So apparently JonTron is a racist

Recommended Videos

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Oct 5, 2011
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Cowabungaa said:
erttheking said:
Yeah...I don't see how any of those are related to segregation or the race card.

Didn't even think of it that way, thank you for pointing it out.
Oh it doesn't. Just, yeah, wanted to point that out for a bit. There's too much hate against 'safe space' as is so I like the clear it up a little. You're welcome.

But honestly I wonder why this topic is even still going (I mean I don't really wonder because it's obvious, but y'know). JonTron echoed racial views supported by the KKK (talking about the Steve King - KKK thing here). He pretends oppression of coloured people in the US doesn't exist any more. Like, how is his racism still in question? Sure that can come from ignorance, but that doesn't make it any less racist. Do you get why people keep defending him? I sure don't.
I can think of some reasons off of the top of my head.

#1. Some people simplify racism down to thinking non-white people are sub-human, and any racist viewpoints more mild than that aren't really racist.

#2. Good old political trenching. Defend everything the person on your side agrees because he's under assault by "the enemy."

#3. Fans of a person don't want to admit that person's flaws.

#4. People who defend him agree with him and think that people who disagree with him are attacking him for disagreeing with their political views (a fusion of #1 and #2)
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
31,460
13,004
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
erttheking said:
Cowabungaa said:
erttheking said:
Yeah...I don't see how any of those are related to segregation or the race card.

Didn't even think of it that way, thank you for pointing it out.
Oh it doesn't. Just, yeah, wanted to point that out for a bit. There's too much hate against 'safe space' as is so I like the clear it up a little. You're welcome.

But honestly I wonder why this topic is even still going (I mean I don't really wonder because it's obvious, but y'know). JonTron echoed racial views supported by the KKK (talking about the Steve King - KKK thing here). He pretends oppression of coloured people in the US doesn't exist any more. Like, how is his racism still in question? Sure that can come from ignorance, but that doesn't make it any less racist. Do you get why people keep defending him? I sure don't.
I can think of some reasons off of the top of my head.

#1. Some people simplify racism down to thinking non-white people are sub-human, and any racist viewpoints more mild than that aren't really racist.

#2. Good old political trenching. Defend everything the person on your side agrees because he's under assault by "the enemy."

#3. Fans of a person don't want to admit that person's flaws.

#4. People who defend him agree with him and think that people who disagree with him are attacking him for disagreeing with their political views (a fusion of #1 and #2)
I was surprised to hear about Jon's views, and he comes off as an ignorant asshole after seeing that. I've seen people say that Arin and Danny dodge a bullet by not being around him anymore, but Arin and Jon split for different reasons. And Arin and Danny are still incompetent boobs who don't bother to pay attention to what they are doing and have the gall to blame the game most of the time. The duo has done some shady shit too, They may not be racist, but Arin and Danny, more so the former, act like jackasses.

I never kept up with Jon's video constantly as I was not a huge fan, yet I did have respect for him. After this, I want nothing to do with the *****. What is with these YouTube or Internet "celebrities" having good things going and then acting like major assholes? If it's not racism, it's them thinking they're the best thing since sliced bread and insulting anyone that dares have an opinion different from theirs. Angry Joe, Spoony, Nostalgia Critic (in fact, most of the Channel Awesome staff), Movie Bob, and a few other became or already were such jerks that makes you wonder why people still watch their content or continue to follow them. The ones I mention don't have bigoted views like Jon, but they're all guilty of outlandish things, drawing straws, or just plain ignorant narrow minded views themselves.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Saelune said:
Strazdas said:
This is some thread you got here. When Saelune gets to be the voice of reason i think people are really trying to hunt for demons that dont exist. I have not seen the debate (nor i have interest in doing so, i dont follow his content) but the quotes given in OP are not racist, they are either a factual observation (such as crimerate) or his opinion, such as him not remmebering Trump saying anything racist. He may simply not remmeber the mexican judge incident and in this case what he siad is correct - he does not remmeber anything trump said thats racist. Shit, you people got me to defend trump again. fucking hell.
Dont backhand compliment me just yet. I am a fan who wants to believe Jon is a good person and that there is no way this is true. I am biased in favor of Jon, where as if this was someone I did not care for, it would be easier for me to presume they really are racist and move on without more context.
I didnt compliment you because you want to defend him, i complimented you because you wanted to find out his actual views, in context, instead of going by cherrypicked quotes. Whether it was your bias that got you to seek truth or not doesnt really matter.

shrekfan246 said:
I mean, really, the interview with Breitbart should've been a pretty big red flag to most people.
being interviewed by newspaper you dont like = racist. Got it.

