# Developer Playtonic Removes Jontron from Yooka-Laylee Cast



## the_randomizer (Mar 23, 2017)

I personally think that the removal is a bit extreme, two wrongs don't  make a right. Yes, what people say and do can be is one thing, but a company to resort to SJW-like/PC methods, really? The damage is done, sure, but letting political views affect a game is just asinine.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Mar 23, 2017)

Jontron was an idiot regarding his PR for making those comments, and even if I find them disgusting I think that is no reason to take him away. Fucking PC wins over Free Speech.
I find this decision stupid, and I don't agree with Jontron's comments.

Well, I suppose all of this is business. They must have done a market research and found this would increase sells/profit. That is the only explanation I can find to this stupidity from a corporate point of view.


----------



## leonmagnus99 (Mar 23, 2017)

who is this jon tron guy ? i only know a few youtubers.
pewdiepie (i love the guy no homo) and i also like h3h3 alot.
but my most fave is Happyconsolegamer.

having that jon tron whoever removed is a big deal to you guys that know him ? does he have a good 'voice acting' voice ?


----------



## Meteor7 (Mar 23, 2017)

So they liked his voice acting, but not after it turns out he has some unpleasant opinions. That's like firing your IT guy after you find out he likes Lucky Charms.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Mar 23, 2017)

leonmagnus99 said:


> who is this jon tron guy ? i only know a few youtubers.
> pewdiepie (i love the guy no homo) and i also like h3h3 alot.
> but my most fave is Happyconsolegamer.
> 
> having that jon tron whoever removed is a big deal to you guys that know him ? does he have a good 'voice acting' voice ?


He is a very good comedian that makes a video game comedy series (and some other things lately), and happened to make some very unfortunate comments bordering white supremacy in the late days.
I recommend you watch his channel, he has very good content, most of it somewhat old.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2017)

leonmagnus99 said:


> who is this jon tron guy ? i only know a few youtubers.
> pewdiepie (i love the guy no homo) and i also like h3h3 alot.
> but my most fave is Happyconsolegamer.
> 
> having that jon tron whoever removed is a big deal to you guys that know him ? does he have a good 'voice acting' voice ?


Oh boy. You have a lot of catching up to do. 

https://www.youtube.com/user/JonTronShow
https://www.youtube.com/user/GameGrumps

Jontron was an original Game Grump and currently makes excellent content on his own channel.


----------



## leonmagnus99 (Mar 23, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> He is a very food comedian that makes a video game comedy series (and some other things lately), and happened to make some very unfortunate comments bordering white supremacy in the late days.
> I recommend you watch his channel, he has very good content, most of it somewhat old.



i did try watching some of his stuff , but he never really appealed to me :/
i only like his beard >v>"

can you recommend me a video from him ?


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 23, 2017)

Meteor7 said:


> So they liked his voice acting, but not after it turns out he has some unpleasant opinions. That's like firing your IT guy after you find out he likes Lucky Charms.



Again, it's SJW PC bullshit. Pandering to the masses just because little Timmy gets mad at something someone said on the internet. People need to grow thicker skin.


"Oh no, someone said something I don't like, time to make a federal case out of it!" 

Freaking butthurt SJWs


----------



## leonmagnus99 (Mar 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh boy. You have a lot of catching up to do.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/user/JonTronShow
> https://www.youtube.com/user/GameGrumps
> ...


awesum, thanks.
i will give those a watch.


----------



## yodamerlin (Mar 23, 2017)

It seems to fall back onto the same Freedom of Speech problem.
I think it's a good thing. People should be allowed to say what you want. But then I would still want to be able call them a dick, and refuse to distribute their content.
I think Freedom of Speech shouldn't protect you from the consequences of what you have said, it should just allow you to say it.


----------



## CeeDee (Mar 23, 2017)

I'm just hoping the Switch version doesn't come with the update installed already.
I didn't know JonTron was in it at all, but I would quite like some Jon voices in the game.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Mar 23, 2017)

leonmagnus99 said:


> i did try watching some of his stuff , but he never really appealed to me :/
> i only like his beard >v>"
> 
> can you recommend me a video from him ?


I don't know. I would first watch his two collaboration videoclips with schmoyoho (because short and awesome).


----------



## SkittleDash (Mar 23, 2017)

Welp, despite Jon's comments, People are still going to go apeshit at them for removing him. I too think this is a crap idea.


----------



## ShadowOne333 (Mar 23, 2017)

Got what he deserved for being ignorant and such an a-hole.
And that people, is why you don't fucking post your bullshit opinions to anyone except those closer to you, not for the whole world to see, much more when you are an e-celeb
Bravo Playtonic Games, I applaud this decision


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2017)

Just to be clear, this isn't about liking or not liking Jontron as a person, this is about firing someone because they said something you don't like or agree with. It's a pretty big deal as of late. I feel that Freedom of Speech, one of the most basic human rights and the cornerstone of democracy, is being under constant attack simply because certain opinions might be controversial or hurtful. I don't like the idea of living in a world in which everything you say is policed on the off chance that you might offend someone - that's the exact opposite of freedom.


ShadowOne333 said:


> Got what he deserved for being ignorant and such an a-hole.
> And that people, is why you don't fucking post your bullshit opinions to anyone except those closer to you, not for the whole world to see, much more when you are an e-celeb
> Bravo Playtonic Games, I applaud this decision


What you're describing is called fascism. We shouldn't voice our opinions lest the politically correct gestapo smites us with their ban hammer? That's dystopian.


----------



## DesuIsSparta (Mar 23, 2017)

I was never a fan of his content, but seeing them remove him completely from the game because of some comments he made, whether people disagree or not, seems extreme... 

As if people will think some guy's voice in a game reflects the company's views entirely. 

I'm not saying they should go out and hire people like him, however removing him from an already-finished project is just... wow.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 23, 2017)

ShadowOne333 said:


> Got what he deserved for being ignorant and such an a-hole.
> And that people, is why you don't fucking post your bullshit opinions to anyone except those closer to you, not for the whole world to see, much more when you are an e-celeb
> Bravo Playtonic Games, I applaud this decision



He could have said them after the game was released  I kid, I kid. 

But Playtronic: "Screw 1st amendment rights" right? XD


----------



## chavosaur (Mar 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> On the other hand, as a strong supporter of Freedom of Speech and Expression, I can't exactly stand idly by when someone is being punished for their opinion, no matter how controversial. I can't speak for all of us gamers, but to me this basically means that I won't buy the game, and if I do for the sake of my better half, who happens to be a big Banjo fan, it'll be a pre-owned copy, so that the developers don't get a single penny from my purchase. I can't support this kind of conduct, even though I fully undestand the company's motivation. Playtonic is free to remove content from their own product, and I'm free to vote with my wallet and remove said product from my basket.



I'll be buying the game, despite not particularly agreeing with the decision. Jon has every right to his opinion as you said. He also has every right for people to view him as a bit of a loon thanks to how poorly he represented himself in his, "debate."

And I find what happened to Pewdiepie and Jon to be perfectly reasonable. We are all entitled to our opinion, just as companies are entitled to distance themselves from us when we make controversial statements or statements that don't represent them as a whole. 

This has been happening to regular celebrities for ages now, we are now moving into an age where it effects YouTubers as well. This kind of treatment can be related to the fall of Mel Gibson a few years ago. And I don't find it that crazy, nor do I feel any sympathy for Jon. Not that I condemn him, I don't disagree with everything he said. But we could all see a mile away that what he discussed would have repercussions, that's how the media world works, and if that bothers you there isn't much fixing it either. That's just business.


----------



## ShadowOne333 (Mar 23, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> He could have said them after the game was released  I kid, I kid.
> 
> But Playtronic: "Screw 1st amendment rights" right? XD


What 1st Amendment?


----------



## grossaffe (Mar 23, 2017)

Freedom of speech is not freedom from societal repercussions.  When your image is your brand, don't be surprised when your brand loses value in the public based on the things you say.  Chick-Fil-A suffered repercussions when people decided to stop eating there when its proprietor decided to come out and denounce gay people.  The important part of freedom of speech is that it's not illegal.  But it's equally important that others can choose to denounce you or not associate with you as a result of what you say.


----------



## ItsMetaKnight (Mar 23, 2017)

I don't understand, what exactly did Jon Tron say? Can someone give us some quotes?


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 23, 2017)

ShadowOne333 said:


> What 1st Amendment?



Freedom of speed in the US, as long as death threats, etc aren't made and so on. As per the US constitution he violated nothing. But Playtronic got their panties in a bunch over what he said. Frankly he should've said them after the game was out, that way they couldn't remove it.  It's still pretty effing stupid for them to do it.

I can't stand SJW pandering


----------



## Jacklack3 (Mar 23, 2017)

leonmagnus99 said:


> i did try watching some of his stuff , but he never really appealed to me :/
> i only like his beard >v>"
> 
> can you recommend me a video from him ?


Bootleg Pokemon Games
Hercules
Dino City
(these are gold.)


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2017)

chavosaur said:


> I'll be buying the game, despite not particularly agreeing with the decision. Jon has every right to his opinion as you said. He also has every right for people to view him as a bit of a loon thanks to how poorly he represented himself in his, "debate."
> 
> And I find what happened to Pewdiepie and Jon to be perfectly reasonable. We are all entitled to our opinion, just as companies are entitled to distance themselves from us when we make controversial statements or statements that don't represent them as a whole.
> 
> This has been happening to regular celebrities for ages now, we are now moving into an age where it effects YouTubers as well. This kind of treatment can be related to the fall of Mel Gibson a few years ago. And I don't find it that crazy, nor do I feel any sympathy for Jon. Not that I condemn him, I don't disagree with everything he said. But we could all see a mile away that what he discussed would have repercussions, that's how the media world works, and if that bothers you there isn't much fixing it either. That's just business.


Of course it's business, which is precisely why I won't be buying the game. As a customer that's the only corrective action I can take - I don't support the decision, so I won't buy the product. The only carrot I have is my wallet, the Free Market will fill in the gaps.


grossaffe said:


> Freedom of speech is not freedom from societal repercussions.  When your image is your brand, don't be surprised when your brand loses value in the public based on the things you say.  Chick-Fil-A suffered repercussions when people decided to stop eating there when its proprietor decided to come out and denounce gay people.  The important part of freedom of speech is that it's not illegal.  But it's equally important that others can choose to denounce you or not associate with you as a result of what you say.


Ah, my fellow libertarian. You're absolutely correct, there are repercussions to everything we do or say, I can see both sides of the issue. That's precisely why I'm letting the Free Market decide who's in the right and who's in the wrong. I'm sure Jontron was aware of what his comments will lead to, but the whole issue is blown way out of proportion. He was turned into some kind of a Nazi caricature overnight, and that's just silly.


----------



## SWRosetta (Mar 23, 2017)

I understand a company wants to avoid relations with an indivdual for the sake of their own image , however this one only backfired on them. Jontron IIRC only did some sounds for this game and they are removing that just because of some comments he made ... seems super petty to me.


----------



## yodamerlin (Mar 23, 2017)

ShadowOne333 said:


> What 1st Amendment?


It's the American one that says the government won't arrest you for what you say.


----------



## shaunj66 (Mar 23, 2017)

Good. He must be absolutely gutted given his fondness for Rare and their games. Swings and roundabouts I'm afraid... People need to learn that what they say can have repercussions. Far too many people spout absolute drivel and think their opinion is valid or fact just because they assume no one will want to correct them for fear of offending someone or being non-PC.


----------



## eworm (Mar 23, 2017)

This is ridiculous. Guess they're gonna hand over questionnaires to every single person involved in the project now and remove all people who have views differing from whatever arbitrary criteria they chose. Yes, we hire you for your skills, but we fire you for your opinions.

This made me go and check JonTron's statement. I see no way in which he's wrong or even controversial - in fact he just earned surprising amounts of my respect - but that's not a discussion for this here thread.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 23, 2017)

yodamerlin said:


> It's the American one that says the government won't arrest you for what you say.



But it doesn't stop companies from pulling a douche move like this, however.


----------



## kehkou (Mar 23, 2017)

While I certainly do not condone racism, I don't see what it has to do with the game directly, unless he was explicitly posting as an employee.


----------



## ShadowOne333 (Mar 23, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Freedom of speed in the US, as long as death threats, etc aren't made and so on. As per the US constitution he violated nothing. But Playtronic got their panties in a bunch over what he said. Frankly he should've said them after the game was out, that way they couldn't remove it.  It's still pretty effing stupid for them to do it.
> 
> I can't stand SJW pandering


Yeah there's freedom of speech in the US, and most countries in America.
However, having freedom of speech doesn't correlate with how a company or industry will see you afterwards, much more if the person who makes the comment belongs to said industry or is paid in any way by it, and even worse the company is known for developing material for children or for young audiences.

Nintendo is a clear example for the last case.

