Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Professional attention whore strikes again (Score 1) 907

but multiple people (not just his fans) appear to be confirming PDP's claim that the WSJ edited his videos,

First, I don't believe you or them know anything about what was actually sent to Disney. I've seen this many times before with Gamergate, for example, where people simply invented lies to sway people to their side. Lying on the internet is easy. Second it doesn't even matter if they edited the video unless what they did was truly egregious and that would be counter-productive because regardless of what the WSJ sent to Disney, Disney should have done their due diligence rather than simply trusting a video sent to them. I only guess that you are young and have little to no idea of how most businesses are run. The managers at Maker aren't going to fire a money-making celebrity simply because the WSJ told them to with a doctored video. They can watch the videos for the themselves, you know.

I grow weary of trotting out The Producers as a counterexample, but it's the most crystal clear one I've found. The parallels between it and the supposedly most offensive video ("Kill All Jews") are very strong. Both contained an over the top candy-coated celebration of a horrible idea, and then showed a reaction shot of someone(s) looking on in horror. The difference is, people think they have made some terribly clever point when they claim PewDiePie's horror was just acting. Well, let's say that's true... guess what the actors in The Producers who were playing the audience watching "Springtime for Hitler" were doing?

I think everyone is tired of you trotting out The Producers. The situations aren't really comparable, one is a comedy where two awful people are trying to be offensive by making a musical about Hitler, the other is a jackass who thinks it's edgy to pay poor people 5 dollars to do something politically incorrect. One is comedic genius, the other is tasteless attention whoring. The fact that you don't understand the difference is merely tiresome. To put it simply, PewDiePie seems to have more in common with Max Bialystock than Mel Brooks and that is not a good thing, in case you continue to misunderstand the situation.

Again, you keep pretending that PDP has lost.

I don't know why you're obsessed with winners and losers. I'm just pointing out that PewDiePie is upset because someone has revealed the things that he actually did, but in a way he doesn't like. Welcome the real world, man-boy.

Comment Re:Basic Physics (Score 1) 66

I think you are giving the 9/11 conspiracy "theorists" too much credit, "theories" come from people and they do not spring forth from a vacuum. The general idea seems to be that one can generate a new "theory" by denying what the scientists and engineers say. There's not much thought that goes into it, it isn't as though they are confusing science and/or engineering. It is that thought at that level is beyond their interests. They are merely using the interwebs to create a personae for themselves that they are unable to obtain through honest hard intellectual work. The interwebs shows them a way get notoriety, they've seen others do it, and, having no other claim to fame, they decide to invent one just for themselves.

Comment Re:Professional attention whore strikes again (Score 1) 907

These is a *fascinating* story to anyone who remotely cares about where the media is headed. You don't have to be a PDP fan (I'm not) to find it fascinating. There are multiple facets here, and I'm most interested in the stuff that involves the larger ecosystem. I've already linked to this a half dozen times at least, but this article [] shows pretty clearly the WSJ's motive in all of this. (That one shouldn't be paywalled.) Don't forget, they didn't just "write an article" that started all of this. They didn't just hire three reporters to comb through his videos and edit them. They sent their edited results directly to Disney. They had an explicit agenda in getting PewDiePie's platform trimmed down a bit. Why is that? WSJ isn't a progressive-leaning paper. Well, see the above link.

The simple problem is there is no need for you to invent "an explicit agenda". It seems far more likely they were doing research for an article on YouTube "influencers" and found the anti-Semitic content. Knowing this should be a huge deal for Disney, they sent a video with the relevant clips to Disney for comment. Disney saw the clips, likely did their own quick internal investigation, and cut PewDiePie loose because they didn't like what they saw. If they had any ulterior motive, it is far more likely to concern the opportunity to hurt the profitability of a competitor or two, than to somehow gain control over what people post to YouTube.

There's a lot of other stuff you're conflating into this issue, that is interesting but not directly related to this issue. YouTube policies, leftist politics, millenial media interests can indeed by interesting stuff but you are muddying the water by trying to drag them into this issue. This is a bog-standard story someone got caught doing something bad then lashes out at the people who caught him. PDP might as well yell "I would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those meddling [reporters]".