Dizchu said:
First of all the "wealthy blacks commit more crimes than poor whites" claim is, under the most charitable interpretation, questionable. Second of all if poverty and law enforcement have no influence on the disproportionate crime statistics (as Jon claims), what is the explanation for the discrepancy? Jon was extremely evasive when it came to this and my worry is that he actually thinks that there is a genetic component which is by definition racist.
May i propose the component is cultural, as in some cultures are more likely to have higher crime rate than others? Or are you going to deny that black people in US have a culture?

Cowabungaa said:
Not really, because that's immoral as many people from 'Muslim countries', which is a bloody vague thing to say for many countries anyway, genuinely need help.
They do need help. The help is making their government secular. US tried to do that in a few of those countries, got called war criminals.

Dizchu said:
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that aggression and criminality are genetic traits predominantly seen in those of African descent?
I dont know about humans, but i do know that dogs are specifically bred genetically for aggression for the purpose of dog fighting and, as a result, we have created new species of dogs that are unnaturally aggressive and unpredictable.

Dogs have been selectively bred by humans though... big difference there.
Not really, no. If we assume that human genetics allow aggression the same way dog genetics do, then any period of time where aggression would net higher chance of reproduction would increase aggression levels of general population from natural selection, without outside interference.

altnameJag said:
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.
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,806
0
0
Strazdas said:
They do need help. The help is making their government secular. US tried to do that in a few of those countries, got called war criminals.
I'd invite you to my classes of Contemporary Middle-Eastern Politics if you'd live near, because that's an incredibly ignorant thing to say. Like, it's wrong on so many levels.

Plus, yeah gee I wonder why they were called war criminals. You'd almost think starting a war that's against international law, kills untold civilians, throws a country into absolute disarray, gets used as a profit machine for military contractors and leaves fertile ground for extremist terror groups to grow is frowned upon.

I wonder why?

I wonder why???
CoCage said:
The duo has done some shady shit too, They may not be racist, but Arin and Danny, more so the former, act like jackasses.
I'm not sure "being bad at videogames" counts as shady. Like, at all.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Cowabungaa said:
Strazdas said:
They do need help. The help is making their government secular. US tried to do that in a few of those countries, got called war criminals.
I'd invite you to my classes of Contemporary Middle-Eastern Politics if you'd live near, because that's an incredibly ignorant thing to say. Like, it's wrong on so many levels.

Plus, yeah gee I wonder why they were called war criminals. You'd almost think starting a war that's against international law, kills untold civilians, throws a country into absolute disarray, gets used as a profit machine for military contractors and leaves fertile ground for extremist terror groups to grow is frowned upon.

I wonder why?

I wonder why???
CoCage said:
The duo has done some shady shit too, They may not be racist, but Arin and Danny, more so the former, act like jackasses.
I'm not sure "being bad at videogames" counts as shady. Like, at all.
The internet is a magical palce where distance boundaries dissapear with instantly communication!

And yes, my response was extremely oversimplified. It wasnt meant to be a nuance explanation how to save those countries, but the point that we need to fix those countries rather than moving the problem to the rest of the world.
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,806
0
0
Strazdas said:
And yes, my response was extremely oversimplified. It wasnt meant to be a nuance explanation how to save those countries, but the point that we need to fix those countries rather than moving the problem to the rest of the world.
Not only did it lack nuance, it was also flat-out wrong. They only invaded two countries and one of those had a secular government, Iraq, and the other's religious leaders they actually supported in the Cold War. Speaking of supporting authoritarian and sometimes very Islamic regimes? 'Member when the US did that a whole lot during the Cold War? I 'member.

