PewDiePie and the bad word dramaz

[Lustful Bride]

Also: Additional on the DMCA:

The company is abusing it, plain and simple. The DMCA isn't there for companies to use when somebody using their game says something that they don't like. Personally speaking, I think that Let's Plays with commentary over the top - like Pewdiepie does - should be considered Fair Use, and a company using a DMCA because the person they were previously ok with playing the game said a naughty word that they didn't like sets a very dangerous precedent for future abuse.

I agree on this regard at least. This sets a bad precedent where a company can just DMCA anyone they like....even though they kind of already do that :/

He wasn't even playing Firewatch when he yelled the slur.

[Regina Minx]

Also: Additional on the DMCA:

The company is abusing it, plain and simple. The DMCA isn't there for companies to use when somebody using their game says something that they don't like. Personally speaking, I think that Let's Plays with commentary over the top - like Pewdiepie does - should be considered Fair Use, and a company using a DMCA because the person they were previously ok with playing the game said a naughty word that they didn't like sets a very dangerous precedent for future abuse.

Fair use is intended to permit the borrowing of portions of a work, not significant chunks of it.  (Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 40 U.S.P.Q.2d 1569 (E.D. Va., 1996). In addition, there is little transformative use of the work to record playing through the came with commentary. This is why Channel Awesome had a huge DMCA strike against theme for releasing entire works with their commentary as an additional audio track a few months ago.

This fails two prongs for determing fair use, and we can also see how the copyright holder could argue that it would fail a third as well, that continuing to allow PewDiePie to use the work would negatively impact its salability.

Let'sPlay has always operated on the good graces and at the discretion of the copyright holder. And "at the discretion of" means that it's a permission that can be revoked.

You're essentially arguing that because the developer invited PewDiePie into their house, they have no right ask him to leave when he takes a shit on the living room table.

[Regina Minx]

I agree on this regard at least. This sets a bad precedent where a company can just DMCA anyone they like....even though they kind of already do that :/

He wasn't even playing Firewatch when he yelled the slur.

You can agree all you like, but fair use is a shield for copyright infringement, and you have to prove it in court. You don't merely get to assert it like diplomatic immunity from Lethal Weapon 2.

[Vergil Tanner]

Fair use is intended to permit the borrowing of portions of a work, not significant chunks of it.  (Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 40 U.S.P.Q.2d 1569 (E.D. Va., 1996). In addition, there is little transformative use of the work to record playing through the came with commentary. This is why Channel Awesome had a huge DMCA strike against theme for releasing entire works with their commentary as an additional audio track a few months ago.

Yes, but I would argue that a person playing a game in their way - with commentary and editing over the top - IS transformative. Take PDP's LP of Amnesia way back in his early days; he created entire characters that didn't exist in the game and formed his own narrative within the frame of that game. If that isn't transformative, what is?
The problem stems from the fact that when the DMCA legislation was first introduced, LP's weren't really a thing, so they exist in a kind of grey area, because the DMCA is vague when it comes to forms of media that have arisen since its inception. It needs a reworking and they need to clear up that grey area, but nobody wants to be the one to break cover first. Also add onto that that as Lust said, he WASN'T playing Firewatch at the time, so they arbitrarily decided to enforce it because he said something they didn't like. That isn't enforcing copyright, that's censorship.

This fails two prongs for determing fair use, and we can also see how the copyright holder could argue that it would fail a third as well, that continuing to allow PewDiePie to use the work would negatively impact its salability.

But movies and games are two entirely different genres; just the act of playing through it transforms it into something that nobody else has; your experience of a game is entirely different to everybody else. Plus, they could ARGUE that it would negatively impact it's sales, but they'd have to prove it; they'd have to come up with the statistics, and I believe that at best, the statistics on that are vague and inconclusive on some games, and the complete opposite in others. I mean, if PDP plays a game, instantly there are millions of people who know that game exists. Sometimes that results in more sales, and sometimes it doesn't...but there are no statistics to show that it reduces their sales at all.

Let'sPlay has always operated on the good graces and at the discretion of the copyright holder. And "at the discretion of" means that it's a permission that can be revoked.

You're essentially arguing that because the developer invited PewDiePie into their house, they have no right ask him to leave when he takes a shit on the living room table.
[/quote]

No, I'm arguing that the DMCA is intended to protect their copyright and that LP's have always existed in a grey area that everybody has been too afraid to clear up. And in THIS case, they cannot argue that they protected their Copyright, because there are OTHER Firewatch videos online that they HAVEN'T taken down...and if you want to protect your Copyright, you have to do it on ALL the videos, not JUST one. Because then the question becomes "How did he violate your copyright in a way that these other videos didn't?" And if it can be proved that they are going after one person specifically for a reason OTHER than Copyright? They've just abused the DMCA...and, worst case scenario, committed perjury.

You can agree all you like, but fair use is a shield for copyright infringement, and you have to prove it in court. You don't merely get to assert it like diplomatic immunity from Lethal Weapon 2.

Actually, since it's the company making the claim, if it went to court, THEY would have to prove copyright infringement. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

[DominantPoet]

If the company doesn't want any association with the YTer, IMO, it's in their rights to take whatever actions they are able to or deem necessary within the law to attempt to ensure that they no longer have any. If that means filing DMCAs against his videos with their properties, they're totally in the right there. It's not like Nintendo doesn't do this to...well, everyone, really, in the name of protecting their IPs and copyrights.

PDP thinks he's still some lower level YTer who isn't constantly under the public eye, and what's worse, he still seems to think he can do whatever he wants without consequences, even after losing huge sponsors with his last stint in the media. Which shows that he doesn't learn, whether willfully or ignorantly, he remains the same person. If you hear your actions are bad and don't correct yourself but continue to be the same horrible person, well...that's your own damned fault, and you will get what's coming to you in the end.

[Regina Minx]

Yes, but I would argue that a person playing a game in their way - with commentary and editing over the top - IS transformative.

A derivative work is transformative if it uses a source work in completely new or unexpected ways. Simply recording your face while you play a game and use racial slurs is going to have a very hard time clearing the bar of showing that it's transformative.

Plus, they could ARGUE that it would negatively impact it's sales, but they'd have to prove it; they'd have to come up with the statistics, and I believe that at best, the statistics on that are vague and inconclusive on some games, and the complete opposite in others. I mean, if PDP plays a game, instantly there are millions of people who know that game exists. Sometimes that results in more sales, and sometimes it doesn't...but there are no statistics to show that it reduces their sales at all.

Courts have almost universally favored the companies when they've argued on the effect of the market value of the work. There's just not the precedent to back up what you're saying. The one and only time I can remember off the top of my head when a claim about the market value of the derivative work was when the copyright holder used material from an out of print and no longer published magazine.

and if you want to protect your Copyright, you have to do it on ALL the videos, not JUST one. Because then the question becomes "How did he violate your copyright in a way that these other videos didn't?" And if it can be proved that they are going after one person specifically for a reason OTHER than Copyright? They've just abused the DMCA...and, worst case scenario, committed perjury.

Not even a little bit. Copyright holders may enforce their copyright claims at their discretion. Failing to enforce a copyright claim against one person does nothing to weaken your copyright in a separate claim. This is why copyright holders may (and often do) turn a blind eye to fan works, such as fan fiction and fan art. A copyright can't be diluted the way that a trademark can, and no matter how many unauthorized Harry Potter stories are out on the Internet, that does nothing to hurt J.K. Rowling's copyright regarding the books or her characters. However, this also means that if there's a fan work that the copyright holder doesn't like for any reason, they can choose to enforce their copyright claim against that particular fan work. You may grumble that selective enforcement of copyright claims is censorship, but it's completely within the copyright owner's rights to do that.

