comment is well thought out, but I would argue that the reason so many moral choices in games appear superficial-such as merely looking evil-is that you receive an equivalent reward regardless of your choice. Additionally, in a realistic game, real-life consequences often punish those who do the right thing. Historical figures like MLK and Malcolm X were assassinated, and even philosophers like Socrates faced execution-it’s an integral part of doing what’s right.
Tim, as long time fan of your work and aging millennial dad, I feel compelled to thank you for this channel. You're musings really brighten my work day, even when you are speaking about programming which might as well be Latin to me. Excellent work sir, both in your games and on this channel.
Hey Tim,
Thank you for sharing those thoughts with us. Despite having less wisdom or life experience than yourself, I feel compelled to comment to support what you are experiencing.
I would like to begin by saying that it is lovely for you to be willing to listen to people whom have hurt you and extend your empathy. Though it is a shame that we can't always acknowledge what we do with one-another, it is that freedom to apologise genuinely which makes it mean even more. On the same note, I think you should be proud of yourself for just trying to take notes of companies and brands which you believe that you shouldn't give business to.
I resonate deeply with that feeling of being overwhelmed by the list of people and things which have done something wrong or might do wrong. I do want to say that worrying about who might do something wrong is way outside reasonable bounds of worry. You're already doing plenty and trying your best. There will always be people around us who try to encourage us to be evermore morally responsible and their heart is in the right place. Being deliberately ignorant or uncaring is not a great way to be.
There is no silver bullet. I hope you just continue to acknowledge that the scope-creep of this problem should not be an impediment for you to be realistic about what you can actually do as a human. Extend yourself a little grace like you have to others.
Much love from Australia,
Jarrod
1. Judging too fast - Yeah, it's a common problem lately. Does anyone still remember the Amber-Johny thing? People just jumped between camps, but the torches were lit for the whole time. It's pretty sad, let the judge be the judge.
2. Canceling - I'm generally strongly against cancelling. I believe it may have something to do with cultural differences, but where I'm from, the "Cancel Culture" is considered harmful by many people.
3. Not remembering - yeah, that's a hard one. If the person doesn't remember, then it doesn't change his or her guilt. But in that person's perspective, the guilt is questionable. And the witnesses are not something too believable, especially if the case is against you and if it happened, it was many years ago. I understand that it might be frustrating but the most you could demand is imo acknowledgement that "X is bad" and something like "If it really happened, then I'm sorry, but I can't honestly say that I really FEEL sorry at the moment, because I really don't remember doing anything like that." It's not really satisfying now, is it? But for the person on the other side, if the "not remembering" is truthful, it's probably the maximum that can be said honestly.
4. I believe a creation is separate from a creator. Even if you, Tim, had done some terrible things, I would still enjoy Fallout and say it's one of my favourite games. If I like the song, I don't care if the author said or did some horrible things, I'm not saying he's great as a person when I'm saying that he's a great artist. A great 3rd Reich tactician is still a great tactician, even if he fought for the wrong side.
One of the greatest privileges we have in this life is to learn from the people around us. Whether it’s passive or direct, it happens if we’re open to it.
I love the way you closed the video, trying to be better is the kind of energy we all can benefit from.
Thanks as always for the video and sharing your thoughts!
I tend to separate artistry from its artists. People I don't like can have good views on individual topics. It's pretty rare that I wholesale don't like an entire human from nose to toes. It's even more rare that I like every aspect of any person.
The problem is when the artist is a living person using your appreciation of their art to accomplish things you don't support. If you separate the art from the currently active artist, you financially support causes you don't want to financially support. If I buy a Diddy album because I like the song, I am financially supporting his crimes.
Do you think you'd be able to name a single artist, company, or any entity that has never done a wrong? What is the level of crime or moral indiscretion that you are willing to support? If you've ever bought a Nirvana album, are you now supporting heroin use? If you've ever once shopped at Walmart in your life, are you now supporting tax evasion? I won't support artistry that actively sends a message of hatred, but unfortunately you're perfect business / artist doesn't exist. I guess it's just a matter of what is your line that you're willing to ignore wrongdoing for the sake of personal enrichment? Even our friends and family do wrong but we don't just discard them right out the gate.
@@theebulllYeah its pretty much where your line in the sand is. So people are fine if the CEO says something stupid about taxes but not fine with them using child labor. Seems pretty reasonable to be selective and spend your energy on not supporting bad people when you can afford to, even if that's not philosophically consistent.
@@Doople you are 100% correct. That's why I tend to not weigh in their personal opinions and actions. The judgement is philosophical by nature and there is no way to be consistent with it. It turns into a problem of how many degrees of separation from the problem does it need to be. Diddy produced Biggy and makes money from him, should I not listen to Biggy anymore? Even using TH-cam has its ties to horrible things, but here we all are. I'll watch Harry Potter but I'm not out consuming trans hate content. I'm fine with deplatforming a person who uses their voice to spread hate in an egregious way (not confusing hate with an opposing opinion to mine), but not listening to a good song they put out 5 years ago won't do that. If you see hate, speak against it, don't just run away from it. People fall into those traps of hate because they likely didn't have that opposing perspective when they formed that judgement. The best thing you can do is give that perspective to them and hopefully they can think critically, even if it takes time.
@@theebulll I don't really feel it's about if they've done no wrong. More, are they causing an impact with their money, from their art, that is harming others. I'd dare say, that's a SMALL list of artists out there. I only know of one who's dumb enough to be overtly vocal about it, to the point I had to change my spending habits. ty Rowling, for that? I'm sure there's other examples, but that's the one that hit me the hardest. (I'm not big on media in general, and got into reading her before the movies came out)
At that point, I think it's fair to discard - because it's not a mistake or act made out of desperation for financial security. I'd even say you owe it to yourself and others to discard friends and family who engage in harmful behavior, more than a public figure. Because you can intimately know just how bad they are, on a personal level. Doesn't mean we can't pick them back up again- just that there are things so bad, that dumping the whole person in the trash, is the right answer.
Hey Tim, thank you for your uploads. They really help. I appreciate you using this medium. Please continue to share stories and perspectives with us.
