PewDiePie

User avatar
obsessivelymoody
emo goose
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:56 am
Pronouns: she/her
Location: canada

I'm going to make some less than valid comparisons, but I'll address that later on.

So when Dan and Phil cancelled tour dates via tweet, many people were less than pleased. It's always nicer to be let down from word of mouth, rather than a tweet that could be taken in the wrong context, or be structured in a way that leaves a sour taste (Phil putting a smiley face at the end of announcing the Montreal cancellation anyone?). But at the end of the day no lives are lost from the cancellation of a tour date. No words are taken as alt right dog whistles, and Dan and Phil don't really need a further explanation besides "hey we're sorry we couldn't make it here due to xyz" and that's that. People have the right to ask for more, and have the right to be mad about it. But it's still a tour date, an entertainment event. It sucks, but reduced down to that, the event happens and people are happy. The event doesn't happen, and people aren't happy, and often want more from them.

When Jenna Marbles uploaded a video all about the new fish she got, but found out she was actually hurting the fish and putting their lives at risk, she took the video down and immediately made an extensive apology and explanation video about what happened. Now, while the lives of fish are incomparable to the lives of innocent people living their lives, she took accountability for her actions, and while she wasn't technically at fault as she was given the wrong information from someone she trusted to know best about the fish, she still apologized and took action on the matter.

Maybe these are unfair comparisons because Felix wasn't doing the act himself, unlike Jenna and Dan and Phil. But when the lives of innocent people are ended and put at stake because of the actions of a vile bigot who decided to mention a vastly popular influencer before enacting on such terror, it is not a matter of our individual expectations of that influencer. Sure we can go back and forth about morality until we're blue in the face, but if you want to condemn the alt right, and other groups/individuals being violent and unjust and hateful, there's pretty much only one thing you can do to make sure people know you want to condemn them: speak out about it. You could argue that Felix has done that with his tweet, with parts of his videos etc but when your words and name have become a dog whistle for the alt right agenda when people have taken that same dog whistle and carved it into a memorial site and when your plea for ~it's just edgy memes~ clearly shifts into something much more than that more action is, frankly, needed than a tweet less than 280 characters.
Influencers have been condemned for a lot less. They've made apology videos for things that hold a lot less severity than the lives of innocent people and a radical movement of hate. Felix has 90 million subscribers. He's practically a household name in the west. He is one of the most influential people on social media, and the best he can do in light of such a tragedy is tweet? He makes videos for a living. His videos are what make him a massive influencer. If he really wanted to distance himself from that movement, he would make a video about it, explaining his side and how he doesn't want those people associated with him. But he hasn't. And he went on to thank people for still subscribing to him days later.

To get academic, if I must, in media studies we have something called discourse analysis, where we look to uncover socially constructed meanings, and the relationships between those meanings, media, and social practices. Using Norman Fairclough's framework for analysis of media, we can start with the media itself, Felix's videos, tweets, and actions within those. Next we can look at the journalistic/media practices or portrayals of his media, which acts to either support or condemn him, as we've seen over the years several times. Finally, we look at the socio-cultural practices from the media and the portrayal of the media. In this context, we can see that part of Felix's media, "subscribe to pewdiepie", is being used to fuel alt right movements and hate crimes.

Similarly, when conducting discourse analysis, the ethnomethodological method of analysis highlights the inclusions and exclusions of media, again, relating it back to societal influence. Perhaps when examining Felix's tweet, we can see the side of disgust and remorse for what happened. However, what are we missing here? How will he change after this event? Clearly, as stated, his content/influence is being used within hate crimes and alt right communities, but what is he doing to change that, aside from apologizing in a quick tweet?

And on the topic of twitter and exclusions within a narrative, there is nothing exactly wrong with following alt right activists, as one could be doing so to stay in the know about them, but following such a horrifying event and having Felix take this kind of action maybe poses the question of: if he's unfollowed these people, who he had no issue following in the first place, or any issue with at all until people started bringing up who he was following, what does he have to hide through this behaviour?
Maybe he isn't all that bad. Maybe he does actually, truly hate that these movements and acts of terror are being committed in his name. (I don't think so, and personally there is nothing he can do that would ever make me even remotely like him). But it is not a question of our individual expectations of him when he is not using the platform that brought people to commit hate crimes in his name to distance and condemn them from the place where it started.
anna_begins
pumpkin spice pumpkin cookie
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:45 pm

When it comes to Felix I always think about that quote Hank Green wrote in his book that he gave to Dan: "with great power comes great responsibility". When you have 90,000,000+ subscribers you have to realize how big your influence is on people. I saw so many people say in defense of Felix that Ben Shapiro can't be that bad if he's able to laugh at himself by participating in pdp's meme video. Do you know how many new followers Ben got after that video? Thousands. I can only imagine how many people bought Jordan B. Peterson's book after Felix recommended it, and then subsequently followed him on social media. It's like when Jimmy Fallon ruffled Donald Trump's hair on his show thus making him seem more human & likeable. When I see some of those names (like Paul Joseph Watson who is known for being an alt-right anti-Muslim extremist, who by the way Shane Dawson recently praised the work of on his twitter, what the heck is wrong with these people) on the list of people Felix followed it literally makes me so angry. I see people saying of course he followed them because they're part of meme culture. Don't you see, that's how they gain attention so they can spread their ideas? And Felix absolutely knows this. He's been warned so many times that there are consequences that come with showcasing these people on your platform, even if it's all done under the guise of a joke. And then the horrible murders happened, and all Felix does as a response to his name being associated with it is unfollow everyone to hide all the creepy people he was okay with associating with just days before. And make a big joke about it by following BTS and using them as a way to distract from everything. Disgusting. If he's not a fascist (he is) at the very least he is extremely complicit.
User avatar
lefthandedism
simply stressed bisexual
simply stressed bisexual
Posts: 1672
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:16 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: New England

I've been enjoying a lot of the thoughtful posts in this thread. I especially appreciate @obsessivelymoody 's post--it's been a while since I've read me some ethnomethodology! It was also great that you compiled some resources, such as Felix's likes and who they are, so I don't have to go looking for them!

