[abyssin]

I'm not too surprised people spend time to express this point of view. I loved his channel but there was always something that felt a little off for me. One evening I launched a Google search wondering if I was the only one and found the subreddit. I stopped watching afterwards.

[Quarrelsome]

> I stopped watching afterwards.

Do you realise if you want to be morally consistent like that then the only limiting factor is your ignorance? By that I mean its likely A LOT of the content you currently consume or products you use/buy are unethical in some way but you just don't know they are.

I'd like to suggest that if you're not trying to fog-bust your ignorance by personally auditing all your supply chains actively then that is also ethically inconsistent. To permit your own ignorance suggests that its more about how people perceive you to be supporting unethical brands (once the lack of ethics becomes clear) as opposed to one actually caring about the ethics. I'd suggest your phrasing here backs that up.

Idk, that's just too exhausting a mentality for me to handle tbh. I don't think its my job to force everyone in the world to conform to my precise standards, I think there's value in being able to trade with those I wouldn't consider friend.

I mean lets spin it another way, you think the people Bald meets in his videos are all "good people"? A lot of them likely have issues in one way or another but we can celebrate that they're friendly and hospitable and that Bald is going out there and showing us that part of the world which we typically wouldn't see. Lets not forget that its likely that Bald is probably one of the more progressive individuals in his videos. I think that context matters a bit.

[girvo]

How does choosing not to watch someone’s channel “force” people to conform to your beliefs? I don’t get it.

[Quarrelsome]

It doesn't sorry, I rather mean that one is forcing a personal sense of morality on one's supply chain, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. But what is bad is that one only drops what is advertised to them as being bad which makes one think it was never about the sense of morality in the first place.

The implication being that every single supply chain is bad (e.g. cobalt mining in DRC) but we conveniently just don't uncover everything because we'd have to drop too much. We're terrified (to an extent) to accept the negative impact our existence has in this world so pursue a dream of moral purity to escape that harrowing reality.

Bald is a sex tourist so we'll never watch his channel but where is our cobalt mined from? As long as we don't know (our ignorance gives us plausible deniability) we can keep buying products that indirectly kill children while still showing everyone how good we are by not watching Bald's content. I think there's a hypocrisy here because I think relatively speaking Bald is acceptable but to purge him and just permit the rest (because the subjects are more boring or more distant) I think is bullshit.

[string]

I readily accept that the reality is harrowing, but I don't agree that just sharing information about some potentially immoral thing is anything like the pursuit of some state of moral purity. Is it not better that individuals try to make supposed moral decisions where possible, even if they ultimately fall short?

It seems that in order to function one must come to terms with the fact that existence is a moral balancing act and that we all do immoral things. I accept that I own many things that likely caused others suffering. I have had a fascination with the DRC for a number of years and am acutely aware of what goes on there, yet I bought a new phone last year and a laptop the year before that. I accept the hypocrisy. But I am still glad people share information about what happens there. Whilst most of us will ignore it, some person or people better than me may be able to use that information to enact some positive change. At least the conversation can occur.

It is also a harsh reality that the less abstracted the situation, the easier it is for humans to face up to their own sense of morality. For whatever reason having intimate knowledge of a person is more impactful than hearing that an item you purchased was manufactured using some material that was mined by a nameless individual thousands of miles away. Right or wrong, we attach more weight to our judgements of others when a more direct connection can be made. It seems to me unrealistic to ignore that humans operate in this way.

Ultimately the intention of my original comment was not to tell people what to do, nor to judge, nor to demonstrate virtue. I was just sharing information so others could also make an informed decision. I chose not to watch his channel based on my own personal moral compass and my own boundaries of inconvenience.

[Quarrelsome]

I'm with you there, I just wish people had this level of energy in regards to things like having Saudi Arabia as an ally. We take the zero effort to stop watching this Youtuber but when we're at the pump we're mostly not thinking about the suffering of women in Saudi Arabia. You're right that there's this metric of distance that appears to matter in these calculations.

[shigawire]

I pretty much have to use a phone.i don't have to watch a creepy sex tourist on YouTube - so I choose not to.

[Quarrelsome]

My issue with that stance is that effectively its saying that you'll be ethical when its _convenient_ but when its inconvenient you'll be unethical.