JonTron releases a statement about the controversy - General

[QUOTE=Stroheim;51985812]Paris = Spain now I guess.[/QUOTE] damn what a sick zinger. good thing you totally missed the point of my post which was that a heavy external pressure of anti-war sentiment in the late 1930s resulted in one of the most famous pieces of art due to the composition and usage of greyscale influenced by picasso's sorrow for the tragedy befalling his cultural homeland in order to make this righteous burn [editline]20th March 2017[/editline] [quote]Because a majority of the town's men were away, engaged in fighting on behalf of the Republicans, the town at the time of the bombing was populated mostly by women and children.[12] These demographics are reflected in the painting because, as Rudolf Arnheim writes, for Picasso: "The women and children make Guernica the image of innocent, defenseless humanity victimized. Also, women and children have often been presented by Picasso as the very perfection of mankind. An assault on women and children is, in Picasso's view, directed at the core of mankind." Clearly, the Nationalists sought to demoralize the Republicans and the civilian population as a whole by demonstrating their military might on a town that stood for traditional Basque culture and innocent civilians.[6] After the bombing, the work of the Basque and Republican sympathizer and The Times journalist George Steer propelled this event onto the international scene and brought it to Pablo Picasso's attention. Steer's eyewitness account was published on 28 April in both The Times and The New York Times, and on the 29th appeared in L'Humanité, a French Communist daily. Steer wrote: Guernica, the most ancient town of the Basques and the centre of their cultural tradition, was completely destroyed yesterday afternoon by insurgent air raiders. The bombardment of this open town far behind the lines occupied precisely three hours and a quarter, during which a powerful fleet of aeroplanes consisting of three types of German types, Junkers and Heinkel bombers, did not cease unloading on the town bombs weighing from 1,000 lbs. downwards and, it is calculated, more than 3,000 two-pounder aluminium incendiary projectiles. The fighters, meanwhile, plunged low from above the centre of the town to machinegun those of the civilian population who had taken refuge in the fields."[12] While Picasso was living in Nazi-occupied Paris during World War II, one German officer allegedly asked him, upon seeing a photo of Guernica in his apartment, "Did you do that?" Picasso responded, "No, you did."[13][/quote] [quote]"The Spanish struggle is the fight of reaction against the people, against freedom. My whole life as an artist has been nothing more than a continuous struggle against reaction and the death of art. How could anybody think for a moment that I could be in agreement with reaction and death? ... In the panel on which I am working, which I shall call Guernica, and in all my recent works of art, I clearly express my abhorrence of the military caste which has sunk Spain in an ocean of pain and death."[/quote]

