Only if by "less-important", you mean "more-important". The guy who's story you linked to, deliberate took pictures of equipment he was specifically prohibited from photographing with intent to distribute the pictures to people who were not cleared to see them. As I understand it, from having previously looked at this case, he was specifically warned that what he was doing was illegal, and that he could go to jail for what he was doing and continued to do it. So he deliberately broke the law with full knowledge that he was doing so and what the punishment would be if (when) he was caught.
Hillary, on the other hand has been crucified because she received several emails that contained, improperly marked, classified information over the course of her four years at the State Department. Material that the State department is on record saying it does not believe should have ever been classified.
Do you see the difference here? Because everyone who isn't blinded by partisanship does.
Uh, it's standard practice in this country (not sure about yours) for former political flunkies to hang around for a while fucking up the ne t administration until they can be replaced by people who give a shit about the country more than their former boss.
Trump is not paranoid. Again. This is standard practice. It is well known.
Are these "alternate facts"? Because I don't remember hearing anything about this in the three administrations previous to Trump.
You are off your rocker and need some serious psychological assistance for your delusions of persecution and general paranoia.
You have that wrong, I think. Sure, the Scientific Method is not about building a consensus, however, the Advancement of Science (as in expanding our understanding of the universe), has to be about consensus. Without consensus on what is true (or likely to be true), Science would perennially be stuck at what a single scientist could accomplish in one lifetime. At some point, you have to accept that other scientists have already researched and discovered things. At that point, the scientific consensus will help you find areas for your own research that haven't already been exhaustively studied.
Of course, there is nothing stopping someone for challenging the consensus on any scientific topic, but if you do want to challenge the consensus, then you better have a good alternate theory and the evidence to back it up.
Record high temps, record low temps. record rain, record drought.
That's actually what you'd expect with a chaotic system built of multiple random variables. It would be unnatural for weather to always be the same.
Actually it's not. It's a simple fact that in a stable system, as time goes on, there are fewer and fewer "record" events because each new record needs to be more extreme than all previously recorded events. Over time, record-breaking events decline significantly. So, an increase in record events is, by itself, evidence that the system is undergoing change.
I think you're a purveyor of bullshit all around, but this one part I thought was worthy of further discussion:
Had a genuinely (non-insane, non-neocon) qualified Republican candidate run for president with a promise to enforce existing immigration laws, help create jobs for Americans first and foreigners second, and give priority to assisting Americans before outsiders, he would have won in a massive landslide reminiscent of Reagan's defeat of Mondale.
I think that scenario might actually be impossible. Republican primary voters were never going to allow a sane, sensible Republican candidate to run. Just look at the primaries, the reasonable people were among the first people eliminated. Of course, there a good chance that against a non-insane Republican candidate, Clinton might have actually won. In a large part, her loss can be tied to Trump's labelling her as "Crooked Hillary" and endless repeating that label. The negative campaigning had the desired result of depressing Democratic turnout. Furthermore, the problem is that Clinton's policies and a sane Republican's policies would have had limited differences, and Russia might have feared such a Republican candidate as much or more than Hillary, and their electoral sabotage could have been aimed at the both parties, or even just the Republicans. Frankly, I can name a single popular moderate Republican, I think (Jeb Bush?), because ideological purity tests seem to have either expelled the majority of them from candidacy or pushed them away from moderate positions to avoid challenges.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If Obama had been a Republican President, he would have been the new Reagan. Republicans would be worshipping at his feet and praising his legacy, but because he had the wrong letter next to his name, most Republican voters despise him. So, with Obama representing so much of what the old Republican party would have stood for, and Obama being "irredeemably evil", the current Republican party keeps having to find newer, crazier issues to differentiate itself from it's mortal enemy.
You're boring me, now. You don't seem able to understand what other people write, you don't seem to be able to see anything beyond your own wild conjectures and fantasies, and you can't stay on topic for more than a few lines. So, Good luck with that.
but multiple people (not just his fans) appear to be confirming PDP's claim that the WSJ edited his videos,
First, I don't believe you or them know anything about what was actually sent to Disney. I've seen this many times before with Gamergate, for example, where people simply invented lies to sway people to their side. Lying on the internet is easy. Second it doesn't even matter if they edited the video unless what they did was truly egregious and that would be counter-productive because regardless of what the WSJ sent to Disney, Disney should have done their due diligence rather than simply trusting a video sent to them. I only guess that you are young and have little to no idea of how most businesses are run. The managers at Maker aren't going to fire a money-making celebrity simply because the WSJ told them to with a doctored video. They can watch the videos for the themselves, you know.
