#taking misattributed responsibility and blame that which has to be made up for

[aliusfrater]

similar cinematographic choices to portray the same imagery with insanely different circumstantial contexts

[vssoise]

Rhetoric

At the core of the matter, people don't want to have to make too much of an effort. Especially when they're happy. Perhaps more so when they're looking for someone to blame. What it comes down to, is that people want to live lives without conflict, either external or internal, because it causes discomfort. And if something causes discomfort, it is avoided, or ridiculed, or cast in the role of antogonizing at best, oppressing at worst.

This is my base assumption, anyway, upon which I make the following observations, as to why certain styles of speach/argument are so apparently effective on such a large portion of the population.

Unspoken Assumed Truths

The first offender, or should I say contributor to my inventory of rhetoric, shall be taken to be whom I unaffectionately call "Gumball guy". There was a video not too long ago making the rounds on facebook or some boor going around with gumballs, claiming he could explain the effects (or to use a word he'd probably find more appealing to his argument, consequences) of immigration using only his multitude of gumballs. Right off the bat, two things. He's saying he's going to simplify an obviously very complicated matter with multiple facets using children's sweets, and two, he says he's going to 'explain immigration' using gumballs. I will refer to this assumption that whatever he's going to say is indeed an 'explanation of immigration' (assumedly, as a phenomenon) as Ass 1 (as you can tell, I really don't like this guy). Now, let's get into his actual argument. He says that, since the point of immigration is to reduce the world's poverty level, it necessitates that we have a measure of the world's poor. Hence, each gumball, we shall say, is 100,000 people living below the poverty line. Ass 2: The point of immigration is to reduce the world's poverty level. I mean, what? Since when do countries perform this charity of letting in people of other countries who are below the poverty line specifically under the idea that letting these people will somehow magically lift them out of the poverty zone and therefore decrease the overall number of those living in poverty? I've never heard such an immediately stupid assumption. But this post is not about Gumball's guy's immigration video, it is on rhetoric, and so I digress. Gumball guy goes on to say that, because the countries in which there is a large level of poverty are reproducing at a rate below the poverty line that far outpaces the rate at which developed countries (like the USA, in his example) can let them in, in net, immigration is actually doing nothing to help reduce world poverty, and therefore, immigration and the allowing of the same are totally pointless and should be restricted. Did you see what he did? To the casual listener, more so perhaps to the listener who is inclined to believe a reason that can be used against immigration policy, there is no conflict of thought required. After all, he defined immigration's purpose, and showed quite handily with his gumballs that immigration does not fulfill that purpose. It therefore logically follows that his argument is valid. But this listener doesn't remember to question the basis on which his argument is made, because the speaker never explicitly says what his assumption about the purpose of immigration is. He never says "okay let's define what immigration is for, we think it is this" because that invites attention to it. Attention invites analysis, and analysis is the antidote to misdirection. And because he doesn't explicitly draw attention to this, the listener is all but fine to ignore it also, since it requires more mental effort on his part independently, to do so. Therefore, by never drawing attention to an analysis of his defined purpose of immigration, he allows (forces?) the passive listener to accept, even without the listener's knowledge, that his defined purpose for immigration, his assumption, is true. This is the clutch point. By not drawing attention to the base assumption, he can make whatever argument he wants, even as simple as the one he made using gumballs, and it comes across logical rather than fallacious in some way. It becomes a simple argument, and no one wants to fight that, because simple is nice. Logic is conflict free. Unspoken assumed truths lie at the base of all 'simplified' complicated issues.

The Relatable Misdirection

The first person who did this that made me realize this was a thing (perhaps I should have realized sooner?) was Simon Sinek. He had a video come out recently, or perhaps it has just been making the rounds recently, about Milennials and 'why we are the way we are'. I know, been done to death right? "Oh no, they take too many selfies, they're too self obsessed, they want everything handed to them, they don't want to work as hard" etc etc. 95% of it is generalizing rubbish. 5% of it probably true about certain individuals, as it would be for any generation. In any case, this Sinek video takes "the Curious Case of the Milennial in the Workplace", so to speak, and, since I'm here discussing rhetoric, not his video, and so I can get directly to his point, says that Milennials are the way they are because of a failure of parenting, but more so because of a failure of the workplace to recognize this failure of parenting and provide the appropriate guidance. Now, there are are so many things to be said to counter him almost immediately. Assuming he's right, why is the workplace's responsibility to provide the hitherto missing guidance? Let's not assume he's right at all, and chalk up his ideas of why milennials are any way to generational differences that seem to draw lines between any two generations. Or, we can consider one of the multiple other, more real factors, that probably contribute to milennnial unemployment, or unhappiness, or living at home (the three most commonly referred to problems of our generation, by the older generation who, apparently, were gutsy enough to do things the way they had to be done), like the worst economy to grow into since the 20s, a lack of environmental regulations, the rising problem of student debt. And those are just USA milennial problems, but of course, USA is representative of the world, to a lot of people. But coming back to his rhetoric, while we are poking holes in his arguments, there are more people who accept his statements as must-be truths. This is because of his set up to his assertions. He starts his video saying small things that milennials and others can relate to, differences between generations, endearing things that point out the differences without invoking contempt from older people nor defense from milennials. By doing this, he gains the favor of his audiance, which is all he needs, in the end. If the audiance likes you, they're much more likely to trust you, and if they trust you, they're more inclined to not put their mental faculties to work trying to find flaws in your argument. The easier they accept your assertions. This happens with senators too. When emailed or called about a certain policy or the other, a politician won't go directly to what he thinks he should do to achieve the results; no, doing so prematurely while you are still primed to disagree would be ruinous. Therefore, he will always start by setting the correct stage. Establish vague statements as shared goals, thinks like "we want every American to have a great life" and "we think all Americans deserve access to opportunity". Things that are vague enough and positive enough that you can't disagree, and things that establish a common ground enough to engender more trust and amiability with him than you were originally prepared to give. Then, when he gets into what specifically he's going to, he's primed you to be more receptive, and the problem is that those who do not want to dedicate more thought than they deem 'necessary', which is most people, decide they don't need to hear anymore, especially if it's a conflicting opinion that requires even more brain power to process.

