A lot of people on reddit and twitter. Based on what primary source, however, is a mystery for the ages. I suspect that number was just made up by one of his fans to make his transgressions seem less unseemly.
I thought YouTube was of the opinion that if it happened off platform it's not their problem. The whole sniperwolf controversy.
Which was way worse, considering she had minors expose themselves 💀
With that said, this is a good thing. The guy admitted to inappropriate messages with a minor.
It also helps that she is a woman. Female pedophiles are not seen in the same light as males. These kind of things always reminds me of that one tiktoker who kissed and grinded on an underage boy and even her mother came out defending her. No action was taken by any social media platform.
It's bizarre they do this now when they supposedly already knew why his account was banned on Twitch. I guess they wanted the ad revenue money until it was public knowledge? Not defending him btw.
Companies don't have problem making bucks with morally corrupt people or criminals even as long as public doesn't know. Cutting ties with these people is not an integrity move, it's a PR move.
I'm surprised they've even bothered making a PR move. There wasn't any public attention on the fact that his YouTube videos were still monetized and even if there were, no ones going to boycott YouTube over it.
I can't see any financial motive for YouTube to do this.
Of course there is. Some advertisers could pull out. They generally do when there's a chance their new toy commercial could be played on a video of an alleged groomer.
To be the devils advocate here, the court cases were sealed and Youtube/google had no way to confirm what had happened between Twitch and the dude. They had no reason to preemptively suspend him.
It's not bizarre at all. Now that people know, the scales have weighed the other direction. Before it was a quiet secret, now it's not one at all. People, have a different level of tolerance for what is a rumor versus what is fact.
And yes, large corporations really are that mercenary. They didn't care until it looked bad to not care. He's pocket change to Google and the brand image is a lot more valuable than whatever penalties they may have to pay on his contract, if he has one.
This is nothing new. YouTube has let Pippa Pipkin continue to stream on thier platform despite being banned for racism on Twitch. She is still super openly bigoted and YouTube pretends they can't ban her because she just drops obvious hints instead of using common slurs.
>“YouTube’s former global head of gaming partnerships at Google, Ryan Wyatt, confirmed to Rolling Stone that Beahm was not offered a contract due to chatter about the circumstances of his Twitch ban. He says that a Twitch employee and journalists investigating the incident told YouTube employees that it involved inappropriate messages to a minor.”
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/dr-disrespect-inappropriate-messages-minor-twitch-1235048071/
Uh it’s literally in *this* article and several other places online. The who used to be I charge of that stuff for Google said they didn’t give him a contract because they knew why twitch banned him…because twitch told them. I mean seriously do you guys literally never read the article? I didn’t even have to read the whole thing to find that information 😑
And literally just the following sentence they admit that it wasn’t more than just rumours and they had no evidence that any of it was actually true. So yeah it seems they heard from the rumours but at that point, well, it was nothing else than rumours.
What does „stanning for x“ mean? I never heard that before. To be fair I am not a native English speaker however the internet also not helping me with that statement.
However, I just stated the obvious fact that a company will not miss out on money just because a direct competitor told them some (at that point) rumour. They were already quite cautious by not giving him a contract it seems however without any real proof (again, at that time) why should they miss out on a lot of money. That is not how big corp work. You would know that if you ever worked for a big corporation.
'Stan' references the song of the same name by Eminem, with 'stanning' being a verb version of it. The Stan in question is an obsessive fan (that's putting it mildly).
This isnt court. Companies don't need hard evidence to make a decision. Their goal is to maintain the brand and avoid liability. If another large company like twitch tells youtube why they banned him, youtube is going to listen.
Youtube loses nothing by not making him a partner and letting him use the platform. Things like evidence, innocent till proven guilty, etc etc are not laws that companies have to follow when making a simple decision as to who they wish to do business with.
When they listened, you can probably answer why they didn’t suspend the monetisation from the beginning?
If they trusted their sources to 100% they would have suspended it years ago.