I grow weary of trotting out The Producers as a counterexample, but it's the most crystal clear one I've found. The parallels between it and the supposedly most offensive video ("Kill All Jews") are very strong. Both contained an over the top candy-coated celebration of a horrible idea, and then showed a reaction shot of someone(s) looking on in horror. The difference is, people think they have made some terribly clever point when they claim PewDiePie's horror was just acting. Well, let's say that's true... guess what the actors in The Producers who were playing the audience watching "Springtime for Hitler" were doing?
I think everyone is tired of you trotting out The Producers. The situations aren't really comparable, one is a comedy where two awful people are trying to be offensive by making a musical about Hitler, the other is a jackass who thinks it's edgy to pay poor people 5 dollars to do something politically incorrect. One is comedic genius, the other is tasteless attention whoring. The fact that you don't understand the difference is merely tiresome. To put it simply, PewDiePie seems to have more in common with Max Bialystock than Mel Brooks and that is not a good thing, in case you continue to misunderstand the situation.
Again, you keep pretending that PDP has lost.
I don't know why you're obsessed with winners and losers. I'm just pointing out that PewDiePie is upset because someone has revealed the things that he actually did, but in a way he doesn't like. Welcome the real world, man-boy.
These is a *fascinating* story to anyone who remotely cares about where the media is headed. You don't have to be a PDP fan (I'm not) to find it fascinating. There are multiple facets here, and I'm most interested in the stuff that involves the larger ecosystem. I've already linked to this a half dozen times at least, but this article [wsj.com] shows pretty clearly the WSJ's motive in all of this. (That one shouldn't be paywalled.) Don't forget, they didn't just "write an article" that started all of this. They didn't just hire three reporters to comb through his videos and edit them. They sent their edited results directly to Disney. They had an explicit agenda in getting PewDiePie's platform trimmed down a bit. Why is that? WSJ isn't a progressive-leaning paper. Well, see the above link.
The simple problem is there is no need for you to invent "an explicit agenda". It seems far more likely they were doing research for an article on YouTube "influencers" and found the anti-Semitic content. Knowing this should be a huge deal for Disney, they sent a video with the relevant clips to Disney for comment. Disney saw the clips, likely did their own quick internal investigation, and cut PewDiePie loose because they didn't like what they saw. If they had any ulterior motive, it is far more likely to concern the opportunity to hurt the profitability of a competitor or two, than to somehow gain control over what people post to YouTube.
There's a lot of other stuff you're conflating into this issue, that is interesting but not directly related to this issue. YouTube policies, leftist politics, millenial media interests can indeed by interesting stuff but you are muddying the water by trying to drag them into this issue. This is a bog-standard story someone got caught doing something bad then lashes out at the people who caught him. PDP might as well yell "I would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those meddling [reporters]".
1. Including J.K. Rowling now.
You do realize that J. K. Rowling re-tweeted an article about how PDP and others "just joking around" about racism, is enabling racists to normalize their views, right?
Not to be prejudicial here, but from a purely statistical standpoint the chances of a Swede (someone who grew up there) having right-wing views by American standards is must be darn small.
And yet, it's actual people in the alt-right community who think that PDP might be one of them... The left seems to think he's a immature, narcissistic, asshole. Which seems to be a pretty accurate assessment to me.
2. It's a bit amusing, but moreso deeply worrying to see you and so many other people view this as a major setback for PewDiePie or a victory for the forces of anti-racism. Uh, no. This is Pearl Harbor, and the mainstream media and the progressive left (two very distinct players here; I'm not conflating the two) are the Japanese.
Well, it is a setback for PewDiePie. As for a victory of the force of anti-racism? Why would I think that. PewDiePie is just a fool with a big mouth who got himself into trouble with his sponsors. You can continue to blame everyone but PewDiePie, but really he's really the only one to blame here. He shot himself in the foot, and blaming the media for pointing out that he did so is kind of sad and pathetic.