This isn't a pejorative towards people who are less educated or less succesful at all; it's about a real trait humans have. We don't like conflict, especially within our own thoughts, and we'd rather not have to dedicate unnecessary energy towards the consideration of things that we feel comfortable leaving to people we trust. Which brings me to my last point.

Language

Using simple words seems to be the most easily implemented, and yet most easily overlooked, source of good oration. Using larger words, even if they facilitate conveying greater detail, becomes counter productive if your audience can't understand you, or worse, see it as condescending. It comes across complicated, and perceived unnecessary complication can be misattributed to attempts at deception. If you use simple words, even if what you're saying isn't correct, you can connect with people better: if they can understand you, they will trust you. Even if what you're saying is wrong. This US Presidential Election, case in point.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, it seems apparent that most people would rather not devote much brain power to things they think doesn't directly and, more importantly, immediately, affect them. This isn't a groundbreaking realization. But what I've come to understand more fully, and perhaps this is basic, is that what is of primary importance in persuading people that you have their best interests at heart is to get them to TRUST you. It doesn't matter if you have the better plan. It doesn't matter if you actually do have their interests at heart. None of these matter more if they trust someone else more than they do you, and now, with at least these three things fleshed out for myself, I have three new tools in my inventory to help me make (manipulative, a little?) others trust me.

And that's the first step towards making any real change.

[masked-phantom]

The Clan of Infinity

The first of three posts centered on my lore, since I finally went and wrote it down properly. Not that... I’ve written the other two segments yet, but shush. This one focuses on the Clan itself, with the other two going into more detail on the Sect of Serpents (mentioned occasionally in this lore post), and the Vagabonds. Placed under a read-more due to length, so if it shows up fully on mobile... blame Tumblr’s shoddy app because I swear that thing has a 50/50 rate on actually having those work.

The Origin

The Clan of Infinity is named after the area in which they live; the Endless Tunnels. These seemingly infinite tunnels are set deep underground, sprawling underneath several of Sornieth’s territories. Their origins are unknown, and they were mostly lifeless; something about the Tunnels clashes with Sornieth’s natural magic. In fact, the Tunnels seem to contain a magic of their own, which prevents dragons—and other critters—from using the magic they rely on. While some magical energy lingers in the air still, a mixture of Sornieth’s elemental magic and the Tunnels’ own unique magic, most of it is contained within the glowing crystals that grow all over the Tunnels’ walls. While magic—and magical potential—differs per crystal, they can be mined and used to perform magical skills, should one know about this, and be willing to risk messing with unknown magics.

But these tunnels, with their haphazard and dangerous magic, make a rather unappealing house for beings as centered on magic as dragons. So how did the Clan of Infinity find itself making a permanent housing in them? The answer to this question does not lie with the Clan at all, but rather with the Sect of the Serpents, a different clan of dragons altogether. The Sect of Serpents, led by an Imperial dragon by the name of Reginald, are the founders of the Clan of Infinity. After finding the barren Tunnels, and their unique magical crystals, Reginald got the idea to use them to make money. However, the innate danger of working with these often-unstable crystals quickly became clear, and he sought a better way to turn a profit from the Tunnels instead. This, in turn, led to the idea to use the Tunnels to house other dragons; dragons who could not fight back their captors, as they were almost entirely magic-less in the Tunnels. Over time, this idea was refined, as the Sect developed a method to wipe the memories of captive dragons, replacing them with false stories and carefully-weaved lies.

And thus, the Sect of Serpents released the first two dragons into the Tunnels, to start a fledgling clan of their own; a young Ridgeback named Kree, and a young Mirror named Tasmos. Both dragons had had their memories wiped, and instead remembered a terrible world outside the Tunnels, a world unsuitable for life. This, naturally, drove them to stay down in the Tunnels, rather than search for a way out, and would open them to the possibility of dragons joining later on. As Kree and Tasmos formed the Clan, settling down in a part of the Tunnels near the only known entry-point, the Sect soon introduced another dragon; a Wildclaw named Avatar, who would serve as their High Priest, representing a new deity.

