The heat is murder on the appetite. My husband and I are dying to do F&W…but there’s just no way to enjoy it and the food when it’s so frigging hot
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
On the charity donation topic, this somehow turned into a pretty long post but I was in the zone so here it goes. I'm going off memory here because I don't feel like rewatching the video (but I did link it below). As I've mentioned before, I don't know anything about the business side of YouTube. So feel free to correct me if I make some mistakes, I promise not to cut/paste your screen name into any pig-related photos, IYKYK.
So they do a Charity Live Show earlier this year to supposedly help out after the Texas storms. Unlike most of their livestreams, they advertise this one in advance, can't remember if it was on Instagram, Twitter and/or on other YT videos. I think the superchat total was around $7,000 and the Slackers claimed they were going to match this amount (snort snort). Apparently YT takes a pretty big cut of regular superchats, the number that is popping into my head is 30%. However, you can also setup superchats to go directly to a charity, in which case 100% goes to the charity (or the YT percentage is significantly less than normal).
But the Slackers had this "charity event" setup as a regular superchat. Many of the stans actually called them out on this during the livestream, why would they sacrifice 30% of that money when 100% could go to charity? The Slackers first backtracked by saying they were going to match all of the donations at 100% (and not just match the 70% after YT's cut). Their second "excuse" was that they wanted to send the money to multiple different charities, and YT made it hard to do that. I suppose this last part could be true, but I say it was just an excuse to keep it as a regular superchat so they could pocket the entire 70% themselves.
I also remember seeing another video, maybe at the beginning of the pandemic when they turned off superchats, where they basically contradicted themselves (nothing new there). They said they were turning off superchats because they didn't think it was appropriate during a pandemic. But then went on to say they "always" gave all of their superchat money to charity anyway, like every single year. PUH-LEEZE!!! If they always gave their suprchat money to charity, then it would not have been inappropriate to keep doing superchats during the pandemic. And during this time it was even more important to support charities, because they needed money even more and couldn't do their normal fundraising events. The Slackers could have picked a specific charity for each livestream and done a charity-directed superchat every time. Instead of stopping superchats altogether, they could have done even more of these charity-directed livestream events, especially when the parks and everything were still closed and they were literally stuck at home for months on end. And, how about instead of changing your outro to "now it's time to help", you actually bleeping help for once?? But we all know they don't really want to help, they just want their stans to think they do. The Slackers want to keep their greasy greedy little hands on all that superchat money, so doing a charity-direct superchat just won't do.
So, with regards to the specific livestream "for" the Texas storm:
Slackers claim all superchat money is going to charity, to guilt people into more and higher priced "donations"
Slackers advertise this livestream ahead of time (which they have never done before) to get more people to attend and get more "donations"
Slackers setup event as regular superchat instead of a charity-directed superchat, so they can pocket the "donations" for themselves
Slackers claim YouTube makes it too hard to setup charity-directed superchats, as an "excuse" for why this is setup as a regular superchat
Slackers claim to match 100% of donations, so their stans can swoon over how wonderful they are and "donate" even more money
Slackers make $7,000+ off their idiots stans to help pay off their many staycations and are laughing all the way to the bank (they had been doing staycations for about 6 months when this charity livestream came out)
So they do a Charity Live Show earlier this year to supposedly help out after the Texas storms. Unlike most of their livestreams, they advertise this one in advance, can't remember if it was on Instagram, Twitter and/or on other YT videos. I think the superchat total was around $7,000 and the Slackers claimed they were going to match this amount (snort snort). Apparently YT takes a pretty big cut of regular superchats, the number that is popping into my head is 30%. However, you can also setup superchats to go directly to a charity, in which case 100% goes to the charity (or the YT percentage is significantly less than normal).
But the Slackers had this "charity event" setup as a regular superchat. Many of the stans actually called them out on this during the livestream, why would they sacrifice 30% of that money when 100% could go to charity? The Slackers first backtracked by saying they were going to match all of the donations at 100% (and not just match the 70% after YT's cut). Their second "excuse" was that they wanted to send the money to multiple different charities, and YT made it hard to do that. I suppose this last part could be true, but I say it was just an excuse to keep it as a regular superchat so they could pocket the entire 70% themselves.
