Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Commodore, Feb 18, 2017.
I only heard about this after watching Jacksepticeye's video in regards to the subject. Pewdiepie did pulled a stupid and idiotic stunt, but the media is always on the witch hunt. Doesn't supprise me any these days after the elections when the media was doing witch hunts as well. I guess Trump may be onto something with fake news, though I call em overly exadurated news with added fluff.
My guess is that the media that outputs news (especially newspapers, yeah, they still exist) are in a way scrambling for click-baity articles and they see YouTubers (and other mediums like YouTube) as a threat to their bottom line coffers.
As for companies like Disney, I feel that they are in the right while the news outlets have gone way overboard, treating pewdiepie like the next O.J. Simpson.
Daily Stormer has Pewdiepie as their #1 fan site. This argument runs along generational lines in my house as the 14 and 16 year old feel we don't understand the context of his (alleged) joke. I don't understand is the volume of times (9?) that he's made these videos and they find it ok. Also, the argument comparing his videos to South Park is crap and not even close.
Why is PDP not comparable to south park?
Because they like South Park but don't like Felix.
No because South Park, while crass and controversial, has taken years to develop characters, build context and deliver satire. Felix does not. He has zero comedic skill, nor editorial oversight, in writing and delivering a joke where there is no punchline.
You just described Felix, though. He's spent years developing his character and context.
Which is why his fans can so readily tell outsiders that they're clueless. South Park seems offensively crass and disrespectful to an outsider as well.
But his character did not even deliver the message. He took advantage of two guys who didn't understand the message of hate he delivered. That's the final transgression of many that are not funny in any way. There is no supporting comedic structure to his nine attempts at making this funny.
However, considering the teenage white male demographic that follow him I shouldn't be surprised they defend him.
That's pretty racist. Is that the only sort of rhetoric you have available for your arguments?
Same stockpile that the 30 year old manchild gets his so-called jokes?
I'm not an expert on Pewdiepie, but from what I understand, the joke was to see what kind of things he could make strangers say for 5 dollars. To see how far he could push them. Is it immature? Yes. Is it funny? I don't know, I haven't seen the videos. Is it hateful? I don't think so. Was the joke in bad taste? Maybe. Was it deserving of the absolute character assassination that Pewdiepie got? In my opinion, no.
I think there was also one Hitler clip, where the context was that the clickbait media takes everything out of context to smear him. Then the clickbait media took that out of context (they deliberately edited out all the context) to smear him.
Hard to be racist when I happen to be white and male. Against teenagers? Maybe. I have two of them and they should be challenged on their views as I was when I was their age.
He wasn't delivering a message of hate, he was demonstrating that people will do anything for money. That was the context of the joke. So when you have 14 and 16 year olds saying you don't get the context, making comments like this lead me to believe they are correct.
According to some people here, being white and male automatically makes you a racist.
I think you meant to say that the Daily Stormer claimed to BE the #1 Pewdiepie fan site, not the other way round. They also very quickly changed that to be the #1 Wall Street Journal fan site. And if THAT'S not a joke I don't know what is
That doesn't absolve him at all. Especially given how much money he has, he could pay someone to do just about anything awful. Would you be making this same argument if he paid people 5 dollars to rob a store?
This just in: Property theft and threat of physical harm is comparable to saying bad words.
It can only be one or the other
That's clearly not the point. The point is that paying someone to do something bad doesn't absolve the payee of guilt simply because they're not the ones pulling the trigger.
I'm not familiar with PewDiePie at all, but I'm curious about whether you're arguing that WSJ just didn't get his joke, and jumped the gun to condemn him b/c of political correctness (or whatever)... or if WSJ got his joke just fine but wanted to destroy him and disingenuously used this as an excuse? Or maybe some at WSJ were doing the latter and tricked others into doing the former? Or maybe some at WSJ were doing the former and the higher-ups took advantage of their mistake to do the former?
Separate names with a comma.