7 ms·

The WSJ may have sensationalized things, but PewDiePie legitimately made those incredibly tacky statements and "jokes" all by himself. We don't need that type

The WSJ may have sensationalized things, but PewDiePie legitimately made those incredibly tacky statements and "jokes" all by himself. We don't need that type of tactless behavior in online gaming. What happens on 4chan should stay on 4chan.

philangist 10y ago
Who are you to police what we do or don't need in online gaming? Why is your definition of tactless behavior more valid than mine? All of this just seems like recreational outrage from the outside looking in.
- izacus 10y ago
  He is "the public" - the same kind of public that kinda sets social norms for all other types of behaviour in media and real life.
  - theseatoms 10y ago
    And he can feel free to tune out and watch other content.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  People are allowed to form an opinion on things. They are even allowed to publish that opinion online. That's not "policing."
  - jknoepfler 10y ago
    Strangely, it takes time and maturity for people to realize the difference between being criticized for airing cruel or insensitive humor on an internet video venue and being locked in a cell and tortured for their political views (as in a police state).
  - nilkn 10y ago
    Your opinions have consequences. They can affect other people in real ways. In this case, the imprecise, incredibly untrustworthy outrage of thousands of people -- fueled by a sensationalist media hit job -- almost ruined someone's career. You're welcome to your opinion. But you also have to take responsibility for it.
    - geofft 10y ago
      > almost ruined someone's career There are countless millions of people with no careers at all. Clearly, our society doesn't believe in a right to having a career at all, let alone a right to keeping one's existing career. If we're worried about the threat to PewDiePie's ability to make a living, to his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, it seems like the fundamental problem is not with people on the internet having opinions, it is with the system where losing a career threatens all those things. Fix capitalism, implement a UBI, whatever, and then his loss of a career wouldn't seem like a threat to his ability to live a fulfilling life or to reach an effective means of speaking to people. The same argument can be used to say, "Your opinions have consequences. In this case, shutting down the TSA's security theater program put a lot of TSA agents out on the streets. You have to take responsibility for it." Or "In this case, Edward Snowden almost ruined the careers of many NSA spooks who could never make it in the private sector." Or many similar things. Would you agree those are bad arguments for not fixing the TSA or reforming the NSA?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - maldusiecle 10y ago
      "Almost ruined someone's career" is such a stretch here. PewDiePie is a multimillionaire. He didn't almost lose his career, he almost lost a few business opportunities. Others like as not would have opened later. This is a very successful entertainer facing criticism; it's not analogous to a normal person being forced out of their job.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - squeaky-clean 10y ago
    It's kind of off topic in the thread though. Sure, GP didn't like it, a lot of people didn't like it. That's beside the point. You're allowed to not like things, and people are allowed to publish (most) things you don't like. It doesn't add anything to the discussion to state you don't like it. But should pewdiepie be punished for it?
  - lobotryas 10y ago
    Sure. The question gets fuzzier when you publish on something like the WSJ that has a reach of millions. Example: If an anti-vaxxer published their opinion in a private blog, you'd probably be OK with their speech (as misguided as it is). If the same person started promoting their "opinion" using a national newspaper, you'd be a lot more upset. Moreover, it's documented that the WAJ article authors went after PDP's livelihood directly (they contacted youtube and Disney, PDP's sponsor) with their allegations and were successful when Disney dropped PDP and Youtube cancelled PDP's new show!
