Pewdiepie left "sickened" after New Zealand shooter names him in livestream

midian182

TechSpot Editor
Staff member

Forty-nine people were killed and at least 20 wounded in the tragedy, which took place in Christchurch, New Zealand. One gunman, who is thought to be Australian, livestreamed the shooting on Facebook using what is believed to be a head-mounted camera. In the first few minutes of the clip, he says, “Remember, lads: subscribe to Pewdiepie.”

Facebook said it had removed the shooter's Facebook and Instagram accounts and deleted the video. Police are asking people not to share the “extremely distressing” footage online. Before the attack began, he posted a message on 8Chan, part of which read: “Please do your part by spreading my message, making memes and shitposting as you usually do.”

Pewdiepie released a statement regarding the incident on Twitter earlier this morning. “Just heard news of the devastating reports from New Zealand Christchurch,” he wrote. “I feel absolutely sickened having my name uttered by this person. My heart and thoughts go out to the victims, families and everyone affected by this tragedy.”

The BBC reports that a man in his late twenties was charged with murder and will appear in court on Saturday morning. Two other men and one woman were detained nearby and firearms seized, Police Commissioner Mike Bush said.

The internet has been awash with people posting the “subscribe to Pewdiepie” message in recent months, as he competes to become the most-subscribed channel once again. He currently has 89.3 million subs, putting him just behind T-series, India's largest Music Label and Movie Studio, which has 89.4 million subscribers.

In December, 50,000 printers were hijacked to promote Pewdiepie’s channel, while January saw hackers do the same thing with Chromecast devices.

Permalink to story.

 
Last edited:
The problem with social media is that it allows hate groups and extremists - on both sides - to communicate with each other and to coordinate with each other.

Decades ago, a lonely hateful racist would be all alone, marginalized and shut off from society.

Now they don't have to be - they can "network".

I absolutely LOVE watching the "conservative groups" (ie racists) who berate Facebook and Youtube for targeting them when they post a combination of fake news, hateful rhetoric and calls for violence.

My answer is always the same: "If you don't like Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and other social media services censoring you - then get your own servers and your own social media sites).

But that's not what they want.

They want to be in the general public able to say the filth they say.

Thing is: Social media services ARE NOT CONGRESS.

"Congress shall make no law..."

The Social Media sites are 100% able to censor any level of filth they want to and the racists are powerless to stop them.

I'm 100% sure there will be new levels of censorship and red-flagging behind this.

I just wish to God it was me in those congressional hearings when those *****s like Diamond/ Silk/ Trump/ Conway, Alex Jones, etc are calling out social media because I would let them have it and I'd hold the constitution in their face while giving the chairman a "you can't do a damn thing" stare.
 

kombu

TS Addict
The problem with social media is that it allows hate groups and extremists - on both sides - to communicate with each other and to coordinate with each other.

Decades ago, a lonely hateful racist would be all alone, marginalized and shut off from society.

Now they don't have to be - they can "network".

I absolutely LOVE watching the "conservative groups" (ie racists) who berate Facebook and Youtube for targeting them when they post a combination of fake news, hateful rhetoric and calls for violence.

My answer is always the same: "If you don't like Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and other social media services censoring you - then get your own servers and your own social media sites).

But that's not what they want.

They want to be in the general public able to say the filth they say.

Thing is: Social media services ARE NOT CONGRESS.

"Congress shall make no law..."

The Social Media sites are 100% able to censor any level of filth they want to and the racists are powerless to stop them.

I'm 100% sure there will be new levels of censorship and red-flagging behind this.

I just wish to God it was me in those congressional hearings when those *****s like Diamond/ Silk/ Trump/ Conway, Alex Jones, etc are calling out social media because I would let them have it and I'd hold the constitution in their face while giving the chairman a "you can't do a damn thing" stare.
And yet things are beginning to turn around ; )
 

Apocalypse2012

TS Rookie
The two terms are not mutually exclusive.
No, but consistently excluding the political term for one racial category is not reporting the news, it’s crafting the news. That practice, exercised across media outlets, shares a kinship with crimes it misrepresents. You make yourself an accessory when you minimize these crimes in your reporting. So, FO&D on your ‘not mutually exclusive’ comment. That is some BS apologist crap.
 
