I'm not a fan of either, but I don't think pewdiepie is even fascist adjacent. He made jokes in poor taste when he was younger and the internet rewarded edgy behaviour, I think it's time to let it go.
I feel mixed feelings. I don't think someone can silently be against war crimes and genocide. He seems less edgy. I like his new stuff. Still, he preaches about reading philosophy. He promotes reading books. You would think enlightenment would spark the desire to push change in the world. It's a deliberate silence from one of the most influential people of our time. I just think he's right wing at best.
If so, his philosophy is surprisingly transcendent (as in, not ultranationalist). Somehow he kept his politics separate from his philosophy.
Reading Rinrigaku, it's hard to understand how the person who wrote it could be a jingoist in real life. Unlike Sein und Zeit, where it's readily apparent that the author was an unapologetic fascist.
The places where Watsuji diverges from and critiques Heidegger are really quite eloquent and crucial. Most critically, he rejects the "carpenter in a toolshed" analogy for his own concept of "betweenness," using roads as the primary metaphor instead of tools. It's far less reductive and more socialized, which isn't surprising for someone from a collectivist culture.
Not sure how that turns into him supporting militant imperial fascism, but then again he didn't really have a choice. But it's not like he worked in secret to oppose it like those in the Kyoto School did, and even they got accused of supporting it...
i was thinking of yukio mishima, who pie called "controversial" but recommended his book (tbf that was quite a few years ago) but it's great to know there's more
I haven't read mishima's work personally but I know enough about him to say that ultranationalist is indeed an apt descriptor for him. He was a fascist. He wanted a fascist revival and attempted a coup to achieve it. He died by seppuku when it failed. There's even a movie about it. He kinda had a cult following too.
I've literally never heard of him. I mean I do live under a rock but if he was one of the most influential people of our time I would think even I've heard of him. Are you talking top 100 or top 1000?
And the thing about philosophy is that two people could have diametrically opposite opinions and both still be philosophers. There's good philosophy and there's bad philosophy, and even good philosophy can be wrong and bad philosophy can be right some times.
Philosophy isn't a religion, its entire raison d'etre is centered around disagreement.
He had the most subscribed and most viewed youtube channel in the world between 2013 and 2017. I think it’s fair to call the most popular person on one of the most popular online platforms one of the most influential people, and if you were online in any mainstream capacity during those four years I think it’s a fair assumption that you have heard of him, even if that’s not the case here.
Looking over this list of books (https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/121751.Pewdiepie_s_Literature_Club_) he has discussed, it seems most of the philosophy he has discussed is pretty standard stuff. Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche. At a glance the only problematic thing I see is Jordan Peterson’s book, 12 Rules for Life. If you were worried that he was discussing problematic ideas, why not look it up instead of just casting doubt?
Frankly, disagreement is not the basis for philosophy. The basis for philosophy is a love (philo) of knowing (sophy). Being critical of your own thoughts and the thoughts of others can be a valuable tool toward improving or refining one’s knowledge, but things like practice, observation, and curiosity are arguably even more important for learning new knowledge.
Okay I didn't know that about the subscriber count, so that's a testament to my statement that I live under a rock.
Even if I looked him up, chances are I wouldn't have found his reading list on goodreads, so thanks for sharing that.
Again though, two different philosophers could have very different interpretations of any of those philosophers. Some say Plato had elements of feminism, others say he was a blatant misogynist. Some say he argued for fascism, others say the Republic was an allegory for the self. Just because a person lists standard philosophers doesn't mean they don't have questionable interpretations of those philosophers.
Same thing with Nietzsche. One could say he was a radical libertarian or even an anarchist. That didn't stop nazis from using his work to argue for eugenics and fascism.
If you were worried that he was discussing problematic ideas, why not look it up instead of just casting doubt?
Did I say that? I said I don't know anything about him. All I said was that just cause someone reads philosophy doesn't mean they're an enlightened benefactor of humanity.
Frankly, disagreement is not the basis for philosophy. The basis for philosophy is a love (philo) of knowing (sophy). Being critical of your own thoughts and the thoughts of others can be a valuable tool toward improving or refining one’s knowledge, but things like practice, observation, and curiosity are arguably even more important for learning new knowledge.
