PewDiePie attempts to distance himself from Christchurch Mosque shooter who pledged support (READ THREADMARKS)

[Dirtyshubb]

I think the solution that we are likely to see at some point is laws being put in place on the platforms themselves so youtube, Facebook etc.

They have been under a lot of scrutiny recently and there have been calls from politicians for them to sort their shit out so I can see fines being put in place for hosting content that perpetuates hateful ideas and speech.

Whether or not governments will actually want to do it though is a tougher question since both the US and UK have right wing governments with history of racism, same with news/media too.

 

[Deleted member 7051]

Just a few posts ago you were so disrespectful that you thought I needed to be reminded, in bold and italics, that people had died.

If you genuinely can't see how that makes you look to me, what message it sent to me, then I'm lost for words.


I've literally just said that proposing ideas while angry is not going to result in good ideas. It results in nonsense like your idea to let governments dictate your feelings to you. That's not a good idea and the absence of other ideas doesn't make it a better idea.

Click to shrink...

Who said anything about governments dictating your feelings? How did you even get from "fine a guy with massive amounts of influence if he doesn't openly discourage his fanbase from murdering people" to that?

Between these absurd conclusions from, I assume, a hypothetical extreme of an abuse of a power given specifically to combat online brainwashing and not offering any solutions of your own besides "we can think of something later", I'm not sure you're taking this very seriously.

We are in new territory here. Extremism is being bred online and nobody has yet begun to police it because nobody even knows how to. Companies like Facebook and Google aren't fit to handle this because they're motivated purely by money and we can't even get websites like 8chan shut down for what's going on there because apparently that'd also set a bad precedent.

I think people are only now beginning to realise how dangerous the internet can be when misused and that's something we need to get ahead of before governments start controlling the content we can access instead of shutting down the websites that spread it and I think forcing people like PewDiePie to take responsibility for the ideologies spread under their influence is a good first step and the easiest way to do that is fine them if they don't.

 

[Arttemis]

I'm not acting like an arsehole to anyone. The only aggressive tone here is yours and I'm sorry if your distrust of the government extends so far that you're opposed even to them having the power to fine influential people for misusing that influence, but it also sounds like you have no ideas of your own to combat this and are just sliding down a slippery slope so... there's nothing more to discuss.

Click to shrink...

I also think you're approaching this from the opposite end of reason. Impuning people for not saying certain things achieves nothing. Platforms that host the hateful rhetoric that PewDiePie has discretely laced within his thousands of hours of content should have repercussions. In America's capitalism controlled society, that repercussion only comes from advertising backlash via pulling money. In countries with laws against hate speech, they should have a mountain evidence to prosecute and demand delistment.

I think Google and social media platforms are shirking they're moral obligation of preventing the proliferation of hateful speech. Addressing that is as important as addressing the people themselves. The algorithms aren't working.

 

[bixio]

I think it was clear they were suggesting exactly what the said, which is that PewDiePie could be fined by the UK government for NOT making a video denouncing the attack (Edit: or rather denouncing the online culture he plays into, more accurately). Sorry, I just don't think that's possible in the law.

Click to shrink...

He made a Twitter and YouTube post about the attack, I think he avoided discussing it in the video because that's what the shooter wanted him to do to begin with.

 

[Deleted member 7051]

I also think you're approaching this from the opposite end of reason. Impuning people for not saying certain things achieves nothing. Platforms that host the hateful rhetoric that PewDiePie has discretely laced within his thousands of hours of content should have repercussions. In America's capitalism controlled society, that repercussion only comes from advertising backlash via pulling money. In countries with laws against hate speech, they should have a mountain evidence to prosecute and demand delistment.

I think Google and social media platforms are shirking they're moral obligation of preventing the proliferation of hateful speech. Addressing that is as important as addressing the people themselves. The algorithms aren't working.

Click to shrink...

Okay, I can get behind that instead. It ultimately achieves the same end goal, hurting these platforms in their wallets. The only real issue I can think of is whether or not you can actually delist channels like that or if it would only block that content in your country.

If we were able to hold companies to the same moral standards we hold ourselves, Google would refuse to monetise PewDiePie's channel until he did more to combat the extremist behaviour within his sphere of influence. That's the only reason I was considering legal intervention, since Google would never actually do that because of how profitable his channel is for them.

 

[Eoin]

Who said anything about governments dictating your feelings?

