I know most people probably aren't interested in HawkTuah Girl, but I find this to be a really good interview. It brings together two giants of the Internet Age that have risen to fame through...
I know most people probably aren't interested in HawkTuah Girl, but I find this to be a really good interview. It brings together two giants of the Internet Age that have risen to fame through widely disparate channels while undergoing their own tribulations: Andrew with his gonzo interviews on depraved subjects that have turned him into an insightful interviewer, and Hailey who hit the highest levels of fame as a normal person.
Hailey likely did this interview to rehabilitate her image; her lawyer would interrupt several times throughout the interview to limit her answers about the cryptocurrency fiasco she embroiled herself with. It's clear she has a motive for wanting to speak to do a video, and it's fair if you think that's scummy and not worthy of a click. But throughout this video, Hailey comes across as a genuine, honest person with nothing to hide. She's not pretension or guarded, and even with her lawyer there, she doesn't seem coached or belabored in her responses.
My big takeaway from this is that she's a real one for someone who has gone through the very worst of the celebrity cycle. She reveals that the initial video kept getting uploaded despite her protestations to have it taken down. As someone thrust into the spotlight against her will, she has weathered massive fame with grace and humility. She seems like someone who is grounded and with moral principles, making her upbringing a big part in why she didn't go crazy a la KONY 2012 guy.
A big part of this is that Andrew doesn't let her off the hook, asking probing questions while getting her (and all his interviewees) to relax. Having reclaimed All Gas No Brakes, it's exciting to think where his channel will go next.
Miscellaneous Observations:
I have to say that I hope Hailey's podcast makes a reappearance. She has such a genuine speaking style and a lack of motivations that make her a refreshing voice in a world where everyone wants something.
I love the Texan accent. Your state has screwed up its jurisdiction with its power grid by electing feckless politicians who allow rampant proliferation of data centers, but your people talk in a cute way.
The content machine is out of control. There do need to be laws preventing the publishing of videos about drunk people who legally aren't allowed to drive vehicles or sign contracts.
Andrew: [talks about the sensitive political situation in Northern Ireland]
Hailey: Cool. Did you go to a pub?
Honestly, I never had anything against Hailey Welch. I think she's totally fine as a person, and her crypto scam very obviously seems like something she signed up to do without fully understanding...
Honestly, I never had anything against Hailey Welch. I think she's totally fine as a person, and her crypto scam very obviously seems like something she signed up to do without fully understanding the implications. She's about a thousand times better than many of the other influencers that are more successful than her who continually and intentionally use their audience as flocks of sheep to be harvested.
I didn't, and probably won't watch the interview because I can't really do Andrew Callahaghan anymore, but it feels really weird for him to do sit down, critical interviews with controversial figures. Usually someone who does that sort of thing has to have a positive or at least neutral moral standing to pull it off well, since you're effectively casting judgement on someone for something they did wrong.
The whole thing doesn't really work for me because yeah, Hailey did scam a lot of people out of their money on behalf of some people who scammed her too, but like... Andrew's a rapist.
People keep recommending his videos on this site and I'm not sure if they simply aren't aware he's a rapist or don't care. Kind of annoying we need to highlight this every time.
Andrew's a rapist.
People keep recommending his videos on this site and I'm not sure if they simply aren't aware he's a rapist or don't care. Kind of annoying we need to highlight this every time.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it just word against word? Andrew himself has admitted that he did something to make someone uncomfortable, which is why he took a year off to supposedly...
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it just word against word? Andrew himself has admitted that he did something to make someone uncomfortable, which is why he took a year off to supposedly get therapy, but he maintains that he didn't do anything illegal. Is there any evidence that he is obviously a rapist?
I had a similar opinion a while ago, because I used to really like all gas no brakes. I looked into it further because I didn't really want to feel so conflicted about him. My conclusion was that...
I had a similar opinion a while ago, because I used to really like all gas no brakes. I looked into it further because I didn't really want to feel so conflicted about him. My conclusion was that it looks really bad for him, and he almost certainly raped at least one woman, and had a long pattern of behavior that really rode the line of consent. I don't have time to dig it all back up right now but if I remember, I'll edit this comment.
As much as I dislike the entire "content" ecosystem, I can't come up with any plausible reason to agree with or support this, given whatever recording were to take place in a public space like her...
