We Need To Talk About The INSANE Shane Dawson Accusations and Fake News Witch Hunt...

Share this video on

What's Hot

What's New

Top Grossing

Top of the Chart


Philip DeFranco : Seriously... THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE. Please promise me you'll try to find it before making wild accusations and believing everything you hear or read. <3

Nara V : Okay HOLD ON a MINUTE please. Let me get this straight: - Jake Paul says the N word - Greg Paul kisses a young girl on camera in one of Jake Paul's videos - Jake Paul bullies the Martinez twins to dry hump each other on camera on the floor (after referring to them both as "beaners" multiple times and then the "Marteaners" afterwards) - Logan, aside from his atrocious stunt in the Japanese suicide forest, culturally appropriates, mocks and disrespects Japan with his friends and YALL wanna go after Shane Dawson???? The jokes he made were tasteless but this is being taken COMPLETELY out of context.

xx_monarch_xx : The Shane thing is also even worse considering that he himself was molested as a child. I am still livid that people would do such a thing to him.

Trogdor8freebird : "A certain group of people somewhere might be offended by this" That is no way to live nor to run a business imo

thats.trxgic : #IStandWithShane

MrMultiAlber : I watched shane back in 2008. I grew out of his content because I think it's just foolish but he does not deserve this bs.

Al bw : I was honestly looking forward to Phil tearing these accusations against Shane apart

Mikael Heed : Wait... are you arguing that there are too many white people working at H&M in Sweden? That's like saying there's too many asians working at Nintendo in Japan.

ZeeNasty : As for the coolest monkey thing, isn't it pretty common to call kids little monkeys? I understand why people would be bothered but sometimes it works against equality between people when you treat others different because of their appearance.

Jason Bourne : This church story. . . girl is 17, so she's not a child. She understood the situation well and consented. Not sexual assault. Just because you regret consenting something AFTER the fact, doesn't make it rape. Come on, Phil. I disagreed with a lot of things you said today, and that's a first!

Dancing Panda : She was 17 he was what 22? It seems to me like based on their stories, she liked him and thought he was cute and he thought she was attractive and knew he had an "in". He realized what he had done and apologized and the leadership was like "ok...lets handle this in a way that doesn't mess up their lives. He initiated, but she (by her actions and reluctance) was more than willing. both are not equally wrong but both have some fault". As for the law that came later, if it were the judge, I'd rule in his favor. The law reads as though it's to protect the congregation from a leader who says something to the effect of "God said that in order for you to be absolved of your sins, or to get into heaven, you have to suck my dick twice and week and tell no one. If you tell anyone you'll go to hell and God will punish you family". So unless he used the faith as a means to coax her into a sexual relation when she otherwise would be opposed to it, he should be found innocent.

Ace Coordinator Mary : I'm SO glad that ALLLLL of Twitter freaking backed up Shane on this. Like ALL of the YouTube community came forward for Shane. It really says something about him and his relationship with people. Like... it was freaking awesome to see LoeyLane, Jeffree Star, MannyMUA, LizDefranco, Joey Graceffa, Jenna Marbles, HANK GREEN DEFENDING THIS MAN it was so awesome

Seth : Philip, I am in no way standing up for the pastor, but haven't you always said not to judge a person by their past? He's obviously sorry, and HOPEFULLY a changed man. You're the last person who should be condemning him today for actions that he committed 20 years ago. He was wrong, but he admitted that and asked for forgiveness. Allow him to change, just as others have allowed you to change.

JohnJohn : In a way, the "monkey" shirt situation is kind of the opposite of racist, as they instead of treating the black kid differently, they completely ignored his race and treated him like any other model.

Megan : i personally don’t think the h&m hoodie was a huge deal... sure, it might have been insensitive, but i think it was just an oversight

Senreigh : I have to disagree with places like H&M getting a special person to decide if something will cause outrage or not. I think people just need to stop apologizing and tell people to deal with it and eventually idiots who like to get mad at everything will go back into their holes, since they will understand noone cares what they think.

MyAbridged : It astounds me that there are so many cases of genuinely horrifying YouTube users such as DaddyOFive, or people doing legitimately horrible things like Logan Paul, yet it is the plainly false stories where YouTubers like Pewdiepie and Shane Dawson are taken deliberately out of context and misrepresented that tend to gain the most attention and have the longest lasting ramifications. I suppose it shouldn't, he media is all about lying for views and such, but it's just depressing to see on such a wide scale and so consistently

Keagan : That’s not sexual assault nor an abuse of power.

