• The PewDiePipeline: how edgy humor leads to violence
    83 replies, posted
No see this is not how fear based reasoning works. Fear based reasoning needs other people to fix their shit so I can continue being a histrionic reactionary. See, everyone else needs to change, my position is impregnable and perfect, my politics and virtue are sacrosanct across all time and space, therefore it's incumbent on everyone else to get with my program, even when I have no fucking idea what that is and moreover completely lack the life and social experience to ask the right questions much less achieve any answer myself, neverfuckingmind provide answers to other people that can genuinely help them consider whether their beliefs are worth holding or not. My fear needs to be assuaged by you, that's how it works. That way I can simply dispense ratings and pithy platitudes and not actually have to think about my position and the long term effects and whether any of that can be implemented across the board despite all the disparate information and methods that need to go into forming an opinion on the world and how it 'should work'.
It's really hard to argue with people who misrepresent everything you say as wanting to send them to the gulags, it really hinders any kind of productive discussion.
Have *you* considered it? I didn't say that raidyr was misrepresenting people here, raidyr is incapable of doing even that, just that he's been replying trash with "How can you lie so brazenly? " "I'm genuinely curious, can you string together more than two posts without being dishonest? ", unless you consider these lines "misrepresenting", i consider them just adhom or deflection. Here, i just considered it and no, i am not misrepresenting anyone, again he has a history of manipulative dishonesty despite doing it here, i am pointing out his extreme hypocracy. The people who want people they disagree with deplatformed/censored are people who want other people not to be able to speak openly. The people who don't want other people to exist would be actual nazis. Not even slight hyperbole, these are direct examples. Quote from raidyr, directed towards me: The fact that you have seemingly zero interest in pursuing the anti-free speech and authoritarian excesses of the Trump administration or the Republican party at large and the first time you gallantly dash to the rescue of our free speech is when it's defending a website that specifically panders to racists and Nazi's. before "but he didn't directly call you a nazi" Yeah no shit, i said heavily implied, apparantly i havent virtue signalled enough in raidyr's holy presence. The context was pages of similar from someone else and he was just echoing it. Point is, he has a pattern of doing this and is now pretending not to. I do understand your point completely, i often also notice people see other people criticizing an idea, then jump right to "but im allowed to say it" or "it's just my opinion". I could write you an essay on how people misunderstand this. However, you are just misapplying this feeling to a situation which is absolutely mired intead in "here is an idea i've criticized, now let's censor it". People making nazi/alt right accusations where it doesn't apply is used as a way to associate others with something bad then advocate for shutting them down, rather than as a way to change opinions.
I feel like Raidyr could have been a lot more clear and less toxic in the way he put it, but my thinking was that the reason they said you were lying or misrepresenting them was that you implied that he wants to censor/ban people for saying things he disagrees with when he outright said that the tweet that pewdiepie made where he disavowed the shooter was satisfactory. I can't speak for any of Raidyr's posts in previous threads or whether there is a clear pattern of wanting to censor people they disagree with, but I feel like at least in this case you are misapplying that argument to someone who hasn't made it. Unless there is a quote from someone in this thread that clearly says that Pewdiepie should be banned from YouTube/Twitter for promoting nazism, in which case I'll take back what I've said.
Nah dude you're going to need to do better than that after such a ridiculous post on your part. I directly quoted an instance of it here for you, and you misrepresented my post and went on a huge rant about how *i'm* some kind of lunatic because of a line in my post you misread. Not even going to acknowledge it? smooth. Just go ahead and apply that rant to yourself since you're feeling so generous.
Check my edit, I've acknowledged and apologised for misreading that sentence.
When did I say you shouldn't be able to speak openly? When did I say you shouldn't exist? Why are we talking about your beef with me in a thread about Pewdiepie? This quote is taken out of context and presenting it without even a link to the reply it was made in is highly suspect. Here is the post that reply is from, which itself relies on context from the thread itself to be fully understood. That's not my perspective at all, I think you have virtue signalled plenty. That's exactly why I made that excerpt part of my response. I'm not "heavily implying" you are a Nazi, that's a figment of your imagination. What I'm accusing you of being is a hypocrite, someone who bills himself as an ardent crusader for free speech but only when it's convenient to your politics. More to the point, as I said in that thread, your stance of forcing private companies to platform speech they disagree with is just as tyrannical as forcing private companies *not* to platform speech. I think it's pretty telling that you never replied to me in that thread but hung on to the post for five months and are now cutting parts of it out of context to make it look like I'm being dishonest.
Mattk50 isn't saying that you're saying other people shouldn't exist. He's saying actual nazis want people to not exist, while you just want to silence people who disagree with you. I guess I'm not the only one who was confused by that sentence structure.
I shouldn't have to do this because I've already said it but I want to be absolutely clear since we have a couple of people in this thread deliberately spreading misinformation (neither of them being you) 1). I don't think Pewdiepie should be banned or censored from anything. 2). I think the tweet Reg posted on the last page is sufficient contrition. I'd like to see something more, like what that Tomska guy tweeted out, but I'm fine with the tweet. 3). I still think OP's video has merit and my arguments prior to this still stand.
It makes things extra confusing when somebody is (a) accusing you of saying something you didn't say, and (b) aren't clear whether the subject of the sentence is actually referring to you or a neo-nazi and keeps drifting back and forth without clearly indicating which one they are referring to.
