What does PewDiePie really believe? The biggest YouTuber in the world has been accused of being a closet white nationalist and even inspiring mass shootings. He says it’s all a misunderstanding
This topic is locked. New comments can not be posted.
I accept that he probably doesn't personally harbour white nationalist beliefs. But he is a white nationalist sympathiser. He deliberately sits on the fence so that he doesn't offend all his white nationalist supporters, and so he implicitly supports them.
If he is so upset about regularly being called a white nationalist, all he has to do is come out and openly criticise white nationalist groups and beliefs. But he doesn't do that at all - as the article points out, he just continues to stay "neutral" while white nationalist groups co-opt him. He is happy to go out and attack journalists, but he can't muster up that same vitriol for the ideologies that are literally murdering people in his name.
I just can't feel sorry for a guy who's response to being quoted by multiple white nationalist mass murderers was to: quietly play video games and stay out of politics. He is a spineless coward. Nothing illustrates this more clearly than his about-turn on the donation to the anti-defamation league. It was one tiny gesture to disavow his nazi fan base, and he couldn't even stick to it in the face of backlash.
We take him seriously because a man said “subscribe to pewdiepie” and then gunned down 51 innocent people.
Do you think his nazi jokes are funny?
That man could have literally said ANYTHING in the whole world and people would have analyzed it into oblivion. Shouting the most used "meme" at the time doesn't really say anything to me. And the "evidence" of PDP being a nazi is weak at best. PWD might be spineless and somewhat a hypocrite but this is YouTube. If this is your go-to source for balanced, trustworthy and well thought out information you're gonna have a bad time overall. If that shoutout made PDP an accomplish per default that sets a dangerous president. Does it make PDP look bad? Abso-fucking-lutely. Should it make him think again before saying/posting edgy shit? I would think yes.
Yes. The world did and should have analysed what the killer said before going on a murder spree. That's how we understand a persons motives and try to prevent similar situations from arising.
The Christchurch shooter didn't take Pewdiepie seriously. He said "Subscribe to Pewdiepie" because it was the biggest meme at the time and he knew it would get the most attention.
I think these two comments from @ibis and @vegai perfectly encapsulates the gap between generations or just a shift in mindset. What I don't understand is why is it so important for the people that obviously don't understand him to make him apologize and make him "straight". He's not you and not everyone is a perfect blend of black and white were nobody gets hurt in any way. Maybe the people following him are just tired of other people telling them what to believe and what to feel when they just wanna have fun and not think for a while.
I don't know and I don't know PewDiePie very well...but I think I get where he's coming from. And honestly people need to chill.
Just innocent, escapist fun!
It's not as hard if you consider that he makes his living responding to his audience. A lot of internet/gaming culture is based off of edgy jokes. I am sure he grew up around it just like a lot of his audience (including me) and didn't think too much about it. I had to learn these jokes were not okay the hard way, and he learned too. That doesn't mean he's nazi, a nazi sympathiser, or a racist. The fact that he has learned from his mistakes should be enough reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.
People have been telling him that his jokes were not okay for so long that it's a well recognized meme at this point. I don't think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. He's repeatedly been told, by a lot of people, that his jokes are harmful and he has been incredibly resistant to change his behavior.
I don't know about you, but even an extreme minority of opinion telling me that I'm causing them harm with my actions or words is enough to get me to drastically alter myself and my presentation.
He may have been resistant at first but he has shown progress. From the Fivver incident to now, he's not making the same jokes as he once was. You can't really say he hasn't changed or put in sincere effort to do so.
What point are you trying to make here?
Oopsies! I just want to not think
Haha, what age do you think I am and what age do you suppose people stop enjoying fun?
As it so happens, there's only one year difference between me and Brenton Tarrant. I know that, because he went to high school with a close friend of mine. Those murders are pretty close to home, both literally and figuratively, to some of us.
The fact is, the internet is radicalising men in our communities. Our culture is fostering these ideologies. I don't want to 'tell anyone what to believe' here, but I also don't want any more mass murderers to spring up in my community, so I guess we are at an impasse. Right Wing terrorism is increasing, and it is facilitated by weak-as-shit hypocrites like PewDiePie, who are happy to sit back and implicitly support white nationalism when it suits him/them, and then act shocked when white nationalists kill brown people.