You brought up Michael Schur and that's a fantastic example, because in the The Good Place, while the system of interdependencies we live in make us complicit in its failings, one of the lessons of the show is we can try to be better than we were before.
It is exhausting trying to keep up with what's known about all the things we interact with, but you're not going to help anyone if you burn yourself up trying to hit perfects in the rhythm game of morality under capitalism. Your best is all you can do
I think Tim is wishing there was an irl reputation mechanic like a CRPG you could check at any time to clarify moments like this 😅
Don't we all?
@@mememachine-386 Heard of a social credit score playa?
Some kind of a social credit score (unironically)
@@Cassius609 lol made the same comment and he deleted it. Keep on strugglin'
@@master09shredderI'm not omniscient so I can't say it wasn't Tim, but do keep in mind that YT deletes stuff all the time for seemingly no reason.
I rewrote this comment a bunch of times so I hope it's nuanced enough.
When it comes to comedians and musicians, I can think of people who straight up can't book shows, but they're people who I think 70% of people would be confused or frustrated as to why they aren't in jail (BIll Cosby, the now-TH-cam musician who tried to assassinate Reagan).
Most people who tell an offensive joke or maybe write some edgy lyrics when they're young will get a chance to own up to it, apologize and continue their career. Just like in real life, some people won't hear an apology if they feel they've been harmed. Some careers are smaller now than they were, but I think it's a system that works itself out towards fairness over time.
When it comes to people who are a part of a huge team, if you're in a position to be canceled, you're either some sort of public-facing performer or an influential creative lead, writer, producer etc... Being one of those people and being "canceled" is pretty much a career death sentence, and saying sorry probably isn't going to help. I think we're watching in real-time to see what happens if "being legally vindicated" undoes the damage when it comes to the video games industry across a few notable cases.
Those are all people who are responsible for an amount of manhours that might be larger than their individual lifespan. They're also working on projects that might succeed or fail for reasons that have nothing to do with how well-written, well-directed, or well-acted something is. Unless the QA benefits are a lot better than I imagined, large teams to create video games exist in part because people trust that all that work they're putting in is in the right hands.
It's kind of the same when it comes to how art (movies, video games, comedy, any creative project whose purpose is for other people to enjoy it) exists in the public consciousness. Gary Glitter- Rock and Roll is still a great song but it's not so transcendently great that a movie scene isn't better suited by something similar that doesn't bring up unpleasant associations with the audience. Staying open to there always being more talented people who are unrecognized than talented people who "make it" helps lessen some of that sense that a song or movie we like is "lost" when associations with it are tainted. I'm sad about treasured childhood memories that are bound up in Harry Potter, but it helps that I didn't get stuck on those books, I used them as a springboard to explore stories and worlds in other books and mediums to keep finding that sense of wonder and magic.
Once you take into consideration that there's so much information overload, and potential for misunderstanding, and intentional misinformation, and chaos from content creators who make money farming for crumbs of drama to turn into outrage, it's easy to be like "What even is the point of any of this?"
Trying to come up with a solution to all of this would drive someone to madness, but I think it's actually totally fine to just say "it is what it is" and if you've forgotten why you're mad at a company, you're not failing to uphold meaningful solidarity by removing it from the list and going in. I probably will never go into Chik-Fil-A even after they stopped donating to conversion therapy programs. Just because a company might survive a poorly organized boycott that runs out of steam in 3 months doesn't mean they want to, and they're taking small steps to avert it. None of this is utopia but it's all fine, I think. Outrage happens, the consequences aren't always precise but we have shown as a society to be able to adjust and course correct when an obvious mistake was made.
You can still quote Diddy it's ok
It's a kind of enlightenment when you realize you can't be objective.
I tend to look at roughly the first three information/experience I have with someone and make my judgement from that. As for forgiveness I don't think you can make a rule for all situations. You have to make your own evaluation on the severity and intention of the offense and sincerity of the apology, and see if their actions match their words. We must make mistakes in order to learn!
These days we have tons of people just going with the crowd rather than thinking for themselves. I don't like the idea that I'll get shamed or criticized if I don't automatically go along with a "cancel".
I think this is where I can point towards "there's no ethical consumption under capitalism" And to be clear, I don't mean that as a scold, or a call to revolution, or whatever. It is the unfortunate reality of our world that pretty much whatever you do it's going to benefit some people you don't agree with in some way. All you can do is try and act according to your own moral compass. And accept that you won't be objectively consistent, because it's impossible for someone to care about everything all the time, and that's okay.
To adress my personal stance on the first part of the video:
I tend to be less lenient towards people representing an inherently exclusionary stance than those representing inclusion. Because the former is coming from what I consider negative points before they've even said whatever they may or may not deserve to be cancelled over.
On a final note, this is one of the reasons I listen to and read quite a bit of old music and books. I don't have to feel bad about, for example, tacitly endorsing HP Lovecraft's views, because he's long dead.
Completely agreed on all points.
Memory is a funny thing. A memory is really just a reconstruction of an event, and every time we try to put a memory back together it comes out a little bit different to the last time we tried to remember. Sometimes it's us that change so much we wonder why we even would care to remember a thing in the first place. Memories are also snapshots of ourselves and how we perceived the world at that time. Rather than relying on memory, I think it is better to build a good instinct for things. It probably doesn't do us any good to carry around all that baggage with us anyway.
I like it when I forget something and then attempt to do the exact same thing or have the same opinion on it later.
For example, I had apparently bought a DVD of some series awhile back, and then recently mentioned I thought it was a series actually worth buying... Then got told I already own it. 😅
Made me feel like I'm me.
If you haven't already watched it, I'd really recommend watching "The Good Place", I don't want to spoil it but it's an amazing, funny show that that really gets into nuance, utilitarianism, being the perfect person etc.
