Dear Mr. Hank Green,
I have long appreciated the content produced by you and your brother. I admire the relationship you maintain despite the long distances, especially given that my brother recently moved far away. Your approach to education in Crash Course is something I’ve advocated to many a fellow student.
I am also a consumer of your products, although not as many as I would have liked. I especially enjoy your album, “I f***ing Love Science”. Likewise, I owned (before gifting to my little sister) an autographed copy of “The Fault in Our Stars.” So it is with a measure of regret that I feel that I cannot in good conscious continue to support your channel or your business.
I have enjoyed your opinions and stances on a vast array of topics. I may not always agree with your stances, but one thing I’ve-particularly been fond of is your call to reach outside of the “bubbles” we tend to insulate ourselves with. This seemed a predominant message only months ago during the election of 2016.
Your statement, however, shows that your actions do not live up to this ideal. You avoid names in this statement, and so too will I. A youtube content creator, one that did pay for his entrance, was harassed publicly while sitting quietly and attending the function that you yourself claim is important. He reached out past the bubble. He followed the code of conduct and rules set forth, attended quietly, and did not even enter the questioning queue. However, he was singled out by a panelist publicly, and subjected to insults in an open forum.
I am not a fan of either content creator, but in the wake of this story, I have reviewed a few of both creators’ videos. I too want to understand the context. Nowhere does the attendee seem to make a call to incite harassment. Quite the opposite, in fact. However, if your argument is that this content creator is ‘too passive’ in reigning in the audience he has, then I find that stance horrifying. Blaming the content or content creator for acts others commit, even in the name of said creator/content, smells too similar to the outcry against “Catcher in the Rye” for my liking.
What his intentions were or were not is indeed context. However, all interactions contain multitudes of context. The action, however, speaks for itself. The action was against the code of conduct. The action was targeted toward an abiding member of the audience (Respectfully or not is subjective, and not for me to determine). The action, however, was objectively expressed. The action is clearly recorded from multiple perspectives.
Your action, however, was to apologize to the attacker. The closest your statement comes to an apology for the victim is, “ Look, we don’t want our panelists to insult our audience members…” If your belief is that Anita is due an apology from yourself or Vidcon, that may not be a stance I agree with, but I also do not administrate Vidcon in any way. Howeer, to highlight this action publicly as you did in your statement, while at best snubbing the victim, and at worst, deriding him by implying that he did not arrive with a valid purchase reeks of a double standard.
There are arguments to be made that this response is sexist, is victim blaming, but those are subjective arguments that only muddy the waters. My crux is the hypocrisy exhibited.
Your actions do not align appear to align with your words.
My action is to discontinue consuming your content and products in any way that produces revenue.
A Regretful Boycotter
TL;DR: Hypocrisy and Double Standards lead to my personal boycott.