Why doesn't it. You are asking for the work's cited of a university thesis to prove your opposition's point when you are asserting a positive claim here (and repeatedly) with 0 evidence.
You are making this look unnecessarily complex when it's not in the slightest. Look at one single recent Pewdiepie video. He hasn't been edgy for years, his content is much cleaner. He hasn't fallen into (new) controversy in years. No one in his fanbase became a nazi soldier. The man is just reacting to reddit memes among other things. This is a far cry from his character from many years ago where he went as far as making a song parodying sexual assault (this is way back). He has apologized for his mistakes at the time and he has shown that he has in fact changed.
Another strong positive claim that's impossible to prove one way or another.
The burden of proof is on the media in general for making the claims that Pewdiepie was actively radicalizing his audience.
You don't think someone's political beliefs come through when they're writing a book about how to live your life?
We don't even know what's in the book at all, and even then Pewdiepie said in his book review that he does not fully agree in it, mainly found it very interesting. The closest Pewdiepie got to politics is pointing out the book has religious comparisons in it. Either way it's safe to assume the book does not contain instructions to join the alt-right, or misleading crime statistics and so on, or anything extremist like that. But correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't see how this addition of context is particularly meaningful. It's not like he's making fun of him or anything. I don't particularly consider it an endorsement, but this addition of context is moot.
It's actually very important. It can be mistakenly perceived as if Ben Shapiro was invited & endorsed for his political beliefs, especially with the way Noirscape worded it.
1. Pewdiepie has too much money and has had too many controversies not to at least do a cursory check on someone before he recommends them
That's why it was a mistake from him that was
massively overblown by the media at the time, and unfortunately now by Noirscape as well. There is a giant difference with "One of the 20 channels Pewdiepie recommended for anime reviews has offensive content in it, Pewdiepie should be more responsible" and "Pewdiepie made a video endorsing a nazi channel to his viewers". This is why context is especially important in this section specifically.
2. you're claiming to know details about Pewdiepie's internal thoughts that you could not possibly for certain, even if he directly told them to you.
This is exactly what should be said to the people calling defaming him though. The burden of proof is on the people trying to defame Felix's character, and I am responding to and correcting arguments depending on the case. They always assume the absolute worst in Felix's character and his impact, often not looking at the bigger picture.
because everything after "and" is a positive claim that you haven't supported (and which wouldn't be particularly hard to find evidence to the contrary)
Again, the burden of proof is on the people making the claims that people used the movement to be racist against Indians. They made the claim so they are the one that have to back it up. I have asked numerous people over the years for evidence and they have always gone silent.
I also don't why you attribute every single bad actor's actions to "trolls". Do you not think anyone genuinely believes in what they're saying?
Perhaps there is, and it would be an extreme minority in what used to be an internet-wide event at the time centered around a channel with millions of active fans.
your standard for evidence is completely unreasonable as you already have an automatic "they were trolls" dismissal lined up so it's impossible for me to believe your requests for evidence are something you're saying in anything other than bad faith.
We don't even have to argue about that. Whether or not they would be trolls, they were an extreme minority. In an evidence based topic, evidence should be brought at every opportunity.
"You are giving him what he wants" arguments really don't hold up to basic scrutiny. He's locked up. Why should we care whether or not he likes what happens after?
I personally don't think mass shooters should be remembered, especially in this case when it wanted to spark a reaction and ruin the movement.
That doesn't determine whether it's a reasonable thing to do or not. That is to be determined on its own merits. "You are giving him what he wants" is a thought-terminating cliché.
I don't think you realize that at the time, the media was serious about believing Pewdiepie was to blame for what had happened. If the goal was not to defame Felix's character, then why did Noirscape reference the mass shooting as an argument against Felix?
Oh boy now it's my turn to say "why are you omitting important context". The ADL's hate symbol list very clearly qualifies the images on their list in such a way as to make it clear to the reader that not every instance of a symbol is hate. The OK hand symbol isn't even on their list.
The OK hand symbol
IS on ADL's list though. It's "Okay Hand Gesture" under the " Hate on Display™ Hate Symbols Database" section. Now, I will acknowledge that they do clarify about the innocence (and actual intended) usage of the symbol, but this is still silly at best when letting extremists win and smear words & symbols is the worst thing you can do. What should be done is continuing to use words & symbols in their intended ways and widely condemning attempts to change their meanings. Instead, the media did the opposite, giving up so easily and letting evil people hijack it. In fact, outside of ADL at least, innocent people are regularly kicked out or fired depending on the case, just because they did an ok hand gesture as a traditional innocent "you lost the game" joke. This last happened with an innocent Fire Fighter on August of this year. The media regularly uses the ADL as the main authority on "hate symbols" and this is one of the main reasons why ADL is rightfully detested as they don't care about defending words/symbols and just let everything be a hate symbol to the point of innocent people getting negatively affected after.
you have a bad habit of taking this too far and making positive claims you can't prove out of what could have been an easy layup dismissal.
What does this mean? What is a "positive claim", and what is a "layup"?
the same could be said of yourself.
This is an empty phrase made to disrupt the pace of the discussion and trying to avoid having to confront the fact so many of the claims made against Pewdiepie are utterly baseless if not outright false in a few cases. The burden of proof is on the people that made the claims.