P.S. I actually didn't say anything about people who follow PewDiePie, so that defensiveness isn't really relevant to this discussion.
Am I the only one who thinks this is the worst possible defense?
If someone has oppinions that hurt other people, it's morally correct to attempt to correct the person on it. Do you know what kind of people get tired of being called a Nazi? Neo-nazis. Do you know who gets tired of being called a racist? Racists. If you are constantly being told to check yourself, there's a good chance that the people telling you this are not lying.
To be fair, pretty much anyone would be tired of being called a Nazi or a racist.
If you're constantly being told to check yourself, you check yourself and see if its valid. Lots of people saying something doesn't necessarily mean they are correct. Sure, it adds some weight and odds are that they are, but especially in the internet age its very easy to become the target of a group.
Yes, but there is a problem with this; people are famously biased towards themselves. Racists are rather famous for caring more about being perceived as a racist than about their actual racism. They have twisted their perspective so much that they do not understand what the word means anymore.
I'm just trying to see it from his and his followers point of view. Now, I think a lot of people here grew up with the internet. Imagine yourself at 16 engaging in some kind of edgy humor I think most of us have at some point at that age. Some more than others of course. Then imagine reading a lot of these lengthy answers telling you how to feel, act and react about these things when you know they have no idea what they are talking about. How would you react?
Maybe people here are not satisfied with all of his apologies (I seriously doubt most have even bothered to watch them) but calling him and his followers Nazis wont accomplish anything more than maybe quite the opposite of its intension. It really seems like nobody listens to the actual people involved here they just want to point fingers and rest in the thought that they were never young and stupid at one point in their lives. Maybe we should think more about HOW we address this issue if we want the people involved to listen.
Like it or not, we have to take him seriously:
The fact that anyone believes that what the shooter said has anything to do with pewdiepie means that they don't understand why he said it. He said it because he knew that it would be provocative, and that people would endlessly discuss and dissect it, debate whether pewdiepie was in some way responsible, and think about if the shooter himself was influenced by him.
If he had said "Death to all muslims" or "The white race will triumph" or something like that instead, do you think that nearly as many hot takes and thinkpieces would be written about him? Obviously no. Not only was Tarrant was one of the most deadly mass shooters in history, but he's also undoubtedly the most media savvy.
He said it because at the time PewDiePie was jockeying to be the youtuber with the most subscribers. The other person is an Indian woman. It's a racist call to arms, although really it's just because PewDiePie is a popular white male YouTuber.
minor correction: the other "person" was t-series, basically indian vevo
He has condemned white nationalism and he is in now way sitting on the fence about it. He has responded multiple saying he thinks it's clearly wrong and he doesn't support them.
I can understand his personal motivations to attack journalists. A lot of them are deliberately painting him as a racist. He would obviously be more motivated to attack people who have attacked him than to attack white nationalism. Anybody would in his place. It's a rational response.
When someone shows you who they are, believe them. If he's doing one thing and saying something different, it's the actions we need to believe.
I don’t think he’s a Nazi. Just a regular moron that don’t understand the implications of his actions.
Just a regular moron that doesn't understand the implications of his actions, and when the implications were explained to him, he dug in his heels and lashed out at the messenger, and then when the deadly consequences of his all his jokes came about, he still didn't properly take responsibility for his actions.
Yes. Asshole, yes. Actual Nazi? No. Big difference.
"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." - Desmond Tutu
Ironic racism is racism.
That's a beautiful quote with powerful rhetoric, but I believe it is logically unsound. There is a difference between active oppression and neutrality in the face of oppression.
Watching a man commit murder is clearly not the same as taking no action to prevent a man from committing murder. Both individuals are to blame, but only one of them is a murderer.
"As we say in Germany, if there’s a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis."
