I think I should discuss my personal views on PewDiePie first to make everything transparent. I am in general a fan of PewDiepie. I like that he was able to make a career doing what he loves. I respect that and glad he was able to. That said, I do not actually enjoy any of his content. I am a video game nerd, but I never enjoyed watching “lets play” videos. None of it seemed insightful or comedic to me. So his videos never clicked.





So my perspective on this matter is not really coming from an actual fan. I am not subscribed to his channel and I do not think I ever finished a single video. But I am writing to support the deeper political issue here, ultimately his freedom of speech.





I am a avid gamer and familiar with the environments that can manifest in this realm. Explicit language, anger, offensive behavior, and extreme reactions can happen and often do. As to why, is a separate conversation. But as many know and can imagine, gaming interactions can get heated and offensive. So what Pew did is nothing new or rare. I tend to be a bit desensitized, but my opinion on freedom of speech would still stand even if I found it as horrible as others do or took it personally.





Watching the clip, even though it is in context, I do not think he is a “racist”. In the sense he believes black people are lesser or he is better based on race. I am sure we can have a discussion about subconscious “this” or implicit “that”. But let us work with the literal definition that racism means: you believe a race is less than anothers/yours and you therefore treat them as so. The definition includes personal beliefs, but I am more interested in their outward manifestations of racism as that is what we could and would punish. We cannot really punish someone for thinking something. It has to manifest in a action that breaks a law to be punished.





In that clip he uses a derogatory term for black people to describe a negative situation. While past controversies of PewDiePies’s were taken completely out of context to get false depictions, this is actually taken in context. A negative term for blacks used in a negative way. Which was confirmed by him, when he tried to correct himself by using the term asshole instead.





Hearing it the first, second, third, and tenth time it seemed all bad as it was completely in context. But I felt something was missing. Something past context; intent. What was his intentions when he said it. Was he intending to demean that person for being black? Did he intend to say that because that person did something that frustrated him that black people were lesser? From the clip, I do not believe he was speaking to the race of that specific person or targeting the group specifically. I do not believe he knows that person or if he was actually black. And I do not think him saying that word, even in a negative context, intended to say black people are inferior. From that context it seemed he was just frustrated and used it as profanity.





Now we can have a discussion of him using the term in a negative way or at all is perpetuating the idea of racism as you are connecting black people to bad situation. There is discussion there. I tend to think a lot of it is airy bullshit college students get third hand from professors that get it third hand from books. They think they can solve the world with a single paradigm, yet they have not been able to solve or even understand a single issue with that theory. BUT at least there is a discussion there.





But I want to bring everyone a step back and ask what was his intent was as I believe that does matter. Did he intend to hurt a specific person or group by using that word. I did not get that. It seemed like a profane word he used out of frustration, not actually targeted at black people.





That might not matter for some, but lets try to keep some consistency. If you cannot use one word because it hurts a person or group. Then you should not be able use any derogatory words as someone will be effected. Which is ridiculous as that would effect everyone’s speech as something can offend anyone, which has become the norm in this social justice society. The outrage and victimhood culture is prevalent and even advocated. But just saying something does not mean you believe it or intent something by it.





There is a difference between being racist, saying something racist, and saying something racial. Being racist means you believe someone is less based on their race. Saying something racist is saying something demeaning based on their race. Saying something racial is talking about the racial aspect of something.





A racist would be someone who thinks blacks are violent just because the violent crime in the black community is high. They do not seek facts of a individual person, just look at their race and come to a conclusion based from that and treats them as such.





Someone that says something racist could be a comedian that forms a joke around the image of blacks and their higher crime rate. They do not have to believe it in general or apply it in their normal life. They are just saying it for comedic effect. Contrary to SJW belief you can say something without personally believing it. You can also believe something without it manifesting in your personal life.





An example of someone saying something racial is if someone simply talks about the black on black crime that is happening. They do not have to mean anything by it, just stating an observation. Whether based in facts and data or just a personal opinion.





I can call someone a cunt or bitch, with out personally hating women. Someone can call me a dick, without having a problem with men. People can refer to lawyers as shysters and not have problems with Jews. These terms have the same inferences that “nigger” has. They are all derogatory terms used as profanity to describe something or someone negatively. Somehow people can pinpoint “nigger” as truly bad and unacceptable, yet the other words are not. They are all profane words.





