YouTube Cancels PewDiePie Show, Pulls Channel After ‘Death to All Jews’ Stunt | Hacker News Reader

YouTube Cancels PewDiePie Show, Pulls Channel After ‘Death to All Jews’ Stunt

yahoo.com

43 pointssmaili52 comments

sigh White guy thinks it's edgy and eye-catching to emulate racism, gets surprised when he gets treated like an offensive racist.

Someone will be more than happy to split hairs about the exact nature of the offensive actions here, and will carefully explain that it's not racist, it's opportunistic self-promotion employing racism. Sponsors don't care, most of the general public don't care and, most importantly, victims of racism don't care about a distinction that has precious little practical difference.

PewDiePie made a video in December lampooning how he's represented in the media (with a nazi uniform watching a Hitler speech). WSJ used that joke segment without context as evidence that he's anti-semitic. That's not an argument about what's racist, it's a complete and total lie.

It's no different than me pulling a clip of Alec Baldwin impersonating Trump on SNL, and saying "Alec Baldwin is a lunatic, and for some reason thinks he's the President."

I don't understand how it's relevant that he's white or a guy; people that aren't white or male cannot be racist?

Kinda ironic considering your comment is about racism.

Well, for one thing you need to understand the difference between racist prejudice and racism. It's quite important.

As for the rest, sure there's black people who are anti-Semitic, but I've never seen one using anti-Semitism "ironically" as a form of self-promotion. This "Look at me, I'm so edgy" behaviour really does seem to be restricted to white people. (At least in the West.)

Want to talk actual racism? Take a look at the habit the press have of giving white people like Ryan Lochte the benefit of the doubt, whilst not extending the same privilege to black lawbreakers like Eric Holder.

The difference is that people use the terms "racist prejudice" to justify racism.

The stunt wasn't actually anti-sematic. It was just trying to show how ridiculous the world has come to where you can pay a guy on Fiverr $5 to do pretty much anything (while it was in poor taste).

To me, it just shows me how ridiculous our politically correct world has come to.

If I'm not allowed to talk about tragedies without getting fired from my job or having my life ruined, then I guess I will say that they never happened. Anything I'm not allowed to talk about eventually gets silenced. If someone asks, we should just say it never happened.

Can you reframe your first sentence based on the fact that a sign with "Death to All Jews" was used? I don't understand the word "actually", is it to clarify that he only holds artistic feelings relating to this content he made? I don't see how his post-mortem intent negates the actuality, which is that people took offense to the poor taste, as you've noted, of the stunt.

The companies have no obligation (Aside from contractual) to work with him. He made content that they deemed to be bad enough to end their relationship, that's on him, no matter the intention.

"Can you reframe your first sentence based on the fact that a sign with "Death to All Jews" was used? "

Yes. it's like saying someone is racist for having a picture of a racist sign in an article about racism in America. Context is everything and removing it to intentionally discredit someone and destroy their livelihood reminds me of actual Hitler tactics. The self-proclaimed 'anti-fascists' are the actual fascists.

"The companies have no obligation (Aside from contractual) to work with him. He made content that they deemed to be bad enough to end their relationship, that's on him, no matter the intention."

This is a dangerous path as well. Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion?

Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary?

Sure, they aren't violating any laws. But we are creating an extremely divisive culture where opposing viewpoints can't be expressed without fear of reprisal and the result is violence.

A few years back, I remember when a few companies opposed supporting birth control and abortions and didn't want to pay for it through employee healthcare plans.

There were so many people (including here on HN) claiming that companies have no rights and they shouldn't even be given the choice.

Now that it supports your political opinion, companies have the right to not do business with anyone they wish.

So hypocritical.

> This is a dangerous path as well. Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion?

> Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary?

If they can give a good reason like it influencing public perception and damaging business, then yes.

First of all that might be illegal - for example firing a pregnant person (because you are a 'conservative' and think that there shouldn't be a maternity leave). But in Pew's case it's hard to judge what's the worse PR - his unfunny videos or Google letting him go (for him having a different opinion)

At a federal level, they wouldn't need to provide a good reason. Political affiliation is not a protected class, and therefore has no protections against at-will termination.

