So apparently JonTron is a racist

[CaitSeith]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/23/poor-white-kids-are-less-likely-to-go-to-prison-than-rich-black-kids/?utm_term=.c34c7476778e


That's about as close as I can get in two minutes of google searching, hope it's good enough.

"More likely to go to prison". Well, they might had got that right.

 

[Baffle]

I hadn't heard of him either (not quite true, I'd heard of him but didn't know who he was). But he certainly looks like a racist. And if he also quacks like a duck, I have to assume he is indeed a racist duck.

 

[Dizchu]

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?

And what do African-Americans have in common? Yeah, they're descended from slaves. Slavery is literally the basis of their culture. You can't use "culture" to ignore environmental factors because culture is formed out of environmental factors.

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.

"Not really"? Have you seen the diversity in dog breeds? Compare that to the diversity in humans, there is absolutely no comparison.

Are there particularly large numbers of evangelical American Christians emigrating to Europe?

Or is this just one of those "Whataboutisms"?

I hope you're having a nice workout moving the goalposts like that.

You're missing the point. The graphic you posted is intended to paint Muslims as a menacing force, presumably with the end goal of encouraging opposition to immigration. Yet Pew Forum specifically shows that Muslims that immigrate to the USA (the basis of this whole JonTron drama) integrate better than Evangelicals do.

The hysteria surrounding Muslims is due to their hyper-conservative beliefs, so SURELY a group that has beliefs that are even more conservative and has a larger influence on politics and society should be regarded as a larger threat?

See this is what happens, whenever people demonstrate that Muslims in the USA aren't a significant threat people point to the migrant crisis in Europe. Whenever people point out that Christians in Africa recruit child soldiers and commit genocide we're told that American Christians are completely different. It's extremely frustrating and to me indicates a lack of sincerity.

Because if American Muslims aren't a threat but middle-eastern Muslims are, that indicates that the problem is the middle-east and not Islam which absolutely invalidates the point of the graphic.

 

[Dizchu]

I'd say it's more that only in American can you take the statements Jon stated as construe them as being racist, but then given how many Canadian and Europeans users have done so it seems more a Western thing then an American one.

I'm sure this is a logical fallacy. "Argumentum ad Americanum" or something. If you disagree with someone assume they are American and don't understand the world. If you're a fan of American right-wingers then assume that someone is from the west coast. I've seen you do this a lot and I have to just come out and say it, it is extremely intellectually lazy.

I mean you say that "only in America" can Jon's statements be considered racist but I'd actually argue the opposite. America has a history of this sort of dogwhistling that other countries do not, speaking as a Brit I can tell you that the UK has nowhere near the same race problem that the USA has.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

I'm sure this is a logical fallacy. "Argumentum ad Americanum" or something. If you disagree with someone assume they are American and don't understand the world. If you're a fan of American right-wingers then assume that someone is from the west coast. I've seen you do this a lot and I have to just come out and say it, it is extremely intellectually lazy.

I mean you say that "only in America" can Jon's statements be considered racist but I'd actually argue the opposite. America has a history of this sort of dogwhistling that other countries do not, speaking as a Brit I can tell you that the UK has nowhere near the same race problem that the USA has.

I call it something similar; "Argumentum ad Californium." The arguments are typically that all rational people agree with the person arguing and that those who don't are from California, which is full of clueless, hedonistic, spineless, anti-intellectual liberals. They can be safely ignored whenever an issue is brought up, even though the population and GDP metrics are enormous by any standard. It's odd how often I see it, though I am including the sister argument "Argumentum ad Northeastium."

 

[Cowabungaa]

snip

Ohhh right that moment. Yeah they were douche-y against that walkthrough guy. Would not put that even remotely on the level of Jontron's rant though, at least they owed up to their screw-up and tried to fix it.

snip

I absolutely agree that it's a very difficult thing to do, but the problem with the "regional camps" solution is that that's been going on already and is far from a gentle solution. These countries have fairly little resources available to them to manage this, and a country like Lebanon already is hosting well over a million refugees and that's just registered refugees. That's an extra 17% on top of their population, and it could easily be 20%. Imagine Sweden having to host 1.6 to 2 million people, and you're an affluent nation. They're already doing their part with hardly any recognition and with morally horrible low support. Conditions in those camps are absolutely appalling, it's our moral duty to do our part as rich countries. Do you know the amount of aid Turkey receives to help the over 2.6 million refugees they're housing? It's a disgrace.