I consume a lot of mainstream media like the New York Times and National Public Radio, and it's been frustrating to read/hear their coverage of this topic--which is mostly treating PewDiePie as niche and obscure, even while acknowledging his 90 million subscribers. It was especially annoying to hear an NPR newsreader say, "Now, 'Subscribe to PewDiePie!'--those words probably don't mean anything to most adults." Well, they aren't going to mean anything, are they, if you continue to report on it that way. :yuck: :evil:
"If you're left-handed, ask a friend."
"Why am I left-handed?"
"Everybody makes mistakes."
User avatar
Philena
blobfish
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:52 pm

Wow! Thanks @obsessivelymoody! Definitely some dense bedtime reading that I will perhaps need to reread when I am a bit more lucid. All my sleepy brain can muster at the moment is: Fuck you, pewdiepie.
User avatar
MythicalPinkTrashCan
phabergé
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:14 am
Pronouns: she/her
Location: Texas

alittledizzy wrote: Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:23 pm Not knowing what's in someone's head on the topic of white supremacy is major red flag for me. There's only one reason to not come out with a clear stance on that, and repeat it as often as necessary so that no one has any question about it. If you're personally okay with not knowing if someone is a white supremacist or not, well - everyone's allowed to put the line wherever they want it. But surely you can understand why it's very damning for that to even be something left up for debate and why it alarms people.
I want to scream this from the rooftops.
User avatar
srutututu
tol bean
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:05 pm
Pronouns: she/they/he


Don't get sucked into the pipeline @Stakhanov @goodbants
User avatar
Stakhanov
haru pillow
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:27 pm
Pronouns: he / him

@srutututu I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by quoting me and linking me to a video with no further explanation other than a rather patronizing suggestion that "I don't get sucked into a pipeline". The pipeline of stochastic terrorism i presume, which as presented in the video I found an extremely reductive and exclusively structuralist approach to the much more complex social reality we're trying to understand. In short, I don't think the "sales funnel" and "pyramid of violence" he uses to explain pewdiepies videos by are remotely adequate tools to understand that reality and are pretty irrelevant to the question of what one should hold Felix personally accountable for. A lot of people here seem hell bent on prejudging his motives -or claiming they are of no import- and in doing so take the least charitable reading of his actions possible. I think that's more of an illustration of the dislike some people have towards Felix and the things he's done in the past and makes for a selective, inaccurate characterization of the individual and his personal views pertaining white nationalism.

I do think an approach like critical discourse analysis or a concept like "stochastic terrorism" (to be separated from the hodgepodge as presented in the video) can have tremendous value. They can shed light into the structural and systemic aspects of phenomena, which you certainly may want to take into account when analyzing something as complex as political violence (trends) and the many (social) mechanisms underlying it.
However if your goal is an honest and open pursuit to the truth, it's just as important to acknowledge the limitations of the critical perspective. There are many schools of thought and relevant approaches in the social sciences which all have a lot to say about what's happening here and how we could interpret the act of the Christchurch terrorist to shout something like "subscribe to pewdiepie" among many other cultural references. That's even more true if you talk about the role and responsibilities of an individual like Kjellberg in relation to a specific event like this.
When I read discourses that imply or outright state that intent doesn't matter, or that the possible effects of the message define the message, or that a person is obliged to say or do X by virtue of his influence, I often find those statements to be incorrect and highly reductive. Biased to a certain perspective on the matter. For example when talking CDA and Fairclough i'd agree that in some ways language is power, but it's not just power. Not every communication is best understood in this framework and when evaluating a concrete issue like what is the content of the videos of a youtuber X and how does it relate to this political fact I think we need to look at the whole of communication science, political science, sociology, pscychology, history and whatever else can bring relevant insights on the matter, rather than rely on one specific method or school of thought.
Finding my own inarticulate prose
Weirding out strangers and laughing at those
Jaundiced and jaded, postured and posed
Not that we’re special it’s just that we’re
Closing in on a place where we might get to be
Living real people regularly
User avatar
rizzo
unduly facetious
unduly facetious
Posts: 1792
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 3:18 am

Stakhanov wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 12:22 pm @srutututu I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by quoting me and linking me to a video with no further explanation other than a rather patronizing suggestion that "I don't get sucked into a pipeline". The pipeline of stochastic terrorism i presume, which as presented in the video I found an extremely reductive and exclusively structuralist approach to the much more complex social reality we're trying to understand. In short, I don't think the "sales funnel" and "pyramid of violence" he uses to explain pewdiepies videos by are remotely adequate tools to understand that reality and are pretty irrelevant to the question of what one should hold Felix personally accountable for. A lot of people here seem hell bent on prejudging his motives -or claiming they are of no import- and in doing so take the least charitable reading of his actions possible. I think that's more of an illustration of the dislike some people have towards Felix and the things he's done in the past and makes for a selective, inaccurate characterization of the individual and his personal views pertaining white nationalism.