Click to shrink...

You did.

Despite trying to backpedal, your original suggestion, which is still there is:

You would "certainly back a hefty fine", based on the government "making up ways to fine people", for those people "NOT denouncing and discouraging mass shootings".

So you're explicitly saying you want people fined unless they publicly denounce mass shootings.

That's the government dictating the feelings that you should have and punishing people if they don't feel that way, or even if they do feel that way and don't say so publicly.

You assume this would be used on Pewdiepie to start with, but unless it was made retrospective (which is illegal under international law), it absolutely wouldn't. I can tell you who it would be used against - it'd be used against Muslim clerics and community leaders who didn't immediately and comprehensively denounce some act of Islamist terror. It'd be used against left-wing activists for not apologising for events in some far-off purportedly-left-wing country. It'd be used against minorities standing up for their rights - forcing them into public statements whenever a single one of them stepped slightly out of line from the government's perspective. It'd be used against striking workers, or against immigrants.

That's the inevitable result of what you want.

How did you even get from "fine a guy with massive amounts of influence if he doesn't openly discourage his fanbase from murdering people" to that?

Click to shrink...

How do you not?

The first thing you need to consider about any law is the full set of use cases where it might be applied. Not doing that results in the kind of bad law that you've suggested.

Between these absurd conclusions from, I assume, a hypothetical extreme of an abuse of a power given specifically to combat online brainwashing and not offering any solutions of your own besides "we can think of something later", I'm not sure you're taking this very seriously.

Click to shrink...

This is almost as bad as your post patronisingly telling me people had died.

I don't agree with your idea, because I think it's a stupid idea. That doesn't mean I'm not taking this seriously. I am allowed to think your idea is stupid.

This rush to do something dramatic just to be seen to be doing or saying something is how we ended up with the aftermath of 9/11 when the US embarked on a sequence of truly idiotic military actions because the people in power had to be seen to be acting. Make it big, make it seem purposeful, don't worry about the details, just do something - and you're doing the same thing. New laws written as an angry reaction will not fix things.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

He had the opportunity to make a video truly condeming racism, he could even do it in a politically correct way, but he knows that would make him lose followers. He is very important to racist lunatics because they felft like they belong in the mainstream through him. Not saying he is racist (though the difference in being one and enabling them is not important), but at least he is being greedy and selfish

Click to shrink...

Yup. And this ratchet draws him deeper and deeper with every incidence.

 

[Deleted member 7051]

You did.

Despite trying to backpedal, your original suggestion, which is still there is:

You would "certainly back a hefty fine", based on the government "making up ways to fine people", for those people "NOT denouncing and discouraging mass shootings".

So you're explicitly saying you want people fined unless they publicly denounce mass shootings.

That's the government dictating the feelings that you should have and punishing people if they don't feel that way, or even if they do feel that way and don't say so publicly.

You assume this would be used on Pewdiepie to start with, but unless it was made retrospective (which is illegal under international law), it absolutely wouldn't. I can tell you who it would be used against - it'd be used against Muslim clerics and community leaders who didn't immediately and comprehensively denounce some act of Islamist terror. It'd be used against left-wing activists for not apologising for events in some far-off purportedly-left-wing country. It'd be used against minorities standing up for their rights - forcing them into public statements whenever a single one of them stepped slightly out of line from the government's perspective. It'd be used against striking workers, or against immigrants.

That's the inevitable result of what you want.


How do you not?

The first thing you need to consider about any law is the full set of use cases where it might be applied. Not doing that results in the kind of bad law that you've suggested.


This is almost as bad as your post patronisingly telling me people had died.

I don't agree with your idea, because I think it's a stupid idea. That doesn't mean I'm not taking this seriously. I am allowed to think your idea is stupid.

This rush to do something dramatic just to be seen to be doing or saying something is how we ended up with the aftermath of 9/11 when the US embarked on a sequence of truly idiotic military actions because the people in power had to be seen to be acting. Make it big, make it seem purposeful, don't worry about the details, just do something - and you're doing the same thing. New laws written as an angry reaction will not fix things.

Click to shrink...

So now you're comparing fining celebrities who don't publicly denounce murder that can be linked to their own fanbase to starting a decades long war in a foreign country. I think I'm just going to block you now. As nice as it must be to maintain one's moral superiority by choosing not to do anything when people are murdered by extremist ideologies spread among online communities, doing nothing at all as you suggest just doesn't fly with me.