I'm not bragging or boasting or laughing; this is serious shit. How do you think his tens of millions of subscribers are going to react? "Damn, I guess he was a racist, the WSJ said so" ? How many of those people are kids? How many of those kids are (like most kids) currently left-leaning? And how many of those kids have never felt the rush of arguing on the internet, of calling out (what they think is) stupidity, of actually fighting for something before?
I didn't see them call him a racist, I saw them say he posted anti-Semitic videos. Are you sure you're not building up a strawman argument? You seem to attribute things to the WSJ that I didn't see in the articles (not that I can read them all because some of them are paywalled).
I don't quite know what to expect next, but this is the beginning of something, not the end of something.
On the other hand, it seems unlikely to be either to me. It's the same old story, a shameless populist blaming the messenger for his own self-inflicted problems. I've seen it so many times, it's kind of tiresome now. You, however, seem to be quite caught up in your impassioned defence of PewDiePie, but I see little to justify your impassioned defence. PewDiePie did several things likely to embarrass his sponsors, someone pointed it out, and his sponsors dropped him for it. It's a pretty boring story if you ignore PewDiePie's outrage at actually being held accountable for his actions.
It's not an 'antisemitic video' or 'antisemitic content'. That's the prime and obvious lie for me here, and anyone arguing otherwise has to explain why dozens of the greatest comedians of all time weren't being antisemitic when they did Nazi or holocaust stuff. I've seen comedians do straight uber-dark toned holocaust stuff that no one would call anti-semitic. I've heard Bill Hicks scream "Hilter had the right idea; he was just an underachiever!" and no one has ever to my knowledge called him a fascist or a Nazi. In comparison, PewDiePie offered nothing but a sustained look of horror, no laughing, as the message was unfurled. That look of horror could be real or faked; it doesn't matter. By the standards of Nazi jokes stretching back for decades and deacdes, it's a rather tame example, showing horror instead of the morbid, flippant, shock-tactic version of a holocaust that stand-ups often use.
Several other people have said that the context was actually the PewDiePie thought that if he paid "brown people" to show anti-Semitic messages, no one would get angry. I don't know if that's true or not, I've previously watched a couple of his videos but didn't think they were very good. However, if that's true it plays into a larger narrative that PewDiePie has been feeding. In essence that white people, like him, are being discriminated against by everyone else. He can claim he's just joking, but it's a disturbing pattern of behaviour. And if you want to be comedic about those things you need to be very explicit about it being a joke before you tell the joke. Plus, it's not like this is the only time he's done things deliberately to offend people. I have a friend who stopped watching his videos a couple of years ago because PewDiePie kept throwing gratuitously offensive comments into his regular videos. He's been called out previously on using racist epithets, and in this case he made not one, but three videos with anti-Semitic messages in them. What's that old saying "Once is a fluke, twice is coincidence, three times is a trend?".
The whole being horrified at what people will do for money thing just seems like bullshit cloaking. It should be no surprise to anyone that you can get people who are desperate for money to do horrible things, especially when they don't understand what they're doing. And apparently the guys in the video who made the banner have released an apology video saying they didn't understand what the message meant, which is certainly possible, with English not being their first language and not actually having lived in a English speaking culture.
The problem remains, I haven't seen any actual lies. The WSJ sent a video to Disney about an issue that they were going to write about, the video might be "edited", but I doubt it was deceptively edited. Removing the context in some cases changes the message, but in this case, I don't think there's been much deceptiveness. PewDiePie was using anti-Semitic messages for shock value and to get attention. He just ended up with the (potentially) the wrong kind of attention.
I'm pretty convinced that the "Fake News" angle on this story is entirely bogus, and is meant to incite sympathy for some who's been hoisted by their own petard.
Conceding just for the sake of argument that PDP is a vile and overt racist, if this is done VIA MULTIPLE MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS PRINTING LIES then you are doing more damage than good.
For some reason, the meat of the story, that main steam media are being so dishonest, seems to be ignored by many commenters here.
Maybe because that's not the meat of the story? Someone's just trying to convince you that it is. The meat of the story is that PewDiePie has a history of using racials slurs and asshatery to get attention. He has ranted about and made insane accusations about the companies that have made him rich and famous. And then later claimed that he joking about the racism and insanity. However, when his behaviour patterns were pointed out to his biggest sponsors, they dropped him.
The Wall Street Journal's take on the story is that there is a public relations danger to companies when endorsing content creators (influencers) that they have little or no control over.
Your take on the story is that the media is out to get PewDiePie because he's a threat to them.
I detest the guy for other reasons. I think he's a twat. However, do you truly believe that he's a neo nazi? Does anyone? Probably not. His firing was one of virtue signaling, nothing more. I think virtue signaling is far more harmful to society than some moron's stupid jokes.
I disagree, according to his claims some people at the Wall Street Journal pointed out to Disney that they had a developing public relations problem, and Disney terminated the problem.
It doesn't matter whether or not PewDiePie is a neo nazi or not, as long as he could credibly be portrayed as one in a way that would be harmful to Disney's business. Whether or not he's sincere, his juvenile shock tactics made him toxic to a company with a brand based on good, clean, family fun.
The only "doctor" to have "evidence" of a link between any vaccine and autism lost his medical license because his evidence was fraudulent. Turns out, he never examined the patients in his "study", most of them didn't have autism, and he was being paid a shit-ton of money for the "evidence" by one of the competitors to the vaccine's he accused of causing autism.
You have been played for a fool, but are too stupid to understand that.
The only key to boost economy is to LOWER TAXES, not give handouts.
Lowering taxes has never boosted the economy by a measurable amount.
High taxes = less money in the hands of people, regardless of who they are, and as a result they buy less goods and do fewer investments.
Actually, that's wrong. What do think happens to money collected as taxes? The government spends it on people. They either give it to people or pay other people to do things for the government. So, usually high taxes (assuming a graduated system) means more money in the hands of a lot of people and less money in the hands of a few people. Generally, this results in a net gain for the economy because people with less wealth almost always spend more of their income than people with more wealth.
People buying more stuff = more jobs, more goods, happier society.
Generally true, but the approach you want to take is counter productive and results in fewer people buying stuff, fewer jobs, fewer goods, and an unhappy society.
Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is absolutely useless.
Actually, it's sound fiscally policy which is why every developed country in the world does it.
hey'll blow through all that money in a day, get alcohol poisoning and taxpayers will have to pay for their therapy.
If that were true, that money is then going to the liquor store clerk or bartenders, the brewers, the delivery truck driver, the hospital, the janitors, the doctors and the nurses. Plus lots of other people in a web of economic activity so vast I can't list all of the beneficiaries.
I'm not opposing the ban on people with visas/citzenship from 7 arbitrary predominatley Muslim countries. I'm opposing the craven cowardice of the poster, I was replying to.
You should also note that neither of those attacks that he cited were carried out by people who would have been affected by Trump's travel ban. Two of those shooters were natural born American citizens, and the third was married to one of the other shooters and while born in Pakistan (not covered by the ban), was a permanent resident of the United States.
Actually, most of the people who put Trump into power are the people who always vote Republican whether it's Jesus or Satan's name next to the R.
A small group of Americans who flipped from Democrat to Republican because of losing their jobs to free trade and automation did provide him with a considerable push, but we should never forget that it was Putin and Comey who actually carried him across the finish line.
Meanwhile over 100+ people killed in Paris from refugees from Syria, but you all are claiming since it hasn't happened in the US then there are no terrorist with the refugees, despite OVERWHELMING evidence in Europe of the opposite.
According to the BBC, none of the attackers were actually Syrian refugees. It is suspected that two of the attackers posed as Syrian refugees when they travelled to France, but they weren't from Syria and the majority of the attackers were either French or Belgian citizens. It seems likely that had Europe and/or France implemented a ban on travellers from Syria, those two attackers would have simply used different fake identities.
Clearly, he lives at Trump Towers. It's a magical world, where everything bad is the fault of Mexico, India and China, and everything good is the work of the Trump.
We, too, born to freedom, and believing in freedom, are willing to fight to maintain freedom. We, and all others who believe as deeply as we do, would rather die on our feet than live on our knees.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing written in the parent post is remotely true.
Here is a guy prosecuted for a much less-important violation of the same: http://legalinsurrection.com/2...
