So apparently JonTron is a racist

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT
 

Addendum_Forthcoming:

runic knight:

Please stop intentionally derailing the thread solely to have excuse to rant.

Putting aside your inability to follow an argument and apparent lack of reading comprehension ... it's kind of racist if you phrase it as a specifically racial issue. It's bad argumentation. Black rich people do commit more crime than the average working class poor white people... but then again, so do White rich people.

It's not a racial issue. It's an economic one. As per my arguments before, JonTron isn't a racist. He's just a fucking idiot. It's codedly racist, also relies on a skewed idea of crime (crime being reduced to street crime, not white-collar) ... which is bad enough. But that's what social tuning does ... you put yourself within a visible in-group and you go through a process of deindividuation, where you take diminished responsibility for your actions for perceived membership.

And people should point that out.

Ok, enough of this crap.

You replied to my post entirely without relevance to anything that was being said then act affronted that it is called out for being entirely without relevance to what was being said. You even missed the entire point of the post you quoted as you zeroed in on a single thing to shoot off in a bizarre tangent. You started talking about how your being well off means you get away with being a criminal. This in reply to talking about jon's reply video where he mentions that unpleasant statistics being said gives some people enough justification to call people racist. It doesn't relate to any point I was making there and it really looks like you were intentionally trying to derail things solely so you had excuse to gripe about trump again.

Your second part here is at least relevant to the thread. But you still fail to properly relate what you are talking about at any given point with what the person you are quoting was actually talking about, and honestly, I am tired of that laziness. You need to actually take the time to connect your frantic mental process so that others can follow. Sporadically ranting about Trump and expecting anyone to understand what the hell you are trying to say is just foolish.

On the topic itself, I agree it is not racist. That was part of the point of mentioning how your argument would be applied the same way to being called racist as jon was. To show that those calling jon racist for it were in the wrong, especialyl in relation to his reply video where he specifically makes mention to how people reply to statistics they find uncomfortable by reacting poorly.

I disagree however that jon's quote is an economic one, as it specifically slices through that argument by pointing at economic status actively going against what you expect it to do. Well-off blacks committing more crimes than poor whites belies the claim that income is the primary factor for committing crime. Your own claims also actually further that as you are well off and still commit crimes by your own admission. Therefore if working from the perception of the stat that wealthy blacks commit more crimes than whites is true, the conclusion that crime is related to economic status primarily is not supported. Thus far you are the only one who has divided crime according to "street" and blue-collar, a separation that again has been given no relevance to anything and has been added into the mix just because you wanted it to. Does it relate to the stat that jon used before? I don't know, you never demonstrated or claimed anything like that, just worked it into your reply as though it should be there and stormed forward with your tangent.

Your side-commentary about social tuning and the like though is more irrelevant junk tacked on without any sort of connecting reason that you shared with the rest of us. Now I am sure there is something there, same with your insistence on bringing up trump previously, but when you don't show your work, it is pretty hard to follow exactly what you were trying to say or argue.

runic knight:

Ok, enough of this crap.

You replied to my post entirely without relevance to anything that was being said then act affronted that it is called out for being entirely without relevance to what was being said. You even missed the entire point of the post you quoted as you zeroed in on a single thing to shoot off in a bizarre tangent. You started talking about how your being well off means you get away with being a criminal. This in reply to talking about jon's reply video where he mentions that unpleasant statistics being said gives some people enough justification to call people racist. It doesn't relate to any point I was making there and it really looks like you were intentionally trying to derail things solely so you had excuse to gripe about trump again.

Kay, I literally used your language and explained why it was a problematic statement that is a half truth. Like How Milo said trans women were more likely to be involved in sexual violence, without adding the the caveat; as victims of crime. It's morally wrong in numerous schools of philosophical discipline, and serves zero merit to the discussion other than; "This is how to be morally wrong."

Whatever happened to the; "no bad tactics, just bad targets..." spiel you go with?

Your second part here is at least relevant to the thread. But you still fail to properly relate what you are talking about at any given point with what the person you are quoting was actually talking about, and honestly, I am tired of that laziness. You need to actually take the time to connect your frantic mental process so that others can follow. Sporadically ranting about Trump and expecting anyone to understand what the hell you are trying to say is just foolish.

Because it's not a fact that people should take on board ... the very rich can and do regularly commit crime. Regardless of race. They also commit civil wrongs to a far more gross level of occasioning. Sure, you might get mad at the person who pickpockets your wallet (a crime) ... but the court will just shake its head when someone like Donald Trump refuses to pay thousands of workers for labour given that unless they file for a class action they can't possibly recoup their losses and associated legal fees (not a crime).

On the topic itself, I agree it is not racist. That was part of the point of mentioning how your argument would be applied the same way to being called racist as jon was. To show that those calling jon racist for it were in the wrong, especialyl in relation to his reply video where he specifically makes mention to how people reply to statistics they find uncomfortable by reacting poorly.

I disagree however that jon's quote is an economic one, as it specifically slices through that argument by pointing at economic status actively going against what you expect it to do. Well-off blacks committing more crimes than poor whites belies the claim that income is the primary factor for committing crime. Your own claims also actually further that as you are well off and still commit crimes by your own admission. Therefore if working from the perception of the stat that wealthy blacks commit more crimes than whites is true, the conclusion that crime is related to economic status primarily is not supported. Thus far you are the only one who has divided crime according to "street" and blue-collar, a separation that again has been given no relevance to anything and has been added into the mix just because you wanted it to. Does it relate to the stat that jon used before? I don't know, you never demonstrated or claimed anything like that, just worked it into your reply as though it should be there and stormed forward with your tangent.

It's wrong because it's codedly racist. I've likely committed more crimes than your average poor, working class Australian (or in fact, I know I have). Would you agree with the narrative that being right should facilitate the argument; "Wealthy Asian-Australian half breeds commit more crimes than working class Aussies..."? Or as a wealthy Australian who just so happens to have a Filo mother simply commits more crime than the average working class Australian?

What is the more accurate statement, and which one pushes for manufactured racist spiels? Basic utilitarianism ... the key to moral guidance is formulating the truest opinion one can have so that it most effectively governs their intelligent praxis. Me stating; "Rich Australians tend to commit more crime and civil wrongs than the average, working class Australian..." is a greater facilitator of intelligent praxis than merely assuming Black people are inherently more likely to commit crime because they are Black.

More over my statement actually addresses the idea of material wealth provided degrees of separation from police action, and the continued decriminalisation of white collar crime and civil wrongs. Hell, there's literally no excuse for wealthy people to commit the number of crimes they play a role in given just how much white collar crime has been stripped from policing and regulatory agencies to fight against.

Aboriginal kid steals a candy bar out of your store? That's a crime. Commonwealth Bank stealing the wealth of many thousands of mum and dad investors... making fraudulent claims of the merits of their financial services, and repurposing loan agreements and using fraudulent system of periodic withdrawals out of accounts? Bit iffy whether that's a crime ... I mean, it is, but good luck getting EVERYONE involved in that practice who materially benefitted and had an active hand in its formation put in cuffs.

Your side-commentary about social tuning and the like though is more irrelevant junk tacked on without any sort of connecting reason that you shared with the rest of us. Now I am sure there is something there, same with your insistence on bringing up trump previously, but when you don't show your work, it is pretty hard to follow exactly what you were trying to say or argue.

Yes ... because bringing up white collar crime and the immunity of money, when talking about criminality of the wealthy, isn't a valid point of conjecture.

Seriously, dude. None of this post actually challenges my point. It's just straw.

gigastar:
I should clarify that i dont treat it as a valid identitiy. I would consider it a mental disorder.

Oh here we go. Do you even know what a mental disorder is?

From Wikipedia:
According to DSM-IV, a mental disorder is a psychological syndrome or pattern which is associated with distress (e.g. via a painful symptom), disability (impairment in one or more important areas of functioning), increased risk of death, or causes a significant loss of autonomy; however it excludes normal responses such as grief from loss of a loved one, and also excludes deviant behavior for political, religious, or societal reasons not arising from a dysfunction in the individual.

Pay attention to the part I highlighted.

Well 3 of the articles you linked were form what Google Scholar tells me are social studies professors. So no theyre not real scientists.

Bullshit, you are not the authority when it comes to science and the insistence that some things are beyond the bounds of science is ridiculous. The social sciences include things like economics, anthropology, criminology, international relations and so on. I can't stand it when people insist that social science is not "science", it's as pathetic as someone insisting that jazz isn't music. Scientists don't care about what some rando thinks about their field of study, it's why they rely on peer review instead of treating it like it's American Idol.

What's sad is that people with a mentality like yours actually obstruct a lot of scientific research and advancement because you insist that your layman's knowledge is of more value than somebody who has a thorough understanding of these things. Every time a politician insists that climate change is a hoax because it snowed last week they're doing exactly the same thing as you're doing, and I apologise if I sound harsh but I'm sick of people only giving a damn about science when it produces them an iPhone and getting butthurt whenever it comes to a conclusion they're uncomfortable with, be it that the planet is billions of years old, waste emissions are killing the environment or god forbid, the relationship between sexual dimorphism, hormones and society is kinda complicated sometimes.

gigastar:
As for that petition, i actually agree that courses that seem to taking students and turning them into activists should be suspended for review. If nothing else its a fundamental betrayal of the concept of university, instead of being enlightened theese students have come out with worse job prospects than before and indoctrinated into a 'Everyone i dont like is Hitler' school of thought.