Actually, since it's the company making the claim, if it went to court, THEY would have to prove copyright infringement. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

First of all, a claim of copyright infringement would be a civil, not a criminal matter, so the court wouldn't return a finding of guilty or not guilty. Second of all, fair use is an affirmative defense. You're conceding the underlying claim, that you're making use of copywritten material. But you're arguing that it's an acceptable use. And any time you make an affirmative defense, then you are also then shifting the burden of proof onto yourself. You are saying "I am willing to prove that my defense claim is true. My use of this material was fair because it satisfies these five prongs of the fair use test and here's how it does that."

You can't have it both ways. You can't use fair use as your defense, and then say that it's up to the publisher to prove infringement. By making the fair use claim in the first place you are conceding the point that copyright-protected material was used.

[Vergil Tanner]

Responses in the Spoiler.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

If the company doesn't want any association with the YTer, IMO, it's in their rights to take whatever actions they are able to or deem necessary within the law to attempt to ensure that they no longer have any. If that means filing DMCAs against his videos with their properties, they're totally in the right there. It's not like Nintendo doesn't do this to...well, everyone, really, in the name of protecting their IPs and copyrights.

Here's the thing; we don't know if that's true or not because the DMCA doesn't explicitly cover LP's, because LP's weren't a thing back then. The only reason Nintendo gets away with it is because they're Nintendo and nobody wants to challenge them...for good reason. But Nintendo isn't a good example of being "In the right," since they even Content ID and occasionally DMCA videos that ARE fair use, like reviews, or videos that use five seconds of footage as a joke in a wider context.

The point here is that if they're going to DMCA PDP's Videos because he said a naughty word, that should no longer be a case of copyright infringement. If they are going to decide that LP's are an infringement of their copyright, they need to do it to ALL videos, since if they get brought up in a court of law over it, they'll have to explain why they DMCA'd PDP, and not somebody else who did the same thing. And if they don't have a good reason, well...things get bad for them. Copyright isn't something you get to pick and choose when to defend; you have to defend it consistently, since if you do end up defending it in court and the other side can pull up cases where you didn't defend the copyright, worst case scenario you could LOSE that copyright because you aren't defending it, or at the least end up with that person saying "Well, you didn't defend your copyright against X, who did the same thing as us, so obviously it isn't copyright infringement and there's another reason behind it."

The thing is, we don't know if it's within a companies right, since we don't know if LP's are covered under Fair Use because it's a vague grey area that's never been defined. Personally, I think that PDP's style of LP's are covered, but then that's just personal opinion at that point. The point I was making is that the company didn't DMCA him because he breached copyright. They DMCA'd him because he said a naughty word and they don't want anything to do with him anymore (which they outright said). That isn't a copyright issue, so the DMCA shouldn't have been used.

Now I know that isn't how it works. But that's how it SHOULD work, or the corporations end up having way too much power over how their product is perceived by the general populace.

PDP thinks he's still some lower level YTer who isn't constantly under the public eye, and what's worse, he still seems to think he can do whatever he wants without consequences, even after losing huge sponsors with his last stint in the media.

You mean when the WSJ misrepresented and slandered him? Because if PDP had wanted to, I reckon he could have successfully sued them for defamation.

Which shows that he doesn't learn, whether willfully or ignorantly, he remains the same person. If you hear your actions are bad and don't correct yourself but continue to be the same horrible person, well...that's your own damned fault, and you will get what's coming to you in the end.

But that's the thing. If you disagree that they're bad, why the fuck should you change at all? If I do something that I think is right, and somebody says "I think that's wrong," if they don't make a convincing case...why should I accept their judgement over my own? He didn't learn from being slandered? He didn't learn from having people take his jokes out of context? Yes, you can dislike the jokes, but at the end of the day they're still jokes, and making horrible jokes doesn't make you a horrible person. As I recall, plenty of comedians have made off colour jokes in the past, and that's what Felix is. He's an entertainer. You can think he's a BAD entertainer, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that he is one, and he's being raked over the coals - unfairly, I think - for something that a lot of comedians and entertainers do and get away with it (the jokes, not saying Nigger).

A derivative work is transformative if it uses a source work in completely new or unexpected ways. Simply recording your face while you play a game and use racial slurs is going to have a very hard time clearing the bar of showing that it's transformative.

But games are by their very nature transformative; nobodies playthroughs are going to be the same, and if he adds commentary over the top and does silly things, then that isn't an exact carbon copy of the game. It's HIS gameplay, and it's entirely fair for him to post videos of his gameplay.

Courts have almost universally favored the companies when they've argued on the effect of the market value of the work. There's just not the precedent to back up what you're saying. The one and only time I can remember off the top of my head when a claim about the market value of the derivative work was when the copyright holder used material from an out of print and no longer published magazine.

Have they ever ruled on video games Vs LPers, though? Because there's a big difference there; movies and video games are not the same thing. Finding a movie online and watching it for free means that you likely won't buy the movie itself if you can get it for free. But if you watch somebody play a video game, a lot of the time, that translates into people going to buy the game itself because they want to experience it firsthand as well, and there are a number of statistics that suggest that if a big gamer like PDP gets ahold of a game...sales increase because of increased visibility. It's not always the case, but it happens more often than not.
Why do you think so many games come out that fall into the genre of "Youtube Bait?"

Not even a little bit. Copyright holders may enforce their copyright claims at their discretion. Failing to enforce a copyright claim against one person does nothing to weaken your copyright in a separate claim. This is why copyright holders may (and often do) turn a blind eye to fan works, such as fan fiction and fan art. A copyright can't be diluted the way that a trademark can, and no matter how many unauthorized Harry Potter stories are out on the Internet, that does nothing to hurt J.K. Rowling's copyright regarding the books or her characters. However, this also means that if there's a fan work that the copyright holder doesn't like for any reason, they can choose to enforce their copyright claim against that particular fan work. You may grumble that selective enforcement of copyright claims is censorship, but it's completely within the copyright owner's rights to do that.

Well in that case, if what you're saying is true...it shouldn't be, and it's another example of corporations holding way too much power, if they can censor you with a DMCA because they don't like what you said.

You can't have it both ways. You can't use fair use as your defense, and then say that it's up to the publisher to prove infringement. By making the fair use claim in the first place you are conceding the point that copyright-protected material was used.

True. My knowledge of the American legal system is spotty at best, so I'll admit I made a mistake there.
But that doesn't change my opinion that LP's should be considered fair use simply down to the nature of video games; a movie will be the same on every viewing, but with most video games, every playthrough is going to be different and everybodies experiences will deviate in some way. And when you LP something with commentary and your own humorous spin on something, that is transformative by its very nature because you're playing it in a way that the creators didn't necessarily envisage. Again, see PDP's playthrough of Amnesia for an example of that.

In any case;

The point of this thread isn't DMCA and its usage, even if I think it's a messy piece of legislation that needs to be cleaned up and codified when it comes to certain forms of media that have evolved since its inception. The point is Pewdiepie using the word "Nigger," so I'm going to stop derailing this thread now. >.>

[DominantPoet]

Since what Regina said is in fact true about copyrights, there's not much point on me regurgitating what she already stated on them, so -

You mean when the WSJ misrepresented and slandered him? Because if PDP had wanted to, I reckon he could have successfully sued them for defamation.

