hbomberguy / Harry "Harris" Brewis / Slazenger Rapemachine Whiteshaf - "Rational" SJW, former SA goon/LPer, sexual harassment apologist, raised $350K+ for child abuse cult

[Tablet County]

>I've never denied the plagiarism unlike some retarded niggers here

Well then why the fuck do you reply to my autistic slapfight with a dude who denied it because he believes historical storytelling can't be plagiarized? I don't give a shit about this, I'll still only rewatch the original, I just hate this retarded fuck.

You have Nick Fuentes in your profile pic. His image alone compels people to think you're a huge faggot and causes people to disagree with you instinctually.

 

[Null]

I don't understand how Null can be both against Internet Historian and for xQc. Is xQc's blatant content thievery more palatable than Internet Historian's minor yet secretive mistake. React content is far less transformative than anything Internet Historian had done, morally or legally. @Null Is there anything Internet Historian had done in the past that made you so poised against him?

xQc has never tried to pass off other people's work as his own as far as I know.

I've never watched xQc but I understand the gist. He's a livestreamer and he watches videos and people watch him watch videos. This makes his streams like a running train. You hop on and hop off whenever you want. When he's watching a video, it's basically just a regular browser window with the original content, its authorship, and full context present. xQc adds his "commentary" and embeds his chat. Anyone watching this can click off his screen and go see the original any time they want. When the video is over, the video ceases to be available on his stream.

Internet Historian's videos are totally different. They are a piece of media which sits permanent as-is with no element of interactivity - the product is the sum of its parts and is not a community experience. When he takes an article and uses that to build his video (without credit, without compensation), he is depriving the original authors of value they created without so much as an acknowledgement (until he gets caught, in which case he will pretend it didn't happen and then lazily credit the person he already stole from and made money off of).

I would be much more tolerant of what Internet Historian did if he actually just showed the original article, credited it, and then animated the story on top of the article (i.e. actually superimpose the text in the background as the animations play). Because that's showing he's just reading this source material and adding to it. Conversely, what he did is just pretend he wrote that material. You can either buy the material and pretend you wrote it because you own the rights, or you can use it and aggressively indicate you're borrowing it to build on top of it with.

 

[BlerdBjern]

Counter point about the IH plagiarism, he stole from a journalist. Fuck journalists.

Oh, thats fine then, journos deserve the rope.

 

[Tablet County]

Is this even a fucking hbomberguy thread anymore?

Imagine being such a boring, balding soyfag cuck even the people who dislike you aren't interested in talking about you in your own thread.

 

[CatharticShitHead]

get a grip. youtubers who beg and grovel and apologize to their audience end up walking on eggshells for all time because the trannies and retards realize they can push them around, and eventually end up like hbombercuck, constantlly needing to interject "trans rights" and "republicans are shooting down dindus in the streets" and become boring if not outright insufferable. there's no good to come off getting the ukelele out for a shitty apology video because the only people demanding it are lunatics. IH is a businessman who makes a funny product, he's not your close friend who banged your sister and needs to apologize, which would be the worst way to handle it. I ain't defending the plagarism, but you're coming off as the weirdest parasocial loser this side of the vtuber thread

A good example of a personality that was cucked by him apologizing and proceeding to make boring safe content is Ian idubbbz Jomha.

 

[Mortin Shart]

Counter point: Free booting content is the only way to dismantle the copyright system and the more damage you do the quicker you accelerate the collapse. Anyone arguing against plagiarism is a copyright jew.

 

[Rimbaud's Bussy]

This video is way more entertaining than the Hbomb video,

Yeah Hbomber really swung out. His own ideas are way more entertaining than his plagiarisms

plagiarism

-"In his video about the queer themes of Aladdin 2: Return of Jafar he heavily plagiarizes Ayden Khaliq Basharddost's 1996 Essay about being a devout shia transmasculine catboy in Hazarajat during the Afghan Civil War"

his own ideas
-The UK ran an ad campaign trying to warn aristocrats that if their sons went on grand tour to Italy the local Italian twinks will seduce them with their tanned oiled thighs and turn them gay

- The SS was extremely gay and filled with hunky gay men. (definitely didn't confuse them with the heavily gay rivals the SA and Ernst Rohm having his own version of the catboy ranch)

-STRAIGHT WOMEN and turncoat gay men caused a massive backlash (that definitely happened) because they didn't like the explicit sex scenes in "Red, White & Royal Blue". (Him randomly having seething hatred over some straight women preferring cutesy non-lewd gay romance stuff is probably a better example of him randomly hating women than what Hbob picked)

-American GIs fought the Nazis because German soldiers had such sexy muscled bodies like a Tom of Finland drawing. Bodybuilding was invented so Americans could compete with all the /fit/ SS men.

