So apparently JonTron is a racist

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

Addendum_Forthcoming:

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.

You have done nothing I asked here.

First, on what you did put forth here, you didn't define anything, you just ramped up on another rant.

I asked you to properly define things first, since I knew if you didn't it would be another rambling incoherent mess of irrelevant data that is utterly useless to anything at all but your own mental constructions.

I don't know what your statement of "rich commit more crimes" relates to as you switch between multiple nations and yet don't make any comprehensive stand on if you meant worldwide.

I still don't know how you define "rich" or "poor" in this case. You list "super rich", which only further confuses the point by adding a subgroup to an already not defined group comparison.

I don't know how you are defining "crime" even, as you seem to be just rolling with it defined as "felony" which is just a specific type of crime, and yet later on you switch back to general "breaking the law" type of crime. And throughout you seem to switch between arguing the amount of money involved in such crimes to arguing the amount of such crimes happening. So are we talking all crime in this comparison? Just felonies? Are we judging the amount of crimes committed by either group based on the financial impact?

At this point your entire argumentation presentation is the equivalent of vomiting on the desk and attaching thumb tacks with string between various chunks.

You examples are extrapolated based on phantoms and baseless assertions. I mean come on, the differences in legal systems alone between australia and the US make the claims to crime shakey at best as actions that are illegal in australia are not always in the US, and that isn't even taking into account that tax loopholes, business breaks and other perfectly legal shenanigans exist so that people don't even need to break the law in order to screw the system and reap benefits for doing so. What is a felony tax evasion in one may not be the same in another, and without some sort of valid breakdown, your previous example still isn't anything more than saying "but look, there was 5000 criminals" when talking about a nation of many millions. The new example you tacked onto the discussion about tax havens is a little better in that regard, but again because you didn't define shit, it is just more useless ontop of old.

Am I suppose to be looking at the amount of money involved?

Am I suppose to be looking at the total amount of people connected to the banks?

Am I suppose to be looking at the 100,000 people you defined as super rich?

Am I looking at the entire suspected 100 million connected as all criminals?

And who am I suppose to be comparing them to as the "poor" in this irrelevant comparison to justify your weird statement? I don't even want to say this is comparing apples ot oranges as at least the two of those are still fruit. This is comparing apples to questioning if robots feel love.

Compared to worldwide populations of 7 billion, 100 million is barely a drop in the bucket, and that is giving you full credit that what you are citing is "evidence" that all 100 million connected to the bank havens are criminals themselves.

So are you arguing that criminality is determined by how much value they steal? It seems that is your argument but because you refused, yet again, to actually define anything, I am again looking at your regurgitation of nonsense and being expected to sift through the chunks to try to glean what your rantings actually is trying to say.

Secondly, and I was hoping you'd have bothered to actually address this last time since I thought it was important enough to ask you twice:

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

runic knight:

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

I'd like to know this as well because how on Earth did we go from the OP to taxes?

LegendaryGamer0:

runic knight:

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

I'd like to know this as well because how on Earth did we go from the OP to taxes?

Actually, you know what? Maybe you can tell me because Addendum sure as hell can't seem to do it. Ok, here is my initial post of the quote tree with him

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.948071-So-apparently-JonTron-is-a-racist?page=12#23931537

and here is his reply.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.948071-So-apparently-JonTron-is-a-racist?page=12#23931563

My next reply

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.948071-So-apparently-JonTron-is-a-racist?page=12#23931600

And it goes downhill from there.

runic knight:

You have done nothing I asked here.

First, on what you did put forth here, you didn't define anything, you just ramped up on another rant.

I asked you to properly define things first, since I knew if you didn't it would be another rambling incoherent mess of irrelevant data that is utterly useless to anything at all but your own mental constructions.

You asked me to define white collar crime and tax evasion. I did. It's you that haven't proven a fucking thing. I want you to back up your idiotic rhetoric that rich people do not, by capita, commit more crime than the average poor person.

I don't know what your statement of "rich commit more crimes" relates to as you switch between multiple nations and yet don't make any comprehensive stand on if you meant worldwide.

Because charting white collar crime and tax evasion is fucking hard to investigate. But let's not pretend for an instance that a nation like the U.S., with even less capacity to investigate such things, wouldn't suffer from the same problems.

There are more companies registered in the state of Delaware then there are people living there for a reason.

I still don't know how you define "rich" or "poor" in this case. You list "super rich", which only further confuses the point by adding a subgroup to an already not defined group comparison.

Finally, a real question. Rich in terms of most financial measures in the Western world typically assumes 10M+ of holdings. But given aspects of white collar crime, tax evasion and its prevalence, I'm willing to settle for Wealthy being anywhere merely in the upper echelons of the highest decicile.

Poor typically represented by the lowest quintile in most Western markets.

I don't know how you are defining "crime" even, as you seem to be just rolling with it defined as "felony" which is just a specific type of crime, and yet later on you switch back to general "breaking the law" type of crime. And throughout you seem to switch between arguing the amount of money involved in such crimes to arguing the amount of such crimes happening. So are we talking all crime in this comparison? Just felonies? Are we judging the amount of crimes committed by either group based on the financial impact?

All serious crime (not civil wrongs). Tax evasion, environmental breaches, fraud, insider trading, etc ... All crime, but in particular white collar crime and tax evasion. All of which are crimes (under any fucking definition of crime) ... and by capita, the wealthy commit these far more often than the average poor person commits any other type of crime.