NoobPeriod : I usually enjoy this show but definitely not this episode. The pastor did not commit a crime so stop calling it that. She could have easily refused or said no. THAT IS NOT ASSULT.

Smither Sink : That doesn't sound like sexual assault to me, it sounds like some mislead kids. Now, I think he was very much in the wrong for both abusing his power being older than her and being an authority figure, but this is a note a rape, where he forced her to have sex with him. In fact, I don't know the laws for specific states, but as far as I know, consensual sex with a 17-year-old is totally legal. If that law wasn't in place at the time, then he didn't legally do anything wrong. No, he shouldn't have a standing ovation, and just apologizing is the very least he could do about this situation, but what do you expect from him? He made a stupid decision he regrets. As for the monkey thing: not surprised at all that so many people got offended over such a dumb thing. One day society will move past the "monkey" connotations. For now it's just on a downwards spiral where everything NEEDS to be racist.

MegadethTillDeth : I think this particular sexual assault story degrades many others. He asked politely, she obliged. Story sounded like he didn't even finish before he asked her and God for forgiveness. I dunno, murky waters but I don't buy into the guys "position of power" either. Homie wasn't Joel Osteen or somn lol. Idk, feel shitty that life's gotta be so tough for everyone.

My Instant Search : I really like how quickly and directly you jump to the main hot story without stretching and taking any bit extra. I appreciate that.

Kain : Sexual assault? Really Phil? He asked and she voluntarily complied. Unless you're holding details back then there was no coercion. No force used nor threats. No assault occurred. You also can't apply criminal charges retroactively so that clergyman stipulation doesn't apply as it didn't exist at the time of the incident. The only reason for bringing up a nonapplicable variable is to shape your viewers thoughts into your own. The only possible route anyone could look into to see if there was wrongdoing would be the age of consent laws at the time as they vary state by state. Regret is not assault. As far as "wondering if the H&M staff looked similar" comment, it's Sweden. Of course they would look similar. Most of the world doesn't compose of a mash-up of ethnicities/cultures like we do here in the US. That clothing line had an obvious jungle/safari theme. Which kid wore what clothing item could possibly be explained as simple as that was the sizes of what they had on set that matched at the time. You started off level headed for the Shane Dawson bit but that took a quick nosedive after plugging your merch.

Killsomecero : come on.. sure it might seem like a dependency on the clergyman or whatnot, but he was literally like 20. he didn't assault her, he didn't force her, he just asked her and she went on with it.. she never said no, she never pushed him away, she never expressed that she was against it.. he literally got on his knees and apologized. this is absurd, this man should not be in trouble. are we supposed to guess when they're ok with it? should we just outlaw all sex??...

Jacques Rossouw : Wait, I’m pretty sure she consented?

Oscar Rodriguez : I don't agree with your view on the pastor. What was he supposed to do? He respectfully asked for forgiveness, and clearly is sorry for it. Are we supposed to just exclude him from society?

The Ace Of Spades : Dead bodies and pedophile accusations... I got a feeling this is gonna be an interesting year

Noblesse Oblige : Don't think H&M should have PoC in their staff *just* for diversity. They should choose just based on merit. Whether that means only white, only PoC, or mixed, so be it.

lodrbyroni : He was a 22yr old youth pastor.....not a clergymen, come on Phil never had a one night stand? This story was nothing 20 years ago its nothing now. This girl is the bad person in this situation. "I thought he loved me" but he didn't so im going to wait 20 years and use this new social media craze to shame him.

justalil2much4me : My interpretation of the story is he apologized and wanted her to keep it a secret because of religion (sexual contact before marriage is a sin). The “he loves me” part made it seems like she liked him and was down for it, but after he reacted poorly her experience soured.

Eter Puralis : By saying they don't care what the mother thinks about it, citing H&Ms ignorance... they're kind of calling the mother ignorant as well. They're literally saying a black mother doesn't have the wherewithal to know what to be "offended" by. You don't need an international staff for a product that is only being sold in ONE COUNTRY. Just because the issue keeps being inflamed in America doesn't mean we want any part of your bs infection.