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51985687]Quite frankly I think he utterly failed to do so. I think that throughout Destiny made thoroughly more convincing arguments, even when they agreed. So much of Sargon's rhetoric is based on gut intuition and when faced with actual questions or data he falls back on "I dont know! I don't know anything!" If you could outline where you think he makes a convincing argument for whites not wanting to become a minority I'd love to hear it, because all I heard was Sargon stating that minorities were inherently subject to oppression and marginalization which is factually untrue (see: drawing divides on wealth or status instead of race) and completely ignoring the historical impact that has led to current racial dynamics. And perhaps the reason Sky is defending and standing by Jon is because he's been his friend for years while being totally ignorant of his views? He's more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because he's emotionally attached to their friendship and has an obvious bias towards him because of it. And even then, he had serious concerns with Jon's remarks. If it takes him until the last 5 minutes of an over 2 and a half hour debate to show his "true colors" then maybe those aren't his true colors and are actually an outlier from his regular behavior during dicussions? Maybe he was just thoroughly frustrated with the density and inability to consider other viewpoints that Sargon had shown for 2 before that point. If you're going to completely dismiss all data and socio-political research behind phenomenon then do you really deserve the benefit of the doubt anymore?[/QUOTE] I disagree completely. The instance (at least what I'm assuming you're referring to) where Sargon admitted he didn't know something was the reason behind why black people stopped marrying and started having children out of wedlock. Destiny was looking for a reason based on the legislature at the time but Sargon pointed out that married blacks were doing just as well as married whites, even under Jim Crow. Sargon further argued that searching for a single, unified "reason" is less of a fruitful effort than evaluating each relationship to discern what the individual reasons were. There weren't any laws that resulted in the inhibition of black marriage, otherwise we would have seen lack of marriage under Jim Crow; arguably the most oppresive set of laws which would fit the bill of supposed "inhibiting legislature". Bascially, the argument that Sargon put forward concerning the subject of whites not wanting to become a minority was this train of logic: Minorities are treated poorly because of an inherent tribalistic nature in humans, to which Destiny agreed exists somewhat ---> Whites are becoming less of the racial makeup of America and will soon become a minority ---> Some whites choose to rather not see their own race become a minority. As for Sky, I'm not going to speculate as to the reason why him and Jon are friends. I don't think that's anyone else's business. Also, about halfway through the discussion Destiny accused Sargon of not arguing in good faith (which really pissed Sargon off, I was pretty surprised at how offended he was) because that's just how Destiny is. When he can't think of a proper argument, he resorts to ad hominem and strawmanning. So no, what happened at the end of the video wasn't some outlier that had no relation to Destiny's personality. Destiny is just a pretty poor debater when you realize all he does is strawman and attempt to paint someone as something they're not. When you debate someone, you don't accuse the other person of debating their points in poor faith. It's not productive and it's just plain rude.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51985763]You're not giving me a good argument here. There is no logical difference between the racism you described and wanting to deregulate the economy as views.[/QUOTE] There's no (or at least no apparent, but there might be) [I]logical[/I] difference between that and being a nazi either, but we generally act like there is a difference. If an actor I liked started endorsing anarcho-capitalism I'd laugh and move on, but if they started talking about Hitler in rosie terms I'd probably start boycotting them. We don't even need to include Hollywood actors here, but I'd assume even you could spot some sort of difference (logical or not) between "White pride world wide, gas the kikes" and "Maybe we should cut taxes by a couple of percent". And before you write "THIS IS A FALLACY, YOU'RE ARGUING FROM [B]EMOTION[/B]", yeah dude, I'm aware.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;51985602]id love for u to clarify this. that racism is logical[/QUOTE] I think it's logical for humans, as a social creature, to be racist to some extent. Really only in that we stick to those similar to ourselves, and may be slightly insecure at our core when presented with people who "look and feel" different than our more familiar home group. Deeply embedded cultural xenophobia, basically. Does this justify racist outbursts in the modern age? Nah.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;51985762]i mean no? this is an incredibly huge sweeping statement right there[/QUOTE] What the fuck are you talking about. Are you telling me that Japanese art circa 15-16th century does not differ at all from Renaissance art? That Asian architecture does not differ from the European (again, circa 15-17th centuries) Okay, forget Asian; Arabic/Islamic architecture (now forgive me if I say it wrong, just try to understand what I mean) in Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Turkey does not differ from Romanic/Gothic architecture?

[QUOTE=paul simon;51986079]I think it's logical for humans, as a social creature, to be racist to some extent. Really only in that we stick to those similar to ourselves, and may be slightly insecure at our core when presented with people who "look and feel" different than our more familiar home group. Deeply embedded cultural xenophobia, basically. Does this justify racist outbursts in the modern age? Nah.[/QUOTE] "Logical" is probably the wrong word, but I guess you could argue it might've had an evolutionary function to dislike people who look different from yourself. Don't know how much merit that claim holds, though.