Yeah i could have guessed you would take back your half apology after "mistakenly" tossing so much vitriol, you obviously have a vendetta to worry about. Can't be that you have a bias and just read that post the way you want, no, never. Your own post at the top of this becomes the best response to your nonsense here. What a joke. To be clear: Reg made a post asking "What do you want YouTubers to do: disavow racism and extremism at the start of every video?" and raidyr replied with "I'm genuinely curious, can you string together more than two posts without being dishonest?" Rather than being dishonest, it's completely reasonable for reg to make that guess because raidyr has an exact habit of asking for that, it's dishonest for him to say it's unreasonable because as i quoted directly, apparantly if he hasn't *seen* you do something, it's not enough. He just assumes the exact opposite. Don't start calling random posters dishonest when you're known for doing the exact thing.
As a person who follows his twitter PDP did clearly denounce the shooter saying he was disgusted that such a guy enjoyed his content.
Yea it seems like it was quite a shock to him considering he also went through and removed a lot of alt-righty people from his follow list. We might see him pulling back a bit from a lot of the more edgy jokes for a while now that this has happened, but it remains to be seen.
Have you actually watched more than a clip or two from destiny? I think he's a prime example of how you can actually have discussions with right wingers and really highlight how stupid or dishonest they are, and not end up looking like a triggered libtard.
I watched way too much Destiny before I realized he's a fucking tool. I even used to be on his discord which is full of tryhards who want to be just like their idols and as a result will take literally fucking any form of statement as an opportunity to go DEBATE ME BRO.
A lot of his content is cringy as fuck, his community is aswell, I avoid most of it. And more often than not if I watch a "debate" I close it down after a bit because the people destiny are talking to are just not knoweldgable or smart enough to sustain an interesting conversation. But he atleast succeeds in making them look like idiots while avoiding to make himself look like one, and often they happen to be someone with a decent sized following on youtube or elsewhere. Then there are the very rare discussions when somebody who actually knows their shit comes on and talks to him, and you get a super interesting discussion.
Genuinely curious. Is this because of Alex Jones and Jordan Peterson? I only watch episodes with people I'm familiar with (skew towards the left or non-political). But maybe I'm an odd one out?
I think it's become too easy to just generalize an audience, group, or subgroup of people you don't like because of an image someone has drawn of them, you've applied that image as a generalization to all in that group, and now you have your boogieman. It's too easy to just whip up a false image of something that scares you, and in our society now, anyone who pushes back against claims of "Alt-right, alt-lite", or the other partisan side of the coin, it's all just bullshit meant to point the finger at anyone else through vast generalizations.
I feel like this sort of implies that anyone who find things uncomfortable always does so because they are afraid of some imaginary boogeyman. What about the people who find this sort of edgy humour uncomfortable because they themselves have gone down the alt-right rabbit hole and they know where it leads, and are trying to warn people off of it. People actually do fall into this trap of starting off with some edgy joke YouTuber and then following these 'anti-sjw' YouTubers, which then leads them to the actual alt-right conspiracy YouTubers who talk about genuine neo-nazi conspiracies like the great replacement. It's not some completely made-up imaginary boogeyman analogous how some people believe that gay marriage being legalised was going to cause the biblical apocalypse or that people would start marrying donkeys. There's a difference between fears that are completely irrational and fears that are overblown but have a basis in reality. I think by doing this 'both sides are just as bad' thing where everyone is just being irrational, it allows us to avoid having to actually think about whether seemingly (to us) innocuous things can have unintended negative consequences for some people.
The idea this information inevitably leads to this is not up for debate then? It just factually does lead to Alt right views inevitably? If if we’re going to generalize all listeners of a podcast and say they’re all susceptible to being alt right because they’re just taking in information and can’t process it, that is infantilizing. Do we want to remove these things from peoples available info because it’ll corrupt them with out hope of salvation? i listen to Rogan but I also argue with him as he says shit I find objectionable. The idea that all fans of his just slurp down his opinions and mindset without filter is to me, absurd.
For most people, no it's not a fact that listening to misleading information without context will lead them down a certain path. But if there's a small chance that at least one or a few people are going to be negatively affected, and there's no downside to providing that extra bit of information that might avoid that, what's the harm in doing so? No, we don't want to remove these things because a small number of people may be negatively affected. But that's not what I'm or what other people are suggesting anyway. What we should do is be providing context. If I am hosting a podcast and bringing on a flat earth conspiracy theorist to talk about their views, I should also bring up the overall scientific consensus that the earth is not flat and make it clear that the person speaking is presenting a fringe, unscientific view that probably isn't true. But I'd still bring them on the podcast because it I think it would be interesting to hear what they have to say. For most viewers that would just be common sense, and for the people who actually believe in flat earth conspiracy theories it wouldn't do anything. But for the small sliver of people who might be on the fence or susceptible to being misled, it might actually be something that stops them or at least momentarily halts them from being sucked in down the rabbit hole. It might help or it might not, but there's no downside to it, so from a moral or social standpoint we might as well do it.
The youtube algoritm inevitably leads to alt right content from edgy memes.
It's sort of a problem with society at large as well, vitriolic rhetoric spreads a lot faster and is more easily remembered than thoughtful, nuanced discussion. If I'm a politician and I want people to vote for me, it's a lot easier to just throw shit at the opposition than it is to actually build a rappoire with my constituents. If I'm a polticial activist it's easier to grab people with short, catchy slogans that express a single, narrow viewpoint than a long multiple paragraph dissertation considering the various factors, nuances and points of view on an issue and why my view is ultimately more correct than others.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.