Vanessa Blanco : I was waiting for this after seeing Shane’s video last night.

Lemon_ade_ : I’m confused.. i don’t want an argument to start because of my ignorance.. but i understand he drove her to an isolated area and he told her to perform a sexual act on him, but the way she described it it didn’t seem like it was forced. It sounded like she did it of her own free will. Now whether or not there was more coaxing or not, idk. But wouldn’t that just throw her case out if he didn’t FORCE her to do it? if someone could explain this to me I’d be greatful

AngelofbrokenHalo : "Oh, I'm not saying QUOTAS, but just...just make your board diverse. Because, you know, someone somewhere somehow might be offended." No, Phil. Merit. You get to be on the board of directors solely based on merit, and that is how it should be. I honestly do not care if someone in Uganda or Argentina or Bangladesh or Vietnam gets offended because of a certain set of words that mean literally nothing where they were originally used. If I were to call my company a certain name that in another language means "dick" or "cunt" or "smegma" or whatever, well, I really do not care because in MY language it means something else, something established. You cannot, and SHOULD NOT try and please everybody, because you end up pleasing nobody.

steven simpson : 12:12 so Phil we need to hire people based on the color of there skin and not there skill set? That's probably the dumbest thing I've heard you say in a while.

suga we're going down swinging : #ShaneIsNotAPedo

Spider-Zero : I hate Shane Dawson but this is complete bs what they are doing to him.

Samantha Gardner : I gotta disagree with you Phil, there is major difference between sexual assault and what happened between the youth pastor and the girl. She willingly participated in the act, regardless of her feelings about it. I am so sick of women screaming about equality and being strong but the turning around and not taking responsibility for their own actions. You don't want to do something girls, don't do it! Don't do it then regret it and blame someone else for it later, regret isn't rape.

PSN Serkett : The people how made a big stink over the H& M sweater are racist thats just how they think why else would that person deny what the mother have said if you saw that pic of the kid in the sweater and the first thing you thought was they are calling the black kid a monkey you need mental help and you are probably a racist hopefully a mild one

Adrian Knight : Phill don't be an idiot :) The standing ovation was because of his change, his desire to seek forgiveness etc. You say in other clips that is good when people change but still bash on people because of you being biased on religion. Kinda disappointing...

Killa Watt : My take away is we learned nothing from Drama Alert.

Cosmic_Daisy_Head : Alright so yes the fact that he was 22 when it happened does matter. Also 17 is old enough to know if you want to have sex with someone. If, IF, this is the only incident (which it very well may not be) then there's no reason to drag him for it. The church can lead people, both men and women, to be very repressed and sexually confused especially if they were brought up in a strict Christian household. The fact is that the young woman was complicit, she could've said no. I don't believe in this idea that women can never be held accountable in these kinds of situations. Yes she performed oral sex but HE's the one that stopped it from going further, not her. He's the one who was desperately begging for forgiveness from both her and his God. She might have allowed to let the tryst go further. Then what? Would she have cried rape after, when he was ashamed of what he had done and she had found out that he was just horny and didn't love her. I'm not saying that his power as a youth pastor didn't help sway her decision, but I'm not going to crucify the man without other allegations outside this one that show him to be a true predator and not just a horny possible virgin who was confused about how his sexuality fit in with his religious path.

MiHanLin1 : Phil, forgive me taking a personal tone when I don't know you and you don't know me, but you asked for my opinion, so I'm going to give it: You are usually a pretty fair-minded guy, but I feel like you jumped to the wrong conclusion on the Woodson accusation. There are a number of factors that seem to point to Savage's guilt, but actually fall short (however narrowly) of making the incident an assault. 1. Clergyman angle. If a priest with the power to influence the fate of your immortal soul (not to mention what is often the backbone of your social existence) "persuades" you to engage in forbidden sex acts, that is in fact coercion and that's the very reason for the law you mentioned in Texas (more on that later). But maybe we have different understandings of the typical role of a youth pastor. To me, a youth pastor is like a teaching asistant in college. They're older and more experienced in the field, but they don't have the power and influence that the professor does. A youth pastor that tells you you are going to hell for disobeying him is like a TA who promises to tank your grade. He's not likely to be believed and it's complete bollocks. As for the law protecting people from exploitation by clergy, it is much like age of consent laws. Yes, technically Savage may have been considered clergy at the time of the incident. Likewise, an 18 year old who has sex with a 17 year old in many places has technically violated age of consent, but I hope we can all agree that the 18 year old is not a monster or a pedophile for having done so. 18 year olds should avoid banging 17 year olds and youth pastors subject to the Texas clergy law shouldn't get it on with members of their youth groups. But those who cross that line in such marginal ways don't deserve the unfiltered wrath of society. It doesn't truly violate "the spirit of the law". Take away the meaningful distinction of him being "clergy" and this is a very different story. People almost certainly wouldn't be reacting the way they are if Savage had been her dance partner or math tutor. Also, some of your viewers have ignored the fact that, as you point out, the law in question wasn't in effect at the time. So even the technicality of the law does not apply. That leaves the question hanging on whether or not you think a 22 year old youth pastor was imbued with enough authority and influence to make his sexual advances on a 17 year old a "criminal" act malum in se. Based on my experience with youth pastors, that is not the case. 2. Age difference. Speaking of the age discrepancy, a 22 year old making sexual advances toward a 17 year old is outside the comfort zone at best and can be approaching predatory at worst. This fact alone does not make it an assault or coersive situation and is not a violation in and of itself. You yourself don't dwell on this, but some of your viewers seem to be making a point of it in the comments section. 3. Manipulation. I don't know if you remember what teenage "romance" is like, but it can involve a lot of sneaking off to be alone. The fact that Savage drove Woodson to a secluded spot instead of home may sound menacing in the context in which it's presented, but it doesn't mean that Savage was overriding Woodson's consent, by design or otherwise. Granted, he was 22 and no longer a teenager, but I just don't see that fact in the menacing light in which is was presented. As for the alleged emotional manipulation, I can't help but note that Woodson's allegation, "...you acted like you loved me and cared about me in order for me to cooperate with such acts" (meaning fellatio) could easily be leveled at any former partner in a consensual relationship that has ended badly. We all work hard to make potential partners feel like we care. Whether or not that caring is genuine is highly subjective. Even if after the fact you think that the other party doesn't really care about you enough to deserve to be sexual with you, that is hardly grounds for declaring that person to have assaulted you. Jerk? Yes. Sexual criminal? Not so much. This gets to heart of the matter: where does persuasion end and coercion begin? We expect that a young man in pursuit of a young woman is going to have to work to convince her that he is worth it. All across the animal kingdom, this same story plays out as males eager to prove their worthiness compete for the attention of females.* However, because humans have ethics, we recognize that all is not fair in love and war, and it is possible to go too far and employ tactics that are coersive and unacceptable. Nothing you describe points to Savage crossing that line. Unless there's more to the story, he didn't badger her, shame her, threaten her with dire consequences, or tell her that his cat had terminal cancer and he "just can't be alone tonight". We all have a pretty good idea what emotional manipulation looks like, and there's nothing that looks like it in either party's account. Even Woodson said after describing Savage making his sexual overture to her, "I remember feeling that this must mean that Andy loved me"**. If we see this as an inappropriate (but consensual) encounter, it changes everything about how we view the response. Which brings us to... 4. Cover up. When you hear how Savage reacted afterward, demanding that Woodson "take this to the grave", you could be forgiven for thinking it the opening salvo of a massive coverup. And yet, however flawed, there was a conversation that followed involving Woodson, Woodson's mother, Savage, and church leadership. As a result, Savage lost his job and moved away. And by the way, it appears that no one involved, including Savage, ever tried to silence Woodson, or discredit her, or enact reprisals against her in any way. Woodson mentions being the object of negative rumors and speculation at church, but the criticism for that should be directed at church culture and prejudiced social norms. Savage later disclosed the incident to leaders at the church he went to work for in Memphis. One of your source articles even indicates that he disclosed it to his wife before they were engaged. I think that those involved in responding to the incident were completely justified in dealing with it as an inappropriate but consensual (and certainly not illegal) encounter. And yet something drove Woodson to re-characterize the incident as assault, which brings us to my next point. 5. Hypocrisy. Savage was not the best messenger for the pro-abstinence event that followed the incident in question. That much is obvious. But that has little bearing on whether what he did with Woodson was an assault, or just seriously inappropriate. Savage tweeting about Matt Lauer must have seemed bitterly ironic to someone who's main thought about Savage is how he took advantage of her when she was young. Apparently, that is what impelled Woodson to send that accusatory email to Savage. But again, this doesn't make him a bad person. Isn't it fair to say that he was speaking out against sins and pitfalls of the world that his personal experience taught him to be wary of? Namely that lust is a dangerous fire to play with, and every man is responsible for keeping it in check. Your coverage. Now, Phil, the most irksome thing about your reaction to this, which is evidently shared by many others, is that according to your response, a man can have an apparently consensual encounter with a woman, apologize for it being inappropriate, lose his job, move away, and then 20 years later have her brand it as sexual assault. In fact, here is the headline from your main source article, "I Thought He Was Taking Me for Ice Cream: One Woman’s #MeToo Story of Molestation By Her Former Youth Pastor", which is highly prejudicial and strongly implies that this is a story of predatory pedophilia. You, Phil, KNOW that Trial by Media is fraught with unfairness and emotionally driven vindictiveness. And the mischaracterization has continued despite a public apology. He didn't deny the encounter. He didn't denounce the accuser. He didn't justify the behavior. I can't help but feel like you are trying to punish a guy who owned his mistake, learned and grew from it, and is compassionate enough to feel remorse for the person that he hurt. Next, I have a question for you: if you had your 'druthers, what would the consequences be? Should he go to jail? Pay a fine? Pay out damages to Woodson? Lose his job again? Register as a sex offender? Would you have had him graphically explain what happened in the car to the members of the congregation in Texas so he could leave in disgrace rather than with a vague acknowledgement of his misconduct? All this sounds too extreme in my book. If anything, I would like to hear him caution any pastor who seeks to gratify his lust with a member of his flock, that he had better not (even if she seems ammenable) because of the pain and suffering that may very well follow. Case in point, Woodson is genuinely hurt to this day by what happened all those years ago. If anything, the time points to the enduring anguish of this reprehensible act, and does not diminish his responsibility. Unlikely that you've read this far, Phil, but thank you for giving me the opportunity to think critically about complex issues. Next time, I urge you to not rush to judgement and be more targetted with your outrage. There are more worthy objects for it than this. * Yes, I know that love, sex, and romance are not necessarily hetero or binary, but bear with me. **SIDE NOTE: Since when is it considered smooth, sexy, or demonstrating how much you love someone to just whip out your dick and ask for head? It seems like in a lot of recent accounts of unwanted sexual advances, no sooner has the creepy guy gotten the girl alone with him than he drops trow and makes a blunt demand for sexual attention. Am I just old fashioned to think that your first time passing first base there needs to be a little hand holding?

