Mista Koo said:

Click to expand...

Tiops said:

lmao, always funny to see h3h3 being throw in these discussions. Made 4 videos making fun of extreme left people getting crazy and used the "SJW" expression, probably an alt-right nazi piece of shit.

Click to expand...

King of Custard said:

Oh come on mate why call me deluded?

Kids are far smarter than you give them credit for if you think this affects them in the slightest.

Just because I have a different opinion to you does not make me deluded.

Click to expand...

TheKastorian said:

It's funny, because when Charlie Hebdo offends Muslims by satirizing Muhammad we were all in support of free speech. I don't agree with either approaches cause I simply don't find these kind of jokes funny. But the fact is: if PewDiePie had made the joke towards another group -as I mentioned earlier- I bet Disney wouldn't do a single thing and I just find that extremely hypocritical.

Click to expand...

Metal Gear?! said:

At this point I think we've seen enough to learn that those who use the term "SJW" unironically are pieces of shit, regardless of whether they actually outright identify themselves as alt-right nazi wannabes.

Click to expand...

ClosingADoor said:

Kids are one of the groups most easily influenced by celebrities. There is a reason why we have different advertising guidelines for kids for example on tv. And older people are influenced by it too. To deny that is delusional.

Click to expand...

Metal Gear?! said:

At this point I think we've seen enough to learn that those who use the term "SJW" unironically are pieces of shit, regardless of whether they actually outright identify themselves as alt-right nazi wannabes.

Click to expand...

ClosingADoor said:

Kids are one of the groups most easily influenced by celebrities. There is a reason why we have different advertising guidelines for kids for example on tv. And older people are influenced by it too. To deny that is delusional.

Click to expand...

Sir TapTap said:

How many times are we supposed to turn the other cheek here? Rape jokes then faggot jokes and now this which he's no longer even pretending to be sorry for. He's a shitbag that is, at the very least, deliberately offensive and at this point I can't imagine he's not a bigot. You doing just accidentally parrot far right shit like this on accident for years.

The Nazi thing is particularly strong and consistent over the last few months, feels like deliberate pandering to "alt right" shit. There is absolutely no benefit of the doubt left for this dude.

Click to expand...

Ratrat said:

Nope. It may be your own experience, but thats it.

Click to expand...

TheKastorian said:

It's funny, because when Charlie Hebdo offends Muslims by satirizing Muhammad we were all in support of free speech. I don't agree with either approaches cause I simply don't find these kind of jokes funny. But the fact is: if PewDiePie had made the joke towards another group -as I mentioned earlier- I bet Disney wouldn't do a single thing and I just find that extremely hypocritical.

Click to expand...

Sir TapTap said:

How many times are we supposed to turn the other cheek here? Rape jokes then faggot jokes and now this which he's no longer even pretending to be sorry for. He's a shitbag that is, at the very least, deliberately offensive and at this point I can't imagine he's not a bigot. You doing just accidentally parrot far right shit like this on accident for years.

The Nazi thing is particularly strong and consistent over the last few months, feels like deliberate pandering to "alt right" shit. There is absolutely no benefit of the doubt left for this dude.

Click to expand...

Human Trashcan said:

nah I'm gonna say anyone who uses SJW as an epithet is a piece of shit. "Triggered" jokes can also fuck right off.

It's really not that hard to be funny without being offensive. If you can only be funny while insulting swathes of people, you're not funny, you're just an asshole.

Click to expand...

stargateheaven said:

didn't know he was even in bed with disney

not like he needs that money

Click to expand...

BY2K said:

Who is that?

Click to expand...

TheKastorian said:

It's funny, because when Charlie Hebdo offends Muslims by satirizing Muhammad we were all in support of free speech. I don't agree with either approaches cause I simply don't find these kind of jokes funny. But the fact is: if PewDiePie had made the joke towards another group -as I mentioned earlier- I bet Disney wouldn't do a single thing and I just find that extremely hypocritical.

Click to expand...

Mista Koo said:

Click to expand...

TheKastorian said:

Pretty bad display of humor there, so he get's what he deserved. Just find it hypocritical that if he targeted another ethnic/religious group no one would bat an eye.

Click to expand...

TheKastorian said:

It's funny, because when Charlie Hebdo offends Muslims by satirizing Muhammad we were all in support of free speech. I don't agree with either approaches cause I simply don't find these kind of jokes funny. But the fact is: if PewDiePie had made the joke towards another group -as I mentioned earlier- I bet Disney wouldn't do a single thing and I just find that extremely hypocritical.

Click to expand...

Tiops said:

lmao, always funny to see h3h3 being throw in these discussions. Made 4 videos making fun of extreme left people getting crazy and used the "SJW" expression, probably an alt-right nazi piece of shit.

Stays out of political discussion: probably hates all minorities. Even though he calls out a lot of bullshit from racists too and said that he voted for Hillary. But yes, he's probably a nazi.

Click to expand...

Don Draper's Hat said:

Had no idea Disney and PewDiePie was even a thing.

What was their relationship exactly?

Click to expand...

GinoFelino said:

I've come to really appreciate Pewdiepie in recent years. The guy is seriously alright.

That's why this is really disappointing. There's no excuse for cheap anti-Semitic shock jokes like this one, especially considering his target audience.

That said, I do believe he's intelligent enough not to fall into the trap described by Film Crit Hulk, and intelligent enough to realise he fucked up.

I also don't believe for a second that he has ever had a genuinely anti-Semitic belief or a generally hateful one at that.

He just fucked up. I hope he makes it right.

Click to expand...

Doffen said:

I heard Trump will give Americans work. I'll vote for him.

Click to expand...

Ratrat said:

Basically you cant say the truth if there's even the possibility some idiot conservative will interpret it in their favor. Thats what its come to.

Click to expand...

Lovely Salsa said:

Lol

Pewdiepie is a leftie, come on now.

Click to expand...

Human Trashcan said:

nah I'm gonna say anyone who uses SJW as an epithet is a piece of shit. "Triggered" jokes can also fuck right off.

It's really not that hard to be funny without being offensive. If you can only be funny while insulting swathes of people, you're not funny, you're just an asshole.

Click to expand...

zoukka said:

Not defending him here, but it might surprise people how common nazi-jokes and references are in some european countries. As a finn, it feels I hear a hitler joke at least weekly.

Click to expand...

ClosingADoor said:

Kids are one of the groups most easily influenced by celebrities. There is a reason why we have different advertising guidelines for kids for example on tv. And older people are influenced by it too. To deny that is delusional.

Click to expand...

ClosingADoor said:

78% of his audience is under 20. When I say kids, I also mean young teenagers. It is pretty clear who his audience is there, despite some of the content he puts up. Which is why it is a problem.

And yes, using these jokes is normalizing it. "Just a prank, bro" is not an excuse. He has a massive audience, it comes with some responsibility.


Good on Google for taking a stance in this. Awaiting the "censorship" complaints which are guaranteed to come in any second now...

Click to expand...

oti xero said:

Is there more context to this?

Click to expand...

Ratrat said:

Nope. It may be your own experience, but thats it.

Click to expand...

”The Lord is with you, you mighty warrior," the angel says to Gideon in the book of Judges.

That's pretty harsh because Gideon is neither a warrior nor is he mighty. When the angel shows up, he's hiding in a wine press, trying to thresh wheat where he won't be seen by the raiding and pillaging Midianites who have been ravaging Israel in this story. ”You mighty warrior," is a withering bit of scorn.*

Something like that same sarcastic epithet has become the go-to insult online for a tribe of belligerent, usually misogynist and racist, trolls. Whenever they can find anyone speaking out against racism, or against misogyny, nativism, homophobia or xenophobia or Islamophobia, they sweep in to mock that person with what they seem to imagine is the harshest possible insult: ”SJW."