[QUOTE=paul simon;51986079]I think it's logical for humans, as a social creature, to be racist to some extent. Really only in that we stick to those similar to ourselves, and may be slightly insecure at our core when presented with people who "look and feel" different than our more familiar home group. Deeply embedded cultural xenophobia, basically. [/QUOTE] i dont feel this way mate. could just be you [editline]20th March 2017[/editline] theres literally nothing logical about it. even slightly. whatsoever. i think that's a garbage opinion

[QUOTE=SirJon;51983037]Figured he lost his cool and started talking trash under pressure. I think people need to learn to accept different points of view without demonizing them, or hand-waving them as objectively wrong. This is an issue most anywhere, definitely facepunch as well. I can only hope this whole affair has taught at least some people this, that would be some silver lining.[/QUOTE] No thanks. If people feel offended by the literal definition of what they believe in then maybe they should have a long hard think, I'm sick of this [I]"we need to stop demonizing different views"[/I] shtick. If you advocate for opinions that are by definition, prejudiced and discriminatory then you are a bigot and I don't give a damn if calling a spade a spade offends you.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;51986424]No thanks. If people feel offended by the literal definition of what they believe in then maybe they should have a long hard think, I'm sick of this [I]"we need to stop demonizing different views"[/I] shtick. If you advocate for opinions that are by definition, prejudiced and discriminatory then you are a bigot and I don't give a damn if calling a spade a spade offends you.[/QUOTE] hey, if that's what you think who am i to demonize that

[QUOTE=Rusty100;51986221]i dont feel this way mate. could just be you [editline]20th March 2017[/editline] theres literally nothing logical about it. even slightly. whatsoever. i think that's a garbage opinion[/QUOTE] There is a logic. He just said it. He's not saying it's morally correct, but to say that there's no logic and that it's just some impossible concept that can never be understood by "normal people" is just wrong. Everything, good or terrible done by people has some form of logic to it. If you believe the other side of any argument believes what they believe "just because" then you'll never get anywhere with them.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;51986424]No thanks. If people feel offended by the literal definition of what they believe in then maybe they should have a long hard think, I'm sick of this [I]"we need to stop demonizing different views"[/I] shtick. If you advocate for opinions that are by definition, prejudiced and discriminatory then you are a bigot and I don't give a damn if calling a spade a spade offends you.[/QUOTE] Pretty much exactly this. I used to respect Jon more than pretty much any other YouTube personality before I became aware of his views. Yes, I'm well aware that many who still want to justify separating the man from his views will care about his feelings, but they must remember that he is no hapless victim. He chose to get political, he chose to reveal to the world views that he must know are degenerate and completely against the scientific consensus, views that have basis only in feelings and not in reality or any objective measure thereof, and even now refuses to apologize for them or reconsider his positions. He, and others like him, are no different from anyone else who believes race is real, or that the Earth is flat, or that the Moon Landings were faked, or that the end of the world and the Rapture is coming every half a year. They have betrayed their own intellect by rejecting reality in favor of a fantasy, and just like certain people even here on FP (and I think we can all think of one name that comes to mind immediately, though I won't name him) have no interest in learning and growing, no interest in absorbing or processing any information that threatens their self-assured smugness. His views are, ultimately, little different from anyone who thinks that a certain phenotype is worth preserving, and in keeping the White 'race', or any 'race' pure. He may change one day, but certainly not while he remains under fire. He'll only get more militant and radical in his idiocy. When one chooses to believe bullshit that is unscientific simply to justify their own fear and resentment, they are lost. His views are relics of a time before the scientific method, have been disproved beyond any reasonable doubt, and history will bury him, just as it has all the others who stand in the way of progress. One day, humanity as a species will no longer have any identifiable 'race'. Not mine, not yours, not his. And we shall all be stronger for it.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;51985790]yes thats the point im trying to make, their LIFE inherently influences their work, but aspects of the culture they live in which have nothing to do with their work dont influence it[/QUOTE] why not? that's nonsense going by this post i'm assuming you think people's lives aren't influenced by their culture either?

This video sucked

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51986176]"Logical" is probably the wrong word, but I guess you could argue it might've had an evolutionary function to dislike people who look different from yourself. Don't know how much merit that claim holds, though.[/QUOTE] I don't think it's so much people that look different as it is people that are unfamiliar. Like say, if you were a single white kid growing up in an otherwise more or less all black neighborhood, you'd probably be slightly insecure with white people despite being white. It's a pretty standard human response to put people into groups, and whichever groups you're not part of or are not "allied" with are naturally not as trustworthy. Those groups don't have to be divided along racial lines, but it's a common occurrence.