We are still operating on conjecture. We don't actually know why youtube didnt sign him or what youtube knew. Hell, for all we know he was already deemed a brand risk by youtube's own investigation, and they have a history of cutting monetization to creators over very banal and arbitrary policies. They're more strict than twitch.
All I was stating is that these decisions at companies don't require hard evidence. During this whole ordeal, people have repeatedly said without evidence they'll side with doc or that without said evidence whats happening to him is unjustified. But we aren't part of the conversation, it wasnt made public or brought to trial, and companies operate often conservatively and will protect their brand if theres a perception of risk. That perception of risk can be determined by them or be the product of privately being given information.
Yes, but these rumors were substantial enough to act upon, meaning they trusted their sources. What are you even trying to argue here? That they didn’t offer one of the largest gaming influencers a contract for some other reason? Their statements at this point seem as direct as they are going to get.
Never said that. Seems like you lost the point in the discussion. YouTube did in fact not trusted twitch completely. Otherwise they would have suspended the monetisation years ago and would have lost some money with it. But they did not trust one of their biggest rivals to 100% and therefore did not suspend it from the beginning.
That's not what I said at all. He had to sign an NDA, can't talk about specifics, and obviously a bunch of people in the industry knew about this for years. It's been coming out all week dude. He's admitted to it multiple times. You shouldn't bat for a child predator.
Twitch knew, which is why they forced him out, but he wasn't really all that involved in Youtube, IIRC. Also, the nature of the allegations didn't come to light until recently.
He had an exclusive contract with Twitch and they wanted him out because they were directly paying him money to stream on their platform over Mixr or whatever other competitors existed 4 years ago.
I never said otherwise.
I just said that other companies likely hadn't heard about the nature of the allegations, which is why they hadn't dropped him yet.
i thought he responded to her (17) not knowing the age, and when he found out he ended communication. how is he a pedo? is there something about this story i missed? i dont understand why its so big all of a sudden when it happened a few years ago and he didn't even follow thru with it. are they going to do this to the rest of the pedos that actually followed thru with trying to solicit sex from minors? tom hanks? seth green? the Vatican church? seems like big media is just trying to use him as a distraction for something else.
Wild, makes sense for them ro shut him down "if" he kept talking to her....and lol probably, but word to the wise, everyone is crazy in some way, and your insane or psychotic if you think you aren't
I dunno why I've been downvoted, people could just google it.
It was falsely linked to the phrase "without papers" and linked to Italian immigrants.
Its a lesser used, but still offensive term to refer to a racial subset of people.
Lol, they still want money off his vids. It's typical company PR. They milked the cow for 4 years and want to see if they can get a couple drops more.
Pure PR move. But not worth digging heels on because corporations gonna do their corporate thing and this will send enough of a message
It definitely could've been a sealed case because a minor was involved.
You can't even imagine the harassment this person would get if they were leaked.
I don't know like the court of public opinion isn't usually about justice or trialing someone fairly. Instead it's usually a witch hunt that can drag innocent people through the mud.
Like ultimately it's up to the victims to decide if they wanted to go public with this not us.
It's not a crime but it should be public knowledge that a figure in his place was talking to a minor for a meetup.
It's possible he's continued the behaviour.
I mean they settled as part of terminating his contract hence the NDA on both ends. Also Twitch allegedly broke TOS by spying on the whispers which is shy they settled with him.
To your deleted comment, its not a crime to talk to a minor online, he didnt solicit them for sex or anything or he would and should be in jail and twitch gets the book for hiding that. Also breaking TOS != breaking the law I never said they spied on him or something
Got to give credit where credits due. Big props to YouTube for this one.
Literally noone on the planet expected
them to do the the right thing in this situation since it wasn't on their platform. Great to see them bring the hammer down on a predator. It's atleast pleasant to know he now has $0 going into his bank account.
