So apparently JonTron is a racist

[zellosoli]

i would advise actually watching it even if you don't like it, and pick apart his arguments based on what he actually says on a regular basis

Why, though?

His videos, much like videos from the vast majority of bloviating right-wing talking heads, are exercises in Gish Gallops of propaganda and conspiracy that are only actually believable to the people who are already on his side. Moreover, it's not our job, as random users on the internet, to refute the claims of racist idiots. Certainly it's tempting, because when confronted with so much that's so wrong our inherent interest lies in correcting them, but I can pretty definitively say that doing so honestly makes zero difference because the people who support heads like Sargon don't actually care about refutations "based on what he actually says". Something interesting about the alt-right is that they don't let facts get in the way of their perception of the world. And more to the point, they tend to rely on things that have already been proven wrong to support their positions, even after being shown how their evidence is wrong.

Sometimes it's just not worth entertaining "both sides". Also, I don't know if you're a fan of the guy or just came to different conclusions about him, but it's really smugly dismissive to assume that someone hasn't actually watched the person they're criticizing just because they're referring to them in a way you clearly don't appreciate, as if they would obviously see the person the same way you do if they would just watch those videos. That's not how opinions work.

sorry but i dont and have never agreed in the notion of only hearing one side of a story (and the passive aggressive tone implying that im "smugly dismissive" speak more of your disposition than mine, but if im being honest, you come off as pretty pompous and not invested in discussion but rather picking a tribe and being the louder and more obnoxious than the other guy)
i try to listen to a lot of opinions, even the ones i disagree with and sargon is one of those voices, because dispite my reasearch, im open to the idea i could be wrong and that a persons opinions can change over time. this means yes, i will give the time and day to listen to others and let the merits of the discussion stand on their own, becuase thats not just freedom, thats being respectful. and that's how we all win and move forward together

as for your other arguments
i have a feeling that you seem to label anyone whos dose not fit in with your opinions seems to be labeled as a Alt-right, sargon seems to come off as an ultra - nationalist but not really an alt right (personally i have issues with that anyway but i digress)

plus your arguments seem to add up to "i dont look at both sides, because i'm right and thats all that matters" (im being pretty blunt and sure theres more nuance but im going off what you give me)
i dont pretend that i or anyone else here on the internet will ever have the full answers, but to close off the possibility of learning more (even if it's just to learn an opponents weaknesses) is foolish and makes you no better then those you would demonize

fight smarter, not harder

went on a bit of a rant there, so sorry everyone

 

[gigastar]

If theres one thing i know Twitter does, its that they dont ban people for posting porn.

They don't ban you for talking about immigration either.

True but Twitter has been taking various measures against accounts that dont fall into Jack Dorsey's brand of politics.

Sure they call it 'filtering low quality posts' but the simple fact of the matter is that because we dont see theese posts unless we specifically look for them, we dont know if theyre just someone tweeting 'kill yourself ******' or something that Jack decrees to be politically incorrect.

But they do ban you for repeatedly sending gay porn to specific people in an effort to "trigger" or harass them, because how better to entertain both sides like a rational person than to tweet images of guys entertaining both sides, amiright?

Allegedly the guy who reported the gay porn wasnt even a target of the campaign.

Also, the targets of the interracial gay porn campaign was the conservative enthno-facist alt-right. He wholeheartedly disagrees with thier viewpoints and wanted total disassociation from them, and went about this by using gay porn to purge the alt-right from his twitter followers.

...fuck me im defending someones right to respond using porn. I may as well join /pol/ now.

 

[gigastar]

Now that he is alone on his private channel he can portray himself as the reasonable one to all his subscribers.

The video was posted as unlisted, so the only people who are going to see it are the drama vultures like us.

I'm torn on it being a mature move or him just trying to protect his channel, probably a bit of both. My point still stands. He is prettying up and glossing over things he said in the debate in order to appear more reasonable.