Misrepresented? Like when he claimed there's a difference between a joke and actually having the mindset of "Death to all Jews?"? Because while he's correct in that statement, if you don't make it blatantly obvious to begin with that you're joking and have to do it AFTER the fact...there's a very good chance you weren't joking. It's kind of a "if you're offended, I'm totally joking, but if you agree with me, I'm totally serious" type of mindset that quite a few people have these days.

That's not really misrepresenting or slandering, that's a case of him not being clear and concise, to begin with. He might have been able to get a misrepresentation ruling, but given that he didn't attempt to do that, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that would have never happened because it would have been tossed out of court, or before it even made it to court. So. You can reckon about it all you want though.

But that's the thing. If you disagree that they're bad, why the fuck should you change at all? If I do something that I think is right, and somebody says "I think that's wrong," if they don't make a convincing case...why should I accept their judgement over my own? He didn't learn from being slandered? He didn't learn from having people take his jokes out of context? Yes, you can dislike the jokes, but at the end of the day they're still jokes, and making horrible jokes doesn't make you a horrible person. As I recall, plenty of comedians have made off colour jokes in the past, and that's what Felix is. He's an entertainer. You can think he's a BAD entertainer, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that he is one, and he's being raked over the coals - unfairly, I think - for something that a lot of comedians and entertainers do and get away with it (the jokes, not saying Nigger).

Yeah, I'm going to ask you to take the logic you're attempting to use here, and apply it to literally any other situation that society deems as bad, unlawful, evil, etc etc. If I disagree that murder is bad, why should I change? Robbery, fraud, scamming, breaking and entering, sexual assault/harassment, animal abuse, so on and so forth. What if I disagreed that any of those were bad and used the logic you're attempting to put forth here? Do you perhaps see how it suddenly becomes...let's say, questionable?

He wasn't slandered, I would strongly suggest you learn what slander actually is. Plenty of comedians have indeed made many off-color jokes in the past, many more will in the future. And as I said - they make it very obvious they are joking, making light of a serious issue, so on and so forth. They also generally understand that those types of jokes are risque, and must be presented in specific ways, as I have already said. You can't just go around and say things like "I tossed a penny between two jews and let them fight to the death" (Jeff Dunham) without making it blatantly, BLATANTLY obvious that is a JOKE. Far, FAR too many people in this day and age seem to think they can just spout out whatever crap they personally think is funny, blurting it out, and only after people take offense to it do they bother to claim and elaborate "Uhhh, I was just JOKING, calm your nuts" or some sort of other drivel of the sort.

Jock logic, as I like to call it. "Principal dude Sir, we dunked Billy's head in the toilet as a joke, take a chill pill, bro."

As for corporations having way too much power - I'm not sure how old you are, but that's kind of been the case for the better part of the last century. It was the case before I was even born into this world, so.

[Vekseid]

Attention whore in need of attention, and got it. If you don't support him, then don't click his videos, every view is more ad revenue in his pocket.

No. PewDiePie is the Youtuber/pro gamer equivalent of a manipulative partner. The guy has some incredibly calculated language designed to form a dependent relationship. "If you're going to play it, make sure you're playing it with me, so you're not just playing by yourself."

That's not just an attention whore. That's the sort of manipulative speech you hear from a sociopath or cult leader. It is based off the same sort of logic that 'negging' is.

It is not a good idea to dismiss these sorts of antics as 'mere' attention whoring.

[Vergil Tanner]

Misrepresented? Like when he claimed there's a difference between a joke and actually having the mindset of "Death to all Jews?"? Because while he's correct in that statement, if you don't make it blatantly obvious to begin with that you're joking and have to do it AFTER the fact...there's a very good chance you weren't joking.

So if it wasn't 100% clear that he was joking, then he obviously meant every word? Pardon my French, but that's ducking absurd. Even if he was being ambiguous, how does not being clear to all people make him automatically guilty of being a Nazi?
And in any case, I went and watched every single one of the examples people have given of his racism that I could find, and each one - besides the nigger stream - it was obvious, in context, that it was a joke. As you say, there's a difference between a joke and a call to action, and of all the times I've seen, not one of them is a call to action. Unless you have an example that I haven't seen, where it was ambiguous? If so, please let me know and I'll concede the point.

It's kind of a "if you're offended, I'm totally joking, but if you agree with me, I'm totally serious" type of mindset that quite a few people have these days.

That's true...but where's your evidence that PDP has this mindset? Because that kind of accusation kind of requires proof beyond "he makes off colour jokes." I make dead baby jokes all the time to my friends. Does that mean that I secretly get off on infanticide? The Bible Reloaded makes a lot of jew jokes (along with much darker shit), so does that mean that they secretly believe that stuff?

That's not really misrepresenting or slandering, that's a case of him not being clear and concise, to begin with. He might have been able to get a misrepresentation ruling, but given that he didn't attempt to do that, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that would have never happened because it would have been tossed out of court, or before it even made it to court. So. You can reckon about it all you want though.

It is misrepresentation if you take somebody out of context, edit bits together and make it look like they're saying something without the mitigation of the buffering context...which is exactly what the WSJ did.

Yeah, I'm going to ask you to take the logic you're attempting to use here, and apply it to literally any other situation that society deems as bad, unlawful, evil, etc etc. If I disagree that murder is bad, why should I change? Robbery, fraud, scamming, breaking and entering, sexual assault/harassment, animal abuse, so on and so forth. What if I disagreed that any of those were bad and used the logic you're attempting to put forth here? Do you perhaps see how it suddenly becomes...let's say, questionable?

That's one extreme, yeah. But let's take it the other way with what YOU'RE saying and say, "if I disagree that homosexuality, BDSM, Transgender or atheism is bad, then obviously I'm wrong!" My point was, somebody saying that you're a bad person doesn't necessarily make you a bad person on its own. Your actions dictate that, and beyond his off color jokes, what does he do? Because as I understand it, PdP is actually a really nice guy who does a hell of a lot for charity and noble causes. You saying he's a bad person doesn't make him one. You could just be wrong.

He wasn't slandered, I would strongly suggest you learn what slander actually is.

"The act or crime of making a false spoken statement about somebody that damages their reputation." They made a video, so Slander. The article itself was libel.
In any case, they took his quotes out of context and accused him of being a racist white supremacist Nazi. Without hard evidence that he actually is? That's defamation!

Plenty of comedians have indeed made many off-color jokes in the past, many more will in the future. And as I said - they make it very obvious they are joking, making light of a serious issue, so on and so forth.

As did PDP, as far as I can tell. He's never presented himself as a journalist. He's an entertainer who screamingly over reacts to video games. Why would you ever take him seriously in that context?

They also generally understand that those types of jokes are risque, and must be presented in specific ways, as I have already said. You can't just go around and say things like "I tossed a penny between two jews and let them fight to the death" (Jeff Dunham) without making it blatantly, BLATANTLY obvious that is a JOKE.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over with no real references. As far as I can find, they're all obviously jokes in context. Can you present one where it wasn't obvious, and was presented in a vague way?

Far, FAR too many people in this day and age seem to think they can just spout out whatever crap they personally think is funny, blurting it out, and only after people take offense to it do they bother to claim and elaborate "Uhhh, I was just JOKING, calm your nuts" or some sort of other drivel of the sort.