I work in a university. This literally doesn't happen.

It doesn't matter if a university literally started teaching a degree called "social justice warrior studies" rather than the broad range of social studies courses which Sargon is actually talking about under the heading of "social justice" courses. Such a degree would still be marketable and would still increase your job prospects.

There are situations in which the cost of fees and living expenses as well as career delay can effectively cancel out the average increase in earning from completing a degree, pretty much all PhDs fall into this category, but there is literally no situation in which doing a degree will make your job prospects worse. It's an anti-intellectual myth.

More significantly though, what you're describing is actual censorship. It's the actual restriction of academic freedom, the foundation stone of the university system, in order to satisfy the prejudices of people who have not read the books or learned anything about the courses they are trying to censor. I am a gender studies graduate, unless something dramatically changes my PhD will probably be in gender studies. The popular conception of what we do in gender studies is largely determined by people who have absolutely no exposure to even the basics of the literature or theoretical frameworks we work with. Name a foundational text of the field. Go on, without Googling, name one of the books you actually want to ban.

I don't care whether or not a student conservative society gets to host a shitty talk on the private property of their democratic student union. I don't care if barely-literate Youtubers are suddenly, inexplicably scared by students on campus protesting. I don't care if women said nasty things to you on Twitter. None of these things, as far as I've concerned, have any bearing whatsoever on free speech as defined at any point within the Western liberal tradition until now. What does have a bearing on free speech is when academic freedom is compromised. That is genuinely authoritarian and it is genuinely frightening. It is a threat to the only place in society where the kind of dialogue you claim to want can actually happen. Youtube is not going to save academia, Youtube can't even be relied upon to cite the correct study in a video specifically aimed at addressing that study.

Skatologist:

runic knight:

I can't tell if you didn't bother hearing his reply,

No I bothered, it just happened to reduce my respect for the man even further. How he managed to do that after coming off as one of those Bob Whittaker bots crying about white genocide with only slightly more nuance and slightly less bile still surprises me. I refuse to let him sweep his comments under the rug as if they might actually have merit though.

Don't people sweep things under the run when they don't care about them, not as a means to somehow make them seem valid? Isn't sweeping things under the rug the exact opposite thing you do if you value them?

Oh and "Anytime someone brings up an uncomfortable statistic, you freak out, and burn things down." Well, those "uncomfortable statistics" tend to be brought up as half truths or misunderstandings used in ways in order to harm marginalized groups.

So, like "wage gap" nonsense that gets echoed all the time? Would it be fair to call anyone who claims that as "sexist" then? Or does it not apply that the stat that has been debunked time and again is brought up specifically as a call against one group of people on behalf of another not count because you feel the group it is called against isn't marginalized overall? Because if so, I do have to point out that viewing the groups in that manner relies on stereotypes and preconceived biases about a group of people solely on the trait that defines them as a group.

"Well they are disproportionately involved in those kinds of crimes" was used in reply to trans people and sexual assaults/sex crimes insinuating they are overly represented as an aggressor rather than the actual fact they are victims of those kinds of crimes.

I remember that line, and that one was very dishonest. However I don't see the stat jon cited as being intentionally misleading in that way. His stat was pretty cut and dry about the economic status not differentiating in who committed crimes in the way one would expect. Not that it isn't without flaws mind you, but certainly not the intentional dishonesty you are implying it is now.

Jon did a similar thing, spouted off something with no evidence supporting it, asserting it as unobjectionable fact, and the closest thing he has doesn't say what he think he's saying and instead can act as evidence against his claim that discrimination is over.

Except, the stat wasn't intentionally misleading in its reporting in the same way as the previous one you used here. Ironically this attempt here supports jon's claim about how the presentation of an uncomfortable stat alone is enough to get people to freak out and misrepresent him based on hearing stats they don't want to hear.

Which leads me to believe people just want to believe this shit about black people. Now, what would you call someone who goes out and looks for any opportunity to shit on black people even if those things about said black people aren't necessarily true? (BTW, don't try and turn this on "replace black with white and you got a similar problem with a certain group yaddayaddayadda" nonsense. People don't go out and lie about white people like they do for Muslims, Hispanics, or black people. It's not even close to being the same. I mean FFS, our president even retweeted neonazi statistics on racial homicides[1])

You attempt to dismiss that people openly shit on white people in the media all the time and want me to take you seriously at all? And you cite trump as evidence of something jon supports in the same argument?

-shakes head-

First off, just because it is inconvenient to realize that people constantly shitting on white people as a race is entirely racist itself, doesn't mean it isn't still racist. If you would like I can cite the countless media articles and stories that carry that theme as the new cultural normal, though I think we both know that is such an obvious occurrence at this point that it is wasting both our time there. Nearly any article in major news talking about race in a way that reinforces the differences between race does so while maligning whites, be it by the argument of original sin racism to claim all people are racist, or by specifically talking about "white" behavior without a hint of irony to the use of such stereotypical views to justify biases against the race itself. Just because it is directed at a perceived "non-marginalized" group does not make the action any less racist.

Secondly, your conclusion itself is inherently based on a faulty set up as I explained already. You took an example that was intentionally dishonest to compare to one that was not, then used that to justify your conclusion that people were intentionally looking for excuse to shit on black people in general. Logically, you tripped and stumbled two steps back, so your conclusion is neither sound nor valid at this point. So rationally, you failed to support your conclusion here. And while I don't disagree that some people likely do look for any excuse, I don't think jon is in this case in any form, nor do I think the insinuations made do anything but highlight his overall point, as you yourself clearly demonstrated that this is done because he cited a statistic you dislike resulting in implicating his character and comparing him to those intentionally trying to shit on black people (essentially, you are claiming his actions are racist in all but directly calling him racist). The result is that in response to jon pointing out that people who hear statistics they dislike will respond poorly was to latch onto the statistics he used and attack his character as though he was intentionally trying to shit on black people.

You've demonstrated the very point he used in his video.

Also

Even though the obvious racial disparity does shrink as levels of wealth grow, it is never fully eliminated. According to Zaw, this might be because of other economic factors, such as the wealth of extended family members, or factors such as education, job experience and social connections.
"To the best of my knowledge, this is the first study to look at the impact of prior wealth on the odds of incarceration and to demonstrate that wealth does not provide the same degree of insulation from imprisonment for black and Hispanic males as it does for white males," said co-author William A. Darity. Darity is a professor of public policy, African and African American studies and economics at Duke University.

Black people going to jail disproportionately doesn't "scare" me. Insinuating that as evidence of an inferior race, subculture, or set of values (which racists will do) rather than assessment of historically unjust judicial systems with both conscious and unconscious biases against minorities just pisses me off.

And that is a great defense to the stat being used to support any conclusion. But here's the question I have to ask, what was jon using the statistic to argue here? Because I don't recall it being used to are anything specific, rather just used in shotgun examples while talking about how concentrating on race results in people concentrating on race in reply. You latched onto the implications of the stat itself and argue against a conclusion based on the stat itself that wasn't actually being argued. That, in turn, was what jon's reply video specifically called out, the reply to an uncomfortable statistic.

As he states himself, the point made was that you can't keep harping on about everything being racial and then act surprised when everything is thought of in those terms.

I still don't know what this specifically means. Acknowledging unconscious racism is a thing? Overstating the importance of race in specific instances? Saying that things (maybe more specifically things from certain individuals like Trump) were racist? I'd like some examples of what you mean.

the point was that by concentrating on everything being about race, it inevitably makes people respond based on race as well. The media constantly attacking white people because of racism inevitably caused some white people to reply based on race as well, drawing up examples such as he used about black crime stats. By constantly drawing attention to the divides based on race, especially when making one race the negative one in every example, all it does is serve to perpetuate the idea that race means anything in the first place. It is racism that is being used to fight other racism succeeding in only promoting more racism.

I can only assume, it was the constant attention given to race over the years in the media that made the racial divide so much worse and noticeable now. When making every issue about race is the norm, people reply based on race, even when it isn't just against white people anymore.

Ignoring that and ignoring that discrimination is universally wrong

Define discrimination. Also please give examples that don't sound like strawmen of events I've probably heard of and you are overly biased representing one way or another(aka what Jon did in his "this is supposed to be my apology video, but instead of saying I'm sorry for the heinous stuff I was saying, I'm only going to apologize on how I was saying such heinous stuff instead." video). Because I refuse to agree with this statement until I get a clear answer on how you define "discrimination". Because discrimination can literally be

"I discriminate by
1. eating apples over oranges
2. Wearing polos over tank tops,
3. Hanging out with Steve who is my friend than Brett who's an abusive fuckwad
4. Watching anything with intellectual merit rather than a Sargon video
5. Giving my money to a cause that I feel needs it versus a cause I don't support"

And wait, since you said that, you must be against this?! I mean, it does discriminate entry of people from certain countries.

Discrimination is treating someone differently based on a trait, and within context of the discussion and usual use of the word in social contexts, it is treating them differently based on a trait they can not change or that which doesn't reasonably explain the different treatment. Discrimination requires actually determining how to act toward someone based upon a trait. Racism specifically is treating someone different based on race. Sexism is that for sex. Can be positive and negative discrimination.

Discrimination would be treating a person with distrust during a job interview and not hiring them because of whatever trait. It would be firing someone because they are of a certain trait you personally dislike even though it doesn't affect their ability to do the job.

