Slashdot Mirror


PewDiePie Is Inexcusable But DMCA Takedowns Are Not the Way To Fight Him (vice.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Felix Kjellberg, better known as PewDiePie, is the most popular YouTuber in the world. He's gotten himself into another controversy, this time for shouting the n-word while livestreaming a video game. The 27-year-old Swede has repeatedly been criticized for hate speech, and just last month said he would no longer make Nazi jokes after a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia turned violent. But while playing PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds on Sunday, Kjellberg, who has over 57 million subscribers on YouTube, called another player the n-word before erupting into laughter. "What a fucking n****r," he said. "Jeez, oh my god. What the fuck? Sorry, but what the fuck? What a fucking asshole. I don't mean that in a bad way." Kjellberg did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and has yet to publicly acknowledge the incident.

In response to Kjellberg's use of a racial slur, a number of video game players and developers have condemned the creator. Sean Vanaman, the co-founder of video game company Campo Santo, decided to use copyright law to push back against Kjellberg. On Twitter, he said he was filing a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown request against the famous YouTuber regarding a video in which Kjellberg plays Campo Santo's game Firewatch. There are compelling reasons to [remove hate speech from major internet platforms] by any means necessary, but DMCA overreach is among the least compelling options, considering that it unilaterally puts power into the hands of what are essentially uninvolved parties and allows for little arbitration or defense on the part of those who have their content removed.

506 comments

  1. Who gives a shit? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, who?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This matters because the DMCA is being used for the purpose of censorship. That's an abuse of the DMCA and, as I noted in another comment, creimer has used the same tactics here on Slashdot. It's not especially rare, and it's an abuse of the law. The DMCA exists to prevent copyright infringement, not as a tool for censorship. I know who PewDiePie is, but I don't care about him. I do care that the law is being abused to censor unpopular views and free speech, because that can easily be turned to censor other speech and viewpoints. I have no sympathy that PewDiePie is getting backlash for using the n-word, but I do care about protecting free speech.

    2. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am anxiously waiting for the GNAA take on this

    3. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And? As the majority of his content is arguably not transformative enough to be protected, these companies have EVERY right to restrict how that content is used in this instance. Do I agree with the response? No. Is it a LEGAL use of the DMCA? Very likely, yes.

      Captcha: Subpoena

    4. Re: Who gives a shit? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Review and critique of content fall under fair use, which is basically what someone playing a game and talking about it constitutes.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it likely doesn't - at least in the simple sense you folks are applying it. There's a CHASM of difference between a "review" and "talking over it" in terms of a work being transformative or derivative. I can't sit and watch Star Wars, crack wise during it and put it up on Youtube and call that fair use without a license. There's a reason MST3K used low cost licensed or public domain content. Here's a bit of a primer for you:

      “Technically, video game companies can issue takedown requests for any gameplay that is posted online and companies like Nintendo have done this in the past,” said video game attorney Michael Lee of Morrison & Lee LLP, an admitted fan of Let’s Plays. “Generally the more content used and the less new content added, the less likely it is to be considered fair use.”

      There are dozens of factors at play here, including the length of videos, the amount of commentary, and the type of game played. “I just have to point to substantiality of use,” said Mona Ibrahim, a video game attorney with the Interactive Entertainment Law Group. “The amount of content used [in a Let’s Play]—the fact it goes to the heart of the game itself—is way in excess of what any court up until now has said is fair use. You use too much of the content for it to quality for fair use.”

      One strong argument against YouTube playthroughs qualifying as fair use is the fact that, almost always, they are designed for profit. They are rarely for educational or research purposes. “The law doesn’t necessarily favor Let’s Plays. Are they for profit? Transformative?” Ibrahim said.

      Columbia University’s “Fair Use” checklist (https://copyright.columbia.edu/basics/fair-use/fair-use-checklist.html) seems to corroborate that a playthrough like Kjellberg’s Firewatch video is fair game for a developer to strike down. Video game attorney Stephen McArthur, of the McArthur Law Firm, agreed that full game playthroughs are likely copyright violations but added that, “It’s a grey area since no court has directly addressed the issue” and that “There are other factors to consider, such as whether the developer has ever made public statements on social media or their website granting permission to streamers and Let’s Players,” which Campo Santo did.

    6. Re: Who gives a shit? by Khyber · · Score: 0

      "creimer has used the same tactics here on Slashdot"

      The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

      Which means he has every right to utilize DMCA to have an account removed, by Slashdot's own fucking admission.

      Please try better methods of character assassination when the evidence against said assassination of character lies at the top of every fucking comments section on this site.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      *Only neo-nazis defend free speech*... Sarcasm aside, this quote:

      There are compelling reasons to [remove hate speech from major internet platforms] by any means necessary...

      is dangerous bullshit. There are no compelling reasons to remove any speech from the internet, ever. Censorship is tyranny and evil and must be defeated by any means necessary. We must make the internet absolutely 100% indelible!

    8. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fucking leftists are going to take us half way to a 1984 thought police, and the inevitable right wing reaction will take us the rest of the way as it burns out the leftist infection.

      Fucking Marxists.

    9. Re: Who gives a shit? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

      Which means he has every right to utilize DMCA to have an account removed, by Slashdot's own fucking admission.

      I don't see anything in there that says that you have permission to misuse the DMCA to censor trolls.

      For anyone who is curious (I looked it up, since I was), apparently somebody registered a 'cdreimer' account to troll creimer. This isn't terribly surprising, because he not only posts a lot of nonsense, but also engages in flamewars with trolls, which is the one sure way to get more people to troll you. Instead of acting like an adult and ignoring the troll, apparently he filed a DMCA complaint to get the cdreimer account removed.

      Since that account wasn't infringing upon his copyrights, that is of course complete bull.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    10. Re: Who gives a shit? by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Watching a game is not the primary method by which a game is usually consumed... He is basically advertising the game, not making it available for anyone else to play.
      He's only making controlled sections of the output of the game available, not the game itself.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    11. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are privately run web sites. If you start yelling and cursing while you are at the store, they can and will kick you out. It has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with removing the obnoxious prick from their store.

      If you want to grandstand, feel free to do it from your own business. Just be warned that you probably won't be attracting very many customers with that attitude.

    12. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While that matters if Youtube were allowing the third party to claim HIS portion of the content as theirs and handing over monetization to the original content owner, it does NOT mean he has license to use their content is similar fashion. So, if they were to claim, and then monetize his content, they very like would be on the wrong side of the law as it relates to HIS portion of the content. However, in and of itself, it's NOT transformative enough to allow him to claim fair use in lieu of a license from the original content owner. That's the key difference here.

    13. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're off topic. We are talking about content being taken down by DMCA. We must defeat ALL censorship, by any means!

    14. Re: Who gives a shit? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Actually, as I look for cdreimer, there is a clearly-registered website with that name. It appears to belong to one actual C.D. Reimer. Since the account here was used for defamation, and one could infer the accounts were linked (by the copying of the under-picture bio section on the site straight to slashdot) copyright violations were committed. So, no, the DMCA was an actual appropriate application that time.

      I have had many similar experiences with my old LED business and pop-up Chinese clone sites and using the DMCA to shut them down.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    15. Re: Who gives a shit? by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      There have been monetization efforts from video games for years...
      There used to be tv gameshows where people would compete playing C64 games against each other, with the gameplay itself being displayed to the viewer intermixed with commentary about their gameplay.

      Should whoever manufactured the ball claim copyright over a game of football being broadcast?
      And the output from a video game involves more than just the game, what about claims by the hardware manufacturer(s) or the provider of the os on which the game runs? A video of someone playing a game shows him making use of not just the game, but also the hardware and other software on which it runs.

      In fact, any video is the output from using video production equipment and software, should the producers of this have a claim?

      Distributing the output produced while using a product is very different to distributing the product itself.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    16. Re: Who gives a shit? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > As the majority of his content is arguably not transformative enough to be protected,

      That's _not_ the way the law works. ALL speech is protected.

      Who the fuck decides what is "transformative enough" ???

      I disagree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say.

      --
      Only wussies censor.

    17. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is not censorship (look up the word and see that you are using it wrong). Also, PewDiePie *IS* infringing on their copyright. He has no right using that video footage in the way that he does. If he did a short tutorial, review or something RELATED to the video could claim he was using it under the fair use clause that US copyright law provides.

      Now he uses the gameplay video, displaying copyrighted assets of a game, for self promotion and revenue from ads. When he also is spewing racial slurs, he catches the attention of the copyright holders that, understandably, wants nothing to do with a freeloader like him.

      Compare this to me taking the lastest song from the top 100 chart and creating a video using it to a slideshow of some artwork I want to sell. I cannot claim fair use because I am not reviewing or criticizing the song, just using it to pull viewers (or rather listeners) to my slideshow for my personal profit and/or promotion. So it is a copyright infringement. If my artwork was bordering on obscene or illegal, do you think it would expedite any takedown request? Of course it would!

      I understand that people dislike the DMCA, but this is the law you have on the other side of the pond. And in this case I see no conflict. If you don't like the law, elect new people that might repeal it instead of the ones you have now.

    18. Re:Who gives a shit? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      He is one of the top earning youtube celebrities. While you weren't looking, youTube got big, and he does do video game related videos.

      Not being interested in the culture is acceptable, but there's really nothing beneficial in advertising your ignorance.

      As for who gives a shit; this does cover the DMCA being used in appropriately for censoring people we don't like.

    19. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you played Firewatch? Based on the comment you made, it is rather obvious that you haven't. That game could really be enjoyed by watching someone playing it. So it is literally the worst example you could choose for the statement "watching a game is not the primary method by which a game is usually consumed" since this game is probably THE exception what your "usually" was supposed to safeguard your statement with.

      Firewatch is a very limited interaction story. Some have argued that this game genre is not really games and in some cases have more in common with 360 degree films. The only difference is that you control the pacing of the story and you have some branching in the story, depending on some optional parts to explore. But the main story is set.

      Personally I found the game being very enjoyable, but it is not for everyone.

      But watching someone else play Firewatch IS giving away the experience.

    20. Re: Who gives a shit? by hackwrench · · Score: 2

      Copyright is even more inexcusable. It steals culture and knowledge from humanity and is much much worse than someone's hurt fee fees

    21. Re:Who gives a shit? by gravewax · · Score: 1

      I think the only place I have ever heard the name is on Slashdot in this story and one previous story. So yeah who gives a shit.

    22. Re: Who gives a shit? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Since the account here was used for defamation, and one could infer the accounts were linked (by the copying of the under-picture bio section on the site straight to slashdot) copyright violations were committed.

      Err no, that's not how copyright violations work.

    23. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

    24. Re: Who gives a shit? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's one thing if YouTube decides "We don't want to host this kind of shit".

      It is another if they are required by a law to not host it.

      I trust you see the difference.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    25. Re: Who gives a shit? by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      DMCA is clearly not the best tool, but as a game company there is little else in the arsenal to disassociate the company from dipshits like Kjellberg. The only other options I see are a press release that gets no attention or reporting it has hate speech to YT with the request for takedown. Claimimg copyright infringement has a far bigger chance of success although it still is rather small. I think DMCA is really bad legislation. But it is on the books and we should not fault others making use of rights granted. Dissing Campo Santo is barking up the wrong tree. Get on the line with your congress person and have them fix copyright. My suggestion is to have copyright on creative work expire after 20 years. After that it is considered public domain. Maybe it is 15 or 30 years, not sure what the golden number is, or maybe it still reserves the right to request permission of use but no licensing fees. What needs to end is that the nth generation after still leeches off the work from someone they are often not even related to.

    26. Re:Who gives a shit? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      You cared enough to comment when you could have just moved on to the next story.

      Why aren't you over at the Knitting World forums telling them you don't care about knitting?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    27. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DMCA = digital millennium COPYRIGHT act

      So which particular COPYRIGHT was infringed, thus justifying the takedown? If anything, acting like a moron would be a trademark offense, not copyright, and I don't see any mention of "trademark" in the entire DMCA text (other than the mention of "Patent and Trademark Office")

    28. Re:Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know my life, I only complain about knitting on Wednesdays,

    29. Re:Who gives a shit? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It bugs me that everyone thinks the sky is falling when someone said a "bad word" on the internet. So I am actually honestly asking who gives a shit about him saying whatever he said.

      Just curious whether there is actually anyone who really cares about this. Yes, I'd actually like to know whether someone really gives a fuck about this. And if so, why. As far as I can tell, here a hug fuss is made about essentially nothing.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    30. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. You "play" video games, you "watch movies. This isn't that hard.

    31. Re:Who gives a shit? by GrBear · · Score: 1

      From what I've heard, he's from My Little Pony, specifically for being known as the retarded pony.

    32. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are privately run web sites. If you start yelling and cursing while you are at the store, they can and will kick you out. It has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with removing the obnoxious prick from their store.

      Exactly. You have every right to take a knee during the National Anthem if you want. And, as a private company, the NFL is also perfectly free to send your worthless ass to the unemployment line for doing it.

    33. Re: Who gives a shit? by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      Should whoever manufactured the ball claim copyright over a game of football being broadcast?
      (...) what about claims by the hardware manufacturer(s) or the provider of the os on which the game runs?

      Don't give them ideas...

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    34. Re: Who gives a shit? by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      Who the fuck decides what is "transformative enough" ???

      Judges.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    35. Re: Who gives a shit? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      As someone who has successfully utilized the DMCA to defend my websites, no, you are the incorrect party.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    36. Re: Who gives a shit? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "So which particular COPYRIGHT was infringed, thus justifying the takedown?"

      The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

      That means at any fucking time I can tell Slashdot via DMCA to stop spreading my posts and they have to comply because it is a legal fucking order.

      Take your ignorant and ill-educated ass the fuck back to school.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    37. Re: Who gives a shit? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      It's not just the game being broadcast, but his gameplay as well. Gameplay != uploading a copyrighted movie verbatim.

    38. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people wrongly interpret "free speech" as "people should be able to say whatever they want".
      It is not the same.

      There is a difference between saying:
      "I don't like your mom because I think she is a hateful woman" and
      "Your mom is a fucking cocksucking whore that deserves to be raped in the ass"

      Wouldn't you agree?

    39. Re: Who gives a shit? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      That means at any fucking time I can tell Slashdot via DMCA to stop spreading my posts and they have to comply because it is a legal fucking order.

      No, they don't. Because you've given them a license to use those posts.

      By sending or transmitting to us Content, or by posting such Content to any area of the Sites, you grant us and our designees a worldwide, non-exclusive, sub-licensable (through multiple tiers), assignable, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right to link to, reproduce, distribute (through multiple tiers), adapt, create derivative works of, publicly perform, publicly display, digitally perform or otherwise use such Content in any media now known or hereafter developed.

      --https://slashdotmedia.com/terms-of-use/

      Take your ignorant and ill-educated ass the fuck back to school.

      oops.

    40. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd vote if you up if I could! Haha you burned him with the facts and you didn't even have to use ad hominem vulgar attacks to do it. Who woulda thunk it possible.

    41. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But.. Your mom is a cocksucking whore and takes it up the ass. Wouldn't you agree?

    42. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not a lawyer. Transformative use has been an underlying concept of fair use for a long fucking time. That's EXACTLY the way the law works. That said, this is arguably a grey area because precedent has not yet been set, but one almost assuredly in favor of the original content owner. This has nothing to do with "free speech" as a MATTER OF LAW. As a matter of personal view, I would agree with you. I don't agree with the company's response here, but it IS almost certainly within their legal right to do so for ANY reason they choose and it's certainly not a false DMCA claim. Full stop.

    43. Re: Who gives a shit? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      As someone who has successfully utilized the DMCA to defend my websites, no, you are the incorrect party.

      Just because you were "successful" doesn't mean that you had a valid DMCA claim. Trolling somebody may be wrong, but it's not a copyright violation.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    44. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're gonna get nothing but cavities drinking all that kool aid... you'll certainly never learn to think for yourself that way.

    45. Re: Who gives a shit? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      As someone who has successfully utilized the DMCA to defend my websites, no, you are the incorrect party.

      As someone who has seen the DMCA successfully used against a printer, a person who produced 100% original work, and many 10s of thousands of cases that fall quite fairly under fair use, your successful use of the DMCA doesn't have any bearing on whether something is or isn't copyright.

    46. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the ñîggÃr loving slashdot

    47. Re: Who gives a shit? by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      these companies have EVERY right to restrict how that content is used in this instance

      You're slightly confused; they do have the right to specify contractual restrictions on how their game is used, however, it has absolutely nothing to do with copyright, it's in the End-User License Agreement that you implicitly agree to when you purchase their product, and the DMCA is not a tool for remedy of a EULA breach. Also, presumably they failed to include it in the EULA in the first place, and in fact explicitly encouraged and allowed the production of such independent content ... because 20/20 hindsight. So now they must either retroactively add some fine print to a EULA that was never signed, or abuse the DMCA for censorship, both are wrong.

