Hold on. If I'm going to be doing this,
I need the proper gear. Let me just
This will do. All right, sit down, you
monkeys. Now, before we start, some
ground rules. Any serious crimes
mentioned in this video is not meant to
be funny. But I am going to poke fun at
just the general lack of education and
research presented as fact because it's
just getting a bit ridiculous at this
point. Not essays funny, but dumb people
funny.
First off, people are under the
impression that I changed my mind about
the Chris Stephanos incident. But here's
what I actually did. Look into the
legality of what Chris's story would
constitute as. Was he breaking any laws?
Was I overreacting? And I found some
stuff. It's stuff that's not in his
favor. I'm going to be a bit of legal
eagle for some of this video. Hold on.
Even if there was no physical contact
with your body, ejaculating on someone's
belongings without consent can fall
under several possible criminal
categories depending on the state and
circumstances.
In many US states, ejaculating in public
or onto someone's property without
consent can be prosecuted under laws
about sexual acts done for sexual
gratification without consent.
If this was done as part of a pattern of
behavior to intimidate, humiliate, or
violate you, this could be the threshold
of harassment charges.
Some jurisdictions treat semen on
someone's clothing as a form of property
defacement or contamination.
But KP, I hear you thinking. Chris
didn't actually do this. He admitted he
was lying. In legal terms, Chris
admitting that he lied about the
incident, regardless if you believe him
or not, doesn't erase the action. The
law cares about the behavior itself, not
their honesty afterwards. In fact, lying
can make it legally worse. It can
demonstrate consciousness of guilt,
which matters in legal investigations.
If they lied to investigators or made
false statements in writing, that could
open them up to additional charges such
as obstruction, false reporting. That's
legally significant. It proves he knew
it was wrong. And it also suggests a
pattern of concealment, which is not
nothing. That can matter in civil cases,
workplace reports, or credibility
disputes even now. Even if it happened
10 years ago, ejaculating on clothing
while consent, whether he lied about it
or not, is a sexual boundary violation.
Period. It's still a crime. Even if
Chris did lie about it, that not only
exacerbates the potential charges, it's
not a prank, not boys being boys and not
something you two have to just shrug off
because it was decades ago. It might
also come under discovery rule in civil
cases. Now, why would others state this
is just a joke? Well, psychologically,
for a few reasons.
>> Number one, minimization as a defense
mechanism. Calling it a joke is a
classic way to shrink the severity of
the behavior that makes people
uncomfortable. It's easier on the psyche
to say it was just a prank than to face
reality that somebody crossed a sexual
boundary. It reduces moral discomfort.
If it's a joke, then maybe it wasn't
really that bad. It lets them avoid
re-evaluating their own values. Just
because they admit it's serious, they
might also admit someone they like or
trust did something wrong. It avoids the
pain of empathy because to empathize
means to acknowledge that someone was
harmed. This is a form of cognitive
dissonance reduction. people in resolve
internal conflict between I like this
person and this person did something
awful by downgrading the awful thing
into a joke.
Number two, protecting the in-group
power. If someone is a part of the same
social or fandom circle as Chris,
calling it just a joke is also a way to
protect the tribe. If it's serious,
they'd have to hold someone accountable,
and that threatens the group's image. If
it's just a joke, they can preserve the
community narrative and their own
comfort. This is especially common in
tight-knit online circles. People fear
that acknowledging wrongdoing will hurt
the fandom or give haters ammo, so they
rewrite the story to feel safer. Number
three, humor as a shield against guilt.
Psychologically, humor is one of the
fastest ways to neutralize guilt or
shame, even when it's deeply misplaced.
So, by laughing at it, calling it a
joke, using sarcasm, they're
subconsciously saying, "If I treat this
as unserious, then maybe I don't have to
contribute to the ugliness of it. It's a
shield. Not for you or the truth, but
their own discomfort.
Number four, cultural conditioning. Boys
will be boys. There's also the bigger
picture. For decades, society has
normalized sexual mixed conduct when
it's done by men and played for laughs.
From brat movie pranks to sitcom plots,
the idea that ejaculating on someone's
clothes is just gross humor is baked
into pop culture. That conditioning
leads people to default the minimization
instead of asking, "Wait, was this an
actual violation?"
