It's not implosion, it's just the outrage crowd setting their sights on a new target and gaming sites trying to settle score with the new media.
If he wants to perform for children he needs to respect the fact that his words have exaggerated consequences because he's dumping them into impressionable, insecure minds. Don't reduce me to some 'outrage crowd' and write me off when I'm concerned that a children's performer is feeding them rape & jew 'jokes'.
What? Pewdiepie was seeing what people would do at fiverr for five dollars. Most of the jokes were him being rejected. The joke is very clearly not at the expense of Jewish people any more than, say, Nazis doing stupid things in Indiana Jones movies is.
He did. See the other people on fiverr he got to do other, stupid things. You did actually watch the video, right?
> likely to be rejected by people who understand English
They understand English perfectly - their email replies discussing the task were about the same level of English as spoken on HN.
> Now middle school kids can chortle together on the playground, "haha, 'death to all jews', that sure was funny".
If a kid thinks that they've misunderstood the joke (and I'd support rating the video something like '15+ mature' or whatever youtube's equivalent is).
I don't like the video, mainly because it seems like Pewdiepie is exploiting poor people, but saying it's making antisemitic jokes is simply Vox being Vox.
He did all those other things and he still did 'death to all jews'. I'm saying he didn't need to do that one at all. If he did other things in the video it supports my position.
> If a kid thinks that they've misunderstood the joke
Yes, kids are by and large stupid.
The biggest real hit for PewDiePie was that Disney studios dropped him as affiliate. Disney does not feature '15+ mature', they children+parents friendly as a strategy.
The latest X men film, 'Logan' is R 18, as was the previous one. And Buena Vista have a bunch of dramas aimed at adults.
For any adult looking at PewDiePie's shenanigans it is clear that he isn't actually supporting organized racism, or if he is he is astoundingly bad at it (perhaps as bad at being funny. But to a an unprepared kid (or dumb adult) this stuff can seem shocking and the jokes might be missed on them. PewDiePie simply didn't care some kids might see and wasn't concerned about it.
Parents can prepare their kids and create open environments where the kids can ask questions. If done right the parent can create situations where they can simply explain that PewDiePie lacks good taste when the kid asks what its going on.
This is a bunch of idealist rubbish, but at least a few parents have done it.
Hell, jontron was innocuous for a while. A parent could have reviewed his entire oeuvre up to a point, however many days of video it would have required, and decided it was alright. Until a week ago, when suddenly it was not alright! And by the time a parent is aware of it and is shielding their children from it, they have already been exposed, at least for a bit. Jontron built an audience when he was safe and failed the responsibility he adopted when he decided to influence children by exposing them to his abhorrent views, and there was very little a parent could do about it.
Moreover, it's not just about _my_ kids being exposed to racist bullshit. I also want for _other_ kids to be shielded from it (this is beyond my power without going to the source of the bullshit and shutting it down directly). Otherwise, my kids may still be cursed to live in a world where they are threatened for their heritage.
Given the sheer magnitude of outrage which predictably follows "racist bullshit" being publicly displayed, I can infer, if people are acting somewhat near rationally, that they rate the chance of "racist bullshit" winning the day somewhat higher than "slim". Do you agree with that? If so, why are you worried about reason losing the day? Is it the quality of your ideas that you find lacking, or the reasoning power of the people around you?
Why are you so eager to police anti-racism, then? By the same logic, if racism is right you'll be fine.
No, not quite. It's the way in which you react, which is to silence the opposition. If you believed your ideas would win reasonable minds on their merits, and you believed the minds in question were reasonable, and you yourself were a rational person, you wouldn't feel such a strong need to shut down the dissemination of other ideas. Have I gone wrong somewhere in my reasoning?
Why are you so eager to police anti-racism, then?
Sorry, where have I attempted to police anti-racism? Do you consider asking questions to be tantamount to policing thought? I've expressed no outrage over your ideas. I've never hinted at a desire to shut your ideas down at the source. I've simply asked you to defend them in a calm, reasonable conversation.
If asking you reasonable questions counts as policing your opinion, that is a very serious condemnation of your opinions.
In the end these discussions come down a fundamental moral question, outside all reasoning and apologia: "Is racism inherently bad?" I posit that it is and no matter how you or I react to racism, no matter how many minds are swayed to or against it, it is still wrong. From the position that racism is inherently bad, my arguing against racism is not evidence that my position is weak; my belief that left unchecked racism could fester in us and cause great harm is not evidence that anti-racism is irrational and racism is rational; I'm simply arguing against something that is fundamentally wrong. You may as well ask me why I argue the sky is blue when someone tells me it is green. "Well, if you have to argue the sky is blue, how sure are you that it really is blue? The green-sky people will come around". It's strange someone would ask me why I argue the sky is blue -- you'll have to forgive me for assuming they also think it's green but are too shy to admit it.
Engaging in good faith, then, does this answer your question or would you like to ask it again?
I haven't argued that it is evidence of such. I've argued that your particular chosen method of combating racism is irrational under a few specific conditions: A) your position is reasonable and B) the bulk of the people around you are reasonable and just.
It seems like you don't believe B is the case ("I've already made it quite clear that I think not all the minds in question are reasonable.... [L]eft unchecked racism could fester in us and cause great harm...") and don't especially care if A is the case ("outside all reasoning...no matter how you or I react to racism...it is still wrong.").
Given you believe your heritage is at stake ("I'm worried because my children will have the same Jewish heritage I have"), your method is quite rational under those conditions. I wonder if your co-religionists tend to be of a similar mind.
You may as well ask me why I argue the sky is blue when someone tells me it is green.
