PewDiePie calls out media “attack” in response to Disney fallout

The media and PewDiePie keep calling each other out, and neither is totally wrong.

Read the whole story

 

[Taesong]

As you say, the WSJ article focused on a very small portion of his total content. To me it seems pretty obvious he is just going for shock humor with many of his jokes, and yeah it is juvenile just like his target market. In fact part of the point to the humor is to offend, I remember how high school was.

yes but the point is when you have an impressionable audience, you should really think twice about how they'll interpret your conduct. When these kids see an adult saying things like he did, that demonstrates in some small way that this kind of behavior is OK.

after the election, there was at least one incident of middle school students chanting "Build the Wall!" over and over, with Hispanic students among them. and this is in an area of Detroit Metro (Ferndale/Royal Oak/Berkley) which is one of the most "liberal" in the region.

At the time I was simply chalking it up to adolescents being assholes (as most of them are) but I've since changed my opinion to believe it's indicative of a deeper problem. Kids will be terrible to each other because it's in their nature, but here we have kids who believe it's okay to do this because they saw the president say it too.

Yeah, I have had to talk to my son more than a few times. I actually kind of get the humor in some cases, I still smile at "nuke the unborn gay whales" (an attempt to offend every major political movement in my youth with one statement), but at the same time I have to explain to him how others may view those jokes. It is kind of hard to explain why the jokes I listed are "OK", because they are so ridiculous no one would take them seriously, but why other irony isn't, especially when I can't really condone everything I see on so call "respectable" media outlets.

Dying is easy, Comedy is hard!

 

[Tyler X. Durden]

That doesn't let the WSJ off the hook however. Calling our a misreprentation is always valid no matter who it is about.

Would you say that this Ars article misrepresents them? Because by the description they sure as hell sound to me like at least portion of his video are quite deserving of derision and public scorn in their anti-semitic theme (setting aside that I dislike that term). Even if he did it out of utter cluelessness rather than intended malice.

As you say, the WSJ article focused on a very small portion of his total content. To me it seems pretty obvious he is just going for shock humor with many of his jokes, and yeah it is juvenile just like his target market. In fact part of the point to the humor is to offend, I remember how high school was.

I often wonder why people accept so much offensive humor, only to get offended when it finally touches on something they care about.

Edit: To be clear, like my dead babies joke from earlier, I can understand how someone who had the great misfortune of actually seeing a truck full of dead babies would have a very negative reaction to the joke. But, if they were to suggest the joke teller was in some way supporting killing babies, I wouldn't agree and would find the accusation intentionally deceptive.

That seems entirely in line with getting called out by WSJ and getting shitcanned by Disney, because they don't want to be associated with LOLNAZIS. For good reason. Whether or not it is the bulk of the video or not.

"Ladies & gentlemen of the jury, please consider the countless babies my client hasn't murdered!"

 

[mltdwn]

We keep bringing up other comedians, Louis CK being one of them and he has a bit this keeps bringing up in my head and that is you don't get to decide if you're an asshole or not. That is a judgement that others get to reserve and if you get called an asshole you should not reply with 'no I'm not' instead you should be saying 'oh crap really? Help me out here, what did I do and how did I get to this place'? That is why his comedy works is because he knows at times he is being a complete idiot and douche and readily admits to it. He doesn't go 'oh people are just picking on me, I mean well'. Instead he'll say something offensive and then just go 'really, I just said that?! That's like the worst thing I've ever said now'. As for his comments on Jews his family is Catholic on his mother's side and Jewish on his father's so he kinda gets a pass on both sides.

 

[Jim Z]

We keep bringing up other comedians, Louis CK being one of them and he has a bit this keeps bringing up in my head and that is you don't get to decide if you're an asshole or not. That is a judgement that others get to reserve and if you get called an asshole you should not reply with 'no I'm not' instead you should be saying 'oh crap really? Help me out here, what did I do and how did I get to this place'? That is why his comedy works is because he knows at times he is being a complete idiot and douche and readily admits to it. He doesn't go 'oh people are just picking on me, I mean well'. Instead he'll say something offensive and then just go 'really, I just said that?! That's like the worst thing I've ever said now'. As for his comments on Jews his family is Catholic on his mother's side and Jewish on his father's so he kinda gets a pass on both sides.

The reason real comedians are a good counter example too is because for the most part, of offense/shock is part of their act they keep it to their shows. People going to see Louis CK or e.g. Lisa Lampanelli either know or (should) have been told what they're like. If you don't like it you can easily avoid it by not going to see them. Lampanelli (whose entire schtick is profane racial jokes) was on a podcast I listen to and explicitly said "I keep it to the act. They're jokes, I don't go around talking like that all of the time."

PewDiePie, on the other hand, did the equivalent of throwing a turd down in front of everyone and doesn't understand why people are put off.

 

[emphy]

We keep bringing up other comedians, Louis CK being one of them and he has a bit this keeps bringing up in my head and that is you don't get to decide if you're an asshole or not. That is a judgement that others get to reserve and if you get called an asshole you should not reply with 'no I'm not' instead you should be saying 'oh crap really? Help me out here, what did I do and how did I get to this place'? That is why his comedy works is because he knows at times he is being a complete idiot and douche and readily admits to it. He doesn't go 'oh people are just picking on me, I mean well'. Instead he'll say something offensive and then just go 'really, I just said that?! That's like the worst thing I've ever said now'. As for his comments on Jews his family is Catholic on his mother's side and Jewish on his father's so he kinda gets a pass on both sides.