Tim speaks about a book in the video that was written by creator of Good Place. Pretty sure he has seen it ;)
I’m pretty sure Tim’s entire last point is almost beat for beat said in a scene from The Good Place
I was about to write the same comment! Definitely watch The Good Place! Also, I live relying on my memory (which is not good). If someone has done something bad enough, I'll remember it and avoid it. If I don't remember the bad thing, either the thing wasn't so bad, or enough time has passed
The product isn't devoid of the artist's influence, intentions, etc. Not that it is always attributed to an artist's beliefs, wants, etc. but it is generally so whether the artist intended or not because humans are naturally biased. Nevertheless, a product's quality can still possess value on its own, and that value is dependent on the viewer. Thus, some products may stand alone as 'objectively' high or low quality, or the subjective perception of the quality/worth of a product may outweigh the 'objectiveness,' dependent on the context, individual, etc.
There may exist a moral justification that the pragmatic/utilitarian meaning, value, purpose, etc. of a product by (in Mr. Cain's case) a not-so-good artist is worthy to keep consuming either because that artist's creation is truly valuable for a wide range of people (such as with the examples of 19th century industrialism, colonialism, imperialism, etc.) despite the shortcomings of the artist, or, the product of an artist belongs inside a larger popular-society framework that largely does not derive from the artist. For example, if the lyrics "go with the flow" are widely appreciated by most people, then quoting a song that contains those words and further spreads that message should/could be morally justifiable and an at least 'alright' thing to do.
An additional factor is that the individual's principles and beliefs may easily outweigh popular-societal beliefs or objectiveness in the value of a product.
Simply put, beyond depending just on who the artist is and the context(s), it also depends on the meaning/purpose/value of the artistic creation. In this case, the lyrics of a song.
Consumers of industrial societies in the 19th century probably indirectly benefited from morally bad actions/events. Nevertheless, they still consumed and lived their lives. Boycotting products/places/organizations can only go so far because humans are mortal. It is a noble thing to want to influence things for the better, but making effective changes is usually better than micro changes. Balance is key, etc. etc. etc...
Like a lot of people may say, "just live your life Tim!"
While inaction or indecision can certainly bring about devastating consequences, I think so too can impulsive action, or taking a stance on every single thing. I think more people ought to find the courage to say “I don’t know”. People are much more complex than what we can ascribe from words alone. For example, my father has said very hurtful things to me that have cut deeply and stay with me. However, he has also saved my life multiple times. Similarly, art can help us when we are in very bleak places. So when an artist says or does something terrible, it’s not so easy or simple to altogether dismiss them from our lives.
John Lennon did a lot of bad things, but we still celebrate his music. Tmk he repented, but even if he didn’t, I wouldn’t intentionally stop listening to his music - it would just color it in an even more negative way, and I’d probably gravitate away from it.
It's cool to hear you say that. I have a very hard time with doing what's best, and everyone around me always seems so confident that they know what's best about everything, like they've never found out they were wrong before
I honestly don't bother with this mentality at all. Liking music from a "bad" person doesn't make me bad IF the reason I like it is because of the music. Pulling a "gotcha" on me doesn't matter to me personally because their accusation is off base, and I don't believe in guilt by very loose association.
Life is hard enough without keeping a list of stores you won't buy from. You don't have the buying power to impact the bottom line of these companies, either. I get trying to improve the world, but at some point, you have to let it go. If one bad company dies, another one will fill the void.
About the struggle with nuance,
I won't push my intrusion into how other people might want to treat the question beyond this:
personally, I feel I can only try to be fair when direct interactions with actual persons is concerned.
While I don't see how it can be solved when esoteric things like companies, or artists,
or other unreachable entities are to be "assessed"
(I mean, there are points, but they're shifting and not completely formed, for me).
On a more tangible topic from the video,
one thing I painfully learned long ago could be of good use, though:
when you write notes, of ANY kind, you have to do it as if they were meant for ALIENS to understand.
It takes longer as it requires more explicit explanations, and because you have to set your mind to it before writing,
but doing otherwise has proved to be just a waste of time for me, time and again, on the long run.
Thanks for your videos!
This is quite a broad topic, but generally I tend to weigh my decisions on stuff like this based more on what harm will be caused if I'm wrong, rather than the potential benefits of me being right. Because the last thing you want to do is make the world a worse place. The worst you want to be is neutral. If you're 100% sure of something then you can just do whatever you think is right, but often you won't be.
This is especially important when dealing with individuals, since you mentioned cancelling people lol. The cost of being wrong about that, or even just unreasonably immovable beyond the point where the person has atoned for their wrongdoing, can be unfairly damaging to say the least.
I think when it comes to big companies and stuff, the cost of being wrong is probably negligible. Like they're not going to collapse if you, alone, take your business elsewhere. You could probably do some damage if you go as far as leaving negative reviews or social media feedback, in which case you'd certainly want to take more care to make sure you've got your facts straight, but if it's just you boycotting them on your own then it's not a big concern imo.
I'm...half heartened that someone else has had trouble keeping track of all the things/places/people one is supposed to avoid...and also half disheartened that I'm not just some weirdo who can't keep up when everyone else can do it easily.
I guess all we can do is try our best to do good where we can, "be better", as you said, and generally leave things in an improved (or at least equal) state to when we arrived.
Tim is giving the exact reasons why a company should just focus on their products and not do anything outside of making their product the best it can be. Otherwise a company is going to end up on someone's morality boycott list.
Now, what's funny is when someone's boycott list becomes another's buyer's guide. It works both ways.
The programmer brain is flummoxed at the sight of changing opinions.
Just declare your opinions as variables, not as constants.
Another great video from Tim!
If someone has done or said something, within reason, and the person makes an active effort to change or rectify the things they've done- I think it's important to not deem people unforgivable. Again within reason.
I think you approached this really empathetically and rationally. There's only so much we can do as people, we learn, we grow, we can't boycott everything, we just have to be as kind as we are able without burning ourselves out with this intense guilt and stress.
I always separate the creator from the creation because to not do so is to miss out on content that I might enjoy. If a creation or product is good and I enjoy it, I'll buy it and if I don't care for it, I won't buy it. I do however take note of what aspect of the product or art I didn't care for, so that I may learn from what the creator did wrong, so I don't make the same mistake when I create things. This is coming from me though, I'm cynical.
We love you, Tim. You're an incredible beacon of hope and reason!