I do think an approach like critical discourse analysis or a concept like "stochastic terrorism" (to be separated from the hodgepodge as presented in the video) can have tremendous value. They can shed light into the structural and systemic aspects of phenomena, which you certainly may want to take into account when analyzing something as complex as political violence (trends) and the many (social) mechanisms underlying it.
However if your goal is an honest and open pursuit to the truth, it's just as important to acknowledge the limitations of the critical perspective. There are many schools of thought and relevant approaches in the social sciences which all have a lot to say about what's happening here and how we could interpret the act of the Christchurch terrorist to shout something like "subscribe to pewdiepie" among many other cultural references. That's even more true if you talk about the role and responsibilities of an individual like Kjellberg in relation to a specific event like this.
When I read discourses that imply or outright state that intent doesn't matter, or that the possible effects of the message define the message, or that a person is obliged to say or do X by virtue of his influence, I often find those statements to be incorrect and highly reductive. Biased to a certain perspective on the matter. For example when talking CDA and Fairclough i'd agree that in some ways language is power, but it's not just power. Not every communication is best understood in this framework and when evaluating a concrete issue like what is the content of the videos of a youtuber X and how does it relate to this political fact I think we need to look at the whole of communication science, political science, sociology, pscychology, history and whatever else can bring relevant insights on the matter, rather than rely on one specific method or school of thought.
I'm going to speak from exclusively my perspective and say that I am not "hellbent on prejudging his motives." I said it in the first few paragraphs of my post that I did nothing but give Felix the benefit of the doubt, because I expect someone in his circle to take on a certain viewpoint and behave a certain way. I assume as much from him because of "communication science, political science, sociology, psychology, history" etc and so forth.

I find your post mildly hypocritical (and I hope you take this as a response to your post and not an insult) in that you suggest we acknowledge there are limitations to a critical perspective and then follow that up with a suggestion that we.... use a critical perspective. Your last sentence in particular is wild, but I hesitate to get into a larger conversation that veers far from the topic at hand: Pewdiepie.

All you have to do in the instance of Felix is take what he's given you: the things he's said outright. He has used racist language, he has followed almost exclusively alt-right twitters, and he has stayed quiet when it mattered. You could, perhaps, take the perspective that he's either (a) uncomfortable speaking on the matter or (b) believes staying silent does more good than speaking or (c) both. But, these are not good enough excuses. Not in today's political climate. And especially not when your name is attached to the death of 50 people.

Nobody's saying Felix instructed the terrorist to commit his crime. I see none of that in this post. On a more personal note, I even hesitate to call him a white supremacist, but where there's no doubt is that there's a part of his followers that ARE. We know this for a fact. He knows this for a fact. So, what he's doing here is actively choosing not to denounce them. Now, why would someone do that?

I'll let you critically think that one through. Spoiler Alert: Whichever school of thought you analyze this with will not give you a positive answer.
User avatar
obsessivelymoody
emo goose
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:56 am
Pronouns: she/her
Location: canada

Obviously using one or two methods of analysis comes with limitations. My intent, with my own personal analysis, did come with reducing the content to a more basal form, however I don't think that's an entirely massive limitation to the analysis. You can have critical thought and analysis without needing to draw upon several sources and fields, and still have it be applicable to the content. I think this is especially true in a situation like this where the actions and words of the individuals here strongly connote one specific meaning, and one that appears to only be refuted by members of hate groups or intolerant bigots.

Of course there are many nuances to every situation, but in this case I think it's clear that even those nuances point to the unfavourable, at least in my own perspective as someone who condemns the alt right. And I don't think, despite any nuance or for turning this into something "reductive", that Felix has done enough to make it clear he absolutely does not condone those actions and wants to condemn that group.
User avatar
Stakhanov
haru pillow
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:27 pm
Pronouns: he / him

rizzo wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:04 pm
I'm going to speak from exclusively my perspective and say that I am not "hellbent on prejudging his motives." I said it in the first few paragraphs of my post that I did nothing but give Felix the benefit of the doubt, because I expect someone in his circle to take on a certain viewpoint and behave a certain way. I assume as much from him because of "communication science, political science, sociology, psychology, history" etc and so forth.

I find your post mildly hypocritical (and I hope you take this as a response to your post and not an insult) in that you suggest we acknowledge there are limitations to a critical perspective and then follow that up with a suggestion that we.... use a critical perspective. Your last sentence in particular is wild, but I hesitate to get into a larger conversation that veers far from the topic at hand: Pewdiepie.

All you have to do in the instance of Felix is take what he's given you: the things he's said outright. He has used racist language, he has followed almost exclusively alt-right twitters, and he has stayed quiet when it mattered. You could, perhaps, take the perspective that he's either (a) uncomfortable speaking on the matter or (b) believes staying silent does more good than speaking or (c) both. But, these are not good enough excuses. Not in today's political climate. And especially not when your name is attached to the death of 50 people.

Nobody's saying Felix instructed the terrorist to commit his crime. I see none of that in this post. On a more personal note, I even hesitate to call him a white supremacist, but where there's no doubt is that there's a part of his followers that ARE. We know this for a fact. He knows this for a fact. So, what he's doing here is actively choosing not to denounce them. Now, why would someone do that?

