Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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) 904

I think the Producers seems to have done rather well.

My broader point was that mainstream tastes and anointment by Hollywood elites was being used to unfairly elevate mediocre works while the same people are only too happy to tarnish a work by a solo creator that is obviously more thoughtful and less sensationalist than the all-singing, all-dancing Nazis with hippy Hitler. Quoting mainstream accolades rather proves my point. Hollywood thought that the tediously formulaic "Crash" was a brilliant movie, too.

If you removed the admittedly hilarious, but also relatively short sequences showing the play-within-the-movie and the audience's reaction to it, the rest of The Producers--the conspiracy leading up to the play and the climax of the story afterwards with the scriptwriter getting pissed--was pretty mediocre. Certainly, it was nowhere near as good as Young Frankenstein.

It is a difficult subject.

The Great Dictator was a much more difficult and (taken as a whole) a better work than The Producers. And it was released just a year after the invasion of Poland.

Comment Re:Professional attention whore strikes again (Score 1) 904

They can watch the videos for the themselves, you know.

Have you *ever* worked a white collar job in your life, let alone interacted with HR or PR? You are overestimating competence whilst simultaneously underestimating paranoia.

The contents of the videos are strictly secondary to the fact that the Wall Street Journal, the largest newspaper in America (and also the one with the strongest ties to big business), made it clear to Disney that they were going to write a series of articles on PDP's alleged antisemitism. This would be enough to rattle anyone, but Disney has long attempted to quell rumors about its (and Walt's) antisemitism, so they were almost certainly going to avoid the smoke regardless of whether or not there was any fire.

I've heard someone mention the WSJ has posted a compilation of the nine videos they sent (and have admitted to sending) Disney. No idea if that's true; go look for yourself if you want. I am being pragmatic with my time here; I will wait for the WSJ to circle the troops and put out a more robust response and for more enthusiastic people to put together comprehensive lists of links to the relevant videos and articles and relevant quotes with verifications so we don't have to deal with paywalls.

The WSJ hasn't denied it that I've seen. I have no reason to doubt it. If you doubt it, so be it. But I'm not your Google monkey.

one is a comedy where two awful people are trying to be offensive by making a musical about Hitler

No, that's incorrect. The plot of the movie is they are trying to make a play that will be a box office flop.

"Surely, Mel Brooks could have chosen a more socially responsible but still hilariously bad subject for his fictional producers to make a play about!"

the other is a jackass who thinks it's edgy to pay poor people 5 dollars to do something politically incorrect

So just to clarify, you think it's OK to pay privileged white Americans thousands of dollars to do something politically incorrect, but not give $5 to some Indians.

Don't give me that "they didn't know what they were saying" bullshit; those guys spoke English (or at least someone on their end did) and World War 2 and Israel are both pretty well known in India (news/history of the latter is of interest to them because the Hindus are dealing with jihadi problems) so I'm pretty sure they knew what Jews are, it's just that the taboos are very different there. Which actually makes the video all the more interesting and meaningful, albeit not necessarily something PDP was thinking when he made it.

One is comedic genius, the other is tasteless attention whoring.

This is the crux of the matter right here. Limousine liberalism; pure, unadulterated, self-absorbed elitism. It's ok if Hollywood does it, but if it's a simple one-man operation without the glitter, it's held to an entirely different standard. Polish dictates acceptability. I hate it when it's wall street criminals getting away with no jail time for the same crimes that would send an individual away for decades, and I hate it just as much when the example set by the rich is set as the untouchable center of the cultural compass. Which is what you *are* doing, whether you realize it or not.

The Producers, incidentally, was (as I recall; it's been a while) a fairly shitty, unfunny movie apart from the play-within-the-movie with hippy Hitler and the spinning swastika the immediate reaction to it. All of that stuff with the scriptwriter getting pissed afterwards was meh, as I recall. Mel Brooks has done a lot of legendarily good stuff, but consistency or pacing have never been his strong suits.

