James Somerton was making $170,000 a year with nearly 6 million views and 267,000 subscribers on YouTube, until…

    • mechoman444
      link
      -38
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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 sited sighted 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!

      • stopthatgirl7OP
        link
        fedilink
        121 year ago

        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.

      • Echo Dot
        link
        fedilink
        61 year ago

        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

        • mechoman444
          link
          -31 year ago

          It’s preaching to the choir.

          Talk about critical thinking.