When you can't trust people or corporations to do the right thing, you force them to by threatening punishment if they don't. That's how laws were first implemented and unless you believe Theresa May is going to become the tyrannical ruler of a dystopian England that uses such laws to control your feelings like some social media version of Equilibrium, then there's nothing to be lost in tackling the issue of online "influencers" refusing to take responsibility for the kind of influence they're having on impressionable and exploitable individuals.

Whether that means you fine them directly or force ad companies to demonetise their content is irrelevant. The internet is a pretty lawless place that no government or corporation really knows how to handle, so how about we stop twiddling our thumbs and actually start treating radicalisation online the same way we treat it offline?

 

[Eoin]

So now you're comparing fining celebrities who don't publicly denounce murder that can be linked to their own fanbase to starting a decades long war in a foreign country.

Click to shrink...

No, and you know that, so you're just pretending to misunderstand my point.

I'm saying that jumping headlong into a reaction just to be seen to do something is really quite stupid, and giving an example of a previous time when it didn't work out. That's not a comparison of the outcomes. It's a comparison of the attitudes that led to those outcomes.

I think I'm just going to block you now.

Click to shrink...

Super. You do that.

As nice as it must be to maintain one's moral superiority by choosing not to do anything when people are murdered by extremist ideologies spread among online communities, doing nothing at all as you suggest just doesn't fly with me.

Click to shrink...

I'm not suggesting doing nothing at all. I'm suggesting that instead of formulating stupid ideas right now, we think carefully.

To be clear though, if someone did come up with an intelligent idea right now that would make a positive difference, I'd support that. However, you are not that person and your idea is not that idea. Your idea is stupid now, and later on when we have time to think carefully, it'll won''t get any less stupid.

That's how laws were first implemented and unless you believe Theresa May is going to become the tyrannical ruler of a dystopian England that uses such laws to control your feelings like some social media version of Equilibrium, then there's nothing to be lost in tackling the issue of online "influencers" refusing to take responsibility for the kind of influence they're having on impressionable and exploitable individuals.

Click to shrink...

So there's no problem giving governments massive control over people's actions and the ability to fine them for inactions, as long as we can be totally sure that the government will never consist of spiteful right-wing extremists who will abuse that power.

That's what you're fine saying?

Whether that means you fine them directly or force ad companies to demonetise their content is irrelevant. The internet is a pretty lawless place that no government or corporation really knows how to handle, so how about we stop twiddling our thumbs and actually start treating radicalisation online the same way we treat it offline?

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure what this question hopes to achieve. The idea of treating online radicalisation the same way we treat offline radicalisation is totally fine, but it's not relevant here. The way offline radicalisation is handled doesn't involve the police find people who haven't apologised and forcing them to make public apologies. Do you think it does?

 

[Prototype Viktor]

why don't you stop being a coward and say what you mean.

Click to shrink...

didn't even use their real account

 

[HypedBeast]

Agreed. I had to get off of Maximillian Dood for his association with Simmons, who regularly defends sexist weeb shit and makes fun of feminism on their streams and videos. It' s a shame too, as Maximillian seems like a great dude, and so does Kenny and Steve, but Simmons is a regressive bastard and I don't want to support something that partially supports him.

Click to shrink...

Wait, when has Simmons ever talked shit about feminism?

 

[Mifec]

'Subscribe to PewDiePie' carved into Holocaust Memorial Monument, Brooklyn

"Just memes"

 

[TastyBurger666]

It was subsequently removed, and PDP made a donation to the team that did it to cover the costs of removal.

Because, covering the complete story wouldn't fit the narrative you're selling, amirite?

 

[Deleted member 7051]

So there's no problem giving governments massive control over people's actions and the ability to fine them for inactions, as long as we can be totally sure that the government will never consist of spiteful right-wing extremists who will abuse that power.

That's what you're fine saying?

Click to shrink...

Damn, you're right. How will we ever stop right wing extremists from taking over the government? If only we had a system in place wherein the only way to acquire political power is to be elected by the people you intend to abuse.

It's a shame we have no such thing. Maybe then we'd be able to trust the people in power with the very power we allow them to have. Darn those public servants and their insistence on not serving the public.

Kinda amusing that you believe a law allowing the government to impose fines on public figures who encourage and enable ideologies that promote murder is the sort of thing that would be the downfall of the British people.