At this point your entire argumentation presentation is the equivalent of vomiting on the desk and attaching thumb tacks with string between various chunks.

And so far your retorts have been nothing but straw, mate. It's as clear as crystal glass.

You examples are extrapolated based on phantoms and baseless assertions. I mean come on, the differences in legal systems alone between australia and the US make the claims to crime shakey at best as actions that are illegal in australia are not always in the US, and that isn't even taking into account that tax loopholes, business breaks and other perfectly legal shenanigans exist so that people don't even need to break the law in order to screw the system and reap benefits for doing so. What is a felony tax evasion in one may not be the same in another, and without some sort of valid breakdown, your previous example still isn't anything more than saying "but look, there was 5000 criminals" when talking about a nation of many millions. The new example you tacked onto the discussion about tax havens is a little better in that regard, but again because you didn't define shit, it is just more useless ontop of old.

And yet you've done nothing to show otherwise. We know this happens far more than not ... hell, predatory lending alone in Black and Hisanic communities rose from 2% in 1993, to 18% by 2004 as a share of CDOs of mortgage markets. It was so bad, that some economists have called it one of the prime architects of the GFC. Something that is technically illegal (racial discrimination in the terms of access to certain loans), but nobody bothered to investigate then and nobody is bothering to investigate now.

Heaven forbid if the arseholes that created the problem in the first place stay one night in prison.

Am I suppose to be looking at the amount of money involved?

Am I suppose to be looking at the total amount of people connected to the banks?

Am I suppose to be looking at the 100,000 people you defined as super rich?

Am I looking at the entire suspected 100 million connected as all criminals?

Yes, to fucking all of it ... believe it or not actively evading taxation by putting profits and capital gains into offshore tax havens (called base erosion and profit shifting) is a fucking crime.

So much so the U.S. government started demanding that certain banks have to provide detailed records of American clients using accounts in these tax havens. Funnily enough they won't return the favour when Latin American countries start demanding that Miami (also a BEPS stronghold) do the same with wealthy agribusinesses and drug barons in Central and South America to aid in their own criminal prosecutions.

And who am I suppose to be comparing them to as the "poor" in this irrelevant comparison to justify your weird statement? I don't even want to say this is comparing apples ot oranges as at least the two of those are still fruit. This is comparing apples to questioning if robots feel love.

Let's make it easier and just say working class and lower. Basically anybody too poor to afford buying into a trust fund racket as EviltheCat adequately displayed, tax evasion is something central to many professionals and their families.

Compared to worldwide populations of 7 billion, 100 million is barely a drop in the bucket, and that is giving you full credit that what you are citing is "evidence" that all 100 million connected to the bank havens are criminals themselves.

Yes, and if you had an ounce of reading comprehension, you'd realise 100 million entities (not merely people but accounts) also include things like lendee insurers, banks, and trust fund financial services. Accounts that have multiple parties of interests. Multiple people materially benefitting from one account. Multiple accomplices.

As they say; "It takes two to tango...." Though in case of a fraudulent, or tax evading trust fund at the very least 4 or 5 people complicit.

Yes, 100 million entities (not just people) holding 21-32T of the world's wealth in BEPS strongholds is bad news for all of humanity. It is the single largest criminal enterprise in the history of the world. It is bigger than the British Empire at the heights of its power. There is and has never been anything like it.

It is the Galactus of crime.

LegendaryGamer0:

runic knight:

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

I'd like to know this as well because how on Earth did we go from the OP to taxes?

Because of the idiotic statement that wealthy, black people commit more crime than white, poor people ... my argumenyt was that was a racist argument because all wealthy people commit more crime by capita than the average working class poor person. Only Runic Knight refuses to accept the notion. White collar crime and tax evasion alone constitutes more active criminality by capita of wealthy people, than the average poor person will ever be able to commit by doing things like sticking up gas stations, pickpocketing people, or through confidence games.

We know tax evasion and white collar crime is rampant. Just good luck charging people with it and getting them locked up for it. Wealthy people can and do commit far more crime than the average working class poor by capita. That is a fact of life. It is not a racial issue, it is an economic one. More money you have, the more means to circumvent legal institutions in gaining greater unlawful wealth.

This is well enough known everywhere in the world, but Australia is one of the few places yet where you can actually start tallying the real numbers and examining the true extent of things like organised international financial crime. It's a simple enough argument ... wealthy people commit more crime by capita than the working class poor. Regardless of race.

I fail to see why people have problems grasping this. Street crime is not the only crime in existence. As it stands, it's the least of our worries when compared to the scope and magnitude of international financial crime.

One example I used was a mild example of loan fraud and microtransfers to slush funds for short term market speculation by two financial consultants in the Commonwealth Bank and CommSec ... which lead to hundreds, if not thousands, of victims. Who used predatory lending and fraudulent claims on the nature of their lending agreements and of which had many repeatedly benefitted parties as part of their activities, of the extenbt of which will never be truly known.

There were numerous branch directors and various private interests and the like that knew this was happening, have been written up for it, and yet will never be formally charged.

That's one minor, all-too-common instance of white collar crime that will never be properly investigated. There'll be a martyr ... namely the two directly involved. But good luck catching everyone who actively benefits and props up people like this working in complicity of it. Far more wealthy people by capita (regardless of race) doing things like this and more, than working class people like farmhands and waitstaff stealing cars, or pinching wallets.

The working class simply do not have the money and power to commit the same number of self-interested criminality.