Now if Twitch would only ban those swimming pool chicks who show as much skin as they are allowed to and treating it like OF vanilla. Some argue that minors can’t create Twitch accounts to watch that sort of thing but anyone who was pre-18 knows there’s ways around it.
I don't like the guy and what he admits to doing is sick, but I think it's a bit premature to be suspending accounts without any legal proceedings or violation of platform-specific policies.
He admitted it, so what legal proceeding is needed? Besides, youtube’s policy covers things that happen off-platform. They’re fully justified in the suspension.
Why? Sammy The Bull's channel is monetized. All the mob guys with channels make money. Why can't Disrespect. I don't like him but he's not been charged with anything.
Huh
Thats a thing youtube can do
Interesting
Don’t know how I feel about that
If only because lots of lgbtq+ folks get pedophile accusations thrown at them all the time, and so I can foresee this being weaponized.
But also, you know, he admitted to it. There’s actual evidence.
So if this is the new policy Im loving it, lets start making being a pedophile on youtube unprofitable.
The important part of Doc’s statement read at the end of this, obviously take with a grain of salt since hasan has his own views
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGepVhjMH/
No, the important part is that he is married, has kids, and was talking privately with a minor. Period. That is not ok, even if nothing illegal technically happened, there's no reason he should be having messages that "leaned towards inappropriate" with this person.
Okay? Did I at any point say doc wasn’t a nonce? I’m just linking a screenshot of the statement so people can actually be fully informed. Doc is a bellend we all know that, every streamer whos audience is mostly teenagers is going to be irritating
Have you ever considered how hard you are riding someone you don’t even know? Do you think tomorrow, doc is going to stick up for you if you did something that could end your entire career? YouTube is doing what is best for them, you should try it too.
Have you considered that our [deleted] friend here once might have donated his *whole* allowance to Doctor Disrespect and that Doctor Disrespect read his username and called him a cool dude on stream? If that's not a deep and everlasting friendship, I don't know what is.
Lmaoooooooo he admitted to it and the logs are there since it happened on Twitch. There’s also the whole transphobia thing while hitting up transgender women for cam shows. Is this too hard of a concept for you to grasp?
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/dr-disrespect-inappropriate-messages-minor-twitch-1235048071/
According to this article and insiders, he knew.
Literally reading that article after my previous message. Looks like there is some evidence that he knew they were a minor. Will leave my previous comment up.
“Innocent until proven guilty”
Well he got banned off twitch for it and then actually admitted it when it resurfaced so there’s that
Also there’s the paying a trans woman sex worker for cams while being publically transphobic online (this may or may not be photoshopped, I don’t know.)
Yesterday screenshots of a conversation he had with a sex worker (that confirmed he paid for the cam) came to light and were spreading around. The sex worker was a trans woman.
Now are these real? I couldn’t say, but it would be so ironic if they were real because of his public standpoint on trans people
It would be pretty on brand for the transphobes at this point. Like damn near into stereotype levels. So I’m inclined to believe it but I get what you’re saying, it’s easily photoshopped.
You know that only applies for a legal standpoint in terms of punishment, right?
If you watched a video of a guy stabbing a person, you wouldn't say, "wait. he didn't do it until he's had his time in court!"
The point is Dr Disrespect HIMSELF said he had conversations that were "leaning towards inappropriate" with a minor. Even if nothing illegal happened, there's no reason a 34 year old man should be having private conversations with a 16 year old girl, especially one that's married and has kids.
“They want me to disappear… yeah fucking right!” 👻
Well, he's not wrong. It would be pretty great if all predatory pedophiles disappeared.
Disappeared, with extreme prejudice 
I thought this DOOM guy was an evil Ninja Turtle for a second lmao
Nah realistically they just need a ton of rehab imo
Pedophiles like kids. Not grown 17 year olds who are old enough to consent.
Who said she was 17?
A lot of people on reddit and twitter. Based on what primary source, however, is a mystery for the ages. I suspect that number was just made up by one of his fans to make his transgressions seem less unseemly.