Im not denying Jon said some truly outrageous shit on that stream, however i still dont think hes an ethno-facist.

 

[gigastar]

Let me reiterate, I have actively seen and heard and read what their positions on various political subjects are, and I made the informed decision based upon that knowledge to disregard the things that they have to say. I'm not just off-handedly dismissing people because I don't like them or because I'm some feminazi beta SJW who wants to censor everyone; I'm actively deciding that they're not worth my time because their ideas are so retrograde and come from such a fantasy world depiction of the world that literally sitting here staring at a wall would be a better use of my time. I've said it before and I'll say it again and I'll keep saying it until the end of time: I don't need to tolerate other peoples' intolerance. Not putting up with the active subjugation of minorities and women is in nowhere near the same ballpark as criticizing and mocking insecure white men with an overinflated and honestly rather pathetic view of masculinity.

Alright. We can end this by agreeing to disagree.

 

[WindKnight]

.

Also, the targets of the interracial gay porn campaign was the conservative enthno-facist alt-right. He wholeheartedly disagrees with thier viewpoints and wanted total disassociation from them, and went about this by using gay porn to purge the alt-right from his twitter followers.

...fuck me im defending someones right to respond using porn. I may as well join /pol/ now.

Well, if he doesn't want the alt-right among his followers, maybe he should stop making stuff that appeals to the alt-right?

Or is that expecting a little too much introspection, and self analysis?

 

[Terminal Blue]

This is news to me, got a link to it?

Wait for the words "dried semen".

Actually, you may as well watch the whole thing while you're here because.. it's pretty sad, to be honest. I don't even really rate Kristi's performance, but it does illustrate the basic difference between someone who never does more than a cursory few minutes of research on any given topic and someone who has had years of formal training.

Like.. this should not be acceptable. This level of research, this lack of respect for the time and intelligence of your audience should not be acceptable. It's certainly not acceptable to me. If someone is going to organize a petition [https://www.change.org/p/universities-suspend-social-justice-in-universities] calling for broad censorship of university curricula, I expect that person to have comprehensively read up on the issue. Carl does not read anything which takes longer than a couple of minutes to read.

 

[shrekfan246]

plus your arguments seem to add up to "i dont look at both sides, because i'm right and thats all that matters" (im being pretty blunt and sure theres more nuance but im going off what you give me)

Actually, my argument is that I have looked at "both sides", and determined that the one in which people like Sargon of Akkad fall down on is unilaterally indefensible.

 

[BadNewDingus]

I hardly pay attention to the trends when it comes to who does what race-related. The majority of news stories I see on TV(local news) is black people committing crimes or whatever(I do live next to Detroit). Just like any story about a white man talking about race, it's basically some idiot white guy saying a bunch of racist stuff. Yet, I know not all black people are criminals. I know not all white people are racist. I just see the news trying to sway me into it, or it's just that I notice those stories out of the crap that is reported daily?

 

[gigastar]

Also, the targets of the interracial gay porn campaign was the conservative enthno-facist alt-right. He wholeheartedly disagrees with thier viewpoints and wanted total disassociation from them, and went about this by using gay porn to purge the alt-right from his twitter followers.

...fuck me im defending someones right to respond using porn. I may as well join /pol/ now.

Well, if he doesn't want the alt-right among his followers, maybe he should stop making stuff that appeals to the alt-right?

Or is that expecting a little too much introspection, and self analysis?

I specifically said the enthno-facist alt-right. Not the anti-SJW alt-right.

And since you seem to think you know what youre talking about, find me one example of Sargon supporting the idea of an enthno-state, and link me directly to it.

 

[gigastar]

This is news to me, got a link to it?

Wait for the words "dried semen".

Actually, you may as well watch the whole thing while you're here because.. it's pretty sad, to be honest. I don't even really rate Kristi's performance, but it does illustrate the basic difference between someone who never does more than a cursory few minutes of research on any given topic and someone who has had years of formal training.