BeetleManiac:

Irwin126:
A Racist would be a person who thinks any other race is inferior or weaker to themselves.
John in this case is not a racist, As he worded his ideas poorly.
Check back to the video if you're curious.

But yeah, The only difference is context, A racist would try to protect their ideas with their soul, A person who believes racist ideas would try to [I hope] Debate peacefully and try to understand past their believes and try to hopefully lose their racist believes.

I'm still not getting it. You draw the line at ad hominem? The 'I hope' certainly doesn't help either. There is something that needs to be said though. Racism does not implicitly require malicious intent. Like most forms of social bias it's a product of ignorance and paraedolia.

Jon's not stupid. He's also not very scientifically literate. He's seeing a correlative and mistaking it for something causal. In this case, that wealthy black people are arrested more often than poor white people on average. He assumes that the problem must be racial because of the black/white distinction. But he didn't read far enough to see that poor white people actually committed more crimes than wealthy black people, they just didn't get arrested as often. The fact that he makes the mistake of thinking that being black or living in "black culture" is a causal factor of this phenomenon is by definition racist because the logic hinges on race being a causal factor.


Jon's mistake is one of ignorance, and one he can correct if he has the will. Either way he's gotta own it.

Looking on him now and his response video to the backlash, he didn't even issue a non-pology. He clarified on what he meant and doubled down on his racist messages. Racist or not, he is taking pride in his Breitbart inspirations. What is scary is indeed his ignorance. Why? Because he is acting like a cult recruiter with his many subscribers which are young minds. He is spreading hate.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

runic knight:

You have done nothing I asked here.

First, on what you did put forth here, you didn't define anything, you just ramped up on another rant.

I asked you to properly define things first, since I knew if you didn't it would be another rambling incoherent mess of irrelevant data that is utterly useless to anything at all but your own mental constructions.

You asked me to define white collar crime and tax evasion. I did. It's you that haven't proven a fucking thing. I want you to back up your idiotic rhetoric that rich people do not, by capita, commit more crime than the average poor person.

No, I asked you to define what the hell you meant by "crime" in your use of the statement where you claimed rich people commit more of it. Instead you jumped ahead, again, ranting about tax evasion.

Here is the problem that you seem unable to grasp.

I don't know what your statement actually applies to and what you are comparing here. You never defined that properly and every time you are asked, it became a huge rant that doesn't actually address that, just assumes I can read your mind and know what direction you are shooting off in this time. And you do this every time, you latch onto something, shoot off into the abyss with it, then act haughty about the fact that it makes no damn sense to anyone else.

So try it again, and as I told you last time, don't fucking rant and rave alongside it.

Just define what the hell you are comparing in the first place when you said rich people commit more crime than poor.

It is no wonder I am not offering any actual counterargument when I don't know what the hell you are comparing here. At best I can point out possible flaws in your examples and comparisons.

also no surprise when I still don't get what the hell any of this has to do with the topic itself or what I was talking about when you jumped in howling like a madman at a street corner about yourself being a criminal.

I don't know what your statement of "rich commit more crimes" relates to as you switch between multiple nations and yet don't make any comprehensive stand on if you meant worldwide.

Because charting white collar crime and tax evasion is fucking hard to investigate. But let's not pretend for an instance that a nation like the U.S., with even less capacity to investigate such things, wouldn't suffer from the same problems.

There are more companies registered in the state of Delaware then there are people living there for a reason.

Are you making the statement applying worldwide or simply across a specific nation? Is it specific to western nations? This is what I was asking you to define here, what the hell your original statement is actually encompassing.

I still don't know how you define "rich" or "poor" in this case. You list "super rich", which only further confuses the point by adding a subgroup to an already not defined group comparison.

Finally, a real question. Rich in terms of most financial measures in the Western world typically assumes 10M+ of holdings. But given aspects of white collar crime, tax evasion and its prevalence, I'm willing to settle for Wealthy being anywhere merely in the upper echelons of the highest decicile.

Poor typically represented by the lowest quintile in most Western markets.

You understood this question, but not the others when all of them are asking about what the hell you are talking about? I am not sure if I should be relieved at this point or just baffled further.

Of course you still didn't exactly define things well. Rich is >$10M? ok, how many people is that totally? And what is poor then, in a more clear description than "lowest quinile in most western markets" as that isn't very specific at all. What would be the average income level to define them as poor in your statement? How many people are in that group?

I don't know how you are defining "crime" even, as you seem to be just rolling with it defined as "felony" which is just a specific type of crime, and yet later on you switch back to general "breaking the law" type of crime. And throughout you seem to switch between arguing the amount of money involved in such crimes to arguing the amount of such crimes happening. So are we talking all crime in this comparison? Just felonies? Are we judging the amount of crimes committed by either group based on the financial impact?

All serious crime (not civil wrongs). Tax evasion, environmental breaches, fraud, insider trading, etc ... All crime, but in particular white collar crime and tax evasion. All of which are crimes (under any fucking definition of crime) ... and by capita, the wealthy commit these far more often than the average poor person commits any other type of crime.

Ok, you are working specifically from white collar crime when you made your statement that "rich commit more crime than poor"? Is it correct to say you meant "rich commit more white collar crime than poor" in your statement? Good to know. Why does that specific example matter compared to the statement jon made that in no way specified white collar crime and instead seemed to be general illegal activity, civil and federal? Why discuss a specific comparison of crime category in retort to a comment describing a general one? How does that relate to how people are responding to jon's comments?

At this point your entire argumentation presentation is the equivalent of vomiting on the desk and attaching thumb tacks with string between various chunks.