This may vary state by state, depending on what their laws are.

Nobody has to like your opinion, nor do they have to associate with you if they don't like your opinion.

Your argument puts the onus on the person being offended to change their stance and accept offense. The system works when either side can choose to associate with the other only if the y want to.

I'd like to ask you to refrain from calling me (and others like or against me) a hypocrite without understanding my viewpoints, nor making any attempt to.

>Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion?

Absolutely. Are you suggesting that a liberal employee should not be allowed to quit an anti-abortion company?

>Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary?

Absolutely. Should a Hillary supporter not be allowed to quit a company that supported Trump?

>I remember when a few companies opposed supporting birth control and abortions and didn't want to pay for it through employee healthcare plans.

By law, all health insurance policies are required to provide this coverage. Those companies can still be vocally against abortion, but they still have to comply with the law. What if someone is religiously against traffic lights? Then their options are to follow the law or don't drive. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.

> Are you suggesting that a liberal employee should not be allowed to quit an anti-abortion company?

Quitting is different from firing. There is a huge power differential between an employee and an employer in the US. YMMV in the EU.

That said, should an employer be able to fire an employee for political views? Depends. IMO, if the business is separable from the politics, then no.

Politics don't matter if you make brake pads or run a hobby shop. They do matter if it's a brand based around personality.

>There is a huge power differential between an employee and an employer

Usually yes, but not necessarily. Some highly skilled employees are absolutely vital, to the extent that them abruptly quitting would be more catastrophic for the employer than for them. Think database admin, C-levels, etc.

>Politics don't matter if you make brake pads or run a hobby shop.

I disagree. Even in a hobby shop, someone vocally espousing views that are abhorrent to their coworkers (like death to Jews for example) is going to be a drag on morale and productivity. If I have an employee who is spewing antisemitism and I have Jewish employees who don't want to listen to that garbage at work, should I not be able to fire them? My Jewish employees should just have to deal with it or quit?

> Some highly skilled employees are absolutely vital, to the extent that them abruptly quitting would be more catastrophic for the employer than for them. Think database admin, C-levels, etc.

The employee should still have a right to quit, barring some bizarre contractual obligation. That an employee becomes absolutely indispensable is a problem for the owner to solve, not the employee.

> someone vocally espousing views that are abhorrent to their coworkers

That's not about the politics, that's about harassment, which is a firing offense, usually. There are many situations that could go either way, so it's not a cut-and-dried rule.

I certainly would not say you could fire a Muslim for being Muslim, or a Jew for being a Jew or a Christian for being a Christian, if those particular attributes didn't have an effect on the work being done. Racists usually fall into that class where you don't know they're a racist until there's a problem you can and have to take action on.

> By law, all health insurance policies are required to provide this coverage. Those companies can still be vocally against abortion, but they still have to comply with the law.

Not for nothing, but as it shook out, Hobby Lobby (one of those companies that didn't want to pay for abortion through employee healthcare plans) won their suit, so while your argument may hold merit, it excludes quite a bit of the nuance tendered by reality.

> By law, all health insurance policies are required to provide this coverage. Those companies can still be vocally against abortion, but they still have to comply with the law. What if someone is religiously against traffic lights? Then their options are to follow the law or don't drive. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Hobby Lobby won. It's disgusting but companies now have the right to regulate their employees health options because of religious freedom.

> This is a dangerous path as well. Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion? Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary?

If their actions potentially harm the business, then sure.

> A few years back, I remember when a few companies opposed supporting birth control and abortions and didn't want to pay for it through employee healthcare plans. There were so many people (including here on HN) claiming that companies have no rights and they shouldn't even be given the choice. Now that it supports your political opinion, companies have the right to not do business with anyone they wish.

How is that in any way similar? PewDiePie is an entertainer associated with childrens programming. Anti-Semitic statements are actively harmful to Disney's (ironic given their history) reputation. So they fired him.

This is an entirely reasonable course of action.

Hobby Lobby sticking their nose into their employees health because they are a bunch of religious zealots is a very different situation.

