5 ms·

The stunt wasn't actually anti-sematic. It was just trying to show how ridiculous the world has come to where you can pay a guy on Fiverr $5 to do pretty much

The stunt wasn't actually anti-sematic. It was just trying to show how ridiculous the world has come to where you can pay a guy on Fiverr $5 to do pretty much anything (while it was in poor taste). To me, it just shows me how ridiculous our politically correct world has come to. If I'm not allowed to talk about tragedies without getting fired from my job or having my life ruined, then I guess I will say that they never happened. Anything I'm not allowed to talk about eventually gets silenced. If someone asks, we should just say it never happened.

alextheparrot 10y ago
Can you reframe your first sentence based on the fact that a sign with "Death to All Jews" was used? I don't understand the word "actually", is it to clarify that he only holds artistic feelings relating to this content he made? I don't see how his post-mortem intent negates the actuality, which is that people took offense to the poor taste, as you've noted, of the stunt. The companies have no obligation (Aside from contractual) to work with him. He made content that they deemed to be bad enough to end their relationship, that's on him, no matter the intention.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- senior_james 10y ago
  "Can you reframe your first sentence based on the fact that a sign with "Death to All Jews" was used? " Yes. it's like saying someone is racist for having a picture of a racist sign in an article about racism in America. Context is everything and removing it to intentionally discredit someone and destroy their livelihood reminds me of actual Hitler tactics. The self-proclaimed 'anti-fascists' are the actual fascists. "The companies have no obligation (Aside from contractual) to work with him. He made content that they deemed to be bad enough to end their relationship, that's on him, no matter the intention." This is a dangerous path as well. Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion? Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary? Sure, they aren't violating any laws. But we are creating an extremely divisive culture where opposing viewpoints can't be expressed without fear of reprisal and the result is violence. A few years back, I remember when a few companies opposed supporting birth control and abortions and didn't want to pay for it through employee healthcare plans. There were so many people (including here on HN) claiming that companies have no rights and they shouldn't even be given the choice. Now that it supports your political opinion, companies have the right to not do business with anyone they wish. So hypocritical.
  - sdflkd 10y ago
    > This is a dangerous path as well. Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion? > Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary? If they can give a good reason like it influencing public perception and damaging business, then yes.
    - xchaotic 10y ago
      First of all that might be illegal - for example firing a pregnant person (because you are a 'conservative' and think that there shouldn't be a maternity leave). But in Pew's case it's hard to judge what's the worse PR - his unfunny videos or Google letting him go (for him having a different opinion)
    - bmelton 10y ago
      At a federal level, they wouldn't need to provide a good reason. Political affiliation is not a protected class, and therefore has no protections against at-will termination. This may vary state by state, depending on what their laws are.
  - John23832 10y ago
    Nobody has to like your opinion, nor do they have to associate with you if they don't like your opinion. Your argument puts the onus on the person being offended to change their stance and accept offense. The system works when either side can choose to associate with the other only if the y want to.
  - alextheparrot 10y ago
    I'd like to ask you to refrain from calling me (and others like or against me) a hypocrite without understanding my viewpoints, nor making any attempt to.
  - zaccus 10y ago
    >Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion? Absolutely. Are you suggesting that a liberal employee should not be allowed to quit an anti-abortion company? >Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary? Absolutely. Should a Hillary supporter not be allowed to quit a company that supported Trump? >I remember when a few companies opposed supporting birth control and abortions and didn't want to pay for it through employee healthcare plans. By law, all health insurance policies are required to provide this coverage. Those companies can still be vocally against abortion, but they still have to comply with the law. What if someone is religiously against traffic lights? Then their options are to follow the law or don't drive. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.
shepardrtc 10y ago
Why not use something like, "Death to all puppies" or "Death to all kittens"? That's a ridiculous thing to have someone hold up. The statement he chose was not ridiculous. > If I'm not allowed to talk about tragedies The sign didn't say, "The Holocaust was bad". The sign said, "Death to all Jews". That's not a tragedy, that's a hateful statement.
- tscs37 10y ago
  You've left out a lot of context there.
  - John23832 10y ago
    No, he/she didn't. They addressed the above comment. If the Pie's point was to show they you can pay people to do dumb things there are other ways to do that without being blatantly offensive. >>> If I'm not allowed to talk about tragedies >> The sign didn't say, "The Holocaust was bad". The sign said, "Death to all Jews". That's not a tragedy, that's a hateful statement. ^ This response is spot on.
    - tscs37 10y ago
      Except the last part, which as I said, is missing a lot of context. Hate is Content times Context. If there is no Context then there is therefore no Hate. A mere text is not a hateful statement, text has no intentions or feelings, it cannot hate. The person writing the text or creating the text can.
      - John23832 10y ago
        That's absurd. If you want your statements, whether in text or verbal, to be taken in the correct context, it is up to you as the originator of those statements to provide and ensure the context. If you don't you're at the whim of other people when they do. If you can't ensure that you can adequately provide that context, you shouldn't give that statement. Nobody exists in anyone else's head. Make definitive, thoughtful statements instead of juvenile ones aimed for shock value and this doesn't happen. Pewdiepie went for the shock value and the views, and it contractually bit him in the ass. > A mere text is not a hateful statement, text has no intentions or feelings, it cannot hate. The person writing the text or creating the text can. Do you really feel that people don't understand that words and text are not sentient beings? Sure, words cannot actively hate, but they can be hateful.
x0x0 10y ago
Hysterical nonsense about political correctness (hahaha jew jokes... Wait guys, why aren't you laughing?) aside, live by the advertising, die by the advertising. Brand advertisers do not want to appear within a mile of people making jew jokes. If your living is through advertising, you better figure that out with a quickness. protip: maybe don't crack jokes about jews or black people, then whine that they seemed not to find it funny. Also, fyi, freedom of speech doesn't equal people have to have the reactions to my or others' speech that I prefer.
aanm1988 10y ago
and out of all the ridiculous things that could have been done he paid for them to hold up a "death to all jews sign". How is that not anti-semitic?