Number five, strategic manipulation. The
cynical one. Some people know exactly
what they're doing. They call it a joke
strategically because they know it
undermines the seriousness of your
argument. It refrains the narrative from
sexual misconduct to overreaction.
shifting scrutiny away from the
perpetrator and onto the person calling
it out. That's not ignorance. That's
calculated and it's a classic PR tactic
in Crisis Comm, diminishing the language
so the public follows suit.
>> Him lying about it isn't just a side
note. It shows consciousness of guilt.
Now, to be clear, I should have asked
Chris if I could record the
confrontation with him and in hindsight
should have had him make a brief public
statement expanding the issue. I don't
think someone should be defined by
something they did that long ago. But
that's the thing. This just extends to
Chris. Since Chris admitted this to Will
Ryan, his boss, at least once, we can
assume if it happened on DA Games
Company time, which also breaks
additional laws. Title 7 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual
harassment in the workplace. EEOC
regulations define sexual harassment
broadly, including non-cont sexual
behavior like masturbating near someone,
ejaculating on their belongings, or
creating a sexually hostile environment.
The OSHA or Occupational Safety and
Health Act nerd requires employers to
provide a safe harassment free
workplace. Even if he did it in secret,
the company is legally responsible if he
was acting in a work capacity. The
company should have known and failed to
act. They did nothing after learning
about it later. The US Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission defines sexual
harassment as unwelcome sexual advances,
requests for sexual favors, and other
verbal or physical conduct of sexual
nature that affects an individual's
employment or creates an intimidating,
hostile, or offensive work environment.
The problem wasn't just Chris did this.
It's the bigger problem that DA Games
didn't take accountability for letting
this incident go unchallenged within the
company on top of a continued conduct in
these spaces. People seem to have
assumed that because these examples are
old, this stuff still isn't going on. DA
Games isn't actively trying to hide this
currently in the year of our Lord 2025.
Did you guys watch the videos I linked?
This was again exacerbated in the
original email exchange I had with DA
Games where, and let me remind you, it
wasn't just the nature of what Chris
said. It's how the company reacted,
didn't explain why they didn't bring
this up to my attention earlier, and
refused to take accountability unless an
NDA was required. Will's problematic
behavior is not extended to just a few
bad memes, but possessing illegal
materials to minors on top of proven not
subjective grooming going on in the
server, including having his minor
girlfriend living with him at one point.
And yes, all this is illegal. Guys, Will
is breaking multiple laws and
endangering minors, and I guess we're
just going to ignore it. I wanted a
conversation about accountability and
honoring that this is happening on
company time is not okay, and to prove
that reform is actually happening. But
then I learned that this has been a big
problem in the company for a long time
and I wanted to cover that. I do feel
bad that Will's behavior and approach
isn't the direct result of anyone else's
actions, but they are excusing them by
continued association and alleged
enablement.
>> The UK workplace law perspective. Now,
let's talk about how UK law views
something like Chris's act. Spoiler, the
joke framing holds no weight legally.
Under UK law, ejaculating on someone's
belongings without consent, especially
in the workplace, can breach multiple
serious legal standards. Number one, the
Equality Act of 2010, sexual harassment.
The Equality Act defined sexual
harassment as unwanted conduct of a
sexual nature which has the purpose or
effect of violating someone's dignity or
creating an intimidating, hostile,
degrading, humiliating, or offensive
environment. Ejaculating on someone's
clothes, even without physical conduct,
squarely qualifies. The intent doesn't
matter. The effect on the victim does.
Joking or claiming it was a prank is
irrelevant under the law.
Employers have a legal duty to prevent
and address this behavior. Failure to
act can make them vicariously liable.
Number two, health and safety at work
act 1974.
Employers must provide a workspace safe
from risks and health. Sexual
harassment, not even physical, creates a
physiologically unsafe workplace.
Failing to prevent or investigate it can
breach this act. Number three, Criminal
Law Sexual Offense Act 2003. While
prosecution would depend on
circumstances, acts involving sexual
activity without consent directed at
property can be fall under sections
covering indecent exposure, outraging
public decency, sexual assault if
contact occurred, harassment or stalking
if part of a pattern. There have been UK
cases where ejaculating on properly or
living bodily fluids was prosecuted as
sexual misconduct or harassment.
