Slashdot Mirror


PewDiePie Calls Out the 'Old-School Media' For Spiteful Dishonesty

New submitter Shane_Optima writes: After losing his Youtube Red show and his contract with Disney, the owner of the most subscribed channel on Youtube, Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg (aka "PewDiePie"), has released a video response to the Wall Street Journal and other mainstream news outlets, who have labeled his comedy videos variously as racist, fascist or anti-semitic. In it, he accuses the mainstream media of deliberately fabricating and misrepresenting the evidence used against him because they are afraid of independent content producers such as himself. In the video, PewDiePie discusses the recent actions of the Wall Street Journal, whose reporters sent nine cherry-picked and edited videos to Disney, which led directly to Disney's decision to terminate their relationship with him. These video clips and others used to "prove" PewDiePie's guilt have been edited (he claims) to remove all context, to the extent of using a pose of him pointing at something as a Nazi salute and using a clip where other players are creating swastikas in a game and editing out the part where he is asking them to stop. The most-cited video in the controversy involves seeing if he can use the site Fiverr to hire someone to create a video containing an over-the-top message for a mere $5. After a couple of laughing males unfurl a sign saying "Death to All Jews," he recoils with widened eyes and sits, apparently dumbfounded, for another thirty seconds before the video ends, without him uttering another word.

PewDiePie's video comes several days after a Tumblr post where he attempted to clarify that the videos were intended to be comedy showing "how crazy the modern world is." He has not yet used the phrase "fake news" in his response to the controversy, but given the current trends surrounding that phrase, it isn't surprising that his supporters are resorting to it frequently. Is this all just another unfortunate instance of collateral damage in the war against far-right political movements, is it a campaign of malicious retaliation by old media that is terrified of new media (as Felix claims), or was J.K. Rowling correct when she called out PewDiePie as a Death Eater? Err, I mean, ...as a fascist?

Update: Apparently, canceling his Youtube Red series was deemed an insufficient response. Youtube has now removed the mirror of PewDiePie's "Death to All Jews" video because it "violates Youtube's policy on hate speech." The original posting of the video had already been marked private by PewDiePie shortly after the controversy erupted. A quick check of Vimeo and Daily Motion came up empty, so you're on your own if you wish to find out for yourself what the controversy was all about.

66 of 920 comments (clear)

  1. Death To All Jews by Lehk228 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He is apparantly suprised that broadcasting a sign with "Death To All Jews" on it would get him fired.

    I can't think of many places where you wouldn't get fired for that sign.

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    1. Re:Death To All Jews by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I detest the guy for other reasons. I think he's a twat. However, do you truly believe that he's a neo nazi? Does anyone? Probably not. His firing was one of virtue signaling, nothing more. I think virtue signaling is far more harmful to society than some moron's stupid jokes.

    2. Re:Death To All Jews by Shane_Optima · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Corporations being corporations with their policies... fine, whatever. Allegedly reputable news organizations characterizing that video as "anti-semitic" is something else entirely.

      Anyone watching the end sequence of that video who goes on to describe it as anti-semitic either does not understand human emotion or is deliberately lying. If that video proves PewDiePie is anti-semitic, then John Cleese, Mel Brooks, Jon Stewart, and dozens of other comedy legends are also anti-semitic, including the political and the largely apolitical.

    3. Re:Death To All Jews by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      However, do you truly believe that he's a neo nazi?

      It doesn't matter if he's a neo-nazi. He put some shit on his little web video and now nobody wants to advertise with him. He made a choice. They made a choice.

      Free market at work.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Death To All Jews by x0ra · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Be careful, the same people who think www.breitbart.com is run by neo-Nazi also think it's perfectly OK for Gawker to out an homosexual CEO, or publish wrestling star illegal sex-tape... under the idea of "freedom of the press". Go figure.

    5. Re:Death To All Jews by x0ra · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Same idea about Milo's book hitting Amazon top 5 after snowflakes threw a tantrum in UCB, or even his $250k book deal, or his appearance with Bill Maher tomorrow.

    6. Re:Death To All Jews by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course it does. It's the implication being made. ..and the reason they don't want to advertise? Manufactured outrage by the fake news media.

      Interesting how compartmentalized you are. Since when are you a free market proponent?

    7. Re: Death To All Jews by mmell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it's just that (as a Jew myself) I've checked them out. I'll accept the evidence of my own eyes over your opinion.

    8. Re:Death To All Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People would be a lot more chill about Israelis having a homeland if Israel kept a tighter leash on their rabid "fuck the Palestinians and fuck international law, we're taking these lands by force if necessary" settlers.

    9. Re: Death To All Jews by x0ra · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Belonging to a group does not make you more credible to comment on an argument. Drop the tribalism and identity politics...

    10. Re:Death To All Jews by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I have a little news vlog where I show a picture of some idiots saying "death to all jews" and I ridicule them as idiots, is that bad?

      Context matters! Malicious editing matters.

      If he paid them to "show something shocking" and then they came up with "death to all jews", and he was shocked and appalled at the result, tell me again what he did wrong?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:Death To All Jews by piojo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since you're enjoying painting similarities, perhaps you could tell us about the constant attempts by Mexico to demoralize, terrorize, and eventually destroy the United States?

      Can't think of any? Israel/Palestine is NOTHING LIKE United States/Mexico.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    12. Re:Death To All Jews by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I have a little news vlog where I show a picture of some idiots saying "death to all jews" and I ridicule them as idiots, is that bad?

      If you paid them to say it in the first place, then yes. Pretty bad. Read the story more closely.

