Actually, no it wouldn't have. The alternative possibility that occurred to me was "Make me.", but it's not as funny. Neither is "Shut up." To form the maximum contrast between my previous long-winded pontifications, it needed to be absurdly rude in addition to terse. This would, I realized, also have an added depth of meaning for anyone who paused for a moment and thought about it... ultra-terseness on the internet is associated with rather shallow, rather empty name calling. (Either that, or vapid "me too" stuff.) That might seem like overthinking things slightly, but this all flashed through my mind in under 45 seconds and it appears that at least someone picked up on this--my post currently has one +1 Insightful mod in addition to the Funny mods.
There's a FURTHER level of meta here, if you want to keep digging. It's a pretty important one, and yes, it occurred to me as well before I hit the submit button, though at this point I realized I was surely over-thinking it to hell and back. The offensiveness (such as it is) is integral to the impact of the joke and statement... and so it is with PewDiePie's choice of message to test Fiverr on. You can't do it with something halfassed; neither the joke nor the subtle, implied commentary works if it isn't something impactful. The characterization of this as mere "shock value" is completely wrong[1]. It was the only way he could have done that bit properly.
1. Well, maybe not completely. Some of his other videos might be for shock value; I've seen very little at this point, so I just don't know.
As a general first-pass heuristic, it's safe to assume that anyone who accuses you of committing a "logical fallacy" is full of shit. This isn't to say logical fallacies don't exist, just that this is an artifact of capable people generally getting on with the actual debunking instead of squealing and pointing at the rulebook.
That said, I've noticed and pointed out probably at least 7 examples of a straw man fallacy in this thread. (To clarify, it's the same strawman, being independently built over and over by different people.)
If you dont like their policies, BUILD YOUR OWN SERVICE like a grown up.
I'll get on that, right after you build me a usable Comcast replacement.
Youtube has already reached the point of being essential for all but the biggest names. You can't get an audience of any significant size on Vimeo or Daily Motion or whatever the other comeptitors are. You have the tiniest bit of a micro-point here with PewDiePie, in that he might only lose half of his subscribers if he migrated (so long as the alternate platform was reasonably usable on desktop and mobile platforms) , but this is a hell of a lot bigger than him.
It's puerile hyper-capitalist nonsense to pretend that rolling your own video site and having that be profitable is within the reach of any one person. Even PewDiePie alone would only succeed in keeping himself afloat, if no one else was involved in the project. If this isn't talked about, there won't be enough people grumbling about there needing to be a Youtube alternative.
Youtube is not a hill worth dying on.
The aforementioned grumbling could either lead to an alternative, or the grumbling (or the thread of an alternative arising) it could lead to Youtube figuring out a way to cater to people who care about freedom of speech. But first people do need to actually give a shit. Shrugging your shoulders, ignoring inertial effects, pretending that the next generation of people isn't going to be turning to Youtube as one of their primary sources of news, commentary and independently produced content, is head in the sand behavior. I wish Youtube weren't the center of the universe for independently produced content, but unfortunately it is and unfortunately there is no viable competitor on the horizon. So, here we fight. I don't say it's a fight to the death, but fight we must.
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.
Beyond this particular issue, PewDiePie has made a lot of specific claims about content editing that amount to lying. I haven't gotten around to verifying this yet, but if PDP is lying about it all I assume it'll come out, because he's talking about videos that were all publicly available. The WSJ hired people to comb through his videos; maybe they can hire the same people to expose his lies, if indeed he is lying about their lies.
I'd like to encourage everyone modding posts like this "troll" to post AC explaining your logic.
There's no reasonable line of logic I can see that supports the notion that it's smart for the left to shift any of its fascist-shaming endeavors from political right wingers to the online Youtube stars who aren't very political and have tens of millions of fans. Young fans. Fans who, by dint of their youth, are probably largely left leaning. For now.
(For those people arguing that none of this makes sense because the WSJ is right-leaning, their pro-big business motivations in this matter have been explicitly laid out in subsequent articles.)