No, but consistently excluding the political term for one racial category is not reporting the news, it’s crafting the news. That practice, exercised across media outlets, shares a kinship with crimes it misrepresents. You make yourself an accessory when you minimize these crimes in your reporting. So, FO&D on your ‘not mutually exclusive’ comment. That is some BS apologist crap.
Jesus Christ, calm down keyboard warrior. This is Techspot, not r/politics. No need to get aggressive and act like an a-hole.

First, it's up to the police investigation in New Zealand to decide whether he meets the definition of a terrorist. Not you, not me, and not a random Tech writer on Techspot in America.

Second, you are claiming the media is consistently excluding a political term for a racial category? You got any evidence for that?

Third, are you seriously claiming the media shares a kinship with these crimes and makes themselves accessories to crimes simply because they aren't using one word at the moment? The evil media are all in cahoots with each other and liable for crimes? Who are you, Donald Trump?
 

petert

TS Evangelist
I guess it was about to happen ... he is so famous that some dipshit will inevitably associate with him.

As for the no 1 - he is lucky that yt is banned in China. Would that not be the case, he would probably struggle to make it top 10
 
No, but consistently excluding the political term for one racial category is not reporting the news, it’s crafting the news. That practice, exercised across media outlets, shares a kinship with crimes it misrepresents. You make yourself an accessory when you minimize these crimes in your reporting. So, FO&D on your ‘not mutually exclusive’ comment. That is some BS apologist crap.

You are 100% right.

The media quickly labels White terrorists as "shooters" while a Muslim would be labeled a "terrorist".
 
J

jaryn211

No, but consistently excluding the political term for one racial category is not reporting the news, it’s crafting the news. That practice, exercised across media outlets, shares a kinship with crimes it misrepresents. You make yourself an accessory when you minimize these crimes in your reporting. So, FO&D on your ‘not mutually exclusive’ comment. That is some BS apologist crap.

You are 100% right.

The media quickly labels White terrorists as "shooters" while a Muslim would be labeled a "terrorist".
Well terrorist would imply it was done in order to get political change. Shooter is someone like the guy in las vegas. Maybe you people should learn what terms mean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ForgottenLegion
You are 100% right.
The media quickly labels White terrorists as "shooters" while a Muslim would be labeled a "terrorist".
The government brings terrorism charges only when they think they can make it stick because there are strict legal definitions to these charges. The word terrorism itself also has specific definitions (requiring both violence and political objectives). The media might have an [unconscious] bias in the use of the word, but the track record is not so clear cut - plenty of white attackers have been called terrorist while non-white shooters were not called terrorist by either the media and/or govt. The use of the word terrorism is inconsistent and all over the place for both whites and non-whites.

Fro example:
-Virginia Tech shooting by non-white guy Cho Seung Hui - NOT labeled a terrorist attack and not considered a terrorist
-2017 Congressional baseball shooting by a white guy named James Hodgkinson - labeled as terrorism
-Oklahoma Bomber Christian white guy Timmothy McVeigh - labeled a terrorist.
-Unabomber white guy Ted Kaczynski - labeled a terrorist.
-2010 Austin airplane suicide attack by old white guy named Andrew Joseph Stack III - labeled as terrorism and terrorist attack by politicans and the media
-Boston Bombing done by two Eastern European Muslim white guys - eg. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev - labeled terrorist

-2009 Fort Hood shooting by a non-white Muslim guy Nidal Malik Hasan - NOT categorized as an act of terrorism by the US govt and not called terrorism by the US army despite petitions by the victim' families. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/us/at-fort-hood-wrestling-with-label-of-terrorism.html

-D.C. sniper attacks by two African Americans - charged with terrorism by state governments, but the media didn't really call it terrorism after they found the perpetrators were not white (Personal anecdote: I live in the area)
-2012 Colorado shootings by white guy James Holmes - some said it was not terrorism while some said it should be called terrorism. There was a debate over him regarding the definition of the word terrorism. (though I believe they said Holmes avoided shooting up an airport because he didn't want to make it seem like terrorism) https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/224657-was-colorado-shooter-terrorist

-Orlando Pulse NightClub shooting by non white guy Omar Mateen - categorized as a terrorist attack after they discovered his allegiance to ISIS. Before this, people weren't so eager to label it a terrorist attack despite his non-white status from what I remember.

And the media is very inconsistent in the use of the word "terrorism" - not even using the word in articles describing attacks by designated terrorist organizations in the middle east.

