Disney, YouTube Cut Ties With PewDiePie, Top YouTube Submitter, Over Anti-Semitic Videos (techcrunch.com)

jo7hs2 writes: Disney's Maker Studios has cut ties PewDiePie, the YouTube submitter with 53 million subscribers, over anti-Semitic clips the submitter released earlier in the year. The clips, three videos published in January, have since been removed from the channel. According to TechCrunch, "They included one skit in which [Felix Kjellberg, PewDiePie's real name] paid a Sri Lanka-based group of men to hold up a sign that read 'Death to All Jews,' while another featured a clip of a man dressed as Jesus saying that 'Hitler did absolutely nothing wrong.' Kjellberg used freelance job finding site Fiverr for both clips. He argued that he wasn't serious with either and instead wanted to show the things people will do for money." A spokesperson for Maker Studios, which was acquired by Disney in 2014, told the Wall Street Journal, "Although Felix has created a following by being provocative and irreverent, he clearly went too far in this case and the resulting videos are inappropriate." Writing on his Tumblr blog, Kjellberg said the purpose of the examples was "to show how crazy the modern world is, specifically some of the services available online." He continued, "I picked something that seemed absurd to me -- That people on Fiverr would say anything for 5 dollars. I think it's important to say something and I want to make one thing clear: I am in no way supporting any kind of hateful attitudes."

UPDATE 2/14/17: YouTube has also cut ties with Kjellberg. A YouTube representative confirmed to Business Insider that the company has canceled its YouTube Red original show starring Kjellberg. Business Insider reports: "Kjellberg's show, 'Scare PewDiePie,' was a YouTube original accessible through the company's subscription service, YouTube Red. The show was about to premiere its second season. YouTube is also removing Kjellberg from Google's preferred advertising program, which helps the platform's most popular personalities attract bigger advertisers."

Comments

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot: "Celebrity" gossip. Stuff that doesn't matter.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok grandpa.

Read it as "(Label) drops (Artist) after (Artist) does something distasteful." These kind of stories really are all the same and unless you care deeply about (Label) or (Artist) they don't matter.

Re:Who cares?

[citizenr]

I care, because there is a chance YT will stop spamming this retards videos into my recommend feed like they were somehow thematically similar to the clip I currently watch (oscilloscope repair for example).

Re:Who cares?

[Jack9]

Youtube's highest paid content creator (and conversely highest earning content creator for YouTube) was cut over pressure from a partner corporation (which in turn came from the ironic, , via a pessimistic (mis)interpretation of an entertainment video? It is geek news. The trolls implying that he might possibly be antisemitic are just perpetuating the status quo, in promoting that there are more than seven words you can't say.

Re:Who cares?

[gravewax]

he is still right, Who the fuck cares, this is not supposed to be a pseudo celebrity gossip rag. We have enough shit that is border line whether it belongs here, this is so far into fucking no mans land you can't even see the border.

Re:Who cares?

[AmiMoJo]

You can't serious spin this as some kind of politically correct overreaction or trolling. Disney is extremely conservative, everyone knows this, PewDiePie knew it when he partnered with them. So expecting a video with guys holding "death to Jews" signs up to be okay with them was dumb at best.

Once again, it must be pointed out that Youtube does host a huge amount of far right neo-Nazi Jew hating material. That doesn't give anyone the right to be paid to produce it.

Re:Who cares?

[Mashiki]

Disney is extremely conservative, everyone knows this,

And here I am looking at the Disney channel, and ABC news. You're calling that conservative? Okie dokie there. If the Disney channel got any more progressive with one of their main revenue streams, I'd be wondering if they were pushing pro-pedophilia or pro-hebephilia stances. Guess what though? This entire thing has backfired. Not on PewDiePie, on disney, the media in general. And it just redpilled an entire swath of GenZ to hate the media. Good job, and you're wondering why the left is moving to irrelevancy.

Once again, it must be pointed out that Youtube does host a huge amount of far right neo-Nazi Jew hating material. That doesn't give anyone the right to be paid to produce it.

There's far more leftist fascist material on there these days. See how easily I pulled bullshit out of my ass?

Re:Who cares?

[gnick]

That doesn't give anyone the right to be paid to produce it.

I'm curious. Why does nobody have the right to be paid for producing racist content?

Re:Who cares?

[freeze128]

Break it down:

Pew: The sound of a bullet being fired.
Die: What happens when the bullet hits the YouTube celebrity.
Pie: What we all eat afterwards in celebration.

Re:Who cares?

[AmiMoJo]

You misunderstand, what I mean is no-one has the right to demand be to employed making YouTube videos, as some people occasionally claim. If someone wants to pay them to do that then great, but YouTube and Disney are not required to do so.

Re:Who cares?

[Grim Beefer]

This is so much bullshit. The "seven words" schtick is all about censoring specific words, not an idea. "Fuckface" and "idiot" might have the same relative descriptive power, but one of those is acceptable for broadcast television, and one is not. That was the point of the bit - it doesn't make much of a difference to call some words "forbidden", and allow others to be acceptable, when they pretty much mean the same thing.

This scenario isn't about the words he used, but the underlying idea it represents. Even if we give this dumbass the benefit of the doubt, at best he's a rich white man paying poor people a pittance to do offensive things, in what is, unabashedly, a 21st century minstrel show - all done to enrich himself. Tack on all the weak horseshit you want, about "social commentary", or what the fuck ever. That defense could be used as a justification for just about anything that isn't illegal. Meanwhile, actions will continue to have consequences.

This is, obviously, someone trying to exploit the young male demographic by being "outrageous", due to the predictable tastes of such a market, who will consume anything they're convinced is supposed to be forbidden, like "funny" antisemitism, rape jokes, etc.. This is done in a puerile attempt to practice independent thought, and fight the vague battle against the "status quo", you predictably reference, all the while being quite well contained in the confines of marketing demographics, who's owners exploit this behavior, just like any other market.

Meanwhile, the dumbass got fired from his job. He'll simply find a more appropriate platform, where his market will follow.

Re:Who cares?

[Mashiki]

You seem to think what the United States calls conservative is what the rest of the world does. Even our left is pretty far right. Get out of your bubble there is more than your dear hunting tree stand to the world.

You seem to think that everyone lives in the US. That's the very definition of living in a bubble and assumptions.

Re:Who cares?

[KlomDark]

OK moron, I'm older than you, have a lower UID here, and truly am a grandpa, and I know who he is. (Not that I really care for him, I like the green-haired video game player guy better)

So climb out from under your rock and live a little.

Re:Who cares?

[farble1670]

Are you really asking why no one is guaranteed payment for producing racist content?

Re:Who cares?

[gnick]

I was more implying that there was nothing banning people from producing racist content for profit. GP said that nobody had the "right to be paid." Having the "right to be paid," in my mind, is not the same as having a guaranteed payment. I have the rights to do a great many things that will never happen.

I think we're arguing semantics.

Re:Who cares?

[Mashiki]

While you're making that post, I'll remind you that you were standing up for gawker when they did this. Making the claims that people shouldn't be going after gawker for a "joke." And defending them when Sam "bring back bullying" Biddle made that statement, and that it was unfair to go after Biddle as well because it was also a "joke."

Re:Who cares?

[AmiMoJo]

As usual, I'm going to have to ask for a link. I don't recall the Gawker thing at all, and only vaguely remember the Biddle incident. I honestly can't remember what I said about either, but it doesn't sound like something I would say and in any case I reserve the right to change my mind.

Knowing how you usually find a way to twist whatever I say to mean the exact opposite, my default position here is going to be that you are wrong.

Re:Who cares?

[Shane_Optima]

This very much does matter. He's one of the biggest names on Youtube, if not the biggest, and this drives at the very heart of all this the freedom of speech, PC culture, fake news and 'role of social media' stuff that's been heating up ever since Trump won the nomination (let alone after he won the presidency.) His size makes him "collateral damage of note and influence".

Re:Who cares?

[Jack9]

> You can't serious spin this as some kind of politically correct overreaction

It is, so there's no need for spin. You went on to characterize Disney, which is wholly irrelevant to the issue...

> So expecting a video with guys holding "death to Jews"

To be correct:

Death to Jews, subscribe to Keemstar

It's a joke that cleverly doubles as political satire. It is still misrepresented by the WSJ, and has snowballed into some equivalent of "fake news" about a non-existent anti-semite. It's particularly interesting that his economic and social position was not enough to stop a focused media onslaught, without merit.

Re:Who cares?

[Mashiki]

You reserve the right to change your mind. Sure. It's just in line with your belief that gamergate is a harassment campaign. By the way, this is PewDiePie's "fall." In other words, nothing.

Re:Who cares?

[AmiMoJo]

What is this shit? Post something relevant to your claim, like a link to a specific post.

Why do I even bother asking, you never have anything.

Re:Who cares?

[AmiMoJo]

Yeah, turns out you can't just say "JK, LOL" after everything and avoid all consequences of your risk taking.

Re:Who cares?

[countach]

Yeah, maybe it was dumb, but comedians have to walk this tightrope all the time. Remember Colbert got slammed by the social justice warriors over the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever. Roseanne Barr called Israel a Nazi state. Frankie Boyle has made fun of Down syndrome. And on and on it goes. PewDiePie is comedy, and this skit was clearly comedy. Was it funny or in bad taste? Eye of the beholder. My opinion of YouTube went down a lot in cancelling his show, and I might have to cancel my YouTube Red subscription in retaliation.

Re:Who cares?

[Mashiki]

What is this shit? Post something relevant to your claim, like a link to a specific post.

I'm using the exact standard you use when you peddle bullshit, and try to make a claim against me. You enjoying the table turned on yourself yet? Oh no, you didn't. Figure out why yet?

Why do I even bother asking, you never have anything.

Wrong. When I post something, you refuse to look at it or never respond. I'm just giving you a very special treatment that's deserved for this post.

Re:Who cares?

[AmiMoJo]

I do look, when I have time. It's part of my research into where this bullshit comes from and how people twist/misinterpret information.

We are going to fight back for the French election this year. Use the same tactics against the alt-facts shitposters. Meme the fuck out that thing.

Who cares?

[sgage]

Who. Fucking. Cares? What is a PewDiePie? This is news?

Semetic?

[CrimsonAvenger]

I'm assuming someone meant "Semitic"? I

'm having a hard time figuring out whether it was the author, of one of our less literate editors, though...

Re:Semetic?

[by (1706743)]

I think this makes you anti-semantic...

Re:Semetic?

[Anonymous Coward]

If being anti-Symantec is a crime, then there can't be many innocent techies in all the world.

Judging by his name

[subk]

I'd say there's a fair chance Mr. Kjellberg *is* Jewish, which would make his Anti-Semetic about as serious as Sasha Cohen's "Borat" character. Either way, it's not a good match for Disney, so how is this news?

Re:Judging by his name

[MightyMartian]

Who said a Jew can't be anti-Semitic?

Re:Judging by his name

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say there's a fair chance Mr. Kjellberg *is* Jewish [...]

No.

'Berg' is very common in Swedish surnames. It translates as 'mountain'.

Re: Judging by his name

[Anonymous Coward]

MTV (literally) said black people are "incapable of being racist." Maybe the same logic applies here?

Re: Judging by his name

[Anonymous Coward]

Racism does not require a power component. If you think it does, you're as uneducated as she is. She's an oxygen thief, hypocrite, and racist.

Re: Judging by his name

[Anonymous Coward]

> with this definition (racism=prejudice+discrimination) it makes sense to say blacks can't be racist.
No, it does not.

> Definitions can't be wrong, they may be confusing or useless, but not wrong.
Incorrect, they can be internally inconsistent, or contrary to other positions held by the same individuals or group, unfair, prejudicial themselves and so on.

Re: Judging by his name

[Tranzistors]

with this definition (racism=prejudice+discrimination) it makes sense to say blacks can't be racist.

No, it does not.