    48. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably not the best name but basically the "Liberal" ideology is basically the same doctrine(with some further "progress") as 20th century Communism minus the whole Socialist economy thing because this way the elites don't have to hide to steal from the people producing value. We've got the whole package of biology denialism, wholesale censorship and persecution of dissenters, and authoritarian laws.

    49. Re: Who gives a shit? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      A contract cannot supercede or violate the law. Thus the DMCA trumps the irrevocable and perpetual sections of the agreement.

      Take your ass back to school and learn some basic contract law.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    50. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is insignificant. Both are stating that you don't like someone's mother. Both are protected under freedom of speech.

      Grow some skin, grow a pair and grow the fuck up, kid.

    51. Re: Who gives a shit? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      A contract can include permission to replicate copyrighted materials.
      The DMCA provides a mechanism to inform a service provider of copyright infringements.

      As there is no copyright infringement by Slashdot in publishing your comments the DMCA does not apply.

      But all that aside, to which school would you recommend I send my donkey?

    52. Re:Who gives a shit? by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      uhh ... i had like the exact same reaction ...
      who ???

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    53. Re: Who gives a shit? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      DMCA is clearly not the best tool, but as a game company there is little else in the arsenal

      Using the DMCA to censor is not just "not the best tool", it's unambiguously the wrong tool, and an abuse of the law. Abusing the law this way makes you wrong and deserving of condemnation.

      Whether or not there are other avenues available is 100% irrelevant.

    54. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, Kjellberg doesn't have permission to use the video game footage legally anyway, the designers/studios let him use footage of their copyrighted material as a favor by looking the other way. He did something that caused them to look bad, so it is their right to uphold their legal recourse.

    55. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the Video Game Attorney (of many a lawsuit on here fame), streaming a game's content/Let's Plays do NOT count as fair use.

    56. Re: Who gives a shit? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      There used to be tv gameshows where people would compete playing C64 games against each other, with the gameplay itself being displayed to the viewer intermixed with commentary about their gameplay.

      It's likely those game shows had an agreement with the game publishers.

      Should whoever manufactured the ball claim copyright over a game of football being broadcast?

      No, however, the NFL does claim the rights to all of their games and would likely haul your ass into court if you posted a substantial amount of footage with your commentary about the game.

      It could be interesting if this gets into moral copyrights. The courts have previously held up that transformation of a work that brings the original into disrupt (according the views of the creator) are not permissible. In particular, I remember a case where a sculptor sued (and won) over a company because of their decision to put Christmas ribbons on his sculptures. Ribbons that he thought the ribbons were tacky. Having someone yell profanity and racial slurs over a game they created could certainly qualify as a violation of the moral rights of the creators.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    57. Re: Who gives a shit? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Just because you were "successful" doesn't mean that you had a valid DMCA claim. Trolling somebody may be wrong, but it's not a copyright violation.

      Of course, if you commit a copyright violation in the process of trolling someone, it's still a copyright violation, right? Trolling is not one of the protected uses of copyrighted materials.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    58. Re: Who gives a shit? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is 15 or 30 years, not sure what the golden number is, or maybe it still reserves the right to request permission of use but no licensing fees. What needs to end is that the nth generation after still leeches off the work from someone they are often not even related to.

      My recollection is that for 98% of all works, more than 99% of all value is extracted in the first 15 years. Copyright extensions only benefit the 2% of works (and their copyright holders) that have significant on going value after the first 15 years. It's pretty much limited to the Beatles' music and Disney movies.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    59. Re: Who gives a shit? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      A football game broadcast by the NFL is a product that they are selling... By rebroadcasting it you are reselling their product.

      If you buy an NFL branded football, use it to play a game of football and then film it and distribute the resulting video the NFL won't care because you are only broadcasting someone who is *using* the product.

      They also wouldn't care if you broadcast a video of yourself sitting on the couch watching one of their broadcast football matches.

      Only if you duplicate their actual product would they care. A video of someone playing a game is different from distributing a copy of the game itself.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    60. Re: Who gives a shit? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      If you buy an NFL branded football, use it to play a game of football and then film it and distribute the resulting video the NFL won't care because you are only broadcasting someone who is *using* the product.

      That analogy just fails, because a football as a metaphor for a video game metaphor is simply far too reductionist. For instance, the football isn't even a game by itself, it's just one tiny part of the equipment needed for a particular game. Your average video game provides the ball, the players, the referees and the stadium in one convenient package, the player only provides the coach. However, if you were playing a game of football with an NFL football, NFL players, and NFL referees at an NFL stadium, it would probably be an actual NFL game. However, if we were to suppose that, for some reason, the NFL made you the coach of one of the teams for a game, the NFL would still own the broadcast rights for that football game.

      Maybe you should think of it more like you're reading the lines aloud from a comic book while showing video of the comic book pages. You're still using the product, the comic book, rather than redistributing the product directly, however, I'm pretty confident that you could be sued and would likely lose the case because I'm pretty sure that exact scenario has played out exactly that way before. I think that analogy represents the let's play video situation far more accurately than your football analogy, because the video is displaying the game's art assets, playing it's audio, and using its rules and interactions as the primary part of the video. The player may be directing what the character is doing and the player is likely talking over the game audio, but for most games that's as far as their contribution goes, which really isn't that far.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  2. Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How is what PewDiePie said "inexcusable?" Ever said something in a heated moment you regret later? That's all the happened. A slip of the tongue. It happens. Fucking deal with it.

    Oh, wait, I accidentally swore. Clearly all my YouTube videos should have DMCA take-downs against them over a single fleeting expletive.

    You may not like PewDiePie, but stop trying to pretend he did anything objectionable. He didn't.

    1. Re: Oh please by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wrong != inexcusable.

    2. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sure I have said things, but not a specific disgusting term like that. I may have said "Fuck off" or "Leave me alone" or even "I hate you", but I have NEVER used a discriminatory word even in the heat of the moment. It would never pop up in my head to do so.

      The fact that he let an extremely offensive and racist word slip out indicates that he probably uses the term freely when he's not on camera. A prejudiced person like that doesn't deserve any attention or forgiveness.

      I don't agree with using the DMCA to silence him, since he does have the freedom of speech, but I don't think people should be handwaving this. It is a red flag warning of just what kind of racist scumbag Pewdiepie is.

    3. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So don't watch his youtube channel. Problem solved.

    4. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Jesus christ, it's just a fucking word...

      People act like saying "ni**er" will summon the ghost of Robert E Lee who'll use his supernatural powers to round up all nearby black people and force them to work on his haunted cotton plantation for all eternity.

      I'd rather someone fleetingly called me a 'ni**er' than the usual 'MO**ERFU**KING CU*T FA**OT COCK***CKER SHI***ATING FU**STAIN....." stuff you normally get in online games.

      (and now I get to spam some asterisks because ./ doesn't like free speech either...)

    5. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you whining? Just don't read posts that offend you. Problem solved.

    6. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I wouldn't expect a privileged white kid such as yourself to understand why it's so offensive. You have never had to endure any hardships beyond losing in your little video games.

    7. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Check your privilege, whitey!
      >white people don't endure hardships

      Lmfao

    8. Re:Oh please by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes. Too many people have too much invested in milking grievances and hunting witches for such a thing to be excused.

      If people started accepting apologies and being tolerant and magnanimous and kind and understanding, we'd all live happier, more peaceful lives.

      And then what would community organizers do to become rich and powerful? Who would pay professional protestors? What would diversity coordinators do at colleges? How would you get out the racial vote to elect the same old politicians to continue to fail to solve any problems?

    9. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't and never have.

    10. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >It's just that it reveals who you really are...

      Yeah, someone who doesn't give half a fuck about the left's ever-escalating PC insanity. Once you start rioting over pronouns, you lose all reasonable expectation that anyone will take you seriously ever again.

      It's. A. Fucking. Word.

      When he starts calling for lynchings or the return of slavery then I'll get upset.

    11. Re: Oh please by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Funny

      They need to be more niggardly with their indignation...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    12. Re: Oh please by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

      Don't take the /pol/ memes too seriously ... just go look at the videos, it's just edgy comedy. Little different from edgy comedians making holocaust jokes, just poorly executed.

    13. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He has a point. The word is only able to conjure the emotions that it does because people have allowed it to. You'd have to ban a shit load of people, and I'm sure a shit load have been, for the pejorative use of that word. The internet isn't a nice place to begin with, but it's still a part of the real world. People will continue to use it so long as it holds an emotional connotation. Getting over it is probably the best thing you can do to get beyond it. Do you hear many people walking in the middle pejoratively being referred to as jays these days? No... You don't.

    14. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that the people who claim to espouse tolerance are the first to demand exclusionary actions?

    15. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody espoused tolerance for everything. Some things should not be tolerated. Hate crimes and racism for example.

      Why is it that racists always look for refuge in the graces of good people?

    16. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but no. If you talk racist shit then you better be prepared for the consequences.

    17. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about I say a poor person doesn't endure hardships because they get EBT cards to pay for everything? Or does that hit too close to home?

    18. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that the racism behind the word n*g**r is is being selectively applied. A person of African descent can apparently use it among friends, but non African descent cannot use it ever. Then non African descent' make up fake outrage against other non African descent to somehow virtue signal their triggered outrage.

    19. Re: Oh please by piojo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Maybe if he hadn't previously spouted racist, white supremacist nonsense, it would be excusable.

      The thing is, he didn't. If you're referring to the little media outrage about him some months ago, that was all cherry-picked to demonstrate something quite different than what he actually said. He published a video making fun of neo-nazis, and someone cut it to look like something else entirely.

      It's because of that episode that I'm *more* inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's been targeted by false accusations before, so isn't it likely there's some spin on the story this time? (For example, is the word "n****r" used the same way in his country as it is in the US? If not, that would be one potential fact that was left out of the story. I know "cunt" is used much differently in some parts of the UK, and it would be wrong to assume "n****r" has exactly the same baggage in Sweden as in the US.)

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    20. Re:Oh please by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes. Too many people have too much invested in milking grievances and hunting witches for such a thing to be excused.

      If people started accepting apologies and being tolerant and magnanimous and kind and understanding, we'd all live happier, more peaceful lives.

      And then what would community organizers do to become rich and powerful? Who would pay professional protestors? What would diversity coordinators do at colleges? How would you get out the racial vote to elect the same old politicians to continue to fail to solve any problems?

      So much this.

      In gaming lingo, all the people who get triggered over a word (or image, flag, symbol, etc etc) are being *farmed* by the professional shit-stirrers like those mentioned in your post, who are only looking to gain wealth and political power from all the the hatred, division, and strife they incite, to the greater misery of everyone.

      Holy crap, people! This is kindergarten stuff! Here's a little milk-and-graham-crackers quiet-time story.

      "Little kindergartner Johnny pulls Sally's hair whenever the teacher isn't looking, and she screams and cries. He keeps pulling her hair and laughing at her screaming and crying. Then, Sally decides to *not* scream and cry. Little Johnny isn't enjoying pulling Sally's hair any more and stops doing it."

      The End

      Take the power to offend away and the offender loses interest when he isn't rewarded with the reaction he wants.

      Now, go finger-paint something and stop empowering haters!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    21. Re: Oh please by koomba · · Score: 2

      Said something in the heat of the moment? Sure, but anyone who's immediate reaction without thinking go to exclamation is ni*ger is in the wrong. It's not just a generic "cuss word," it has a very specific meaning with a long nasty history and ongoing use today. Just because it was a "slip" as you say doesn't excuse it, it just shows what kind of person he is. He has a history of racist comments, it's not like the backlash is out of nowhere. The content owners of the games that he makes money off of have every right to not want their products associated with someone whose goto insult is some racist bullshit.

    22. Re: Oh please by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Why not. Who is it really harming?

    23. Re: Oh please by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      A black person at a game, not all black people at everything.

    24. Re: Oh please by coastwalker · · Score: 2

      I am getting tired of "white supremacists" and their snowflake offense on behalf of other people. So the young idiot used a depreciated word. Grow up and get over it. I would be more impressed if you cretins did something about the black people being shot in the back every day by the American police. Piss off. Incidentally the worst possible offensive word in Swedish is devil - so to be fair Americans should stop using that.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    25. Re: Oh please by NoZart · · Score: 1

      And i always thought true tolerance is tolerating the inconvenient stuff. "Tolerating" stuff you agree with is lame bullshit.

    26. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case why didn't Bill Maner get kicked off HBO for saying the same thing? Oh he's a leftist so it's ok.

    27. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may not like PewDiePie, but stop trying to pretend he did anything objectionable. He didn't.

      He has done plenty of objectionable things, but I still don't see what the big deal is.
      Sure, he might be an asshole, but he isn't exactly causing a lot of problems.
      There are much worse assholes in government positions that does a lot more objectionable things.
      It would be better to focus the rage on them.

    28. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people it is directed against, duh.

    29. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, good old whataboutism.

    30. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing lifts the spirit more than a good witch hunt or toppling idols (well, someone's).

    31. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever believe blacks are allowed to use the word "n1gger" (Filter error: Lameness filter encountered) and white people do not, are both racist and discriminatory.
      There are no "races" (same gene pool), and allowing special treatment of different groups throughout history is the core problem.
      Why continue making new problems?

    32. Re:Oh please by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      Jesus christ, it's just a fucking word...

      It seems that the list of 7 words that you can't say on TV has to be extended.

    33. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did Lee owned slaves?

    34. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're saying that he wants all his videos taken down and further loss of revenue; that's not a good analogy. A far better analogy is one where he's caught and has been told off and given a time out, which is also far better parenting.

    35. Re:Oh please by 91degrees · · Score: 2
      Do you find the phrase "fuck off" highly offensive? Most people don't. The only swearing that actually offends now is racial slurs. If you don't want to offend, then why swear?

      The fact that he let an extremely offensive and racist word slip out indicates that he probably uses the term freely when he's not on camera. A prejudiced person like that doesn't deserve any attention or forgiveness.

      Such a person indeed doesn't, but I'm not going to punish people for some crime that I speculate they may commit.

      Is using such a slur not something you have a problem with in and of itself; that you have to come up with other reasons to dislike someone?

    36. Re:Oh please by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Found the racist.

    37. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which people was he directing against directly?

      I didn't see any black people nearby him in the live stream.

    38. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you snowflakes please learn the legal meaning of intent?

      What was his intent when he said n1gger?
      Was he trashing black people or just using the word purely for its negativity?

      If you can't understand the difference then you are an idiot, and I hope you get run over by a bus.

    39. Re: Oh please by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The asshole he was playing against? Because that's who he directed it at.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    40. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the number of blacks killing blacks?

      No body wants to do anything about that, it's just like saying the Nword, it's only OK when blacks do it.

    41. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If white privilege is so god awful, I hear most of Africa is devoid of white people, why not move there?

    42. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he did not, he fought for Virginia, had VA sided with the North, then he would have as well.

    43. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine, then find someone to file a suit against him. If he's actually done harm then it should be a slam dunk case, otherwise you're just virtue signaling.

    44. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you! Black people can scream the word all day long but when someone else does it it is wrong. If the word were offensive don't use it yourself. There are words I don't like and guess what i don't use them in casual conversation. F$#& everybody that thinks it is wrong to say that word.

    45. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither have you. How do I know you live a life of leisure that includes having a computer and internet access to post to online forums. Let me know when you have been enslaved and forced to work for other people. Your ancestors may have but you haven't. There are programs to make sure you get a college education the guy you are saying doesn't understand doesn't have that so seems like you have more privilege than him.

    46. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So all the black people on the subway calling people crackers is objectionable to you as well and they should have their transportation rights removed as they are racists right? No because you think black people can't be racist only white men idiot.

    47. Re: Oh please by Z80a · · Score: 1

      Direct to the gulag for using THE FORBIDDEN WORD.

    48. Re: Oh please by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      WTF?! Read a history book or two you fucking idiot.

    49. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick! They're onto us, claim they're "virtue signalling" in some hand-wavey way, don't worry, nobody ever checks to see if this insane crap we fling actually makes sense!

    50. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a great story there. Someone keeps assaulting you and it's really your fault for just not stoically accepting it. Do you also think that the problem with terrorism is that governments react to the attacks instead of just saying that it's an organization looking for attention and they should just be ignored?

      Sometimes people are doing things to get a reaction. Other times, they're seeing what they can get away with and will push it as far as they can, so they have to be shut down quickly. Even in the world of that story, if Johnny doesn't get a reaction from the hair pulling, maybe next he kicks her and if that doesn't do anything, perhaps, he punches her. How the Hell is Sally supposed to know that Johnny is just a sweet kid looking for attention in a bad way and not a sociopath who wants to hurt her?