-The soviets were all malnurished churka manlets so the US didn't fear them as much during the cold war. [maybe he thinks we defeated communism due to 1950s Physique Magazines]

-Jafar from Aladdin was used as a mascot by NAMBLA (this came to him in a dream)

That's just like 20% of the video

 

[Funeral for a Furry]

Guess hbomberguy will need to be careful from now on as there will be people looking for him to mess up.

 

[CumDumpster]

>Internet Historian or breadtuber
Sounds like an easy answer, I'm with the historian.

 

[Sigmund Freud]

If he wanted to slander IH this badly he should've called him out for shilling No Man's Sky instead of some irrelevant shit no one cared about

 

[6MillionCoofs]

Guess hbomberguy will need to be careful from now on as there will be people looking for him to mess up.

Dude messes up constantly. He just wisely does what any smart content creator does and no longer gives it airtime. His audiance do not care.

Long gone are the days when he’d get into slinging matches via videos.

It’s all there if someone big wanted to go digging. Harry knows no one will.

 

[Hal]

Tried watching the video he's a insufferable, low iq retard as always. I got to the part where he cried about some comments making fun of jews on IH's videos. Also impossible to take anything he says about plagiarism seriously when he's buddies with Cenk's Nephew. Whole thing about IH just seems like a excuse for leftists to get normies who followed him to cancel him because they think he's a nazi or whatever and hate that he's massively succesful. IH should just ignore it and keep making videos because it's not even worth addressing tbh

 

[Oilspill Battery]

Also, harry going "To show what a good boy I am I will donate all the money made from this video to everyone that james plagiarized from, except that christian guy because fuck him." was actually the scumiest most mask off thing he's ever done. People don't deserve to be stolen from unless he doesn't like them, which we already know, but its insane to see him go so mask off.

 

[R00T]

Ignoring everything else, when did unwillingness to go through YouTube's historically fickle, unreliable, and perennially lambasted copyright arbitration processes become tacit admission of guilt to plagiarism/copyright infringement? That's an absurd standard for any YouTuber.

Internet Historian has 12 million subscribers and likely has a direct line to Youtube which allows him to circumvent "bullshit copyright infringement." People like Hassan and XQC are able to clear strikes left and right with no issue because of this. If Internet Historian had chosen to put his foot down it would've been resolved quickly, and still likely not in his favor which is the more likely reason it goes down instead of being fought.

This isn't some Youtuber doing this for pennies. He isn't living paycheck to paycheck. If the video could clearly go down for a period of time to be reuploaded surely had he felt it was illegitimate it could sit with the claim for a few days while it gets resolved in his favor. It isn't absurd to take this as an admission that he plagiarized. What is absurd is to assume he did it maliciously. As has been stated in this thread he is tight lipped about his process and this may have been a case of a lazy outside writer which he would prefer to handle privately rather than publicly.

Anyhoo, it's really cool that a retard who is the most male-pattern-baldness afflicted Breadtuber with troll's remorse and his fanbase of mentally ill groomed-on-Discord SSRI-addled zoomers can try to get shit people actually want to watch off the internet.

The video was taken off the internet by the person who uploaded it because the company's content that was utilized filed a legitimate copyright claim. HB's video has nothing to do with the content going down as it happened prior to this release. Maybe if you watched the video instead of picking a side because you didn't like the person pointing out something you wouldn't make a comment so disconnected from reality.

 

[Getting Sentimental]

I would be much more tolerant of what Internet Historian did if he actually just showed the original article, credited it, and then animated the story on top of the article (i.e. actually superimpose the text in the background as the animations play). Because that's showing he's just reading this source material and adding to it. Conversely, what he did is just pretend he wrote that material. You can either buy the material and pretend you wrote it because you own the rights, or you can use it and aggressively indicate you're borrowing it to build on top of it with.