And so far your retorts have been nothing but straw, mate. It's as clear as crystal glass.

My retorts asking for you to be more clear and actually define yourself have been nothing but straw? Rather odd thing to say since I haven't started much in the way of addressing any argument because I have instead have had to deal with trying to understand what the hell your point is actually saying in the first place. You, however, have been as clear as a brick wall when not constantly asked to properly make yourself clearer. And even still it is far from clear.

You examples are extrapolated based on phantoms and baseless assertions. I mean come on, the differences in legal systems alone between australia and the US make the claims to crime shakey at best as actions that are illegal in australia are not always in the US, and that isn't even taking into account that tax loopholes, business breaks and other perfectly legal shenanigans exist so that people don't even need to break the law in order to screw the system and reap benefits for doing so. What is a felony tax evasion in one may not be the same in another, and without some sort of valid breakdown, your previous example still isn't anything more than saying "but look, there was 5000 criminals" when talking about a nation of many millions. The new example you tacked onto the discussion about tax havens is a little better in that regard, but again because you didn't define shit, it is just more useless ontop of old.

And yet you've done nothing to show otherwise. We know this happens far more than not ... hell, predatory lending alone in Black and Hisanic communities rose from 2% in 1993, to 18% by 2004 as a share of CDOs of mortgage markets. It was so bad, that some economists have called it one of the prime architects of the GFC. Something that is technically illegal (racial discrimination in the terms of access to certain loans), but nobody bothered to investigate then and nobody is bothering to investigate now.

Heaven forbid if the arseholes that created the problem in the first place stay one night in prison.

Another new example pulled out, lovely. What does this matter at all beyond showing, yet again, you have a chip on your shoulder about other rich criminals that you already admitted to being part of? How does any of this relate to jon?

Am I suppose to be looking at the amount of money involved?

Am I suppose to be looking at the total amount of people connected to the banks?

Am I suppose to be looking at the 100,000 people you defined as super rich?

Am I looking at the entire suspected 100 million connected as all criminals?

Yes, to fucking all of it ... believe it or not actively evading taxation by putting profits and capital gains into offshore tax havens (called base erosion and profit shifting) is a fucking crime.

I know it is is a crime, but what relevance does it have to anything? What is the context here and why does it relate to what everyone else in the thread is talking about with regard to jon's statements being racist or how people are responding to them?

Even on its own you have just shotgunned examples that lack any coherence in why they are being used.

So much so the U.S. government started demanding that certain banks have to provide detailed records of American clients using accounts in these tax havens. Funnily enough they won't return the favour when Latin American countries start demanding that Miami (also a BEPS stronghold) do the same with wealthy agribusinesses and drug barons in Central and South America to aid in their own criminal prosecutions.

What does this have to do with jon's comments, how people responded to them, or what the hell I was talking about in my first post though?

And who am I suppose to be comparing them to as the "poor" in this irrelevant comparison to justify your weird statement? I don't even want to say this is comparing apples ot oranges as at least the two of those are still fruit. This is comparing apples to questioning if robots feel love.

Let's make it easier and just say working class and lower. Basically anybody too poor to afford buying into a trust fund racket as EviltheCat adequately displayed, tax evasion is something central to many professionals and their families.

And that would be defined as, what, exactly? A specific income level across the board? A specific percentage per individual nation they belong to? How many people would that then be in the end?

Come on man, the very barest bones when comparing things would have clearly defined groups you are comparing in the first place. Income levels, amount of people in that group, and total amount of crimes commited by each group.

Actually, that bring up a previous point, are you comparing total crimes per each group, or percentage of crimes to group member ration even? I suppose it doesn't matter at this point, as soon as you defined it solely as talking about white collar crime alone, you seemed like you stopped being relevant to the statistic jon used (one that wasn't specifying white collar alone) and were entirely ranting on a tangent into the abyss again.

Compared to worldwide populations of 7 billion, 100 million is barely a drop in the bucket, and that is giving you full credit that what you are citing is "evidence" that all 100 million connected to the bank havens are criminals themselves.

Yes, and if you had an ounce of reading comprehension, you'd realise 100 million entities (not merely people but accounts) also include things like lendee insurers, banks, and trust fund financial services. Accounts that have multiple parties of interests. Multiple people materially benefitting from one account. Multiple accomplices.

And what does that actually matter to what jon said and why people are calling it racist, or what I said in my first post?

You keep complaining about my reading comprehension, yet you fail every time you are asked for simple clarification and you are so far off topic that it simply boggles the mind.

Even on your off-topic diatribe about rich committing more crimes than poor, your example lacks any context or meaning here. It is just "look, 100M entities". And? Why does that matter to anything being discussed here? How does that support your claim even?

As they say; "It takes two to tango...." Though in case of a fraudulent, or tax evading trust fund at the very least 4 or 5 people complicit.

Yes, 100 million entities (not just people) holding 21-32T of the world's wealth in BEPS strongholds is bad news for all of humanity. It is the single largest criminal enterprise in the history of the world. It is bigger than the British Empire at the heights of its power. There is and has never been anything like it.

It is the Galactus of crime.

And?

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

altnameJag:

Strazdas:

altnameJag:
There aren't particularly large numbers of Muslims emigrating to Europe either, but don't let that stop you.

I think over 2% of population in less than 1 year is enough to be classified as particularly large.

What year would that be, I'd like to see the numbers.

That would be 2016, though granted it is an unusual year due to politican events in europe. Other years may be less. Still a significant number though.