    51. Re: Oh please by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Yeah, tiny violin playing my heart bleeds for thee. He's a big boy, he can take it.

    52. Re: Oh please by zzyzx · · Score: 0

      The next time someone uses "cracker" as a part of an organized movement to deny white Americans access to the ballot box, schools, or jobs will be the first.

    53. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool. So if I use it in a non-racist context (like randomly in a video game) then you'll understand that intent.

      Right? Right?

      You fucking imbecile.

    54. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut the fuck up, you SJW niqqer.

    55. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatabout! Waah!

    56. Re:Oh please by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not that they're calling you something derogatory that gets people riled up. It's that by the derogatory use they're implying that the referenced class or group of people is inferior or less desirable. You can't insult somebody by saying "you cry like a girl" unless when and how girls cry is humiliating. I doubt "God, you're such a pussy" refers to you being a cat but rather a member of the weaker sex. Unlike men, who "got balls". And calling someone a faggot or cocksucker isn't an insult unless there's something wrong about being a homosexual. Using the word n1gger implies something about the value of black people.

      Of course you could try to dodge that and say it's a behavior not a racial/ethnic/religious/sexual slur, that being a cunt isn't directly related to being female, being a dick isn't directly related to being male and being a n1gger isn't directly related to being black, which is how you get "white n1ggers" = the Irish and such. But it usually ends up expanding on an existing slur like you may not look like a n1gger but you sure act like one/are one on the inside rather than exclude anyone or remove the underlying implication. Though that could of course be intentionally used for sarcasm or irony, like a black man saying I might look like a n1gger but you act like one.

      Is it getting blown out of all proportions? I think so. But if anyone takes a huge offense to a position being called a chairMAN even though it can be filled by a man or a woman, eh... whatever. For me it's a little bit of semantics and a low-priority TODO, for others it seem like anyone not willing to drop everything else they're doing to stop this misogyny right now is with the patriarchy and the good old boys club and secretly want women back in the kitchen and popping out babies. Call anyone a n1gger is not nice, but I have the feeling most people use these insults from habit or simply to "kick where it hurts" rather than any real bigotry. Like if you really stub your toe and go like "fuck damn shit crap ow ow ow" at nothing, at least that's how I think when someone rants of half a dozen swear words in a row...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    57. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot is leftists organization now, it fights freedom of speech.

      Fuck them.

    58. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone keeps assaulting you and it's really your fault for just not stoically accepting it.

      "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

      We're talking about speech here.

      Grow up.

    59. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry Paradox of Tolerance says you're wrong and we don't ever have to tolerate things that are intolerable to us.

    60. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the white guy that killed him in the game?

    61. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but he said -THAT- word. You know, the one that ended Paula Deen's career and scrubbed her from the public eye.

      Not saying it's right, but that's how it is. If you're black it's fine, otherwise you will be burned at the stake. For racism. Ironic.

    62. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's not like you can't load up any rap song on Youtube and hear the same thing. Should all of those be taken down as well? Oh right. Double standard there.

    63. Re: Oh please by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Yes, god forbid someone say something you don't agree with on the internet. Quit being such an insecure wannabe tyrant cheering on the big ones.

    64. Re: Oh please by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      How?

    65. Re: Oh please by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      No thanks, not when the bar for what is intolerable is that low. People crying over words are fucking babies.

    66. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you even hear yourself right now?

    67. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People on every side forget one of the GREATEST quotes of all time from a very liberal lady:

      Eleanor Roosevelt:

      No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.

      Everyone who gets triggered or trolled over this shit needs to understand this simple truth.

    68. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't expect a privileged white kid such as yourself to understand why it's so offensive. You have never had to endure any hardships beyond losing in your little video games.

      Neither have you.

    69. Re: Oh please by butchersong · · Score: 1

      The most racist thing about the word n**ger is the way people infantilize black people with the assumption that they somehow cannot handle the odd pejorative when white people can. There is no word that has this power over me and the grooming of generations of blacks to feel like their legs have been cut out from under them any time someone uses this word is by far the most racist and damaging thing about its use.

    70. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NlGGER? Is that the word that slashdot won't let me post?

    71. Re: Oh please by butchersong · · Score: 1

      More than that, Lee disagreed with slavery and thought the dissolution of the Union a mistake. He fought to protect his state and people -the primary motivation of most in the south as very few actually owned slaves but many suffered under the tariffs and taxes. Lincoln actually offered Lee command in the north.

      The civil war was far from the caricature that we are taught in school.

    72. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using the word n1gger implies something about the value of black people.

      No. Calling someone black (who isn't) is an insult only if blacks are considered inferior. Only racists think that way. Calling someone a 'n1gger' is worse - it is not simply a word for 'black'.

      Oh, and why do I have to spell it 'n1gger'? The 'lameness filter' of slashdot is silly. It it not intelligent enough to see if I try to offend someone, or merely discuss language in an acceptable way. So it bans a word - no matter how it is used! Why do you english-speakers allow that sort of stupidity? It hampers speech, but it does not protect anyone against being insulted. If I was a racist wanting to offend the blacks, I might resort to call them 'n1ggers' then. They would get the message and take offence. Word filters accomplish nothing.

    73. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.

      The dumbed-down "Progressive" idiots in the US these days would call Eleanor Roosevelt a white-supremacist Nazi fascist for such a statement, despite all she did to advance racial equality and civil rights.

      Sad.

    74. Re:Oh please by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      He made a minor slip of the sort that many people make now and again, and he sincerely apologized for it. He didn't go out and lynch someone. People are acting like he literally lynched someone. I'm not excusing saying the N word, but come on, the pitchfork mob has lost all perspective.

    75. Re: Oh please by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      I admit I initially made the mistake of naively believing the media bullcrap that Felix was some sort of racist anti-Semite Nazi. Eventually, I started watching his actual videos, and seeing the entire context, and much more of his body of work, and realized that the media was literally full of sh-t.

    76. Re:Oh please by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      I doubt "God, you're such a pussy" refers to you being a cat but rather a member of the weaker sex.

      Then there's the third meaning, not frequently used in the US.

    77. Re:Oh please by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      If you feel like doing a little improv, you can give as good as you get, with even more entertaining results.

    78. Re:Oh please by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Even in the world of that story, if Johnny doesn't get a reaction from the hair pulling, maybe next he kicks her and if that doesn't do anything, perhaps, he punches her. How the Hell is Sally supposed to know that Johnny is just a sweet kid looking for attention in a bad way and not a sociopath who wants to hurt her?

      After he kicks her, she can respond in kind. If he's really interested, he'll come back. Or she could watch his interactions with other kids to see if he's actually a good kid, and then ask straight out if he's asking for attention in a bad way. She's got multiple choices here.

    79. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example, is the word "n****r" used the same way in his country as it is in the US?

      I cannot answer for Sweden, but here in Finland, people in primary school in the 1990s did use the words 'neekeri' and 'homo' to refer to people they did not like.

      A friend of mine often used it for video game enemies that were hard or just irritating.

      It would not be a stretch to think that the words may be used similarly in Sweden, given the common cultural heritage.

    80. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is really bullshit is not having the mind and/or balls to decide what is good and bad for yourself. I don't have to tolerate what I deem to be bad, dumbass.

    81. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've endured far more hardships than a snot-nosed little shit like you who sits around playing video games all day. Perhaps when you grow up, move out of mommy's basement and are forced to have responsibility you'll understand, but I'm not counting on it. Children like you will just find a way to leech off of others so that you never have to lift a finger.

    82. Re:Oh please by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      Eleanor Roosevelt:

      No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.

      Everyone who gets triggered or trolled over this shit needs to understand this simple truth.

      Oh, most of the loudest offense-takers *do* understand it just fine.

      Their "offense" is not genuine in many cases, it is a propaganda weapon they deliberately & knowingly employ against those they wish to attack and marginalize.

      Those who are genuinely offended have simply been propagandized and indoctrinated to the point that no actual higher intellectual cognition is involved, only extreme emotional lizard-brain knee-jerk reaction to the stimulus that they've been trained to react to like Pavlov's dog.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    83. Re:Oh please by MercTech · · Score: 1

      PewDiePie used the most common epithet used in Rap music to describe behavior of another player in an online game. Whoop de effin' do... who cares outside of the Society of the Perpetually Offended.

      --
      NRRPT/RCT
    84. Re: Oh please by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Who cares about the person's skin color? I call people assholes all the time despite other people having assholes as well, it's not an exclusive thing.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    85. Re: Oh please by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      So all the black people on the subway calling people crackers is objectionable to you

      Sure. Black people can totally be racist.

      they should have their transportation rights removed as they are racists right?

      And for that, see the other respondent's followup.

    86. Re: Oh please by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Cool. So if I use it in a non-racist context (like randomly in a video game) then you'll understand that intent.

      Right? Right?

      Because I would seriously doubt your non-racist tendencies at that point. To be clear, if you're using it as an insult, your protests that you're not a racist would fall a bit flat.

      You fucking imbecile.

      I sense some real intent here! :-D

    87. Re: Oh please by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Finally! Someone finally calls me an SJW. I hoped that someday it would come down to this.
      Sadly, it's well after the whole "SJW" thing died, but it was nice to be included, at least after the fact.

    88. Re: Oh please by tbannist · · Score: 1

      In that case why didn't Bill Maner get kicked off HBO for saying the same thing? Oh he's a leftist so it's ok.

      First of all, it's HBO, they let people do just about anything over there. Second of all, it was actually used in a joke and he was referencing himself in a derogatory way, and Maher has subsequently apologized for using it and promised to edit that joke out of future airings of his show. So there's a qualitative difference between Maher's usage and PewDiePie's useage and their reactions to criticism over it's usage.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  3. harden up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No one ever got their feelings hurt and woke up the next morning with Leprosy. This 'hate speech' crusade is just ridiculous.

    1. Re: harden up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      These hypersensitive people are not progressing us as a species. Its like nobody taught them how to deal with bullies. Sticks and stones and all that.

    2. Re:harden up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As George Carlin said, there are no bad words, just bad intent. If a black person can call another black person a n1gger then anybody should be able to use the same word provided there is no hurtful intent. HATE speech should only apply to INTENT, not to the words themselves. I agree that this new crusade is just a joke, a foolish distraction.

    3. Re: harden up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've found if you simply put 'ah' on the end, then it's okay, such as whats up my niggah motha fuckah? -That means you're my friend. However if you use the hard 'er' as in 'hey you n1gger', then alls hell no, cause them there be some fightin words dawg, and you should take cover white boyee. So, to recapitulate:

      Er = bad
      Ah = good

    4. Re: harden up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say whatever the fuck I want to whomever the fuck I want. If that person decides to get violent, I will end their life by putting a bullet into their face. Nobody has the right to not be offended or to assault someone else.

    5. Re: harden up by Rakarra · · Score: 0

      I say whatever the fuck I want to whomever the fuck I want. If that person decides to get violent, I will end their life by putting a bullet into their face. Nobody has the right to not be offended or to assault someone else.

      Yeah, you sound like a real peach.

    6. Re: harden up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They 'are' the bullies. This is what happens when the world bestows power on the otherwise powerless, they use it to wreak vengeance via this crazy anti-democratic moral grandstanding. They need to remember that when you squash speech people will fall back to something else, and that something might be quite unpleasant and possibly fatal.

      So don't worry. Darwin normally sorts this kinda crap out real quick.

    7. Re:harden up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That can't be true. I'd be pretty amazed if out of all the people who've had Leprosy, none of them had their feelings the day before they woke up with Leprosy.

    8. Re: harden up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh hey, a tough guy on the internet who wouldn't actually do shit IRL.

    9. Re: harden up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have shot people who tried to assault me before. Would you like to put it to the test? Just come try something, you little shit.

    10. Re: harden up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sound completely based

    11. Re: harden up by piojo · · Score: 1

      It being hell does not mean we should placate it.

      What a cruel sentiment. If you suffer severe pain, will you not take a painkiller? If you suffer severe enough mental anguish, will you not seek counseling? If that's the case, investigating the most effective treatment is much more moral than saying it should not be treated.

      Besides, lumping all trans people into a single category for the purpose of "suicide rate" is a really bad statistic. Unless you meant to write more than you did, you haven't even separated the group that's had medical/surgical intervention from the group that hasn't.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    12. Re:harden up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one ever got their feelings hurt and woke up the next morning with Leprosy. This 'hate speech' crusade is just ridiculous.

      Hey now, what are you trying to do, inject actual adult thoughts into a discussion which will be dominated by clueless SJW idiots ?

    13. Re: harden up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say whatever the fuck I want to whomever the fuck I want. If that person decides to get violent, I will end their life by putting a bullet into their face. Nobody has the right to not be offended or to assault someone else.

      Yeah, you sound like a real peach.

      Who the fuck are you to judge someone else ? Try that shit with me in person and I will break your fucking jaw, mister.

    14. Re: harden up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >

      Besides, lumping all trans people into a single category for the purpose of "suicide rate" is a really bad statistic. Unless you meant to write more than you did, you haven't even separated the group that's had medical/surgical intervention from the group that hasn't.

      Those that have the reassignment surgery only differ slight in suicide rate than those who haven't. Statically the two groups are pretty close.

    15. Re:harden up by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      Quite a few of them woke up hanging from trees though. Well, they didn't wake up per se...

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    16. Re:harden up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to those SJW. They don't get language. To them a word is a word and it means exactly what *they* think. And they think of all words in their worst meaning, whether that meaning is intended in the context a word is used, or not. To them even stating that Nazis started WWII is already racist. All cause is lost with SJWs.

    17. Re:harden up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      harden up

      Lol, spoke the Anonymous Coward.
      Practice what you preach!

    18. Re: harden up by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      If he really believes that it's okay to counter *any* perceived threat with deadly force and he's acted on it, then he's very likely posting from prison.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    19. Re:harden up by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      To them even stating that Nazis started WWII is already racist.

      Please cite an *original* source for *evidence* backing up this claim.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    20. Re: harden up by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      You sound like a weak little faggot.

      I may be a faggot, but I'm strong enough.

    21. Re: harden up by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I say whatever the fuck I want to whomever the fuck I want. If that person decides to get violent, I will end their life by putting a bullet into their face. Nobody has the right to not be offended or to assault someone else.

      Yeah, you sound like a real peach.

      Who the fuck are you to judge someone else ? Try that shit with me in person and I will break your fucking jaw, mister.

      Oh yes, the mighty keyboard warrior has me shaking in my boots!

    22. Re:harden up by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Really? Dude, we should put a stop to this!

      Wait ... we did ...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re: harden up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you can't call a bully a bully? Wtf kind of reasoning is this

    24. Re: harden up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, so why subscribed to something with that high of a suicide rate? Why not look for other methods to treat people?

    25. Re:harden up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is. Anonymity is a form of armor.

    26. Re:harden up by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      No one ever got their feelings hurt and woke up the next morning with Leprosy. This 'hate speech' crusade is just ridiculous.

      I'm sure some people have. Think about all the people in the world throughout human history who have been afflicted by leprosy. Can you be sure none of them had been insulted and had their feelings hurt the day before? Of course, there's no causative link between the two, but it is really an overreach to say no one has come down with leprosy the day after being offended over something.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  4. Let's Plays are not Fair Use by OverlordQ · · Score: 0

    So do something stupid, get DMCA'd.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:Let's Plays are not Fair Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's Plays are not Fair Use

      If that's truly the case, we need to scrap copyright entirely and start over.

    2. Re:Let's Plays are not Fair Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's truly the case. There was a court case over people selling VHS guides back in the early 90s. Court ruled that video of gameplay was copyrighted by the owner of the video game. Let's plays aren't critical works and are not substantially transformative to meet the requirements for fair use and every lawyer that's actually looked at the issue agrees that they aren't allowed under current copyright law.

    3. Re:Let's Plays are not Fair Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's truly the case ... and every lawyer that's actually looked at the issue agrees that they aren't allowed under current copyright law.

      Fair enough. Time to scrap the lawyers, too.

    4. Re: Let's Plays are not Fair Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever you say, Dick.

  5. Losers with no lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hooked on the internet soap opera

    If the goal is to remove the word from the English lexicon it should probably start with hip hop culture

  6. What about the Rap Videos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why is that word OK to say in rap videos?

    1. Re:What about the Rap Videos? by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because when crackers say it, it's cultural appropriation.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:What about the Rap Videos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 insightful

    3. Re:What about the Rap Videos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >you can't be racist against your own race

      Go look how many white people have been posting "All white people are horrible" shit for the last several months. Or how many times black people (Ben Carson for instance) have been accused of being "white supremacists" because they support Trump.

      Also, words aren't racist.