The original statement might not be true, but it is not nonsense. At least give a good counterexample. Outright dismissal gives impression that you have a belief without justification.

[Definitions], they can be internally inconsistent, or contrary to other positions held by the same individuals or group, unfair, prejudicial themselves and so on.

• Definitions can technically be inconsistent, but I don't see inconsistencies here (perhaps you could point them out?).
• Contrary to beliefs is not a problem. I can be an atheist and think that “god is a being that is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient”. In any case, if you think this is a problem, you should point out where the inconsistencies are, not just claim that they are.
• Term "unfair" is too open. Unfair to whom? Against what standard? In any case, it doesn't make definition wrong.
• Yes, definitions can be prejudicial. But you have to show how it is prejudicial. And even then it is not "wrong".

Anyway, you have not shown which Decoded proposed beliefs are racist or hypocritical, or inconsistent or wrong. Please, please, please add some substance to your claims, otherwise it is really difficult to believe any of them.

Re: Judging by his name

[Tranzistors]

Time to work with primary sources. I assume(*) you meant video "5 Things You Should Know About Racism" (3:28 - 5:08). The point of the video was that for racism to work it need institutional support. She did not claim that black people can't possibly be racist. If you know a state where institutions are run by blacks and are discriminating against whites, that would be your counterexample. For inspiration, Chinese institutions discriminate against non Chinese. Perhaps South Africa is doing the something similar. But the point Franchesca is making is that USA has no institutions that oppress whites in favour of blacks, not that blacks are theoretically "incapable of being racist"

I agree that all races can hate, discriminate etc. We are human after all. But is two groups hate each other and only one group calls the shots, it would be foolish to assume that the disadvantaged group has as much of the responsibility to fix the situation as the advantaged group.

(*) I assume you meant this video, because your quote "incapable of being racist." and MTV lead to a reddit article, which linked to the Decoded video

Re: Judging by his name

[msauve]

"USA has no institutions that oppress whites in favour of blacks"

That's simply untrue.

Re: Judging by his name

[meta-monkey]

USA has no institutions that oppress whites in favour of blacks

What about universities that preferentially accept blacks with lower test scores than whites?

Re: Judging by his name

[Tranzistors]

That's simply untrue.

Not as clear cut. Especially since court ruled that it is not discriminatory and the vote was split. The point of the affirmative action (or positive discrimination) is to correct for the usual discrimination. University believed (and court agreed) that blacks were discriminated against so to not discriminate further, they made countermeasures.

[Court] noted that the university should regularly evaluate available data and "tailor its approach in light of changing circumstances, ensuring that race plays no greater role than is necessary to meet its compelling interest."

This is not an ideal solution. It would be better if root causes were addressed, but since University of Texas can't on its own solve societal issues, we can't ask them to do that. If we solved racism, then this action form the university would be clearly wrong.

I must add that Franchesca never explicitly stated that "USA has no institutions that oppress whites in favour of blacks" (my bad). I think the point was more to the effect that institutions as such do it. For example, if one university in USA was really really discriminatory to the whites, it would not impair a white person's ability to get education, if there are a lot of other universities to choose from. However, if such drastic action was picked up by a lot of universities so that prospects of education for whites were unfairly impeded, that would be a proper evil racism.

The reason I put unfairly in the previous sentence — imagine a state where there are 80% blacks and 20% whites. This state is really racist and universities only admitted whites, but for some reasons universities changed their racist policy and admits students irrespective of skin color and only on the merit. After the reform color composition in universities is 50/50. This change has "impeded education prospects for whites", but not unfairly. How fair/unfair was the Texas university case is debatable.

Re: Judging by his name

[Tranzistors]

Why the fuck would they hand over half the power to another group that hates them?

Unless the blacks become the majority, there will be no "handing over of power". USA is a democracy and unless blacks seize power and destroy democracy (how likely is that?), that just won't happen. There is no need for that to happen too. Look at Canadian Americans. They are a minority and no one has handed power over to them. That is what rights are for.

Re: Judging by his name

[msauve]

What the fuck does the court have to do with whether it's discrimination or not??? They just decide if it's lawful discrimination. It's perfectly clear that race based discrimination both personal and institutional exists against whites in the USA. At least to anyone who isn't trying to bullshit their way through arguing that it doesn't exist.

The rest of your comment is just poorly done rationalization.

Re: Judging by his name

[Tranzistors]

What the fuck does the court have to do with whether it's discrimination or not??? They just decide if it's lawful discrimination. It's perfectly clear that race based discrimination both personal and institutional exists against whites in the USA. At least to anyone who isn't trying to bullshit their way through arguing that it doesn't exist.

A lot of discrimination types are lawful. For example, universities discriminate based on education. But more to the point.

The rest of your comment is just poorly done rationalization.

In case you missed my point: university argued that previous admission practice was discriminatory already and the quota system was introduced to minimize the discrimination.

You have not even tried to counter points I have made. You can call it poor rationalization, but if it is really poor, you could just point out where my reasoning is misguided or what facts I have omitted.

Finally, you have not provided any argument in favour of your case. The link to the court ruling is good and all, but it just it doesn't prove there is discrimination. On the face of it the link shows that court found that the university was not unfairly discriminating. And as I pointed out above, just proving discrimination alone is not enough.

Re: Judging by his name

[david_thornley]

No, racism doesn't need institutional support. There used to be institutional support for racism against blacks, but that went away over a few decades when I was younger, and racism hasn't gone away. Many people are racist without the need of government encouragement.

Re:Judging by his name

[D00MSlayer]

So you're telling me that icebergs aren't Jewish?

Re: Judging by his name

[Tranzistors]

Many people are racist without the need of government encouragement.

True, you don't need government encouragement, but institutions are not directly and totally commanded by the government. They do their own thing in the framework of the law. And we shouldn't forget that not all institutions are public. For example, banks are integral part of USA finance system and is mostly private.

If I remember correctly, the argument is that while laws have been fixed (which does improve the situation a lot), institutions have not followed to the same extent. Law enforcement can have a lot of wiggling room when deciding how to do its job. The notorious stop and frisk practice leaves up to the police officers to apply their judgement on whom to search. If significant number of those officers act in a racist manner, then the police institution becomes racist as well. This not just police, most institutions can apply some discretion. When a bank declines a loan, it doesn't have to say it is because of skin colour, it can just say that credit risk is too high.

Racist grandpa in the retirement home is not a problem. Racist trigger happy cop is. The former can be avoided and is at most an embarrassment. The latter can't really be avoided and may lawfully kill and be protected by law enforcement and judiciary.

disney are idiots

[mOzone]

pewdiepie shaved his ass and sent the hair off so someone could bake a cake ..and for valentine's day video had humping penis's for 5 mins ...100s of video along same lines ...and disney didn't care ....but the fiver video was the (((last straw))) ...lol hypocrites

Re:disney are idiots

[by (1706743)]

There's a difference between being generically offensive, and being offensive by targeting specific groups.

You don't have to agree that one is more offensive than the other, but to ignore that the two cases are different isn't particularly productive.

And on the other end of the spectrum you have stuff like South Park, which basically tries to be offensive by targeting *every* group; in some strange egalitarian sense, this makes it "less offensive," as the motives are clearly for humor, rather than hatred towards a specific group.

Re:disney are idiots

[MightyMartian]

Well, South Park does get a lot more leeway precisely because it is an equal-opportunity offender. But while Comic Central generally lets Parker and Stone do whatever they want, they have nailed them a few times. Still, I often find that South Park, despite being a bit caustic, is rarely ever outright cruel (okay, Paris Hilton being shoved up Slave's ass might be pretty cruel). But it is a fine line, and there's an art to satire, particularly when it involves risque subjects. I keep thinking back to the Monty Python "Prejudice Game Show" sketch with Michael Palin spouting early 70s-era epithets like "awful gippos" and "shoot the poof!" Because Python were pretty smart guys, and more importantly good writers, they could pull of this kind of shock and awe comedy (think here of the cannibalistic "Undertaker's Sketch"), whereas Spike Milligan, who was just as brilliant a comedian, even by 1970s standards, went too far with some of his sketches.

Re:disney are idiots

[MightyMartian]

Er, I mean Comedy Central... Real brainfart there

Re:disney are idiots

[MightyMartian]

I like the two Disney Star Wars films, especially Rogue One... and is George Lucas dead? Didn't they hand him literal boatloads of money for the Star Wars IP? Lucas isn't rolling in his grave, he's laughing all the way to the bank.

Re:disney are idiots

[misexistentialist]

Except it was the Indians being made to look ridiculous, the claim that it was Jews being targeted proves that no group was clearly being attacked

Re:disney are idiots

[mysidia]

There's a difference between being generically offensive, and being offensive by targeting specific groups.

Sounds like he's been fairly equally offensive to all groups. Fact someone found 1 out of a thousand videos more offensive to X doesn't mean X was targeted.

Re:disney are idiots

[MightyMartian]

And thank goodness he took the money and then Disney showed him the door. The prequels were all the argument anyone needs to show Lucas was turning Star Wars to shit.

Re:disney are idiots

[virtig01]

There are no possible jokes that can be made about the Holocaust.

Heard of Gilbert Gottfried?

Re:disney are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

The sheeple mindedness of the people enabling atrocities and dictators should be a target of satire and ridicule any day. I do suspect, however, that such satire will never reach its target audiences in these times of bubble politics and media consumption.

Re:disney are idiots

[Khyber]

"There are no possible jokes that can be made about the Holocaust."

Please. Tragedy plus Time equals Comedy. Anyone can joke about anything. The real joke as of current, speaking of time, is your disingenuous nonsense.

"The fact that you do not understand why this is so shows that you are at risk of something like it happening in your lifetime."

You mean the several other genocides which have happened since WWII, most fucking recent one being the Srebrenica massacre? That you're so blind to think that not one other genocide has happened, let alone in their lifetime, is yet another comedic tragedy, and it's your ignorance that perpetuates and furthers the possibility of these genocides happening.

"How could it be that less than a year ago it would be unimaginable that you could end up dying in a chemical weapons attack in Iran?"

Bullshit, son. They've got ammonia and bleach and aluminum over there, in great fucking quantities. Chlorine gas is easily manufactured in the home, and is ALWAYS a persistent threat due to the ready availability of the three substances needed. Yet another comedic example of your tragic dysfunctional logic processes. Looks like you can only go one or two steps ahead - you'd be a poor chess player.

"How do you feel about going off to fight Iran?"

You know exactly jack about our military capability, eh? Roughly three days of US Air Superiority would guarantee that it wouldn't be much of a fucking fight, let me tell you. It would essentially be as simple as rolling in and dropping the conventional explosives equivalent of a few nukes. Reality, we could simply take the entirety of the Middle East within two weeks, spend about a year fighting a ground war wiping out every possible bit of opposition using our advanced satellite technology to track targets and scan for them, and then that area is simply ours.

Assuming one had a competent leader and plan for them to execute, anyways. Can't say that with our current chief-of-leaks.

"You have absolutely no idea how easy it is for society to turn on a pin and exterminate millions of people."

I'm pretty sure the entire world was watching our election and is just waiting for the second part to happen.

Re:disney are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

It was his to do with as he wished. I'm always amused by sci-fi nerds thinking they're anything but untapped wallets to studios.
Admit it, you would have watched it no matter what, like all those fucking stupid super hero film franchises.

Re:disney are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Making things offlimits *causes* people to want to do it. Ignore it and most people won't care. Limiting what one can think about is possibly the worst thing one can do to a thinking being.

Re:disney are idiots

[bluefoxlucid]

There are no possible jokes that can be made about the Holocaust.

I thought we were finally over this nonsense.

umadbro?

Re:disney are idiots

[meta-monkey]

The prequels were all the argument anyone needs to show Lucas was turning Star Wars to shit.

