Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

The Pewdiepie situation - new media vs old media


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#26 Ali

Ali
  • Wielder of the Spork

  • 3,201 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 February 2017 - 04:17 PM

I met him a few years ago. Less of a dick than I thought he'd be. Is he still in Brighton? If so, I wonder if this falls under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act. I've no idea what the threshold is for inciting religious hatred or creating inflammatory material, and I also can't be bothered to research it. Perhaps there needs to be clearer intention than is in the video.

 

Disney is a private corporation, sponsoring Pewdiepie on a privately run online show. If Disney thinks that Pewdiepie's jokes were distasteful to the point that they didn't want to be associated with that, it's Disney's right to sever ties with Pewdiepie. Free speech still means speech has consequences, unless if you're the President of the United States :(

This, entirely. (Let the historical records show this may be the first time I've ever agreed with ortin). Commercial partnerships like this involve a certain amount of toeing the line. His line was pretty blurred given the nature of his work but clearly, Disney (no matter what people say about Walt) were never going to maintain the relationship after this because it's damaging to their reputation, and if he didn't realise that, he's a fucking moron. I presume there's some vague clause in his contract somewhere about reputational damage and them being able to pull their plug without warning if he's jeopardising their business interests. Quite frankly, if anybody in my team at work did this, I'd fire them tomorrow.

 

Maybe he's an anti-Semite, maybe he's not. Regardless of his personal views, I suspect he didn't intend it in context as a serious malicious attack, he's done it for shock value and for laughs and sadly he doesn't have the comedic talent to manage that. He's that guy on a lads night out when everyone's joking around who takes it one step too far and suddenly everyone falls silent and is horrified. Does he deserve the extent of the backlash? Maybe not. But given the content, I don't see how he can be surprised.



#27 Cass

Cass
  • Stronteigenwijs

  • 1,560 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 February 2017 - 04:22 PM

"If you don't like his content, don't view it" - ignoring prejudice and bigotry doesn't make it go away. Even if I'm not personally affected by the video, or antisemitism in general, I still don't want antisemitism to have a place in public discourse. Bigotry can start out as jokes, or videos, or whatever, but it doesn't take long for it to become violence if people don't take a stand against it and make it clear that it will not be tolerated. See: Dylan Roof, ISIS, Alexandre Bissonette.

Can you explain to me while you feel this is a valid comparison? ISIS growing from tasteless Youtube jokes into a full-fledged terrorist group?


Less of a dick than I thought he'd be. Is he still in Brighton?

Not sure if he's still in Brighton - he's become a lot more secretive than he already was about his personal life due to fans knocking on his door and bothering him - but I'm very much certain he's still in the UK



#28 Bone

Bone
  • no

  • 3,638 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 February 2017 - 04:34 PM

Can you explain to me while you feel this is a valid comparison? ISIS growing from tasteless Youtube jokes into a full-fledged terrorist group?


Not sure if he's still in Brighton - he's become a lot more secretive than he already was about his personal life due to fans knocking on his door and bothering him - but I'm very much certain he's still in the UK

 

People are literally recruited into ISIS through Twitter and Youtube. Dylan Roof and Alexandre Bissonette were radicalized by the alt-right reddit/Breitbart echo chamber. Joking about the Holocaust is the first step in normalizing that type of violent language, whether intentional or not. 



#29 talbs

talbs
  • 4,055 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 February 2017 - 05:45 PM

So....we should treat him differently because he has a big platform?

 

It's his channel and he should be allowed to post whatever he wants on it. If you're going to call him out on the shit he posts (in bad taste or not) you should be consistent with your outrage.

 

At the end of the day, YouTube allows us to view videos we want and not view those we don't want to view. If you don't like his content, don't view it. It's that simple.

 

This is my opinion. I don't find him to be the slightest bit entertaining, but these YouTube stars really seem to appeal to a different generation. Let the man say what he wants, even if it's the unpopular opinion. Don't watch the content if you don't want to be exposed to different (maybe even offensive) perspectives/jokes/etc. If this man does have endorsement or sponsorship deals, then he is going to deal with those repercussions as they arise. If success means that much to him, perhaps he should've thought about that prior to his actions. 