A New Deity

As part of the lies fed to the Clan to keep them passive, Reginald made up a new deity for them to follow, rather than the true elemental deities. He proclaimed it to be their True Deity, Hauhet, who represented infinity and the ever-changing, element-less and representative of all elements at once, much like the Tunnels’ magic. Hauhet was said to have carved the Tunnels for the Clan to live in themselves, seeding crystals with their own magic all along them, for the Clan to use. In return, the Clan was expected to pay tribute to them, and participate in rituals to honor them. These offers, left in designated areas, are secretly retrieved by members of the Sect; to the Clan, this serves as additional evidence of Hauhet watching over them, unaware that the Sect takes them to sell these carefully hand-crafted wares off.

The Clan believes the outside world to be apocalyptic; the old deities are all weakened or gone, magic is going haywire, and dragons are nigh feral as a result, scraping together awful lives and barely surviving as-is. This is not true, of course, but the Sect ensures that none of the Clan find out, guarding the only exit and telling the Clan that they are protecting the Tunnels from dangerous invaders. Hauhet, in this, is a newly formed deity, formed in the chaos of Sornieth’s downfall. Having formed the Tunnels for the Clan to shelter in, they ensure the safety of these few dragons, providing for them as much as possible. When the Clan find themselves lacking, be it raw materials or food or whatever else, it will show up in the same places where they, themselves, would make offerings to Hauhet. In turn, the Clan produces many goods, serving them as offerings to Hauhet to thank them, and partake in many rituals to honor them. Of course, both the incoming goods and the taken offerings are from the Sect, not Hauhet, but the Clan remains unaware of this.

In all this, there is a surprising grain of truth. Unknown to Reginald, and the Sect as a whole, Hauhet does exist, and they are responsible for the creation of the Tunnels. They are considered a minor deity, not nearly on the level of Sornieth’s elemental deities, or as powerful as the Clan believes them to be. Hauhet is typically withdrawn, and doesn’t care much for worship, but they are certainly intrigued by the Clan, these stubborn dragons that insist on worshiping them and thanking them for things they have not done. Because of this, Hauhet is known to occasionally contact Avatar, or they can be seen hanging out in the Tunnels. Hauhet is a shapeshifter, and has no set appearance, although they will often appear draconic, similar to a Wildclaw, when showing themselves to members of the Clan. In this, there is one more hiccup. While Hauhet is the Deity of Infinity, they are not the only deity that lives in the Tunnels. Their twin, Apeiron, is even more withdrawn, seen even less often by the Clan; their rare sightings are often attributed to Hauhet instead, a fact that serves to annoy them. While neither of the twins care about the worship, they both find it odd, and even a little bothersome, that all credit goes only to Hauhet. Reginald’s description of Hauhet as the Deity of Infinity and the Ever-Changing is misattributed, as well. Hauhet is a deity, yes, but only of infinity. Apeiron, their twin, is the deity of the Ever-Changing. These two shapeshifting twins, made entirely of magic made corporeal, can fuse themselves together; this fused form is the real Deity of Infinity and the Ever-Changing, a powerful but nameless being.

Dragons of the Clan

With the basic clan established, and a link to their non-existent deity laid to ensure their passivity, the Sect was free to start expanding the Clan. For this purpose they regularly brought eggs, often in batches, down to the Clan, explaining that they had found them abandoned in the wastelands. Or rare occasions, they even brought young dragons, like Tasmos, Kree, and Avatar had been. Never adults, however, as these proved to be too difficult to properly mind-wipe and manipulate.

Soon, a previously unknown side-effect from the Tunnels’ odd magic became known. Dragons were, after all, creatures of magic; placing them in the odd mixture of energy in the Tunnels warped their very forms, twisting them in odd forms. Many dragons that have hatched in the Tunnels do not obey to strict breeds at all, forming hybrids between various breeds, or occasionally even carrying clear traits of non-draconic creatures. It often leads to them taking on traits from their environment, their parents, or traits that more heavily emphasize their elements. Even dragons that were brought to the Tunnels already hatched are often young enough to find themselves subtly—or not so subtly—altered.

On top of this, the Clan has developed a form of magic that allows them to alter their forms. Using special crystals, custom-made for every dragon in the clan, they can shift themselves to a wide gradient of anthropomorphic forms. Ranging anywhere from human-sized dragon with human-like dexterity to anthro-like bipedal dragons to humans with draconic headgear, legs, and tail, these crystals are always carried by members of the Clan, allowing them to freely swap as desired. For the most part, body shape is free to be chosen by the dragons themselves, although hatchlings are encouraged to try all matter of forms to find what they like best. Accessibility in the lair differs, however, and members of the Clan may find certain areas inaccessible to specific forms. In all forms size stays relative, and as such bigger dragons will remain bigger than clanmates even if human-sized. Additionally, their coloration carries over regardless of form, allowing for easier recognition; their skin stays colored like their scales, even when it is bare, and their hair matches their wings.