At least they were memorable. The Disney ones will be entirely forgotten in 5 years. No memes...no quotable lines. They're entertaining to watch, sure, but whatever made Star Wars "Star Wars" is gone. It's just a corporate product by committee now.

Re:disney are idiots

[meta-monkey]

You know exactly jack about our military capability, eh? Roughly three days of US Air Superiority would guarantee that it wouldn't be much of a fucking fight, let me tell you.

Just park a couple of destroyers in the Gulf of Oman, blow up anything going to or from Iran and wait a few weeks.

Re:disney are idiots

[totallyarb]

Reality, we could simply take the entirety of the Middle East within two weeks, spend about a year fighting a ground war wiping out every possible bit of opposition using our advanced satellite technology to track targets and scan for them, and then that area is simply ours. Assuming one had a competent leader and plan for them to execute

And... y'know... assuming we were comfortable with all the civilian deaths that such an attack would cause. That, fundamentally, is why recent American wars have tended to drag on for so long; it's not an issue of competence or planning (those aren't perfect either, but they're secondary) - it's that the entire approach is based on trying to win while doing as little actual damage as is humanly possible.

And the real danger to America is the prospect of a commander in chief who equates that approach with weakness or lack of resolve, and decides to do it differently. Because at that point, the "America is the new evil empire" meme stops becoming the exclusive preserve of teenage Trotskyists, and becomes something the whole world has to take seriously.

Re:disney are idiots

[Bookworm09]

You mean the several other genocides which have happened since WWII, most fucking recent one being the Srebrenica massacre?

You forgot about the Bowling Green massacre, you insensitive clod!

Re:disney are idiots

[squiggleslash]

most fucking recent one being the Srebrenica massacre?

Do people make jokes about the Srebrenica massacre?

Re:disney are idiots

[OutOnARock]

Lighten up Francis.....

Re:disney are idiots

[OutOnARock]

sorry to reply to my own, but

My fraternity was 60% Jewish (I am not)

Only hot dogs at BBQs were Hebrew Nationals

How did everyone, Jewish or not, call for one?

"Throw another Heb on the fire....."

Lighten Up Francis

Re:disney are idiots

[Khyber]

"And... y'know... assuming we were comfortable with all the civilian deaths that such an attack would cause"

We're pretty fucking comfy killing our own citizens, so where's that problem again?

Re:disney are idiots

[Khyber]

"Here's a news flash: Iran is mountainous. Mountains provide cover against air power. Mountains block armour."

Here's a bigger news flash - we've had the stuff to not give a fuck about mountains AT ALL since the 70's. Not my problem your commanders refuse to give you proper fucking outfitting.

My grandfather was Lt. Col USMC. I've been on plenty of bases. You've got the fucking equipment, you just are not given it because you're too stupid to requisition it (which is why you're a soldier in the first place.)

Re:disney are idiots

[mOzone]

no i am not ... these videos where out when disney (maker studios) signed him .. 4 plus years before they signed him...if they didn't review his past is it his fault?

Re:disney are idiots

[mOzone]

pewdiepie has way worse and on his channel .. 100s of videos dating back 4 years ..disney - maker studios reviewed his past right? i don't think they did ..now they are shocked ..like me hiring andrew dice clay and getting upset about his foul mouth

Works better than expected

[Anonymous Coward]

[He] wanted to show the things people will do for money.

It worked better than he expected. Much better.

He actually exposed the hypocrisy of the loony-left media-industrial propaganda complex and the things they will do for money.

The media-industrial complex has been accused to be ignorant as to why it lost belly-up in Nov 2016. The reality is that there is no such ignorance. Instead it chooses to be the bitch of the loony hyperliberal special interest which actively stifles anything not conforming to its slave ideology.

Re:Works better than expected

[Anonymous Coward]

Think most people missed what his 'message' was. You can hire people say whatever you want. It doesn't even cost much. Somehow people want to pretend it is not going on.

Yes what he did was racist. But he also has a bigger message that most people seem to want to ignore. You can *BUY* whatever narrative you want. That is not a good thing. Hell he bought it for 5 bucks a head.

Think some billionaire with a chip on his shoulder wouldn't do the exact same thing? If not why not?

I personally think exactly that has been going on for a long time. My wife decided to donate to one of these organizations once. Holy hell, did we get real spam mail for years. I am talking 10-15 per week. All of these 'grass roots' organizations are clearly thinly veiled money laundering schemes for rich people to push whatever narrative they want. The DNC itself in the past year has been caught on tape many times buying trouble. I have 0 doubt the RNC does the exact same thing.

Re:Works better than expected

[Oceanplexian]

Yes it is perfectly reasonable to make Holocaust jokes. It's another century, in case that isn't too obvious.

Are we going to outlaw jokes about the American Revolution? Jokes about the Ancient Egyptians? At what point are people not allowed to be offended by something that did not occur in your lifetime and is a part of the history books? This group above is not denying the Holocaust or Nazi-ism. It is a parody.

Re:Works better than expected

[Opportunist]

They'd probably be what the SA was. Use them while you need them, then cut them up when they get uppity and want a share of the cake.

Re:Works better than expected

[Anonymous Coward]

Protip: The brown shirt fascists are the ones protesting against free speech, assaulting people, and lighting shit on fire while screaming obscenities at anyone who doesn't buy into their ideology 100%.

Re:Works better than expected

[negRo_slim]

racist

My ass.

Re:Works better than expected

[fredgiblet]

That's more or less the idea with Trump I'm sure. The Republicans will let him hang himself, then when he finally loses the majority of his support from the fringe they'll chuck his corpse and slide Pence into the Oval Office.

Re:Works better than expected

[nmb3000]

media-industrial complex

You realize this is a nonsense phrase without meaning, right? And that you sound like a mindless dolt undermining any other points you might be making when you repeatedly parrot it? Okay.

Re:Works better than expected

[meta-monkey]

You're delusional if you think Trump support is "fringe." It's only "fringe" on TV, because all the news networks are in deep blue cities. It never occurs to them that the man on the street outside the city might have a different opinion than the man on the city sidewalk.

Re:Works better than expected

[Al Al Cool J]

Meh. Seems like a stupid message to me. You don't need to pay people to be racist, hateful, anti-Semitic, or cruel insensitive garbage. There is no shortage of so-called humans that do it for free, 24-7.

Re:Works better than expected

[NG-Buddhist]

Shocking that you would post this anonymously. What a profound show of strength, sir/madam.

Re:Works better than expected

[NG-Buddhist]

I see the point you're making, and while I do understand it, I have to disagree with the basis of your argument. Your opinion is just that: an opinion. It's not a fact that there are "no possible jokes about the Holocaust," but a matter of taste. Anything has the potential to be made into a joke; however, it's the specific audience (and the individuals that comprise that audience) that decides whether or not the joke is funny. If you used the same Holocaust joke at an AIPAC meeting, an American Naz--erm, "alt-right" meeting, and a room full of five hundred randomly-selected individuals, you would get three very different sets of reactions. You can also be offended by something and still recognize the humor in it despite the offense taken. These things are not mutually exclusive. It also does not mean that there is necessarily any tacit or explicit endorsement of the actions by finding a joke about the situation to be humorous.

Re:Works better than expected

[david_thornley]

It's too big to be a fringe, true. However, his support is almost certainly likely to dwindle. Lacking honesty, he promised working folks he'd fix things, but he can't. The coal miners? Coal power is going away and it isn't coming back any time soon, since natural gas and wind are more economical and cleaner. (Removing the EPA for now will encourage some operators to keep coal plants operating longer, but nobody's going to build one on the assumption that environmental legislation isn't coming back.)

Manufacturing jobs did go overseas, but they aren't going to come back. Trump's not going to give up cheap overseas labor to make his stuff, after all, and US factories will become increasingly automated. Back when America was "great" according to Trump, it was relatively easy to get a job paying a wage sufficient to support a family if you had no real skill but were willing to work hard. That's not happening again.

Therefore, Trump supporters will see nothing they really want happening despite Trump's actions. Lots of them are going to stop supporting him. The evangelicals who supported a walking list of deadly sins are presumably already disappointed that he backed off his promise to attack LGBTQ government employees. I don't know what these supporters are actually going to do, but their support for Trump will erode a lot over the years.

Re:Works better than expected

[meta-monkey]

The evangelicals who supported a walking list of deadly sins are presumably already disappointed that he backed off his promise to attack LGBTQ government employees.

He made no such promise. In fact he promised to protect LGBTQ citizens during his RNC speech and got a huge round of applause for it, and he waved around a rainbow flag at a rally.

The rest of your post is predicated on the belief that Trump's economic policies will fail. I disagree, I absolutely think they will work, and employment will be better in four years than it is today. We'll find out in four years which of us is right, and not by government statistics but by whether or not Trump is reelected.

Re:Works better than expected

[fredgiblet]

I would bet money that if the election was held again today that Clinton would win. Trump is doing some things that his supporters want, but he's also completely flipped on some of his promises (remember "drain the swamp"?) and pissed off a lot of people in the middle who voted for him. If his policies are home runs then he might survive, but I very much doubt they will be, moderate successes are possible, but they will likely come with serious downsides that will leave him open to attack quite easily.

Only time will tell, but I wouldn't put any money on Trump being the Republican nominee in 2020.

Re:Works better than expected

[meta-monkey]

But I actually do remember "drain the swamp." It's five specific items from this policy speech about reforming government lobbying, and he's put the policies that effect the executive branch into place already. Getting Congress to impose these restrictions on themselves is another matter and we can't get into legislative initiatives until the cabinet is confirmed, but there's zero sign of flip-flopping on draining the swamp.

The problem is the left and the media pretend that "draining the swamp" means...whatever the hell they want. It seems like they've tried to redefine it as something to do with his cabinet appointments. "Oh my god, Trump didn't appoint enough pink haired translesbian demieskimos to his cabinet, so much for draining the swamp!!!!" Who the hell cares?

Trump been checking his campaign promises off at an amazing rate. Actual Trump voters (not neocon GOP establishment hacks like John McCain and Lindsay Graham the media might trot out on TV) are very happy. Now if it turns out his policies don't work and the working class is still poor and we've got race riots in 2020, then I can see him losing. But it won't be for lack of trying.

First: I am going to institute a 5-year ban on all executive branch officials lobbying the government after they leave government service.

Second: I am going to ask Congress to institute its own 5-year ban on lobbying by former members of Congress and their staffs.

Third: I am going to expand the definition of lobbyist so we close all the loopholes that former government officials use by labeling themselves consultants and advisors when we all know they are lobbyists.

Fourth: I am going to issue a lifetime ban against senior executive branch officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.

Fifth: I am going to ask Congress to pass a campaign finance reform that prevents registered foreign lobbyists from raising money in American elections.

In what way has Trump "completely flipped" on this policy?

Re:Works better than expected

[JThundley]

How is what he did racist? He made a joke and social commentary by saying "People will say terrible, racist things for a couple bucks."

Re:Works better than expected

[david_thornley]

We use government statistics. Trump was elected on economic theory more bogus than trickle-down, and so I don't accept elections as validators of economic theory. If he's re-elected in 2020, then either you're right or Trump's a better con man than I thought he was, and only one of those possibilities supports your position.

I did see a reference to Trump making an anti-LGBTQ promise, although it's pretty clear he's not personally against them.

How do you think his economic policies will work? He can't restore the jobs his followers want. If he implements enough protectionism, we'll get into a trade war and everyone will suffer. Why do you think employment will be higher in 2021 than it is now?

Re:Works better than expected

[meta-monkey]

We use government statistics.

Like that 5% unemployment number Obama and Hillary kept touting? Lies, damn lies and statistics. Leaves out people who gave up looking for work, who are underemployed, who went from a 40 hour a week factory job to working 29 hours a week at McDonald's (so they don't have to give them Obamacare insurance), doesn't reflect the unhappiness of people who haven't had a raise in 10 years.

