• 0 Posts
  • 52 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle
  • I wrote in another comment, but if you examine his life, he was NOT a conformist. My favorite thing about his unconventional style was that he knew he needed a radical music program but had enough humility to know he needed someone else to direct it (he was a very talented musician). So he found the local and famous jazz club pianist and directed him to play whatever sort of music he desired. Johnny Costa, one of my personal icons, was very confused at first because he thought his music would be far too advanced or technical for a children’s show. And if you watch the show, you will notice that he plays every single song in a unique way, every single time. Can you imagine that? Playing the same music for 30 years and almost never playing the same thing. He was an absolute master of not hitting the note that your brain expected him to play, yet still playing enough to resolve and release the tension of the melody. It really is beautiful music.

    Whoa, tangent. But seriously, MR was a rebel and the highest calibre of person that Pittsburgh has to offer.


  • ZMonster@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldOddly accurate...
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    I don’t think he remotely fits the “overly wholesome” aspect of this meme at all. He’s far more relatable to creator #1. He made shows about things that are difficult to talk about with kids. He frequently negotiated topics that others advised against. He was incredibly articulate and relatable when it came to even angry letters from ignorant parents. He communicated with children the same way he would with adults. He literally hired a working jazz club pianist to do the music and when asked what kids songs he was going to be playing, homie’s basically like, “Uh, you do you fam. YOU are the music program.” He even made episodes of his show that were FOR adults. He cared deeply about emotional health and knew how detrimental it is to your development at all stages in life. And he did this for decades as a devout and committed spiritual leader and never mentions God a single time. He knows how to be an example and I would be amazed if he were capable of hiding a sordid and deplorable existence.

    He was also an incredible debater and speaker. He does use simpler language on the show but he is very capable. Just adding that because I’m obviously biased. I met him once and my mom wrote him an angry letter. She’s always been a piece of trash but I will never forget his kindness and joy.



  • 😊 Well, you might think so, but if that were true then their legal team would have to be unimaginably inept. Even small companies rely on arbitration clauses. A company the size of Disney probably has boilerplate arbitration clauses prolifically spread throughout any agreement they make. I don’t imagine there’s anything their legal team says more often when they are named in a suit than, “can we arbitrate?”

    So, yes they were relying on a remote technicality to get out of the suit, but that’s also the only reason they were named in the suit. I don’t blame them. And they know they wouldn’t be found liable. But they also know that people only remember “the mcdonalds hot coffee lawsuit” being about some unintelligent gold digging woman (which BTW is a travesty). So the settlement that they will likely offer is going to be worth far less than the damage from the bad rep of a trial like this.



  • Not everything is all or nothing. It’s not that you either are completely liable or not liable at all. That’s not how this works. If you are not liable at all, you should move to dismiss. The way this case was designed, based on the allegations, Disney does bear responsibility. But the allegations only include Disney in the most tenuous of ways. So a motion to dismiss would NOT have worked. But IMO, they are not liable at all. This was a restaurant that leased Disney land that screwed up. I can’t see how Disney had anything to do with this at all.




  • They are going after the restaurant. The restaurant is whom they are suing. But they know they won’t get much from an allergy lawsuit settlement with an Irish Pub themed restaurant, so they included the deeper-pocket Disney in the suit (which IMO is a less than honorable act, but in a capitalist society I’m always going to give the benefit of the doubt to the person, also you never know if the legal system is going to choose you to fuck with so I dually recognize the spaghetti-at-the-wall approach to damage remuneration).

    Even with that said though, since the guy who decided to risk a life-threatening condition on whether a likely not much more than minimum wage employee could or would know if a thing was allergen free decided to rely on a technicality of civil litigation to get more money, then I can’t fault Disney for using a technicality to try to get out of it.

    Fuck Disney in general, but kudos to Disney for taking this on the chin just to not make someone even a perceived victim of their greed. I think it’s honestly respectable. They’re still probably not going to be at fault were it to go to trial, but they’re going to settle and give this guy the obvious payday he wanted.

    Good breakdown by LE








  • Whoa, lol, what is this a reference to?? Holy shit! 🤣🤣🤣 Don’t tell me it’s just more youtube drama? Jesus, so many intense opinions about the guy. I had no idea he had garnered such a bizarre reputation. And to think, I’ve been wasting all this time watching his videos twice a year and then getting the fuck on with my life. I guess meta truly will never be not cringe. Lol. Seriously though, what are referencing? Is there some subliminal propaganda sewn throughout his videos that I’m just too dense to pick up on? 😂


  • Yeah, a reference would have been nice, sure. But I still think the people that watched that video are NOT interested in reading a longer, unfunny version of stories about dumb people. Conversely, if you were trying to research this story specifically and your source was this video, then maybe the bottom of a cave is the right place for you. Lol. His images are just ripped off stock photos too. So I suppose nothing he does is truly original. Yet at the same time, there is no one like him on YouTube that has the same appeal. So I would say, if you watch his video and then read the article, would you have the same experience? Probably not. He did transform the content. But enough so for you? That’s up to the beholder. So again, sure he stole someone’s article and they had YouTube remove it. I guess the system works. And I still don’t care. He’s neither a journalist nor a researcher so who cares? What a weird battle to fight. The fact that anyone has an opinion this intense about something so dumb is just baffling, let alone enough to make a video about it. I still think hbomb needs to chill the fuck out. It’s just not that serious, and YouTube has already taken action. So who are you carrying the torch for? You know what’s more entertaining than hbomber “taking down” Internet Historian? Any Internet Historian video. I do find it hilarious that his most popular video is the one about IH. So who is milking who here? 😂 I’m just fucking around. You’re absolutely right. But it just means nothing to me. I’m sure I’m not alone.


  • Lol, I mean, okay, sure. Not very significant though. First, I would never have read that article. Second, telling stories chronologically is only a new concept to Quenton Tarantino, the rest of humanity kind of defaults to that. Third, I don’t watch IH for his fact based reporting, I don’t care if he just read the entire article verbatim and I could care even less if he just made it all up. I think he is good at humor and shitty animations and neither of those are even remotely represented in the OC. So sure, if you say he’s a plagiarist, I won’t defend it, but maybe you’re going to the wrong place if you’re going to IH for original and reliable “information”.

    Lol, I think hbomb needs to get some perspective. He could easily argue that “bIg MoNeY sAlViA lItErAlLy StEaLs OtHeR pEoPlE’s CoNtEnT” and he would be 100% simultaneously correct and useless.