      Context matters! Malicious editing matters.

      Sponsorship matters, when your income depends on it. And now the sponsorship is gone.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:Death To All Jews by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't see anywhere that he intended them to say "death to all jews", outside the hitjob pieces in the MSM - and they lie about everything. I'm not going to watch a PewDiePie video to see, because I can't stand watching that guy, but I believe him when he says

      Though this was not my intention, I understand that these jokes were ultimately offensive.

      As laughable as it is to believe that I might actually endorse these people, to anyone unsure on my standpoint regarding hate-based groups: No, I donâ(TM)t support these people in any way.

      As far as I can tell, the MSM created this wholecloth from malicious editing, as they've done time and time again to create a narrative. From photoshopping all the black people out of Tea Party rallies and them calling them racist, to maliciously editing the 911 tapes in the Trayvon Martin shooting to completely change the story. Making shit up is what they do.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    14. Re:Death To All Jews by Crashmarik · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh god here we go again.
      1. The U.S had treaties with the Indians and was indisputiably the aggressor
      2. Israel was indisputably defending itself from aggression
      Or did you think a sneak attack when 90+% of the country was participating in its most important holiday, was just a really clever ruse by the Jews ?

      Here you go. Try to read this shit before putting foot in mouth.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
       

    15. Re:Death To All Jews by mlyle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Jews haven't had a "homeland" in more than 2000 years. Putting natives population in camps so that you can move somewhere your great-great-great-("...-"*100)-great-grand-father lived is just plain wrong.

      So-- Jews and Muslims lived side by side in what is now Israel throughout the middle ages. All of Palestine was about 10-15% Jewish in 1900 and about 30% Jewish in 1945. International forces proposed partitioning this at the close of WWII and with the rise of sectarian violence into three parts-- a Jewish state, a Muslim state, and the city of Jerusalem. But that all became a free-for-all with multiple Arab armies moving on the Jewish population and we've evolved to the shitty situation we have today-- where there's an overly-defensive state of Israel taking extreme measures to prevent its own eradication and somewhat becoming the bad guys in the process.

    16. Re:Death To All Jews by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Point two is not correct. Take a look at what has happened at the time of each election cycle in Israel to see the timing of the aggression, typically based on an incredibly trivial excuse, and see how it relates the same as elements in the USA referred to in point 1.
      Israel is not the problem. Self-serving people in politics in Israel is the problem.

    17. Re:Death To All Jews by Crashmarik · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Point two is not correct. Take a look at what has happened at the time of each election cycle in Israel to see the timing of the aggression,

      Yes Israel's elections caused Syria, Jordan and Egypt to attack. Everybody loves to have a war where they outnumbered over 20 to 1

    18. Re:Death To All Jews by _KiTA_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't think of many places where you wouldn't get fired for that sign.

      Infowars? Breitbbart?

      Sarah Silverman once went on Conan dressed up as Hitler, complete with stache and Swastika. That's a bit more than a sign.

      "Ah, but that's different, she was obviously doing it to make a point."

      So was PewDiePie.

    19. Re:Death To All Jews by mea_culpa · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you paid them to say it in the first place, then yes. Pretty bad. Read the story more closely.

      Don't read the story, it's obviously fake news designed to generate fake outrage to drive up profits and harm competition. How about watching the actual video in context and activate a few critical thinking brain cells. This whole thing is a non-story.

      I didn't know who pewdiepie was until this MSM fake news curb job but I went to his channel and played his videos in context and found nothing wrong with what he did. I don't particularly like the guy, annoying a hell but I will stand up for him against this new reality. MSM today is generating fake outrage for profit at any cost.
      The quicker we tune them out the better.

       

    20. Re: Death To All Jews by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So then why does it matter that Milo and Ben Shapiro are Jews (ethnically or religiously)? Be consistent.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    21. Re:Death To All Jews by jbmartin6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Correct. If the US occupied Mexico, then started settling Americans there who openly talked about displacing, out-breeding, and otherwise getting rid of all the Mexicans there, THEN built a wall between the US and occupied Mexico, it would be more similar.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    22. Re:Death To All Jews by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's obviously fake news

      People are quickly starting to learn that when someone cries "fake news", it almost always means that in fact it's not fake at all.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    23. Re:Death To All Jews by tburkhol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      PewDiePie's being about "it's fine to be an antisemitic little shithead"

      I think his point was more that it's trivially easy to make other people act like antisemitic little shitheads. He paid $5, and he got at least two people to make a video that (were it their honest opinion) would rightly earn them wide condemnation. Yet no one's even commenting on those two dudes - they were clearly 'just following orders.' Doing the necessary to pay their bills and probably don't really believe their sign.

      His point was that it takes very little to get people to openly proclaim beliefs they don't hold. Especially on the internet. (I assume those two guys would want more than $5 to hold up their sign outside a synagogue, for example.) Ask yourself how much it would cost to get you to add "Hail Satan," "I'm totally gay for DJT," or "People like PewDiePie deserve to die" to your facebook page. Or to film yourself saying those things to strangers in Times Square. You don't have to be serious about the statements, just to use those exact words so that someone else can use them out of context.

    24. Re:Death To All Jews by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pro Palestine does not equal anti Jew.
      It may equal anti-zionist but then liberals tend to be anti-nationalism period. That includes Jewish Nationalism as much as it does, say, American nationalism.

      Hell, I personally know quite a lot of anti-Israel, pro-palestine Jews who would be terribly offended at the suggestion that by virtue of their ethnicity they are compelled to be in favor of an appartheid regime that denies basic human rights to a vast population, and who actually support either full and equal rights for Palestinians in Israel or a Palestinian state free of Israeli control.