People don't vote based on government numbers. They vote based on their personal economy, and that's what they did this time. They looked at their job or lack thereof, the financial situations of their friends and their family and said "yeah, the economy sucks, I'm voting Trump" while Democrats screamed "don't believe your lying eyes look at these government numbers everything is great!"

The same thing will happen in 2020. Dems will trot out some cooked numbers to say "everything is falling apart!" but the real test will be what the rust belt and black voters do. If they compare their economic situation in 2020 to how it is today and say "I'm better off," they'll re-elect Trump, and if not then they won't, what the TV says be damned.

How do you think his economic policies will work? He can't restore the jobs his followers want. If he implements enough protectionism, we'll get into a trade war and everyone will suffer. Why do you think employment will be higher in 2021 than it is now?

We're already in a trade war. We've been in one for forty years, and not fighting, just getting beat the fuck down by everyone else. Nations manipulate their currencies, employ value added taxes, subsidize their industries, etc, to undercut American manufacturing. So when you say "start a trade war" that's like lying on the ground with the bully on top of you beating your face bloody and saying "no, don't try to block or punch, you wouldn't want to start a fight!" So, yes, actually fighting back with tariffs, with lowering our corporate tax rates, with reducing regulations to make it more profitable to make things in the US than outside the US will bring back jobs.

Also by cracking down on crime and rebuilding the inner cities I think he'll secure a much bigger portion of the black vote. Democrats operate under the theory that poverty creates crime. Wrong. Crime creates poverty. When Trump cracks down on gang violence, deports the cartels, and frees the police to do their jobs and stop letting the cities burn down you'll see peace return to the black communities, which will then allow for the possibility of prosperity. Blacks will be better off in 2020 than they are today. I think something like 16% of black men voted Trump...get that up to 25% and the dems are fucked.

Again, we'll see what happens.

Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[cervesaebraciator]

"Although Felix has created a following by being provocative and irreverent, he clearly went too far in this case and the resulting videos are inappropriate."

It's funny how one of these words has a positive connotation, and the other one a negative. This, despite the fact that opposing groups might apply each term to the same content. All inappropriate means in a context where one is praising someone for irreverence is that the irreverence was applied to a preferred group.

I am reminded of Isaac Hayes's objection to South Park's irreverence toward Scientology.

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[MightyMartian]

Generally, in the post-WWII Western world, making Holocaust jokes or anti-Jewish jokes is seen at the very least in pretty poor taste, and it is indeed the kind of thing that could see people lose sponsorships, jobs, etc. Mel Gibson has been trying to like a bastard to rebuild his career or 10 years after the whole "Jews start all the wars" drunken rant, and while it seems like Hollywood is prepared to give him yet another chance, he'll be dogged by that (and that crazy-ass phone call to his ex-girlfriend, which in some ways I found a whole lot more disturbing) until the day he dies.

Every society has its taboo subjects, some taboo for idiotic reasons (like say, blasphemy and heresy), and some probably for good reasons. In general attacking Jews or mocking or denying the Holocaust are seen as pretty bad because it is feared, not entirely without justification, that latent anti-Semitism inevitably ends up in some sort of pogrom (that's pretty much been the history of the Jews for at least two thousand years, even longer if you buy pre-Hellenic tales of woe). Now, in places like Germany and Austria, that sort of thing is likely to get you thrown in jail, but in the US, the state has no role in determining whether speech is allowed or not, save within a pretty narrow scope of circumstances. That doesn't, however, bind private actors like citizens or corporations from disassociating themselves from people who make anti-Semitic statements.

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[cervesaebraciator]

Certainly. I agree with the thrust of what you say. PewDiePie was blockheaded for doing this. It was in poor taste and, frankly, some things should be taboo.

My objection is to the corporate speak and the hypocrisy it allows people to rationalize. One shouldn't praise 'irreverence' as something great and courageous, on the one hand, but reject the speech of others as 'inappropriate' once it's applied to one's own sacred cows.

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[edtice1559]

No but one can recognize that certain 'irreverence' is designed to gently nudge us to reconsider our beliefs or 'sacred cows' as you call them. Even if we aren't ultimately persuaded, the examination is beneficial. In other cases, such as this one, there is (hopefully) not subtle push towards reexamination. Rather it serves only to instill fear in a group of people who have already suffered mightily. If you bring up a valid point, you can weather the backlash. When your 'irreverence' has no redeeming value, you torpedo your reputation.

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[MightyMartian]

I'm not going to go out of my way to defend Disney. I find them among the most crass of corporations, taking in cultural motifs and beloved tales and putting them through a sausage grinder to produce such awful dreck as Pocahontas and Mulan. At the same time, I can say quite honestly that if one of my staff made Youtube blatantly anti-Semitic Youtube videos, he'd be gone in a hurry. I believe in free speech, so I suppose to some extent that makes me a hypocrite, but my personal philosophy and the necessities of the market place are never going to sit that well together, and I can only real jive the two by an argument towards the greater good, namely that peoples' livelihoods, mine not the least, could be materially harmed by some jackass's online nonsense.

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[misexistentialist]

the whole point is that it's bad taste, the more they reinforce the taboo, the more effective the Jew killing jokes are

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[MightyMartian]

But how is it that he pissed off moneyed interests? Even if we assume that Disney's management are a pack of sociopaths, the fact is the reason they responded as they did is because being associated with someone who makes anti-Semitic jokes could materially harm their interests. In other words, it is the wider society that views anti-Semitism so grimly that a company that stands by and allows itself to maintain associations with someone exhibiting anti-Semitic speech is going to get shown the door.

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[stephanruby]

The two situations are not the same.

Whether it's the police cam or the voice mail, Mel Gibson showed his true colors.

In the case of this YouTuber, whether he's anti-semitic or not, it doesn't really matter. He's an idiot for not knowing Disney's usual take on things.

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[cervesaebraciator]

At the same time, I can say quite honestly that if one of my staff made Youtube blatantly anti-Semitic Youtube videos, he'd be gone in a hurry.

Yep. Me too.

I believe in free speech, so I suppose to some extent that makes me a hypocrite [...]

Nope. I don't think you are. It's quite simple: "We've chosen to dissociate ourselves with Mr. Kjellberg because his actions do not reflect the values and attitudes of Disney." I'm not objecting to their dissociation, and I think what I just offered is at least passable corporatese. As I said before, I think taboos can be a good thing. My objection is to the implicit approval of praising 'irreverence'. I really don't think PewDiePie meant any harm. But its precisely a culture that praises irreverence as a good in itself which leads to irreverent and, sooner or later, 'inappropriate' speech. My objection is that the corporation was perfectly happy to associate itself with 'irreverence' as such.

The difficulty is that our culture lionizes irreverence for its own sake, but then is unwilling to accept the same when it is applied to very particular (i.e. profit threatening/socially objectionable) circumstances. This is where I find the hypocrisy.

Let me put it this way: I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian; I am also a supporter of free speech and liberal democracy. If I ran a media corporation and I spoke in glowing terms of 'irreverence', and then, upon discovering that my corporation was sponsoring Andrews Serrano (who did the (in?)famous 'Piss Christ'), distanced the company from the artist, I would be a hypocrite. For this reason I would not heedlessly lionize irreverence. I should sooner support mutual respect: "Our company would recognize your individual right under the law to do as you please artistically. But, if you're a Muslim, you'll not find my company doing cartoons of Muhammad and praising ourselves for being 'irreverent.' If you're a Buddhist, you won't find my company Photoshopping the Dalai Lama into compromising positions, even if we think it funny or artistic. If you're African-American, you won't find us making jokes about slavery. If you're Jewish, you should understand that we don't think the Holocaust is a laughing matter."

I'm all for a CEO saying something like this. I call him a hypocrite only when he treats 'irreverence' as something to be desired in itself (as is often the case in our culture). If one wishes to sell material which offend my religious sensibilities, very well then; I leave that to them. But if the same one objects when an employee draws a picture of Mohammed or makes an elephant dung virgin Mary, I think I'll be justified in calling them out for hypocrisy.

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[dgatwood]

I hope you're just trolling. Go ask somebody in western France whether the U.S. saved Europe. Yes, Russia played a big role in dividing Germany's military might, but don't think for one minute that things would have gone the same way without the more than 125,000 Americans who gave their lives taking the beaches of Normandy.

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[fred911]

"That doesn't, however, bind private actors like citizens or corporations from disassociating themselves from people who make anti-Semitic statements."

Especially when an exceptionally large proportion of the controlling entities of the entertainment business are by birth or marriage, Jewish. Not only could it be seen as offensive to some, but it's just a plain stupid business decision.

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[MightyMartian]

We are not talking about money as some rarified entity. Consumers have money and if some idiot's behavior interferes with the transfer of that money, then that is bad for the company.

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[MightyMartian]

Russia was still shipping steel to Germany up to the morning of the invasion, and let's remember that Lend Lease was also sent to Russia, with Stalin bitching it wasn't enough on a regular basis to Churchill and Roosevelt that Churchill ordered some of the Arctic Convoys to redirect to Russian ports. And then we can talk about the Trans-Iranian Railway, where the Allies intervened in Iranian affairs to depose Reza Shah in favor of his son and everyone's favorite modernizing despotic dictator, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, because the railway represented an alternate route to get materials into Russia.

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[Raenex]

Generally, in the post-WWII Western world, making Holocaust jokes or anti-Jewish jokes is seen at the very least in pretty poor taste

Too soon?

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

But how is it that he pissed off moneyed interests?
i.e. he pissed off the jews?

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[Serge_Tomiko]

The Soviet Union was not shipping steel to Germany. They were shipping huge numbers of tanks to the German border, which were eventually seized by Germany and used in the invasion.

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[Evtim]

If anything is taboo you can never have discussion about it...never learn from the experience and never prevent it from happening again...also who guarantees that the taboo is " right" . Consider for instance the idea that the pope can make no mistakes....how does that sound with all the pedo scandals....it was a taboo to speak against the clergy, shall we uphold that? What about the proposed new law in Russia to criminalize criticism against the government? Do you like that taboo?
When I can't reach EU legislation web-page dealing with pedo porn because the text contains the words pedo porn [and the ISP filters me out and undoubtedly reports to everyone and their dog what a terrible person I am for trying to read the LAW, then something is REALLY wrong!

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[mvdwege]

I believe in free speech, so I suppose to some extent that makes me a hypocrite

No it doesn't. That's a right-wing frame, don't buy it. Free speech automatically implies freedom of association: no-one can force you to stand by and listen to speech you don't want to hear.

If you are worried, you should be worried about whether or not you are abusing a power relationship to impinge on that secondary freedom (of association). But hypocrisy it is not.

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[AmiMoJo]

I call this the Sheldon Cooper argument, essentially complaining that social norms are not completely logical and applied evenly.

The thing is, a walking encyclopedia like Sheldon should actually understand this very well. It's basically due to historic context and society over time deciding that certain issues are bad enough that they deserve some special consideration to correct.

Personally I think claims of antisemitism are made far too often, usually by Jewish people, and perhaps Disney acted a bit hastily here. But but I also appreciate that Disney has some history with it and that a "death to Jews" sign is likely to overstep a boundary for them.

It will be interesting to see if PewDiePie can move to another platform. Top Gear did, and it didn't really work. Maybe Amazon would like to give him a new series too?

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[JonnyCalcutta]

My objection is to the implicit approval of praising 'irreverence'. I really don't think PewDiePie meant any harm. But its precisely a culture that praises irreverence as a good in itself which leads to irreverent and, sooner or later, 'inappropriate' speech.

^ This. The last twenty years has seen a huge rise in the comedy/entertainment of irreverence. And when done well it can make an important point (Brasseye's celebrity endorsements being the best example I can think of). But the worst of it is when it simply exploits people for entertainment. Or when any 'message' is so obvious as to not need saying in the first place.