Why not use something like, "Death to all puppies" or "Death to all kittens"? That's a ridiculous thing to have someone hold up. The statement he chose was not ridiculous.

> If I'm not allowed to talk about tragedies

The sign didn't say, "The Holocaust was bad". The sign said, "Death to all Jews". That's not a tragedy, that's a hateful statement.

You've left out a lot of context there.

No, he/she didn't. They addressed the above comment.

If the Pie's point was to show they you can pay people to do dumb things there are other ways to do that without being blatantly offensive.

>>> If I'm not allowed to talk about tragedies

>> The sign didn't say, "The Holocaust was bad". The sign said, "Death to all Jews". That's not a tragedy, that's a hateful statement.

^ This response is spot on.

Except the last part, which as I said, is missing a lot of context.

Hate is Content times Context.

If there is no Context then there is therefore no Hate.

A mere text is not a hateful statement, text has no intentions or feelings, it cannot hate. The person writing the text or creating the text can.

That's absurd.

If you want your statements, whether in text or verbal, to be taken in the correct context, it is up to you as the originator of those statements to provide and ensure the context. If you don't you're at the whim of other people when they do. If you can't ensure that you can adequately provide that context, you shouldn't give that statement. Nobody exists in anyone else's head. Make definitive, thoughtful statements instead of juvenile ones aimed for shock value and this doesn't happen.

Pewdiepie went for the shock value and the views, and it contractually bit him in the ass.

> A mere text is not a hateful statement, text has no intentions or feelings, it cannot hate. The person writing the text or creating the text can.

Do you really feel that people don't understand that words and text are not sentient beings? Sure, words cannot actively hate, but they can be hateful.

If words are hateful they must be so with adequate context.

So are you arguing that there was a lack of context, or lack adequate context?

Either way what I said address both, and your argument holds no water.

The comment presented words without context then claiming it was hateful, my argument holds.

"silly"

And it wasn't the first time...

According to WSJ, Pewdiepie has posted nine videos that include anti-Semitic content since August. Three, the one from January 11 and two others from January 17 and January 22, have been taken down. One of those depicted a man dressed as Jesus Christ saying, “Hitler did absolutely nothing wrong.”

"Ha ha ha -- So edgy -- I'm going to tell my 50 million subscribers -- many of whom who are young children that Hitler did nothing wrong -- Death to all Jews -- Can't you take a joke! SJWs!"

I'm sure it's a complete coincidence that the virulently anti-Semitic Daily Stormer has a special PewDiePie section:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h3f6YV...

If you spend any time in the darker parts of the internet(like 4chan), you learn that a lot of what trolls do is "for the lulz" and nothing else. My guess is that PewDiePie or his writers frequents one of those sites and so thinks nothing of it. Personally I think it's distasteful and there should be reprocussions, but cancelling his show is a PC overreaction IMO, though I understand many don't know the culture of 4chan and such sites, so I could see why they would disagree.

Why is it a PC overreaction?

If a parent sees their 8 year old watching they will get upset. They will look into it and find out Disney is supporting the show. Disney now has to deal with pissed off parents who can say (justifiably) they support anti-semitic content.

This is primarily a children's entertainer.

I believe it is an overreaction because I highly doubt he intended to spread hate speech, but just wanted to troll and be inflammatory. I say that because the phrase he said is common on many sites like 4chan. Like I said, I feel there _should_ be reprocussions, but cancelling his show is too much.

> I highly doubt he intended to spread hate speech, but just wanted to troll and be inflammatory

He wanted to do the latter by doing the former. It's not like he didn't realize that the mechanism by which the shock he sought was being created was the message of hate the words would convey.

His intent is only known to him, however his repeated focus on this particular topic leads me to believe that it is of deep importance to him. Its not particularly funny or insightful or troll-ish. It doesn't frustrate people and make them growl. It makes people recoil back and remember a time when humanity was at it's worst. The only people laughing and patting him on the back are anti-Semites. Barring any other commentary from him on his motives, that would lead me to believe that he shares views with those people.

