First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
Should PewDiePie sue the Wall Street Journal...?
669 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17
I doubt Disney and Youtube looked at WSJ, and based their decision on that alone! Pewdiepie screwed up, and he's reaping what he sowed. You might not like it, but that's the cost of free speech. Pewdiepie is free to be an idiot, but it comes with a price. We can sit here and debate this all night, but nothing changes. Pewdiepie was dropped by Disney and Youtube! Pewdiepie isn't anywhere near as popular as they are, regardless of what anyone believes.
12145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17
Just gonna answer both of you here since the quote pyramids are liable to upset the mods and trimming on mobile is a pain in the ass.

I'm not going to get mad at the wsj for "taking the bait" at least not more than I will be at the person laying the bait. Did they present what Felix said out of context? Yes, but when it doesn't extenuate the situation at all (or even make sense for that matter) I really don't feel like any ethics have been violated.
12145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17

zinjashike wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

I don't see


Breaking news: octorockandroll is now blind! Please read our piece at the WSJ.

What, you mean to say you're not blind and this is taken out of context?


he should be able to sue them.


Breaking news, octorockandroll is now a legal expert and advises PewDiePie to sue!


Context: it's kinda fucking important.


http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/logical-fallacies/false-equivalence-logical-fallacies/
779 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17

AlienNineFan wrote:

I doubt Disney and Youtube looked at WSJ, and based their decision on that alone! Pewdiepie screwed up, and he's reaping what he sowed. You might not like it, but that's the cost of free speech. Pewdiepie is free to be an idiot, but it comes with a price. We can sit here and debate this all night, but nothing changes. Pewdiepie was dropped by Disney and Youtube! Pewdiepie isn't anywhere near as popular as they are, regardless of what anyone believes.


This.

I really doubt that it was any article by any news that actually got the companies to drop him. If anything the articles just brought the videos to their attention and when they had their people look into the videos they decided, rightfully so, that they were not appropriate for someone who they were associated with. They are both big enough companies to have their own people investigate things and don't need to rely on media especially for business deals that they made to benefit themselves in the first place. They aren't going to jeopardize a potentially good business arrangement solely on articles that pop up online without looking into it themselves.
70005 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17

octorockandroll wrote:
Did they present what Felix said out of context? Yes, but when it doesn't extenuate the situation at all (or even make sense for that matter) I really don't feel like any ethics have been violated.


So you know they purposely took whatever was being said out of context with the purpose to misconstrue it and you don't find that an ethical violation?

I don't drink, but I really think I need one after this jump of logic.



WSJ's behavior is equivalent - purposefully removing the context that shows it's a joke is an ethical breach. You're going to have to explain how you find these to be a logical fallacy (the lack of equivalence) when it effectively is what WSJ did.
26469 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / In Jail, On Death...
Online
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17

octorockandroll wrote:

Just gonna answer both of you here since the quote pyramids are liable to upset the mods and trimming on mobile is a pain in the ass.

I'm not going to get mad at the wsj for "taking the bait" at least not more than I will be at the person laying the bait. Did they present what Felix said out of context? Yes, but when it doesn't extenuate the situation at all (or even make sense for that matter) I really don't feel like any ethics have been violated.


What do you mean? I would argue can actions be wrong regardless of the circumstances.

If you decided to shoot a gun at someone and it was empty, I think it could be legitimately argued that it is wrong. Though I think what you are saying is, pro Pewdiepie are making a backlash against one that does not exist, so who cares?

Can't say I disagree. Again, to reiterate, Disney might have cut it for safety reasons, regardless of outrage.

669 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17
You know what would happen if Pewdiepie actually sewed the WSJ? The WSJ would have to prove that Pewdiepie is actually an anti-semetic. Believe it or not, WSJ have already considered this. I mean they are dealing with a child with millions of dollars to toss around, I'm sure the WSJ already knows this.

Also if Pewdiepie got all sew happy, he would have to sew more than just the WSJ. I didn't first hear about this story on Crunchyroll, or WSJ, I heard it on Youtube. He'd have to sue the hell out of a lot of people! I mean hell, I just saw a video where people are already comparing him to Adolph Hitler!