[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;51986861]It feels to me Jon doesn't even really understand what he did wrong and he's just trying to save face[/QUOTE] and the thing he did wrong was be fundamentally racist.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;51986221]i dont feel this way mate. could just be you [editline]20th March 2017[/editline] theres literally nothing logical about it. even slightly. whatsoever. i think that's a garbage opinion[/QUOTE] How is it a "garbage opinion"? Of course there's some logic behind it even though it's a logic you don't agree with. Racism is a phenomenon that can be tracked back to the start of history - thinking racism is just based on nothing at all, or makes no sense... doesn't make any sense in itself. I think that if you disagree that racism has a logical explanation, you also disagree that it can be understood as a part of human mentality.

[QUOTE=bitches;51982485]I don't see any reason to give JonTron magical benefit of the doubt above anyone else. I don't have to forgive him or embrace his content again just because he clarifies [I]why[/I] he said that black people are genetically predisposed to a life of crime and shouldn't be integrated into the gene pool. It feels like people are looking for an excuse to forgive or excuse him so they can watch his videos without guilt. [editline]19th March 2017[/editline] oh, and don't forget about preventing the death of the White Race at the hands of the inferior minorities[/QUOTE] So you'd rather people not debate or express any issues they have with the current state of America, however misinformed or disagreeable? It's that fear of debate, and isolating ones self from conflicting opinions, and the refusal to allow one's own stances to be challenged that has lead to this extreme divisiveness. When whites are constantly being construed by the mainstream media, and that the message that white males are specifically the root of all problems involving race in America, does it surprise you that such treatment leads to such people being driven to the other end of the spectrum? Your stance and those who share it contribute to this problem. You can't change someone's mind when you start off by telling them they're racist just cause of their skin colour, and challenge the fact that the arguments someone makes, whether or not it's poorly constructed, contains observations involving race, rather than the argument its self. [QUOTE=PelPix123;51990621]guys he literally said that even if non-white races integrate it's still bad because they "make it into the gene pool" you can't defend his views as simple culture defense.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I disagree with a lot of things he said, that included. Doesn't stop me from trying to understand why he believes it's bad, instead of instantly condemning him for doing so.

Apparently the video is now unlisted/private. Wonder why.

[QUOTE=Xonax;51990625]Apparently the video is now unlisted/private. Wonder why.[/QUOTE] It's been like that since he posted it on twitter? i viewed it from youtube when it was there and it was already unlisted.

[QUOTE=paul simon;51990519]How is it a "garbage opinion"? Of course there's some logic behind it even though it's a logic you don't agree with. Racism is a phenomenon that can be tracked back to the start of history - thinking racism is just based on nothing at all, or makes no sense... doesn't make any sense in itself. I think that if you disagree that racism has a logical explanation, you also disagree that it can be understood as a part of human mentality.[/QUOTE] it can't be understood, it's ISN'T logical. nobody is born racist, it's something that's learned, something instilled on you by your parents or whoever. there is no inherent racism and it's a completely illogical mindset to hate someone or think of them as lesser because of their skin colour when we fundamentally share the same damn dna. it's. not. logical. it's learned. what's your logical explanation for it again? that people 'like to stick to their own kind'? but do they? i certainly have no fixation on that. my own kind are humans and people interested in my hobbies or people who are nice. having a different culture or skin colour has 0 to do with this. because that's not logical. [editline]21st March 2017[/editline] the simple fact that someone can be concerned about their white race being diluted by other 'gene pools' is so beyond fucked up. there's one fundamental thing you need to realise to fix this mindset. and it's that skin colour doesn't matter. at all. (except so far as it gets people discriminated against and marginalized for)