The content machine is out of control. There do need to be laws preventing the publishing of videos about drunk people who legally aren't allowed to drive vehicles or sign contracts.
As much as I dislike the entire "content" ecosystem, I can't come up with any plausible reason to agree with or support this, given whatever recording were to take place in a public space like her original interview. If you choose to consume any substance of your own free will, you are generally responsible for whatever actions you take under its influence. You might end up regretting your choices in hindsight but that's the risk you take - welcome to adulthood. Significant portions of society do not get to use being young and stupid as an excuse. Learn your lesson and keep it moving.
Having not really paid any attention to Welch before beyond knowing the meme and vaguely hearing she subsequently had a podcast, she seems like a quite nice person here. However, you can clearly see this is a managed attempt at rebranding and she also dodges accountability from the start by claiming the original street interviewer is disrespectful to women, so I didn't watch past the first 15 mins. Maybe I won't get the whole picture as a result, but I'm skeptical as to how much value anything further would hold for me.
Ordinarily I would agree, but if there are people actively prodding you for reactions for their own profit motives, I think that changes things for me. It's a level of baiting or provocation that...
If you choose to consume any substance of your own free will, you are generally responsible for whatever actions you take under its influence.
Ordinarily I would agree, but if there are people actively prodding you for reactions for their own profit motives, I think that changes things for me. It's a level of baiting or provocation that doesn't exist except because there's a profit motive behind it. If you distill the basic idea of entrapment for example, that's a concept that we generally agree isn't ethical or potentially lawful, that law enforcement should be able to manufacture crimes by baiting people into crimes they wouldn't have otherwise committed. If you distill the basic actions of that, not the strict definition or legal concept of it, there's a unique and negative motive involved for the person committing the crime in that case, entrapment from law enforcement/government officials, and actions from the target that were induced by the person with a bad motive, and that is not good for society. If we can agree on that basis, I don't see how we can't extract similar ethical concerns outside of that. To be clear, the consequences from the situations can be starkly different so I'm not attempting to equate making a drunken statement to a Youtuber has similar consequences to being baited into a crime by law enforcement.
Is it good for society to enable people with profit motives to induce behaviors from people that wouldn't have otherwise occurred? There probably still is and I know there was some Youtubers whose whole shtick was more 'shock' content and such on the unsuspecting public. Go up and knock someone's phone out of their hand and then call it a "prank" or "social experiment" or a myriad of other actions they do to induce reactions from people for views. These particular types of actions can often actually be charged as crimes under current laws, though perhaps not all of them can be. In any case, sometimes the consequences for breaking these laws are not necessarily enough because they weren't initially made around the basis that someone would do it for a profit motive. The concept that someone would have a motive to do that because they can make tons of money on Youtube didn't exist when those laws were made.
Likewise, I think the concept of 'Everything is fair game in the public square' doesn't account for these more modern circumstances.
It's more like everything is fair game in the public square when you consent to it. The crux of the matter is whether or not the interviewee is legally able to consent. I'd agree it's potentially...
It's more like everything is fair game in the public square when you consent to it. The crux of the matter is whether or not the interviewee is legally able to consent. I'd agree it's potentially predatory, and thus ethically or morally wrong, if the interviewer can reasonably conclude beforehand that their interviewee is too drunk to be legally responsible for their actions, but I don't think any of the street interviews I've ever seen (and I've probably seen as much as the average person over the years) hit that threshold, so I don't share your opinion of provocation.
Entrapment is not a great analogy because it's only a crime due to the conflict of interest specific to law enforcement agents. If a private citizen baits someone into committing an actual crime you can prosecute for solicitation... but inducing someone to embarrass themselves? Shitty, perhaps; predatory, arguably; criminal, never, regardless of motive. Commission of a crime can't depend on the supposed victim's level of regret after the fact.
It's not really an analogy of entrapment directly, just to make that clear. I specifically only wanted to distill underlying actions and motives of actors within the concept of entrapment rather...
Entrapment is not a great analogy because it's only a crime due to the conflict of interest specific to law enforcement agents. If a private citizen baits someone into committing an actual crime you can prosecute for solicitation... but inducing someone to embarrass themselves? Shitty, perhaps; predatory, arguably; criminal, never, regardless of motive. Commission of a crime can't depend on the supposed victim's level of regret after the fact.
