YouTubers Are Getting Dragged For Not Supporting PewDiePie 100%

Following the Pewdiepie controversy from last week, a good deal of YouTube rallied around the Swedish star in an attempt to defend him against 'unfair' attacks by the mainstream media. A few high-profile YouTubers weren't quite as enthusiastic in their defence, which has led to some backlash.

Last weekend, video game YouTuber Jacksepticeye uploaded a level-headed video about the recent Pewdiepie controversy where he defended Felix Kjellberg as a person but critiqued the delivery of some of his jokes:

"What Felix did was very stupid, I think it was a very moronic thing to do, whether it was in context or not," Jacksepticeye said, arguing that it's very easy to lose control of how people interpret ironic jokes.

Referencing the most notorious of the jokes, in which Pewdiepie paid some people to hold up a sign that read "death to all Jews," Jacksepticye said he understands that Pewdiepie was trying to make a point about what's possible on freelancing website Fiverr — but said the video did not make the intention clear. The point was further muddied by the shock value of the joke, he said. Of course, just because he thinks a joke is in poor taste doesn't mean he thinks Pewdiepie is actually a bad person.

"I've known Felix very well in my personal life...we're pretty good friends," Jacksepticeye said. "I know for a fact he's not a Nazi, I know for a fact that he's not anti-Semitic person. This doesn't excuse what he did...but Felix himself as an actual person is decent."

"I can still be friends with someone, and not agree some of their actions that they do," Jacksepticeye said.

It's a mature reading of the situation that relies on nuance to make its point. Jacksepticeye doesn't outright condemn anyone, and instead addresses the way in which all the parties involved fumbled, YouTube and the Wall Street Journal included, while also holding his friend accountable for a joke even Pewdiepie admits went "too far."

And yet, the video has 227,115 likes and 62,199 dislikes as of this writing, a ratio that is unusual for Jacksepticeye footage (for reference, a video uploaded yesterday has 34K likes and 680 dislikes.) In the comments, people are largely arguing over whether or not Jacksepticeye's video is a "backstab" against his friend. Here's the top comment from a viewer at the moment:

Others in the top comments are more outright disgusted:

Where is this coming from? Well, it doesn't help that since that video was uploaded, YouTube's version of TMZ, Drama Alert, barraged Jacksepticeye over what he said. In a video viewed nearly 1 million times, YouTube host Keemstar spends ten minutes attacking Jacksepticeye. Multiple times, Keemstar reminds the audience that Jacksepticeye's career was kickstarted from a Pewdiepie shoutout, as if that alone insulates Pewdiepie from any and all criticism:

On Twitter, Keemstar stoked the fires even further, even outright asking Jacksepticeye to take down his post:

Jacksepticeye relented. The video now has the following pinned comment, where he apologizes for not defending Pewdiepie enough:

I've seen a lot of talk after the video went up and I'm trying to get an overall picture as much as I can. Some people agree with my video, some really don't and some agree with half of it. No one is wrong and I definitely appreciate the variety of opinions because as I said, I'm not right and I am open to discuss it further.

My main regret for this video was focusing too much on what Felix did and whether I agreed with it or not instead of elaborating on the media side of it all. I did this initially because I wanted to avoid the "youtubers vs the mainstream media" narrative that's been going around but I can see now that that wasn't a good idea. It made it seem like I was defending them more than Felix and I was throwing him under the bus. Absolutely not my intention. I think because I'm close friends with Felix that I thought I could criticise him a bit more and explain it to him if he disagreed but to the outside viewer this isn't apparent and looks like I just blasted him instead in front of a lot of people.

You can read the rest of the comment here.

On Twitter, Jacksepticeye also said he was "considering removing the video to avoid confusion." We reached out to Jacksepticeye about the situation, but have not heard back. Meanwhile, a good portion of the comments on the original video seem to understand that Jacksepticeye wasn't throwing anyone under the bus at all:

This peer pressure to wholeheartedly defend YouTubers against larger institutions has been ever-present after the Pewdiepie fiasco. YouTube's most famous vlogger Casey Neistat uploaded a video shortly after the Maker news broke out, where he also defends Pewdiepie as a person but still argues that, as YouTube's most visible creator, he has a responsibility to be a good ambassador.

"With an audience that size, it could provoke something that could skew the moral compass of a younger audience in a direction that really benefits no one," Neistat said.