    4. Re:What about the Rap Videos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It is impossible to be racist against your own race. If you were, you would kill yourself.

      So every single "racist" white person would kill a random black person if they had the opportunity? You sound...paranoid.

      >Some words are racist and only used by racists.

      Like "racist", I'm coming to find.

    5. Re:What about the Rap Videos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you sound like a racist. You better be careful what you say out in public or you might find your ass getting beat down or shot.

    6. Re:What about the Rap Videos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look, the liberal resorts to calling people racist and threatening violence to win arguments.

      #BASHTHEFASH

    7. Re:What about the Rap Videos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see that, I do believe that intention is more important, saying that a person is dumb with playful intention is not the same as saying the same wanting to hurt or make feel the other person inferior.
      It can be hard to know the intention in some cases, but is well known that in those special moments when a person is angry the intention is always to be offensive.

    8. Re:What about the Rap Videos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because whites are not allowed to be outraged, upset, or even consider themselves 'inconvenienced'.... if you even think about any of the above, that's just the privileges of your white life showing, and you're actually a racist and never noticed.

      (sarcasm? or not? See, that's the sad part, you can't tell any more...)

    9. Re: What about the Rap Videos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a terribly one dimensional world view you have. I suppose you think Latinos have come together to form a unified front? Get out and travel.

    10. Re:What about the Rap Videos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dey is workin on it fam, fasho. African American Vernacular English aka Ebonics. God damn coons can't even speak English properly. What a fucking surprise.

    11. Re:What about the Rap Videos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go out in public and declare your racism and see what happens to you.

      Bottom line, you're a fucking racist and this discussion is over because I don't speak to worthless scum like you.

    12. Re: What about the Rap Videos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Latino" isn't a race. Try reading a book or living in a different country for once in your pathetic life.

    13. Re:What about the Rap Videos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go out in public and declare your racism and see what happens to you.

      Bottom line, you're a fucking racist and this discussion is over because I don't speak to worthless scum like you.

      Shut up racist.

    14. Re:What about the Rap Videos? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      As someone who spends most of my time in a foreign country, if i were to go outside and declare racism against the locals they would laugh at me.
      If i were to go out and declare racism against other groups or nationalities they would probably voice support for such statements - speech is not really oppressed here so people will frequently use racial terms against me or others, but it's not considered hateful and noone bats an eyelid if you respond in kind.

      I don't care what people call me, i don't care if people hate me, to be honest i'd rather someone openly express their hatred for me (irrespective of why they hate me) rather than pretend to be friendly to my face and secretly loathe me.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    15. Re:What about the Rap Videos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying your race is horrible isn't racism, it's expressing an opinion. It is impossible to be racist against your own race. If you were, you would kill yourself.

      Some words are racist and only used by racists.

      Nice paradox you have there.

    16. Re:What about the Rap Videos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do not call me a cracker.
      You sir, are a ritz.

  7. Solution to the problem by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

    To find a solution to this problem, just take a tip from Mr. Paul Anka

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  8. Not advocating hate speech, but... by enigma32 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not advocating hate speech, but why is there the need to censor "n****r" when "fucking asshole" was printed in plaintext?

    These are all just words. It's no different than "chink" or "beaner". By censoring them we elevate their status and perpetuate the undesirable meaning behind them. It's just stupid.

    Even slashdot required me to censor it to post. wtf.

    1. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the country had both a history and a present-day pattern of oppressing "fucking assholes" you might have a point, but as long as those assholes are white they usually get rewarded with a lot of money and/or political power.

    2. Re: Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word is censored because of GNAA crapflooding. I don't agree with it. If you want to delete crapfloods, I don't have a problem with it. But we should be able to use that word in the context of discussing free speech issues on this site. Let the moderators decide what's abusive or not. Anyone with half a clue knows the difference between a GNAA crapflood and a discussion of free speech issues.

    3. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no present-day pattern of oppressing "nïggers." There was in the 1950s. This is not the 1950s. The bigger problem is that these authoritarian cunts actually ARE being nïggers, in the worst way too. Words only have the power assigned to them. "Nïgger" is the new "fuck."

    4. Re: Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clerks 2. There's nothing to take back, bro, it's irredeemable.

    5. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cogitative dissonance.

      It's the incredibly deep shame felt regarding "the greatest country on earth" being the primary source of the most horrifying acts in recorded human history.

      Not to mention significant portions of this string of events are either very recent (in the memory of living individuals) or continuous and on-going in the present and likely the future.

    6. Re: Not advocating hate speech, but... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Primary? Worst? Source?

      Slavery, murder, rape, war, theft has happened everywhere.

      GB and friends outlawed it.

    7. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "It's the incredibly deep shame felt regarding "the greatest country on earth" being the primary source of the most horrifying acts in recorded human history."

      The US is not and was never the "primary source" of slavery nor is slavery the most horrifying act in recorded human history. Deep shame is unlikely the reason either.

      AC was never known as a deep thinker.

    8. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most horrifying acts in recorded human history.

      Uh, okay. So, we nuked two cities. Caused a fuckton less death - including civilian death - than an invasion.

      I'm stacking that up against the Holocaust, Stalin's purges, Mao's poor attempt to play Harvest Moon. We ain't got shit on any of those.

      Let alone the historical brutality of England. Spain. France. The Netherlands.

      Shall we Leonardo Di Meemio it up and go deeper? We're absolute fucking saints compared to the Senate and People of Rome.

      Or the Huns. Or the Mongols.

    9. Re: Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm taking it back and there is nothing that you can do about it n i g g e r.

    10. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by kackle · · Score: 1

      It's the incredibly deep shame felt regarding "the greatest country on earth" being the primary source of the most horrifying acts in recorded human history.

      The holocaust?

    11. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do believe the antiquated term negroid is not popular on the thought police agenda list yet, perhaps use it knowing it will rile up the raucous. Hopefully they will implode.

    12. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that even hate speech? I'm missing the bits about lynching and segregation and cocaine-given ten-men strength.

    13. Re: Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget genocide. We rank up there with precious few other countries that have taken part in the last few hundred years.

    14. Re: Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "precious few"?? Do go read up a bit on the subject, will you?

      This is the result of the rot in the school systems. People wind up completely ignorant of the world around them and what's transpired. Then they get told of a few select atrocities in their own country's history and they get all wound up about it. You're being manipulated, and it wouldn't happen if you had a proper education.

    15. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, their filters aren't smart enough to catch unicode variants. Must be a bunch of nier programmers.

    16. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Because saying "fucking asshole" doesn't summon the inquisition and start the witch hunt.

    17. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by pots · · Score: 1

      Sweden doesn't have much of a history or present-day pattern of oppressing black people either. It's perfectly understandable that the word might not have the same significance for PewDiePie that it does for Americans.

      You know how British people get upset when Americans refer to a certain sport by the name "soccer"? And Americans just laugh at them for getting worked up over nothing? The British aren't being arbitrary in this, they have their own reasons for disliking the word soccer and in some respects it parallels the civil rights movement in the United States.

      This whole deal sounds an awful lot like Americans exporting their outrage.

    18. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Puls4r · · Score: 2

      So.... you start by comparing n1gger to the word soccer. The word 'n1gger' goes back to wholesale repression of an entire race. The word 'soccer' is disliked because brits see it as American.

      The you accuse Americans of exporting their outrage, when you've already given brits a pass on doing the same thing over the word soccer.

      How about you educate yourself about why it's such a hateful word, and then be a bigger man and not use it?

    19. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by quantaman · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm not advocating hate speech, but why is there the need to censor "n****r" when "fucking asshole" was printed in plaintext?

      These are all just words. It's no different than "chink" or "beaner". By censoring them we elevate their status and perpetuate the undesirable meaning behind them. It's just stupid.

      Even slashdot required me to censor it to post. wtf.

      For "n****r" vs "fucking asshole", fucking assholes aren't really a distinct class of people, and to the extent they are they have a lot of control over whether they're a "fucking asshole" or not.

      As for the other racial slurs, the percentage of black Americans coupled with the history of anti-black racism make anti-black racism an unusually taboo subject in the US.

      On a more general note, if you freak out every time rules are applied inconsistently in the English language you're just end up looking like a fucking asshole.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    20. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't Pewdiepie Swedish or something like that? Why is he obligated to abide by American cultural norms?

    21. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by pots · · Score: 0

      The word 'soccer' is disliked because brits see it as American.

      Where are you getting this from? The word soccer is British. They know this. We know this. I did say, explicitly, that their dislike for the word soccer parallels, in some ways, the civil rights movement in the United States. Did you decide to just ignore that part? Are you asking me to educate myself on why the word soccer is hateful, or are you just being an ignorant American?

      How about "faggot"? Do you get angry every time British people talk about cigarettes? Or, in that case, are you willing to acknowledge that language has cultural differences? That words don't have the same impact everywhere?

      ("Hateful" isn't really accurate for soccer, n- and soccer don't parallel one another that closely, but it's close enough to make an effective analogy.)

    22. Re: Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure it only got censored when the newest owners took control of /.

    23. Re: Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This right here truly shows why half the country find liberals to be indignant Fuck twats. You're not "the bigger man" because you don't use the word "ni gger." There is no prize at the end of the tunnel. You understand that right? You're never going to be able to look out your window and feel like all is as it should be. The world will never be that place. You people really fucking believe that the legitimate role of "the other half" is to slow you down on the way toward "progress. " Let me spell this out for you: Everyone who isn't like you in the world isn't simply that way because they're having an internal conflict. Grow the Fuck up.

    24. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even in Australia, people were campaigning to remove references to this word. See Edwin Stanley "N_gger" Brown, and before you ask, no we don't call the local black population that, we have plenty of other words for them.

      Then there is the Dam Busters movie remake renaming the dog to Digger.

    25. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't be long though, with all the gay rights and equality stuff going on. Fucking asshole is just getting a little too descriptive.

    26. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo nibber-bitch ... plenty of HATE to go round and most deserve all of it. But, nothing like a "hateful" word. That's Trotsky-ite / jewboi thought-crime territory. Get outa there or B square.

    27. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      In british english, "faggot" is a type of meatball... It's "fag" which is a term meaning cigarette. I've never heard any brit refer to a cigarette as a faggot.

      Looking on wikipedia also turns up other meanings for the word:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    28. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by pots · · Score: 1

      Okay, fair enough. Replace the word "faggot" with "fag" in my post above, and the point remains the same.

    29. Re: Not advocating hate speech, but... by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      Article 6 of the Rome Statute provides that "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

      Islamic state are a religious group, and various national military forces are committing acts with intent to destroy them. This fits at least some definitions of "genocide".

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    30. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The analogy was between the reactions each party had to two separate words, not a comparison between the words themselves. Pots also doesn't really give brits a pass, they point out how silly it is for brits to react the way they do. But the biggest problem with your rebuke is that words have multiple meanings. Sometimes those meanings are very orthogonal to each other. For some the n-word is a sign of respect and closeness.

      If you want your point to be considered I recommend not using passive aggressive and emasculating language. Had I said to you "How about you educate yourself about dictionaries and let the adults have this conversation" you wouldn't have respected the opposing perspective in any way. Even pointing this out risks a downward spiral, but sometimes it takes a reflexive example to prove a point. Being a bigger man has nothing to do with term avoidance. But being able to differentiate the overlapping context of polarized language, however, is a good indicator of maturity.

    31. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because ussian culture is pretentious. Racist as hell but some ussians believe if they shout loudly they are not then maybe other people believe them. And maybe other people won't then notice they are not even trying to get rid of racism.

      Trying = political actions, not words

    32. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Fags? What do obnoxiously loud Harley owners have to do with this?

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    33. Re: Not advocating hate speech, but... by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      What the fuck, dude? Are you really advocating that ISIS be given protection as a religious group?

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    34. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      N1gger

    35. Re: Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there's a presumption that most people aren't racist and strive not to be racist, and therefore it makes logical sense to not use racist speech, which perpetuates racism.

      Like, everybody is against car accidents, so you educate people not to use their cell phone while driving, nor keep a bottle of gin in the glove compartment.

    36. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Britz · · Score: 1

      WTF Slashdot? This post at +5 Insightful? This is the exact opposite of insightful. This is just someone who does not understand racial slurs and hate speech.

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+racia...

      It's not difficult...

    37. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by seoras · · Score: 1

      Ever been to India? It's a bit surreal walking about and seeing a Nazi symbol adorning everything.
      As a westerner you need to remind yourself that Adolf stole it from India and that it really symbolises the eternal wheel of life.

      The "N" word has a source too "The variants neger and negar derive from the Spanish and Portuguese word negro (black)" (I'd add the wikipedia link but the dumb ass "lameness filter" won't let me link to it because it involves spelling out the N word in full. Really /. ? FFS...)

      I find it helps take the sting out of the tail when you refer back to the source.
      Yes it's an(other) legacy from a period of awful inhumanity but as long as we keep reacting to it as we do, so too do we continue to give it's power to cause pain.
      Move on...

    38. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by franzrogar · · Score: 1

      Condemn...

      Agatha Christie: "Then Little Ni**ers" being re-titled to "And then there were none"

      for example?

    39. Re: Not advocating hate speech, but... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You really need to quit depending on falsehoods and half-truths as a basis for what you seem to think is "logic".

      Calling IS a "religious group" is like calling the Nazis an "ethnic affinity group", and you are dishonest and/or just plain stupid to suggest otherwise.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    40. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      A lot of dead Native Americans would like to talk to you.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    41. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by NoZart · · Score: 1

      Do you use the word "leader" in america? Because here in Austria/Germany, that word is kinda taboo. Wherever possible, we use other words instead.
      And guess what - when i visited sweden, the first Billboard i saw exiting the Airport proclaimed "Work for the Leader!"

    42. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      And a lot of dead black people.

      Not to mention quite a few dead Chinese--you thought those railroads built themselves, did you?

      And not a few dead Mexicans, come to think of it, whom we can thank for California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and chunks of several adjoining states.

      I guess I've been away for too long--do they really not teach any US history in US schools any more?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    43. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by NoZart · · Score: 1

      There are less native americans alive than jews, just saying...

    44. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For "n****r" vs "fucking asshole", fucking assholes aren't really a distinct class of people, and to the extent they are they have a lot of control over whether they're a "fucking asshole" or not.

      On a more general note, if you freak out every time rules are applied inconsistently in the English language you're just end up looking like a fucking asshole.

      Yeah, well... At least I ain't a FRACKIN NlGGER!

      See, that's how you be funny on the interwebz. Be droll as you troll, don't dink and jive.

    45. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They certainly don't teach civics anymore.

    46. Re: Not advocating hate speech, but... by rossz · · Score: 1

      Since ISIS's purpose it to forcibly convert, enslave, or kill the entire farking word, I don't have an issue with committing genocide on them.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    47. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by pots · · Score: 1

      That's interesting. I find it odd that he was called N- due to his fair complexion, was it an ironic nickname? That seems less likely if the local black population is not called n-.

    48. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are less native americans alive than jews, just saying...

      The only thing the "native" Americans suffered from is unrestricted immigration and an increase in diversity. I wish you silly lefties would figure out which side of this argument you are on.

    49. Re: Not advocating hate speech, but... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      What the fuck are ISIS if they're not a religious group? They're pretty fucking hot on demanding everybody obeys their religious mores, and they espouse religion as their motivating factors.

      Calling IS a "religious group" is like calling the Nazis an "ethnic affinity group", and you are dishonest and/or just plain stupid to suggest otherwise.

      The Nazis weren't an ethnic affinity group though. If they were, then why wouldn't you call them one?

    50. Re: Not advocating hate speech, but... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      No. I'd remove "religious group" from article 6.

      Although even there, I'm not sure I would advocate genocide. Really I just want them to stop being such cunts, and if they can do that without needing to kill them then it's a win.

    51. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who modded up this faggy moralizing about the history of the United States? Your post is faggy, you sound faggy so I'm going to call you a fag, fag. Nobody cares about the problems of your shitty country. You genocided the Indians, you enslaved Blacks and Chinese. Cry some more about how everyone else on the internet needs to walk on eggshells so you guys can get over your guilt complex. Pewds doesn't live in the US so your shitty problems are irrelevant. And guess what, being a n*gger is being a n*gger. Not all blacks are n*ggers, it's a behavior, and you can arguably be a total n*gger without even being black. N*gger culture is something that you fags export to the whole world through your music industry, TV, and movies. You export the culture, you export the behavior, you export the word. Get over yourselves.

    52. Re:Not advocating hate speech, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legitimately, /. censors the word because it was used AS a troll post dozens of times on every article for like five years.

  9. Pewpewdy or what ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah. What's this about?

    This is not important - whatever it is.

    1. Re: Pewpewdy or what ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gay n1ggers association of america apparently has a youtube channel. who'd of thunk it?