It's an interesting question but it may not hugely matter. They obviously have a long-standing pro-big business bias and they have been pretty damn open about the connection between that bias and the PewDiePie situation (see the link the post you just replied to.)
So regardless of any secondary or hidden motivations they may have, their motivations are already accounted for. The fact that they used an environment of generally leftist hysteria[1] as the basis of a weapon isn't necessarily indicative of anything. Possibly some of the people in question were leftists being permitted to pursue this agenda because of the larger big business issues involved. Possibly they were right-leaning but had special sensitivity to antisemitism (which isn't unheard of among some segments of the right.) Possibly they are apolitical and amoral assholes who just care pandering to people in order to sell papers.
It's an interesting question, but it doesn't affect the basic 50,000' view of what happened and why.
1. In reaction to over the top right-wing insanity, sure. This isn't Trump apologia here.
I carefully chose the term Free Speech to differentiate it from the First Amendment. I FULLY understand the difference between the two concepts.
Ok...
Youtube is NOT bound by the First Amendment,
I cannot reconcile these two bits. If you differentiate it from the first amendment and recognize that I'm not saying that Youtube is bound by the first amendment, why the hell do you keep bringing it up?
nor is it bound to your twisted idea of Free Speech
Nor is it "bound" to leftists (and "rightists") twisted ideas of political correctness and inoffensiveness. You are, whether you realize it or not, implicitly arguing that they are perfectly right to listen to the legions of assholes asking them and threatening them (boycotts, etc.) for more censorship, and that they shouldn't listen to counter-arguments or counter-threats from people like me.
Why is that?
I'm happy to not refer to the first amendment or words like "bound" at all, but regardless of whether or not you insist on injecting them into the conversation, you still need to address the implicit double standard here.
It's true that there are two different stories here and their entanglement has degraded both debates. However. the censorship (not just Disney, but also Youtube canceling his premium series) is extremely important and relevant in the macro view, and should be considered in the context of the articles the WSJ has written in the past few days where they explicitly lay out that their primary concern here is reeling in free speech across the board so as to sanitize the place for controversy-shy traditional mainstream media, and that they (and Youtube) want to do this regardless of not just what the content producers think, but also regardless of what the advertisers think. If Youtube de-monetizes a video, advertisers can't currently opt-in. Youtube (and by extension their influential media giant partners) is calling the shots about what is and isn't acceptable speech, and this is being applied across the board regardless as to whether or not anyone wants it.
That is an issue. If you're one of those brainwashed nutters who thinks that it's impossible to talk about free speech except in a governmental context, so be it. Invent another term, then. Whatever you choose to call it, this second issue that has far-reaching pragmatic consequences regarding what full-time content producers are allowed to say, and as Youtube and other walled gardens become more and more centralized in our society, this will profoundly affect the fabric of society. Even if Youtube competitors spring up, this isn't by any means an idea solution. I don't want the actual neo-Nazis of the world to have their own private safe space, rigorously policed against outside propaganda" that they need never stick their head outside of.
Is this a greater or lesser concern than the issue of news organizations lying? I honestly don't know. They're both massive, and as this incident shows, to a significant extent they can be interwoven.
But its also a video where a smiling person merrily displays message promoting genocide while the host laughs his ass off.
I'm sorry, what now? What video did *you* watch? Because I saw the host look on in shock and vague horror (whether real or faked) for thirty seconds before flashing a very small, sad, bemused smile at the camera and the video then ending without him uttering another word or laughing.
Is there another version of the video that you saw? Or are you just making shit up?
Free speech has always been about ensuring the government
No it hasn't. Private academic institutions, for instance, have grappled with and debated the issues surrounding free speech long before the first amendment was written.
It's wrong historically, it's wrong intellectually and it's wrong ethically to try to stuff free speech into a government-only pigeonhole.