PDP's Death to All Jews, on the other hand, was a solid piece, with nice contrast between his normal persona leading to an ending that felt very much like something out of a Louis CK's show. I'm sorry if your brain has been so spoilt by American sitcom and dramedy trash to not be able to find any meaning in thirty seconds of stunned silence (real or "faked"--it doesn't matter. Louie's show is no less "faked") followed with a wistful, sad smile.

It showed a finesse and self-reflection that I found much more interesting than the videos I'd seen him in a year or two back.

I don't know why you're obsessed with winners and losers.

I'm pretty sure you're the one who's fixated on PewDiePie being caught, possibly like Scooby Doo criminal. I merely pointed out that the 'catching' and the victory is unfolding in the other direction, though it will take some time for the evening news-addled members of the public to properly process it.

And as an aside, this is another vastly overrated bit of "comedy". There is not enough marijuana in the world to make Scooby Doo funny. Mainstream culture though, that means it must be good, right?

I'm just pointing out that PewDiePie is upset

Regardless of whether or not he was upset a few days ago (or just faking it), he most certainly is not upset now. Again with the out of touch elitism--just how old are you, anyway? You seem to think that just because a shit ton of mainstream media sources are unthinkingly parroting the WSJ line, that means PewDiePie is hurt or worried or something. Whatever he's up to, I'm quite certain he's having a fantastic weekend. He finessed it perfectly, and at this point the battle is already won even if he doesn't mention it again.

It's a mistake to think this is merely his fanboys vs. the world. Four days ago I would have shrugged and said "Eh, whatever. I guess he's ok, but he's no jacksepticeye. And I don't even watch him very much; I stopped being super interested in gaming years before these guys showed up." But now...

Comment Re: Not about the free market (Score 1) 904

I believe my nose and hair look sufficiently Native American, though I don't have the eyes or the skin. If you want to pay for a genome sequencing, I'd be happy to provide you with something more concrete. But more to the point, I grew up in the lower middle class as a fairly direct result of my ancestors growing up in the lower classes, ultimately stemming at least in part from some of my great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents experiencing racism and the associated reduction in economic opportunities.

Comment Re:Professional attention whore strikes again (Score 1) 904

There is so much here, so much connected to this story I'm interested in following (as well as a projects of my own taking no small amount of time) that I can't verify this all immediately and present you with a tidy package of links, but multiple people (not just his fans) appear to be confirming PDP's claim that the WSJ edited his videos, including using one video that had a non-PC bit and subsequent joke (and point / message) about how the media takes things out of context--and then the WSJ edited out the bit where he was was talking about how the media takes things out of context and used only the non-PC part for one of the nine videos they sent to Disney.

Call me credulous if you must, but I have a finite amount of time here on Earth and there are more interesting things to look at right now than laboriously verifying all of this for your benefit. I have my eye on the people still speaking out against PDP; if his claims about the WSJ fabricating evidence are lies, someone should point this out soon enough. Or if you think he's lying you could do it yourself, post a Youtube video on it, become famous. This would be the adversarial principle at work.

But strangely enough, none the of the people and organizations who appear to stand against PDP have done this. From what I've so far seen, they are largely interested in dismissive, two-word descriptions of the content in question instead of examining and talking about it at length. The traditional media is largely oblivious and parroting each other's talking points, but then Young Turks, supposedly[1] Youtube's number one news channel, in their quest to make asses out of themselves every chance they get have openly admitted they didn't watch all of the nine videos.

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?

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?

Go on and claim in public that The Producers normalizes Nazism; I dare you.

And yet, it's actual people in the alt-right community who think that PDP might be one of them

The same exact "alt-right community"[2] that previously was praising PDP now claims that they are the number one fans of the Wall Street Journal. Maybe, just *maybe* they're trolling you? Maybe they never actually thought that PewDiePie was one of them? If you want to argue otherwise, you need to explain why they are not equally serious now when they claim the WSJ as one of their own.

