"There has been heightened tension on the council estates of Paris since the 2nd of February, when a 22-year-old youth worker named Theo was allegedly beaten up and raped with a truncheon by police." 

Seems like a pretty reasonable reason for the people to riot IMO, if true.

But by all means, carry on blaming the immigrants.

He can justify it anyway he wants, but when you make numerous anti-semitic "jokes" its not surprising that a parent company such as Disney will see you as too high of a risk to continue funding. Notice how other "edgy" comedians don’t have shows on Disney properties. Like i said before, he needs to know who his main audience is

I apologize. I should've specified that I was referring to the property laws. Typing on mobile on VGC was cumbersome, but I'm on my computer now. Obviously, the ones allowing slavery were obviously discrimminatory, but they don't exist anymore. What matters is do the laws favor one race over another? The answer to that question is no. A lot of differences in per capita are incidental rather than causal. Things like stop and frisk are influenced by statistics because they show a trend that gives law enforcement a good idea of the big picture. This approach is also applied on other things such as car insurance, where men are charged more for their premiums because of their higher average aggressiveness.

And before you use the poor wealth argument again, you should contemplate the reasons behind that phenomenon. Perhaps, the overrepresentation of fatherlessness in black families contributes to that. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Children’s Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March 2011, Table C8. Washington D.C.: 2011., children in fatherless homes are four times more likely to be poor. They also are more likely to abuse drugs. Drug abuse wastes money, puts people in poor health, and will get them in frequent trouble with law enforcement. It's almost as if the economic problems among the black community is socially related rather than legally related...

Allegedly is the most important word of the underlined phrase. Rioting over something alleged is irresponsible as you engage in extreme action before even analyzing all the details. Also, let's say the event actually happened beyond reasonable doubt. Which option is better? Rioting or pursue legal action on the officers involved? Rioting is violent and have the possibility to be indiscrimminate, which can lead to people who aren't involved getting hurt. Pursuing legal action on the officers involved is specific and less violent. It puts the spotlight on the wrongdoers without needlessly harming others.

I suppose the only way you're going to actually acknowledge the problem is if it directly affects you. When you go to your favourite cafe and your girlfriend isn't allowed in because the area is being run my immigrants, then you'll see it. When you get put out of the home you've lived in for 16 years by the government because they want to house immigrants there, then you'll see it. When you get stopped in the streets because it's a Sharia law enforced area and your girlfriend is wearing 'inapropriate dress' or you're carrying a can of beer, then you'll see it. When the 'rape game' comes to an area near you, then you'll see it. When the women in your area start dying their hair black because they fear being attacked if they're blonde, then you'll see it. When you're banging on a door because there are immigrants who have your 13 year old daughter upstairs and are having sex with here, and YOU get arrested, then you'll see it.

Sounds like I've just made that up, doesn't it ...

Here's a nice fluffy conservative vid for the more faint of heart:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF-SjHuOTOM

And here's another showing how the press are hiding it from you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm5SYxRXHsI

Late to the party, but does anybody know what was the actual joke? I'm now reading tons of things through Internet, and I'm getting tons of different responses.

I'll explain step-by-step

1. There is a website that has people say anything you want for $5. They typically have a special 'theme' to them as well- one person may dress up as santa, jesus, etc.

2. Pewdiepie said screw it and thought he'd two dudes to say "Death to all Jews", with a message saying "Subscribe to Keemstar" appearing on the video.

3. The two dudes actually did it, and he uploaded it.

4. Everyone started calling him a nazi and antisemitic. Neonazis ended up supporting him, so that didn't help.

5. Media chose to pounce on the topic, cause logic.

6. Disney/Youtube cancel shows- everyone is celebrating.

7. Pewdiepie apologizes, makes it clear he doesn't support antisemitism or neonazis. Unfortunately, it seems like you can only completely love or hate a person. I don't support what he did, but calling him antisemitic/nazi is pretty low...

Oh no! A multi-millionaire is now going to be less of a multi-millionaire! The tragedy!

And... that was everything? In what way is that anti-semitic? OK, the joke went probably a bit too far, yep. But in context, it seems like he tried make fun of that website sending them the most offensive thing he could think about. I wouldn't label him as an antisemtic because of a joke. That sounds like witch-hunting to me. Still, the guy has to be more careful about the jokes he posts. People might be sensitive about that, and I could understand it. It was just a mistake, nothing else.

That was literally everything. Not the best joke, but calling the guy anti-semitic is redicules. The Wall St. Journal did it for the clicks and to cause a shit storm. WSJ should be the ones under fire for falsifying this whole thing. I think once word spreads of what really happened people will get a grip. 

The perfect turn of event would be that it'd backfire against the WSJ. But that won't happen.