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[Trailer Trash]

Put more simply, "death to all jews" in a vacuum is stupid and offensive, but we don't live in a vacuum. In the context of our modern world this was an actual goal that a homicidal maniac was able to, at the very least, make significant headway toward attaining just 75 years ago. Plenty of his victims are still alive, with far more children and grandchildren, so this is still well within the collective conscience of the world and particularly the west.

It's mind boggling to me that the guy who probably has no other marketable skills would throw away a dream career in such a dramatically stupid fashion.

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[cervesaebraciator]

Do you like that taboo?

"Some things should be taboo" "All things should be taboo" nor "All taboos are good"

A taboo against posting signs that say "Death to all Jews", for example, can be a good thing. I shouldn't like legislation to that effect, but I am happy that such language is not acceptable in polite company.

also who guarantees that the taboo is " right"

No one. Taboos are a matter of social pressure and standards, not some centralized guarantor or body. The mental mechanism which causes taboos can certainly be put to bad ends. Such taboos should be challenged. But, again, there is a some/all distinction we have to make here. It does not follow that because some taboos should be challenged, on account of them being unjust, all taboos must always be opposed.

Even if such were the case, it'd be an endless task. Taboos naturally arise among humans. There isn't a human society lacking taboos. Now of course natural does not mean good, just, or even 'ought'. But it does mean that eliminating taboos entirely is likely an impossible goal without modifying human nature itself. Better, therefore, to focus one's efforts are unjust taboos than to waste effort supporting some idealist goal of eliminating all taboos. In short, I do not (and did not) say all taboos are good. I merely said some things should be taboo.

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[meta-monkey]

We also have political discourse in which snark is mistaken for an argument.

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[meta-monkey]

Consider for instance the idea that the pope can make no mistakes

Only when speaking Ex Cathedra, which they rarely do, and has nothing to do with the Pope's personal behavior or Church management. The Pope is just a man, and just a priest (though first among equals). You are not required to agree with the Pope and everything he does, and arguing with him is not verboten. Many Catholics, myself included, have deep disagreements with the way Pope Francis has been conducting himself, for example. But I am in no danger of excommunication.

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[DerekLyons]

So much this. To take the actions he did, PewDiePie had to be either supremely ignorant of the world around him, or supremely egotistical (I'm so big they won't dare take any action against me), or both. (Or, well, an actual anti-Semite but that's also covered by the earlier cases.)

A poster elsethread is trying to make the case that he actually didn't mean it... But misses that "not meaning it" doesn't absolve of him of responsibility for actually doing it. YouTube and Disney rightfully don't care whether he meant it or not - because he actually did it.

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[david_thornley]

I believe in free speech, so I suppose to some extent that makes me a hypocrite

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to use my resources to say whatever you want. It means you can say what you want and try to get it disseminated, with or without my help. If you post something I think inappropriate to my blog (which isn't currently functioning), I'll delete it. Get your own blog if you want to disseminate pro-COBOL propaganda.

Re:Irreverent vs. Inappropriate

[farble1670]

I believe in free speech, so I suppose to some extent that makes me a hypocrite

No it doesn't. It's the difference between not choosing to associate with that person (in business, or whatever), which is of course your right, and denying them the right to speak freely. He hasn't been denied free speech. He can still make YT videos or take his content somewhere else. He can even spend billions of dollars of his own money to build his own video distribution platform akin to Youtube.

Let's not get all upset about this. An idiot made a load of cash for being an idiot. He still has that cash. Lucky him.

ironic

[slew]

Apparently this PewDie bro used to make money making Rape jokes videos, but apparently Maker Studios (Disney) was okay with that because of "money".
Now, as a "joke", this bro paid random people to $5 (on fiver) to record themselves holding antisemitic signs and felt remorse...

So, by using fiver to point out that anyone will do anything for money, but probably later regret it, he pointed out to Disney their course of action...

I just can't feel sorry for the bro ;^)

Re:ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is that he will probably do much better with out them. His content was languishing and becoming too corporate.

Good work

[Ol Olsoc]

It's great to see that people who cannot abide a little bit of anything "not quite right" are making certain to fire and otherwise ostracize all non-politically correct and offensive others. Good work snowflakes.

Two thoughts. When you cater to whims of the easily offended, they do not become less offended, they find more things to be offended about.

Y'all easily offended just clean up your little corner of the room, arranging everything meticulously and making it perfect and pure - while other people elect the people you like the least.

Now I'm going to go to Youtube and watch some Bill Maher and Louis CK.

Re:Good work

[Ol Olsoc]

Oh yes, when in the company of the easily offended, where the true suffering is the folks trying to be reasonable, I propose that the most polite thing to do is to offend the offendees as soon as possible and get it out of the way. The intent being, of course, to provide perspective for the honest innocents who were trying to be rational.

Background - my family is Catholic. All of us have a pretty good sense of humor. Sooo on facebook I posted a picture of a pomeranian dog dressed in a Pope outfit. My relatives all thought it was both cute as all gitout, and funny as well. And it was.

Well, an old GF posted how she found it really offensive.

This pretty much sums up the snowflakes issue. They spend too much time being offended for other people. I have some discretion - I'm not going to tell dead baby jokes to pregnant women, but seriously! I can listen to Louis CK and gasp at some of the stuff he says. But somehow that doesn't translate into me having the right to demand an apology. Besides, after I think "Jeezuz K Rist, he actually said that?", I laugh.

But when a PPP (Pomeranian Puppy Pope) offends people, it ain't the dog's fault.

Re:Good work

[Ol Olsoc]

Bill Maher and Louis CK.

old Jews who kvetch about old people's problems and how socialism is the solution to everything but stupid people don't want it for some reason

As long as you are offended, that's fine by me.

Re:Good work

[dbIII]

IMHO the problem here is not Youtube kicking someone for any reason Youtube want, the problem is there isn't really much in the way of competition.

Re:Good work

[Tranzistors]

This pretty much sums up the snowflakes issue.

You seem to be rather offended by GF offence. Let it go.

Re:Good work

[meta-monkey]

Background - my family is Catholic. All of us have a pretty good sense of humor. Sooo on facebook I posted a picture of a pomeranian dog dressed in a Pope outfit. My relatives all thought it was both cute as all gitout, and funny as well. And it was.

Well, an old GF posted how she found it really offensive.

Also depends on whether the joke about a group is made by 1) someone who is part of the group and 2) is good natured rather than mean spirited.

Similar to the Seinfeld episode where he is accused of being an "anti-dentite" because he makes dentist jokes without being a dentist after becoming upset that his dentist who recently converted to Judaism is already making Jew jokes. Although this offends Jerry as a comedian, not as a Jew because it's not fair you get to convert for jokes.

I'm Catholic and thought Kevin Smith's movie "Dogma" was funny. Smith grew up Catholic and while he is no longer practicing it was obvious from the movie he didn't hate Catholics, he was just poking fun at things like declining attendence and a funny attempt to "rebrand" the Church with the "Buddy Christ." That was funny. But then you've got Sarah Silverman screaming about how she's glad the Jews killed Jesus and she'd do it again. That's not good natured, or even a joke. That's just spewing hate. Gets to keep her job, though.

Same thing with Jews who are openly hateful of whites, like Lena Dunham saying we need to "eliminate white males." I don't see the difference between that and PewDiePie's "kill all jews," except I think Lena's serious. And that's dangerous because if people don't realize she's Jewish (and therefore is not just poking fun at her own race, but is instead stirring up hate against another) then it passes the criterion of embarrassment and people think she knows what she's talking about. There's a reason Dave Chappelle had a crisis of conscience about whether people were laughing with his characterizations of blacks or at them, or why Chris Rock stopped telling the "well there's black folk, and then there's n*****s!" joke, because when you say shit about your own race, racists say "oh look, see, I'm right, they even say it about themselves!" No Jew says "kill all the Jews," no white person says "kill all the whites," and people should be very careful talking about other races that way. It's very difficult to maintain a civil society when members of one race are openly talking about killing members of another, and I kind of like civil society.

Re:Good work

[Ol Olsoc]

This pretty much sums up the snowflakes issue.

You seem to be rather offended by GF offence. Let it go.

Are you triggered?

Re:Good work

[Ol Olsoc]

Big difference between a dog dressed as the Pope and "Death to all Jews".

If you can't see the difference, you're the one with the problem.

Couldn't agree more. Which is why the perpetually offended are just offended to start with, and have to find a reason.

Re:Good work

[Tranzistors]

Just observing your thought-terminating clichés.

Re:Good work

[Ol Olsoc]

Just observing your thought-terminating clichés.

I have a million more. I also use the often used words of the English language. Hopefully you find that offensive. I thrive on that shit.

Re:Good work

[Tranzistors]

Ahh, I see. You're why /. has "Troll" moderation option. Good to know.

Re:Good work

[Ol Olsoc]

Ahh, I see. You're why /. has "Troll" moderation option. Good to know.

Sometimes. Then again, I make certain to only be a troll to assholes. Helps with the Karma it seems. Are we done now? It's time to start ignoring you.

Re:ByeBye, PewDiePie

[MightyMartian]

I started bitching about this a week ago when they had some stupid fucking ad about "vuln detection". It was a terrible ad, and who the fuck uses the contraction "vuln" for "vulnerability"?

Re:Hypocrite much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting you should bring that up.

I'm curious. What do you think muslims were doing around the time of the Crusades?

I got your attention. Good.

[mmell]

(N/T)

So?

[Nunya666]

I cut ties with Disney after they outsourced their IT department.

News at 11.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've embraced them. I download torrents of all their movies and watch them with great interest. I try not to miss a one. Very loyal, yesiree.

Video here

[Anonymous Coward]

Just in case anyone was wondering, you can find the video in question here. I've skipped to the relevant part, but the whole video is him going WTF over just what people will do for a few bucks on Fiverr:

https://youtu.be/KtxXKezbQ9w?t=660

"I am sorry. I didn't think they would actually do it."

"I don't feel too proud of this, I'm not going to lie."

Re:Video here

[ArmoredDragon]

I never heard of him until a south park episode a few years back (and haven't heard the name since) but even though I'm not a fan of his, I think the reaction is overkill. He could always move to a youtube competitor; if he has THAT many viewers, it would pull a lot of users away from youtube and wouldn't surprise me if they went out of their way to get him back.

Re:Video here

[CustomSolvers2]

Without knowing anything about this guy (other than the South Park reference mentioned above), I know already a lot about his personality just by watching this video excerpt, his intention, his apparent motivation, his reactions, etc.: the kind of rich (or problem-free or egoist) asshole with a distorted perception of the world, overwhelmed by the tremendous amount of information and all what is associated with internet, responsible for a new wave of extremely-ignorant-and-completely-unaware fanaticism. I don't mean just the usual peculiarities associated with the behaviour of these youtubers, but the whole internet-based group-thinking movement: SJWs (bear in mind that I am an over-understanding leftist), Twitter or Facebook or whatever lynch squads and even programming-related fanatic and ignorant group-thinking (I know something about this too).

Just in case my position is not clear, here comes a summary of what I see in this video:

1. The guy firstly complains about the people to whom he has paid $5 (!!!) not doing what he wants. My impression is that these people were trying to give more for the paid price, kind of highlighting that all was a joke. If I was in his shoes, just watching these guys doing these stupid things for me because I paid them $5 would have made me feel horrible.

2. The expected result is delivered exactly as instructed; and this guy behaves firstly as if it was incredible (?! Weren't you complaining 5 seconds before because they didn't do it?!) and then shameful?! They are just words, exactly your words?! Don't you feel ashamed about writing such a sentence and hire some people to show it in a video, but you do feel ashamed of watching it in that video?! Why? Out-of-context words have no meaning, and much less the exact format in which these words are expressed; all what matters is intention. If you have ever had that thought, it would be equally bad than writing it or showing it in a video. There is no difference. There is hypocrisy, ignorance, self-esteem issues and being overhelmed by what you cannot even understand. Only a hypocrite can see any difference between actually doing/thinking/saying something wrong in one format or a different one.