It's not actually a real German saying (although it is a real German saying it), although from what I can find out it's fairly representative of how Germany feels about Nazis. Pewdiepie is currently sitting at that table. Sure, he's not an actual murderer, but then neither are most of the far-right. Pewds isn't even being neutral, despite his claims otherwise, he's being actively friendly with the bad guys. That makes him one of the bad guys. Maybe he's not as bad as some of them but that doesn't matter. Being a fascist is a spectrum, some fash are more fash than others. That doesn't mean the lesser guys should be let off.
All he has to do is get up from that metaphorical table and publicly walk away. He doesn't have to start an antifa cell or put money into centre or left-wing groups or anything which might be termed active resistance - just saying "fuck these facist assholes" is plenty. There's a reason he isn't doing that and it's not money because the guy has enough of that to never work again, so it can only be his personal beliefs.
fwiw I don't think there is a valid neutral position on this particular issue. Either you're antifa or you're a fascist. It's like fire. Either you're anti-house-fire or you're pro-house-fire. There's no "some fire is OK, I'll just let this small one start under my desk"
He has already disavowed Nazism and racism plenty of times in his previous videos. I remember when Vox first wrote articles calling him a white nationalist that he said he doesn't support white nationalism and that he thinks they are clearly in the wrong. He also repeated a similar message in later incidents.
Except when he tells racist jokes, and uses racist slurs, I guess?
All of that was in his past and he apologized for them. I am not excusing them. I am trying to explain that it does not warrant labeling him as a nazi sympathizer or a nazi or a racist. He definitely had a lot to learn, and still does, but that's it. He is in a bad position having all of this attention and not having enough knowledge to deal with it. But that doesn't mean he actually hates people of other races.
It's weird that the cycle seems to be PDP has a Heated Gamer Moment every so often, followed by an apology, then he does some stupid shit again leading to another Heated Gamer Moment.
If someone constantly says racist shit, apologizes, then devotes time to crying about people who criticize him leading up to saying more racist shit, why should anyone ever take his apologizes seriously? What exactly has he learned?
And in a 'bad position'? He's wealthy as hell! He could stop being a celebrity and still retire a rich man.
Can you really show a progression of "more racist shit"? Ever since the streaming incident and the Fivver incident, his later controversies have been less worse. They are obviously bad for him, but you can't really he hasn't progressed or gotten better. You don't see him making the same edgy jokes he did before.
Was he sorry he did it, or sorry he lost money over it?
I bet the latter.
I think you are reading into his intentions without much justification. I don't think you have much evidence to show that he made the apologies in bad faith.
Except, he has never actually shown via his actions, that he isnt.
Did he donate any of his wealth to causes that fight against things he promoted?
But Pewdiepie isn't merely watching, he's getting poor people to write placards saying "Hitler did nothing wrong" and he's pulling donations from anti-defamation league.
He panders to his racist audience. He condones and encourages racism. He is racist.
Didn't he do that after media backlash when he donated to that specific organization? And IIRC he wanted to find a different organization to donate to...
I can understand wanting to check out a few charities before giving them money, but at the same time this incident was about a month ago. How much time does he really need?
He might just be waiting for more time to pass so the attention to him dies down. Or he has other plans and didn't anticipate having to change charities.
I wouldn't exactly take those examples as justification for condemning him. Pewdiepie's audience is very into edgy humor, as is the larger gaming community where he grew his audience from. The Fivver incident was definitely tone-deaf but he has apologized and moved on from that kind of humor. You can't really use that as an example to say that he is intentionally condoning racism, especially now, or that he is racist.
With the ADL incident, I think he felt pressured to pull money from it because it had become a much larger story than he wanted to be. Pewdiepie has been trying to avoid negative attention from the media for a while now, and his fanbase reacting to his donation by saying it was blackmail is definitely that will get negative attention. His response may have been knee-jerk, but why would a racist donate money in the first place, and then pull it back?
I'm old, ok i'm not that old, but i'm 33 and am totally out of the loop about those things.
Is this for real? And people thought this was funny? Is this guy the most followed on the internet/youtube? Even after he did this?
Can you elaborate on that difference? It seems to me that oppression can only exist if it is not opposed. There is no "neutral" here, only "I will not allow oppression to exist" and "I will allow oppression to exist".