Your essentialist diagnose why these refugees fail to integrate also seems quite off the mark. Clan-based rural societies? Countries like Syria and Iraq were modern nations before they were wracked by war. The article you yourself linked describes why these kids are drawn to radicalisation, and it has nothing to do with them being used to some clan-based society or something like that. No, the ones that are vulnerable are the kids that grew up in the countries their parents fled to. Those kids have to suffer a higher unemployment rate and horrible amounts of discrimination. They're uprooted and disconnected from both the culture they grew up in as well as the culture of their parents. And that's what jihadist recruiters prey upon. It has nothing to do with them having some kind of inherent essence that makes them unsuitable for life in Sweden, France or The Netherlands.

Speaking of The Netherlands, have you ever noticed that despite them also having to deal with an influx of new immigrants, and having a large history of Islamic immigration, there pretty much haven't been any terror attacks the last few years? That's because we learned a lesson after the death of Theo Van Gogh. We didn't close our borders, but we had authority figures go into immigrant neighbourhoods and connect with them. Certain politicians here laugh at the 'tea drinking tactic' they employ but the positive effects are undeniable. When you connect with them, draw them into the larger community and give them a place they belong to you'll find that they're citizens just like everyone else. Now, our methods aren't perfect and there's a lot of work to be done, but I'll be damned if the Dutch situation doesn't prove that what we're doing is working.

 

[McMarbles]

I'd say it's more that only in American can you take the statements Jon stated as construe them as being racist, but then given how many Canadian and Europeans users have done so it seems more a Western thing then an American one.

I'm sure this is a logical fallacy. "Argumentum ad Americanum" or something. If you disagree with someone assume they are American and don't understand the world. If you're a fan of American right-wingers then assume that someone is from the west coast. I've seen you do this a lot and I have to just come out and say it, it is extremely intellectually lazy.

I mean you say that "only in America" can Jon's statements be considered racist but I'd actually argue the opposite. America has a history of this sort of dogwhistling that other countries do not, speaking as a Brit I can tell you that the UK has nowhere near the same race problem that the USA has.

I'm still finding it hard to believe that people can listen to shit like "diluting the gene pool" and "blacks are genetically disposed to crime" and come to the conclusion that he's not racist. Because that is pretty fucking racist.

This is not diet racism. This is a triple racism cheeseburger with bacon and ham and a fried egg and pulled brisket. And instead of the bun, deep-fried waffles. And the whole thing is served in a bucket of lard and garnished with tiny pies.

I've had that metaphor banging around in my head and I wanted to use it somewhere.

 

[TheMigrantSoldier]

Can't say I'm not disappointed. I've enjoyed his videos for a few years and liked the guy, for all his faults. As someone who is a second generation Iranian-American, I was excited to see someone "like me" as something of a star. I can't really support him in good faith now, not when he's sharing a bed with the same fools peddling that "white displacement" crap (The same fools who would gladly deport/castrate/kill him, mind you). I don't think he's a monster and I want to believe he can change but I'm not holding my breath.

"They're [whites] are not being killed, they're being displaced. You are the same guy who says that Europeans displaced the native Americans but apparently, when other people do it to white Americans, it's okay because fuck white people."

I want Jon to read up on the genocidal history of his own fucking home state and then try to say that stupid shit with a straight face again.

 

[Fox12]

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.