3. The most incredible part and what perfectly describes the aforementioned new wave of half-persons with lots of power (or, at least, a very large audience): he dares to blame the two guys he hired for $5 (!!) for doing what he asked them to do!!! Even though he was complaining when they delayed that output for some seconds!! Complains about the world being wrong because some people have to work for an asshole for 5 miserable dollars! But he doesn't realise that he is the asshole!! He is the person who has provoked such an output! He had the intention (= all what matters)!

This guy thinks that paying $5 to people needing that money to do something pathetic makes sense. He thinks that being angry with these people in case of not doing exactly what he wants makes sense. He thinks that blaming these people for doing exactly what he instructed them to do makes sense. He thinks that feeling bad (better: showing that he feels bad) about a specific format (actually showing certain words in a video), but not caring about other (thinking about/writing these exact words somewhere else or hiring someone to write them) makes also sense. If he read the current post (or other descriptive-enough text), he would likely understand what he did wrong, even feel bad about his behaviour and never repeat it again. He would learn (basics about being a person) because he doesn't know it, but he is surprisingly unaware about this fact. He most likely thinks that his understanding capabilities are better than the average ones, thanks to his blind-supporters bubble. Other very curious issue of this kind of people is that they seem to think that what they deliver ($5 or his ideas in the video or anything else) is really valuable! No idea what others think, but the only feeling which they can provoke in me is pity. Is he a bad guy? He will

Re:Video here

[stealth_finger]

He could always move to a youtube competitor;

So vimeo then?

Re: Video here

[k2r]

Very much this.
Spoiled by his success he complains about people who are broke enough to act out his stupid ideas for $5.
He seems like the emperors brat who's having fun because the paws will dance to the rhythm of his clapping hands.
There is good potential for enlightening in this situation, though.

Re:Video here

[Shane_Optima]

Translation: I do not understand humor. Or at least not PewDiePie's humor. There's nothing *wrong* with that man, different strokes for different folks, but Christ... how did this shit get modded up to +5?

Re:Video here

[CustomSolvers2]

I know that you are just doing an impression of an ignorant fanatic to help everyone get my point properly. But just to have some fun, here you have my answers:

Translation: I do not understand humor. Or at least not PewDiePie's humor

I can call what is shown in this video many things, but certainly not humour. FYI, I do love humour.

There's nothing *wrong* with that man

I rarely judge people who I don't know, but this video is descriptive enough to make an exception. I do think that there is something wrong with this guy. He might definetively grow up and become a person at some point of his life (perhaps you too!).

but Christ... how did this shit get modded up to +5?

Apparently, 5 people liked what I wrote; but what does anyone know, right? The only important opinion here is yours, so I guess that my post has now become irrelevant (+5 - everything). BTW, has the American Nuclear Society (or any other nuclear organisation) already contacted you to know more about your brilliant idea to manage nuclear waste?

Re:Video here

[CustomSolvers2]

Apparently, 5 people liked what I wrote

I meant 4 people (+ my karma).

Re:Video here

[CustomSolvers2]

I meant 4 people (+ my karma).

Better: 3 people (+ my karma + my starting point).

See, Shane_etc.? I can extract kind-of-humorous essence from virtually any situation, but this video has nothing to work with.

Re:Video here

[Shane_Optima]

I can call what is shown in this video many things, but certainly not humour.

Again, not liking something is fine. I don't like country music. That doesn't mean I can say "it's not music" and write massive screeds trying to interpret it as... I don't know, people having normal conversations with weird speech impediments.

The only important opinion here is yours

No, I'd say the most important opinions are the 10+ million people subscribed to PewDiePie's channel (I'm not one of them, incidentally) and who have been laughing at him for years and years. Those millions of people might all be morons but they could still confirm one thing for you: it's comedy. If you think they have a shitty taste in humor, that's fine. If you think that IT'S NOT HUMOR and that PewDiePie was SERIOUSLY mad... that's just delusional.

Even though he was complaining when they delayed that output for some seconds!!

This is not "opinion". This is "ignorance" or "delusion". PewDiePie was not mad. You don't get the joke. You don't have to LIKE the joke, but in order to be taken seriously you do have to acknowledge that the joke is, in fact, a joke. The ending of it was a dark joke with some subjective interpretation, sure, but that bit you just reference was not actual, legitimate anger or actual complaining.

Re:Video here

[CustomSolvers2]

Again, not liking something is fine. I don't like country music. That doesn't mean I can say "it's not music"

Regardless of everyone's taste, music is music, a joke is a joke, etc. Doing something stupid or shameful or (for an impressionable little kid) shocking to (presumably) prove a point isn't a joke. You can definitively prove a point in a humorous way (as I did in my previous reply to you, hope you got that), but this is again not the case here. A completely different story is saying "this is a joke" as a way to somehow justify your bad-in-appearance actions or to make a critic a bit less hard or to reduce your responsibility for whatever, etc., this is precisely what is being shown in that video. There are abstract references to the situation being a joke, but nothing of what is said or done there (other than the dancing and laughs of the 5$-hired people clearly not understanding too well what they were about to do and trying to relax things a bit) converts it in an actual joke. Just showing an offensive message doesn't make something a joke because you say it so. You need context, story, references, ironic/sarcastic bits, etc. the actually humorous parts which are non-existent in that video.

people having normal conversations with weird speech impediments

This isn't a humorous situation. This is a situation period. Some people might convert it into humorous (e.g., via their understanding impediments), but this isn't its actual essence. A person saying something serious isn't a joke because you consider that the way in which he talks is funny. You might find it funny and provide some contexts to help others see it in the same way, even convert it into a joke. But that situation isn't objectively (= for everyone hearing that person) humorous. This example reminds me your examples about pharaohs and 3 MIT undergrads in the nuclear-energy post where we firstly met, you seem to have some problems to put actually-relevant examples.

No, I'd say the most important opinions are the 10+ million people subscribed to PewDiePie's channel

You are saying that the +5 of this post isn't invalidated by your over-opinion but by PewWhatever's followers? If I ever say anything about this guy, I would have to respond to his 10M+ followers? Would I need to get at least 10M+ positive votes? Anyway, the result is the same: my original post is completely irrelevant. Thanks for helping me and future readers realise about this issue.

Those millions of people might all be morons but they could still confirm one thing for you: it's comedy

You are saying that comedians cannot be serious? That if a person work consists in telling jokes, all what this person says has to be a joke? That I have to consider previous videos and the opinion of many others to properly understand this video? I don't think so.

If you think that IT'S NOT HUMOR and that PewDiePie was SERIOUSLY mad

Mad is a too abstract and imprecise concept; additionally it doesn't reflect my critic. I think that this whole video is very descriptive of a personality, better a lack of it. By using an expression that this PewWeird might like: "he isn't fully baked yet, someone should put him in the oven for a bit longer" (-> this is a poor-taste joke by bearing in mind the current context :)). As explained in my original post, I think that he represents quite well a new generation of spoiled idiots. Bear in mind that becoming an adult, a person if you wish, is the result of a complex process which requires different times and experiences (problems) for every person. Conventionally, it is assumed that people have already become adults at certain age, but this assumption fails in quite a few scenarios like here. Logically, all this is my personal opinion and I might be wrong.

This is not "opinion". This is "ignorance" or "delusion".

Why?

Re:Video here

[CustomSolvers2]

Ah! I get it now! You submitted a new article defending this PukeSomething, which clearly explains where your misperception of my post came from. Hopefully, you know now that I don't think that this guy is a racist/anti-Jew or really meant the contents of this message (although not even the most racist person ever would mean it). He is plainly an idiot with a distorted perception of the world who isn't aware about it.

It is kind of ironic that he is complaining about status quo and elites when he belongs to the new elite (-> precisely what my critic was about). I am the anti-elite fighter, the only-one-against-many, the objective small-guy whose sole weapons are knowledge, reason and common sense, the one spitting on face of imposing attitudes, via traditional means (money) or new ones (lots of followers, ignorance-prone "wisdom", rich-people-expecting-everyone-understand-their-petty-problems, elites-buying-their-image-as-rebels, etc.). Seriously, your (and people-like-you's) perception is insultingly wrong. I re-insist in my suggestion of better not talking anymore.

BTW, I saw his video apologising and am happy to confirm that my first impression about him was right: he is a complete idiot/half-person/big-kid/etc. in my book.

Re:Video here

[Shane_Optima]

...and there's still no acknowledgement from you that an intended joke was, in fact, an intended joke, and not someone being legitimately angry.

Re:Video here

[CustomSolvers2]

?! Why recognising what I think that should be evident to everyone (not the fact of being a joke, because this is NOT A JOKE; but not being meant seriously) and what I never implied? Can you please tell me the exact part in any of my previous comments (remember that nothing of what is written in Slashdot can be edited/removed by the users) where I said that he seriously meant that sentence or that he was anti-Jew/Nazi or that he was angry or that he was calling for a manslaughter? You cannot find any reference because these ideas have only been in your head, while misinterpreting my actual intention.

On the other hand, I think that certain kind of messages aren't precisely ideal, much less by bearing in mind his young audience. To not mention the fact that some people might feel offended (I cannot say anything on this front, as far as I don't belong to any group which is the usual target of generic hate; so, my opinion on this front isn't worthy). These are also relevant implications of this video, whose importance I am not dismissing, but my comment was plainly focused on something else! Rather than trying to understand the true intention of my post, you preferred to misinterpret it by bringing into picture ideas which weren’t even implied!

In summary and without trying to offend you, I think that there is no point in continuing talking. Our positions are very different on many fronts and it seems that systematic misinterpretations will be the most likely output of our conversations. Bye (again).

Re:Hypocrite much?

[Anonymous Coward]

" What do you think Muslims were doing around the time of the Crusades?"
He wouldn't know and if he did he would just ignore anything that would contradict his world view.

And people who think the holocaust is just ancient history and has no bearing on today's world completely miss the point.

The number of people killed in the camps was large but many more died across the world during WW2. The targeted extermination of a particular racial group was terrible but that wasn't the first time that type of thing happened and it wasn't the last either. The reason the holocaust needs to be remembered is because it was not a bunch a savages running around with machetes or a bunch of 7th Century and civilized loving maniacs with too much time on their hands.doing the killing. At the time Germany was one of the most modern countries in the world. The German Arts, Engineering, and Sciences were second to none at the time. This enlightened and civilized country purposely designed a factories for the express purpose of killing the most people in the shortest amount of time. Their scientists developed the gas used to kill the people. Their logistic and accounting staff managed the delivery and supply lines needed to support killing the most people in the shortest amount of time. They found loading up the cattle cars with people and dropping them off and then loading the same train with war material to be delivered were needed. A lot of munition and other manufacturing used to supply the military were located near the concentration camps to take advantage of the slave labor. The lesson of the holocaust is that it could happen again no matter how civilized we think we are.

Re:Hypocrite much?

[Luckyo]

Do elaborate on how they became "their lands."

Hmmm. Where _have_ I heard this situation?

[buss_error]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Oh, yeah.

Folks, extremism is extremism and is not a virtue; and moderation and considered judgement is. It is a rare thing to find anything "always" or "never".

Re:Hypocrite much?

[fustakrakich]

Like this

Re:Mickey Maus

[Anonymous Coward]

>>
Those loser Disney snowflakes are upset with a YouTuber just for making a few Holocaust jokes. They have no sense of humor. I mean, come on, killing Jews is hilarious. They're a failing company with no fans or ratings, and continue to try to push non-white cartoon characters down our throats. Not Good! #MAGA

Well, I don't know about all that, but Disney's Pocahantas was a BABE. Pissed my GF right off when I said that out loud.

Re:That's Rich...

[Opportunist]

As if "do as I say, not as I do" was such a novel concept.

You aren't training your feed properly.