      Did you think all Jewish people today would still believe what their grandparents believed 70 years ago? That an ethnic homeland is a fundamental pre-requisite to freedom ? The liberals have long stopped believing that in general - and Jewish liberals tend to agree. At least, those under 40 do.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    25. Re:Death To All Jews by silentcoder · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There's nothing borderline about Breitbart's bigottry, though they are more upfront with their misogyny than their racism. "Birth control makes women unattractive"... fucking hell... now there's an article written by somebody who, if he has ever gotten laid, will never get laid again (At least, not by a women who is both conscious and consenting).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    26. Re: Death To All Jews by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Israel has the power to crush their enemies

      By conventional means? Not so sure about that. Last time they ventured into Lebanon it wasn't exactly a walkover.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    27. Re:Death To All Jews by gsslay · · Score: 5, Insightful

      His point was that it takes very little to get people to openly proclaim beliefs they don't hold.

      And that needed to be proven, because.... ? Or is this just one of those bullshit "social experiments" where Youtubers get to act like assholes because they're holding a camera to record what happens?

      Youtube is a cesspit of wannbes trying to outdo each other in shock value, while avoiding getting banned by Youtube, all for the views. PewDiePie was just another one playing the game, but he got burned. He paid people desperate for money to do something stupid, and then pretends to be shocked that they actually did it. That way he gets to claim he's not really responsible, while being the one who conceived it, paid for it, videoed it, uploaded it and collected the ad revenue.

    28. Re:Death To All Jews by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is my recent fav CNN edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      People get so appalled by Trump/right-wingers calling CNN "fake news" but I don't understand how anyone can defend CNN when they do shit like this. It's not usually this blatant but it's almost always there. Real "facts," completely made-up context.

      I would say the case is the same with PewDiePie here. He clearly wasn't encouraging people to kill Jews. He was actually trying to come up with the very worst thing someone could say, and that's what he came up with. So his actually belief ("The very worst thing you can say is 'kill all jews'") is turned into "PewDiePie wants to kill all Jews." The MSM's context is the exact 180 degree opposite of PewDiePie's stated belief.

      The good thing to come out of this is Pewd's 53 million young subscribers who have been watching him for years and know he's not a racist/anti-Semite have now been given an extremely relevant and personal example of how the media lies. Kids critically examining the bias/falsehoods of the mainstream media sounds pretty good to me.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    29. Re:Death To All Jews by _KiTA_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Quite different points though. Sarah Silverman's point being about the grotesquery of Trump, and PewDiePie's being about "it's fine to be an antisemitic little shithead"

      No, his point for the clip that was taken out of context was:

      * "Youtube Heroes is an Authoritarian nightmare that is going to attract the worst kinds of people."
      * "The media likes to take things out of context to slander people."
      * "Hey, there's a thing over here that I'm pointing at."
      * "This fiverr website is a great example of how surreal the modern world is."

      Depending on which of the clips they took out of context you're talking about, of course.

  2. This Perfectly Illustrates The Craziness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone with any sense of intellectual integrity can clearly see that it was all satire. They can also see through the dishonesty of the media. This is just a taste of what the media has been doing politically. Regardless of how you feel about the current POTUS, these tactics are exactly the same tactics used against him from the MSM.

    Follow the dollars. This stuff generates clicks. It gets people to read their stories. They do it because they get money for it. Hopefully at some point soon this type of "journalism" dies down.

  3. Professional attention whore strikes again by lordlod · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am disgusted by this article, almost as disgusted as I am at myself taking the time to respond to it.

    PewDiePie is a professional attention whore and it is fascinating to watch him ply his craft. This latest response is perfectly timed, just as the flames were dying down he fans them and gets another round of attention.

    He is a troll and like any troll the way to defeat it is by ignoring it.

    1. Re:Professional attention whore strikes again by Shane_Optima · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'm the submitter. I don't care if he stomps kittens in his spare time, and I doubt I've seen three of his videos before today. The dishonesty and cynicism here shown by allegedly reputable mainstream media outlets here is astonishing.

      He may well be a troll. Entirely possible. But the videos I've thus far seen were not of a trollish cast, and the "Death to All Jews" one in particular is not remotely anti-semitic. If you genuinely believe it to be so, you may be from an actual intellectual, emotional or perceptual disorder of some sort.

      This latest response is perfectly timed, just as the flames were dying down he fans them and gets another round of attention.

      If this is the current state of the media, if this is the sort of hyperbole we're going to be subjected to for the next four years, if this is the new McCarthyism, then these are flames that need flaming, be it by trolls or non-trolls.

      On a personal note here: it's not like I really fear some totalitarianism of the left, either. I don't think they can win this war... not in America, anyway. But I do rather fear the consequences of proving Trump right, of validating the echo chambers of tens of millions of people who were right-leaning fence sitters until they saw the proof stack up that the mainstream media really is full of hysterical, baldfaced lies.

      Has it always been *this* bad? Fuck me, I'd better stop before I start saying "woke".

    2. Re:Professional attention whore strikes again by lordlod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He may well be a troll. Entirely possible. But the videos I've thus far seen were not of a trollish cast, and the "Death to All Jews" one in particular is not remotely anti-semitic. [trimmed ad hominem attack]

      I didn't say he was anti-semitic, I don't believe that he is. I said that he is an attention whore. The entire reason he asked for THAT phrase to be written was to get a reaction.