The reason real comedians are a good counter example too is because for the most part, of offense/shock is part of their act they keep it to their shows. People going to see Louis CK or e.g. Lisa Lampanelli either know or (should) have been told what they're like. If you don't like it you can easily avoid it by not going to see them. Lampanelli (whose entire schtick is profane racial jokes) was on a podcast I listen to and explicitly said "I keep it to the act. They're jokes, I don't go around talking like that all of the time."

PewDiePie, on the other hand, did the equivalent of throwing a turd down in front of everyone and doesn't understand why people are put off.

You did see his latest video, specifically the part about him understanding consequences? What he was objecting to was the equivalent of the wsj now reporting him to be a professional manure-trader. If it were about shit, this would not be so bad. In the case of framing him, and by association his 53 million subscribers, as being a nazi sympathiser, somewhat worse.

 

[ScifiGeek]

PewDiePie, on the other hand, did the equivalent of throwing a turd down in front of everyone and doesn't understand why people are put off.

No, He totally gets that.

He is really only pushing back against the WSJ for their taking everything out of context.

Context actually matters.

WSJ could have done their story without resorting to such questionable tactics.

I am not concerned with damage to PDP, but with the further erosion of journalistic integrity.

 

[KenworthyW]

Relevant link:

http://www.pointandclickbait.com/2017/0 ... pewdiepie/

 

[Taesong]

That doesn't let the WSJ off the hook however. Calling our a misreprentation is always valid no matter who it is about.

Would you say that this Ars article misrepresents them? Because by the description they sure as hell sound to me like at least portion of his video are quite deserving of derision and public scorn in their anti-semitic theme (setting aside that I dislike that term). Even if he did it out of utter cluelessness rather than intended malice.

As you say, the WSJ article focused on a very small portion of his total content. To me it seems pretty obvious he is just going for shock humor with many of his jokes, and yeah it is juvenile just like his target market. In fact part of the point to the humor is to offend, I remember how high school was.

I often wonder why people accept so much offensive humor, only to get offended when it finally touches on something they care about.

Edit: To be clear, like my dead babies joke from earlier, I can understand how someone who had the great misfortune of actually seeing a truck full of dead babies would have a very negative reaction to the joke. But, if they were to suggest the joke teller was in some way supporting killing babies, I wouldn't agree and would find the accusation intentionally deceptive.

That seems entirely in line with getting called out by WSJ and getting shitcanned by Disney, because they don't want to be associated with LOLNAZIS. For good reason. Whether or not it is the bulk of the video or not.

"Ladies & gentlemen of the jury, please consider the countless babies my client hasn't murdered!"

As I said up front, Disney is right to only spend their money on talents that advance their goals. However, after looking at the videos in question, the WSJ piece was out of context. This isn't my style of humor, but I do understand the video's content.

FYI, they aren't alone, most articles intended to incite are written like that. Too often when I look into allegations of outrageous conduct, I actually find a far more nuanced story than normally told..

 

[Taesong]

Can someone explain why South Park gets to do nazi and holocaust jokes for 10 years while the show's creators are considered paragons of liberal thinking years but when some youtuber does it, the media rushes to portray him as a brainwashed internet nazi?

Again - context. Eric Cartman has always been portrayed as a narcissistic and ignorant asshole. When he calls Kyle a Jew or describes Jews as problematic, it's always in the context of Cartman being a blatant ignorant asshole.

Would anyone be crying if Mel Brooks did a sketch where Hitler was signing orders and ended each one with - death to ze Jews, regardless of how relevant that statement was to the order being signed? All Germans will have access to free health care and, oh yeah - death to ze Jews, stamp of approval. Context.

The context is; it helps to be Jewish. That's why Sacha Baron-Cohen can sing "Throw the Jew down the Well" at a Rodeo and we can all laugh at his Borat character because we are all so damn urbane.

The Borat movie, for me, was a bit much. It constantly slipped over and back from the line of creepy to hilarious. I am sure that was the intent. Certainly a comic style but actually in context he wasn't making fun of Jewish, he was making fun of anti Semitism in central European counties. Or maybe (wink) making fun of our personal biases and stereotypes about central European counties. I could totally see where the countries he made fun of would see the whole thing as a cheap shot at their expense.

But would you say that means Sacha is actually bigoted against central Europeans?

 

[Embattle]

Someone showed me something about this guy at work, I just said I didn't know about him or care about him in the first place so what he was showing me about him deleting his channel didn't bother me either.

