One of my favorite youtubers weighs in on what happened (Language warning).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpX92YQ9Of4

I didn't even realize it (because I wont touch a pew video with a 10 foot poll) but he apparently didn't even make some sort of racist joke. He watched some racist video and reacted to it.

Another video from another guy I watch. Again, language warning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naSRVKj7DNQ

Very similar to kamak's post above.

Sargon's followup: The enemy of the people

I'm still here. Nice try WSJ. Try again M*****F*****'s. - Pewdiepie

Mainstream media actually managed to make me feel sorry for poodiepie. **** you WSJ, **** you mainstream media. He isn't funny, he is irritating and appeals to 12 year olds... and he is a far better person than these so-called 'journalists'.

ARRRGH!! In the video posted above from rtcvb32 the very first thing he says is "Personally, I think they're the ones normalizing hatred". Why does he have to be on my side... I always figured he'd be the SJW type.

So, the Wall Street Journal article was written by Rolfe Winkler, Jack Nicas, and Ben Fritz.

Here’s what Ben Fritz said on his Twitter on December 13, 2009*: Where’s the outrage over that? Or are “journalists” the only ones allowed to make jokes about that sort of stuff?

* Also available as archive links: http://archive.is/u62M2.
(I included two because the first one seems to load derpily for me.)

I honestly never post on the forums, (you can check! I have a zero post tradition I am now breaking!) but this thing bugs me. So i'm posting.
It doesn't matter if you like pewdiepie or not, I could totally see hating his videos He's loud and screamy and has a history of faking it so hard it hurts... What does matter is this strange witch hunt. Lately Pewdie has been posting these videos pointing out the ridiculous nature of modern media. They don't do any research (And that's fairly well evidenced. Weight loss chocolate anyone?) and if they do happen to research at all, they take things horribly out of context to sell their personal brand of hatred. Hence this particular attack. All the videos they reference, and every aspect of his apparent racism, are incredibly short clips taken from much longer points sometimes specifically lampooning their opinion of him as a racist. They trolled through his videos for what must have been HOURS, and cherry picked a few tiny bites to make their point, and they did it so people would click on their website and make them a buck.

They didn't have to prove anything, or even demonstrate any evidence. The majority of the people in this thread have neither read the article, nor seen the videos they used as evidence. You've just bought into the title and ran with it. Have any of you ever read the Wall Street Journal? Heck I'd never heard of them before this... I guess the plan worked eh?

The way they did this was just offensive, and it's scary. Because it's a witch hunt. It can happen at any point to any person. You like to watch stuff online? Well the Wall Street Journal can string some utter junk together and ruin their career in five minutes, and NO ONE will care. It's disgusting. And that's why you should care even if you hate him passionately. It's an attack on YOUR freedoms.

And this is exactly what they are doing right now to Donald Trump. Trump is not the first victim and not the last one for sure.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/832708293516632065

To be honest, i couldn't care less about "Pewds". My first thought, when i read thread's title: "Pewds died?". Then: "well, probably he paid to some website to promote himself, just like any other product gets promoted". Just don't care about Pewds and his imitators. There are quite a lot of them, and they are annoying, screaming, etc. They will do Anything to get more views (=money).

But you are absolutely right. It's an attack on freedom. In Russia we have quite a lot of internet media, where you can put a strict line between hostile media and useful/productive ones. Hostile ones are paid by foreign funds and care only about theirs master's instructions, not about people of Russia (no surprise here).
So, everyone should analyze who is who. Why they are doing this (who benefits?, who is theirs owner?), what is theirs final goal, what they've been doing in the past.

PS: funny thing on Wikipedia: a list of "Fake News websites". Those, listed by Trump are not present here. But those, who criticized Obama, Hillary, this kind of stuff - are all here. Quite biased. O_o
Even Wiki can't be trusted (although, it's a useful source of *quick info* on non-political themes). *sigh* -_-

Dude, they just show his speeches and interviews, a lot of them in their entirety. It's not their fault he speaks so much bullshit.

In Russia over half of the newspapers and most of the news channels are either fully or partially owned by the state. The ones that aren't are the only ones to criticize the government, it's hardly a surprise.

Because Trump's definition of "fake news" is "anything that disagrees with me"...