Man, it's so refreshing to hear somebody be honest about trying to be a good person and not really being able to apply momentary judgements across large temporal spaces.
The closest thing to an answer i have is that i will always give people the benefit of the doubt if i can see that they're trying to do good or be better.
Often that's meant that i've been let down by people pretty hard.
But just as often, i've seen that people can grow when given the space and allowance to make mistakes.
As an extra bonus, when people see that you're the kind of person who does that, they'll often start doing the same for you. I've learned a lot and grown a lot because the people in my life have been kind enough to be patient and give me the benefit of the doubt for some shitty behaviour.
I often listen to political arguments I don't agree with. Sometimes they make a good point. Sometimes they make a Freudian slip and that can be interesting.
Great video, Tim.
Uhm, sorry for a potentially self-centered question (I think you know why), but are you planning on doing a vid about all the Fallout-related memorabilia/merch/... you own? :D
Have a great day!
I certainly plan to do that. Currently I have several weeks of videos in the queue, so it might be next month when it appears.
Btw, because of that queue, I think it’s funny when people think my video is a reaction to something that happened the day (or week) before. If I made a video today, it would air in mid July.
@@CainOnGames Well, that explains a lot :) ... That's fine. Just keep 'em coming. They're part of my daily routine :D
You just gotta do you best, stay mindful, and be forgiving.
Ignorance is bliss. Sometimes, i'm jealous of the type of people you mentioned. They live vicariously without caring about the consequences of there action, even if they make more harm then good in the world. There is sadly no solution....my philosophy has been actually the one schools taught us: be better than the average. And that mentality applies to everything in life; how nice you are to the people around you, how good you should be at your job, how much you should exercices ,etc. Not a perfect way to see things, but im doing more good then harm without the mental strain on thinking about nuances of things all the time. Like you said, at some point, it gets exhausting.
You ask some really great questions here Tim and I don't think there are definitive, satisfying answers that are universal for everyone. "To what extent can we separate art from the artist?" is a question I know as a heavy metal fan I've had to ask myself often. My thinking comes down to this: How much does consuming their art/creative output advance their position and or ability to do what it is that is so worthy of "canceling" them for? There's little to be gained from never listening to records you've already paid for. (Unless listening now makes you feel differently) However, I think you're right to think twice about shining a spotlight on someone who gives you pause like that since you have a bit of a public influence on this platform yourself. No reason to give them a potential boost if you don't need to.
Tim's discussion of how new information can alter our opinions and decisions made me think of Bayesian statistics. Not sure if that is useful to anyone, but there it is.
The problem is when the artist is a living person using your appreciation of their art to accomplish things you don't support. If you separate the art from the currently active artist, you financially support causes you don't want to financially support. If I buy a Diddy album because I like the song, I am financially supporting his crimes.
'Separate the art from the artist" is a fine concept when referring to past and dead artists, but we live in a time where the creator IS the product. It's a different situation.
The problem with this mentality is you don't control where your money goes as soon as it's changed hands, you may buy something from a company you support & that goes towards paying the wages of a worker who then uses that money to support things you don't support.
If you follow this logic to its inevitable conclusion you would have to track every single purchase everyone has ever made which not only is impossible but you would quickly find out that no matter how careful you are with your financial support eventually it will go to a cause you don't support.
The much better solution is to make sure you are actually supporting your causes, if you find out an artist you like supports a cause that you don't then make sure you are supporting the opposing cause.
You can't control what other people do with their money but you can control what you do with yours.
You're not financially supporting any crimes if you buy, cuz if that's the case then we would all be criminals for supporting the United States government which we have to pay taxes to
Super simple. Quote whatever I want. Even if someone is bad, that doesn't translate to what they say as a rule.
If I'm a "bad" person and I say something that is moral, that doesn't change morality just because I said it. So clearly they aren't related.
The reverse is tribalistic and borderline superstitious.
"You do what you can, that's all you can do" is my go-to take on this. The world is too big for any one of us to shoulder such a burden; perfection is too idealistic a goal.
Try to think about whether you should listen to an artist or talk about an artist. Think about which brands are good to buy and which aren't. You'll miss some, not know about some, or even just be wrong.
And that's okay.
What's important is that you're making the effort in the right direction, so that hopefully, collectively, we can try to influence society to move in a better direction. If you make a mistake, course-correct. If you find new information, reevaluate. Don't worry about the things you can't do anything about, and focus on the things you can at that moment.
For me, it all comes down to proximity. Temporal, physical, social, emotional, etc. The closer we are in proximity, the more nuance I will consider.
And the reasoning for this is the same reason I don't break down and weep every time there's a tragedy that happens on the other side of the world: we simply don't have the capacity, the time or the mental ability to handle life while trying to juggle the nuance and tragedy of everything going on all across the globe.
So I'll try to remember what companies do the worst practices and avoid them to the best of my ability, I'll try to remember people who've been real shitty, etc. and not support them. But I'm also not going to make big lists or spreadsheets because it would simply be a huge drag on my own limited time for minimal benefit and minimal impact.
Now, the closer we are in one of those proximities I mentioned, the more nuance I consider, but also the more stringent my criteria on "passing judgment" (or, in less loaded terms: my opinion on you and how I react): I might forget that celebrity X was a child molesting psycho simply because I'm not big into celebrity gossip and that shit might as well be happening on the moon, but if you're my best friend and I find that out about you, well, my opinion is going to be orders of magnitudes stronger, and while I'll consider with a lot more nuance than the celebrity (whom I have no problem casting casual judgment, because, as I said, minimal impact, and I don't go around gossiping so I'm not "tarnishing reputations" and even if I did I have essentially no voice) but for an extreme example like that, I can't see any amount of nuance making me think of you as anything less than a monster that I'd like to see arrested.
Now of course, as the examples get less extreme, that nuance has greater and greater weight, so for me I like to think the "judgement" and the nuance are paired, and both rise and fall in consideration with proximity.
It's not a perfect system, and I'm sure there's wacky exceptions, but so far I think it's been working out well.