Only if by "less-important", you mean "more-important". The guy who's story you linked to, deliberate took pictures of equipment he was specifically prohibited from photographing with intent to distribute the pictures to people who were not cleared to see them. As I understand it, from having previously looked at this case, he was specifically warned that what he was doing was illegal, and that he could go to jail for what he was doing and continued to do it. So he deliberately broke the law with full knowledge that he was doing so and what the punishment would be if (when) he was caught.
Hillary, on the other hand has been crucified because she received several emails that contained, improperly marked, classified information over the course of her four years at the State Department. Material that the State department is on record saying it does not believe should have ever been classified.
Do you see the difference here? Because everyone who isn't blinded by partisanship does.
Uh, it's standard practice in this country (not sure about yours) for former political flunkies to hang around for a while fucking up the ne t administration until they can be replaced by people who give a shit about the country more than their former boss. Trump is not paranoid. Again. This is standard practice. It is well known.
Are these "alternate facts"? Because I don't remember hearing anything about this in the three administrations previous to Trump.
You are off your rocker and need some serious psychological assistance for your delusions of persecution and general paranoia.
Funny, that's my diagnosis of your post, too.
You have that wrong, I think. Sure, the Scientific Method is not about building a consensus, however, the Advancement of Science (as in expanding our understanding of the universe), has to be about consensus. Without consensus on what is true (or likely to be true), Science would perennially be stuck at what a single scientist could accomplish in one lifetime. At some point, you have to accept that other scientists have already researched and discovered things. At that point, the scientific consensus will help you find areas for your own research that haven't already been exhaustively studied.
Of course, there is nothing stopping someone for challenging the consensus on any scientific topic, but if you do want to challenge the consensus, then you better have a good alternate theory and the evidence to back it up.
Record high temps, record low temps. record rain, record drought.
That's actually what you'd expect with a chaotic system built of multiple random variables. It would be unnatural for weather to always be the same.
Actually it's not. It's a simple fact that in a stable system, as time goes on, there are fewer and fewer "record" events because each new record needs to be more extreme than all previously recorded events. Over time, record-breaking events decline significantly. So, an increase in record events is, by itself, evidence that the system is undergoing change.
I think you're a purveyor of bullshit all around, but this one part I thought was worthy of further discussion:
Had a genuinely (non-insane, non-neocon) qualified Republican candidate run for president with a promise to enforce existing immigration laws, help create jobs for Americans first and foreigners second, and give priority to assisting Americans before outsiders, he would have won in a massive landslide reminiscent of Reagan's defeat of Mondale.
I think that scenario might actually be impossible. Republican primary voters were never going to allow a sane, sensible Republican candidate to run. Just look at the primaries, the reasonable people were among the first people eliminated. Of course, there a good chance that against a non-insane Republican candidate, Clinton might have actually won. In a large part, her loss can be tied to Trump's labelling her as "Crooked Hillary" and endless repeating that label. The negative campaigning had the desired result of depressing Democratic turnout. Furthermore, the problem is that Clinton's policies and a sane Republican's policies would have had limited differences, and Russia might have feared such a Republican candidate as much or more than Hillary, and their electoral sabotage could have been aimed at the both parties, or even just the Republicans. Frankly, I can name a single popular moderate Republican, I think (Jeb Bush?), because ideological purity tests seem to have either expelled the majority of them from candidacy or pushed them away from moderate positions to avoid challenges.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If Obama had been a Republican President, he would have been the new Reagan. Republicans would be worshipping at his feet and praising his legacy, but because he had the wrong letter next to his name, most Republican voters despise him. So, with Obama representing so much of what the old Republican party would have stood for, and Obama being "irredeemably evil", the current Republican party keeps having to find newer, crazier issues to differentiate itself from it's mortal enemy.
You're boring me, now. You don't seem able to understand what other people write, you don't seem to be able to see anything beyond your own wild conjectures and fantasies, and you can't stay on topic for more than a few lines. So, Good luck with that.
but multiple people (not just his fans) appear to be confirming PDP's claim that the WSJ edited his videos,
First, I don't believe you or them know anything about what was actually sent to Disney. I've seen this many times before with Gamergate, for example, where people simply invented lies to sway people to their side. Lying on the internet is easy. Second it doesn't even matter if they edited the video unless what they did was truly egregious and that would be counter-productive because regardless of what the WSJ sent to Disney, Disney should have done their due diligence rather than simply trusting a video sent to them. I only guess that you are young and have little to no idea of how most businesses are run. The managers at Maker aren't going to fire a money-making celebrity simply because the WSJ told them to with a doctored video. They can watch the videos for the themselves, you know.