Samael Barghest:
Is anyone actually surprised by this? He has a picture of the git that played Kramer on his wall. You know that comedian that lost his mind on stage and proceeded to yell he's a nigger on stage repeatedly.

Liking a comedian who said a "bad word" makes you a nazi.

Keep those claims going, please. they get more ludicrous every time, its very entertaining.

Skatologist:
> "Let's have an honest conversation about race."

> Literally says wealthy blacks commit more crimes than poor whites with absolutely no basis in actual fact.

You know, honest! /s

So stating facts is dishonest? I want off this planet!

Woah! 15 pages!?

Strazdas:

Skatologist:
> "Let's have an honest conversation about race."

> Literally says wealthy blacks commit more crimes than poor whites with absolutely no basis in actual fact.

You know, honest! /s

So stating facts is dishonest? I want off this planet!

Ok, I have lost track of how many times I have asked for a fucking source for that claim, and no one, NO ONE (Including you), has delivered. So when you actually back up your words with facts, then you can act like people are jumping on JonTron for just saying facts they don't like. After. Not until.

Strazdas:

altnameJag:

Strazdas:

I think over 2% of population in less than 1 year is enough to be classified as particularly large.

What year would that be, I'd like to see the numbers.

That would be 2016, though granted it is an unusual year due to politican events in europe. Other years may be less. Still a significant number though.

Got a source for that? I'm having a hard time finding one.

Strazdas:

Samael Barghest:
Is anyone actually surprised by this? He has a picture of the git that played Kramer on his wall. You know that comedian that lost his mind on stage and proceeded to yell he's a nigger on stage repeatedly.

Liking a comedian who said a "bad word" makes you a nazi.

Keep those claims going, please. they get more ludicrous every time, its very entertaining.

First: On what plane of reality is a grown man having a complete meltdown going on a non-comedic rant including a racial slur numerous times count as "a comedian who said a 'bad word?'" That is one hell of a historical rewrite of events taking place in your perspective.

Second: No one called him a Nazi due to him liking Kramer. Please point out a single instance of anyone in this thread saying "likeing a comedian who said a 'bad word' makes you a Nazi". I'll wait. (Actually, I won't because it didn't happen). Is this supposed to be honest discourse to you?

Third: The admiration of a comedian who went on a racist rant is an entirely fair characteristic to bring up when discussing a person who was spouting racist talking points. It could be completely unrelated, or it could simply be another part of the whole. That's why it's being talked about.

Strazdas:

Skatologist:
> "Let's have an honest conversation about race."

> Literally says wealthy blacks commit more crimes than poor whites with absolutely no basis in actual fact.

You know, honest! /s

So stating facts is dishonest? I want off this planet!

Like @errtheking said, source or gtfo. The only person in this thread to attempt to provide evidence (which was shown to not back the statement at all) backing this so-far unsubstantiated dogwhistling was the one who immediately went on the perfect example of an extreme alt-right rant including "cuck" and everything.

edit: @Skatologist you might be getting a notification cause I messed up a quote box. Sorry >_>

altnameJag:

Strazdas:

altnameJag:
What year would that be, I'd like to see the numbers.

That would be 2016, though granted it is an unusual year due to politican events in europe. Other years may be less. Still a significant number though.

Got a source for that? I'm having a hard time finding one.

You're not going to get one. At least not a reputable one.

This has been going on for 15 pages? Wow.

Avnger:
First: On what plane of reality is a grown man having a complete meltdown going on a non-comedic rant including a racial slur numerous times count as "a comedian who said a 'bad word?'" That is one hell of a historical rewrite of events taking place in your perspective.

It is a bit weird to see bigots insisting that bigotry somehow requires a verbal explosion of slurs immediately followed by an act of violence. And even then, there's a 50/50 shot they'll still say such a person is being unfairly persecuted by SJWs and the "regressive left." They see bigotry in everything except bigotry.

BeetleManiac:

Avnger:
First: On what plane of reality is a grown man having a complete meltdown going on a non-comedic rant including a racial slur numerous times count as "a comedian who said a 'bad word?'" That is one hell of a historical rewrite of events taking place in your perspective.

It is a bit weird to see bigots insisting that bigotry somehow requires a verbal explosion of slurs immediately followed by an act of violence. And even then, there's a 50/50 shot they'll still say such a person is being unfairly persecuted by SJWs and the "regressive left." They see bigotry in everything except bigotry.

Who's the real racist... the racist, or the one criticising the racist's racist ideas?

(It's the first one.)

So I'll admit I haven't read the last... 14 or so pages of crazy-long essays and manifestos and stuff because fuck that noise, but I just watched Jon's unlisted reaction video to all this controversy, and I think I'm okay to move past this. I still think Jon is ignorant about the reality of the situations he was speaking about, but when he actually had time to articulate his viewpoints it was a lot more coherent and a lot less racist-sounding. That, plus the fact that it seems he's going to avoid politics from now on is enough for me.

Just some extra information, not sure if this has been posted already;

http://www.dualshockers.com/2017/03/23/yooka-laylee-jontron-jon-jafari-removed/

Apparently, JonTron's voice work will be patched out of Yooka Laylee in an update because of all of this.

bluegate:
Just some extra information, not sure if this has been posted already;

http://www.dualshockers.com/2017/03/23/yooka-laylee-jontron-jon-jafari-removed/

Apparently, JonTron's voice work will be patched out of Yooka Laylee in an update because of all of this.

Oh, man! That's too bad.

