It's comedy, also known as benign violation. New low wired, enjoy the hits and an absolute lack of journalistic integrity.

Wired has become a leftist cesspool. Maybe it always has been but they were smart enough to stay out of it.

This is defamation 101. Absolutly fucking disgusting.

Explain?

Hey Vendar, watch the last video. Now take a look at the published date; 30 August 2016. Milo Yiannopoulos was banned from Twitter in July of last year for an harassment campaign against Leslie Jones. PewDiePie would've known about that. He then made and edited a video featuring Leslie Jones.

"He then made and edited a video featuring Leslie Jones". I watched the video, first, it wasn't directed to Leslie Jones. Second, it was a bot which featured the pics of Leslie, not pewdiepie. And third, is there any form of disrespect ? Because I don't see anything wrong. AND Fourth, you are avoiding what I said above.

"Second, it was a bot which featured the pics of Leslie, not pewdiepie."

PewDiePie was using the bot. Again, he would've known about Milo being banned from Twitter due to harassment of Leslie Jones and yet he still edited and uploaded the video.

I find it difficult to believe that you cannot see anything wrong with that video Vendar. Especially as PewDiePie says, "No, Leslie Jones is not Harambe".

Before you reply, go on Google and search for a few articles on the abuse that Leslie Jones was getting on Twitter. You'll see why that video is as offensive as the tweets she was getting.

Then again, you are avoiding the subject. I don't care AT ALL about Leslie Jones. (well I do but as i said, that's not the point of this).
I'm talking about PewDiePie being an "anti-semite". AND the face-swapping have nothing to do with the harassement Leslie had.
Please think. I'm getting tired of this.
Just to be clear, what the media are doing (like wired) are exactly the same of what Leslie Jones lived.
Do you still want to be part of the media after reading that ?

EDIT : Alright, watch the last video Pewdiepie posted. I think you'll understand.

No he wasn't, liar. Better luck next time.

Leslie Jones is a public figure. She knowingly exposes herself to the whole world when she does that. You can't do that, and then claim Twitter harassment when you get the predictable backlash. Any reasonable person should dismiss Twitter harassment as a self inflicted victimhood disorder.

What a load of nonsense DookerT.

What did Leslie Jones do that warranted and dismisses the treatment she received?

Have you ever looked at her TL she would sic her people on others all the time. Milo was not harassing her. Are you responsible 4 what other people do

I really know very little about her, and no I don't look at Twitter.

Who did she sic her people on?

Are people not allowed to talk about Leslie Jones now? ''It's his fault because he attacked Leslie Jones'' Leslie Jones has attacked a lot of people in the past, and even told them to kill themselves. And than she isnt allowed to get backlash?

Yeah I watched a video of his a week or two ago. He suggested all of the gamer subs that brought him to where he is should be sucking his d*ck. But I guess that's satire too huh. He says what he really wants to. Then he hides behind "satire"; ego is riding on satire's tailcoats.

Comedy is dead and the left dictates what humor and speech can be in this age of constant outrage. It's the type of reason why we have a president who can say anything he wants regardless of the truth and still gets voted into office - people are tired of the PC police telling us how to think, act, talk.

No one is telling you how to think act or talk, but there are repercussions to using loaded words. Own up to your actions.

Using loaded language that represent a real historical body count isn't cool and companies and consumers are free to respond to it. Someone doesn't have to a KKK member to be racist, because intentions don't matter, impact does.

Putting a different lens on it, say your partner routinely does something like show up late for dinner dates, after you tell them how much it hurts you and bothers you. Even if they arent doing it intentionally it doesn't change the fact it hurt you and you can choose to end that relationship. Same thing here- actions have consequences and you can't hide behind 'I didn't mean to be late to dinner again/racist/etc.' You were late/racist.

Does intent matter here? https://youtu.be/Mr9M7-s6To...

''because intentions don't matter, impact does.''

His video had 0 impact on Jewish people around the world, his fanbase knows he is joking and not a single person was offended by that video. He was trying to show that you can let anybody say anything on a website, which was pretty funny.

In fact, all these news articles defecating his image actually stole the limelight from another Jewish youtuber who would have appeared in one of his upcoming shows. They literally stole a job from a jew and call the one who wanted to employ him an anti-semite for making a joke.

He says totally inappropriate racist and sexist stuff; it's only because he has good comedic timing and charming that people let him get away with it. It doesn't make it any more acceptable. He's gotten a pass because he's "popular". Like that footage of the N word. He makes a joke out of it, but he is Obviously normalizing it. Or "sell that b*tch" into slavery. Today, we have too MUCH of this BS posing as "humor". Enough already.

Wow, were you paid for this hit piece, or have you just been itching for an excuse to throw shit at a celebrity who got big in new media?

This entire article is nothing but a string of intentional misrepresentation, slander and malign defamation. What is wrong with you, and what is wrong with Wired for allowing it to be published? Utterly disgusting.

Ironically, his actual audience understand that it is satire and only moralistic busybodies like you think otherwise.

Wow, says the man who just spent a good while responding to "such people who cry like a whiny bitch"
Who's the whiny bitch really?

All these butt hurt losers whoa re crying like whiny little bitches over a Wired article. It's Wired, who cares. If you don't like it, don't read it. If you don't ascribe to it, why would you read it in the first place? Stop whining about what people write on their private website.

Now if she decided to run to be your Representative in government, then by all means, have at it.

LOL. They are really a sensitive bunch for a group that loves to claim to bathe in librul tears aren't they. Say something negative about some hero of theirs and it's like telling a 6 year old that Halloween was cancelled.

Yeah. Unfortunately it comes from a place of complete ignorance. They don't understand civics, they don't understand how government and laws work and their parents told them they were special and could do whatever they wanted to do, so they think they know everything. That's a recipe for disaster as Trump is showing us.

Your mom is disappointed in you. Better?

Odd. it doesn't concern you that the article is skewing data to fit a narrative rather than trying to depict what the issue is?
I'm not a follower pewdiepie, but I certainly am critical of egregious journalism.

There IS a story here; that Felix being co-opted by Nazi groups is something very concerning, and an advisory note for him and his viewers (and parents, in case of the younger ones) to heed.
Yet, the piece is decidedly connecting dots where common viewer has to construe to see, and omitting the rest that don't fit a predetermined narrative.
Sadly, this does more to normalize hatred, than to distance from it.

I had thought SPLC's black listing of Ayaan Hirsi Ali was a fluke, but seems its becoming a rule.
I think people forget who the bad guys in Farenheit 451 were; government isn't necessary for oppression, it's the people

About Hirsi Ali, here's the "list" you're referring to. Have you read the article? It's pretty specific about why she's being mentioned. It's a list of people journalists should be aware of when interviewing them on TV or for articles.

https://www.splcenter.org/2...

As for the Wired Op-Ed (because that's all it is), it's simply her opinion. She writes about tech and this falls under that umbrella. She's sharing her opinion about how a small amount of racism and stupidity can lead to something dangerous when calling it "a joke". She talking about the dangers that we're facing today with the trolling "lol jk" communities of bigots bombarding message boards and Twitter right now. If you haven't seen it personally, then I'm happy for you, because it's not pretty.

Finally, Wired is a tech blog. Tech and science are currently under assault form a large part of the conservative party. It's not that that large part doesn't believe in science, it's that the scientific data isn't fitting their narrative for financial gain at the expense of American health and safety. So instead of shifting their narratives, they're simply attacking the science and scientists. it's the exact thing that Muslims in America are facing against the people listed in the SPLC article I linked. So, of course, Wired is going to have a slight bent left since the left is actively fighting for scientific data to remain neutral and free. A smart person isn't getting all their information from Wired. A smart person takes opinions with a grain of salt.

But I like your final comment. Group think and mob mentality always has to be watched for.

Also, government IS the people. They're not some clandestine group we have no control over. If the government is a mess, it's because we're allowing it to be a mess.

Replied to this in comment above.
edit: To cater to other points you've made:
I do agree on the media attack part, but I wouldn't polarize it as left vs right. (Left is fairly unscientific in numerous areas, though this is not to equate the two).
While I agree Islamaphobia is real, it's not the whole picture, and I don't on the SPLC part.
We can discuss this later, I've limited my reply to my main issue with this article/author.

I never mind civil discourse. I'm only a dick in other posts because OP is acting like an asshat.

I totally see your viewpoint, but I disagree with you that THIS is advocacy journalism. With all due respect to Wired, they aren't journalists (for the most part). They're not usually out there finding stories, they're simply reporting on what others have found, giving their biased opinions of how the information effects their world of tech and science and why the news is important to know about for Wired readers. I don't think Wired has ever produced any from of "breaking news". Please correct me if I am wrong.

I don't disagree with you however on any of your thoughts ABOUT advocacy journalism as it seems to be the way things were shifting for so long. But then I look back over the last 200 years of American history and realize that "journalism" is almost always advocating something because the people digging for "truth" are going to "passionate" about what they're searching for and have always been passionate about those topics. Also, Editors choose what they feel is important for their readers and print accordingly. Tech blog are biased towards tech news, politicos are biased towards political news, etc. They're all advocating for more of what they are passionate about. Even ProPublica is biased towards being the voice for the common man, which they advocate for by digging into power run amok.

Not to mention that a lot of "biased" or "advocacy" media is actually "Propaganda" media; Fox News, Daily Kos, etc. As Noam Chomsky said about advertising companies and elections: "The point is to create uninformed consumers who will make irrational choices. That's what advertising is all about. And when the same institutions, the PR system, runs elections, they do it the same way. They want to create an uninformed electorate which will make irrational choices, often against their own interests. And we see it every time one of these extravaganzas takes place." Since Fox News is a Republican Party mouth piece, they are the ones creating the uninformed voters for Republicans. The left has it's own media outlets that serve the same purpose, just not as well as Fox News does it.

I'm glad you're knowledgeable about the information you come into contact with and view it through an educated prism. The world needs more people like you.

;(

My comment was deleted, so I guess that was the line not to cross on the playground, haha.

This article is one reason I don't much read Wired anymore. The main reason was their endorsement of Hillary Clinton last year. What a dumpster fire.

But you are always here. Don't tell me you don't come here just to battle with liberals. C'mon Cowboy, it's me you are talking to. Be honest.

I thiiiink you need to look up what "Dumpster Fire" means.

Comedy has it's boundaries !

Who decides what they are? Leftist authoritarians?

The people who pay the comedian decide the boundaries. In any other forum, comedians are paid by the audience, but online he was paid by corporations. If no other corporation pays him for his jokes then you know it was his own fault and that his comedy is not a sustainable art.

i'm a democratic socialist and i think this article is bullshit. Not all leftists are whiny babies that censor any kind of off-limit humour.

oh and btw, your profile pic is cancer lol

Comedy has no boundaries. It exists to push them. Always. You can get offended, but you'll never shut it down, never!

You guys remind me of those kids in middle school that would start screaming that you hit them if you gently tapped them on the shoulder. Stop getting so offended at everything and look at events and things people say in context before writing entire articles about them. This isn't journalism, this is clickbait. You shouldn't call yourself a journalist-- their values are to deliver honest and unbiased information. This is garbage.
ClickHole should be envying Wired.