I grow weary of trotting out The Producers as a counterexample, but it's the most crystal clear one I've found. The parallels between it and the supposedly most offensive video ("Kill All Jews") are very strong. Both contained an over the top candy-coated celebration of a horrible idea, and then showed a reaction shot of someone(s) looking on in horror. The difference is, people think they have made some terribly clever point when they claim PewDiePie's horror was just acting. Well, let's say that's true... guess what the actors in The Producers who were playing the audience watching "Springtime for Hitler" were doing?
I think everyone is tired of you trotting out The Producers. The situations aren't really comparable, one is a comedy where two awful people are trying to be offensive by making a musical about Hitler, the other is a jackass who thinks it's edgy to pay poor people 5 dollars to do something politically incorrect. One is comedic genius, the other is tasteless attention whoring. The fact that you don't understand the difference is merely tiresome. To put it simply, PewDiePie seems to have more in common with Max Bialystock than Mel Brooks and that is not a good thing, in case you continue to misunderstand the situation.
Again, you keep pretending that PDP has lost.
I don't know why you're obsessed with winners and losers. I'm just pointing out that PewDiePie is upset because someone has revealed the things that he actually did, but in a way he doesn't like. Welcome the real world, man-boy.
These is a *fascinating* story to anyone who remotely cares about where the media is headed. You don't have to be a PDP fan (I'm not) to find it fascinating. There are multiple facets here, and I'm most interested in the stuff that involves the larger ecosystem. I've already linked to this a half dozen times at least, but this article [wsj.com] shows pretty clearly the WSJ's motive in all of this. (That one shouldn't be paywalled.) Don't forget, they didn't just "write an article" that started all of this. They didn't just hire three reporters to comb through his videos and edit them. They sent their edited results directly to Disney. They had an explicit agenda in getting PewDiePie's platform trimmed down a bit. Why is that? WSJ isn't a progressive-leaning paper. Well, see the above link.
The simple problem is there is no need for you to invent "an explicit agenda". It seems far more likely they were doing research for an article on YouTube "influencers" and found the anti-Semitic content. Knowing this should be a huge deal for Disney, they sent a video with the relevant clips to Disney for comment. Disney saw the clips, likely did their own quick internal investigation, and cut PewDiePie loose because they didn't like what they saw. If they had any ulterior motive, it is far more likely to concern the opportunity to hurt the profitability of a competitor or two, than to somehow gain control over what people post to YouTube.
There's a lot of other stuff you're conflating into this issue, that is interesting but not directly related to this issue. YouTube policies, leftist politics, millenial media interests can indeed by interesting stuff but you are muddying the water by trying to drag them into this issue. This is a bog-standard story someone got caught doing something bad then lashes out at the people who caught him. PDP might as well yell "I would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those meddling [reporters]".
1. Including J.K. Rowling now.
You do realize that J. K. Rowling re-tweeted an article about how PDP and others "just joking around" about racism, is enabling racists to normalize their views, right?
Not to be prejudicial here, but from a purely statistical standpoint the chances of a Swede (someone who grew up there) having right-wing views by American standards is must be darn small.
And yet, it's actual people in the alt-right community who think that PDP might be one of them... The left seems to think he's a immature, narcissistic, asshole. Which seems to be a pretty accurate assessment to me.
2. It's a bit amusing, but moreso deeply worrying to see you and so many other people view this as a major setback for PewDiePie or a victory for the forces of anti-racism. Uh, no. This is Pearl Harbor, and the mainstream media and the progressive left (two very distinct players here; I'm not conflating the two) are the Japanese.
Well, it is a setback for PewDiePie. As for a victory of the force of anti-racism? Why would I think that. PewDiePie is just a fool with a big mouth who got himself into trouble with his sponsors. You can continue to blame everyone but PewDiePie, but really he's really the only one to blame here. He shot himself in the foot, and blaming the media for pointing out that he did so is kind of sad and pathetic.