The video has been viewed 3.3 million times, and has accrued 117,077 likes and 124,057 dislikes. Many of the comments angrily ask Neistat if he's still on YouTube's side, especially following the sale of his company, which has been interpreted by some as a 'sellout' move. The underlying (bullshit) worry being, is Neistat even a 'real' YouTuber anymore? (Whatever that means.) Has he forgotten where he comes from, has he forgotten the struggles of the average YouTuber?

Two days ago, YouTube entertainer H3H3 Productions uploaded an interview with Neistat where he picks his brain on the bickering:

"Would you say that the like to the dislike ratio is an accurate portrayal of the quality of that video?" H3H3 asked. "The dislike ratio was because of a negative video about what I had to say," Neistat responded. "When I watched the video for the first 24 hours, it was very positive. I felt like the jokes that [Pewdiepie] made were insignificant and stupid, but because he had such a spotlight on him, he's not able to make stupid jokes the way you and I can."

Neistat added an asterisk here, and clarified he did not approve of the mainstream media's "hit job" in taking some of Pewdiepie's jokes out of context. H3 responded by saying that he thought the video would have been received better if he had just acknowledged some of that complexity, but judging by the reception to Jacksepticeye's video, I'm sceptical that it would have made much of a difference.

People latch onto YouTube personalities hardcore, they get defensive and protective of them, as they might a friend. In this case, the larger debatable narrative being pushed around is that the media is out to get Pewdiepie, and so this debacle represents an attack on YouTube as a whole. That's why people are insisting on defending Pewdiepie's ill-advised jokes wholeheartedly: they feel they have to present a united front, for the sake of YouTube.

"If we let outside sources censor YouTube itself, then we as a whole will miss out on an amazing opportunity to define ourselves, to govern ourselves," Keemstar said in a Twitter video about Jacksepticeye's remarks.

 

"We are giving away our power, we are letting outside sources, we are letting guys with business suits control us — and we cannot allow that, ever," he continued. "We collectively, as YouTubers, have built this thing. It is ours, not theirs. If we decided as a community, as YouTubers...that Pewdiepie was wrong, then he would have a million dislikes, not a million likes...we have already decided that Pewdiepie has done nothing wrong, that he is innocent.

"The only ones that think he has done something wrong are outside forces, the mainstream media. Well the YouTube community isn't owned by the mainstream media. It's owned by us. Don't give the power away."

Heartfelt as it may sound, Keemstar is notoriously mercenary, and his remarks could easily be read as an attempt stir up a beef between Pewdiepie and Jacksepticeye's fandom for his drama-themed show. Then again, given the widespread peer pressure at play here, the fear that YouTubers are losing their grip on the platform feels palpable. Pewdiepie's situation has struck a raw nerve for many YouTubers, who feel that something big is changing.

What Keemstar fails to recognise, however, is that YouTubers have never been independent. YouTubers are at the mercy of an algorithm they don't fully understand and cannot control, and always have been. Google, the company that owns YouTube, is already corporate. To make YouTube videos at all, to make a living as a YouTuber, is to relinquish control. Pewdiepie, meanwhile, has continued to make plenty of videos, because nobody has actually censored him. If anything, what this incident has shown us is that YouTubers can't express dissent out of fear that everything will topple over if they're not careful.

WATCH MORE: Gaming News


Comments

    The f*** is wrong with these people. If my best friends do stupid shit I slap some sense into them. That's part of what friends are for...

    Why does anybody give a shit what someone on YouTube thinks about someone else on YouTube?

      I know. it's weird. Is it because I'm over 35? It just seems like a lot of concocted drama to me.

      I mean, seriously, who sits and watches hours of talking heads on youtube anyway?

      I don't see how it's news, or how anyone cares that much.

        I agree - I think its mostly the drama of the teenager? (PDP's average audience?)

        Now back to my side of youtube - lego and jet flybys :)

        I don't think age has anything to do with it, just replace youtube with hollywood and you have legions of people who care very deeply about people who will have no effect on their lives.

          But the youtuber is talking TO MEEEE! They're staring into the camera and everything!

        I put podcasts and other youtube vids on and listen to them while gaming. So do millions of others if you look at the views.

        Last edited 24/02/17 3:24 pm

          And that's cool man. Just stating my opinion. And you're the first person so far so express otherwise so I don't think I'm alone. What's funny is since I hit this post, there's been about 3 more 'youtube news' posts so you're being well serviced by the site.

            I guess so. I dont watch the youtube channels that are talked about on kotaku, it's just like saying because you occasionally switch the tvs input to tv channels you watch the most popular tv shows.

            But as always, everybody is free to have any opinion they like.