The fact that if you make an argument saying you basically condone and/or support white supremacy, the enterprise itself is being watched by millions, and if they allow said person to share his "thoughts" on a certain way which is not seen as proper social morals, then the enterprise could be seen as also condoning and supporting said thoughts.

They did the right thing, and I'm glad more big industries are giving the middle finger to this bunch of retards like PewDiePie and Jontron.
Let them know that just because they are celebrities doesn't mean they can get away with whatever they want.


----------



## chavosaur (Mar 23, 2017)

Keep in mind, the context of the comments ought to be shared as well if you want a better idea of why they are making this decision. 

This is a quote of some of the highlights of that Jon said during his debate and the tweets he was making that led to this decision. 



Spoiler



In regards to black people


Well I don't know if these arguments can hold up decade after decade. There is like, 18 year old people who are committing a disproportionate amount of crime and they were born after me. So how do you explain that? Is that Jim Crow? Nobody wants to get into the realistic things... They just want to blame whites more and more.


I don't understand why it is anyone else's responsibility but their own. Do they not have agency?


The UK didn't have Jim Crow, France didn't have Jim Crow. We still have Muslim riots over there. In sweden, they didn't have Jim Crow. There are riots in the streets of Stockholm.


So Jim Crow is one aspect of it here in America but in the rest of the western world, we don't have these same precedents and there is still disproportionate crime in those communities.


You can't make the argument that whites would be okay with them becoming a minority in the country their ancestors built if it doesn't apply to other countries.


Wealthy blacks also commit more crime than poor whites, that's a fact.


But we've been hearing this single mother thing for decades. It's getting a bit tired. That's why you're seeing this rise in "nazis".
On Japan


Nobody would ask Japan if it was okay if Japan became a minority Japanese nation.


I disagree I think it [Japan] is a model society.


How many terrorist attacks are in Japan?
On being white


What is so offensive about white people saying they'd like to preserve their demographic majority?


In terms of a demographic majority, I don't think a nation can exist without one. This truly multicultural every single person is a different race or religion. I don't know if that's really sustainable long term.


(On Irish/Italians being discriminated against) Being irish or people not liking the irish or italians doesn't make them not white. It just makes them not liked. Perhaps they had some undesirable traits. I heard the Italian Mafia made the rounds. But that would have been a good argument to restrict italian immigration!


It's clear that whites are not allowed to speak up against their demographic um... oblivion.


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.


Why is it when the chinese were trying to colonise tibet, why was that a save tibet situation but when it's white people... I'm using an analogy to try to give a parallel situation so you can see the hypocrisy.


Do you consider the european colonisation of Africa a bad thing? (Destiny replies that it's complicated). It's only complicated because it's whites.


If white people go to south africa and colonised there, it's the white people encroaching on the African's land and they should give it back.


There is a clear divide in the way that people think. White people tend towards the Libertarian side and at least the first generation Mexicans vote heavily for government handouts. (Destiny mentions that red states take more govt handouts than blue states). These states (Southern red states (Alabama, Loiusiana)) have high non white populations.


There is an absolute disproportionate of crime committed to whites by nonwhites. There's no arguing that that's just FBI statistics. But white people are not allowed to address this because it's called racist by people like you.


In historically white countries, it is seen as a moral imperative that whites don't resist their own displacement. If they resist it, they're racist. You can see this in every white country on planet earth. The status quo thinks that the only logical conclusion to the country, to atone for the sins of the white past is to keep letting in people from the third world until white people are a minority.


When white people are aggressed against in their own nations by people that are not white, they are told constantly, check your privilege. You colonised us, you owe us this land blah blah blah.


That is not true that they (irish/italians) were not considered white people.
On Trump


Trump is a reaction to the retarded identity politics of the left for at least the last 4 years.


I don't recall Trump ever saying anything explicitly racist.


When you have these illegals coming up and being so bold to say "try deporting me Trump", that's a sign of a problem.


Nobody wants to become a minority in their own country. Why is it bad if they (whites) remain a majority?
Mexican immigrants


Ay yi yi dude you're just virtue signalling. Not all Mexicans are going to go on welfare but a lot of them are going to commit crimes. The El Salvadoreans are going to create the MS13 gangs.


These days the confederate flag has been banned, they're burning american flags in the streets. It's a changing nation. And I think immigration policies that haven't been the smartest are partially to blame for that.


What do you call a large number of people from one specific place, coming in, setting up their ethnic enclaves and then waving their own flag inside of our nation? There are large swathes of them who want to break parts of America back into Mexico.
Europe


I mean who in Europe is causing riots currently? It is all interconnected (to the US) dude because Europeans are the ones who founded this country and Europe is having similar problems. So if you look at the parallels, you can understand.


Btw, Europe and America it's not different, even though you say it's different, it is not. They're all facing problems coming from a similar part of the world.


When people, lets say the French, see an influx of islamic migrants who come in and say, you don't give us good enough handouts. You're being racist to us and then they're rioting. It's all intertwined, it's the same situation but they speak a different language. That's like you saying a man ate a sandwich in France and a man ate a sandwich in America is not the same situation.
Other musings


Why does an economy have to keep growing forever? People don't need gadgets all the time.


Are people getting along better? It seems to me that people are screaming more recently.


We've gotten rid of discrimination in our western countries. If you don't think we've gotten rid of discrimination, you're living in a fantasy land.


This oppression in America, it doesn't exist.


----------



## yodamerlin (Mar 23, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> But it doesn't stop companies from pulling a douche move like this, however.


That was the point I was making. He's not been arrested, 1st amendment should not be quoted.


----------



## Jayro (Mar 23, 2017)

So let me get this straight...

I buy a $300 Nintendo Wii U, in hopes of getting this game.

They scrap this version.

I buy yet ANOTHER $300 Nintendo machine to play this game.

 They don't believe in JonTron's viewpoints, so the pussies at Platonic remove the best voice actor in the game.



Yeah, fuck Platonic Games at this point, I'm done. Gonna pirate the shit out of this game, since I've already spent $600 in hardware in hopes of playing it.


----------



## Issac (Mar 23, 2017)

That's a shame. I like Jon and I think he has a fantastic voice. He's even singing sometimes, so I'm going to link two songs that are really worth watching and hearing.
Sure he might have made some stupid statements on twitter, but so what? As long as he doesn't spew out whatever political bullshit in the game, then what's the harm in having his voice there?

Imagine a game like Guitar Hero saying "Oh wait, we will remove any Kiss songs via a patch since Gene Simmons is a Trump supporter".

The songs:
Katy Perry's Fireworks with cool animations:


An original song together with Schmoyoho:


----------



## DarkenedMatter (Mar 23, 2017)

Talk about an opinion here because I think he is pretty annoying.


----------



## CrimsonMaple (Mar 23, 2017)

I don't agree with what Jon said. We can all choose to disagree with him. But it's petty to remove him. Removing him from the game solves nothing. He still said those things, and he still was part of the game. That will never change. They can't hide it. This SJW stuff really pisses me off and needs to stop.


----------



## Smash Br0 (Mar 23, 2017)

"_However, in light of his recent personal viewpoints we have made the decision to remove JonTron's inclusion in the game via a forthcoming content update._"

I take it this means that Jon's work will be included in the base game, and removed with a patch?

If that's the case... at least you can play the game with his work included (if you want to) by playing without any patches.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Mar 23, 2017)

I felt the need to add this, because even if it is a songify and not him actually singing, this is a classic.


----------



## SWRosetta (Mar 23, 2017)

I think the patch is mandatory.

It is a ''day 1'' after all.


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Mar 23, 2017)

This has odd parallels with 2 Ranting Griffon being removed as a performer from Anthrocon this year... ...


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2017)

Issac said:


> Imagine a game like Guitar Hero saying "Oh wait, we will remove any Kiss songs via a patch since Gene Simmons is a Trump supporter".


That's basically it. Playtonic is worried of a cascading _"guilty by association"_ reaction from the audience. Thing is, a big section of that audience became interested in Banjo specifically because of Jontron and his constant promotion of the brand over the years, so they're between a rock and a hard place. Personally I think the whole thing will blow over eventually anyways, as all Twitter shitstorms do, so such a permanent penalty seems a bit excessive.


----------



## SonicMC (Mar 23, 2017)

As much fun as Yooka Laylee looks; Playtonic seems to like to have lots of controversy surrounding them...
Dropping wii u version
Dropping Voice Actors

I mean they have 30 people on their team http://www.playtonicgames.com/team/

I guess we need to research each of these people and find their most different and controversial views so we can have playtonic remove each contributing member's code, talents, and more. That way we can have the lamest game at launch after the day one update...


----------



## A7MAD (Mar 23, 2017)

While, I disagree with a lot of what he said, they just gave him more light and support. It is similar to pewdiepie getting the support of the internet when the media decided to paint him in a negative light.


----------



## TesseractStorm (Mar 23, 2017)

Shrug.

Freedom of speech only really applies to government. If someone's speech is considered unnacceptable for a business, that business can refuse to work with them. And if that bothers people, they can refuse to purchase from that business. I'm guessing the thought is that the lost sales from being seen as supporting his speech likely seem greater than any they might lose by condemning it.

Freedom of speech never meant that speech would be without consequences.


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Mar 23, 2017)

This is Micheal Jackson and sonic 3 music all over again. 

I may not know who this jon tron person is (Up until a few days ago when someone here posted him on the front page) But this isn't fair to him nor is it good for his relations between people. Talent or "Artist" Shouldn't be represented by personal opinions of the matter. I personally lost someone i thought was my friend simply cause they didn't like that i felt it was unnecessary to censor fire emblem fates skin ship mini game and found it creep that they did or that i felt it didn't need censorship. I simply dislike censorship, weather i like the content they add is another opinion.


----------



## DeslotlCL (Mar 23, 2017)

Oh no, my favorite youtuber got removed from a game i wanted to play, it's the end of the world!

And they called me whinny cry baby furry...


----------



## Meteor7 (Mar 23, 2017)

DespyCL said:


> Oh no, my favorite youtuber got removed from a game i wanted to play, it's the end of the world!
> 
> And they called me whinny cry baby furry...


I think people are more upset over the principle of the thing rather than not being able to hear Jon's voice.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2017)

SonicMC said:


> As much fun as Yooka Laylee looks; Playtonic seems to like to have lots of controversy surrounding them...
> Dropping wii u version
> Dropping Voice Actors
> 
> ...


I said it when the campaign was announced, long before the Jontron controversy, and I'll say it again - Yooka-Laylee seems like a total cashgrab to me. The developers are desperately clinging to their former glory and instead of making a brand-new, original game they're making a pretend sequel to a game they no longer have the rights to that's basically bordering on copyright infringement by replicating everything they can including the font and replacing the protagonists so they don't get sued. That's all they can do at this point because the flame of their creativity is long since dead. They're removing Jontron because he can damage the brand, and the brand is all they have left. Yooka-Laylee, like many other games of its kind, is an elaborate attempt to cash in on your nostalgia and squeeze the last bit of money out of your wallet. I know it because I fall for it too. Some companies do this well, like inExile, others fail miserably. This is not original content, this is desperation. It's C.P.R administered to a cold corpse of an IP.


----------



## KingBlank (Mar 23, 2017)

Meteor7 said:


> So they liked his voice acting, but not after it turns out he has some unpleasant opinions. That's like firing your IT guy after you find out he likes Lucky Charms.


Too true.


----------



## SWRosetta (Mar 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> That's basically it. Playtonic is worried of a cascading _"guilty by association"_ reaction from the audience. Thing is, a big section of that audience became interested in Banjo specifically because of Jontron and his constant promotion of the brand over the years, so they're between a rock and a hard place. Personally I think the whole thing will blow over eventually anyways, as all Twitter shitstorms do, so such a permanent penalty seems a bit excessive.



The funniest thing is that , given by most people's reactions , i honestly don't think anybody would have actually cared. I mean he was just a voice actor ... in a game in which all the characters make weird sounds , they dont even speak!

LOL this is really the definition of overreacting. Losing this gig over something like this is just too much.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 23, 2017)

This isn't an issue of free speech, especially if the same people getting up in arms about this are going to turn right around and say "I wouldn't bake a cake for a gay wedding"

Playtonic is a private company. They can chose to add or remove whatever they want from their own products (as long as they aren't falsely advertising content). As a matter of fact, one could say this is also an expression of free speech


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> This isn't an issue of free speech, especially if the same people getting up in arms about this are going to turn right around and say "I wouldn't bake a cake for a gay wedding"
> 
> Playtonic is a private company. They can chose to add or remove whatever they want from their own products (as long as they aren't falsely advertising content). As a matter of fact, one could say this is also an expression of free speech


Of course they do, it's their product. It would be a gross violation of their rights as individuals and as a corporate entity to prevent them from doing so - that's not the topic. The topic is whether they should do it, and what's your reaction to it. They're free to alter their own product, and you're free to either support or denounce that.