From what I've seen so far, I've no problem assuming PDP is telling the truth when he explains whom he doesn't support, instead of believing a pathetic group of people people whose entire sad lives revolve around pretending they're more important, hip, popular and respected than they are.

PDP might as well yell "I would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those meddling [reporters]"

Again, you keep pretending that PDP has lost. He has not, and it will not be long before the WSJ is wishing that they could've gotten away with it. In a way, this whole response has been a waste of my time because I could simply wait a year or two and you'd realize it all on your own. But it's an invigorating way to start my day; helps organize the brain cells a bit.


1. It depends on how one defines "the news" and the metric of popularity being used.

2. You conflate the "alt-right" and white supremacists at your (and the country's) own peril. Yes, it was a white supremacist/separatist who coined the phrase... but just as the phrase and hashtag #blacklivesmatter was coined by people who openly idolize and quote a cop killer and terrorist on the FBI's Most Wanted list, the concept has grown in popularity and significantly changed in meaning as it's gone more mainstream.

Comment Re: Professional attention whore strikes again (Score 1) 904

Watch it happen.

Watch it not happen.

I seriously cannot figure out where your logic is coming from. If PDP is an actual troll (as you seem to think), there's no reason he couldn't pull a Milo except with a much, much larger starting audience and a more easily believable victim card to play.

Or do you even concede/realize that Milo's public exposure has only grown by leaps and bounds since his Twitter ban?

It's only fascinating if you're somehow obsessed with making a non-story into a widespread conspiracy of monumental proportions.

It's not a conspiracy. The WSJ has been very, very open about their wider motives here. Click the link I included last time. It's not paywalled.

Submission + - Update: PewDiePie Calls Out the 'Old-School Media' For Spiteful Dishonesty (slashdot.org)

Shane_Optima writes: Story to be updated: https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

Update: Apparently, canceling his Youtube Red series was deemed an insufficient response. Youtube has now removed the mirror of PewDiePie's "Death to All Jews" video because it "violates Youtube's policy on hate speech."

The original posting of the video had already been marked private by PewDiePie shortly after the controversy erupted. A quick check of Vimeo and Daily Motion came up empty, so you're on your own if you wish to find out for yourself what the controversy was all about.

Comment Re:Professional attention whore strikes again (Score 1) 904

Well, it is a setback for PewDiePie.

Like it was a setback when Milo was banned from Twitter? Or when his speech had to be canceled due to rioting? Granted, the loss of PDP's Youtube Red series hurts a bit, but he's not hard up for money and I'd be shocked if he couldn't get another big name to bite. Amazon's video service, for example, had no qualms about snatching up Clarkson for one of their flagships.

It's a pretty boring story if you ignore PewDiePie's outrage at actually being held accountable for his actions.

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.

If that is completely boring to you, if you've nothing but shrugs when faced with an internet ecosystem that is completely dominated by a handful of walled gardens that are explicitly, openly seeking to strictly control independently-produced content for their own ends, with not a single viable Youtube competitor on the horizon as the enforcement of their opaque and capricious content policies (that sees videos banned or de-monetized without warning) grows ever stricter and more capricious ... well, I guess that's fine. As someone with a ~200k ID, I suppose you probably have other concerns [resisting the urge to pen a Depends joke] instead of worrying about the ecosystems that millions of relatively tech-ignorant millennial use in their daily life as their primary method of both mass and one to one communication.

