Disney ditches Pewdiepie after anti-semitic stunt

[Deleted]

You are the biggest source of lies in this thread.

So what if millions (I honestly doubt there are millions) of other people agree with you? There are people that believe jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel beams the consensus among them does not make them correct.

I have read the article and comments from Pewdiepie neither accounts contradict what happened (and quite honestly much of what you claim to have happened or what was written is simply a fabrication). What more research do I need?

The proof is in the article it is not my fault you choose not to believe it. What proof do you have that they failed to follow the most basic of journalist procedures and didn't ask the person they were writing a story about for a comment? You originally claimed that there had been no attempt to contact to him by the WSJ but that was not true.

I give you the most critical point in this entire discussion which ive intentionally left out so far because if you watched ANY of the videos then you would understand why everyone knows the article is sensationalist, clickbait, bullshit hitpiece.

CONTEXT

If you did your research then you will see as clear as day that the WSJ journalists took everything out of context... EVERYTHING.

I continue to stand with everyone whose bothered to do their own research and investigation into this story.

NOTE: you still havent provided evidence that the WSJ contacted pewdiepie to speak to him before they printed the article... therefore your position is still weak as fukk.

[Zecora]

Disney ditches Pewdiepie after anti-semitic stunt

Well, I always thought he was a bit of an ass.

Nice to see I was right.

[Torched]

You are the biggest source of lies in this thread.

So what if millions (I honestly doubt there are millions) of other people agree with you? There are people that believe jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel beams the consensus among them does not make them correct.

I have read the article and comments from Pewdiepie neither accounts contradict what happened (and quite honestly much of what you claim to have happened or what was written is simply a fabrication). What more research do I need?

The proof is in the article it is not my fault you choose not to believe it. What proof do you have that they failed to follow the most basic of journalist procedures and didn't ask the person they were writing a story about for a comment? You originally claimed that there had been no attempt to contact to him by the WSJ but that was not true.

Watch this, he explains what happened and how the news story was a complete lie.

H3H3 is a jew himself.

This was nothing but a witchhunt, I don't even like pewdiepie and I can see that this is complete bullshit.

[Ripster42]

I give you the most critical point in this entire discussion which ive intentionally left out so far because if you watched ANY of the videos then you would understand why everyone knows the article is sensationalist, clickbait, bullshit hitpiece.

CONTEXT

If you did your research then you will see as clear as day that the WSJ journalists took everything out of context... EVERYTHING.

I continue to stand with everyone whose bothered to do their own research and investigation into this story.

NOTE: you still havent provided evidence that the WSJ contacted pewdiepie to speak to him before they printed the article... therefore your position is still weak as fukk.

Youtube videos are the definition of click bait.

Watching people on youtube talk about it isn't "doing research," or "investigating."

I'm going to trust a publication who has won multiple pulizter prizes more than some idiot on the internet.

[Torched]

Youtube videos are the definition of click bait.

Watching people on youtube talk about it isn't "doing research," or "investigating."

I'm going to trust a publication who has won multiple pulizter prizes more than some idiot on the internet.

So you listen to lies and believe it instead of looking into it yourself, that's good to know.

[Pannonian]

Is it blown out of proportion? Yes

Was Disney right to ditch him? Absolutley.

See the problem is not if he really is a Nazi, but rather that his footage is used by right wing groups and he has become a hero of some of them because he tells the "truth". Even if its satirical he now is a hero for these guys.

I don't think these jokes are that much of a problem (as long as they're meant ironic), but if you work for a family concern and 53+ million people watch you, maybe you should be a bit more careful.

[Wellendowed]

You do realise that no-one outside of the internet gives a crap about this? The mainstream are not getting any sort of a kicking.

Does the mainstream media even exist anymore outside of the livingrooms of people soon to die of old age? The internet is where it's at, bro.

[Pann]

I give you the most critical point in this entire discussion which ive intentionally left out so far because if you watched ANY of the videos then you would understand why everyone knows the article is sensationalist, clickbait, bullshit hitpiece.

