*Sigh* Let's talk about PewDiePie and the current gaming community

This is why it takes me ages before considering watching anything I see on YouTube that might look neat - I just know that I’ll watch something and find out the person who made it is a neo-Nazi or thinks women should be banned from owning game consoles or something.

That would be abused and turned into a tool of harassment in a week.

If it’s one thing I’ve learned after being on the internet for so long, it’s that people in mass always take things way too far, no matter what that thing is. Pointing out toxic individuals and racists is important, but there’s always a point where people’s good intentions or moral sense of right can be twisted to harm someone who doesn’t deserve it.

I mean, we already have enough right wing goons accusing every woman and leftist they can find of pedophilia, imagine how much more damage those tactics could do if there was a massive database used by leftists they could game.


Well, I was thinking more localized to Waypoint within our group, but I see what you’re saying.

Just spitballing.

You did give me an idea for the opposite idea, though.

Like a thread of youtubers we KNOW to be good?

I think that’s already kind of a thing. There was that leftist youtube thread a while back.

While we appreciate that this starts in a place of wanting to ensure that people are informed, the mod team are against this. There’s a few reasons for this, both within our own rules & goals for this space and with the idea itself.

  • A list designed to catalogue ‘problematic’ behaviour is against the text and spirit of Rule 10. It might invite unwarranted or ill-sourced speculation; it frames our community in a specific and hyper-vigilant way to outside persons, and risks Waypoint, as a community and website, becoming synonymous with ‘call-out culture’ and unverified claims; it might well encourage folks to mine through people’s personal lives for ‘content’.
  • There is room for good intention to go awry. Continuing systematic abuse of a position of authority can be conflated with a poorly-phrased tweet from three years ago; this encourages a culture of suspicion, paranoia, and covering one’s tracks, rather than being willing to concede to errors.
  • There is immense potential for it to be captured by bad actors, who may use it to spread rumours, distortion, and harmful scuttlebutt. Rather than becoming a source of safety or clarity, it can be used to sow division within communities or threaten marginalised people.

This is a sampling of our reasoning; it is not comprehensive. tl;dr: We are against it.

There is a difference between a list and raising a specific point in a conversation. In the latter, one can contextualise a comment and put it in terms that ensure clarity; if someone feels that this is simply a tweet taken out of context (or something of that nature), there is space to object, raise a counterpoint, and talk constructively to synthesise the different points of view. A promulgated list or one-stop repository will be used as a source and authority unto itself regardless of the content involved. We do not want this on the forum.


Hey, I feel that it is both unhelpful and weak to use “problematic” to describe things that are objectively bad. My intention isn’t to criticize, but to empower: feel free to say this sucks shit. Misanthropic shut-ins who stumbled onto massive wealth, telling their rapt audience of children to distrust and attack the press is extremely fucked up.


"Personally, I’m Pro “signing up for a forum just to rush in a defend a millionaire that will never read my post. I’m doing this in good faith.”

Come on my guy, the channel he shouted out is full of anti-semitic dogwhistles, and this was after Pewds was admonished for being racist and anti-semitic himself.


Nah, you can’t just argue antisemitism is just “dark jokes”, when the joke is “he’s being a racist”. Felix is under fire from media because he has one of the biggest audiences on youtube, and can’t stop doing things like shouting out racists, yelling slurs, or having Ben Shapiro on his videos. Like, you aren’t adding to the discussion here. If you’re gonna ignore the things Pewdiepie has done, you’re gonna have to have a better argument than “no actually racism is dark jokes” and “it’s all the media”.


You’ve come to the wrong discourse dot zone to say it’s totally okay to promote Ben Shapiro’s worldview.


Ben Shapiro doesn’t think I get to be a woman because I’m trans. These aren’t views that should be okay, and you’re gonna be getting some major pushback if you think that shit is gonna fly.


Saying “having Ben Shapiro on… means absolutely nothing” is clearly specious. Ben Shapiro is unambiguously an political person; he’s a well-known conservative pundit, and a modern icon of the Right Wing. Having that kind of person on your show “to joke about memes” isn’t apolitical. No one’s saying he can’t have an opinion. We’re just saying his opinion is bullshit. And I personally don’t trust someone who gladly associates with someone like Ben fucking Shapiro.

“Does not rack up views beyond 5 mil” are you KIDDING me with this? That’s a massive audience. That’s a larger audience than many countries have in population. Pointing to Logan Paul is really weird… No one here has defended or even mentioned Logan Paul, as far as I remember. Logan Paul sucks.

E;R is anti-Semitic. He participates in numerous anti-Semitic practices. If this doesn’t show you that, nothing will:


I’m double-posting, but I want to make sure this is clear:

No-one is saying Ben Shapiro isn’t “allowed” to have an opinion. That’s something you are projecting.

By that extension, I am “allowed” to think Ben Shapiro is a prejudiced jerk, and that his beliefs and expressions of them are harmful to me and many others, and that I would much prefer if he didn’t have those beliefs, didn’t share them, and didn’t have the opportunity to broadcast those toxic beliefs to so many people.

I’m “allowed” to think that, as much as Ben Shapiro is “allowed” to think whatever he thinks.


Can you explain the “dark joke” here? Pretending to be racist only works as absurdism if racism of that type doesn’t actually exist, and given the past few years that would be hopelessly naive to say so. The only other type of humour I could see would be pushing against taboo, which would require one to believe that the waves or racist violence worldwide are being taken too seriously?

1 Like

That’s not an argument. (I think you might agree with Shapiro)

1 Like

If you accidentally say a slur in front of people, that probably means you use slurs a lot in your normal casual speech to the point it’s a natural part of your vocabulary, which probably means you’re a bit racist.


No, can you actually explain the joke? The only explanations I can see are mocking the issue of racism, and thus promoting racist attitudes

Is this a leftist forum?

To quote Austin Walker: “One hundred percent.”


…it does. Like, you used a racist word on accident because you use said racist word regularly. That’s textbook subconscious racism.


Yup, we all are plotting to eat our landlords