 

I just don't want to transition to an era of full blown censorship where we start removing content that we don't agree with and completely policing the internet. If I want to go to YouTube right now and make a video proclaiming that Sandy Hook was a false flag, or Barack Obama was/is the Antichrist, I should be able to do that. The viewers, or lack thereof, can decide how ridiculous my claims are, and proceed to bash me in the comments if they so desire.



#30 ohml

ohml
  • 124 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 February 2017 - 06:23 PM

There kind of is another argument with this. Some of you guys have been saying "If you don't like it then don't watch it.", and its really bugging me. I have seen the original video, and it was called."I've Discovered The Greatest Thing Online" This is classic click bait. I don't think many people would have expected 2 Indian guys hold up a sign saying "Death to All Jews" with only knowing the title. You can't really know what you watch unless you watch it, especially in the world of 7 second attention spans and click bait. 



#31 Romy

Romy
  • Ableist Neocodex Elite Four Member



  • 4,747 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 February 2017 - 06:31 PM

There kind of is another argument with this. Some of you guys have been saying "If you don't like it then don't watch it.", and its really bugging me. I have seen the original video, and it was called."I've Discovered The Greatest Thing Online" This is classic click bait. I don't think many people would have expected 2 Indian guys hold up a sign saying "Death to All Jews" with only knowing the title. You can't really know what you watch unless you watch it, especially in the world of 7 second attention spans and click bait. 

Do you only look at titles when you decide what videos to watch..?

Anyone with even a shred of youtube knowledge knows the type of content PDP produces.

It's not his fault people have "7 second attention spans".

 

 

People are literally recruited into ISIS through Twitter and Youtube. Dylan Roof and Alexandre Bissonette were radicalized by the alt-right reddit/Breitbart echo chamber. Joking about the Holocaust is the first step in normalizing that type of violent language, whether intentional or not. 

The holocaust was horrible therefore people shouldn't ever joke about it?



#32 FaerieQueen

FaerieQueen
  • 47 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 February 2017 - 07:16 PM

I don't think people are saying you should never make a single joke about the holocaust. I personally can't think of any funny holocaust jokes I've ever heard, but people are free to joke about whatever. They just aren't free from public reaction and consequences. Should anyone be jailed for jokes? Of course not. But can they be socially ostracized and fired? Yes. I don't get why people are so desperate to make everyone accept his "jokes" - if you can even call them that. Like I said, I don't see how "Hitler did nothing wrong" and "Death to all Jews" are jokes. They seem more like statements.

 


Edited by FaerieQueen, 20 February 2017 - 08:24 PM.


#33 Generic

Generic
  • 352 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 February 2017 - 07:29 PM

I don't think people are saying you should never make a single joke about the holocaust. I personally can't think of any funny holocaust jokes I've ever heard, but people are free to joke about whatever. They just aren't free from public reaction and consequences. Should anyone be jailed for jokes? Of course not. But can they be socially ostracized and fired? Yes. I don't get why people are so desperate to make everyone accept his "jokes" - if you can even call them that. Like I said, I don't see how "Hitler did nothing wrong" and "Death to all Jews" are jokes. They seem more like statements.

I don't think people are saying you should never make a single joke about the holocaust. I personally can't think of any funny holocaust jokes I've ever heard, but people are free to joke about whatever. They just aren't free from public reaction and consequences. Should anyone be jailed for jokes? Of course not. But can they be socially ostracized and fired? Yes. I don't get why people are so desperate to make everyone accept his "jokes" - if you can even call them that. Like I said, I don't see how "Hitler did nothing wrong" and "Death to all Jews" are jokes. They seem more like statements.

 

People seem to be misconstruing what happened. The "joke" wasn't him saying "Kill all jews". The joke was the fact that there exists online the publicly sanctioned ability (through Fiverr) to pay a man dressed up as Jesus or random caricatures of people in a "jungle" to say hateful and shocking things for petty cash. If Felix came on camera and said "Kill all jews" with no context, yeah, that'd be stupid as hell and a direct anti-semetic message. But he didn't do this. He highlighted the ridiculousness of the "Lifestyle" section of Fiverr by showing how easy it is to make people do shocking things for small amounts of money. It was a social commentary. Blame Fiverr for giving these people the platform. Or blame these people for doing shocking things for petty cash.