Number four, employment tribunal
precedence. UK employment tribunals have
repeatedly ruled that non-cont sexual
acts like exposing oneself, setting
explicit materials, or masturbating near
someone constitute sexual harassment if
they create a hostile environment. Doing
this on company time or property
dramatically increases liability.
But KP, I hear your thoughts. You lied
about the statement. That part was an
assumption. In my original statement
about this incident, I said I've never
made a video like this, which Mr. Enter
a lie. Even though I never had a chance
to clarify, nor did he reach out to
clarify. He kind of just ran with it.
What I was referring to is that I had
never broken a case like the DA Games or
the Saber allegations. The video I did
covering Lily Orchard was done with
statements with victims that were
already publicly logged. The only new
information was my own experiences. This
was totally different. But the voice
actor incident, no one brought up this
directly in the comments, but some
commented on the fact that I asked
people to work on a volunteer basis. I
understand that volunteering is a very
personal choice for many, but something
that was left out in the exchange he
showed is that he offered to do this in
the past. The spicy comment was just a
critique on it being non-traditional to
my usual content, which is why something
like this posted without context or
consent should have happened. This same
person then complained the use of the
same image in Saber's video was a
violation of their consent, which I
found both ironic and hypocritical.
But cartoon she? Well, I first would
like to thank this guy for being fair
compared to the rest of you [\h__\h]
Hogians. But I want to stop right in the
midi loft this now. Although you and
anyone can say this is my opinion, the
argument doesn't work when you are
literally one of the first sources to
report on the issue before I have the
chance to figure out how to respond.
This isn't an opinion you're peeing into
the void. This is an opinion that is
actively shaping how people are
responding to the story and listening to
an opinion about a video that was taken
down. If you would have waited on me
before posting, the main part of your
video could have been the DA Games
highlights, which was originally the
goal. I don't know. I don't think you
thought about it, but coverage like that
also has consequences of harassment if
not addressed carefully. That's why I
took my own video down. Those factors
can be drastically irresponsible if you
are leading with interpretations and
facts that aren't backed up. Plus, it
seems like your goal was clear from the
start. For example, here's a clip from
the original video that cartoon she
interpreted as an ego reflection. Maybe
I said that because John Stewart and I
are also Jewish and I relate to his
representation. No matter how you
characterize it, this had an influence.
You are responsible for how the public
reacts just like everyone else. But what
about Brony Fand? For those of you who
don't remember, Bernie Fandone is a user
who originally broke the original
allegation on another YouTuber named
Black Griffin. You are welcome to
research that case if you are new and
come up with your own conclusions. But
what I didn't know at the time is that
Fandote is also someone who has a very
problematic views. I don't know why
you're hunting predators if you talk
about Lollcon like this. Also, for the
record, it was Brony Fandone's idea to
connect me to Amy with the intention of
putting said testimony in the video,
misunderstood me, and then proceeded to
throw me under the bus, even though he
said he wasn't going to do that. I don't
really have any comments besides I won't
be engaging with him again. The
creepiness I wasn't aware of, and he is
or was very mentally ill, so I hope he
gets the help he needs.
No, asset use is a mess. And although we
used assets under fair use and under
transformative work properties, I admit
that some things slid by near the end.
And that's why I took the video down and
why those mirrors are probably next.
Sorry for that girl that got mad at me
on Tumblr. But transformative law in the
United States is especially tricky and
sites like Tik Tok thrive on reusable
content and because it's based in China
is able to get around said laws. Bet you
didn't know that. As well, it is an
industry standard for actors to
sometimes not have full scripts when
working. But this shouldn't be a problem
anyway since I don't plan on making any
more videos like this anytime soon. This
is a lie.
But Saver was just trying to be
responsible. I understand the sentiment,
but something that is never brought up
is that it is borderline illegal to make
someone take a pregnancy test without
their consent in the United States,
which is where the incident takes place.
