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.
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.
How are you struggling with this? This has already been explained to you.
He’s a YouTuber that makes videos about gay culture. He is a “gay YouTuber”. In the same way a YouTuber that makes videos about video games is a “video game YouTuber”.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
How are you struggling with this? This has already been explained to you.
He’s a YouTuber that makes videos about gay culture. He is a “gay YouTuber”. In the same way a YouTuber that makes videos about video games is a “video game YouTuber”.
His actual gayness isn’t important.