 

 

On a different note, I'm still waiting for @Pink_Bubble to reply and explain to me how exactly she can justify saying I "long-winded"ly defended anti-semetism and white supremacy, and about my "proximity" to it. You literally just call me anti-semetic and white supremacist because I defended someone's right to have a crude sense of humor. I'd appreciate some guidance as to where I was in close "proximity" to anti-semitism and white supremacy... lol.

 

@Pink_Bubble:

 

Whether or not he's a Nazi is conjecture.

 

What's known for a fact is that he funded and facilitated the Nazist message of "death to all jews" to be broadcasted to his audience of over fifty million.

 

Your long-winded defense of white supremacy and anti-semetism says a lot more about your proximity and complacency toward it.


Edited by Generic, 20 February 2017 - 07:37 PM.


#34 Bone

Bone
  • no

  • 3,638 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 February 2017 - 07:46 PM

People seem to be misconstruing what happened. The "joke" wasn't him saying "Kill all jews". The joke was the fact that there exists online the publicly sanctioned ability (through Fiverr) to pay a man dressed up as Jesus or random caricatures of people in a "jungle" to say hateful and shocking things for petty cash. If Felix came on camera and said "Kill all jews" with no context, yeah, that'd be stupid as hell and a direct anti-semetic message. But he didn't do this. He highlighted the ridiculousness of the "Lifestyle" section of Fiverr by showing how easy it is to make people do shocking things for small amounts of money. It was a social commentary. Blame Fiverr for giving these people the platform. Or blame these people for doing shocking things for petty cash.

 

If your shock humor requires a joke about genocide to be shocking, it's not funny in the first place. There are plenty of other ways he could have produced social commentary on that topic without trivializing the experiences of Jews who have been killed or threatened by people using the same language.

 

It's no coincidence that minorities are often both laughingstocks and caricatures in public discourse and targets of violence.


The holocaust was horrible therefore people shouldn't ever joke about it?

 

Not with a joke that parrots neo-Nazi slogans as tastelessly as Pewdiepie's.



#35 Generic

Generic
  • 352 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 February 2017 - 07:55 PM

If your shock humor requires a joke about genocide to be shocking, it's not funny in the first place. There are plenty of other ways he could have produced social commentary on that topic without trivializing the experiences of Jews who have been killed or threatened by people using the same language.

 

It's no coincidence that minorities are often both laughingstocks and caricatures in public discourse and targets of violence.

 

How else could he have produced equivalently shocking social commentary without trivializing the experience of someone? The entire reason there was shock humor value in Jesus saying something offensive was because it would be offensive to someone.

 

Interestingly, I agree more with calling the thing about the people dancing racist. A rich white dude paid some (presumably) poor people from a (presumably) poorer country to dance and say stupid stuff for his entertainment. Why is this just a side note to most people? I'd say this holds more ground than the anti-semitism. He (likely) doesn't actually believe the anti-semitic stuff. But he undoubtedly did just pay some poor people to dance for him. I'd like to clarify, this doesn't offend me personally, because I see that the people did it on their own free will for pay, but I still think it holds more ground than the anti-semitism allegations.



#36 Pink_Bubble

Pink_Bubble
  • 340 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 February 2017 - 08:05 PM

People seem to be misconstruing what happened. The "joke" wasn't him saying "Kill all jews". The joke was the fact that there exists online the publicly sanctioned ability (through Fiverr) to pay a man dressed up as Jesus or random caricatures of people in a "jungle" to say hateful and shocking things for petty cash. If Felix came on camera and said "Kill all jews" with no context, yeah, that'd be stupid as hell and a direct anti-semetic message. But he didn't do this. He highlighted the ridiculousness of the "Lifestyle" section of Fiverr by showing how easy it is to make people do shocking things for small amounts of money. It was a social commentary. Blame Fiverr for giving these people the platform. Or blame these people for doing shocking things for petty cash.

 

 

On a different note, I'm still waiting for @Pink_Bubble to reply and explain to me how exactly she can justify saying I "long-winded"ly defended anti-semetism and white supremacy, and about my "proximity" to it. You literally just call me anti-semetic and white supremacist because I defended someone's right to have a crude sense of humor. I'd appreciate some guidance as to where I was in close "proximity" to anti-semitism and white supremacy... lol.