Discrimination would not be pointing to actual facts about said trait. Pointing out that there is a crime stat imbalance is not discriminating any more than pointing out medical patterns within certain ethnicities, pointing out biological differences between sexes, or pointing out patterns in how people are treated is not itself discrimination. Facts, of which stats can be, are not discriminatory themselves. Conclusions drawn from those facts may be though.

Your definitions of discrimination is weird. While your examples are true of discriminating, few related to people, and most just demonstrate that discrimination between things is nothing more than personal preference. That, in relation to the discussion itself, seems to be intentionally downplaying the seriousness of it. You are after all comparing racism against black people with not wanting to eat an apple. furthermore, your examples all have reason to make the discrimination based on reason in a way that discrimination as discussed in the topic currently does not. You even hint at some of them yourself by having a person judged by their actions of being an asshole(a trait they can certainly control) and not being a cause you feel needs the money (a trait that would dictate how you respond to them).

My thoughts on the refugee block? I am not for it, nor am I greatly against it. With regard to discrimination though, it is yet another example of yours that has justification in treating things differently. The refugees represent a security risk in the government's eyes, and can even base this on incidents with crime and riots in countries where populations of such has resulted in incidents.

So once again, you are pulling up examples that seem to be playing with the wording of "discrimination" to simply mean "treat different than something else in general" rather than the use when relating to how people are discriminated against because of traits that don't actually provide valid reasons for treating them differently but instead are based on biases against those traits they can't change or that which affect nothing on their own. Lets be honest, the discrimination in this case would be against citizens of certain nations currently unstable and in wartime, not a certain race, nor a certain religion though those traits are also shared among them. And while it is still discriminating based on nationality, it is not a trait that is arbitrary or unrelated to why they are treated differently for it, which undercuts comparisons to discrimination against black people which this entire exercise has been implying.

By your examples, hiring a person with a license to drive as a delivery person is discrimination against those without a license who applied. That is not a very good definition for the word as it renders it completely worthless and entirely synonymous with "chose".

And yet that is so commonplace in the media itself, it is harmful to the very notion of tackling race issues.

You can't fight racism by enacting racism, and yet that seems to be the acceptable answer nowadays.

Again, examples of what you fucking mean. Because essentially saying "hey wait, maybe white people are ignorant of what black people have to go through and maybe we all have an unconscious bias against blackness and should take measures correcting that." doesn't really sound all that objectionable.

Not hard to understand what I was saying if you put it in context to the video you said you actually listened to. Though you also claim it is something it isn't while saying you watched it, so pretty obvious you were seeing it as something other than what it is based entirely on biases to begin with.

Ok then, context. Jon was talking about how the media have used racism as a means to combat racism. In particular, racism against white people that would not fly if they were against black people. Sammantha Bee and other media examples showcases this point clearly. This in turn defines the new cultural normal of using racism of one type to combat racism of another, something that doesn't work and is in my opinion abhorrent and disgusting. But it also was used to show the double standard in how one race is treated compared to another, demonstrating that it is indeed racism being used to fight racism.

Arguments such as "black people have to go through something different than white people" rely upon grossly generalized statements based entirely on preconceived views of race that are created solely by stereotypes about said races. They are answers to racism that are done in a way that completely reaffirms the differences in race and that which make one race the "bad guy" while the other is the "victim" regardless that individual occurrences could and do wildly vary. Such arguments done by the media often are racist themselves done to fight racism, and yet which merely reaffirm the notion that race actually mean differences and thus just serves the purpose or perpetually reinforcing the divides between race.

And while one can certainly make arguments based on stats about each race in order to justify conclusions directed at various races, it does leave me with a question about those that choose to do so. If jon is racist for even pointing out the uncomfortable stats, what does it say about those who are actively using such stats in order to justify a conclusion that people should be treated differently based on those traits themselves and specifically about traits that they can not change or that which do not justify treating differently when looked at individually.

[1] Should I have to denote these statistics are untrue before you claim I think they are "uncomfortable"?

I didn't listen to the debate, nor do I know either of these people. All I've seen is people being mocking his claim that "Wealthy blacks commit more crime than poor whites". Here's 2 sources for you. There is an additional source from FBI statistics that is easily obtainable, but I'll leave that up to you. After all, I know you're all principled and intellectually honest. Real truth-seekers.

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6119&context=jclc

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/99v05n3/9909levi.pdf

hmm
really makes you think

shibbydibby:
I didn't listen to the debate, nor do I know either of these people. All I've seen is people being mocking his claim that "Wealthy blacks commit more crime than poor whites". Here's 2 sources for you. There is an additional source from FBI statistics that is easily obtainable, but I'll leave that up to you. After all, I know you're all principled and intellectually honest. Real truth-seekers.

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6119&context=jclc

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/99v05n3/9909levi.pdf

hmm
really makes you think

Condensending tone aside:
Say that it is true. That wealthy blacks do more crime than poor whites. It's what people conclude from that is what others find troubling. Myself for instance, I don't draw the conclusion that people are more genetically disposed to violence which is in fact the very definition of racism and has harmful implications/consequences.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

runic knight:

Ok, enough of this crap.

You replied to my post entirely without relevance to anything that was being said then act affronted that it is called out for being entirely without relevance to what was being said. You even missed the entire point of the post you quoted as you zeroed in on a single thing to shoot off in a bizarre tangent. You started talking about how your being well off means you get away with being a criminal. This in reply to talking about jon's reply video where he mentions that unpleasant statistics being said gives some people enough justification to call people racist. It doesn't relate to any point I was making there and it really looks like you were intentionally trying to derail things solely so you had excuse to gripe about trump again.

Kay, I literally used your language and explained why it was a problematic statement that is a half truth. Like How Milo said trans women were more likely to be involved in sexual violence, without adding the the caveat; as victims of crime. It's morally wrong in numerous schools of philosophical discipline, and serves zero merit to the discussion other than; "This is how to be morally wrong."

Try again, this time go slowly and actually connect the threads of thought you are having. Put them in a rational and consistent pattern of reason that properly demonstrates how you took what I was saying and reached the point you did. Because much like every time I talk with you, it seems you take a fraction of what is said and shoot off 10 miles down a backroad of mental tangents.

Remember, I, and most of the thread, is talking about how people responded to jon's comments, not the factual or validity of those comments itself. The only instances of talking about the validity of his comments relates to if he is lying about the stats. None of that relates to actually arguing about wealthy committing more of less crimes in general, least no arguments I have seen and none that I was trying to make.

I mean, look at what you did here, you are talking about Milo now. What? Why? How does that relate? Why would I care about milo in a thread about Jon? What point is milo attached to? How the hell does it relate to Jon in this instance? At best you said "it is half truth" which seems the slimmest of reasons to justify your rant against someone you dislike, and when you spend more time on your rant than on the reasoning why it is relevant, I simply grow too tired to put up with it.

If all you were trying to say was "what jon said was a half-truth", then fine, just say that, keep it to that, and explain how that claim applies to what the hell I was talking about in the first place. Add the flavor text after you properly define the argument, not in place of one.

Your second part here is at least relevant to the thread. But you still fail to properly relate what you are talking about at any given point with what the person you are quoting was actually talking about, and honestly, I am tired of that laziness. You need to actually take the time to connect your frantic mental process so that others can follow. Sporadically ranting about Trump and expecting anyone to understand what the hell you are trying to say is just foolish.

Because it's not a fact that people should take on board ... the very rich can and do regularly commit crime. Regardless of race. They also commit civil wrongs to a far more gross level of occasioning. Sure, you might get mad at the person who pickpockets your wallet (a crime) ... but the court will just shake its head when someone like Donald Trump refuses to pay thousands of workers for labour given that unless they file for a class action they can't possibly recoup their losses and associated legal fees (not a crime).

How does anything you said here relate to what I was talking about? This is just an excuse to rant about trump, isn't it? I don't care at he moment. Ok, so you think "it" (the stat jon used I assume) isn't a fact people should accept. Why not? What is wrong with it? How does what the rich get away with relate at all with how rich black people are statistically more likely to commit crimes than poor white people according to the stat used? Skat at least made a good counterpoint that the system could be racist and just apply regardless of wealth, and while not entirely solid a counterpoint, it is at least relevant to the discussion as it explains why people are responding to him and calling him racist. You just gloated about breaking the law. How does that relate to what jon was saying, how people were responding to him, or what I was saying about that?

On the topic itself, I agree it is not racist. That was part of the point of mentioning how your argument would be applied the same way to being called racist as jon was. To show that those calling jon racist for it were in the wrong, especialyl in relation to his reply video where he specifically makes mention to how people reply to statistics they find uncomfortable by reacting poorly.

I disagree however that jon's quote is an economic one, as it specifically slices through that argument by pointing at economic status actively going against what you expect it to do. Well-off blacks committing more crimes than poor whites belies the claim that income is the primary factor for committing crime. Your own claims also actually further that as you are well off and still commit crimes by your own admission. Therefore if working from the perception of the stat that wealthy blacks commit more crimes than whites is true, the conclusion that crime is related to economic status primarily is not supported. Thus far you are the only one who has divided crime according to "street" and blue-collar, a separation that again has been given no relevance to anything and has been added into the mix just because you wanted it to. Does it relate to the stat that jon used before? I don't know, you never demonstrated or claimed anything like that, just worked it into your reply as though it should be there and stormed forward with your tangent.