But another facet, built on the above, is the role of advertisement moving forward. As Youtube slowly clamps down, they may slowly cede ground to services without advertisers, including Amazon video, HBO, Netflix, etc. There's a huge, irrational disconnect between advertisers who fear controversy and boycotts and consumers who, when faced with advertiser-less services like Netflix or HBO, generally prefer fully uncensored, politically incorrect content. I mean, just consider this for a moment: videos with nudity on Youtube cannot be monetized due to advertiser fears. HBO, on the other hand, became popular precisely because they weren't afraid to include nudity, politically incorrect content (Bill Maher), and other controversial stuff that consumers obviously wanted and weren't going to boycott over, but advertisers were terrified of. And Youtube has taken an extremely non-nuanced view here. They don't offer advertisers the chance to opt-in for content they've flagged as unsuitable. If an advertiser WANTS to show commercials for a video that Youtube de-monetized, they can't. It's a binary switch. And I'd be surprised if Youtube didn't implement it this way at the explicit request of their biggest advertisers.

This is a totalitarian, all or nothing power play that big media / old media is attempting, and there's also ample evidence it will backfire--again, look at the skittishness of the advertisers vs. what consumers actually want (and will tolerate the existence of) from Netflix or HBO or other places that don't have to worry about advertisers. There's huge, bizarre disconnect here between the business practices and actual demand and it will be very interesting to see how this plays out.

Other, even-broader facets involve the continuing self-destruction of the left, as tons of key people[1] seem believe that playing hard ball with the right (a notion I fully supported long before Trump's election) involves dramatically increasing the intensity of their PC witch hunts, to the point where non-political and probably left-leaning people like PewDiePie[2] are targeted and actually conflated with the alt-right. This is straight-up cannibalism that directly helps the right wing. There's no other way to characterize the far left not only targeting moderate leftists, but actually telling them that they belong to the alt-right or far-right.

But hey, if your primary concern about what the kids are up to these days involves your lawn... who am I to judge?


1. Including J.K. Rowling now. Who else? Off of of my head... well, the Youtube news channel TYT tries to straddle the fence sometimes, but they've repeatedly slipped and tried to shame or 'cast out' leftists who weren't sufficiently pure.

2. A man who put the words "don't vote for Trump" on the screen, lest anyone take his MAGA hat seriously. Also, he's Swedish. 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.

Comment Re:Professional attention whore strikes again (Score 1) 904

I don't swing for the fences every time, and there's been a lot to respond to today.. Let's just call it a "not serious" statement, then.

Interesting. Could you provide a reference link to support that?

Start with whatever Wikipedia has and try to fully absorb it. I'm not proposing anything new here. The purpose of the informal logical fallacies is to point out flaws in premises and reasonings. By their very nature, they don't address conclusions. Which isn't to say that all insults are automatically valid; merely that their existence cannot be used as a shortcut in debates except in fairly specific circumstances along the lines of "You are wrong because you're a moron", and even then it's often possible to modify the argument being presented to be logically valid, if still subjective: "You are likely to be wrong because you're a moron."

Comment Re:Professional attention whore strikes again (Score 1) 904

Two things:

1. I've watched hardly any of his back catalog at this point, so I don't know how he uses 'em, but a hangup on "epithets" is silly. You need a hard and high wall between stuff like that and actual racism. As I've expounded elsewhere, the concept of "insensitivity" needs a rebirth. Saying aloud a word like the n-word (a self-censorship I'm engaging in only because the lameness filter is finicky about these things) does not make one racist. It doesn't matter if it's uttered one time or a hundred times. Racism has a real, actual meaning and that meaning does not include "using words I don't like".

The accusation of "insensitivity", on the other hand, is perfectly applicable to a host of impolite and/or corrosive behaviors that the progressive left seeks to remedy. More importantly, using this milder category of chastisement doesn't dilute the power of the word "racist", thus making it easier to call out actual racists and not senselessly desensitizing tens of millions of presumably left-leaning kids to the label.


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.

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?

Exit stage right a chastened PewDiePie, then tens of millions of teens and college students cast down their eyes and murmur quietly to themselves? Give me a fucking break. I don't quite know what to expect next, but this is the beginning of something, not the end of something.

Slashdot Top Deals

The closest to perfection a person ever comes is when he fills out a job application form. -- Stanley J. Randall

Working...