So apparently JonTron is a racist

[shrekfan246]

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

 

[Erttheking]

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

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

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

 

[shrekfan246]

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

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

 

[Irwin126]

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

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

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

 

[Ninjamedic]

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


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

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

 

[Ninjamedic]

Considering what the alleged "torrent of abuse" you're referring to actually involved, you're just painting Jon as an emotional weakling and an intellectual featherweight.

Or I'm pointing out that the whole internet mob mentality isn't just bound to any one group and is endemic to the current state of the internet and social media.

 

[Ninjamedic]

Or I'm pointing out that the whole internet mob mentality isn't just bound to any one group and is endemic to the current state of the internet and social media.

I like my observation better. Less petulant, more directly relevant to the thread.

Um how? I made an observation of what could have dragged people to say things like Jon, and you just came along and tried to dismiss it.

I don't see how observing the possible effects of outrage driven controversy it petulant.

 

[CaitSeith]

Or I'm pointing out that the whole internet mob mentality isn't just bound to any one group and is endemic to the current state of the internet and social media.

I like my observation better. Less petulant, more directly relevant to the thread.

Um how? I made an observation of what could have dragged people to say things like Jon, and you just came along and tried to dismiss it.

I don't see how observing the possible effects of outrage driven controversy it petulant.

Seeing how JonTron reacted back then, I agree more with BeetleManiac.

Spoiler

I remember that. After calling PS Now retarded, his friend politely asked him not to say retarded, he called them retarded (jokingly inferring that only clinically retarded people could ask him that), shitstorm followed and at its lowest point he responded to it with "Why don't you try focusing your civil unrest at something that dearly needs it, like the fact that today the Israeli air force struck a school with a missile killing 10 people, most of which were children. I suppose you?re all ok with that, as long as the missile didn't call the school 'retarded' first, right?". I know this was a reaction of his to the backlash; but he didn't do much to help other people to accept his opinion (in that case, that it was ok to use "retarded" in a banter, and no one else business).

There are dozens of ways to gracefully handle (and even repel) the backlash. JonTron did the opposite of that (heck! Even "Fuck off! Freedom of speech, bitches!" would had been more graceful). Saying that his choice of words (and later alignment with "skeptics") was forced by the Internet mob, speaks worse about him than about the mob.

 

[Falling_v1legacy]

soooo Shibby, buddy, pal, amigo.

It is you that linked the sources, and it is you that is picking apart the legitimacy of the first source. So which is it? Is the first source good evidence of your position "Wealthy blacks commit more crime than poor whites" or is it an example of a "shit paper" from 1979 that is suppressing the truth, because you seem to have switched arguments here.

As for the second. You set out to prove: "Wealthy blacks commit more crime than poor whites". Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tables you are looking at show that wealthy black experience more crime. Distribution of homicide rates shows to whom the homicide occurs but doesn't say who committed those homicides.

Aka from the concluding remarks: "This paper presents a set of empirical results on the relationship between income and crime victimization and how that pattern has changed over time." Emphasis mine. Now you might ask, who committed those crimes? Well, I don't know; the paper doesn't seem to say- but the fault is yours because you are 0 for 2 for linking relevant papers. Maybe next time don't zero in on the numbers to the exclusion of the words surrounding the numbers, because they provide context and meaning to what those numbers actually describe.

In addition, I would also suggest using papers at the very least from the 2000's and on, but preferably from 2010 and on, so we are at least in the same decade. Longitudinal studies are fine so long as they conclude in around about the same decade as the present, as we are discussing the present.

 

[Ninjamedic]

There are dozens of ways to gracefully handle (and even repel) the backlash. JonTron did the opposite of that (heck! Even "Fuck off! Freedom of speech, bitches!" would had been more graceful). Saying that his choice of words (and later alignment with "skeptics") was forced by the Internet mob, speaks worse about him than about the mob.

If you say so, I just think it's handwaving the outrage just because you don't like the target in question.

 

[Ninjamedic]

Just because you think something does not automatically make you right.

Okay then.

Jon reacted like a moron to what should have been a non-issue, but apparently he is somehow blameless for his actions and should not be held responsible for repeating Nazi propaganda because (gasp!) some people on the internet weren't nice enough to him.

Right, point to where I said that. Demonstrate how my raising his previous encounters with controversy must have meant I absolved him of his actions.

Go on.

 

[CaitSeith]

There are dozens of ways to gracefully handle (and even repel) the backlash. JonTron did the opposite of that (heck! Even "Fuck off! Freedom of speech, bitches!" would had been more graceful). Saying that his choice of words (and later alignment with "skeptics") was forced by the Internet mob, speaks worse about him than about the mob.

If you say so, I just think it's handwaving the outrage just because you don't like the target in question.

I like several of his videos. He isn't a bad comedian and I don't mind the use of "retarded" in his jokes or twits. So, no. My criticism about his reactions to the outrage aren't because I don't like him; but because dozens of people get similar backlash, and they handle it much better.