It's not really an analogy of entrapment directly, just to make that clear. I specifically only wanted to distill underlying actions and motives of actors within the concept of entrapment rather than specific definition of the word. So I'm not comparing the concept of entrapment directly.
Also just because it isn't criminal for a private citizen to do it doesn't make it not wrong. The conflict of interest is sort of the intersection that I'm talking about. If a private citizen were motivated by profit to bait people into crimes, perhaps the law doesn't reflect it, but I would expect that most informed people would recognize an inherent conflict there, just like with for-profit prisons.
Notably, there are actions that in ordinary conditions wouldn't be considered illegal in public but if done for profit motives, are illegal without permits. You can go knock on a neighbors door, it's not exactly public property to be at someone's front door but unless there's signage, it's generally legal to be on someone's property in that manner. However if you're going around knocking on a bunch of doors, I know of some locations that have laws passed with fines for going up to homes and trying to sell things without a permit. And there's of course sometimes limitations on the permits. So it's not even as simple as just giving money but actually attempting to limit or control the amount that type of action is happening when done for profit. Specifically these laws often exclude religious or political motives (not sure if there's a legal preemption to that or what) despite both of those in a more indirect way being for profit too.
You also often have laws restricting selling things in some public settings, or at least requiring permitting and conditions to act that way.
So I do believe that there's some framework in which it's accepted that people who are doing things for profit in public need to operate under different conditions.
I don't see how claiming the original street reviewer was disrespectful to women dodges accountability for the crypto rugpull that was done in her name. To my knowledge the rug pull is the main...
I don't see how claiming the original street reviewer was disrespectful to women dodges accountability for the crypto rugpull that was done in her name. To my knowledge the rug pull is the main controversy, and is only connected to the original interview in that the scam was only possible from the fame she got from said interview. Is there context knowledge I am missing here?
Having watched the whole thing, she comes across as sincere and fully admits she got duped by crypto bro swindling & promises, and put her name on something she shouldnt have. But she was even cleared by the SEC and FBI after she fully cooperated and gave them literally everything they asked for, so while yes it is a rebranding to her specific context, I think it's more than fair to have a desire to set the record straight.
Not for the crypto, for her initial viral moment which she said she was embarrassed by. She does admit she got in over her head with the crypto, and I give her kudos for that, but even that was...
I don't see how claiming the original street reviewer was disrespectful to women dodges accountability for the crypto rugpull that was done in her name.
Not for the crypto, for her initial viral moment which she said she was embarrassed by. She does admit she got in over her head with the crypto, and I give her kudos for that, but even that was framed (in the part that I watched) as, "Well, I was just 21, I obviously didn't know what I was doing."
Im sorry I might be missing something but what is there really to be accountable for there? Her saying something while drunk and it blowing up and going viral? She doesn't really seem all that...
Im sorry I might be missing something but what is there really to be accountable for there? Her saying something while drunk and it blowing up and going viral? She doesn't really seem all that bothered by it nowadays, nor does that seem like an especially problematic thing to have happen to you. She mentions in the interview that she initally asked the street interviewer to take it down due to embarrassement and when he didnt she decided to profit off of it instead. She also said after going through his channel she didnt really like the questions he asked because they were very invasive and disrespectful of women but I dont think that means she doesn't feel responsible for what she said. I just feel like I'm missing something here, because I don't see the issue with my current context.
Keep in mind I'm not making any sort of moral judgment or using my own determination as to whether her experience is worth getting worked up about or not. I want to make sure you aren't either....
Keep in mind I'm not making any sort of moral judgment or using my own determination as to whether her experience is worth getting worked up about or not. I want to make sure you aren't either. I'm just going off of her saying she said she was embarrassed at the situation at one point - which is fine.
But why are his questions nasty and disrespectful now? Weren't they just as nasty and disrespectful when she answered them? Is asking a woman (drunk or not) a question about sex disrespectful? Does she really think about it differently now just because she's sober? Or is it because she just happened to go on this whole viral rollercoaster and she was embarrassed for some time?
Transcript
Do you you kind of regret doing it?
Not really regret doing it. At first I did cuz I was embarrassed. But after that I'm like, "Okay, everything happens for a reason." Like I mean it's got good stuff with it and it's got bad stuff at the same time. just like anything.