I'll let you critically think that one through. Spoiler Alert: Whichever school of thought you analyze this with will not give you a positive answer.
I bolded the parts I disagree with.
What do you mean when you say you expect someone 'of his circle' to 'take a certain viewpoint and behave a certain way?' That's an extremely vague statement to me. Do you mean to say that everyone and everything that gets mentioned in the 80+ pages manifest by this terrorist or others should make elaborate statements denouncing white nationalism? Do we have to question Spiro the Dragon, every ecomodernist, the Chinese government and all others being mentioned? Do you think 'every influential youtuber' or every entertainer needs to become a moralist and denounce any objectionable ideology or political position that can be held by a part of their audience? As far as our norms and values are codified in laws, Felix has no actual legal obligation to take any viewpoint or behave in any specific way following this terrorist using the "subscribe to pewdiepie" slogan. Which he tweeted he was horrified about when it was being used by this individual.
If you talk about your own expectations here, I think you should be more specific about what exactly you expect and why exactly you expect it. Do you think he needs to make a clear statement in which he says he denounces white nationalism? In which he denounces white nationalists in his audience? In what terms? Because when I read his statement in which he distanced himself from white nationalists in Charlottesville, i would say he has already met that expectation and has clearly distanced himself from any kind of white supremacy or neonazist agenda. I would agree that maybe further clarification and condemnation is in order, but I sure won't prejudge him for not having done so so far. I could certainly also understand why he waits for a good while (as he has done with Charlottesville) or thinks it's better not to react. If his intentions are to keep the attention and focus where it should be (and that's not with him), I support that.
In the end, the terrorist made a clear effort to gather as much attention as possible and "subscribe to pewdiepie" was only a minor detail in all that happened. I think it's much more damning how he could livestream his attacks for example. Or how digital platforms in general have given a worldwide reach and resources to organize extremist communities, be it white supremacists trying to mainstream racist ideology through troll farms or ISIS making nice brochures about how to "build you own terror attack" and using thousands of twitter account. I think what we are witnessing is political terrorism adapting new technologies and using new techniques to try legitimize their agenda. The fact that we are debating how much blame pewdiepie personally has and how exactly he should behave and speak out, is bound to be divisive and has the perverse effect that we play into the agenda of these white supremacists who know this will polarize society along the lines of what is acceptable humor, what is racist language, how politically correct should people be etc.
It's not that I think we can't have a debate about what Felix' ought to do or discuss where he could do better, it's just that a lot of the debate that i've seen around him is steeped in a very left political rhetoric and fraught with an intense desire to see him demonized or punished for past transgressions. I'm not saying you do that personally, but it's definitely a tone I find quite dominant in some parts of the fandom. In the meantime, we've got politicians all over the globe recuperating this attack to feed their own anti-immigration discourse, or to make taboo any discussion about how societal and religious issues relate to these trends of rising political violence.

A final point I want to make about critical discourse analysis the critical school of thought in social theory. I don't see how it's hypocritical to plead for the use the critical perspective while also acknowledging it has severe limitations and only offers part of the understanding of any phenomenon and social reality. It's ingrained in the social sciences that there are many competing schools of thought that offer different methods and interpretations on these issues. To a degree, they form different epistemic communities. When working on a concrete scientific paper you'll often focus on one school of thought and its assumptions to the exclusion of others (after literature research) as a necessary step to further examine you hypothesis and arrive at a conclusion, given your chosen methodology. However any honest and serious academic would admit that there are other traditions within their field that might arrive at other conclusions that one researcher might find less or more pertinent than the other. Again if the goal is an honest pursuit of the truth, I strongly believe and eclectic approach using insights from many disciplines and perspectives yields the best understanding of any social phenomenon. In the social sciences unlike an exact science like math of chemistry, there's often no real conclusive way to defeat a hypothesis or empirically prove its validity beyond doubt.

Contrary to @obsessivelymoody , I do think trying to understanding the actions of pewdiepie solely in the framework of CDA or etnomethodology is flawed and brings severe limitations to the analysis. I do think you need to draw on different fields and schools of thought. I for one wouldn't think that CDA is the most relevant framework to explain the New Zealand shooting or the role of pewdiepie in it. You could just as well adapt a framework of globalization, world systems theory and sociological critiques about modernity and alienation to try explain this attack and references that come with it.
To draw a comparison: I think the (neo)-marxist perspective brings a lot of value to economic thought by bringing back the importance of social relationships and power embedded in the structure of the economy. However I do not think Marxist thought captures all of economic reality. I don't think some of it's assumptions like the idea of a deterministic base that defines superstructure, the idea of a teleological, Hegelian march of history towards socialism or the idea that any creation of surplus value must necessarily be exploitative (etc, etc). In the same way I think it's scientifically unsound to try explain pewdiepie from just one strand of social theory.

I also don't think the words of pewdiepie connote one specific meaning at all and if you think only hate groups or intolerant bigots interpret pewdiepies jokes other than the specific framework you put them in, I can only plead you broaden your horizons and look at the many competing views that are held about his videos. As someone who strongly condemns the alt-right and made clear in my first post about this issue that I sincerely wish this extremely damaging discourse won't gain traction in the part of the world I live in, I don't think that every nuance 'points to the unfavorable' when it comes to Felix Kjellberg's role in this. There is a whole spectrum of views one can hold about Felix' personal responsibility in this and while i would certainly agree there's a lot I he could do better or more clearly (which i think may still happen but the future will have to show) he has imo distanced himself enough from these attacks and white nationalism to not be gratuitously condemned as a white nationalist himself. What has also become clear to me is that the white nationalist fringe in his audience, which is trying to exploit him, ought to be the real target we should be concerned about. Disrupting the whole digital ecosystem surrounding these extremist groups is what will imo make a difference in the future, but the responsibility for that falls on no single individual and are much more systematic. It will be tough to strike a balance that respects the individual's right to speak freely, to speak controversially and to speak with the freedom to offend and provoke on the one hand yet also find a way that doesn't structurally promote radicalization and other socially undesirable outcomes.
A fine example of this is the change Google announced in its algorithm after it discovered that, as a side effect of wanting to make as many people watch as many content as possible - and get seduced by ads along the way- they unwittingly promoted conspiracy theories. I feel like a similar thing might be happening when it comes to the 'stochastic' stepping stone function some videos of pewdiepie may fulfill - despite his individual wishes- in recommending ever more political, alt-right and beyond content that some viewers will watch.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... mendations


personal rant
I've spent a lot of time in this thread already and don't think i'm going to invest much more time in it, at least for now. I kind of have said what I wanted to say and don't want to endlessly repeat myself. Before you know it, any attempt to discuss further will just be characterized as a condescending attempt to 'be right' in the face of 'facts I don't want to accept'. :lol:
Finding my own inarticulate prose
Weirding out strangers and laughing at those
Jaundiced and jaded, postured and posed
Not that we’re special it’s just that we’re
Closing in on a place where we might get to be
Living real people regularly
User avatar
obsessivelymoody
emo goose
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:56 am
Pronouns: she/her
Location: canada

A few things:

Yeah Felix isn't bound by law to say anything, but again: if he truly wants to distance himself from the alt right, and wants to make sure they are not welcome within his profession and space, he would be explicit more about it, and explicit about it within this topical context.