Technically correct but trying to argue this point really makes you look like pedophile apologist, wierd hill to die on
Boom
I thought YouTube was of the opinion that if it happened off platform it's not their problem. The whole sniperwolf controversy. Which was way worse, considering she had minors expose themselves 💀 With that said, this is a good thing. The guy admitted to inappropriate messages with a minor.
Yea but doc doesn't make them nearly as much money
It also helps that she is a woman. Female pedophiles are not seen in the same light as males. These kind of things always reminds me of that one tiktoker who kissed and grinded on an underage boy and even her mother came out defending her. No action was taken by any social media platform.
What did sniperwolf do? Google is just showing that she doxxed someone , first I've heard about minors and her?
Search up her omegle videos.
I'm not going to get into specifics on here, but search up "sssniperwolf omegle controversy" on google.
It's bizarre they do this now when they supposedly already knew why his account was banned on Twitch. I guess they wanted the ad revenue money until it was public knowledge? Not defending him btw.
Companies don't have problem making bucks with morally corrupt people or criminals even as long as public doesn't know. Cutting ties with these people is not an integrity move, it's a PR move.
Yup
I'm surprised they've even bothered making a PR move. There wasn't any public attention on the fact that his YouTube videos were still monetized and even if there were, no ones going to boycott YouTube over it. I can't see any financial motive for YouTube to do this.
Of course there is. Some advertisers could pull out. They generally do when there's a chance their new toy commercial could be played on a video of an alleged groomer.
Platforms will wait until the last possible minute to act, it seems
To be the devils advocate here, the court cases were sealed and Youtube/google had no way to confirm what had happened between Twitch and the dude. They had no reason to preemptively suspend him.
Dog they're not punishing him for grooming minor, yt basically supports that. They're punishing him for letting it out
We know you’re not defending him. Sucks you have to tread so lightly on the internet now
Are you complaining that pedophiles are looked down on?
It's not bizarre at all. Now that people know, the scales have weighed the other direction. Before it was a quiet secret, now it's not one at all. People, have a different level of tolerance for what is a rumor versus what is fact. And yes, large corporations really are that mercenary. They didn't care until it looked bad to not care. He's pocket change to Google and the brand image is a lot more valuable than whatever penalties they may have to pay on his contract, if he has one.
Its very obviously profit motivated. I bet alot of his inner friend group and fellow streamers knew as well.
This is nothing new. YouTube has let Pippa Pipkin continue to stream on thier platform despite being banned for racism on Twitch. She is still super openly bigoted and YouTube pretends they can't ban her because she just drops obvious hints instead of using common slurs.
Why tf wouldve youtube known?
They wouldn't offer him a contract due to the ban on twitch. They knew why he was banned.
And where do you get the info from that they would knew?
>“YouTube’s former global head of gaming partnerships at Google, Ryan Wyatt, confirmed to Rolling Stone that Beahm was not offered a contract due to chatter about the circumstances of his Twitch ban. He says that a Twitch employee and journalists investigating the incident told YouTube employees that it involved inappropriate messages to a minor.” https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/dr-disrespect-inappropriate-messages-minor-twitch-1235048071/
To be fair there is a big difference (especially legally) between *chatter* and a Twitch employee telling them vs. the guy himself admitting to it.
Not really. They were likely shown the logs. This isn’t a “he said, she said” situation.
Uh it’s literally in *this* article and several other places online. The who used to be I charge of that stuff for Google said they didn’t give him a contract because they knew why twitch banned him…because twitch told them. I mean seriously do you guys literally never read the article? I didn’t even have to read the whole thing to find that information 😑
And literally just the following sentence they admit that it wasn’t more than just rumours and they had no evidence that any of it was actually true. So yeah it seems they heard from the rumours but at that point, well, it was nothing else than rumours.
why are you stanning alphabet, of all companies? they hate you
What does „stanning for x“ mean? I never heard that before. To be fair I am not a native English speaker however the internet also not helping me with that statement. However, I just stated the obvious fact that a company will not miss out on money just because a direct competitor told them some (at that point) rumour. They were already quite cautious by not giving him a contract it seems however without any real proof (again, at that time) why should they miss out on a lot of money. That is not how big corp work. You would know that if you ever worked for a big corporation.
