Chantal Sarault / Chantal Al-Refae / Foodie Beauty - Delusional drug fiend hamplanet mukbanger from Canada trying to be a glamorous online influencer. Pathological liar, huge bitch, narcissist, animal abuser

[Lilac_loud]

She can't eat dox, so what will she do with them?

I wonder if she isn’t thinking of sending that lug nut, Shanny or whatever the hell her name is after she does the dox and gets the info. Is that chinny lover in the States?

 

[Dutch Courage]

Meanwhile, this nitwit is losing her mind, chimping out much worse than her mentor would. Imagine Clotso having more self-control and intelligence than someone. This lady is great lolcow material. If this isn't proof Clotso's followers are shady, ugly bottom-shelf refugees from short buses, I don't know what is...

For those with better things to do, here is a rough synopsis of both videos: I will never say "nigger" again. Except if I am making a joke. Niggers are funny. I am not a racist. Black guys can say nigger, but I can't? That's right I called him a nigger. He deserves to be called a nigger because he stole from me. Nigger! Nigger! I am not a racist! Nigger-nigger-nigger-nigger-nigger! He is a fucking nigger. But I am racist because I call him a nigger? He's a nigger! I am not racist. Nigger. Nigger. I am not a racist.

 

[L. Ron Hubbard's Cat]

So, just to recap, despite having it explained to her repeatedly, this is Fair Use according to Chantal:


1. You can't "copy" her video into your reaction video (I suppose she wants people to summarize or perhaps act out a recreation of her video -- but even then, I'm sure she'd be sufficiently offended to strike the video) and you can't use the whole thing (Fair Use is Fair Use and infringement is infringement; it actually doesn't matter if you use 1% or 100% -- as anyone who's been struck for having two seconds of music playing in their video can attest)

2. You can't monetize your commentary/critique (reality: as per YouTube's explainer video, depending on the exact situation monetization could make it less likely something is found to be Fair Use, but it's by no means an automatic disqualification)

3. You can't "defame" her (bear in mind, Chantal's definition of defamation is saying mean things or hurting her feelings in any way, including failing to validate her delusions)

4. If you tell yourself that points 1-3 are valid despite all evidence to the contrary, then you're acting "in good faith" and will face zero repercussions for abusing the DMCA system on YouTube

5. If you file a copyright claim and YouTube takes down the offending video, that means YouTube has agreed it's not Fair Use and you're totally justified in your actions (again, YouTube themselves take pains to try to explain that they aren't the ones who make that determination). It's a bit like how if you call CPS with some cockamamie allegation and they fulfill their legal obligation to investigate, it means your initial complaint was totally valid, no matter what.

6. If someone files a counter-notice that means it's suddenly not worth your time to take it to court (Chantal has a real problem putting her money where her mouth is -- though I suppose it's understandable, given how full her mouth usually is)

Have I missed anything?

On the other hand, she might finally be hitting the point where her nonsense finally spills over to her real life. Now that might be entertaining to watch.

She's already convinced herself that her diet and lifestyle have no impact on her health. Unlike her attempts to wear pants, there's no stretching involved in convincing herself that her temper tantrums will never have an impact on her channel or her real life.

It would be entertaining to see her reaction if her channel gets deleted though. Of course, it would be the final bit of fun for us, since I doubt she'll find another platform to complain about how she was driven off YouTube for "standing up for herself" and is now forced to do actual fetish videos in order to fund her fast food addiction. Though that would be pretty funny.

 

[THOTto]

Chantal...I thought you had accepted yourself, your grotesque and malformed body, your near-bloodlust when it comes to fast food, your viewers who pretend to love you in order to get more freak-show content to laugh at and marvel over. I guess you still have some insecurities, and I understand this. My advice? Ease off with the typed-out chimpouts. Instead, grab your camera and steering wheel tray, hit up an Arby's and a DQ and a Pizza Pizza, set everything up in your camera, and record yourself. Have your snack as you vent to us--we will watch and listen. We will be there for you. I promise.