I don't see how, in a thread discussing Felix's actions and impact, and as shown in several examples given, have impact in alt right spaces makes it only a minor detail within the event. In the context of our discussion about an influencer, those words have had influence on people, and comparing it to the other actions of the terrorist doesn't make sense in this context.

I'm not sure why the methods of analysis are being taken so seriously here. This is a discussion forum, not a university course. Sure it's important to recognize that other methods can be, and should be, used, and maybe some aren't as effective. However I was offering a few methods for basic media analysis, just to further my point about the severity of words and language, and how they're used in certain contexts, and from that, how their impacts and lack of accountability can account for the behaviours--and the condoning of behaviours--of others.

When I say "the actions and words of the individuals here strongly connote one specific meaning", I don't mean that it does have one specific meaning. Nothing does, and I think that's strongly implied in all of this. What I'm saying is that in general from the way "subscribe to pewdiepie" has been adopted into alt right circles or Felix's lack of action to condemning the alt right in this situation and etc, it connotes a positive connection between the alt right and Felix. I'm curious to see what nuances to this situation are positive, or even good. Because I see nothing good coming out of this except perhaps an increased awareness of the influence of people's words and actions. But even at that, it clearly doesn't take to everyone.

I don't think you can take the words of someone from one event and place it onto another, regardless of how "related" the events are. People's thoughts change, and applying words that hold severity in one serious situation to another is an extremely damaging practice.

I agree that we should be targeting the alt right in this situation, as they are the ones enacting on terror and hate. That being said, which is the point of all the posts I've made on this topic, Felix is an influencer, and one of the most influential people just due to the size of his audience. His words have influenced a group to adopt them as a dog whistle. His words have been used in severe hate crimes. His words, which have come from his own mouth, maybe weren't said with that intention. But they've been taken as such, and he hasn't done nearly enough in the present context to condemn and distance himself, which is crucial not only to polish his person within the media, but also to show as a massive influencer who has semi-indirectly created such a dog whistle etc that none of these actions are okay. And that has impact, much like the impact that his initial words and actions have had. It's crucial, and he's not doing any of it.
User avatar
srutututu
tol bean
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:05 pm
Pronouns: she/they/he

Stakhanov wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:23 pm I kind of have said what I wanted to say and don't want to endlessly repeat myself.
Image
I'm genuinely curious, so you straight up admit you are going to repeat yourself. What is the point to even have a discussion on this forum when you're basically writing the same response no matter what anyone says to you?

To stay relevant, here's a spicy pewds meme:

Image
User avatar
Stakhanov
haru pillow
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:27 pm
Pronouns: he / him

@obsessivelymoody

Some clarifications:

I do think that in the big picture of trying to understand a worldwide trend of rising political violence from different ideological groups, one cultural reference uttered by a terrorist who has written a manifesto of 80+ pages full of references to internet culture, with the deliberate goal of getting attention for them isn't that significant by itself. That's the context in which i would consider it 'a detail' though I don't mean to say it's entirely without meaning. It's by considering the many other political and social dynamics at play here that I don't attach to much importance into the concrete slogan the shooter used. I've given examples why I think focusing on the words and impact on the individual as pewdiepie is misguided, but we clearly think differently about this.

My points about methodology do not come from a desire to make this a university course. But you did bring up CDA and the ethnomethodological method as a framework for interpreting Felix' actions. Because I do think it's important to have a factual analysis using many perspectives rather than exclusively putting stock into one, I wanted to make the point that, to stay academic, we should acknowledge that this is but one of many approaches and methods we can use to interpret pewdiepies actions. How you evaluate the influence he has, and should use it, is significantly related to the conceptual framework you use and how you perceive the broader context in which the communication happens.
obssesivelymoody wrote:To get academic, if I must, in media studies we have something called discourse analysis, where we look to uncover socially constructed meanings, and the relationships between those meanings, media, and social practices. Using Norman Fairclough's framework for analysis of media, we can start with the media itself, Felix's videos, tweets, and actions within those. Next we can look at the journalistic/media practices or portrayals of his media, which acts to either support or condemn him, as we've seen over the years several times. Finally, we look at the socio-cultural practices from the media and the portrayal of the media. In this context, we can see that part of Felix's media, "subscribe to pewdiepie", is being used to fuel alt right movements and hate crimes.
When you say "subscribe to pewdiepie" in general connotes a positive link between Felix and the alt-right because it's adopted and used by a fringe part of his audience to mean a specific thing, I think that's plain false. In general, I think subscribe to pewdiepie means exactly that: subscribe to the pewdiepie channel. I generally see it used as an expression of support towards pewdiepie, or as a joke meme that doesn't really connote any sinister motivations. I don't see it generally used as a dog-whistle for the alt right, though that is the meaning it can take on in relatively rare cases.

I agree that it would be productive and good for Felix to make a separate statement about this attack and really go into depth about his political views on white nationalism and the troubling fringe of his audience (explicitly denouncing them) so the ambiguity some feel about his stance can be cleared up. But I do think the statements he made after Charlottesville (among other things I've heard him say in his videos) as well as his tweet after these attacks are relevant enough to make the assumption that he (still) distances himself from white nationalists. (If only president Trumps statements were as clear...). I understand this does not meet the bar you and others set on his behavior. It does somewhat for me, at least to the degree that I don't believe he's harboring sympathies for the white supremacist agenda espoused by the extreme right fringe of his audience. I suspect we will also have to agree to disagree on that conclusion.


