>>215270287 (OP)
>Making an entire video (a 30-minute-long one, no less) over some other much more popular YouTube movie-reviewer supposedly """lying""" about a corporate-owned IP/Cinematic Universe
Putting aside for a second the valid argument that thinking a corporate-owned IP even needs to be righteously defended from "slander" (even assuming it IS being "slandered") is pretty silly and pathetic to begin with, let me also ask this:
What possible """lies""" could Critical Drinker (or anyone else for that matter) have possibly told about the DCU did this guy now supposedly needs to "correct" and defend against?
Like..."lying" about what's in or what happens in the show itself? That'd be kind of pointlessly easy to refute, considering anybody who watched the show would know otherwise. Or maybe "lying" about the show's production or things it's creators and advertisers have said? Again, shit's kind of easy to verify considering it's going to be in an article somewhere that's one Google search away. And in each case, for what possible motivation?
What possible supposed "misinformation" could Drinker or anybody else be "spreading" about the DCU, of all things?