BBC article about the massacre of 100 Christians in Pakistan - the word "terrorist" or terrorism is not used in the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/28/newsid_2478000/2478093.stm
Telegraph UK doesn't use the word terrorist in this massacre either:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/1360879/Christians-massacred-at-prayer.html
Examples of media (Reuters) doesn't use the word terrorism to describe Christians being targeted in shootings in Pakistan, but local officals do:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-shooting/christian-family-shot-dead-in-southwestern-pakistan-idUSKCN1H91JT
ISIS blew up a charity in Afghanistan and killed or injured 14 people. The word "terrorist" or "terrorism" wasn't used a single time in this BBC article. They were simply called "attackers."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42800271

So there may exist some unconscious bias against non-whites, but this not really some organized collusion effort by the media because the use of the word is really all over the place.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ghostf1re

avioza

TS Maniac
What about his response made you think that he is "happy" about the free publicity?
Increased publicity will likely drive up interest and his follower numbers.

I am not saying his statement is not truthful, but while he might not approve of the method he will likely end up being more successful at his ultimate goal (making money) which will make him happy in theory.
 

Nobina

TS Evangelist
Who cares what Pewdiepie thinks? He is not in any way responsible for this he just happens to be named by the lunatic. When a guy has 70m subs on YouTube some of them are gonna be mental there's nothing you can do about it. People got killed and everyone is arguing about meaningless ****, dumbasses.
 

Uncle Al

TS Evangelist
Simply put, the social media groups encourage rather than discourage this kind of hate speach because it means more hits on their site therefore more revenue. If the total of UN Countries passed a unified law that allowed Interpol to hunt them down and prosecute as well as each country take the carriers into court and fine them heavily for each and every message, you would see a complete 180 in social media sites. Just follow the money ... it points you in the right direction every time!
 
Don’t you ‘keyboard warrior me.
Keyboard warriors talk big and talk trash on the internet. You wouldn't have the guts to randomly insult people in real life, so instead you talk trash and insult people on the internet.

This guy made a very clear statement about the political objectives of his act.
If he had a political objective then he would be a terrorist. That is up to the New Zealand investigation to decide, not some rando annon on the internet. People thought they knew the motives of the Pulse Nightclub shooter too, but then new evidence came out that threw those motives into question. Being a shooter and being a terrorist is not mutually exclusive. The writer of this article using the word shooter instead of terrorist is not some media collusion to avoid using certain words. The writer can certainly update the article or write new updates to include the words terrorist later on when more evidence comes out.

None of that matters though. Like most other tech rags, this community on TS is half full of Russian trollbots, Proud boys, and Pac Northwest closet Nazis.
So other trash talking keyboard warriors?

So, I don’t care what flavor of douche hampster you are, or what got you skipping down the Red-pill Road, but I don’t have to prove **** to you. I can see what you are well enough from here.
You are trash talking on the internet rather than having a civilized logical discussion. You've proven that clear enough.

It's also hilarious that you're implying I'm connected to white supremacy when I'm not even white and simply said shooter and terrorist are not mutually exclusive. On the other hand, you've done nothing but engage in ad hominem attacks, which is typical of Russian troll/neo-nazi behavior on the internet.
 

Apocalypse2012

TS Rookie
Keyboard warriors talk big and talk trash on the internet.
.
Maybe your right. Or maybe when, when the mass murderer has a body count of nearly fifty and a publicly posted manifesto, the only reason you want to dither over semantics and demand that others define the word ‘is’ is because you are a jack-boot bigot. I don’t need the ‘authorites’ to read me the definition of terrorist. Maybe that’s what you like to do... and maybe that’s because you got no problem with how that works out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion
I just watched the video. Nothing short of horrific.

People like this are the reason I have to conceal carry my Kimber .45.

Better to be armed than caught completely unarmed.
 
Maybe your right. Or maybe when, when the mass murderer has a body count of nearly fifty and a publicly posted manifesto, the only reason you want to dither over semantics and demand that others define the word ‘is’ is because you are a jack-boot bigot. I don’t need the ‘authorites’ to read me the definition of terrorist. Maybe that’s what you like to do... and maybe that’s because you got no problem with how that works out.
I think I am quite right about you being a keyboard warrior who trash talks and insult others on the internet instead of engaging in rational discussion - because that's literally what you've done so far.

As for your other point, I said the "term shooter and terrorist are not mutually exclusive." I did not say he was not a terrorist. Somehow that means I'm a bigot? You like to casually throw out ad hominem attacks and unsubstantiated accusations like free candy don't you?