      YouTubers like PewDiePie are about making a million people feel like they have a personal connection. For a lot of fans it's more like a friendship and when the star doesn't live up to the expectations it feels like a really personal blow. Couple that with YouTube's comment system begging users to vent their frustrations and opinions and you've got a recipe for school yard drama.
      It looks crazy from the outside but it makes a twisted sort of sense.

        Not to me it doesn't. I guess I'm not twisted enough. Or too twisted :P

      Some people apparently just really miss stupid high school drama? That's what crap like this always reminds me of, when it hapens.

    Excusing PDP because he's popular is why a self confessed rapist is the USA President.

      Self confessed rapist?

        Molester is more correct. Or perpetrator of sexual assault.

          BUT HILARY EMAILZ

            But Hillary's husband..... *crickets*

              Wat? Bill wasn't running for office, and everything he did with Monica was consensual. Also Bill hasn't admitted to sexual assault off-mic several times, or admitted to sexual assault on Howard Stern's national radio show, or been charged by like 6-7 separate women in civil trials, or had his ex wife accuse him of beating her, or talked about how he wants to date his own fucking daughter. Also Hilary didn't do any of that shit either.

              Last edited 23/02/17 5:15 pm

                First point, Bill was accused for assaults when he was Governor of Arkansas.

                Second point, there was Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey. And his wife (Hillary) allegedly threatened them. There's a lot of allegations.

                However you seem to treat some as undeniable fact because you don't like the guy and others happy to turn the other cheek when you do.

                  @vaegrand or Lena Dunham molesting her sister....

                  There's a long list of "it's the side not the action/idea".

          "When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything …Grab them by the p***y … You can do anything."

          Alleged perpetrator of sexual assault would be more accurate but then again so is Bill Clinton....

            To me that quote just says 'yes, I'm a lizard man who has never had sex with a human female before'. I mean 'grab them by the pussy' is what the virgin says when he's trying to fit with the locker room talk.

              It's by no means the leading line of a guide to being a classy gentleman, but it still isn't "self confessed rape".

              I've heard worse from men and women.

        lol. Make something up? Multiple upvotes. Question someone about what they made up? Downvote.

        N.B. I'm no fan of Trump either, but come on people. Stick to the facts and lay off the hyperbole.

          Hyperbole is the weapon of the politicals I'm the great L vs R wars of 2016-TBA

          Yay for us all

          Did you forget the tape of him bragging about grabbing women by the genitals and getting away with it? How he said he can do anything to women? But his supporters refused to believe it and accepted his weak excuse of "locker room talk", because he is popular.
          If anyone else said it, they would have been thoroughly investigated. Women came forward and still people refuse to believe he could have done anything because of his popularity and you are still defending him, using his catch cry of "fake news".

            No I didn't forget, it's even quoted above. What he said there wasn't a confession of rape.
            Why do you think you can speak for me saying I'm defending in? I'm not. The only thing I'm defending is the correct use of words. Hyperbole and straw manning weakens the argument.
            FWIW I think he's a shit person who most likely has been guilty of sexual assualt.

        His taped confessions where he was bragging to a media personality. But people refused to believe any allegations or confessions because they like him, which is how people get away with abusing children.

          Bragging of consensual interactions.

          There is no correlation between his comments and abusing children. That's dishonest and hyperbolic.

        Yes, Trump was recorded confessing on tape to a media personality, but got away with it because he is popular.

          Consensual interactions.

            If you hear "and they let you do it" as consent, then you need a reality check. Women who get raped "let men do it" as well. They "let them do it", because they worry about what will happen to them, their life, their career, their reputation, or their well-being if they speak up.

            Anyone who attempts to excuse this as "consent" is just deluding themselves and/or being a biased obnoxious individual.

              No you need a reality check that there are people out there "that let you do it".

              You don't like the guy so it automatically is "rape".

              Stop verballing.

                verballing: attribute a damaging statement to (a suspect), especially dishonestly.

                No verballing has occurred from me. There is no question about the statement that was made by Trump.

                I also never said it was rape - so if anyone is guilty of verballing, it's you. I said what he was describing was not consent from the woman. I used rape as another example of the type of behaviour that occurs because a "woman lets a man do it" but it's not consensual. What that means is that he committed sexual assault.

                So here we have multiple examples of you being unable to understand the meaning of words or sentences. That includes the definition of consent.

                As such you should go do some research on what consent actually is, because it's clear that you don't know what it means. Here's a start: http://au.reachout.com/what-is-sexual-consent

                In future I would suggest making sure you actually understand a topic before you start debating on it.

