PEWDIEPIE BTFO

Wow took this corporate shill long enough to try to capitalize on this.

AN OBJECTIVE THEORY

A GIVE ME COCKS THEORY

How will he ever recover?

lol this is trash
because in 2006 SJWs weren't as loud as today? duh
nonsense, comedy often requires impulse and improvisation, comedians who strictly play by the book are the most boring
not all jokes are supposed to be "punching" at somebody
in this case the joke was simply supposed to be funny for its "shock" element, putting a phrase which holds such a bold meaning by today's perception and putting it in such an innocent context is what makes it funny
that's it, not everything needs to be on either side of your political struggle, you fucking commie cunt
again nonsense, pewdiepie is by now mostly a comedic channel and everybody shrugged it off as a joke before the WSJ article
literally tumblr
if this nigger would have watched the actual video he would have seen pewdiepie ordered numerous people on the site to do other dumb shit and more than half of them refused to do it for much more trivial reasons
yes, because again nobody perceived them as anything else than a joke until the WSJ article
yeah, because having a channel who lives up with annoying and often mean harted pranks is totally the same thing as paying some guys in a remoted village in india to hold up a sign with a jokingly shocking inscription
yet right after you make the point that using comedy to shift the overton window to the left is totally fine
the only ironic thing here is that you fucking dickhead don't see that's exactly the point

the only somewhat valid point is that the video made those two indian guys lose their job at fiverr but even then how was he supposed to know that if he didn't even think they would have done it in the first place?
all the other "arguments" are SJW tier and belong in the trash, like the whole channel

This guy should kill himself.

Unfunny cunt, don't care about it.

Felix already said in a video:

It's basically defamation.

I couldn't care less, tbh.

==I mock the fuck i want to mock!!== You pozzed faggot, if you disagree, you can eat shit and die.

wrong, antisemitic and racist jokes are not ok, first they start with the jokes and electing trump then soon we'll have death camps and gas chambers once again.

Never have a first time to begin with.

cool! more antisemitic jokes pls

Nazis are much fewer in number than Jews these days. Does that mean it's okay for them to "puch up" at Jews?

...

>can't red text
faggot alert

I knew this guy was an idiot, but I didn't think he was a moron…

too big to webm, vid.me link instead.

>>>/waifuist/

Isn't MatPatt the same retard that tries to claim that his ((theories))) are more canonical than the author's intent. Didn't he try to pull that shit with FNAF and then ended up getting BTFO?

They had decent wooden shields, too.

is this some kinda beta test meta troll where you try and bait us into supporting a yter we dont like by having an even bigger faggot attack him?

cuz i dont think its gonna fly pal

In all seriousness, SJWs of all kinds do that. I can't remember the name of the author but proto-SJWs from last decade got an author to walk out of his own talk after an SJW would not let up and insisted that his own view of the book overrode the author's intent. The reason why those SJWs are one and the same as any other is because SJWs are by default absolute-subjectivists. In this case, that SJW and that cancertuber believe their own views of the book are the official ones because they say so.

I once debated a shit head on /k/ that said the Art of War was “ironic” and that Sun Tzu wasn’t a general. Parroting “ironic” is the new tactic for marxists that have no argument whatsoever.

What the fuck is with all this "no punching down!" shit lately?

Takes 40 seconds of material and repeats the same premise to you in slightly different ways
FUCK OFF SHLOMO

Why do you keep using this label when it's obvious that all leftists behave like this?

lol
I get the feeling Pewdiepie will get more likes and attention and Matpat will get unsubbed like a mother.

i've heard it years ago

reeks of communism, and all that other insurgent ideologies

This is such bull. There's no direction you're punching if you're trying to be funny. If someone fucks up or looks like an asshole and you crack a joke about it, it shouldn't matter if they're a filthy nigger or a rice-calculator or a dumb cracker.