There is one more special characteristic to members of the Clan; they all wear unique masks, custom-made for them. While these are not always worn—in fact, they are not even worn a majority of the time—they are especially significant to members of the clan. Worn only in their humanoid forms, these masks are important for many of the Clan’s rituals. They must cover the entire face, but are otherwise free to interpretation, including material, shape, detail, and coloration. Every design is personal, and every mask unique, made to fit that one dragon. While some dragons make their own masks, others get clanmates to make them, often as commissions. To some, detail and craftsmanship of a mask are used to mark ‘classes’ or hierarchy in the clan, although this is not upheld by the Clan as a whole.

The Endless Tunnels

The Unless Tunnels are laid deep underground, a sprawling and complicated tunnel system, still largely unknown. While its full extent is a mystery—and some would say the Tunnels are, in fact, never-ending—it is certain that at least part of them are located underneath the Scarred Wasteland, Tangled Woods, and the Sea of a Thousand Currents. In fact, the only currently known entrance point to the Tunnels lays in a bone-like spike of the Wasteland, which lies a little off of the coast in the waters of the Sea. This spike has been largely hollowed out, serving as a base for some of the Sect members, and can only be accessed by underwater tubes, which connect it to the rest of the Tunnels. From the outside, it looks rather unassuming, which is why most dragons leave it be.

The Tunnels are a twisted system of tunnels, ranging wildly in size. Some tunnels are large enough to fit even Guardians and Ridgebacks, while others are barely big enough to fit human-sized dragons. These tunnels are all carefully explored and mapped out, and may later be dug out to be added to the Clan’s primary tunnel system.

Of course, the Endless Tunnels are more than just tunnels. These long underground paths contain also occasional caverns, large open spaces accessible only through the tunnels that run off of them. And, like many of the tunnels, these caverns are often flooded, their plentiful space almost entirely underwater. Some of these rare caverns are large enough to be considered underground seas, allowing the clan to fish for their piscivorous members.

There is more to the Tunnels than just their habitation by the Clan, naturally. Sprawling across so many of Sornieth’s territories, the appearance of the Tunnels varies wildly, although they are tied together by their overall dimness, the darkness broken only by glowing crystals and fungi. Very little life can be found besides the dragons, a rare few animals and plants that found themselves in such bizarre environment and managed to cling on, and very little of the native life gets particularly large. Exceptions exist, however.

Magic in the Tunnels

As mentioned before, magic in the Tunnels is an odd thing. From the powerful non-elemental magic contained within the crystals that grow in the Tunnels, to the unique mixture of elemental and element-less magic in the air, the Tunnels expose every being that live within them to magic unlike anywhere else on Sornieth. The unique magic that lingers in the Tunnels interacts with elemental magic strangely, the effects varying depending on all manner of variables, including time and place. Sometimes, elemental magic is strengthened, but other times it may be weakened or even removed entirely. It may even be altered from one type of elemental magic into another entirely.

As a result of this, dragons that grow up in the Tunnels lack a true elemental core. While they will often have a minor leaning towards the element they were to, time spent in the Tunnel will often twist this, much like the energy in its air. Eye color, normally signifying elemental alliances, are not a reliable tell of a dragon’s magical potential, not when they originate in the Tunnels.

The Tunnels’ crystals are often crafted into all manner of magical artifacts, as they hold their own unique magics. Besides the shapeshifting crystals, mentioned earlier, most dragons of the Clan are also equipped with a second magical crystal. This crystal contains a magical being, which can be summoned from the crystal that holds them. Altered to contain the essence of the familiar, dragons carrying their crystal can summon a living familiar whenever they chose to, with no drain on themselves. These familiars can serve all manner of purposes, helping their owners or simply functioning as a companion, and names therefore also vary depending on the dragon. Some name their familiars, like proper pets, while others simply call them by their species name, or even just outright ‘cat’ or ‘familiar’.

[nhannguyenlawyers-blog]

Nader Rabie | Nhan Nguyen | Understanding Your Rights in Negligent Security Instances

Owners of public residential or commercial properties have the obligation to provide practical care for individuals that use their centers. Depending on the situations, those owners may additionally hold a legal duty to offer sufficient safety and security to keep site visitors safe in position where criminal activity is a possibility, specifically if a case has taken place in the past, such as an assault or burglary. A failure to give such security can lead to unsafe circumstances that expose individuals to unneeded harm. This lack of provision is understood in legal terms as negligent safety and security, and also is the result of these gaps in security bring about problems being inflicted either with an accident or criminal assault.