Waiting for more evidence to come out/official announcements makes me a bigot? Go take a look at the Pulse NightClub situation. The media reported motivations for that shooting changed every week, from anti-gay terrorism to closeted gay hatred to personal anger at his gay lovers for giving him HIV to Islamic terrorism from ISIS ties.

If the attacker had a verified personal manifesto that shows he had a political objective, then of course he would be a terrorist. However, that's up to the official investigation to verify and not up to rando annons on the internet to decide. News articles and news reports should follow official investigations, not the forum posts of random annons.
 

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
You are 100% right.
The media quickly labels White terrorists as "shooters" while a Muslim would be labeled a "terrorist".
The government brings terrorism charges only when they think they can make it stick because there are strict legal definitions to these charges. The word terrorism itself also has specific definitions (requiring both violence and political objectives). The media might have an [unconscious] bias in the use of the word, but the track record is not so clear cut - plenty of white attackers have been called terrorist while non-white shooters were not called terrorist by either the media and/or govt. The use of the word terrorism is inconsistent and all over the place for both whites and non-whites.

Fro example:
-Virginia Tech shooting by non-white guy Cho Seung Hui - NOT labeled a terrorist attack and not considered a terrorist
-2017 Congressional baseball shooting by a white guy named James Hodgkinson - labeled as terrorism
-Oklahoma Bomber Christian white guy Timmothy McVeigh - labeled a terrorist.
-Unabomber white guy Ted Kaczynski - labeled a terrorist.
-2010 Austin airplane suicide attack by old white guy named Andrew Joseph Stack III - labeled as terrorism and terrorist attack by politicans and the media
-Boston Bombing done by two Eastern European Muslim white guys - eg. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev - labeled terrorist

-2009 Fort Hood shooting by a non-white Muslim guy Nidal Malik Hasan - NOT categorized as an act of terrorism by the US govt and not called terrorism by the US army despite petitions by the victim' families. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/us/at-fort-hood-wrestling-with-label-of-terrorism.html

-D.C. sniper attacks by two African Americans - charged with terrorism by state governments, but the media didn't really call it terrorism after they found the perpetrators were not white (Personal anecdote: I live in the area)
-2012 Colorado shootings by white guy James Holmes - some said it was not terrorism while some said it should be called terrorism. There was a debate over him regarding the definition of the word terrorism. (though I believe they said Holmes avoided shooting up an airport because he didn't want to make it seem like terrorism) https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/224657-was-colorado-shooter-terrorist

-Orlando Pulse NightClub shooting by non white guy Omar Mateen - categorized as a terrorist attack after they discovered his allegiance to ISIS. Before this, people weren't so eager to label it a terrorist attack despite his non-white status from what I remember.

And the media is very inconsistent in the use of the word "terrorism" - not even using the word in articles describing attacks by designated terrorist organizations in the middle east.

BBC article about the massacre of 100 Christians in Pakistan - the word "terrorist" or terrorism is not used in the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/28/newsid_2478000/2478093.stm
Telegraph UK doesn't use the word terrorist in this massacre either:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/1360879/Christians-massacred-at-prayer.html
Examples of media (Reuters) doesn't use the word terrorism to describe Christians being targeted in shootings in Pakistan, but local officals do:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-shooting/christian-family-shot-dead-in-southwestern-pakistan-idUSKCN1H91JT
ISIS blew up a charity in Afghanistan and killed or injured 14 people. The word "terrorist" or "terrorism" wasn't used a single time in this BBC article. They were simply called "attackers."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42800271

So there may exist some unconscious bias against non-whites, but this not really some organized collusion effort by the media because the use of the word is really all over the place.
Wikipedia sums up what you said pretty well in these statements:

There is no universal agreement on the definition of terrorism.
And
It is the use of violence or threat of violence in the pursuit of political, religious, ideological or social objectives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

As I see it, the US legal definition of terrorism as involving political motivation is more US hubris - and I am a US citizen. Limiting it to political motivations in the US, IMO, is total :poop:
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
I just watched the video. Nothing short of horrific.

People like this are the reason I have to conceal carry my Kimber .45.

Better to be armed than caught completely unarmed.
You don't need to be armed to take out someone with a gun. Take the guy who took down the shooter in the pancake house, for instance - https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2018/04/22/waffle-house-shooting-hero-stopped-shooter/540061002/

Armed or not, one needs to be smart, not give in to fear, and lucky.