Jontron

[KHCast]

14 minutes ago, Meta77 said:

But there removing him from a already finished portion.  distancing would be condemning what he said. By your tones you really need to just speak. Sounds like your really taking it personal with jon.

 Racism only affects you if you let it affect you. You have rights. Some calls me a nig  online eh let them stress themselves to death wanting to yell it lol

Good for you, others simply don't tolerate that behavior and have boundaries. Consequences will apply. Freedom of speech doesn't bar consequences. You can say your racist shit, but that doesn't mean you get to keep your support from people as well. If playtonic wish to sever their ties that's fine. I'm gonna use my example I used in a status. If Will Smith said "f*gs are a cancer to this country" are you gonna get upset if univeral studios drop him from Men in Black 10 and say that's infringing on his rights and that they shouldn't allow his views to affect his career?

[Meta77]

Is there a r3ason when I read things half is,white and the rest is a dark green

[Ryannumber1gamer]

1 hour ago, NastCF said:

I did lose a lot of respect for JonTron with these recent events, but what Playtonic did seems super petty to me. I could understand if their collaboration was on-going and they decided to call it off, but to retroactively remove his work from a finished game? Just seems silly to me.

That said, Jon has absolutely brought this on himself. This is a project I'm sure he was very passionate for, and he needed this as a reminder that running his mouth without thinking can have tangible consequences.

From the standpoint of a game developer releasing their first game, it really isn't. Jon's actions can not only alienate customers who fall under his viewpoints, but then people could realistically not buy the game itself out of protest, either not wanting to support Jon in any form, or not wanting to support Playtonic due to keeping their business relationship alive when Jon did all of this. When you're looking in from the outside, it may seem a little silly to delete something from a game that's finished but trust me, as someone who's been doing Game Development courses, especially marketing and such, this is the smartest move Playtonic could make to prove they have nothing to do with his views and do not support them whatsoever. It's not petty, it's extremely good business sense to make it clear they want nothing to do with his shit before the game releases.

[Meta77]

1 minute ago, KHCast said:

Good for you, others simply don't tolerate that behavior and have boundaries. Consequences will apply. Freedom of speech doesn't bar consequences. You can say your racist shit, but that doesn't mean you get to keep your support from people as well. If playtonic wish to sever their ties that's fine. I'm gonna use my example I used in a status. If Will Smith said "f*gs are a cancer to this country" are you gonna get upset if univeral studios drop him from Men in Black 10 and say that's infringing on his rights and that they shouldn't allow his views to affect his career?

No they should.  I just have a hard time i derstanding why people let it get them  mad. That what racist like the most. I don't know honestly don't slap me I just was raised in a open minded and largely mixed family. We never let it get to us cause well someone in our family would be of a different race. While by no means am I saying it's ok or right I'm just saying people shouldn't lose sleep over it

 

 

 

 

 

 

But I'm still a fan of his old stuff.  But I will also say he has changed and is not the Jon I originally followed either. He'll I'm sure he killed jock

[Nepenthe]

No one is mad at Jon for being a shitstain. Disappointed maybe, but calling a spade a spade doesn't always proceed anger (Not that being angry matters anyway. Emotion is irrelevant to the veracity of any argument. If I angrily say the sun is a star, I'm not suddenly wrong.)

What people are really mad at is the defense force.

If I see some idiot entertainer talking about eugenics as a good idea and say "lol what a racist," and then you get in your feelings enough to try and defend fucking eugenics just because you like that entertainer, yeah, I'm mad, because you're now stanning for eugenics, and this is the real reason we're seeing a rise of people subscribing to the argument, which in turn affects politics and real world quality of life.

It's not even the blatant racists anymore that are the problem. It's misguided people and "fence sitters" giving them a cover to make life worse for everyone else. Like, if you don't have any skin in the game, and you don't care about politics, and you don't even agree with the person in question, why do you feel the need to try and argue that Nazism ain't that bad just because a funny guy with a bird espoused it?

[Nast]

.

[Kuzu]

2 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

No one is mad at Jon for being a shitstain. Disappointed maybe, but calling a spade a spade doesn't always proceed anger (Not that being angry matters anyway. Emotion is irrelevant to the veracity of any argument. If I angrily say the sun is a star, I'm not suddenly wrong.)

What people are really mad at is the defense force.

If I see some idiot entertainer talking about eugenics as a good idea and say "lol what a racist," and then you get in your feelings enough to try and defend fucking eugenics just because you like that entertainer, yeah, I'm mad, because you're now stanning for eugenics, and this is the real reason we're seeing a rise of people subscribing to the argument, which in turn affects politics and real world quality of life.