The right is fucked up, too. But the right wing (despite their feelings on Israel) is not overly concerned about PewDiePie's Nazi jokes.
I'm not going to stuff my post full of "Trump and the GOP have created a very bad atmosphere, too" disclaimers. This particular controversy has been built on the atmosphere the left has created. I don't know the political affiliations of the reporters or their immediate supervisors at the right-leaning WSJ, but there were obvious cynical pro-big business reasons for doing what they did despite their reliance on PC culture in their methods. This isn't a conspiracy theory; they are very open about it.
It is absolutely important to remind people that vile racism is unacceptable.
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. I don't understand how ostensible leftists can fail to grasp this point. There's a well known fable about the dangers of such lies.
To then postulate that PDP's asshattery deserves full First Amendment protection
WHICH NO ONE HAS DONE. Holy shit, will this straw man *ever* die?
This is not about the first amendment. Please go read and reread my golf course racism analogy until it sinks in. Or don't and continue building up this army of straw men posts. It's obvious I can't keep up with the rising tide, so I guess it's a potentially effective tactic.
Just in passing, your decision to use prosopagnosia as your example disorder with which to perform an ad hominem
It is impossible for an insult appearing in the conclusion of an argument (in the "then" part of an if-then) to constitute an ad hominem. And you're a fucking retard for not knowing this. (This is a joke. Also, it is not an ad hominem. I hope we've learned something today.)
As for the wikipedia link, yes there are other disorders that are more specifically limited to an inability to recognize facial emotions, but I didn't feel like looking it up.
ce the intellectual function of sufferers remains intact (as noted in the very first paragraph of your linked article) and rather than falsify connections it prevents them.
I specifically said perceptual disorders immediately before the link, as in the ability to correctly perceive and interpret emotion. If you also wish for me to provide you with a list of intellectual disabilities that might also interfere with someone's ability to correctly understand emotion, just ask.
Ignoring some of the minor case-specific points here (because I've dissected them at length elsewhere):
Disney is not obligated to provide anyone a soapbox
You can't force a racist from preventing the black kid next door from walking into his house to play with his kids. That doesn't mean it's not racist of him to do this.
Some companies DO believe in and support free speech. It is of paramount importance to remember that this distinction does actually exist, that censorship is not a given, that the mere legal right to behave in a certain way does not confer an immunity from criticism.
This is not a free speech issue because this is not censorship:
Yes it is, in a mild but still highly significant fashion. (The stronger example here is Youtube canceling his series.)
The claim was that the joke was about killing jews, and guess what? It contained the words "KILL" and "JEWS" in the same sentence.
Truly, your contextually-aware semantic parsing abilities are a wonder to behold. I think your time would be better spent trying to get that right wing hate monger Stephen Colbert off of the air, though.
I understand that it would just be too dull for words to actually lay out that methodology, but I for one am reassured that it exists.
Pay me for my time and I'll throw quality citations at you all day long. I notice you didn't provide any citations for your claims, either.
1. Most PewDiePie fans are young
2. Most young people are "leftist" (bleurch, ridiculous term. Wtf was wrong with left-wing?)
3. Therefore most PewDiePie fans are leftist.
A more reasonable starting assumption than "most PewDiePie fans play video games and enjoy laid-back humor, therefore rightists are overrepresented."
Finally: I'm pretty sure that insensitivity never went away as a thing.
Then why can't PewDiePie be "insensitive"? I mean, you actually have a case there (inasmuch as insensitivity is something to be concerned about.) And you could actually make that case without hinting that tens of millions of kids are actually crypto-nazis for laughing at PewDiePie.
Funnily enough, my white male friends don't tell me about anything similar.
Well it's a good thing white males are such a small voting demographic. They definitely won't mind being called Nazis for no good reason.
My female friends tell me about quite extraordinary amounts of insensitivity they experience on a regular basis, right alongside the explicit bigotry.
They sound like whiny cunts.