Don't believe me? I've linked cases in
the description. Forcing someone to take
a pregnancy test is not being
responsible. It's reproductive coercion,
a violation of privacy and consent. In
the US, a potential father has no legal
right to compel a test or access medical
records. That's the law. Wrap it before
you tap it. Well, what about the
voicemails? So, this is going into why,
as much as there are a few people
asking, I'm not going to talk to anyone
about this because I've already been
burned with this whole situation. Now,
during the immediate aftermath of this
video, I was taking interviews to both
acknowledge the video was bad, but to
try to direct attention back to the DA
Games documentation, but people were
more concerned with the other side of
the story. More specifically, this guy
named Beckett. Becket was already
planning on covering the video. But in
honesty, I wasn't really in a position
at that point to answer any questions,
and I should have advocated for myself a
bit better. Regardless, information was
coming out, and Becca convinced me that
Emily and Bernie Fanote had manipulated.
But what I didn't think about more
critically at the time. Now what was
available is that Saber told him and
guesses that it was Emily. But that's
not enough information to say without
100% doubt, which we'll get to more in a
second, but that it's someone is
innocent or guilty. Still, Becca
convinced me that this was fact. But the
thing is it's not. Then I cried and then
I panicked and then made a bad decision
and then it escalated, but then it was
talked about. And this is why I wanted
to take space from all of this. I wanted
a chance to sit with everything myself
without being pulled in different ways.
But to cope convincing people and acting
that Emily's reputation in the Skype
logs are finite proof is incredibly
dangerous. It misleads people to what
evidence actually is. It enforces myths
about trauma and abuse.
>> Bottom line, trying to convince people
that those logs aren't enough is just
ethically shaky. It's actively harmful.
It spreads misinformation, reinforces a
dangerous myth, and manipulates people
into simplistic conclusions about deeply
complex events. If you want to argue
context, fine. If you want to say this
raises questions, sure. But the second
someone calls it a smoking gun, then
we've left the realm of good faith
discussions.
Uh, cut this part out. Cut this part
out. Cut this part out. This is for the
one under it. I'm guessing you want
these spaced. I don't know. Days never
finished. mess has got me working. And
dude, don't tell me you're not being
biased if you were literally
interviewing former friends of mine
about me without giving me a chance to
comment on their accounts or even be
aware that this is happening. What does
this have to do with anything discussed
in the video? Or is this just there to
damn my character a bit? This is classic
defensive psychology. It's classic
deflection psychology. She's lying means
we don't have to wrestle with the facts.
She's too immature to understand means
we don't have to hear her perspective.
She's doing this for attention. Means we
don't have to question the system. It's
not like they know something bad about
you. It's that they need to make people
believe something bad about you or else
your points still stand.
>> And dude, I criticized your approach and
your framing and you threw a name
calling tantrum even in your title. Your
title response screams that and you want
to be taken seriously. This looks like
textbook projection, my guy. And for the
record, Henry was not present for the
Rachel Bloom thing. And that's not what
directly happened. Henry was not there
for the con he mentioned with Jen Blake.
And this was something between me and
her that she previously approved. If she
had any issue, she could have come to
talk to me. My issues with race were not
frankly involving Casey. I did not just
sit there and curse him out. And most
importantly, whatever stories Casey was
being told, she should have come to talk
to me about them directly. Withholding
truth because you think someone can't
handle it isn't kindness at all. It's
controlled disguise as concern. When you
decide for someone else that they can't
handle certain information, what you're
really saying is, "I don't trust you to
make decisions about your own life."
There's a big difference between saying,
"I'm scared this will hurt you," and
saying, "You're too immature to know
this." The first is honest
vulnerability. The second is pit
ballistic. If you're deciding what I can
or can't handle without asking me,
you're not protecting me. You're
patronizing me. Number three, it shifts
the power dynamic and not in a healthy
way. Real friendship is built on mutual
trust and respect.
But with holing information flips that
balance, suddenly one person is a
gatekeeper of reality and the other is a
child that can't be trusted with the
truth. That power imbalance corrods the
foundation of a relationship. Because if
one person's always deciding what the
other can and should know, then that's
not really friends anymore. It's
managing them. And when people feel
that, even if they don't know why, they
feel betrayed later. Number four,
protecting someone from discomfort
actually stunts their growth. When
someone withholds something because
you're not ready for it, they're often
thinking in short term. I don't want to
upset them now. But discomfort isn't the
enemy. It's how people develop
resilience, emotional intelligence, and
wisdom.