I find that it's impossible to pursue knowledge or understanding without disagreement. Whether you're disagreeing with your peers, or with a classic philosopher, or with yourself, disagreement is the basis of the skepticism which allows one to reinterpret ideas or even come up with new ones.
Descartes revolutionized the philosophy of his era by disagreeing with those of previous eras. Heidegger revolutionized twentieth-century philosophy by disagreeing with the foundation premises of modern philosophy, namely those pioneered by Descartes.
Sophos doesn't mean knowing, that would be episteme. Sophos is specifically wisdom, and being overly credulous by automatically agreeing with everything you hear is a foolish thing indeed. That's why I said what I did about philosophy being about disagreement. Not that it's impossible to agree with something and still do philosophy. But if you agree with something in its entirety without disagreeing on a single point then you're not really doing philosophy, you're just reading philosophy.
Yes, the actual history of his actions over a decade is devastating to your shit take of "he condemned one Nazi who referenced him specifically once so he didn't face legal action," I can see why that would annoy you.
I don't know much of Pewdepie and your sources are quite laughable tbh:
In one of the controversial videos, Mr Kjellberg paid two Indians through a crowd-sourcing website to hold up a sign which read "Death to all Jews".
In a response to the criticism, he said he was "trying to show how crazy the modern world is, specifically some of the services available online" and that people "would say anything for five dollars".
It's kinda poor taste rage bait disguised as social commentary but far from "nazi".
you only need enough money for a bunch of crack or heroin or meth, which is a lot but not as much as that other guys would be. and the girls would not look that good
Nah your just not bougie enough to know that unadulterated Afghan heroin is about as safe as the coke and alcohol, and is a much more higher status product.
Didn't he meet his partner because she was a fan or something? I think that's the only story I've heard of a fan getting into a relationship with a YouTuber and it not ending up in the news as a cautionary tale.
My ex's sister ended up marrying a guy who started as a random Twitter follow because she thought his tweets were funny.
They might be one of the most fundamentally compatible couples I've ever met. I know correlation doesn't imply causation... but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively.
what I meant was that so many YouTubers end up being huge creeps. how many times has a YouTuber been accused of sexually assaulting someone, especially a minor? I don't think we have enough fingers between the two of us to count. just because something clicks doesn't mean the relationship isn't problematic.
but I'm happy for them, they obviously have something good going on right now.
All this shit exist mainly because of advertisement fetish. If advertisements beyond simple product info catalogues were banned world-wide I think we would have a much cleaner life. Same should apply to politics.
50 Comments
Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online · 161 pts · 26d
What in the PR image rehab hell is this meme
yuri@pawb.social · 28 pts · 26d
fucking seriously
arctanthrope@lemmy.world · 103 pts · 26d
and I don't envy either of them because I have something even more valuable: not being a Nazi
Zozano@aussie.zone · 53 pts · 25d
I'm not a fan of either, but I don't think pewdiepie is even fascist adjacent. He made jokes in poor taste when he was younger and the internet rewarded edgy behaviour, I think it's time to let it go.
Gaja0@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 25d
I feel mixed feelings. I don't think someone can silently be against war crimes and genocide. He seems less edgy. I like his new stuff. Still, he preaches about reading philosophy. He promotes reading books. You would think enlightenment would spark the desire to push change in the world. It's a deliberate silence from one of the most influential people of our time. I just think he's right wing at best.
rapchee@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 24d
kind of important what philosophy and books he's promoting, and the one i heard of was a japanese ultranationist
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 24d
Which one? Watsuji?
If so, his philosophy is surprisingly transcendent (as in, not ultranationalist). Somehow he kept his politics separate from his philosophy.
Reading Rinrigaku, it's hard to understand how the person who wrote it could be a jingoist in real life. Unlike Sein und Zeit, where it's readily apparent that the author was an unapologetic fascist.
The places where Watsuji diverges from and critiques Heidegger are really quite eloquent and crucial. Most critically, he rejects the "carpenter in a toolshed" analogy for his own concept of "betweenness," using roads as the primary metaphor instead of tools. It's far less reductive and more socialized, which isn't surprising for someone from a collectivist culture.