 

[aglines]

unsubscribe mediabores

 

[LostAlone]

Jim Z[/url]":2q1qvf25]

We keep bringing up other comedians, Louis CK being one of them and he has a bit this keeps bringing up in my head and that is you don't get to decide if you're an asshole or not. That is a judgement that others get to reserve and if you get called an asshole you should not reply with 'no I'm not' instead you should be saying 'oh crap really? Help me out here, what did I do and how did I get to this place'? That is why his comedy works is because he knows at times he is being a complete idiot and douche and readily admits to it. He doesn't go 'oh people are just picking on me, I mean well'. Instead he'll say something offensive and then just go 'really, I just said that?! That's like the worst thing I've ever said now'. As for his comments on Jews his family is Catholic on his mother's side and Jewish on his father's so he kinda gets a pass on both sides.

The reason real comedians are a good counter example too is because for the most part, of offense/shock is part of their act they keep it to their shows. People going to see Louis CK or e.g. Lisa Lampanelli either know or (should) have been told what they're like. If you don't like it you can easily avoid it by not going to see them. Lampanelli (whose entire schtick is profane racial jokes) was on a podcast I listen to and explicitly said "I keep it to the act. They're jokes, I don't go around talking like that all of the time."

PewDiePie, on the other hand, did the equivalent of throwing a turd down in front of everyone and doesn't understand why people are put off.

And yet you don't seem to understand that PewDiePie does the same exact thing as the comedians you have such regard for.

He makes Youtube videos and in those videos he speaks and acts a certain way. But having seen many people who have met him and known him personally they all say that he is a genuinely nice guy. He doesn't shriek and yell and make nazi jokes all the time. And that's not even a frequent part of his content either. That's part of it but not all of it, but that's his content and not actually him.

That's the irony in what you're saying; you are actually making an argument in favour of PewDiePie. But because you don't like his content, assuming you've seen any at all, you want him excluded from the club of people who are allowed to make edgy jokes.

And, as other commenters have pointed out, you don't seem to understand his complaints here. He in no way said that it was wrong of Disney to back away from him; in fact he said that's entirely up to them. He simply said that the WSJ taking clips of him out of context then calling him a fascist was directly maliscious and directly unethical. He's pissed off at the reporters for doing a hatchet job on him, not for Disney deciding that he's too edgy for them after all. It's actually quite funny to think that PewDiePie was even under their banner to begin with. That could only have happened because no-one involved in the decision had actually watched his content because he hasn't really changed.

It would behoove you to at least know what things your opponents are actually against before you start telling them how wrong they are. PewDiePie is completely in the right to say the Journal took him out of context and attacked him. He is entirely correct to tell them to go fuck themselves for doing that. They were monstrously unethical; not even reporting rumours, simply fabricating this from whole cloth. That is what people are pissed off about. Not Disney, not anyone else. The WSJ for knowingly lying and calling that news.

 

[Darkness1231]

I don't know if it is legit to post a counter point URL, so let me suggest that you search for Ben Kuchera (our old video game editor here) at Polygon. His take was very good.

TL;Didn't follow the link:
Ben's position is that Felix is trying to equate himself with South Park. While SP has repeatedly crossed the line they are also very good at making the crossing funny. They can tell a joke, as in they can do comedy. Felix cannot as he isn't a comedian (or at least a good comedian).

A few really good comments in the article, BTW. One went on and explained that Felix is a hack, a bad comedian in truth. Which causes me to wonder if he really is doing hate speech and trying to claim it is funny and thus he shouldn't be hammered by the press (or anyone else). The trouble is it is difficult if not impossible to tell the difference from hate speech parading as bad comedy and just plain bad comedy.

He should stick to what he knows (IMHO) and it ain't comedy. If he wants to be a comedian then there are many ways to get there without losing contracts and being a complete ass.

 

[wangstramedeous]

Jim Z[/url]":fmd82qk7]

We keep bringing up other comedians, Louis CK being one of them and he has a bit this keeps bringing up in my head and that is you don't get to decide if you're an asshole or not. That is a judgement that others get to reserve and if you get called an asshole you should not reply with 'no I'm not' instead you should be saying 'oh crap really? Help me out here, what did I do and how did I get to this place'? That is why his comedy works is because he knows at times he is being a complete idiot and douche and readily admits to it. He doesn't go 'oh people are just picking on me, I mean well'. Instead he'll say something offensive and then just go 'really, I just said that?! That's like the worst thing I've ever said now'. As for his comments on Jews his family is Catholic on his mother's side and Jewish on his father's so he kinda gets a pass on both sides.

The reason real comedians are a good counter example too is because for the most part, of offense/shock is part of their act they keep it to their shows. People going to see Louis CK or e.g. Lisa Lampanelli either know or (should) have been told what they're like. If you don't like it you can easily avoid it by not going to see them. Lampanelli (whose entire schtick is profane racial jokes) was on a podcast I listen to and explicitly said "I keep it to the act. They're jokes, I don't go around talking like that all of the time."

PewDiePie, on the other hand, did the equivalent of throwing a turd down in front of everyone and doesn't understand why people are put off.

And yet you don't seem to understand that PewDiePie does the same exact thing as the comedians you have such regard for.

He makes Youtube videos and in those videos he speaks and acts a certain way. But having seen many people who have met him and known him personally they all say that he is a genuinely nice guy. He doesn't shriek and yell and make nazi jokes all the time. And that's not even a frequent part of his content either. That's part of it but not all of it, but that's his content and not actually him.