 

@Pink_Bubble:

 

Humour can come from a release of (social) tension, a sudden contradiction, an unexpected subversion of our expectations

The theory of humour in evolution I've found most convincing is that it helps to soften conflict in groups that need to depend on their social cohesion for survival

In laughter, teeth are exposed, which is actually a sign of aggression, but here it's turned into its opposite

The body convulses, making the participants incapable of physical aggression

At the same time, vocalizations ring out, confirming audibly those who are part of this collective ritual

In a small communal family of hunter gatherers, an elder or someone with (community-vested) authority might slip and fall, and in order to soften the social tension of this sudden change in their rank,

Of course in the modern psyche, the evolutionary history of a certain social or psychological function is detached from its base and can take on general significance (this happens for sex as well, for another example, among many), and so we can have humour about "subversions of order" or "unexpectedness" and social tensions in a much more generalized way.

 

So, my analysis of why (defense of) this "humour" is cloaked bigotry rests on several elements:

The fact that it's a Nazi slogan

The fact that it's traumatic for victims of the holocaust and their families

The common trope that Jews are a lesser Other

This tension being amplified by social conflict in today's hyper-racist society

The subtle element that eager defense of Nazi sloganeering and lazy racist "humour", almost always reveals the comforts of not being its victims.



#37 Generic

Generic
  • 352 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 February 2017 - 08:16 PM

Humour can come from a release of (social) tension, a sudden contradiction, an unexpected subversion of our expectations

The theory of humour in evolution I've found most convincing is that it helps to soften conflict in groups that need to depend on their social cohesion for survival

In laughter, teeth are exposed, which is actually a sign of aggression, but here it's turned into its opposite

The body convulses, making the participants incapable of physical aggression

At the same time, vocalizations ring out, confirming audibly those who are part of this collective ritual

In a small communal family of hunter gatherers, an elder or someone with (community-vested) authority might slip and fall, and in order to soften the social tension of this sudden change in their rank,

Of course in the modern psyche, the evolutionary history of a certain social or psychological function is detached from its base and can take on general significance (this happens for sex as well, for another example, among many), and so we can have humour about "subversions of order" or "unexpectedness" and social tensions in a much more generalized way.

 

So, my analysis of why (defense of) this "humour" is cloaked bigotry rests on several elements:

The fact that it's a Nazi slogan

The fact that it's traumatic for victims of the holocaust and their families

The common trope that Jews are a lesser Other

This tension being amplified by social conflict in today's hyper-racist society

The subtle element that eager defense of Nazi sloganeering and lazy racist "humour", almost always reveals the comforts of not being its victims.

 

...and you take jabs at me for being "long-winded"?

 

So essentially your point here is that since this humor is offensive to some people, and I am not personally a victim of it... I am therefore white supremacist and anti-semitic. Nice.

 

While I personally feel like nothing else even needs to be said in my defense here, you bring up the interesting point that humor is, evolutionary, a sort of release valve for tension and fear. And that's exactly what dark humor is. It's releasing the tension on something horrific. That doesn't make the event any less horrific, it just means that we don't need to feel absolute terror every time we think about it. I used to have a big, dark, depressing view on life. I felt like garbage for a long time, honestly. A crude sense of humor is a coping mechanism.



#38 Pink_Bubble

Pink_Bubble
  • 340 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 February 2017 - 08:35 PM

...and you take jabs at me for being "long-winded"?

 

So essentially your point here is that since this humor is offensive to some people, and I am not personally a victim of it... I am therefore white supremacist and anti-semitic. Nice.

 

 

 

Yes, when you eagerly defend Nazi slogans, you're (at best) in-proximity and complacent to white supremacy and anti-semetism. At worst, you're an active participant of it.


It's revealing that you feel a need to police and denigrate the way people react to racist attitudes. Such is the great Western pretense: that active resistance against bigotry is the real bigotry (white males are most often its purveyors).

Petty bourgeois are very resistant to attitudes critical of their privileges because they themselves have a life-long comfort of being given benefit of doubt. People who are defamed routinely, who know their truth is never reflected by the establishment, recognizing that the battle against all forms of chauvinism isn't simply a forum debate but a fight for survival, have an easier time reciprocating solidarity among each other in fighting all forms of fascistic idolatry.
 