The African American community does commit more crime then other communities in the United States. Just like caucasian americans commit more crimes then individuals from various asian nations. Those are just statistics. Furthermore, arrests are proportional to the percentages of violent crimes committed. Those are simply the facts and data. How you feel about it is irrelevant. What matters is what this data actually means. Obviously race and genetics don't predispose you to committing crime. That would be ridiculous, and anyone who makes that claim actually is racist. However, it does raise the question about what this data means. One argument is that there exists systemic racism. That african americans are arrested as a result of bias in the law enforcement and judicial system. I think there is likely truth to this, but it does not explain disparities o its own. Another argument is that poverty is more likely to result in crime, and that since certain minorities don't enjoy the wealth and power of many caucasian americans, this results in disproportionate crime rates. I think there is likely some truth to this as well, but it does not explain why african american communities still commit disproportionate crime even independent of their financial success when compared to their peers across racial lines. Part of this may be systemic racism, but it can't account for the total disparity. The final argument would be an argument of sub cultures that have developed in the united states. Essentially, that certain cultures develop that encourage an increase in crime rates. This can be the result of racial differences in a society if schisms are formed. I think there's some truth to this as well, but again, it can't account for the total disparity. I think its a combination of all of the above. I think Jon Trons facts were wrong, but given his prior conversation with Sargon, this appears to be what he was trying to articulate.

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.

I agree, Jons position was without nuance, especially when speaking about America, which is a true melting pot.

"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.

Culture is what Jon was talking about, though. African Americans do commit more crimes then their peers across all racial demographic lines. Those are the facts, regardless of how politically correct you feel they are. Again, that's not caused by race itself, but it is probably the result of the things I listed above.

I also don't remember him saying "whiteness" determines "american-ness." What he said is that white americans have a right to be concerned about the fact that they are becoming a smaller demographic since they are less able to pursue their own self interest politically. Personally, I couldn't care less about this issue. But he is correct. Every group in america is concerned about their political makeup and power in america. Do you think this is unique to some caucasian americans? Many african american groups are unhappy to go from roughly 12 to 7 percent of the population, since it impairs their ability to seek their own self interest. It's power politics. Its dumb, but its there. Any group, across any line, wants more of a voice in politics. Any demographic shift that takes that away is going to make that group uncomfortable. This is simply acknowledging human nature.

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".

[/quote]

Its not perfect, but to pretend that these dividing lines don't exist within culture is frankly silly. African Americans living in today's society don't identify by whatever nation their ancestors were taken from. They identify as African American.

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."

And here we are. It always comes down to this in the end, doesn't it? I'm a racist.

Which is funny, because I actually disagree with Jon on most of his points. I think he was wrong, and I mostly agreed with the other guy. Jon clearly lost the debate. But I don't think Jon Tron is a racist, so I'm racist I guess. At least your not quick to jump to conclusions.

 

[TheMigrantSoldier]

Every group in america is concerned about their political makeup and power in america. Do you think this is unique to some caucasian americans? Many african american groups are unhappy to go from roughly 12 to 7 percent of the population, since it impairs their ability to seek their own self interest. It's power politics. Its dumb, but its there. Any group, across any line, wants more of a voice in politics. Any demographic shift that takes that away is going to make that group uncomfortable. This is simply acknowledging human nature.

Many African-Americans (in the mainstream, at least) are concerned over perceived slights still being committed against them by local law enforcement and government. Interests like those have nothing to do with "ethnic displacement".

 

[Terminal Blue]

Furthermore, arrests are proportional to the percentages of violent crimes committed.

Citation seriously needed on that one.

 

[Dizchu]

The African American community does commit more crime then other communities in the United States. Just like caucasian americans commit more crimes then individuals from various asian nations.

And men commit more crimes than women. See anyone can just throw out statistics to back up their political views, the key is figuring out why the statistics are the way they are. When you throw out these claims without any analysis it just makes you look reactionary and it makes you look like you're trying to single particular groups out.

 

[Fox12]

The African American community does commit more crime then other communities in the United States. Just like caucasian americans commit more crimes then individuals from various asian nations.

And men commit more crimes than women. See anyone can just throw out statistics to back up their political views, the key is figuring out why the statistics are the way they are. When you throw out these claims without any analysis it just makes you look reactionary and it makes you look like you're trying to single particular groups out.

It's a good thing I addressed that very point. There was nothing in that post that was reactionary.