Do you have any idea what you can be fined, arrested or even imprisoned for? Do you also understand that if we didn't give the government powers we thought they might abuse, there wouldn't be a government at all?

These people are put into positions of power, power we give them, and they are entrusted with it. There'll always be minor abuses of power but what you're suggesting is a dystopia that'd never actually happen unless the government decided to do far worse than fine your favourite YouTuber for not saying murder is bad when his fans are murdering people.

I'm not sure what this question hopes to achieve. The idea of treating online radicalisation the same way we treat offline radicalisation is totally fine, but it's not relevant here. The way offline radicalisation is handled doesn't involve the police find people who haven't apologised and forcing them to make public apologies. Do you think it does?

Click to shrink...

Why isn't it relevant? Or is it just another solution you don't want to entertain because you'd rather retain some false sense of moral superiority? There's nothing morally superior about not doing anything and saying "I'd rather wait for someone else to come up with a solution I like" is exactly that.

Last time I remember the police dealing with a guy that radicalised young men, he was sentenced to five years and six months in prison. Obviously we can't suggest a punishment that severe without proof Felix is actively encouraging hate and inspiring violence, but considering I was only talking about a fine that's not really an issue. His fans went from defacing Holocaust memorials to mass murder, but I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on how extreme he expected his promotion of hate crime would go and a fine would be enough.

 

[Jecht]

It was subsequently removed, and PDP made a donation to the team that did it to cover the costs of removal.

Because, covering the complete story wouldn't fit the narrative you're selling, amirite?

Click to shrink...

How does that change the fact that it happened because of him perpetuating the meme?

He's still a Nazi, nice stanning tho. I'm sure he will notice you.

 

[derFeef]

It was subsequently removed, and PDP made a donation to the team that did it to cover the costs of removal.

Because, covering the complete story wouldn't fit the narrative you're selling, amirite?

Click to shrink...

I don't think you understand the problem in hand here.

 

[Arkanim94]

It was subsequently removed, and PDP made a donation to the team that did it to cover the costs of removal.

Because, covering the complete story wouldn't fit the narrative you're selling, amirite?

Click to shrink...

you










the point.

 

[Deleted member 41183]

It was subsequently removed, and PDP made a donation to the team that did it to cover the costs of removal.

Because, covering the complete story would be like a narrative move, amirite?

Click to shrink...

The point is that this is the kind of fan base he has cultivated for years, despite what he tries to say for the last 2 minutes in this video after ranting about the media and Brie Larson for 10 minutes (and also "accidentally" leaves in the start of another anti-media rant at the end of this piece too). He knows exactly what he is doing.

 

[Eoin]

If only we had a system in place wherein the only way to acquire political power is to be elected by the people you intend to abuse.

Click to shrink...

That doesn't prevent a government from lying about its intentions, and it doesn't prevent a government from abusing its powers on a minority of people.

You're hardly saying you trust the current UK government not to abuse this kind of power? And all future UK governments?

Do you have any idea what you can be fined, arrested or even imprisoned for? Do you also understand that if we didn't give the government powers we thought they might abuse, there wouldn't be a government at all?

Click to shrink...

Yes.

Was there a point to these questions or did you just feel that it had been too long since you wrote patronising shite and felt the uncontrollable need to do it again?

Why isn't it relevant? Or is it just another solution you don't want to entertain because you'd rather retain some false sense of moral superiority? There's nothing morally superior about not doing anything and saying "I'd rather wait for someone else to come up with a solution I like" is exactly that.

Click to shrink...

Nothing I do is due to any kind of moral superiority. I just don't want a stupid idea put in place, and your idea is stupid. Perhaps if you had time to think about it, you would come up with a better idea that isn't stupid, and I could support that. Perhaps someone else could come up with a better idea right now, and I'd support that too.

Again, I'm not saying do nothing. Your perception that that's what I'm saying comes from your refusal to consider that my belief (that your idea is stupid) is a totally valid one.

As for why the treatment of offline radicalisation is irrelevant, as I've already explained, no country that I'm aware of treats offline radicalisation in the way you're suggesting. None of them seek out people who haven't issued denunciations and force them into public apologies.

Last time I remember the police dealing with a guy that radicalised young men, he was sentenced to five years and six months in prison. Obviously we can't suggest a punishment that severe without proof Felix is actively encouraging hate and inspiring violence, but considering I was only talking about a fine that's not really an issue. His fans went from defacing Holocaust memorials to mass murder, but I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on how extreme he expected his promotion of hate crime would go and a fine would be enough.

