Jaclyn Glenn Caught Plagiarizing Again
Previously, I revealed that atheist, anti-feminist vlogger Jaclyn Glenn has to plagiarize YouTube comments in order to string a simple thought together. I then went back to blissfully forgetting that Glenn exists, but she apparently has continued making videos for people with extremely low standards. Last week on Twitter, someone let me know that she had once again been caught plagiarizing, but in this case it was an entire YouTube video from another atheist vlogger.
I couldn’t report on it because Glenn apparently took her video down after people noticed the plagiarism, claiming that the video just wasn’t very good. Having not seen it, I couldn’t really comment.
Well, thanks to the Purdue Non-Theists, everyone can see Glenn’s original video side-by-side with the video posted four days earlier by vlogger Theoretical Bullshit. Check it out above or read the transcript I cobbled together below and decide for yourself if Glenn is worth the continued admiration of American Atheists and Richard Dawkins. As you can see, the primary difference is that Glenn’s version is less thoughtful and includes the word “bitch.” Edgy. At least the good news is that by copying someone smarter than her, Glenn accidentally admitted that “privilege” is a thing.
TB: OK, 60 sec of background in case you’ve been living under a rock
JG: So background information in case you’ve been living under a rock
TB: Let me try and paint a picture for you. So kim davis goes to the DMV but the office manager won’t authorize the renewal of her driver’s license because he’s a Muslim and can’t in good conscious approve of a woman driving.
JG: What if she decided to get a driver’s license and she went to the DMV and the person working there happened to be a Muslim?
TB: Kim Davis knows a thing or two about the sanctity of marriage because she’s on her 4th one, not to mention the fact that she made babies with the man who would become husband number 3 while she was still married to husband number 1 but that’s not the point, it’s not the point.
JG: Kim Davis has been married 4 times. She got pregnant with the baby from husband number 3 while somehow she was still married to husband number 1. I’ll let you guys figure that out.
TB: In the meantime this woman has sort of become the poster girl for so called christian persecution in the United States
JG: She’s become the poster child for christian marriage
TB: Suppose someone with similarly pressing religious concerns had been elected county clerk at the time that Kim Davis was applying for her 2nd marriage license. Now suppose this person considered himself a Christian and took Jesus very seriously when he said in Matthew 19 that anyone who gets divorced and remarries has committed adultery.
JG: You know in Matthew 19 Jesus said that anyone who gets married and divorced is essentially committing adultery so I’d like to ask you Mike Huckabee, how would you react if Kim Davis went to the county clerk maybe on her 3rd or 4th time getting a marriage license and they said ‘nope sorry it’s against my deeply held religious beliefs. I believe that you’re committing adultery because of what Jesus said in Matthew so I just can’t give you this marriage license.’
TB: I mean what would she do? Just throw her hands in the air and go ‘well I don’t wanna violate this fella’s freedom of conscious so i’ll just make my way to the next county over and get a license there’? Or, would she feel victimized? Discriminated against? Dare I say, persecuted?
JG: Really, you wouldn’t care so you think Kim Davis wouldn’t care either and she would just walk down on to the next county because someone refused to give her her license where she lived? I don’t think that would happen. I thinks she would feel oppressed.
TB: This is exactly the kind of question that Mika Brzezinski recently posed to Mike Huckabee on MSNBC’s Morning Joe
JG: Fortunately for me I don’t have to ask you that question because you were asked the very same thing on MSNBC and played totally dumb.
TB: Huckabee appears to represent a not so trivial percentage of americans who are fundamentally confused about which conversation is even being had at the moment: whether or not same sex couples have a constitutionally protected right to marriage is what we were talking about back in June before the Supreme Court made their decision. It’s not what we’re talking about anymore.
JG: I think people are a little confused. June. That’s when the conversation was about marriage equality. That’s not what we’re talking about anymore.
TB: The controversy is about whether the freedom to practice one’s religion entitles someone in Kim Davis’s position to violate the constitutional rights of those she took an oath to serve and the answer, legally, is a big fat no.
JG: Now we’re talking about whether or not someone’s personal religious beliefs can be forced onto other people. That’s the conversation we’re having and the answer is a resounding no.
TB: Kim Davis has absolutely no interest in equality. She enjoys the same rights as anybody else. What she’s being denied is privilege. She wants her religious beliefs to take precedence over any rights or laws or other religious beliefs that might conflict with them. Well, she doesn’t get to have that. And neither does anybody else.
JG: These people don’t want equality. They want privilege. Kim Davis isn’t losing any rights. She’s got the same rights as everyone else but she is losing the privilege. She wants her Christian faith to be more important than the religious beliefs of other people. She wants her Christian faith to be more important than the rights of other people. She wants to be above the law. You know what, sorry bitch, you don’t get to have that.