PainInTheAssInternet said:
I went back through to see how on earth my posts could have possibly given you the impression I was trying to destroy JonTron. The only post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.948071-So-apparently-JonTron-is-a-racist?page=3#23927700] I made regarding him and not the Stormfronter stated that no one should have expected him to have insightful or even intelligent opinions given his public persona. I also think this of Adam Sandler. I think when people compliment Sandler for being intelligent (largely for using investor funds to go on massively overpaid vacations with his friends that breaks even because people eat shit and love it as long as it's branded shit), what they're really saying is "I'm stunned he's not as obnoxious and brain-dead as his persona implies."
Not referring to you specifically, just the air I sensed about this issue. It isn't just this one instance, either.
Careers are a popularity contest to an extent. If you work at a company and make yourself known, the public will inevitably judge you and it will reflect on the company. They may indeed choose to fire you. They can also fire you if you don't fit in with your coworkers or make them uncomfortable. As for the Lost Prophets guy, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lostprophets#Watkins.27_arrest_and_band.27s_breakup_.282012.E2.80.9313.29] his charges do come up whenever discussions of the band come up. They changed the name of their band to avoid the association. Being a criminal is a serious issue when you're trying to find a job and leads to recidivism, but society in general tends to reserve special spots for pedophiles and people who defend them.
It was a discussion of the teachers lamenting the age of consent being higher than 13, not 16. I'm sure you can appreciate the difference. How does protecting them from an adult who has authority over them being sexually interested in them not constitute worthwhile consideration? You also talk about the freedom and rights the students have, are you talking about the freedom and right to choose to have sex with their teacher? That is a whole lot more complicated and morally dark than merely being a choice between two consenting and equal adults. The legal term "statutory rape" exists for that reason. We also see it as rather iffy when two adults get together when one has authority over the other.
You are stating that this is how things are, I am arguing that irrespective of that, such a state of affairs is unfair and unjust. I am not disputing that these things indeed are as you say, just that they being so is wrong. As long as you concede that I have no issue here.
Yeah, consent is very morally dark and has a lot of gray area. The approach of treating everyone as vulnerable as the most vulnerable is overly-sheltered and denies the mature ones their deserved freedom. How much you weigh that against the protection of the immature ones is an interesting subject. Oh and again, I never once mentioned teachers and students engaging in relations. That has issues regarding abuse of power. You can think that students should be allowed to make their own choices without you yourself having any personal steaks in their plight. I think trying to make it seem as though only some kind of abhorrent creep would want to even entertain this issue is the type of thing that shuts down all dialogue and rational debate. The law doesn't seem to care if you're 13 or 16, which is the issue. If you're underage it's statutory rape regardless. Even if you look at it from the overly protectionist angle it's still illogical because statutory rape is a single issue but it should be a bigger crime to do that to someone who hasn't even undergone puberty yet, so even from that angle the law makes little sense.
Two core problems with your last paragraph.
1) They were made aware of his views and reacted accordingly, particularly when those views were made widely known. They have the right to choose not to associate themselves with him when it will affect them.
2) You are saying JonTron should have been able to express his views in public (notably in this case that rich black people commit more crime than white people and the white nation should be protected from immigrants) without being publicly criticized or consequence. This is a very common position for some reason; freedom of expression for one side and only them. Why shouldn't he be criticized for this? Why should someone be forced to associate themselves with him? Particularly in the current times of Trump et al making these such hot-button issues?
I'll add a third that is incidental. It's okay to admit you care. Being apathetic does not make anyone cooler or more rational by default. This is not just aimed at you, but anyone who posts and ends it with "I don't care."
Again, when we have this overly consequence-centric perspective, I will simply say that the type of consequences that they chose to lever, will have consequences of their own and now due to their not standing behind their art at cost of public image, I think of them as a much lesser team of developers.
He should be criticized and debated and you can say anything you want about him in podcasts of your own, nobody is saying people shouldn't do this. Just like how he didn't (as far as I know) continue his rant with "and so I believe all rich black people should be profiled" then going on to things beyond just speech is overkill.
What I meant with not caring was that I did not especially care. I care insofar as I see another human being that is being persecuted unjustly, I have no dogs in this fights. I was not a big fan of his, having seen only mayne 10 or so total vids (which I did enjoy, granted) and I never played banjo kazooey or however you spell it and wasn't expecting the successor they're making with bated breath so I am about as impartial as one can be without being completely ignorant of the parties.