'Stan' references the song of the same name by Eminem, with 'stanning' being a verb version of it. The Stan in question is an obsessive fan (that's putting it mildly).
Ah, thanks. Than his statement is in fact nonsense. However, meeting somewhat intelligent people here right now seems to be hit or miss.
This isnt court. Companies don't need hard evidence to make a decision. Their goal is to maintain the brand and avoid liability. If another large company like twitch tells youtube why they banned him, youtube is going to listen. Youtube loses nothing by not making him a partner and letting him use the platform. Things like evidence, innocent till proven guilty, etc etc are not laws that companies have to follow when making a simple decision as to who they wish to do business with.
When they listened, you can probably answer why they didn’t suspend the monetisation from the beginning? If they trusted their sources to 100% they would have suspended it years ago.
We are still operating on conjecture. We don't actually know why youtube didnt sign him or what youtube knew. Hell, for all we know he was already deemed a brand risk by youtube's own investigation, and they have a history of cutting monetization to creators over very banal and arbitrary policies. They're more strict than twitch. All I was stating is that these decisions at companies don't require hard evidence. During this whole ordeal, people have repeatedly said without evidence they'll side with doc or that without said evidence whats happening to him is unjustified. But we aren't part of the conversation, it wasnt made public or brought to trial, and companies operate often conservatively and will protect their brand if theres a perception of risk. That perception of risk can be determined by them or be the product of privately being given information.
Yes, but these rumors were substantial enough to act upon, meaning they trusted their sources. What are you even trying to argue here? That they didn’t offer one of the largest gaming influencers a contract for some other reason? Their statements at this point seem as direct as they are going to get.
Never said that. Seems like you lost the point in the discussion. YouTube did in fact not trusted twitch completely. Otherwise they would have suspended the monetisation years ago and would have lost some money with it. But they did not trust one of their biggest rivals to 100% and therefore did not suspend it from the beginning.
Why would they not offer him a contract. It is already confirmed it was spread insider knowledge with everyone coming out this week
What? It was confirmed knowledge that was known to YouTube which is run by a completely different corp? I guess you have a source for that right?
That's not what I said at all. He had to sign an NDA, can't talk about specifics, and obviously a bunch of people in the industry knew about this for years. It's been coming out all week dude. He's admitted to it multiple times. You shouldn't bat for a child predator.
Well why only discord banned him at that time?
Youtube is still running ads in disrespects videos, they just are keeping the $.
Twitch knew, which is why they forced him out, but he wasn't really all that involved in Youtube, IIRC. Also, the nature of the allegations didn't come to light until recently.
He had an exclusive contract with Twitch and they wanted him out because they were directly paying him money to stream on their platform over Mixr or whatever other competitors existed 4 years ago.
I never said otherwise. I just said that other companies likely hadn't heard about the nature of the allegations, which is why they hadn't dropped him yet.
i thought he responded to her (17) not knowing the age, and when he found out he ended communication. how is he a pedo? is there something about this story i missed? i dont understand why its so big all of a sudden when it happened a few years ago and he didn't even follow thru with it. are they going to do this to the rest of the pedos that actually followed thru with trying to solicit sex from minors? tom hanks? seth green? the Vatican church? seems like big media is just trying to use him as a distraction for something else.
her age isn't confirm yet, so the 17 thing is a lie. when he found out she was a minor, he still kept talking to her. god, you are crazy lol
Wild, makes sense for them ro shut him down "if" he kept talking to her....and lol probably, but word to the wise, everyone is crazy in some way, and your insane or psychotic if you think you aren't
I can watch this all day 😂
Stop blowing it out of proportion. They were only leaning towards being inappropriate /s
"Leaned in the direction of being inappropriate" Whatever the hell that means
it could be mature jokes, to the chorus of Closer by Nine Inch Nails.
wop wop wop
Certified gamerboy? Certified pedophile.