That's the irony in what you're saying; you are actually making an argument in favour of PewDiePie. But because you don't like his content, assuming you've seen any at all, you want him excluded from the club of people who are allowed to make edgy jokes.

And, as other commenters have pointed out, you don't seem to understand his complaints here. He in no way said that it was wrong of Disney to back away from him; in fact he said that's entirely up to them. He simply said that the WSJ taking clips of him out of context then calling him a fascist was directly maliscious and directly unethical. He's pissed off at the reporters for doing a hatchet job on him, not for Disney deciding that he's too edgy for them after all. It's actually quite funny to think that PewDiePie was even under their banner to begin with. That could only have happened because no-one involved in the decision had actually watched his content because he hasn't really changed.

It would behoove you to at least know what things your opponents are actually against before you start telling them how wrong they are. PewDiePie is completely in the right to say the Journal took him out of context and attacked him. He is entirely correct to tell them to go fuck themselves for doing that. They were monstrously unethical; not even reporting rumours, simply fabricating this from whole cloth. That is what people are pissed off about. Not Disney, not anyone else. The WSJ for knowingly lying and calling that news.

Unfortunately, few people are going to read that or really bother to look into the matter. I mean one of the top comments is someone making a joke about whether its really worth watching PDP videos to find out. When I originally made up my mind about it via Ars first headline on this I would have simply have written him off as well until a lucky trip down reddit had me reading more about the situation.

I'm disappointed in WSJ, but honestly more with Ars with the original copy paste. : / Like finding out a friend is part of the old school boys' club too.

As for jokes, its a shame we are social animals that are constantly policing what is right and what isn't. Context change, tastes change, most jokes today were scandalous yesteryer, etc, etc. It's a bore.

 

[Darkness1231]

And yet you don't seem to understand that PewDiePie does the same exact thing as the comedians you have such regard for.

A bad comedian is a bad comedian. He was attacked because he was offensive AND he has a large following that he is spewing hate speech and claiming it's funny and thus is fine. Except he isn't funny. The other comedians are actually good comedians and they routinely walk the line while juggling good sense, bad taste and perfect timing. Felix is a terrible comedian and he is claiming that just because he says he is a comedian he should get a free pass to say anything.

He was wrong. Cost him, didn't it?

 

[kgb999]

That doesn't let the WSJ off the hook however. Calling our a misreprentation is always valid no matter who it is about.

Would you say that this Ars article misrepresents them? Because by the description they sure as hell sound to me like at least portion of his video are quite deserving of derision and public scorn in their anti-semitic theme (setting aside that I dislike that term). Even if he did it out of utter cluelessness rather than intended malice.

As you say, the WSJ article focused on a very small portion of his total content. To me it seems pretty obvious he is just going for shock humor with many of his jokes, and yeah it is juvenile just like his target market. In fact part of the point to the humor is to offend, I remember how high school was.

I often wonder why people accept so much offensive humor, only to get offended when it finally touches on something they care about.

Edit: To be clear, like my dead babies joke from earlier, I can understand how someone who had the great misfortune of actually seeing a truck full of dead babies would have a very negative reaction to the joke. But, if they were to suggest the joke teller was in some way supporting killing babies, I wouldn't agree and would find the accusation intentionally deceptive.

That seems entirely in line with getting called out by WSJ and getting shitcanned by Disney, because they don't want to be associated with LOLNAZIS. For good reason. Whether or not it is the bulk of the video or not.

"Ladies & gentlemen of the jury, please consider the countless babies my client hasn't murdered!"

As I said up front, Disney is right to only spend their money on talents that advance their goals. However, after looking at the videos in question, the WSJ piece was out of context. This isn't my style of humor, but I do understand the video's content.

FYI, they aren't alone, most articles intended to incite are written like that. Too often when I look into allegations of outrageous conduct, I actually find a far more nuanced story than normally told..

I disagree. The full context doesn't materially change anything. The *possible* exception might be the "Youtube just made a Nazi decision" one ...and even there, you have to grant him a whole lot of benefit of the doubt. This benefit of the doubt starts to evaporate when taken in the full context of his entire body of work - where such gimmicks have become increasingly routine.

It is an inescapable fact that literal white supremacists interpreted the full-context videos as exceedingly beneficial to their cause. This was before the WSJ ever came along. All the outlet did was to highlight the aspects of his work that led self-declared Nazis to declare themselves as PewDiePie's #1 fans. I don't see how it is possible to use "context" to explain that away.

IMO, the pivot to victim - essentially blaming a news outlet that highlighted his work for results he brought on himself - was bullshit. He should have just apologized, promised to do better and moved on. The way he did it feels very difficult for top-tier sponsors to move past and eventually take a serious look at him again. "I'm sorry BUT ... " isn't really an apology, it's an excuse.

 

[LostAlone]

Darkness1231[/url]":275fwul1]

And yet you don't seem to understand that PewDiePie does the same exact thing as the comedians you have such regard for.

A bad comedian is a bad comedian. He was attacked because he was offensive AND he has a large following that he is spewing hate speech and claiming it's funny and thus is fine. Except he isn't funny. The other comedians are actually good comedians and they routinely walk the line while juggling good sense, bad taste and perfect timing. Felix is a terrible comedian and he is claiming that just because he says he is a comedian he should get a free pass to say anything.