    2. Re: Pewpewdy or what ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn. Yes the GNAA. I remember that. That was before Politkorrektnost aka Political Correctness. Just think the very words GAY & NIGGÃR are so triggering, ugh I think I just gave myself PTSD.

    3. Re: Pewpewdy or what ever by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Could you please stop? Every time someone says that I have the urge to watch the movie again.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Take a lesson, Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    The trolls who have been harassing creimer are inexcusable. But creating a few fake accounts with similar on Slashdot shouldn't be grounds for DMCA takedowns. Yet Slashdot had deleted the accounts and creimer has since signed up for those usernames. The DMCA is not the appropriate mechanism to deal with such abuses, despite the vile nature of the harassment. Also, the most serious harassment, involving pornographic images, took place off of Slashdot. I find those trolls reprehensible, but I don't agree with using the DMCA to combat them, because usernames shouldn't alone be copyright infringement. I'm disappointed that Slashdot went along with that abuse of the DMCA, and that creimer has been able to flaunt his behavior here. Delete the troll comments if needed, on the grounds of harassment, but not on the grounds of the DMCA.

    1. Re:Take a lesson, Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, the most serious harassment, involving pornographic images, took place off of Slashdot.

      Except the links to those images were posted in numerous comments on Slashdot. Something that management couldn't do anything about because the poster was AC.

    2. Re:Take a lesson, Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trolls who have been harassing creimer are inexcusable. But creating a few fake accounts with similar on Slashdot shouldn't be grounds for DMCA takedowns. Yet Slashdot had deleted the accounts and creimer has since signed up for those usernames. The DMCA is not the appropriate mechanism to deal with such abuses, despite the vile nature of the harassment. Also, the most serious harassment, involving pornographic images, took place off of Slashdot. I find those trolls reprehensible, but I don't agree with using the DMCA to combat them, because usernames shouldn't alone be copyright infringement. I'm disappointed that Slashdot went along with that abuse of the DMCA, and that creimer has been able to flaunt his behavior here. Delete the troll comments if needed, on the grounds of harassment, but not on the grounds of the DMCA.

      Sounds like its time to to file a DMCA on his Amazon reviews where he's quoted others and get his accounts banned. Slashdot too, what with that Quote feature and all.

  11. Symptom of a problem. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DMCA overreach is among the least compelling options, considering that it unilaterally puts power into the hands of what are essentially uninvolved parties and allows for little arbitration or defense on the part of those who have their content removed.

    It seems like if a DMCA takedown is so powerful then it shouldn't be blindly accepted. This is just a symptom of the problem that is the DMCA.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Symptom of a problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THANK YOU BILL CLINTON ...
      For pushing this abomination of a law through!

  12. Profanity by rmdingler · · Score: 2
    When we ascribe the power of offensiveness to a word, it decreases the likelihood it will wither away from the language.

    For unlawful carnal knowledge.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Profanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. No one says kakin anymore, it was efficiently buried.

    2. Re:Profanity by swillden · · Score: 1

      When we ascribe the power of offensiveness to a word, it decreases the likelihood it will wither away from the language.

      Maybe, maybe not, but that has nothing to do with the case at hand, because no one is ascribing power of offensiveness to the word. The word absolutely has power of offensiveness, which arises from centuries of bloody horrific oppression. Nothing you can do will remove that history, so the best thing you can do is to make it clear that invoking the history is an anti-social action, not acceptable among decent people.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Profanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they are very much ascribing power to the word. You do as well when you say it's 'not acceptable among decent people.' People of all skin colors have also used that word with positive connotations, including black people, including white people towards black people... enough so that the word has multiple recognized meanings. Using that term in an endearing way doesn't make the person indecent. I'm not saying PewDiePie used it in an endearing way, just pointing out how you fell victim to the power some people (of all skin colors) ascribe to the word based on their own world view.

    4. Re:Profanity by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

      Oh I don't think we just ascribed the power. I think the offensiveness came to fruition through the way it's been actually used in practice.

  13. "I don't mean that in a bad way" by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 0

    Uh... how could this clown possibly have meant it in any way OTHER than a "bad way"?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:"I don't mean that in a bad way" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was laughing when he said it. No personal insult intended, just a couple of guys playing a game and swearing at each other because that's how they talk.

    2. Re:"I don't mean that in a bad way" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because if you weren't such a particular idiot, you would admit that it has a history of being used without any issue by countless musicians, actors, other famous people, and an entire race.

      With the fucktards, it's not the word that's offensive, it's who said it. That's why Maher received no punishment and Ultra-Liberal DeBlasio can say all the offensive racist shit he wants with absolutely no blowback.

    3. Re:"I don't mean that in a bad way" by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not excusing the language, but any gamer will tell you that when you play online you're surrounded by people saying things that would be incredibly hateful in person. You become desensitized until it just isn't even offensive anymore -- it's just some immature dude and you don't pay attention. Not only does it become not offensive to you, it just becomes "one of those stupid things people say".

      And then you have that one night, maybe you're tired or angry or whatever and you're in the moment, and suddenly you say one of those things in a game. In the ~20 years I've been gaming online I know I've done it once or twice. And you immediately recognize right after that you did it, and feel stupid and not proud of yourself, but it doesn't mean you were using it in a hateful way -- you were just using some stupid common phrase the kids say in the game.

      I don't care about Pewdiepie, but I can totally see how it'd happen. Language in games is different from in person. It just is.

    4. Re:"I don't mean that in a bad way" by zabbey · · Score: 1

      It's like how when you're at work you don't call your black boss a fat nig*er but if you were playing him online you would definitely call him a fat nig*er.

    5. Re:"I don't mean that in a bad way" by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      I have seen good friends (not neccesarily both the same "race" either) use that word (and worse!) to refer to each other, neither taking offense. Just because an uninvolved 3d person takes offense doesn't mean the actual participants do. Maybe the 3d party is just being a busy-body. Reminds me of the U of Miami Indians being forced to change their mascot because some so-called indian activists took offense. While the real Miami tribe wanted them to keep the "Indians" name so that folks would remember the Miami where actually in Ohio and not S Florida.

    6. Re:"I don't mean that in a bad way" by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      That's all fine... Just don't broadcast it on youtube.

    7. Re:"I don't mean that in a bad way" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and why not? has youtube suddendly turned into a sacred ground of some sorts? I always thought of it as a mirror of at least part of society. What you are advocating is censorship - only post on youtube what *you* like. Guess what, f* yourself!

    8. Re:"I don't mean that in a bad way" by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      The "not in a bad way" was some inept attempt at backtracking.

      It's gamer trash talk. The idea is to be as offensive as possible in a generic way. The n-word slur is used so often because that's about as offensive as kids can get.

      Personally I think an adult should not be taking his social cues from a bunch of kids. Reaction is a little overblown but honestly, who will defend someone for being deliberately offensive.

  14. Obvious, but bears mentioning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a reason this site is a ghost town.

  15. Publicly acknowledged by tfranzese · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Publicly acknowledged by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He didn't kill himself, it's the only way to acknowledge the depth of his sins (ie. being a non jewish, non transgender white male).

    2. Re:Publicly acknowledged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you hear? Being Jewish is doubleplus ungood now, as is being gay: they're so misogynist that they won't even sleep with women. That's why the gay, Jewish Milo Yiannopoulos is a literal Nazi: he's still a ****-ing white male.

    3. Re:Publicly acknowledged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't kill himself, it's the only way to acknowledge the depth of his sins (ie. being a non jewish, non transgender white male).

      As a Caucasian man, I'm deeply offended by the term "w***e m**l". I think all people who utter it, even accidentally, are not only awful, bigoted, hateful people but that all such utterances are utterly inexcusable.

      In particular, any black person that calls me a "w***e m**l" is a "n****r".

    4. Re:Publicly acknowledged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh shut up snowflake you big crybaby

  16. Inexcusable? Says who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    PewDiePie got angry during a game and cursed. There really is no issue involved.

    The real racists out there are incredibly casual about it. They aren't trying to be shocking for humor or to get a reaction (some of whom try too hard and it's obvious). It's just a part of their mind and it can't be separated.

    1. Re: Inexcusable? Says who? by cunina · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? I get angry and curse from time to time, but I never call anyone a ñigger.

  17. Cultural values? by tezbobobo · · Score: 1

    Or we could accept the fact that he doesn't live in america and that the 'n-word' has difference meanings depending on location. For example, it simply isn't that big a deal where I live. It's a nasty word, but that's all.

    1. Re: Cultural values? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Here in Sweden it's simply been the world which is view as less acceptable than "a black person." We haven't had black slaves, beat, raped or murdered them. It's definitely black people and for at-least some time both neger and bög as in gay was used for insulting purposes. It definitely has that degrading/negative value when used for swearing purposes but if I just use it in a sentence then my meaning is nothing but "I use the word you don't want me to use for a black person."

      Also our marketing has used black and Asian stereotypes for stuff like licorice, chocolate and rice products. Nothing evil intended by that just connecting the product with a character.

    2. Re:Cultural values? by skoskav · · Score: 1

      In Sweden, the name of a traditional pastry even translates to "Nîgger balls." It's seems that it's just not as much of a taboo for us, now mostly heard as a jocular word from old-timey speak.

      But of course, the word is also used in a derogatory maner by assholes. I'm guessing pewdiepie isn't actually a racist, but just mimicking what he hears from edgy American TV shows.

    3. Re:Cultural values? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the pastry name is Negro balls not n-r balls.

      Swedish does not have the n word with the same connotation american english does.

    4. Re:Cultural values? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Americans have to realize the world doesn't revolve around them.
      In some other countries this is just another curse word like fag, cunt, fuck, bitch etc.

    5. Re:Cultural values? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Yes, we should totally ignore the fact that the majority of PDP's fanbase is American, and that he knows it.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  18. Related Links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    #1 slashdot "related link": "Donald Trump Wins US Presidency".

    1. Re:Related Links by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      It's been the #1 related link to almost everything since I submitted it.

    2. Re:Related Links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps coincidentally, almost literally every thread posted here seems to have idiots whining about Trump in it.

  19. Good Choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Kjellberg plays Campo Santo's game Firewatch.

    You mean the really shitty game with no action, no fun, and about 1/3 of a plot, which is completely railroaded to prevent you from having any input? It was essentially a long wankfest of an art film that made you click your mouse every 15 seconds.

    And of course, every single game reviewer went nut about it, because they are duty bound to give one of their own SJW community a verbal blowjob. Exactly like they did with Gone Home, another non-game that nobody liked for any reason other than it fit their narrative.

  20. #FuckYourFeelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This entire past year has been literally nothing BUT people screaming about being offended. Well at this point who give a damn? Honestly. The plant is dying, Lil Kim is probably going to start WW3, the US is teetering on a damn race war... but no. Some asshole from Sweden said the 'n-word' in a live stream.

    I never cared to begin with about people that love to take offense. But if it's going to between some idiot YouTube's bad humor and the left's constant freak outs I'll take the bad humor every time. Your feelings do not, and never have, matter. #FuckYourFeelings

  21. You can't even discuss this on slashdot by cfalcon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's fucking ludicrous to try to discuss this on a website where neither the summary, title, nor comments, can actually contain the word in question.

    I'm generally surprised at how censorship has a history of complete failure, but maintains complete adherence from those who wish to police language.

    Anyway, not joke he made was "inexcusable". But how could you have that discussion here?

    1. Re:You can't even discuss this on slashdot by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      How is it "fucking ludicrous"? There seems to be a very hearty discussing going on just fine.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  22. Angry Foreigners take on it is best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://m.youtube.com/user/EnArgBlatteTalar

    Enjoy.

  23. Re:What strikes me as odd by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

    With Schumer pulling the Democratic cart on keeping the dreamers in and blocking the wall, a far cry from the policies he supports in Israel, it's not a good time for Jews to have that discussion in public.

  24. But that's not an extension of the official use by HiThere · · Score: 1

    The DMCA is frequently used by commercial entities to take down speech which has even less relevance to it than this. That's an example of why the DMCA is an atrocious law, but why should only the abusive entities, like the RIAA or the MPAA, be allowed to use it?

    (There is at least one reason, but think about it for a minute first.)

    The only reason I've been able to identify, is that then you hate the law less than it deserves. I.e., you become complicit in its injustice. But most laws are unjust to someone or other, and you can't go around ignoring them.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  25. Re:What strikes me as odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Jewish community isn't worries about some joker making jokes.

    They have bigger fish to fry such as the Swedish foreign department which supports Hamas with 200 million USD per year.

  26. Re:What strikes me as odd by cfalcon · · Score: 0

    > we had folks marching and chanting "The Jews will Not Replace Us!" and our president himself gave them a pass.

    He called out the racists that were present. He didn't "give them a pass". All he did that seemed to anger the media was to point out that some of the people gathered to opposed the demonstrators initiated violence and generally acted illegally.

  27. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything in the above post is wrong.

  28. Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just a stupid word. Anybody still triggered by words is worthless. You're spending time in the 24/7 outrage machine called the internet and not interacting with people. Get outside and actually do something instead of sitting at home on your computer playing video games.

    1. Re:Who cares by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      If you're sitting on your computer, you're doing it wrong.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  29. How about nobody tells the guy how to have fun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about nobody tells the guy how to have fun?

  30. and has yet to publicly acknowledge - FALSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and has yet to publicly acknowledge - FALSE. He did a follow up

  31. Point even more valid by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the country had both a history and a present-day pattern of oppressing "fucking assholes" you might have a point

    No, the point is even more valid when you have a history of oppression. History has shown time and time again that the way you fight the words and idea of oppression is with better words and ideas.

    You cannot get rid of entrenched attitudes like racism, sexism and other bigotry by suppressing it. All this does is hide it from view where it festers and erupts and then all of a sudden you wake up to find you have a sexist, racist Oompa Loompa as a leader.

    The idea is so old there is even incorporated into a children's fairy tale. Remember sleeping beauty where the king bans all spinning wheels but she still gets pricked because the first time she sees one she is so curious about it?

    1. Re:Point even more valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I know, I'll call him a racist oompa loompa, that'll show everyone how intelligent I am!

    2. Re:Point even more valid by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Words have no power over you that you don't give them. To assign so much power to a word that it can't be uttered is to accomplish the opposite of the desired action. Censorship of hate speech empowers it.

    3. Re:Point even more valid by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Well said.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    4. Re:Point even more valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "History has shown time and time again that the way you fight the words and idea of oppression is with better words and ideas.

      You cannot get rid of entrenched attitudes like racism, sexism and other bigotry by suppressing it. All this does is hide it from view where it festers and erupts and then all of a sudden you wake up to find you have a sexist, racist Oompa Loompa as a leader."

      Stalin might have answered: "if you don't succeed, you are not using enough power". Really. That history your are referring to is western history. In other parts of the world whole villages and towns get destroyed so there is no one left to cause festering.

    5. Re:Point even more valid by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Rubbish. If doesn't matter the words have no power over you if they do have power over people who physically want to hurt you.

      Thing is you're basically arguing that words are unimportant. That's pretty much the strongest statement against free speech you can make. The reason free speech is important is precisely because words have power, enough to overthrow regimes. That's why dictators always ban free speech.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Point even more valid by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      That's clearly not true. If your boss frequently complains about n!ggers, do you really think you will get a fair shot at a promotion? Do you really think the other people who need to please the boss to get a raise will treat you well?

      Censorship is absolutely the right thing in that case. Fire the boss, censor that word at work.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Point even more valid by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Words have no power in themselves. They're just words. Someone can call you anything under the sun and it only has the effect you allow it to have.

    8. Re:Point even more valid by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      If your boss hates black ppl all his use of the word will do is alert you to it. If he never utters it you'll still get shit on regardless. But of course in the workplace companies can and should set standards of professional behavior.

    9. Re:Point even more valid by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I guess the Jews should have just ignored all of Hitler's words since the only effect of his words was what they allowed.

      Since no words ever incited anyone to murder (or indeed anything) in the entire history of the world, we can conclude that words are completely harmless. Since they're so worthless, we also shouldn't fight to protect them since we're not protecting anything of value.

      That's sarcasm, btw.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  32. Play stupid games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Win stupid prizes. Bite the hand that feeds you and wonder why you stop getting fed. When you use others IP to make a living, you're using other people's IP. It isn't yours. That is a risk you accepted. Stay edgy PDP!

