PewDiePie and the bad word dramaz

[Jezabelle]

The apology was hollow, much as his previous ones were.  People (and Scandinavians to be fully honest with you) like him are common in the gaming community, viewing all such issues as a world away (until recently where anti-Refugee sentiments have become very popular, the same people calling America inhumane and monstrous years ago and bragging about how humanitarian they were--including their 100% acceptance of refugees--have suddenly done a heel turn).

He fully and un-ironically engaged in casual antisemitism and uses AAVE to imitate what he perceives to be "gangsta" language, speaking volumes.  Does he want to gas the Jews, lynch black people?  Probably no, or not enough to do anything about it\not on the surface level of his psyche.

His actions are still wildly unprofessional and have strangled his career.  He had a deal with Disney for Christ's sake.  I guess at some point you're so rich you don't care, and I don't exactly hold people who scream at video games in over-cut videos to a high moral standard, but the only thing laudable about him at this point is his success.  He did it.  He solved YouTube and got really fucking rich doing it.  Hats off as far as the Capitalist ethic are concerned, but beyond that he's a jackass.

[Vergil Tanner]

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

I think it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask. Your assertion that he's secretly a hugely racist person is based off of the fact that he frequently makes racist jokes. Being a person who frequently makes dead baby jokes but has no desire to ACTUALLY kill babies, I don't think that's enough evidence....so I am genuinely asking whether you have any further evidence that would swing me towards your point of view, since my opinion is subject to change if presented with new information. The fact that you keep making snarky comments and avoiding the question suggests that you don't have any further evidence. See, a racist person and a non racist person can both make racist jokes. Being racist is not a prerequisite to making racist jokes. So we need evidence outside of his jokes to demonstrate that he has racist sympathies, which you appear not to have. Ergo, I reject your conclusion that he's racist based on the fact that you haven't presented sufficient evidence for me to agree with you.

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%."

Except I'm not making judgements on probability. I'm saying "I don't believe your assertion on face value, do you have evidence?"

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

That's bullshit. I'm sorry, but sometimes people say stupid shit that they don't mean or don't intend. He's a moron and should have thought before he spoke, yes, but saying something racist by mistake (and I would argue that it wasn't specifically targeted at a black person because he didn't know whether the person on the receiving end was black or not, but that's an eeeeeh argument that isn't the point) doesn't inherently mean that you are a rampant racist. As I've already noted, sometimes people say stupid, horrible shit in the heat of the moment just because it's the worst thing they can think of and they get angry. Was it stupid? Yes. Does it reveal that he is a secret racist? No.

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).

Well, 1) I don't think it qualifies as Number 4 just because he had no way of knowing whether that person was black IRL, but regardless.
What he said WAS racist. I'm not arguing that. Using a racial slur as an insult is obviously racist. But saying one racist thing in a moment of anger doesn't mean that you are a racist person overall. And making racist jokes doesn't mean that you are a racist person. I agree it's poor form and utterly stupid considering the shitstorm that just died down from the WSJ, but does it inherently, irrefutably prove that he has racist sympathies and white supremacist opinions? No.

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."

True. But then again, people who AREN'T racist can also accidentally say racist things, or say something horrible that they don't mean in the heat of the moment. So how do you differentiate between the two? Or is anybody who says something racist by mistake a horrible, filthy racist? That doesn't allow for many shades of grey there.

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.

And that's PDP's fault...how?
That's like saying that PDP is a Nazi because the Daily Stormer put him on their banner. He has no control over what the Alt Right does on his behalf or says about him, so really I don't know why it matters when it comes to PDP and his Nigger Stream.

The apology was hollow, much as his previous ones were.

I personally disagree.

People (and Scandinavians to be fully honest with you) like him are common in the gaming community, viewing all such issues as a world away (until recently where anti-Refugee sentiments have become very popular, the same people calling America inhumane and monstrous years ago and bragging about how humanitarian they were--including their 100% acceptance of refugees--have suddenly done a heel turn).

Eeeeh, refugee sentiment is a complicated one. There are justifiable reasons beyond "Don't like the foreigners" that people can be anti refugee considering what's happening in Europe in the wake of mass refugee immigration (I'm kind of on the fence about it; I agree with points from both sides), but that's an argument for a different time.

He fully and un-ironically engaged in casual antisemitism

Where? If you're talking about his jokes, that seems pretty ironic to me.

and uses AAVE to imitate what he perceives to be "gangsta" language, speaking volumes.  Does he want to gas the Jews, lynch black people?  Probably no, or not enough to do anything about it\not on the surface level of his psyche.