That stands for ”social justice warrior." I'm not sure if that's where it originated, but the use of ”SJW" as an epithet really took off with the ”gamer-gate" business — a vicious harassment campaign that attempted to bully women into never playing, creating, or talking about video games. The agenda of these ”gamer-gaters" has morphed and expanded over time to include things like spiteful condemnation of the Ghostbusters remake, the ”sad puppies" attempts to rig literary awards, the white-supremacist and anti-Semitic harrassment campaigns of the ”alt-right," and the desire to elect Donald Trump as president. The latter bit became a formal, institutional reality when Trump tapped Breitbart maven and chief ”alt-right" cheerleader Steve Bannon to be his campaign ”CEO," bringing Bannon's whole gaggle of gamer-gate veterans into the fold.

To most people, particularly those fluent in English, the use of ”SJW" as an insult is somewhat bewildering. ”Social justice" is a Good Thing. That's what it means — what it names — the common good. Right relationship. Fairness. Liberty and justice for all. To be a ”social justice warrior" then would mean one is a champion for the greater good, for the greatest good, for good for all. So how is that an insult? It's not even slightly pejorative. It's like using Superman or Captain America as an insult.

I've asked that question of several online correspondents who have attempted to mock me with this epithet, ”SJW," and they've all told me that it's ”sarcasm." (Most went on to explain that my failing to grasp this obvious ”sarcasm" makes me a ”fucking retard," and speculated that my mental deficiencies were related to my being a ”Jew-lover" and a ”faggot." Those were among the more polite responses.**)

As the story of Gideon shows, something like this can be used as a sarcastic insult. ”Mighty warrior," without context, would seem like praise. But when spoken to a scared little man cowering in a wine press, it comes across as more, ”Oooh, look at the mighty warrior." And it's possible to imagine ”SJW" as a similar kind of sarcastic rebuke. ”Oooh, look at the mighty social justice warrior. Yeah, you're exactly like Captain America. You're Rosa freakin' Parks. Bayard Rustin's got nothing on you, there, Mr. SJW."

But that won't do. That's never how these folks employ the term. It can't be that kind of ”sarcasm" because they're not being sarcastic in that way.

To describe this use of ”SJW" as sarcasm would entail mockery directed at the insufficiency of the ”social justice warriors'" battle for social justice. It would require an affirmation of an agreed-upon framework that regards ”social justice" as a good and noble, desirable thing, and truly being a ”warrior" advocating for it as an honorable, praiseworthy trait. If it were sarcasm, the scorn would be directed at the ”SJWs" for being only so-called ”SJWs" — for posing as SJWs while actually failing to be the true, genuine article, the steadfast advocates for social justice that we all agree we all ought to strive to be.

But there is no such shared framework. And that is not the target toward which the scorn here is directed. What is being scorned, rather, is the very idea and standards of that framework — the idea that ”social justice" is, in fact, a Good Thing. Their attempted mockery of ”SJWs" is an attempt to mock the very idea of social justice itself.

This is a kind of sarcasm, but it's not ironically saying ”Oh, yeah, you're a real warrior for justice, just like Martin Luther King." It's saying, ”Oh, yeah, ‘social justice.' That's terrific. ... Not!"

This ”SJW" business doesn't involve an argument contrasting opposing views of the nature and meaning of social justice. It doesn't involve some ideological dispute between competing visions of the proper role of the state, or of law, or markets, civil society, neighborliness, etc. It's a wholesale rejection of the idea that social justice — in any form — is worthwhile.

There's something Hobbesian at work here — a vision of human society as an oxymoron, as merely an ongoing ”war of all against all." Musical chairs and dog-eat-dog and every man for himself. To believe otherwise — to imagine that some form of social justice, fairness, or liberty and justice for all might be possible and desirable — makes you a fool in their eyes. And fools are losers.

That's how a world without any standard of justice works. There's no just and unjust, no good and bad, no better and worse — only winners and losers.

The potentially confusing thing is that these folks get upset — very, very upset — whenever anyone else criticizes them for being racist or misogynist. They recoil from such language as though struck by a blow, deeply offended and furiously indignant.