Next to that, as a solution it's also completely irrelevant for the Muslim populations that have been living in Western nations for decades. From which, shockingly, most Islamic terrorists that strike in the West actually hail.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Cowabungaa said:
Strazdas said:
And yes, my response was extremely oversimplified. It wasnt meant to be a nuance explanation how to save those countries, but the point that we need to fix those countries rather than moving the problem to the rest of the world.
Not only did it lack nuance, it was also flat-out wrong. They only invaded two countries and one of those had a secular government, Iraq, and the other's religious leaders they actually supported in the Cold War. Speaking of supporting authoritarian and sometimes very Islamic regimes? 'Member when the US did that a whole lot during the Cold War? I 'member.

Next to that, as a solution it's also completely irrelevant for the Muslim populations that have been living in Western nations for decades. From which, shockingly, most Islamic terrorists that strike in the West actually hail.
Yeah, US did a lot of bad things during cold war, im sure pepperidge farm remmebers.

So what your saying is it is not so much muslim leadership a problem as the religion itself?
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,806
0
0
Strazdas said:
Yeah, US did a lot of bad things during cold war, im sure pepperidge farm remmebers.

So what your saying is it is not so much muslim leadership a problem as the religion itself?
I'll refer to the first post you quoted of mine regarding what the problem is. You know damn well what I was saying.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,933
1,804
118
Country
United Kingdom
fractal_butterfly said:
Burning a flag with "Free Speech" printed on it seems pretty anti-intellectual to me.
Burning a flag with "free speech" printed on it is protected speech.

Like, the depths to which one could take this are actually kind of fascinating, because what you're describing is symbolic desecration, isn't it? The flag itself is not free speech just because "free speech" is printed on it. A cartoon of the prophet Muhammad is not the prophet Muhammad. These are symbols or icons disconnected from the actual lived reality of the thing they represent. The deliberate desecration of the symbol of the prophet Muhammad, we are told, is a necessary process of defending free speech, of teaching Muslims that their taboos and their sacred rules don't apply to us, and yet here you are telling me that the desecration of an icon of free speech itself is somehow an attack on the lived reality of free speech?

Personally, I'd go so far as to say that academia, the bastion of unfettered intellectualism, is really the last place at which a meaningful discussion of free expression as a legal and political imaginary is possible without bumping up against the iconodulism and quasi-religious veneration of the non-existent moral concept of free speech prevalent in certain sections of the general population.

Intellectualism should be sceptical, if not outright hostile, to customary knowledge or unthinking conservatism, intellectualism should be capable of producing radical concepts or offering meaningful critique of society, indeed it is often the only context in which that radicalism can be freely explored. The United States as a country was founded on an expression of "illegitimate" and "radical" political violence by people who, today, would be called terrorists. George Washington wasn't a "fascist" just because he overthrew a government and so did Mussolini. Having resemblances do not mean things are actually the same.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,580
7,215
118
Country
United States
Strazdas said:
altnameJag said:
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.
 

awesomeClaw

New member
Aug 17, 2009
1,831
0
0
erttheking said:
awesomeClaw said:
Christians are not great.
Of course Christians aren't the nicest people in the world; I'm an atheist, and I would never claim they were.

And you know what? If Sweden, or Germany, or the UK, was ACTIVELY encouraging Christians from the Deep South to come and live in our countries, and bring those Jesus-would-definetly-disapprove-of-them values with them, you would see me out on the street protesting that too.

But that's not the case, is it? In Sweden, Christianity has fallen, and trust me when I say it is never getting back up again. I would prefer not to see it replaced with something (arguably) even worse.
 

Dazzle Novak

New member
Sep 28, 2015
109
0
0
Fox12 said:
Racism is a pretty serious accusation. So yes, if you want anyone to take it seriously, you'll actually have to support you claim.
In other words, in your eyes, there's no such thing as inference, implication, and context. For example, what point is there to JonTron asserting that wealthy blacks commit more crime than poor whites if not to draw a clear conclusion about black people? This is what's so infuriating sometimes. The people taking these "bold and controversial" stances refuse to follow their talking point to the next step while in polite circles, yet take umbrage if someone else uses their powers of deduction to explain where it was leading to.