----------



## grossaffe (Mar 23, 2017)

Sonic Angel Knight said:


> This is Micheal Jackson and sonic 3 music all over again.
> 
> I may not know who this jon tron person is (Up until a few days ago when someone here posted him on the front page) But this isn't fair to him nor is it good for his relations between people. Talent or "Artist" Shouldn't be represented by personal opinions of the matter. I personally lost someone i thought was my friend simply cause they didn't like that i felt it was unnecessary to censor fire emblem fates skin ship mini game and found it creep that they did or that i felt it didn't need censorship. I simply dislike censorship, weather i like the content they add is another opinion.


He's not simply a voice-actor, though.  He is a brand unto himself.  He has made himself into a public figure, and as such, his image becomes baggage that becomes attached to a project in which he is involved for better or for worse.


----------



## A7MAD (Mar 23, 2017)

Sonic Angel Knight said:


> This is Micheal Jackson and sonic 3 music all over again.
> 
> I may not know who this jon tron person is (Up until a few days ago when someone here posted him on the front page) But this isn't fair to him nor is it good for his relations between people. Talent or "Artist" Shouldn't be represented by personal opinions of the matter. I personally lost someone i thought was my friend simply cause they didn't like that i felt it was unnecessary to censor fire emblem fates skin ship mini game and found it creep that they did or that i felt it didn't need censorship. I simply dislike censorship, weather i like the content they add is another opinion.




The part about FE: Fates is really something alright, I never thought people would actually care about touching 2d characters with a stylus or think it is somehow creepy ... oh wait, pokemon anyone?


----------



## sarkwalvein (Mar 23, 2017)

A7MAD said:


> The part about FE: Fates is really something alright, I never thought people would actually care about touching 2d characters with a stylus ... oh wait, pokemon anyone?


Noes, what you imply is nasty. Don't dirty up pokemon you brute. /s


----------



## eworm (Mar 23, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Playtonic is a private company. They can chose to add or remove whatever they want from their own products (as long as they aren't falsely advertising content). As a matter of fact, one could say this is also an expression of free speech


That's kinda true, but JonTron's opinions were his own, they were personal and they were expressed via words one could freely agree or disagree with, argue or ignore. This is a business decision that breaks promises to some audiences and fires a guy from a job.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Mar 23, 2017)

Can't say the guy deserved it exactly, but I can say he must be an assbag for saying it. Cause I mean, I understand that by the company putting him in the game, (even if implied) they are saying to some degree they support his viewpoint.


All I have to say is that his removal wasn't exactly just, but at the same time it was, for the sake of not losing money because of his mistake. It's still stupid all together though, because it's like saying it ok to  cut someone from a hostess company because they like little Debbie better.


----------



## grossaffe (Mar 23, 2017)

Sketchy1 said:


> Can't say the guy deserved it exactly, but I can say he must be an assbag for saying it. Cause I mean, I understand that by the company putting him in the game, (even if implied) they are saying to some degree they support his viewpoint.
> 
> 
> All I have to say is that his removal wasn't exactly just, but at the same time it was, for the sake of not losing money because of his mistake. It's still stupid all together though, because it's like saying it ok to  cut someone from a hostess company because they like little Debbie better.


If it's a PR person posting such things on Twitter, yeah, you'd lose your job for posting such things.


----------



## SonicMC (Mar 23, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> This isn't an issue of free speech, especially if the same people getting up in arms about this are going to turn right around and say "I wouldn't bake a cake for a gay wedding"
> 
> Playtonic is a private company. They can chose to add or remove whatever they want from their own products (as long as they aren't falsely advertising content). As a matter of fact, one could say this is also an expression of free speech



I don't mind that playtonic is removing it for brand sake; I just find it stupid for them to say:

"_Playtonic is a studio that celebrates diversity in all forms and strives to make games that everyone can enjoy. _"

 For a company that celebrates diversity in all forms... They sure get upset when someone truly is diverse or different.

diversity means "showing a great deal of variety; very different." Which means they should be celebrating Jon Tron for having a different radical opinion...


----------



## Sketchy1 (Mar 23, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> If it's a PR person posting such things on Twitter, yeah, you'd lose your job for posting such things.


I guess, but You get the analogy


----------



## yodamerlin (Mar 23, 2017)

This is starting to remind me about Jeremy Clarkson and the BBC.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> If it's a PR person posting such things on Twitter, yeah, you'd lose your job for posting such things.


That falls within the job description. A PR person's job is to represent the company, so expressing any personal opinion on any matter via the company channels and often times outside of them is overstepping certain contractual obligations. I'm not certain whether a voice actor should fall under the same umbrella - this was a guest appearance, Jontron doesn't represent Playtonic in any shape or form, he's not an actual employee.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Mar 23, 2017)

SonicMC said:


> For a company that celebrates diversity in all forms... They sure get upset when someone truly is diverse or different


*Brain explodes after reading this part, realizing the irony*


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 23, 2017)

Meanwhile SJW shit promoted in Mass Effect and a million other games. I'd demand my money back or a click option.  If I have to see endless pandering to Anita Sarkeesian and the 10% hyper liberal trans-mutant homosexual community we need a standard conservative Liberal/conservative  click option of who gets removed from our game.

One click, Alec Baldwins shitty voice acting is replaced by James Woods.


----------



## Pluupy (Mar 23, 2017)

This is a stupid move on their part. They've essentially made their political stance known and are using Yooka Laylee to prove their point. This only hursts the game. Just leave him in there and who gives a shit.

We've had tons of movie actors who are Scientologists, *actual fucking neo-nazis*, anti-vax, prolife, and other idiotic stances but films are still made with them. Who cares about this one fellow who doesn't know how to express his opinion correctly? I've heard worse shit in my break room at the hospital. You'd be pretty fucking surprised the awful shit nurses be spewing about patients.



SonicMC said:


> For a company that celebrates diversity in all forms... They sure get upset when someone truly is diverse or different.


----------



## Online (Mar 23, 2017)

I thought it was bit extreme at first, but when you read thier statement it makes sense to me. jons voice is now linked to politics and some player will think about that when they hear him and it will effect the expereince of the game. I personally dont want to think about politics when I play a fun game like this so I think this decision was o.k


----------



## chavosaur (Mar 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I said it when the campaign was announced, long before the Jontron controversy, and I'll say it again - Yooka-Laylee seems like a total cashgrab to me. The developers are desperately clinging to their former glory and instead of making a brand-new, original game they're making a pretend sequel to a game they no longer have the rights to that's basically bordering on copyright infringement by replicating everything they can including the font and replacing the protagonists so they don't get sued. That's all they can do at this point because the flame of their creativity is long since dead. They're removing Jontron because he can damage the brand, and the brand is all they have left. Yooka-laylee, like many other games of its kind, is an elaborate attempt to cash in on your nostalgia and squeeze the last bit of money out of your wallet. I know it because I fall for it too. Some companies do this well, like inExile, others fail miserably. This is not original content, this is desperation. It's C.P.R administered to a cold corpse of an IP.


Once again, I feel the opposite on this. Couldn't every game ever be called a cash grab when their primary goal is to make money? Is creativity truly lost on recreating properties in a new fashion utilizing the same measures that created the original property so long ago? Is it that wrong or that terrible to cater to an audience that has been starved of content like this because of the constant AAA in your face open world spiral we have fallen down in the past couple of years? Yookalaylee is the most genuinely unique game to be coming out these recent months despite its familiarity to the property all of those devs worked on YEARS AGO. 
In the past 3 months, we have had 3 huge RPG's come out almost back to back. Horizon, Zelda, and Mass Effect. Nioh wasn't far off that trail either. Huge sprawling action RPG's with open world elements and hour long time sinks all hoping to gobble up your money based on buzz words of freedom and blah blah blah.
What is wrong with Yookalaylee coming out as a streamlined 3d platformer that we never really see anymore? Is this desperation for revival, or giving people what they've been longing for that other companies, quite frankly, are never going to give them again? 

Is it dead creativity, or revitalized creativity? They still made dozens of original characters, original music using real composers, and poured all of their resources and development into crafting a really pretty game. I just don't see it as a cash-grab. If i did, I could apply those words to every property that has ever come out in the past decade because it could apply in anyway that I spun it.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Mar 23, 2017)

Online said:


> I thought it was bit extreme at first, but when you read thier statement it makes sense to me. jons voice is now linked to politics and some player will think about that when they hear him and it will effect the expereince of the game. I personally dont want to think about politics when I play a fun game like this


Players and politics wouldnt exactly fall in the same place though. Cause I mean, it's like saying by playing Donald trumps game, I like him more then Hillary.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2017)

Online said:


> I thought it was bit extreme at first, but when you read thier statement it makes sense to me. jons voice is now linked to politics and some player will think about that when they hear him and it will effect the expereince of the game. I personally dont want to think about politics when I play a fun game like this


Playtonic had to remove him when they found out that some of the Easter Eggs feature Jon reciting Mein Kampf while the characters are saluting at the screen. On a serious note, the characters don't actually speak - he was just making noise, the inclusion was purely symbolic.


----------



## Online (Mar 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Playtonic had to remove him when they found out that some of the Easter Eggs feature Jon reciting Mein Kampf while the characters are saluting at the screen. On a serious note, the characters don't actually speak - he was just making noise, the inclusion was purely symbolic.


what the fuk. now I am glad they removed that part


----------



## F4LK (Mar 23, 2017)

Why are people so butthurt about this. He probably doesn't even have a big role in the game.
He's probably just a small NPC in the hub world or something like in that hat game.

I like Jon too (at least the stuff he's making) but i'm not gonna cancel my preorder because of a few missing voice lines.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Mar 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Playtonic had to remove him when they found out that some of the Easter Eggs feature Jon reciting Mein Kampf while the characters are saluting at the screen. On a serious note, the characters don't actually speak - he was just making noise, the inclusion was purely symbolic.


Knowing this now, This honestly makes this mess even stupider.

Player: WOAH JONTRON MAKING A GRUNTING SOUND

Let alone that they can identify someone just by hearing a few bodily sounds.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Mar 23, 2017)

And he we are debating a topic that amounts to nothingness itself.
Yeah, I really love wasting time, but it seem I am not alone.


----------



## Online (Mar 23, 2017)

Sketchy1 said:


> Knowing this now, This honestly makes this mess even stupider.
> 
> Player: WOAH JONTRON MAKING A GRUNTING SOUND
> 
> Let alone that they can identify someone just by hearing a few bodily sounds.



playtonic know a hitler refference if they see it. that is unacceptable for a kids games dude


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2017)

chavosaur said:


> Once again, I feel the opposite on this. Couldn't every game ever be called a cash grab when their primary goal is to make money? Is creativity truly lost on recreating properties in a new fashion utilizing the same measures that created the original property so long ago? Is it that wrong or that terrible to cater to an audience that has been starved of content like this because of the constant AAA in your face open world spiral we have fallen down in the past couple of years? Yookalaylee is the most genuinely unique game to be coming out these recent months despite its familiarity to the property all of those devs worked on YEARS AGO.
> In the past 3 months, we have had 3 huge RPG's come out almost back to back. Horizon, Zelda, and Mass Effect. Nioh wasn't far off that trail either. Huge sprawling action RPG's with open world elements and hour long time sinks all hoping to gobble up your money based on buzz words of freedom and blah blah blah.
> What is wrong with Yookalaylee coming out as a streamlined 3d platformer that we never really see anymore? Is this desperation for revival, or giving people what they've been longing for that other companies, quite frankly, are never going to give them again?
> 
> Is it dead creativity, or revitalized creativity? They still made dozens of original characters, original music using real composers, and poured all of their resources and development into crafting a really pretty game. I just don't see it as a cash-grab. If i did, I could apply those words to every property that has ever come out in the past decade because it could apply in anyway that I spun it.


I guess that the point of view depends on where you're seated. Judging by the gameplay mechanics alone I feel that this is a very blatant reskin, and while I don't know the developer's motivation, I think it's blatantly clear that they're making a Banjo-Kazooie game in the only way they legally can - that's the definition of "derrivative". I'm not judging the quality of the end product, it could be great for all I know, we won't find out until the game is out. You are correct in saying that technically every product made for profit is a _"cash grab"_ in a sense, however I feel that many developers often mix business with pleasure, which is the way to go. All in all we're suffering from a major drought of creativity in the industry, it's been going on for a while now as the budgets, the workloads and the stakes increase with the risks taken diminishing. It happens in all of entertainment - developers are playing safe and make what they know will sell simply because it can make or break the studio, it's just the reality of the situation we're in right now.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Mar 23, 2017)

Online said:


> playtonic know a hitler refference if they see it. that is unacceptable for a kids games dude


But would kids get the nazi reference (let alone know who they are or what they did)?


----------



## GerbilSoft (Mar 23, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> He could have said them after the game was released  I kid, I kid.
> 
> But Playtronic: "Screw 1st amendment rights" right? XD


I was unaware that the First Amendment protected this. Can you point out where the First Amendment says companies must be forced to use voicework if the person they contracted says something they don't like?