Spoiler: You know you want to

Gimme dat extra salami on my pizza

Like she would stop there, then she’d hit Burger King, Hardee’s, Arbys, back to pizza pizza, Arbys again and finish it off with two Big Macs, two large fries, 1488 dipping sauces and a diet coke of course, HEE HEE.

 

[Cant_Stop_Won't_Stop]

Well.. I can't say I disagree with Chinny on this one..

Eta: (bc life) though it is a close race. At least we know Jabba is self aware at how shitty her food/slop looks and is presented. So while talking about her various skat stories, she somewhat purposly eats similar looking dishes.

 

[Hamberlard Raid]

For Chintal, because we know you read every single post here, this is what fair use is...

 

[Man vs persistent rat]

The h3h3 case showed that the further you get from just talking over a video in its entirety, to the same run-time, the more likely you are to win a dispute on fair use. Some hypotheticals (ordered from strong to weak):

1. You use clips of Chantal in a much larger video that is discussing her, ideally with some high-effort content included like a skit or animation: this is the h3h3 "quintessential fair use" ruling.

2. You use only sections of her videos and cut away to react to them, but not full videos: fairly safe, although if you're just making a compilation of clips without adding criticism, it may become more shaky.

3. You use an entire video and pause it or cut away at numerous points (the Zachary-style): you're still adding content to the original video, nobody who is only looking for Chantal-produced content would consider going to this over the original because they wouldn't want Zachary's interjections. This is a little harder to defend potentially, but still fair use. Essentially the more you alter the original, the safer it is.

4. You use an entire video and just talk over it, without pausing or adding anything else: this is where it becomes debatable, and would require more court cases to set precedents.

Whether you have Chantal's video permanently full screen or not could affect this as well, as if it's windowed/thumbnailed for a lot of the time, you've further removed reliance on her own production, as most of the screen-space is your own.

 

[Serial Grapist]

Damn, I missed a lot these past couple days
I hadn’t seen these posted so thought I’d add them, just a couple messages Chantal left on Charlie’s videos:

and what she said to ShannyForChrist regarding her use of the n word:

 

[Punkinsplice]

The h3h3 case showed that the further you get from just talking over a video in its entirety, to the same run-time, the more likely you are to win a dispute on fair use. Some hypotheticals (ordered from strong to weak):

1. You use clips of Chantal in a much larger video that is discussing her, ideally with some high-effort content included like a skit or animation: this is the h3h3 "quintessential fair use" ruling.

2. You use only sections of her videos and cut away to react to them, but not full videos: fairly safe, although if you're just making a compilation of clips without adding criticism, it may become more shaky.

3. You use an entire video and pause it or cut away at numerous points (the Zachary-style): you're still adding content to the original video, nobody who is only looking for Chantal-produced content would consider going to this over the original because they wouldn't want Zachary's interjections. This is a little harder to defend potentially, but still fair use. Essentially the more you alter the original, the safer it is.

4. You use an entire video and just talk over it, without pausing or adding anything else: this is where it becomes debatable, and would require more court cases to set precedents. Whether you have Chantal's video permenently full-screen or not full screen could affect this as well, as if it's windowed/thumbnailed for a lot of the time, you've further removed reliance on her own production, as most of the screen-space is your own.

Are there any reaction channels that actually do #4? I have never seen anyone do that, but I haven't watched reactions for a while and some new creators are springing up here and there.

 

[Man vs persistent rat]

Are there any reaction channels that actually do #4? I have never seen anyone do that, but I haven't watched reactions for a while and some new creators are springing up here and there.

I think #4 is purely the type of lazy content that caused controversies a while ago where people just sat through a film trailer nodding and grinning. then adding no discussion at the end. It's a cliche of zero-effort content and I don't think anybody would watch it if somebody tried that. #3 is definitely the standard from what I have seen.

A random aside (I know this isn't a confusion on your own part) while on the subject because I've seen it confused a few times before - copyright does exist as strongly online as real life, it's just harder to enforce, so reupload channels are entirely in the wrong legally, as YT and Chantal (there's some legal debate between the two entities) are the only owners of the video, and, say, with videos Chantal deletes she is legally entitled to that original version of the video disappearing forever if she so chooses as any copies made are legally treated as piracy. (This is where online differs a lot from physical media, where if a company mothballs a product, they can't prevent the people who originally bought copies from keeping or reselling it - YT just allows you to watch its content for as long as it's there, with no rights beyond that). However, if it was on a commentary channel and they did their due-dilligence, this would not be allowed to be struck down even if the original video was gone forever. If Chantal wasn't so stupid as to try to strike videos reacting to content she wants online, I'd worry more about her striking fair use videos of content she no longer wants online.

 

[L. Ron Hubbard's Cat]

3. You use an entire video and pause it or cut away at numerous points (the Zachary-style): you're still adding content to the original video, nobody who is only looking for Chantal-produced content would consider going to this over the original because they wouldn't want Zachary's interjections. This is a little harder to defend potentially, but still fair use. Essentially the more you alter the original, the safer it is.

This is the thing Chantal doesn't get. Some people (for whatever reason) are interested in her content. Other people (for whatever reason) are specifically interested in Zach's opinion/response to her content. He's a "content creator" in that sense. If -- IF -- for some reason it was determined that he couldn't use her videos (or clips) for his responses, people could still theoretically be interested in seeing what he thinks about the whole mess. It would make his job harder and would probably result in fewer views for him because the format would be less effective, but he could still do it and people would (again, theoretically) still watch. Whatever profit or popularity he derives from his channel isn't due to simply re-uploading her videos and stealing her audience. He's using her content as a basis for his content, not just siphoning off views from her channel.

She fundamentally can't stand the idea that someone is more popular than her, and the idea that they gained their popularity through mocking her simply doesn't compute. Her tiny gravy-addled mind can't process the fact that criticism of her is not only valid, but widespread and potentially profitable.

She'll never understand how much of a joke she is.

Edit: The legality of all this vis-a-vis Fair Use is kind of beside the point, imo, since she'll never take anyone to court, and would probably lose if she did. I'm just dumbstruck by how her narcissistic brain leaps to these conclusions that people need her permission to say something about her videos she doesn't want to hear.

 

[Pepper Jack]

New Zach video about Flobby Blobby. Skip to 6 minutes. The first six minutes is just SJW sperging about Shanny saying NIGGER.

 

[Captain Ahab]

Lemme tell you something, Jabba the Nut.

Copyright strikes are for pussies. It’s the adult equivalent of telling your teacher that the other kids are laughing at you. It goes against internet culture. The internet wouldn’t be what it is today without people giving a middle finger to copyright laws. The only reason you have Netflix, Spotify, youtube, and free 4K porn is because the entertainment jews couldn’t control piracy. Youtube wouldn’t exist without a loose interpret of fair use. You literally wouldn’t have a job, you fat ugly bitch, if not for piracy.

Fuck you and fuck your old middle-aged ass.

 

[sixcarbchiligorl]

So where do we go from here? Well, there's a few options. These have all been done previously.

1. She uploads a bitchy rant today with a mukbang, doubling down on the things she said yesterday.
2. She posts a half-ass apology within two days, still in bitch-mode and standing by what she said but blaming the bullying, and vowing never to speak about haters again.
3. She posts a half-ass apology within two days, using her tiny baby voice and playing the victim.
3. She manufactures a reason for a hospital visit to try and get sympathy and have people forget the chimpout/niggergate.
4. She blames her recent actions on medication, claims she's made a dr.'s appt and that she'll behave now.
5. She actually takes a break from YT for a week, then comes back with Big Beautiful Me 2.0 and a new diet.
6. She just never addresses any of it at all and continues uploading fast-food mukbangs as if nothing happened.