I also remember seeing another video, maybe at the beginning of the pandemic when they turned off superchats, where they basically contradicted themselves (nothing new there). They said they were turning off superchats because they didn't think it was appropriate during a pandemic. But then went on to say they "always" gave all of their superchat money to charity anyway, like every single year. PUH-LEEZE!!! If they always gave their suprchat money to charity, then it would not have been inappropriate to keep doing superchats during the pandemic. And during this time it was even more important to support charities, because they needed money even more and couldn't do their normal fundraising events. The Slackers could have picked a specific charity for each livestream and done a charity-directed superchat every time. Instead of stopping superchats altogether, they could have done even more of these charity-directed livestream events, especially when the parks and everything were still closed and they were literally stuck at home for months on end. And, how about instead of changing your outro to "now it's time to help", you actually bleeping help for once?? But we all know they don't really want to help, they just want their stans to think they do. The Slackers want to keep their greasy greedy little hands on all that superchat money, so doing a charity-direct superchat just won't do.
So, with regards to the specific livestream "for" the Texas storm:
Slackers claim all superchat money is going to charity, to guilt people into more and higher priced "donations" Slackers advertise this livestream ahead of time (which they have never done before) to get more people to attend and get more "donations" Slackers setup event as regular superchat instead of a charity-directed superchat, so they can pocket the "donations" for themselves Slackers claim YouTube makes it too hard to setup charity-directed superchats, as an "excuse" for why this is setup as a regular superchat Slackers claim to match 100% of donations, so their stans can swoon over how wonderful they are and "donate" even more money Slackers make $7,000+ off their idiots stans to help pay off their many staycations and are laughing all the way to the bank (they had been doing staycations for about 6 months when this charity livestream came out)Pretty ironic that some of their most expensive resort stays happened after the Texas tragedy superchat griftOn the charity donation topic, this somehow turned into a pretty long post but I was in the zone so here it goes. I'm going off memory here because I don't feel like rewatching the video (but I did link it below). As I've mentioned before, I don't know anything about the business side of YouTube. So feel free to correct me if I make some mistakes, I promise not to cut/paste your screen name into any pig-related photos, IYKYK.
So they do a Charity Live Show earlier this year to supposedly help out after the Texas storms. Unlike most of their livestreams, they advertise this one in advance, can't remember if it was on Instagram, Twitter and/or on other YT videos. I think the superchat total was around $7,000 and the Slackers claimed they were going to match this amount (snort snort). Apparently YT takes a pretty big cut of regular superchats, the number that is popping into my head is 30%. However, you can also setup superchats to go directly to a charity, in which case 100% goes to the charity (or the YT percentage is significantly less than normal).
But the Slackers had this "charity event" setup as a regular superchat. Many of the stans actually called them out on this during the livestream, why would they sacrifice 30% of that money when 100% could go to charity? The Slackers first backtracked by saying they were going to match all of the donations at 100% (and not just match the 70% after YT's cut). Their second "excuse" was that they wanted to send the money to multiple different charities, and YT made it hard to do that. I suppose this last part could be true, but I say it was just an excuse to keep it as a regular superchat so they could pocket the entire 70% themselves.
I also remember seeing another video, maybe at the beginning of the pandemic when they turned off superchats, where they basically contradicted themselves (nothing new there). They said they were turning off superchats because they didn't think it was appropriate during a pandemic. But then went on to say they "always" gave all of their superchat money to charity anyway, like every single year. PUH-LEEZE!!! If they always gave their suprchat money to charity, then it would not have been inappropriate to keep doing superchats during the pandemic. And during this time it was even more important to support charities, because they needed money even more and couldn't do their normal fundraising events. The Slackers could have picked a specific charity for each livestream and done a charity-directed superchat every time. Instead of stopping superchats altogether, they could have done even more of these charity-directed livestream events, especially when the parks and everything were still closed and they were literally stuck at home for months on end. And, how about instead of changing your outro to "now it's time to help", you actually bleeping help for once?? But we all know they don't really want to help, they just want their stans to think they do. The Slackers want to keep their greasy greedy little hands on all that superchat money, so doing a charity-direct superchat just won't do.