That is correct. The government media are the most useful and productive ones to simple people. But in any country there exist a small layer of people who don't like how things go (this is natural process, there always will be people, who want to have Power/riches and they despise simple folks, using them as tools; they will happily betray theirs own country to get what they want - this is an essence of modern Russian 'intelligentsia' (they prefer to call themselves like that), which is not an intelligentsia at all, a bunch of corrupts/thieves), but useful government, which works for people, not for 1%, should do what majority of people (90-95%) will find beneficial for them.

TL;DR: Governmental =/= Lies. Americans (and Brazilians, as a result) will understand this in future, when they'll pull away from the veil of lies, laid on them by oligarch-controlled media. Listen to your Presidents. Abide the Law. And everything will be good. Maybe not for everyone (talking about oligarchs, who got theirs riches by selling weapons to Government, who want War 24/7/365, who think up wars/artifical_conflicts/nonexistent_dangers. More War, more fear = More Money! $_$). America has a good president now (judging by how oligarchy hates him). The more he is hated by oligarchy - the better for simple folks.

Wow, mainstream "yellow" media forced someone to lose its main income, such fun! \s

Actually, its more problem, than something to joke about. I dont like pewdiepie, but this situation is far from "justice", or whatever some people tries to say. Basically some mass media cut some words from his videos out of context and shown it in better (for them) way. And then tonns of SJWs started their raid.

Imo - its reason to think: in the world, where nobody cares about truth, and where every mass media is "yellow", should we trust them?

>implying that the government isn't this same set of rich people trying to control things
I have some bad news for you, friend.
Have you ever read George Orwell's "1984"? Just curious.
While I'll admit that "the rich and powerful hate him" is a pretty convincing argument in terms of concept/emotion, it's a terrible one logically. The enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend, it could still very well be your enemy.
Consider this: Trump was already one of these "oligarchs" before he ever ran for the presidency (I can confirm that, culturally here in America, people used his name for years as sort of a modern-day Ebenezer Scrooge for some of the crap he's pulled). What if he's hated just from sheer jealousy? He, by your line of reasoning, could be powerful enough to pull the rugs out from under them, but who's to say he's "for the people" and not in it for himself?

I'm not saying he's a terrible president, I'll reserve that judgement for AFTER I see how he does in office, but I am gonna go out on a limb here and say your arguments, as they currently stand, are terrible.

This doesn't mean you should destroy everything, just because someone is rich. If his riches were earned illegitimately, he should be prosecuted. Otherwise your government should work on your laws, to make them "closer to people" (olygarchy won't like it though). In Russian government there are people who earn in a year so much money, that most people will not earn in theirs entire life. This is legacy of the past 200x and 90s years. Process of fixing it is slow (Laws, Propaganda, Laws and Laws and Propaganda ;)). If you hasten it, then so-called 'elites' will stir things up, will try to wreak havoc (USA 'today'). The more correct way would be to control them, to have them by your side, to direct them in a way which will benefit all people and themselves (otherwise they'll just take all the money and run abroad).
This is basically what Putin is doing now. By the way, Trump is copying Putin by demanding localization of manufacturing (Work places! Yay!). ;)

Let's not go over there. -_-* Obama already signed laws, which allows total espionage. NSA's ex-agent (system administrator) Edward Snowden told this to the World. Also, before retiring, Obama signed another law, which allows hacking any computer in internet by order of any American judge.
Brits are doing same stuff. You already live in '1984'.

Not terrible at all. Think yourself. He many times said that USA will not be involved in other country's politics: no revolutions, no invasions (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Afghanistan, <God knows what more>...) under his rule. Many times he said that Russia is not an enemy (Hillary, a lackey of oligarchy, said exactly the opposite). What that does mean for oligarchy involved in weapon production? - No Money. There are other spheres involved of course (destroying other country's local industry and agriculture to sell your stuff, etc), so it's not only military industry. Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, was going to extract slant gas in Eastern Ukraine, but theirs plan failed. So count gas and oil here too.

About "Not for the people":
Basically you can question every President this way. And what answer you expect to hear? What 'proof' you expect to see. This is childish.
You make decisions before elections, not after, demanding 'proof'. If he is not worthy, don't elect him. -_-*

I was so scared when I first saw this thread, I misread and thought something happened to Pepé Le Pew.