Click to shrink...

There is no problem with laws against radicalisation, as long as they're well-written.

You, however, are specifically proposing laws that - in your own words - the government makes up to target people not apologising for something. It's not radicalisation that you are punishing, it's a lack of an apology. I realise that you are trying to backpedal on this because your recent posts bear little relation to your original idea, and now you're trying to pretend that it was all about radicalisation all along, but it wasn't: your target was the lack of apologies, and that's stupid.

 

[Icemonk191]

It was subsequently removed, and PDP made a donation to the team that did it to cover the costs of removal.

Because, covering the complete story wouldn't fit the narrative you're selling, amirite?

Click to shrink...

You probably thought you had a real "gotcha" moment there didn't you?

 

[Jebusman]

It was subsequently removed, and PDP made a donation to the team that did it to cover the costs of removal.

Because, covering the complete story wouldn't fit the narrative you're selling, amirite?

Click to shrink...

Weren't you in the BBC thread trying to handwave their "both sides" position, thinking it actually accomplishes anything to give literal hate mongers a platform? I'm not sure you're coming at this with the best of intentions.

 

[Atisha]

Have we clearly defined the crime? Which laws are boken, and what is the impact? What evidence?

 

[Uno Venova]

'Subscribe to PewDiePie' carved into Holocaust Memorial Monument, Brooklyn

"Just memes"

Click to shrink...

It's pretty red down there, not even surprised unfortunately.

 

[fierrotlepou]

It's pretty red down there, not even surprised unfortunately.

Click to shrink...

What do you mean with "pretty red down there"?

 

[Deleted member 2652]

What do you mean with "pretty red down there"?

Click to shrink...

conservative

 

[L Thammy]

It was subsequently removed

Click to shrink...

...were people just going to leave it there if not for PewDiePie's goodwill? I don't get how this fits into the "you're leaving out details to suit your narrative" narrative.

 

[L Thammy]

Have we clearly defined the crime? Which laws are boken, and what is the impact? What evidence?

Click to shrink...

we have defined the crime. pewdiepie is going to go to jail

Realistically, I don't know if he could be charged for this; he's generally avoided expressing these opinions himself in favour of signal boosting and directing to others. The most naked he's been has been his slutshaming during his feud against a streamer he called a "thot".

 

[Pancakes R Us]

Not sure if this has been posted:

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/1...d-pewdiepie-sprayed-at-oxfords-cheney-school/

Racist graffiti has appeared in Oxford, U.K. mentions 'sub to Pewdiepie'.

 

[Deleted member 2652]

just memes tho

 

[WieDerrickWie]

'Subscribe to PewDiePie' carved into Holocaust Memorial Monument, Brooklyn



"Just memes"

Click to shrink...

Not that it isn't tasteless or stupid, but wasn't that just chalk, and it wasn't a Holocaust memorial but a memorial to those who served in World War II?

 

[Uno Venova]

What do you mean with "pretty red down there"?

Click to shrink...

Mostly Russian neighborhood. Voted red last election.

 

[Mifec]

Not that it isn't tasteless or stupid, but wasn't that just chalk, and it wasn't a Holocaust memorial but a memorial to those who served in World War II?

Click to shrink...

I copied the title verbatim from my fav place in the world Chapo Trap House, if it's wrong then they were prolly too busy having sex or talking about gulaging CEOs to check. I apologize if the title is misleading but since I was doing the same I couldn't verify it at the time.

 

[Siresly]

Not that it isn't tasteless or stupid, but wasn't that just chalk, and it wasn't a Holocaust memorial but a memorial to those who served in World War II?

Click to shrink...

Yes.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemcneal/world-war-2-memorial-graffiti-pewdiepie
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loc...-Deface-Brooklyn-WWII-Memorial-506782531.html

 

[SunKing]

'Subscribe to PewDiePie' carved into Holocaust Memorial Monument, Brooklyn

"Just memes"

Click to shrink...

And not just once, but twice.

*barfs*

 

[Lo-Volt]

Mostly Russian neighborhood. Voted red last election.

Click to shrink...

Cadman Plaza is in Downtown Brooklyn/Brooklyn Heights and I don't think that area's very Republican.