So.PdP is racist because other people are thoughtless assholes. Got it.

Jock logic, as I like to call it. "Principal dude Sir, we dunked Billy's head in the toilet as a joke, take a chill pill, bro."

So...you're equating a spoken joke in a video designed for entertainment to a case of actual physical abuse where somebody physically got hurt as a direct result?
Come on. That's absolute poppycock and you know it. A huge false equivalence, and if you honestly think they're comporable, I have no idea what to say. That's like saying that the joke "What was Germany's biggest debt after WW2? Their gas bill!" Is the same as pushing a Jew down a flight of stairs and that is utter nonsense.

As for corporations having way too much power - I'm not sure how old you are, but that's kind of been the case for the better part of the last century. It was the case before I was even born into this world, so.

Doesn't mean we should stop bitching about it. As soon as we don't mention it anymore, they win for good.



Also, sidebar; as David Mitchell once said...why is it that we can joke about Attilla The Hun and Ghengis Khan and the Romans atrocities, but WW2 is taboo? Seems like an odd double standard there. Is it just time? In which case, at what point do Holocaust jokes stop being a case of "Too soon?"

No. PewDiePie is the Youtuber/pro gamer equivalent of a manipulative partner. The guy has some incredibly calculated language designed to form a dependent relationship. "If you're going to play it, make sure you're playing it with me, so you're not just playing by yourself."

That's not just an attention whore. That's the sort of manipulative speech you hear from a sociopath or cult leader. It is based off the same sort of logic that 'negging' is.

It is not a good idea to dismiss these sorts of antics as 'mere' attention whoring.

Um...no offence, Vek, but that's going into tinfoil hat territory. I mean...again, have you got any evidence that that's what he's doing? Because I highly doubt that this is all a calculated ploy by Felix, the secret leader of the Illuminati.

[Regina Minx]

I'm not going to go over every point you made because a DMCA talk is out of scope for the PewDiePie discussion. However, there is one point I still think is worth following.

Well in that case, if what you're saying is true...it shouldn't be, and it's another example of corporations holding way too much power, if they can censor you with a DMCA because they don't like what you said.

First of all, I have to correct your premise. It's not just corporations that can own copyright. I gave you a very prominent example in my last post. JK Rowling owns the copyright on all Harry Potter material. She is not a corporation even though she's richer than Croesus. The standard you seem to be arguing, though, is that unless JK Rowling personally files DMCA requests against fanfiction.net and elliquiy itself, then she has no right to file a lawsuit against a theater troupe doing an unauthorized production of the Cursed Child.

That is ludicrous. First of all, think about what you're demanding of copyright holders. You're insisting that they post themselves on the Internet, filing DMCA claims every single time the copyright material is uploaded. I hope you can see how absurd this is.

Second of all, it speaks to an air of entitlement that isn't appropriate for discussing the work that an artist or creator owns. If I may transform the context slightly bigly, you are not entitled to a blowjob from me just because I've given a blowjob to the last 9 guys I've met. And just because I start to give you a blowjob does not obligate me to complete the blowjob if I decide not to mid-stream. "You were perfectly fine with giving me a blowjob but then you arbitrarily changed your mind and cut off my blowjob access? You're punishing me just because you don't like that I called you a nasty bitch midway through the blowjob! That's unfair and I'm entitled to your blowjob."

No sir, you are not. And PewDiePie is not entitled to indefinitely enjoy the right to the creative works of video game developers outside of a fair use context. No matter how long a blind eye has been turned to inappropriate behavior, you can't use the fact of the blind eye as a defense when that behavior is called out.

And in any case, I went and watched every single one of the examples people have given of his racism that I could find, and each one - besides the nigger stream - it was obvious, in context, that it was a joke.

Because as I understand it, PdP is actually a really nice guy who does a hell of a lot for charity and noble causes. You saying he's a bad person doesn't make him one. You could just be wrong.

Here's the logical flaw present in both of these sentiments. It's called the false dichotemy and it goes like this:

"PewDiePie can't be a racist, because the racist things he said in the past were meant as jokes." You're implying that a person can't be racists and make jokes about their racism. I disagree.

"PewDiePie does good work and raises money for charity. Therefore he can't be racist." You're implying that a racist person can't contribute to charity. Again, I disagree.



If you don't understand the context of the sign due to cultural or international differences, essentially any club, organization, or company can volunteer to pick up litter along segments of the highway. If you do and commit do doing that as an ongoing volunteer effort, the state or federal highway authority will put up a nice little sign thanking you. In the picture above, the KKK had volunteered to do litter pickup (must not make white trash joke) on that highway in Missouri, and the state had to put up that sign.

The illustrative point is that racists can do charity, and it's no defense to say "the Klan isn't racist! Look at the volunteer work they did on that highway!"

Bringing this back to PewDiePie, your defense of him has been based so far in a misunderstanding of the laws about copyright, unreasonable expectations about the entitlement of non-content creators to use copyright-protected work, and logical fallacies. What are you trying to accomplish in this discussion? To argue that PewDiePie isn't racist? That using the N-word in a fit of anger isn't a big deal?

I kind of feel like this is a relevant clip/quote:

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/155461/race-war

Kyle:   Dude, did your dad know that the show was being broadcast live?
Cartman:   Dude, that was the funniest thing I've ever seen. I watched it on YouTube about sixty times.
Stan:   Can we just drop this please? I don't wanna talk about it!
Cartman:   Yeah well, it's not us you have to worry about. It's Token. [points at the camera. Dramatic music swells. The camera then looks at Token, who's putting some books into his locker] He is gonna want to kick your cracker teeth in.
Stan:   No he's not. [looks at Kyle] Is he?
Kyle:   I don't know.
Stan:   I just need to explain things. [walks up to Token, who's finished with the locker and holds only a binder in his right hand] Hey Token. Look, I don't know if you saw Wheel of Fortune last night, but-
Token:   Yeah, I was watching with my whole family. And then we saw all the replays this morning on the news.
Stan:   Listen, Token, my dad isn't a racist. He's just stupid, all right? He just blurted out the N-word, and it's no big deal, okay?
Token:   Uh, well, actually it is kind of a big deal, Stan.
Cartman:   Ohhhhhhhh?
Token:   It may be a mistake, but you don't understand how it feels when that word comes up. So don't say it isn't a big deal.
Cartman:   Oh shit here we go! [gets really excited and cuts in between them, yelling] It's on! Race war! [goes back and yells at one end of the hall] Race war! Race war! [comes back again and yells at the other end of the hall] Race war is on, everybody! It's going down! Shit is going down! [returns, just itching to see Stan and Token fight]
Stan:   Token, my dad wasn't trying to be offensive. Just forget about it.
Token:   That's easy for you to say, Stan.
Cartman:   [softly] Yeah, come on! Here we go!
Stan:   Yeah, but he didn't say it in anger or anything like that.
Token:   That doesn't mean I can just be fine.
Cartman:   [softly] Race war! Come on! Race war!
Token:   If you really think it's not a big deal, then you really are ignorant. That's all. I'm not fighting anybody. [turns left and walks away]
Cartman:   Token forfeits! [takes Stan's left hand and holds it up in victory] Whites win! [lets go and twirls away] Whites win! [runs to one end of the hall] Race war is over, everybody! Whites won again!

