Popular gay YouTuber deletes online presence after video accuses him of rampant plagiarism
Popular gay YouTuber deletes online presence after video accuses him of rampant plagiarism
James Somerset was making $170,000 a year with nearly 6 million views and 267,000 subscribers on YouTube, until...
James Somerton was making $170,000 a year with nearly 6 million views and 267,000 subscribers on YouTube, until...
You're viewing a single thread.
Popular YouTuber deletes online presence after video accused him of rampant plagiarism.
There fixed your head line.
Him being gay is actually very relevant because he was profiting off of queer authors' works without attribution while proporting to support their cause. His whole shtick was being gay and analyising media through a gay/lgbtq+ lens. The title highlights the hypocrisy.
Also this is an lgbtq+ focused publication so such a classification isn't unusual.
Not only that, lying AND being misogynist at the same time.
So are you implying that if he weren't gay he wouldn't be plagiarizing?
Here, let's flip the script. A magazine about crime writes an article with the following title: black man is sentenced to 20 years in prison for murder.
The fact that the man is black is not relevant to the fact that he committed murder. The word black was put in specifically to make it sound more controversial. You know so more people would click on it.
Or for something more benign an automotive publication writes an article entitled: red car crashes into a wall.
The fact that a car is red has nothing to do with it crashing into a wall.
Moreover, the fact that the publication is LGBTQ+ already is enough implication of the possible orientation of the subjects in the article and does not have to be emphasized in the title of the article. If it needs to be brought up it may be in the article proper.
And, on the other side of this you'll never see an article titled: straight person so and so. Which is a whole other issue in and of itself.
It's relevant to the article you virtue-signalling dumbass
The relevant conundrum in the title is the fact that this person committed plagiarism not the fact that he's gay that was added in as pandering clickbait.
Plagiarism doesn't give a crap about what one's orientation sex or gender is.
Moreover the engagement in the comment section specifically mentions this on more than one occasion as in I'm not the only one talking about the word gay in the title. So now instead of discussing the intellectual crime this particular person committed we're now discussing the title in and of itself which takes away from the article.
But I wouldn't expect a narrow
sitedsighted idiot such as yourself to understand the nuance of all this stuff.However I do commend you on using your word of the day, you even hyphenated it correctly!
I feel like everyone complaining about the title didn’t bother to click on the link to see the source - it makes perfect sense to me that a site called “LGBTQ Nation” would point out in the title why it’s relevant to being published there.
Narrow sited idiot
Please find a new hobby
Look at the URL. Do you really think they need to pander to an audience given the nature of the publication? They would be singing to the choir here, I don't think they would get much benefit.
Honestly the lack of critical thinking here is truly spectacular
It's preaching to the choir.
Talk about critical thinking.
He's not just a youtuber who's gay. He is a gay youtuber. He is a gay youtuber who's gay. No one would watch a gay youtuber who's straight.
Why though? We had Queer Eye, why not Hetero Eye for the Gay Guy? Would be interesting.
That would be cancelled so fast for "gay deletion" or whatever.
Can you even imagine how that show would go?
"You spend how much on clothes? I bought this shirt at Target for $15 and it is just as good."
"Why the hell you got so much shit on your bathroom counter, looks like a lady lives here."
"You need to man-up."
"Purses as pretty fucking gay dude, just wear cargo pants or use a Jansport."