So, that's the joke, and it was penned for no other reason than to ask the following question. Question: was that sexist of me, insensitive of me, neither or both?
My time is limited. Pay me a reasonable salary and I'll exactingly unpack my arguments to all day long. Failing that, I'm just going to sit here, quietly[1] being right.
Please, keep expanding the list of the left's enemies. It's not like we have an enthusiasm / membership problem or anything. It's not like young people (like the kids who watch his channel) are overwhelmingly left-leaning or anything.
The youth are the American left's best hope, and yet most of the energized leftists seems to think that the most important thing we do in situations like this is to poison the well, to make it undeniably clear to young, aspiring leftists that the one thing the left does not tolerance is off-color humor or nuance.
Israel might be more "chill" about accepting international law if the UN and international "human rights" organizations didn't keep insisting that they had to give back militarily strategic land to sovereign entities who have openly sworn to annihilate them.
This isn't about merely Gaza; it also applies to the Golan Heights and Syria.
And so did Mel Brooks. And then he showed a reaction shot of people looking horrified at the toxic message. And guess what, the people weren't *really* horrified--they were all actors! They were only *pretending* to be horrified by the toxic message celebrating Hilter and Nazism!
There are dozens of other examples like this. Censorship based on absurdist hyper-literalism is pointless at best and dangerously corrosive at worst.
This act alone was enough for him to lose his corporate sponsorship.
I've dealt with this at length in other posts, but I should preemptively restate the disclaimer that I'm starting to think needs to be put in my sig: No, I'm not arguing here that any of these companies should be legally compelled to sign a deal with PewDiePie, host his content, etc.
You're claiming it's false positives that drive the weakening of taboos against racism and sexism. I think you're 180 degrees wrong. It's false negatives: it's people publishing racist and sexist views, then claiming they're not and their opponents are crying wolf.
At the risk of seeming unbearably smug, at the end of the day my 'opinion' happens to be the correct one here, and since the most energetic members of the left happen to share your opinion we'll probably get to see this confirmed in excruciating detail over the coming years.
So, on a very basic level here I'm not super motivated to hash this out in the extreme detail that you're demanding. Inasmuch as this is a private argument, I can be patient; I'm most likely going to be proven right in the end without lifting a finger. It's only worth having a detailed-oriented, drawn-out slugfest if it were a more public forum where more minds might be changed. (And I might do just that in the coming weeks.) However, I will clarify this:
2. A significant reason for that low turnout was that would-be voters stayed home because they didn't like a PC witch-hunt
That's only a small piece of the picture. The issue wasn't so much boycotting the PC witch-hunt, it was the PC witch-hunt failing to resonate with or energize people who needed energizing.
We may be fast approaching the era of actual fence-jumping alienation, though. If you can't see what an asinine and absurdly self-destructive thing it is to conflate happy go lucky, somewhat apoltiical but largely leftist[1] PewDiePie fans with alt-right assholes... I don't know, this is such a self-evident thing to be as to be practically axiomatic.
Let me leave you with one small nugget, something I might try to do a Youtube video on someday if I ever get around to it: There used to be a thing called "insensitivity" that lay in-between politically correct speech and racism/sexism. The progressive left appears to have chucked this middle ground entirely out the window. This was an extremely stupid move. Now, I'm not at all in favor of using the "you're being insensitive to X people!" card, but at least you are not making the horrific, foot-shooting mistake of telling all of these centrists, the apoliticals, and the less-PC leftists that they are really, secretly ____-ists and thereby lowering the impact when real _____-ism is called out.
"Insensitive" might have been the source of insufferable hyper-politeness as well as a place were actual racists could sometimes conceal themselves, but at least it was a buffer keeping the far left from throwing a temper tantrum and kicking out the moderate left. And you *need* the moderate left, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.