                "You verballed him saying it was non-consensual. You don't know the women involved, you don't know the circumstances. You don't know SFA really..."
                Wrong. I quoted him. Directly from his words we know that he just grabbed women without their prior consent. His own words also indicate that he has done this to multiple women. Your personal attacks are irrelevant and indicate you don't have a legitimate argument to make.

                "You do know you don't like the guy so that means it most definitely was rape and self confessed rape."
                Again, you persist in saying I said it was rape even though I said no such thing. My opinion of the guy is irrelevant here when it is merely his own words.

                I have no disagreement with your comments above where you say these words don't suggest that he's a rapist or a child molester. They do no such thing. They do, however, indicate that he has engaged in sexual assault. Again, if you cannot accept this, you seriously need to go examine the law, because you are flat out wrong.

                You are the one verballing. You are the one repeatedly lying. You are the one engaging in ad hominem attacks. As such, you are the one without a legitimate argument.

                  How on earth do you get "without prior consent" from his comment? Again you are projecting.

                  "THEY LET YOU DO IT" is the direct quote. The.... direct..... quote.

                  "When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything …Grab them by the p***y … You can do anything." There is nothing there saying it was without consent other than your deepest desires that it was without consent.

                You continue to make points that I have demonstrated are irrelevant or invalid.

                You want the direct quote, do you? Here is the passage in full, because you've omitted some important context:
                "Trump: Yeah, that’s her, with the gold. I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
                Unidentified voice: Whatever you want.
                Trump: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

                Allow me to repeat this once more in the simplest words possible: "They let you do it" IN NO WAY IMPLIES, SUGGESTS OR PROVIDES EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CONSENT. This is further confirmed by "I don't even wait". By his own words he has given these women no time to provide their consent.

                He is saying that he will just start kissing this woman that he is just meeting for the first time. He is bragging that he has done this, AND MORE, to other women. That, categorically, and undeniably, is bragging about sexual assault.

                First you said I said that he raped someone. That was false. Now you are saying I want him to be guilty. That is also false. I would prefer wholeheartedly if he had not bragged about sexual assault.

                It is now overwhelmingly clear from your comments that you have absolutely no concept of what consent entails, even though I provided you with a link so you could clarify what it means.

                You have lied, misdirected, misquoted and attributed to me things which I have never said. Yet you still have the gall to say that *I* am the one who is being dishonest, even though you are the only one guilty of that in this discussion.

                Until you are willing to debate in good faith, and educate yourself about what consent is, I will not be continuing this discussion with you, because you are arguing from a viewpoint based on political ideology rather than fact.

    Welcome to the internet, where a bunch of entitled kids think everyone owes them something and it's OK have your own opinions as long as they aren't conflicting with their own twisted interpretations of reality.

    Last edited 23/02/17 3:42 pm

    The reason Youtubers are trying to defend this man is because they realise that the PC brigade could come for them next. The line of whats acceptable changes day by day on the whims of some outragous cry babies.

    I hate PDP so much. I hate his voice, his humour, his show. I really hate the "Quick cuts" style of editing, its lazy and cheap.However I will defend the right for him to do what he did. Freedom of speech is the most important thing for any civilisation, and this falls well within those bounds. Anyone who thinks what happened to him was justified is scum.

      Part of what happened to Felix is justified though. I'm not saying I agree with the WSJ article, because he's not antisemitic. It was a stupid joke, but he's not Hitler.

      But Disney and Google deciding to pull their business arrangements is 100% their prerogative. If they don't want to do business with someone whose content contains jokes about killing Jews, that's totally their right.

      inb4 "Disney and Google only pulled their business arrangements to avoid backlash from beta cuck fake news SJW cry babies :("

      Last edited 23/02/17 4:27 pm

        This is similar to my opinion on the matter as well, he made a shitty and inappropriate joke that no advertiser would want their content to be sponsoring, so Maker dropping him makes sense.

        It is the people who are trying to label him as a Nazi because of articles that say he is are a big over reaction to something he posted that's been taken way out of context. (not saying the out of context bit excuses him from what happened with his sponsors, it doesn't, it just isn't the proof that he is a Nazi like some people believe).

        Obligatory i don't watch PDP content but Felix always seemed like a level headed guy when interviewed outside of his on screen persona.

          Oh for sure, saying this makes Felix a literal Nazi is absurd. Doesn't make his "joke" any more appropriate or lessen the fact that he should be criticised for what he actually did (without calling him a Nazi), but he's not Richard Spencer.