----------



## Pluupy (Mar 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I said it when the campaign was announced, long before the Jontron controversy, and I'll say it again - Yooka-Laylee seems like a total cashgrab to me. The developers are desperately clinging to their former glory and instead of making a brand-new, original game they're making a pretend sequel to a game they no longer have the rights to that's basically bordering on copyright infringement by replicating everything they can including the font and replacing the protagonists so they don't get sued. That's all they can do at this point because the flame of their creativity is long since dead. They're removing Jontron because he can damage the brand, and the brand is all they have left. Yooka-Laylee, like many other games of its kind, is an elaborate attempt to cash in on your nostalgia and squeeze the last bit of money out of your wallet. I know it because I fall for it too. Some companies do this well, like inExile, others fail miserably. This is not original content, this is desperation. It's C.P.R administered to a cold corpse of an IP.


That's because it is. Yooka Laylee lacks _any real identity_. The game does not uniquely stand on it's own without being accompanied by something related to Banjo Kazooie. It thrives on the nostalgia and desire for a new Banjo Kazooie game. These people actively pursed a few of the laid-off, ex-developers of Banjo Kazooie just to show nostalgia lens-doning fans how dedicated they are to literally just making a copy of Banjo Kazooie. In this, Yooka Laylee will never stand on it's own without having Banjo Kazooie mentioned. It is not a spiritual successor. It is a cash-in.


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 23, 2017)

GerbilSoft said:


> I was unaware that the First Amendment protected this. Can you point out where the First Amendment says companies must be forced to use voicework if the person they contracted says something they don't like?



Right next to where it says a baker must make homosexuals a cake, *it doesn't.
*
But if you can't discriminate against a 3 gendered transabled leather daddy who has to spank himself 5 times a day in front of the customers I see no reason why you can discriminate against Jon Tron and fire him for whatever reason you see fit, no one else gets too.


----------



## s157 (Mar 23, 2017)

I don't think Playtonic made the wrong decision here, but I don't support it as his political views have no effect on the actual game, but the guilt by association concept is strong.

Seriously though, who cares if VA (whose primary role is grunting sounds) has radical views? I sure as hell don't bother to research names in credits unless their role in it was absolutely crucial.


----------



## GerbilSoft (Mar 23, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> Right next to where it says a baker must make homosexuals a cake, *it doesn't.
> *
> But if you can't discriminate against a 3 gendered transabled leather daddy who has to spank himself 5 times a day in front of the customers I see no reason why you can discriminate against Jon Tron and fire him for whatever reason you see fit, no one else gets too.


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and the case which you mentioned is currently pending. But you already knew that.

Incidentally, where in that case did you see a "3 gendered transabled leather daddy who has to spank himself 5 times a day in front of the customers"? Are you hiding something?


----------



## Sketchy1 (Mar 23, 2017)

s157 said:


> credits unless their role in it was absolutely crucial.


People look at the credits?


----------



## Pluupy (Mar 23, 2017)

chavosaur said:


> Once again, I feel the opposite on this. Couldn't every game ever be called a cash grab when their primary goal is to make money? Is creativity truly lost on recreating properties in a new fashion utilizing the same measures that created the original property so long ago? Is it that wrong or that terrible to cater to an audience that has been starved of content like this because of the constant AAA in your face open world spiral we have fallen down in the past couple of years? Yookalaylee is the most genuinely unique game to be coming out these recent months despite its familiarity to the property all of those devs worked on YEARS AGO.
> In the past 3 months, we have had 3 huge RPG's come out almost back to back. Horizon, Zelda, and Mass Effect. Nioh wasn't far off that trail either. Huge sprawling action RPG's with open world elements and hour long time sinks all hoping to gobble up your money based on buzz words of freedom and blah blah blah.
> What is wrong with Yookalaylee coming out as a streamlined 3d platformer that we never really see anymore? Is this desperation for revival, or giving people what they've been longing for that other companies, quite frankly, are never going to give them again?
> 
> Is it dead creativity, or revitalized creativity? They still made dozens of original characters, original music using real composers, and poured all of their resources and development into crafting a really pretty game. I just don't see it as a cash-grab. If i did, I could apply those words to every property that has ever come out in the past decade because it could apply in anyway that I spun it.


Because it's NOT creative. Yooka Laylee is literally the same Banjo Kazooie formula with a different coat of paint.

Want to know why Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild isn't just another open world game? It incorporates familiar Zelda gameplay and fuses it with open world gameplay concepts. Quests, flexible tools available at all times, This is what it means to BUILD upon what is already known. This is what makes the series so diverse.

Link Between Worlds. How is this different from other Zelda games? Tools are now available from the beginning. The world is fully available upon the start. The 2D Link feature allows the player to explore the world literally from a two-dimensional point of view. This was carried into Breath of the Wild and Nintendo was very pleased that fans were enjoying this type of gameplay.

Ocarina of Time. Well how is this different than other Zeldas? It's in fucking 3D. Already this poses new challenges for the player who has only experienced this series' puzzles from a 2D, birds-eye view. This introduces challenges where "gosh, maybe I need to look around a bit to find out how to proceed?".

Majora's Mask. We know about Ocarina Time already. Seems like it uses the same formula. Oh crap wait there's a time limit tied in with the gameplay and plot! Oh dang and we need to use Masks to unlock tools and whatnot.

It is through these explorations in innovation such as these that game series continue to thrive and stand on their own. The series entires are identifiable because it continues to return old concepts and still introduce new ideas. Players engage in new and familiar gameplay.

So what does Yooka Laylee do different? Well you are a lizard and a bat.






The main point being, how does this adjustment contribute to overall gameplay?

It is in this Yooka Laylee falls flat. The game is relying on you constantly comparing it to Banjo Kazooie. It just wants to *be* Banjo Kazooie and nothing else. Not a new Banjo Kazooie, which unique new gameplay innovations, oh no Microsoft already tried that. Just the old ones in a new coat of paint.  

Final Fantasy is not a 2D turn-based RPG anymore. The series is incredibly diverse in it's gameplay and Square-Enix builds upon their old concepts with each entry. This is what Banjo Kazooie *needs. *

This idea that Banjo Kazooie is this stationary type of collecting gameplay is what is truly killing the franchise.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 23, 2017)

Wasn't gonna buy the game already because it looked a little empty and bland from the recent trailers but now I definitely will never support this game because I don't tolerate this anti-free speach, safe space(They literally said in the press release they want the game to be a safe space lmfao), PC, SJW and whatever the fuck else you can call this, bullshit.


----------



## eworm (Mar 23, 2017)

Online said:


> playtonic know a hitler refference if they see it. that is unacceptable for a kids games dude


Most people also know a joke when they see it, especially when it's followed by "on a serious note" and something completely different.


----------



## GerbilSoft (Mar 23, 2017)

Robfozz said:


> Wasn't gonna buy the game already because it looked a little empty and bland from the recent trailers but now I definitely will never support this game because I don't tolerate this anti-free speach, safe space(They literally said in the press release they want the game to be a safe space lmfao), PC, SJW and whatever the fuck else you can call this, bullshit.


Amusingly, you rail against "PC" and "SJW", yet your signature says you're "triggered" by "people using outdated hax methods", almost as if you need a "safe space" for hax.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2017)

Online said:


> playtonic know a hitler refference if they see it. that is unacceptable for a kids games dude


I love this guy right here.


----------



## RustInPeace (Mar 23, 2017)

I had a feeling there'd be repercussions for his words. While I begrudgingly agree about this being a first amendment issue ("begrudgingly" because I don't fancy his opinions at all), he is a public figure, albeit on the internet. It goes with general celebrity unwritten rules, which, sigh, I guess he's one as well. What I mean, is basically, keep your mouth shut in terms of extreme opinions, things people will read and take nastily and all that stuff. He's free to spurt out whatever gibberish he has on his mind, but as a public figure, he should've had forethought that companies, organizations, would sack him for the opinions. It happens, he's no exception, this news bit proves he's part of that norm. So really, the argument against Playtonic is fine, but also the argument that the fucker deserved it for compromising his public image. He's not any old internet user who can say shit and not suffer for it, in that respect it's hard to really feel sympathetic for him.

As for the game, honestly it's the first time I heard of it. Good intentions to be a spiritual successor to a beloved game in my childhood, but, I'd rather just play that game.


----------



## Noroxus (Mar 23, 2017)

yodamerlin said:


> It seems to fall back onto the same Freedom of Speech problem.
> I think it's a good thing. People should be allowed to say what you want. But then I would still want to be able call them a dick, and refuse to distribute their content.
> I think Freedom of Speech shouldn't protect you from the consequences of what you have said, it should just allow you to say it.



Yes. Freedom of Speech doesn't mean people gotta listen to your shit. It is so tiring to hear people shouting "BUT MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH" when people don't listen on their racist conversations. Say what the heck you want but I certainly do not have to listen to your bullshit...

Thats just imo


----------



## GerbilSoft (Mar 23, 2017)

Noroxus said:


> Yes. Freedom of Speech doesn't mean people gotta listen to your shit. It is so tiring to hear people shouting "BUT MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH" when people don't listen on their racist conversations. Say what the heck you want but I certainly do not have to listen to your bullshit...
> 
> Thats just imo


How about this example: Let's suppose some Internet user who's notorious for harassing people he doesn't like tries to submit a patch for a project I'm working on, and for exaggeration purposes, the patch is lined with rants about certain individuals he doesn't like. Would it be a "FREE SPEACH VIOLATION!!1!" if I rejected the patch because I didn't approve of his behavior, or would I be forced to accept it in order to satisfy the "anti-SJWs" (who, incidentally, become the very thing they hate)?


----------



## KingAsix (Mar 23, 2017)

So based on the majority of the people here due to the 1st amendment I can say whatever I like without any consequences?

So if I sat up here and said white people are shithead red neck crackers and homosexuals are an abomination and Muslims are all crazy suicide bombers and women are nothing more than my cum dumpster....yall cant do anything because i have my right to free speech which frees me from any consequences.


----------



## Enteking (Mar 23, 2017)

Free speech does not exist in Europe. If you speak freely on certain matters, you can loose your job and go to jail.


----------



## SomeKindOfUsername (Mar 23, 2017)

This is not a first amendment issue and anybody that suggests as much is foolish. If you think it is then you probably take the phrase "freedom of speech" a little too literally (it's more like "protected speech" or "you can say some things without the government coming after you but it absolutely does not prevent anybody else from taking issue with what you said").

It says more that some people would rather Playtonic be forced to keep something in their game as opposed to allowing them the freedom to remove it.
You are of course free to express your disapproval, but to suggest they did something illegal is out of line. As for calling them petty, I'd just like to point out that you have people saying they won't buy the game now.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Mar 23, 2017)

Okay ranting time. 
For the love of everything that is right, stop throwing things like 1st amendment or any other arguments like that for every PC/SJW bullshit that happens in the world. The divine law of the USA (that seems to become just "the law" on the internet) doesn't apply to other countries. It's really not hard to understand but I always feel that some people fail to remember that.
Playtonic Games, just like Rare, is based in the UK.

Also. That dude is not in legal trouble for what he said, his freedom of speech is respected. One company just decided that his philosophily wasn't compatible with them. That's it. Just like if you yell racist comments on the street you might end up getting punched in the face. Freedom of speech yes, but be responsible for it.


----------



## Daggot (Mar 23, 2017)

I don't agree with either Jontron or Destiny's opinions in that debate and personally I think it was the equivalent of special needs kids fighting on an ideological playground but no matter how stupid I think his statements or were or how badly he handled it I'll defend his right to say it. This was extreme in my opinion.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Mar 23, 2017)

Enteking said:


> Free speech does not exist in Europe. If you speak freely on certain matters, you can loose your job and go to jail.


I kind of think that if you happened to promote meetings and give public speeches on something like "benefits of child molestation and methods to achieve it in the USA avoiding punishment" you would go in jail, in the USA... Free speech has some limits.


----------



## Kikirini (Mar 23, 2017)

Ugh, you can feel whatever what you want to about this news, but stop trying to make it a first amendment issue.
Free Speech means you can't be arrested for what you say but doesn't mean that voicing your opinions has no consequences. Please research the laws before you use them in an argument.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Mar 23, 2017)

It's a private company and they didn't like what JonTron said in public for everyone to hear.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the first amendment. I'd do the same since it might hurt sales.

If they would have left him in that would've been fine, too. Again, it's a private company.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2017)

JinTrigger said:


> So based on the majority of the people here due to the 1st amendment I can say whatever I like without any consequences?
> 
> So if I sat up here and said white people are shithead red neck crackers and homosexuals are an abomination and Muslims are all crazy suicide bombers and women are nothing more than my cum dumpster....yall cant do anything because i have my right to free speech which frees me from any consequences.


You can do that in the middle of the street and you shouldn't be harassed by the police in any way unless you are acting in a threatening manner. Your opinion represents you and you only. The government does not and should not have the authority to infringe upon your freedom of speech and expression as long as you're not violating the law. You have a right to say what's on your mind and others have the choice to not listen to you if they don't like what you're saying.