@srutututu
srutututu wrote: I'm genuinely curious, so you straight up admit you are going to repeat yourself. What is the point to even have a discussion on this forum when you're basically writing the same response no matter what anyone says to you?
I said I don't want to endlessly repeat myself. As to your question why I want to discuss this issue on this forum, I have said a couple of things about that in my previous posts, so I'm going to requote what I've already written on the previous page:
Stakhanov wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:06 pm
Nah that's fine like I said I don't think this is a particularly good place to debate the issues anyway but at least someone lurking around the forums can read a differing opinion instead of thinking everyone in the fandom thinks extremely negative about Felix. Which just isn't the case but one might get that impression reading his thread.
I don't write the same response (or try hard not to). I think that's the nature of any debate. To me, it feels as if the objections people bring up are the same or very similar. To you, it may seem that my response is the same 'no matter what anyone says'. Let me also ask you a question: what kind of conversaton did you hope to achieve when you mentioned me and goodbants in a post without any further comment, other than a cryptic 'don't fall into the pipeline'?
In my experience, simply posting a link without clarifying your own position does not really do much to bring about a conversation. I could link youtube clips on the issue all day without saying anything, but don't you think that's a rather spammy way to go about it?
Finding my own inarticulate prose
Weirding out strangers and laughing at those
Jaundiced and jaded, postured and posed
Not that we’re special it’s just that we’re
Closing in on a place where we might get to be
Living real people regularly
User avatar
obsessivelymoody
emo goose
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:56 am
Pronouns: she/her
Location: canada

Stakhanov wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:44 pm My points about methodology do not come from a desire to make this a university course. But you did bring up CDA and the ethnomethodological method as a framework for interpreting Felix' actions. Because I do think it's important to have a factual analysis using many perspectives rather than exclusively putting stock into one, I wanted to make the point that, to stay academic, we should acknowledge that this is but one of many approaches and methods we can use to interpret pewdiepies actions. How you evaluate the influence he has, and should use it, is significantly related to the conceptual framework you use and how you perceive the broader context in which the communication happens.
I think myself, as well as everyone else reading this, understands that there is not a clear right or wrong, or binary way to analyze the media. That doesn't make your somewhat intense focus on it less perplexing in this context. Thanks for your concern for my critical thinking skills and need to be exhaustive within analysis, though. I very much have them, despite what your excessive need to over-explain what is actually, professionally, my field of study, and, within my free time, a strong skill and practiced skill of mine, says about my apparent lack in them.
Stakhanov wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:44 pm
obssesivelymoody wrote:To get academic, if I must, in media studies we have something called discourse analysis, where we look to uncover socially constructed meanings, and the relationships between those meanings, media, and social practices. Using Norman Fairclough's framework for analysis of media, we can start with the media itself, Felix's videos, tweets, and actions within those. Next we can look at the journalistic/media practices or portrayals of his media, which acts to either support or condemn him, as we've seen over the years several times. Finally, we look at the socio-cultural practices from the media and the portrayal of the media. In this context, we can see that part of Felix's media, "subscribe to pewdiepie", is being used to fuel alt right movements and hate crimes.
When you say "subscribe to pewdiepie" in general connotes a positive link between Felix and the alt-right because it's adopted and used by a fringe part of his audience to mean a specific thing, I think that's plain false. In general, I think subscribe to pewdiepie means exactly that: subscribe to the pewdiepie channel. I generally see it used as an expression of support towards pewdiepie, or as a joke meme that doesn't really connote any sinister motivations. I don't see it generally used as a dog-whistle for the alt right, though that is the meaning it can take on in relatively rare cases.
Perhaps I should clarify myself. Here's what I said:
When I say "the actions and words of the individuals here strongly connote one specific meaning", I don't mean that it does have one specific meaning. Nothing does, and I think that's strongly implied in all of this. What I'm saying is that in general from the way "subscribe to pewdiepie" has been adopted into alt right circles or Felix's lack of action to condemning the alt right in this situation and etc, it connotes a positive connection between the alt right and Felix.
Now, I am not implying in any way that the general meaning of "subscribe to pewdiepie" = alt right. If you read what I have written again, particularly the part in bold, I am speaking of the way the phrase has been appropriated, and how that has shifted the present meaning of it. Sure it's a meme, or a badge of support, but because of the way it has been appropriated there is a new branch of general meaning to it, one that has been used in a very high profile terrorist attack.
User avatar
Winston
flower crown
Posts: 704
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 7:35 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: USA

@Stakhanov

So wait, let me get this straight, you think that the guy who just killed 50 people, just nicely wanted to promote PewDiePie before he did so? Like that's all he meant by it? Nothing else? There was no other reason for him to say it? Like he was like, "You know what I should do, just to be a swell guy, promote my favorite youtuber because he too is obviously a swell guy." :sideeye:

Considering this is not the first time his name has been attached to such actions (alt-right) if he really hated it, why on god's green earth would he not be freaking screaming it from the rooftops? Any normal person would want to. People don't like to be mislabeled, and 'alt-right ally' is not a good label for any person who is not actually that. Just for a random example, say something like, "mansplainer" as a label, as a woman if I called a man that, he might get offended. Then will most likely let me know (probably at length) how much he feels like it is incorrect.

Being a "mansplainer" is nowhere close to as bad as being considered an alt-right ally (at the very least) to these alt right ass holes. Let me assure you the one time I have called someone a mansplainer I was PUT IN MY PLACE and told at length that he was not, in fact, mansplaining at me, and was highly offended that I even said such a thing.

Felix's reaction to the atrocity in New Zealand was nowhere in the realm of appropriate in normal society. A tweet? Then a few days later, when he hit 90 mil followers on yt and sent out another tweet. Isn't it coincidental that he hit another milestone so close to the tragedy? (I guess his fan in NZ really did do him a solid, how lucky). For him to even acknowledge it was questionable at the very least.

He may not have anything to do with the alt-right, but he certainly does not do enough to distance himself from them. Following multiple people within the community certainly does not look like he really has too much of an issue with their message. Not denouncing them and their actions left and right (especially now) does not seem like he cares too much about removing himself from their sights. One or two very basic statements years ago are not enough anymore.