CONTEXT

If you did your research then you will see as clear as day that the WSJ journalists took everything out of context... EVERYTHING.

I continue to stand with everyone whose bothered to do their own research and investigation into this story.

NOTE: you still havent provided evidence that the WSJ contacted pewdiepie to speak to him before they printed the article... therefore your position is still weak as fukk.

How was it a bullshit hit piece? He admits to making the jokes at the centre of the story.

How did they take it out of context? The article clearly states that he was joking.

The article says that they did, you claim they didn't, why do you think I should provide proof when it is you making the baseless claim(s)? Why don't you prove that they did not try to speak him?

[Wellendowed]

See the problem is not if he really is a Nazi, but rather that his footage is used by right wing groups and he has become a hero of some of them because he tells the "truth". Even if its satirical he now is a hero for these guys.

Shit man, so is the wall street journal. Just look at The World's #1 Wall Street Journal Fansite! Can't get a more resounding, genuine, and not at all disingenuous condemnation of the WSJ than that, eh?

[Deleted]

Youtube videos are the definition of click bait.

Watching people on youtube talk about it isn't "doing research," or "investigating."

I'm going to trust a publication who has won multiple pulizter prizes more than some idiot on the internet.

So...

You havent watched any of pewdiepies videos.

You havent researched the articles claims yourself.

You havent studied at any of the criticisms against the articles.

You ignore the fact that almost every Youtube channel stands in solidarity with pewdiepie.

You ignore the fact that pretty much all of the 'internet community' also stands in solidarity with pewdiepie.

You ignore the fact that everyone close to pewdiepie (including Jews) are proving that the articles are false.

You ignore the fact that everyone who has done all of the above has also come to the conclusion that the mainstream media are pushing bullshit.

...mkay

- - - Updated - - -

How was it a bullshit hit piece? He admits to making the jokes at the centre of the story.

CONTEXT

How did they take it out of context? The article clearly states that he was joking.

If you did your research you wouldnt need to ask this dumb question

NOTE: you still havent provided evidence that the WSJ contacted pewdiepie to speak to him before they printed the article... therefore your position is still weak as fukk.

[Pann]

CONTEXT



If you did your research you wouldnt need to ask this dumb question

NOTE: you still havent provided evidence that the WSJ contacted pewdiepie to speak to him before they printed the article... therefore your position is still weak as fukk.

You keep mentioning doing research but you've not provided anything to prove that the article is false. Seriously having someone on youtube give you your opinion is not research.

Again, why do I need to disprove your claims? Why don't you prove what you are saying for once? I've already proved you wrong when you said there was no contact between WSJ and Pewdiepie so now you cling to this. However how do you explain that he wrote a tumblr post about the issue two days before the story was published?

[Deleted]

You keep mentioning doing research but you've not provided anything to prove that the article is false. Seriously having someone on youtube give you your opinion is not research.

Again, why do I need to disprove your claims? Why don't you prove what you are saying for once? I've already proved you wrong when you said there was no contact between WSJ and Pewdiepie so now you cling to this. However how do you explain that he wrote a tumblr post about the issue two days before the story was published?

Ive told you where to find my exact evidence and you childishly refuse to do that same research.

You refuse to do any research and think you know more than those who have... yes you really are that disingenious.

[Wellendowed]

You keep mentioning doing research but you've not provided anything to prove that the article is false.

Shit man, is it really that hard to see where you're wrong? It starts lying right in the headline by framing the jokes as anti-semitic. That's libel right there. Anything else in the article itself is just a bonus.

[Ripster42]

So you listen to lies and believe it instead of looking into it yourself, that's good to know.

I read the article. They report a series of events. The article says that the anti-semitic jokes are just jokes in bad taste. They reported contacting disney about it and disney subsequently dropping him from their studio. This isn't some conspiracy. This is just the WSJ doing their job and writing stories they think people would care about.

Saying, "go watch youtube videos and some kid raging about it," isn't helpful, it's a joke. People not understanding how traditional media works and flipping out about it isn't aren't worth bothering with.