GerbilSoft said:


> How about this example: Let's suppose some Internet user who's notorious for harassing people he doesn't like tries to submit a patch for a project I'm working on, and for exaggeration purposes, the patch is lined with rants about certain individuals he doesn't like. Would it be a "FREE SPEACH VIOLATION!!1!" if I rejected the patch because I didn't approve of his behavior, or would I be forced to accept it in order to satisfy the "anti-SJWs" (who, incidentally, become the very thing they hate)?


The difference here is that said opinion would be within the product of a larger body, the company. Jontron didn't make his comments within Yooka-Laylee against Playtonic's will, he did it privately. Playtonic is policing what he can and can't say on his own private platform that's unrelated to the product, which makes a huge difference. They are allowed to do so as Jon's right to freedom of speech does not invalidate their right to freedom of association, once again, that's not the topic. We know they can do it, unless it violates the contract they signed with Jon, the question posed is whether they should.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 23, 2017)

SonicMC said:


> I don't mind that playtonic is removing it for brand sake; I just find it stupid for them to say:
> 
> "_Playtonic is a studio that celebrates diversity in all forms and strives to make games that everyone can enjoy. _"
> 
> ...


Ah yes. The straight white American male showing hostile opinions towards other races adds so much variety to this bland [insert establishment here]


----------



## dimmidice (Mar 23, 2017)

People in this thread really don't get what free speech means.


----------



## chartube12 (Mar 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> You can do that in the middle of the street and you shouldn't be harassed by the police in any way unless you are expressing your opinion in a threatening manner. Your opinion represents you and you only.
> The difference here is that said opinion would be within the product of a larger body, the company. Jontron didn't make his comments within Yooka-Laylee against Playtonic's will, he did it privately. Playtonic is policing what he can and can't say on his own private platform that's unrelated to the product, which makes a huge difference. They are allowed to do so as Jon's right to freedom of speech does not invalidate their right to freedom of association, once again, that's not the topic. We know they can do it, unless it violates the contract they signed with Jon, the question posed is whether they should.



The company i work for would disagree with you and me. They somehow found a comment i made against hollywood and comic books on a comic book site. I am totally against changing well established characters race, gender, sex and sexuall choice for the lolz and p-correctiness. And they force me to remove my comments or else be fired...and i work in automotive plant. Completely unrelated to what i was posting


----------



## endoverend (Mar 23, 2017)

yodamerlin said:


> It seems to fall back onto the same Freedom of Speech problem.
> I think it's a good thing. People should be allowed to say what you want. But then I would still want to be able call them a dick, and refuse to distribute their content.
> I think Freedom of Speech shouldn't protect you from the consequences of what you have said, it should just allow you to say it.


^ This. Jontron's freedom of speech isn't being compromised here. You're allowed to say anything you want, but that doesn't mean you're guaranteed not to get metaphorically punched in the jaw for it.


----------



## Pluupy (Mar 23, 2017)

dimmidice said:


> People in this thread really don't get what free speech means.


Then stop playing smug and explain it if you understand what it means. Just standing on the side and saying they don't understand free speech contributes nothing to the thread.


----------



## Deleted member 408979 (Mar 23, 2017)

woah now, JonTron controversy?


What did he do?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 23, 2017)

endoverend said:


> ^ This. Jontron's freedom of speech isn't being compromised here. You're allowed to say anything you want, but that doesn't mean you're guaranteed not to get metaphorically punched in the jaw for it.


On top of that it's not a government organization "punishing" him, which is the only thing the First Amendment protects against


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2017)

chartube12 said:


> The company i work for would disagree with you and me. They somehow found a comment i made against hollywood and comic books on a comic book site. I am totally against changing well established characters race, gender, sex and sexuall choice for the lolz and p-correctiness. And they force me to remove my comments or else be fired...and i work in automotive plant. Completely unrelated to what i was posting


If you have a clause in your contract that specifies what you can and can't say on social media, they may be within their rights to do so. Besides, I'm not saying that they shouldn't - if you're contractually obligated to follow certain rules, you should. That being said, it works both ways - if the contract had no such clause, they had no leverage. Freedom of association is just as important as freedom of speech and expression, however we cannot forget about contractual obligations.


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Mar 23, 2017)

A7MAD said:


> The part about FE: Fates is really something alright, I never thought people would actually care about touching 2d characters with a stylus or think it is somehow creepy ... oh wait, pokemon anyone?


My arguement wasn't defending the content it was defending the decision to make it japanese exclusive and call it censorship, rather than include it and have a option not to use it. The fact nothing replaced it shows it was unnecessary to begin with but is there in japanese game. I don't care what kind of content it is in the game, is incomplete without it. 

Just like in call of duty games where there is "OFFENSIVE CONTENT" To the player, you have a option to skip it, spectate it or play it. In Fire Emblem fates, you have no choice, is just gone for the sake of censorship, which is why most of the projects to translate games exist by fans. I plan to make friends, is a goal i had since grade school that never had seem to been getting better, and losing someone cause they can't respect my view on censorship just shows how bad the nature of some people are. Is fine we can't agree on things but we have other stuff in common, why should that lead to not having a relationship? Just find friends who do the things you don't wanna do with me, that why people have so many in the first place.

Anyway is not about me, is about the jon tron person getting his voice removed from a video game cause of a public opinion that seem to be effecting various spontaneous decisions. So is this game delayed until new voice actor can be found and recorded? To be honest i hope he is alright.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 23, 2017)

eechigoo said:


> woah now, JonTron controversy?
> 
> 
> What did he do?


He fucked up on Twitter and I think on a livestream


----------



## SomeKindOfUsername (Mar 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> We know they can do it, unless it violates the contract they signed with Jon, the question posed is whether they should.


Can you provide some reasoning as to why they shouldn't?
You've already established that they can, so under what circumstances can't they?


----------



## guisadop (Mar 23, 2017)

Playtronic are fully in their right to remove him. That said, I probably won't be buying it now. Don't want to support bigotted companies.


----------



## endoverend (Mar 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I said it when the campaign was announced, long before the Jontron controversy, and I'll say it again - Yooka-Laylee seems like a total cashgrab to me. The developers are desperately clinging to their former glory and instead of making a brand-new, original game they're making a pretend sequel to a game they no longer have the rights to that's basically bordering on copyright infringement by replicating everything they can including the font and replacing the protagonists so they don't get sued. That's all they can do at this point because the flame of their creativity is long since dead. They're removing Jontron because he can damage the brand, and the brand is all they have left. Yooka-Laylee, like many other games of its kind, is an elaborate attempt to cash in on your nostalgia and squeeze the last bit of money out of your wallet. I know it because I fall for it too. Some companies do this well, like inExile, others fail miserably. This is not original content, this is desperation. It's C.P.R administered to a cold corpse of an IP.


I actually totally agree with this. As I've already expressed in an article, I think gamers are tired of being handed the same things regurgitated over and over in an endless stream of the same games we've seen for the past 20 years. This is possibly the most flagrant abuse of nostalgia in recent memory. If it's a good title in its own right, then good for it, but somehow I just don't see this being the case, especially considering the Kickstarter platform and how often it's abused for the sake of nostalgia.


----------



## Bimmel (Mar 23, 2017)

I do not like the guy. Take that, you unlikable person!

Please distance yourself from me, I need space anyway. : )


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2017)

SomeKindOfUsername said:


> Can you provide some reasoning as to why they shouldn't?
> 
> You've already established that they can, so under what circumstances can't they?


In terms of contractual obligation they wouldn't be able to shred the agreement if the contract does not have a specific social media clause or gag order - he did his job and deserves payment. Whether the content is included or not upon its completion is up to the developer - they're in charge of the product and it should reflect their vision.

More broadly, I don't think they should remove content based on a Twitter shitstorms, or any form of positive or negative reactions from the media, simply because it shows lack of the aforementioned creative vision. I think creators should stand by their product rather than alter it to appease the mob. They should release exactly what they intended to and hope that people will like it, any less than that amounts to pandering. Moreover, I don't think such judgements should be based on what people do outside of their place of employment. Just because it's legal doesn't mean that it sits well in my stomach. I work with plenty of people I don't agree with, but I wouldn't disavow them or seek to remove them based on how I feel. That's just a personal opinion.


----------



## Pluupy (Mar 23, 2017)

Playtonic is within their rights to withdraw the content made by someone they disagree with. I disagree with them affiliating Yooka Laylee with their political agenda, but I am not saying they can't do it. It is just distasteful for them to do so.

The people who Kickstarted Yooka Laylee weren't crowdfunding the game so the company would use it to push political commentary. 

So why remove JonTron from Yooka Laylee? Playtonic is a no-name game developer with no gravity to their ideas. They had to resort to Kickstarter because only common peoples who don't know any better will support them. Their only position of power in the world is Yooka Laylee, this popular game which piggyback-rides on the nostalgia of Banjo Kazooie. *They are nothing*.

This incident is nothing but a publicity stunt to garner attention for the game.

"Yes, we'll work with you for this game but your personal political stances better be in line ours." So much for being a company who claims to supports diverse ideas. Fuck those hypocrites.

My god the main villain of Yooka Laylee is, I shit you not it says this on their website, "Corporate Creep Capital B". Fucking _wow_. Way to show "the man", Playtonic! Clearly you are the only good guy company who doesn't assert their authority on the little guys.


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Mar 23, 2017)

Humanity really should start learning how to block out extremist opinions. Metered discussion being the only acknowledged discussion rather than the crazy shitstorm dramafests we see online and now even on news sites, that would be a world I would enjoy living in. This current world, of everyone shouting without listening, is becoming extremely depressing to be a part of.

The earlier quote with Jon's comments indicates that it was a metered discussion, mostly emphasizing the strange hypocrisies, and not advocating any sort of extreme violence, just cautionary awareness of the strange social climate. But when we show balanced opinions, it's met with extremism, and we become drowned out. It's like, people have forgotten that the world isn't black and white, A and Z, etc.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2017)

Pluupy said:


> Playtonic is within their rights to withdraw the content made by someone they disagree with. I disagree with them affiliating Yooka Laylee with their political agenda, but I am not saying they can't do it. It is just distasteful for them to do so.
> 
> The people who Kickstarted Yooka Laylee weren't crowdfunding the game so the company would use to push political commentary. It's a fucking cartoon _video game_.
> 
> ...


This actually reminds me of Blizzard's approach towards Overwatch and their never-ending campaign of trying to make it the ultimate PC PoC LGBTQ+ SJW #RESTOFTHEALPHABET game of all time. It started with Tracer's butt, which for some reason was controversial, and even then I was upset that they altered the product because of a couple snowflakes. The moment they realised that they had the eyes of the SJW community on them, more alterations, or "lore", as they call it followed suit. "Hey guys, did you know that Tracer is actually a lesbian?", "Hey! Did you know that Symmetra has autism?", "Are we diverse yet?" - it's shameless and disgusting, it reeks of blacksploitation from the 80's. People don't realise that their constant outrage was turned into a revenue stream. I just enjoyed the game because it was a good shooter, I don't need all this. In fact, it's making me like it less


----------



## jumpman17 (Mar 23, 2017)

Jon can say whatever he wants, Playtronic can do whatever they want with their game.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2017)

TobiasAmaranth said:


> Humanity really should start learning how to block out extremist opinions. Metered discussion being the only acknowledged discussion rather than the crazy shitstorm dramafests we see online and now even on news sites, that would be a world I would enjoy living in. This current world, of everyone shouting without listening, is becoming extremely depressing to be a part of.
> 
> The earlier quote with Jon's comments indicates that it was a metered discussion, mostly emphasizing the strange hypocrisies, and not advocating any sort of extreme violence, just cautionary awareness of the strange social climate. But when we show balanced opinions, it's met with extremism, and we become drowned out. It's like, people have forgotten that the world isn't black and white, A and Z, etc.


People like putting others into baskets. If you don't agree with me, you're literally Hitler. It has progressed from "I won't listen to you because I don't like what you're saying" to "I don't like what you're saying, so I'll actively attempt to destroy your reputation and diminish your capacity to support yourself", and that's frightening to me. This particular case is relatively tame, but I see more and more cases like this surfacing and I don't like the trend one bit. It appears that unless you conform, people will cheer when you're being silenced, which is odd as it could happen to anyone. Society is really loading a gun that can be aimed at anyone, at any time, for any petty reason.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Mar 23, 2017)

Meteor7 said:


> So they liked his voice acting, but not after it turns out he has some unpleasant opinions. That's like firing your IT guy after you find out he likes Lucky Charms.



No it's like firing your IT guy because he says racist things on the internet that make your company look bad.