Except you're not arguing against racism, you're arguing for outrage against racism. Those are two very different things.
It's strange someone would ask me why I argue the sky is blue
I'm not asking you why the sky is blue, I'm asking why you think outrage and censorship is the appropriate way to keep minds from thinking the sky is green. From what you've said, the answer is that A) you feel the stakes are quite high for you personally, B) you didn't reason yourself into the position that the sky is blue, but in fact believe it's outside the bounds of reason to even weigh in on the subject (I suspect you don't actually think this, but it is what you said), and C) believe a great deal of the people around you are mentally deficient in such a way that they're biased toward belief in a green sky.
That's racist.
After all, nazi did won war of ideas and so did hutu and so did khmer rouge.
OK, but we're not discussing a scenario in which stormfront members have total control over what the children are exposed to. We're discussing a scenario where they have at most a few minutes of the child's attention. For the other fifteen and three quarters waking hours of the child's day, their attention belongs to their teachers or their parents. If you believe the 'racist bullshit' coming from stormfront has any chance of winning the war of ideas against those odds, that tells me something about what you think of either the quality of the other ideas or the ability of teachers and parents to impart them into the minds of children, and, let me tell you, it's not flattering.
After all, nazi did won war of ideas
Now we're no longer talking about children. We're talking about "racist bullshit" winning the war of ideas in the minds of full grown adults. If you're concerned that "racist bullshit" is going to win the war of ideas in the minds of full grown adults, that tells me very clearly what you think about the quality of your preferred ideas or what you think about the quality of the minds of those full grown adults. And again, it's not flattering.
Is there some defect in human minds which makes them extremely susceptible in childhood to "racist bullshit" in particular, above other ideas?
which assumes some kind of fair marketplace of ideas where the right thing always wins
Well, it certainly would always win in the minds of reasonable and just people, would it not? If you believe "the right thing" won't win in reality, is that not saying something about what you think of the people in question?
Also, stormfront ideas are appealing. They make people feel sense of community, common enemy (!), purpose and feeling of strength. I think that they are immoral and wrong, but that does not mean I am going to deny emotional appeal it has especially on young.
Speaking of nazi specifically, "hardship we are going through is partly our fault plus bad luck" is less appealing then "Jews caused us to loose the war" no matter how true. "We are superior and are entitled to take land of others" has a lot emotional appeal no matter how unethical.
2.) Sure Nazi win also adults, but they were super popular among university students and youth (and young veterans from WWI having trouble to adjust back). After all, it is easier to change young peoples minds then older minds.
Popular ideas come and go while their own quality stays the same. Nazi specifically had to loose the real war to actually loose.
OK, but we're still not talking about a remotely even amount of time. Not to mention that teachers are authority figures, have an extremely captive audience, can punish incorrect opinions, and have near total control over the material children are exposed to during the school day.
They make people feel sense of community, common enemy (!), purpose and feeling of strength. I think that they are immoral and wrong, but that does not mean I am going to deny emotional appeal it has especially on young.
So then you believe there is a defect in humans which results in them having a natural susceptibility to these ideas in particular, and as children humans need to be carefully insulated from these ideas or it will be very difficult for them to reason their way to other ideas as adults. Is that a universal human defect, or one that is found particularly in some class of human?
I'm sure most mainline corporate advertisers don't want to be associated with seemingly "sponsoring" neo-Nazi content / hate speech or other extremist content (eg radical Islaimc / IS videos), which if the articles I see are right (example: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/03/20/trouble-b...) they sometimes do.
Managing that is Google / Youtube's responsibility. It'll be interesting what they do. The "outrage crowd" probably matters less to Google than the hit to the pocketbook, I think.
Please don't do this. Personal attacks aren't allowed here and aren't necessary to make your point.
It is true that assimilation is a problem and that years ago some did talk about a Reconquista. Just because some people talk or think about it doesn't mean it's a legitimate concern but it's not exactly racist to bring it up?
My friend ran a Latino media company and he used to talk about it a lot. And obviously California used to be Mexico so it's a rather common idea that's easily agreed with.
JonTron: It would be great if they assimilated... but then... eventually they'd enter the gene pool.
--
JonTron: Wealthy blacks also commit more crime than poor whites, that's a fact. Yeah, look it up.
[He provided no source for this, and I can't find anything to back it up.]
--
JonTron: These are just slurs: white supremacist, racist.
--
JonTron: We've gotten rid of discrimination in our Western countries. If you don't think we've gotten rid of discrimination, you're living in a fantasy land... Get outta here with that. People like me are supposed to listen to people like you chatter on about this oppression in America, it doesn't exist, dude, it doesn't exist. What do you want to do, police people's thoughts?
--
He also endorsed Rep. Steve King's recent tweet that "culture and demographics are our destiny. We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies", writing: "Wow, how scandalous, Steve King doesn't want his country invaded by people who have contempt for his culture and people! NAZI!!!"
I write this as someone who's been a fan for years and is very disappointed by this turn of events.
"People don't like that I'm racist? No, that's the outrage community"
"I feel attacked on all sides. Could it be that the majority of people find my ideals abhorrent? No, that's the outrage community"
In short, it's a way to pretend you are part of a silent majority, attacked by a vocal minority in the absence of actual evidence.
have jontron or pewdiepie ever specified that they produce children's entertainment? i keep seeing this argument brought up but i don't see how it means a hell of a lot on an open* platform with effectively no ratings guidelines. plenty of 14 year-olds used to read big brother and watch baker videos and i can guarantee you they are interfacing with far more suggestive content on a regular basis, but none of these things would be considered to cater to children even if they were the largest demographic of consumers.
PewDiePie was obviously targeted. JonTron was not.