YOUTUBE POST

     As yet, I haven't watched two videos of piewdiepie's all the way through and watching this video I think free speech is important  and propriety requires freedom for us to learn optimally from our errors.  I am not sure what his satire was all about, but to paraphrase his concerns, I trust his accounts regarding unfair media treatment...and am not shocked that that is the response to controvercial easy to misrepresent issues. I am speculative of the unjust approach the media sometimes takes in situating criticism of people with social influence, in order to coercively promote accountability in ways that unfairly misrepresent people.  Such people are made targets because they do not represent what I call the "status quota"- which is a term for the maintaining of social harmony or social chaos through the kinds of messages, and normative presentations that embody social policies we are encouraged to promote.  Such messages and policies embody individually and collectively fostered values developed in virtue of consistencies in our approaches and intentions to create salient and sapient forms of culture and value. These form of cultural value balance the protection of rights and entitlements in ways that are socially cohesive and integrally well poised to adapt ethical considerations to culture and value development.  

     While I do not promote hate, the right to criticize all groups freely and fairly is important. Such freedoms have, yes, social consequences good and bad depending on the impacts of one's criticisms. Social subjectivity is however something born into objective potential narratives that are "socially synthetic"- that is to say fabricated by shared individual senses of values and moral permissability, that emerge as a consequence of our experimentations with acceptable forms of expression. I argue that one's intention should matter to the kinds of impacts one creates, and that it's one's redirection from misunderstanding, using responsible rhetoric which is an authentic exemplification of our character's greatest achievement.  

     Testing social limits, in ways that seek to preserve meaningful and worthwhile social harmony is valuable, and such approaches matter quite a bit even if society is not on the same page with how it is that the authenticity of permitted versions of iconoclasms are shaped by consensus mitigative factors. These mitigavie factors are in turn shaped by acceptable kind of conflict and novel as yet unapproved of approaches to generating conflict by way of promoting the depreciative or appreciative assumptions we can make about a people or person's social right, entitlement and repute, in the sense of how fair these elements are presented and represented in the media. Society has to test its principles in its formation of its policies. Things boil down to liberties founded on a hierarchy of principles. One's most integral methods of changing the world with justified and ethical forms of social criticism, in part hinge on the preservation of people's freedoms in ways directed by individual and collective conscience, redirection away from calamity and meaningless suffering, personal and public evolution and valid improvements of approach.                   
                                                                                                                                                
     The media's morals are questionable, and who it targets based on its intent to socially engineer what I call "the markets of acceptance" (what some call political correctness) by way of intersecting freedom and responsibility, is usually well directed but has possibilities for abuse.  While this is a good inclination, the desire to make people more accountable, you cannot and should not punish people into submission, making examples of some, as sacrificing the rights of the 'innocence few' to save the 'innocent many' in the process....this approach is in my understanding a counter-intuitive and counter-productive approach on balance, that appears on the surface to be a morally correct calculus.  Society uses this kinds of calculus all of the time, as society makes examples of its discontents, and malcontents, its criminals, its minorities,  its true justice warriors vs. social justice warriors, its freedom fighters become akin to terrorists in just the slant of how people are inclined to pitch irrelevant yet potentially pertinent information.  

     THE MEDIA is a "perpetual pitch"- selling you value, following rules and breaking with convention according to socially acceptable emergent set of policies that are dictated by formations that are legal, social, political and economic.  The media tells us how to think, what to promote, what to know to be "in", what is normative and what is unacceptable. The media embodies what are liberties and limits are and represents contexts in efforts to shape the representation of rights to evolve a public perception, through supporting certain messages and through a tactical rejection of accepted poor approaches- so it's all investorially speaking bound up in the acceptance and rejection of social interest in order to promote social value.  When people use satire, a populace must be versed in irony to unlock subtle meanings and in certain cases satire is made a target based on how it is poised to present or intentionally misrepresent the ethical intentions of others in order to critique the content and context of permissible liberty (IE Charlie Habdo and the Je Suis Charlie Habdo meme as analogies and motivationally complex iconoclasms of either dictatorial or diplomatic and democratic analogs of choice). 

     This approach to critique both social mechanism and social means sometimes represents a packaging of tropes and acceptable schemata that generate an atmosphere of coercion which is what I call OS abuse or OS, AKA Omitted Signfication. OS is a kind of hegemony that limits social discourse by misrepresentation, manipulation, and coercion.  Not all cases of misrepresentation are unethical, when unjustly practiced and based in abuse social hegemony is an example of what I call OS, based on things omitted to generate an impression that signifies that one is representative of a particular type of individual who using unethical manipulations of things like the media should be predisposed to be treated a certain way.  Ethical approaches to generating an understanding of how to treat a person or group of messages is what I call OSi (or Omitted Signification integrity). If you would like to understand mediated and unmediated social engineering or hegemony, please feel free to read the following from my blog.  Live long and prosper.   http://albinoindigo.blogspot.ca/search?q=os+second+edition