I'm not sure which "you people" you're lumping me into, but I would at best call myself a casual consumer of his content. Sounds like you might've been a bigger fan. I'm speaking as someone vehemently opposed to public shaming, because it feels fucking medieval.

Are you genuinely asking how that's implied by your responses or just need a moment to feel shock? If you see a global shaming campaign that matter-of-fact put this kid in a pysch ward as "accountability", that implies you believe it was deserved. It's fine that you didn't mean to imply that, which is why I asked you to clarify.

This is exactly my problem with these conversations. No one wants to actually face the harmful, gross realities of public shaming—it's just a leaderless internet trend they can log in and out of. They want to focus on the initial fucked up actions (they were) and then hand-waive the reaction no matter how net-harmful it may be.

And no, going to jail and feeling local embarrassment is not in the same universe as global humiliation. But even what you went through, I'm equally opposed to. I'm genuinely sorry. Any consequence that isn't solely focused on rehabilitation is fucked in my opinion, including the entirety of the prison industrial complex.

Unrelenting public shaming is what most people mean by "cancel culture", if you're actually asking and not just being obtuse.

There are a lot of consequences and accountability that don't include internet mobs and global shaming. I'm not arguing anything about his career. I'm arguing that public shaming is deeply gross and flawed, and it's sad that so many have embraced it as a natural consequence—the overall tenor of your replies.

You're stepping in and out of having a perspective here but then bring it right back with words like "consequence" and "held accountable". Both those words imply pushing someone to the brink of suicide was deserved. If that's not what you think, feel free to clarify.

You asked if "cancel culture" was putting "apology" in quotes. So they actually listed the things that happened. This goal post moving that's very popular in discussions like this feels so eerily similar to the narcissist's prayer:

That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.

What is the appropriate goal for a person who did something fucked up? For them to become better? Or for them to hurt? Sometimes hurt can be a helpful path to betterment, but the idea that it's a necessary requirement is deeply weird, bordering on sadistic.

I've seen a lot shitty people become better without being globally shamed to the brink of suicide. It's truly sad that online mobbing is so normalized that an entire generation sees it as the natural "consequence". There are other, better options.