#39 Generic

Generic
  • 352 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 February 2017 - 08:52 PM

@Pink_Bubble

 

Yes, when you eagerly defend Nazi slogans, you're (at best) in-proximity and complacent to white supremacy and anti-semetism. At worst, you're an active participant of it.

Again, I never defended Nazi slogans, I said that it was used ironically, as an example shocking statement, to provide a social commentary.

 

 

It's revealing that you feel a need to police and denigrate the way people react to racist attitudes. Such is the great Western pretense: that active resistance against bigotry is the real bigotry (white males are most often its purveyors).

You see me as policing and denigrating people's reactions while I see you as policing and denigrating people's sense of humor. Such is the great "loftier than thou" pretense: "I'm offended and you're not, therefore you're bigoted and I'm good."

 

Also, I'm not policing anyone. At all. I don't expect to change your mind, all I'm doing is defending myself since you literally told me I am "in close proximity to anti-semitism and white supremacy" and I do not appreciate such baseless attacks on my character. People can have whatever opinions they want, I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I'm here to give my opinion, on the debate forum, while you appear to be here to call me and others who disagree with you various character insults.

 

 

Petty bourgeois are very resistant to attitudes critical of their privileges because they themselves have a life-long comfort of being given benefit of doubt. People who are defamed routinely, who know their truth is never reflected by the establishment, recognizing that the battle against all forms of chauvinism isn't simply a forum debate but a fight for survival, have an easier time reciprocating solidarity among each other in fighting all forms of fascistic idolatry.

I'm resistant to attitudes critical of my right to not be offended. My original point appears to be lost in all this, and I don't think you even realise what my point was. My point was that I didn't see his joke as racist and I don't believe he is particularly racist, since I personally cast a divide between what is said in jest or ironic, satirical social commentary, while you apparently believe that the context doesn't matter and he put those words in his video so he endorsed them. I am resistant to you calling me anti-semitic and white supremacist due to the fact I am not either of these. All I said was that I wasn't offended and I don't believe he is racist - at least not nearly to the extent that the media makes him out to be.

 

 

 

white males are most often its purveyors

I really wonder what you'd say to my white, male, jewish friend who personally lost relatives in the holocaust. I know him very well, and can assure you he shares my opinions on this. He too has a dark sense of humor, and can separate irony from genuine hatred.


Edited by Generic, 20 February 2017 - 08:56 PM.


#40 Pink_Bubble

Pink_Bubble
  • 340 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 February 2017 - 09:03 PM

You see me as policing and denigrating people's reactions while I see you as policing and denigrating people's sense of humor.

 

The former finds its basis in the mass murder, lynchings, rape and gas chamber executions of an ethnoreligious minority. The other is your sense of humour.

 

 

I don't think you even realise what my point was. My point was that I didn't see his joke as racist

 

No need to clarify, you've demonstrated clearly that you think "Death to all Jews" isn't racist.


Edited by Pink_Bubble, 20 February 2017 - 09:04 PM.


#41 Generic

Generic
  • 352 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 February 2017 - 09:13 PM

 

The former finds its basis in the mass murder, lynchings, rape and gas chamber executions of an ethnoreligious minority. The other is your sense of humour.

The latter finds its basis in the censorship and demonization of opinions that don't line up with your own, by slandering the character of people you do not know instead of actually debating the issue. The other is your feelings.

 

I can trivialise things too.

 

 

No need to clarify, you've demonstrated clearly that you think "Death to all Jews" isn't racist.

No need to clarify, you've already demonstrated clearly that you turned me into a strawman.

 

I'm done discussing this with you.



#42 ohml

ohml
  • 124 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 February 2017 - 09:18 PM

Do you only look at titles when you decide what videos to watch..?

Anyone with even a shred of youtube knowledge knows the type of content PDP produces.

It's not his fault people have "7 second attention spans".

 

What should we base a video on then? It the title not the only thing the consumer is given? Pewds never really made jokes like this before, but correct me if I am wrong. He didn't have to clickbait imo.


Edited by ohml, 20 February 2017 - 09:20 PM.