[Vergil Tanner]

Second of all, it speaks to an air of entitlement that isn't appropriate for discussing the work that an artist or creator owns. If I may transform the context slightly bigly, you are not entitled to a blowjob from me just because I've given a blowjob to the last 9 guys I've met. And just because I start to give you a blowjob does not obligate me to complete the blowjob if I decide not to mid-stream. "You were perfectly fine with giving me a blowjob but then you arbitrarily changed your mind and cut off my blowjob access? You're punishing me just because you don't like that I called you a nasty bitch midway through the blowjob! That's unfair and I'm entitled to your blowjob."

No sir, you are not.

Um. That's such a stupid anecdote that I'm not sure where to begin. I mean, comparing a sexual act that involves you directly and requires your consistent effort to put in to the fair use of a released commercial project is...ludicrous, to say the least. Unless you're implying that your blowjobs are a commercial project that you offer to the mass market? :P
(Unless the smiley wasn't clue enough, that was a joke :P No offence meant :P )
In any case, the big difference there is that once somebody releases a piece of art - be it movie, television, book, video game or what - they are subject to people transforming their work within the scope of the law. Now, if they believe that their copyright has been violated, they are allowed - and should be able to - defend that copyright within the bounds of the law. I personally believe that if they allow one person to violate their copyright and are allowed to then quash somebody elses without having to justify it, that opens it up to a lot of abuse.
Taking a less "grey area" example, what if there are two reviews up of a video game, one positive and one negative. The copyright holder DMCA's the negative review, and allows the positive review to stay up. Should that be allowed? Is that right, that they get to silence negative opinions or people that they dislike by weaponising the legal system to control the message?

There are, again, grey areas of course. But I just find it disheartening when people are given the power to squash people that they don't like under the claim that they are somehow uniquely misusing their IP, without any kind of justification.

Here's the logical flaw present in both of these sentiments. It's called the false dichotemy and it goes like this:

"PewDiePie can't be a racist, because the racist things he said in the past were meant as jokes." You're implying that a person can't be racists and make jokes about their racism. I disagree.

"PewDiePie does good work and raises money for charity. Therefore he can't be racist." You're implying that a racist person can't contribute to charity. Again, I disagree.

...no, I'm not. You are entirely missing the point. I did not present a false dichotomy in any way, shape or form.

"PewDiePie can't be a racist, because the racist things he said in the past were meant as jokes." You're implying that a person can't be racists and make jokes about their racism. I disagree.

I never once said that. Please direct me to where I said that Pewdiepie can't be racist because his comments were made as jokes. Please. Because if I said that, I will happily retract the statement and admit that I misspoke.
What I SAID was that people are pointing to his jokes and claiming that they prove that he is secretly racist. I am saying "No, I don't believe that they prove that he is racist, can you point me towards comments he made that were not intended as jokes, where he expresses racist sympathies." I was saying that jokes do not prove that you are something; making sexist jokes does not inherently make you sexist, dead baby jokes do not inherently prove that you are infanticidal, and rape jokes do not inherently mean that you are A-OK with rape. I didn't say that he CAN'T be racist, just that I don't think that the examples people are holding up are representative of his actual views.
Here is the rest of that quote:

"As you say, there's a difference between a joke and a call to action, and of all the times I've seen, not one of them is a call to action. Unless you have an example that I haven't seen, where it was ambiguous? If so, please let me know and I'll concede the point."

Here it is made clear that I am not saying he CAN'T be racist, just that from what I've seen, I don't think he is. There's a big difference there. I never once said what you accused me of saying.


"PewDiePie does good work and raises money for charity. Therefore he can't be racist." You're implying that a racist person can't contribute to charity. Again, I disagree.

Again, no. The full quote:

"My point was, somebody saying that you're a bad person doesn't necessarily make you a bad person on its own. Your actions dictate that, and beyond his off color jokes, what does he do? Because as I understand it, PdP is actually a really nice guy who does a hell of a lot for charity and noble causes. You saying he's a bad person doesn't make him one. You could just be wrong."

Nowhere there did I say that he CAN'T be racist BECAUSE he raises money for charity. That's just stupid and obviously wrong.
I was making the point that just saying that somebody is a bad person doesn't inherently make them one, and that you have to look at his actions on the whole. I was making the point that PdP does a hell of a lot of good with his position and his money, and that absent any actual proof that he's a rampant racist, we can't justifiably claim that he is. The point was just that we have to look at what we have and the context present in each circumstance, and claiming that he is a huge racist because he makes off colour jokes is unfair and hypocritical. I never once said that he CAN'T be racist, and I'll thank you not to twist my words into saying things that I didn't actually say.

Bringing this back to PewDiePie, your defense of him has been based so far in a misunderstanding of the laws about copyright,

That was an addendum at the very end, and didn't even make up a single fifth of my original post. I was just commenting on how I don't like how Copyright holders can arbitrarily stop people from using their games, especially when they've previously not minded. To say that that was part of my defence of him is grossly exaggerating the initial emphasis I placed on that point. I will freely admit that I was unclear on Copyright Law and Fair Use...but since that wasn't even a foundation in my defence of PDP and more of an aside, it's kind of irrelevant.

unreasonable expectations about the entitlement of non-content creators to use copyright-protected work,

Addressed above. I'll concede the point about the DMCA, since that wasn't even my main point - more of an aside - so...what now? What about the other arguments and statements that I've made?

and logical fallacies.

Where? Which ones? I've already explained how your accusation of false dichotomies above is nonsense, so which other logical fallacies have I made? If you can point me to them, I would be happy to correct them! And that isn't sarcasm. If I'm genuinely making logical fallacies, I want to know.

What are you trying to accomplish in this discussion? To argue that PewDiePie isn't racist?

Not that he isn't racist - I don't know whether he is or not - but that we don't have reasonable justification to accuse him of it. Making racist jokes doesn't inherently make you racist; you can make a racist joke and not have racist views or inclinations, so why are we saying that because PDP has made Nazi jokes in the past, he's secretly a nazi? Besides his off colour jokes that (to me, at least) were obviously intended as such, what evidence do you actually have? Because that's a hell of an accusation to make. 

That using the N-word in a fit of anger isn't a big deal?

Saying "Nigger" can either be a tiny, insignificant deal or a huge deal, depending on the context. For example, me using nigger here is a tiny, unimportant deal because of the context. I'm not calling anybody one, I'm not saying that people should be able to use it with impunity and I'm not saying that the people who use it to denigrate black people should do it (quite the opposite). It's the same as using the word "Cunt." It's as big a deal as the context makes it. My argument on that front is that he let it slip and apologies immediately afterwards. When people exploded over it, he didn't fight back, he issued an apology, accepted his mistake and promised to do better in the future. I'm saying that, since - as far as I can tell - this is a first offence on his part of ACTUAL racism and he seems sincere in his video, we should give him the benefit of the doubt. If he does it again next week, however, that's when we start to say "Ok, dude, what the fuck?" and suspicions of actual racist ideas become justified. But for the time being...I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because it seems to be a genuine mistake that he regrets.
*shrug* He fucked up, he apologised, and it's the first time he's said it (that I'm aware of)...so why are we getting bent out of shape over it?

[Regina Minx]

Um. That's such a stupid anecdote

It's not. It's an analogy. And I'll thank you not to call it stupid.

In any case, the big difference there is that once somebody releases a piece of art - be it movie, television, book, video game or what - they are subject to people transforming their work within the scope of the law. Now, if they believe that their copyright has been violated, they are allowed - and should be able to - defend that copyright within the bounds of the law. I personally believe that if they allow one person to violate their copyright and are allowed to then quash somebody elses without having to justify it, that opens it up to a lot of abuse.