These are both intentions. He seems like he doesn't want oppression to exist, as he has said multiple times that he doesn't condone racism/nazism. He has even tried to leave the edgy jokes behind as best as he could (he's just been playing Minecraft for the last half-year). You may not think his actions are enough, but that's a matter of interpretation. And I don't think there's enough evidence to show that he's more likely to be a sympathizer than just someone who didn't know what they were doing.
Two things that are connected and interdependent are not necessarily equivalent. I need
fireheat for water to boil, but fireheat and boiling water are entirely distinct.
Neutrality in the case of oppression is also called "tacit approval" for a reason.
I think it would be beneficial if you gave at least a brief summary of this line of reasoning.
I know this seems obvious enough to not warrant further explanation, but please indulge this layman logician.
Tacit approval means you see something, know it's wrong, but ignore it occurring.
You are then granting it tacit approval.
I'll suppose you use tacit to mean something like "not spoken" or "implied" (source), which I think you do correctly.
But maybe the concept of "approval" takes the argument a bit further from the truth. Usually "approving" something goes way beyond merely tolerating or passively allowing it. In most cases, this word means an actual endorsement or sanction of the act (source).
There are many cases in which refusing to take action is morally wrong, that is undeniable. But the equivalence between active endorsement (even unspoken) and immoral inaction is, in my view, a strong rhetorical device (with which I agree on an emotional level) that also happens to be logically unsound.
In terms of fallacies, I think we're dealing with equivocation here.
No, implied approval via inaction is actually a thing. Especially on your medium, which you have total control over.
Here's a number of example sentences: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/example/english/tacit-approval
Clearly the context is important in the examples presented, from which I can conclude that in some examples "tacit approval" can mean actual endorsement. I'm not convinced that is always the case, but since this is not my first language I will refrain from further pursuing the matter. I cannot say I truly agree or disagree with you, but it is obvious that you're probably right.
The context is generally "Standing by, and not disapproving an obvious blatant act".
I dunno if I'm "right"... Morals are pretty subjective :)
We ended up discussing language, which is only natural.
But regardless of the words used to describe the situation, I sustain that there is an important distinction between committing an immoral act and refraining from acting against an immoral act. I also defend that it is entirely plausible to do so, while internally (mentally) opposing such act. There are numerous reasons to act in this manner.
Rhetoric is meant to persuade, but without logic it can easily be used for evil and irrationality. It is important to understand the subtleties and distinctions involved in it.
In this case, I beg to differ.
To put in simpler terms: is abstaining from putting yourself in front of the gun of a murderer morally equivalent to the act of pulling the trigger?
Do you consider both acts equally vile, and equally virtuous?
Do you think there is absolutely no moral distinction between these two actions?
It is obvious that resisting evil is virtuous, but it is illogical to think that committing an immoral act is just as immoral as not taking action against it. Only the initiator carries the responsibility for creating the situation in the first place. The one doing nothing carries the responsibility of not trying to resist it. It is illogical to equate these two related, but distinct, positions.
If you leave a gun on a table, and go on at length how cool it would be to shoot someone with that gun, if you stand by watching when someone follows through... yeah, it's pretty much morally equivalent to actually pulling the trigger.
Did anyone actually die as a direct consequence of the utterance of these words?
Yeah... There's been two shooters so far?
Another question: should the murderer and the one that said these words receive the same sentence in a court of law?
Well, there was a recent court case that says yes.
There's also several laws covering that in the US, such as it being unlawful to incite a riot, for example. And, if you do incite a riot, you can be held liable for some of the effects of that riot.
I don't think the link you provided is a good example for our initial discussion, TBH. It proves that inciting harm is evil, and I never disagreed with that. In fact, we were not discussing incitation, but rather inaction in the face of evil.
My intention was not to discuss if inciting crime is a crime in itself. The answer to that is obviously yes. My question was if not acting to prevent a crime is equivalent (as in literally the same thing) to committing a crime.