----------



## Bimmel (Mar 23, 2017)

Pluupy said:


> Playtonic is within their rights to withdraw the content made by someone they disagree with. I disagree with them affiliating Yooka Laylee with their political agenda, but I am not saying they can't do it. It is just distasteful for them to do so.
> 
> The people who Kickstarted Yooka Laylee weren't crowdfunding the game so the company would use to push political commentary. It's a fucking cartoon _video game_.
> 
> ...


Now you've done it. You will never be voice acting the kickstarted sequel! Would have loved to hear you barking.

Serious again: You are right, they got what the wanted. It's so easy to gain attention this way. Sadly. 
Personally I couldn't care less for the You Tuber or the company. The video game does not touch any "important" topics as far as I know, so this does not influence my choice of buying the game 1 bit.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Mar 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> _Playtonic is a studio that celebrates diversity in all forms and strives to make games that everyone can enjoy._


So they're politically correct cuckolds who think that only "good" people can make good art and only "bad" people can make bad art. Fuck 'em.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2017)

In the interest of journalistic integrity I've redacted a section of the original post so as to not sway public opinion - that part was my own take on the issue, so I feel that it belongs in a separate post. Here it is:


> On the other hand, as a strong supporter of Freedom of Speech and Expression, I can't exactly stand idly by when someone is being punished for their opinion, no matter how controversial it is. I can't speak for all of us gamers, but to me this basically means that I won't buy the game, and if I do for the sake of my better half, who happens to be a big Banjo fan, it'll be a pre-owned copy, so that the developers don't get a single penny from my purchase. I can't support this kind of conduct, even though I fully undestand the company's motivation. Playtonic is free to remove content from their own product, and I'm free to vote with my wallet and remove said product from my basket.





hobbledehoy899 said:


> So they're politically correct cuckolds who think that only "good" people can make good art and only "bad" people can make bad art. Fuck 'em.


People have a massive problem with separating the artist from their art. Roman Polansky comes to mind. He's an excellent director who also happens to be a paedophile. That doesn't make his movies bad, though - the art and the artist are separate entities.


----------



## Pluupy (Mar 23, 2017)

eechigoo said:


> woah now, JonTron controversy?
> 
> 
> What did he do?


Here you go, friend. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLo..._is_rjontron_freaking_out_about_a_debate_all/


----------



## Ridge (Mar 23, 2017)

HAHAHAH good. stay out.


----------



## Hells Malice (Mar 23, 2017)

A company looking out for its best interests?
Shocking.

Pretty much any company would have done this, and it's kind of hilarious to attribute him to reviving the interest of Banjo Kazooie. He sure didn't, pretty much every fan of the series has longed for a proper sequel for years. Yooka Laylee coming onto the scene revived the interest in Banjo Kazooie. Even if JonTron and Game Grumps are popular, they still aren't very far reaching and i'm sure a majority of fans interested in Yooka Laylee were without their help.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Mar 23, 2017)

What a stupid fucking reason to remove a voice actor. 

Oh well.


----------



## Pluupy (Mar 23, 2017)

Hells Malice said:


> A company looking out for its best interests?
> Shocking.
> 
> Pretty much any company would have done this, and it's kind of hilarious to attribute him to reviving the interest of Banjo Kazooie. He sure didn't, pretty much every fan of the series has longed for a proper sequel for years. Yooka Laylee coming onto the scene revived the interest in Banjo Kazooie. Even if JonTron and Game Grumps are popular, they still aren't very far reaching and i'm sure a majority of fans interested in Yooka Laylee were without their help.


How is this looking out for their best interest? By doing this, they've essentially involved themselves via the Streisand effect.

Playtonic has given it's player base a reason to not buy their product by denying Jontron of his freedom of speech in his personal life. There was no real reason to pull him out. He fulfilled his contractual agreement. No reason why Jontron has to enternally live up to Playtonic's standards for the rest of his life. 

How many people even knew Jontron was in Yooka Laylee before this shitstorm, anyway?

 If this was never brought up, people would still play the game as normal and not even realize it was Jon voicing a character until the credits.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 23, 2017)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> What a stupid fucking reason to remove a voice actor.
> 
> Oh well.



Yup, SJW white knights are gonna SJW/PC their way out of controversy all day long it seems =/

Political correctness can burn in hell. Fucking pantywaist reaction IMHO.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2017)

Hells Malice said:


> A company looking out for its best interests?
> Shocking.
> 
> Pretty much any company would have done this, and it's kind of hilarious to attribute him to reviving the interest of Banjo Kazooie. He sure didn't, pretty much every fan of the series has longed for a proper sequel for years. Yooka Laylee coming onto the scene revived the interest in Banjo Kazooie. Even if JonTron and Game Grumps are popular, they still aren't very far reaching and i'm sure a majority of fans interested in Yooka Laylee were without their help.


Both The Jontron Show and Game Grumps channels have over 3 million subscribers and they're actively introducing the next generation of gamers to retro games, I don't think it's an understatement to credit Jontron with partially reviving the interest in the series.

As for Jontron, he remains positive and expressed as much on his Twitter:



> "Unfortunate to see Playtonic remove me from Yooka Laylee, but I understand their decision.  I wish them the best with their launch!"
> 
> ~https://mobile.twitter.com/JonTronShow/status/845038284967493638


----------



## F4LK (Mar 23, 2017)

It sure is a stupid reason but people seriously need to chill. Not even Jon's salty about this. Refunding and/or telling them to cancel the game because of a few grunts is just stupid.
Just mod his ech sounds into the final game on PC and call it the Jontron Fix/Patch, done.


----------



## Hells Malice (Mar 23, 2017)

Pluupy said:


> How is this looking out for their best interest? By doing this, they've essentially involved themselves via the Streisand effect. How many people knew Jontron was in Yooka Laylee before this shit, seriously?
> 
> If this was never brought up, people would still play the game as normal and not even realize it was Jon voicing a character until the credits.



They're distancing themselves from a large icon of controversy.

Now they're dealing with a small amount of JonTron fans and indifferent people over the course of a few days before everyone forgets.
As opposed to potentially being targetted by fake news sites "Playtonic promotes hate, best friends with JonTron!"

Again, any big corporation would and has done moves like this. It's a very simple PR move they likely didn't even want to do, but were forced to by JonTrons new infamy.



Foxi4 said:


> Both The Jontron Show and Game Grumps channels have over 3 million subscribers and they're actively introducing the next generation of gamers to retro games, I don't think it's an understatement to credit Jontron with partially reviving the interest in the series.
> 
> As for Jontron, he remains positive and expressed as much on his Twitter:



Might wanna look at some statistics there m8.
3 million is tiny. I don't watch any of their videos but i'm assuming they hit 1 million views on a good day.
How many people in the world are there again?...

No, they introduce a relatively small sect of gamers to retro games, primarily their subscriber base. Sure he had a small part in garnering some interest, but the wave of support and love for Yooka Laylee would've happened regardless.

I realize you're probably a fan, but you're giving him far too much credit.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 23, 2017)

Hells Malice said:


> They're distancing themselves from a large icon of controversy.
> 
> Now they're dealing with a small amount of JonTron fans and indifferent people over the course of a few days before everyone forgets.
> As opposed to potentially being targetted by fake news sites "Playtonic promotes hate, best friends with JonTron!"
> ...



Well at the end of the day, people are gonna mod his voice clips in the game out of spite the controversy.


----------



## Hells Malice (Mar 23, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Well at the end of the day, people are gonna mod his voice clips in the game out of spite the controversy.



To be honest most people will probably have already forgotten about this before the game releases.
It's pretty minor news.


----------



## Pluupy (Mar 23, 2017)

Hells Malice said:


> They're distancing themselves from a large icon of controversy.
> 
> Now they're dealing with a small amount of JonTron fans and indifferent people over the course of a few days before everyone forgets.
> As opposed to potentially being targetted by fake news sites "Playtonic promotes hate, best friends with JonTron!"
> ...


DISTANCING? Google Playtonic right now. All you will ever find is news articles about how they threw Jon out. 

This has publicity stunt written all over it. Infamy my ass. They used "the popular youtuber" Jontron to get notoriety for their game in the first place and now they're double-stepping on him to get MORE attention. They are fucking _scum_. 

And you know what? I fucking love Jim Carrey movies. Bruce Almighty. Truman Show. Good shit. But you know what? I'm not gonna bash him because his ex convinced him to be anti-vax for a while. That has nothing to do with the movies. I am going to continue watching his movies because they good. 

Likewise, I won't stop playing Story of Seasons because the CG artist also makes hentai. 

You feel me?


----------



## Whole lotta love (Mar 23, 2017)

Hells Malice said:


> They're distancing themselves from a large icon of controversy.
> 
> Now they're dealing with a small amount of JonTron fans and indifferent people over the course of a few days before everyone forgets.
> As opposed to potentially being targetted by fake news sites "Playtonic promotes hate, best friends with JonTron!"
> ...




I would do this with my company too. 

It's not good to have people representing your company who speaks publicly about maintaining the racial purity of the country unless your target demographic is white supremacists (which the game clearly is not).

They'll lose a small amount of orders from the really ardent people, but if the game is good and people want it, it will have virtually no effect on their sales.


----------



## Hells Malice (Mar 23, 2017)

Pluupy said:


> DISTANCING? Google Playtonic right now. All you will ever find is news articles about how they threw Jon out.
> 
> This has publicity stunt written all over it. Infamy my ass. They used "the popular youtuber" Jontron to get notoriety for their game in the first place and now they're double-stepping on him to get MORE attention. They are fucking _scum_.
> 
> ...




We can go on and on in circles forever m8 but at the end of the day, they've done exactly what i've said for exactly why i've said it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2017)

Hells Malice said:


> Might wanna look at some statistics there m8. 3 million is tiny. I don't watch any of their videos but i'm assuming they hit 1 million views on a good day. How many people in the world are there again?... No, they introduce a relatively small sect of gamers to retro games, primarily their subscriber base. Sure he had a small part in garnering some interest, but the wave of support and love for Yooka Laylee would've happened regardless. I realize you're probably a fan, but you're giving him far too much credit.


I'll meet you half-way by saying that he actively promoted a dead IP among a very captive YouTube audience and leave it at that. There's a reason why companies are switching their marketing profile from hammering people with ads to engaging popular YouTubers. Subscribers are an engaged and active audience, people scrolling past an ad are not. The term "influencers" is often times used in this scenario - influencers are YouTubers who reached a high level of notoriety which enables them to actually influence public opinion - just their participation in the project carries certain weight. Those YouTubers are pulling ahead of average game review sites and are seen as more genuine, hence their inclusion is a highly effective marketing strategy.


----------



## Kevinpuerta (Mar 24, 2017)

What the hell. I never knew he was going to voice in it


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 24, 2017)

It's funny this whole thing, like, no one knew he was going to voice in the game, and now that it's know, WTF?


----------



## Pluupy (Mar 24, 2017)

Hells Malice said:


> We can go on and on in circles forever m8 but at the end of the day, they've done exactly what i've said for exactly why i've said it.


"Present as many valid arguments as you want but I will not acknowledge any holes in my stance because my ignorance is a blissful existence" is basically what you are saying.

And let's be real. You statement was just as much conjecture to their reasoning as to mine claiming it was a publicity stunt. At least acknowledge it was conjecture than parade it around like fact.

Tactlessness in debates like this is the reason why Jontron got into this mess in the first place. Jontron can chew the fat on Game Grumps and his channel but not in professional interviews.

And please  have some self respect. Don't come into an argument spewing shit as facts and then just digress, claiming your opinion is the absolute. Fuck off with your alt news please.


----------



## linuxares (Mar 24, 2017)

Is it me or is maybe something else behind this? Like Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft etc. went to Team17 and went "Oi! Lads! We can't sell this because person X is causing comotion. Fix it or you cannot sell your game on our platform!"


----------



## Whole lotta love (Mar 24, 2017)

linuxares said:


> Is it me or is maybe something else behind this? Like Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft etc. went to Team17 and went "Oi! Lads! We can't sell this because person X is causing comotion. Fix it or you cannot sell your game on our platform!"


What's your evidence for thinking that?


----------



## linuxares (Mar 24, 2017)

Whole lotta love said:


> What's your evidence for thinking that?


None? Just how business works today.


----------



## Pluupy (Mar 24, 2017)

linuxares said:


> Is it me or is maybe something else behind this? Like Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft etc. went to Team17 and went "Oi! Lads! We can't sell this because person X is causing comotion. Fix it or you cannot sell your game on our platform!"


...that's true. Yooka Laylee will be releasing on multiple platforms. The possibility the platform manufacturer would deny entry because of this event is plausible. I didn't even think of that. 