1. Because most of the younger generation are leftists. For now.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, no it wouldn't have. The alternative possibility that occurred to me was "Make me.", but it's not as funny. Neither is "Shut up." To form the maximum contrast between my previous long-winded pontifications, it needed to be absurdly rude in addition to terse. This would, I realized, also have an added depth of meaning for anyone who paused for a moment and thought about it... ultra-terseness on the internet is associated with rather shallow, rather empty name calling. (Either that, or vapid "me too" stuff.) That might seem like overthinking things slightly, but this all flashed through my mind in under 45 seconds and it appears that at least someone picked up on this--my post currently has one +1 Insightful mod in addition to the Funny mods.
There's a FURTHER level of meta here, if you want to keep digging. It's a pretty important one, and yes, it occurred to me as well before I hit the submit button, though at this point I realized I was surely over-thinking it to hell and back. The offensiveness (such as it is) is integral to the impact of the joke and statement... and so it is with PewDiePie's choice of message to test Fiverr on. You can't do it with something halfassed; neither the joke nor the subtle, implied commentary works if it isn't something impactful. The characterization of this as mere "shock value" is completely wrong[1]. It was the only way he could have done that bit properly.
1. Well, maybe not completely. Some of his other videos might be for shock value; I've seen very little at this point, so I just don't know.
As a general first-pass heuristic, it's safe to assume that anyone who accuses you of committing a "logical fallacy" is full of shit. This isn't to say logical fallacies don't exist, just that this is an artifact of capable people generally getting on with the actual debunking instead of squealing and pointing at the rulebook.
That said, I've noticed and pointed out probably at least 7 examples of a straw man fallacy in this thread. (To clarify, it's the same strawman, being independently built over and over by different people.)
If you dont like their policies, BUILD YOUR OWN SERVICE like a grown up.
I'll get on that, right after you build me a usable Comcast replacement.
Youtube has already reached the point of being essential for all but the biggest names. You can't get an audience of any significant size on Vimeo or Daily Motion or whatever the other comeptitors are. You have the tiniest bit of a micro-point here with PewDiePie, in that he might only lose half of his subscribers if he migrated (so long as the alternate platform was reasonably usable on desktop and mobile platforms) , but this is a hell of a lot bigger than him.
It's puerile hyper-capitalist nonsense to pretend that rolling your own video site and having that be profitable is within the reach of any one person. Even PewDiePie alone would only succeed in keeping himself afloat, if no one else was involved in the project. If this isn't talked about, there won't be enough people grumbling about there needing to be a Youtube alternative.
Youtube is not a hill worth dying on.
The aforementioned grumbling could either lead to an alternative, or the grumbling (or the thread of an alternative arising) it could lead to Youtube figuring out a way to cater to people who care about freedom of speech. But first people do need to actually give a shit. Shrugging your shoulders, ignoring inertial effects, pretending that the next generation of people isn't going to be turning to Youtube as one of their primary sources of news, commentary and independently produced content, is head in the sand behavior. I wish Youtube weren't the center of the universe for independently produced content, but unfortunately it is and unfortunately there is no viable competitor on the horizon. So, here we fight. I don't say it's a fight to the death, but fight we must.
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.
Beyond this particular issue, PewDiePie has made a lot of specific claims about content editing that amount to lying. I haven't gotten around to verifying this yet, but if PDP is lying about it all I assume it'll come out, because he's talking about videos that were all publicly available. The WSJ hired people to comb through his videos; maybe they can hire the same people to expose his lies, if indeed he is lying about their lies.
I'd like to encourage everyone modding posts like this "troll" to post AC explaining your logic.
There's no reasonable line of logic I can see that supports the notion that it's smart for the left to shift any of its fascist-shaming endeavors from political right wingers to the online Youtube stars who aren't very political and have tens of millions of fans. Young fans. Fans who, by dint of their youth, are probably largely left leaning. For now.
(For those people arguing that none of this makes sense because the WSJ is right-leaning, their pro-big business motivations in this matter have been explicitly laid out in subsequent articles.)