Like.. this should not be acceptable. This level of research, this lack of respect for the time and intelligence of your audience should not be acceptable. It's certainly not acceptable to me. If someone is going to organize a petition [https://www.change.org/p/universities-suspend-social-justice-in-universities] calling for broad censorship of university curricula, I expect that person to have comprehensively read up on the issue. Carl does not read anything which takes longer than a couple of minutes to read.

Sargon himself thinks he was total shit in that debate. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlBqt_Q089U] And im certainly not about to defend him there.

And yes, fucking pathetic that anyone should let themselves be run into the ground by Kristi Winters. However dont think it diminishes his value as a critic on political matters.

Come to think of it i actually find that debate to be relevant to Destiny and JonTron too. Both Sargon and Jon were not experienced debaters and their opponents gave them the rope to hang themselves with.

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.

 

[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

 

[Silvanus]

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.

How on earth do you know that? What's your level of familiarity with these courses?

All we have to go on is a highly charged, rhetorical account from a political opponent. We cannot simply assume his analysis is on the money and he must be right about them.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

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.

Mate, Carl does so little research that the letter for said petition is going to be delivered to "Universities", and the whole of its entire body of text is "Suspend social justice courses."

Carl's either grandstanding virtue signaling, advertising, or he does so little research that he didn't figure out how change.org works.

 

[gigastar]

and the whole of its entire body of text is "Suspend social justice courses."

I wouldnt even have bothered responding to you if it want for that line.

The body of the petition reads;

Social justice has become scientifically illiterate, logically unsound, deeply bigoted and openly supremacist. Social justice professors are indoctrinating young people into a pseudoscientific cult behind closed doors that is doing damage to their health, education and future.

Social justice has become a victim of its own good intentions and in the desperate attempt to make the world better for some it is creating a world better for none. It has become another ideology fit only to pave the road to Hell, so it is time to turn around and choose another path that is concerned with reason, science and improving the lives of every human.

To clarify, we are calling for the teaching of social justice courses in universities to be temporarily suspended. What follows is up for debate, but as it stands now, social justice is causing far more harm than good and it must be halted and reassessed.

https://www.change.org/p/universities-suspend-social-justice-in-universities

Theres a fucking link to it in this thread already and you still couldnt represent it accurately.

 

[Dizchu]

Come to think of it i actually find that debate to be relevant to Destiny and JonTron too. Both Sargon and Jon were not experienced debaters and their opponents gave them the rope to hang themselves with.

And that's what all these people have in common. Sargon, Jontron, Thunderf00t etc. their arguments evaporate upon exposure to the outside world because their arguments rely heavily on a lack of skepticism and of a very selective interpretation of reality. They're bad at debating because debating was never something they had any intention of doing.

Now Jon's a bit different, he made a few cock-ups on social media and there were two reactions. You had those that were annoyed by what he said and people like TotalBiscuit who tried to offer him advice on one side and on the other side you have the reactionary idiots who wanted to push him further in their direction and it looks like they came out on top. Reactionaries tend not to be great at debating, even the "GLORIOUS SJW DESTROYER" Milo Yiannopoulos is terrible at debating because if he wasn't he wouldn't have to resort so heavily on ad hominem attacks, Gish galloping and red herrings. Which doesn't matter to his fans, because once someone confronts his bullshit by telling him to go fuck himself they'll insist that he was treated unfairly.

This is the kind of thing that has pushed me firmly to the left. All of this reactionary nonsense is just disingenuous and considering how many people make a living off of this, be it Youtubers like Sargon of Akkad or conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson, one has to wonder what the actual motivation is because I strongly doubt that it's for any sincere intention of making the world a better place or trying to advance as a society.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

and the whole of its entire body of text is "Suspend social justice courses."

I wouldnt even have bothered responding to you if it want for that line.

*snip*

Theres a fucking link to it in this thread already and you still couldnt represent it accurately.

Which just shows that you know as much about how change.org works as Carl of Swindon does.