He was wrong. Cost him, didn't it?

You didn't read the rest of my comment you quoted did you?

He isn't complaining that this cost him money. No-one is. He is a multimillionaire, he'll be fine. That this 'cost' him isn't what is being complained about.

The complaint is that some writers on a 'trusted' news site apropos of nothing went out to 'expose' someone. They did that by taking jokes out of context, presenting them as not being jokes. Whether they are funny or not doesn't matter. The context that they ARE jokes is what matters; that these are not statements of his opinions.

In fact most of what they based their article on is not even PewDiePie saying jokes about Nazis. Mostly they are him trying to get other people to say that then laughing that he got them to say it. Don't you think that context makes it clear that this is not his opinion? By stripping that away the WSJ willfully misrepresented the matter at issue and in doing so misled their readers.

By the way; why are his fans relevent? Why does his fans being assholes (edgy teenagers is closer to the mark but whatever) mean that it's ok to attack PewDiePie? Because he brainwashed them? Because they share a similar sense of humour? Oh that's ok then. As long as his fans, who are just random people off the internet, were being assholes then it's ok to maliciously lie about someone, right?

No. it's not. It's never ok.

Here's an interesting little fact for you; in the UK where PewDiePie lives what the WSJ did is directly libelous and actionable. They cost him significant money by knowingly misrepresenting him and not providing context. In fact, since they celebrated costing him money they have shown they intended to hurt his career. That's open and shut defamation. But the WSJ isn't in the UK, so fuck that noise, right?

These are the people you are defending; and you are trying to tell me that their actions, which are illegal where I live, are entirely laudable. That them maliciously lying is a good thing. Because there's no bad tactics, just bad targets, right?

 

[Mitlov]

He tried to be edgy, but now his career is over, these Youtubers are a dime a dozen. Either way he was going to be a short timer. However America has become a society of weak fools, who want to run behind mommy whenever they hear something the don't like. This time, it was a poison pill

His career isn't over. He still has a YouTube channel with tens of millions of subscribers. He still makes metric tons of ad revenue through YouTube. He is still going to make in a year more than most of us will see in our lifetimes. He just lost a couple of high-profile sponsors who didn't want to be associated with his brand of "humor." That's it. So he can cry me a river, because at the end of the day, he can blow his nose with thousand-dollar bills and not even lose sleep over the cost.

 

[Mitlov]

The complaint is that some writers on a 'trusted' news site apropos of nothing went out to 'expose' someone. They did that by taking jokes out of context, presenting them as not being jokes. Whether they are funny or not doesn't matter. The context that they ARE jokes is what matters; that these are not statements of his opinions.

Offensive jokes can and do still offend people. You're acting like "being really offensive" and "saying it's all just a joke" are mutually exclusive, and they're not.

Here's an interesting little fact for you; in the UK where PewDiePie lives what the WSJ did is directly libelous and actionable. They cost him significant money by knowingly misrepresenting him and not providing context. In fact, since they celebrated costing him money they have shown they intended to hurt his career. That's open and shut defamation. But the WSJ isn't in the UK, so fuck that noise, right?

Stating that "this guy paid a couple of people to hold a sign saying "death to all Jews" is not libelous when someone did, but his motivation was "for the lulz."

 

[ScifiGeek]

I disagree. The full context doesn't materially change anything. The *possible* exception might be the "Youtube just made a Nazi decision" one ...and even there, you have to grant him a whole lot of benefit of the doubt. This benefit of the doubt starts to evaporate when taken in the full context of his entire body of work - where such gimmicks have become increasingly routine.

Context always matters. Without context, the meaning can be, and often is completely misrepresented.

For instance, the WSJ video leads with him watching a Hitler Video. It superimposes Hitler and PDP grinning (the superimpose was added by WSJ), like a comic book villian.

In context, this was part of a video where PDP was addressing previous media claims that he was a racist/beat his girlfriend and a bunch of other click-bait nonsense. At the end was a lampoon; PDP was showing, here is their absurd caricature of me: A Nazi fanboy in uniform watching Hitler videos.

The WSJ takes that absurd caricature, out of context and uses it as their lead in.

It is such an ironic misrepresentation, that it would be comedy worthy of The Onion.

But WSJ is a supposed serious news organization. And they use THAT video to do the very thing the video is complaining about. Taking things out of context to misrepresent people.

Context Fucking matters.

It is an inescapable fact that literal white supremacists interpreted the full-context videos as exceedingly beneficial to their cause. This was before the WSJ ever came along. All the outlet did was to highlight the aspects of his work that led self-declared Nazis to declare themselves as PewDiePie's #1 fans. I don't see how it is possible to use "context" to explain that away.

This is nonsense. You mean "The Daily Stormer" that is currently billing itself as "The Worlds #1 WSJ Fansite"? These guys are Master Trolls. They scour the internet for anything to stir shit and attact attention. I never heard of them until the WSJ story. You can bet they are much bigger fans of WSJ, because their traffic has probably gone up 10X since WSJ referenced them.

 

[Sixthhokage1]

These guys are Master Trolls. […] I never heard of them until the WSJ story.

Totally a trustworthy take on one of the most notorious neo-nazi sites out there.

 

[ScifiGeek]

These guys are Master Trolls. […] I never heard of them until the WSJ story.

Totally a trustworthy take on one of the most notorious neo-nazi sites out there.

Totally trustworthy take, from a guy with 3 posts.

I have never heard of any of the neo-nazi sites. Just not on my radar. Maybe you follow this stuff, but I expect most people don't.

 

[Mitlov]

This is nonsense. You mean "The Daily Stormer" that is currently billing itself as "The Worlds #1 WSJ Fansite"? These guys are Master Trolls. They scour the internet for anything to stir shit and attact attention. I never heard of them until the WSJ story.

The Daily Stormer is the biggest white supremacist website there is. Everyone who has any concern whatsoever about the growth of white supremacy knows and is concerned about it.

And given that white supremacists have conducted more attacks on US population than Muslim etremists have (3x as many over the past ten years), I'd call neo-Nazis a whole lot worse than just "trolls." For example, there have been 48 bomb threats to US Jewish community centers in the past couple weeks, and The Daily Stormer has an entire section of their page dedicated to "the Jewish problem." Seriously, these guys aren't "trolls," they're honest-to-goodness Nazis.

http://www.dailystormer.com/section/jewish-problem/

 

[LostAlone]

Mitlov[/url]":50ibf2l6]

The complaint is that some writers on a 'trusted' news site apropos of nothing went out to 'expose' someone. They did that by taking jokes out of context, presenting them as not being jokes. Whether they are funny or not doesn't matter. The context that they ARE jokes is what matters; that these are not statements of his opinions.

Offensive jokes can and do still offend people. You're acting like "being really offensive" and "saying it's all just a joke" are mutually exclusive, and they're not.

Here's an interesting little fact for you; in the UK where PewDiePie lives what the WSJ did is directly libelous and actionable. They cost him significant money by knowingly misrepresenting him and not providing context. In fact, since they celebrated costing him money they have shown they intended to hurt his career. That's open and shut defamation. But the WSJ isn't in the UK, so fuck that noise, right?

Stating that "this guy paid a couple of people to hold a sign saying "death to all Jews" is not libelous when someone did, but his motivation was "for the lulz."

Offensive doesn't mean anything. At all. Nothing. Zero. Nada. It has no meaning. Being offensive doesn't make anything different. Because anything can be offensive to someone. A message is only offensive if YOU decide it is, and that has no bearing on the speaker. Being really offensive has no meaning in any setting other than in your head. You seem to be saying that because things offend YOU then action should be taken against the speaker.

Ok, well I find YOU to be offensive. So if I now contact your employer and demand that you are fired because you offended me, you would have no problem with that, right? Because you agree that offense means it's ok to seek to damage someone. Your comments are offensive to me and my people and you should be hounded to an assissted suicide by the mob, right?

As I mentioned; libel law is different where the Journal lives but where I live taking someone out of context is not 'truth'. In fact my media law text book specifically relates this to be the case; that reports that do not provide the proper context for statements are actionable. This is because it's lying by omission to present an lie as a fact.

Unless you can prove he is a Nazi of course. Which you can't, so you shouldn't be arguing that their reporting is ok just on the face of it. In my country no news paper would have touched the story with a barge pole because they'd get buried under debters prison.

But of course, the WSJ lives in the land of the free where you don't even have to bother saying 'allegedly' when you make shit up about people. Land of the free, AMIRITE?

 

[ScifiGeek]

The Daily Stormer is the biggest white supremacist website there is. Everyone who has any concern whatsoever about the growth of white supremacy knows and is concerned about it.

And given that white supremacists have conducted more attacks on US population than Muslim etremists have (3x as many over the past ten years), I'd call neo-Nazis a whole lot worse than just "trolls." For example, there have been 48 bomb threats to US Jewish community centers in the past couple weeks, and The Daily Stormer has an entire section of their page dedicated to "the Jewish problem." Seriously, these guys aren't "trolls," they're honest-to-goodness Nazis.

I didn't mean to imply they were only trolls. Yes, they do seem to be an actual Neo-Nazis.

What I meant, was after even a quick look, it became obvious that in their net presence, they are Master Trolls, scouring the net for anything they can twist, meme, and troll to their interests. So of course they are going to throw up anything PewDiePie related they can opportunistically use to their ends. They are no more an actual PewDiePie fans, than they are actual WSJ fans (as they were tagging themselves, when I checked).

 

[Andara]

So you assume there enough evidence to condemn him, but you won't actually look at it yourself?

*sigh* You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

I did not condemn him. In fact, the thing for which I said had ample evidence is nothing he has done, but what others have done in reaction to what he has done.

The fact that the alt-right/white-supremacist sphere things he's the bee's knees is not in question. They love him because they can use his commentary, stripped of context, as though what he is doing is in support of their own agenda.

This is the danger I mentioned in a previous post regarding the appearance of impropriety.

What I meant, was after even a quick look, it became obvious that in their net presence, they are Master Trolls, scouring the net for anything they can twist, meme, and troll to their interests.

They're not trolls, they're propagandists, which is something far more insidious than even a master troll network.