It's not even the blatant racists anymore that are the problem. It's misguided people and "fence sitters" giving them a cover to make life worse for everyone else. Like, if you don't have any skin in the game, and you don't care about politics, and you don't even agree with the person in question, why do you feel the need to try and argue that Nazism ain't that bad just because a funny guy with a bird espoused it?

Because Nep, he makes people laugh. So because he makes people laugh, it means he can get away with saying anything because he's so "lol funny" haha. 

 

People don't seem to realize that just because someone is famous doesn't mean they can do and say whatever they want, and pretend like it's ok. I don't give a fuck how many people like your work, if you say some dumb shit, you deserved to be called on it. The only reason this is blowing up as much as it is is because he's famous among the Internet, otherwise everyone would just (correctly) write him off as another racist right-winger.

[Wraith]

I feel like in general the idea of raising people up as celebrities for playing video games was kind of a bad idea. A lot of these guys are turning out to be scummy nowadays and It's really gotten me down

[Kuzu]

There's nothing wrong with being a video game celebrity in itself; but a shitty person will always be a shitty person no matter how much of their content that I like.

[Diogenes]

5 minutes ago, Josh said:

I feel like in general the idea of raising people up as celebrities for playing video games was kind of a bad idea. A lot of these guys are turning out to be scummy nowadays and It's really gotten me down

That's just humanity in general. Weird nerds on a popularity high are just worse at hiding it.

[Tornado]

16 hours ago, KHCast said:

Not sure how something like him saying the gene pool would be tainted because of non whites,

That'd be why I didn't respond to that; or most of the stupid shit he said for that matter. I also haven't actually seen the stream and since most of the things Jon said are being paraphrased in that article/comments instead of quoted, it seemed moot anyway.

Quote

institutionalized racism and discrimination isn't a real thing or that other cultures can't mix as easily with "American culture"

Also not really racist. Oh, for sure, they certainly can be; and they are definitely things held by people who are. But there are people in the country who just don't see evidence of these things, and since it doesn't effect them don't have reason to seek it out. For the latter one, since it's specifically an anti-Arab sentiment even if whoever saying it might be pretending to be more vague, you could swap out any Western country with "America" and you will have people in that country who have it because it was pounded into their heads for the past 15 years that Muslim = Terrorism.

My point is that there are contexts where someone can believe those but not be a guy walking at a Neo Nazi rally, but when these sorts of things flare up any nuance on a person's actual views are lost. Regardless of how probably-racist, definitely-alt-right-idiot Jon is, the wide brush people are painting to purport that everything he said in that stream points towards racism is dangerous. It collectively forms a pretty strong narrative when someone goes on a rant that includes everything when they also happen to have a history of some kind of shitty things, but when you insist racism on all of these individual statements?

 

 

Listen to a local radio station whenever some national story with a racial element makes headlines. The typical white guy in America is extremely uncomfortable with the idea that a white cop shot a black kid because he was black. They know racism is bad. They are terrified of being viewed as racists. The idea that institutional racism is in effect in the local police force or courts isn't something they want to believe, because that is understandably scary of an idea. So when it comes out that the black kid was a criminal or was resisting arrest or had a legitimate history of bad behavior, you can practically here the collective sigh of relief from the people calling in; because now there was possibly a legitimate reason for what happened that doesn't scare them.

That's ignorance, to be sure, but I have a hard time believing it is borne out of the racist beliefs they secretly hold, and it's dangerous to assume it is. The stupid shit people in the comment section for that article are saying are why people like Hilary Clinton, potential presidential candidates, are confident enough at political rallies to claim that people who merely associate with those views (even if they don't hold them themselves or reject them but feel more strongly about other ones) are deplorable human beings. And that's how people like Donald Trump become successful presidential candidates and the party traditionally responsible for protecting disenfranchised groups are comprehensively thrown out of office in an election they thought they had in the bag so much that they stopped campaigning.

 

Quote

also, the concept that jim was focusing on that youtubers try playing both roles(famous celebrities and indie small media outlets) when it comes to fame and controversy can't continue. If YouTube demands to be taken seriously as a entertainment medium, they can't keebhaving people attempt to devalue when shit like this comes up by going "yeah, but we're youtubers. There's better things to focus on". They need to realize when they say something shitty, people are gonna talk about it and see them in a more negative light like any celebrity.

That's not the only thing Jim was focusing on. His article was based around three main points:

• YouTubers are legitimate celebrities now as well, and thus are completely open to actual regular journalist outlets reporting on them staying stupid shit.

Which is fine, because... well, yeah, it's true.

• YouTubers enjoy and try to force a double standard by wanting to be celebrities but not wanting to deal with scandals when they say stupid shit like real celebrities do.

That's mostly true as well, except Jim supported it by a hypothetical premis, which was the framework for the entire article, that simply has not happened multiple times:

Quote

This is to say nothing of what would happen if he pulled what JonTron pulled. Let’s be perfectly honest – Richard Gere’s career would be over. You can survive an unsubstantiated rumor about slinging a gerbil up yourself, but parroting racist views on livestreams?

Quote

They’re the views that would tank the career of someone who isn’t lucky enough to have their foundation on YouTube, where the professional consequences rarely amount to more than a momentary dip in subscribers.

Quote

What Fantasy Racist Richard Gere did makes Michael Richards’ notorious outburst seem almost considered, and I think we can all agree the former Seinfeld star won’t be getting a major role in House of Cards anytime soon.

Quote

Just ask yourself from now on, “Would Richard Gere get away with it?”

If the answer is no, perhaps engage the brain before the words just come a-tumblin’ out.

Remember when Mel Gibson's career was over? Remember when Schwarzenegger's career was over? Remember when Alec Baldwin's career was over? Remember fucking Donald Trump, the 45th fucking President of the United States? Remember when his career was over? For fuck's sake, the last one is such a mess that two of the other ones are now media heroes because they have spent the last year taking shots at him. Jim is asserting that PDP and Jon are big celebrities, bigger in some ways than actual long known public figures and movie stars; but then acting like them escaping controversy or getting rabid defenders when they do stupid shit is different from when big celebrities do the same thing and the same thing happens.

But yeah, Michael Richards has gotten one less failed television show then everyone else on Seinfeld because he said stupid racist shit at a comedy club, so the math checks out.

 

This segues nicely into the final thing touched on in his article:

• YouTubers being reported on when they say stupid shit isn't a result of journalists looking to push a narrative but just them reporting things

Quote

Totalbiscuit accused the publication of stirring drama and providing a “moral sermon” in its report. Boogie2988 declared JonTron a target of vindictive self-styled good guys who did bad things.

Neither men defended Jon’s views (how the fuck could any reasonable person try?), but they did express a shared sentimentality that Jon was seized upon by a hypocritical press with a sociopolitical axe to grind.

And, fuck. It should be obvious that that happens, and Jim ridiculously brought up an example of when it did happen to suggest that media outlets don't do it.

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Volphied said:

Except that Jim said in the article that the shit PewDiePie did was still a very bad idea.

And?

2 hours ago, Volphied said:

Guess some people should prepare for more "liberal witchhunts by pretentious whiners with nothing better to do with their time". Coz these youtubers are now celebrities, which means they're gonna be scrutinized the same way all celebrities are.

Oh, I see.

 

*whoosh*

 

 

 

[Dejimon11]

He's also voicing a character in A Hat in Time. I wonder if the devs are going to remove him as well

 

[KHCast]

And when evidence of said institutionalize discrimination is brought to these straight white guys, instead of consider it, they usually look for excuses, or whatever they can do in order to establish that it ISNT hate or inequality of any kind. At that point, what is the reason for that? Cause it seems out of stubbornness and deep rooted racism that they stand firm in those beliefs 

[Tornado]

21 minutes ago, KHCast said:

And when evidence of said institutionalize discrimination is brought to these straight white guys, instead of consider it, they usually look for excuses, or whatever they can do in order to establish that it ISNT hate or inequality of any kind. At that point, what is the reason for that? Cause it seems out of stubbornness and deep rooted racism that they stand firm in those beliefs 

So when is evidence of institutionalized discrimination actually brought to straight white guys? How often does the typical person investigate things politically beyond what is reported in the newspaper or on the nightly news or the drivetime radio station, and how would they know where to look in the first place? Because talking heads in op ed cable news shows aren't the place to get that information. Bill Maher or John Stewart or Stephen Colbert aren't the place to get the information. How many sources do they have to consider and how much time do they have to devote to changing their beliefs on something that doesn't really impact them to begin with, and may not be reported in good faith anyway when they do stumble across contrasting information?

 

Again, two pages ago someone in this thread posted statistics trying to downplay Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in the United States, and it took me all of thirty seconds to deliberately twist them into something that would easily fit the completely opposite narrative. So, hell, what if the person simply isn't smart enough to disprove their own beliefs? Because I can easily believe there are a lot more people who are just dumb in the US than there are people who are secretly racist; even considering the overlap in the two things.

[CleverSonicUsername]

Good on Playtonic. It's a smart move too since you know Jon would just plug his involvement in the game on release, and I'm sure they don't want to be roped in even by proxy with the rest of his messaging on Twitter.