 

[Ninjamedic]

Now bearing in mind Beetle didn't find what I asked him to...

You agree that he overreacts to things he shouldn't?

Well yes, but overreaction is the Internet's main pastime.

You do think that he should be held responsible for the stupid shit he says?

Define responsible here.

And if so, why is the so-called "outrage" worth commenting on?

Well apart from bringing something of discussion that isn't self-aggrandizing, I thought noting that he was on the receiving end of overreaction himself would skew his views and that is might make "They can't handle what you're trying to say" an easier sell if their reaction to an insult is to go off the handle.

 

[Majestic Manatee_v1legacy]

So which is it? Is the first source good evidence of your position "Wealthy blacks commit more crime than poor whites" or is it an example of a "shit paper" from 1979 that is suppressing the truth, because you seem to have switched arguments here.

It's a badly written, researched, and organised paper. Either deliberately or through incompetence. Regardless, it proves the

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tables you are looking at show that wealthy black experience more crime. Distribution of homicide rates shows where the crime occurs but doesn't say who committed those crimes.

It literally makes no difference, since the overwhelming majority of homicides in general are committed against the people of similar race. Whites kill white far more than any other race. Blacks kill blacks far more than any other race. And this is common knowledge. "Black on Black" has been a meme for decades now. In fact, proof of this is right there in the other article. One or two percentage points is negligible.
From those two sources, anyone with an ounce of intellectual integrity would come to the conclusion from this that these two sources are evidence of Jontrons claim. At the absolute minimum, you would realise that his claim has at the very least a grounding in authenticity, rather than something to be mocked. And you're doing exactly what I said you would do: engage in autistic, specious, hypercritical sophistry. Your caught in a downpour and denying the existence that it's raining, because the last time it rained it blew in from a different direction. Grasping for any paddle you can to cope with your cognitive dissonance.

You should paint a picture or write a poem or something. Something productive to calm those thoughts. Come on in, the water is warm...

 

[Ninjamedic]

] So, no. My criticism about his reactions to the outrage aren't because I don't like him; but because dozens of people get similar backlash, and they handle it much better.

I was just making a guess about his state of mind really.

 

[Ninjamedic]

You know, I was going to elaborate on why I don;t think some of the reactions aren't going to help him see sense and then I see this:

And yet, here I am today, still not a Nazi-apologist.

And here we have the real purpose of all of this, proclaiming your moral superiority over someone on the internet.

So fine, go right ahead, I'm sure this will convince anyone who agrees with Jon to see the error of their thinking.

Enjoy your victory on an internet forum with increasingly less traffic.

 

[CaitSeith]

] So, no. My criticism about his reactions to the outrage aren't because I don't like him; but because dozens of people get similar backlash, and they handle it much better.

I was just making a guess about his state of mind really.

And also guessing the cause. It's not bad to speculate about either of them. I just disagree with the idea that the mob is the main responsible of his current state of mind. IMO at most they are just a link in the chain that led him there.

 

[McMarbles]

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

Um... if "We must restrict immigration to protect the gene pool from being diluted" and "black people are genetically predisposed to crime" isn't racist, than what the hell is?

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

The FBI given the conviction rate based on race and cross-referenced with income. Unless there's a massive conspiracy that no one has been able to uncover the existence of, rich black young men are marginally more likely to commit a crime then poor white men are.

The "conspiracy" is called the war on drugs. This is a long but really educational video explaining some of the issues that the black community is facing because of it:

The gist of it is that if the cops are targeting blacks more than whites, and if blacks are being convicted for the same crimes disproportionally more often than whites, of course the statistics are going to reflect that. But statistics aren't going to tell you why that's happening. It's not going to explain to you why it isn't happening in other countries around the world and why it's a uniquely American problem.

 

[Falling_v1legacy]

@shibby.
I hope when you return from your suspension, you've settled down.

I sure do hope you don't let facts get in the way of your worldview.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tables you are looking at show that wealthy black experience more crime. Distribution of homicide rates shows where the crime occurs but doesn't say who committed those crimes.

It literally makes no difference,

One of these things is not like the other. Talk about cognitive dissonance. You (and JonTron) set out to prove that wealthy blacks commit more crimes than the poor whites. You have not done so. It makes all the difference in the world if it is the wealthy black committing the crime or receiving the crime. It's the complete reverse- one proves it, the other does not. I would even throw you a bone- it is very, very likely that on average the wealthy black are receiving crime from the poor black. But the paper can't prove who commits homicide (much less wealthy blacks) because the paper isn't about who commits homicide. That is the definition of intellectual dishonesty: using a paper that says one thing to prove something it doesn't even talk about. No sophistry. No hypocrisy (except from you)

Also, in what world does

It's a badly written, researched, and organised paper.

(emphasis mine) prove anything? How can you claim intellectual integrity when relying upon a paper that you say is badly researched. To any reasonable person, a badly researched paper is evidence of exactly nothing.

Once the chaff of your assumptions and assertions are blown away, all you are left with is a handful of petty insults. Someone like you "takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion."