 That's right. Today we're going to be talking about the feud between James Charles and T-Spill. And we're going to use a unique blend of philosophy and psychology. So make sure that you stay tuned until the end of this video because I guarantee you'll leave a little bit smarter than you would with any other video about YouTube drama. What is up everybody? This is Chris from the Rewired Soul where we talk about the problem but focus on the solution. And if you're new to my channel, what I try to do is take different topics going on in the YouTube community, try to see what lessons we can learn from them to improve our own mental and emotional well-being. And some things that I really love are philosophy and psychology and just expanding my mind. So if you're into that stuff too, make sure you subscribe and ring that notification bell. And while you're at it, follow me on Instagram and Twitter at the Rewired Soul. All right. So yeah, some of y'all wondering what's going down. If you're not in the know, here's a quick recap. All right. So James Charles, as many people do know, he was recently in New York for New York Fashion Week. All right. And I guess Emma Chamberlain was in town too, and those two, you know, their buddies. And James Charles, I think like on a live stream, he just like slightly mentioned, just barely mentioned that he wasn't going to be hanging out with Emma Chamberlain. But when that happened, the drama channels jumped on it. They took this very tiny, tiny, seemingly insignificant thing and they made videos about it because that's what drama channels do. All right. So anyways, drama channel T Spill and James Charles, they ended up having this back and forth on Twitter. T Spill shares the video. Did James Charles really shade Emma Chamberlain? James Charles responds. No, he didn't, but he was shading someone else and realized in the moment that it was unnecessary, which is why he cleared it up, took responsibility and asked that drama channels didn't blow it out of proportion. Thanks for respecting that. T Spill replies. Sorry, I forgot I needed your permission before reporting on a story. James Charles says, you don't. It's not a story if it was already cleared up. And would it be that hard to respect someone's wishes for once? T Spill replies, for once, I've respected your wishes many times. There was nothing wrong with my video. I don't see you going in on anyone else who covered the story. So in this situation, who's right and who's wrong? Before we discuss that, we got to do a quick little crash course when it comes to philosophy and psychology. So something that I'm absolutely fascinated with is like the common idea and misconception is that things like morals and ethics are this black and white thing when they're not. It is different from person to person. It is different from culture to culture. It changes. So I'm reading this amazing book called The Righteous Mind and it's all about moral psychology and oh my god, it's probably my new favorite book. All right, so I'm going to link it down in the description below if you want to check it out. But anyways, it talks a lot about what's right and what's wrong. So in order to discuss this situation between T Spill and James Charles, and I'm also going to discuss some other drama channels later in this video, we're going to be talking about different kind of ethical philosophies. All right, specifically, we're going to be talking about deontology and utilitarianism. All right, so utilitarianism is pretty much a philosophy that was brought about by a man named Jeremy Betham. All right, so basically what utilitarianism is is when you're looking at your morals, when you're choosing between right and wrong, utilitarianism is you're looking at the greater good. All right, so they did some research and although they'll never know because Jeremy Betham died like in the 1800s, they've looked back at a lot of his notebooks and everything like that. And they actually believe that he may have been on the autism spectrum. So what you're looking at right now, this is a grid, it actually came from that book, The Righteous Mind. But most people, they lie on this spectrum of being an empathizer and a systemizer. All right, people who are empathetic, they're obviously, you know, thinking about other people's feelings and everything like that. Systemizers, they're more looking at numbers. Okay, so people believe that Jeremy Betham was on the autism spectrum because he was a very low empathizer but high systemizer. All right, and if you know anybody on the autism spectrum, many of them will also fall somewhere on the grid around this area, but many people who believe in utilitarianism, you know, ethics and morals and stuff like that, they'll be further along the lines of a systemizer as well. All right, so you may have heard of the trolley, the runaway trolley thought experiment. All right, there's a few different versions of it and things like that. But basically, let's say you have a switch, all right, and there's a runaway trolley, it is about to run over five people. All right, but if you pull that switch, it will run over one person. Those who have a utilitarian point of view, they're going to pull that switch, hit the one person because they're looking at net positive, the greater good. All right, one life to five lives. So now let's talk about deontological ethics. All right, so this is an excerpt from a post from Penn State and the Liberal Arts Department. All right, so it says deontological ethics is an ethics system that judges whether an action is right or wrong based on a moral code. Consequences of those actions are not taken into consideration. The ethics system is intended to be precise and by the book. Doing the right thing means to follow proper rules or behavior and by doing so promoting fairness and equality. All right, so to give you an example of this, you've probably heard, you know, that thing like would you steal or is it okay to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family? All right, somebody with deontological ethics would say no, it is never okay to steal. All right, regardless of the consequences like your family starving, it is never okay to steal. You never lie, you never steal, you never do anything like that, right? But those of us who are utilitarian, we will look at that and say, yeah, steal the bread, feed your family. You're all right, net positive, okay, you lost a little bread, I get to help my family survive. And like during the the trolley thought experiment, I don't know what somebody with deontological ethics would do. I think they just kind of throw their hands up and say it's never right to do anything that's going to harm another person. You know what I mean? But, but there's a problem with deontological ethics and another excerpt from that same post from Penn State, I think summarizes it quite well. It says, deontology works great in theory, but in the real world, it is challenging to comply with it. What happens when you have to choose between two evils? What happens when we can't be objective? What happens when the situation is not black and white? So in my opinion, having deontological ethics, it leaves you open to being a hypocrite more often than not, all right? Because it's based on your moral code. And where does our moral code come from? Some of them, some of us, it was taught to us by our parents. But what happens if our parents weren't good people, all right? So we have this strict code, but we might be doing more bad than good, all right? Or, for many of us, our morals are based on emotions. And if you're anybody who's learned anything about the brain or how the mind works, you know that one of the worst things you can do is run off of emotions rather than logic, all right? So many people with deontological ethics are running off of emotion. So that allows them to be kind of wavering and a little hypocritical at times. So although I try to stay out of black and white thinking, utilitarianism is pretty black and white. But it varies from situation to situation. Because in one situation, the greater good might be this, in another situation, the greater good might be that. So who was right when it came to James Charles and Teaseville? Now, by now, you know that I have more of a utilitarian point of view. I'm hoping that you are deciding which one, which category you fall into. I believe Teaseville was correct, all right? Utilitarianism. She was looking at the greater good. She reports on stories regardless of one influencer getting upset about it. She is serving her audience, the greater good. But in this video, I actually want to discuss the bias and hypocrisy that's been getting called out a lot in the drama community lately. See, although Teaseville took the utilitarian stance on this one, many drama and commentary channels really have deontological points of view. So they switch their views all the time and it makes them look like hypocrites. For example, we can all pretty much agree that James Charles not hanging out with Emma Chamberlain and how small that clip was, it was pretty insignificant, all right? But many of the channels made videos that were X amount of minutes long. Some were even 10 minutes long, like the ones from Nick Snyder at the viewer's voice. So although James Charles did not want videos made about this subject, they were still made. So you would think that people like Teaseville or Nick Snyder were having more of a utilitarian point of view. But that's not the case. See, two weeks ago, on August 30th, something much different happened. And I want you to go check out the channel Australian commentary drama channel or Australian drama commentary channel, whatever it is, I'm going to link her channel down below. But anyways, she DM me and I saw this video and I thought this was really interesting. So those of you who missed it, Christie tweeted out, I always get told I look similar to at Jeffree Star. What do we think? I think we could be sisters. And Jeffree Star ended up replying and saying, I don't see any similarities to exclamation points. So somebody else tagged all of the drama channel saying, Hey, people turning over a new leaf and giving all the drama channels a clean slate. Can y'all pretty please link me to where, you know, one of these people covered the Jeffree Star drama from yesterday since they're not biased. And then they talk about, you know, this one where Jeffree Star kind of sassed that woman for saying she looked like him. All right. Well, anyways, Nick Snyder took it upon himself to retweet this person and say, can't make a video about our boss. Duh. Obviously a joke because there's an inside joke that the drama channels were being paid off by Jeffree Star and other influencers. Well, tea spill ends up replying and saying, wait, we're supposed to make a video because Jeffree replied to someone and said he didn't see any similarities in their appearance. How is that rude? And then Nick Snyder says the effing nerve. And then Dustin daily comes in, he says, I'm blocked, but I seen it. That dumb A has the most to say, like, I'm going to make a whole video about him saying he didn't see any similarities and then deleting it. This one here can true my draws. So going back, are they more utilitarian or do they have deontological ethics? I'd say more deontological because you can see they have a clear moral code, but it's not the one that you would think. See, they only serve the greater good when it aligns with their moral code, no matter how small the story is, kind of like James Charles and Emma Chamberlain, that whole situation. All right. But if they like the person, then that aligns with their moral code. So that story is too small for them to cover. Lastly, to point out the deontological ethics and hypocrisy, let's go back to this screenshot that we talked about in the beginning where James Charles says you don't. It's not a story if it was already cleared up and would it be that hard to respect someone's wishes? So if any of you have been around for a bit, you know, I got canceled earlier this year, or maybe you read my brand new book canceled inside YouTube cancel culture where I kind of discussed that situation in detail. But one of the biggest criticisms of me is that people have asked me not to make videos about them, but I did. Now, as you know, I have more of a utilitarian point of view. So if it's okay to make videos on one person who's in the public spotlight, it's okay to make videos on all people in the public spotlight, which I would imagine most commentary and drama channels are doing. See, the problem is, and one of the reasons most people are calling drama channels and even some commentary channels bias and hypocritical is because they have deontological ethics. They only care about videos being made when it's about someone they like. But since most of them dislike James Charles, they have no problem making all the videos on earth about him. And as our good buddy Danny Gonzalez would say, like I said, I hope you're leaving this video just a little bit smarter, knowing a little bit more about moral psychology and philosophy. Again, check out that book, The Righteous Mind. It is amazing. If you like these types of videos where I like kind of take these drama situations and dive a little bit deeper and blend it in with psychology and philosophy, let me know down in the comments below, baby. All right. Anyways, that's all I got for this video. If you liked this video, please give it a thumbs up. If you're new, make sure you subscribe and ring that notification bell. And a huge, huge thank you to everybody supporting the channel over on Patreon. You are all amazing and a huge thank you to everybody who buys my merch and books and supports the channel in those ways. You're awesome too. All right. Thanks again for watching. I'll see you next time.