  33. pewdiepie is a n-gger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh geeze, oh my god, what the fuck, oh man
    stop giving attention to pewdiepie, hes a stupid n-gger and everyone knows it. maybe not in those exact words, but its what everyone is thinking

  34. Compelling reasons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "There are compelling reasons to [remove hate speech from major internet platforms]"

    Really? Is anyone forcing anyone else to watch these youtube videos? If someone behaves badly then first call them out and after that ignore them. The mere existence of objectionable material in a public forum is not a reason to panic. I consider many things on youtube and other sites to be even worse than what this guy did. If I get 1,000+ people to scream about crass language or porn can I get it all banned? Oh, I forgot. Porn is big business and "free speech" so it gets a pass even though research shows it damages real relationships. I choose to avoid people screaming obscenities and slurs *and* the porn. It isn't hard. I don't care whether some advertisers want to target their ads to objectionable groups of people. What I don't want is some company or group deciding that they are the arbiter of "good" vs. "evil" and trying to snuff out all people that think differently than they do.

    The whole reason the label of "hate speech" was created was to have a lever for censorship. Just like "hate crimes" were created to give an excuse to punish some people differently for the exact same crime that others commit.

  35. You know what's really wrong with this world ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that PewDiePie is the most subscibed to channel on youtube.

    That's what's fucking wrong with this world.

  36. Re:#BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not sure in what spirit you're saying this, but it's not a terrible thing to say. Human lives should be treated with equal respect. If one is going to be a knob, at least try to be an equal-opportunity offender.

  37. Inexcusable? by JThundley · · Score: 0

    Inexcusable? Watch me excuse it: He's friggin' young and Swedish, he only picked up the word from gaming with young Americans.

  38. Not the first by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

    Please refer to Michael Anthony Richards, a.k.a. "Cosmo Kramer" on Seinfeld.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  39. It's just WORDS... by CarterMeyers · · Score: 1

    I forget who proposed the idea, but imagine if you went back in time and we're able to swap the meanings/definitions of the words "cake" and "cunt", the words aren't inherently good or bad, they only have the power we assign to them... so don't assign such mystic importance to the word, niggr.

    1. Re: It's just WORDS... by CarterMeyers · · Score: 2

      Btws, you need to grow up too, slashdot... you and your stupid ass "lameness filter" can kiss my black fucking ass.

    2. Re:It's just WORDS... by freeze128 · · Score: 2

      That would completely change the historical importance of Marie Antoinette.

    3. Re:It's just WORDS... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      If words have no power, then why will you find your ass in gaol if you go around saying "I'll pay you $1000000 to kill $SOMEGUY".

      It's just words, after all.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  40. What motherboard article? He did follow up. by Athanasius · · Score: 3, Informative

    "An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard" and yet I can't see a link to that report in this article. Also, having heard about this whole thing elsewhere I know that PewDiePie has most definitely responded already in another video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLdxuaxaQwc&ab_channel=PewDiePie

    Yet another case of poor editing at /.

    Note I'm not in any way, shape, or form defending PewDiePie, despite his thorough apology and admittance of guilt. The fact the n-word came out like that for me points to it being part of his cultural vocabulary.

  41. He gave them a pass by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    when he said 'both sides are bad'. Heck, he's getting up there in the years. I could excuse the first 'both sides are bad' comment, but he recently doubled down on it.

    When it comes to Nazis, and I mean literal Nazis like what we saw in Charlottesville, there is no way you can ever say 'both sides are bad' and not come out smelling clean.

    But what shocked me wasn't Trump's response. I expected that from him since it was angry white male voters that put him in office and he's playing to his base. What shocked me was the tepid response from the Jewish community to both him and the events in Charlottesville as a whole. I'm not even Jewish and it scares me. There was a time when a few punk kids spray painting swashtikas rated a response bigger than that.

    I'm pretty far left, and I sorta thought my side of the aisle would have stronger allies from the Jewish side. But I'm not seeing it. Do these guys not realize what happens when you've got millions of angry white men with no jobs, no women and no prospects for either? We've got 2000 years of history where that's happened and it's never ended well once.... Seriously, now is the time to do something about it before it's too late.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:He gave them a pass by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      When the Nazis aren't as violent as the other side, yes, I would say "a pox on both your groups". If you're Polish in 1939, who's worse, the Germans or the Soviets?

    2. Re: He gave them a pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bring Tippu Tip back!

    3. Re:He gave them a pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever considered getting a real life?

      All this hand-ringing and huffing over the weather will turn you into a permanent curmudgeon by the time you are 30.

      Maybe your parents can get you a sex doll for company so you can vent all that anxiety.

    4. Re:He gave them a pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Finnish a few years before. I understand Germany wished to drag Brits and French into the Baltic, blindsiding Russian ansatz. Limey and Frog refused to their later dismay.

    5. Re:He gave them a pass by xvan · · Score: 1

      Depends on how much Jew you were.

    6. Re:He gave them a pass by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      A bunch of neo nazis wanted to have a rally, they should just have been ignored and it would have ended peacefully with noone outside of the neo nazi community listening or caring about their message. They would have shouted a bit, waved a few swastikas around and then gone home.
      Instead a large group of anti neo nazis had to go and confront them, causing a conflict and attracting attention. When two wildly opposing groups clash violence often ensues and it's right of trump to condemn both groups.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    7. Re:He gave them a pass by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that worked out real well for the Germans ca. 1932.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    8. Re:He gave them a pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 1939 there were no jew executions carried out by germans. You should learn history. Warshaw gheto cooperated with germans... I don't remember the year but murdering of jews was option from 1942 - before that were ideas about sending jews to Madagascar.

      You both are idiots about this period of history, because clearly it was worse being polish army officer, teacher or government official under soviet occupation, because they were massacred in genocidial scale(Katyn was blamed on germans up till 1990s) and these massacres were done by executioners who had unproportionally high number of Soviet jews - there were unproportionally high jewish executioner numbers in all occupied territories. Might be a sick joke of Stalin, but fact is - not all jews were victims of Holocaust - some of them took very active part in exterminating other people - including jews.

    9. Re:He gave them a pass by rossz · · Score: 1

      Learn some history. The nazis in 1930s Germany were going to other political party gatherings and beating people up. Now we have antifa assholes perfectly emulating what they denounce.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    10. Re:He gave them a pass by zzyzx · · Score: 1

      They marched with weapons outside a synagogue chanting antisemitic slogans during a sabbath service. Their goal was to inspire fear in those attending the service. I'm not a huge fan of antifa in general but in this case, they were needed for the safety of those who just wanted to mind their own business on their own property.

    11. Re:He gave them a pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can repost again, if you didn; t liked my nice post, that soviet jews murdered polish people in 1939, so clearly it was better to be jewish under german occupation, than being polish under soviet occupation, who blamed attrocities they did on germans up till 20 years ago.

      PS You both are fucking morons - not because I'm a jew and much smarter about both of you about these topics, but because this is off-topic and clearly you are using some arguments, you should not!

    12. Re: He gave them a pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, not quite - they were employing precisely the same tactics. Deliberately getting their opponents riled up so they'd strike first, aware in the knowledge they'd come prepared and could use it as an excuse. There's been no change in tactics whatsoever since pre WW2.

    13. Re:He gave them a pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately most people learned from that situation. Unfortunately people didn't learn much from Hitler's fellow socialist dictator further to the east.

    14. Re:He gave them a pass by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      They marched on a public street, holding weapons they are legally permitted to possess. If those inside felt threatened then what they needed was the police, not another armed mob.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  42. It was Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's Russia's fault. I don't have any evidence, but I've discovered that by playing six degrees to Kevin Bacon with an entire country, I can uncover a new and disturbing tie that raises important questions about things whenever I want to.

  43. Affirmative Defense by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    This is true, but it is also perhaps relevant to note that that is an affirmative defense, which means that the AC was correct: as long as the filer owns the copyright it's legal for them to file. From what I recall of the response process, the infringer would need to specify which federal court they're okay with being sued in. I think that PDP would have an excellent case for fair use under the terms you identify. I don't know whether he has the means to argue that in court. I suspect that he can probably find them.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    1. Re:Affirmative Defense by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Not that I care about PDP, but this is definitely an abuse of the DMCA, as reviews, both professional and personal are fair use, and if the dev doesn't back down immediately, PDP should counter sue for punitive damages from a frivolous DMCA and a frivolous lawsuit. He definitely has the money and the law on his side. The only way the corporations learn to behave and respect the rights of others is when one of them gets a 10% haircut off the bottom line.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    2. Re:Affirmative Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not even remotely that cut and dry. First, this type of content creation has yet to be properly challenged in court, and it's highly suspect to think it passes the Fair Use test, for reasons listed above in another comment. If you think the content of his video was transformative enough, you're probably not on the right side of the law here. Whether you think it's just is irrelevant. If we're arguing what SHOULD be fair use, I'd probably agree with you. But what actually IS fair use is another matter entirely. If you think for a second this is a slam dunk case, you're are CLEARLY new to the law. If you're not new to the law, well, tell the other Southern Illinois School of Law, "Hi!", from the rest of us.

    3. Re:Affirmative Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is PewDiePie reviewing? He doesn't do reviews. He does videos when he sits playing somehing and talks about random s**t. And earns ad revenue from it. Show me ONE game review he has made. One that could even remotely pass as one at least?

      He does NOT have the law on his side in this case. He uses other peoples work to overlay his own rants and he has a shitload of followers who think this is fun. But is is not fair use.

    4. Re:Affirmative Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you mean to say "cut and dried"?

    5. Re:Affirmative Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically what you're saying is the Twitch.tv is illegal?

    6. Re:Affirmative Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nintendo has been taking down youtube videos of their games for years

    7. Re: Affirmative Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious, is there case law for discriminatory prosection of copyright infringement?

    8. Re:Affirmative Defense by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      ...this is definitely an abuse of the DMCA...PDP should counter sue...He definitely has the money and the law on his side. The only way the corporations learn to behave and respect the rights of others is when one of them gets a 10% haircut off the bottom line.

      I think this is in the realm of potential abuse of DMCA rights, not definitely an abuse. There's a place in the law for artists/companies to act when they feel their work is being associated with ideas/speech that could lead to their physical or financial harm. So, I would like that lawsuit happen to see how it shakes out in court. It could be an important precedent for future similar cases.

    9. Re:Affirmative Defense by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Well, the developers explicitly granted permission on their website for streamers to play their game and make money from streams, so...

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  44. be real fuck sticks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Inexcusable?

    Bad choice of words, YES! Racist conotations, YES! However, this word IS pop culture. You can't escape it in media. Pewdipie, seriously, don't fucking say it, try harder. Everyone else, we need to have a talk about this fucking word, because the whole notion that it's bad for you to say depending on your skin colors is the most racist, comical distinction ever in the context of fighting racism.

  45. Mel Brooks by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

    He could never made a classic movie today. Must be his racist, misogynist, cis-centric, religiously intolerant background...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Mel Brooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fail to see the brilliance of the commentary, which was as relevant in its own time as it is today. Mel Brooks does this kind of thing to reduce the power of these words. Movies like Supremacy, while intended to show in graphic detail why white supremacy is bad, have actually been embraced by white supremacists. Know what movie they aren't embracing? Blazing Saddles. Why do you think that is?

    2. Re:Mel Brooks by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Brooks agrees with me. Blazing Saddles was so non-PC there is no way it could get made today. Too many SJW snowflakes would be hurt...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  46. Sack up and move on... by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

    I don't approve of that kind of language, not that I haven't heard the same language a billion times in online games. Its pretty common. The saddest part of the story is all the snowflakes convinced that they will melt into a puddle at the first "micro-transgression."

    FFS grow a spine, focus on what matters and move on with your life. You will be better off for it. Words are just words, nothing more, nothing less. If you want to see some real problems that need champions look to Africa or the Middle East, where people are still starving to death, genocide is still happening, and women still don't have basic rights.

    Armchair offense takers in the West need to drink a big cup of STFU with a MYOB chaser...

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  47. Because "Fucking Asshole" by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    doesn't have 200+ years of systematic terrorism, slavery and economic oppression associated with it. Blacks have only had full civil rights for about 50 years now with lots of gaps in enforcement. Black people are understandably frightened our country will regress. They're still a minority and a highly visible one and ruling classes have used visible minorities for scapegoating for thousands of years.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Because "Fucking Asshole" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your comment doesn't address his question.

      You explained why you shouldn't throw the word around. Because it comes with centuries of negative connotations that are impossible to extricate from it.

      But the question is, why is it being censored when it's not being used in that way, but is being discussed? Are we such fucking children that we can't even write out the things we're talking about in an analytic or news-coverage way anymore?! He's not asking "why can't PewDiePie say that word, but he is allowed to say 'asshole'". He's asking why in coverage of it as a news topic, it is even being censored. It's a completely valid question. Can you think of anything else that you would talk around and not say the actual word that is relevant to the discussion when you're not actually using it in any negative or harmful context but are simply using it to discuss that it was used?! It's fucking absurd.

      Worse, by censoring it, you are forcing the READER to voice it in their head. When you say "N-word", you are STILL CONVEYING THE WORD to me. And you are making ME fill it in in my own fucking head. So why act like fucking toddlers by censoring it in that context, to begin with?!

    2. Re:Because "Fucking Asshole" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doesn't have 200+ years of systematic terrorism, slavery and economic oppression associated with it. Blacks have only had full civil rights for about 50 years now with lots of gaps in enforcement. Black people are understandably frightened our country will regress. They're still a minority and a highly visible one and ruling classes have used visible minorities for scapegoating for thousands of years.

      What a bunch of cry babies. They should try being left handed if they really want to know oppression.

    3. Re:Because "Fucking Asshole" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody cares anymore k i k e. Get fucked.

    4. Re:Because "Fucking Asshole" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nor does the contemporary n*r. Only in YOUR mind. See the difference? I bet not.

    5. Re:Because "Fucking Asshole" by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      They should try being left handed if they really want to know oppression.

      It's possible to order a refrigerator or freezer with the door hung the other way. I have one.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    6. Re:Because "Fucking Asshole" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's possible to order a refrigerator or freezer with the door hung the other way. I have one.

      Or you can swap the hinges. My fridge (a whirlpool) can be trivially converted between left and right hand operation without ordering parts. It's useful not only for the sinister, but also for situations where it's more convenient if the fridge opens in that direction.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Because "Fucking Asshole" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most appliances are designed to be reversible with a screwdriver, and don't need preordering.

  48. The takedown is false/invalid anyways by Khyber · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The game company gave explicit license to everyone to stream game play and monetize it, and made no mention on that page of any limitations.

    Thus, PDP owned copyright to that video, as a unique public performance, by implicit license from the game company. The DMCA takedown is false and thus actionable.

    PDP should be smart and sue the ever living fuck out of the game company.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:The takedown is false/invalid anyways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir are a Grade A Idiot. Nothing what you said makes any sense whatsoever.

    2. Re:The takedown is false/invalid anyways by Khyber · · Score: 1

      The grade-A (it's a hyphenated term you dipshit) idiot here is you with your lacking critical thinking skills.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:The takedown is false/invalid anyways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except for the fact that he's right.

  49. It's not about being offended by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    not for blacks. It's about decades of systemic violence. e.g. Terrorism. They're frightened of casual racism leading to regression. It's not hard to imagine if the economy keeps getting worse. Folks will start looking for a scapegoat and a visible minority is always going to be the go to. Right now it's illegals and I heard a lot of talk about walls and such the last year but very damn little about income inequality or the fact that all the gains since 2008 have gone to the top. Hell, it made the news when median income went up a few hundred bucks for the first time since 1999.

    I guess what I'm saying is: Folks are working harder and not seeing anything for it. They're angry, especially white men. That anger has to be placed somewhere, and there's lots of people with an interest in misdirecting that anger away from them.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It's not about being offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really.

      Here's the thing: the treatment of blacks back in the days of yore was unquestionably wrong. I'll not defend it at all. However, the black people old enough to have actually lived through that era are generally good people. Be it from emotional scarring or whatnot, they generally don't get worked up over words.

      If you'll notice most of this outrage for words like this and all this comes from young people - sometimes white young people, sometimes black young people, but generally it's the latte sipping younger generation.

      The whites have always had the freedom to do what they wanted, however the blacks in this situation are basically disproving their own point: in a society that truly acted as racist, vile, and violent towards blacks as they would have you imagine, no black person would be opening their mouth about such stuff.

      If you have the time and freedom to complain that much about how oppressed you are, you're not really oppressed.

      The whole thing reminds me of that scene from The Little Mermaid where Ursula's fat self is complaining about wasting away and "practically starving".

  50. N!gger please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    N!gger please. Quit being such faggots and get over it.

  51. You're right by HalAtWork · · Score: 0, Troll

    Yes. Black people are completely soft and have it cushy growing up, they should all harden up. Those stories about dad getting called that on the daily while still having to go to the same place to work to raise his kids is bullshit, who cares when someone we thought was a friend at school shows up the summer after and won't have anything to do with you and calling you that for no reason.

    We should all just sit back and take it when people throw that around for fun and repress all of our memories and feelings, or be able to work through them at the drop of a hat for some random dude.