Kathryn Price : Although I don't morally agree with what the youth pastor did, there cannot and should not be any legal action taken against him. She was at the age of consent, so the age difference does not matter. Also, laws cannot be applied retroactively so the law concerning clergymen doesn't apply. His actions certainly were not those of a gentleman, but they were not criminal either.

1ledluverjlp : Concerning the youth pastor: What he did was weird and morally questionable, as long as he didn't force himself upon her he didn't assault her.

Jess Bunty : This is such an *insane* story. Watching it all unfold on Twitter was madness! I'm glad YouTube took Pop Blast down.

andrew miller : the church one breaks my heart because there are so many people who have turned their back on Christ because of the way some leadership have acted in the church. That girl was 100% right and he took advantage of her. He had age and leadership power over her and sanded her in the middle of no where showing his premeditation for the crime. I have never been more offended by how he and the paster spoke during the current time clip and i just cannot imagine every speaking my God with the manipulation and pride that the pastor did in that last prayer. Please do not see this and think poorly about Christianity. There are quite a few bad people in the church, but that doesn't mean the church is bad, it means that we just need to work harder.

Caroline Barnes : #istandwithshane

Wren McNally : The Shane Dawson story is weird. I dont think he made a conspiracy about himself to gain interest, that does not sound like him, Maybe Onision....yeah....

JasonBFleece : Personally, I don't think jokes someone makes should be used as something to represent their character. I believe that jokes shouldn't have boundaries, rather those boundaries should be set depending on scenario, audience and timing. A simple example will be not to tell holocaust jokes around family of those victims. The joke itself shouldn't be used against the person as a way to label them as racist, rather that they are bad at selecting their audience. Humor shouldn't be restrained, but it is important to understand your audience.