Tuesday, 30 June 2015

Queerty: Suckers

This is stunning in its mendacity, audacity and cluelessness.

Queerty gloss over the fact that they originally ran this without questioning it.

It was left to several of their readers to point out that there were several gaping holes in her sob story.

There is something seriously wrong when this happens, as it does repeatedly.

Just as there is when the gay media can only pick up a story after it's run by a non-gay source.

When this becomes standard you have to wonder what is the point of a gay press.

Even if the bizarre 'relentlessly gay' note from a neighbour was real, why was her first course of action to ask complete strangers for money?

All gay media I saw proved similarly credulous, thus failing Fagburn's first law of journalism...

Always ask is this true?

But they hardly ever do.

If you are literally incapable of even thinking this - if you aspire to nothing beyond being yet another rainbow-coloured fart machine - then maybe it's time to close down your laptop for good?

PS Here's Fagburn's original post on why this story should have set alarm bells ringing. Edit: And another 'cry homophobia' hoax breaks; Utah man carves 'Die Fag' into his own arm, reports hate crime, fesses up. You couldn't make it up! Except he did


  1. Did it feel good to ask 'is this true', when you were repeatedly and noisily disbelieving the testimonies of abuse victims for no reason other than that they appeared in a tabloid newspaper?

    1. Thought all I was doing was asking 'is this true?'...

    2. The right of those who say they have been abused to be taken seriously is not the same as a right to be *believed*.

    3. Surely, by treating all claims with healthy skepticism, we treat those who accuse and those who are accused with equal seriousness? Which is a courtesy, not a right.