I haven't looked into this mess much. I saw this thread be made a while ago but since I have no interest in this case I just clicked away. I return now since I read the article about him being removed as a voice actor from a game, however, so here I am making a post. I don't even really care about the game he is being removed from (more of a crash banticoot fan as far as older platformers go) but I just had to say it is horrible that someone can't be honest with his views and not lose a job that he clearly can do sufficiently enough if not better than whoever may replace him. I'm no fan of this guy but the few videos I have watched of his have been very amusing and well done. I don't care if he's a nazi supporter or whatever. I just want good content being made.

Dreiko:
I just had to say it is horrible that someone can't be honest with his views and not lose a job that he clearly can do sufficiently enough

I don't think that's horrible at all. We're judged by those we associate with. If I went to the pub with the ex-lead singer of the Lost Prophets, people would assume I was okay with the idea of paedophilia (I went for low-hanging fruit here, my next example is much more subtle); if I went on a date with Hitler, to the cinema, people would probably think I wasn't overly bothered by the whole gassing the Jews thing.

People are tarnished (or raised up) by those they associate with, because you're tacitly endorsing their behaviour to some degree. Sure, they could have left him in and just added a line in the credits to state that they in no way endorse his weird racist views, but no one reads the credits.

Or, maybe, they felt strongly, on a personal level, that the guy they initially hired to do the thing, was not the guy who subsequently said bad things, and realised they'd made a mistake.

Dreiko:
it is horrible that someone can't be honest with his views and not lose a job that he clearly can do sufficiently enough if not better than whoever may replace him.

Do you even know who will be replacing him? How do you know Jon did a better job? And he didn't lose a job. The game is already finished and ready to be shipped with JonTron's voice intact (until it gets patched out).

Dreiko:
but I just had to say it is horrible that someone can't be honest with his views and not lose a job that he clearly can do sufficiently enough if not better than whoever may replace him. I'm no fan of this guy but the few videos I have watched of his have been very amusing and well done. I don't care if he's a nazi supporter or whatever. I just want good content being made.

You know that's generally how all employment opportunities go, right?

Like, if I were working at Wal-Mart, I wouldn't be able to stand outside of Wal-Mart shouting about how people should shop elsewhere because Wal-Mart supports child labor and actually expect to keep my job.

Likewise, if I were, say, a teacher, I shouldn't expect to be able to say how awesome it would be if the age of consent was lowered to 13 and, you guessed it, expect to keep my job.

Actions have consequences, especially when you're a person who's in the public eye. I know the fact that Trump got elected has made everyone believe that they can just say whatever they want now and nobody can hold them accountable for it, but that's just straight up not true.

Baffle2:

Dreiko:
I just had to say it is horrible that someone can't be honest with his views and not lose a job that he clearly can do sufficiently enough

I don't think that's horrible at all. We're judged by those we associate with. If I went to the pub with the ex-lead singer of the Lost Prophets, people would assume I was okay with the idea of paedophilia (I went for low-hanging fruit here, my next example is much more subtle); if I went on a date with Hitler, to the cinema, people would probably think I wasn't overly bothered by the whole gassing the Jews thing.

People are tarnished (or raised up) by those they associate with, because you're tacitly endorsing their behaviour to some degree. Sure, they could have left him in and just added a line in the credits to state that they in no way endorse his weird racist views, but no one reads the credits.

Or, maybe, they felt strongly, on a personal level, that the guy they initially hired to do the thing, was not the guy who subsequently said bad things, and realised they'd made a mistake.

Not sure who Lost Prophets are, but no, I wouldn't assume that just because of something a friend of yours did, that you yourself are guilty by association. That's illogical.

I do think that they put either their personal feelings or those of their fans before the integrity of their work, which is my issue here.

CaitSeith:

Dreiko:
it is horrible that someone can't be honest with his views and not lose a job that he clearly can do sufficiently enough if not better than whoever may replace him.

Do you even know who will be replacing him? How do you know Jon did a better job? And he didn't lose a job. The game is already finished and ready to be shipped with JonTron's voice intact (until it gets patched out).

From what I've seen of the guy he is very funny and clearly was sufficient until this incident occurred. That's all one needs to know. If he would have still had the job today without this incident, clearly he was fitting enough.

shrekfan246:

Dreiko:
but I just had to say it is horrible that someone can't be honest with his views and not lose a job that he clearly can do sufficiently enough if not better than whoever may replace him. I'm no fan of this guy but the few videos I have watched of his have been very amusing and well done. I don't care if he's a nazi supporter or whatever. I just want good content being made.

You know that's generally how all employment opportunities go, right?

Like, if I were working at Wal-Mart, I wouldn't be able to stand outside of Wal-Mart shouting about how people should shop elsewhere because Wal-Mart supports child labor and actually expect to keep my job.

Likewise, if I were, say, a teacher, I shouldn't expect to be able to say how awesome it would be if the age of consent was lowered to 13 and, you guessed it, expect to keep my job.

Actions have consequences, especially when you're a person who's in the public eye. I know the fact that Trump got elected has made everyone believe that they can just say whatever they want now and nobody can hold them accountable for it, but that's just straight up not true.

This is not what happened here, wallmart would have needed to go dig up a podcast you had with some dudes online, which doesn't ever happen since most walmart shoppers don't really care about this stuff. Same as far as the vast majority of platformer game fans go as well.

Ages of consent vary by nation so it depends on where you live. Where I grew up it was 15 so I don't think it's that absurd. What is absurd is to lose your job because of an opinion that doesn't even relate to, never mind prevent you from accomplishing, your job.