As somebody who did a lot of interviews like in in New Orleans, like party interviews early on in my career, now I see on almost every street corner, you have like two or three interviewers, like in major college towns, like in Scottsdale or in um on any college campus really at the main bars, you have like two or three people trying to have a moment similar to the interviewer that captured yours. What do you think about the ethics of that kind of street interview?
I really hope that there's not any more interviews kind of like the one I got because now that I think about it and I'm like sober. It's just it's kind of disrespectful to women like the stuff he was asking. But you know that's just how the world works nowadays.
So in what sense was it disrespectful?
Just the questions he would ask.
What's one move in a bedroom that make a man go crazy every time that you do?
And then after you go to his account and see all the stuff he asked other women.
Like I think I got off easy compared to some of the stuff he's asked other women. And I was like, "Oh god."
"You prefer missionary or backsides?"
"Missionary."
"Why?
"The guy does all the work."
Just nasty questions like that. So after he released like the first video, I was like, "Oh, that's it." Like he don't have anything else to post. Boy, was I wrong. There was like four or five different videos after that, just like cutouts of this one interview. And I was like, "Oh my god, did I say that?"
To me, that doesn't sound especially self-accountable. But I try to live by a wisdom key I once heard - never complain about what you permit.
I caught this interview a few days ago and had pretty much the exact same takeaway. I can't imagine what it must've been like to go from small town 21 year old nobody to mega viral sensation...
I caught this interview a few days ago and had pretty much the exact same takeaway. I can't imagine what it must've been like to go from small town 21 year old nobody to mega viral sensation overnight, especially given the...uh...subject matter of her clip. It makes sense that she decided to ride the wave after her unsuccessful attempts to get the clips taken down. There's some poetic justice in her becoming more famous than the jabronis who posted the original clip.
It seems clear to me that she had a good upbringing that instilled a good sense of morality, otherwise she'd be completely wrecked by fame. Instead, she's like, yeah, if i wasn't famous I'd be...
It seems clear to me that she had a good upbringing that instilled a good sense of morality, otherwise she'd be completely wrecked by fame. Instead, she's like, yeah, if i wasn't famous I'd be working at the spring factory, it's decent work that i enjoy. Total salt of the earth. Same boyfriend throughout the whole ordeal even.
I'd watch a podcast of her being a normal person while being in extraordinary circumstances. Like driving to a red carpet event in her pickup, ordering drivethru while wearing a gown.
I enjoy Channel 5's long-form interviews, I think they started with the Hunter Biden one which was fantastic, or maybe it was the one where Jacob Chansley phoned in from jail. Callaghan has a...
I enjoy Channel 5's long-form interviews, I think they started with the Hunter Biden one which was fantastic, or maybe it was the one where Jacob Chansley phoned in from jail. Callaghan has a knack for choosing unexpected interviewees who are strangely relevant and interesting. I've been watching this new one with Clavicular. I already had my opinions about that guy before watching, but this is honestly my first time actually hearing him speak for himself. Can't say it changed my mind about him (rather it confirmed a lot of suspicions) but I'm grateful for the chance to hear him out and decide for myself rather than just adopting other people's opinions uncritically.
I really appreciate how Callaghan's interviews are neither sycophantic nor adversarial. There's no raised voices or crosstalk. He pushes back when needed but isn't aggressive about it. The entire time he maintains a respectful congeniality. He gives off a youthful vibe that seems unprofessional at first, which helps put people at ease I think, but I think he's on a higher journalistic tier than most interviewers who have bigger budgets and nicer clothes.
So, it's entirely possible Welch is hamming up the simple, everyday persona both to appear more approachable and relatable, and to make it less likely she'll be seen as smart enough to...
So, it's entirely possible Welch is hamming up the simple, everyday persona both to appear more approachable and relatable, and to make it less likely she'll be seen as smart enough to deliberately scam her audience. Logan Paul, for example, appears a lot less smart than he actually is on podcasts to appeal to his audience, and so I'm not going to draw a conclusion from what could easily be seen as a damage control interview that relies heavily on "The FBI did not find enough evidence to arrest me" (appreciate Callaghan for including her cursing out Coffeezilla in a cutaway). TBC I have zero knowledge of her apart from occasional headlines and I truly don't have any interest in her really.
But...