And for reasons that I've already identified, that's a ludicrous standard. JK Rowling is not responsible for taking down every Harry Potter story on fanfic.net before suing a theater company doing an unauthorized performance of Cursed Child.

Taking a less "grey area" example, what if there are two reviews up of a video game, one positive and one negative. The copyright holder DMCA's the negative review, and allows the positive review to stay up. Should that be allowed? Is that right, that they get to silence negative opinions or people that they dislike by weaponising the legal system to control the message?

And again, you're shifting the burden of proof here. If PewDiePie wants to argue that his words are critical, educational, or protected by fair use standards, then that's a burden that HE has to meet. Fair use is not a right. It's a defense.  

Look at what happened to Doug Walker (aka The Nostalgia Critic) when he did his review of The Room. Even though I think we can agree that the point of a Nostalgia Critic review is parody, one of the strongest defenses you can make against copyright infringement, it's not a given that his use of the room did not violate copyright (mostly due to lack of attribution and the length of material used, two critical factors in determining if use is fair). Now while I think that Doug Walker would have a strong defense if Tommy Wiseau had ever sued him and taken him to court, it's not a given that he would have won.

And yes, I'm going to repeat it again. If a second reviewer had posted a review of the room and praised it, while repeating Doug's sampling rate of the movie and not attributing, it does not impact Tommy Wiseau's case against Doug Walker at all. A copyright holder is not required to defend every violation of her copyright. Letting 99 YouTubers post LP footage of your game, but denying that to the 100th is within the bounds of what the copyright holder is allowed to do.

If you disagree, take it up with the legislature. But be prepared to answer this question: If I let 99 people borrow my shovel, am I obligated to let the 100th person borrow it as well? And if they borrow my shovel after I tell them they can't, does the fact that it was previously loaned to 99 people protect you from a charge of theft?

I never once said that. Please direct me to where I said that Pewdiepie can't be racist because his comments were made as jokes. Please. Because if I said that, I will happily retract the statement and admit that I misspoke.

Here is what you said: "No, I don't believe that they prove that he is racist, can you point me towards comments he made that were not intended as jokes, where he expresses racist sympathies."

You are rejecting the conclusion that PewDiePie is racist becuase you believe his comments were intended as jokes, not racism. Here's the syllogistic logic of the underlying argument:

P1: If something is intended as a joke, it can't be racist.
P2: PewDiePie's comments were intended as jokes
C: Therefore, PewDiePie's comments can't be racist.

I reject P1. I believe that something can be intended as a joke....and also be racist. If you want to prove P1 from up above, since I'm not willing to grant it, then you need to demonstrate how and why it's impossible for something intended as a joke to be racist.

In Bayesian terms, arguing that P|e isn't true because there's a non-zero ~P|e is a failure of understanding how a piece of evidence can argue in favor of both a thesis and its antithesis.

[Vergil Tanner]

It's not. It's an analogy. And I'll thank you not to call it stupid.

Analogy, sorry, my mistake.
I still think it's a silly one.

And for reasons that I've already identified, that's a ludicrous standard...charge of theft?

As I've already said, copyright law isn't my forte. I disagree with how it works, but I'm not about to argue that it DOESN'T work that way against somebody who obviously knows more about it than I do. And since it wasn't the main thrust of my argument (and isn't the subject of the thread) in the first place, I'm going to leave it there.

Here is what you said: "No, I don't believe that they prove that he is racist, can you point me towards comments he made that were not intended as jokes, where he expresses racist sympathies."

You are rejecting the conclusion that PewDiePie is racist becuase you believe his comments were intended as jokes, not racism. Here's the syllogistic logic of the underlying argument:

Exactly! I'm rejecting the conclusion that Pewdiepie is racist.
That is NOT the same as accepting the conclusion that Pewdiepie is not racist. They are two entirely separate claims. I am saying that I do not believe that he is racist, and that I would need further evidence to come to that conclusion. I am looking at the evidence being provided and saying "Eh, I'm not convinced." I am not arguing that PDP is NOT racist, just that the evidence available is not enough to persuade me that he IS.

P1: If something is intended as a joke, it can't be racist.

Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.
Something can be racist even if it's meant as a joke. What I am saying is that making a racist joke doesn't inherently make you a racist person, since to be racist you have to have certain ideas and beliefs based on race. You don't have to have those beliefs to make the joke.

P2: PewDiePie's comments were intended as jokes
C: Therefore, PewDiePie's comments can't be racist.

Your conclusion is wrong because your analysis of my premise is wrong. How many times do I have to state that you are wrong about what I am arguing before you accept that you've misunderstood my position?

I reject P1. I believe that something can be intended as a joke....and also be racist. If you want to prove P1 from up above, since I'm not willing to grant it, then you need to demonstrate how and why it's impossible for something intended as a joke to be racist.

Well we're in luck! Because that is not and has never been one of my premises. My premise is ACTUALLY that you can make a racist joke and not be a racist person.

[Lustful Bride]

Lets all remember that we are all friends here. We are on the same side, just in different ways and degrees.

[Regina Minx]

Well we're in luck! Because that is not and has never been one of my premises. My premise is ACTUALLY that you can make a racist joke and not be a racist person.

Right. But your premise doesn't preclude that a person can make racist jokes AND be racist.

Do I, Regina Minx, think that PewDiePie is racist? I think it's more likely than not that he is (that is, that P>50%). This is not the first time he's gotten in trouble for doing this stupid shit. Michael Richards had one racial outburst and has pretty much been apologizing about it and agonizing over it ever since. And since he's also never done anything like it again (to my knowledge: opinion subject to change as new information is presented), I'm willing to accept that Michael Richards is not racist.

This is not the first time PewDiePie has done shit like this. Not even the second. I think at some point P|e becomes a lot more likely than ~P|e.

Edit to Add: Yes, I've done the math on this. I've done Bayesian calculations to determine whether or not I think it's reasonable to conclude that a Swedish Youtuber is racist. This is EXACTLY what my parents intended when they paid for my math degree.

[Oniya]

I'd like to take a moment to correct some things from my earlier post.  The phrase I was looking for wasn't 'heat of the moment' defense (although that seems to be the angle that PDP and his crew are taking), but rather 'excited utterance'.  According to the Cornell Law Institute:

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, an excited utterance is defined as a statement that concerns a startling event, made by the declarant when the declarant is still under stress from the startling event. An excited utterance is admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule.

Now, the reason that this is an exception to the hearsay rule is because the person saying it hasn't had a chance to reflect on what he's saying and come up with something else.  That was the interpretation I had proposed in my post. 

Now, Vergil has stated that in a similar situation

I was playing a game a couple of weeks ago, and I hit a wall of difficulty that I just couldn't get through. I rammed my head against this level three, four, five times, and I always died at the same spot, right? On my sixth death, I got frustrated and said "Oh, you fucking cunt." Before that moment, the last time I'd said the word "Cunt" was about six months previously. I was frustrated, and I blurted out the worst word I could think of to vent. And that's exactly what PDP said that he did.

Okay - let's go with that for a moment.  PDP was frustrated, and blurted out the 'worst word' he could think of to refer to his adversary.  So, he selected a word that is also a racial epithet.  Apparently it's worse than 'asshole', because that's what he 'corrected' to.  The problem with this is that it implies that he had the time and inclination to choose his words. 