And that's kind of all I'm saying. I don't like his content. but I think labeling him as a racist because of these incidents is jumping a little too far for my liking.

His actions are still wildly unprofessional

The Nigger Thing, yes...the frequency of his racist jokes, yes, but I disagree that it's entirely unprofessional considering how many entertainers and comedians do it.

He had a deal with Disney for Christ's sake.

Eeeeh, that's...a weird one. I personally think that they only cut ties with him BECAUSE it got publicised. Are you telling me that Disney didn't know EXACTLY who they were getting into bed with? I would be very surprised if his tendency to make off colour jokes was completely new to them.

I don't exactly hold people who scream at video games in over-cut videos to a high moral standard,

That's the other thing; given his content, why would you ever take jokes he makes in those videos at all seriously? Especially since in those videos, he's playing a character rather than reacting naturally.



Anyway, I've said my piece, and I don't think I'm going to change anybodies opinion here, and from what I can tell, I don't think anybody here has the extra evidence I need to agree with you guys either. I don't post in PROC very often, just because it sucks me in and drains all of my free time, so I will leave my thoughts here and respectfully bow out of the conversation. Peace guys! :D

[la dame en noir]

I think it's safe to say that racist apologists exist. :3

[Vergil Tanner]

I think it's safe to say that racist apologists exist. :3

Of course they do. Apologists for everything exist, if you look hard enough.

Though I'm not sure why you mention it now. Are you implying that I'm an apologist for racism?

[Oniya]

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.

So, here's a question.  Obviously saying that he 'doesn't have a filter' doesn't make it all sunshine and rainbows when he says something that he shouldn't, regardless of his motivation for saying it.

How does someone acquire or adjust their filter?

[Cognitive Brainfart]

But I do think we should stop making stupid people famous and let the trash settle on the trash. I don't think much of pewdiepie but I know that because it was blown in to a big deal, he is going to get exactly what he deserves of equal proportion. His cute ten seconds of fame are probably going to mean he never gets the chance to lock down a job he might actually want in the future, because all the places where video gaming skills are relevant require six figure salaries to live well and no company willing to invest that much money in to their employees will not see his potential sincerity as anything other than a liability. He will never be able to support a family, no one is going to want the alienation of a relationship with him, his family will be ashamed and harassed because of him, and he is probably accumulating a nightmare whirlwind of email and phone threats from bored losers just like him.

I think it was a good thing that people made a huge stir of it, drama and all.
His loving fans and supporters can see his washed up mtv true life drama apology episode in fifteen years, and I'm pretty content with knowing one day he could wind up being that miserable 80 year old gas station attendant pumping my gas on Thanksgiving because he has absolutely no where to go and can't afford to retire.

I really don't think Pewdiepie has to worry about this whatsoever. He won't stop being popular because he said "a bad word". After all, as someone mentioned, he did several times before. Not to mention that there have been many YouTubers who did the same and they are still popular. Apart from that, he has made so much money already that he doesn't have to worry about a job. Even if he would quit Youtube tomorrow and never come back to it, he probably wouldn't have to work his entire life. Unless he does something stupid with the money or lives beyond his means. As for relationships, I can't say because I don't know about his relationships, but I don't think it would hinder him from having a family.

[Vergil Tanner]

So, here's a question.  Obviously saying that he 'doesn't have a filter' doesn't make it all sunshine and rainbows when he says something that he shouldn't, regardless of his motivation for saying it.

How does someone acquire or adjust their filter?

Oh, I'm not saying that at all. Of course it doesn't excuse what he said, it's just something to take into account when trying to figure out the internal motivation for using that language. I'm not supporting or defending how he used the word - "Nigger" should never be used in an insult, full stop - I'm just saying that that slip of the tongue doesn't necessarily make him a racist person overall. I'm willing to - on this occasion - take his apology at face value and move on with my life. If he does it again in a weeks time? That's when I'll start to think "Eeeeeh...I don't think you're being entirely sincere here, dude."

In terms of how you go about adjusting your filter...it's a tough question. It's something you have to work on, and work hard on. It's just about learning to stop, think about what you want to say and deciding whether or not you should, or whether it's a good idea. When I was a little younger, I had literally no filter in place. I'd say the first stupid shit that came into my head. I had to learn the hard way to force myself to pause and think about things and how they might be interpreted before I said it. Sometimes I still don't do it. Most of the time I do, but I still have the occasional slip, or I don't take everything into account when saying something (EG, where I am and what my surroundings are and how what I'm saying might be interpreted). Personally speaking, being in China has helped me a LOT with that, since I usually have loud political opinions, and in China...you don't say anything about Chinese Politics. The threat of going to prison or being deported has done wonders for motivating the self-enforcement of a filter. :P


IN ANY CASE. I said I was withdrawing from the conversation, and I meant it. xD

[Regina Minx]

I think it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask. Your assertion that he's secretly a hugely racist person is based off of the fact that he frequently makes racist jokes. Being a person who frequently makes dead baby jokes but has no desire to ACTUALLY kill babies, I don't think that's enough evidence....so I am genuinely asking whether you have any further evidence that would swing me towards your point of view, since my opinion is subject to change if presented with new information.

If you really, really, really, REALLY want to see how I apply Bayes in this case, fine. This is not me presenting new evidence, this is me explaining to you why the evidence we have leads me to the conclusion that I hold.

The long form of Bayes' Theorem is:



Here is where I define terms.

h is the hypothesis we are testing, in this case, that PewDiePie is a racist. ~h is the contrary of that hypothesis, that PewDiePie is not a racist.

e is the evidence we are using to test the hypothesis, and it is derived from the two incidents already under discussion: the 'Kill all Jews' incident and the racial slur.

b is our sum of background knowledge.

For b, it is essential to determine the background level of racism in a culture or society. How many people are at least a little racist, in other words. The clearest and most applicable reference class for which we have sufficient data is a 2006 study commissioned by the Swedish government revealed that 15% of the Swedish population is at least a little anti-Semitic. This is the best data I can find for the prevalence of racism in Sweden, so if you want to argue that PewDiePie belongs in a different reference class, please provide that data.

Since e contains two incidents, I'm going to break them down and discuss their probabilities separately.

For the "Kill All Jews" incident, how likely is it that we would have this evidence if the person under discussion was racist? I think the chance is 100%: we very much expect racists to say things like this, and we had great evidence of "Jews Will Not Replace Us" and "This city is run by Jewish communists and criminal niggers! That’s exactly what it is" in Charlottesville.

But, being a good Bayesian, I must acknowledge that there is a chance that we would have this same evidence on ~h. How likely would it be that a person would pay other people to film themselves holding a sign saying "Kill all Jews" if they were not racist? I will argue a fortiori and say that there is a 40% chance that a person would, for whatever reason (a joke, shock tactics, a painfully uneducated understanding of European history), pay others to hold such a sign even if they were not a racist.

Therefore, I believe that P(jews|h)=1, and P(jews|~h)=.4

The second incident is the racial slur we have been discussing. We must determine what we believe this evidence says. Like the "Kill all Jews" incident, I must again conclude that this is 100% expected on h.

I want to say that the probability on ~h is even lower in this case. The N-word is such a no-go in conversation that I believe that a person would be much, much less likely to say this on any other theory than h. Nevertheless, I will give it a probability of 35% for the sake of arguing a fortiori. That is, I am being as generous as I can reasonably be in interpreting the evidence on the theory of ~h.

Therefore, I believe that P(racial slur|h)=1, and P(racial slur|~h)=.35

That means for the theorem, that P(e|h) = 1, and P(e|~h) = 0.14

P(h|e.b)= [.15*1]/[(.15*1)+(.14*.85)]

=.15/(.15+.119)

=.15/.269

=0.55762081784

≈56%

That is, I think it is AT LEAST 56% likely that PewDiePie is racist. Slightly more than 50%, meaning “is probably” is the word I would use. But this does not consider all the evidence, just the facts I personally know about at this time. I understand that the Wall Street Journal found something like 9 racist or anti-semitic remarks in videos, but as the article itself on the WSJ website is behind a paywall, they are not counted in the calculation above.

If I was presenting this formally, I would put more into it than these very rough calculations, but for purposes of ‘arguing on the Internet’, I believe this is sufficient explanation.


Bayes Theorem is a logically valid form of argument. As we all remember from Logic 101, if an argument is both valid and sound, then it must be true. Well, I’ve used a valid argument. How about its soundness?

For you to say my argument is unsound, you must therefore tell me what you think those premises ought to be. You have to tell me why you think P(jews|h) should be less than one, or why P(jews|~h) should be greater than .4, and so on.

I’d like you to pin down your subjective assumption about the relative weight of the evidence under discussion. I’ve shown you why I think the evidence we have leaves us, even at my most generous interpretation, to the probable belief that PewDiePie is racist. Please tell me why you think the evidence suggests that he is probably not. And please, use Bayesian terms.

[Vergil Tanner]

I’d like you to pin down your subjective assumption about the relative weight of the evidence under discussion. I’ve shown you why I think the evidence we have leaves us, even at my most generous interpretation, to the probable belief that PewDiePie is racist. Please tell me why you think the evidence suggests that he is probably not. And please, use Bayesian terms.

No.

I am not going to use Bayesian terms because I don't fully understand Bayesian Mathematics, and I'm shit at numbers. Just because an argument is not placed in mathematical terms with arbitrary, subjective percentages attached to different values with no real justification doesn't make it objectively wrong. The evidence here is open to interpretation, and my interpretation is obviously different to yours. However, I am not arguing that PDP is not racist. I am arguing that the evidence is not conclusive enough to say that he is.

I've explained my position, and if you still don't understand my perspective or my arguments, I don't think it would be a wise use of my time to further explain it. The fact is, you continue to claim that I am saying something that I am not. See below.

Please tell me why you think the evidence suggests that he is probably not.

I'm not saying that he probably isn't racist. I'm saying that I am not convinced that he probably is. Those are two very different statements, and since this is...what, the third or fourth time you've claimed that I'm saying something that I'm not - despite being told this several times - I no longer have any interest in discussing this with you because you're either misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting my position on the matter.

I've said my piece, and that is the last I will say on the matter. I am genuinely, well and truly finished with this conversation.

[la dame en noir]

>.>   <.<

[Lustful Bride]

I feel like at this point nothing we say really matters as PEwd is too well off and established to get anything more than a slap on the wrist :/

Nothing to do but sit back and wait for him to do it again and just pile it on as more evidence if he does. The best thing anyone can honestly do if they disagree is to vote with their views. Avoid his videos and try not to give him any add revenue. It isn't much of a gesture but in this way at least we do something. :P

[Vergil Tanner]

>.>   <.<

Uuuuuugh, I can't resist. Ok, one more thing.

The fact that you haven't directly answered my question makes me suspicious.

Are you accusing me of being an apologist for racism, yes or no?

If no, then I apologise for misunderstanding what you were saying.

If yes, then I have to strongly disagree; I despise people who are openly, unapologetically racist and I will go out of my way to stomp out racism when I see it. However, I do think that genuine, hateful racism is not mutually inclusive with racist jokes, and that everything must be taken and judged in context. If it comes out that PDP is definitely a racist, I will cease defending his jokes and join people in condemning him. As it stands, I don't think there's enough evidence to say that he IS a racist person, so my defense amounts to "I don't believe that he's racist, given the available evidence." Stating that you don't believe somebody is a racist person based on a lack of solid evidence is not the same as saying that racism is fine and dandy and should be excused.

I take great offence to the implication that I am in favour of defending serious, genuine racism. At this juncture, I am defending racist jokes, which I don't think are inherently indicative of racist ideas or beliefs, and I would kindly thank you not to insult me in that way ever again.

However, as I said above, the previous statement does not apply if you were not, in fact, accusing me of being an apologist for racism.

And with that I really am done. I just felt like I had to publicly defend myself from a perceived implication by another user, since I dislike it when people say things about me which are patently untrue.

So, I hope you all have wonderful days :-) It's been fun!

[la dame en noir]

Uuuuuugh, I can't resist. Ok, one more thing.

The fact that you haven't directly answered my question is telling.

Are you accusing me of being an apologist for racism, yes or no?

If no, then I apologise for misunderstanding what you were saying.

If yes, then I have to strongly disagree; I despise people who are openly, unapologetically racist and I will go out of my way to stomp out racism when I see it. However, I do think that genuine, hateful racism is not mutually inclusive with racist jokes, and that everything must be taken and judged in context. If it comes out that PDP is definitely a racist, I will cease defending his jokes and join people in condemning him. As it stands, I don't think there's enough evidence to say that he IS a racist person, so my defense amounts to "I don't believe that he's racist, given the available evidence." Stating that you don't believe somebody is a racist person based on a lack of solid evidence is not the same as saying that racism is fine and dandy and should be excused.

I take great offence to the implication that I am in favour of defending serious, genuine racism. At this juncture, I am defending racist jokes, which I don't think are inherently indicative of racist ideas or beliefs, and I would kindly thank you not to insult me in that way ever again.

However, as I said above, the previous statement does not apply if you were not, in fact, accusing me of being an apologist for racism.

And with that I really am done. I just felt like I had to publicly defend myself from a perceived implication by another user, since I dislike it when people say things about me which are patently untrue.

So, I hope you all have wonderful days :-) It's been fun!

Hearing someone defend racist shit as a black woman is fucking awful. I've seen this narrative in more than one issue and I'm honestly not surprised by your opinions, statements, and otherwise - even if I think it's all BS. It's sickening to me and lots of other people.

And for the record, that face was because you kept saying you were done, but kept coming back. My guess is that you like having the last word and if you really were going to stay out of the thread, you wouldn't come back - but you keep coming back. There is no reason for me to be wasting my breath.

[Regina Minx]

I'm not saying that he probably isn't racist. I'm saying that I am not convinced that he probably is. Those are two very different statements, and since this is...what, the third or fourth time you've claimed that I'm saying something that I'm not - despite being told this several times - I no longer have any interest in discussing this with you because you're either misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting my position on the matter.

I'm not deliberately misrepresenting you. I am, however, phrasing h and ~h in terms of a direct, logical negation. That is, you cannot have an opinion about whether or not you think h is probable without having an opinion about how probable you think ~h is. You have said before that you do not believe that P(h|e) to be likely. You said, "I'm just saying that that slip of the tongue doesn't necessarily make him a racist person overall." Unless what you mean to say is that there is a less than 100% chance that a person that uses a racial slur in the way that PewDiePie did, and therefore we can't be certain. I'm discounting that, since to demand absolute certainty is absurd.

Thus, when I read your words "I'm just saying that that slip of the tongue doesn't necessarily make him a racist person overall.," I read that as you think that there is some number to attach to P(racial slur|~h). And P(e|h). And P(h|e.b).

I've given you a valid argument and asked you to assess its soundness. You are either unable or unwilling to do so. If that's where you want to leave things, fine. It's the internet. I can't make you engage with me. But I would like to point out that of the two of us, I'm being reasonable, and I'm willing to entertain an argument for why you think the values I've assessed should be reconsidered. All I'm asking is that you be as explicit as I've been, pin down your subjective assessment the way I have, and thus engage with me in mutual criticism. You refuse to engage with me on my assumptions and reasoning, and will not provide your own beyond "He's not necessarily racist." That's actually something I've agreed with. Based on my limited amount of evidence and generous assumptions to justify his behavior on ~h, I'm willing to concede that there's as much as a 44% chance that he's not racist.

You don't seem willing to meet me halfway on this. Take care. That's not sarcasm, btw. Despite disagreeing with you, I'm willing to say goodbye and end the conversation civilly and wish you well in your future endeavors.

[Jezabelle]

Eeeeh, refugee sentiment is a complicated one. There are justifiable reasons beyond "Don't like the foreigners" that people can be anti refugee considering what's happening in Europe in the wake of mass refugee immigration (I'm kind of on the fence about it; I agree with points from both sides), but that's an argument for a different time.

They were scolding Americans on the very basis of a simplified "you hate the world\are greedy" platform and a self-lionization campaign.  When they finally had to put their money where their mouth was they finally became highly pragmatic.

Where? If you're talking about his jokes, that seems pretty ironic to me.

Irony is a convenient shield, but much as rape based humour enables and psychologically reassures rapists

No joke he cracked about Jews on \pol\ or at a Klan meeting would've gone amiss.  There was nothing done to subvert the subject, he simply gave the same antisemetic jokes they would have and hide behind the tepid "shield of irony," which is not the same thing as usage in an ironic context.

And that's kind of all I'm saying. I don't like his content. but I think labeling him as a racist because of these incidents is jumping a little too far for my liking.

Which brings us to:

Of course they do. Apologists for everything exist, if you look hard enough.

Though I'm not sure why you mention it now. Are you implying that I'm an apologist for racism?

Quick to protect the user of offensive terms, quick to find offense?  If Pewdiepie cannot be called a racist off his remarks you can hardly say she was calling you an apologist.

Of course as is fairly obvious she did--and he is.  You ask for proof then reject a literal proof, it is clear that the barrier between you and this realization is ideology.  Nobody here can prove it to you because your world view necessarily requires that this not be true, but further that you challenge it and consider evidence against it.

[Oniya]

Keep the discussion civil.  Resorting to personal attacks does not make your argument stronger.

[Vergil Tanner]

Ok, I am trying very hard to leave this thread and let sleeping dogs lie, but statements like this:

You ask for proof then reject a literal proof, it is clear that the barrier between you and this realization is ideology.  Nobody here can prove it to you because your world view necessarily requires that this not be true, but further that you challenge it and consider evidence against it.

drag me back in, because it's not just arguing this topic, it's questioning and insulting me as a person. You are suggesting here that I am intellectually dishonest and am outright lying about my opinions, positions and motivations. You can roll your eyes until they fall out of your skull, but I am not letting that outright falseness remain unchallenged.