Are we not going to acknowledge how fucking insane the documentary promo at the end was?!
Andrew Callaghan interviews internet sensation Hailey Welch and asks about her cryptocurrency scandal, her podcast, life in the limelight, and bestiality. MODS: I thought I posted this in the...
Andrew Callaghan interviews internet sensation Hailey Welch and asks about her cryptocurrency scandal, her podcast, life in the limelight, and bestiality.
MODS: I thought I posted this in the "misc" section; I didn't know this would go in "life". Please reclassify to wherever it needs to go.
I know most people probably aren't interested in HawkTuah Girl, but I find this to be a really good interview. It brings together two giants of the Internet Age that have risen to fame through widely disparate channels while undergoing their own tribulations: Andrew with his gonzo interviews on depraved subjects that have turned him into an insightful interviewer, and Hailey who hit the highest levels of fame as a normal person.
Hailey likely did this interview to rehabilitate her image; her lawyer would interrupt several times throughout the interview to limit her answers about the cryptocurrency fiasco she embroiled herself with. It's clear she has a motive for wanting to speak to do a video, and it's fair if you think that's scummy and not worthy of a click. But throughout this video, Hailey comes across as a genuine, honest person with nothing to hide. She's not pretension or guarded, and even with her lawyer there, she doesn't seem coached or belabored in her responses.
My big takeaway from this is that she's a real one for someone who has gone through the very worst of the celebrity cycle. She reveals that the initial video kept getting uploaded despite her protestations to have it taken down. As someone thrust into the spotlight against her will, she has weathered massive fame with grace and humility. She seems like someone who is grounded and with moral principles, making her upbringing a big part in why she didn't go crazy a la KONY 2012 guy.
A big part of this is that Andrew doesn't let her off the hook, asking probing questions while getting her (and all his interviewees) to relax. Having reclaimed All Gas No Brakes, it's exciting to think where his channel will go next.
Miscellaneous Observations:
Hailey: Cool. Did you go to a pub?
Honestly, I never had anything against Hailey Welch. I think she's totally fine as a person, and her crypto scam very obviously seems like something she signed up to do without fully understanding the implications. She's about a thousand times better than many of the other influencers that are more successful than her who continually and intentionally use their audience as flocks of sheep to be harvested.
I didn't, and probably won't watch the interview because I can't really do Andrew Callahaghan anymore, but it feels really weird for him to do sit down, critical interviews with controversial figures. Usually someone who does that sort of thing has to have a positive or at least neutral moral standing to pull it off well, since you're effectively casting judgement on someone for something they did wrong.
The whole thing doesn't really work for me because yeah, Hailey did scam a lot of people out of their money on behalf of some people who scammed her too, but like... Andrew's a rapist.
People keep recommending his videos on this site and I'm not sure if they simply aren't aware he's a rapist or don't care. Kind of annoying we need to highlight this every time.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it just word against word? Andrew himself has admitted that he did something to make someone uncomfortable, which is why he took a year off to supposedly get therapy, but he maintains that he didn't do anything illegal. Is there any evidence that he is obviously a rapist?
I had a similar opinion a while ago, because I used to really like all gas no brakes. I looked into it further because I didn't really want to feel so conflicted about him. My conclusion was that it looks really bad for him, and he almost certainly raped at least one woman, and had a long pattern of behavior that really rode the line of consent. I don't have time to dig it all back up right now but if I remember, I'll edit this comment.
As much as I dislike the entire "content" ecosystem, I can't come up with any plausible reason to agree with or support this, given whatever recording were to take place in a public space like her original interview. If you choose to consume any substance of your own free will, you are generally responsible for whatever actions you take under its influence. You might end up regretting your choices in hindsight but that's the risk you take - welcome to adulthood. Significant portions of society do not get to use being young and stupid as an excuse. Learn your lesson and keep it moving.
Having not really paid any attention to Welch before beyond knowing the meme and vaguely hearing she subsequently had a podcast, she seems like a quite nice person here. However, you can clearly see this is a managed attempt at rebranding and she also dodges accountability from the start by claiming the original street interviewer is disrespectful to women, so I didn't watch past the first 15 mins. Maybe I won't get the whole picture as a result, but I'm skeptical as to how much value anything further would hold for me.