alextheparrot 10y ago

Can you reframe your first sentence based on the fact that a sign with "Death to All Jews" was used? I don't understand the word "actually", is it to clarify that he only holds artistic feelings relating to this content he made? I don't see how his post-mortem intent negates the actuality, which is that people took offense to the poor taste, as you've noted, of the stunt. The companies have no obligation (Aside from contractual) to work with him. He made content that they deemed to be bad enough to end their relationship, that's on him, no matter the intention.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
senior_james 10y ago
"Can you reframe your first sentence based on the fact that a sign with "Death to All Jews" was used? " Yes. it's like saying someone is racist for having a picture of a racist sign in an article about racism in America. Context is everything and removing it to intentionally discredit someone and destroy their livelihood reminds me of actual Hitler tactics. The self-proclaimed 'anti-fascists' are the actual fascists. "The companies have no obligation (Aside from contractual) to work with him. He made content that they deemed to be bad enough to end their relationship, that's on him, no matter the intention." This is a dangerous path as well. Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion? Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary? Sure, they aren't violating any laws. But we are creating an extremely divisive culture where opposing viewpoints can't be expressed without fear of reprisal and the result is violence. A few years back, I remember when a few companies opposed supporting birth control and abortions and didn't want to pay for it through employee healthcare plans. There were so many people (including here on HN) claiming that companies have no rights and they shouldn't even be given the choice. Now that it supports your political opinion, companies have the right to not do business with anyone they wish. So hypocritical.
- sdflkd 10y ago
  > This is a dangerous path as well. Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion? > Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary? If they can give a good reason like it influencing public perception and damaging business, then yes.
  - xchaotic 10y ago
    First of all that might be illegal - for example firing a pregnant person (because you are a 'conservative' and think that there shouldn't be a maternity leave). But in Pew's case it's hard to judge what's the worse PR - his unfunny videos or Google letting him go (for him having a different opinion)
  - bmelton 10y ago
    At a federal level, they wouldn't need to provide a good reason. Political affiliation is not a protected class, and therefore has no protections against at-will termination. This may vary state by state, depending on what their laws are.
- John23832 10y ago
  Nobody has to like your opinion, nor do they have to associate with you if they don't like your opinion. Your argument puts the onus on the person being offended to change their stance and accept offense. The system works when either side can choose to associate with the other only if the y want to.
- alextheparrot 10y ago
  I'd like to ask you to refrain from calling me (and others like or against me) a hypocrite without understanding my viewpoints, nor making any attempt to.
- zaccus 10y ago
  >Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion? Absolutely. Are you suggesting that a liberal employee should not be allowed to quit an anti-abortion company? >Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary? Absolutely. Should a Hillary supporter not be allowed to quit a company that supported Trump? >I remember when a few companies opposed supporting birth control and abortions and didn't want to pay for it through employee healthcare plans. By law, all health insurance policies are required to provide this coverage. Those companies can still be vocally against abortion, but they still have to comply with the law. What if someone is religiously against traffic lights? Then their options are to follow the law or don't drive. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.

shepardrtc 10y ago

Why not use something like, "Death to all puppies" or "Death to all kittens"? That's a ridiculous thing to have someone hold up. The statement he chose was not ridiculous. > If I'm not allowed to talk about tragedies The sign didn't say, "The Holocaust was bad". The sign said, "Death to all Jews". That's not a tragedy, that's a hateful statement.

tscs37 10y ago
You've left out a lot of context there.
- John23832 10y ago
  No, he/she didn't. They addressed the above comment. If the Pie's point was to show they you can pay people to do dumb things there are other ways to do that without being blatantly offensive. >>> If I'm not allowed to talk about tragedies >> The sign didn't say, "The Holocaust was bad". The sign said, "Death to all Jews". That's not a tragedy, that's a hateful statement. ^ This response is spot on.
  - tscs37 10y ago
    Except the last part, which as I said, is missing a lot of context. Hate is Content times Context. If there is no Context then there is therefore no Hate. A mere text is not a hateful statement, text has no intentions or feelings, it cannot hate. The person writing the text or creating the text can.
    - John23832 10y ago
      That's absurd. If you want your statements, whether in text or verbal, to be taken in the correct context, it is up to you as the originator of those statements to provide and ensure the context. If you don't you're at the whim of other people when they do. If you can't ensure that you can adequately provide that context, you shouldn't give that statement. Nobody exists in anyone else's head. Make definitive, thoughtful statements instead of juvenile ones aimed for shock value and this doesn't happen. Pewdiepie went for the shock value and the views, and it contractually bit him in the ass. > A mere text is not a hateful statement, text has no intentions or feelings, it cannot hate. The person writing the text or creating the text can. Do you really feel that people don't understand that words and text are not sentient beings? Sure, words cannot actively hate, but they can be hateful.

x0x0 10y ago

Hysterical nonsense about political correctness (hahaha jew jokes... Wait guys, why aren't you laughing?) aside, live by the advertising, die by the advertising. Brand advertisers do not want to appear within a mile of people making jew jokes. If your living is through advertising, you better figure that out with a quickness. protip: maybe don't crack jokes about jews or black people, then whine that they seemed not to find it funny. Also, fyi, freedom of speech doesn't equal people have to have the reactions to my or others' speech that I prefer.

aanm1988 10y ago

and out of all the ridiculous things that could have been done he paid for them to hold up a "death to all jews sign". How is that not anti-semitic?