  One of the most typical locations for instances like these are those with rush hour like shopping centers, shopping malls, university universities, sporting activities arenas, hospitals, and theme parks. These kinds of environments attract a huge focus of individuals that are both prone to crashes and also threat from would certainly be wrongdoers searching for an easy target in a jampacked area. Wrongdoer attacks can also occur in the later hrs of the day, and in dimmer light locations where there is little visibility and a high chance to flee from the scene without being captured.

Nader Rabie

Particular instances of negligent safety and security can take a variety of various kinds. Improper signage can leave visitors uninformed of points like spills, uneven ground, sticking out obstacles, or uncompleted building and construction that may lead to drops, twisted ankle joints, or more severe damage like head trauma and brain damage. Poor lights can likewise obfuscate potential challenges or hide potential criminal activity, leaving sufferers vulnerable to all type of villainous behavior. An understaffed protection information can likewise leave people inadequately protected from enemies or burglars. Any kind of type of failure to inform or shield residential or commercial property visitors can be premises for negligent safety.

  The problems these kinds of circumstances can inflict on victims are mostly varied. Injuries like sprained or damaged ankles can originate from a fall, as can more serious points like busted legs or head trauma bring about mental retardation. Injuries from an assault can be far more varied, from small cuts and contusions to extra serious wounds and also busted bones or worse.

Nhan Nguyen

Responsibility in irresponsible safety situations can be exceptionally hard to properly designate, as the irresponsible behavior can originate from a variety of different sources, from the simple lack of knowledge of a supervisor or employee failing to finish their due duty, all the way to a corporation or federal government company whose inadequate policy actions directly led to the unneeded danger. As a result of this intricacy, trying to position the correct blame in your accident can be a virtually difficult task, made much simpler via the assistance of an irresponsible protection legal representative that knows the ins and also outs of cases like these.

  Only with the aid of a professional legal professional with relevant experience in situations like your own can you be sure that you are obtaining the kind of results that you truly are worthy of. Misattributing responsibility and also misconstruing the laws in position convert straight right into a decreased level of payment, which is a need for targets trying to fix their problems. Without the sum total that you are owed, you can be delegated cover several of the high prices of repair service and rehabilitation on your own.

  In cases like these, it is also vital to relocate promptly to guarantee that no physical proof is lost that can harm the reputation of your claim. Due to the fact that these sort of crashes are usually the result of laziness or improper care, these sort of errors can quickly be concealed or repaired in an attempt to restrict what you are owed. As time passes, splashes can be cleaned up, correct lighting can be installed, and the legitimacy of your insurance claim can be hurt. Only by relocating promptly and also accurately recording the scenarios of your mishap can you be sure to recoup what you are rightfully owed.

[news-mashable-yahoopartner-blog]

The art of the YouTube apology video

When an actor messes up, they typically have a team of managers, agents, and crisis managers to back them up with handcrafted personal statements apologizing for their actions. 

When a beauty guru messes up, they set up their tripods, get the tears going, and hit record. 

SEE ALSO: YouTube breakup videos are basically a requirement now. Here's why.

Much like break up videos, apology videos are almost a rite of passage for YouTubers. Since their content is so personal, their apologies have to be, too. As content creators' offensive internet histories get exposed, apology videos are becoming more and more common. There's almost a formula to them: You sob, you apologize for whatever you did wrong, you sob some more, beg for forgiveness from your fans, and then wrap it up with a teary thank-you. 

The most recent example of this tearsfest is Laura Lee, a beauty vlogger who was once just shy of 5 million subscribers, but lost 200,000 once she was exposed for racist tweets this month. A video she posted, simply titled "My Apology," went viral for all the wrong reasons. 

Content creator Keem mocked Lee in a video that broke down the types of apology videos that YouTubers make, from gamers apologizing for a racist comment to vloggers apologizing for filming a dead body. 

In 2012 Lee tweeted, "tip for all black people if you pull ur pants up you can run from the police faster." 

When fans of another rival beauty guru dug up the vile tweet, Lee went silent. She deactivated her Twitter account, deleted her old tweets, and then came back to Twitter with a lengthy Notes app apology. In the statement, she blamed the fact that she grew up as a "small town girl from Alabama" who lacked the "cultural education" that she has now. 

Five days later, she followed up with this apology video. 

"I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry to you guys," she whimpers, frequently stopping mid-sentence to sob into her hands. "It hurts me so bad to disappoint you all who have supported me for many years. I know that I'm better than that person." 

The four-minute video was dragged for being (for lack of a better word) total bullshit. One commenter called it "so funny to watch bc it’s so forced." Another joked that it was "proof that youtubers shouldn't be actors."

Someone wrote fake captions over her video, and people turned her into a meme on Twitter. It even inspired parodies. 

whoever wrote the caption for laura lee’s apology is my hero pic.twitter.com/S4406OSgmV

— 𝕙𝕒𝕓𝕚𝕓𝕒 (@denimIester) August 20, 2018

Laura Lee is part of a group of beauty gurus who all apologized for their problematic pasts, but hers is the one getting criticized the most. 