What's good to know is that you apparently don't have the ability to distill meaning from a newspaper article, and that disney doesn't want to be associated with content that could damage their brand. Saying something along the lines of, "there's other questionable content on that site that disney isn't doing anything about," is just being ignorant. If that content was brought to the attention of the same people that made this decision, the same decision would likely be made about them.

Remember, disney was more than happy to profit off of him as long as he wasn't damaging their much more valuable brand. It should have been obvious to him that paying people to do despicable things wasn't going to be acceptable to disney, no matter what the despicable things were, but the specific thing he did pay people to do, should have been a no-brainer.

If felix thought what he did was acceptable, why did he take the videos down? If he really wanted to, he could set up his own website and have complete editorial control without worrying about repercussions. Of course, then he'd have to solicit people to put ads on his site and he'd still be beholden to them, but he wanted to use other people for that. For some reason, he didn't want to accept the conditions that came with that.

This is the same garbage about thinking freedom of speech means that you're free to use other people's property to disseminate your ideas with no restriction. That's not true. Or that people are required to pay you money for content they find objectionable or that might damage their brand.

I get it, some people don't find that content objectionable. Other people do. Some people don't feel that making any point what-so-ever using anti-semitism in any context is acceptable. It seems disney and youtube value those people's money more than they value felix's revenue stream.

[Pann]

Shit man, is it really that hard to see where you're wrong? It starts lying right in the headline by framing the jokes as anti-semitic. That's libel right there. Anything else in the article itself is just a bonus.

The jokes were anti-Semitic.

[Deleted]

Shit man, is it really that hard to see where you're wrong? It starts lying right in the headline by framing the jokes as anti-semitic. That's libel right there. Anything else in the article itself is just a bonus.

We have tried to help him by pointing him to people who explain the issues better than us... but hes being a dick and wont check the evidence for himself.

Hes totally uninformed on this story and hes bashing everyone who has spent the time to look into it for themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

The jokes were anti-Semitic.

NO THEY FUKKING WERENT!!!!!

CONTEXT

DO YOUR FUKING RESEARCH AND WATCH THE VIDEOS

[Ripster42]

Shit man, is it really that hard to see where you're wrong? It starts lying right in the headline by framing the jokes as anti-semitic. That's libel right there. Anything else in the article itself is just a bonus.

No, it's not libel. "Kill all jews" is anti-semitic, no matter that it's used to demonstrate something about fiver or not. Having a video of you listening to nazi propaganda while imitating their dress, even to demonstrate a point about taking people out of context, is still a video that contains nazi propaganda.

The fact that two multi-billion dollar companies don't want to be associated with someone who thinks it's okay to use anti-semitism to demonstrate anything, shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

[Ripster42]

NO THEY FUKKING WERENT!!!!!

CONTEXT

DO YOUR FUKING RESEARCH AND WATCH THE VIDEOS

"Kill all jews" is anti-semitic. Using that for content in any way means your content contains anti-semitism. Many people object to using something so serious as an exhibit for something so relatively unimportant as what you can pay people $5 to do. WSJ understands that. Disney and youtube also understand that. Those companies think the money they get from those people is more important that the revenue stream from felix, obviously.

[Deleted]

"Kill all jews" is anti-semitic. Using that for content in any way means your content contains anti-semitism. Many people object to using something so serious as an exhibit for something so relatively unimportant as what you can pay people $5 to do. WSJ understands that. Disney and youtube also understand that. Those companies think the money they get from those people is more important that the revenue stream from felix, obviously.

So according to you and Pann that means that Charlie Chaplin is an anti-semite for doing this famous movie>>>



And John Cleese does an entire episode of Faulty Towers and he must also be an Anti-Semite>>>



How about Gene Wilder & Mel Brooks for this classic>>>



U want me to go on...?

[Pann]

NO THEY FUKKING WERENT!!!!!

CONTEXT

DO YOUR FUKING RESEARCH AND WATCH THE VIDEOS

On what planet do you think jokes about killing Jews is not anti-Semitic?