1. Including J.K. Rowling now.

You do realize that J. K. Rowling re-tweeted an article about how PDP and others "just joking around" about racism, is enabling racists to normalize their views, right?

Not to be prejudicial here, but from a purely statistical standpoint the chances of a Swede (someone who grew up there) having right-wing views by American standards is must be darn small.

And yet, it's actual people in the alt-right community who think that PDP might be one of them... The left seems to think he's a immature, narcissistic, asshole. Which seems to be a pretty accurate assessment to me.

Comment Re:too late (Score 4, Insightful) 500

after 8 years of Obama we have more racial tension than ever before

No, we don't. All of that racial tension you're seeing was already there. What happened was that having a black president encouraged black Americans to speak up about the ways in which they're systematically oppressed, which means that you are now more aware of the existing racial tension.

Comment Re:Just another mindless attack (Score 1) 500

Hillary did exactly that, but the left doesn't seem concerned that they are constantly hypocrites. She had an unsecured device that they told her not to use, and she did anyways. Likely was hacked while she was in Russia.

Yes. That's a terrible breach of security when a Secretary of State does it.

It's about a hundred times worse when a President does it.

Comment Re:Professional attention whore strikes again (Score 1) 907

2. It's a bit amusing, but moreso deeply worrying to see you and so many other people view this as a major setback for PewDiePie or a victory for the forces of anti-racism. Uh, no. This is Pearl Harbor, and the mainstream media and the progressive left (two very distinct players here; I'm not conflating the two) are the Japanese.

Well, it is a setback for PewDiePie. As for a victory of the force of anti-racism? Why would I think that. PewDiePie is just a fool with a big mouth who got himself into trouble with his sponsors. You can continue to blame everyone but PewDiePie, but really he's really the only one to blame here. He shot himself in the foot, and blaming the media for pointing out that he did so is kind of sad and pathetic.

I'm not bragging or boasting or laughing; this is serious shit. How do you think his tens of millions of subscribers are going to react? "Damn, I guess he was a racist, the WSJ said so" ? How many of those people are kids? How many of those kids are (like most kids) currently left-leaning? And how many of those kids have never felt the rush of arguing on the internet, of calling out (what they think is) stupidity, of actually fighting for something before?

I didn't see them call him a racist, I saw them say he posted anti-Semitic videos. Are you sure you're not building up a strawman argument? You seem to attribute things to the WSJ that I didn't see in the articles (not that I can read them all because some of them are paywalled).

I don't quite know what to expect next, but this is the beginning of something, not the end of something.

On the other hand, it seems unlikely to be either to me. It's the same old story, a shameless populist blaming the messenger for his own self-inflicted problems. I've seen it so many times, it's kind of tiresome now. You, however, seem to be quite caught up in your impassioned defence of PewDiePie, but I see little to justify your impassioned defence. PewDiePie did several things likely to embarrass his sponsors, someone pointed it out, and his sponsors dropped him for it. It's a pretty boring story if you ignore PewDiePie's outrage at actually being held accountable for his actions.

Comment Re: Never (Score 2) 347

The difference between fascism and libertarian is that libertarians want "minimal rules to create a safe environment" where fascism wants maximal rules. Fascism wants the government to control things. Libertarians want the government to control nothing. They are on exact opposite sides of the spectrum.

You might think that, but I'm not sure that's actually true. In the short run, they can have many goals in common. Fascists like to dismantle entitlement programs, as do libertarians. Fascists want a strong military, as do many libertarians. In fact, many libertarians seem quite willing to go along with Fascism as long as their rights (specifically) aren't being infringed and the fascists promise to cut taxes and fight the "nasty liberals" who want to insist that people should be nice to one another.

Of course, the real problem could be that so many people who claim to be libertarian seem to be everything except actually libertarian...

Comment Re:That much demand for being lied to? (Score 1) 202

Yes, you are misguided, but only temporally speaking. Right now, companies are rewarded for CYA. So they do what companies and MBA dicks do, they pay off the source of the interruption, claim Victory with Honor, and move on.