Click on the bit at the bottom that says "Read the letter". That's the bit that change.org is going to attach these signatures to and send off, not the part on top explaining the petition.

So like I said:

Carl's either grandstanding virtue signaling, advertising, or he does so little research that he didn't figure out how change.org works.

 

[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.

How on earth do you know that? What's your level of familiarity with these courses?

All we have to go on is a highly charged, rhetorical account from a political opponent. We cannot simply assume his analysis is on the money and he must be right about them.

Suspend for review is what i said.

If the review of the cirricula finds that professors arent taking impressionable young minds and inoctrinating them into a cult of political activists, then they can resume thier normal activities.

However, given not only theese students propensity for staging protests simply due to presence of people who dont agree with them, as seen multiple times with the Dangerous ****** tour, or everything that went down at Mizzou after the shit swastika appeared, i would say there at least needs to be an investigation into who or what is ifluencing theese students into behaving like this.

First logical step being the cirricula, since i think the Department of Education would take a dim view on its money being used to indoctrinate students into a cult of political activism.

If the cirricula is clean, then the professors should be investigated next, and if things like this are any indication...

...i think thats where we may find the real problem.

 

[Story]

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.

How on earth do you know that? What's your level of familiarity with these courses?

All we have to go on is a highly charged, rhetorical account from a political opponent. We cannot simply assume his analysis is on the money and he must be right about them.

Suspend for review is what i said.

If the review of the cirricula finds that professors arent taking impressionable young minds and inoctrinating them into a cult of political activists, then they can resume thier normal activities.

However, given not only theese students propensity for staging protests simply due to presence of people who dont agree with them, as seen multiple times with the Dangerous ****** tour, or everything that went down at Mizzou after the shit swastika appeared, i would say there at least needs to be an investigation into who or what is ifluencing theese students into behaving like this.

First logical step being the cirricula, since i think the Department of Education would take a dim view on its money being used to indoctrinate students into a cult of political activism.

If the cirricula is clean, then the professors should be investigated next, and if things like this are any indication...

...i think thats where we may find the real problem.

I really really wanted to stay out of this but I just want some clarification namely this:
Why is being passionate about political activism a bad thing? Why is it something that needs to be removed? For as far as I see it is good that people care enough about an issue to stand up for it. There aren't enough people that do. I used to think the same thing as you that I didn't need social justice courses because I was already firm in my own beliefs. But I quickly found that to be rather troubling and a close minded way of thinking even some courses that I took I didn't agree with, I still learned a lot from that perspective.

Secondly, I have a problem with wanting to review social justice courses because why would it stop there? I can easily picture moving on to reviewing a evolution class or any social studies class for the same reasons.

 

[Silvanus]

Suspend for review is what i said.

If the review of the cirricula finds that professors arent taking impressionable young minds and inoctrinating them into a cult of political activists, then they can resume thier normal activities.

That in itself as a massive move. Why should that be done, on the basis of some shoddy one-sided account by an online personality?

However, given not only theese students propensity for staging protests simply due to presence of people who dont agree with them, as seen multiple times with the Dangerous ****** tour, or everything that went down at Mizzou after the shit swastika appeared, i would say there at least needs to be an investigation into who or what is ifluencing theese students into behaving like this.

First logical step being the cirricula, since i think the Department of Education would take a dim view on its money being used to indoctrinate students into a cult of political activism.

If the cirricula is clean, then the professors should be investigated next, and if things like this are any indication...

...i think thats where we may find the real problem.

Protesting is a behaviour that needs investigating, is it? Bollocks. If visitors can deliver speeches, then students can express their feelings towards people invited on-campus to deliver speeches. There's nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

I find it frankly absurd that you find it so objectionable that people might protest others' right to give speeches... that you want their protests investigated, and their curriculae censored if you find it politically objectionable. It really is the sheerest hypocrisy.

The sacredness of speech only extends to some, it seems, as usual.