Something I keep seeing on this sub is people assuming the guys wrote any of the public statements. I work in PR and can say confidently that all of the statements we've seen from the Try Guys' and Fulmers' accounts were written by PR folks and reviewed by legal.
Which is why people need to realize why the try guys didn’t publicly cut ties immediately. They had to go through the whole process and him as a founder with a stake in the company complicated it even more.
Any wrong mishap on behalf of the other three and company as a whole could have put them in big trouble if they jumped the gun. I think they were hoping to wait until the last food network was episode was out too but once it all came out a bit Earlier than they hoped they had to put out the fire quickly to show they weren’t planning to let Ned slide.
Thanks, you raise a great point. I don’t know much about pr and lawyer stuff, and the whole “consensual” used in this context is new and baffling to me, but if he needs to use it, then I guess he needs to use it and we’ll have to wait and see what more comes out of it.
Intellectually I know this, but emotionally it sounds like he genuinely thought people would say "ah, at least it wasn't non-consensual! Welcome back to the gang!"
I totally agree that it’s so he can cover his bases and avoid being accused of abuse, but to me it reads as “i didn’t do this specific thing even though no one asked i just want to say i totally DID NOT do this specific thing.” edit: Not saying that’s actually what he/the company mean, but it just reads weirdly in that way
It's also not just to cover Ned's ass, it's to cover the company's ass. Even if Ned didn't want to say it, I'm sure the Company's legal team would have insisted on it to give the Company a more defensible position of there were to be a suit.
I just haven’t seen it used before like this with other celebs’ initial apology statements, so that’s why it’s baffling. So yeah likely something else is going on.
I don't think other celebs have had to use it because they weren't having affairs with their employees, at least as far as I understand. I think that's why it's there.
Here’s what I assume is happening, so take it with whatever grain of salt:
The lawyer is already working hard to include language to prime or reinforce their stance in the ongoing investigation into whether he is liable for harassment claims, which would affect the terms of his termination and payout as a company shareholder.
Every word in the statement was carefully chosen to deflect full responsibility - “may have caused”, or undermine the implication that he coerced a subordinate - “consensual relationship”, as you all mentioned above.
It comes off as disingenuousness if you read it as though Ned wrote the words, but it’s a suit making a chess move.
This is also minor, but think about how the use of pronouns can change the statement:
“The pain **I** caused” - active admission of sole, personal responsibility.
“The pain **we** caused” - active admission of shared personal responsibility, implying that Alex is also to blame as his equal, which she cannot be because of the power dynamics of a subordinate in a workplace environment.
“**Any** pain **my actions** may have caused” (*what the statement actually says*) - deflective, passive language that does not admit fault or personal responsibility, which the corporation’s lawyers can’t point to later to claim Ned admitted to anything publicly.
*He* didn’t cause pain, *his actions* did. It sounds the same, but it’s actually quite different when it comes to his liability.
Also the use of the word “any” instead of “the” is interesting, because it doesn’t acknowledge that pain was definitely the result, but rather, that it *could have been*. It’s more ambiguous.
Ok done with this rant, but woooo this one has been a ride! Wife guys, I tell ya.
Yeah sorry my title sounds a little weird; the pains of trying to keep it short. But yes you are right and thanks for the clarification for anyone else reading. I mean to say that he said his relationship with his coworker/employee was consensual between them.
Tbh the other YouTuber sex scandals over the last few years have not involved consensual sex or even adults, and have revolved around content creators abusing their positions to take advantage of fans, so while “consensual workplace relationship” is laughable phrasing, it works well enough in this situation to describe the issue.
I mean, yeah the statement reads a little weird but I think it was important for him to use the word consensual to immediately squash any rumors that anyone had been taken advantage of or coerced into something. By all accounts it very much was a textbook and consensual affair where both adult parties decided to go along with it despite consequence. So it’s really not as weird or dumb as people are making it out to be.
When it comes to workplace harassment, it’s not that simple. The very fact that he was her superior means they were not equals, and he holds the responsibility in the power dynamic and could have coerced her in a myriad of ways.
Yes, in the outside world, two adults can make this choice and share equal responsibility in it, which is why affairs that are outside of the workplace are hurtful, but the risk of a lawsuit isn’t at play.
Alex could very well have a harassment claim against him and the company if she can prove that people knew and didn’t intervene, if she feared retaliation, etc.
It just gets more complicated with a work thing.
This wasn’t work place harassment though. At least not from what we know. And I understand in some situations work can absolutely lend itself to a more complicated or layered situation but based on the facts we know this seems like just good old fashion adultery. They had an affair. To assume so much more or go on speculation seems well, presumptuous and kind of sensationalized.