Take thisradio bit. They listen to a news story for the first five minutes, and finally one of the guys has had enough and starts making fun of the kid in the story. He's calling him a fat faggot and making fun of how bad he is at football.
Is this punching down? It's a white football player, so he's privileged and likely a neonazi, but Jimmy is saying he's a disgusting faggot and a fat fuck..
I guess leftists would twist it and say "oh he's making fun of marginalized communities like the fat community and the gay community, and he's doing it by implying this straight white privileged footballer is one of those". This poor shitty white kid got torn to pieces on public radio, and if you'd ask the leftists they'd say "that's oppressing minorities".

The reason lefties are so unfunny is because all their jokes have to have a vector. They try to deconstruct mean jokes because deconstruction is what they do to things that trigger them, like family or race or art. Fucking kotaku has an article called "Why memes stop being funny" as if they've ever come up with anything funny and/or creative. As if you'd wonder why memes get stale and think, "hmmm, I better check kotaku. they know internet culture". The only memes they know are sassy black .gifs and Rick and Morty quotes.

sage for ventposting but purple-banged dykes and pencil-armed numales lecturing people on comedy makes me furious.

Fuck I was too angry to post the right video.

I remember one about a book report getting a fail because the idea presented wasn't the right one, even though the kid got help from the actual author

...

Yeah MatPatt made this game theory about FNAF and the Scott actually responded with something to the effect of "Ayy good video but not quite correct!". And MatPatt basically replied with
NUH UH, YOU'RE THE ONE WHO'S WRONG!

Like Jesus Fucking Christ.

Reminds me about how the author of Fahrenheit 451 mentioned his book was about things other than censorship at a university, and students stood up and argued "That's not what it's about, THIS is what it's about!". Like he's the fucking author of the goddamn book, you'd think he'd know better than anyone what he was trying to fucking convey with the book he fucking wrote himself, I mean Jesus Christ. He had such a hard time defending himself he just gave up and left partway into his lecture because he couldn't stand it.

You guys really never heard of the Author-Is-Dead concept?

Here's the quotes.

Is that some more leftist idiocy trying to wrap reality so it won't punch them in the face?

No, it's basic concept that allows academic consideration of work before the author actually kicks the bucket. The author is just one shmuck full of shit opinons who soon will be gone, while their work will remain and spawn new interpretations.

checked
lol
Does Berkeley put Brawndo in the drinking fountains?

This issue, of course, is that it ignores intent. The reader plugs their ears and makes up their own meaning, willfully ignorant to whatever the author is actually saying.

Doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with it, the fact that you actually never heard of this is just sad.

If the author wants to say something, he can write it directly. The Fahrenheit 451 example shows that the author can be a huge fuck-up and still manage to write something that resonates with people. If Bradbury had managed to convery his idea that television is the worst thing ever properly, nobody would ever have given a second thought to his work.

...

So, yes, it is a leftist ploy to twist the truth to serve their own needs.

Why would I bother learning about (((academia))) bullshit whose sole purpose is to put words in someone else's mouth?

One of the main examples Barthes used were paintings.
When you look at a van Gogh, you usually don't pull out a manual to educate yourself what the painter meant, you interpret it yourself.
Death of the Author is by itself a good argument in my opinion.
Of course, like so many things, it's often been used recently as an excuse to inject politics into forms of Art where there was no intent.

It's the Death of the Author non-sense, it gives them a way to feel intellectually superior.
At the end of the day, they still don't understand why a guy decided to take a shit in a bunch of tin cans with a price tag.

Why indeed.

Why should I listen to anything that comes out of the mouth of leftist idiots? I don't pretend niggers saying bix nood is worthy of my attention either.

...

...

Because said opinion is retarded?

...

You just stated what said opinion is, and it boils down to "We know better what the author meant than the author himself".

Yeah, it's stupid.

How does it feel to be functionally illiterate?

You have no understanding of Author is Dead.
I would suggest you educate yourself but you already argued that all opinions you don't know are shit anyway so there we go.
I'm not even saying that Author is Dead is correct or you should agree with it, i'm belittling you for being so aggressively resistant to information.