I would completely agree there are degrees of profanity as calling someone a jerk is less than calling them a fucking asshole. I would agree “nigger” is higher on that list. But how and where would we draw this line of what is okay and what is banned? Different people have different sensitivities. I would much rather lean toward the side of free speech and let people say what ever horrible thing they want than move toward the side of censorship for decency’s sake. As people have a right to free expression, but people do not have a right to not be offended. Also you can combat their freedom of speech with your own, but they cannot combat your censorship with theirs.





I think pew’s situation would fall around “saying something racist”. The context was negative and racist. But I did not get a sense he has a problem with black people, think anything poorly about them, or intended to hurt and attack black people from that event.





Sadly in our society even the most innocent situations have become horrible and deemed racist. To the point if you say something no matter what the context, nuance, intent, or even terms is racist and you are labeled a horrible person. You do not even have to actually say the words, getting anywhere near racial grounds becomes a problem for most.





This is the start of thought policing and will become a issue for society. If you cannot talk about something then problems will arise. Freedom of speech is not just a right, but a tool on how society finds problems, comes up with solutions, and ultimately will fix them. If we continue down this path where speech is punished no matter the circumstances our society will suffer and collapse.





Back to the example of black on black crime, If we cannot have a candid talk about it, how can it get better? Same goes for everything else. We need to be allowed to speak without the fear of being maligned, attacked, and retaliation. Once that is the accepted process we walk into censorship, thought policing, and facism. Many people do not speak because of the fear of getting destroyed by the SJW machine. The SJWs are loving the power and destruction they cause. The more they silence any diversity of thought the more powerful they get and the more bold their actions. They are already at the point they openly assault people, riot during protests, and ruin people’s lives and careers. How much worse can it get? Communism comes to mind and if you look at SJW culture is romanticized as the final destination. Of course leaving out the reality of the loss of rights, death camps, and crippling oppression.





Freedom of speech includes horrible choices of speech, including “hate” speech. You must allow all or none. Who will and can draw the line for billions of people? What offends one might not offend another. If you decide to ban one because it offends a person or group, how can you not ban others? Something can offend anyone, so you will have to ban it all if protecting people is your goal. I believe the current legal standing of free speech is fine. This being the only unprotected speech are imminent threats of violence, which does not have to involve race or any other attribute, or comments meant to incite a riot.





The SJW push to make any opposing speech into offensive speech and then hate speech. This is a dangerous move as mentioned before anything can offend anyone. This is purposely designed as a way to attack anyone who they disagree with. Which is their way to thought police and censor others to the point of removing them.





While you do not have to like what pew said. You have to accept his right to say it. You can dislike it, speak against it, unsubscribe, stop watching. All that is fine. But if you go to the point of actively punishing him for it. It gets dangerously close to thought policing and censorship. Some might think it is okay for that specific case because of how horrible it is, but that is just a resting point. This will continue to the point no one is allowed to say or even think something for fear of retaliation. Have your doubts, but looking at the SJW culture where they tried to ban the term “bossy”, physically assault others, openly slander and malign people, accuse people of being racist just because they are white, which somehow they do not realize is racist itself. I think it is completely plausible. Fascism is their destination and we are steadily working our way there.





A less aggressive, but still poor action they deem a righteous response. Is to actively campaign your displeasure to others and advocate others to follow in boycotting the person or the business connected to the person to force them into punishing that person. These campaigns often exaggerated and skewed to the point of out right lies. Actively protesting your opinion to force a change in the free market of ideas, while not illegal, is still impeding the market’s natural adjustment. Which is wrong. You are allowed to have your opinion and voice your opinion, but to go to the point of actively getting someone fired from their job because they say something or think something you dislike, assuming it does not effect how they do their job, is wrong.





This type of protesting, censorship, legal action should be saved for the worse of offenses. If you think someone just saying the word “bossy”, “fag”, or “nigger” are the worse offenses, then I do not think you understand how bad true racism and hatred has been or can get. Which makes sense looking at the activities of the SJW community. These actions should not be abused to push your moral superiority or selfish interests. Which they do casually.





The exchanging of ideas works on a free market. If someone says something wrong, horrible, offensive, or anything else. Each individual can choose to voice their issues with it or disengage. If enough people feel the same and acts accordingly the market will adjust accordingly and they will be naturally be effected. You do not have to actively protest to get them removed from the market. The market will adjust naturally if you and everyone believes they are wrong. Active protests and campaigns should be reserved for important issues. They should almost never be a first resort. But they are in SJW culture.