      If he was truly horrified by what he and they did, as he claimed in the video, he could have solved the problem by simply not posting the video. Instead he posted it and got waves of free publicity.

      This is part of a campaign:

      • 3 Dec 2016 - Announces he is going to quit (spoiler, he doesn't)
      • 10 Dec 2016 - Tries to get a video with a huge amount of likes
      • 26 Dec 2016 - Tries to get a video with a huge amount of dislikes
      • 6 Jan 2017 - Uses the word n*gger (lameness filtered) absent of any context
      • 11 Jan 2017 - Uploads the Fiverr sign with "death to all jews"
      • 28 Jan 2017 - Tries to get a video with a huge amount of comments
    3. Re:Professional attention whore strikes again by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm the submitter. I don't care if he stomps kittens in his spare time, and I doubt I've seen three of his videos before today. The dishonesty and cynicism here shown by allegedly reputable mainstream media outlets here is astonishing.

      He may well be a troll. Entirely possible. But the videos I've thus far seen were not of a trollish cast, and the "Death to All Jews" one in particular is not remotely anti-semitic. If you genuinely believe it to be so, you may be from an actual intellectual, emotional or perceptual disorder of some sort.

      This latest response is perfectly timed, just as the flames were dying down he fans them and gets another round of attention.

      If this is the current state of the media, if this is the sort of hyperbole we're going to be subjected to for the next four years, if this is the new McCarthyism, then these are flames that need flaming, be it by trolls or non-trolls.

      On a personal note here: it's not like I really fear some totalitarianism of the left, either. I don't think they can win this war... not in America, anyway. But I do rather fear the consequences of proving Trump right, of validating the echo chambers of tens of millions of people who were right-leaning fence sitters until they saw the proof stack up that the mainstream media really is full of hysterical, baldfaced lies.

      Has it always been *this* bad? Fuck me, I'd better stop before I start saying "woke".

      If advertisers don't want to do business with him because of his actions, that's that. Advertising execs are big boys, they make their own decisions. This is Internet advertising, it could be flipped back on like a light switch if they change their minds.

      This sounds about as loopy as Trump's blaming the media for firing Flynn for lying to his VP.

    4. Re:Professional attention whore strikes again by MrKaos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The dishonesty and cynicism here shown by allegedly reputable mainstream media outlets here is astonishing.

      Why? It's always been there. Media have always used publicly leased airwaves to perform mass brainwashing under the guise of "Culture", all the while forgetting that culture comes from the people being brainwashed.

      He may well be a troll.

      He is a troll, and that's the point. He is trolling the media, using comedy as an instrument and now the media will show their furiously fapping hypocrisy as ppd tries to get them to invoke the striesand effect on themselves. They will shrug saying 'you all know we're lying hypocrites', people will shrug and say 'oh well, at least they're not lying' and go on letting them write history, live.

      After some years some media executives will fellate ppd and offer him money because his ideas are accepted as culture. Bill Hicks went through *exactly* the same thing for criticizing culture.

      Trump, did the same thing, only skillfully. He utilized the media into saying his message no matter what to humiliate the democrats and as a result whole swaths of political science was created. Trump represents the epitome of the media savvy personality president which clearly shows how bad things have got because Trump and Clinton were the *best* candidates that the media savvy political apparatus could offer. Something is clearly broken.

      This is the media

      FTFY

      On a personal note here: it's not like I really fear some totalitarianism of the left, either. But I do rather fear the consequences of proving Trump right, of validating the echo chambers of tens of millions of people who were right-leaning fence sitters until they saw the proof stack up that the mainstream media really is full of hysterical, baldfaced lie

      I sense the US faces a different threat. There is no fear of a left led agenda in the US because there is no left wing politics in the US, it's painted that way to make it appear 'fair and balanced'. Politics in the US has become right wing or more right wing. The polar opposite of what the USSR was the US still suffers from corruption and faces a slide into meaningless nihilism where corporations replace the state and corporately owned prison camps assume the role of the soviet gulag.

      And to cite Benjamin Franklin, who predicted this moment with words "I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. "

      I single out the media as the key vehicle for that corruption that seeks to 'de-educate' the citizens from critical thinking, and an education system that teaches people to obey and comply. If the USSR is analogous to Orwell's 1984 then the threat to US citizens is similar to Huxley's 'Brave new world' or even Collin's 'The Hunger Games'.

      This is the outcome Franklin was trying to draw peoples attention to, that in time the power of domestic enemies (corrupted people - corporations in 21st C) would over power the populous using government as a vehicle. Be under no illusions, the US can suffer the same way as the USSR because the saying 'All roads lead to Rome' isn't talking about roads.

      Has it always been *this* bad?

      No, it's always been worse. If we all tried as hard as we can, maybe it can be better. That is why left and right wing politics are obsolete.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  4. Why trust in the media is at an all time low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That was the first PewDiePie I've watched, and it's interesting to see the media do to him what they've done to Trump, Farage, Wilders, Le Pen, Orban, etc. The media no longer report the truth, they report their own narrative. They fabricate evidence in an effort to influence people's views.

    The media used to be able to control the narrative, but having lost control they're redoubling their efforts to control what people think, which means more attacks against people they disagree with and more fabrications. This is having the opposite effect, and is only serving to turn more people away from the mainstream media.

    Traditional media knows it's in trouble but appears to be so out of touch with the public that it doesn't know what to do about it, so the attacks, the lies and the fabrications continue. The sooner the media collapses, the better.

  5. Being a satirist means acting like a dick. by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But a very carefully targeted one. The people who get ridiculed have to really deserve the dickish treatment. You can take a cheap shot, but you can never punch down.

    Now I've seen the infamous video and I totally get it. It's a good point, but it totally fails as satire because he ended up screwing with, and then harming the guys in the video, who almost certainly have no idea the significance of what they're doing. How many Jews are in India? About five thousand individuals out of a billion. Zoroastrians are almost 30 times more common in the US as Jews are in India, particularly rural India.

    Now he's totally right that the media is stupid, block-headed and hypocritical, and has neither the ability nor inclination to understand him. But that doesn't change the fact he attempted satire and failed. That makes him, at least in this incident, just a dick.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  6. Horse shit by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Context is everything and lacking context your statement is a lie. The guy made a couple satires based on claims of him being a , not a normal staple on his channel. The allegation was that since some white racist like him he must be racist. That beauty should sound familiar right? By the way, some Muslim extremist likes your post, so you have to be a homophobic anti-Semite.

    The "take offense at everything" generation has ensured that the overwhelming majority of comedians will not perform on a Campuses. But hey, enjoy Amy Schumer shows ever week because a white chick insulting men and pretending to be a slut is comedy everyone can enjoy for an eternity right?

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  7. Re:Overused by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know who doesn't get the irony of fighting fascism with fascism?

    The leftists.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  8. Why? by sgage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is fucking 'PewDiePie' even showing up on Slashdot? Again. There was an article about him just a couple of days ago. Nobody. Fucking. Cares about this asshole. Can we please give it a rest?

    1. Re:Why? by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree the first submission about him didn't belong on slashdot.

      Assuming the claims in this second submission are true, then it belongs here. It falls in the Your Rights Online category. It's not just the government which can deprive you of your rights.

  9. How to get 8 years of Trump by poity · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Do this. Do this more often. Exactly this.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  10. Not about the free market by Shane_Optima · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Submitter here. And the gloves are off, FYI.

    This is a bizarre little trick, apparently some weird leftover piece of Cold War propaganda, that any time a topic has anything to do with the free market you can point that out and a significant minority of people will believe you've just "won" the discussion and will mod you up, even if you're rambling irrelevant drivel. (It works on Reddit, too.)

    Congratulations, Disney and Youtube are legally free to do as they choose. No, the first amendment doesn't constrain them. Are we done with the kindergarten version of Civics now?

    There appears to be widespread *lying* about the nature of the videos in question, characterizations that are so brazen as to be actual lies by mainstream media organizations like the Wall Street Journal, Wired, The Independent, etc. This is on top of the WSJ actually going out of their way to get PewDiePie "fired" by mining and editing his content and then sending it directly (from my understanding) to Disney.

    I think that alone is all worth talking about. If dishonest and manipulative newspapers don't interest you at all, well there's the door. Bye.

    But there's even more: to the extent that companies like Youtube and Disney are being pressured by asshats writing letters and threatening boycotts, I'd even go so far as to say it's worth discussing trying to pressure them in the opposite direction. Not because I'm a huge PewDiePie fan (I'm not; I've watched only a few of his videos), but because the internet is being dominated by a small group of companies and it's worth a little effort to push back now, while we still can, and inform them that free speech for their platform (not just our constitution) is what we actually want.

    Just listen to this smug shit coming out of the WSJ and put that in the context of the thousands of Youtubers trying to figure out Youtube's uncodified content policy so their videos won't be de-monetized. Put that in the contest of the millions of Youtube users who just want their favorite hosts to be able to speak their mind uncensored. The WSJ doesn't care about all of that. They only care about media giants being able to dictate acceptable content with an iron fist.

    Does that violate the first amendment? Again, no. Is this capitalism at work? Again, yes. You're such a good, smart little anti-Communist for reminding us of these things!

    But us talking about it and getting a bit pissed about it and wondering aloud if there's any way to pull the brake on this shitshow before it gets any worse is also capitalism at work. If that's a conversation that doesn't interest you--there's the door. Vote with your feet, citizen.

    1. Re:Not about the free market by Shane_Optima · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If someone is so stupid as to not understand that making jokes about killing Jews

      He didn't make a joke about killing Jews. He made a dark joke about the fact that there's a real fucking website where you can pay $5 and someone else will happily wish death upon all Jews halfway around the world. It's surreal and unsettling and symbolic of all kinds of stuff that that's the world we live in. But the joke (and the wider point) doesn't work at all if the written message isn't an offensive one.

      If you honestly thought that Jews dying was the punchline of that joke, you are an android and your sense of humor simulation circuits are malfunctioning. You're like someone who thinks any work of fiction written in the first person must be espousing author's own thoughts and feelings.

    2. Re:Not about the free market by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He didn't make a joke about killing Jews. He made a dark joke about the fact that there's a real fucking website where you can pay $5 and someone else will happily wish death upon all Jews halfway around the world.

      You think it makes it better because he paid someone else to make jokes about killing Jews?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Not about the free market by Shane_Optima · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I understand the distinction you are trying to make

      I don't think you do. I really, really don't think you do, because you just continued from the same stale script that PopeRatzo was using.

      Not everyone can build everything from the ground up. The perennial example is that Comcast is widely surveyed as one of the worst companies in the nation at customer service, but no one can afford to start their own competitor. PDP can roll his own video service and carry with him a decent chunk of his fans, but damn near no one else could. The inertia involved with platforms like Youtube is incredible.

      This is not a Free Speech issue.