Trying to be better, learning from mistakes, apologizing and working on oneself is what counts. No one is perfect. I recently said something stupid about Adobe and had to apoligize because I was misinformed on the matter.
Trying to do good is a Sisyphean task. It's the mark of a good person. It's also a balancing act. I agree that it's good to avoid interacting/doing business with hateful people or groups, but forgiveness is good, too. Thanks for the nuance!
I will still listen to Michael Jackson because his message is so positive but someone like R Kelly talked about what he went to prison for in his music, thats the difference to me it just comes down to how someone conducts themselves.
Hey Tim, it’s me, Martin. You made me remember something about world renowned painter Salvador Dalí: I love his art, but he had some dubious life choices, like expressing his support for spanish dictator Francisco Franco, who allegedly sent Federico García Lorca, Dalí’s friend, to his untimely death. I don’t know if it was out of pragmatism or a change of heart from Dalí, but overall, it seems like a dick move.
In the end, can we just separate the artist from the art? I like to try, and besides, why not? I love Dalí’s work. That doesn’t mean I heve to love him. Olso, even if I personally didn’t like the guy, it doesn’t have to lead me to abstain from enjoying something that that have made. Just my two cents.
I believe its more sensible to be good and correct our own actions, rather than trying to judge/exile everyone around us. If you tried imagining yourself in that situation, you'd probably prefer the opportunity to apologize and correct your misbehavior rather than being ostracized from the rest of society. That infinitely growing blocklist you mentioned is the proof that shows the opportunity for forgiveness is more reasonable than making the decision to cancel someone
For me I think, I like to have systems and hard lines.. but I’ve had to accept that these things are so incredibly grey and varied, that I can’t set down useful systems or lines.
So at some point I have to go with my gut in many cases, especially regarding “uncancelling”. I can only do my best, and I can’t dedicate all my energy to it.
At the end of the day I pick my battles, and like you, I try.
I also don’t like to hold grudges forever. I certainly have many times been a jerk, especially in my youth. I’d want people to judge me by the ways I’m a jerk today, not by the person I was then.
So sometimes I’ll just uncancel because of time alone, and give the person a chance to show that they’re not still the same. There is no set amount of time.
I’m looking forward to reading other takes on this, this comment section will be interesting.
A couple of thoughts on this issue:
1) A lot of the time there will be people that will pretend to be smart by saying something is "complicated" or "nuanced" to either avoid expressing an opinion or to muddy the waters in order to bamboozle you and prevent you from having a view that might be against them, especially when the situation is actually clear cut and they don't have an actual argument in the face of evidence. You will see this a lot in politics and I highly recommend reading Orwell's essay 'Politics and the English Language' for more on this type of thing if you haven't already read it. Yes, there can be lots of nuance to things but if you are well informed with reliable information on a given issue, your opinion shouldn't be a shrug of the shoulders and saying 'its complicated', there should be some kind of opinion and judgement as an outcome, otherwise everyone's time has just been wasted. It is incredibly difficult for any individual to get absolutely perfect information about something and if we were to wait until perfect information for every issue, we would never develop a point of view on anything at all, let alone do anything. At the same time, if you're not well informed and you know you're not well informed it is completely reasonable to say that you don't know enough about the topic yet to come to any kind of judgement when people ask for your opinion on this or that.
2) Many companies don't act consistently when they moralistically grandstand. For instance, Sony grandstanded about pulling out from Russia as a result of the war and recently Russian steam users have had their steam accounts get in trouble for activating keys for newer sony releases from third party key sites (as sony pulled their games from sale in Russia) because of Sony's moralistic position regarding the Ukraine war. Yet Sony won't restrict Israeli or American accounts even as these two governments are actively conducting a genocide. Companies should not publicly justify changes like this based on irrelevant moralistic reasoning if they don't want to be held up to scrutiny in relation to other conflicts around the globe, especially well known ones.
3) When it comes from boycotting say, an individual musician for expressing things you find abhorrent, the question i ask is to what extent does that impact my enjoyment of their work and to what extent are these abhorrent things expressed in their work? If the things I dislike are expressed in their work going forward in a prominent way, then it is quite easy to simply not engage with this material and engage with things I do like or I will be more weary of future products from them (as is the case for future Naughty Dog projects helmed by Neil Druckman.) However, it is much more difficult in regard to larger enterprises as you run into the 'ethical consumption under capitalism issue' that other commenters have described, since it is completely unreasonable to expect individual people to keep track of, or research into, all the possible unethical practices enterprises that produce products they use or want may or may not engage in, since people don't have the time or mental bandwith for it. Its like with chocolate. I think it would be good if say brands didn't have slavery somewhere in their supply chains, but it is not reasonable to expect me to research every single brand of chocolate for information on this and keep a mental spreadsheet of which brands do or don't have slavery in their supply chains (if this information is even easily accessible in the first place) for when I'm in the chocolate section of a shop. We can only make decisions based on limited information and reasoning that can be somewhat arbitrary sometimes. Although I wouldn't worry about quoting from a song of someone who said something abhorrent but unrelated. I doubt most people would care.
Things change over time and people also develop and become better or worse at things
This is where the expression that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism comes from - it’s impossible to know what every company is doing, especially once you start taking the supply chain into account.
The problem with the lack of nuance is that people nowadays forgot some ideals are not mutually exclusive, and when someone says it is, that's when war begins.
11:05 The trick is to never look for facts :P
Realistically, the best you can do is take a breath and think things over again. It doesn't apply to everything but will cover the majority of situations you're jumping to conclusions.
Some truly terrible people spend time and money to do good things. Why should we stop someone from doing something good, that may even actually help, just because they're terrible? If a person isn't given a chance to do something good, or even have that good thing acknowledged, then the world we live in will only get worse and who would even bother trying to improve if there's no redemption?
This happens all the time, public figures on social media who post something really offensive or stupid. I try to keep the art and the artist separate. 😂
Whether a person is good or bad often happens to be completely unrelated to the reason why they are being mentioned. If person has a wonderful song, this song wouldn't change in any measurable way no matter how many times said person has beaten their wife or how many children they might have abused. Thinking otherwise is not productive and is usually caused by one's desire to think less or to appear more righteous in front of their friends and family or to appeal to such people. If people do bad stuff then it's either none of your business or illegal (and might also be none of your business). In the latter case justice system should take care of it. If it doesn't work, then it should be fixed/improved and not randomly reimplemented by common folk.