Not sure how that turns into him supporting militant imperial fascism, but then again he didn't really have a choice. But it's not like he worked in secret to oppose it like those in the Kyoto School did, and even they got accused of supporting it...
rapchee@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 24d
i was thinking of yukio mishima, who pie called "controversial" but recommended his book (tbf that was quite a few years ago) but it's great to know there's more
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 23d
I haven't read mishima's work personally but I know enough about him to say that ultranationalist is indeed an apt descriptor for him. He was a fascist. He wanted a fascist revival and attempted a coup to achieve it. He died by seppuku when it failed. There's even a movie about it. He kinda had a cult following too.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 24d
I've literally never heard of him. I mean I do live under a rock but if he was one of the most influential people of our time I would think even I've heard of him. Are you talking top 100 or top 1000?
And the thing about philosophy is that two people could have diametrically opposite opinions and both still be philosophers. There's good philosophy and there's bad philosophy, and even good philosophy can be wrong and bad philosophy can be right some times.
Philosophy isn't a religion, its entire raison d'etre is centered around disagreement.
jaycifer@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 24d
He had the most subscribed and most viewed youtube channel in the world between 2013 and 2017. I think it’s fair to call the most popular person on one of the most popular online platforms one of the most influential people, and if you were online in any mainstream capacity during those four years I think it’s a fair assumption that you have heard of him, even if that’s not the case here.
Looking over this list of books (https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/121751.Pewdiepie_s_Literature_Club_) he has discussed, it seems most of the philosophy he has discussed is pretty standard stuff. Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche. At a glance the only problematic thing I see is Jordan Peterson’s book, 12 Rules for Life. If you were worried that he was discussing problematic ideas, why not look it up instead of just casting doubt?
Frankly, disagreement is not the basis for philosophy. The basis for philosophy is a love (philo) of knowing (sophy). Being critical of your own thoughts and the thoughts of others can be a valuable tool toward improving or refining one’s knowledge, but things like practice, observation, and curiosity are arguably even more important for learning new knowledge.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 23d
Okay I didn't know that about the subscriber count, so that's a testament to my statement that I live under a rock.
Even if I looked him up, chances are I wouldn't have found his reading list on goodreads, so thanks for sharing that.
Again though, two different philosophers could have very different interpretations of any of those philosophers. Some say Plato had elements of feminism, others say he was a blatant misogynist. Some say he argued for fascism, others say the Republic was an allegory for the self. Just because a person lists standard philosophers doesn't mean they don't have questionable interpretations of those philosophers.
Same thing with Nietzsche. One could say he was a radical libertarian or even an anarchist. That didn't stop nazis from using his work to argue for eugenics and fascism.
Did I say that? I said I don't know anything about him. All I said was that just cause someone reads philosophy doesn't mean they're an enlightened benefactor of humanity.
I find that it's impossible to pursue knowledge or understanding without disagreement. Whether you're disagreeing with your peers, or with a classic philosopher, or with yourself, disagreement is the basis of the skepticism which allows one to reinterpret ideas or even come up with new ones.
Descartes revolutionized the philosophy of his era by disagreeing with those of previous eras. Heidegger revolutionized twentieth-century philosophy by disagreeing with the foundation premises of modern philosophy, namely those pioneered by Descartes.
Sophos doesn't mean knowing, that would be episteme. Sophos is specifically wisdom, and being overly credulous by automatically agreeing with everything you hear is a foolish thing indeed. That's why I said what I did about philosophy being about disagreement. Not that it's impossible to agree with something and still do philosophy. But if you agree with something in its entirety without disagreeing on a single point then you're not really doing philosophy, you're just reading philosophy.
toxicbubble@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 24d
younger, but also in his 20s still using derogatives. if he wasn't called out, would probably still be doing it
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · -1 pts · 25d
https://www.newsweek.com/entertainment/video-games/pewdie-youtube-nazi-t-series-racist-anti-semitic-youtuber-subscribers-1252695
https://dailydot.com/pewdiepie-new-zealand-alt-right-nazi
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38965377
Zozano@aussie.zone · 12 pts · 24d
Thanks for the blind fire of exactly what I was talking about.