      Yes it is. Free speech was not born with the First Amendment. It exists outside of it. Claiming that one is pro-free speech while supporting a company that engages in draconian censorship (not merely "supports their right to", but actually supports and patronizes and defends the companies) is akin to claiming to be against racism whilst patronizing and vocally defending a private golf club that doesn't allow black people to enter. Just because they're not the government doesn't magically make it not racism. Ditto censorship and internet media giants.

      This is another very old argument that has persisted and achieved some sort of status as wisdom, despite it being utter bollocks. People who truly believe in free speech do not believe that it is perfectly OK if major communication platforms do an end run around it by dint of their being private corporations. Many will say that needs to stay legal (they're not for making it illegal for Youtube to censor whomever they choose), but they don't think it's ok any more than an anti-racist thinks racist private golf courses are ok.

      but no one is owed a Youtube channel or Disney sponsorship.

      No offense (but I'm too worn out to properly soften this so it might be offensive anyway, sorry), but I haven't the slightest fucking clue how you could read my entire post and think that this was a sensible thing to say. It means nothing. It's a very, very tired Cold War era argument that has long outlived its usefulness and migrated outside of the context where it makes sense.

      No one, *no one* is saying they are owed anything. I believe PewDiePie himself said a disclaimer to that effect in his response video.

      Maybe it needs to be explicitly said that Youtube, WSJ, etc. are not "owed" anything from us, including but not limited to silent acquiescence?

    4. Re:Not about the free market by Ramze · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Subby, the mere fact that there was anything to mine to give as evidence is admission of poor taste. PDP, even when streaming live, has the ability to censor his broadcast. He can turn off the screen view and flip to his face cam, he can end a game, he can even just straight up hit the power button on the PC or yank the ethernet cable out if he had to. If he bothers to edit his video before uploading it, I'm sure he could snip out those controversial aspects as well. Instead, he rolled the dice and lost.

      Ultimately, he's responsible for what gets posted, and he chose poorly -- regardless of what his views are or whether he's as evil as the mean media wants to portray him -- he had Nazi jokes, imagery, slogans, and clips in his videos! You can say that's just his sense of humor and he doesn't mean it -- sure. I agree that it's a character assassination, but that's NOT why he was let go. Disney would have ended its relationship at the slightest whiff of indecency, much less a scandal. It has ended business relationships before over MUCH less. Google/Youtube is just reacting to its advertisers. When advertisers say they don't want their brand to be associated with show X, and enough are concerned, show X gets the ax. At least with Youtube, PDP has a chance to try again at a later date to work with them, and he still has his regular channels, just not the same advertising levels. Disney won't touch him again.... ever.

      This is a particularly economics-only reason for Youtube. They don't even like for people to curse on their broadcasts and have been tightening the screws on anything not G, PG, or very mild PG-13 material for their adsense programs.... which has ticked off a lot of foul-mouthed youtubers (many of which I love dearly... especially because they are foul-mouthed!).

      Youtube wants fresh, kid-friendly shows they can push advertisements towards as if it were really cheap TV. They bend the rules now and then and are OK with bending the rules bigtime in return for potentially big bucks, and they figured out they backed the wrong horse with PDP.

      Don't rail against Youtube and Disney for doing what all entertainment businesses do when a star gets embroiled in controversy.... and you would as well if it were your money on the line. Want to go after crooked journalists that twist stories to put a spin on things that doesn't fit reality? Best of luck to ya in starting your own newspaper/news network. You'll find quickly that the money is in scandals, so that's what the public gets.

      At the end of the day, the story is true enough -- he had Nazi material on his show, and for many -- that's enough for them to not want to be associated with it... regardless of what he meant by it or whether he found it funny rather than taking it seriously.

      I've never been a fan of PDP, but I respect the business he's built around doing what he loves and wish him well -- I'm sure with his $7 Million he made last year and millions before that that he's perfectly capable of making his own streaming service -- question is... will anyone pay for ads on it to support him.... especially if he keeps up with the Nazi jokes.

    5. Re:Not about the free market by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is nothing more insidious and anti-free speech than claiming that someone else is required to provide you the soapbox to stand on.

      Saying that Youtube or anyone else must pay to provide a platform for someone else is as about not free as you can get. I don't' care that their big or that it gives them market power. Your right to free speech ends at your nose, no one else is obligated to help you speak. You are literally demanding that these companies provide the soapbox at their own expense and that's wrong in so many ways and you probably don't even realize how evil that suggestion is.

      If you think there should be a platform where anyone can say anything and no one can take it down then you should support the government building the platform, not forcing some private company to provide the soapboxes and pay for it all.

    6. Re:Not about the free market by Kiuas · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is a bizarre little trick, apparently some weird leftover piece of Cold War propaganda, that any time a topic has anything to do with the free market you can point that out and a significant minority of people will believe you've just "won" the discussion and will mod you up, even if you're rambling irrelevant drivel.

      I believe you're on point here, and it's not just an american thing either. As a Finn I was recently discussing politics online here with a Finnish libertarian type who was of the opinion that we should move away from our current model of healthcare towards a more market oriented solution because 'the free market is more efficient'. I've previously written at length here and elsewhere why I do not believe this is the case for health production, but that's a side point. What's interesting is that when I inquired from him how he explains the current situation in the US, which, despite being more market oriented is both massively more expensive and non-universally covering, his answer was that the US model was not 'free' at all and should be avoided. Upon further discussion he said he agrees with the clause in our constitutions which guarantees health care to people regardless of their economic status. So despite wishing for more private contractors with (IMO) bad reasoning in the name of 'more freedom', his operational definition of a free market differs from his american libertarian counterparts who tend to believe that no-one should get treated unless they can pay for it or or get some other individual to pay for it.