I disagree with many liberal beliefs, but I would never actively campaign for someone to be fired because I disagree with their personal beliefs or if they say something offensive as long as it did not effect how they did their job. I will disagree with them and maybe even voice it, but I would not shout them down or demand their termination. That is petty and absolutely reprehensible. If those beliefs manifest while they are on duty or effects how they do their job, then we can have the conversation. But many times it is just pure thought policing. The fact SJWs cannot allow someone to have any employment if they deem what they say or believe something they disagree with shows what kind of people they are. What they want has nothing to do with justice or helping victims, it is about stopping any opposition.





SJW try to say that even the use of a word can throw a person back into the time of its original use no matter the intent or context. That just calling a person a “nigger” will chain him up and make him your slave. This is ridiculous. If that was true, the biggest slave owners would be black people as they use the term openly and freely. While words do have power it is limited to the power you give it. Someone just calling you something bad can hurt your feelings and is rude, but it cannot own you if you do not allow it. If you were to ban a word, you should have have to ban it for everyone. You cannot give a group a free pass just cause they are apart of it or close to it. Try to be consistent.





This censorship is done in the guise of “rehabilitation”. SJWs believe that if we just remove the words and punish anyone who uses them, we will somehow cure racism, sexism, bigotry, hatred, or what ever they say the problem is. This of course is no where near accurate. If you remove the words and punish anyone who uses them, racism will still exist. It will just be hidden. You cannot solve a problem by pushing it under the rug or just censoring it. If their real goal is to solve racism or help people from being victims of racism, word policing is the most ineffective way to do it. But it is a marketable action and that is what they are interested in. Making noise and being seen is their real goal. They just hide it under the just cause of equality to seem morally superior to gain social currency.





Another reason for this censorship is to punish people they disagree with. If they can twist and skew what ever someone says into racism, bigotry, or offensiveness, then they have a reason to attack and remove that person. It has nothing to do with morality or the just cause of saving people from discrimination. It is completely done for selfish reasons and to eliminate people they perceive as enemies. Which is why you get the most benign comments being considered as racist, sexist, or offensive.





The term hate speech is misleading. Because liberals self appointed right to grossly redefine what ever they please for their own goals. Hate speech has become anything that they disagree with because it is a easy buzz word that people mentally connect to violence, hate, and racism. They use the term “hate speech” to mislead any bystander to take their side no matter what the situation or circumstances. Even when the speech in question has nothing to do with hate, violence, or bigotry. You can often find people labeling facts or science as “hate speech”.





But whether the speech is based in hate or otherwise, it is in fact protected by the first amendment. The only speech that is not protected by the first amendment is speech that directly calls for violence, threatens, or meant to incite a riot.





This as expanded pass the actual words. We cannot even criticize a person unless society has deemed it acceptable. We cannot criticize Hillary Clinton for all the horrible things she did or we are labeled sexist. People that society has blacklisted are open game. To the point they are openly insulted and even assaulted in public.





I am not saying it is a good thing, a positive thing, or even a useful thing to use bad words. I am not defending the words. I am defending the freedom of expression, as it is connected to our ability to create ideas and resolve issues. If we are not allowed to say or think something, even horrible things. We cannot really figure out the poor mentality behind it. Having society ban the words to attack the ideas will only suppress the ideologies, which will only fester and embolden the thoughts. Censorship and force will not cure these negative ideologies. You can only cure it with discussion and understanding.





It is time we have a honest and candid talk about the SJW culture, their motives, and their actions. They attack freedom of speech so vigorously. They say it is necessary to protect people from bigotry. Clearly it is for their own selfish interests. Turning offensive speech into hate speech into banned speech does not stop bigotry. Their true interests are the moral currency they get from protecting victims they create. They attack the first amendment to stop any dissent. This is social fascism. We must look at everything and think what the goal is and what their intent is. We should use logic and reason to see what their actions will really do for society. Instead of blindly following this flawed morality supported by skewed and false narratives.





Freedom of speech is important, but it does have negatives. No one said freedom is happiness. Freedom is the best method to giving as many people as possible the opportunity of gaining happiness. But it itself is not happiness. Freedom is something we must fight for, something we die for, and something we must protect. Freedom is a responsibility.