Ordinarily I would agree, but if there are people actively prodding you for reactions for their own profit motives, I think that changes things for me. It's a level of baiting or provocation that doesn't exist except because there's a profit motive behind it. If you distill the basic idea of entrapment for example, that's a concept that we generally agree isn't ethical or potentially lawful, that law enforcement should be able to manufacture crimes by baiting people into crimes they wouldn't have otherwise committed. If you distill the basic actions of that, not the strict definition or legal concept of it, there's a unique and negative motive involved for the person committing the crime in that case, entrapment from law enforcement/government officials, and actions from the target that were induced by the person with a bad motive, and that is not good for society. If we can agree on that basis, I don't see how we can't extract similar ethical concerns outside of that. To be clear, the consequences from the situations can be starkly different so I'm not attempting to equate making a drunken statement to a Youtuber has similar consequences to being baited into a crime by law enforcement.
Is it good for society to enable people with profit motives to induce behaviors from people that wouldn't have otherwise occurred? There probably still is and I know there was some Youtubers whose whole shtick was more 'shock' content and such on the unsuspecting public. Go up and knock someone's phone out of their hand and then call it a "prank" or "social experiment" or a myriad of other actions they do to induce reactions from people for views. These particular types of actions can often actually be charged as crimes under current laws, though perhaps not all of them can be. In any case, sometimes the consequences for breaking these laws are not necessarily enough because they weren't initially made around the basis that someone would do it for a profit motive. The concept that someone would have a motive to do that because they can make tons of money on Youtube didn't exist when those laws were made.
Likewise, I think the concept of 'Everything is fair game in the public square' doesn't account for these more modern circumstances.
It's more like everything is fair game in the public square when you consent to it. The crux of the matter is whether or not the interviewee is legally able to consent. I'd agree it's potentially predatory, and thus ethically or morally wrong, if the interviewer can reasonably conclude beforehand that their interviewee is too drunk to be legally responsible for their actions, but I don't think any of the street interviews I've ever seen (and I've probably seen as much as the average person over the years) hit that threshold, so I don't share your opinion of provocation.
Entrapment is not a great analogy because it's only a crime due to the conflict of interest specific to law enforcement agents. If a private citizen baits someone into committing an actual crime you can prosecute for solicitation... but inducing someone to embarrass themselves? Shitty, perhaps; predatory, arguably; criminal, never, regardless of motive. Commission of a crime can't depend on the supposed victim's level of regret after the fact.
It's not really an analogy of entrapment directly, just to make that clear. I specifically only wanted to distill underlying actions and motives of actors within the concept of entrapment rather than specific definition of the word. So I'm not comparing the concept of entrapment directly.
Also just because it isn't criminal for a private citizen to do it doesn't make it not wrong. The conflict of interest is sort of the intersection that I'm talking about. If a private citizen were motivated by profit to bait people into crimes, perhaps the law doesn't reflect it, but I would expect that most informed people would recognize an inherent conflict there, just like with for-profit prisons.
Notably, there are actions that in ordinary conditions wouldn't be considered illegal in public but if done for profit motives, are illegal without permits. You can go knock on a neighbors door, it's not exactly public property to be at someone's front door but unless there's signage, it's generally legal to be on someone's property in that manner. However if you're going around knocking on a bunch of doors, I know of some locations that have laws passed with fines for going up to homes and trying to sell things without a permit. And there's of course sometimes limitations on the permits. So it's not even as simple as just giving money but actually attempting to limit or control the amount that type of action is happening when done for profit. Specifically these laws often exclude religious or political motives (not sure if there's a legal preemption to that or what) despite both of those in a more indirect way being for profit too.
You also often have laws restricting selling things in some public settings, or at least requiring permitting and conditions to act that way.
So I do believe that there's some framework in which it's accepted that people who are doing things for profit in public need to operate under different conditions.
I don't see how claiming the original street reviewer was disrespectful to women dodges accountability for the crypto rugpull that was done in her name. To my knowledge the rug pull is the main controversy, and is only connected to the original interview in that the scam was only possible from the fame she got from said interview. Is there context knowledge I am missing here?
Having watched the whole thing, she comes across as sincere and fully admits she got duped by crypto bro swindling & promises, and put her name on something she shouldnt have. But she was even cleared by the SEC and FBI after she fully cooperated and gave them literally everything they asked for, so while yes it is a rebranding to her specific context, I think it's more than fair to have a desire to set the record straight.
