Why not use something like, "Death to all puppies" or "Death to all kittens"? That's a ridiculous thing to have someone hold up. The statement he chose was not ridiculous.

> If I'm not allowed to talk about tragedies

The sign didn't say, "The Holocaust was bad". The sign said, "Death to all Jews". That's not a tragedy, that's a hateful statement.

And it wasn't the first time...

According to WSJ, Pewdiepie has posted nine videos that include anti-Semitic content since August. Three, the one from January 11 and two others from January 17 and January 22, have been taken down. One of those depicted a man dressed as Jesus Christ saying, “Hitler did absolutely nothing wrong.”

"Ha ha ha -- So edgy -- I'm going to tell my 50 million subscribers -- many of whom who are young children that Hitler did nothing wrong -- Death to all Jews -- Can't you take a joke! SJWs!"

I'm sure it's a complete coincidence that the virulently anti-Semitic Daily Stormer has a special PewDiePie section:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h3f6YV...

If you spend any time in the darker parts of the internet(like 4chan), you learn that a lot of what trolls do is "for the lulz" and nothing else. My guess is that PewDiePie or his writers frequents one of those sites and so thinks nothing of it. Personally I think it's distasteful and there should be reprocussions, but cancelling his show is a PC overreaction IMO, though I understand many don't know the culture of 4chan and such sites, so I could see why they would disagree.

His intent is only known to him, however his repeated focus on this particular topic leads me to believe that it is of deep importance to him. Its not particularly funny or insightful or troll-ish. It doesn't frustrate people and make them growl. It makes people recoil back and remember a time when humanity was at it's worst. The only people laughing and patting him on the back are anti-Semites. Barring any other commentary from him on his motives, that would lead me to believe that he shares views with those people.

Why is it a PC overreaction?

If a parent sees their 8 year old watching they will get upset. They will look into it and find out Disney is supporting the show. Disney now has to deal with pissed off parents who can say (justifiably) they support anti-semitic content.

This is primarily a children's entertainer.

I believe it is an overreaction because I highly doubt he intended to spread hate speech, but just wanted to troll and be inflammatory. I say that because the phrase he said is common on many sites like 4chan. Like I said, I feel there _should_ be reprocussions, but cancelling his show is too much.

> I highly doubt he intended to spread hate speech, but just wanted to troll and be inflammatory

He wanted to do the latter by doing the former. It's not like he didn't realize that the mechanism by which the shock he sought was being created was the message of hate the words would convey.

Something is only hateful when it's actually said or done with hate. It actually requires hate. You can say you took offense to something, doesn't mean it was hateful. in this case it was an absurd joke for shock value. That's the opposite of hate.

You've left out a lot of context there.

No, he/she didn't. They addressed the above comment.

If the Pie's point was to show they you can pay people to do dumb things there are other ways to do that without being blatantly offensive.

>>> If I'm not allowed to talk about tragedies

>> The sign didn't say, "The Holocaust was bad". The sign said, "Death to all Jews". That's not a tragedy, that's a hateful statement.

^ This response is spot on.

Except the last part, which as I said, is missing a lot of context.

Hate is Content times Context.

If there is no Context then there is therefore no Hate.

A mere text is not a hateful statement, text has no intentions or feelings, it cannot hate. The person writing the text or creating the text can.

That's absurd.

If you want your statements, whether in text or verbal, to be taken in the correct context, it is up to you as the originator of those statements to provide and ensure the context. If you don't you're at the whim of other people when they do. If you can't ensure that you can adequately provide that context, you shouldn't give that statement. Nobody exists in anyone else's head. Make definitive, thoughtful statements instead of juvenile ones aimed for shock value and this doesn't happen.

Pewdiepie went for the shock value and the views, and it contractually bit him in the ass.

> A mere text is not a hateful statement, text has no intentions or feelings, it cannot hate. The person writing the text or creating the text can.

Do you really feel that people don't understand that words and text are not sentient beings? Sure, words cannot actively hate, but they can be hateful.

If words are hateful they must be so with adequate context.

So are you arguing that there was a lack of context, or lack adequate context?

Either way what I said address both, and your argument holds no water.

The comment presented words without context then claiming it was hateful, my argument holds.

"silly"

Hysterical nonsense about political correctness (hahaha jew jokes... Wait guys, why aren't you laughing?) aside, live by the advertising, die by the advertising.

Brand advertisers do not want to appear within a mile of people making jew jokes. If your living is through advertising, you better figure that out with a quickness.

protip: maybe don't crack jokes about jews or black people, then whine that they seemed not to find it funny.

Also, fyi, freedom of speech doesn't equal people have to have the reactions to my or others' speech that I prefer.

Can you reframe your first sentence based on the fact that a sign with "Death to All Jews" was used? I don't understand the word "actually", is it to clarify that he only holds artistic feelings relating to this content he made? I don't see how his post-mortem intent negates the actuality, which is that people took offense to the poor taste, as you've noted, of the stunt.

The companies have no obligation (Aside from contractual) to work with him. He made content that they deemed to be bad enough to end their relationship, that's on him, no matter the intention.

"Can you reframe your first sentence based on the fact that a sign with "Death to All Jews" was used? "

Yes. it's like saying someone is racist for having a picture of a racist sign in an article about racism in America. Context is everything and removing it to intentionally discredit someone and destroy their livelihood reminds me of actual Hitler tactics. The self-proclaimed 'anti-fascists' are the actual fascists.

