Hi Kathleen, the link to the Ziegler profile goes to a link in Notion which appears to be restricted. Is there another link which we can use to see the profile?
One of the things that was pointed out online is that part of his brand on the 'show' was 'I love my wife.' So removing him made sense as a business decision. He damaged his own brand with his decisions. The fans would not have been okay with retaining him, I think.
I definitely get that point of *why* they would rid of him, but I think the overarching point that concerns me is how performative and puritanical they are being about it. Just cut ties and let him deal with the rumors and fixing his marriage. People can bounce back from these kinds of mistakes and come out stronger than before — especially if there is little public scrutiny.
What they did by publicizing it so widely will haunt him, his wife, the woman he had an affair with, AND his children for decades. The first three of them are basically unemployable once an employer does a Google search. His kids' names are already out their and attached to the story, so who knows what this will look like in 15-20 years for them. Honestly, I'm kind of hoping he sues.
I also had a negative impression of their video, but I don't agree with your assessment that they are culpable for further harm to these peoples lives/careers.
The online chatter had already occurred, and the try guys did not name any names in their video, and they explicitly asked people to be kind to the families. So if anything, the involved individuals (if harmed) should sue those naming them rather than the remaining try guys. I don't agree those involved are basically unemployable now. I would employ any of them except him.
Plenty of people have negative online press. Celebrities who had affairs, politicians who had affairs, people who arrested who shoplifted get public records about them which (for better or worse) can be searched for online. To me what you are saying is like that a criminal should sue the state for making their records public. I don't agree that saying to a large audience so and so did x should be grounds for a lawsuit (when it is true and not done as harassment).
Regarding employability, I recently had been looking at a person for some no education required work, and it looked like he had been arrested for a DUI a few years back when I searched for his name. I consider that a lot worse than kissing in public, but I thought "well, he seems nice, maybe he is trying to make better decisions now". He seemed like a nice person and did a good job. If people with DUIs and assaults on their record somehow get jobs, I imagine the people in this story will be able to as well.
I think it speaks well of you that you’d look past someone’s checkered past in hiring situations, but the rest of the world is not so rosy.
Powerful people like Bill Clinton can have an affair and still be the President of the US, but Monica Lewinsky hasn’t had a real job since she was a whit house intern. They objectively proved that someone else murdered Meredith Kercher, but people still believe Amanda Knox killed her and has been living under that shadow ever since. I come from a family of attorneys, many of their clients had similar things happen to them, and they’ve lived under that shadow ever since.
Yes, there are always consequences for bad actions — including dealing with rumors. The remaining three try guys had no place being so public about it.
I don't agree with the characterization that Monika Lewinsky "couldn't" get a regular job after. I won't believe that without evidence.
Even Brock Turner was able to get a job, so it is going to be very hard to convince me that these people known for less egregious things could not get one.
I find it rather hypocritical for you to say "The remaining three try guys had no place being so public about it." when you yourself are drawing attention to it.
(Though maybe not relevant , I would prefer if there was no publicity about it.)
Hi Kathleen, the link to the Ziegler profile goes to a link in Notion which appears to be restricted. Is there another link which we can use to see the profile?
Ack! Let me fix that! Thanks for letting me know!
One of the things that was pointed out online is that part of his brand on the 'show' was 'I love my wife.' So removing him made sense as a business decision. He damaged his own brand with his decisions. The fans would not have been okay with retaining him, I think.
I definitely get that point of *why* they would rid of him, but I think the overarching point that concerns me is how performative and puritanical they are being about it. Just cut ties and let him deal with the rumors and fixing his marriage. People can bounce back from these kinds of mistakes and come out stronger than before — especially if there is little public scrutiny.
What they did by publicizing it so widely will haunt him, his wife, the woman he had an affair with, AND his children for decades. The first three of them are basically unemployable once an employer does a Google search. His kids' names are already out their and attached to the story, so who knows what this will look like in 15-20 years for them. Honestly, I'm kind of hoping he sues.
I also had a negative impression of their video, but I don't agree with your assessment that they are culpable for further harm to these peoples lives/careers.
The online chatter had already occurred, and the try guys did not name any names in their video, and they explicitly asked people to be kind to the families. So if anything, the involved individuals (if harmed) should sue those naming them rather than the remaining try guys. I don't agree those involved are basically unemployable now. I would employ any of them except him.
Plenty of people have negative online press. Celebrities who had affairs, politicians who had affairs, people who arrested who shoplifted get public records about them which (for better or worse) can be searched for online. To me what you are saying is like that a criminal should sue the state for making their records public. I don't agree that saying to a large audience so and so did x should be grounds for a lawsuit (when it is true and not done as harassment).
Regarding employability, I recently had been looking at a person for some no education required work, and it looked like he had been arrested for a DUI a few years back when I searched for his name. I consider that a lot worse than kissing in public, but I thought "well, he seems nice, maybe he is trying to make better decisions now". He seemed like a nice person and did a good job. If people with DUIs and assaults on their record somehow get jobs, I imagine the people in this story will be able to as well.
I think it speaks well of you that you’d look past someone’s checkered past in hiring situations, but the rest of the world is not so rosy.
Powerful people like Bill Clinton can have an affair and still be the President of the US, but Monica Lewinsky hasn’t had a real job since she was a whit house intern. They objectively proved that someone else murdered Meredith Kercher, but people still believe Amanda Knox killed her and has been living under that shadow ever since. I come from a family of attorneys, many of their clients had similar things happen to them, and they’ve lived under that shadow ever since.
Yes, there are always consequences for bad actions — including dealing with rumors. The remaining three try guys had no place being so public about it.
I don't agree with the characterization that Monika Lewinsky "couldn't" get a regular job after. I won't believe that without evidence.
Even Brock Turner was able to get a job, so it is going to be very hard to convince me that these people known for less egregious things could not get one.
I find it rather hypocritical for you to say "The remaining three try guys had no place being so public about it." when you yourself are drawing attention to it.
(Though maybe not relevant , I would prefer if there was no publicity about it.)
K