I also want to address the 'haven't said [word x] in [long period of time]' part of the anecdote.  I don't cuss often at all.  When I get upset enough to swear, it surprises people - has surprised people here (and I'm a little freer with my language when I type.)  The thing is, when I cuss, I still have a no-go-zone.  There are plenty of words I will consider using when I'm mad that I don't consider using in day-to-day speech.  Racial epithets of any sort (and I know a sizeable list of them) are not on that list.

In sum - he either said it without thinking (which suggests that it was uppermost in his mind), or he said it with some amount of thought - which still says a lot for him.



With regard to Firewatch - I don't agree with their method, but I think they want to distance themselves from PDP.  Some people have said that he wasn't even playing Firewatch when he said the thing, so Firewatch shouldn't be bent out of shape.  Every campaign season, you hear stories of some musician/band telling some politician 'Hey, I don't want you using my song in your campaign.'  They disagree with the message that the politician is putting out there, and don't want to even give the appearance of promoting it.  Occasionally, this has gone as far as lawsuits.  There are organizations that cancel proposed speaking events when the speaker screws up somewhere else.  There are more subtle 'shunnings', like simply not inviting a celeb to a particular venue.  There may be other avenues Firewatch can use (or has used) to tell PDP 'Hey, we really don't want to risk you spouting this stuff over footage of our game] - but that's the message that they are wanting to send.  It may be that anything less would be (or has been) met by this guy saying 'Pffft - I'll upload what I want and you can't stop me.'

[WindFish]

Right. But your premise doesn't preclude that a person can make racist jokes AND be racist.

Do I, Regina Minx, think that PewDiePie is racist? I think it's more likely than not that he is. This is not the first time he's gotten in trouble for doing this stupid shit. Michael Richards had one racial outburst and has pretty much been apologizing about it and agonizing over it ever since. And since he's also never done anything like it again (to my knowledge: opinion subject to change as new information is presented), I'm willing to accept that Michael Richards is not racist.

I think this is a very important takeaway.

Michael Richards still talks about it in interviews, it it clearly still haunts him to this day. He regrets it and to my knowledge he hasn't done anything like it again. I'm willing to believe that the incident was simply him being edgy and obviously failing at it. It pretty much killed his career and I'm more inclined to believe that it was an one time incident and that he's not racist.

PewDiePie, on the other hand, continues to make the same racist jokes and slurs, and gets away with it. He's pretty casual about racial slurs and if he uses them while he's on camera playing a game, then I'm willing to bet that it's a word he uses in private. How is he supposed to learn when he has legions of fans defending him and when he's now become a martyr for the alt-right? That's only going to encourage him to do the same thing that makes him popular and edgy. Apologies are meaningless when he does the same thing he apologized for again. That's why I'm inclined to believe that he's racist. He does not learn from his frequent mistakes.

He's going to keep on doing it until more developers and YouTube finally have enough of his childish antics and give him the boot, and when that day comes, it'll be harder for other Let's Players and YouTubers do to their jobs with the DCMA and copyright lawyers sharpening their knives.

[Vergil Tanner]

Right. But your premise doesn't preclude that a person can make racist jokes AND be racist.

No, it doesn't. I'm glad that you've finally acknowledge that what you've been asserting as my position is not, in fact, my actual position.

Do I, Regina Minx, think that PewDiePie is racist? I think it's more likely than not that he is. This is not the first time he's gotten in trouble for doing this stupid shit.

And what stupid shit is that? Besides him making racist jokes, what else is there that you have access to that has convinced you? If it's simply that he makes racist jokes, then I disagree with you on your conclusion, and I'm not sure that there's much more to be said. I don't think making racist jokes is a barometer of whether you're racist or not; Frankie Boyle made a LOT of off colour and horrible jokes, but I don't necessarily think he's racist...he just relies on shock tactics to make his audience laugh. I think PDP is roughly in the same league. Not something I care for, but I'm not about to accuse him of actually being a hateful bigot on the back of his chosen source material.

Edit to Add:[/b] Yes, I've done the math on this. I've done Bayesian calculations to determine whether or not I think it's reasonable to conclude that a Swedish Youtuber is racist. This is EXACTLY what my parents intended when they paid for my math degree.

But I don't think you can reliably use mathematics to calculate what goes on inside somebodies head, thought and personality wise. I mean...mathematics and odds are all well and good, but just because something is 70% likely doesn't inherently mean that it's true. I, personally, need more concrete evidence before I'm going to pass judgement on what somebodies personal beliefs and attitudes are, especially when I've never met them face to face. As an example of how that can be dangerous, for the longest time, people thought Felix was actually like PewDiePie, when in fact PDP was more of a character that Felix played than his genuine personality. I just don't think we have enough information to say that he's probably racist or not.

Okay - let's go with that for a moment.  PDP was frustrated, and blurted out the 'worst word' he could think of to refer to his adversary.  So, he selected a word that is also a racial epithet.  Apparently it's worse than 'asshole', because that's what he 'corrected' to.  The problem with this is that it implies that he had the time and inclination to choose his words.

Well, that's entirely possible. You can see him getting frustrated long before he says the word, so if he automatically chooses the worst word he can think of - and the worst word he can think of is "Nigger" - I would argue that it could also be seen as him being staunchly anti racist, since a racist wouldn't necessarily see the word "Nigger" as a horrible word that he should never ever say. Not sure how long that argument would be, but my point was just that him using that word "as the worst word he can think of" doesn't necessarily mean that he's a racist, just that he views it as a disgusting, horrible word...which I think we can at least agree that it is indeed a horrible, horrible word, right? :P

I also want to address the 'haven't said [word x] in [long period of time]' part of the anecdote.  I don't cuss often at all.  When I get upset enough to swear, it surprises people - has surprised people here (and I'm a little freer with my language when I type.)  The thing is, when I cuss, I still have a no-go-zone.  There are plenty of words I will consider using when I'm mad that I don't consider using in day-to-day speech.  Racial epithets of any sort (and I know a sizeable list of them) are not on that list.

Yeah, but that's just you. Some people don't have as much of a filter on their mouths (Guilty!) and end up saying way worse shit than they normally would in the heat of the moment. I would never, ever use the word "Cunt" as an insult most of the time, and most of the time in most company I don't say it AT ALL and I always manage to stop myself before blurting it out...but if I get frustrated enough, it's still in my head as a horrible, disgusting word, so if i get angry enough, I can't stop myself from blurting it out. The fact that his immediate reaction - without a single breath - was "Oh shit! I'm sorry!" suggests that he knew he shouldn't have said it the moment he finished the thought, which can be interpreted either way. My point to you was simply that that doesn't mean that he's racist; it could just mean that he knows how much of a no-go word that is and he surprised himself with the way he used it.

With regard to Firewatch - I don't agree with their method, but I think they want to distance themselves from PDP.  Some people have said that he wasn't even playing Firewatch when he said the thing, so Firewatch shouldn't be bent out of shape.  Every campaign season, you hear stories of some musician/band telling some politician 'Hey, I don't want you using my song in your campaign.'  They disagree with the message that the politician is putting out there, and don't want to even give the appearance of promoting it.  Occasionally, this has gone as far as lawsuits.  There are organizations that cancel proposed speaking events when the speaker screws up somewhere else.  There are more subtle 'shunnings', like simply not inviting a celeb to a particular venue.  There may be other avenues Firewatch can use (or has used) to tell PDP 'Hey, we really don't want to risk you spouting this stuff over footage of our game] - but that's the message that they are wanting to send.  It may be that anything less would be (or has been) met by this guy saying 'Pffft - I'll upload what I want and you can't stop me.'