I'm not bragging or boasting or laughing; this is serious shit. How do you think his tens of millions of subscribers are going to react? "Damn, I guess he was a racist, the WSJ said so" ? How many of those people are kids? How many of those kids are (like most kids) currently left-leaning? And how many of those kids have never felt the rush of arguing on the internet, of calling out (what they think is) stupidity, of actually fighting for something before?
I didn't see them call him a racist, I saw them say he posted anti-Semitic videos. Are you sure you're not building up a strawman argument? You seem to attribute things to the WSJ that I didn't see in the articles (not that I can read them all because some of them are paywalled).
I don't quite know what to expect next, but this is the beginning of something, not the end of something.
On the other hand, it seems unlikely to be either to me. It's the same old story, a shameless populist blaming the messenger for his own self-inflicted problems. I've seen it so many times, it's kind of tiresome now. You, however, seem to be quite caught up in your impassioned defence of PewDiePie, but I see little to justify your impassioned defence. PewDiePie did several things likely to embarrass his sponsors, someone pointed it out, and his sponsors dropped him for it. It's a pretty boring story if you ignore PewDiePie's outrage at actually being held accountable for his actions.
It's not an 'antisemitic video' or 'antisemitic content'. That's the prime and obvious lie for me here, and anyone arguing otherwise has to explain why dozens of the greatest comedians of all time weren't being antisemitic when they did Nazi or holocaust stuff. I've seen comedians do straight uber-dark toned holocaust stuff that no one would call anti-semitic. I've heard Bill Hicks scream "Hilter had the right idea; he was just an underachiever!" and no one has ever to my knowledge called him a fascist or a Nazi. In comparison, PewDiePie offered nothing but a sustained look of horror, no laughing, as the message was unfurled. That look of horror could be real or faked; it doesn't matter. By the standards of Nazi jokes stretching back for decades and deacdes, it's a rather tame example, showing horror instead of the morbid, flippant, shock-tactic version of a holocaust that stand-ups often use.
Several other people have said that the context was actually the PewDiePie thought that if he paid "brown people" to show anti-Semitic messages, no one would get angry. I don't know if that's true or not, I've previously watched a couple of his videos but didn't think they were very good. However, if that's true it plays into a larger narrative that PewDiePie has been feeding. In essence that white people, like him, are being discriminated against by everyone else. He can claim he's just joking, but it's a disturbing pattern of behaviour. And if you want to be comedic about those things you need to be very explicit about it being a joke before you tell the joke. Plus, it's not like this is the only time he's done things deliberately to offend people. I have a friend who stopped watching his videos a couple of years ago because PewDiePie kept throwing gratuitously offensive comments into his regular videos. He's been called out previously on using racist epithets, and in this case he made not one, but three videos with anti-Semitic messages in them. What's that old saying "Once is a fluke, twice is coincidence, three times is a trend?".
The whole being horrified at what people will do for money thing just seems like bullshit cloaking. It should be no surprise to anyone that you can get people who are desperate for money to do horrible things, especially when they don't understand what they're doing. And apparently the guys in the video who made the banner have released an apology video saying they didn't understand what the message meant, which is certainly possible, with English not being their first language and not actually having lived in a English speaking culture.
The problem remains, I haven't seen any actual lies. The WSJ sent a video to Disney about an issue that they were going to write about, the video might be "edited", but I doubt it was deceptively edited. Removing the context in some cases changes the message, but in this case, I don't think there's been much deceptiveness. PewDiePie was using anti-Semitic messages for shock value and to get attention. He just ended up with the (potentially) the wrong kind of attention.
I'm pretty convinced that the "Fake News" angle on this story is entirely bogus, and is meant to incite sympathy for some who's been hoisted by their own petard.
Do this. Do this more often. Exactly this.
Followed by 8 years of Cruz, LOL!
Since when is Rupert Murdoch a representative of "the left"?
Conceding just for the sake of argument that PDP is a vile and overt racist, if this is done VIA MULTIPLE MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS PRINTING LIES then you are doing more damage than good.
You haven't shown that anyone actually lied.
For some reason, the meat of the story, that main steam media are being so dishonest, seems to be ignored by many commenters here.
Maybe because that's not the meat of the story? Someone's just trying to convince you that it is. The meat of the story is that PewDiePie has a history of using racials slurs and asshatery to get attention. He has ranted about and made insane accusations about the companies that have made him rich and famous. And then later claimed that he joking about the racism and insanity. However, when his behaviour patterns were pointed out to his biggest sponsors, they dropped him.