So, with regards to the specific livestream "for" the Texas storm:
Your post made me remember that a few people called him out on Reddit. I went back and searched it about this charity livestream and here were his responses.On the charity donation topic, this somehow turned into a pretty long post but I was in the zone so here it goes. I'm going off memory here because I don't feel like rewatching the video (but I did link it below). As I've mentioned before, I don't know anything about the business side of YouTube. So feel free to correct me if I make some mistakes, I promise not to cut/paste your screen name into any pig-related photos, IYKYK.
So they do a Charity Live Show earlier this year to supposedly help out after the Texas storms. Unlike most of their livestreams, they advertise this one in advance, can't remember if it was on Instagram, Twitter and/or on other YT videos. I think the superchat total was around $7,000 and the Slackers claimed they were going to match this amount (snort snort). Apparently YT takes a pretty big cut of regular superchats, the number that is popping into my head is 30%. However, you can also setup superchats to go directly to a charity, in which case 100% goes to the charity (or the YT percentage is significantly less than normal).
But the Slackers had this "charity event" setup as a regular superchat. Many of the stans actually called them out on this during the livestream, why would they sacrifice 30% of that money when 100% could go to charity? The Slackers first backtracked by saying they were going to match all of the donations at 100% (and not just match the 70% after YT's cut). Their second "excuse" was that they wanted to send the money to multiple different charities, and YT made it hard to do that. I suppose this last part could be true, but I say it was just an excuse to keep it as a regular superchat so they could pocket the entire 70% themselves.
I also remember seeing another video, maybe at the beginning of the pandemic when they turned off superchats, where they basically contradicted themselves (nothing new there). They said they were turning off superchats because they didn't think it was appropriate during a pandemic. But then went on to say they "always" gave all of their superchat money to charity anyway, like every single year. PUH-LEEZE!!! If they always gave their suprchat money to charity, then it would not have been inappropriate to keep doing superchats during the pandemic. And during this time it was even more important to support charities, because they needed money even more and couldn't do their normal fundraising events. The Slackers could have picked a specific charity for each livestream and done a charity-directed superchat every time. Instead of stopping superchats altogether, they could have done even more of these charity-directed livestream events, especially when the parks and everything were still closed and they were literally stuck at home for months on end. And, how about instead of changing your outro to "now it's time to help", you actually bleeping help for once?? But we all know they don't really want to help, they just want their stans to think they do. The Slackers want to keep their greasy greedy little hands on all that superchat money, so doing a charity-direct superchat just won't do.
So, with regards to the specific livestream "for" the Texas storm:
So vague and to me that’s a massive red flag. I WANT RECEIPTS
I know he was there the 15th when i was at epcot....when club cool opened
Or IRS audit. That would turn their life in total chaos, and the cost of a tax attorney.
To lie about a donation in any form is so bleeping low and disgusting. I don’t trust or believe for one second they donated $15,000.00
They spread the donations evenly across Universal and Disney to try to get back on the media lists 
September 15 both Creation Store and Club Cool opened at EPCOT
OOOH...Interesting! That could be a missing puzzle piece. Might explain why they are in the habit of live stream immediately before a staycation. Are the super chats still turned off?
He was spotted out and about on the 16th also per multiple stans' photos on the FB TTT page. (Animal Kingdom, I believe)
So, exactly one week PRIOR - to the day - of the COVID vlog.
The timeline they give is ambiguous and fishy, as per usual with them.
So, exactly one week PRIOR - to the day - of the COVID vlog.
The timeline they give is ambiguous and fishy, as per usual with them.
How Ironic! He's not cool and he could use a couple hits from a club!
I would bet 15k is what they donated in total on their taxes to various charities. Hey Tim and Jen, publishing information like this can be used against you in an IRS audit-now it's time to pay the price!
So will Tim be back 100% just in time for the 50th celebration on Friday or will he have to postpone his coverage we all eagerly await?
Saw this comment on the latest FRE video, can anyone interpret what this means or find the selfies they are talking about?He was spotted out and about on the 16th also per multiple stans' photos on the FB TTT page. (Animal Kingdom, I believe)
So, exactly one week PRIOR - to the day - of the COVID vlog.
The timeline they give is ambiguous and fishy, as per usual with them.
Attachments
These home vlogs should just be titled “Exploiting Jackson and Trash Cooking with Jenn”
She’s DEFINITELY congested
- Status