Your statement admittedly reminds me of the anime, Welcome to the NHK. The protagonist of that anime suffers from being a hikikomori and in his cabin fever believes the Japanese broadcasting company "NHK" is plotting against him. He believes NHK is behind most misfortunes in his life. Everything is a conspiracy.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Mar 24, 2017)

linuxares said:


> None? Just how business works today.


just curious if you knew something i didn't


----------



## linuxares (Mar 24, 2017)

Pluupy said:


> ...that's true. Yooka Laylee will be releasing on multiple platforms. The possibility the platform manufacturer would deny entry because of this event is plausible. I didn't even think of that.
> 
> Your statement admittedly reminds me of the anime, Welcome to the NHK. The protagonist of that anime suffers from being a hikikomori and in his cabin fever believes the Japanese broadcasting company "NHK" is plotting against him. He believes NHK is behind most misfortunes in his life. Everything is a conspiracy.


Not to get political but damn... that hits home with a lot of big political leaders today doesn't it?


----------



## Ericzander (Mar 24, 2017)

Let's make a comparison here. Let's say you are a manager at a big retail store and one of your employees says a bunch of rude things to a customer. Maybe he calls him a racial slur, maybe he calls him retarded, maybe he insults his mom, or maybe he was just very rude. 

Would you fire the employee? If not, then what do you do if the behavior continues? The first amendment protects your ability to say what you want but it does NOT say there won't be repercussions. Playtonic had every right to remove JonTron from the game. I wouldn't want someone with those views to represent my company either. I think JonTron is hilarious, both on GameGrumps and his own channel (especially the Starcade series) but like Platonic, and Arin before them, I would kick his ass to the curb if he was in any metaphoric project of mine.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

Ericzander said:


> Let's make a comparison here. Let's say you are a manager at a big retail store and one of your employees says a bunch of rude things to a customer. Maybe he calls him a racial slur, maybe he calls him retarded, maybe he insults his mom, or maybe he was just very rude.
> 
> Would you fire the employee? If not, then what do you do if the behavior continues? The first amendment protects your ability to say what you want but it does NOT say there won't be repercussions. Playtonic had every right to remove JonTron from the game. I wouldn't want someone with those views to represent my company either. I think JonTron is hilarious, both on GameGrumps and his own channel (especially the Starcade series) but like Platonic, and Arin before them, I would kick his ass to the curb if he was in any metaphoric project of mine.


If I insulted a customer during my work hours? Sure - I'm wearing the store's uniform, I literally represent the brand. If I insulted a random guy in the middle of the street, that's a whole different story - that's my private life, I don't owe it to my employer. They'd still have a right to fire me if my contract had such a specific stipulation, but it wouldn't make the whole affair any less idiotic. Jontron made the comments on his own platform, not Playtonic's, so your comparison is really reaching far, to the point of being non-applicable.


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Mar 24, 2017)

You're putting that employee in uniform in that situation. People have a private life, and he was in no way trying to have such opinions be associated with the business. O.o


----------



## Zense (Mar 24, 2017)

Now they just need to remove him from Kingdom Hearts cuz his levels have been getting on my nerves since Kingdom Hearts 2... /s

I find it more interesting comparing this to when Sega removed Micheal Jackson from Sonic 3's soundtrack because he got into the paedophilia mess around the same time. The difference was that MJ was only accused of something, whereas Jambjon openly said the stuff that made Playtonic do what they did. Sega did this stuff pretty much in silence which is very different from how Playtonic is handling it. Their different approach could just be a coincidence. There's no evidence for anything. The problem is that both of these are celebrities, that is public figures, and whatever they do publicly will be judged on them no matter if they're performing as Jontron or as the private person Jon Jafari (or whatever his real name is). People aren't capable of having you appear publicly as two different characters. They see the same face and therefore judge it as the same thing and person. That's how Jafari's opinions affect Jontron's reputation. It's sad but true.

It's hard to say that Yooka-Laylee is a bad game before anyone has played the full game yet, but people are right in saying that there is a possibility they're just trying to get easy money from knowing that people are nostalgic and easily throw their money on anything with 3D platformer written on it. I don't blame them for doing business though, since this is how they earn money. I would judge it differently if it was a project they worked on in the evenings after work as hobby. No one's evil for deciding on making a game cuz they see there's a market for it. In addition, it's in their best interest to make a good game for their reputation. I believe that is what we're seeing No Man's Sky devs do now after the arguably controversial launch their game had.

Also, who the hell wants to think about politics when playing this game, or let alone Banjo Kazooie? I just wanna collect stuff and listen to awesome cheerful music. Some of you guys have grown up to a point of no return, it seems, when you refuse to play a game based on the developers opinions and actions. Still, you have all the right to, I'm just saying how I disagree with you.


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Mar 24, 2017)

Isn't it worse to refuse to play a game because of the actions of a single contracted worker or even volunteer than to judge the developer?


----------



## aljpn91 (Mar 24, 2017)

i really don't know what they're trying to accomplish by telling everyone they're cutting ties with guy, if anything this will only hurt sales, because like foxi said, it's a really shitty move on their part and some people will not want to support them after hearing about this


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

TobiasAmaranth said:


> Isn't it worse to refuse to play a game because of the actions of a single contracted worker or even volunteer than to judge the developer?


As a customer I have the power and I get to choose which companies to support - how I make that estimation is within my own discretion. I disagree with the choice of the developers and the only punitive action available to me is not buying their product. The relationship between the company and the customer is two-sided - the company provides the customer with goods and services and in exchange the customer pays. If I disagree with the company's conduct, it makes absolute sense to boycott their product. It's a calculated choice between how much a customer wants the product versus how much the customer disagrees with a given business practice. I disagree with this practice, thus it would be hypocritical of me to give the company my custom - there are other games for me to play out there, not that I was terribly interested in the game in the first place.

*EDIT:* I may have misconstrued or misunderstood your post, who are you replying to?


----------



## Zense (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> No, it's not. As a customer I have the power and I get to choose which companies to support - how I make that estimation is within my own discretion. I disagree with the choice of the developers and the only punitive action available to me is not buying their product. The relationship between the company and the customer is two-sided - the company provides the customer with goods and services and in exchange the customer pays. If I disagree with the company's conduct, it makes absolute sense to boycott their product. It's a calculated choice between how much a customer wants the product versus how much the customer disagrees with a given business practice. I disagree with this practice, thus it would be hypocritical of me to give the company my custom - there are other games for me to play out there, not that I was terribly interested in the game in the first place.


I agree with you having the right to and that in your case it's the right choice. To delve further into this, by buying their game and essentially adding to the sales that make this company get bigger, you support and show that you allow other companies to follow their business model and form of conduct, creating a possibility of this behavior, which you don't agree with, becoming the norm or at least more normal in this business sector. It's your only way of physically expressing your opinion, and it's what you should do in this case.


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Mar 24, 2017)

I was replying to the post immediately above me. I just don't think it's fair to judge a company based on the irrelevant opinions of an employee that aren't being expressed in relation to said company. If a company chooses to make itself a social entity and tie their socio-political stances to their business, then that's one thing (a'la Chik'fil'a, which even then doesn't bother me), but if I say something opinionated in my own personal time, and I'm not working ~IN~ PR, and I'm not saying 'company I work for supports my opinion' or anything like that, and I'm not doing it while INSIDE their store... then fuck off. People can have a private life while still respecting a company they work for. *shrug*

This never should have had any link created between the two entities involved.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

TobiasAmaranth said:


> I was replying to the post immediately above me. I just don't think it's fair to judge a company based on the irrelevant opinions of an employee that aren't being expressed in relation to said company. If a company chooses to make itself a social entity and tie their socio-political stances to their business, then that's one thing (a'la Chik'fil'a, which even then doesn't bother me), but if I say something opinionated in my own personal time, and I'm not working ~IN~ PR, and I'm not saying 'company I work for supports my opinion' or anything like that, and I'm not doing it while INSIDE their store... then fuck off. People can have a private life while still respecting a company they work for. *shrug*


Spot on. Sorry, I always get things mixed up without embedded quotes, that's my bad.


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Mar 24, 2017)

NP. If I'm replying really quick to someone straight above me, I will generally leave them off.  Also, it's pronounced "My mistake." Don't embrace ghetto-speak.


----------



## Zense (Mar 24, 2017)

TobiasAmaranth said:


> I was replying to the post immediately above me. I just don't think it's fair to judge a company based on the irrelevant opinions of an employee that aren't being expressed in relation to said company. If a company chooses to make itself a social entity and tie their socio-political stances to their business, then that's one thing (a'la Chik'fil'a, which even then doesn't bother me), but if I say something opinionated in my own personal time, and I'm not working ~IN~ PR, and I'm not saying 'company I work for supports my opinion' or anything like that, and I'm not doing it while INSIDE their store... then fuck off. People can have a private life while still respecting a company they work for. *shrug*
> 
> This never should have had any link created between the two entities involved.


I completely agree with you, but sadly that's not how the world works, or maybe it's better to say humans (some of them at least).


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

GerbilSoft said:


> The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and the case which you mentioned is currently pending. But you already knew that.
> 
> Incidentally, where in that case did you see a "3 gendered transabled leather daddy who has to spank himself 5 times a day in front of the customers"? Are you hiding something?



I wasn't lawyering at you. I was speaking of ethics, I feel Jon Tron is entitled to the same legal protections against discrimination as any of the bullshit liberals advocate. Personally I favor none as freedom of thought and association should be absolute. However as long as liberals are going to impose mandatory inclusion I see no ethical reason Jon Tron can be discriminated against and fired.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

TobiasAmaranth said:


> Also, it's pronounced "My mistake." Don't embrace ghetto-speak.


ARE YOU INFRINGING UPON MY FREE SPEECH?! YAARGHT!


----------



## Zense (Mar 24, 2017)

TobiasAmaranth said:


> Isn't it worse to refuse to play a game because of the actions of a single contracted worker or even volunteer than to judge the developer?


For all I know the whole goddamn Playtonic dev team shares Jontron's opinions. The difference is that they didn't say them publicly in tweets or whatever. Their official statement could easily just be them lying and being politically correct.


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> ARE YOU INFRINGING UPON MY FREE SPEECH?! YAARGHT!



Hardly!  I'm advocating for value in intelligence and respect for the English language. Or R U a idjut? ;(


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

Zense said:


> For all I know the whole goddamn Playtonic dev team shares Jontron's opinions. The difference is that they didn't say them publicly in tweets or whatever. Their official statement could easily just be them lying and being politically correct.


To be fair, I also don't care what that opinion is - their job is to deliver a quality product, their views are of no interest to me. Now that they're dancing the tango however, it takes two to dance.


----------



## Zense (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> To be fair, I also don't care what that opinion is - their job is to deliver a quality product, their views are of no interest to me. Now that they're playing the tango however, it takes two to dance.


Yeah, it sucks when you get politics involved in gaming. I would have preferred these two things to stay separate, unless I'm consciously seeking out a politically themed game, which this game clearly isn't.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

TobiasAmaranth said:


> Hardly!  I'm advocating for value in intelligence and respect for the English language. Or R U a idjut? ;(


I'm not American, so the concept of ghetto-speak is alien to me. "My bad" is just a cutesy way of acknowledging that I made a mistake, at least where I live. Consider it a mea culpa, if you like your speech fancy.


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

No ones missing the nuance of free speech not entitling you to fire someone.

The problem is the laws currently in place not being equitable, with the thousand different "protected" victim classes most people cannot fathom an ethical argument that you can publicly discriminate and fire someone for having a protectionist stance when many of these white knighting company's which are publicly traded openly support the extreme depths of liberalism.

99% of the these liberals who are okay with this shit themselves over Citizens United and companies using their clout to promote their values when they are conservative.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 24, 2017)

chavosaur said:


> Once again, I feel the opposite on this. Couldn't every game ever be called a cash grab when their primary goal is to make money? Is creativity truly lost on recreating properties in a new fashion utilizing the same measures that created the original property so long ago? Is it that wrong or that terrible to cater to an audience that has been starved of content like this because of the constant AAA in your face open world spiral we have fallen down in the past couple of years? Yookalaylee is the most genuinely unique game to be coming out these recent months despite its familiarity to the property all of those devs worked on YEARS AGO.
> In the past 3 months, we have had 3 huge RPG's come out almost back to back. Horizon, Zelda, and Mass Effect. Nioh wasn't far off that trail either. Huge sprawling action RPG's with open world elements and hour long time sinks all hoping to gobble up your money based on buzz words of freedom and blah blah blah.
> What is wrong with Yookalaylee coming out as a streamlined 3d platformer that we never really see anymore? Is this desperation for revival, or giving people what they've been longing for that other companies, quite frankly, are never going to give them again?
> 
> Is it dead creativity, or revitalized creativity? They still made dozens of original characters, original music using real composers, and poured all of their resources and development into crafting a really pretty game. I just don't see it as a cash-grab. If i did, I could apply those words to every property that has ever come out in the past decade because it could apply in anyway that I spun it.


I also disagree with Foxi, and even if it was 100% original by his standards, they probably would have still kicked him off. Nor do I think a game or anything on kickstarter is automatically a cash grab or deserving of disdain. 



GerbilSoft said:


> "3 gendered transabled leather daddy who has to spank himself 5 times a day in front of the customers"? Are you hiding something?