If you shel someone from reality, they
will never get the chance to build those
scales. You're not sparring them from
pain. You're spending their ability to
grow. Another strong line. Choosing
between silence because you think I'm
too fragile isn't kindness. It's rubbing
me that chance to grow from the truth.
Number five. It's often about your
discomfort, not theirs. This is the
uncomfortable truth. Most people who say
they're withholding information to
protect someone are really trying to
avoid their own guilt, fear, or
awkwardness. They're not protecting the
friend. They're protecting themselves
from the fallout of honesty and that's
not worth naming because if the
motivation is selfish even
subconsciously it stops being a moral
choice and starts being a control
tactic. The bottom line withholding
important truth because you think
someone can't handle it isn't
compassion. It's condescension. It
denies them the agency infantilizes them
and often protects you more than it
protects them. True respect means
trusting people with the truth and
supporting them through the fallout, not
deciding on their behalf when they're
too weak to know it.
>> There was also an alleged incident that
Beckett, so clear in his convictions,
tried to imply Emily, via a private
discussion that her childhood trauma was
not valid because she wasn't vocal about
it. Like, excuse me, are you so
convinced your boy made no mistakes at
all in this case that you think you have
the right to dictate someone else's
traumatic experiences as a child? Now,
regardless of how you view Emily, this
isn't okay. I think this moment for me
highlighted the desperation here. This,
to me, seemed like an unhealthy, aching
need to dismiss these accusations that
someone will act as an unethical
authority to someone else's lived human
experiences. That's not okay. No one
should be questioning other people's
experiences that they were not there
for. Period. Like, why are you so
desperate to present this story as
objective fact when that's not what is
happening? Trust me, bro. Look,
something to keep in mind is that no one
in this conversation is a cop. No one,
to my knowledge, is a mental health
expert, including me. My original point
was just to consider both sides of the
story with how the perfect victim myth
and trauma memory work. There's an
argument to be made that this is what
the inconsistencies boil down to. Hell,
to give the benefit of the doubt, that
might be what's happening to Saber a
bit. My point is that we can never know.
I was never in the room. Neither were
you, I assume. But when we keep these
aspects in mind, there's no clear-cut
answer to what situation entailed, and I
should have separated myself from that
whole conversation. So, the DA games
documentation could stand on its own.
Now, the perfect victim myth is about
using an accuser's reputation to dismiss
the validity of their claims and to
question if they are telling the truth.
This is a real psychological thing, not
something I made up. Whether you believe
Emily or not, no one can deny that
Emily's past history is affecting how
this story is being told. The perfect
victim myth is the false belief that
only people who act a certain way, calm,
consistent, blameless, and immediately
reporting abuse, are credible victims.
It's used to discredit survivors whose
reactions or histories don't fit that
narrow, unrealistic mold, or even
through trauma, often cause delayed
reporting, memory gaps, continued
contact with the perpetrator, or messy
emotional responses. The other part is
trauma memory. People have called out
Emily's inconsistencies in detail, and I
understand that on face value. But
trauma memory theory is also something
to keep in mind while consuming this
information. Trauma memory refers to the
way the brain encodes and recalls
traumatic events differently from
ordinary memories. Because trauma
activates the body survival systems,
memories can become fragmented,
disorganized, or incomplete. Details may
shift over time, and recall might be
delayed. These inconsistencies don't
mean someone is lying. They're a well
doumented feature of how trauma affects
the brain. So even though it's been well
documented that Emily's stories are
inconsistent, that alone is a harmful
standard to be setting for victims in
general. And the fact that those
documented effects were not even
mentioned, even with a keep in mind
audience, sometimes trauma can cause
memory loss issues, but I don't think
this is happening here. Here's why. I
know I'm not one to talk, but this
coverage got a lot of views and you
couldn't be bothered to ask a mental
health expert or double check this. And
that brings me to the Skype logs. For
those who are not following the case,
Saber was able to find his Skype log
sometime after the original accusation
started taking off on Twitter. They are
where the baby trapping story
originates. It's been interpreted as a
smoking gun or proof that the contact
between the two of them was consensual.
What the thing is, those Skype logs,
those are context, not proof. That's the
exact definition of circumstantial
evidence. Things that might support
version of events but can't prove what
happened inside that room. The only
thing that can prove that is footage
from inside the hotel room, which
doesn't exist. I assume, I hope. If this
was a court case, the sky logs that the
evidence wouldn't come close to meeting
the beyond a reasonable doubt standard
and even possibly dismissed. And the
fact that they're trying to spin it as
proof is disingenuous at best. Beckett
wants Saber to be innocent. That bias is
showing in how he interpreted my short
speaking patterns, my coping mechanisms,
and his general response to the first
part of this video. He's not following
the evidence. He's trying to force the
evidence to fit a conclusion he already
likes. That's not analysis. That's an
agenda. There's a huge difference
between I think this points towards
innocence and this proves innocence. The
former is a theory. The latter is a lie.
But KP, I hear your thoughts. What about
how Emily still talked to Saber before
or after the allegations? This is not
rare. It's actually documented as common
in trauma cases. Studies on assault
survivors show a significant percentage
maintain some level of communication
with the perpetrator afterwards. Not
because they weren't harmed, but because
trauma doesn't erase the social,
emotional, or power dynamics at play.
Examples that habitantly a teen still
messaging the teacher who groomed them.
A victim laughing politely with the
co-orker who assaulted them at an office
party. A survivor texting an ex, hope
you're okay, because they're scared of
what will happen if they don't. for some
key documentation and studies. This
article examines how and why some
survivors continue interacting with
their asalants after an assault. It
discusses dynamics like power
imbalances, coercion, social pressure,
emotional ties, and the survivor safety
calculus. Man, I [\h__\h] failed
calculus. Although this is more about
disclosure and navigating post-t trauma
life, it includes interview data in
which survivors describe ongoing
contact, sometimes forced, sometimes
voluntary with a person who harmed them
and the psychological complexity behind
that. This is more of a general
reference text on trauma responses. It
explains how trauma can lead to survival
behaviors, emotional regulation
difficulties, and relationship paradoxes
such as ambivalence towards the
perpetrator. While it doesn't always
name continued contact, in every case,
it frames how trauma affects behavior in
contexts like this. At the end of the
day, if your argument only works by
pretending uncertainty doesn't exist,
then you're not seeking truth. You're
seeking comfort. But KP, I hear you
thinking, why do people want this to be
so cut and dry? A couple of reasons.
>> Number one, emotional investment,
cognitive dissonance. If Becket admired
Cyber, worked with him, or built any
part of his identity around believing
Cyber is a good guy, then hearing a
credible allegation forces a psychic
collision in his head. The person I
respective might be harmful versus, "I
believe good people don't do bad
things." This tension is called
cognitive dissonance, and the human
brain hates it. Most people resolve it
by not questioning their worldview, but
attacking the new information. That's
how you get people twisting themselves
into knots to prove someone is innocent
because the alternative threat their own
selfimage.
Number two, protecting his own ego and
credibility. If Peek publicly defended
Cyber early, then his own reputation is
now tied to Cyers. If Caber is guilty,
Becket looks foolish, naive, or even
complicit. That's a hard pill to
swallow. So instead of facing that, he
doubles down. This is the most common
escalation pattern there is in public
scandals. Defenders don't back down
because they think they're right. They
don't back down because they stake their
own credibility in it. Number three,
fear of what it says about the
ecosystem.
If Sabre is guilty, then that means the
ecosystem that Becket belongs to, fandom
spaces, YouTube culture, and creator
communities, is capable of harboring
predators. And that truth is terrifying
for people who built their careers
inside those worlds. So instead, they
cling to he's innocent because it allows
them to believe this system is fine.
It's not really about defending one man.
It's defending their sense of safety and
control. Number four, control the
narrative. If Becket flames himself as a
rational voice who knows what's true, he
gets to control how people talk about
the story. That gives him social power.
and social power, especially in internet
culture, is indictive.
Claiming there's no smoking gun or
telling a survivor they should should
have spoken up isn't just bad trauma
literacy. It's attempts to reshape the
story so that Becket is the authority
and you're the one who doesn't get it.
Bottom line, it's not necessarily about
Saber's innocence at all. It's about
Becket's comfort, Beckett's image,
Becket's worldview, and maybe even
Becket's power. That's why people twist
themselves into pretzels to defend
someone because the alternative forces
them to question themselves. Cognitive
dissonance 101 and why it's showing up
here. Cognitive dissonance is that awful
itchy tension our brains feel when we're
holding two conflicting belief at once.
Example, Saber is a good person. Good
people don't assault others. There are
allegations Saber assaulted someone. All
three can't comfortably coexist.
Something has to give. And instead of
changing the first belief, Sabre is a
good person, many people would distort
or reject the third one, the allegations
must be false. To reduce that tension,
>> but this line is a kicker. Becket makes
a comment about how he never stated he
wasn't going to be unbiased in his
coverage.
>> Number one, he wanted to win a nar
battle, not seek truth. Once someone
stakes their ego or worldview on certain
versions of events, Saber is innocent,
Emily is lying, KP is wrong. They they
stop acting like a reporter and start
acting like a liar. A lawyer's job isn't
to find the truth. It's to make their
site sound right. By admitting his bias,
Becca is basically saying the quiet part
out loud. He didn't enter that video
asking what really happened. He entered
asking, "How do I convince someone my
version is right?" Number two, cognitive
dissonance again, but turned into a
self-preservation.
If Becca's internal story is SE is
innocent and he's already publicly
aligned with that, backing up now would
mean admitting he might have been wrong.
He might have hurt people with his
coverage. His credibility may take a
hint. And for a lot of people, that's
unbearable. So instead, they doubled
down even harder and built whole videos
around protecting that narrative. That's
not logic. That's a subconscious safe
face reflex. Number three, Bose, clout,
and audience reinforcement. Let's be
blunt. outrage videos, especially ones
where someone declares themselves as the
reasonable voice against the emotional
mob, perform really well on YouTube. If
Becket's audience is mostly saber
defenders or phenom contrarians, then
there's pressure to deliver a video that
confirms what they already want to
believe. Bias isn't a bug in that model.
It's the selling point. Number four,
objectivity isn't the point.
Delegitimizing you is. Even in an
obviously biased video, you can still
achieve a goal, undermining your
credibility. If Becket can convince
people you are irrational, emotional,
unreliable, or making it up, then they
never have to deal with the actual
content of your arguments. That's why
people like him focus on your tone, your
character, your phrasing, anything
except the systemic issues you're
raising. Because if the messenger is
tainted, they can't be ignored.
Bottom line, if someone admits they're
biased and still steps into a public
analysis role, they're not
investigating. They're compelling.
They're trying to win a story, not
understand a situation. And that's why
his arguments fall apart under scr
because they're not built to hold truth.
They're built to hold comfort.
>> You just admitted you were trying to
pressure me based on biased and
conditional evidence. Why would I have
taken the call if I would have known
this was your intention? Ending. I think
one of the worst parts of this process
is not only the fact that the kids in
the DA game spaces are getting
overlooked by the rest of the Fallout
with the video. It's just that I love
doing this. I love making content. I
thought I could help this community take
accountability to the kids they have in
their sphere. So, if you gain anything
from this, please look into the
documentation because unlike the Saber
and Emily situation, there is mountains
of proof grooming has gone on in their
spaces unaccounted for. And the general
consensus is that Will Ryan is too
conflict avoidant to take care of his
community and protect these kids from
people in his own community and from his
lack of boundaries. This is public
gaslighting. They are trying to rewrite
definitions of evidence, consent, and
credibility, shift blame, distort
context, not clarify the truth, but
erode it until people give up trying to
find it. They're doing it to convince
the bystanders, the people who don't
know the full story and might be swayed
by repetition and certainty. So, I urge
you to check out the Parlo videos I have
linked in the description to get an idea
of the full scope of the situation and
keep what I said last time. And the
thing is, I love doing this. I love
analyzing media and getting to the core
of why media shapes us so much. I am
turning comments off for this video
because my mental health literally
cannot take anymore. I am turning off
comments because this conversation
deserves more than knee-jerk outrage. It
deserves careful thought and
accountability. My goal was never to win
an argument. My goal is to protect kids,
demand better from creators, and remind
everyone that consent, truth, and safety
matter than fandom comfort.
I hate you.