Not for the crypto, for her initial viral moment which she said she was embarrassed by. She does admit she got in over her head with the crypto, and I give her kudos for that, but even that was framed (in the part that I watched) as, "Well, I was just 21, I obviously didn't know what I was doing."
Im sorry I might be missing something but what is there really to be accountable for there? Her saying something while drunk and it blowing up and going viral? She doesn't really seem all that bothered by it nowadays, nor does that seem like an especially problematic thing to have happen to you. She mentions in the interview that she initally asked the street interviewer to take it down due to embarrassement and when he didnt she decided to profit off of it instead. She also said after going through his channel she didnt really like the questions he asked because they were very invasive and disrespectful of women but I dont think that means she doesn't feel responsible for what she said. I just feel like I'm missing something here, because I don't see the issue with my current context.
Keep in mind I'm not making any sort of moral judgment or using my own determination as to whether her experience is worth getting worked up about or not. I want to make sure you aren't either. I'm just going off of her saying she said she was embarrassed at the situation at one point - which is fine.
But why are his questions nasty and disrespectful now? Weren't they just as nasty and disrespectful when she answered them? Is asking a woman (drunk or not) a question about sex disrespectful? Does she really think about it differently now just because she's sober? Or is it because she just happened to go on this whole viral rollercoaster and she was embarrassed for some time?
Transcript
"You prefer missionary or backsides?"
"Missionary."
"Why?
"The guy does all the work."
To me, that doesn't sound especially self-accountable. But I try to live by a wisdom key I once heard - never complain about what you permit.
I caught this interview a few days ago and had pretty much the exact same takeaway. I can't imagine what it must've been like to go from small town 21 year old nobody to mega viral sensation overnight, especially given the...uh...subject matter of her clip. It makes sense that she decided to ride the wave after her unsuccessful attempts to get the clips taken down. There's some poetic justice in her becoming more famous than the jabronis who posted the original clip.
It seems clear to me that she had a good upbringing that instilled a good sense of morality, otherwise she'd be completely wrecked by fame. Instead, she's like, yeah, if i wasn't famous I'd be working at the spring factory, it's decent work that i enjoy. Total salt of the earth. Same boyfriend throughout the whole ordeal even.
I'd watch a podcast of her being a normal person while being in extraordinary circumstances. Like driving to a red carpet event in her pickup, ordering drivethru while wearing a gown.
I enjoy Channel 5's long-form interviews, I think they started with the Hunter Biden one which was fantastic, or maybe it was the one where Jacob Chansley phoned in from jail. Callaghan has a knack for choosing unexpected interviewees who are strangely relevant and interesting. I've been watching this new one with Clavicular. I already had my opinions about that guy before watching, but this is honestly my first time actually hearing him speak for himself. Can't say it changed my mind about him (rather it confirmed a lot of suspicions) but I'm grateful for the chance to hear him out and decide for myself rather than just adopting other people's opinions uncritically.
I really appreciate how Callaghan's interviews are neither sycophantic nor adversarial. There's no raised voices or crosstalk. He pushes back when needed but isn't aggressive about it. The entire time he maintains a respectful congeniality. He gives off a youthful vibe that seems unprofessional at first, which helps put people at ease I think, but I think he's on a higher journalistic tier than most interviewers who have bigger budgets and nicer clothes.
So, it's entirely possible Welch is hamming up the simple, everyday persona both to appear more approachable and relatable, and to make it less likely she'll be seen as smart enough to deliberately scam her audience. Logan Paul, for example, appears a lot less smart than he actually is on podcasts to appeal to his audience, and so I'm not going to draw a conclusion from what could easily be seen as a damage control interview that relies heavily on "The FBI did not find enough evidence to arrest me" (appreciate Callaghan for including her cursing out Coffeezilla in a cutaway). TBC I have zero knowledge of her apart from occasional headlines and I truly don't have any interest in her really.
But...
Are we not going to acknowledge how fucking insane the documentary promo at the end was?!
Andrew Callaghan interviews internet sensation Hailey Welch and asks about her cryptocurrency scandal, her podcast, life in the limelight, and bestiality.
MODS: I thought I posted this in the "misc" section; I didn't know this would go in "life". Please reclassify to wherever it needs to go.