Media Defenders

Can you quote the WSJ article where they call him antisemitic and provide the link? Like I said, I'm having a tough time following what exactly happened. And for me, WSJ articles are behind a paywall. All I see are a paragraph at the beginning.

 

I'll defend the media anytime. They have the tough job of keeping track of all of Trump's lies.

That being said, I don't think what the guy did is worthy of being fired, and it may or may to be anti-semitic. But even if it's not, it is strange how many of his "jokes" center around things like Hitler, and killing all the Jews. It could be that when he was running over the gag with friends/writers it was so hilarious to them that they got on a roll and kept going, and then too many of the jokes made their way to his youtube channel or whatever.

The guy should have been fired long ago for not being funny.

 

I never seen any man (other than maybe Rockets Legend) carry Trump's unwashed jockstrap more than ipaman.

 

Did WSJ say that he was an antisemite, or that his videos were antisemitic?

There is a difference. A person who has no real ill will towards a particular racial group can still say something that is considered racist by most people. That he may not be a "racist" doesn't necessarily change that. Especially if his message is being celebrated by white-nationalist websites like storm front.

 

From what I understood of watching the videos, PewDiePie has made videos calling the media out for openly taking things out of context. That sort of made him a target to the media.

In the video he made that the WSJ ran with, PewDiePie was making a social commentary on the lengths people will go through for a buck on that website. He knows the phrase "Death to All Jews" is offensive, so he did an experiment to see if someone had a price tag to hold up that offensive sign. Someone apparently did, along with a few more offensive phrases. WSJ painted him as an anti-semite for funding that experiment.

WSJ went through his backlog of videos to find any evidence of anti-semitism. Anything that had any mention of anti-semitism, even PewDiePie telling trolls to stop painting swastikas or saying he made a Nazi salute when he was merely pointing, anything out of context was WSJ's evidence to support their stance that PewDiePie was anti-semitic. He even made a statement clarifying his intentions that he isn't an anti-semite.

He understands why Disney dropped him and that's their right as a business. Maybe he shouldn't have been as provocative. Either way, it's pretty wrong what the WSJ did. Nowadays, you have to be careful of what you say so it can't be misconstrued and used against you. Anyone can paint an agenda with the words you use.

 

I just find it weird that he got stuck on Jews, instead of throwing in some "n****r" and "kraut" and "spic" and "chink" and "Assassinate the leader" and "PewDiePie put a $10,000 bounty on my head" material. Now that's some funny, creative ****. Hitler/"Death to Jews" is kind of a one-trick pony. Personally I though it would be funny if he paid someone to hold a sign reading "Whoever murders PewDiePie will be famous."

 

Is there a link showing the instances where WSJ took things out of context as you're describing?

 

I think it's because of how significant anti-Semitism has affected Western culture, especially how hot-button of a topic it has become this past election cycle. The first video started it, then the media claimed it was anti-Semitic. He made a response video explaining how the media first took him out of context, and he continued to push those buttons further. What compounded it was real neo-Nazi websites again taking his videos out of context to think he was a fellow neo-Nazi. People believed what they wanted to believe without thinking about the actual message.

He should've had the awareness to know not to touch that topic with a 10-foot pole. But he didn't, and that landed him where he is. He realizes his actions now and doesn't hold it against Disney. What his main problem is with how his videos were taken out of context by the media. He should probably explicitly distance himself from those neo-Nazi websites, too.

 

I tried looking for the actual source material but I haven't had much luck. Apparently, some of the original PewDiePie videos were taken down. There's this video by another YouTuber that gives more context. He's pretty decent at exposing frauds. From the videos I've seen, he's fairly impartial and doesn't have much of an agenda.



Either way, it's good to look at both sides of the stories before forming your own outrage. People nowadays are too quick to judge from the information that they're fed without doing any real investigating of facts on their own. And as we've seen, you can't trust anything the media says.

 

Thanks.

Are the people from WSJ who wrote the article Jewish? Maybe they were offended. Maybe the people they know were offended. That isn't to say people should be offended; the point is, what people find "offensive" at the end of the day is subjective.

I am in agreement that they should refrain from using terms like anti-Semitic in a news article just because they may personally find something offensive to them.

 

Probably, isn't Wall Street full of Jews? Oh, snap, that's a stereotype. Jesus Christ...

Spoiler

That's all tongue-in-cheek for you slow people.

But seriously, maybe, maybe not? Racism is a lot more nuanced than using trigger words. Context, tone, intent, it all matters and those are easy to misconstrue in text. Calling someone a racist in this social media age is a very serious accusation and it should be used more responsibly. But it's the easiest way to discredit someone and gain a bunch of internet points even if it isn't true. That's why it's best to avoid those topics as best as you can when your comments can be traced to your real life.

 

While context is important, the nature of Felix's videos allows sites like the Daily Stormer to co-opt his name/image and use his popularity to further their cause. That's why something had to be done. I understand that's not Felix's fault but he has to understand that his social media influence has consequences. Not just to him, but the companies he works with. His "social commentary" on Fiver was implemented in a rather clumsy way as were other videos. I do think Youtube should have kept his show around and negotiated w/ Felix to modify any problematic content. Personally, I think his "Pewdiepie" hijinx is drivel but it sets a precedent that I'm not comfortable with.

I only saw the WSJ's video and that's unfortunate that led to the snowballing negative coverage. Felix is right to say that "people only read the titles" but that's the landscape we live in. Youtube's ubiquity and monetization is a delicate balancing act that will be interesting to see evolve in the future.

 

Anti-Semitism has been more than a "hot-button topic" since the 1930's. You reduce it by making it sound like transgender bathrooms or something.

"The media" are massive, and it's obviously incorrect to assert that all the newspapers, all the radio, all the TV, all the internet outlets, etc took him out of context. You're making sloppy assertions there. Be specific.

"The context" was supposedly some kind of commentary on what people will do for $5? Like when people pay two bums to fight for $5, to show how low people will go?

And this Swedish guy was kind of unaware of his country's history in WW2, Swedish neutrality throughout the war. He didn't know the whole Nazi/Jew thing was a big deal, like we Americans do?

And for some incomprehensible reason, neo-Nazi websites randomly latched onto him.

Guys!!! PewDiePie is being victimized by both the Nazis and the Jews!!!!!
We gotta help him.

 

I can't say. I'm not familiar enough with South Park humor vs pewdiepie humor on this matter. That one of the creators of South Park is Jewish, and the fact that the character who's frequently shown to be a Nazi sympathizer (Cartman?) is generally portrayed as deeply immoral perhaps explains why he doesn't find that as problematic.

Is South Park also very popular with the folks at Storm Front?

 

WSJ is conservative fyi.... not in the socially conservative type.