"The companies have no obligation (Aside from contractual) to work with him. He made content that they deemed to be bad enough to end their relationship, that's on him, no matter the intention."

This is a dangerous path as well. Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion?

Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary?

Sure, they aren't violating any laws. But we are creating an extremely divisive culture where opposing viewpoints can't be expressed without fear of reprisal and the result is violence.

A few years back, I remember when a few companies opposed supporting birth control and abortions and didn't want to pay for it through employee healthcare plans.

There were so many people (including here on HN) claiming that companies have no rights and they shouldn't even be given the choice.

Now that it supports your political opinion, companies have the right to not do business with anyone they wish.

So hypocritical.

> This is a dangerous path as well. Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion? Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary?

If their actions potentially harm the business, then sure.

> A few years back, I remember when a few companies opposed supporting birth control and abortions and didn't want to pay for it through employee healthcare plans. There were so many people (including here on HN) claiming that companies have no rights and they shouldn't even be given the choice. Now that it supports your political opinion, companies have the right to not do business with anyone they wish.

How is that in any way similar? PewDiePie is an entertainer associated with childrens programming. Anti-Semitic statements are actively harmful to Disney's (ironic given their history) reputation. So they fired him.

This is an entirely reasonable course of action.

Hobby Lobby sticking their nose into their employees health because they are a bunch of religious zealots is a very different situation.

> This is a dangerous path as well. Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion?

> Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary?

If they can give a good reason like it influencing public perception and damaging business, then yes.

At a federal level, they wouldn't need to provide a good reason. Political affiliation is not a protected class, and therefore has no protections against at-will termination.

This may vary state by state, depending on what their laws are.

First of all that might be illegal - for example firing a pregnant person (because you are a 'conservative' and think that there shouldn't be a maternity leave). But in Pew's case it's hard to judge what's the worse PR - his unfunny videos or Google letting him go (for him having a different opinion)

>Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion?

Absolutely. Are you suggesting that a liberal employee should not be allowed to quit an anti-abortion company?

>Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary?

Absolutely. Should a Hillary supporter not be allowed to quit a company that supported Trump?

>I remember when a few companies opposed supporting birth control and abortions and didn't want to pay for it through employee healthcare plans.

By law, all health insurance policies are required to provide this coverage. Those companies can still be vocally against abortion, but they still have to comply with the law. What if someone is religiously against traffic lights? Then their options are to follow the law or don't drive. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.

> Are you suggesting that a liberal employee should not be allowed to quit an anti-abortion company?

Quitting is different from firing. There is a huge power differential between an employee and an employer in the US. YMMV in the EU.

That said, should an employer be able to fire an employee for political views? Depends. IMO, if the business is separable from the politics, then no.

Politics don't matter if you make brake pads or run a hobby shop. They do matter if it's a brand based around personality.

>There is a huge power differential between an employee and an employer

Usually yes, but not necessarily. Some highly skilled employees are absolutely vital, to the extent that them abruptly quitting would be more catastrophic for the employer than for them. Think database admin, C-levels, etc.

>Politics don't matter if you make brake pads or run a hobby shop.

I disagree. Even in a hobby shop, someone vocally espousing views that are abhorrent to their coworkers (like death to Jews for example) is going to be a drag on morale and productivity. If I have an employee who is spewing antisemitism and I have Jewish employees who don't want to listen to that garbage at work, should I not be able to fire them? My Jewish employees should just have to deal with it or quit?

> Some highly skilled employees are absolutely vital, to the extent that them abruptly quitting would be more catastrophic for the employer than for them. Think database admin, C-levels, etc.

The employee should still have a right to quit, barring some bizarre contractual obligation. That an employee becomes absolutely indispensable is a problem for the owner to solve, not the employee.

> someone vocally espousing views that are abhorrent to their coworkers

That's not about the politics, that's about harassment, which is a firing offense, usually. There are many situations that could go either way, so it's not a cut-and-dried rule.

I certainly would not say you could fire a Muslim for being Muslim, or a Jew for being a Jew or a Christian for being a Christian, if those particular attributes didn't have an effect on the work being done. Racists usually fall into that class where you don't know they're a racist until there's a problem you can and have to take action on.

> By law, all health insurance policies are required to provide this coverage. Those companies can still be vocally against abortion, but they still have to comply with the law.

Not for nothing, but as it shook out, Hobby Lobby (one of those companies that didn't want to pay for abortion through employee healthcare plans) won their suit, so while your argument may hold merit, it excludes quite a bit of the nuance tendered by reality.

> By law, all health insurance policies are required to provide this coverage. Those companies can still be vocally against abortion, but they still have to comply with the law. What if someone is religiously against traffic lights? Then their options are to follow the law or don't drive. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Hobby Lobby won. It's disgusting but companies now have the right to regulate their employees health options because of religious freedom.

I'd like to ask you to refrain from calling me (and others like or against me) a hypocrite without understanding my viewpoints, nor making any attempt to.

Nobody has to like your opinion, nor do they have to associate with you if they don't like your opinion.

Your argument puts the onus on the person being offended to change their stance and accept offense. The system works when either side can choose to associate with the other only if the y want to.

and out of all the ridiculous things that could have been done he paid for them to hold up a "death to all jews sign".

How is that not anti-semitic?