 

[BrawlMan]

Ohhh right that moment. Yeah they were douche-y against that walkthrough guy. Would not put that even remotely on the level of Jontron's rant though, at least they owed up to their screw-up and tried to fix it.

I never said nor implied that they just as bad ass Jon. Either way, I would not want to be stuck in a room any of the three. Jon I would constantly do a multilayered cross between a pimp slap and a ***** slap for such stupidity.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Ohhh right that moment. Yeah they were douche-y against that walkthrough guy. Would not put that even remotely on the level of Jontron's rant though, at least they owed up to their screw-up and tried to fix it.

I never said nor implied that they just as bad ass Jon. Either way, I would not want to be stuck in a room any of the three. Jon I would constantly do a multilayered cross between a pimp slap and a ***** slap for such stupidity.

Really? Dan and Arin seem to be genuinely great guys without such ignorant predilections. Not sure how it'd be terrible to be in a room with them. Jon I'd get pretty uncomfortable around as well now, though.

 

[Dizchu]

It's a good thing I addressed that very point. There was nothing in that post that was reactionary.

I'm not accusing you of being reactionary, I'm accusing Jon. The thing is, he takes the higher crime stats of blacks as an indication that they're a threat instead of as something that needs addressing (because if he did he'd be focusing instead on the root causes instead of repeatedly saying "hey they're just hard truths, man").

His stream with Sargon was almost as bad, with him ranting about the "fucking commulists".

 

[Fox12]

It's a good thing I addressed that very point. There was nothing in that post that was reactionary.

I'm not accusing you of being reactionary, I'm accusing Jon. The thing is, he takes the higher crime stats of blacks as an indication that they're a threat instead of as something that needs addressing (because if he did he'd be focusing instead on the root causes instead of repeatedly saying "hey they're just hard truths, man").

His stream with Sargon was almost as bad, with him ranting about the "fucking commulists".

Yeah, debate isn't his strong suit...

 

[fractal_butterfly]

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.

You are willfully ignoring 90% of my argument. Those people we are talking about are not fighting some righteous war against an evil oppressor. They are throwing a tantrum and resort to violence if reality does not bow to their will. This is not even close to the example of George Washington and the war of independence. They are endangering the society they are in their mind trying to protect with their thoughtless actions. Because as I said: their extremism and violence will spawn, or rather has already spawned equivalent counter reactions. They are the ones constantly feeding the alt-right and other extremist groups. And they don't even realize it.
Also, US universities are at the moment the last place to look in, when you try to find intellectual discussion, open discourse and challenged beliefs and world views.

Regarding the burning of the flag being free speech: that is true but does nothing to this argument. You can spout a lot of bullshit, even if you are free to do so. And suggesting to abolish free speech is a very fascist thing to do, if you ask me. But the irony seems to be lost at them.

 

[BrawlMan]

Ohhh right that moment. Yeah they were douche-y against that walkthrough guy. Would not put that even remotely on the level of Jontron's rant though, at least they owed up to their screw-up and tried to fix it.

I never said nor implied that they just as bad ass Jon. Either way, I would not want to be stuck in a room any of the three. Jon I would constantly do a multilayered cross between a pimp slap and a ***** slap for such stupidity.

Really? Dan and Arin seem to be genuinely great guys without such ignorant predilections. Not sure how it'd be terrible to be in a room with them. Jon I'd get pretty uncomfortable around as well now, though.

I should make this more detailed, Arin I more or less loss interests in and respect. Ironically, part of it was because of the split that happened between him and Jon. How he reacted to was just upload the next episodes with Dan like nothing happened. Bow that is not a knock against Dan, but I just don't find the guy interesting. The other reason in Arin's case was because there were many times when the man had no idea what fuck he was talking about it. Whether it was the game themselves, story, lore, or just proper game design. And if it wasn't that, it was him sometimes insulting people for liking things that he doesn't. Or vice versa. Like MB, Nostalgia Critic, or Spoony, if you're gonna go out of your way to insult the people that supported and watch shows, then you can rightly fuck off.

