Except they didn't insult the job of being a youtuber. in fact they never mentioned youtube. They insulted him for making a living as a prankster and called that person an ass. Those aren't exclusive to YouTube.
.
I didn't say he was insulting him being a youtuber. Please explain to me where you got that from. For that person "posting pranks and being an ass" was enough to question his credibility as actually being a victim of unfair treatment. That to me is insulting his job.
So yes it came off as you defending this person in particular.
Me defending prankster as a job is me defending this man as a person? Really? I think president is a good job, but that doesn't mean I defend Trump now, does it?
And as far as accountability and YouTube goes gee I don't know. Feel free to pick from any of the scandals revolving YouTubers these past couple of years.
.
You want people to hold themselves accountable for doing something you disapprove of but that isn't against the law? How exactly does that work?
If the majority of people disapprove of something that is legal, it means it goes against social norms. And if more people are supporting that person rather than condemning/outlawing them, then what that person has done does not violate social norms. So as I originally said the problem is with the people, as they are the enablers.
but continue to assume I'm talking about the subject of the topic even though I've specifically said I wasn't many times.
I'm discussing exactly what you want me to discuss with you, yet you're still complaining. Also, you haven't explained why you think having my view of blaming the people who are enabling is an easier one to hold than yours. I would like to know how you measured that.
Also I suggest you refrain from making assumptions like "it came off as" "you implied", as most of what you assume I mean isn't what I mean. I mean what I said, nothing else. Thanks for trying to add extra bits to what I said though.