 

[Deleted member 41183]

Not that it isn't tasteless or stupid, but wasn't that just chalk, and it wasn't a Holocaust memorial but a memorial to those who served in World War II?

Click to shrink...

"just" chalk. "just" words. "just" memes. Bro.

 

[Uno Venova]

Cadman Plaza is in Downtown Brooklyn/Brooklyn Heights and I don't think that area's very Republican.

Click to shrink...

Hmm, thought it was in Brighton Beach/Sheepshead.

 

[WieDerrickWie]

"just" chalk. "just" words. "just" memes. Bro.

Click to shrink...

Don't act like I'm downplaying it. I merely pointed out the inaccuracy. I called it stupid and tasteless in the exact post you quoted.

 

[Lo-Volt]

Hmm, thought it was in Brighton Beach/Sheepshead.

Click to shrink...

I'm sure there's a memorial there! But this one is in the parks surrounding the courts there. (And not all of southern Brooklyn is red to be fair - Bay Ridge is a tough district because of the old guard and it's drawn with Staten Island 😭)

 

[Messofanego]

This this this.

Click to shrink...

He knows...he knows!

 

[newmoneytrash]

It was subsequently removed, and PDP made a donation to the team that did it to cover the costs of removal.

Because, covering the complete story wouldn't fit the narrative you're selling, amirite?

Click to shrink...

all these dipshits care about is the reaction and not the cause

 

[DarthBuzzard]

Anyone who says this is Pewdiepie's fault or blames him in any way needs to be banned from this forum.

 

[Deleted member 16876]

Anyone who says this is Pewdiepie's fault or blames him in any way needs to be banned from this forum.

Click to shrink...

Please tell me I am blind and read wrong.

 

[DarthBuzzard]

Please tell me I am blind and read wrong.

Click to shrink...

You didn't read wrong. This is no different than blaming cars because the person drove a car, or blaming the sky because he liked looking up at the sky. It's nothing but a distraction, and it's amazing (and saddening) that people believe he is responsible.

All this does is takes away attention from what really matters most, and could potentially deal mental damage to Felix.

 

[Weiss]

You didn't read wrong. This is no different than blaming cars because the person drove a car, or blaming the sky because he liked looking up at the sky. It's nothing but a distraction, and it's amazing (and saddening) that people believe he is responsible.

Click to shrink...

It's about PDP's engagement in wider online radicalization.

All he has to do is come out and say "fuck people who do that" but that's his audience.

 

[Deleted member 18360]

You didn't read wrong. This is no different than blaming cars because the person drove a car, or blaming the sky because he liked looking up at the sky. It's nothing but a distraction, and it's amazing (and saddening) that people believe he is responsible.

Click to shrink...

Pewdiepie isn't an inanimate object. I presume that unlike a car his actions have some reason or motive that can be analyzed and criticized.

And we don't believe he's responsible, we believe he has responsibility. Which he does, whether he continues to fail to acknowledge it or not.

 

[Deleted member 16876]

You didn't read wrong. This is no different than blaming cars because the person drove a car, or blaming the sky because he liked looking up at the sky. It's nothing but a distraction, and it's amazing (and saddening) that people believe he is responsible.

Click to shrink...

There has been countless instances where he said racist shit, exposed his fans to alt right figures and ideologies. If this doesn't tell why he is at fault (like the many people who spread this garbage ideology) then there is no hopes for you.

He has a platform with millions of fans and if one of them learned this bullshit from him and other people like him and committed terrorist attack then he is absolutely at the very least partially responsible for this

 

[Innuendo84]

Anyone who says this is Pewdiepie's fault or blames him in any way needs to be banned from this forum.

Click to shrink...

It's absolutely insane people are blaming PewDiePie for this. I'm flabbergasted with some responses on this forum or in the media.

 

[sph3re]

I'm fairly certain Felix has the same political views as Petterson and Shapiro.

Click to shrink...

If you wanted to defend Felix, why the actual hell would you start your post off with this, lmfao

Good grief, you have me laughing IRL

 

[DarthBuzzard]

Pewdiepie isn't an inanimate object.

And we don't believe he's responsible, we believe he has responsibility.

Click to shrink...

So you're saying he should delete his YouTube account and basically never post again, because being famous causes people to use his name in cases like this?

The whole T Series vs Pewdiepie thing is a running joke that might as well be any other joke ever made in the history of the world. Should we now ban all jokes, ever?