#43 Romy

Romy
  • Ableist Neocodex Elite Four Member



  • 4,747 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 February 2017 - 09:51 PM

What should we base a video on then? It the title not the only thing the consumer is given? Pewds never really made jokes like this before, but correct me if I am wrong. He didn't have to clickbait imo.

That's just it.

You aren't his customer. You aren't paying him anything to view his videos. It's his private channel that he can use to broadcast whatever he wants.

If you really want to protest his content, don't view it. Be sure to check the person uploading a video before viewing it. The simple fact that he isn't losing subscribers because of this controversy shows that this will not affect him in the long run.

People attacking him for using the platform he built to express himself is ridiculous.



#44 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,913 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 February 2017 - 10:01 PM

Guys can't we all just be friends? :(



#45 Pink_Bubble

Pink_Bubble
  • 340 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 February 2017 - 10:30 PM

The latter finds its basis in the censorship and demonization of opinions that don't line up with your own, by slandering the character of people you do not know instead of actually debating the issue. The other is your feelings.

 

The problem is you cling to the bourgeois idea of free-spech as non plus ultra. I have no problems with censorship and demonization of certain opinions. Like most things, speech has a class character. There is bourgeois, reactionary speech and there is proletarian speech.

 

Anti-semitism, ‘an extreme form of racial chauvinism’, is a tool used by exploiters to divert workers from the struggle with capitalism, deflecting the blows aimed against it instead toward each other, at the benefit of the exploiter. As communists, we can not therefore be but "irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism".

 

Even in the heart of empire, "our" nation-states have some concessions to this degree. Hate speech isn't entirely protected, partially as a result of its brutal consequences; as the bourgeois class sees a small rise in capitalists of color (presuming at which point they're not enslaved or legally delegated to the form of a second-class citizen), and as it needs to maintain favourability and a semblance of law and order.

 

Hate speech isn't the only form of speech which can carry legal consequences in bourgeois society, there's also: libel, slander, defamation, classified information, obscenity laws, and intellectual property. So censorship already exists, overwhelmingly to the benefit of the class which maintains hegemonic monopoly ownership over most things (politicians, courts, mass media, factories, banks, etc).

 

Dehumanization is also a tactic employed by the imperialists ("axis of evil", unbecoming media portrayals, people in need of saving) toward the nations they threaten to invade, occupy, bomb or usurp unless they toe the line with the global capitalist social and economic order.

 

Unlike liberals, we judge speech by its class character and not to the extent that it deepens the coffers of a monied class at the expense of the majority.

 

It demonstrates a logical infancy to uphold "free speech" in the facilitation of chauvinist attitudes which preface targeted violence and legislation, all of which amount to the reduction of general freedom for those people.

 

If you wish to speak of any freedoms, speak of freedom for the oppressed. The freedom of expression (and sometimes existence) for the global majority is predicated on the suppression of anti-person "free" expression.

 

----------------------------------------------

 

Edit: Below, generic dismisses the content of my post as "pseudointellectual garbage" so as to avoid the responsibility of defending his flawed premise. He's still failed to address the idiosyncrasies of his crusade for "freedom" of speech.

I've postulated the number of ways freedom of speech, expression and information is already stifled in liberal bourgeois society through legislation, such as: slander, libel, defamation, classified information, obscenity laws, proprietary information, patents, copyrights, intellectual property etc.

If one is against all forms of censorship, then all the aforestated deserve equal repudiation. Insofar as Generic has not communicated such a stance, I'm forced to believe they either (i) refuse to recognize or admit their own willful inconsistency or (ii) they like the "Death to all Jews" statement.


Edited by Pink_Bubble, 21 February 2017 - 08:12 AM.


#46 Generic

Generic
  • 352 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 February 2017 - 10:47 PM

@Pink_Bubble
You clearly have intense, deep opinions on this that I simply do not. You're here paraphrasing Stalin at me and treating this joke as if it were indicitive of all the problems of the west. Our disagreement clearly goes much deeper, as you believe in censoring ideas you disagree with and I do not. If you care this much, more power to you. I undoubtedly will never, ever change your mind. And I don't really want to. I was just here to give my opinion.

Have whatever view of me you want. I'm tired of sifting through pseudointellectual jargon when it all boils down to the fact that you believe the joke is harmful and I do not.