What may change in the future, and I expect it will, is that the financial repercussions will become so onerous that companies will start to pay dearly for their security screwups. However, a dynamic economy will provide some relief. Insurance companies will start offering CYA Security Insurance, Friend of the MBA in a Jam. That will hold off the stockholders who notice the bottom line...until the hacks get so bad that CYA Security Insurance rates rise to the point that it is more cost effective to put money into company security. That doesn't mean it will be a well-thought out reaction. It will be tainted with MBAitis of trying to get by with the mere will-o-the-wisp effort...until they get really reamed. Then, heads will roll, scapegoats will be found, fired, and given their golden parachutes.

After a long period of this stupidity, company governance will slowly, grinding their teeth, put the money into protecting their asses from security exploits because the wolves on the other end, i.e., stockholders, institutional investors, the Press, etc., will have have sharp enough teeth to take a significant bite out of managements' collective financial arses.

So no, we won't get to roast MBA Weenies on the spit, but we'll at least know which companies not to buy stock in...if we live long enough for it to make a difference.

Comment Re:Professional attention whore strikes again (Score 1) 907

It's not an 'antisemitic video' or 'antisemitic content'. That's the prime and obvious lie for me here, and anyone arguing otherwise has to explain why dozens of the greatest comedians of all time weren't being antisemitic when they did Nazi or holocaust stuff. I've seen comedians do straight uber-dark toned holocaust stuff that no one would call anti-semitic. I've heard Bill Hicks scream "Hilter had the right idea; he was just an underachiever!" and no one has ever to my knowledge called him a fascist or a Nazi. In comparison, PewDiePie offered nothing but a sustained look of horror, no laughing, as the message was unfurled. That look of horror could be real or faked; it doesn't matter. By the standards of Nazi jokes stretching back for decades and deacdes, it's a rather tame example, showing horror instead of the morbid, flippant, shock-tactic version of a holocaust that stand-ups often use.

Several other people have said that the context was actually the PewDiePie thought that if he paid "brown people" to show anti-Semitic messages, no one would get angry. I don't know if that's true or not, I've previously watched a couple of his videos but didn't think they were very good. However, if that's true it plays into a larger narrative that PewDiePie has been feeding. In essence that white people, like him, are being discriminated against by everyone else. He can claim he's just joking, but it's a disturbing pattern of behaviour. And if you want to be comedic about those things you need to be very explicit about it being a joke before you tell the joke. Plus, it's not like this is the only time he's done things deliberately to offend people. I have a friend who stopped watching his videos a couple of years ago because PewDiePie kept throwing gratuitously offensive comments into his regular videos. He's been called out previously on using racist epithets, and in this case he made not one, but three videos with anti-Semitic messages in them. What's that old saying "Once is a fluke, twice is coincidence, three times is a trend?".

The whole being horrified at what people will do for money thing just seems like bullshit cloaking. It should be no surprise to anyone that you can get people who are desperate for money to do horrible things, especially when they don't understand what they're doing. And apparently the guys in the video who made the banner have released an apology video saying they didn't understand what the message meant, which is certainly possible, with English not being their first language and not actually having lived in a English speaking culture.

The problem remains, I haven't seen any actual lies. The WSJ sent a video to Disney about an issue that they were going to write about, the video might be "edited", but I doubt it was deceptively edited. Removing the context in some cases changes the message, but in this case, I don't think there's been much deceptiveness. PewDiePie was using anti-Semitic messages for shock value and to get attention. He just ended up with the (potentially) the wrong kind of attention.

I'm pretty convinced that the "Fake News" angle on this story is entirely bogus, and is meant to incite sympathy for some who's been hoisted by their own petard.

Comment Re:Professional attention whore strikes again (Score 1) 907

For some reason, the meat of the story, that main steam media are being so dishonest, seems to be ignored by many commenters here.

Maybe because that's not the meat of the story? Someone's just trying to convince you that it is. The meat of the story is that PewDiePie has a history of using racials slurs and asshatery to get attention. He has ranted about and made insane accusations about the companies that have made him rich and famous. And then later claimed that he joking about the racism and insanity. However, when his behaviour patterns were pointed out to his biggest sponsors, they dropped him.

The Wall Street Journal's take on the story is that there is a public relations danger to companies when endorsing content creators (influencers) that they have little or no control over.

Your take on the story is that the media is out to get PewDiePie because he's a threat to them.

Slashdot Top Deals

The reward of a thing well done is to have done it. -- Emerson