And because incitation is different than inaction, this became a whole other argument, which is way harder for me to oppose (and which I'm not sure if I want to oppose at all). This is logical fallacy called moving the goalpost.
Except, he actually incited it, then stood idly by when people acted on it.
Regardless, yes, even if there was no inciting done, he had control of his media channel, saw what was happening, and allowed it to. He is culpable for that.
You realize inciting and supporting is still distinct from committing the act itself, right?
You also realize that I'm no way defending such incitations, right?
I'm just making clear that there is a distinction.
Sorry, but this stuff is getting old. He has apologized and tried to disassociate himself as seen here: https://youtu.be/Ah5MYGQBYRo
Hell, I'll even defend the shit he's getting called out for. It was all tongue in cheek stupid humor. Dave Chappelle has said WAY worse things than Felix, but are people writing articles about him/roasting him over the coals like they are with Felix? Nope.
People taking stuff out of context has ruined many things over and over. Apparently the OK hand symbol is a hate symbol now because one dumb fuck decide to pose for a picture in court with it. Why are we giving them so much power to take innocent things and turn them into a hate symbol? I'm not going to stop using the goddamn OK sign just because of that. It's getting ridiculous.
Don't take things at face value. So many people in this thread are misinformed about this. Yea, I get it you don't like PDP content so you don't watch him that's fine. So you probably didn't see his apology videos that he has made. But why have such strong feelings about something you haven't looked into at all. Yea, it would be better if he never would have made those jokes. But he's human so he made a mistake, oh well. You can't say you haven't made any throughout your life, whether it's something you thought/did/say.
I like those jokes and thought they were hilarious when they came out. I still find them funny. I find Dave Chappelle funny. Does that make me a racist? I like to think it doesn't. I don't think my black/latino/gay/trans friends are any lower than me. Shit, some of them are more successful than I will ever be. They make crass jokes all the time. They say things that I would even be hesitant to say. I can't say here in fear of my comment being removed, but you can imagine.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is, just get informed about a situation before you go talking nonsense about it and spreading incorrect information. You are just as bad as the ones you complain about imo.
The OK hand signal becoming a hate symbol was first orchestrated by 4chan. It was a deliberate attempt to appropriate the sign and give it negative connotations as a sort of internet hoax. Take note of the closing sentence in that picture:
Basically, they were attempting to take that well-known, much beloved, iconic hand symbol and force it to become a source of outrage so that it would stoke the fires of people who feel that outrage culture is going too far.
The idea that we live in an over-critiqued, politically over-correct time is a familiar feeling to many. It was my internal response when I first heard about the hand sign being racist, as I watched one of my coworkers approach another about his use of it. You express the disdain directly in your post. Unfortunately, you, myself, and many others got played in this particular instance (and probably many more). We fell for a misdirection that caused us to direct our ire at people we perceive to be hypersensitive killjoys, rather than the actual instigators of the whole thing, which was the entire point of their "operation" in the first place.
The people spreading this misinformation were directly attempting to raise instability and social friction and make people who take things seriously look ridiculous in the process. The average, everyday person is likely to think that the OK hand symbol suddenly becoming racist is a far overreach, so it's the perfect icon to falsely appropriate for hate. But, of course, it's all just a joke too, so anyone who takes their actions rather than their misdirection seriously is also ridiculous. "Can't you see how absurd this is?", they'll say. "It's not even real!", they'll tell us.
It's a setup entirely designed to avoid responsibility -- a way to have one's antisocial cake and eat it too. The whole point of being edgy is flirting with things that are known to be subversive or offensive, but they also want the safety of disavowing this the moment any actual subversion or offensiveness occurs. They retreat to their castle of absurdity -- the innocence of intent.
There's the idea that a lie, told often enough, can become the truth, and that seems to have happened here. Because their hoax was believed, people then started using the hand signal as a symbol for white power genuinely and unironically. The false pretense of its origin has become overwritten by genuine use. It moved from the purview of anarchic internet mischief into real-world significance, yet they will still try to claim it hasn't by retreating back to absurdity. It's their only move, and as the symbol has gained traction with actual white supremacists, this rhetoric looks even more foolish than it did at the start. You called the mass murderer a "dumb fuck" for using the hand symbol in court, but you should know that that is playing right into their narrative. You're pushing his use of it back to meaninglessness and irreverence, when there's nothing meaningless or irreverent about him at all. His intentions were real; his actions were premeditated. He planned the attack out months in advance. He strategically posted his manifesto online in advance of the shooting and livestreamed the whole thing.