But is there a "right" way to apologize? Crisis manager Eden Gillott Bowe says there may not be a one size fits all way to say "I'm sorry," but there is a basic formula that best gets the point across. Like Olivia Pope in Scandal, Gillott Bowe fixes messy situations. 

"If you know you've done something wrong, you don't want to hide it because the truth always finds a way of coming out," Gillott Bowe said over the phone. "So you just want to deal with it quickly." 

Compare Lee's apology to that of another member of the beauty guru clique that broke apart over this past week, Gabriel Zamora. 

In contrast to Lee's tears, Zamora opens the video by explaining that the version he's posting is the third version he's recorded because he was more levelheaded than in the first two. 

"I'm like, you know what? This isn't just about my emotions," he admits in the video.

Gillott Bowe recommends staying as calm as possible, like Zamora, while doing damage control. 

"Try not to be too reactionary and just take a moment to think about how it's going to be perceived," she said. "If I jump out and say this, how might it be taken the wrong way?"

With that in mind, here's the backstory on all the beauty guru drama.  

Fellow vlogger and Lee and Zomara's former friend Jeffree Star — who has his own history of being horrifically racist and according to the Washington Post, once joked about "throwing battery acid on a black girl's face to lighten her skin so that her foundation matches" — was the subject of a Shane Dawson documentary series on YouTube that examined Star's life and reputation.

The last installation of the five part series discusses the public feud Star had with his ex-friend group. Star says that "people still don't really know what went on" that broke down the group, and that "there's so many versions of things that never happened out there."

In response, Zamora posted a photo of himself, Laura Lee, Manny MUA, and Nikita Dragun captioned "Bitch is bitter because without him we're doing better," referring to Star. Zamora topped it off in a now-deleted tweet that said, "Imagine stanning a racist? I could never."

That kicked off a stan-led scrape through the four YouTubers' Twitter histories, which unearthed hateful tweets from years ago. Manny MUA, Laura Lee, and Gabriel Zamora all made separate videos apologizing for their actions; Nikita Dragun addressed it on Twitter. 

But why does Star get a pass on his past actions, while Lee's getting dropped from all of her brand partnerships? Fans agreed that their apology videos made all the difference. 

The difference is they both acknowledged their mistakes years ago and have actively worked to better themselves and let it show through their actions. Laura barely made an apology, cried fake tears, and tried to blame it on everything else, like "I was raised in a small town"

— Future 👩🏻‍⚕️ (@K_Wolstenholme) August 23, 2018

They felt the same way about Zamora's apology video. Stans thought that compared to Lee's apology, it was significantly more genuine because he walked through how he would improve. Commenters lauded Zamora's apology as "a great example" and "like sitting with a friend." 

if Gabriel Zamora gaining back all the subs he lost and then some isn’t proof that all we want as viewers are real people telling the truth...i don’t know what is pic.twitter.com/Im0NNfCUKr

— spektader (@spektader) August 22, 2018

Makeup fans haven't forgiven Star entirely, though. Some wish he'd face the same consequences as Lee. 

im glad this is happening but i wish the same energy would’ve been kept for Jeffree Star and James Charles https://t.co/8okPymP00H

— deja 🏳️‍🌈 (@dejaistired) August 23, 2018

Gillott Bowe recommends that when crafting an apology, whether to a friend in private or to an entire fanbase through a public statement, you don't want to keep repeating "I'm sorry." 

"You want to be sincere," she said. "You don't want to dwell on it. Once you say you're sorry you don't want to belabor it." 

In Zamora's video, he said, "I don't want to give excuses ... it was ignorant, it was stupid." Instead of jumping to begging his subscribers not to call him racist, he asked them to take time to process his apology. He also linked two videos about the history of the N word and a lecture from author Ta-Nehisi Coates about "words that don't belong to everyone." 

Then, in typical YouTuber fashion, he moved on and exposed Lee and Manny MUA for throwing him under the bus and refusing to take accountability when their tweets were exposed.

Fed up of going on YouTube and all the videos being titled ‘my truth’, ‘I’m sorry’ and ‘my apology’. I just want to watch a fucking makeup tutorial

— georgia (@georgievowles) August 23, 2018

Although that's exactly the kind of drama YouTube subscribers want to hear, Gillott Bowe probably wouldn't go for that cutthroat, spilling the tea approach. She'd rather her clients wrap up an apology by looking forward. 

"You talk about the future," she said. "The things you want to change to make sure it doesn't happen again, and then you stay positive." 

So for future YouTubers who need to make an apology — whether it's Tana Mongeau apologizing for calling her black friend a racial slur or Jenna Marbles apologizing for being an unprepared fish owner — here's the formula that Gillott Bowe endorses. 

1. Open with something positive.

Gillott Bowe recommends "easing into it" by thanking people for their support.

2. Say you're sorry and don't drag it on.

"Focus right on the apology," she said. Don't try to skirt responsibility or avoid taking accountability. It's better for all parties if you just own up to what you did wrong. 

3. End on a good note.

Gillott Bowe calls this a "compliment sandwich." You want to close the apology with something "nice and hopeful," like outlining the steps you'll take to improve.