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51990448]The best part of this post is after you're mostly finished with the pseudo intellectual shtick you have the nerve to call others smug. Also that one world race is never gonna come unless you impose some sort of breeding program.[/QUOTE] If you wanna tell me anything wrong with that post other than you don't like it be my guest. If 'pseudo intellectual' is now a buzzword to take down logic reason and fact then it's no wonder anti-intellectualism is on the up. Inevitably the world will tend towards a single race as the ability to travel wherever increases and interracial relationships become more common among other inevitable social progress. It would take a long ass time sure, but unless restricted it is inevitable. If you put so much pride in the colour of your skin that the thought of it merging with another in the future/becoming something else scares you you need to set your priorities straight.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51990718]Jon doesn't do politics on his YouTube channel[/QUOTE] A minority of his fans probably even know about his debate (live viewers was just in the thousands, the upload is just a couple hundred thousand,) that'd confuse the hell out of most of them.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;51990756]it can't be understood, it's ISN'T logical. nobody is born racist, it's something that's learned, something instilled on you by your parents or whoever. there is no inherent racism and it's a completely illogical mindset to hate someone or think of them as lesser because of their skin colour when we fundamentally share the same damn dna. it's. not. logical. it's learned. [/QUOTE] Whether it's nature or nurture is irrelevant if you ask me. Anyone born into this world sees the people they're surrounded with - who is part of their life from their beginning, and they also see themselves. If one ethnicity/skin colour is the only box ticked there, then any other is "different", and humans naturally seek what's familiar as a general rule. If a black person goes all the way up to young adulthood without every having seen, or interacted with a white person, when they do meet one it'll be jarring for them and instinct will tell them "This person is a different colour to all the people I've grown to know and trust for the length of my life", the default stance then becomes mistrust. In the case of white colonisation of Africa, a black person's mistrust of white people is justifiable for obvious reasons - generalisation is stupid and usually incorrect, but someone who's suffered directly or indirectly as a result of actions by a certain demographic cannot be faulted for doing so. So apply that to modern America, where a majority of crime is [I]factually[/I] committed by black people. That isn't because of their skin colour, but because of social conditions and the way they have been assimilated into it, as well as the same principle applied from the other side. I've been lucky enough to have grown up in a very much multi-ethnic area, and I'm mixed race myself though my skin is white. Like you, I don't give a shit about skin colour when it comes to the people I interact with, because I've been exposed to people of near enough every ethnicity from a young age and within my upbringing. That isn't the case for everyone.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51990943]What's there to argue with? His entire post can be summed up with "if you don't agree with my views then you're an idiot". My fedora started tipping itself when I read that. Also about the homogenized race, obviously humanity will become more homogenized, but there will always be outliers. Eskimos and uncontacted tribes come to mind. Unless you want to force that issue somehow? Thanks for trying to paint me as a white nationalist btw, really appreciate that.[/QUOTE] That was a general quip aimed at anyone who thinks as such. [quote]My fedora started tipping itself when I read that. [/quote] Case in point. Your 'fedora tips' because he claims people who reject science and logic are living in a fantasy world? He isn't wrong. And outliers are exactly that, so they aren't really considered.

[QUOTE=PelPix123;51990621]guys he literally said that even if non-white races integrate it's still bad because they "make it into the gene pool" you can't defend his views as simple culture defense.[/QUOTE] Yeah, he didn't say that. He didn't say anything about that being bad. He simply didn't finish the sentence, and that's a stance that fits your agenda against him. He also didn't say blacks are genetically predisposed to commit more crime, he simply misquoted a statistic. Remember that he was debating Destiny, of all people, who excels at twisting everything people say into racism. Take a look at his debate with Sargon for example, it's ridiculous. This all comes down to Jon being idiotic, not racist. His state of mind was clearly a mess during the debate.