It's an interesting question but it may not hugely matter. They obviously have a long-standing pro-big business bias and they have been pretty damn open about the connection between that bias and the PewDiePie situation (see the link the post you just replied to.)
So regardless of any secondary or hidden motivations they may have, their motivations are already accounted for. The fact that they used an environment of generally leftist hysteria[1] as the basis of a weapon isn't necessarily indicative of anything. Possibly some of the people in question were leftists being permitted to pursue this agenda because of the larger big business issues involved. Possibly they were right-leaning but had special sensitivity to antisemitism (which isn't unheard of among some segments of the right.) Possibly they are apolitical and amoral assholes who just care pandering to people in order to sell papers.
It's an interesting question, but it doesn't affect the basic 50,000' view of what happened and why.
1. In reaction to over the top right-wing insanity, sure. This isn't Trump apologia here.
I carefully chose the term Free Speech to differentiate it from the First Amendment. I FULLY understand the difference between the two concepts.
Ok...
Youtube is NOT bound by the First Amendment,
I cannot reconcile these two bits. If you differentiate it from the first amendment and recognize that I'm not saying that Youtube is bound by the first amendment, why the hell do you keep bringing it up?
nor is it bound to your twisted idea of Free Speech
Nor is it "bound" to leftists (and "rightists") twisted ideas of political correctness and inoffensiveness. You are, whether you realize it or not, implicitly arguing that they are perfectly right to listen to the legions of assholes asking them and threatening them (boycotts, etc.) for more censorship, and that they shouldn't listen to counter-arguments or counter-threats from people like me.
Why is that?
I'm happy to not refer to the first amendment or words like "bound" at all, but regardless of whether or not you insist on injecting them into the conversation, you still need to address the implicit double standard here.
It's true that there are two different stories here and their entanglement has degraded both debates. However. the censorship (not just Disney, but also Youtube canceling his premium series) is extremely important and relevant in the macro view, and should be considered in the context of the articles the WSJ has written in the past few days where they explicitly lay out that their primary concern here is reeling in free speech across the board so as to sanitize the place for controversy-shy traditional mainstream media, and that they (and Youtube) want to do this regardless of not just what the content producers think, but also regardless of what the advertisers think. If Youtube de-monetizes a video, advertisers can't currently opt-in. Youtube (and by extension their influential media giant partners) is calling the shots about what is and isn't acceptable speech, and this is being applied across the board regardless as to whether or not anyone wants it.
That is an issue. If you're one of those brainwashed nutters who thinks that it's impossible to talk about free speech except in a governmental context, so be it. Invent another term, then. Whatever you choose to call it, this second issue that has far-reaching pragmatic consequences regarding what full-time content producers are allowed to say, and as Youtube and other walled gardens become more and more centralized in our society, this will profoundly affect the fabric of society. Even if Youtube competitors spring up, this isn't by any means an idea solution. I don't want the actual neo-Nazis of the world to have their own private safe space, rigorously policed against outside propaganda" that they need never stick their head outside of.
Is this a greater or lesser concern than the issue of news organizations lying? I honestly don't know. They're both massive, and as this incident shows, to a significant extent they can be interwoven.
But its also a video where a smiling person merrily displays message promoting genocide while the host laughs his ass off.
I'm sorry, what now? What video did *you* watch? Because I saw the host look on in shock and vague horror (whether real or faked) for thirty seconds before flashing a very small, sad, bemused smile at the camera and the video then ending without him uttering another word or laughing.
Is there another version of the video that you saw? Or are you just making shit up?
You apparently did not understand a damn thing I said. The snipped portion does not change anything.
Free speech has always been about ensuring the government
No it hasn't. Private academic institutions, for instance, have grappled with and debated the issues surrounding free speech long before the first amendment was written.
It's wrong historically, it's wrong intellectually and it's wrong ethically to try to stuff free speech into a government-only pigeonhole.
The right is fucked up, too. But the right wing (despite their feelings on Israel) is not overly concerned about PewDiePie's Nazi jokes.