You ask for proof then reject a literal proof,

No, I asked for evidence. Evidence and proof are two different things, and if I did say proof at some point, I simply misspoke. I am not qualified to ascertain the accuracy of mathematical proof. I don't have a good head for numbers and equations, so throwing probabilities and equations at me is just going to result with me staring at the screen with no real idea of what's going on. I'm not qualified to analyse and critique mathematical proof. And even if I was, it wouldn't really change my opinion because it's still using the same evidence that I obviously affix different connotations and values to. I did not reject what I asked for. I said "Beyond the racist jokes - which can and frequently are made by a non-racist person - and the slip of the tongue that he apologised immediately for, is there another incident that I am unaware of that would point towards him being a racist individual?" That is what I asked for, and nobody has presented anything.

I'm not refuting or arguing Regina's Bayesian thingy because I'm not convinced I fully understand the format and mathematics involved to properly make a convincing case. It isn't avoiding the subject to say "I have no idea how this works, so I'm not going to embarrass myself by pretending otherwise." I will say, Regina, that "Pewdiepie is probably racist" and "Pewdiepie is probably not racist" are two different statements, and I am Switzerland in this. I'm staying neutral. I don't know whether he is or not, since I don't think there's enough evidence to say either way.

Nobody here can prove it to you because your world view necessarily requires that this not be true, but further that you challenge it and consider evidence against it.

No. This is outright false. My worldview does not rely on Pewdiepie not being racist; I honestly don't really care about him all that much. I don't really watch his content, I don't really have a personal stake in his career, I just think it unfair when somebody is dragged over the coals for what seems to me to be an honest mistake.
If you could - for example, hypothetically speaking - point me towards a Facebook Post or a video where he went off on an obviously serious, racist tirade, I would go "....huh. Ok, yeah, he's a racist asshole." And stating that I would do otherwise is calling me an intellectually dishonest liar who refuses to accept new information. That is not what I am doing, and I take great offence at you questioning my character and my motivations in that way.

In my dealings on this thread, I don't think I've been overly aggressive or dismissive. I've gotten irritated at points, true, but I've not once attacked somebody personally or questioned their intentions. Even when saying that somebody is misrepresenting me, I said that they were either misunderstanding or misrepresenting. I didn't presume to assume their motivations were malicious; I simply stated the two options, since I don't know for certain which one it is. And yet, I've been personally insulted several times simply for having a different opinion and I don't think that's fair or reasonable at all.

But I would like to point out that of the two of us, I'm being reasonable, and I'm willing to entertain an argument for why you think the values I've assessed should be reconsidered. All I'm asking is that you be as explicit as I've been, pin down your subjective assessment the way I have, and thus engage with me in mutual criticism. You refuse to engage with me on my assumptions and reasoning, and will not provide your own beyond "He's not necessarily racist."

And your implication is that I'm not being reasonable? I've asked for evidence and arguments, I've engaged with them fairly and with an open mind and remained unconvinced. I'm not engaging with your Bayesian Format because I don't understand it and don't think that I can translate my thoughts properly in that format because numbers, equations and percentages are not my strength. I would be entering into an arena that I know nothing about with somebody who is obviously at least passably good at that kind of argument. I would be a five year old drawing a lightsaber against Darth Vader, for all I know. My strength is in verbal debates and verbal reasoning. My argument was more nuanced than what you claim, but yes, it boils down to "He's not necessarily racist, and I don't think the evidence is strong enough to support the assertion that he is." Not structuring an argument in a format I'm unfamiliar and inexperienced with is not unreasonable. I think I've been perfectly reasonable in my statements and my reasoning, and I dislike the implication that I haven't been. Where, exactly, do you think I've been unreasonable?




And that really is it. I want to get out of this thread, but the comments above besmirched my character in such a way that I just could not leave them unanswered. I dislike being accused of dishonesty and unreasonableness when I have not acted in that way, and I don't think anybody could blame me for defending myself against those allegations. And now that I have defended myself against those accusations, I will take my leave of this thread before I become any more annoyed over how people are attempting to paint my character as dishonest, unreasonable, close minded and ideologically incapable of entertaining new ideas or information. None of those things are true, and I don't think it is unreasonable to become offended when people claim that they are.

And with that, I'm well and truly done with this thread. I hope you all have a lovely day (Not sarcasm).

Sorry, Oniya. I just needed to get that out there in my own defense, because I hate not being able to refute attacks on my character. I really am leaving the thread now.

Have a good day, guys :-)

[Skynet]

Dunno if it's kosher to respond to someone who bowed out of the convo, but this is more for the benefit of other readers here.

Well, 1) I don't think it qualifies as Number 4 just because he had no way of knowing whether that person was black IRL, but regardless.
What he said WAS racist. I'm not arguing that. Using a racial slur as an insult is obviously racist. But saying one racist thing in a moment of anger doesn't mean that you are a racist person overall. And making racist jokes doesn't mean that you are a racist person. I agree it's poor form and utterly stupid considering the shitstorm that just died down from the WSJ, but does it inherently, irrefutably prove that he has racist sympathies and white supremacist opinions? No.

The reason I linked it was in order to gain a common ground on what is racist, considering the discussion.

True. But then again, people who AREN'T racist can also accidentally say racist things, or say something horrible that they don't mean in the heat of the moment. So how do you differentiate between the two? Or is anybody who says something racist by mistake a horrible, filthy racist? That doesn't allow for many shades of grey there.

Intent. What I'm speaking of in that context was intentional racism and the fanbase/defenders surrounding PewDiePie more than the man himself. Given how taboo the subject matter is, most folk aren't trained to "sniff it out" as it were, or end up going overboard and read ill intent where there is none.

But much like learning to read body language or coded statements, there is a pattern to separating intent. Reading up on the Southern Strategy by the Republicans in the 1960s is a great example of this. Or look into this very good YouTube video discussing how fascists disguise their talking points in "nicer" language for plausible deniability.


I recently found out that PewDiePie used the n-word back in January of this year regarding a "sexiest man alive" video

Apologies if I can't find the direct video, but this is my best source at the moment.

So it ain't a one-time thing, and is not a man who seems to learn from his mistakes. It makes the accident thing seem less and less.

And that's PDP's fault...how?
That's like saying that PDP is a Nazi because the Daily Stormer put him on their banner. He has no control over what the Alt Right does on his behalf or says about him, so really I don't know why it matters when it comes to PDP and his Nigger Stream.

Maybe as a one-time thing, but when you bash the Gender Wage Gap* in a video, and when you said the n-word before 8 months ago, and when you make anti-semitic shock value humor, this all adds up over time. It is then read as code by white nationalists that you are one of them. As for how gender wage gap comes into this, a lot of neo-nazi types hate feminism and view it as a Jewish/Marxist plot. So they enjoy that aspect too.

*which tb has its own problems, the real problem is that women are less willing to accept promotions and higher pay due to social conditions than explicit "pay you less cuz you are a girl" thing

[DominantPoet]

I think it's pretty clear at this point that PDP can do no wrong in Vergil's eyes, so there's really not any point in trying to use any kind of logic, facts, reality or any other sort with him. Best just to leave it be, he's going to believe whatever he wants. Just like the people who are defending a florida cops racist comments because they happened to be from before he was a cop, and because they were from years ago (despite the fact they were still available on his FB page).

Some people just don't seem to understand, no matter how much you explain it to them.

[Vekseid]

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.

The line was at the end of a Stick of Truth preview video. My first exposure to him.

It is exactly what I said it is - language used to instill a sense of dependence in a vulnerable person.

Trying to belittle me or the point by engaging in hyperbole does you no favors.

[Suiko]

Just to stand up for Virgil for a moment - he's trying to bow out of this conversation which is veey difficult when people keep dragging him back in woth dismissive attitudes and rude comments.

I get that it's a difficult issue to talk about without getting heated because of the world used, But this is meant to be an adult site. Both sides of the argument have got personal and it doesn't help either look goos.

For my part, I think that a word is simply a word, whatever it's historical context. Using a word doesn't make someone racist - it makes them an idiot, but that's a big difference. Corporations are free to do as they like in response since its their priority to make money, individuals are also free to voice their opinion by either watching the guy or not. I've never watched one of his videos, But he's an e-celeb so controversy is really par the course.

People slip up and say shit when they're angry all the time. I bet if every single one of us here were judged by things we've said in the heat of the moment, we would all have said some bad things.

Tldr: both sides chill out, words are not racist, people can just be stupid.

[WindFish]

People slip up and say shit when they're angry all the time. I bet if every single one of us here were judged by things we've said in the heat of the moment, we would all have said some bad things.

Tldr: both sides chill out, words are not racist, people can just be stupid.

I hope I won't get in trouble for saying this, but I got to disagree with this point. Slurs are by definition racist and bigoted, especially when you look into their historical context. They are meant to belittle and put people down because of their race, orientation, gender etc. So when a popular YouTuber uses a racial slur as an insult (on more than one occasion), it normalizes that word. It makes people think that it's okay for them to use, so that's why we take issues with PewDiePie saying it (especially considering his history of racist incidents) and when people try to defend him, especially with the "it's just a joke" defense. Those words can be very hurtful, and as a grown man with a large following, Pewdiepie should know better.

I'm pretty sure that when most adults are angry and in a heated moment, those slurs aren't the first words that come to mind. I know they aren't part of my vocabulary.

[Suiko]

It's fine to disagree, I don't mind.

There are many words that have historical context to them, But does that mean we should wipe wipe them all from the dictionary because of how they used to be used? Much as you disagree with me, i disagree absolitely that using certain words automatically makes you a bigot or anythinf like that.

Words can be hurtful, but if everyone was punished or dragged through the crowds whenever they 'hurt' someone else then it would never end.

I think the guy is a moron who got too carried away and blurted the first thing that came into his head. It's not in your vocabulary, but you gotta accept that other people are exposed to it more, so they have it in there.

I don't like using personal anecdotes because they're iffy, But I will just this once. I use the word 'fag' with some of my real world friends, most of whom are gay, and no one bats an eye. The intention should mean more than the word since isn't racism a state of mind, like homophobia? By that logic I'd be a raging homophobe, which isn't true because... well... my writing here <<

[Regina Minx]

And your implication is that I'm not being reasonable?

Yes. And because I want to be very precise with what I mean, I'm going to explain what I mean and why I think it.

You are hesitant to assign probabilities because it seems arbitrary and subjective. The point of reasoning with BT is to translate your actual beliefs into a more precise language. You already have some belief on this evidence. Translating that belief into numbers does not make them any more arbitrary and subjective than they already are. Whenever you say one theory (PewDiePie is not a racist) explains the evidence better than another, you are saying it has a higher consequent probability than another. Whenever you say “I do not believe this evidence proves that PewDiePie is likely a racist,” you are saying “On the basis of this evidence, the probability of h is less than 50%.”

This statement and any statement like it you ever make for the rest of your life will entail some form of probability. Like I argued earlier, we all think in math. Sometimes we even do so using numbers. For any belief you have about anything, you must believe it has some probability of being true or false. Given any theory, you must believe that the probability (P) of that theory being true must be 0, 1, or some value in between. And since only things that can be absolutely proven or disproven can have a P of 1 or 0, most of the time you will say that P is some value between 0 and 1. Where between? If you genuinely have no reason to believe P is higher or lower, then that entails that you believe P is 0.5. This is literally and necessarily true.

If you disagree with P=0.5, you must be doing so for some rational reason. If you have a rational objection to the conclusion that P is 0.5, then you must have a valid reason to make P higher or lower, in which case you should raise or lower P accordingly and tell us what you think it is. This is true by definition. If you have any objective reason to believe P is not 0.5, then you must believe it is either higher than 0.5 or lower than 0.5.

Therefore, if you disagree with my conclusion that P=0.56, you must be doing so for some rational reason. If you have a rational objection to the conclusion that P is 0.56, then you must have a valid reason to make P higher or lower, in which case you should raise or lower P accordingly and tell us what you think it is. This is true by definition. If you have any objective reason to believe P is not 0.56, then you must believe it is either higher than 0.56 or lower than 0.56.

When your language gets more precise (and you start using adverbs like “probably not”, “I don’t think that…” “slightly,” “very,” or “extremely”), this, too, entails numerical equivalents. For any ordinal ranking of likelihood (ordinal meaning in order, therefore I mean a ranking of probabilities. “It’s going to rain tomorrow” has a higher probability than “I am going to be murdered tomorrow” even if we don’t know how likely rain or murder is tomorrow, we still recognize that one is more likely than the other), there is some probability that you already mean by it, into which it can be translated. BT or not, either you could back up all these adverbs and assertions when you used them, or you couldn't. If you couldn't, then you were being as subjective as you could ever accuse me of being.

I have done my best to make my reasoning transparent and explicitly identify the assumptions and weight I give to the evidence. I have not used any math more complicated than what you would find outside of an introductory level statistics course. Since BT is formally valid and you cannot say that it is unsound, that logically entails that you cannot say that my conclusion is unsound. And yet that is exactly what you are doing. So yes, by refusing to use the same qualifier about my argument’s conclusion that you do about my argument’s soundness, you are being unreasonable. By definition.

[Regina Minx]

For my part, I think that a word is simply a word, whatever it's historical context. Using a word doesn't make someone racist...

I'm pretty sure I addressed this twice already. Both when I talked about Michael Richards, and as a formal part of my argument. It is true that using a word doesn't make a person racist. I'm not arguing that it does. What I AM arguing is that it is 100% expected to be used if a person is a racist. If a person is not a racist, they still might use the word that PewDiePie did in the way that he did. But it is unexpected. And unexpected means improbable.