It's wrong because it's codedly racist. I've likely committed more crimes than your average poor, working class Australian (or in fact, I know I have). Would you agree with the narrative that being right should facilitate the argument; "Wealthy Asian-Australian half breeds commit more crimes than working class Aussies..."? Or as a wealthy Australian who just so happens to have a Filo mother simply commits more crime than the average working class Australian?

A singular example does not make a statistic, nor does it prove anything. It is an anecdote, nothing more. And I called it that before, it is devoid of relevance so it is just useless overall. The stat used is at least a statistic about a trend in the population. You need relevance to make a case, and a singular example on its own can be an outlier. YOU can be an outlier that doesn't represent a trend. The stat jon cited represents an overall trend that can actually be applied (not that he did apply it) because it takes into account the total amount of crimes committed not just what could just be one very determined criminal. Do you understand the difference?

What is the more accurate statement, and which one pushes for manufactured racist spiels? Basic utilitarianism ... the key to moral guidance is formulating the truest opinion one can have so that it most effectively governs their intelligent praxis. Me stating; "Rich Australians tend to commit more crime and civil wrongs than the average, working class Australian..." is a greater facilitator of intelligent praxis than merely assuming Black people are inherently more likely to commit crime because they are Black.

The statement that looks at the whole group and reports simple factual data about said group is infinitely more accurate than you using yourself as an example and claiming it represents the entirety of groups you represent. Even if the stat itself isn't very useful on its own, when it comes to accuracy, the one that is simply reporting a fact about the entirety of a group would by all logic and reason always be more accurate description of a group than a singular example claiming to represent a group. I don't know why that would even be asked.

More over my statement actually addresses the idea of material wealth provided degrees of separation from police action, and the continued decriminalisation of white collar crime and civil wrongs. Hell, there's literally no excuse for wealthy people to commit the number of crimes they play a role in given just how much white collar crime has been stripped from policing and regulatory agencies to fight against.

What does this have to do with anything about jon, how people responded to him, or what I was talking about?

Aboriginal kid steals a candy bar out of your store? That's a crime. Commonwealth Bank stealing the wealth of many thousands of mum and dad investors... making fraudulent claims of the merits of their financial services, and repurposing loan agreements and using fraudulent system of periodic withdrawals out of accounts? Bit iffy whether that's a crime ... I mean, it is, but good luck getting EVERYONE involved in that practice who materially benefitted and had an active hand in its formation put in cuffs.

What does this have to do with anything about jon, how people responded to him, or what I was talking about?

Your side-commentary about social tuning and the like though is more irrelevant junk tacked on without any sort of connecting reason that you shared with the rest of us. Now I am sure there is something there, same with your insistence on bringing up trump previously, but when you don't show your work, it is pretty hard to follow exactly what you were trying to say or argue.

Yes ... because bringing up white collar crime and the immunity of money, when talking about criminality of the wealthy, isn't a valid point of conjecture.

When talking about how people responded to a statement made mentioning criminality of the wealthy, it is entirely derailing and self-serving to start a rant about your criminal history at a person commenting on how people responded to a comment. This is especially true when you were asked to demonstrate how it relates to my argument that you are replying to in the first place and you continue to fail to show that.

Seriously, dude. None of this post actually challenges my point. It's just straw.

I am not challenging the entirely off-topic and self-aggrandizing rant you are making about wealthy people committing crimes in this thread about how a youtuber made comments and people responded to him to call him racist? Gee, I can't imagine why you quoting a person talking about how that youtuber's comments were being reacted to isn't addressing your tangent about wealthy people and crimes..

It is almost like you are arguing something else entirely that is barely connected at all and I don't dive a damn about your boasting of your criminal exploits when it doesn't relate to the post of mine you replied to in the first place.

shibbydibby:
really makes you think

Yeah.. It does.

It makes me think of questions like "do you know the difference between a rate and a percentage", "do you know the difference between crime in general and homicide in particular?" or "did you read any of the analysis?"

Story:

shibbydibby:
I didn't listen to the debate, nor do I know either of these people. All I've seen is people being mocking his claim that "Wealthy blacks commit more crime than poor whites". Here's 2 sources for you. There is an additional source from FBI statistics that is easily obtainable, but I'll leave that up to you. After all, I know you're all principled and intellectually honest. Real truth-seekers.

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6119&context=jclc

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/99v05n3/9909levi.pdf

hmm
really makes you think

Condensending tone aside:
Say that it is true. That wealthy blacks do more crime than poor whites. It's what people conclude from that is what others find troubling. Myself for instance, I don't draw the conclusion that people are more genetically disposed to violence which is in fact the very definition of racism and has harmful implications/consequences.

Not necessarily the correct conclusion though. Even if going on the assumption that the data isn't being influenced too greatly by enforcement of law being racist (not sure to what degree that would have), it could still be related to cultural instead of genetic traits that determines criminality likelihood. Which honestly, wouldn't be too surprising that the values and behaviors people's culture, or in this case sub-cultures, teach them can have lasting effects even if their economic standings change.

Or it could even be other aspects that correlate to race but that which are not caused by it. Hell, diet can affect how animals behave, so even something as unexpected as food or substances that correlate more with blacks than whites could help explain the statistic.

shibbydibby:
I didn't listen to the debate, nor do I know either of these people. All I've seen is people being mocking his claim that "Wealthy blacks commit more crime than poor whites". Here's 2 sources for you. There is an additional source from FBI statistics that is easily obtainable, but I'll leave that up to you. After all, I know you're all principled and intellectually honest. Real truth-seekers.

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6119&context=jclc

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/99v05n3/9909levi.pdf

hmm
really makes you think

It does make one think. It makes one think exactly where you're pulling this assumption that "wealthy blacks commit more crimes than poor whites" out of when the two sources you posted neither make nor support such claims.

First, the closest that those sources come to substantiated your so-far baseless race-baiting is data in link #2 that show more homicide occurrences in black communities (no indication of the perpetrator's race).

The data, in general, found in link #2 is inconclusive. As of its 1979 data, it does show that rich blacks have a higher number of homicides per capita than poor whites per capita, but as of its 1969 data, poor whites are more likely perpetrators per capita. So, this data shows a complete switch in the timeframe of 10 years, and we're supposed to believe that data from 40 years ago still holds true?

Secondly, the data shown in Table 1 of source #1 completely contradicts your claims.

In their conducted study, "Not one of the 121 upper-class persons
accused of murder was black." So unless the number of lower-class white persons accused of murder was negative, you're flat out wrong.

Third, why don't you dare to define the terms you're using, if you are actually interested in being intellectually honest that is. For the record:

*What income level is considered rich?

*What income level is considered poor?

*If using percentiles, are we using percentiles per race (aka percentile scale for black people is based on percentiles of black people's income and vice-versa) or a unified percentile scale?

*Are we redefining the word "crime" to simply mean murder (your two sources only delve into murder rates on anything more than a victimization percentage)?

*Are we using rates per capita (as your sources do for murder) or absolute number of crimes (as the assumption states)?

Finally, your data is so fucking old that its essentially irrelevant. The first study is from fucking 1979 aka ~40 years ago, and the second study is from 1994 aka ~20 years ago. Got anything more recent? Because the amount of social change that has happened over the past 20 years (let alone the past 40) is more than enough to make any data from those time periods completely useless when analyzing the present.

If you're trying to show yourself as "principled and intellectually honest" and a "real truth-seeker," your first attempt is rather laughable.

Perhaps, next time, actually take the time to read your own sources instead of believing the ramblings on whatever alt-right website you found them on. Did you really think that we wouldn't?

Well that got interesting. You ever listen to a band that's kind of new? Maybe the opening act to someone else, could be an indie label they're paying their dues on, whatever. Buy an album, they're pretty good, go to a couple shows. Later on they get a hit in the charts and suddenly you meet people who only heard the single acting like the OG fans. Or worse yet, the ones who think that being OG gives someone gatekeeping privileges. Has this thread reminded anyone else of that sort of scenario but with science instead of music?

runic knight:

Story:

shibbydibby:
I didn't listen to the debate, nor do I know either of these people. All I've seen is people being mocking his claim that "Wealthy blacks commit more crime than poor whites". Here's 2 sources for you. There is an additional source from FBI statistics that is easily obtainable, but I'll leave that up to you. After all, I know you're all principled and intellectually honest. Real truth-seekers.

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6119&context=jclc

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/99v05n3/9909levi.pdf

hmm
really makes you think

Condensending tone aside:
Say that it is true. That wealthy blacks do more crime than poor whites. It's what people conclude from that is what others find troubling. Myself for instance, I don't draw the conclusion that people are more genetically disposed to violence which is in fact the very definition of racism and has harmful implications/consequences.

Not necessarily the correct conclusion though. Even if going on the assumption that the data isn't being influenced too greatly by enforcement of law being racist (not sure to what degree that would have), it could still be related to cultural instead of genetic traits that determines criminality likelihood. Which honestly, wouldn't be too surprising that the values and behaviors people's culture, or in this case sub-cultures, teach them can have lasting effects even if their economic standings change.

Or it could even be other aspects that correlate to race but that which are not caused by it. Hell, diet can affect how animals behave, so even something as unexpected as food or substances that correlate more with blacks than whites could help explain the statistic.