It's okay Holla Forums, one day you're gonna grow up and realize how retarded your whole ideology is.

Sad part is that some of them stay retarded.

not an argument

It's more like stating a fact.

>>>/oven/
>>>/oven/
>>>/oven/
>>>/oven/
>>>/oven/
>>>/oven/
>>>/oven/
>>>/oven/
>>>/oven/
>>>/oven/
>>>/oven/
>>>/oven/
>>>/oven/
>>>/oven/
>>>/oven/
>>>/oven/
>>>/oven/
>>>/oven/
>>>/oven/
>>>/oven/
>>>/oven/

Not the user you were arguing with, but everything you've stated about Author is Dead makes it sound completely retarded, as did the discussion leading up to you talking about Author is Dead.
Is this really the hill you want to die on?

I don't care about Author is Dead, i just get perturbed by people who quite literally are proud of being ignorant.

It's not ignorance, I just fail to see any point in listening to the braying of people that subscribe to an ideology that has been wrong about everything for the past 100 years.

Also, I don't need to read a doctoral thesis to know Author is Dead is moronic.

Matpat is a fucking retard.

Truly an art of the 21st century.
Can't wait to see him retweet sophistry, I mean sophisticated arguments to how he's truly virtuous as FUCK.
Post some dank memes, MattPratt

I looked up Matpat memes.
Knowyourmeme is fucking cancer. Sherrod should kill herself.

The jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.

You know right we know their shit, its just that most ideas the left have are retarded, especially the cultural left

...

So is Holla Forums leftypol's garbage dumping ground or is it all trolls larping as retards?
Consistently shit threads.

it's a designed shitposting board and that's perfectly fine because nobody wants to talk about crappy hollywood flicks anyway

The guy who made undertale told him he was wrong too.

So your "opinion" is that authors don't mean what they mean, even when they tell you exactly what they mean?

leftypol thinks they can convert people to communism by being obnoxious transparent redditards that raid all the other big boards.

The "greatest" youtuber is a function of subscriber count?

Alright then. Better scrap every construct in society that limits mob rule and we can let the mass retarded public decide things from now on. Can't wait to see how that turns out.

Pewdiepie and all his subscribers are the worst human beings on the planet. ISIS members are more human than the worthless cunts who watch a grown man scream rape and fake scream at terrible video games.

t. youtuber no one cares about

stay mad faggot.

this had better be bait, see
anyone who disagrees is a massive idiot, no surprise since Holla Forums is the 2nd most anti-intellectual board on this site (Holla Forums is #1)

TEST TIME!
"for sale: baby shoes, never worn"
what does this short story convey?

I could see for example how the constitution is reinterpreted even though the founders were explicit in what they meant, largely because you can conveniently ignore details when an author isn't around to defend their work, but How does this apply when the author is a live and he tells you, to your face what is actually meant? Japan had no issue with letting their authors be the vanguards of what is canon. It's only the the Semite-influenced West that says, "NU-UH YOU'RE WRONG", and I guess this is why things like continuity and proper story-telling structures are completely thrown out the window in western television, because the integrity of a story doesn't matter.

Dan "If she's a fighter hold her tighter" Schneider got to the baby before it could wear the shoes.

lol i smell butthurt

Fuck you and your leftist idiocy.

...

I swear you molyjew posters only post that because you can't come up with a rebuttal and argument yourselves. Let me spoonfeed you.

When you listen to the philosemite that the another user quoted, you are taking that kike at his word that it's perfectly fine to disregard the author's intended meaning and the author himself because; the author is dead both literally and figuratively, even if the author isn't truly dead. That is supremely dishonest because, if that is allowed, it is enabling intellectual dishonesty, i.e. you are free to claim a work means whatever you want it to mean. Why? Because it doesn't matter what the author ever meant, the author is dead - the work has no official meaning because the author isn't there to defend it, ever. So the book is a free target at all times.

This explains the effect in today's liberal arts colleges where they reference certain works but stipulate that those works mean whatever they want it to mean ergo, the work they are discussing inexplicably means whatever thing they wanted it to mean, regardless - no need to prove it means that. It's quite literally a passive form of historical revisionism. The most dishonest part about all of this is that it allows you to dishonestly misconstrue and deliberately lie about a work's meaning so you can attack it. If there is a historical account of something written to cover something several hundred years ago and it's considered an authoritative work on a historical event, you are free to claim it's invalid because you suddenly believe it is so. But why else? Because the author is dead and better yet, it's up to (((interpretation))). For more kikery, you can quote it selectively and claim those quotes are signs of toxic thinking and it means the author's work is a sign of patriarchal hegemony or whatever. But you don't have to go that far. You just have to passively state it.

The bottom line is that, "The Author is Dead," clause is one of the most shameless attempts to authorize academic dishonesty. It is the pretentious form of saying a work is free to attack because the author can't spend his time defending it all the time, and once an author is truly dead, he surely cannot spend time defending his work. Lastly, a work can't defend itself in the eyes of the (((subjectivist))). Subjectivism by default means whatever you want something to mean is equally true to reality, which is intellectual delusion.

They lied about Pewdiepie. Did they lie about Hitler?

...

hehehehehe

Blanket dismissals of rival sides in a controversy is definitely foolish, but arguing from a team oriented perspective rather than on the merits of the points made sounds pretty dumb too.

Try this.

codoh.com/library/document/4056/

Is there anyway we can just delete Holla Forums from Holla Forums for good? Those fucking gommies are total cancer to this website with their political baiting and inviting reddit to the site.

thx

...

In meme wars, the best memery prevails. Trying to censor it hasn't worked for Twitter, Facebook, Leddit or anywhere else, and it won't work for you as well. If the fringe of Holla Forums is as inept as the dumb fuck SJWs and need censorship to prevail, they already lost.

Anyone have those screenshots of those posts from Holla Forums talking about them trying to subvert boards? Can't seem to find them.

Oh that explains it.

it's actually leftypol and shitposters
they use to think they could just do it and get ppl hating pol for breaching containment - but that didnt work because most anons are at least somewhat in the know now - sans the racial baggage. Their plan for a bit now has been to bait and engage political arguments to foster apolitical moderation choices due to the constant bickering. The goal is to either drive people away from the board due to over moderation and/or a drop in quality. The end game of course being to crack consensus and edge it left or seize ownership of an abandoned board outright.

...

lol

baseballvandals had also a tantrum

Sad!

Cuck

...

Said the same site that has community that argues for animal fucking for trans acceptance for otherkin rights.

They did and they didn't. Chainmail was reserved to Earls, Chieftains or wealthy merchants. The rest used padded stuff or just normal clothes. Maybe leather or plant fibers but this kind of stuff deteriorates fast hence there's no archeological evidence.

who is markplier

...

I feel sorry for everyone involved

The video he made was comparing knights and high ranking samuras (I don't know the exact terminology). He can't then go on to compare that to average nordic footsoldiers.

Also,

BOOPER DOOPER

Yeah, I love when leftists get mad when I use the concept to counter their own bullshit. In a battle of absolute subjectivism and lack of any objectivity whatsoever, the one that prevails is the guy with the biggest stick. It's something that leftists always forget.

quads confirm we need more insulting comedy, specifically anti-semitic

Nah, why would they?
After all Hitler was a very very nauught man that killed 6 million jews just because he hated them

Fuckin' checked

i'll check your check

What the fuck is a "pro-gamer?" Ypu mean a hardcore gamer?

Noam Chomsky/Christopher Hitchens: They didn't

Noam Chomsky/Christopher Hitchens: There was no holocaust

What is this even supposed to mean?

chomsky is considered a holocaust denier because he realizes that free speech must extend to all platforms, regardless of how right/wrong they are.