A lot of you can ascribe to JonTron various disparaging, undesirable traits such as stupidity, but suggest part of the source of that ignorance may be rooted in racial animus and/or discomfort toward "the other" and all of a sudden you lot become pedants requiring the most etymologically-rooted dictionary definition possible.


I heard him say something about white nations protecting their culture. By which he obviously meant white majority nations, like many in Europe, in the same way that you would say Japan is an asian nation. He even made that point. Given that america was 70% white not so long ago, I see what he meant. He clearly wasn't trying to say that non-whites have no place in america. And he clarified, as I already mentioned, that he was more concerned about culture then race. He said he was fine with changing ethnic demographics. Again, it was a careless use of words, but it's not explicitly racist.
Even describing Japan simply as "Asian" is facile. Indians (from India) and Middle-Easterners certainly aren't considered "Asian" in the same sense as the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. And even amongst that latter group, they view themselves as being diametrically opposed culturally and historically.

Whiteness seems to be even more muddy and conditional, accepting any number of ethnic Jews, certain Arabs, and vaguely-white swarthy Europeans (Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, etc.) when it's convenient to do so. That condition, by the way, is often being able to take collective praise for historical accomplishments. Never mind the often-cited exclusion of the Irish until recently.

"Culture" is a dog-whistle in this context. When describing the threat of Islam, for example, people aren't picturing White-passing Bosnians, Muslims from any number of Slavik countries, or converts.

It's merely implicitly racist, though, so better not use the R-word, guys! JonTron implying black people, even when given money and opportunity, are predisposed to crime or that whiteness is a better determination of "American-ness" than being born in America isn't what's offensive or the serious accusation.


It does. Are you implying that different ethnicities and nationalities don't often have unique sub cultures? I thought this was common knowledge. Sometimes those cultures even influence the larger culture. I fail to see how this is even controversial.
White isn't a nationality or even a strict ethnicity. How does one even begin to discuss "white culture" living in a melting pot? "Black", as used in the U.S., isn't an ideal designation, but a placeholder identity due to the disconnect caused by slavery. It's the cultural equivalent of "John Doe".

He was voicing concern that immigrants from certain nations may not share the values of the nation as a whole. This can sometimes be a legitimate concern, such as in Europe right now. He was right, there are riots and problems in european nations as a result of this. I'm not sure why he was extending this to hispanic immigration from mexico, but I see what he was trying to say. It was stupid and uninformed, but again, I don't think the dudes a racist.
If I can be blunt, what your mealy-mouthing appears to essentially amount to is, "I kind of agree with him and/or share his sentiments, but am also aware of how it comes across negatively. It'd serve me to raise the threshold of what's deemed racist lest some self-reflection be required on my part."
 

awesomeClaw

New member
Aug 17, 2009
1,831
0
0
Cowabungaa said:
awesomeClaw said:
Another suggestion might be restricting immigration from muslim countries, since we know these kind of problem can (and often do) result? Just a thought.
Not really, because that's immoral as many people from 'Muslim countries', which is a bloody vague thing to say for many countries anyway, genuinely need help. Then there's the fact that these issues are largely caused by people who were already born here or lived here for many years. Y'know, because they were treated like shit. I never said anything about them being poor or not, though an inherently disadvantaged economic position doesn't help, as their social isolation is noticeable in many more areas. These issues are not the result of modern-day immigration, these issues are the result of failed integration policies going back decades. Many European countries actively recruited people from countries such as Morocco and Turkey, then treated them like tools and just expected them to leave. But then they didn't and were subsequently shunned and that's the environment their kids grew up in.

So here's another thought; how 'bout we stop treating these people like shitty second-class citizens? Y'know, fight the legacy of decades of racism and inherent and deep inequality; fight the root of the problem.
Except that we can see the same phenomenon in countries that didn't have huge amount of colonies, or any deep institutionalized racism.