The Wall Street Journal's take on the story is that there is a public relations danger to companies when endorsing content creators (influencers) that they have little or no control over.
Your take on the story is that the media is out to get PewDiePie because he's a threat to them.
The right is fucked up, too. But the right wing (despite their feelings on Israel) is not overly concerned about PewDiePie's Nazi jokes.
But the Wall Street Journal, whom you claim is the instigator, is owned by the right-wing. So? Are they overly concerned or not?
I detest the guy for other reasons. I think he's a twat. However, do you truly believe that he's a neo nazi? Does anyone? Probably not. His firing was one of virtue signaling, nothing more. I think virtue signaling is far more harmful to society than some moron's stupid jokes.
I disagree, according to his claims some people at the Wall Street Journal pointed out to Disney that they had a developing public relations problem, and Disney terminated the problem.
It doesn't matter whether or not PewDiePie is a neo nazi or not, as long as he could credibly be portrayed as one in a way that would be harmful to Disney's business. Whether or not he's sincere, his juvenile shock tactics made him toxic to a company with a brand based on good, clean, family fun.
The only "doctor" to have "evidence" of a link between any vaccine and autism lost his medical license because his evidence was fraudulent. Turns out, he never examined the patients in his "study", most of them didn't have autism, and he was being paid a shit-ton of money for the "evidence" by one of the competitors to the vaccine's he accused of causing autism.
You have been played for a fool, but are too stupid to understand that.
The only key to boost economy is to LOWER TAXES, not give handouts.
Lowering taxes has never boosted the economy by a measurable amount.
High taxes = less money in the hands of people, regardless of who they are, and as a result they buy less goods and do fewer investments.
Actually, that's wrong. What do think happens to money collected as taxes? The government spends it on people. They either give it to people or pay other people to do things for the government. So, usually high taxes (assuming a graduated system) means more money in the hands of a lot of people and less money in the hands of a few people. Generally, this results in a net gain for the economy because people with less wealth almost always spend more of their income than people with more wealth.
People buying more stuff = more jobs, more goods, happier society.
Generally true, but the approach you want to take is counter productive and results in fewer people buying stuff, fewer jobs, fewer goods, and an unhappy society.
Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is absolutely useless.
Actually, it's sound fiscally policy which is why every developed country in the world does it.
hey'll blow through all that money in a day, get alcohol poisoning and taxpayers will have to pay for their therapy.
If that were true, that money is then going to the liquor store clerk or bartenders, the brewers, the delivery truck driver, the hospital, the janitors, the doctors and the nurses. Plus lots of other people in a web of economic activity so vast I can't list all of the beneficiaries.
I'm not opposing the ban on people with visas/citzenship from 7 arbitrary predominatley Muslim countries. I'm opposing the craven cowardice of the poster, I was replying to.
You should also note that neither of those attacks that he cited were carried out by people who would have been affected by Trump's travel ban. Two of those shooters were natural born American citizens, and the third was married to one of the other shooters and while born in Pakistan (not covered by the ban), was a permanent resident of the United States.
Isn't it always the victim's fault?
Actually, most of the people who put Trump into power are the people who always vote Republican whether it's Jesus or Satan's name next to the R.
A small group of Americans who flipped from Democrat to Republican because of losing their jobs to free trade and automation did provide him with a considerable push, but we should never forget that it was Putin and Comey who actually carried him across the finish line.
Meanwhile over 100+ people killed in Paris from refugees from Syria, but you all are claiming since it hasn't happened in the US then there are no terrorist with the refugees, despite OVERWHELMING evidence in Europe of the opposite.
According to the BBC, none of the attackers were actually Syrian refugees. It is suspected that two of the attackers posed as Syrian refugees when they travelled to France, but they weren't from Syria and the majority of the attackers were either French or Belgian citizens. It seems likely that had Europe and/or France implemented a ban on travellers from Syria, those two attackers would have simply used different fake identities.
Clearly, he lives at Trump Towers. It's a magical world, where everything bad is the fault of Mexico, India and China, and everything good is the work of the Trump.
- Frandklin D. Roosevelt, June 19, 1941
And you have such a great, positive attitude, I can't imagine any company choosing not to work with you...