4. Don't do it again.

She brings up a quote often misattributed to Albert Einstein: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

"People have a tremendous capacity to forgive," Gillott Bowe explains, "But you don't want to keep apologizing if you're going to end up doing shitty things again anyway." 

Navigating the public sphere after a major scandal will probably be rocky for a while, but Gillott Bowe is sure that if an apology is genuine, the person at fault will be OK. 

"There are the kinds of people who are going to hate you no matter what you do," she said. "But if the people in the middle could be swayed either way, those are the people you're gearing toward."

Or, you know, you could also just try not to be racist. 

WATCH: An ancient human species went extinct because it was 'lazy'

[hazeldough]

i........ have a lot of feelings about tpodg with the announcement of the film adaption

disclaimer: i’m not mlm, so i can’t speak about that part of its narrative in place of mlm. plus, the film adaption was only recently announced and we don’t really have any details on it except that it exists and is set to have female leads. 

and while i’ve done my share of analysis on the book and some of wilde’s history and really passionate about both, there’s a lot i dont know yet or may be misinterpreting. my opinions and pov about tpodg and oscar wilde are subject to change the more i analyze the book and read about wilde’s life through his writings and the transcripts of his trials, so i’m open to reading other people’s opinion on the novel and film!

also, i got carried away and even busted out the copy i annotated in, so this got super lengthy. it’s mostly me reanalyzing the book after stepping away from it for a few months. 

oh, and spoilers ahead.

(i spent about 2 hours on this and it’s 4:27 am now.......... im already yelling @ a future me who is procrastinating on an essay, looking back at this moment thinking “hey, i wish u could put some of that focus and research into this thing right now” and hey......... hard same, buddy)

anyway.

 i just want the film adaption to not lose the essential themes and messages that come with tpodg and the weight it carried in wilde’s life.

it’s already not the best lgbt rep with its leads being assholes (dorian & henry) or (spoilers) ending up dead (basil). granted, the victorian era wasn’t the best time to make revolutionary strides in normalizing lgbt+ media, but it still was a novel that was written by a gay man that time period, drawing from his own experiences. 

wilde’s works primarily criticized english culture and society’s tendencies to put up a front for the public to save face for their personal lives. 

“My dear fellow, you forget that we are in the native land of the hypocrite.“

“Dorian,“ cried Hallward, “that is not the question. England is bad enough I know, and English society is all wrong. That is the reason why I want you to be fine. You have not been fine.“

Dorian & Basil (Chapter XII)

tpodg was no exception since it featured a lead who was groomed to believing that the downfall of others was the ultimate symbol of his love towards him and was eventually able to abuse/manipulate people on the regular through his charisma and get away with it because of his privileges. 

“Someone has killed herself for love of you. I wish that I had ever had such and experience. It would have made me in love for the rest of my life.“ (Lord Henry Wotton, Chapter VIII)

and it’s not like no one was aware that dorian had major red flags around him. because they did.

“Women who had wildly adored him, and for his sake had braved all social censure and set convention at defiance, were seen to grow pallid with shame or horror if Dorian Gray entered the room.“ (Chapter XI)

“Why is it, Dorian, that a man like the Duke of Berwick leaves the room of a club when you enter it? Why is it that so many gentlemen in London will neither go to your home nor invite you to theirs?... Why is your friendship so fatal to young men? There was that wretched boy in the Guards who committed suicide. You were his great friend.“ (Basil Hallward, Chapter XII)

(that whole paragraph is just basil talking about how men are afraid to be associated with dorian, there’s way more stuff, but i felt that info was enough)

even though there were consistent and frequent rumors that surrounded him. no one believed that this cherub looking guy was the reason that everyone who interacted with him either had their reputation ruined for life or were driven to suicide. 

(spoilers) basil wasn’t an exception to this, not believing that all the rumors surrounding his friend, muse, and for a lack of better term crush were true. he was so blinded by his love that dorian was capable of bringing on ruin ultimately led to his death. 

“But you, Doian, with your pure, bright, innocent face, and your marvellous untroubled youth-- I can’t believe anything against you.“ (Basil Hallward, Chapter XII)

even dorian’s motives in murdering basil was a result of his own misattributions. instead of taking ownership of his own behavior, he placed blame on basil and his portrait instead.

“The friend who had painted the fatal portrait to which all his misery had been due, had gone out of his life.“ (Chapter XIII)

and when dorian was close to confessing what he had done to his confidant, the person arguably more responsible than basil for leading him to his lifestyle? he didn’t believe dorian either.

"What would you say, Harry, if I told you that I had murdered Basil?”

(...)