 

[awesomeClaw]

snip

Ohhh right that moment. Yeah they were douche-y against that walkthrough guy. Would not put that even remotely on the level of Jontron's rant though, at least they owed up to their screw-up and tried to fix it.

snip

I absolutely agree that it's a very difficult thing to do, but the problem with the "regional camps" solution is that that's been going on already and is far from a gentle solution. These countries have fairly little resources available to them to manage this, and a country like Lebanon already is hosting well over a million refugees and that's just registered refugees. That's an extra 17% on top of their population, and it could easily be 20%. Imagine Sweden having to host 1.6 to 2 million people, and you're an affluent nation. They're already doing their part with hardly any recognition and with morally horrible low support. Conditions in those camps are absolutely appalling, it's our moral duty to do our part as rich countries. Do you know the amount of aid Turkey receives to help the over 2.6 million refugees they're housing? It's a disgrace.


Your essentialist diagnose why these refugees fail to integrate also seems quite off the mark. Clan-based rural societies? Countries like Syria and Iraq were modern nations before they were wracked by war. The article you yourself linked describes why these kids are drawn to radicalisation, and it has nothing to do with them being used to some clan-based society or something like that. No, the ones that are vulnerable are the kids that grew up in the countries their parents fled to. Those kids have to suffer a higher unemployment rate and horrible amounts of discrimination. They're uprooted and disconnected from both the culture they grew up in as well as the culture of their parents. And that's what jihadist recruiters prey upon. It has nothing to do with them having some kind of inherent essence that makes them unsuitable for life in Sweden, France or The Netherlands.

Speaking of The Netherlands, have you ever noticed that despite them also having to deal with an influx of new immigrants, and having a large history of Islamic immigration, there pretty much haven't been any terror attacks the last few years? That's because we learned a lesson after the death of Theo Van Gogh. We didn't close our borders, but we had authority figures go into immigrant neighbourhoods and connect with them. Certain politicians here laugh at the 'tea drinking tactic' they employ but the positive effects are undeniable. When you connect with them, draw them into the larger community and give them a place they belong to you'll find that they're citizens just like everyone else. Now, our methods aren't perfect and there's a lot of work to be done, but I'll be damned if the Dutch situation doesn't prove that what we're doing is working.

That's why we should take in less refugees here, where it's more expensive to house people (as you said, Sweden would collapse if we took in 1.6-2 million refugees. Libanon and Jordan don't, since they don't have a welfare state), and give some of the money we save to UNHCR.

What are you talking about? Syria was a deeply tribalistic country even before the war started; the fact that oppression from Assad has kept the clan tendencies largely in check doesn't mean they aren't there, or that the attitudes that foster them are dead. Source: https://www.fairobserver.com/region/middle_east_north_africa/tribal-factor-syria-rebellion/

Iraqi attitudes towards Western values are also very quaint: 91% favor Sharia laws, according to the Pew poll conducted a few years back. Do you think the attitudes are much better in Syria? Source: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

The fact that no terror attacks have occured in the Netherlands means nothing. There haven't been any islamic terror attacks in Sweden that have killed anyone except the perpertrator this millenium, yet there are a good number of muslims going of to fight for the Islamic State.

Also, the Netherlands are not great at integration. From the 2008 OECD report:

"The current immigrant population is a diverse group, and labour market outcomes differ significantly by country of origin. The most important origin country is Turkey, followed by Morocco. Both of these countries were the source of low-qualified labour migration
until the mid-1970s, followed by family reunification, often also with very low-educated
spouses. This latter group has the most difficulties on the labour market, especially immigrant women ? particularly in the important market for part-time work, where they often have to compete with higher skilled natives."

"Another significant group of immigrants have come from the former Dutch colony
Suriname, and from the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. The latter are Dutch citizens by
birth but are nevertheless regarded as immigrants in Dutch statistics because they originate
from outside of the Netherlands, and their labour market outcomes are also well below
those of the native-born."

Source: http://www.oecd.org/migration/mig/41636274.pdf

The main reason integration isn't working out is low education; this strengthens clan tendencies and religious extremism which would otherwise dissipate. It is true religious extremism is not the biggest problem with taking in large amounts of immigrants from the third world; but religious extremism easily follow from the other big problems.