Also WSJ didn't 'Take the bait' as a lot of people like to say. They saw a news story, and they ran with it.
12145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17

zinjashike wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:
Did they present what Felix said out of context? Yes, but when it doesn't extenuate the situation at all (or even make sense for that matter) I really don't feel like any ethics have been violated.


So you know they on purposely took whatever was being said out of context with the purpose to misconstrue it and you don't find that an ethical violation?

I don't drink, but I really think I need one after this jump of logic.


No. I don't find someone saying that a guy said and did racist things is an ethical violation just because they didn't add "oh but he said he was doing it for the lulz" as if that makes it any better.
14029 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17
this shouldn't even be anywhere close to headline news. people are making a mountain out of a mole hill, courtesy of WSJ, who btw are racists against asians, but that's another story.
70005 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17

octorockandroll wrote:


zinjashike wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:
Did they present what Felix said out of context? Yes, but when it doesn't extenuate the situation at all (or even make sense for that matter) I really don't feel like any ethics have been violated.


So you know they on purposely took whatever was being said out of context with the purpose to misconstrue it and you don't find that an ethical violation?

I don't drink, but I really think I need one after this jump of logic.


No. I don't find someone saying that a guy said and did racist things is an ethical violation just because they didn't add "oh but he said he was doing it for the lulz" as if that makes it any better.


Just because you don't like an interpretation of a joke does not mean it's not a joke. Purposely misconstruing it as malicious to increase traffic to an article for profit is an ethical violation.

Pew: "I'm not racist, but I bet if I did something like this they'd take it out of context, let's make a joke out of it"
WSJ: "OMG, this guy is an anti-semite and clearly wants jews dead!"

The intent matters when it comes to accuracy of reporting and whether a media outlet is acting ethically.
26469 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / In Jail, On Death...
Online
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17

octorockandroll wrote:


zinjashike wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:
Did they present what Felix said out of context? Yes, but when it doesn't extenuate the situation at all (or even make sense for that matter) I really don't feel like any ethics have been violated.


So you know they on purposely took whatever was being said out of context with the purpose to misconstrue it and you don't find that an ethical violation?

I don't drink, but I really think I need one after this jump of logic.


No. I don't find someone saying that a guy said and did racist things is an ethical violation just because they didn't add "oh but he said he was doing it for the lulz" as if that makes it any better.


I think there is a difference between reporting what he said and portraying him as a racist, both of which are very different.

But presenting something out of context, for the sake of making money over providing a basis for truth, despite smearing a reputation on more than just facts, does seem morally incorrect, regardless if it does not end in the outrage you think it would lead to.

Again, pulling the trigger means you have still pulled the trigger.
47476 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Sweden
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I would argue that this is just an excuse for Lulz. We all know some people out there are whores for money, some are not. We might as well mix baking soda and vinegar and see what happens.


Why would I make a excuse for him, I don't even like him or his content. All I said was information that can be found in his original videos if you watch them. And yes what he was trying to prove wasn't really something groundbreaking. But you have to keep in mind that most of his audience are 12-13 year old's so to them it might be supprising
70005 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17
You know, I find the Disney aspect of this hilarious too. Anyone remember that one time Disney made Donald a Nazi - then tried to bury it for fear it might be *shock* taken out of context!

Sample image for those not familiar with it:



Film title is: Der Fuehrer's Face

I remember
12145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17
Honestly I'm done with this topic. Its already going in circles and I honestly don't give a shit about hacks like felix so this is just me putting more thought than needed into a topic I don't care about.

Should the wsj have made that video while taking what was said out of context? No. Does saying "its a joke" give you a proverbial get out of jail free card to say and do whatever you like without consequence? Also no. If a lawsuit does happen and Felix wins I'll admit to being totally wrong, but until then I really don't care to know what happens in this debacle.
12145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17

zinjashike wrote:

You know, I find the Disney aspect of this hilarious too. Anyone remember that one time Disney made Donald a Nazi - then tried to bury it for fear it might be *shock* taken out of context!

Sample image for those not familiar with it:



Film title is: Der Fuehrer's Face

I remember


You really should read the links.

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/logical-fallacies/false-equivalence-logical-fallacies/
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.