    1. Re:You're right by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh boo hoo, so you had it tough growing up.
      Are you gonna cry about it? or are you gonna try and do something about it? Complaining won't improve your situation, it will only make people resent you.

      You think there aren't whites, asians or other ethnicities who've had it hard? There's been plenty of war in europe, serbia a few years ago, ukraine now, eastern europe is fairly impoverished, several countries in the middle east are active warzones right now and countries in asia are or were recently under totalitarian rule. Many people would love to have a stable job where the worst that happens is they get called something.

      In the west people have equality of opportunity, and there are many examples of highly successful black people in america and other countries. If you choose not to take advantages of the opportunities available that's entirely your own fault, there are also plenty of extremely poor whites in america who have failed to take advantage of the opportunities available to them - again entirely their own fault.

      You have equality of opportunity, but if you want equality of outcome you need to make an effort yourself, you can't expect to have everything handed to you on a plate.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    2. Re:You're right by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

      Like I said, it's moronic to go "oh boo hoo" to the entire audience of the most popular YouTube star when that includes people in all types of situations, so!me of which understandably react poorly to the word, whether it is some memory or trauma or death. Definitely not everyone, but enough that we should be sensitive to others, for the same reason we don't throw around words like spic or chink or kike or rape or whatever else that has no constructive element. There's no reason to expect that a chunk of people in a general audience won't get upset about words like that. Not like he's even adult only, not that it makes it much easier to take when you're watching something to relax coming from someone who depends on the audience getting an affinity for their particular personality.

    3. Re:You're right by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

      And FWIW I'm not crying about it, I'm just not going to spend my time browsing his content when I'm trying to be entertained. People are bringing up context, this is a guy who wants to build a community? Those aren't community building words. That's not what I would want to show my friends, that's not how I'd want to reach out to people. I'm not crying, just not watching or endorsing. Not letting my kids watch.

      Only reason I commented is it seems like some people can't fathom anyone justifying such a viewpoint so I offered a perspective, that is all.

    4. Re:You're right by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Troll

      You're making the bullshit "someone always has it worse so we shouldn't fix anything argument".

      It's bullshit through and though.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:You're right by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      this is a guy who wants to build a community?

      Which part of 57 million subscribers confuses you?

      He built a community, and then didnt stop.

      He is the king of community building. Surpassed by nobody, ever.

      So not only do you not know what you are talking about, you are completely full of shit on the most important of your premises. You are part of the problem.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:You're right by Rockoon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You are making the bullshit "we can fix structural racism and that fix is to stop saying the N word"

      You are part of the problem. You dont give two shits about the problem. What you give two shits about is appearances. Fuck off, disgusting fuck.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    7. Re:You're right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Which part of 57 million subscribers confuses you?"

      The part where you think all of the 57 million people will be able to handle hearing it and disassociate the word or have the skills and experience to be wise and mature about it.

      He can do what he wants, but individuals can react how they want as well. I'm saying both are reasonable, but OP only thinks the former is, and is calling the latter a crusade somehow. You think the latter should stick around and repress any reaction, but they have the right to proceed however they want and have the freedom to express themselves.

    8. Re:You're right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whoever thought that? The issue here is being told it's unreasonable to have a bad reaction when you hear it

    9. Re:You're right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this getting modded troll/flamebait? It seems quite level headed and reasonable, certainly not malicious or provocative at any rate

    10. Re:You're right by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      I wasn't actually saying that, but I remember you'd the guy who loves you invent things people said then get angry about them.

      Nonetheless, you're not going to stop racism simply by stopping people using racial slurs. On the flip side, stopping racism while doing nothing about racial slurs is going to be an uphill struggle.

      You dont give two shits about the problem. What you give two shits about is appearances. Fuck off, disgusting fuck.

      Ah the old make shit up them get angry about it technique? Is there a formal logical galaxy name for that? Argumentum ad angrily making shit uppum.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    11. Re:You're right by butchersong · · Score: 1

      Everyone's life is a tragedy. There's nothing special that being black gives you. We all lose our fathers and our mothers. We all lose everything until we lose our lives and in losing those we carve out holes in the lives of those that love us that are never filled. You're no more special or attuned to tragedy than I am.

    12. Re:You're right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes the truth gets buried

  52. "by any means necessary" by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    So when do the public executions begin?

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:"by any means necessary" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      They started a while ago when he hired those idiots to display the "Kill the Jews" (or whatever that thing said) message.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  53. Re: NAILED IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The youth in the US has nothing to offer but "feeling". They internalize it into something profound as result of their unconscious realization of the void of their own uselessness to society. They yearn to belong!
              "If I stand up for the cause of the day, I will be accepted into the group(think)". Then it doesn't matter that their Gender Studies degree landed them lifetime employment as a Barista or revolution wannabe. People around them validate them. They found their personal Nirvana --- until they accumulate real world knowledge and hopefully grow up...

  54. To whomever actually gives a rat's ass: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What a fucking n****r. Jeez, oh my god. What the fuck? Sorry, but what the fuck? What a fucking asshole. I don't mean that in a bad way." No human being other those looking to make trouble cares.

  55. he's a joker ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... but nibberizing productive white culture is no joke. All rational people accept this and act accordingly. SJW snowflakes and vote-herding Trotsky-ites spew equalitarian fantasy .. for they do not know a better falsehood. At least PDPie accepts the forcing nature of raw truth.

  56. Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we stop virtue-signaling for just a second and come back down to earth?

    PewDiePie used a racial slur in anger during a multiplayer videogame on his stream. He quickly realized it was a mistake and after the stream, he offered what seemed like a sincere apology and recognition that it was wrong. He didn't use the slur in a way directed at any individual any more than that time Ryan of GiantBomb threw out "faggot" during a game on film. Most people didn't care, except a bunch of precious white people who got offended on the behalf of other people who weren't particularly offended.

    So let's not equate that to him being a nazi or a racist, maybe?

    Next, let's put his prior "issues" into proper context. Idiot game journalists (and the WSJ, etc) are constantly framing what happened as "he paid some guys to promote racist nazi anti-semitic stuff!" and "he made a joke about nazis and wore a nazi uniform on a video!".

    Well, let's look at the context of that.

    What he did was use a website where you pay five bucks and people will offer to do almost ANYTHING for it. These two guys advertised that they'll hold a sign with ANYTHING written on it and put it on video. To test out how low people would go for five bucks, he came up with the most offensvie and absurd thing he could think of to put on a sign - "death to all jews". Not because he's a racist. Not becuase he was promoting racist content. He chose that BECAUSE it's fucking terrible. AND THEY DID IT. FOR FIVE DOLLARS. THAT IS WHY IT WAS FUCKING FUNNY. If he had them write "You smell like farts", it wouldn't have been funny and it wouldn't have made a point, because that's not an absurd and offensive thing to write on a sign and hold up. Fucking DUH.

    Second, the "nazi outfit" and other bullshit WAS USED TO MOCK YOUTUBE. He made a video to explain and protest Youtube's "Youtube Heros" program where any busy-body could apply to become a censor on youtube, flagging any video they didn't like to have it censored. He portrayed youtube as Nazis and their videos and representitives as nazi propogandists. As the biggest content creator on the platform, he donned a nazi uniform and played a nazi propoganda speech video (as if it were the youtube heros program video) and saluted it. The point he was making is they were content-censoring group-think thought-policing nazi's and he was obeying them, as a good little content creator. He wasn't CELEBRATING or PROMOTING nazis. He was USING THE IMAGERY TO PROVE A FUCKING ANTI-NAZI AND ANTI-CENSORSHIP FREE SPEECH POINT.

    But the games journalists twisted it around and only produces stories MISSING that context and intentionally promoting the lie that he was somehow worshiping hitler and making racial comments and jokes. (As part of an anti youtube-creator campaign that the WSJ and others lead because of course the platform and online content is a harm to their own business).

  57. Re: Inexcusable? Says who? by fredrated · · Score: 1

    Maybe you should post your swear words so we know which ones are acceptable.

  58. Re: Inexcusable? Says who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same here. But a lot of people *do* and you hear it online all the time. They also say "faggot" and a lot of other things. I've heard people that I know for a fact are not homophobic use that language in multiplayer games. I think it's pretty terrible, but it also isn't the same thing as actually being racist and exhibiting racist behavior. If you used those words directly toward the people they're intended to slur or you talked about a group of people as those things, that's one thing. But to just throw them out the same way you would "motehr fucker" or "god fucking damn it" -- while pretty shitty -- is hardly in itself racist.

    Also, I would imagine that if it's all you fucking hear nonstop (and it is, when you play games online), then even though you might not normally use it in your language, it might be a word you go to when you spew anger back at the rest of the multiplayer group. Again, that doesn't make it cool to do at all. It just demonstrates that simply *using* t hose words in that manner don't make you inherently racist or homophobic or whatever.

  59. Re: Inexcusable? Says who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you call them a cunt instead.

  60. Why would anyone care about this? by slasher999 · · Score: 1

    I still fail to understand who really gives a rat's ass about someone else using "naughty words". Seriously, the entire planet needs to grow the f up in my opinion.

    Sorry, just had to get that off my chest after reading this stupidity.

  61. Reluctantly apologizing for the guy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's not an American. He has no idea what "the n word" means. I was ten in the US south before I understood what it meant. (I used it to describe a white guy because as far as I knew, it was just an insult. A black kid in the class was in tears the rest of the day after overhearing me say it. I haven't said it since).

    So, he's a *Swede*. He lives in one of the whitest countries in the world. He has no idea what the word means. He can be forgiven for his ignorance.

    1. Re:Reluctantly apologizing for the guy.... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      A black kid in the class was in tears the rest of the day after overhearing me say it.

      Well which fuckwit taught him to get so upset about it?

      It's just a fucking word.

  62. PewDiePie by sexconker · · Score: 1, Funny

    PewDiePie IS inexcusable, not because of any "racism", but because he's an annoying little shit.

  63. If PewDiePie was black, would anyone care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more you try to silence people the harder they'll fight back. Is it really worth it?

  64. Sticks and stones... by wkwilley2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    may break your bones, but someone will always offend a feminist

    --
    Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
  65. PERSPECTIVE by WolfgangVL · · Score: 2

    RE_FUCKING_LAX

    JUST listen to the pretend things the kids say. While they put pretend bullets in each other. While they crash cars into each other. While they run pretend bankjobs, pretend kidnap each other, pretend knife, shank, and teabag, and sometimes even kill pretend nazis.. We laugh when we pretend beat the money out of the hookers, and pretend murder whole races.

    It's pretend shit talk. Just like the rest of the clowns on the internet. None of it is real. It's the fucking INTERNET. That's why the 400lb man in his moms basement pretending to be a 12 year old girl is the joke.

    Have some fucking perspective ya wimps. THIS IS NORMAL BEHAVIOR WHILE GAMING.

    Don't like it? - Stop paying for the privilege!

    To put it another way...

    "We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene!" -Colonel Walter E. Kurtz

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    1. Re:PERSPECTIVE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pretend things kids say.... don't you think that mister Pie, a role model for these kids and a grown adult, should be setting a better example in the way he games? I mean I'm not saying he shouldn't trash talk. But the lack of hearing the n word around me at the ripe age of 12 is what made me not want to say it out loud.

    2. Re:PERSPECTIVE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think it's his responsibility to be a role model? What about gangsta rap artists? what about sports stars?

      look elsewhere for the moral guidance.

    3. Re:PERSPECTIVE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Racial slurs while gaming may be commonplace, but should not be treated as "normal". Use of language affects ways of thinking, and increasing racist thought I'd never a good idea.

      It's not a "special snowflake" reaction to object to language like this, its what a "normal" person should do.

  66. Re:#BLACKLIVESMATTER by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1, Troll

    BlackLivesMatter is bullshit. It gives the impression the other races aren't as important.

    Why don't these matter?

    RedLivesMatter
    YellowLivesMatter
    WhiteLivesMatter

    There is only ONE way to end all this bullshit:

    All Lives Matter

  67. Uh, no, History hasn't shown that by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    you fight oppression with deeds. The South was basically dragged kicking and screaming, literally at the barrel of a gun circa 1864, into the world of civil rights. It took constant pressure from the North and West Coast to first end Slavery and then Segregation. And they've hated us for it since. Yeah, there's the "Liberal Redneck". The South isn't a monolith. But such people's voices were a minority in the 60s and it was a Supreme Court case that ended it. Didn't they make you read about Brown vs Board of Education in school?

    Words make people feel good. Deeds solve their problems. As for getting rid of racism: It's all about money. It's a wedge used by the ruling class to divide the working class. It has been since our societies got big enough to need such things. The reason you're seeing a flare up is both the Dems & the Republicans abandoned working class white men to globalism and Trump & the Alt-Righters noticed that and are capitalizing on it. If you want to stop it the solutions are economic. Hell, that's what end slavery more than anything, it wasn't a good deal economically anymore.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  68. What I'd like to see from PewDiePie by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    is an end of the racially tinged and antisemitic skits. That more than any apology is what he needs to do right now. Not because he's upsetting people, but because those skits encourage and normalize racism and antisemitism. Whether he wants to acknowledge it or not. There's plenty of other, productive ways to discuss race without paying folks $5 bucks to hold up the Nazi flag or blurting out the n-word. He could be a guide for a lot of frustrated youths to help make the world a better place. If he does that, well, all is forgiven.

    The trouble is that's probably not going to get him as many views because, as the saying goes, there's no such thing as bad advertising. I'd love to be proven wrong though.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:What I'd like to see from PewDiePie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What anti-semitic skits? The one where he's what the most absurd request he can make and get on fiver? Or the ones where he's taking the piss out of the media's nonsensical decision to brand him a Nazi?

      There's plenty of other, productive ways to discuss race without paying folks $5 bucks to hold up the Nazi flag

      It was a sign that read "death to jews", and it wasn't about race, but about what depraved things people would do for 5 bucks.

      Thing of this for a second, you're incensed about a video you not only haven't even seem but don't even know the content of.

      The trouble is that's probably not going to get him as many views because

      The guy has thousands of videos, these are but a handful incidents that you're hyping up to be the norm, rather than the exception, be it out of ignorance, idiocy or both.

  69. BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and has yet to publicly acknowledge the incident.

    Actually he has, he addressed it on stream, and posted a video where he explains the obvious -- he was frustrated at the game and yelled out the most vile thing that came to mind. I don't know about anyone else, but I would think actual racists don't view such terms as horrible.

    Are we really reducing racism to the choice of words, and not to the intend behind them?

  70. You're completely missing the point of that scene by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    as well as why it's OK to use the n-word in that context. First, it's a historical piece. Second, it's playing with our preconceived notions of racism by showing that the Irish held in deeper contempt than the Blacks & Chinese at one time (they were actually) in order to make it clear how ridiculous racism is.

    Also, I looked up the guy that your sig is about (Anthony Johnson). He owned indentured servants. Effective slavery but only because the laws were not being enforced. The first slaves were brought from Africa in the early 1600s by the Dutch. Your pal Johnson was still an indentured servant himself. If I were politifact I'd rate your sig Mostly False. I'm not sure where you came up with it, but It's purposely misleading. You should do a bit more research to convince yourself and then remove it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  71. Silly snowflakes by Isendur · · Score: 3, Funny

    Negro. There I said it. Can we move on?

  72. Segregation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He said "Nigg*r", which is a word that only black people can use.
    His speech was not properly segregated.

  73. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you fuÑking bullshits can also get around to supporting Unicode sometime soon, buttholes.

  74. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No it's not that all other races besides white people matter, it's just if we said all Iives matter, we would really have to say All Lives Matter (except those of white people). See how awkward that is?

  75. No one who matters cares about this idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you care what happens to pewdiepie, you are the problem. Kick the idiot off Youtube, then kick off any idiot that defends his right to infect our lives with his vile humor.
    Darwin process applied to Youtube creators.
    He has plenty of money.
    Seriously, can we move on to "Things that matter"??

  76. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like my bitchbois how I like my coffee: angry and stupid. It doesn't have to make sense.

  77. That's right, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like the black and brownish youtubers who did something like that in supportive response to this fake controversy.

  78. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    White lives built America, careful where you tred.

  79. Re:#BLACKLIVESMATTER by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Black lives matter never implied that other lives do not matter. That aspect is only implied by those who do not want to or have not understood what that movement is about.

  80. Re:#BLACKLIVESMATTER by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 2

    You are implying some motive that isn't there. It's like one saying "I like cabbage" and then others implying that person does not like any other vegetable. Your conclusion is severely flawed.

  81. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    BLM is bullshit because it's about identity politics - not actually doing anything to help blacks. Black peoples really don't matter to this movement except where "black bodies" can further the political movement. You'll very quickly have your black card revoked if you disagree with the ideology.