Edited by Generic, 20 February 2017 - 10:50 PM.


#47 wikkles

wikkles

  • 556 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 April 2017 - 01:42 PM

@Generic

 

Sorry to revive a bit of an old discussion, but I think it's still pretty culturally relevant.

 

I have a question: would you agree that content-makers who market primarily to kids have an ethical responsibility to use the power and breadth of their influence wisely?



#48 Generic

Generic
  • 352 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 April 2017 - 02:05 PM

@wikkles

 

I'll reply to your question, but I really don't want to revive this discussion, so I don't think I'll post again after this. Tired of being called racist/anti-semetic by Pink because I'm not personally offended by edgy jokes on youtube.

 

Yes and no, really. I definitely agree that corporations like kids TV shows etc have an ethical (or even legal?) responsibility to be a child friendly influence. To more directly answer your question, I suppose individual content-makers, like PewDiePie may have an ethical... pressure (?) to be child friendly? That is to say, I believe it would be good if PewDiePie was a good influence on kids, but I don't believe he has some kind of ethical responsibility just because he's popular. I don't blame him for becoming less PC just because he's popular.

 

Also, I feel like it's important to note, PewDiePie did seem to change over the years. I haven't followed him much, but even I can tell he's no longer the inane child friendly channel where he plays silly games and acts like a kid. He changed, he branched out into (more) adult content, and I don't believe he shouldn't be allowed to do that just because he used to be child friendly. I don't believe he markets primarily to kids anymore, but I could be wrong. If he does still market mostly to kids, he shouldn't, I think that's wrong, given his direction.

 

It's kind of like how someone like Miley Cyrus used to be a positive influence on little kids, I guess, but she changed and she's allowed to do that. I may not like what she became, just like how people can dislike new pewdiepie, but he doesn't HAVE to stay the same forever, in my mind.

 

 

 

Short answer: I believe he used to market to kids, but he changed directions and that's fine with me. If he's still marketing to kids, he shouldn't be. I completely understand why Disney pulled their sponsorship of him. I think parents have a responsibility to not let their kids watch certain things. By the (little) I've seen of him, he went from being for an audience of little kids to being for an audience of older teens/young adults.



#49 BirdistheWord

BirdistheWord

  • 134 posts

Posted 30 April 2017 - 08:10 PM

 

Tired of being called racist/anti-semetic by Pink because I'm not personally offended by edgy jokes on youtube.

Feel free not to post again, but wanted to say this: there is NOTHING WRONG with laughing at things (jokes) that are offensive: death, rape, etc.  Comedy is the one 'public' forum where we are allowed to break the barriers of social norms and figure out what is wrong with society. People who attempt to shut down those forums of communication are dangerous and harmful....the darkness that consumes this world is made better by laughter.

 

With that being said while PewDies politics don't concern me....youtube is a business and can shut him down if they think it will hurt their profit. And also, I can't stand his stupid face. He annoys the shit out of me.



#50 Generic

Generic
  • 352 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 May 2017 - 12:15 AM

Feel free not to post again, but wanted to say this: there is NOTHING WRONG with laughing at things (jokes) that are offensive: death, rape, etc.  Comedy is the one 'public' forum where we are allowed to break the barriers of social norms and figure out what is wrong with society. People who attempt to shut down those forums of communication are dangerous and harmful....the darkness that consumes this world is made better by laughter.

 

With that being said while PewDies politics don't concern me....youtube is a business and can shut him down if they think it will hurt their profit. And also, I can't stand his stupid face. He annoys the shit out of me.

 

Essentially my thoughts exactly. Thank you. Like, there's jokes that offend me too, to an extent - too dark jokes about death or suicide, especially done in a mean spirited way, make me really uncomfortable, and I don't think telling someone to "kill yourself" is very funny. But I don't blame people for finding those kinds of jokes funny or think they're horrible people. I get it, life sucks and sometimes you've just got to laugh it off. Also it really, really depends on the context for me. If pewdiepie had "Kill yourself" written on the sign, I still wouldn't have cared because the entire point of the sign was the shock value. It was entirely in jest.

 

Also yeah, I still dislike pewdiepie on principle, to be honest, he's really annoying. But people calling me racist because I'm apathetic towards what they dislike... eh.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users