- geofft 10y ago
  The underlying assumption behind free speech, free assembly, the public sphere, democratic assembly, etc. is that some ideas are better than others, that people can argue about these ideas and determine which ones are better, that other people will be convinced by rational argument, and that society is better when the better ideas win. I don't think this is quite what you're saying, but "Why is your definition better than mine" reminds me of a lot of discourse I see about free speech, where free speech is an inherent virtue, and you should be able to say whatever you want to say without anyone doing anything about it - neither censoring it, nor objecting to it, nor listening to it with a critical ear or responding with anything other than "Yay, speech." This seems to me to be the most fatal form of censorship. We're essentially sandboxing speech. Say whatever you like, as long as it doesn't actually mean anything. Participate in public debate, as long as it doesn't change. Respond to others, as long as you don't dare to claim that any idea might be wrong. What is the point of free speech in such a society? If all ideas are equally valid, or at least the ideas of the inside crowd are valid and outsiders get a "who are you" response, why do we even try to have a democratic society? Just let the king do what the king wants, or the CEO do what the CEO wants. Comment and criticize all you want, as long as it doesn't have an effect. But if we believe in there being a point to free speech, we should respond to speech with "Why do you believe that, and can you try to convince me that I am wrong while I try to convince you that you are wrong" instead of "Who are you to disagree with me".
- 59nadir 10y ago
  Some people would rather no one can get the content than simply not consuming it themselves. It's not enough that they don't see it: No one should, because they know what's best.
  - cortesoft 10y ago
    Are those articles advocating that youtube ban him from the site? Are they arguing that he should be arrested, or prohibited from creating his content? I don't think they are. What the articles critical of PewDiePie are saying is, "here is what he said and why we think it is offensive and why we no longer watch his channel. If you agree with us, you should also not watch his channel" Everyone is free to read this opinion and then decide for themselves if they agree with the writer, or if they want to keep watching. If it turns out that so many people agree with the articles that PewDiePie no longer has an audience large enough to sustain him, then that sucks for the people who DO want to keep seeing him, but is just reality. If not enough people want to watch content of a certain type to sustain the producer, then that content will not be produced.
raesene6 10y ago
well I'd argue some of the WSJ quotes were deliberately taken out of context which changed their intention (specifically the one where PewDiePie compared Youtube's policies to those of Nazis (i.e. in a negative light) the WSJ straight up took that out of context and applied a meaning it did not have.) That said tactless behaviour is unwelcome in online gaming.... really? I'm not a big gamer but large swathes of the community seem to be pervaded by tactless behaviour, PewDiwPie is hardly alone in that. The fact that he's got 54 million subscribers implies that a decent proportion of the online gaming community are not averse to that style of content, for better or worse.
Houshalter 10y ago
This goes well beyond 4chan. I've seen the "Hitler did nothing wrong" meme on popular subreddits thousands of times. It's so obviously an over the top absurd statement. It's very difficult to understand how people believed he was serious. This whole "controversy" is manufactured and based on deliberate misunderstanding to get clicks.