I'm not going to stuff my post full of "Trump and the GOP have created a very bad atmosphere, too" disclaimers. This particular controversy has been built on the atmosphere the left has created. I don't know the political affiliations of the reporters or their immediate supervisors at the right-leaning WSJ, but there were obvious cynical pro-big business reasons for doing what they did despite their reliance on PC culture in their methods. This isn't a conspiracy theory; they are very open about it.
It is absolutely important to remind people that vile racism is unacceptable.
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. I don't understand how ostensible leftists can fail to grasp this point. There's a well known fable about the dangers of such lies.
To then postulate that PDP's asshattery deserves full First Amendment protection
WHICH NO ONE HAS DONE. Holy shit, will this straw man *ever* die?
This is not about the first amendment. Please go read and reread my golf course racism analogy until it sinks in. Or don't and continue building up this army of straw men posts. It's obvious I can't keep up with the rising tide, so I guess it's a potentially effective tactic.
Just in passing, your decision to use prosopagnosia as your example disorder with which to perform an ad hominem
It is impossible for an insult appearing in the conclusion of an argument (in the "then" part of an if-then) to constitute an ad hominem. And you're a fucking retard for not knowing this. (This is a joke. Also, it is not an ad hominem. I hope we've learned something today.)
As for the wikipedia link, yes there are other disorders that are more specifically limited to an inability to recognize facial emotions, but I didn't feel like looking it up.
ce the intellectual function of sufferers remains intact (as noted in the very first paragraph of your linked article) and rather than falsify connections it prevents them.
I specifically said perceptual disorders immediately before the link, as in the ability to correctly perceive and interpret emotion. If you also wish for me to provide you with a list of intellectual disabilities that might also interfere with someone's ability to correctly understand emotion, just ask.
...and there's still no acknowledgement from you that an intended joke was, in fact, an intended joke, and not someone being legitimately angry.
Disney is not obligated to provide anyone a soapbox
You can't force a racist from preventing the black kid next door from walking into his house to play with his kids. That doesn't mean it's not racist of him to do this.
Some companies DO believe in and support free speech. It is of paramount importance to remember that this distinction does actually exist, that censorship is not a given, that the mere legal right to behave in a certain way does not confer an immunity from criticism.
This is not a free speech issue because this is not censorship:
Yes it is, in a mild but still highly significant fashion. (The stronger example here is Youtube canceling his series.)
The claim was that the joke was about killing jews, and guess what? It contained the words "KILL" and "JEWS" in the same sentence.
Truly, your contextually-aware semantic parsing abilities are a wonder to behold. I think your time would be better spent trying to get that right wing hate monger Stephen Colbert off of the air, though.
I understand that it would just be too dull for words to actually lay out that methodology, but I for one am reassured that it exists.
Pay me for my time and I'll throw quality citations at you all day long. I notice you didn't provide any citations for your claims, either.
1. Most PewDiePie fans are young 2. Most young people are "leftist" (bleurch, ridiculous term. Wtf was wrong with left-wing?) 3. Therefore most PewDiePie fans are leftist.
A more reasonable starting assumption than "most PewDiePie fans play video games and enjoy laid-back humor, therefore rightists are overrepresented."
Finally: I'm pretty sure that insensitivity never went away as a thing.
Then why can't PewDiePie be "insensitive"? I mean, you actually have a case there (inasmuch as insensitivity is something to be concerned about.) And you could actually make that case without hinting that tens of millions of kids are actually crypto-nazis for laughing at PewDiePie.
Funnily enough, my white male friends don't tell me about anything similar.
Well it's a good thing white males are such a small voting demographic. They definitely won't mind being called Nazis for no good reason.
My female friends tell me about quite extraordinary amounts of insensitivity they experience on a regular basis, right alongside the explicit bigotry.
They sound like whiny cunts.
So, that's the joke, and it was penned for no other reason than to ask the following question. Question: was that sexist of me, insensitive of me, neither or both?