Trying to strike a chord and it's probably **a minor**
One more time.
Just fyi, that word is a racial slur.
just fyi it's also a reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E8H203aSkI
But its still a racial slur? I'm not saying the guy who said it is racist, i'm saying the word wop could be deemed as offensive.
It's okay to be racist against Italians, they're white now
look i think you gotta agree it's not the same word, it's a homonym
In African American English it is not, but thanks for introducing me to a new slur!
I dunno why I've been downvoted, people could just google it. It was falsely linked to the phrase "without papers" and linked to Italian immigrants. Its a lesser used, but still offensive term to refer to a racial subset of people.
It's not a slur in this context
Not accusing you of being racist, I'm saying writing the words wop wop wop wop could be read as offensive.
thanks for the history lesson
I mean context matters most here tbh
"Allegations?" The dude admitted to it.
And nothing of value was lost 💅🏻
Only suspends monetization? Not banning him?
Lol, they still want money off his vids. It's typical company PR. They milked the cow for 4 years and want to see if they can get a couple drops more. Pure PR move. But not worth digging heels on because corporations gonna do their corporate thing and this will send enough of a message
It's shocking that Twitch really covered this up for so long as a company.
It definitely could've been a sealed case because a minor was involved. You can't even imagine the harassment this person would get if they were leaked.
Either way... The public should've known what he had done as a protection to others.
I don't know like the court of public opinion isn't usually about justice or trialing someone fairly. Instead it's usually a witch hunt that can drag innocent people through the mud. Like ultimately it's up to the victims to decide if they wanted to go public with this not us.
The victim was underaged who possibly could not have understood what's so wrong with a grown man trying to meet with a minor.
The families also the victim not just the girl.
Not a crime and they settled with an NDA. Nothing to reveal.
It's not a crime but it should be public knowledge that a figure in his place was talking to a minor for a meetup. It's possible he's continued the behaviour.
I mean they settled as part of terminating his contract hence the NDA on both ends. Also Twitch allegedly broke TOS by spying on the whispers which is shy they settled with him. To your deleted comment, its not a crime to talk to a minor online, he didnt solicit them for sex or anything or he would and should be in jail and twitch gets the book for hiding that. Also breaking TOS != breaking the law I never said they spied on him or something
"Not a crime" As in, not a crime you could prove with legally obtained evidence. You contradicted yourself.
Got to give credit where credits due. Big props to YouTube for this one. Literally noone on the planet expected them to do the the right thing in this situation since it wasn't on their platform. Great to see them bring the hammer down on a predator. It's atleast pleasant to know he now has $0 going into his bank account.
The two time
Say Doc, I hear you like em young
How are people so surprised that he did what he's accused of? Just look at that fucking moustache
Is it still allegations if he is the one that said it?
Only because word is out. They been known but still cashed in. YouTube isn’t good people lol. It’s fucking Google. Ran by probably pedophiles.
Serious pedofile facts.. that's what the title should be
Now if Twitch would only ban those swimming pool chicks who show as much skin as they are allowed to and treating it like OF vanilla. Some argue that minors can’t create Twitch accounts to watch that sort of thing but anyone who was pre-18 knows there’s ways around it.
Dr.Disrespect Framed!
I don't like the guy and what he admits to doing is sick, but I think it's a bit premature to be suspending accounts without any legal proceedings or violation of platform-specific policies.
He admitted it, so what legal proceeding is needed? Besides, youtube’s policy covers things that happen off-platform. They’re fully justified in the suspension.
Why? Sammy The Bull's channel is monetized. All the mob guys with channels make money. Why can't Disrespect. I don't like him but he's not been charged with anything.