philangist 10y ago

Who are you to police what we do or don't need in online gaming? Why is your definition of tactless behavior more valid than mine? All of this just seems like recreational outrage from the outside looking in.

izacus 10y ago
He is "the public" - the same kind of public that kinda sets social norms for all other types of behaviour in media and real life.
- theseatoms 10y ago
  And he can feel free to tune out and watch other content.
nommm-nommm 10y ago
People are allowed to form an opinion on things. They are even allowed to publish that opinion online. That's not "policing."
- jknoepfler 10y ago
  Strangely, it takes time and maturity for people to realize the difference between being criticized for airing cruel or insensitive humor on an internet video venue and being locked in a cell and tortured for their political views (as in a police state).
- nilkn 10y ago
  Your opinions have consequences. They can affect other people in real ways. In this case, the imprecise, incredibly untrustworthy outrage of thousands of people -- fueled by a sensationalist media hit job -- almost ruined someone's career. You're welcome to your opinion. But you also have to take responsibility for it.
  - geofft 10y ago
    > almost ruined someone's career There are countless millions of people with no careers at all. Clearly, our society doesn't believe in a right to having a career at all, let alone a right to keeping one's existing career. If we're worried about the threat to PewDiePie's ability to make a living, to his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, it seems like the fundamental problem is not with people on the internet having opinions, it is with the system where losing a career threatens all those things. Fix capitalism, implement a UBI, whatever, and then his loss of a career wouldn't seem like a threat to his ability to live a fulfilling life or to reach an effective means of speaking to people. The same argument can be used to say, "Your opinions have consequences. In this case, shutting down the TSA's security theater program put a lot of TSA agents out on the streets. You have to take responsibility for it." Or "In this case, Edward Snowden almost ruined the careers of many NSA spooks who could never make it in the private sector." Or many similar things. Would you agree those are bad arguments for not fixing the TSA or reforming the NSA?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - maldusiecle 10y ago
    "Almost ruined someone's career" is such a stretch here. PewDiePie is a multimillionaire. He didn't almost lose his career, he almost lost a few business opportunities. Others like as not would have opened later. This is a very successful entertainer facing criticism; it's not analogous to a normal person being forced out of their job.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- squeaky-clean 10y ago
  It's kind of off topic in the thread though. Sure, GP didn't like it, a lot of people didn't like it. That's beside the point. You're allowed to not like things, and people are allowed to publish (most) things you don't like. It doesn't add anything to the discussion to state you don't like it. But should pewdiepie be punished for it?
- lobotryas 10y ago
  Sure. The question gets fuzzier when you publish on something like the WSJ that has a reach of millions. Example: If an anti-vaxxer published their opinion in a private blog, you'd probably be OK with their speech (as misguided as it is). If the same person started promoting their "opinion" using a national newspaper, you'd be a lot more upset. Moreover, it's documented that the WAJ article authors went after PDP's livelihood directly (they contacted youtube and Disney, PDP's sponsor) with their allegations and were successful when Disney dropped PDP and Youtube cancelled PDP's new show!
geofft 10y ago
The underlying assumption behind free speech, free assembly, the public sphere, democratic assembly, etc. is that some ideas are better than others, that people can argue about these ideas and determine which ones are better, that other people will be convinced by rational argument, and that society is better when the better ideas win. I don't think this is quite what you're saying, but "Why is your definition better than mine" reminds me of a lot of discourse I see about free speech, where free speech is an inherent virtue, and you should be able to say whatever you want to say without anyone doing anything about it - neither censoring it, nor objecting to it, nor listening to it with a critical ear or responding with anything other than "Yay, speech." This seems to me to be the most fatal form of censorship. We're essentially sandboxing speech. Say whatever you like, as long as it doesn't actually mean anything. Participate in public debate, as long as it doesn't change. Respond to others, as long as you don't dare to claim that any idea might be wrong. What is the point of free speech in such a society? If all ideas are equally valid, or at least the ideas of the inside crowd are valid and outsiders get a "who are you" response, why do we even try to have a democratic society? Just let the king do what the king wants, or the CEO do what the CEO wants. Comment and criticize all you want, as long as it doesn't have an effect. But if we believe in there being a point to free speech, we should respond to speech with "Why do you believe that, and can you try to convince me that I am wrong while I try to convince you that you are wrong" instead of "Who are you to disagree with me".
59nadir 10y ago
Some people would rather no one can get the content than simply not consuming it themselves. It's not enough that they don't see it: No one should, because they know what's best.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  Are those articles advocating that youtube ban him from the site? Are they arguing that he should be arrested, or prohibited from creating his content? I don't think they are. What the articles critical of PewDiePie are saying is, "here is what he said and why we think it is offensive and why we no longer watch his channel. If you agree with us, you should also not watch his channel" Everyone is free to read this opinion and then decide for themselves if they agree with the writer, or if they want to keep watching. If it turns out that so many people agree with the articles that PewDiePie no longer has an audience large enough to sustain him, then that sucks for the people who DO want to keep seeing him, but is just reality. If not enough people want to watch content of a certain type to sustain the producer, then that content will not be produced.

raesene6 10y ago

well I'd argue some of the WSJ quotes were deliberately taken out of context which changed their intention (specifically the one where PewDiePie compared Youtube's policies to those of Nazis (i.e. in a negative light) the WSJ straight up took that out of context and applied a meaning it did not have.) That said tactless behaviour is unwelcome in online gaming.... really? I'm not a big gamer but large swathes of the community seem to be pervaded by tactless behaviour, PewDiwPie is hardly alone in that. The fact that he's got 54 million subscribers implies that a decent proportion of the online gaming community are not averse to that style of content, for better or worse.

Houshalter 10y ago

This goes well beyond 4chan. I've seen the "Hitler did nothing wrong" meme on popular subreddits thousands of times. It's so obviously an over the top absurd statement. It's very difficult to understand how people believed he was serious. This whole "controversy" is manufactured and based on deliberate misunderstanding to get clicks.