Sometimes due to grammical errors and sloppy sentence structure my point doesn't come off as conherent as I want to be. Sorry about that. To be clear I don't agree with that genetics theory...in fact I find it a little abhorrent and, as a black person, rather demeaning. I only brought it up because someone else on this thread kinda half way made it as a point to defend Jon. When that's actually the type of implication opponents to Jon do not like.

I agree making that pointwithout police bias is a fault in the arguement. However I have to admit that also coming to the conclusion that violence is connected to sub-culture which also happens to be prominently race specific, though more true than the genetics argument, is also extremely troubling with horrible implications. In stead of comming to conclusions like blacks commit more crime because they are more aggressive or that they promote violence in their subculture, ask why does this subculture promote violence?

Also full heartily agree with that last point. I think racial crime is a lot more complicated than people tend to believe and comming to swiping conclusions does a disservice to the issue and the people affected by it.

runic knight:

Try again, this time go slowly and actually connect the threads of thought you are having. Put them in a rational and consistent pattern of reason that properly demonstrates how you took what I was saying and reached the point you did. Because much like every time I talk with you, it seems you take a fraction of what is said and shoot off 10 miles down a backroad of mental tangents.

Okay ... what do I need to explain to you, precious? How it's uncomplicated in the nature of its duplicity as a statement?

Remember, I, and most of the thread, is talking about how people responded to jon's comments, not the factual or validity of those comments itself. The only instances of talking about the validity of his comments relates to if he is lying about the stats. None of that relates to actually arguing about wealthy committing more of less crimes in general, least no arguments I have seen and none that I was trying to make.

Well it does because what makes a truth must be something that provides adequate information to discuss a subject matter. Can I ask you, personally, why people shouldn't run the dialogue of how this is a shitty debating tactic? Whatever happened to; "No bad tactics, only bad targets..." diatribe that doesn't seem to apply? Surely we're grown up enough to rationalize why someone will chuck his argument into the bin?

I mean, look at what you did here, you are talking about Milo now. What? Why? How does that relate? Why would I care about milo in a thread about Jon? What point is milo attached to? How the hell does it relate to Jon in this instance? At best you said "it is half truth" which seems the slimmest of reasons to justify your rant against someone you dislike, and when you spend more time on your rant than on the reasoning why it is relevant, I simply grow too tired to put up with it.

Because it's a perfect illustration where someone isn't outright lying, just misrepresenting and misframing the argument. I agree though, the two scenarios are different. Namely I think Jon isn't a racist ... merely an idiot. Whereas Milo is purposefully misrepresenting what criminal statistics are actually stating. But regardless of that, because I can't make a compelling argument that Jon doesn't know what he's talking about, I have to treat the argument as the same in terms of its liberal interpretation of truthfulness.

If all you were trying to say was "what jon said was a half-truth", then fine, just say that, keep it to that, and explain how that claim applies to what the hell I was talking about in the first place. Add the flavor text after you properly define the argument, not in place of one.

But it's noty merely flavour text ... I 100% agree with Jon if he's argument is the super wealthy commit more crime and civil wrongs than the poor and working class. But that's not the argument he's making, is it? Or if it is ... seems like a really stupid way to frame it. Taken in the context of it however, and his implied reasoning ... he's telling the truth ... just that his entire reasoning is flawed and his entire argument is based on a flawed understanding of what crime is. In the sense that white collar crime totally exists and it's far more common, and far more damaging, than street crime when taken specific demographics based on wealth by capita.

That super wealthy black man isn't going to sticking up gas stations at 2AM like any poverty striken street hood. Their criminality will be framed in the argument of all other white collar crime regardless of race ... and is far more insidious, and far more untouchable, which emboldens its expression time and time again. Safe to say trhat an exceedingly lucky crook might get 8 or 9 jewelry or gas station heists or smash and grabs before being nabbed by police, being ratted out by enemies, or getting shot. If they're exceedingly lucky. With white collar crime, usually criminal activity is only known after repeated expressions of malicious intent and agency that leads to multiple damages for multiple parties.

How does anything you said here relate to what I was talking about? This is just an excuse to rant about trump, isn't it? I don't care at he moment. Ok, so you think "it" (the stat jon used I assume) isn't a fact people should accept. Why not? What is wrong with it? How does what the rich get away with relate at all with how rich black people are statistically more likely to commit crimes than poor white people according to the stat used? Skat at least made a good counterpoint that the system could be racist and just apply regardless of wealth, and while not entirely solid a counterpoint, it is at least relevant to the discussion as it explains why people are responding to him and calling him racist. You just gloated about breaking the law. How does that relate to what jon was saying, how people were responding to him, or what I was saying about that?

A: I didn't gloat about breaking the law. It was a blatant example of how wealthy people in general break the law far more than poor and working class people, and street crime by demographics of all working class people is substantially less than white collar """crime""" (because no one properly prosecutes it) of the rich.

Sure, you get caught for it ... it goes on record. It's provenly a crime. But it will never be treated as a crime.

B: Because whether JonTron likes it or not, he is making a codedly racist argument. Does that make him a genuine racist? No, I don't think so. It makes him an idiot at worse, or impossibly naive or thoughtless at best that street crime is apparent the only thing that exists. Comparing rich black people to working class poor white people is not an accurate depiction of the types of crimes being committed. Why not measure to rich white crime?

What makes the argument racist is because it's misrepresenting two different situations and two dfferent types of crimes. Street crime and white collar. There is zero reasn for a rich person to stick up a jewelers ... they could gain far more money, almost blamelessly, by lying on their taxes. By necessity, it's easier to see and prosecute street crime than it is to genuinely prosecute white collar crime.

Which typically involves far more people either refusing to respond to instances of corruption and fraud.

Hence why this is purely an economic issue.

There's nothing complicated about it. Have more money? Have better success at white collar crime, with better results.

Manufacturing the argument that it's somehow Black people are more likely to commit crime even in positions of wealth negates the fair more important message of; "Yeah, but why are rich people getting away with more crime?" And yeah. if you insist this idea of black, rich people are more criminal than white, poor people is a racial issue, that's bad argumentation. The systems of their criminality, and its presence, will not differ to rich white people of equal wealth standing. Money is money.

Being black has nothng to do with you being rich and committing white collar crime like all other rich people.

A singular example does not make a statistic, nor does it prove anything. It is an anecdote, nothing more.

Yet it's far more prevalent in society. You'll find more active tax dodgers, insider traders, or what have you ... amidst people in positions of extraordinatry wealth.... than you will find poor, black or white people being active criminals by capita.

That's not an anecdote either....

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tax-evasion-by-super-rich-hurts-every-australian-20141231-12gbd5.html

That's merely known cases of tax evasion. One crime. Committed multiple times by the same people, not just once. Yes, the average rich person commit more crimes than any average poor person.

It's a fact of life. Pretending like it's an anecdote is downright fucking stupid. If the ATO says; "You know what? It's probably around 1 in 4 super rich tax crooks..." unless you're willing to make the argument 1 in 4 white working class are repeat felony offenders...

The statement that looks at the whole group and reports simple factual data about said group is infinitely more accurate than you using yourself as an example and claiming it represents the entirety of groups you represent. Even if the stat itself isn't very useful on its own, when it comes to accuracy, the one that is simply reporting a fact about the entirety of a group would by all logic and reason always be more accurate description of a group than a singular example claiming to represent a group. I don't know why that would even be asked.

But it's not factual in so far that RICH PEOPLE COMMIT MORE CRIMES THAN THE WORKING CLASS POOR!!!

The rich are not somehow beholden to the law ... they have more means to circumvent it than any other group of people. They have the means, motives, and opportunities to commit crime than the average poor person.

Story:

runic knight:

Story:
Condensending tone aside:
Say that it is true. That wealthy blacks do more crime than poor whites. It's what people conclude from that is what others find troubling. Myself for instance, I don't draw the conclusion that people are more genetically disposed to violence which is in fact the very definition of racism and has harmful implications/consequences.

Not necessarily the correct conclusion though. Even if going on the assumption that the data isn't being influenced too greatly by enforcement of law being racist (not sure to what degree that would have), it could still be related to cultural instead of genetic traits that determines criminality likelihood. Which honestly, wouldn't be too surprising that the values and behaviors people's culture, or in this case sub-cultures, teach them can have lasting effects even if their economic standings change.

Or it could even be other aspects that correlate to race but that which are not caused by it. Hell, diet can affect how animals behave, so even something as unexpected as food or substances that correlate more with blacks than whites could help explain the statistic.

Sometimes due to grammical errors and sloppy sentence structure my point doesn't come off as conherent as I want to be. Sorry about that. To be clear I don't agree with that genetics theory...in fact I find it a little abhorrent and, as a black person, rather demeaning. I only brought it up because someone else on this thread kinda half way made it as a point to defend Jon. When that's actually the type of implication opponents to Jon do not like.

I agree making that pointwithout police bias is a fault in the arguement. However I have to admit that also coming to the conclusion that violence is connected to sub-culture which also happens to be prominently race specific, though more true than the genetics argument, is also extremely troubling with horrible implications. In stead of comming to conclusions like blacks commit more crime because they are more aggressive or that they promote violence in their subculture, ask why does this subculture promote violence?

Also full heartily agree with that last point. I think racial crime is a lot more complicated than people tend to believe and comming to swiping conclusions does a disservice to the issue and the people affected by it.

I don't think culture is actually tied to race in any meaningful way to be honest. It is simply the collective taught behaviors, values, iconography, beliefs and art of a group of people. While segregation into subgroups has caused there to be cultures defined by their racial relation, I think that is more a problem in itself than any indication of problem in looking upon that as a possible reason why we see the statistics we do in general cultural norms of subgroups that share a similar correlation to the problem itself. This can be especially important to consider when viewing cultures of varying type, size and overlap makes it very hard to argue race when talking about specific subcultures as often such subcultures are more demographic slices of specific nations than overall defined by the races themselves. "African Americans" are a part of a subculture that is still defined by americanisms that are tied into nationality far more than ethnicality or genetic heritages. Simply put, if a problem exists that has a pattern of where it may relate from, and a subculture is determined a very likely source of the problem, it would probably be wise to address that rather than get to hung up on the amount of any given race that is representative of said culture. Otherwise, it seems to be missing the forest for the sake of the trees there and ignoring the impact a culture can have overall to instead worry about not being considered racist in pointing out something causing problems in a culture itself.

Lets be honest, overall culture determines a hell of a lot in how people act, as it is something reinforced by the local society and from which your value in that society is drawn from. Concepts of success, happiness, personal value, acceptable behavior, and respect for others would be greatly affected by cultural views and expectations, and in turn would greatly affect the behavior and actions of people raised within and that embraced those cultural or even sub-cultural norms. And conflict between cultural ideals and beliefs has been probably one of the greatest sources of strife in human history. A subculture that results in higher than normal tendencies compared to other cultures in the same general location wouldn't surprise me in the least if that was the case given how collective cultural influences can impact such things. That the subculture itself was initial formed as result of racial segregation and need for unique racial identity to unify around and find solace in still doesn't make addressing any issues with behavior caused by said culture racist itself though, especially since such cultures grow and change over time anyways, aren't restricted to that singular race, and any push for changes to fix a problem are still being done in response to a problem that would need to be fixed universally as opposed to racially.

I can certainly get the wariness of it, criticizing a culture that is predominately one race is a pretty easy way to justify racism itself, but it is important to not assume that it is always the case. Much like the Islamophobia claims made knee-jerk by some, racism claims about being critical of a culture can be ill-applied. Being critical of a culture doesn't require being racist or having any opinions one way or another about the race that is predominant in that culture. It would be like calling people critical of North Korea's cultural situation as racist against asians. Far less common a reason than just being critical of the culture itself.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

runic knight:

Try again, this time go slowly and actually connect the threads of thought you are having. Put them in a rational and consistent pattern of reason that properly demonstrates how you took what I was saying and reached the point you did. Because much like every time I talk with you, it seems you take a fraction of what is said and shoot off 10 miles down a backroad of mental tangents.

Okay ... what do I need to explain to you, precious? How it's uncomplicated in the nature of its duplicity as a statement?

Lets start simple. What does anything you were saying relate to any point I was talking about when you first replied to me? How does you going on about being wealthy and a criminal relate in the least to me talking about how people were responding to jon?

Remember, I, and most of the thread, is talking about how people responded to jon's comments, not the factual or validity of those comments itself. The only instances of talking about the validity of his comments relates to if he is lying about the stats. None of that relates to actually arguing about wealthy committing more of less crimes in general, least no arguments I have seen and none that I was trying to make.

Well it does because what makes a truth must be something that provides adequate information to discuss a subject matter. Can I ask you, personally, why people shouldn't run the dialogue of how this is a shitty debating tactic? Whatever happened to; "No bad tactics, only bad targets..." diatribe that doesn't seem to apply? Surely we're grown up enough to rationalize why someone will chuck his argument into the bin?

"What makes a truth..." What are you talking about? Do you mean "what makes a fact"? Because that simply needs to be, you know, factual.

Because while jon did use a statistic, he didn't use that to justify anything or any conclusion about black people. So what are you going on about "make a truth" and the like? It was a statistic without context. That was part of the point of why I was commenting on how people were taking that statistic without context and running with it to make conclussions about jon.

I mean, look at what you did here, you are talking about Milo now. What? Why? How does that relate? Why would I care about milo in a thread about Jon? What point is milo attached to? How the hell does it relate to Jon in this instance? At best you said "it is half truth" which seems the slimmest of reasons to justify your rant against someone you dislike, and when you spend more time on your rant than on the reasoning why it is relevant, I simply grow too tired to put up with it.

Because it's a perfect illustration where someone isn't outright lying, just misrepresenting and misframing the argument. I agree though, the two scenarios are different. Namely I think Jon isn't a racist ... merely an idiot. Whereas Milo is purposefully misrepresenting what criminal statistics are actually stating. But regardless of that, because I can't make a compelling argument that Jon doesn't know what he's talking about, I have to treat the argument as the same in terms of its liberal interpretation of truthfulness.

Ok, so you are claiming Jon is misrepresenting an argument and thus parallel to milo? What argument? Once again, what was his listing of the statistic being used for that was misrepresentative? I can get if he was talking about such stats to make sweeping generalities about black people being more violent, but that isn't the case. Instead it was a list of similar such stats and statements without any implying conclusions about race based on them all being used to demonstrate the response of making everything about race results in people replying to those making it all about race by , you guessed it, turning everything into being about race.

If all you were trying to say was "what jon said was a half-truth", then fine, just say that, keep it to that, and explain how that claim applies to what the hell I was talking about in the first place. Add the flavor text after you properly define the argument, not in place of one.

But it's noty merely flavour text ... I 100% agree with Jon if he's argument is the super wealthy commit more crime and civil wrongs than the poor and working class. But that's not the argument he's making, is it? Or if it is ... seems like a really stupid way to frame it. Taken in the context of it however, and his implied reasoning ... he's telling the truth ... just that his entire reasoning is flawed and his entire argument is based on a flawed understanding of what crime is. In the sense that white collar crime totally exists and it's far more common, and far more damaging, than street crime when taken specific demographics based on wealth.

That super wealthy black man isn't going to sticking up gas stations at 2AM like any poverty striken street hood. Their criminality will be framed in the argument of all other white collar crime regardless of race ... and is far more insidious, and far more untouchable, which emboldens its expression time and time again. Safe to say trhat an exceedingly lucky crook might get 8 or 9 jewelry or gas station heists or smash and grabs before being nabbed by police, being ratted out by enemies, or getting shot. If they're exceedingly lucky. With white collar crime, usually criminal activity is only known after repeated expressions of malicious intent and agency that leads to multiple damages for multiple parties.

He isn't making any argument relating to people like that though. That's the problem that spurred the thread, that he wasn't making any argument itself, just on what he was using as contextless statistics.

You continue to separate "street" and white collar crime here though I don't know why as you are the only one separating those types of crimes here. The stat itself certainly didn't separate it as far as I know, and the only way I can assume you are reaching that conclusions requires you to think that poor people only commit "street" crime and rich only commit white collar crime, something that is just weird.

While you are right a wealthy person wont commit the specific crime of a gas station robbery, it doesn't mean they wont still commit assault, murder or other types of violent crimes. And you ignore that identity theft, credit fraud and various other sorts of electric and paper robbery schemes are done just as easily by those on the street as those in the offices. I suppose the use of "street" crime as a definer is just too vague for me to get what you are actually talking about, especially in relation to why it matters to the stat jon was making or how people were responding to him and calling his reply racist.

How does anything you said here relate to what I was talking about? This is just an excuse to rant about trump, isn't it? I don't care at he moment. Ok, so you think "it" (the stat jon used I assume) isn't a fact people should accept. Why not? What is wrong with it? How does what the rich get away with relate at all with how rich black people are statistically more likely to commit crimes than poor white people according to the stat used? Skat at least made a good counterpoint that the system could be racist and just apply regardless of wealth, and while not entirely solid a counterpoint, it is at least relevant to the discussion as it explains why people are responding to him and calling him racist. You just gloated about breaking the law. How does that relate to what jon was saying, how people were responding to him, or what I was saying about that?

A: I didn't gloat about breaking the law. It was a blatant example of how wealthy people in general break the law far more than poor and working class people, and street crime by demographics of all working class people is substantially less than white collar """crime""" (because no one properly prosecutes it) of the rich.

Sure, you get caught for it ... it goes on record. It's provenly a crime. But it will never be treated as a crime.

How does that relate to jon's stat though where he specifically mentions only rich blacks doing more crime than poor whites? You seem to be talking about how rich people in general commit more crimes than poor (No clue where that statistic stems from beyond your personal claim) but I don't get how that relates to jon and the way he was responded to by people for using his stat in the first place.

How does it matter to the topic if rich commit more crimes than poors?

B: Because whether JonTron likes it or not, he is making a codedly racist argument. Does that make him a genuine racist? No, I don't think so. It makes him an idiot at worse, or impossibly naive or thoughtless at best that street crime is apparent the only thing that exists. Comparing rich black people to working class poor white people is not an accurate depiction of the types of crimes being committed. Why not measure to rich white crime?

What makes the argument racist is because it's misrepresenting two different situations and two dfferent types of crimes. Street crime and white collar. There is zero reasn for a rich person to stick up a Jeweler's ... they could gain far more money, almost blamelessly, by lying on their taxes. By necessity, it's easier to see and prosecute street crime than it is to genuinely prosecute white collar crime. Which typically involves far more people either refusing to respond to instances of corruption and fraud.

Hold up, so he isn't racist, but he is saying something that is racist because it doesn't respect income? Wait, what?

Ok, I get you are saying that rich crime is different than poor crime based on the type of crimes they do. So why does it matter at all when according to the stat you still have one demographic of rich is committing more of one type of crime than another demographic of poor people? Even if you differentiate the type of crimes to the extent you have (I still don't fully agree with your reasoning in doing so, it comes off as based entirely in your own views about income and the stereotypes that comes with that), you still have the stat itself simply being what it is.

Separated to just income demographics, you have blacks committing more crimes than whites universally. This would then usually have the reply that it is because of blacks not being on par with whites in income thus creating the disparity in the stats. If when adjusted to incomes, rich blacks still commit more crimes than poor whites, it calls that explanation into question. And according to you, rich people commit more crimes than poor anyways though are caught less (and thus the resulting decreased crime rate stat based on increase income in these sort of statistics). But wouldn't that simply make the statement even more potent, as despite their wealth offering them even more means to hide their crimes, blacks who are rich are still being caught committing more crimes than rich whites?

Or, are you saying the stat people should look at is if poor blacks are committing more crimes than rich whites instead? Because that stat isn't going to look any better to those who already dislike Jon's used one.

Hence why this is purely an economic issue.

There's nothing complicated about it. Have more money? Have better success at white collar crime, with better results.

Manufacturing the argument that it's somehow Black people are more likely to commit crime even in positions of wealth negates the fair more important message of; "Yeah, but why are rich people getting away with more crime?" And yeah. if you insist this idea of black, rich people are more criminal than white, poor people is a racial issue that's bad argumentation. The systems of their criminality, and its presence, will not differ to rich white people of equal wealth standing. Money is money.

Being black has nothng to do with you being rich and committing white collar crime like all other rich people.

No one is insisting anything, it is a statistic being used that shows that rich black people are committing more crimes than poor white ones. Your arguments here suggest they should be far less since they have the economic ability to get away with them more which is completely contrary to the stat brought up itself and only serves to support any claims made about black people rather than counter it (since the stat isn't an argument, simply a fact that needs to be addressed, your reasoning makes black rich people look even worse criminally as they are still more caught committing crimes than poor whites, despite the advantages of having different types of crimes they commit and more wealth to get away with said crimes.)

You've taken a stat about black people that was without context when jon said it, and inadvertently built an entire argument that justifies the very worst racist conclusion someone could have reached from that statistic, in order to argue that jon was being unintentionally racist.

A singular example does not make a statistic, nor does it prove anything. It is an anecdote, nothing more.

Yet it's far more prevalent in society. You'll find more active tax dodgers, insider traders, or what have you ... amidst people in positions of extraordinatry wealth than you will find poor, black or white people being active criminals.

That's not a anecdote either....

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tax-evasion-by-super-rich-hurts-every-australian-20141231-12gbd5.html

That's merely known cases of tax evasion. One crime. Committed multiple times by the same people, not just once. Yes, the average rich person commit more crimes than any average poor person.

It's a fact of life. Pretending like it's an anecdote is downright fucking stupid.

When you were talking about your personal experiences, that was an anecdote. Now you've given some relevance to the use of it. Not much mind you, you offer no actual explanation of the article you link to, and from what I see there it talks about 5000 people committing the tax fraud. Which is considerably LESS than the amount of poor people committing crimes.

But you know what? It is STILL not a statistic. You've given me raw data, so it is better than nothing I guess, but I was comparing your self-admitting criminal history to the actual topic of the discussion that of the statistic jon used.

your ranting about australians dodging taxes is simply irrelevant to anything being talked about here, nor does it compare to the statistic being cited by jon when all you have is something devoid of relevance even to itself, and pretty unrelated to anything anyone was talking about in the first place.

The statement that looks at the whole group and reports simple factual data about said group is infinitely more accurate than you using yourself as an example and claiming it represents the entirety of groups you represent. Even if the stat itself isn't very useful on its own, when it comes to accuracy, the one that is simply reporting a fact about the entirety of a group would by all logic and reason always be more accurate description of a group than a singular example claiming to represent a group. I don't know why that would even be asked.

But it's not factual in so far that RICH PEOPLE COMMIT CMORE CRIMES THAN THE WORKING CLASS POOR!!!

A statistic of another nation is not factual, but your ranting about your own criminal history and (finally) linking of an article talking about how 5000 people came forward in a completely different nation being talked about is more accurate?

Rich commit more crimes than working class poor? Prove it.

Actually, no, first define it properly. Then prove it. You seem to thing crimes are different for poor and rich as it is. And I don't even know if you are talking about percentage based or collectively, what defines "rich" or "poor" here, or even what damn nation you are specifying or if you are talking world-wide, so be sure to clarify that first before proving because I have my doubts you'll find any statistics to demonstrate this at all. And if all you end up having is a claim that rich people are committing more crimes built out of extrapolated examples and personal anecdote, I wont even be surprised at this point.

It is entirely unrelated to the topic at all at this point but you know what, what the hell, why not this time. I want to see this one.

BeetleManiac:
Well that got interesting. You ever listen to a band that's kind of new? Maybe the opening act to someone else, could be an indie label they're paying their dues on, whatever. Buy an album, they're pretty good, go to a couple shows. Later on they get a hit in the charts and suddenly you meet people who only heard the single acting like the OG fans. Or worse yet, the ones who think that being OG gives someone gatekeeping privileges. Has this thread reminded anyone else of that sort of scenario but with science instead of music?

Maybe it's just my current sleep level, but I have no idea what you are trying to say lol.

Sp broadly speaking, this one guy on YouTube is a fucking twat. Shock horror.

runic knight:

A statistic of another nation is not factual, but your ranting about your own criminal history and (finally) linking of an article talking about how 5000 people came forward in a completely different nation being talked about is more accurate?

Rich commit more crimes than working class poor? Prove it.

Actually, no, first define it properly. Then prove it. You seem to thing crimes are different for poor and rich as it is. And I don't even know if you are talking about percentage based or collectively, what defines "rich" or "poor" here, or even what damn nation you are specifying or if you are talking world-wide, so be sure to clarify that first before proving because I have my doubts you'll find any statistics to demonstrate this at all. And if all you end up having is a claim that rich people are committing more crimes built out of extrapolated examples and personal anecdote, I wont even be surprised at this point.

It is entirely unrelated to the topic at all at this point but you know what, what the hell, why not this time. I want to see this one.

Oh FFS...

A: Firstly tax evasion (and let me be clear, *evasion* like the article stresses, not avoidance) is a fucking felony. It is a *crime* ... it has specific codification in both the U.S. and Australia with legal definitions with statutory punishments that are not merely based on punitive damages awarded to an aggrieved private entity or entities.

B: About 6.5% of the entire U.S. population have a felony record.

C: We know from conservative estimates that private tax havens have in between $21-31T, $9.8T of held by fewer than 100,000 people. To put this into perspective... the entire nominal market GDP worth of the U.S. and Japan combined is held in tax havens by fewer hands than 100,000 people.

And of that $21-31T, there are a staggering 100 million people (and corporations, banks, lendee insurers, etc) who share a stake in it. According to the economist, Henry James.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571873-how-stop-companies-and-people-dodging-tax-delaware-well-grand-cayman-missing-20

It is impossible to calculate... but it's safe to say even non-tax havens like Australia, 30% of corporations alone pay zero corporate taxes. Merely PAYE and GST. Of which more than 10% of the super wealthy (holdings of $30M or more assets in individual control) are known tax evasion offenders by a case study *of 5000 confessions*, of which 4% of Australia's highest earners fessed up to tax evasion. Fessed up. Said they were guilty. More than enough to make a viable study. After all... 24 million people and you're doing a study on the top 1% ...

And this is not fucking North Korea. By all comparative measures, Australia is one of the few countries to actually start naming and shaming in order to drive up amnesty volunteering of tax data in offshore accounts in exchange for legal clemency.

The IRS don't even bother. In 2006 their grand total of all white collar crime (not including tax evasion) was less than 3000 sentencings. In the entire U.S. The idea of the super wealthy and corporations tax evading is not a myth, and I know for a fact it is far more rampant than all other serious crime put together. This is despite the fact that 50% of All Australian taxes are paid by the top 10% of working age income brackets.

http://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-50-of-all-income-tax-in-australia-paid-by-10-of-the-working-population-45229

So the upper middle class and lower are pulling their fair share. But not groups like Pratt Holdings, with 2.5bn in annually adjusted holdings paying 0% corporate taxes.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
The idea of the super wealthy and corporations tax evading is not a myth, and I know for a fact it is far more rampant than all other crime put together. This is despite the fact that 50% of All Australian taxes are paid by the top 10% of working age income brackets.

Like, not even the super wealthy..

I have a friend whose dad took them aside one day and explained to them that they had a trust fund now, but that (and I quote) "it would be safer" if they didn't know where the money came from. That kind of thing is pretty normal in professional families.

Also, I'm not sure the IRS doesn't bother so much as that they're just underskilled. The simple fact is that anyone with the skills to catch fraud or tax evasion also has the skills to do it, and doing it pays more. A lot more, and it's practically risk free for as long as that skill gap exists between white collar criminals and regulatory bodies.

Basically, the only currently viable solution to white collar crime is ultimately to start paying people the salaries they could earn in the private sector, and governments are understandably unwilling to do so because those salaries are often immense.

evilthecat:

Like, not even the super wealthy..

I have a friend whose dad took them aside one day and explained to them that they had a trust fund now, but that (and I quote) "it would be safer" if they didn't know where the money came from. That kind of thing is pretty normal in professional families.

Also, I'm not sure the IRS doesn't bother so much as that they're just underskilled. The simple fact is that anyone with the skills to catch fraud or tax evasion also has the skills to do it, and doing it pays more. A lot more, and it's practically risk free for as long as that skill gap exists between white collar criminals and regulatory bodies.

Basically, the only currently viable solution to white collar crime is ultimately to start paying people the salaries they could earn in the private sector, and governments are understandably unwilling to do so because those salaries are often immense.

You're right... it's not even the super wealthy. Hence why I put forward my experirnce with the ATO. Never saw a mediation or was charged (not that I think all people should be charged for making a mistake) ... I merely wrote a longform apology, paid an accountant to formally put together my correctly aggregated earnings and properly accounted dividends that weren't fully franked... blah blah blah. But they never took into full account the money earned by having additional liquidity that I shouldn't of had put back into the market.

So the state rewarded me money that I wouldn't have if I didn't do the wrong thing. So even when people do the wrong thing they get rewarded for eventually doing the right thing because they were caught.

And yeah. I'm sure there's good people in the IRS. But good watchdogs can't do anything when they're muzzled, chained up, and slowly starved to death. I think a lot of it just comes down to understaffing and the difficulty of solidifying a case. Not only that there are people that make genuine mistakes shouldn't just be thrown in jail or fined into oblivion.

Not sure how much of it is a euphemism but every dollar spent on the IRS returns $4 each year. ATO could be more effective as a public statutory corporation. Tax payers directly fund it based on projected performance... tax payers get direct tax credits based on its lawful returns. As if having non-elective shares in it and thus influence directors, and chief officers.

Frankly there's a whole lot of money that is effectively hidden because it's politicisns, not the people, that dictate how it is resourced.

shibbydibby:
top memes tbh lads

I haven't even read these walls of text, just skimmed through. I find this shit hilarious. Bunch of white cucks on a video game forum coming to the defense of an entire race, who become qualified statisticians, lawyers, and anthropologists, and go through the most insane and convoluted mental gymnastics in an attempt to overcome their cognitive dissonance. Diligently scanning over every piece of data for the most minute flaw or semantic you can use to disregard it. And if you can't, you'll regurgitate any number of established marxist doctrines, pre-made for your own use. Racism. Poverty. Blah de fucking blah. I saw someone mention fucking poor diet somewhere. And then there's another bringing up tax evasion while murder is on the table. Honestly it's just boring and repetitive. There's only so much Jewish critical theory I can stand listening to.
You people are hopeless. The level of indoctrination you're under is overwhelming and impossible to reverse. The Soviet Union doesn't even come close to this. A group of blacks could rape and murder your entire family and make you watch and you'd still defend them. You're all disciples of a new religion, my post right here is heresy. Western Civilisation and the white race both will collapse, and it's because of cowards like you. Enjoy your pew pew video games. Just cuck my shit up fam.

Loving this. You realize you have absolutely no evidence for your position, so you default to typical alt-right insults.

Please, tell me exactly how I'm a "cuck" and a "beta male;" nothing would brighten my day more. It's always nice to have something to laugh over while procrastinating work.

shibbydibby:
Yikes.

You know the fastest way, in my experience to discredit your arguement is to reduce yourself to insulating the other perspective. It tarneshes whatever point you might have had otherwise.

As a personal takeaway from this thread and not speaking to just you personally, I'm surprised and troubled that people who believe in social justice issues and believing such issues are worth discussing are discredited as being brainwashed and cult-like in reasoning.

shibbydibby:
censored!!!1! snipped

You came here from /pol/, didn't you? Amiright? Huh? Yeah?

Yeah, you definitely herald from /pol/.

Still, you helped me win 4chan bingo. With your liberal (and hilariously unironic) use of the terms 'cuck', 'Marxist doctrines', 'Jewish Critical Theory', 'top memes', and 'lads', you pretty much guaranteed me a win along the right column. And that you wrapped up by alluding to 'the genocide of the white race' gave me a second win along a diagonal.

Thanks, mate. I really hope you don't get banned. I want you to stick around. You'll win me so many prizes...

shibbydibby:
top memes tbh lads

I haven't even read these walls of text, just skimmed through. I find this shit hilarious. Bunch of white cucks on a video game forum coming to the defense of an entire race, who become qualified statisticians, lawyers, and anthropologists, and go through the most insane and convoluted mental gymnastics in an attempt to overcome their cognitive dissonance. Diligently scanning over every piece of data for the most minute flaw or semantic you can use to disregard it. And if you can't, you'll regurgitate any number of established marxist doctrines, pre-made for your own use. Racism. Poverty. Blah de fucking blah. I saw someone mention fucking poor diet somewhere. And then there's another bringing up tax evasion while murder is on the table. Honestly it's just boring and repetitive. There's only so much Jewish critical theory I can stand listening to.
You people are hopeless. The level of indoctrination you're under is overwhelming and impossible to reverse. The Soviet Union doesn't even come close to this. A group of blacks could rape and murder your entire family and make you watch and you'd still defend them. You're all disciples of a new religion, my post right here is heresy. Western Civilisation and the white race both will collapse, and it's because of cowards like you. Enjoy your pew pew video games. Just cuck my shit up fam.

Walls of text, ey? Lemme put my reply in a form that might be more familiar to you:

>shitposter tries to get into a discussion by posting two studies he found after 10 seconds of googling which he didn't even read
>shitposter gets slapped about as people point out that the studies don't even support his suggested claim
>shitposter goes on an emotional tantrum bitching about "cucks", because he wouldn't know scientific rigour if it slapped him across the face
>a jolly good laugh is had by all

That easier to read for ya?

shibbydibby:
I didn't listen to the debate, nor do I know either of these people. All I've seen is people being mocking his claim that "Wealthy blacks commit more crime than poor whites". Here's 2 sources for you. There is an additional source from FBI statistics that is easily obtainable, but I'll leave that up to you. After all, I know you're all principled and intellectually honest. Real truth-seekers.

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6119&context=jclc

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/99v05n3/9909levi.pdf

hmm
really makes you think

It certainly makes me think you didn't read the very research papers you cited, which you claim is evidence to support JonTron's point.

From the first paper by Green & Wakefield:

"The differences between the lower and upper class offenders in race, sex, and age as shown in Table 1 achieve, overall, a high level of significance. Not one of the 121 upper-class persons accused of murder was black, whereas in studies of preponderantly lower-class homicides by Wolfgang, Voss and Hepburn, Curtis, and Pokorny, from 62.8 to 82.3% of homicide offenders were black."

"The upper-class killer is a white male, over thirty years old. In the lower-class, he is a black male under thirty."

The second paper by Levitt, meanwhile, is titled "The Changing Relationship Between Income and Crime Victimization," victimization being the key word. So the paper includes passages such as these:

"A few key facts emerge from Table 2. First, for all crimes reported in both time periods, blacks of a given income were more frequently victimized than whites. The biggest discrepancies were for robbery and for auto theft among the rich. Blacks were roughly twice as likely to be victims of robbery, holding income constant, and rich blacks were more than twice as likely to have a vehicle stolen as rich whites."

Again, this particular paper is about victims of violent crime and their respective wealth/class, not the perpetrators of the violent crime.

Why don't you tell me where in that paper it says that "wealthy blacks commit more crime than poor whites."

Better yet, why don't you explain why you cited these two papers to help your/JonTron's argument?

Well, I think that's my recommended sodium intake for the day.

I'd like to thank shibbydibby for providing a perfect example of the behavior I was talking about re: people not letting facts get in the way of their worldview and actively using facts which actually contradict their point as if they support their point.

shrekfan246:
I'd like to thank shibbydibby for providing a perfect example of the behavior I was talking about re: people not letting facts get in the way of their worldview and actively using facts which actually contradict their point as if they support their point.

There's also the problems where he doesn't read his own sources and then criticizes people for actually reading his sources and listening to what they say. For the first source. For the second source, he gives something that's thirty years old and acts like things haven't changed, even though the source shows that poor white people committed more crimes than rich black men fifty years ago, but apparently that can't happen again. Then insulting Jews. And using the term cuck unironically.

Well, pardon me, I'm sure I'm about to be labeled a cuck, autistic, jewish, all that fun stuff.

erttheking:

Well, pardon me, I'm sure I'm about to be labeled a cuck, autistic, jewish, all that fun stuff.

Hark! 'Tis the call of the wild /channer, separated from the rest of his pack! Let's try to observe him, see how long it takes 'til the poachers get to him.

As Much As It's fun to mess with the shitposter, we have better things to talk about.

Starting with the fact that no one gained anything from this, it only showed the worst in many.
John Vs Destiny Was a disaster, Both going back and forth, not thinking about what is being said. Only talking back to regain ego. [Kinda like this thread]

John Is not a racist, Just a misguided idiot. It's not worth talking for 13 pages, [and giving the thread maker all the badges.]

Okay, circlejerk over the one possible 4channer aside...

Assuming the diatribes are based on a recent change of views, I'm curious of the battering he got on social media for what were storms in teacups made it easier for the "skeptic" speakers to win him over to their side.

I'd reckon if you got a torrent of abuse for saying the word retarded, it'd probably be easier to convince you that people are increasingly intolerant of opinions they don't like when you have examples as absurd as that.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here