I'm not sure what action this is supposed to be that he is guilty for. You can't just fire people for having wrong-think in their brains and maintain the image of a rational actor.

Dreiko:

I'm not sure what action this is supposed to be that he is guilty for. You can't just fire people for having wrong-think in their brains and maintain the image of a rational actor.

Except you can. That's the whole point.

You may not like it, but employers are well within their rights to fire people who are openly and loudly going to give them a bad image. And, despite you apparently not seeming to think so, shouting about how black people are genetically predisposed toward committing crimes and how immigrants need to be stopped so that the purity of "white culture" can be preserved, gives a bad name to those who continue to willingly associate with you.

Like it or not, Jon is a celebrity. Celebrities need to watch what they say in public forums if they don't want to face consequences for their actions. This has happened to Hollywood actors for literal decades. Hell, it's the entire reason Tim Allen has been throwing huge shitfits lately about how Hollywood is exactly like 1930's Germany.

Dreiko:
I'm not sure what action this is supposed to be that he is guilty for. You can't just fire people for having wrong-think in their brains and maintain the image of a rational actor.

Publicly espousing racist talking points then essentially doubling down on them (again publicly) is not "wrong-think in their brains." If JonTron had only been thinking those things, nothing would ever have happened. Instead, he *took an action* to spread those views over the entire internet. Everyone else is allowed to then also *take an action* in response; otherwise, you are removing others' ability to partake in free speech.

The stupidity one spouts in public has societal consequences. "Free speech" does not mean free from repercussions.

Avnger:

Dreiko:
I'm not sure what action this is supposed to be that he is guilty for. You can't just fire people for having wrong-think in their brains and maintain the image of a rational actor.

Publicly espousing racist talking points then essentially doubling down on them (again publicly) is not "wrong-think in their brains." If JonTron had only been thinking those things, nothing would ever have happened. Instead, he *took an action* to spread those views over the entire internet. Everyone else is allowed to then also *take an action* in response; otherwise, you are removing others' ability to partake in free speech.

The stupidity one spouts in public has societal consequences. "Free speech" does not mean free from repercussions.

If he was so bad, someone would have already complained about him discriminating against them. When you have everyone suddenly realize that he thinks these things after so many years of following the guy, I think it is pretty safe to say he isn't taking any sort of action that affects anything of import on behalf of his beliefs.

I really don't like this obsession with consequences but if you want to frame this issue through consequences, I guess you can interpret me as not saying that the game developer who removed him from the game doesn't have the right to do so or shouldn't be allowed to do it, but that as a consequence of these consequences, I have now begun to consider them much more lowly than in the past. Certainly, you can be free to compromise your games to preserve your politics and your social group, but I am a gamer and not a civil rights activist so I primarily care about weather games are being compromised or not.

Dreiko:

Avnger:

Dreiko:
I'm not sure what action this is supposed to be that he is guilty for. You can't just fire people for having wrong-think in their brains and maintain the image of a rational actor.

Publicly espousing racist talking points then essentially doubling down on them (again publicly) is not "wrong-think in their brains." If JonTron had only been thinking those things, nothing would ever have happened. Instead, he *took an action* to spread those views over the entire internet. Everyone else is allowed to then also *take an action* in response; otherwise, you are removing others' ability to partake in free speech.

The stupidity one spouts in public has societal consequences. "Free speech" does not mean free from repercussions.

If he was so bad, someone would have already complained about him discriminating against them. When you have everyone suddenly realize that he thinks these things after so many years of following the guy, I think it is pretty safe to say he isn't taking any sort of action that affects anything of import on behalf of his beliefs.

I really don't like this obsession with consequences but if you want to frame this issue through consequences, I guess you can interpret me as not saying that the game developer who removed him from the game doesn't have the right to do so or shouldn't be allowed to do it, but that as a consequence of these consequences, I have now begun to consider them much more lowly than in the past. Certainly, you can be free to compromise your games to preserve your politics and your social group, but I am a gamer and not a civil rights activist so I primarily care about weather games are being compromised or not.

Suddenly realize? You know he got fired from Grumps partly due to shit like this, right?

And if Jon's already-paid-for voice acting in Yooka-Laylee being removed "compromises" the game, so be it. I mean, they cut Peter Dinklage completely out of Destiny and it did okay.

Dreiko:

Not sure who Lost Prophets are, but no, I wouldn't assume that just because of something a friend of yours did, that you yourself are guilty by association. That's illogical.

Lost Prophets are/were a band very popular around the early 2000s, but maintained popularity, mostly with youths, into this decade. The lead singer, Ian Watkins, was convicted of raping a child under 13, and intent to rape a one-year-old. The reason he isn't being picked up to do this year's Christmas duet with Kylie is that no one wants to be associated with a massive paedophile and rapist (also, he's serving a 30-year prison sentence). Same reasoning applies, though obviously Mr Tron is a racist, not a rapist. Or a paedophile.

altnameJag:

Dreiko:

Avnger:

Publicly espousing racist talking points then essentially doubling down on them (again publicly) is not "wrong-think in their brains." If JonTron had only been thinking those things, nothing would ever have happened. Instead, he *took an action* to spread those views over the entire internet. Everyone else is allowed to then also *take an action* in response; otherwise, you are removing others' ability to partake in free speech.

The stupidity one spouts in public has societal consequences. "Free speech" does not mean free from repercussions.

If he was so bad, someone would have already complained about him discriminating against them. When you have everyone suddenly realize that he thinks these things after so many years of following the guy, I think it is pretty safe to say he isn't taking any sort of action that affects anything of import on behalf of his beliefs.

I really don't like this obsession with consequences but if you want to frame this issue through consequences, I guess you can interpret me as not saying that the game developer who removed him from the game doesn't have the right to do so or shouldn't be allowed to do it, but that as a consequence of these consequences, I have now begun to consider them much more lowly than in the past. Certainly, you can be free to compromise your games to preserve your politics and your social group, but I am a gamer and not a civil rights activist so I primarily care about weather games are being compromised or not.

Suddenly realize? You know he got fired from Grumps partly due to shit like this, right?

And if Jon's already-paid-for voice acting in Yooka-Laylee being removed "compromises" the game, so be it. I mean, they cut Peter Dinklage completely out of Destiny and it did okay.

As I said elsehwhere, I am pretty sure Jon quit, not got fired. Based on many many many things he has said throughout Game Grumps, he expressed alot of dissatisfaction with being a LPer, and alot of talk about New York and focusing on his channel again. I could be wrong, but it makes alot of sense in hindsight.

And apparently he was a voice because he backed enough money for it rather than it being a job, so it seems a bit less fair since they are sort of reneging on a promise rather than firing someone they dont want to work with.

altnameJag:
... they cut Peter Dinklage completely out of Destiny and it did okay.

To be fair, Dinklage was replaced because his performance showed he really couldn't be bothered to put a decent effort in. Or maybe it was just bad direction and they couldn't afford to bring him in to re-record lines. For this reason, if I were ever in charge of such a creative project, I would never rely on star power. Finding an unknown with the same capabilities would be cheaper and likely more rewarding in the end should you be known as the one who found the next star. When his name being attached to the project was outweighed by the audience complaining about how bad his performance was, I can see why they did it.

Dreiko:
Snip

People would think the severity of Lost Prophet dude's crimes weren't severe enough for the friend, though. It would make people think they were okay with it. When you are friends with someone, it does reflect upon you what they do. To put it more directly, would you hire Lost Prophet's dude to work on your project if you thought he would do a great job?

Having a teacher lament the age of consent is very relevant to their job and would inevitably make parents very uneasy about a teacher being attracted to their very young child.

It's not as if JonTron's views are obscure. They are very widely known and will likely crop up whenever one thinks about him. His public image is now directly tied to those words. It's not being fired for just thinking it, it's being fired for what he said publicly. When your job has public relations being integral to it, you can bet the public's perception of you is going to affect your career.

Saelune:

And apparently he was a voice because he backed enough money for it rather than it being a job, so it seems a bit less fair since they are sort of reneging on a promise rather than firing someone they dont want to work with.

Ehh, if Playtronics refunds his $5000, they're in the clear.

PainInTheAssInternet:

People would think the severity of Lost Prophet dude's crimes weren't severe enough for the friend, though. It would make people think they were okay with it. When you are friends with someone, it does reflect upon you what they do. To put it more directly, would you hire Lost Prophet's dude to work on your project if you thought he would do a great job?

Having a teacher lament the age of consent is very relevant to their job and would inevitably make parents very uneasy about a teacher being attracted to their very young child.

It's not as if JonTron's views are obscure. They are very widely known and will likely crop up whenever one thinks about him. His public image is now directly tied to those words. It's not being fired for just thinking it, it's being fired for what he said publicly. When your job has public relations being integral to it, you can bet the public's perception of you is going to affect your career.

As I said I did not know who the Lost Prophet guy even is. If we are in a plane of him having served his sentence (assuming the above description is correct) and him being back in society, sure, why not hire him. Job skills are not a popularity contest and if we wish to say nobody should ever hire anyone who has done a heinous crime then might as well execute everyone the second we convict them.

I don't get where you or the parents got that the teacher would be attracted to the students from. In my part of the world it's more about the rights of the students and the freedom they deserve rather than adults preying on them. It's about thinking of students as mature enough to be able to make these types of choices. If you ask me, it's more absurd to let 16 year olds drive than have sex. This is a puritanism issue masquerading as "protecting the children from pervs".

Again, if nobody knew of this issue up to now (I do not follow this guy but from what I read, most responses hinted at NOT being aware of his views) then it couldn't have been that bad. Sure, now it might be more focal to him as a person, but that in itself is an injustice in my book so just going along with it is not right. If you didn't want this to be associated with his name and coat everything he does, well, you shouldn't have made a big deal out of it for all this time. No, what I see is a deliberate attempt to plaster it over everything he does, and then claim that everything he does has this plastered on it. If you didn't want that to be the case, you shouldn't have done the plastering. Ultimately, again, I don't even care for anything in this topic which is why I never initially responded but this very see-through attempt at destroying a guy you disagree with politically just rubs me the wrong way.

Dreiko:
snip

Destroy? Do you realize that the people who asked for his voice to be removed are the Kickstart backers? You know, the ones who financed the game in the first place? Sorry, but making the choice of not buying or watching videos from someone they dislike isn't even close to want him destroyed. Call back when he gets swatted, doxxed or hacked, and I'll complain along you.

altnameJag:

Saelune:

And apparently he was a voice because he backed enough money for it rather than it being a job, so it seems a bit less fair since they are sort of reneging on a promise rather than firing someone they dont want to work with.

Ehh, if Playtronics refunds his $5000, they're in the clear.

Did they? I certainly hope they did.

 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