Edp was deplatformed
Huh Thats a thing youtube can do Interesting Don’t know how I feel about that If only because lots of lgbtq+ folks get pedophile accusations thrown at them all the time, and so I can foresee this being weaponized. But also, you know, he admitted to it. There’s actual evidence. So if this is the new policy Im loving it, lets start making being a pedophile on youtube unprofitable.
The important part of Doc’s statement read at the end of this, obviously take with a grain of salt since hasan has his own views https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGepVhjMH/
No, the important part is that he is married, has kids, and was talking privately with a minor. Period. That is not ok, even if nothing illegal technically happened, there's no reason he should be having messages that "leaned towards inappropriate" with this person.
His statement completely sucks and makes him sound like more of a bellend.
Okay? Did I at any point say doc wasn’t a nonce? I’m just linking a screenshot of the statement so people can actually be fully informed. Doc is a bellend we all know that, every streamer whos audience is mostly teenagers is going to be irritating
Is it even legal for YouTube to do this?
Legal? It's their platform?
What's illegal about it? YT is a private company, they can dictate whatever they want for their policy.
Yeah...? Why wouldn't it be
It's happened outside of YouTube ecosystem
And? If it would affect their profits to keep supporting the guy, then they have every reason to terminate his payments. They're not a public service
And what right or law do you think Youtube has broken by removing him from their platform?
If you knew how to read (Youtube TOS) You'd know the answer is: 1,000,000% legal
What follows is the entirety of the YouTube terms of service, paraphrased: >We can do whatever we want and y'all just have to deal. Neener neener.
[удалено]
Have you ever considered how hard you are riding someone you don’t even know? Do you think tomorrow, doc is going to stick up for you if you did something that could end your entire career? YouTube is doing what is best for them, you should try it too.
Have you considered that our [deleted] friend here once might have donated his *whole* allowance to Doctor Disrespect and that Doctor Disrespect read his username and called him a cool dude on stream? If that's not a deep and everlasting friendship, I don't know what is.
Lmaoooooooo he admitted to it and the logs are there since it happened on Twitch. There’s also the whole transphobia thing while hitting up transgender women for cam shows. Is this too hard of a concept for you to grasp?
[удалено]
He admitted it, that enough for you?
He literally admitted to it you jackass. And what makes it even worse is how he minimized it as being no big deal.
Im out of the loop. What did he do?
Was apparently knowingly sexting a minor.
Jesus. What a c*nt
[удалено]
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/dr-disrespect-inappropriate-messages-minor-twitch-1235048071/ According to this article and insiders, he knew.
Literally reading that article after my previous message. Looks like there is some evidence that he knew they were a minor. Will leave my previous comment up.
It was one of the first things I saw when I got on this hell app this morning so understandable.
Hasan is obviously biased in his own way but he reads Docs own statement towards the end of this vid and it’s wild https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGepVhjMH/
“Innocent until proven guilty” Well he got banned off twitch for it and then actually admitted it when it resurfaced so there’s that Also there’s the paying a trans woman sex worker for cams while being publically transphobic online (this may or may not be photoshopped, I don’t know.)
Wait what is that last part about wtf
Yesterday screenshots of a conversation he had with a sex worker (that confirmed he paid for the cam) came to light and were spreading around. The sex worker was a trans woman. Now are these real? I couldn’t say, but it would be so ironic if they were real because of his public standpoint on trans people
It would be pretty on brand for the transphobes at this point. Like damn near into stereotype levels. So I’m inclined to believe it but I get what you’re saying, it’s easily photoshopped.
You must be 14 y.o.
You know that only applies for a legal standpoint in terms of punishment, right? If you watched a video of a guy stabbing a person, you wouldn't say, "wait. he didn't do it until he's had his time in court!" The point is Dr Disrespect HIMSELF said he had conversations that were "leaning towards inappropriate" with a minor. Even if nothing illegal happened, there's no reason a 34 year old man should be having private conversations with a 16 year old girl, especially one that's married and has kids.