There have been some wonderfully thoughtful and intelligent posts on this subject and I thank those of you who participated. If there are people who look at this thread and are on the fence about Felix they can have an educated and informed decision on whether or not they should be supporters of him or not. Some of the information was very eye-opening. :ribena:
actions speak louder than words
User avatar
Stakhanov
haru pillow
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:27 pm
Pronouns: he / him

I think myself, as well as everyone else reading this, understands that there is not a clear right or wrong, or binary way to analyze the media. That doesn't make your somewhat intense focus on it less perplexing in this context. Thanks for your concern for my critical thinking skills and need to be exhaustive within analysis, though. I very much have them, despite what your excessive need to over-explain what is actually, professionally, my field of study, and, within my free time, a strong skill and practiced skill of mine, says about my apparent lack in them.
My concern was not for your critical thinking skills or to explain your field of study to you. It's a point I found very relevant since I don't assume everyone who might be reading the discussion is as intimately familiar with discourse analysis and criticisms one can leverage to any academic approach. You might assume everyone understands there are multiple academic ways of analyzing the media and pewdiepies statement, I don't. Personally, I always appreciate it when somebody brings up an academic method and not only uses it as a framework to explain the issue at hand, but also points out the limits of it and offers competing explanations. I don't think that's a trivial matter. If you find that perplexing, excessive or read an apparent lack of skill into that, those are assumptions on your part and is are by now way intended by me.

Perhaps I should clarify myself. Here's what I said:
When I say "the actions and words of the individuals here strongly connote one specific meaning", I don't mean that it does have one specific meaning. Nothing does, and I think that's strongly implied in all of this. What I'm saying is that in general from the way "subscribe to pewdiepie" has been adopted into alt right circles or Felix's lack of action to condemning the alt right in this situation and etc, it connotes a positive connection between the alt right and Felix.
Now, I am not implying in any way that the general meaning of "subscribe to pewdiepie" = alt right. If you read what I have written again, particularly the part in bold, I am speaking of the way the phrase has been appropriated, and how that has shifted the present meaning of it. Sure it's a meme, or a badge of support, but because of the way it has been appropriated there is a new branch of general meaning to it, one that has been used in a very high profile terrorist attack.
I understood you well the first time. The present meaning is still, in general, different from the specific meaning that's adopted by the fringe. You can call the specific meaning and dog-whstle as used by the terrorist and extreme fringe "a new branch of general meaning", I don't see how that invalidates that there is a distinctly different meaning that is attached to it by the huge majority of people vs the fringe.

When you say "subscribe to pewdiepie" in general connotes a positive link between Felix and the alt-right because it's adopted and used by a fringe part of his audience to mean a specific thing, I think that's plain false
Finding my own inarticulate prose
Weirding out strangers and laughing at those
Jaundiced and jaded, postured and posed
Not that we’re special it’s just that we’re
Closing in on a place where we might get to be
Living real people regularly
User avatar
Stakhanov
haru pillow
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:27 pm
Pronouns: he / him

@Winston
So wait, let me get this straight, you think that the guy who just killed 50 people, just nicely wanted to promote PewDiePie before he did so? Like that's all he meant by it? Nothing else? There was no other reason for him to say it? Like he was like, "You know what I should do, just to be a swell guy, promote my favorite youtuber because he too is obviously a swell guy." :sideeye:
No. Not at all. I don't know how you can arrive at that conclusion if you've read my previous posts. The attacker clearly had an agenda to garner as much attention to his terrorist act as possible. That's why he livestreamed it. That's why he shouted "subscribe to pewdiepie" knowing he could reach both the fringe audience and stir controversy invoking the most popular entertainer on a massively popular platform. That's why his manifesto was chock full of internet culture references.
Considering this is not the first time his name has been attached to such actions (alt-right) if he really hated it, why on god's green earth would he not be freaking screaming it from the rooftops? Any normal person would want to. People don't like to be mislabeled, and 'alt-right ally' is not a good label for any person who is not actually that. Just for a random example, say something like, "mansplainer" as a label, as a woman if I called a man that, he might get offended. Then will most likely let me know (probably at length) how much he feels like it is incorrect.

Being a "mansplainer" is nowhere close to as bad as being considered an alt-right ally (at the very least) to these alt right ass holes. Let me assure you the one time I have called someone a mansplainer I was PUT IN MY PLACE and told at length that he was not, in fact, mansplaining at me, and was highly offended that I even said such a thing.
You start from a lot of assumptions here that I just don't share. "Any normal person would want to" Actually, I think if he's a decent and normal person he would be right to not insert himself into this tragedy right away. He might think it's distasteful to put the spotlight on himself, he might think the costs associated are to high, he might think it's better to be silent. I don't prejudge his motives. He might think the attacks by themselves had nothing to do with him and it only serves the divisive agenda of the terrorist to focus on that one slogan.
I don't think it's useful or fair to start labeling him as a white nationalist given the way he did distance himself from white nationalists after very similar events. I don't think you should gratuitously label anyone anything, if you want that label to have actual meaning and significance.

Felix's reaction to the atrocity in New Zealand was nowhere in the realm of appropriate in normal society. A tweet? Then a few days later, when he hit 90 mil followers on yt and sent out another tweet. Isn't it coincidental that he hit another milestone so close to the tragedy? (I guess his fan in NZ really did do him a solid, how lucky). For him to even acknowledge it was questionable at the very least.

