Hacker News Reader

Comment by shepardrtc | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com