First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
Post Reply Should PewDiePie sue the Wall Street Journal...?
24757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 2/16/17

TheOmegaForce70941 wrote:


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


You misunderstood me Omega. I was criticizing Pewdiepie's excuse that this was a "social experiment", instead of something he did for the "Lulz"

Mainly because I have a troll sense of humor and sense Pew does as well, and Pewdiepie should have already known this stuff. Most people would do varying things for varying amount of money, no matter how evil, or how stupid.

I am sorry I offended you.
70005 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17

octorockandroll wrote:


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/


Actually, it was dressing up Donald as a Nazi for comedy. Exactly what Felix did - whether you like the comedy is irrelevant. Maybe you should learn your fallacies before spouting them off? Please, do highlight why these are significantly different than they are the same.

If you're only argument relies on context you fail, because you've been arguing context as irrelevant to "dressing up as a Nazi".
12117 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 2/16/17

zinjashike wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


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/


Actually, it was dressing up Donald as a Nazi for comedy. Exactly what Felix did - whether you like the comedy is irrelevant. Maybe you should learn your fallacies before spouting them off? Please, do highlight why these are significantly different than they are the same.

If you're only argument relies on context you fail, because you've been arguing context as irrelevant to "dressing up as a Nazi".


No. That is not what I have been arguing at all, but nice try.
70005 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17

octorockandroll wrote:


zinjashike wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


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/


Actually, it was dressing up Donald as a Nazi for comedy. Exactly what Felix did - whether you like the comedy is irrelevant. Maybe you should learn your fallacies before spouting them off? Please, do highlight why these are significantly different than they are the same.

If you're only argument relies on context you fail, because you've been arguing context as irrelevant to "dressing up as a Nazi".


No. That is not what I have been arguing at all, but nice try.


You:


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.


According to you, being a joke did not matter and thus wasn't important in mentioning. You've backtracked on this now admitting they should have included this aspect.

Regardless, they were both done with the purpose of satire. Felix did it to lampoon the media and Disney did it in an attempt to lampoon Nazi Germany and socialism in general. Neither were expressly done with the intent of racism, and I think that's pretty important to understand.
621 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 2/16/17
PieDiePie doesn't need to do anything. I think people are starting to become more and more skeptical of the media. But, if PDP did sue the Wall Street Journal, I feel as though that would make himself seem suspicious. Plus, he doesn't need to get money from this. Do you all have any idea how many more subscribers PDP is getting because of the free press? If anything, WS helped him out more.
50369 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Phatuum Thani, Th...
Offline
Posted 2/16/17
This reminds me of the #cancelcolbert bullshit that happened a while back lol.
17710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17
Okay well he can sue if he wants, anyone can. Though frankly he isn't in the position to do that. He lost Disney because of his own actions and he knows it too, not becausw of WSJ. It was a bad social experiment. He paid two guys from India to do obscene shit. You know who does crazy things for five bucks? People with no money.

And who are the type of people who will pay people with no money to do obscene shit? Apparently Felix. I was really hoping this wasn't true, now that I know it is, its such a bad feeling to have someone you admire do these things. Yea I watch his content.
runec 
38516 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/16/17
So, does anyone actually have the text of the article we're talking about here that isn't behind a paywall? Its kind of hard to judge without actually reading it.

lawdog 
44933 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17
There is freedom of speech, but there is not freedom from consequences.
13776 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 2/16/17

runec wrote:
So, does anyone actually have the text of the article we're talking about here that isn't behind a paywall? Its kind of hard to judge without actually reading it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFY7mGkmFxo
WSJ video report on the issue. i know you're asking for the article, but as you said, it's behind a pay wall. paying to read about pewdie making a bad joke is probably not worth it.
runec 
38516 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/16/17

namealreadytaken wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFY7mGkmFxo
WSJ video report on the issue. i know you're asking for the article, but as you said, it's behind a pay wall. paying to read about pewdie making a bad joke is probably not worth it.


I've seen the story itself on other sites. I'm wondering what it is specifically in the WSJ article that PDP should supposedly be suing for.

Also, making me watch PDP is probably worse than making me read it ;p

Posted 2/16/17
The Wall Street Journal being unethical? Disney covering their ass? Nothing new. I don't think it's worth suing over, though. The WSJ is making a fool of itself all on their own, and, honestly, I think it'd be far more satisfying for a much bigger and nastier fish were to gut them.
lawdog 
44933 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 2/16/17

AlienNineFan wrote:

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.


Assuming that the pertinent law is US law, then the WSJ doesn't have to prove a thing. The burden of proof throughout US law rests on the party who is suing, the plaintiff, not the defendant, the person who is being sued.

Further, again, USA law, PDP is almost certainly a public person, which raises the burden even higher for him to prove defamation.
70005 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17

FlyinDumpling wrote:

Okay well he can sue if he wants, anyone can. Though frankly he isn't in the position to do that. He lost Disney because of his own actions and he knows it too, not becausw of WSJ. It was a bad social experiment. He paid two guys from India to do obscene shit. You know who does crazy things for five bucks? People with no money.

And who are the type of people who will pay people with no money to do obscene shit? Apparently Felix. I was really hoping this wasn't true, now that I know it is, its such a bad feeling to have someone you admire do these things. Yea I watch his content.


The fivers incident was bad, and if WSJ just covered that without character assassination they'd be completely out of the picture right now.

While I agree a chunk of this is of course his own actions, some of the reporting definitely strikes me as libelous with malice. For them to argue that their reporting is without malice they will need to defend each and every point they used to paint him as a Nazi as he would present full context of all of their evidence. This includes full context of him pointing off-screen, the full context of the one where he dressed up in an "Nazi" army uniform, and the "stop putting this in my game" when swastikas were being put in there, etc. About the only thing that would stand scrutiny would be the fivers I imagine as being in particularly in bad taste.

The fact that they watched the videos in context and removed context to make their evidence likely wouldn't bode well.

On the other hand, I have to question how much he's actually losing. Depending on the contract with Disney and the fact that his subscriptions are only go up at this point, he may end up making more without them - I imagine others may also proposition him with better contract terms if he's interested.

Regardless, I doubt he'd sue WSJ. It would be a prolonged and likely expensive case with a large question in relation to ROI. There's been slam dunk cases that have gone sideways in the past so it's better to ride the controversy train with the new subs.

Personally, I find his content low-hanging fruit nonsense.
Ejanss 
16965 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.


NOBODY got the "joke". The Guy With the Weird Brony Name can't blame the WSJ, or YouTube for that.

Even if it wasn't his own view, it was an Attention-grabbing Stunt, and, well...congratulations. It got attention.


zinjashike wrote:
Personally, I find his content low-hanging fruit nonsense.


Pretty much this.
It was shock value, from someone who lives so far into social media, he thinks the rest of the world has heard of Fiver.
(Which I hadn't until he opened his big attention-starved mouth, unless he meant the rabbit from Watership Down.)
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.