People who acknowledge saying something bad to you and refusing to apologies might be thinking that if they apologize they would admit that their actions were of any significance. They seem to disagree that this is the case (e.g. saying "it's been 20 years who cares") and for some people it is a matter of principle to never admit something they think is false.
From my experience, apologies go a lot further than some people are willing to admit. Which is still a very good thing!
You’re awesome tim but you can only control yourself, don’t worry about these people, the ones who won’t apologize are clearly insure so they see it as a power play. You have a brilliant mind, thus is not the best use of it! The best way is to live an example of a good person. That’s how I’ve been infected the most to better myself
This the funniest video I've seen on this channel by far. It's also very relatable. I sure hope nobody's being weird about it in the comments, though.
Wisdom is also knowing when to ignore past experiences since they improperly color future ones.
"I don't remember" in the context you provided that I see more and more these days is simply an unwillingness to accept responsibility, or the experience of people other than themselves. We live in a society that has far too many people for what we're used to and being able to hold each other accountable on a more individual basis, so adaptations (arguably maladaptations such as cancel culture) pop up to try and deal with it as a larger collective. For better or for worse.
I feel like, with many situations like that, I look for patterns. There's more than one way to apologize, and there's ways to see if an apology is genuine or not. Do they change their behavior? Do they keep doing the same thing? Do they proactively try to change? Have they become a different person from whatever not so great thing they did some time in the past? Are they exhibiting behaviors that other offenders have done? It's a web, but there are common traits that tend to pop up in those situations; unfortunately, they can be difficult to see online. And the older I get, the more I realize that no one is perfect, and sometimes we fall into things that hurt others, other times we see something as horrible that we do anyway because we have a more serious problem that has no better solution to our knowledge. Then there are moments where we just... don't do the right thing.
One of the many things I appreciate about you Tim is the fact that you see things in nuance, and want to see things in nuance - despite also wanting an easy answer. The difference is, you don't accept an easy answer if it doesn't actually help anything, and you are trying to improve. I always appreciate seeing it, and I hope more people come into that state of mind.
There's this saying that goes something like "there is no ethical consumption" and while I see a lot of truth in that, I think the closest thing to an 'answer' is to finish that statement with "but we should try our best anyway." To expand on that, we should always try our best while also acknowledging we are not perfect beings. Just going off of what I've seen in videos and interviews, I would personally consider Tim a good person, because from what I've seen, he puts in that effort.
What you've described is at the heart of the sentiment some people express about there being no ethical consumption under capitalism. Also its a thing I think everyone struggles with to a certain extent in terms of living their life not being in some way complicit in some form of human suffering. The only sane way to deal with it is what most people do which is some form of moral relativism. We all draw our lines in the sand differently based on a lot of factors. You also mentioned having to rely on wisdom rather than intelligence well for me the first step towards wisdom is knowing that there is no singular answer to these problems. There is only the best you can do as an individual. And no one is any more right than anyone else inherently.
Good video and good thought experiments.
Personally I think funding investigative journalism groups is your best bet for figuring out who is/isn't worthy of redemption because nowadays so few people are challenged by journalists who are looking deeper than just the front facing events.
Personally there are some people in my life I will never forgive no matter the scenario or apology because the scars they left on my psyche have in turn caused indirect pain and suffering to others because of the after effects of dealing with the trauma they created. And unfortunately others and myself live with the consequences that there is a better than zero chance my actions have caused someone else trauma and psyche scarring for which they will never forgive me even if I apologized sincerely immediately. It's frustrating that I can see people hypocritically demanding apologies from others for slights to them but never or only begrudgingly acknowledging the slights they gave to others. I'm with you Tim there is no good answer and nothing we can do but try to be better and accept that occasionally we're going to have to be hypocrites.
For what it's worth and while I'm still struggling with the results from EU elections and quite frankly, pretty much arguing with everyone, both the people who have voted for very right wing and nationalist parties or for very left leaning parties who are basically saying that the parties on the right are stupid and evil and so are their voters (because they basically deny the problems that lead to the rise of the rights and a lot of stuff was mishandled by their parties):
I think you are doing exactly the right thing.
Nuance is hard. Being fair to people who you disagree with fundamentally is hard. Doing tough things out necessity is hard. Staying empathetic with "bad" people is very hard. But for me, I don't really see an option if I don't want to become a "bad" person of a different flavor or at least part of the general problem.
Also: Hey Tim, you're awesome :)
I appreciate your videos like this. Some of what you say reminds me of an episode of The Good Place that struck me, seems almost too hard to really be a good person. I try to scope control myself in that regard and focus more on the people immediately around me just because it's too much for me to handle what's outside that.
"Too many people have opinions on things they know nothing about. And the more ignorant they are, the more opinions they have"
and in another layer of irony, the character who said this quote is a very flawed person too.
I'm with you Tim, nuance is one of the higher level skills that is incredibly hard to master, what with everyone around us sapping away at our intelligence and sanity. But it's what differentiates us from wild animals.
That sort of fatigue you mentioned in the latter part of the video is why I basically gave up on boycotting most things and instead switched to a method of just evaluating the merits of the product now vs when I first came across it. I greatly enjoyed the first few Halo and Fallout games but by the time they'd reached their 4th entry they'd changed in many ways that I actively disliked so I simply stopped purchasing the games and spent my money elsewhere. If we get a 1:1 version of F3 or NV that doesn't crash every 5 minutes in the future then I'd be happy to purchase them again but I'm not gonna throw away money on something and simply hope it improves.
For foods I think it's even easier, it doesn't really matter if coke is more pro-LGBT than chikfila, neither of them are particularly healthy for you and so if you consume either then you're being personally harmed.