[hackwrench]

There is a button somewhere on every video that you can click on that says not interested. Do that enough and they will stop showing up. For that matter I click the subscribe button on just about any fool that comments on videos I like regardless of whether they have any intention of making videos and am probably technically subscribed to PewDiePie, but his videos never show up as recommendations for me because I actually manage my blinking YouTube situation.

Re:You aren't training your feed properly.

[hackwrench]

Playlist training is only good for getting you stuff you want at least sometimes and avoiding the stuff you don't want ever. It could be more effective at giving you only the stuff you want at the times and places you want it, and the YouTube interface is pretty horrendous, but if you aren't making use of the tools that do exist, that's on you.

Re:You aren't training your feed properly.

[hairyfeet]

That button? Yeah it doesn't do anything. I have pressed that damned button a billion fricking times trying to keep those retarded YouTube "comedians" off my suggestions but I keep seeing his ass and several of his buds day after day after day. Its the same as I have clicked "not interested" (I would pick "more likely to desire an STD" if I could) on the YouTube Red channel, wanna guess what is there the very next time I go to YouTube? The YouTube Red channel.

Re:You aren't training your feed properly.

[hackwrench]

YouTube Red seems to be much of a special case, but it seems it is dispelled for me. One of the things I think are in my favor is my subscribing to lots of stuff so YouTube doesn't feel as much of a need to fall back on popular stuff. That being said, YouTube is a broken and glitchy system with limited features, so I may have been a bit hasty to say the fault lies with the user.

Re:You aren't training your feed properly.

[AmiMoJo]

Strangely I never get either of those things. I have quite a few channel subscriptions and uBlock/Privacy Badger.

Re:You aren't training your feed properly.

[sheramil]

perhaps youtube needs an "actively dislike" button. it indicates "if you even suggest this video to me again, i will punch someone. probably someone working for youtube."

Re:You aren't training your feed properly.

[citizenr]

It doesnt work (probably because I told YT to not save my history, which somehow doesnt stop them from building a profile on me and suggesting garbage).

Pewretarddie, h3whatever, 10funnycompilationssomething, someotherrandombro13, day in day out same fucktards are being pushed into my recommended.

Re:Mickey Maus

[coastwalker]

Actually although this is meant to be funny it is not and neither was what Pewdiepie did either. I understand that for people under the age of thirty "Ironic" means that you can say anything. There are still a few older people around who are too square for that daddy o. There are some things that happened in the second world war that scared the fucking shit out of most of the planet when they found out what had been going on. You see the nice German people who are currently having the piss taken out of them because they are taking hundreds of thousands of dark skinned Muslims as refugees. The nice German people took 6 million Jews, Gypsys, Black people, Homosexuals and gassed them to death because they reclassified them as dangerous animals. Now I am not saying that being ironic makes you a Nazi death camp commander but you do not have any sensitivity to the slippery slope that the German people fell down. In other words you appear to be disrespectful to the idea that there are some ideas that are too horrible to contemplate even as a joke. Unfortunately as you have no idea what it is that you have done wrong it is apparent that the world is ready once again for horrible things to be done. It is no coincidence that Nationalism and hatred of foreigners is once again popular. The lessons of the Holocaust have been forgotten and the world is ready once again for appalling crimes against humanity So no, jokes about the Holocaust are never funny, not even ironic ones.

Response here

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a response from one of his friends who goes over the matter in detail.

He tried to figure out what people would do for a few bucks on Fiverr and was dumbstruck by the fact that people would even do such things. The people drumming up these stories are creating outrage to clickbait people because they don't have real news.

Re:Mickey Maus

[PopeRatzo]

Comedy = Tragedy + Time.

Irony wasn't invented by people under thirty. I don't know if you've ever seen The Producers or Charlie Chaplin's The Dictator, but it's possible to lampoon something and be critical of it. By using #MAGA, I thought it would be clear enough that I was making fun of comments - real comments - that are seen every day online from members of the alt-right like Stormfront, the KKK and other Trump supporters. And are too often seen right here on Slashdot.

I'm sorry if I offended you, coastwalker, I didn't mean to. I have family members who died fighting Nazis and I understand that there is a resurgence of nazism today. I make fun because it's too late in the evening for me to go out and punch some Nazis, which is the appropriate response from anyone who values civil society and freedom. Plus, here in Houston, Nazis don't generally advertise themselves because there are still enough armed WWII vets that some angry nonagenarian might ventilate their asses.

Re:Mickey Maus

[PopeRatzo]

The problem is, you define "Nazi" as 'anyone to the right of CNN'.

Your day is coming.

Get a load of this jackoff. He says I'm unfairly calling him a nazi and then says the most nazi thing imaginable.

Your day has passed. Approximately September 2, 1945.

that's private business for you

[OrangeTide]

If you do something that my business finds distasteful, I'm free to fire your ass. Isn't this exactly the freedom from government restrictions on how I choose to run my business that the right wants?

Re:that's private business for you

[meta-monkey]

Isn't this exactly the freedom from government restrictions on how I choose to run my business that the right wants?

Half. I don't want the government forcing Christians to bake gay wedding cakes either. I spent a decade yelling at Christians to stop trying to force their shit on the gays, only to have the gays turn around and force their shit on the Christians. I'm beginning to think libertarian society is impossible because authority is too addictive.

Re:that's private business for you

[david_thornley]

Do you want people and institutions to be free to refuse service to blacks or Jews or women for arbitrary reasons? (It's a defensible position, if not one I agree with.) If you can see he reasons behind anti-discrimination policies, then it's a matter of where to draw the line.

From another point of view, we as a society provide a business environment for people to operate in, running their businesses. With the laws and infrastructure already set up, there come some restrictions.

Re:that's private business for you

[meta-monkey]

Some businesses have stated they refuse service to Trump supporters. Is that okay?

Re:that's private business for you

[david_thornley]

I don't approve in general, but political leanings are not legally protected classes anywhere I know. I'd have to consider individual examples and know why they don't serve Trump supporters and how they tell the difference.

Re:that's private business for you

[meta-monkey]

It's happened, but it's a shitty example on my part, to be honest. Let's start over.

To Christians, being gay, that is, being attracted to members of the same sex, is not a sin. Acting on it, by having gay sex or by getting gay married, is a sin. So the Christian objection to baking gay wedding cakes isn't "I won't bake for you because I don't like what you are" but "I won't bake for you because I don't want to participate in your sinful ceremony." I don't think the government should be forcing people to do things against their religion. Just go to a different bakery.

Also not comparable to not serving blacks or Jews. You're born black or (ethnically) Jewish. There is no evidence people are born gay (there is no gay gene). This is one of the many places where I facepalm at leftist "sciencey policy." There are real, obvious, genetic differences between different human haplogroups (that we for convenience group into different "races"), there are real, obvious, provable biological differences between the sexes/genders, but leftists treat these as "mere social constructs," while there is no genetic basis for homosexuality and it's likely culturally conditioned (were the ancient greeks genetically gay? Are the afghans who pass around little boys genetically gay?), the left insists that they're "born that way!" Everything is backwards from reality on the left. Biology is culture and culture is biology.

Re:that's private business for you

[david_thornley]

There have been Christian denominations that discriminate against blacks, and people of other religion. If you're going to do business in the US, there are rules you have to adhere to.

You're born black or (ethnically) Jewish. There is no evidence people are born gay (there is no gay gene).

You could read what Wikipedia has to say, as a start. The study with identical and fraternal twins clearly shows a genetic component. It's more complicated than that, of course.

Consider me. I never have been sexually attracted to other men. I am sexually attracted to women. This is convenient for me, given how society works. However, I never made a conscious decision. I started noticing girls in junior high; I just lacked the social skills to get beyond that. I never noticed boys in the same way. I didn't decide my sexuality, I learned it. It wasn't a decision for me. I haven't been told by anyone else that they made a decision, and if so I'd suspect that the person was actually bi. When did you decide you were gay, straight, or bi?

In contrast, I have changed my religion from what I was born into. That appears to be more changeable.

Re:that's private business for you

[meta-monkey]

There have been Christian denominations that discriminate against blacks, and people of other religion. If you're going to do business in the US, there are rules you have to adhere to.

You're talking about fringe beliefs. The mainstream of just about every religion considers homosexual behavior a sin, and has for thousands of years (and all for the same core reasons: it's an unhealthy lifestyle that doesn't produce children or contribute to the tribe. A cultural dead-end). The entire concept of gay marriage is less than two decades old. There is no perfect solution here, someone's culture is going to have to bend for the others'. I would suggest that the extreme minority, brand-new cultural practice of gay marriage be the one to not impose itself on the cultures with billions of adherents and millennia of history. Just go to a different fucking bakery.

I never said one chooses their sexual orientation. I said it was culturally conditioned. When from a young age you're told "boys like girls and gay stuff is gross" you're far more likely to wind up heterosexual. When you're molested by your uncle and told by all the TV programs that gay sex is perfectly good and natural you're more likely to wind up gay. And suicidal. You didn't choose your sexuality. But you weren't born that way, either.

Since the normalization of homosexuality over the past two decades, less than 50% of teens now identify as straight. What happened? Did their genes retroactively become gay once they started watching Modern Family?

And the fact is this is not healthy. Gays are far more likely to have STDs, abuse drugs and alcohol, have mental health problems including depression and suicide. In pretty much every way you're going to have a better, easier time through life if you're straight. This seems like a good enough reason to keep your kids away from gay propaganda.

I'm all for tolerance. That is, I have no interest in stopping gays from doing what they want to do, policing their behavior, shutting down their nightclubs or anything like that. I'm opposed to acceptance, that I have to ignore reality and blindly state that homosexuality is the equivalent of heterosexuality (and of course the virtue signalers are never satisfied with that and have to let everyone know they're even more moral and believe gay marriage is better than straight marriage). The media pushing this fairy tale of friendly, healthy monogamous gays who make families just like yours is bullshit. These people are the exception, the non-deviant deviants, not the norm. The TV sells people on this fantasy, and then young people get pulled into what the gay lifestyle really is: a promiscuous disease carousel and open-air drug party. They don't really show you that anymore. I think the only thing more rare on modern TV than an evil homosexual character is an evil Jew. If you're going to write a part for an evil pervert in 2017 it damn well better be a white male heterosexual Christian.

Western civilization is suffering death by a thousand cuts. A society cannot survive a cultural morality that holds up the gay party lifestyle as good as or better than a monogamous heterosexual marriage with children, and values women by their careers instead of their families, and replaces the kids these people don't have with foreigners who don't share any of the new or old cultural values. You can pat yourself on the back for being a nicer person than I am, but niceness didn't build civilization, cannot sustain it, and will likely kill it.

Re:Mickey Maus

[LostMyBeaver]

As a father, I've had the displeasure of having PewDiePie as a regular member of my house. For example, me, ny son, my daughter and my niece were walking in Manhattan, which is in itself unlikely to happen as they live in Florida and we live in Norway. But we were on vacation with one another and my son and I were joking with each other and I said "You suck" and the two girls who see each other every second or third year simultaneously say "You swallow" which horrified me but apparently was a great bonding experience for the girls who immediately giggled, compared notes and came to the realization they're both primarily educated by PewDiePie.

I have been horrified and offended by PewDiePie before. Let me also say that as a recovering Jew, I lived growing up surrounded by family who were escapees, survivors, etc... of the holocaust. What I found is simple, if a Jew were to do something as stupid as what PewDiePie did, it would be distasteful irony, if anyone else did, it would be antisemitic.

Now, the Germans didn't systematically destroy 6 millions Jews and Gypsies and Black people. They systematically destroyed 6 million Jews, 5 million Gypsies and I have no idea about the black people, by I'd imagine the number would be horrifying as well. If you're going to be an SJW, you have to try and be at least a little close to right.