My time is limited. Pay me a reasonable salary and I'll exactingly unpack my arguments to all day long. Failing that, I'm just going to sit here, quietly[1] being right.
1. On these particular details.
The guy has gone alt-right.
Please, keep expanding the list of the left's enemies. It's not like we have an enthusiasm / membership problem or anything. It's not like young people (like the kids who watch his channel) are overwhelmingly left-leaning or anything.
The youth are the American left's best hope, and yet most of the energized leftists seems to think that the most important thing we do in situations like this is to poison the well, to make it undeniably clear to young, aspiring leftists that the one thing the left does not tolerance is off-color humor or nuance.
Brilliant strategy, just fucking brilliant.
Israel might be more "chill" about accepting international law if the UN and international "human rights" organizations didn't keep insisting that they had to give back militarily strategic land to sovereign entities who have openly sworn to annihilate them.
This isn't about merely Gaza; it also applies to the Golan Heights and Syria.
He chose the toxic message to be displayed
And so did Mel Brooks. And then he showed a reaction shot of people looking horrified at the toxic message. And guess what, the people weren't *really* horrified--they were all actors! They were only *pretending* to be horrified by the toxic message celebrating Hilter and Nazism!
There are dozens of other examples like this. Censorship based on absurdist hyper-literalism is pointless at best and dangerously corrosive at worst.
This act alone was enough for him to lose his corporate sponsorship.
I've dealt with this at length in other posts, but I should preemptively restate the disclaimer that I'm starting to think needs to be put in my sig: No, I'm not arguing here that any of these companies should be legally compelled to sign a deal with PewDiePie, host his content, etc.
You're claiming it's false positives that drive the weakening of taboos against racism and sexism. I think you're 180 degrees wrong. It's false negatives: it's people publishing racist and sexist views, then claiming they're not and their opponents are crying wolf.
At the risk of seeming unbearably smug, at the end of the day my 'opinion' happens to be the correct one here, and since the most energetic members of the left happen to share your opinion we'll probably get to see this confirmed in excruciating detail over the coming years.
So, on a very basic level here I'm not super motivated to hash this out in the extreme detail that you're demanding. Inasmuch as this is a private argument, I can be patient; I'm most likely going to be proven right in the end without lifting a finger. It's only worth having a detailed-oriented, drawn-out slugfest if it were a more public forum where more minds might be changed. (And I might do just that in the coming weeks.) However, I will clarify this:
2. A significant reason for that low turnout was that would-be voters stayed home because they didn't like a PC witch-hunt
That's only a small piece of the picture. The issue wasn't so much boycotting the PC witch-hunt, it was the PC witch-hunt failing to resonate with or energize people who needed energizing.
We may be fast approaching the era of actual fence-jumping alienation, though. If you can't see what an asinine and absurdly self-destructive thing it is to conflate happy go lucky, somewhat apoltiical but largely leftist[1] PewDiePie fans with alt-right assholes... I don't know, this is such a self-evident thing to be as to be practically axiomatic.
Let me leave you with one small nugget, something I might try to do a Youtube video on someday if I ever get around to it: There used to be a thing called "insensitivity" that lay in-between politically correct speech and racism/sexism. The progressive left appears to have chucked this middle ground entirely out the window. This was an extremely stupid move. Now, I'm not at all in favor of using the "you're being insensitive to X people!" card, but at least you are not making the horrific, foot-shooting mistake of telling all of these centrists, the apoliticals, and the less-PC leftists that they are really, secretly ____-ists and thereby lowering the impact when real _____-ism is called out.
"Insensitive" might have been the source of insufferable hyper-politeness as well as a place were actual racists could sometimes conceal themselves, but at least it was a buffer keeping the far left from throwing a temper tantrum and kicking out the moderate left. And you *need* the moderate left, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.
1. Because most of the younger generation are leftists. For now.
You really need to learn to condense your responses and stop rambling.
Shut up, twatwaffle.