Yeah, I've run into similar problems keeping track, so I just resorted to the principle of, if I've boycotted a company for so long I can't remember why, they they've done their sentence. It ends up with me avoiding companies that are unforgettably bad, frequently bad or recently bad, and gives possibly reformed or changed ones another chance.
Tim asking the hard questions... I personally trust by business practices. It applies at a broad and individual scale.
Business practice are one of the first impressions you're left with. If a store is constantly skimming on sales, or charging for everything, or just generic customer service it's ultimately terrible to let yourself internalize being treated that way.
With regards to the artist, i don't know what he said but if that's what you think about whenever they come up, you as a fan have been let down. You shouldn't hate something forever because it's bad for you in the end.
🤔 Can't elaborate because the details were vague. Personally i hate companies that pretend they are too high and might to grant favors to long time loyal customers. There aren't many which makes it easy to avoid.
Funny that you mentioned for people to "Be better." Every now and then I see people criticizing on stories that tell the audience directly "what you did is wrong, be better" which seemingly lacks nuance. It's hard to understand what it takes or even means to "be better", let alone understand yourself and know when you're in the wrong, and it also takes humility to admit when you're wrong. That sort of thing is inherently filled with nuance, but people prefer to reduce things down to a yes or no/good or evil situation, which actually is insanely easy to pick a side and never think about it again.
Instead of arguing that X is morally better or Y is always wrong, I prefer to just ask "Why do you think X?" or "Are there cases where Y can be logically incorrect or correct?". I value discussion in itself, yes the conclusions (if any) may be important and of value, but the act of discussing is what allows nuance to be understood, or at least mentioned. Discussions are also forms of duplex communication; both nodes transmit and receive information.
With internet content you can consume, podcasts are really the only medium that allows for discussions, but since members must both have an online presence and agree to be on it, it's much more likely to get stuck in echo chambers where both parties agree on something and don't have to really discuss the grey area topics. Forums and comment sections theoretically allow this, but they are more often than not filled with attention seekers and echo chambers. Watching the live chat from that xbox showcase easily shows that only the most outlandish, loud, and repeatable messages will be noticed.
Nuance will only exist in mediums which allow for it and only be found by those who may listen.
Hi Tim,
very interesting topic and talk. My thoughts on it (without getting too political):
I tend to separate the art from the artist. Think I have to. Otherwise, I probably could not watch most of my favourite films, play most of my favourite games, listen to music etc. Yes some people are worse than others, but at the end of the day - how many actors or directors we've heard of being bad people - cheating on their partners, having 'bad' political views (however we define bad in this case), are nasty and difficult to work with etc. Yes, there are extremes - I probably wouldn't be able to look at Hitler's paintings without thinking of what kind of person he was, but generally I tend to separate these. Chances are, if I knew all your opinions, they'd be very different from mine - but I don't need to know them to enjoy Fallout. Many of my favourite artists probably did drugs or are / were bad people in some way - the law should punish them if they got things too far but other than that, there's no reason to enjoy their art.
I'd be careful about boycotting companies because of a moral stance. First of all, as you rightly say, there are many 'bad' companies out there - we just don't know it (yet). Even the companies which seemingly 'only' sell products and services, without any political message / virtue signalling are often treating employees like garbage or do other 'bad' things in the background (late payments to vendors, firing hundreds of people only for the CEO then to give himself a nice bonus etc.). Or might be virtue signalling just for the sake of it, as a PR stunt, and still treat employees (or even customers) like garbage - such as many utility companies I had the 'pleasure' of having to interact with.
It can also a bit of a slippery slope potentially - just last week, a violent mob decided to break windows of a bank in UK because they decided that just boycotting this evil bank (for doing business with Israel in this case) was not enough - more violent action needed to be taken, apparently. Same with the kids destroying statues of historical figures because they were involved in slave trade, or destroying art to protest against the climate. I'd be very careful about 'forcing' my political views on the world like this. It is everyone's choice not to buy from a company which doesn't align with one's views, but it often leads to many issues further down the line (for example to many companies nowadays feeling like there's only one 'right' opinion - the woke one).
Finally, none of us is perfect. Some of us are dishonest, some make bad jokes (including racist / homophobic) that can hurt people, some are cheating on their partners, slack at work, lie to their friends... The older I get, the more I realise that very few people are actually evil - most of us are 'just' weak. Weak to resist temptation, weak to stand up to evil, or just too stupid to differentiate between what's evil and what's just someone's different opinion. Let's all find the strength to fight evil within our own hearts, forgive others and find a way to live with one another - despite our (many) flaws.
Hey I just finished the other worlds and I loved it. Loved the romance with junlei and those quests around it. Loved the ending of the game.
Can't wait for the next installment and I hope I get to visit earth again.. See what's going on since it's been quiet..
Perfection is. The enemy of good.
Good enough yends to beat out attempted perfection
I was about to reference the Good Place and then you brought up Michael Schur 😂
I don't find it difficult. I know it's impossible to never cause harm, so I simply seek to minimize the harm I do. If both choices are harmful, I choose what I judge to be the least harmful. I don't sweat it either way.
you can keep track of company's/people's misdeeds with an excel sheet
There is a saying, "There is no ethical consumption under capitalism" and I think this is a good illustration of how that can be true in a sense. Companies, in our current business paradigm, are going to do anything to increase profits that they think they can get away with. In a way that's good, we can companies to constantly be pushing the envelope on what's possible but the flip side is when they find a loop hole or weakness in the safety mechanisms they are going to do a lot of harm. It is almost like getting angry at a bear for mauling you because you walked too close to their cubs. That's why we put things in place to protect us from the bears... I think my analogy went off the rails at some point. Sorry.
Anyways, what I wanted to talk about was how to accept apologies from things like companies. When a company screws up and they get added to my black list there are two things they have to do to get off of it. First, they have to apologize. Easy enough but also too easy. Second, they have to repair the damage they caused. A good example would be a company that donated money to anti-LGBT groups would need to donate twice the amount of money to pro-LQBT groups to make up for it. Maybe not exactly double but clearly an amount that shows they are trying to do better and fix any harm they caused.