Take for example Sweden. Sweden was historically a fairly ethnically homogenous country. The immigrants that have arrived these last few years have beenmostly refugees, and the integration has gone very poorly (since they in general had low human capital and little-to-no useful education), and now their kids are going off to fight for ISIS.

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37578919

Look, I agree that focusing on radicalization is taking hold of the wrong of the stick. The real problem is the lack of integration, which causes alienation which causes radicalization.

But Integration in a modern Western economy and society when you've spent your whole life in a clan-based rural society is incredibly difficult; this WILL cause poverty and alienation, which in turn WILL cause their children (and in some cases, them) to turn inwards and radicalize, for obvious reasons. This is not neccersarily something wholly unique to Islam; but Islam just so happens to be the problem we've gotten on our hands.

The solution is obviously not as simple as "fighting racism and discrimination", even if that is part of it. As long as immigrants are not as rich/educated/socially competent as natives, the alienation they feel will never be fixed, and in fact will perpetuate itself. And fixing the fact that they are woefully unequipped for Western life is not something you do on a lazy afternoon.

Therefore, it is neccesary, both for the good of the natives and the good of the immigrants, to be very restrictive in regards to immigration. Refugees can (and should) be helped in camps in Libanon or Jordan. That's the most humane solution, and the gentlest one.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
31,460
13,004
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Cowabungaa said:
Strazdas said:
They do need help. The help is making their government secular. US tried to do that in a few of those countries, got called war criminals.
I'd invite you to my classes of Contemporary Middle-Eastern Politics if you'd live near, because that's an incredibly ignorant thing to say. Like, it's wrong on so many levels.

Plus, yeah gee I wonder why they were called war criminals. You'd almost think starting a war that's against international law, kills untold civilians, throws a country into absolute disarray, gets used as a profit machine for military contractors and leaves fertile ground for extremist terror groups to grow is frowned upon.

I wonder why?

I wonder why???
CoCage said:
The duo has done some shady shit too, They may not be racist, but Arin and Danny, more so the former, act like jackasses.
I'm not sure "being bad at videogames" counts as shady. Like, at all.
I guess you don't know about their Sonic Adventure playthrough

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/DethroningMoment/GameGrumps

Their Sonic Adventure playthrough has been pretty problematic overall. However, while you can argue Arin is entitled to his opinion on the needless amounts of bashing he gives to this 16 year old game, you can't argue things got a bit out of line. I'm talking, of course, about the Knuckles stages, where Arin and Dan check an walkthrough and proceed to mercilessly mock the writer for not giving the exact location of the emerald shards, never mind that said locations are randomized at every attempt on a given stage. Instead of wondering why the writer would make his walkthrough that way, the immediately assume he's just lazy. This comes to a point where Dan actually reads out the name of the writer in the episode and he and Arin proceed to mock him more, and most baffling of all, Dan jokes about their fans giving the writer of the walkthrough shit for writing said walkthrough back in 2004. Guess what happened, on the same day even. They were quick to delete the episode and re-upload a version with the name bleeped out (PIZZA!), but by that time the damage had already been done. I know Arin and Dan are good people, but in this particular case they were way out of line.
Nothing further.
 

Samael Barghest

New member
Mar 5, 2014
145
0
0
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 ****** on stage repeatedly.
 

Bob_McMillan

Elite Member
Aug 28, 2014
5,512
2,126
118
Country
Philippines
Baffle2 said:
Bob_McMillan said:
Two days, and this thread is already at 8 pages. Of course.
Yeah, it's a forum - the whole point is to discuss things.
I'm just saying its sad that on a gaming website a single thread about politics where people are just arguing with each other gets more views and posts in two days than the entire Gaming Discussion forum gets in a week. Understandable, but still sad.
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
CaitSeith said:
Silentpony said:
...who is JonTron?
Oh, good! Someone who hasn't heard of him. My faith on humanity has been restored!
Likewise, I'm seeing the news crop up all over the place, including sites like rationalwiki (who otherwise has no reason to mention the guy), and I haven't a bloody clue who he is, or why we're treating it as somehow rare for a figure in gaming to also be bigoted.