            Not directly related to this, but have you noticed since the late election period and election itself there's been a surge of anti-political correctness/far right brigading on political and social articles here? I understand backlash against some over-the-top controlling behaviour from the far left, but it feels specifically coordinated at times.

            Makes me think of the GIYUS Megaphone tool that would alert pro-Israel people to articles found basically anywhere on the net that were either anti-Israel or had Israel-themed polls and encouraged them to go skew the site's natural representation with pro-Israeli/anti-article posts. It wouldn't surprise me if the same kind of tool existed for far right/alt-right/pro-Trump communities, might even have started as a pro-Gamergate alert tool.

              Yeah, definitely. I mean, I also understand that Kotaku and Giz have probably started posting more political and "PC" related stories, which has brought a lot of the usual suspects out of the woodwork, but there's also been a lot of new guest commenters along those lines. It wouldn't surprise me.

                At least two commenters I see here regularly have pretty much outed themselves as racist or anti-semitic by not being careful enough with their words while defending this guy or bashing the pro-punch-Spencer articles.

      Freedom of speech doesn't mean immunity to consequences. Also, you claim he has freedom to speak as he wishes but then decry others the ability to express their own views and instead call them outrageous cry babies and scum.

      Oh, so he's allowed the freedom to say what ever he likes, but no one has the freedom to criticise him. Gotcha... ...

      *sigh* yet another "freedom of speech" defender that doesn't even get what the friggin' term means. You know what freedom of speech is? The fact that that moron was /able/ to say and do whatever his fame-addled mind came up with. Publicly! To millions of impressionable young people. The fact that he has not been persecuted or silenced by the government. The fact that he was able to do this as part of a job from which he hugely profits. Read a fucking book on the true atrocities of violation of freedom of speech as it has happened in other countries to gain a little bit of perspective.

      No, what you are advocating here is freedom of consequence which as convenient as it is for those supporting the person in question, is itself infringing on the rights and liberties of other individuals and companies. So he's able to advocate genocide (because it was a joke lol1!!1!) but criticism is against his rights? Being exposed by the media is against his rights? Even if the media adds a nastier spin to it... don't you realise that doing so is their right under the very freedom of speech that you so passionately defend? And how is not within a company's lawful rights to dissolve a contract with an individual that is suspect of being damaging to the good name of the company?

      Last edited 24/02/17 10:32 am

    If we let outside sources censor YouTube itself, then we as a whole will miss out on an amazing opportunity to define ourselves, to govern ourselves [...] We are giving away our power, we are letting outside sources, we are letting guys with business suits control us — and we cannot allow that, ever.

    This is a comment from Keemstar in the article above, and it's incredibly blind. You give away your 'power' in exchange for money, in the form of sponsorships and advertising revenue. If you don't want that, turn off adsense on your videos and I guarantee nobody will try to silence you unless you break the law or Youtube T&C.

    But you won't do that, Keemstar, because you'd be nothing without that revenue. So instead, maybe accept that nothing is for free and if you want to make money then expect the people paying you to choose not to if they don't like what you're doing.

      Yep. PewDiePie let the guys in the suits control him the second he signed with them. This is just the first time they've seriously cracked the whip.

      I'm not saying that gives them the right to treat the YouTubers like crap but it's an important reminder to think about exactly who you're getting into bed with.

      Perhaps the best comment I've read on this 'debacle' yet. 'Freedom of speech' misguided (or malicious) advocates want to make this a thing of ethics when it is just a free market non-issue. If your attitude is damaging to the brand or good name of a company, you get fired. Happens all the time.

      Funnily enough, those 'ethics' critics often fail to see or outright dismiss any issue with the fact that a hugely popular figure advocated genocide with very little context, even if he was poorly attempting to be humorous.

    "It's a mature reading of the situation that relies on nuance to make its point" Yeah.. that'll always go down terribly with youtube commenters (or any internet commenters really).

    That was a very impressive video, shame there aren't more people like him in politics (or the media).

    WTF did I just start to read, then skim?

    What a load of rubbish
    "the video which has XX likes and XX dislikes!!" Oh noes.

    Now let's proceed to regurgitate YouTube comments...

    Scrolled up...written by Patricia Hernandez.

    Explains everything.

      to be honest im actually suprised its one of her articles because lately all the "outrage* articles have been coming from Gita Jackson

    Can we not have youtube drama written about on this website as if anyone gives a shit?

    Lol Kotaku commenters still with the Patricia Hernandez comments, so many salty, snowflake man babies around here

      But I thought it was the dirty SJWs that were snowflakes and screeched when someone said things they didn't like? My world has been shattered :(

        You could make yourself feel better by victimising some alphas with your leftist bigotry so they get all cucked ;)

          Ah yes, wannabe alphas who feel like they aren't as macho as they pretend to be get so upset when someone informs them that it's not nice to be a jerk.

          Wow, fascinating. Is this some kind of bot that trawls the front page of 4chan and attempts to make coherent-sounding sentences with the words found there? I have to say the result is almost human-like. (A rather dumb 13-year old human, but still!)

    I started to read the article, got bored and skimmed. When I saw the picture with the K I was hoping for a Ken M post but was disappointed.

    The like button doesnt mean like and the dislike doesnt mean dislike... it means different things to different people.

    Like meand you enthusiastically liked it, you habitualy like everything... or you clicked it when the person at the end reminded you to click it and you feel guilty.

    Dislike means you hate the video, the content, the topic, their politics, or hust the colour ofvtheir shirt.

    The disliked means less than 1% of the PDP bro army is going around protesting anyone who doesnt enthatically agree with PDP and they probably hitying dislike cause someone on reddit said hit dislike.

    Just take a look at the most disliked videos on youtube... its funny list of protest hate out of sheer ignorance or pack mentality... and PDP gas a pack mentality.

    I find it funny that they keep referring to it as mainstream media. Give Pewdiepies viewership I would tend to argue that he is mainstream media. Particularly within the millenial demographic. He has a hierer viewership than most of the publications they refer to as mainstream.

    Seems like groupthink is only good when it's the right kind of groupthink!

    This kind of attitude is prevalent in any sort of online discussion - an attempt to polarise the argument into "if you aren't with us 100% then you're the enemy!" You can't have moderate opinions anymore. Unfortunately, the perpetually outraged masses on both sides of this artificial political divide are guilty of the same exact thing - this is the new way for 'discussions' on the internet. When you've got one side saying someone is literally Hitler, it's only natural the other side will gravitate to the polar opposite.

    But of course, that's fine so long as it suits your narrative.

      You make a good and valid point but I must contest the "one side saying someone is literally Hitler" statement. Almost no one (yes, pretty sure there are some nutcases) is saying that Trump /is/ Hitler, especially not "literally". Hitler comparisons (or rather, comparisons to his mandate) are drawn to illustrate how things said or done reflect a similar mentality to the one observed in Hitler (e.g. enmity against the media, populist nationalistic rhetoric inciting a hostile divide between followers and non-followers, disdain for other countries/races/religions, etc.) No one (ok, almost no one) is saying that he's going to be genocidal or invade other countries or advocate racial purity.

      Funnily enough, 9 out of 10 times I see the words "Trump is literally Hitler" on the Internet, they come from a Trump supporter stating what they believe the opposition to be saying. Whether this is just hyperbole, misreading of what people are actually saying, or a malicious attempt to weaken the opposition's message by summing it up as a demonstrable, ridiculous falsehood needs to be evaluated case by case.

        Interesting point. One issue - I didn't mention Trump at all. This has nothing to do with Trump.

        I'm commenting on people try to polarise popular personalities into being far left nut jobs or alt-right super conservatives, especially if they fail to completely immerse themselves in a particular side's rhetoric. See also: JonTron.

        EDIT: But yes, fair point - I was endulging in some hyperbole of my own. I don't think anyone called PDP Hitler, but the insinuation was that he's an anti Semite with Nazist sympathies. Which was absurd.

        Last edited 24/02/17 12:55 pm

    Perhaps you should include in this newspiece Jack's own commentary on his video posted on Mr Repzion's video, reproduced below:

    "Lots of very good points in this video, some of which I didn't think of before or during the recording of mine. I can admit when I'm wrong or have said stupid things and I can admit that a lot of what I said in my video was either misguided, naive or just flat out wrong. I regret my video, I talked too much about one side of things without exploring the other further and all I can do now is admit fault and learn from this. I appreciate the clarification and points you brought up and will definitely take them on board."

    Here is the video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UN5pVH-Ufo

    So maybe people should think twice before saying this was a well rounded or mature video.

    One unimportant nobody talking nothing important about another unimportant nobody who talks about nothing. Both these guys will soon be as unwanted as last months pizza still sitting in the box on the bottom shelf of the fridge. And they have millions of 'followers'? Never realised there were so many nobody losers who want to see crap from nobodies on planet Earth, but I guess the stats don't lie.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now