I think it’s important to remember that people exist along a continuum. People aren’t binary good or bad. We all have different mixes of (subjective) good or bad traits and behaviors. And these are not locked in for life. I know I’m not proud of the person I was even 5 years ago. I would hope that most of us are changing and growing every day.
Great vid! Would love to hear you talk more about music you enjoy!
My main compass is that, whenever minority or victim create a tool to protect themselves, if such tool works, it will be used against them after a while, because people who like power will seize it for their own agenda, that's the meaning of pendulum swings. Currently meetoo and cancelling are failing prey to this.
The only solution is imagination to anticipate and build resilience, to not be overwhelmed, by building support structure.
Punching the bad guy is the easy way out, better is to make sure people are safe. It's easier to keep track people and things that matter, than whom and which to cull.
Eventually, support structure become mature enough to replace the old structure of power, that's how democracy won over kings. When the ground got fertile, the seed were ready to be sown.
In recent experience I'm seeing that there are disagreements that stem from very fundamental concepts that are the roots to these burgeoning expressions that differ. For example, I had to recently dive into having decision makers describe:
A) what is an immutable property of an individual vs an inherently changeable philosophy a person holds.
B) what's the difference between discrete and continuous?
C) what is relative vs absolute morality?
Regarding the "don't remember that", the alcoholic's tune.
I've long since stopped trusting my memory. I know it's faulty: I don't remember a lot of stuff people usually remember (while apparently prioritizing stuff like "names of Transformers"), I've discovered a bunch of false memories etc.
But… It almost never hurts to apologize. Some people seem to think they lose something by saying they're sorry. Some kind of status or respect. They seem to live in perpetual fear of "losing face". Seems like a very stressful way to live.
I don't understand this media addiction that puts people in these self-inflicted dilemmas in the first. If I find out someone's horrible, I stop supporting them. Point blank. No single penny out of my pocket. I don't hand-wring or twist myself into a pretzel because I like his song/book/game/whatever. I can live perfectly fine without it. Why is that so hard for so many people?
The sad truth is most people don't care about being "good" they just care about appearing "good", they care more about the product than the cause the creator is going against but they don't want to be seen as supporting the creator.
In most cases they'll either pirate the product or pretend they didn't buy it which just shows them to be complete hypocrites.
I think actions of artists or people who create things doesn't have to apply to whether or not i enjoy what they create
If the person has *actually changed, they have earned their second chance.
If they pull the "that was 10 years ago, forget about it" card, they are still probably a piece of shit, and they don't need to be in my life.
If they are someone that produces something that you bought, and they are not gaining anything from me to continue to use it, then I still use the thing. If they would be getting a kickback somehow, it's to the garbage bin.
As for corporations, they are likely all evil. Even if they aren't responsibly for the deaths of tens of thousands, wage theft is the largest form of theft. So like you said, you still need to exist in society, so we need to choose the least-bad options that we can, with the information that we have, knowing and accepting that not all of our choices are going to be the optimal one.
Hell, this video, and my comment, are on a site owned by Google. A company known for tax evaision, and bowing down to counties like Russia to remove content or apps that are against the government's beliefs. But where else are we going to have video with comments? Something owned by Meta, a company that's probably more evil than Google? Peertube, something that's probably not evil, but no one uses?
To be honest, I think most people's behavior is so dictated by their surroundings and various things happening to them in that moment, that I don't "hold people accountable" for most actions if they seem to have changed.
Tim’s character has INT 10 and WIS 10. Karma seems super high too.
I have two general philosophies regarding this. First, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, so while I will boycott some companies that demonstrate egregious behavior (WotC is one example), I know I can’t avoid giving money to all corporations who do terrible things, because there’s so many and I have to survive in the world they’ve created.
As far as individuals go, when it comes to celebrities I try to remember not to hero-worship anyone (anyone still living, anyway), and keep in mind the limitations of parasocial relationships. If someone demonstrates bad behavior, I’m not gonna be their booster, but I’m also not appointed to be their judge. I’ll probably never meet them, so it’s a bit of a moot point. If it’s enough to turn me off of their work (music, movies, etc.) then I probably just won’t enjoy them any longer.
If it’s someone in my life, I want to balance compassion and patience with keeping myself (and those I care about) safe from any further abuse.
In all cases (well, maybe not corporations), if they show themselves contrite about their misdeeds, I’m likely to take them at their word and forgive them. As for people who say “I just don’t remember that,” I tend to agree with you-it seems like someone people have picked up from politicians because they’ve seen that there are rarely ever consequences for just flat-out lying and denials. Older parents seem to do it a lot, too, though I’m never sure if they’ve just forgotten or if it’s a defense mechanism (I read an article talking about how many of them go based on emotions rather than facts, so if something doesn’t match up with their emotions surrounding an event, the factual details are irrelevant to them. This is a common tactic of abusive parents, apparently…). In any case, I stop trusting them and probably avoid them in general.
I, too, have this conversation with a buddy all the time.
Unfortunately it's a paradox. To be a tolerant person you end up needing to either tolerate intolerance or become intolerant yourself.
I read a great article many years ago that compared communities (online or otherwise) to walled gardens that caused me to really evaluate how I thought about tolerance. Sadly I have no answers either 😅
Think of it like this: tolerance is a social contract. A person preaching intolerance has broken that contract and is therefore not covered by its terms. That person can and should be excluded, without that exclusion being an act of intolerance. Because they're no longer covered by the contract.
I think at the end of the day spending $5 at say, chik-fil-a, isn't the end of the world.
Start with supporting the people that do stuff you like. For example, I'm part of a CSA. My plumber is a family friend. Etc.
Then avoid the people that hurt you on a personal basis.
Then try to be good on the big things, don't sweat the little ones.
I go by "If they continue to be an a-hole. Then they're an a-hole." (Ex. Dave Chappelle continues to be an a-hole.) If someone said or did something in the past and then immediately or later apologized for it, I would still be skeptical of them, however this was if the person did it against a group of people and the majority accepted the apology.
I will never forgive those that has done or said anything to me. For me, it's been years, and the damage is done, there's no going or taking it back.
Corporations is another thing, definitely tricky. Especially if their fingers/claws are in practically everything...