2 hours ago, Meta77 said:

This is true it is also true there is no uniform opinions sometimes. Such as say killing. Most will agree if you come into someone's house or yard and kill them you should be punished. But say also someone might not agree with ones views on immigration free roaming. Banning a person who disagrees one points in that topic would essentially be silencing them cause it's not your view. It's also why we have or should have a system where facts can be discussed in a civil way unlike our current system of bikering political chest beating kids and adults both wanting to undermine the other. It's a wild world:/

Except he's not being silenced. Look this might sound crazy but speech has consequences. You cannot, in fact, just say whatever you want and not expect some kind of blowback. That's not equivalent to being silenced, though. Being silenced would be having the government show up and jail you for saying something disagreeable.

People love to beat the free speech drum like they actually know what it even is, but they very plainly do not. Nobody is silencing Jontron. He can lose every endorsement, he can be cut from every product, he can be railroaded off Youtube, and it still would not be silencing him, because he will always - always - be able to voice his opinion freely. 

[Nepenthe]

Are we framing "secretly racist" as being deliberately mum on beliefs one is conscious of, or rather subconscious behaviors that a person simply isn't aware of?

[Tornado]

1 hour ago, Meta77 said:

But there removing him from a already finished portion.  distancing would be condemning what he said.

So? They have no obligation to keep him in the voice cast even if the developers agree with what he said. There actually is such a thing as negative publicity.

Quote

 Racism only affects you if you let it affect you. You have rights. Some calls me a nig  online eh let them stress themselves to death wanting to yell it lol

What in actual fuck.

[CleverSonicUsername]

Just now, Tornado said:

 

What in actual fuck.

Well, if you say "institutional racism" backwards it makes it go away, like Mr.Mxyzptlk.

[Tornado]

9 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

Are we framing "secretly racist" as being deliberately mum on beliefs one is conscious of, or rather subconscious behaviors that a person simply isn't aware of?

The former, since I've increasingly seen people claim that the latter is the same thing. The latter would more be part of the group of people who are just kinda dumb.

[Nepenthe]

If people are framing all of these high-profile controversies as the slips of the clumsier members of some sort of underground racist cabal (although I have no doubt what racist people will say in good company is different from what they say on the job), that's one thing, and it's wrong. However, people in general- clunkily or otherwise- seem to generally subscribe to the latter theory, that most people are indeed just ignorant or don't understand, or may even be motivated by an anger stemming from something else. However, that is all still racism, and people affected by racism aren't gonna mince words and reframe it any differently since racism isn't predicated on consciousness.

[Tornado]

And as long as you keep treating both as if they are the same thing, you will keep losing political elections in contested areas.

[Nepenthe]

Honestly, we've been dealing with the American brand of racism and white supremacy for like 400 years. Very little can be done at this point that hasn't already been done in droves before to speed things up and make white people suddenly wake up. It's a cultural problem and will probably exist for 400 years longer. So I'm over achieving the end goal immediately and the amount of pussyfooting that entails. Regardless, calling racism what it is doesn't predicate using the same tactics for every situation. Calling Jon a racist doesn't mean I actually treat him like David Duke. Jon needs some more conversations and perhaps a slap upside the head. David Duke needs to be punched for real.

And to be fair, minorities have suffered worse than what Trump can throw out. The people who seem the most thrown and terrified are poor white people who thought he was Jesus and was only going to take my insurance away and not theirs. So the threat of losing more elections doesn't even phase me anymore. I'll be fine.

[Kuzu]

Well Jon seems only disappointed, but he respects their decision at least.

 

[Volphied]

10 hours ago, Tornado said:

And as long as you keep treating both as if they are the same thing, you will keep losing political elections in contested areas.

Ah, so we're back to the "this is why Trump won" line of thinking?

Despite how hard you're looking for "liberal witchunts" that are supposedly only helping the opposition, it's a fact that Trump LOST the popular vote by almost 3 million against a someone who was the target of an actual real witchunt since at least the 1990s, under a nonsensical electoral system that gives less populated areas more political power than places where everyone else lives.

 

[Tornado]

15 hours ago, Volphied said:

Ah, so we're back to the "this is why Trump won" line of thinking?

I'm sorry, who the fuck are you?

 

15 hours ago, Volphied said:

Despite how hard you're looking for "liberal witchunts" that are supposedly only helping the opposition,

Fascinating. I'd love to hear your opinion on the 2006 Duke lacrosse case.

 

Quote

it's a fact that Trump LOST the popular vote by almost 3 million against a someone who was the target of an actual real witchunt since at least the 1990s,

Which would be more relevant if the United States elected leaders by popular vote. Unfortunately, how much better Clinton did on the coasts isn't terribly relevant when she actively alienated, and then didn't really bother campaigning in, the industrial base in the country.

 

Quote

under a nonsensical electoral system that gives less populated areas more political power than places where everyone else lives.

No, that's not in fact how the electoral college works.

 

 

 

 

 

Anything else, or are you just going to keep trying for soundbites with your drive by hot takes? Because I'm not terribly impressed with your political science degree.