 

[Punkinsplice]

Zach might even come up with a creative way to get around using her clips if that was a true copyright infringement.
There are some funny reaction channels, and I would like to see more content that doesn't rely on video clips. Then Chantal would just reeeee about "fat shaming". Chantal calls everything fat shaming because fatness is her identity, and snark against Chantal is snark against fat people in her blubber addled head. Yet most reaction YouTubers are very careful to frame weight related criticism as concern (I don't think it really is in every case), so she would just have to sit and stew even more than she does now.

 

[Hamberlard Raid]

So where do we go from here? Well, there's a few options. These have all been done previously.

1. She uploads a bitchy rant today with a mukbang, doubling down on the things she said yesterday.
2. She posts a half-ass apology within two days, still in bitch-mode and standing by what she said but blaming the bullying, and vowing never to speak about haters again.
3. She posts a half-ass apology within two days, using her tiny baby voice and playing the victim.
3. She manufactures a reason for a hospital visit to try and get sympathy and have people forget the chimpout/niggergate.
4. She blames her recent actions on medication, claims she's made a dr.'s appt and that she'll behave now.
5. She actually takes a break from YT for a week, then comes back with Big Beautiful Me 2.0 and a new diet.
6. She just never addresses any of it at all and continues uploading fast-food mukbangs as if nothing happened.

Personally, I want #6. This is the most entertaining/interesting Chantal has been in a very long time and I do not want it to end anytime soon.

 

[Wyzzerd]

I'm just waiting to see what her solution will be when the food tray no longer fits on her steering wheel. Will she find out a new way to hold up her hourly feelings or will she be too fat to even fit behind the wheel at that point?

It always is fascinating too see what these lazy deathfats come up with to continue their wretched lifestyle. Instead of slightly altering their life or just getting off their ass they invent these hilarious solutions so they don't have to expend any effort.

 

[Strine]

Are you fat? You can't criticise Chantal because you're fat just like she is.
Are you thin now but formerly fat? You can't criticise Chantal because you used to be fat just like she is.
Are you thin without ever having been fat? You can't criticise Chantal because you don't know what it's like to be "big".
Do your criticisms have nothing to do with obesity and everything to do with Chantal being a filthy lying cunt? Sorry, too bad.

I like how Chantal has been swilling "body positivity" like a wine taster to see what it can do for her, but her first reaction to every critic is to try to discredit their arguments based on how many chins they have. "You said x and did not do x" isn't true or false based on the BMI of the person saying it, gorlfriend.

 

[Punkinsplice]

Maybe she will

I'm just waiting to see what her solution will be when the food tray no longer fits on her steering wheel. Will she find out a new way to hold up her hourly feelings or will she be too fat to even fit behind the wheel at that point?

It always is fascinating too see what these lazy deathfats come up with to continue their wretched lifestyle. Instead of slightly altering their life or just getting off their ass they invent these hilarious solutions so they don't have to expend any effort.

Maybe she will scoot the seat back more and wear super
platform shoes to reach the pedals.

 

[L. Ron Hubbard's Cat]

Are you fat? You can't criticise Chantal because you're fat just like she is.
Are you thin now but formerly fat? You can't criticise Chantal because you used to be fat just like she is.
Are you thin without ever having been fat? You can't criticise Chantal because you don't know what it's like to be "big".
Do your criticisms have nothing to do with obesity and everything to do with Chantal being a filthy lying cunt? Sorry, too bad.

I like how Chantal has been swilling "body positivity" like a wine taster to see what it can do for her, but her first reaction to every critic is to try to discredit their arguments based on how many chins they have. "You said x and did not do x" isn't true or false based on the BMI of the person saying it, gorlfriend.

AL does this, too.

Really, the only person worthy of criticizing them is themselves. And that's okay because they'll always forgive themselves, know what they really meant, and be proud of themselves for even considering trying to maybe make a change.