Let's settle some things... was Hitler anti-Jew (Antisemitic requires that the person is a semite. I challenge any European Jew to prove they are actually a semite), yes he was. Was he trying to eliminate Jews, by his own words and hand, he was. But only a filthy and disgusting person would call the holocaust the "Jewish Holocaust" because he was a pretty equal opportunity hater. He wanted to kill everyone that was easy to target. Jews, Gypsies and Blacks all have something in common, they are easy to find, they are clearly different than other people (at least visually) and it's really easy to convince massive numbers of people they are the cause of their problems.

Wanna see something horrifying, look at how easily Trump is manipulating people to get his "Great Wall of Trump" build so he'll accomplish immortality. He is using the same sort of gifts and rhetoric that Hitler used. He'll give anyone anything they want so long as they let him build that wall. He'll tell us all "we're better than those dark skinned Mohammad lovers are... they're trying to kill us.. those Mexicans want to take your jobs, your homes and your daughters, let me build that wall!!!!"

Now, here's the thing... PewDiePie is a moron. He has made himself rich and famous by being a one man Jack-Ass Online show. His audience is a massive number of young and impressionable children and what has he now taught them? He taught them that it's a sick world where people would be willing to hold such horrible signs for $5. He showed that people would be willing to sell their souls for $5.

It's disgusting in my opinion that children should learn something so terrible at such a young age. What he did taught first world children about how bad life is for some people that $5 is the price of their conscience. He showed that people could be easily bought or manipulated for almost nothing. I'm 100% sure that the people holding those signs didn't believe in them, I am also pretty sure that the guy in Sri Lanka was more concerned about how long he could live on that $5. I don't think he knows or cares about who Hitler was. But I also know that he can be bought for $5.

Dude, I think what he did was a service. I think that out of all the stupid shit he's said and done, he's actually done something right for once. I think he demonstrated outright how easy it is to convince people "Hitler Good, Jew Bad". He showed that a person in that type of position will go where he/she believes the food is. It takes very very little to convince people to dispose of the last good thing left in their hearts when there's nothing left in their stomachs.

What could you ask a man/women do for $10 or a promise of $5

Re:Lesson Learned... The Jews Control Everything

[Nocturrne]

The jewish mafia controlling the entertainment business blacklists anyone who even uses the words "jew" or "nazi.' His entertainment related career is over...

Media Manager Snowflakes

[QuadEddie]

Looks like the PR people at Youtube and Disney can't take a joke. Why are the social media companies falling into this PC morass? Twitter with a life-ban of Milo, Youtube with this, Facebook just about every other week, etc. It's humor, it's not hate speech.

Re:Media Manager Snowflakes

[lucasnate1]

While I can understand your side, I have to admit that I laughed pretty hard when I heard they kicked pewdiepie out. So I guess what they do is humor too.

Re:Media Manager Snowflakes

[NG-Buddhist]

"Why are the social media companies falling into this PC morass?" Because they have built their companies and made their money off of a generation of social-media-addicted PC individuals. The people of the millennial generation (which I contend is still a stupid term, "millennials", but I digress) have been spoon-fed this garbage for most of their lives, and consequently the majority end up buying into it, not recognizing the inherent undemocratic nature of politically-correct speech. So when a huge percentage of your users are swimming in that stream, you're bound to eventually, as a company, find yourself up the creek without a paddle.

Re:Media Manager Snowflakes

[david_thornley]

I would guess that the people who think it humorous have fewer dollars to extract than people who think the offensiveness outweighs any humor involved.

Re:Mickey Maus

[dbIII]

Charlie Chaplin's The Dictator

It takes someone with the genius of Chaplin to make a joke about thugs rounding up Jews and hanging them in the street and have it reflect only on the thugs so actually work as a joke. These people are not Chaplin. These people are making fun of the victims and not the perpetrators, like all that "black-face" comedy everyone wants to forget.

Re:Mickey Maus

[dbIII]

PewDiePie's disgusting behavior should be lauded this time. He helped identify something horrible

If you didn't already know as an adult you haven't been paying much attention.
However kids on the other hand, do you really want them to know that people will do all kinds of disgusting things for money while they are still too young to know they shouldn't exploit that power?

If the Jews (my family) would have used the gray shit between their ears, they probably could have stopped the holocaust before it started

You mean people like Albert Einstein who was very active in using his celebrity to oppose Hitler? What you suggested WAS tried but it did not work. That is part of the horror. So many saw it coming.

Re:Mickey Maus

[dbIII]

Could I, with a full PayPal account start a war? Could I cause a general assembly in a square in a non-first world country to protest or start a riot?

There is an interesting Anime, "Eden of the East", that explores that concept. Some people are given phones linked to an account valued at millions and attempt to influence the destiny of a country by giving orders that expend amounts of that account.

Re:Mickey Maus

[David_Hart]

What could you ask a man/women do for $10 or a promise of $5 a day. What if you established a trust fund for their child that paid $5 a day for 40 years, could you convince someone to commit suicide on camera? What would it cost to make one of those people hurt or kill someone? If I offered them $5 a day, would they hurt a friend or so .....

So get off your high horse and use the gray lump between your ears to better understand what we have seen. If the Jews (my family) would have used the gray shit between their ears, they probably could have stopped the holocaust before it started. Instead they behaved all huffy and pissy like you. If you believe what he did wasn't a joke, fine. i agree. It was not a joke, but in the spirit which it was done, we learned something very important and if you're gonna be a SJW, then at least stop being a f-ing stupid one!

I think the point that most people are making is that he could have come up with a better way of proving his point. All he had to do was use a different and less insulting and less racist way of doing it. It's my understanding that he chose the meme and that is what he is being judged on.

Does he have a valid point that people are in situations where they will do just about anything for a dollar just to survive? Yes. But we know that this is a sad truth, it's nothing new. There are other ways to draw attention to these types of causes, including starting up a charity or asking for donations for an existing one. He had the followers and could have done a lot of good. Imagine if your children could learn how to get involved in helping others half way around the world...

Instead, he chose a toxic message as part of his "comedy" and it overrides any good point he was trying to make.

Re:ByeBye, PewDiePie

[dbIII]

I started bitching about this a week ago when they had some stupid fucking ad about "vuln detection". It was a terrible ad, and who the fuck uses the contraction "vuln" for "vulnerability"?

Apparently people who are "woke" or maybe "creatives".

Re:Hypocrite much?

[fredgiblet]

The problem is that every time I give love they call the police :(

Re:That's Rich...

[Tranzistors]

As if "do as I say, not as I do" was such a novel concept.

You mean Walt Disney is still alive, leading Disney company and not allowed to change his world view? Why aren't more people talking about it?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Been Critical of Both the Press and Youtube

[Kunedog]

I think there's something to the theory that YT would rather have a yes-man on top.
Pretty good analysis by Sargon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Before the internet (and, ironically, Youtube itself) this kind of smear campaign would have worked without a hitch, and I'm sure it galls the MSM that he has a platform to respond at all.

Re:Mickey Maus

[butzwonker]

Nice way of rationalizing a patently stupid "ironic" post. Maybe you should put it as a video on Youtube, this kind of stuff is very popular there.

Disney censoring anti-semites?

[thomn8r]

Now that's irony!

Sonny Bono Act

[tepples]

You could try using the three-generation rule that Disney convinced the Congress to enact into law: Until 70 years after the death of the last surviving Holocaust survivor, it's too soon.

Re:ByeBye, PewDiePie

[tepples]

I don't run an ad blocker; I run a tracking blocker. This provides plausible deniability should a site's legal department decide that ad blocking is a DMCA* or CFAA* violation.

* Or foreign counterparts.

Re:ByeBye, PewDiePie

[tepples]

who the fuck uses the contraction "vuln" for "vulnerability"?

People fitting complex ideas into headline-length boxes.

Re:Mickey Maus

[meta-monkey]

You see the nice German people who are currently having the piss taken out of them because they are taking hundreds of thousands of dark skinned Muslims as refugees. The nice German people took 6 million Jews, Gypsys, Black people, Homosexuals and gassed them to death because they reclassified them as dangerous animals.

It's not the same Germans, though. Do the teenage German girls in cologne deserve to be raped by Muslims because of her grandparents were Nazis? Or perhaps didn't even support the party and were simply Nazi-adjacent? And when will the guilt be absolved? Will her children be allowed to express their own interest without Nazi guilt? Their children? When?

I don't know where this concept of racial guilt comes from (and always while denying racial pride). I'm Catholic, funny, when I go to confession, my priest never asks me to confess my father's sins.

Real Lesson Here...

[Stormy Dragon]

...is not to put your business critical infrastructure in a place where a third party has the power to unilaterally cut off access to it.

An operation the size of PewDiePie should have their own video distribution system so that YouTube can't just cut them off from their users.

Re:Lesson Learned... The Jews Control Everything

[NG-Buddhist]

Garbage comment. PewDiePie became internet-famous for nonsense, he can stay internet-famous for his nonsense -- just won't be making anywhere near as much money as he would have by not making jokes in poor taste. What he lost here was 80% revenue, maybe 20% reputation. The people that like him will more than likely continue to enjoy his inane, annoying videos. Ironic though that Disney is dropping him for a Jewish joke when Walt Disney was such an anti-Semitic bastard.

Re:Mickey Maus

[Creedo]

a not insignificant number of the actual protestors are paid, too, about $25 via craigslist,

Care to show some actual examples of said ads with people answering them?
I marched in a local Women's March. No one I knew was being paid, or had been approached about being paid. I certainly wasn't. There were thousands of people there. There was ZERO indication of anyone paying for protests. Instead, you have a diverse group of people with individual concerns(ranging from pro-choice beliefs to local Native American tribes showing solidarity with the pipeline protesters, and pretty much everything in between). No one was confused about their message. No one was rioting, either. But I suppose people protesting against Republican policies doesn't fit the "Trump gets mandate from American People" meme.

Bullshit

[JThundley]

This is a lot of bullshit. He was making a joke, it's very obvious. He wasn't espousing racist beliefs. Youtube and Disney took the clips out of context. Watch this video about the ordeal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLNSiFrS3n4

This also happened to another streaming personality, Destiny. He was having a debate about racism (he's against it), and said something along the lines of "If you're argument is 'n*ggers are too dumb to do X, Y and Z, then blah blah'. Speaking in the 3rd person; speaking as the very racists he's combating. I guess the N word is to controversial to say in any context, he was banned from Twitch.

And now I'm having trouble posting this because of the lameness filter! I can't say the N word here for the same reason! Jesus fuck! Yes I'm trying to say the full N word, no I'm not a racist, I'm sorry if you're offended, but fuck you for changing my speech.

Re:Hypocrite much?

[CaptainDork]

The Bible preceded Mohammad and God created the Earth for Jews.

I'm an atheist, but ...

Re:Hypocrite much?

[Luckyo]

And allah commanded that jews are to be exterminated by muslims to the last man, woman and child during the judgement day. There is a very detailed description of how it should be done, to the point where every rock behind which jew will hide will call out to muslim that there is a jew hiding behind it, so that he could kill the jew.

If you want to make a point this specific, consider making the entirety of the point, in context rather than cherry picking parts.

Re:Hypocrite much?

[CaptainDork]

Citation, please.

And it must be a literal call for all Muslims (yes, it's with an upper case "M") to kill all Jews (and, yes, it's with a capital "J,") from the Quran.

I have a citation

The Qur'an is a Jewish Book

.

Subscriber count hasn't budged

[countach]

PewDiePie's subscriber count hasn't moved, if anything it's up a bit. So clearly the world is not outraged.

Re:Hypocrite much?

[Luckyo]

Source is in islamic holy text description of day of the judgement.

You can google the exact text yourself.

Re:Hypocrite much?

[CaptainDork]

So, no citation.

You are dismissed.

Re:Hypocrite much?

[Luckyo]

"Citation is this specific text in this specific book. Google for the exact text".

"No citation. [self-aggrandising insult]".

Looks like you're not so much of a captain dork as you are a captain jock. All combativeness, no comprehension ability.

Re:Hypocrite much?

[CaptainDork]

So, no citation.

You are dismissed.

Rinse, repeat.