      I'm taking this up because this highlights the core problem of the term: it doesn't have a clear meaning. There are those who genuinely believe that the only truly free markets are those in which no regulations exist, essentially an anarchocapitalist view in which anything that comes between the seller and the buyer is deemed as bad. Then there are those (such as myself) who believe that a certain amount of regulations is needed for a market to be truly free because the point of laws and regulations regarding trade is to ensure that no-one's taken advantage of. This is why consumer protection laws exist.

      The problem is in the term itself. It says 'free'. Who doesn't like freedom? But what it means for say, an investment bank or an oil giant to be 'free' is entirely different than what it means for me an individual to be 'free'. My freedom as an individual depends on things such as the infrastructure (funded by taxes), the environment not being destroyed, being protected from illness and violence and so on, whereas for the companies their 'freedom' equates solely to their ability to make as much money as possible without being hindered. An oil company has no qualms about pursuing methods destructive to the global ecosystem because they as an entity do not care about the environment. And I don't believe they should, companies are by their nature amoral, they're entities driven by profit and profit only, and that's alright. However if we recognize this we should also recognize that there's no way for everyone to have total freedom. The purpose of a civilized society should be to make sure that the trade and business being conducted within it is not causing excessive damage to people. We should not expect giant corporations to grow a conscience but we should instead impose the collective conscience of the society on them in the form of laws. Therefore, in my idea of a truly free market the companies would be restricted from pursing tactics that are detrimental to ecosystem that we all depend upon.

      Point being: whether or not a given action is performed in a free market or not has no bearing to its morality. Slaves were once traded (and still are, in some parts of the world) in the free market. Tobacco manufacturers once used the free market to dole out massive amounts of blatant misinformation about their products to consumers. The companies knew long before the general public did that smoking causes cancer. Now that the marketing

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    7. Re:Not about the free market by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He made a dark joke about the fact that there's a real fucking website where you can pay $5 and someone else will happily wish death upon all Jews halfway around the world.

      Context. He has repeatedly made the claim that white people are discriminated against. He attempts to demonstrate this with stunts, like paying non-white people to hold racist signs in the hope that they will be treated differently. In this case it backfired, because they were kicked off the service they were using as well, proving that the rules do in fact apply equally regardless of skin colour.

      If you review his output, he regularly makes this claim and other arguments associated with white supremacy. What surprises me is that Disney ever signed up with him in the first place. Presumably they just looked at his no. 1 ranking on YouTube, rather than reviewing his content.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Not about the free market by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      PDP can roll his own video service and carry with him a decent chunk of his fans, but damn near no one else could. The inertia involved with platforms like Youtube is incredible.

      The problem with this argument is that it's anti-free-speech. You are saying that once a service becomes popular, once the inertia sets in, that service must be forced to publish and force to silence its criticism.

      If you are going to make that argument, why not also require PDP to host material from other channels on his own? After all, his channel is the most popular, his subscribers represent the biggest "platform" with massive inertia that makes it hard for new channels to gain viewers?

      People who truly believe in free speech do not believe that it is perfectly OK if major communication platforms do an end run around it by dint of their being private corporations.

      How far does this extend? You have to define "major", and there in lies the problem. And what about things like filters? Most search engines filter things like spam sites and pornography by default, to provide a better user experience. People wouldn't use Google at work if it was full of spam and porn. So is it okay to host content but just filter it from searches and make sure basically no-one sees it, because the video is just a 9 hours of the goatscx guy?

      It's also worth pointing out that PDP hasn't actually been kicked off YouTube, he has just lost some of his sponsorship and syndication deals. Are you suggesting that YouTube Red and Disney should be forced to continue paying him?

      PDP's freedom of speech is intact. He does not have a right to an audience, or a platform. If he did, I'd be demanding top billing, a Disney contract and a million subscribers too, because it would be my right.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Not about the free market by Shane_Optima · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, so you say. But others watch the video, and his other videos, and conclude that he is a bigot and that this video is an attempt to push out bigotry under the cover of humour.

      And this is hysterical McCarthyist nonsense. (Granted, I haven't watched a large body of his work yet so conceivably there could be a "pattern" I've missed)

      And I'm not sure that I'm going to go the extra mile to get *yet more* exposure for bigoted views

      Is Mel Brooks an anti-Semite? Was The Producers an anti-Semitic movie? Simple questions. The Producers contained scenes celebrating Nazism *and then a reaction shot of people looking horrified at that scene*. Does that ring any bells?

      faux-shock-horror faces

      If it's faux, it's as good as real. There was no winking-at-the-camera moment. Mel Brooks didn't include a scene in The Producers where he addressed the camera with "HITLER WAS BAD, MMMKAY?!". That doesn't make it anti-Semitic.

      Not in a world that has seen such an uptick in racial hatred and misogyny expressed online in the past few years.

      This trend will continue so long as the witch hunt continues. Pegging non-racism and non-sexism as actual racism and sexism is operating in the opposite effect as intended; it is causing the taboos against those things to weaken. This is one of the most important reasons to talk about this shit, but in order to accept that this is what's happening you'll probably need to first admit to yourself that the political correctness based campaign against Trump (who is a loathsome individual, don't get me wrong) completely backfired.

      This shouldn't be a controversial thing to say, it really shouldn't. Look at the numbers--it was a lack of turnout among Democrats that sunk Hillary, not a spike in Republicans. So far as you support witch hunt stuff like this, you are further sowing the seeds of the left's ongoing destruction.

    10. Re:Not about the free market by Shane_Optima · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is nothing more insidious and anti-free speech than claiming that someone else is required to provide you the soapbox to stand on.

      Which no one said.

      Saying that Youtube or anyone else must pay to provide a platform for someone else is as about not free as you can get.

      Which is something you had a fever-dream about, not something I actually said.

      not forcing some private company

      Which is something you invented whole cloth, and something that I explicitly, tediously denied *at length*.

      Your right to free speech ends at your nose, no one else is obligated to help you speak.

      And I'm *not obligated* to not talk about how evil Youtube and the WSJ are behaving.

      You are demonstrating what may be the greatest, or at least the most successful, straw man argument of all time. I can explain over and over and over how I am not arguing that Youtube should be "forced" to do anything, and people like you (you're certainly not the only one doing this) will reply as if I had just said the exact opposite.

      Youtube isn't obligated to show PDP's videos. And I'm not obligated to use Youtube, to not talk about Youtube's actions, or even to not talk about how market pressures could be brought to bear to oppose the current and ever-tightening policies being championed by Youtube and the WSJ.

      You, and your strawmen-ing ilk, are the only ones talking about forced obligations here.

  11. Stuff That Fucking Matters by Shane_Optima · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is akin to bitching that you don't like Snowden because he wears ugly glasses and has a boring face.

    I'm the submitter. I don't watch PewDiePie videos. I think I watched only two in my entire life before today. This is serious news. He is the biggest name on Youtube (like it or not), and these are some of the biggest names in mainstream news lying about him, engaging in an open campaign to get him fired (WSJ went directly to Disney, from my understanding), and then they casually, lazily, openly discuss about how their motive in all of this was that they want to see online media giants dictate acceptable content with an iron fist instead of this willy-nilly free speech bullshit that makes old media nervous.

    When the hell did Slashdot turn into goddamn TMZ? Who cares who you like or don't like? This. Matters.

    1. Re:Stuff That Fucking Matters by felixrising · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm inclined to agree with you. This is big news when a professional news organisation deliberately misrepresents someones work like that, and in doing so causes direct harm to their work. It's not up for debate whether the work is in bad taste, boring, annoying, or bat shit crazy... it's a beat up and taken totally out of context, and it's harmful. They shouldn't get away with it, it's poor reporting at best, a free speech issue at worst.

  12. Re:Has he been invited to the white house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I lived 55 years without knowing who this was, and now that I know, absolutely nothing was gained. I'm so glad my life doesn't revolve around a computer or phone. Sucks to be y'all.

  13. Re: Has he been invited to the white house? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're missing the point. It's not about some vlogger we've never heard of. It's about the mainstream media being caught in a lie. Again. As if we needed more evidence after the disgraceful election coverage.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  14. Reminds me of gamergate ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... in that I never heard of it before and don't give a shit now that I have.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Reminds me of gamergate ... by Yosho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just look at you, so proud of being completely ignorant of significant cultural events happening around you. If being clueless makes you happy, keep it up.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
  15. Re: Has he been invited to the white house? by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you're in violent agreement with the GP. He's right, reporting on a celebrity isn't news. And "mainstream media" isn't news either - most of the outlets which say they're news are 95% op-ed. I suppose that's a result of pandering for eyeballs. They're not really lying, they're just going way beyond unbiased objective fact, with an intent to mislead in order to support their POV.

    Where, oh where, are today's Edgar R Murrows? They all seem to be Hearsts these days.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  16. Look. by SharpFang · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He's male. He's white. He's likely not gay or transsexual. And he's not a member of the leftists.
    In this day and age, would you ever need any more proof that he's a sexist, racist nazi scum?

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  17. Re:Glass houses & stones by _KiTA_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Speaking of which, you yourself have used more than a few crass racial stereotypes

    First, I encourage all Slashdot readers to take a look at what Xenographic thinks is a "crass racial stereotype".

    Second, I don't expect Disney to sponsor my Slashdot comments, nor do I look for the alt-right to spring to my defense because they don't.

    Why do you hate the Japanese, PopeRatzo?

  18. Re:Has he been invited to the white house? by WheezyJoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a saying in Texas: "All hat and no cattle." And yet, "all hat" keeps winning, even when it's losing. Because the Twitter/Youtube economy is about clicks and views, regardless if you find the content compelling or appalling. Trump got the White House in part because his Tweets got him so much free publicity - news media making his Tweets into front-page stuff while his GOP opponents wasted their time and money trying to go it old-school. Now, people like me who'd never heard or cared about PewDiePie are all reading about him on Wired.com for the first time, amazed at his epic rise and fall as a juvenile asshole, doing on the Internet what would otherwise get him smacked in the face until he learns his lesson and stops... all that really matters is how every click records something about you on a server somewhere, and makes somebody a buck.

    This is fucking ridiculous. We are all getting Played, and the Players are studying all this carefully and perfecting the craft... for pay.

    --
    Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  19. Re: Has he been invited to the white house? by wasteoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That doesn't match with the president's strong support for Israel, although it does fit your personal narrative, presumably that old white male = evil.

  20. Re:Has he been invited to the white house? by naughtynaughty · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The media is "always appalling"? I disagree.

    There are some great media outlets putting out well researched and written articles daily.

    Then there are the media outlets targeting people who are only interested in some red meat half-truths being tossed out so they can rant and rave.

    While you might not see it as such, I see the current "media dishonesty" schtick to be nothing more than the shark attack media frenzy you complained about.