I initially saw this as a hopeful sign. To reject an appellation, after all, usually implies that one accepts and acknowledges its meaning. To reject a pejorative judgment usually means that one agrees that such a judgment is, in fact, pejorative. Thus I interpreted it as hopeful that these folks were offended when others described them as racist. Yes, it was ironic and mordantly comical that their anger at being described as ”racist" often provoked them to strike back by spouting a string of ethnic slurs, but I mistakenly believed that this anger was still — on some semi-conscious level — a concession to a shared moral framework that regards racism as a Bad Thing and an injustice. That may be a teensy-weensy mustard seed of a starting point, but it would be something we could work with.

Ah, OK, see? We agree that racism is bad. We agree that injustice is bad. ... The road from there may be a long one, but the path is discernible.

But any attempt to agree upon even such a subterranean lowest-common belief gets nowhere. If you ask these folks to set aside everything else, reassure them a thousand times over that you're not attributing anything to them personally, and attempt to find common ground around even such basic propositions as ”racism is bad" or ”justice is preferable to injustice," they will only become ever more infuriated, indignant and offended.

Can't we at least agree that ”racism is bad"? No. No we cannot because, in their view — as far as I am able to discern it in their less-than-articulate, incoherent and spectacularly profane responses — this question is some kind of trick. To agree to even such a basic proposition, they believe, would be to give words and ideas a power that might then be used against them. The question thus provokes a kind of fight-or-flight defensiveness — a raising of hackles and baring of claws. It's some kind of trap with a hidden barb or a pit beneath palm fronds and they refuse to be taken in.

And so they will do or say almost anything to avoid answering that question. Very often, this involves deflecting by attempting to change the subject to Robert Byrd (someone we'll discuss more later). Unfortunately for them, this response only reaffirms an implicit shared moral consensus — that being a member of the Klan and then filibustering the Civil Rights Act is a source of lasting and appropriate shame, even for one who later apologized and renounced those views. That only goes to prove true the very thing they're desperately attempting to avoid affirming — that racism is a Bad Thing.

But yet still they won't say that, wary of the trick or the trap they're sure some SJW is setting for them. And they're not entirely wrong about that. It is a trap of a sort — although there's nothing devious or sneaky about it. Even just this tiny concession — ”racism is bad" or ”justice is preferable to injustice" — would, in fact, grant power to ideas and morals that would, in turn, compel them to change. It would mean accepting the reality of some standard, of some good other than ”winning."

I'm not saying, ”They can't admit racism is bad because they're racist." The problem is more that they can't admit that justice is meaningful because to acknowledge the meaning of justice is always to be judged.

And that, above all, is what they can't stand. That is what infuriates them and offends them — the prospect of being judged, being assessed according to any standard not in their immediate control. This is reflected in their tendency to make any form of award or public recognition — Hugos or Oscars or box office sales or elections — a focal point of their spite. And it's why their epithet of choice — ”SJW" — is not just an insult directed at others with whom they disagree, but a rejection of any standard by which such disagreements might be adjudicated.

I don't think it overstates the case to say that's what's at stake in an election involving Donald Trump. He's the preferred candidate for the anti-SJW crowd, but it's not simply because he promises to make all the little SJW losers cry. It's because he promises to dismiss whatever power any ideal of justice may have to adjudicate or evaluate our life together. In normal elections, two parties with competing ideologies meet to debate which of their approaches would bring us closer to a just society. Trump, like his Pepe-icon gamer-gater fans, rejects the terms of that argument. Your idea is more just? Who cares? Justice is silly and stupid, and that's not how we're keeping score.

It's not about justice anymore, it's about ”winning." If social justice is a meaningless pipe dream, then it's impossible to say what a utopia of ”winning" would look like. But from what we've seen of the gamer-gaters and the anti-SJW mobs online, it won't be pretty.

Click to expand...

Metal Gear?! said:

Death to All Jews is not the truth.

We can't help idiot adult conservative manchildren but we can say that if you pull that shit for an audience of actual children you get dropped like a hot potato.

Click to expand...

Metal Gear?! said:

Genesis 18:26

Click to expand...

Lutherian said:

PDD isn't a good person. Jim Sterling wasn't a nice guy a few years ago, he was a man who liked to throw "feminazi sluts" here and there, and saying "Nooo, I'm not a mysoginist ! I don't like to threaten women !" but he did.

Then he changed :
http://www.gamingaswomen.com/posts/...th-jim-sterling-about-sexism-in-game-culture/

PDD doesn't seem to be able to do this.

Click to expand...

KeyBladerXIII said:

Is Markiplier the only big youtuber who isn't a piece of shit? Oh and the Grumps.

Click to expand...

Metal Gear?! said:

All the Putin-funded right wing parties gaining ground across Europe thanks to his partner-in-warcrime Assad's campaign of slaughter are socialists, they just want to keep all of the government benefits to themselves. Just like the Nazis. It's called National Socialism for a reason.

Click to expand...

King of Custard said:

Have you seen the world we live in? Kids have to face worse than this on a daily basis. Kids are smarter than you think and decide for themselves.

Click to expand...

King of Custard said:

Have you seen the world we live in? Kids have to face worse than this on a daily basis. Kids are smarter than you think and decide for themselves.


Also just because young people watch his content does not mean that's who it's aimed at. How many "kids" play GTA for fucks sake.

Click to expand...

Ponn said:

Are you comparing a single page comic of a prophet to the fucking holocaust and genocide of people?? Brav-fucking-o

And once again free speech is not free from consequences. If Hebdo goes under or loses ad revenue for a comic that's on them, no one argued against that. And since you brought them up GAF members did indeed take offense to a couple of their pages including the dead refugee child.

Click to expand...

Red Arremer said:

Sure, because I, as a gay Jew, developed a negative opinion of someone by hearing news about them making anti-semitic and homophobic statements, it makes me a Trump supporter.

Click to expand...

Human Trashcan said:

nah I'm gonna say anyone who uses SJW as an epithet is a piece of shit. "Triggered" jokes can also fuck right off.

It's really not that hard to be funny without being offensive. If you can only be funny while insulting swathes of people, you're not funny, you're just an asshole.

Click to expand...

Synaww said:

Don't see why everyone's kicking off over this, I'm easily offended waaaa.

Click to expand...

Kyonashi said:

As always, Film Crit Hulk is eloquent on the subject.

Click to expand...

Ratrat said:

Er, that was in response to h3h3 being called alt-right because he had a few complaints about the left even while he voted for Hilary.

Not sure what quoting the bible is supposed to prove?


He apologized for using gay slurs and now antisemitic jokes. How has he not?

Click to expand...

TheKastorian said:

So if he said "Death To All Armenians" who have also been through a genocide would the reaction have been the same? Allow me to tell you: no.

Click to expand...

Synaww said:

Don't see why everyone's kicking off over this, I'm easily offended waaaa.

Click to expand...

Zulithe said:

I hope the "they are just jokes" crowd can understand the broader context of what he is doing when PDP makes many videos with these kinds of references.

While in his videos he goes out of his way to point out he doesn't support these messages, time and time again he uses nazi and antisemitic content in his videos under the guise of comedy and the reason why is becoming increasingly crystal clear.

He is deftly appealing to a certain portion of his audience he 100% knows exists, and that is of the alt-right, the white supremacists, the nazi sympathizers, etc.

To me it doesn't even matter if he agrees with these viewpoints or is just using it to be edgy. He knows there's a huge chunk of people that are getting off on it and is trying to leverage that.

He thinks he can have his cake and eat it to by using antisemitism to reaffirm and elate one part of his audience (and by extension normalizing these sorts of 'jokes' and comments), in hopes that it just comes off as a "dark humor" joke to the other side of his audience.

This is not acceptable and I'm glad he's facing some consequences here.

Click to expand...