He condemned the Christchurch shooter. He admitted fault to his edgy skits.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · -1 pts · 24d
Yes, the actual history of his actions over a decade is devastating to your shit take of "he condemned one Nazi who referenced him specifically once so he didn't face legal action," I can see why that would annoy you.
drmoose@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 24d
I don't know much of Pewdepie and your sources are quite laughable tbh:
It's kinda poor taste rage bait disguised as social commentary but far from "nazi".
Zozano@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 24d
Not really, considering being edgy explains his behaviour.
Also, can you pull up anything more recent? Because as far as I know, people change.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 31 pts · 26d
There it is! Neither of those men are enviable.
nomy@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 24d
I think their bank accounts are probably the only thing most people really envy about them.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 24d
exactly, ppdie was the og "mr beast", im guessing he misses that money to an extent.
garth@sh.itjust.works · 57 pts · 26d
Go on. I'm listening.
TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca · 71 pts · 26d
(if you have money)
Elshender@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 26d
If I had a million dollars
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 25d
call a drug dealer
call a pimp
give them money
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 27 pts · 24d
I need step by step instructions on how to make this easy.
renrenPDX@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 29 pts · 24d
Step one: have money Step two: see step one.
BigBananaDealer@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 24d
you only need enough money for a bunch of crack or heroin or meth, which is a lot but not as much as that other guys would be. and the girls would not look that good
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 24d
Am I bougie or judgemental that I would only allow coke, shrooms, weed and alcohol in my theoretical rich guy harem
Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 24d
Nah your just not bougie enough to know that unadulterated Afghan heroin is about as safe as the coke and alcohol, and is a much more higher status product.
ProbablyUnwise@anarchist.nexus · 18 pts · 26d
Didn't he meet his partner because she was a fan or something? I think that's the only story I've heard of a fan getting into a relationship with a YouTuber and it not ending up in the news as a cautionary tale.
Admetus@sopuli.xyz · 15 pts · 26d
I don't know anything about the youtuber-fan relationships but you could meet a non-obsessive fan and find that something clicks between you two.
Windex007@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 26d
My ex's sister ended up marrying a guy who started as a random Twitter follow because she thought his tweets were funny.
They might be one of the most fundamentally compatible couples I've ever met. I know correlation doesn't imply causation... but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively.
ProbablyUnwise@anarchist.nexus · 3 pts · 25d
what I meant was that so many YouTubers end up being huge creeps. how many times has a YouTuber been accused of sexually assaulting someone, especially a minor? I don't think we have enough fingers between the two of us to count. just because something clicks doesn't mean the relationship isn't problematic.
but I'm happy for them, they obviously have something good going on right now.
arctanthrope@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 26d
Drew Gooden's wife Amanda was a fan before they met
Skullgrid@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 26d
Northernlion too
eestileib@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 26d
I would be terrified to date a fan but he seems happy with how it's going.
Flames5123@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 24d
This was when he was super small though like a few thousand subscribers.
thevoidzero@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 25d
Veritacium also said his wife commented on his post
softwarist@programming.dev · 2 pts · 25d
Jacksfilms is another one.
BlackVenom@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 25d
Yet.
jonman364@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 24d
CinnamonToastKen
Janx@piefed.social · 15 pts · 25d
Who TF is Dan Bilzerian?? It's embarrassing enough that I recognize PewDiepie...
creation7758@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 24d
What's wrong with pewdiepie except that he used to be cringe as a teenager, which is like half of them?
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 24d
Arms dealer or some other cunty rich guy industry
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 24d
a former navy seal that became rich because of his daddy, and he did coke and have supermodels on his boat most of his life.
Avicenna@programming.dev · 6 pts · 24d
All this shit exist mainly because of advertisement fetish. If advertisements beyond simple product info catalogues were banned world-wide I think we would have a much cleaner life. Same should apply to politics.
jdr@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 26d
Maybe it's easy if you're a dog
PoscoBumbleroot@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 26d
DRUGS
wowwoweowza@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 24d
Wholesome
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · -1 pts · 24d