Something is only hateful when it's actually said or done with hate. It actually requires hate. You can say you took offense to something, doesn't mean it was hateful. in this case it was an absurd joke for shock value. That's the opposite of hate.

Hysterical nonsense about political correctness (hahaha jew jokes... Wait guys, why aren't you laughing?) aside, live by the advertising, die by the advertising.

Brand advertisers do not want to appear within a mile of people making jew jokes. If your living is through advertising, you better figure that out with a quickness.

protip: maybe don't crack jokes about jews or black people, then whine that they seemed not to find it funny.

Also, fyi, freedom of speech doesn't equal people have to have the reactions to my or others' speech that I prefer.

and out of all the ridiculous things that could have been done he paid for them to hold up a "death to all jews sign".

How is that not anti-semitic?

Thanks YouTube for making the Internet a safespace, because censorship is the best choice of dealing with opinions. Luckily your ministry of truth tactics are backclashing already.

What is interesting here is that Jewish are the selected race to be protected on youtube. Some other ones don't qualify. Youtube is so old testament.

He should have experimented with signs that said "Death to all Christians" and "Death to All Muslims" "Death to all whites" "Death to all blacks" and see which one would have gathered the most hostility or backlash.

When you've said every curse word under the sun, what's left in edginess but to make jokes about the protected classes of society. Nobody on here seems to be coming to Pewdiepie's defense even though, it's quite easy to compare his jokes here to the ones made by Sarah Silverman Jim Jefferies Louis CK, etc etc. And if Disney would have cancelled a Louis CK show because of a tasteless Jew joke (which he's done many) my bet is we'd see more people come to his defense on here.

Comedy is the delivery and recognition of the absurd. Jokes work best when the audience knows that the comedian says something they would never do that brings a shock.

The biggest danger here is that's it's now becoming impossible to satirize Nazism, lest someone get offended. Satire is probably the most powerful weapon against it.

And why is no one worried about the racism inherent in Judaism, God's chosen people, etc? This is a message we force on kids.

[]

I love Milo not because of who he is, but because he pokes the bear that is social convention.

His message is almost entirely abhorrent, but he has his right to do so in a free society. Checks and balances.

He has the right in the U.S.A. and it's only due him from the government. Citizens owe him exactly squat. I want him to need ACLU protection and I trust them to protect only the rights we all deserve.

He doesn't have that right in other places. He would be a non-citizen elsewhere, subject to foreigner's rights, except where foreigners get the same rights as citizens. Which is nowhere in the 1st world.

what to learn from this? unpopular speech needs protection. google is a private company making money from popular speech. private companies don't care about free speech.

Unpopular speech does not need any more protection. It's already afforded the same protections as popular speech.

He's still on Youtube, he can continue to speak. Google only ended a partnership with him and is no longer going out of their way to promote him. Google doesn't have an obligation to tie their brand to one that's engaging in unpopular speech, as that would defeat the purpose of a promotional relationship.

Having commercial partnerships with YouTube is not a constitutional right; they have no obligation to keep working with anyone.

Youtube made a business decision not to support someone that does not fit into their corporate culture.

The jokes were done in poor taste, and it made bad PR for Youtube/Google.

Google owes a fiduciary responsibility to its investors. Maintaining relations with a fool like that is bad for business, and could expose them to shareholder suit. There is even more than speech, not that Google wields coercive power to prevent speech in the first place.

So an employee who makes offensive, unpopular speech or content should be protected from his bosses firing him, especially when he represents the company? Like it or not, Pewdiepie represents Youtube in a large way and the things he says represents, in many respects, how others see Youtube. Is it an overreaction from Youtube and Maker? Maybe, there are arguments that support it. But it is their right to essentially fire him (his show was canceled, he was removed from his network, and he can't use the same advertisements as some other content creators can) if they don't like his speech (as long as the contract allows it). Just because he's allowed to say whatever he wants and justifies it as a joke doesn't mean he doesn't have consequences for those actions, and I strongly think that he chose to use Nazi and anti-Semetical symbolism for the shock value when he could have conveyed the same message with something less offensive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com