He may not have anything to do with the alt-right, but he certainly does not do enough to distance himself from them. Following multiple people within the community certainly does not look like he really has too much of an issue with their message. Not denouncing them and their actions left and right (especially now) does not seem like he cares too much about removing himself from their sights. One or two very basic statements years ago are not enough anymore.
This is the whole crux of the debate as far as his personal accountability goes. I agree he could do more, I also think he has done enough at least to the degree that I don't belief he personally harbors sympathies towards white nationalists. As far as I'm aware and given the information I have now. Clearly you give a less charitable reading to his words and actions.
Finding my own inarticulate prose
Weirding out strangers and laughing at those
Jaundiced and jaded, postured and posed
Not that we’re special it’s just that we’re
Closing in on a place where we might get to be
Living real people regularly
User avatar
obsessivelymoody
emo goose
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:56 am
Pronouns: she/her
Location: canada

When something is being used by a group in extreme situations and in a an act of terror and hate, it takes on a new meaning, regardless of how many people use it, and how fringe the group is. I don't understand why you want to argue that. It's basic critical thinking and common sense. This is a massive and devastating issue. And a phrase was appropriated within that issue. And now that phrase holds a new, threatening meaning.
User avatar
Stakhanov
haru pillow
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:27 pm
Pronouns: he / him

Regardless of what you think of him and all the perspectives you can bring up about his responsibility as a youtuber, he's distanced himself from racism and white nationalism again in the latest video.
I think that you either have to claim he's straight out lying or have to be arguing in bad faith to believe that he is personally a white nationalist now.

12:44 "Fuck anyone who is racist, fuck anyone who is white nationalist. That's not what I'm about and that's not what this channel has ever been about". (the fuck is bleeped out because of the puritan values of youtube who are very keen on censoring swear words and breasts).

Finding my own inarticulate prose
Weirding out strangers and laughing at those
Jaundiced and jaded, postured and posed
Not that we’re special it’s just that we’re
Closing in on a place where we might get to be
Living real people regularly
User avatar
obsessivelymoody
emo goose
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:56 am
Pronouns: she/her
Location: canada

Okay, fair enough. I will say this: I don't think it's me being nitpicky or wanting too much to ask white men with large platforms and influence to do more than the bare minimum. It's a step in the right direction, sure, but I think given the severity of circumstances a dedicated video without crude language or at least an explanation for his actions (I find the fact that as soon as people started to point out the many many alt-right people he was following on twitter he unfollowed them and pulled that BTS stunt very sketchy) is warranted.
User avatar
Stakhanov
haru pillow
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:27 pm
Pronouns: he / him

I agree that it would be great if he would actively use his platform to give a voice to people who have more interesting things to say than Ben Shapiro or Elon Musk, guys who drown in privilege and really don't have much to contribute politically, as far as I'm concerned. But I accept that he doesn't really consider his channel as having that goal and that he might have some views I don't agree with. I don't hold him to any special standard that I don't also apply to other public figures. A lot of actors, musicians, celebrity personalities, ... whose work I enjoy have at times done or said things I find troubling. Even if I think their influence on society is terrible, I will usually give them the benefit of the doubt as people (to a degree) and consider that they are just normal (flawed) human beings, put on a pedestal by (celebrity) culture without necessarily having a clue about much I care and think about.
Finding my own inarticulate prose
Weirding out strangers and laughing at those
Jaundiced and jaded, postured and posed
Not that we’re special it’s just that we’re
Closing in on a place where we might get to be
Living real people regularly
User avatar
Stakhanov
haru pillow
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:27 pm
Pronouns: he / him

Pewdiepie just posted a short, strong video where he talks about his own motivations and reasons to not respond directly after the Christchurch shootings and gives some context for the "subsrcibe to pewdiepie" meme.



I think's it's very commendable of him to do this. The horror of political recuperation and "degenerates" (his words) using your channel in defense of vile things is after all something you'd want to stay away from as far as you can as an entertainer.
The video also confirmed some suspicions i had about his motives:
pewdiepie wrote:
“Out of the respect for the families and victims involved, I chose not to address it any further than on Twitter, where I disavowed the actions taken that day,”

“I just didn’t want to address it right away, and I didn’t want to give the terrorist more attention. I didn’t want to make it about me, because I don’t think it has anything to do with me. To put it plainly, I didn’t want hate to win.


I think that was very wise of him, and it shows he's a decent human being (in my book at least). He has done exactly what I hoped he would do: not play into the ego driven media craze the terrorist was looking to create with his spectacle, and have a sense of respect for the families and people in immediate suffering, by not injecting yourself into a debate.

He also reiterated the T-series vids were made in jest and once again denounced racism.
pewidiepie wrote:"This negative rhetoric is something I don’t agree with at all, and I want it to stop ... and to make it perfectly clear: no, I’m not racist. I don’t support any form of racist comments or hate towards anyone.”
I hope this convinces some to withdraw the quite serious allegation that Pewdiepie harbors white nationalist sympathies.
It's good to know that he affirms his worldview is not racist, however it did made me reflect on the much sadder and very real reality that in a lot of parts of the world, nationalism and ethnocentrism are becoming stronger forces in our societies. Spain and India come to mind as the ultra right party Vox is poised to make strong gains and Modi is flirting with nationalistic parties.
Finding my own inarticulate prose
Weirding out strangers and laughing at those
Jaundiced and jaded, postured and posed
Not that we’re special it’s just that we’re
Closing in on a place where we might get to be
Living real people regularly
User avatar
obsessivelymoody
emo goose
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:56 am
Pronouns: she/her
Location: canada

I mean, whatever, I will say I'm glad he said something about it, but you know people who are racist can say they aren't until they're blue in the face but that doesn't change their actions, and that doesn't change half hearted apologies, and it doesn't change continuous instances of racist actions. I'm not holding my breath for him to change completely, but if he does awesome, good for him. I still won't be a fan, but I welcome people to change. And even if he does it still doesn't make a difference with the fact that he has been used as an alt right poster boy, and his name has become a dog whistle. He let those pieces fall that way when he definitely could have acted sooner to make that not happen. But time and time again he did, and whoopty do he explicitly apologized for one thing.

I'm not sure why you want to defend him so dearly, maybe you feel some kind of kinship with him, but obviously we're going to have to agree to disagree here because I don't think one apology automatically makes him a good person.
Post Reply