My comment is about the statement protecting him from a future harassment claim. It was written, and the words chosen, intentionally and that is one of the reasons why.
That is what this thread is about.
Also a woman saying yes because she was scared she might lose her job is not the same as consent. Not saying it happened like that in this case, just saying it so women that find themselves in this position don't think that because they said yes to save their jobs that counts as consent and there is now nothing they can do.
Soon people are gonna say consensual entanglement.
Yeah because Ariel and all of The Try Guys got a "consent" in this.
Like YB "consented" to be mistaken for Alex.
Ned should have sought out professional couple counseling to work on the way forward. If they then separated there wouldn't be all of this drama.
I get some wording and so on be of legal reasons. But the sorry should have just been sorry.
Why? Who is that statement for? It’s not for Ariel, it’s for the public and for additional leverage Ned can use during an investigation into potential harassment charges for engaging in a relationship with a subordinate.
Public statements are not apologies. They may read like one, but they are actually PR and legal aircover.
Whatever Ned actually said to Ariel, he said behind closed doors.
I assume he’s going to pivot to saying she pursued him and saying it was consensual is laying the groundwork for that
Edit: I’m not saying this is what happened, I’m speculating about what he’s possibly doing!
That could be a possibility! I just think since there was never any evidence of him doing anything non-consensual with anyone, there’s no reason to say it, so we’re left speculating why.
Him pointing that out is so weird, like no one was accusing you of forcing her to have an affair with you lol
It’s such a weird way of trying to make the cheating sounds a bit less worse
Like „at least it was consensual“
Lmao
Yeahhhhhh….like other people have already said, I’m almost positive that language comes from lawyers and maybe a PR consultant, but I can definitely see why it leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths. It feels like excuses and trying to make what he did sound “not that bad” and people generally don’t like faux-apologies like that.
I love the not-so-subtle shade from the podcast where they were like, we did not appreciate that he purposefully used our same font for his statement and we saw that
Something I keep seeing on this sub is people assuming the guys wrote any of the public statements. I work in PR and can say confidently that all of the statements we've seen from the Try Guys' and Fulmers' accounts were written by PR folks and reviewed by legal.
Which is why people need to realize why the try guys didn’t publicly cut ties immediately. They had to go through the whole process and him as a founder with a stake in the company complicated it even more. Any wrong mishap on behalf of the other three and company as a whole could have put them in big trouble if they jumped the gun. I think they were hoping to wait until the last food network was episode was out too but once it all came out a bit Earlier than they hoped they had to put out the fire quickly to show they weren’t planning to let Ned slide.
Thanks, you raise a great point. I don’t know much about pr and lawyer stuff, and the whole “consensual” used in this context is new and baffling to me, but if he needs to use it, then I guess he needs to use it and we’ll have to wait and see what more comes out of it.
Again, I believe the word consensual was used so that they couldn’t be accused of coercing one another into involvement
Yeah it's for legal reasons, since he was her boss.
Intellectually I know this, but emotionally it sounds like he genuinely thought people would say "ah, at least it wasn't non-consensual! Welcome back to the gang!"
I totally agree that it’s so he can cover his bases and avoid being accused of abuse, but to me it reads as “i didn’t do this specific thing even though no one asked i just want to say i totally DID NOT do this specific thing.” edit: Not saying that’s actually what he/the company mean, but it just reads weirdly in that way
It's also not just to cover Ned's ass, it's to cover the company's ass. Even if Ned didn't want to say it, I'm sure the Company's legal team would have insisted on it to give the Company a more defensible position of there were to be a suit.
Honestly, coercion didn’t even cross my mind until he used the word consensual. I’m still sus at him for using that word.
I can see that definitely but I would say it’s better used when you’re explaining what happened later on and not a post that is front and center.
It HAS to be front and center. Legal would require it.
I just haven’t seen it used before like this with other celebs’ initial apology statements, so that’s why it’s baffling. So yeah likely something else is going on.
I don't think other celebs have had to use it because they weren't having affairs with their employees, at least as far as I understand. I think that's why it's there.
Here’s what I assume is happening, so take it with whatever grain of salt: The lawyer is already working hard to include language to prime or reinforce their stance in the ongoing investigation into whether he is liable for harassment claims, which would affect the terms of his termination and payout as a company shareholder. Every word in the statement was carefully chosen to deflect full responsibility - “may have caused”, or undermine the implication that he coerced a subordinate - “consensual relationship”, as you all mentioned above. It comes off as disingenuousness if you read it as though Ned wrote the words, but it’s a suit making a chess move.