This is not meaninglessness. This is horrific, calculated, ideologically-driven violence. The people running the hoax and seeding doubt across the internet want us to believe his use of the hand signal is meaningless because it absolves them of their flirtations with and provocations of dangerous beliefs and people.
If you want to be mad at someone for the OK hand symbol being racist now, be mad at the people who ruined it in the first place. It's not tainted because some touchy leftists overreact to everything but instead because some other people thought it was fun to play at "ironic racism" like it's a game that's at all possible to win. At best, they're just doing it for shits and really shitty giggles. At worst they're doing it as cover for actual racist or violent beliefs. The only people who benefit from us evaluating which one is truthful is them. If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the people pissing in your pool and then playing mind games to try to make you think it was someone else, or maybe just a joke.
They want you to focus on why they did it, but why it happened is far less important than the idea that nobody should have to swim around in piss.
I was saying how ridiculous it was. When I was told this I immediately thought how stupid it was people were taking it seriously.
Keep in mind that, 4chan didn't 'orchestrate' the OK symbol shit. They had been using it long before that post to recognize each other because they adopted one of the many mannerisms of Donald Trump. The typical behavior of anyone from there is to claim responsibility for literally anything controversial. When the Steele dossier first came out, they immediately claimed that they wrote it, that it was one of them, and started distributing fake documents made to look like something out of the Steele dossier.
I honestly can't tell if you are being purposefully disingenuous or not. The OK hand sign is not associated with white supremacists because of one person. It's associated with white supremacists because they have re-appropriated it and are using it as a symbol for "white power". It's the same for Pepe the Frog. He certainly wasn't made to represent the alt-right, but he sure as heck has been used for that purpose. By all means, keep using it in a positive way - that's how you keep the association positive - just don't be surprised if your meaning is accidentally misconstrued.
Nobody here is calling you a racist or is trying to attack you, but it seems like you are taking this topic as a personal attack. I would suggest you try to read the comments a little more in-depth because while people are saying that some of Pewdiepie's fans are racists and white supremacists, nobody is saying that they all are. In fact, most of the arguments are weather he is enabling them or not. There is a huge difference between racy humor that makes fun of minorities and racy humor that makes fun of those in power.
Top comment on this thread.
I do take it a little personally because I have been called racist and all sorts of nasty things because me and my friends are out and about and one friend says something, then other says something back to them that's crass, then they get someone yelling in their face "how dare you say that you racist/misogynistic pig." etc etc. And it sucks because I know that person is accepting of all people and couldn't care less of anyone's appearance/sexual preference. Even one time a friend who IS trans got yelled at for being a homophobe, which we could laugh at. But still. Things taken out of context happens and that's what happened with PDP. I just get where he is coming from, and I think a lot of the hate he is receiving in this thread is unjustified.
Tough love talk:
Maybe instead of taking it personally, you should understand about "inside voice" and "outside voice" and that when you're in public other people can hear you and you shouldn't be saying racist, misogynist, or otherwise hateful things.
The reason people are telling you not to say that sort of thing is because saying those sorts of things are awful. If you want to not be an awful person, then stop saying those sorts of things in public. It's not okay, and people are telling you to stop because you are being awful.
it's not directed at them and we obviously had no ill intent when we were laughing. if it's not directed at you ignore it, unless it is obviously to hurt someone.
That's actually not how being in public works and the faster you learn that the quicker people won't think you're awful.
didn't happen to me in the past. it's only been a thing in the last ~8 years.
Really, honestly: things you say in public are things you are publicizing to every single person around you. If you are in public, every single thing you say is something you should be comfortable having broadcast in television and attributed to your name. It is public.
I can agree with that. But at the same time it's more situational in my opinion. this was a private conversation in a public space and someone happened to overhear and felt like they needed to say something.
Again: you were in a public space. There is no privacy in a public space. Someone heard you saying something publicly that was not good and spoke up about it.
There's no "situational". There's "I am in a public place trying to have a private conversation". That is where the problem is. You were not respectful of the other people in earshot; this is your fault.
The faster that you realize these things, the less often you'll make this mistake.
Edit: also for clarity: I 100% believe that if you were in private you would have done nothing wrong. I also make disgusting jokes with friends in private. When you do this, you do so with the understanding that everyone within earshot has a particular mindset and a shared understanding of the context. You can do so in a 100% safe way where everyone who is there understands. You were absolutely trying to do this, but you didn't realize that you were breaking the social contract of being in public. Fewer and fewer people realize this social contract exists; it also exists online in places like reddit and facebook (and here).
So, 8 years ago, people tolerated racist jokes, and that makes them ok?
That's the bar were setting here?
8 years ago everything wasn't everyone's business. People didn't feel like they needed to pipe in on everyone's conversation when they heard something they didn't like. Everyone's business was their own.
What are you saying that people repeatedly feel compelled to call you out for it?
my friends and i at a bar bantering about something and i start complaining about what they're talking about so my friend, who is gay and it is obvious that he is, calls me a gay slur. we all laugh about it, but some lady around us got super pissed at. we weren't talking to her or about her, it was directed at me. its happened more than once. it's happened to me as well.
@aphoenix said everything I would have wanted to say so I'll just let you know that I saw this and am not ignoring you.
I was referring to the subset of his fan base that are nazis. If you aren’t a nazi, you have nothing to be defensive over.
No, you called him a "spineless coward" because you think he didn't disavow the shooters actions. Which he did. You still associate him to a nasty thing someone else did, that he had no part of. That isn't fair. I know how that feels. It hurts knowing people have such strong feelings against you because something was taken out of context. They don't even want to try. They just hate blindly.
I called him a spineless coward for not disavowing white nationalist ideologies. It’s easy to say “shooting people is bad”.
I didn’t associate him with white nationalists. He did that himself.
He has though.
He has tried to do the opposite. He's tried to distance himself. He stop those kind of videos. He is very careful with his language, and type of humor. You just have some bias for whatever reason and refuse to look past it for some reason.
I am biased by reading the article that we are all commenting on.
Strong words there, by ppd on being co-opted by white nationalists. “it’s kind of funny”.
Is not kinda funny how they are pushing to associate themselves with someone actively trying not to be involved in it? He's stated many times he doesn't want to be involved in politics, but they still try and the media still takes the bait.
These problems are not political, though. They are ethical and societal issues. You don't get to participate in a society without dealing with it's consequences. Likewise, you can't not participate in it; society looms over us all, and inaction has a social meaning just as much as action does.
White supremacy is a political ideology though. However there are ethical issues in the ideology. There can be non violent white supremacists. A political group is trying to make the media believe that they are influenced by some guy making jokes.
Anyway, PDP has said, "I am in no way supporting any kind of hateful attitudes." And even in the same post, "to anyone unsure on my standpoint regarding hate-based groups: No, I don’t support these people in any way."
Even still, you think he doesn't understand that what he says has an impact? Why do you think he's worked so hard to move away from that kind of content? All his content now is just Minecraft bullshit and him looking at posts on his subreddit. Plus do you think all his charity streams and donations to organizations were inaction? The dude is doing his best while still trying to maintain himself. No one has been is his situation before, so he has to learn as he goes.
Did he take down all of the videos of him basically throwing racial epithets around, or is he still collecting ad revs from them?
they were demonetized almost immediately.
But, they are all still up, right?
Not sure tbh. But they're satirical humor. I would keep them up if it was me.
Wanna see how a story gets controlled? Pay attention to who's presenting themselves with structured arguments, almost repeating word for word. Pay special attention to those presenting themselves as if the media is against their story while using a media source as their source. It's not an accident. It is someone being told a story and only accepting that story.
An alternative answer: he believes he is rich.