Pretty much this. I understand where they're coming from, definitely, I just disagree with their method and think that it was creeping a bit too close to (in my opinion) an abuse of the DMCA. But as you say, it could be that they tried and he said no. But since we don't have access to their communications (if there are any), then.... *shrug* It's all conjecture at this point.

[Vergil Tanner]

Michael Richards still talks about it in interviews, it it clearly still haunts him to this day. He regrets it and to my knowledge he hasn't done anything like it again. I'm willing to believe that the incident was simply him being edgy and obviously failing at it. It pretty much killed his career and I'm more inclined to believe that it was an one time incident and that he's not racist.

So because Pewdiepie isn't on his knees begging for forgiveness daily, he's automatically racist? Come on.

PewDiePie, on the other hand, continues to make the same racist jokes and slurs, and gets away with it.

He makes racist jokes, yes, but that doesn't inherently make him racist. As for slurs, besides the "Nigger on stream," has there been another time he's used a racist slur seriously that I'm not aware of?

if he uses them while he's on camera playing a game, then I'm willing to bet that it's a word he uses in private.

He didn't use it casually; his first reaction was "Oh shit, I'm sorry."

How is he supposed to learn when he has legions of fans defending him and when he's now become a martyr for the alt-right?

...so because the Alt Right are using him as a martyr, he's guilty by association? Not sure why you brought this up.

Apologies are meaningless when he does the same thing he apologized for again. That's why I'm inclined to believe that he's racist. He does not learn from his frequent mistakes.

Ok, again, what mistakes are you talking about? Is it the racist jokes, or has he been spouting phrases like "Nigger," "Hooch," "Porch Monkey," etc etc, in serious contexts and I just haven't heard about it?

[Regina Minx]

And what stupid shit is that? Besides him making racist jokes, what else is there that you have access to that has convinced you?

Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

But I don't think you can reliably use mathematics to calculate what goes on inside somebodies head, thought and personality wise.

I'm not. I'm using Bayesian reasoning to attach numbers to what I think is the most probable explanation of the evidence.

We think in math. All of us. All the time. In social commentary, history, philosophy. We just don't know we're doing it. Every time you accept or reject a conclusion because something is “unlikely” you are doing math. You're just using ordinary words instead of numbers. Select any claim in the world, and you will immediately be able to say roughly how likely you think it is— in some verbally descriptive way ("very probable," "almost certainly won't happen,"somewhat likely," "a coin flip," etc.).

As soon as you say x is more probable than y (both 'PewDiePie is probably a racist' and 'PewDiePie is probably not a racist' count as probabilistic statements), you are doing math. In fact, your thinking is even more mathematically precise than that. When you say something is “probably true,” you mean it has an probability greater than 50%. Because that's what that sentence literally means. And when you say something is probably false, you mean it has a probability less than 50%. Because that's what that sentence literally means. And when you say you don't have any idea whether a claim is probably true or probably false, you mean that you think it has a probability of 50%, because, again, that's what that sentence literally means.

If you are going to say "You can't make a Bayesian argument because numbers can't capture what's going on in someone's head," that same logic prevents you from arguing the antithesis of my P. You cannot say "You can't make the argument P|e because you can't numbers someone's thoughts" while at the same time arguing "I think that ~P|e is >50%."

[la dame en noir]

Me and quite a few other black nerds/gsmers had a big discussion about this on a Facebook group thread. Long story short, we don't find it cute or funny. I also didn't find his Jeep jokes funny and neiher did my Jewish friends. I even unfollowed Markiplier when he defended him. If he does it for this too, he is written off.

This sort of shit needs to be put out. I don't think racial slurs are cute and where he is from is no excuse either. Was shocked? No, because he's trash. I'm just over all of this and the damn slaps on the wrists these YouTube stars get.

[la dame en noir]

So because Pewdiepie isn't on his knees begging for forgiveness daily, he's automatically racist? Come on.


He makes racist jokes, yes, but that doesn't inherently make him racist. As for slurs, besides the "Nigger on stream," has there been another time he's used a racist slur seriously that I'm not aware of?


He didn't use it casually; his first reaction was "Oh shit, I'm sorry."


...so because the Alt Right are using him as a martyr, he's guilty by association? Not sure why you brought this up.


Ok, again, what mistakes are you talking about? Is it the racist jokes, or has he been spouting phrases like "Nigger," "Hooch," "Porch Monkey," etc etc, in serious contexts and I just haven't heard about it?

all of this is what I'm talking about when people want to protect dumb fucks like Felix.

Europe isn't not exempt from racism at all, so to act like no one would know what this shit means is bullshit. Secondly there are plenty of black people in Sweden, where he's from, and in Europe in general that would not find his words fun. I have a biracial friend from Spain who speaks about racism she and her black sister have faced many times.

Also, if you're not rwcist or prejudiced, you wouldn't need to use any racial slurs at all. Felix is a fucking idiot.

I'm so sick of people making excuses for him.

[Skynet]

I've seen the "he's from Sweden" used as a defense. But it doesn't really apply in that he's been fluent in English for a long time and has been connected with the English-speaking world for a while. He has social media profiles, official message boards, all in English. He's not some dude from an isolated corner of the world whose only exposure is through Hollywood movies.

He makes racist jokes, yes, but that doesn't inherently make him racist. As for slurs, besides the "Nigger on stream," has there been another time he's used a racist slur seriously that I'm not aware of?

...so because the Alt Right are using him as a martyr, he's guilty by association? Not sure why you brought this up.


Ok, again, what mistakes are you talking about? Is it the racist jokes, or has he been spouting phrases like "Nigger," "Hooch," "Porch Monkey," etc etc, in serious contexts and I just haven't heard about it?

Depends upon which definition of "racist" you use, as I count at least 5 going around in popular usage. Regardless, saying a slur in anger is pretty poor form and generally considered a racist act under at least 3 of the 5 definitions (4 if the player he was calling that has dark skin IRL). Also most racists in the English-speaking world rarely say those types of words out loud casually unless they believe they're in a private setting, have a poor filter, or think they can get away with it. A lot of racism is subtle and coded. There's a phrase for something like this: "A k*ke is a Jew who just left the room."

Secondly, I made a post earlier in this very thread talking about why it's troubling for many that the alt-right is holding PewdiePie as a martyr.

[la dame en noir]

I've seen the "he's from Sweden" used as a defense. But it doesn't really apply in that he's been fluent in English for a long time and has been connected with the English-speaking world for a while. He has social media profiles, official message boards, all in English. He's not some dude from an isolated corner of the world whose only exposure is through Hollywood movies.

Depends upon which definition of "racist" you use, as I count at least 5 going around in popular usage. Regardless, saying a slur in anger is pretty poor form and generally considered a racist act under at least 3 of the 5 definitions (4 if the player he was calling that has dark skin IRL). Also most racists in the English-speaking world rarely say those types of words out loud casually unless they believe they're in a private setting, have a poor filter, or think they can get away with it. A lot of racism is subtle and coded. There's a phrase for something like this: "A k*ke is a Jew who just left the room."

Secondly, I made a post earlier in this very thread talking about why it's troubling for many that the alt-right is holding PewdiePie as a martyr.

*applauds*