Garnering their attention and support should be a sign that you're doing something very, very wrong.

 

[LeShaque]

Can't believe that this guy has more than 16 million subscribers yet informative channels like SciShow and It's Okay to be Smart have 4 and 1 million.

 

[ScifiGeek]

So you assume there enough evidence to condemn him, but you won't actually look at it yourself?

*sigh* You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

I did not condemn him.

...

Garnering their attention and support should be a sign that you're doing something very, very wrong.

So you do condemn him.

As I said already. They aren't actual fans, they are just scouring the internet, for anything they can twist to their purpose.

They are now billing themselves as the #1 WSJ Fansite.

Does that mean WSJ is doing something very, very wrong?

 

[David Woodward]

... watch another youtuber's point of view on this, particularly a jewish youtuber. Here is a link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLNSiFrS3n4

He is a friend of PewDiePie. He has worked with PewDiePie. He has his own commercial Youtube etc. channels.

Based on browsing through some of the people he has worked with, and some of his clips, and some of the comments and some of the reddit; I'm making a wild guess that the pink hat in the graphic header of his Youtube channel is being used ironically.

 

[ScifiGeek]

... watch another youtuber's point of view on this, particularly a jewish youtuber. Here is a link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLNSiFrS3n4

He is a friend of PewDiePie. He has worked with PewDiePie. He has his own commercial Youtube etc. channels.

Does that alter the factual points he makes? There is this guy who hate PDP and admits he is jealous of him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjrqQK5xrMY

Still the same points. Practically every Video commenting on this makes the same points:

The WSJ used out of context clips to completely misrepresent PDP.

This is looking like an Traditional Media vs New Media conflict.

But it looks like Traditional Media = Take out of context clips to create false narrative. Then Traditional Media cronies, get on bandwagon without any further investigation (or worse, realize this is bullshit and pile on anyway).

New Media, are actually looking at the context, and replying with a collective WTF?

Since this story is based on internet activity, any of us can actually research it quickly ourselves.

If you do, it shows Traditional Media in a pretty bad light.

The problem I have been saying all along, is the further damage this does to trust in traditional media.

If I can see the bullshit in a story that is easily checked. How am I supposed to trust them when I can't check.

This story bothers me so much, because I am someone who has hated the recent attacks against trust in media by alt-right and Trump supporters.

I want there to be media we can trust. We need good journalists with integrity, to help use find out the truth about issues.

But then WSJ pulls this bullshit, that can be easily checked, so we can see it for the bullshit that it is.

It's a massive setback for journalistic integrity, and huge win for Alt-Right fake news machine.

 

[tedkord1]

Attention whoring special snowflake shock-jock goes too far, has to face consequences for his actions for maybe the first time in his life.

Why is this news?

Because we just elected a President who's the exact same thing, and he never faced any consequences.

 

[FactsAreMyReligion]

I find it so humorous that most the people whining about "free speech" are conservatives who praise the free market. As soon as the free market works the way it's supposed to, they blame Americans for censorship, as if they have no idea what the First Amendment says.

 

[ShaptainCitpost]

Fuck Disney.

 

[kray28]

I do think he has a point about the mainstream media mischaracterizing him and why they do it. They are threatened by YouTube personalities. PDP isn't an anti-semite from what I understand, and his response video was pretty good in explaining what he did wrong, and also what the media (in this case, the WSJ) did to him.

 

[Tyler X. Durden]

That doesn't let the WSJ off the hook however. Calling our a misreprentation is always valid no matter who it is about.

Would you say that this Ars article misrepresents them? Because by the description they sure as hell sound to me like at least portion of his video are quite deserving of derision and public scorn in their anti-semitic theme (setting aside that I dislike that term). Even if he did it out of utter cluelessness rather than intended malice.

As you say, the WSJ article focused on a very small portion of his total content. To me it seems pretty obvious he is just going for shock humor with many of his jokes, and yeah it is juvenile just like his target market. In fact part of the point to the humor is to offend, I remember how high school was.

I often wonder why people accept so much offensive humor, only to get offended when it finally touches on something they care about.

Edit: To be clear, like my dead babies joke from earlier, I can understand how someone who had the great misfortune of actually seeing a truck full of dead babies would have a very negative reaction to the joke. But, if they were to suggest the joke teller was in some way supporting killing babies, I wouldn't agree and would find the accusation intentionally deceptive.

That seems entirely in line with getting called out by WSJ and getting shitcanned by Disney, because they don't want to be associated with LOLNAZIS. For good reason. Whether or not it is the bulk of the video or not.

"Ladies & gentlemen of the jury, please consider the countless babies my client hasn't murdered!"

As I said up front, Disney is right to only spend their money on talents that advance their goals. However, after looking at the videos in question, the WSJ piece was out of context. This isn't my style of humor, but I do understand the video's content.

FYI, they aren't alone, most articles intended to incite are written like that. Too often when I look into allegations of outrageous conduct, I actually find a far more nuanced story than normally told..

Context doesn't seem to help here. Taking your description at face value isn't helping him. It was a shitty thing to put out there and I've seen nothing that suggests that the WSJ was out of line. Again, I'm completely unimpressed by all the babies he hasn't murdered.

EDIT: ... and his moaning about being the victim is only further making the case that's he's entirely clueless about it and thus was in dire need of being called out. See mltdwn's excellent post above talking about Louis CK. Too bad he's so far been too fucking hung up on himself to come around to the light.

EDIT2: And it doesn't square for me that Disney was in the right to shitcan him but not the WSJ pointing out the thing that got him shitcanned (or at the least the straw that broke the camel's back, since Disney's internal decision is quite possibly resting on multiple instances?).

 

[shelbystripes]

Man, I laughed my ass off at PewDiePie's fiver video. What gets lost is the greater context of the video, where he purposely filed request he knew would get turned down. He was going out of his way to create nonsensical and impossible requests, or requests that were the total opposite of what the fiver provider was offering.

The second was the specific context of the nazi jokes, which was "Death to all jews, subscribe to Keemstar", a competing channel. That was the full joke. And I've gotta say, the way he presented it was priceless. He practically includes it as a mere footnote to the bulk of the video which was all his fiver requests being denied. The fact that arguably the worst of his requests was the only one that got through is the cherry on top.

That all may be true, but seems to me to be entirely beside the point. Why would any corporation--especially one as intent on being friendly and welcoming to all as Disney--want to associate themselves with somebody who makes jokes involving the words "death to all Jews"?

It's not besides the point, Disney is free to disassociate themselves from him for taking his jokes too far.

The point is that many reports on the issue are either outright saying or implying that pewdiepie is an anti-semite on the basis of the wsj report. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which means that a series of clips taken out of context is not a proper basis to make that judgement. By all means, feel free to be disgusted by his use of anti-semitic text and imagery in jokes. However, if you are ready to hate him for being a nazi you are misguided by the wsj reporting.

It is (sadly) not at all extraordinary for someone to be anti-semitic, especially if they are the sort of person to pay people to stand around in public with signs saying "DEATH TO ALL JEWS".

 

[shelbystripes]

Offensive doesn't mean anything. At all. Nothing. Zero. Nada. It has no meaning. Being offensive doesn't make anything different. Because anything can be offensive to someone. A message is only offensive if YOU decide it is, and that has no bearing on the speaker. Being really offensive has no meaning in any setting other than in your head. You seem to be saying that because things offend YOU then action should be taken against the speaker.

You don't seem to quite understand how this works. What happened here has nothing to do with what you, or I, or the dude you were responding to finds "offensive". It has to do with what Disney finds offensive, or what Disney thinks its customers will find offensive. That's because this was Disney's money, and Disney doesn't want to be financially connected to such individuals.

PewDiePie had no right to that money. He has a right to free speech, which he still does, but if he wants Disney's money then not offending them or their customers is important. This isn't exactly a secret either. Disney (including all of its various brands and sub-brands, even the ones themed toward older audiences) cuts ties with performers all the time for conduct they find offensive, or are worried their viewers will find offensive.

It's not about me personally taking offense. There is a collective social consciousness, a pool of individuals whose standards can be understood and who are or aren't likely to be offended by certain things. If you want money from a sponsor, you'd better be careful about offending that sponsor's audience too much. You should hopefully know that if you're gonna tiptoe toward the line, you'd better be good enough to not accidentally fall waaay over it.

None of this should be surprising to you. If you want to get paid to reach an audience, how much you might offend your audience--or your sponsor's audience--obviously does matter.

 

[shelbystripes]

I do think he has a point about the mainstream media mischaracterizing him and why they do it. They are threatened by YouTube personalities.

How exactly is a decades-old, Pulitzer-winning pillar of journalism threatened by a dude who makes YouTube videos for 13-year-olds that think "edgy" and "funny" are the same thing?

 

[JohnBrooks]

Man, I laughed my ass off at PewDiePie's fiver video. What gets lost is the greater context of the video, where he purposely filed request he knew would get turned down. He was going out of his way to create nonsensical and impossible requests, or requests that were the total opposite of what the fiver provider was offering.

The second was the specific context of the nazi jokes, which was "Death to all jews, subscribe to Keemstar", a competing channel. That was the full joke. And I've gotta say, the way he presented it was priceless. He practically includes it as a mere footnote to the bulk of the video which was all his fiver requests being denied. The fact that arguably the worst of his requests was the only one that got through is the cherry on top.

That all may be true, but seems to me to be entirely beside the point. Why would any corporation--especially one as intent on being friendly and welcoming to all as Disney--want to associate themselves with somebody who makes jokes involving the words "death to all Jews"?

It's not besides the point, Disney is free to disassociate themselves from him for taking his jokes too far.

The point is that many reports on the issue are either outright saying or implying that pewdiepie is an anti-semite on the basis of the wsj report. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which means that a series of clips taken out of context is not a proper basis to make that judgement. By all means, feel free to be disgusted by his use of anti-semitic text and imagery in jokes. However, if you are ready to hate him for being a nazi you are misguided by the wsj reporting.

The more people liberal main stream media go after. Gamers, YouTube personalities, Otaku, Conservatives, etc. The more they will be hated.

A website that is not a fake news peddler would just say "Disney drops contract with Pewdiepie due to Adult Humor"