[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51990876]the default stance then becomes mistrust. [/QUOTE] no. this is where you're wrong. the default stance is not mistrust and you're projecting yourself onto the rest of society. 'all humans automatically distrust things that are different' is a stupid blanket statement [editline]21st March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=mrkaki;51991011]Yeah, he didn't say that. He didn't say anything about that being bad. He simply didn't finish the sentence, and that's a stance that fits your agenda against him. [/QUOTE] if he wasn't implying it's bad, then what was his contention? why was there a debate? you are being willfully ignorant. [editline]21st March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=mrkaki;51991011] Remember that he was debating Destiny, of all people, who excels at twisting everything people say into racism. Take a look at his debate with Sargon for example, it's ridiculous. This all comes down to Jon being idiotic, not racist. His state of mind was clearly a mess during the debate.[/QUOTE] what the fuck. destiny didn't make jon say anything he said. jon said some incredibly racist things that have no other context to be taken in. there are full, clear statements. you are in denial

[QUOTE=mrkaki;51991011]Yeah, he didn't say that. He didn't say anything about that being bad. He simply didn't finish the sentence, and that's a stance that fits your agenda against him. He also didn't say blacks are genetically predisposed to commit more crime, he simply misquoted a statistic. Remember that he was debating Destiny, of all people, who excels at twisting everything people say into racism. Take a look at his debate with Sargon for example, it's ridiculous. This all comes down to Jon being idiotic, not racist. His state of mind was clearly a mess during the debate.[/QUOTE] Call me biased if you want, but I really try to keep an eye out for leading or manipulative questions and I saw none of them at the points in the debate where Jon said the controversial stuff. Makes it really hard to buy into the idea that Destiny was responsible for any of it when no one seems to be able to mention where or how The "well he didn't have time to clarify" thing goes out the window too considering he DID have time to clarify all of it in this video. I mean, not that I expected him to list [I]all[/I] the places where he might've stumbled in a 2 hour long debate, but holy shit he's really given us almost nothing here

Im still left wondering why should you ever livestream a political discussion. If you're going to switch your content towards said politics that's ok and you're pretty much entitled to. But God damn don't just stream some random chit chat if you can't even articulate your half assed ideas into something as poorly done as that. For someone who has shown to be interested in raising the overall production value of his content and others, this comes off as a huge step back and a huge disappointment about how much of him actually makes his content great.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;51991019]no. this is where you're wrong. the default stance is not mistrust and you're projecting yourself onto the rest of society. 'all humans automatically distrust things that are different' is a stupid blanket statement [editline]21st March 2017[/editline] if he wasn't implying it's bad, then what was his contention? why was there a debate? you are being willfully ignorant. [editline]21st March 2017[/editline] what the fuck. destiny didn't make jon say anything he said. jon said some incredibly racist things that have no other context to be taken in. there are full, clear statements. you are in denial[/QUOTE] I didn't say Destiny made Jon say anything, I meant he misunderstood Jon's words as racism just like he misunderstood Sargon's words as racism. The main difference is that Jon was too inarticulate to explain himself further. Jon's contention regarding the gene pool remark might have very well been that in the scenario of slow, controlled immigration, there would be cultural as well as genetical assimilation, and that within a few generations they would definitely be regarded as Americans both culturally as well as genetically, which plays into the tribalism argument he was trying yet failing to make during the debate. I never said his claims are good, but they're not as bad as people say they are.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51991108]"Your views are degenerate because science, and I expect you to apologize and change them"[/QUOTE] Yeah actually. Let's take the whole "rich blacks commit more crimes than poor whites." Like maybe one of the most iconic points he makes in the debate. In his statement he goes as far as to say that people mad at him for this one are just scared of statistics. Do you believe that statement? Would you believe that statement if it was posted by a reputable news source or somebody you trusted? If you believe that statement under any circumstance, then that's a "degenerate view" because the only justification for it is "rich black people commit more crimes than poor whites, because they are genetically predisposed to crime." That's bullshit. No matter who told you that or where you read it you should immediately realize that it's bullshit. By saying it's rich blacks versus poor whites you're saying black people commit more crime than whites, not because of social or economic factors, but because they're black.