“I would say, my dear fellow that you were posing for a character that doesn’t suit you. All crime is vulgar, just as  all vulgarity is a crime. It is not in you, Dorian, to commit a murder. I am sorry if I hurt your vanity by saying so, but I assure you it is true. Crime belongs exclusively to the lower orders. I don’t blame them in the smallest degree. I should fancy that crime was to them what art is to us, simply a method of procuring extraordinary sensations.“

(Dorian & Lord Henry, Chapter XIX)

after stepping away from the book for a few months, i feel like some reevaluation is due. i initially approached the book thinking that it would end up with an ambiguously happy ending, having only heard slivers about it and knowing that it was written by a gay man. i guess the part of me that’s very invested in good redemption arcs and lgbt books in ap eng lit just wanted a book to read that didn’t feature weak character development and/or heteronormative relationships. the closest books i got were their eyes, atss, and tpodg.

but now that i’m looking back at it, most likely unpopular opinion: i personally think that tpodg isn’t a lgbt story. (even if it was, it’s not the best representation for lgbt characters since it has a lot of tropes that we now see as overused and negative) 

to me, it’s just a story that has lgbt characters. meaning that while the novel focused on dorian, it focused on his morality, not his sexuality. dorian knew who he liked, since it was heavily implied that dorian had male and female lovers. the story wasn’t focused on his romantic or sexual relationships, but on how his morals took a nose dive as he developed into a grade-A fuck boy using his multiple failed relationships as evidence of that.

i’ve come to understand that character development doesn’t always mean getting a redemption arc. good character development is a character starting from point A and actively moving towards point B with minor interference by other characters. most of the time, it’s a character going from morally neutral/bad to good. this time, it’s a character going from neutral to bad.

i do agree that there’s a huge imbalance of lgbt characters being portrayed as predatory and abusive instead of flawed and needing of development, adding on to preexisting homophobia that’s rampant in most cultures. i also agree that there needs to be more positive representation of lgbt characters, by lgbt people, for lgbt people. 

at the same time, tpodg was written before we could even safely discuss and address these issues in public. i’m saying that because wilde got straight up jailed for “gross indecency” for just being a gay man existing. but i don’t think wilde was unaware of the repercussions he’d face when he stated that being gay was normal. most of his works were about calling out the hypocrisy of english society. even in his own testimony at trial, he stated:

"The Love that dare not speak its name" in this century is such a great affection of an elder for a younger man as there was between David and Jonathan, such as Plato made the very basis of his philosophy, and such as you find in the sonnets of Michelangelo and Shakespeare. It is that deep, spiritual affection that is as pure as it is perfect. It dictates and pervades great works of art like those of Shakespeare and Michelangelo, and those two letters of mine, such as they are.”

full quote and transcript found here

wilde was fully aware that he was going to be imprisoned for being gay and accepted it. not because he was ignorant of how society functioned, but because he knew how it functioned. and he was right. and i want to say that he was aware of this even when he was writing tpodg (which was about 4-5 years before his trials took place).

even if tpodg was going to be portrayed with male leads, the film would be in an era with a new perspective about mlm relationships. homophobia is still rampant in multiple societies, but lgbt people and mlm in particular have more of a voice and agency to defend themselves, look for, and create media that is representative of their experiences without needing to pander to heterosexual audiences. it still isn’t perfect, knowing that mlm still have trouble telling their stories in a field dominated by straight women who only see to use them as objects for fetishization instead of helping them create a safe platform to be heard.

basically, wilde’s context for writing tpodg is drastically different from how it can be interpreted and discussed today vs how it was in his time. based on that, i’m inferring that if writing a negative, heavily implied mlm relationship was deemed criminal enough as it is, i imagine he would have faced even more horrible punishment for writing a positive relationship between two men.

at the moment, we know nothing about the direction the film is going to follow, other than that it’ll be female-led. and, judging from the recent string of female led films (ghostbusters & oceans eight), i’m going to safely assume it’ll be a dominantly female cast, with dorian, basil, and henry being portrayed by women, and them all being wlw. (there’s a better word to describe this, it starts with a p, but it’s 4 AM now and i’m losing steam)

i’m not saying that the movie is going to be free from homophobic comments, but i am saying that it’ll face more criticism for not accurately portraying SGA (same gender attraction) relationship more than it featuring a SGA relationship at all.

even with the lack of information, i feel like if i’m going to be consistent about an opinion it’s this: the any adaption can do is to keep elements of the book while being cognisant of its perspective and purpose.

at the same time, i do want the film to deviate from the novel by being more open about the leads’ sexuality while also addressing the tropes that’s present in the society its set in and how it affects the narrative. 

to me, the film doesnt have to be a carbon copy of the novel, it just has to have the same vibe the book gave and to do that, it has to be aware of the issues wlw face in society today but also integrate it into the victorian era setting.

...yes, i know it sounds really confusing but i’ve spent around 2 hours on this already and it’s currently 4:24 AM. i’m doing my best my sleep deprived and coffee fueled brain can do atm. but again, i’m open to discuss this when i’m more put together and see more perspectives on the film adaption.

i am aware that there might not be enough elbow room for that to happen since society’s still pretty homophobic (albeit, not as much as before) as well as time constraints that come with adapting a book to a movie. still though, it’s something i’m interested to see be executed properly.