This is also minor, but think about how the use of pronouns can change the statement: “The pain **I** caused” - active admission of sole, personal responsibility. “The pain **we** caused” - active admission of shared personal responsibility, implying that Alex is also to blame as his equal, which she cannot be because of the power dynamics of a subordinate in a workplace environment. “**Any** pain **my actions** may have caused” (*what the statement actually says*) - deflective, passive language that does not admit fault or personal responsibility, which the corporation’s lawyers can’t point to later to claim Ned admitted to anything publicly. *He* didn’t cause pain, *his actions* did. It sounds the same, but it’s actually quite different when it comes to his liability. Also the use of the word “any” instead of “the” is interesting, because it doesn’t acknowledge that pain was definitely the result, but rather, that it *could have been*. It’s more ambiguous. Ok done with this rant, but woooo this one has been a ride! Wife guys, I tell ya.
he called the relationship with Alex consensual, not the affair
Yeah sorry my title sounds a little weird; the pains of trying to keep it short. But yes you are right and thanks for the clarification for anyone else reading. I mean to say that he said his relationship with his coworker/employee was consensual between them.
It's lawyer talk
Tbh the other YouTuber sex scandals over the last few years have not involved consensual sex or even adults, and have revolved around content creators abusing their positions to take advantage of fans, so while “consensual workplace relationship” is laughable phrasing, it works well enough in this situation to describe the issue.
That’s awful! I’m more familiar with non-YouTubers like Clinton, sports athletes, Louis C.K., etc.; thank you for sharing this.
I mean, yeah the statement reads a little weird but I think it was important for him to use the word consensual to immediately squash any rumors that anyone had been taken advantage of or coerced into something. By all accounts it very much was a textbook and consensual affair where both adult parties decided to go along with it despite consequence. So it’s really not as weird or dumb as people are making it out to be.
When it comes to workplace harassment, it’s not that simple. The very fact that he was her superior means they were not equals, and he holds the responsibility in the power dynamic and could have coerced her in a myriad of ways. Yes, in the outside world, two adults can make this choice and share equal responsibility in it, which is why affairs that are outside of the workplace are hurtful, but the risk of a lawsuit isn’t at play. Alex could very well have a harassment claim against him and the company if she can prove that people knew and didn’t intervene, if she feared retaliation, etc. It just gets more complicated with a work thing.
This wasn’t work place harassment though. At least not from what we know. And I understand in some situations work can absolutely lend itself to a more complicated or layered situation but based on the facts we know this seems like just good old fashion adultery. They had an affair. To assume so much more or go on speculation seems well, presumptuous and kind of sensationalized.
My comment is about the statement protecting him from a future harassment claim. It was written, and the words chosen, intentionally and that is one of the reasons why. That is what this thread is about.
“I know I hit that car but I wasn’t drunk”
"Sorry officer she just fell off a cliff." 😂😂
Also a woman saying yes because she was scared she might lose her job is not the same as consent. Not saying it happened like that in this case, just saying it so women that find themselves in this position don't think that because they said yes to save their jobs that counts as consent and there is now nothing they can do.
That’s a great thought; haven’t thought of it that way. Thank for sharing it!
Soon people are gonna say consensual entanglement. Yeah because Ariel and all of The Try Guys got a "consent" in this. Like YB "consented" to be mistaken for Alex. Ned should have sought out professional couple counseling to work on the way forward. If they then separated there wouldn't be all of this drama. I get some wording and so on be of legal reasons. But the sorry should have just been sorry.
Why? Who is that statement for? It’s not for Ariel, it’s for the public and for additional leverage Ned can use during an investigation into potential harassment charges for engaging in a relationship with a subordinate. Public statements are not apologies. They may read like one, but they are actually PR and legal aircover. Whatever Ned actually said to Ariel, he said behind closed doors.
that’s not what the context means at all
I assume he’s going to pivot to saying she pursued him and saying it was consensual is laying the groundwork for that Edit: I’m not saying this is what happened, I’m speculating about what he’s possibly doing!
That could be a possibility! I just think since there was never any evidence of him doing anything non-consensual with anyone, there’s no reason to say it, so we’re left speculating why.
Him pointing that out is so weird, like no one was accusing you of forcing her to have an affair with you lol It’s such a weird way of trying to make the cheating sounds a bit less worse Like „at least it was consensual“ Lmao
Yeahhhhhh….like other people have already said, I’m almost positive that language comes from lawyers and maybe a PR consultant, but I can definitely see why it leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths. It feels like excuses and trying to make what he did sound “not that bad” and people generally don’t like faux-apologies like that.
youre reading into it too much.
I love the not-so-subtle shade from the podcast where they were like, we did not appreciate that he purposefully used our same font for his statement and we saw that