And with that I literally have a guarantee that I was right, and that you haven't watched any of IH's content and are solely basing your hate on Hbomberguys 20 minute sniping attempt, because this is straight up what is done in several of his videos, such as the cost of concordia one (you can literally go to any point in the fucking video and see an article posted on the screen).

The reason that people are giving him such leeway is that for the vast majority of his historical videos, sources are properly cited directly within the video itself, either by citing the quote being used as it is said, or directly having the article superimposed in the video. Hence why the majority of rational people are calling this a fuck up rather than a malicious pattern of behavior.

Null, if you want people to not call your takes shit, maybe actually have some concept of the thread your posting in. Harris has a pattern of behavior of making videos where he will go after easy targets, and place those next to other targets in an attempt to either mischaracterize, overexaggerate, or downplay his friends misbehavior all in his attempt to collect scalp in his grift war.

His Dark Souls 2 video where he spends half of it either misquoting or flat out lying about the statements matthewmetosis makes in order to "destroy" him are enough to throw up any red flags, because if he'll do that to some eurofag who disagrees with him on Dark souls, what will he do to some evil chud who he politically disagrees with.

Harris states in this video that IH's video is 70 minutes of plagiarism, his section his 20 minutes long, with 10 minutes being dedicated to taking weird snipes at him for his edgy content and posting comments with no likes in the youtube video asking about the re-upload and pretending this represents the majority of IH's audience. The other 10 minutes is him pointing out examples of actual plagiarism.

I know for a fact that even if the entire script is directly plagiarized from the article, it is still not "70 minutes of plagiarism", because there are multiple comedy skits and gags that have nothing to do with the article other than the scenario being described, with youtubers pretending to be the characters themselves interpreting how the event "would have happened". Harris, being a bad faith actor, will obviously disregard this, and instead lie to his audience and tell them its nothing but "70 minutes of plagiarism".

You've fallen for the classic Hbomberguy trick by, like his retarded audience, not doing any of your own research and blindly regurgitating the talking points of a bad faith actor with an axe to grind. You've fallen for his British Scmuckles, the eurofag conversion has finally commenced as we will see Null in his wedding dress as he finally gets gay married to totally bisexual and not faking it Hbomberguy for all the world to see, all for that sweet sweet EU greencard.

 

[Null]

And with that I literally have a guarantee that I was right, and that you haven't watched any of IH's content and are solely basing your hate on Hbomberguys 20 minute sniping attempt, because this is straight up what is done in several of his videos, such as the cost of concordia one (you can literally go to any point in the fucking video and see an article posted on the screen).

Cool, he should have done it with this video.

 

[Getting Sentimental]

Cool, he should have done it with this video.

Cool, you should've done basic research before shitting up the thread with retarded quarter-informed takes like a midwit.

 

[Sprate Header]

When the video is over, the video ceases to be available on his stream.

Unless he uploads his full reaction to a video to his YouTube channel afterwards, which he does daily. You're also correct to put "commentary" in quotes, as his commentary usually consists of him eating lunch and not saying anything beyond "damn that's crazy" or just leaving the video on while using the restroom.

 

[Null]

Cool, you should've done basic research before shitting up the thread with retarded quarter-informed takes like a midwit.

No, he should have not copied the article without crediting it. All you've demonstrated is that he knows that not doing so is wrong, and has ways of doing it. He just chose not to.

 

[Getting Sentimental]

No, he should have not copied the article without crediting it. All you've demonstrated is that he knows that not doing so is wrong, and has ways of doing it. He just chose not to.

I'm sorry is IH supposed to go back in time and kill himself/his editor/his writer before he can plagiarize the article?

As far as we are aware, he has reuploaded the video with the offending content removed and the original source credited, and despite your multiple claims that they have a slam dunk case against the austrailian bushnigger based on a 10 minute snippet of a 70 minute video no copyright strike has been filed, no lawsuit for plagiarism has been raised and the video has remained up for 6 months with 0 complaint save for the 5 0 like comments hbomberguy managed to dig up on the repost of the video with a like/dislike ratio practically identical to the original video pre harris video.

It seems the issue has been resolved, and your only complaint is they didn't follow your ideal law standard no one on earth follows by directly buying the article in question off the journalist, who has already pawned it off to a literal content farm that mass produces literal slop content for the barely literate.