Respect the Dead

"pewdiepie was always kinda racist - but now he's a hero to the nazis" wait a minute. no! you changed it!? come on, media. what are you doing? what does it say now? "pewdiepie's fall shows the limits of 'lol just kidding'"! hey

alright "emma grey ellis" may i just say that: if you're gonna call someone "a hero to the nazis", you may wanna double-check if that's true or not. because afterwards you can't go "lawl just kidding". the amount of cherry-picking that the media came out with after this whole thing to prove this narrative that i am somehow that was ...

... beautiful. please keep doing it. it's hilarious. vox media posted this un-ironically "arguably similar to nazi fashion: recently he has been wearing himmler style glasses and sporting a fashy (slang for fascist) hitler youth haircut." vox. you got me. damn it. i didn't want to admit this. i didn't wanna talk about this.

i love korean fashion. i love k-pop. that's why i dyed my hair. i'm going through a mid-life crisis here, okay? i wanna be a k-pop star. j.k. rowling is calling me a fascist. i don't... why? i don't... i guess she read it on a... she read it off a headline... and sorta went with it well... i read on an online article

that you once said in an interview that you found dressing up as a nazi arousing. i read that on an online website, so it must be true. right? j.k.? so.. i made the apology video where, i thought at least, was from the heart explained the situation and i admitted that i didn't do everything- like, i'm not guilt-free in this situation by any means. it was... it was met by... just the warmest positivity from the internet.

an... and anyone that i think saw it... it was just amazing and i owe you guys my biggest thanks for all the support that i got from that video. however, the media wasn't as impressed. they- they kinda stuck with their narrative. "pewdiepie half-heartedly apologizes, calls media 'motherfuckers'" "pewdiepie's 'apology' for nazi jokes shows that he still doesn't get it" "trump and pewdiepie are using the same playbook" so we basically went from "pewdiepie is a nazi" to "pewdiepie is trump". we'll get there one day, media.

i'm sure we'll get there one day. and i wanna point out, not all media. okay? i've seen more and more balanced articles come out about this situation. even though it seems pretty dead at this point. the whole situation, this is a testimony of old media not understanding youtube. the fucking senior editor of wall street journal *laughs*... the senior editor of wsj tweeted:

"man, this pewdiepie video is looooong." i'm..i'm sorry, mike. i'll try and cut it down next time a little bit for you, so you don't have to spend so much time. doing your ... journalist research, i'll.. maybe i'll add a little meme. i'll add a little meme. maybe that will make it more interesting for you. i don't... i don't know... senior editor, huh? how about that...

let's get into the wall street journal thing. there's one thing that i wanted to talk about, that i didn't really do in my last video, which was the fact that wall street journal went to the brands that i work with before they came to me for a comment. i know this because they didn't just talk to disney and youtube.

it shows to me that they were just after making the strongest headline and the strongest story that they could get without any regards of what kind of damage they would do in the process. i mean, why... why would wall street journal care about minimizing harm? it's not like it's one of the four major sections in the journalism code of ethics. i... i... i.. i

i mean, why would wall street journal care about that? i don't understand. they wanted that headline - they got the headline. "wall street journal should've tried to get a response from me directly to begin with. not going to brands i work with first. proves to me their maliciousness" christopher mims of the wall street journal tweeted back at me: "demonstrably false, but anyway welcome to our post-truth age." he says: "nothing -- absolutely nothing -- gets printed in the wall street journal without an attempt to reach a mentioned subject for comment". so, seems fair, right?

but then he goes and says: "i have no idea about the chronology." which was my fucking point! christopher mims, you demonstrated yourself false. so, welcome to the post-truth age. the other thing that i had a problem with, which i already brought up... i don't.. i don't think i need to elaborate on it. which is ... the context,

or lack of context, i think in the video there was one piece of context out of five in total. so... if you think that's a balanced way of doing journalism, you tell me. i have a big problem with the whole thing in general because, this whole thing wasn't a problem until it was brought up.

because my audience understands they were jokes. they weren't actually doing anyone any harm. but the way the wall street journal defended this was that neo nazi web sites were supporting me. calling it "the #1 pewdiepie fan-site". which i obviously had no idea about. i don't, believe it or not, i don't go to neo-nazi websites.

the wall street journal condemns me for using "posts". they don't call it jokes. they literally said that the fact that i used adolf hitler and the fact that i used nazi imagery; that's bad enough. it seems,

right here, that you are guilty of the same thing. oh, look! there is hitler! this looks like nazi imagery to me! someone start the press! i think we have a "scoop"! it turns out the neo-nazi website have changed their mind.

right now they are the #1 wall street journal fan-site! interesting! i don't believe wall street journal has made a statement, condemning these websites. so they must be a nazi-supporting website now. i think we need to talk to their sponsors about this. not wall street journal themselves. or does context matter? i don't know.

here's their sponsors! how about that? guess we need to talk to them first. i realize how childish i sound. it's just to illustrate this point. and if you didn't think it could be any more unethical, or any more stupid: one of their journalists, ben fritz,

it came out that he's been doing the same kind of jokes. not ben fritz! say it's not true! he has a hard on for the nazis. noo! that's an anti-semetic joke! he wants to fry the jews? i don't even... sorry... sorry... i-i don't even want to show these jokes. i don't show anti-semetic imagery on my channel. that's disgusting.

i'm so disappointed in you, ben fritz. i didn't wanna say this, because it didn't feel necessary, but there wasn't just pressure to get my show cancelled. along with other brands that i worked with that they reached out to, youtube also had pressure to demonetize my entire channel. essentially, getting me fired. luckily, my videos does not go against community guidelines. so it didn't.

but they tried. so it seems only fair, by wall street journal's own way of conducting themselves, that ben fritz should get fired. this whole thing has been embarrassing. it's been a fiasco. it doesn't make me happy when i find... like, these things out. it makes me sad. ...that this is the world we live in. where people...

people make articles about people making jokes, that they make themselves. trying to get their lives ruined. a thing that i saw a lot on the media was that, because i said, "wall street journal did this attack on me", and people just didn't believe me, like: "what does wall street journal has to gain from that?" or, "they're such a different organization, like, they have nothing to do with what i do, so it wouldn't make any sense".

well, here's a graph showing the trust in media going down based on age. i assume that pieces like this is not helping with that. here's a graph of the newspaper ad revenue from digital and print, showing decrease of revenue in the media. oh, okay, so wall street is losing influence and income... hmm, i wonder who's gaining that right now? so what does wall street journal has to gain from doing a piece like this on me? nothing! nothing, obviously. i mean, why else would they put the article behind a pay-wall? twice!

so wall street journal is losing revenue. maybe... maybe i should buy the wall street journal? actually, i don't know. seems like a failing business to me. *music plays* *laughing* context matters, ben!

Share this :