  82. Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did I somehow miss the outrage over mainstream outlets like MTV and Buzzfeed making endless videos that are racist towards white people?

  83. "The creator"? Sheesh by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Funny

    In response to Kjellberg's use of a racial slur, a number of video game players and developers have condemned the creator.

    Well, yeah, God's done a lot of stupid stuff.

    Oh wait, you mean the game guy? "Creator" is a bit grand for what he does.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  84. Am I the only one. .. by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1

    ... who finds it extremely peculiar that the most popular YouTuber is a guy posting videos of himself playing video games?

    People watch that ?

    1. Re:Am I the only one. .. by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      He's a comedian. His commentary and editing makes boring games funny and interesting. Maybe not to you, but that just means you're not the target audience.

      People generally fall into 2 categories: those with no money but a lot of time, and those with money and no time. Since there are so many games out there, and games are expensive and time-consuming, everyone has a reason to want free, condensed versions in the form of his videos.

      His word choice is definitely a huge factor in getting a reaction out of his viewers, so I wouldn't be surprised if he does it again in the future.

  85. S J W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The new idiocracy, who the fuck is producing these SJWs... seriously I think we need a study before it becomes an epidemic and end up in a totalitarian SJW world rule.

  86. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure they did implie. First blm happened in Haiti, and nothing else can come out of it as a nice racial henocide.

  87. Not quite on the same level by HalAtWork · · Score: 3, Informative

    N*gger isn't a swear word it's a demeaning and dehumanizing word.

    Curse words like fuck allude to sex, n*gger is designed to erase anything distinct about someone and reduce them to a preconceived construct designed to abstract the target instead of dealing directly with the individual on common terms.

    Perhaps words can change meaning over time but there are many people alive who have had negative experiences involving that word being used as I described above, and to hear someone who you are supposed to enjoy drop that word takes a lot of the enjoyment out for certain people.

    1. Re:Not quite on the same level by Cederic · · Score: 2

      So why do so many black people use the word?

      Seems to me all this fuss is racism against someone for using a word while white.

    2. Re:Not quite on the same level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same reason, immaturity. Other than that perhaps to "take the word back" and feel empowered by it instead of reduced and dehumanized. Not something you want to encourage anyway.

      But don't make the mistake of thinking that just because some people do it that it's acceptable

    3. Re: Not quite on the same level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like porch monkey

    4. Re: Not quite on the same level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, that just means old retired people

    5. Re: Not quite on the same level by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I aspire to have a porch large enough to sit on, in a climate warm enough to want to. I'm well up for that label.

  88. Re:You can't even discuss nigger on slashdot? by davide+marney · · Score: 1

    Really?

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  89. Malhearing is the problem by davide+marney · · Score: 2

    The problem is not with malspeech, but malhearing. Anyone who listens to you just _waiting_ for you to say something bad so they can pounce on it is not, in fact, listening. They are stalking you.

    It doesn't even matter what specific fault the malhearer is waiting for -- liberal, conservative, culture, relationships, whatever. It is impossible to have a conversation with anyone who is waiting to be offended.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  90. It isn't always by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    There are no doubt too many people who don't do justice to the word. Not everyone agrees that it should be used in each case, it depends on the individual doesn't it? Just because it is used by some doesn't mean everyone is always happy about it.

    But generally hip hop represents the reality of those individuals, or perhaps with the advent of more pop/club rap, a persona. It does not often try to represent an entire race.

    Whether things are OK or not very on the individual. Trying to determine if something is overall OK or not in this broad a sense is kind of reductive and ultimately pointless.

    But when it's used as if the context and associations don't exist, and people start arguing they shouldn't be considered even though it resonates strongly with certain individuals, it seems very dismissive.

  91. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by macsimcon · · Score: 1

    Oh come on. White people may have designed America, but black slaves did the lion's share of the actual building of America.

  92. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um no. More white people are killed by police than black people in America. You're a fucking liar.

  93. Weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's kind of odd people think the word "cracker" is on the same level, but it doesn't exactly have the same kind of history. I don't think I've even heard anyone say that other than Sherman Helmsley. I don't think anyone had quite the same fear when they heard "cracker" as people have when they heard the word "ngger", not as many people have been put through trauma over the word "cracker" and it never became an epidemic or civil issue quite the same way! Anyway personally I wouldn't use either word. Neither is constructive.

    1. Re:Weird by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      When I was I a kid it was "honky", but I don't think I've heard that in thirty years. Not sure that names matter so much as meanings, but there you go.

      Bus Driver: Blacks to the back, whites to the front.
      Man: Don't be so racist. If it helps, just think of everyone as being green.
      Bus Driver: I'd never thought of it like that before. [pause] Dark greens to the back of the bus ...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  94. Focus on the Issue by Hercules+Peanut · · Score: 1

    The issue is not hate speech or racism. It is on yet another horrible example of why the DMCA is bad.

    How do you deal with hate speech? Don't listen.

    How do you deal with the DMCA? Good question. I wish I knew.

    I remember seeing a slashdot post where the music industry suggested that over 100 million Americans pirated music. That is more than all of the people who voted for Trump and Hillary combined. So why do we still have it? Is it because America is no longer a representative democracy? Do we no longer have power over our own government?

    If you have a solution, I am all ears.

  95. Re:#BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BLM is just as racist as the KKK. Fuck your neo-bolshevik bullshit.

  96. Re:#BLACKLIVESMATTER by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    Not to BLM. Hence, they're just as racist as their KKK counterparts.

  97. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    Yeah because non black people never suffered hardships in the country. Stop making this about race.

  98. Your example shows that ideas are essential by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    you fight oppression with deeds. The South was basically dragged kicking and screaming, literally at the barrel of a gun circa 1864...

    Who was wielding that gun? The US as a whole was convinced that oppression was a very bad idea by the words and ideas which were freely expressed. Having lost that argument a group of states then decided they were just going to ignore it can carry on regardless. So yes, sometimes action is required but only after the argument of words and ideas has been won otherwise you won't have anyone willing to take that action.

  99. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody is in tears. Nobody is upset. They just don't respect you anymore since they know that you choose not to show respect to others.

    No one will ever stop you from using whatever words you choose. You'll just look like a sack of shit to good people.

    It won't hurt you any. There are enough sacks of shit to surround yourself with that you'll probably never even notice.

  100. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The implied full name of Black Lives Matter was always Black Lives Don't Not Matter. But that's confusing, so feel free to think of it as Black Lives Matter, Too. It was a response to police officers not facing consequences after killing unarmed black men in situations that easily could have been handled in non-lethal ways. That is, in response to black lives not mattering.

    You think it's racist because some of its members are racists, and you get your news from someone whose job it is to make you angry, so you only get the racist clips. But it's 97% about just not being awful to black people, and it's a God damn no-brainer to support that cause.

  101. No story here.... by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    He is an entertainer that specifically uses shock to entertain. He has also pointed out the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to freedom of speech. Sorry to say the obvious but if you don't like it then don't watch. If you don't like to hear someone else talking about it then point out the idiocy of them watching in the first place.

    Every time he makes the news he gets more money from more people watching.

  102. When did Slashdot become Tumblr?? by Zaphon · · Score: 1

    Reading these responses blow my mind. I truly feel like I'm on Tumblr reading SJW after SJW getting triggered. Grow up!

  103. Re:#BLACKLIVESMATTER by Northdot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems pretty self evident that what the BLM hashtag means (at least originally) is "black lives matter as much as white lives", as fueled by the many instances of blacks being killed in questionable circumstances, with no consequences at all for those that caused the deaths.

    So rebutting this by saying #AllLivesMatter comes across (to some) like saying "all houses matter", ignoring the fact that one of the houses is burning.

    While I personally think 90% of social justice political correctness is bullshit, criticizing BLM while ignoring the context of where it's coming from seems misguided.

  104. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The grandparent said white people did it. Black people also did it. Just a factual correction and nothing to do with who suffered most. Let's keep it factual and civil, please.

  105. Who is going to by gabrieltss · · Score: 1

    Issue take down notices to BLM (Black Lives Matter) videos for HATE SPEECH? Issue take down notices to Minister Farrakhan's Videos for HATE SPEECH? Issue take down notices to Al Sharpton's videos for HATE SPEECH? Issue take down notices to Rev. Jesse Jacksons videos for HATE SPEECH? Yes these folks are just as RACIST as the white supremacists and neo-nazi's. If your going to limit the free speech ("hate speech") of one group you had FUCKING better do it to ALL OF THEM! I don't want to hear your FUCKING excuses either because that is all they are EXCUSES!

    --
    The Truth is a Virus!!!
  106. Ã'îggÃrÅ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ã'ÃggÃrÂ

    1. Re: Ã'îggÃrÅ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently slashdot are a bunch of ñÃggÄ"r lovers

    2. Re: Ã'îggÃrÅ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot censors ñÃggÃr lol but I bet I can say chink just fine. Ã'ÃggÃr ñÃggÃr ñîggÄ"r lol gook. pÃrÄhmÃñkÃà lol guess you can be racist to anyone except ÅpÃÃrÄhÃÄkÃrÅ eh? Spic, wop, ñÃg fãggÃt well I guess you can't be homophobic either. Fucking qÃÃÃrbait slashdot ñÃggÃr loving fÃggÃtÅ. Lol yay fot censorship. Goddamn jews

  107. Re:#BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BlackLivesMatter is bullshit. It gives the impression the other races aren't as important.

    Not really. That would be called OnlyBlackLivesMatter.

  108. Obligatory Onion by MarcusOutrageous · · Score: 1

    The Onion Covered The N-Word Years Ago Did you all forget this? Classic. And applies now. XKCD-level application.

    Porn Starlet Apologizes for Using N-Word In Scene With Black Co-Star

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

    True story -- a number of years ago my 15th Favorite ex-girlfriend said to me, during heavy intimacy,

    "I want you to fuck me like a black man."

    "Okay, Sadie, sure. But does that mean I'm the black man, or you're the black man?"

    This was towards the end of the affair, the part I call "The Farcical End." Knowing what they are, I really truly virtually always enjoy my breakups. That's when the best comedy is generated.

  109. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you really believe that you should go to Home Depot and call the day workers waiting outside spics and see how much they don't stop you.

  110. Re:#BLACKLIVESMATTER by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

    If you like all vegetables why not say "I like vegetables". But you don't, do you?

    I identify as a carrot, #TRIGGERED.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  111. Discharged; accused has already suffered enough by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    File that with theft of a Lada, bigamy, and pirating Justin Bieber songs.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  112. Re:You're completely missing the point of that sce by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    No I completely understand the historical context of the piece. That same historical context for the statues being torn down. And Casor - the indentured servant whom Johnson successfully argued could NOT end his indentured servanthood - was effectively, by decree of a Court that overturned his freedom from serving his contract - was the first legal slave in the US. Johnson kept him past his contract - and did so with the force of the Court behind him. Casor was the first legal slave in the US - one who's position in life, as a slave, was confirmed and guaranteed by a decision of the Court.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  113. Re:You're completely missing the point of that sce by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    PS: Snopes confirms that Casor was "among the first to have his lifetime ownership of a servant legally sanctioned by a court." Not Politifact but equivalent. And The Smithsonian states has an article titled "The Horrible Fate of John Casor, The First Black Man to be Declared Slave for Life in America". I guess Snopes and the Smithsonian can no longer be trusted?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  114. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by macsimcon · · Score: 1

    Assuming you're just ignorant, and not a troll, white people were never brought here as slaves. It's true that a small number were brought here as indentured servants to pay for their passage to America, but that's a far cry from slaves.

    Read a book, asshole. LEARN something.

  115. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

    Bullshit. There were WHITE SLAVES. They were not indentured servants. They were Irish who rebelled against the crown and were SOLD>

  116. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here we go again, another affluent white person who's never known a working-class white person putting everyone in neat groups.

    "Progressives" ascribe the same "white privilege" to the white janitor that they do the white CEO, and it is grotesque.

    It's better to be a rich black man in this country than a poor white man, and poor whites still receive the majority of welfare benefits in the USA.

    For the last 20 years, classism has replaced racism as the nation's primary form of bigotry, and the neo-bigots shouting tolerance and diversity while practicing neither have levelled what this country had left of a moral high-ground.

  117. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't take his word for it. See for yourself:

    https://youtu.be/RFykABow304

    There's a reason that all good affluent suburban white people worship MLK. He made them feel good about themselves. Malcom cared about the black man.

    Look at the black incarceration rate since Democrats stopped openly trying to re-enslave the black man, and started pretending to be on his side. They finally realized they could accomplish their goals better pretending to be their friends.

    The confederate flag was sysnonmous with the Democratic Party. They want to ban statues while voting for the party that fought a war to preserve slavery.

    They've no idea what's going on.

  118. Re:#BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BLM is first world problems. They are selfish pieces of shit who don't understand just how much worse things can be and are for many people in other parts of the world. BLM is also based off of misinformation. For almost every single case where a claimed police injustice occurred, the reality is quite different when you get past the feigned outrage and look at the actual case and evidence. Most of the people who police shot deserved to be shot.

  119. Re:#BLACKLIVESMATTER by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All Lives Matter. That's the core of BLM. BLM is just pointing out the lives not treated the same as others.

    anti-BLM activists would have you believe that if a Black house is on fire, then All Houses Matter, and the fire department should pre-wet the neighbour house as much as the one on fire, and no fireman should enter the burning house to save anyone, as that wouldn't be fair to those in the surrounding houses.

    BLM is simply stating that sometimes, the house on fire needs more attention.

  120. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    http://www.slate.com/articles/... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

    Every source I find on the matter indicates that there existed some white slavery, but not in the US, and that "white slavery" in the US existed, as an illegal sex trafficking, and the theory is the idiot racists confused the two to believe that there were white slaves.

    There were not white slaves in the US, so "white slavery" as a response to BLM makes no sense.

  121. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Just not true. Slaves are _shitty_ workers. Basically why it ended, world wide. To get them to work, you have to pay someone to stand behind them with a whip. Might as well pay the guy with the whip to work. Free men chasing something work much harder.

    The parts of the USA that maintained slavery were the poor parts. Why they lost the civil war.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  122. Re:#BLACKLIVESMATTER by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    If that were true they would be concerned with the group that actually kills the most black people. Instead they focus on cops.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  123. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Much Betterr to live in a white country with NO political correctness, NO ANTIFA, NO blacks and their BLM extreme left terrorists.

  124. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a black man kills a black man and is caught, he faces consequences. If a black man is straight up murdered by police, there are no consequences. If you pretend this was happening to white people, you'll understand why this makes people angry.

  125. Re:#BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boooo.

    Get with the times. In the USA, all lives matter and all races are equal.
    Don't believe it? You're part of the problem.

  126. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by will_die · · Score: 1

    Do you have any examples for the last two of those situations?

  127. Re:#BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's more like both houses are on fire, but you only need to do something about the black house because the other house has "White Priviledge".

  128. Acting offended by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Black people use it all the time. Ever hear of NWA? Google it. They call themselves that, yet if anyone else does they somehow feel they must be violent and act offended, and this is ok somehow. It's BS.

    Then there is "white privilege". What is that? Whites, especially white men can't complain about anything. That's what it is. Another BS thing the left keeps shoving down our throats. Especially when they are trying to screw society and destroy it so everyone is miserable.

  129. Re:#BLACKLIVESMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Then why does the BLM crowd get angry when someone says "All lives matter" instead of specifically "Black lives matter"? I am pretty sure they want theirs singled out.

  130. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Maybe, just maybe, if blacks weren't committing 40% of violent crime they wouldn't be 30% of those shot by police?

    The black community does have a bitch, they aren't getting their fair share of police protection. It really should be about 40% of those shot by police, but they are getting shorted.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  131. Re:#BLACKLIVESMATTER by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    So, we should be happy with innocent unarmed Black men being shot by cops, because Blacks deserve it because Black on Black crime exists. I hear, I understand. I disagree. You fix what you can, and the easy target would be to start with the government, who is provably treating some people differently.

  132. Re: #BLACKLIVESMATTER by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    An unarmed Black man is 10x more likely to be shot than an unarmed white man. The rate at which Black people commit crime has *nothing* to do with that.

    And Blacks don't commit 40% of violent crime. They are just convicted more often, since Blacks commit more crime, they are prosecuted more aggressively. It's the tautology club. We assume they are worse, so we make it so.

  133. Re:#BLACKLIVESMATTER by tbannist · · Score: 1

    While I personally think 90% of social justice political correctness is bullshit, criticizing BLM while ignoring the context of where it's coming from seems misguided.

    Personally, I think 90% of political correctness is "Don't be a dick". There are cases where it goes too far, but they are the heavily publicized minority (publicized by the people who prefer to be dicks). But yeah, Black Lives Matter is a statement against the status quo where it often seems like they don't.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical