#fauxpology

[eroticcannibal]

This really is pissing me off so much. Even if it is a 100% legitimate suicide attempt (which is a big fucking if, its not exactly difficult to half ass a suicide attempt to guarantee survival and is something habitual manipulators do all the time, and he is a habitual manipulator), he still did it in the most dramatically manipulative way he possibly could specifically to hurt hbomberguy and silence anyone else criticising him. All because his fauxpology didn't get the reaction he wanted. It is so obvious and I cannot believe people are falling for it. Now he knows all he has to do is cry suicide every time he suffers consequences and it will work. Fuck sake.

[theteablogger]

Andy, who is well known for his fauxpologies, lectures people on how to apologize and take responsibility for their actions without making excuses.

[ghostsandyoumightdie]

James Somerton's fauxpology reminded me how much it pisses me off that media consumers are blamed for the enshittification of entertainment. Our economic demand (the want or need for a product) is being treated like a peremptory demand (authoritative, on par with an employer demanding a quota).

The instability of your gig job is not our responsibility. The fact that your income is tied to how many millions of people see an ad YouTube tacked to your video is not our responsibility. The choice to create faster, shittier, unethical videos is a deliberate choice made by you the creator to try and draw a bigger audience of ad-watchers -- that is not our fault and not our responsibility.

It sucks. Capitalism sucks. Artists and writers shouldn't have to shill out their work for pennies of ad revenue just to survive. But again, it is not the consumers' fault or responsibility. We did not hire you, we are not your employers, and you are not obligated to steal from others to entertain us.

[bonesandthebees]

I’m on my period too, what is this madness???

idk, on some level I’m weirdly relieved by how awful Wilbur’s fauxpology was. If he’d said something even halfway decent, then right now I’d be agonizing over whether he really meant it or not, and I’d be empathizing with how terrible he might hypothetically feel. (I’ve had to sit with the knowledge that I’ve hurt people I cared about and it’s a unique hell, so I can’t help pitying anyone who experiences that remorse, no matter how much they deserve it.)

But instead the man just straight up announced that he doesn’t have a conscience and the person I liked never existed at all. Which sucks so much!!!!! But at least it’s closure, kind of.

WHY ARE WE ALL ON OUR PERIOD RN WHEN DID WE ALL SYNC UP

yeah tbh a discord server I'm in was talking about that earlier. how it's almost a good thing that wilbur's apology was so callous and self-centered. like, if it had even been somewhat genuine sounding with an even half-decent apology in it, then you'd have a lot more fans debating whether or not to keep supporting him. but instead he just wrote a god awful apology that was entirely about himself while trying to shirk off any real accountability for the harm he caused shelby! he made it so much easier for everyone to dogpile him and point out how much of an asshole he was. like, that statement was pretty much the equivalent of shooting himself in the foot. not only did he identify himself as shelby's abuser and admit to doing everything she accused him of, he then proceeded to try and shrug it all off and make it all about himself. shoutout to wilbur for finally showing his true colors.

it sucks, but yeah, it definitely feels like closure.

[dotthings]

The lack of empathy and basic judgment about acceptable behaviors being shown right now by spn twitter stans who are caping for an actor man's bad behavior sure was a reminder memo for me on how bad spn stan twitter can be for mental health.

I set the bar so low. SO LOW. I didn’t set it low enough.

Imaging believing it’s crazy to think that fans should be able to make untagged tweets with opinions on a piece of media without an actor man barging in to tell them to shut up, and to mind actor man’s subsequent behavior. When the initial misfired “joke” (he claims it was a joke) didn’t go over well, actor man then makes a string of objectively inappropriate jokes and“lol JK!!!” fixes all problems. And then it’s the fault of anyone who minded, of course. Anything’s ok so long as you go “lol jk” afterwards.

Actor man then flounces to IG with a post that further throws fans under a bus, and deletes his twitter, then returns only to make a long-winded passive aggressive fauxpology that backhandedly threw even more blame onto the fans. Still not good behavior, and does not make him a hero or the victim. Okay, he’s human. Maybe he’s trying. That means he can mess up and get it wrong. It doesn’t mean “cape for him at all costs.” It doesn’t mean be awful about anyone with the good judgment to recognize there was a problem here.

So a chorus of stans lacking in critical thinking and simple, basic good judgment and empathy are wailing about "snowflakes who have no sense of humor" or screeching about imaginary "bullies" when actor man instigated a pointless, stupid drama, tripled down, acted in a melodramatic way when he got criticism for the behavior, and his stans spread misinformation or deliberate lies over what actually happened and are giving off all kinds of red flags about being people to avoid, in my opinion.

None of these people would be able to take being treated how actor man treated fans (accidentally as a joke or not, it happened) or be able to take how they are treating other fans.

There’s people using this “incident” to give themselves a false sense of moral superiority. Or in some cases, maliciously weaponize it, virtue signaling for grudgewank reasons.

And then people wonder why some of us don’t want to go to twitter standom any more.

Maybe the people with the false sense of self righteousness while being so deeply unkind and creating an environment that feels deeply unsafe for other fans are the ones who need a break from the internet, take a break from their self-congratulatory circle jerk to step back and think about their own behavior and actual human beings.

[cyarsk52-20]

Mr. Aldean.

First, you grew up in MACON. Which as memory serves me well, is far from being a "small town."

Now, John Cougar Mellencamp wrote songs about living in a small town. And he did it WITHOUT invoking the image of Sundown towns or shooting a video at the site of a lynching.

Whether you like it or not, flag burning is protected speech under the same First Amendment you claim to hold dear. Which is why I have no problem using the confederate flag as kindling.

You have an opportunity to educate yourself rather than this lame ass fauxpology and please, don't think of using Kane Brown, Darius Rucker or any Black country artist as your convenient "see I'm not a racist" card.

Oh, and Journey sang about a small town and it's a very popular song. So have Creedence Clearwater Revival.

Cry in your beer.

What cracks me up is people think it's just small town folks who look out for each other.

This small-town-values shtick needs a reality check. Yes, folks in such places help each other (as folks do everywhere) but small-town people can be exceptionally cold, judgmental, and downright pernicious. There is no inherent wisdom or righteousness found in a one-horse hamlet.

There are neighborhoods in big cities where this happens. Especially when there are a lot of older Black and Brown folks who live there.

But I don't expect Mr. Aldean to know that.

Mr. Aldean,

You know who's video was also pulled from CMT?

Garth Brooks - "The Thunder Rolls."

Why?

Because his song was about domestic violence and the wife finally pushed to the breaking point.

Not to compare you to Garth Brooks, whom as far as I remember has NEVER dressed in blackface at a Halloween party (see picture below in case you forgot).

Frankly, I'd much rather listen to Garth Brooks than your crappy ode to the 1950's courtesy of Foxed News.

John Denver wrote a song about, of all places, West Virginia, and it didn’t involve him and his boys beating up someone for having different political viewpoints.

Like hello!!!???

"Nutbush City Limits" by the Queen of Rock and roll, Tina Turner!

"Still they Ride" by Journey.

"Lodi" by CCR.

Heck even a group called Chapel Hart.

They sing songs about their small town and imagine that, they do it without invoking the image of Sundown towns, intolerance and shooting their videos at the site of a lynching.

Who knew?

Remember what happened to "The Chicks?"

Also, they dropped the "Dixie" part because they understood history as well as knowing their fanbase isn't lily-white.

Lady A did the same thing.

Some people evolve and do better.

Then there's Jason Aldean.

He knows better he chooses not to do better

So Mr. Aldean,

CMT pulling your crappy video isn't "cancel culture."

It's CONSEQUENCE CULTURE, also known as FAFO - something you're not rightly used to.

It’s the big city culture

Now, about to listen to Southern Fried True Crime and hear about all the stuff y'all get up to in them small towns 😉.

[ao3cassandraic]

Crowley the Maker, God the Wrecker, Part 2

(Part 1 discusses how angel!Crowley makes things and God wrecks them, and him as well.)

And then. She blessed damned bloody well goes right back on Her bullshit. Next time we hear about Her actually doing anything, it's the Flood. She goes and wrecks a whole region of the world, and everything and everyone in it.

And now, curiously, I must detour into speech-act theory. (Said I’d get there.) Speech-act theory grows out of the observation that under the proper circumstances, speaking is action — it actually makes a change in the world, all by itself. A classic example often used to teach this idea is an utterance we’ve seen already: “Let there be light!”

Angels aside, however, speech acts are pretty common among us humans, if you look. “I now pronounce you…” and then you are! The trick is teasing out the different kinds of speech acts (there’s a whole-ass taxonomy, but it’s not necessary here so I’ll bypass it), and working through what the necessary preconditions are for speech to turn into an action. If I say “I now pronounce you…” for example, you actually aren’t. I have no societal authority to marry people, so the necessary preconditions for the speech act have not been met.

Returning to the Flood... to add insult to horrific injury, She has graduated to inadequate fauxpologies! Talk is cheap. So are performative "rain bows," whatever those are. The "rain bow" is supposed to create a change in the world: the inability for Her to wreck it again. Does Crowley believe this? Does he hell -- just look at his face. To Crowley, actions are what counts -- and Hers are unforgivable (arc word!). Of course She's going to wreck stuff again -- it's what She does. So "rain bow" speaker-sincerity precondition has failed, ergo no speech act.

There's a fair bit of fic and fanon about Crowley rescuing whom or what he can from the Flood. I do think we've noticed that he's an action snek!

Next up, in our Ineffables' meeting chronology, is Job. God still can't be arsed to lift a divine finger -- too “busy” making disgusting bets through backchannels -- and She's even taught Heaven to be hypocritical too, by outsourcing evil actions to Hell! (How many times did She have to say "deniability" before Gabriel got it, I wonder?) And She’s out to wreck a largely-innocent family (bit entitled, but largely innocent), doubling down on Her hypocrisy by delegating the job to Hell Herself, via permit.

And Crowley thinks this is bullshit. So while Aziraphale wrings his hands reading the permit with Muriel and then the archangels, fixer Crowley does what he can to fix the situation -- by (re)making, because he is a maker at heart. He makes goats into crows! He (along with Aziraphale) loves Jemimah because she made a pot! He (re)makes a temporary refuge! He makes children into geckos! (After giving Ennon and Keziah the blessed good scare they deserve.)

He also pokes at be vs. do yet again: “You’re an angel. Angels can’t be tempted, can you? … Well, there you are, then. You’re free to try the food.” He’s not tempting Aziraphale into gluttony — well, he is, but only secondarily — he’s tempting the angel into hypocrisy, the same hypocrisy She routinely engages in. The sin where "do" is incongruent with "be."

Only it’s not, really, is it? Because eating isn’t anywhere near on the same level of unnecessary destructiveness as flooding whole civilizations or destroying a blameless family. So despite Crowley’s “see you in Hell,” he can’t follow through on it, any more than he can on murdering Ennon, Keziah, and Jemimah. He just can’t do it.

And then we get back to speech-act theory.

Poor distraught Aziraphale believes he committed a speech act when he gave his word as an angel that Job’s children are Job’s new children. He believes that solely on the basis of that lie — which, in its way, could qualify as a speech act; it made Job's old children into his new children — he has become a demon. After all, isn’t that how it worked with angel!Crowley? Say the wrong thing, get wrecked by God? Crowley knows there’s a precondition that hasn’t been met here, however: God has to actually notice someone’s tried to thwart Her will. God’s oblivious, fortunately, wittering on to Job about ostriches and whales. And Crowley won’t let on, so… failed speech act. Nothing’s changed. Nothing has to change.

But speech, in Good Omens as in the human world, is where “be” and “do” meet. And... I think... that was my point.

[thesherrinfordfacility]

Longwinded anon, having done more of the writing I need to be doing, back again in response to your post about the apology & the apology dance vs. forgiveness. Pratchett narratives in particular are not usually about forgiveness and redemption arcs; they're about choosing differently. At the airfield, Novel!Aziraphale doesn't ask Novel!Crowley to undergo some long penance and redemption, but just to acknowledge that they bear responsibility for having done their sides' work ("messing about," as Adam says) and now they need to stand up for the humans they've harmed. And that's it! In the series, Aziraphale's forgiveness comes in two brands: either it's cheap (he doesn't need Maggie's money, so what does it matter if she pays rent or not?) or, as you point out, it's a riposte to what he feels is an act of cruelty on Crowley's part. It's a performance of benevolence, not the thing itself! But he sincerely /apologizes/. He really does admit it when he understands that he has got something wrong, not necessarily by saying "sorry," but by naming and owning up to the mistake. We hear him do so three times in S1eps 5 and 6, and we find out in S2ep1 that he has admitted getting things wrong in 1650, 1793, and 1941 (and since Crowley cuts him off there, probably later as well).

The thing is, the silly apology dance is explicitly an act that Crowley expects Aziraphale to do. "I don't do the dance," he growls, when Aziraphale tells him it's his turn. And what's wrong here is that Crowley never apologizes for anything. He fauxpologizes when he tries to get Aziraphale to come with him after the bandstand argument (folks, "whatever I said I didn't mean it" is not an apology), and then he's doing it /again/ here (because he doesn't think Aziraphale is right! in fact, he's withholding crucial information that Aziraphale has a right to know!). Aziraphale uses forgiveness on Crowley as a means of displacing his own anger, while Crowley so far uses apologies on Aziraphale instrumentally, as a means of persuading him to do something Crowley's way. The implications of Crowley making Aziraphale perform a ridiculous and, quite frankly, somewhat humiliating dance whenever he admits he's in the wrong maybe need some more investigation?

LWA✨ alert!!! brings me such joy, i cannot tell you! congrats on achieving Jobs, far more than the GO brainrot has allowed me to do today

for anyone else - previous ask talking about I Forgive You.

thank you for highlighting aziraphale's concept of forgiveness in the example of forgiving the overdue rent, i had completely forgotten about that!!! i can see where it could be considered cheap, but i do think that whilst there is definitely an ulterior motive to it (by god does this angel love his shostakovich, and he's wealthy enough to boot), he does completely acknowledge that he did so out of purely selfish action (to crowley as they head back to the shop from the Naked Man Friend conversation).

the fact that it was a kind thing to do for maggie? yes, thats a byproduct, but i think aziraphale is so relatively kind by true nature that he doesn't even realise he's doing it, and the equal measure of kindness served alongside his self-interest is just a part of his personality... he doesn't seem to derive any self-important pride or conceit from being kind, it almost seems like it doesn't even register in the moment - so my conclusion from that is that his kindness isn't performative, it's largely sincere and natural.

so yes, this absolutely solidifies for me that aziraphale definitely knows and deliberately accentuates the difference between forgiveness, and I Forgive You. i thank you for your comment on my interpretation of I Forgive You (i truly crave validation) because as with anything analysis-wise, i wasn't entirely sure i had interpreted it well enough to have a valid conclusion on why aziraphale said this. imo, it is absolutely just benevolence; it's not kindness, not an offer of redemption, nor true forgiveness, but the only way that aziraphale can wound and hit back without sacrificing his perception of himself as an angel, or as a good person. it's easily deniable that he was hurting crowley, and only crowley knows what aziraphale was truly saying with those three words (in my eyes, putting it simply and bluntly, "fuck you, that hurt").

i talked a little in this post about how aziraphale seems to be able to learn from mistakes (granted, the post talks pretty exclusively about aziraphale learning from misplaced faith, but the principle remains). he essentially apologised to adam in crowley's time-hold (alternate plane? not sure) for assuming that adam would be inherently good or evil, rather than perhaps just human, and i think we can reliably interpret from this 'apology' (aziraphale doesn't say sorry, but instead acknowledges his short-sightedness which is just as valid, if not more) that aziraphale realises that he cannot go on seeing things in black and white; morality is not wholly binary.

whilst we haven't seen aziraphale do the apology dance, i think the delivery of his frustration and irritation when recounting how many times he did it for crowley really demonstrates how readily, without much question or hesitation, aziraphale must have performed it in the past when he felt he was in the wrong. by extension, it possibly calls into question how many times aziraphale may have done it when he wasn't in the wrong, but either did it to make crowley happy, or in order to keep the peace and ensure that they didn't fall out because of crowley's stubbornness to admit his faults.

obviously we don't know for sure that the 1793 and 1941 dances were in response to the events shown to us re; the Bastille or the Church scene/magician minisode respectively, but if they were, i can't quite see any instance where aziraphale would need to do the apology dance, and certainly don't see where crowley would be entirely blameless and merit receiving the dance himself. again, there may be other flashbacks from these years that we haven't seen, but i feel like the years were chosen specifically - and specifically to highlight that aziraphale may have done the dance but not actually been wholly at fault for anything.

which brings me to crowley. the concept of the apology dance and aziraphale (at least as far as known) being the only one to have done it indicates that the motif of crowley falling and him making various excuses for it carries all the way through to his inability to admit wrong. i realise thats fairly obvious, but stick with me because i think it goes hand in hand with crowley's ability to trust, and specifically trust aziraphale.

i think apologising for anything would indicate a vulnerability in crowley that he doesn't trust with anyone, and possibly doesn't even acknowledge himself. he breezes through his existence as if he is untouchable and unbothered, complete with matching swagger and barbed wire tongue, refusing to admit any kind of weakness. to be forgiven is to have apologised in the first place, and to have apologised is to admit wrong, and to admit wrong is to realise he may not be infallible. so his apologies, such as they are (which are mocking, perfunctory and sit precariously on the fence of being gaslighting), are shallow and skin-deep.

despite what others might like to believe about crowley, i firmly hold him as a master of manipulation, and getting the beholder to see whatever he wants them to see in order to satisfy his ulterior motive (however well-meaning that motive might be - ie. protecting aziraphale). the worst bit is that he is not even outright nasty and malicious about it by the point in the story that we see the dance; it's just simply ingrained in him that this is the best way to get aziraphale to do what he needs or wants... instead of, you know, communicating that aziraphale has been threatened and that is more important than crowley's hangup on gabriel... but of course that would be admitting that crowley may not be able to keep aziraphale from harm, and would actually allow aziraphale to have his own agency.

in terms of why crowley would force aziraphale into doing the dance is relatively unknown given that we haven't seen any context as to why aziraphale would 'need' to apologise in the first place (tone read: aziraphale probably doesn't at times). educated guess, however? i would hazard that there is an element of projection and resentment at work.

aziraphale, who is an angel with a bastard streak (that i think crowley does truly love, but also begrudges in equal measure), is able to be a bit of a bastard and largely get away with it without punishment, whereas crowley is a demon with 'a heart of gold' but is made to suffer for it pretty consistently. it would stand to reason that he'd force aziraphale to apologise needlessly, and in a humiliating manner, because ultimately it makes crowley feel good. there's also the element of superiority that crowley projects against aziraphale; to have him in subjugation and be vulnerable in admitting fault probably also feels to crowley like he still has status and worth.

the above makes it sound like i think crowley is a cruel piece of work, but i don't think that at all. he certainly has the ability and inclination to be cruel at times, but i don't think him an outright Bad person. but as ive remarked before, crowley has a very special ability to be brutal and vicious out of his own pain, and that's very, very understandable. unfortunately though, by nature of proximity, it seems that the main collateral damage always has to be, or at least linked to, aziraphale.

edit because further thought, especially in defence of crowley because balance: if we work with the emerging theory (putting 'theory' conservatively) that metatron is manipulating aziraphale, and also look at the fact that the archangels were manipulating aziraphale in s1 regarding the antichrist, we (see: me) actually need to let go of the notion that manipulation is an entirely hellish trait. it isn't - it's inherently neutral, but the motive for which you use it could taint it as good or evil.

crowley isn't, by large, manipulating out of maliciousness or twisted pleasure; we mostly see him do it in order to better protect aziraphale. that doesn't make the manipulation good per se, but it has good intentions (however much he may be tilting the scales by removing aziraphale's agency and keeping important information from him) and therefore is understandable.

it does however really highlight when he manipulates out of an almost - but not quite - sadistic pleasure or for no justifiable agenda at all. crowley is very much an end justifies the means kinda person, and doesn't care what he has to do, just that the job is done (a rhetoric that again is shared by both heaven and hell, and is more indicative of the import they both confer on having power than on efficiency).

but it would go some way to explaining why crowley does what he does re: manipulation; if the end result is what everyone wants and means everyone is safe, what does it matter if there is indeed collateral damage? that's pragmatism, and not the idealism of everything being perfect and happy and trauma-free every step of the way. and if we take into context crowley's experiences through the fall and what he has suffered by both the hands of heaven and hell, it's possible to empathise with why he will run full tilt towards a happy ending, no matter what destruction is left in his wake.

[izzyjazzhands]

It’s striking to me how in episode five, Ed’s planned and probably rehearsed “apology” to the crew is really a fauxpology, but in the same episode when he’s alone with Fang in the rowboat, he naturally says “I’m sorry” when he hears that Fang was scared of him. It seems intentional writing-wise, but I’m not sure yet what it means.

Maybe that Ed is capable of being a good person, but when it comes naturally and not when he’s trying to prove he’s good?

[glimmeringstones]

So is that whole fauxpology about how you never hold back in battle just to build hype or something?

No It is a genuine apology, pokemon are our companions after all, and any pokemon can be very powerful if you have fought along side it for many years.

I just feel bad that people think that they are weak, simply because I held back.

[wutbju]

All of us should take note.

THIS is an apology. Not a fauxpology. But a real apology.

[theteablogger]

Hi! Thank you so much for compiling this blog as a resource and archive of this man’s behavior. I’m curious if you know how/why Andy left the supernatural fandom; if there was some kind of large fall out like with bit of earth, or if he just generated enough ill will that he moved on. Thank you for your time and effort!

I think a number of factors contributed to Andy's exit from SPN fandom. One was that he started attending community college in August 2013 and didn't have as much free time as he'd had previously. Another was that he was receiving an increasing amount of criticism and negative attention on Tumblr, especially throughout 2014: there was the cancellation of Camp Ouroboros, talk of his stalking Osric Chau at DC Con, the Finelookingcat incident, and considerable backlash in response to his decision to participate in GISHWHES again. In addition to all this, the word was out about his long history of abuse and bad behavior to the point that he issued multiple fauxpologies and assembled an FAQ about it. SPN fans had been warned about him so many times over that Andy probably felt it was getting difficult to draw new people into his orbit. I think he decided that he'd gotten what he could out of the fandom and that it was time to move on to something else. He'd already been putting out feelers in the Teen Wolf and MCU fandoms throughout 2014, as SPN gradually faded away from his Tumblr, and by August he'd switched gears to SJ blogging.

[bosquedepaz]

💖🍝🥀 for anyone u want~

KASPER!!!! MY FRIEND!!! thank you for the ask ;w;

🥀 - has your f/o ever given you a bouquet of flowers? what kinds of flowers do they include?

yes! the cheapest pre-made one available. roses and babys breath, probably.

it was a fauxpology bouquet

💖 - what's the nicest compliment they've ever given you? what's the nicest compliment you've ever given them?

"i wouldn't traumatize you like that" "me neither"

🍝 - you guys go to a nice fancy restaurant together! what does your f/o order? what do you order? do you guys order a dessert? perhaps, to share?

he strikes me as a meat man... and we share a flan <3 (not his choice)

[cyarskj1899]

A whole bunch of these FOMO protesters ‘bout to learn this lesson too. Someone made that white girl from USC who smugly tore down posters and whose mother is a city Mayor, fauxpologize. Think you’re getting off like that?

[lonsdalewrite]

Without spoiling anything, the current chapter of The Claws of the Ounce is kind of wild.

It begins with Ash receiving the worst fauxpology ever. Her and Mailhairer go out to forget about it, and the outing basically turns into a date. Ash gets a piggyback ride, Mailhairer gets booped, and a design on a picnic blanket sparks thought on their place in the world and the unpredictability of life.

[breyeschow]

Tweeted

...have the gall to say in his fauxpology that it does not reflect his personal values. Plus if you look at his university page there is no mention of this happening, so spare me any genuine acts of transparency or contrition.

— Bruce Reyes-Chow ☮️ 🐝 🐑 (@breyeschow) Dec 15, 2022