I thought that seem oddly specific. 



guisadop said:


> Playtronic are fully in their right to remove him. That said, I probably won't be buying it now. Don't want to support bigotted companies.


They removed him due to apparently racist comments that he said. That makes them bigoted?

Aren't you not doing the same thing to them, that they did to Jon. You aren't planning to buy the game because of what they did and said. As in, you aren't being bigoted yourself? 


Foxi4 said:


> This actually reminds me of Blizzard's approach towards Overwatch and their never-ending campaign of trying to make it the ultimate PC PoC LGBTQ+ SJW #RESTOFTHEALPHABET game of all time. It started with Tracer's butt, which for some reason was controversial, and even then I was upset that they altered the product because of a couple snowflakes. The moment they realised that they had the eyes of the SJW community on them, more alterations, or "lore", as they call it followed suit. "Hey guys, did you know that Tracer is actually a lesbian?", "Hey! Did you know that Symmetra has autism?", "Are we diverse yet?" - it's shameless and disgusting, it reeks of blacksploitation from the 80's. People don't realise that their constant outrage was turned into a revenue stream. I just enjoyed the game because it was a good shooter, I don't need all this. In fact, it's making me like it less


Would it be shameless and disgusting if they didn't have or removed "PoC LGBTQ+ SJW #RESTOFTHEALPHABET" because "anti-sjws"?


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm not American, so the concept of ghetto-speak is alien to me. "My bad" is just a cutesy way of acknowledging that I made a mistake, at least where I live. Consider it a mea culpa, if you like your speech fancy.



LOL No worries, I'm just razzing you about a pet peeve of mine. I've seen the onset of 'my bad', and seen how it was latched onto by the range of people from blase-idgaf dismissive attitudes to the street-urchin-class ghetto-dwellers. I feel like it started its roots in ebonics as a subtly rude way to say sorry-not-sorry to people. So I always try to personally say 'my mistake' as it's a much more genuine way to apologize for small infractions and such.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

KingVamp said:


> I also disagree with Foxi, and even if it was 100% original by his standards, they probably would have still kicked him off. Nor do I think a game or anything on kickstarter is automatically a cash grab or deserving of disdain.


Last month I reviewed a Kickstarter game called Torment: Tides of Numenera, and I loved it. It had a similar theme of a tormented protagonist, but it didn't try to be literally the same game. Everything about it was new and unique, from the setting to the story and the gameplay mechanics. I don't think your accusation, if it is one, is justified.


> They removed him due to apparently racist comments that he said. That makes them bigoted?


Either you're accepting diversity or you're shunning those who have a different opinion - you can't do both simultaneously. Perhaps it's not bigoted, but it's definitely close-minded.


> Aren't you not doing the same thing to them, that they did to Jon. You aren't planning to buy the game because of what they did and said. As in, you aren't being bigoted yourself?


See my post above about the relationship between companies and customers. The only effective way to communicate discontent is by voting with your wallet, anything else amounts to hypocrisy.


> Would it be shameless and disgusting if they didn't have or removed "PoC LGBTQ+ SJW #RESTOFTHEALPHABET" because "anti-sjws"?


True diversity doesn't come on a big banner, it's not a big song and dance. I enjoyed the game for what it was and didn't give a shit about whether the characters were male, female, black or even machines and monkeys, I played them because they were fun and cool. By artificially and forcibly injecting a pseudo-narrative, you're spoiling that natural attachment. I didn't need to have my choices justified by a tearful circlejerk over diversity - it's all fake, it's pandering and it's making me sick. It's like a diversity seminar now, or a company programme that aims to reach an X% of employees of a given sex or race, or else the world will end, I guess. I thought Martin Luther King said specifically not to judge people by the colour of their skin, but the content of their character. Well, what are we doing now? We're judging them by the colour of their damned skin again, and for all the wrong reasons. "Please play as this new character, do notice that she's an ethnic minority which should be of interest to you because we're all for inclusiveness". Great, job well done, thanks, Blizzard! You really made a difference.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> This actually reminds me of Blizzard's approach towards Overwatch and their never-ending campaign of trying to make it the ultimate PC PoC LGBTQ+ SJW #RESTOFTHEALPHABET game of all time. It started with Tracer's butt, which for some reason was controversial, and even then I was upset that they altered the product because of a couple snowflakes. The moment they realised that they had the eyes of the SJW community on them, more alterations, or "lore", as they call it followed suit. "Hey guys, did you know that Tracer is actually a lesbian?", "Hey! Did you know that Symmetra has autism?", "Are we diverse yet?" - it's shameless and disgusting, it reeks of blacksploitation from the 80's. People don't realise that their constant outrage was turned into a revenue stream. I just enjoyed the game because it was a good shooter, I don't need all this. In fact, it's making me like it less



ughhhh yeah, i can't stand when companies try to _"diversify"_ _(...gross) _and put different people then me in MY vidja gamez, we're clearly the only kinds of people that should ever be catered to in this growing gobal industry


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

UltraHurricane said:


> ughhhh yeah, i can't stand when companies try to _"diversify"_ _(...gross) _and put different people then me in MY vidja gamez, we're clearly the only kinds of people that should ever be catered to in this growing gobal industry


See post above. The cast was great, I didn't need a justification hammered in for good measure. Diversity is subtle, not a trainwreck. If you want me to like your character, make it a fun, compelling character. I don't give a shit what colour it is, it could be purple for all I care, but if you make the colour of their skin, their sex or their orientation the cornerstone of their personality, what you're actually doing is stereotyping and creating a flat, two-dimensional character with only one defining trait. That's not diversity, that's Sesame Street, it's blackface for video games. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, really.


----------



## sblast3 (Mar 24, 2017)

People are taking this entire situation out of context. JonTron is not racist. He voted for Bernie in the primaries and voted for Obama twice. I've listened to his opinions about the election in a Psychicpebbles livestream after one of the debates, and I can tell he's fairly center-left like most people on the internet (I remember H3H3 joking in the twitch chat spamming JON IS A RACIST). It's a shame that Playtronic has to make this decision, but I understand why they need to from a business perspective. That destiny guy deserves no respect on the simple fact that he's DMCAing anyone on youtube who reuploads clips of the debate.

Watch the full debate yourself before making conclusions, don't trust recaps. Both of them said stupid things in the heat of the moment, who doesn't.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Mar 24, 2017)

sblast3 said:


> Watch the full debate yourself before making conclusions, don't trust recaps. Both of them said stupid things in the heat of the moment, who doesn't.



yeah, i mean who doesn't say that foreigners "dilute the gene pool" when they're angry amirite????


----------



## Pacheko17 (Mar 24, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> He is a very good comedian that makes a video game comedy series (and some other things lately), and happened to make some very unfortunate comments bordering white supremacy in the late days.
> I recommend you watch his channel, he has very good content, most of it somewhat old.



I don't see how he was white supremacist, I honestly don't understand that.

I think taking him off was pretty stupid, but the developers understand how things are nowadays, and they're not entirely wrong about it.
The fight against PC and for freedom of speech should continue, but while the enemy prevails, we have to be careful.


----------



## sblast3 (Mar 24, 2017)

UltraHurricane said:


> yeah, i mean who doesn't say that foreigners "dilute the gene pool" when they're angry amirite????


Can you give a time stamp? I really want to understand why people are angry.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Mar 24, 2017)

sblast3 said:


> Can you give a time stamp? I really want to understand why people are angry.



there's like a whole mess of it right there https://archive.fo/rxG1l

keep in mind, this was from his OWN subreddit right after the debate


----------



## sblast3 (Mar 24, 2017)

UltraHurricane said:


> there's like a whole mess of it right there https://archive.fo/rxG1l
> 
> keep in mind, this was from his OWN subreddit right after the debate


I don't see the "dilute the gene pool" comment, nor do I remember him saying said comment. Also, that lacks time stamps.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> On the other hand, one could argue that Jontron is free to voice his views on his own platform and shouldn't be penalised for them elsewhere.


This is never the case once you're in the public sphere and you've got endorsements or other ongoing contracts.  The expectation is always that your sponsorship(s) will be dropped when alienating a large portion of potential customers.  Your average citizen, OTOH, can say all the stupid/racist things he wants without any repercussion, except for perhaps sometimes inciting a physical fight.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 24, 2017)

If JonTron was smart, he would've waited till game release and then said his uh *ahem* views.  But I digress, that's not the issue here, it's all a big effing mess to be sure. Ugh.


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Mar 24, 2017)

Xzi said:


> This is never the case once you're in the public sphere and you've got endorsements or other ongoing contracts.  The expectation is always that your sponsorship(s) will be dropped when alienating a large portion of potential customers.  Your average citizen, OTOH, can say all the stupid/racist things he wants without any repercussion, except for perhaps sometimes inciting a physical fight.



The strange thing here is that it's not a 'contract' matter. It's a completed game going out of their way to replace a grunting voice actor for the sake of socio-political drama. Presumably the work was paid for, and this is just a modification of a game set to be released due to "cry-bully" drama. *shrug* All quite strange, to me...


----------



## osaka35 (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> This recent development in the Jontron controversy raises an important question regarding Free Speech. I can fully understand Playtonic's position - they're distancing themselves from Jontron in order to prevent any damage to their brand. On the other hand, one could argue that Jontron is free to voice his views on his own platform and shouldn't be penalised for them elsewhere.


Free speech means you can say what you like that isn't directly inciting violence. It doesn't mean you can say it with no consequences. If you say something about doing something illegal, expecting no consequences for that is a bit odd. Same for saying something dickish, and not expecting people to treat you like a dick.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2017)

TobiasAmaranth said:


> The strange thing here is that it's not a 'contract' matter. It's a completed game going out of their way to replace a grunting voice actor for the sake of socio-political drama. Presumably the work was paid for, and this is just a modification of a game set to be released due to "cry-bully" drama. *shrug* All quite strange, to me...


It's not at all strange.  Playtonic isn't the first or the last business to distance themselves from him, as businesses want nothing to do with you when your name is mud.  They only care about social and political issues insofar as it affects their bottom line.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Either you're accepting diversity or you're shunning those who have a different opinion - you can't do both simultaneously. Perhaps it's not bigoted, but it's definitely close-minded.



oh boy, my good buddy Karl Popper has a saying for that:
_
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them
_​There is a MAJOR difference between defending someone who just has "different opinions" to defending outright bigotry, and it pretty hypocritical to think people who spout racist misinformed garbage should take priority over them but that's just me
​


Foxi4 said:


> See post above. The cast was great, I didn't need a justification hammered in for good measure. Diversity is subtle, not a trainwreck. If you want me to like your character, make it a fun, compelling character. I don't give a shit what colour it is, it could be purple for all I care, but if you make the colour of their skin, their sex or their orientation the cornerstone of their personality, what you're actually doing is stereotyping and creating a flat, two-dimensional character with only one defining trait. That's not diversity, that's Sesame Street, it's blackface for video games. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, really.



if Overwatch does such a bad job at diversity then you'd hear waaaaaay more outrage from the people it's trying to please, trust me

and plus, it's kinda hard not to make diversity a thing when the basic premise is a international team of futuristic superheroes that come from all cultures they take pride in

all the things you complain about like Symmetra being autistic are extra-canonical info that you have to go out of your way to find, it almost never an aspect in the actual game, and if you're bothered by people being excited over that (probably people with autism/different races/different sexualities that like characters they can relate to) then that says more about you then how Blizzard handles diversity

but i could be wrong cause HOW DARE CHARACTERS IDENTIFY WITH THEIR CULTURE AND HERITAGE, GROSS.


----------



## grossaffe (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> The difference here is that said opinion would be within the product of a larger body, the company. Jontron didn't make his comments within Yooka-Laylee against Playtonic's will, he did it privately. Playtonic is policing what he can and can't say on his own private platform that's unrelated to the product, which makes a huge difference. They are allowed to do so as Jon's right to freedom of speech does not invalidate their right to freedom of association, once again, that's not the topic. We know they can do it, unless it violates the contract they signed with Jon, the question posed is whether they should.


It wasn't private, though; it was public.  When you are a public figure, public statements you make are going to have an affect on your professional life.  Or really anything related to your public image.  And let's face it, he was not signed onto the project because he was a voice-actor who auditioned for the part and got it.  He was on board the project because of his status as a public figure and the image he'd built.  Now that image is tarnished and they do not want that image associated with their product and it is completely understandable.  After the Bill Cosby rape scandals, you think TV networks were gonna keep showing reruns of The Cosby Show?

If this were professional voi


TobiasAmaranth said:


> I was replying to the post immediately above me. I just don't think it's fair to judge a company based on the irrelevant opinions of an employee that aren't being expressed in relation to said company. If a company chooses to make itself a social entity and tie their socio-political stances to their business, then that's one thing (a'la Chik'fil'a, which even then doesn't bother me), but if I say something opinionated in my own personal time, and I'm not working ~IN~ PR, and I'm not saying 'company I work for supports my opinion' or anything like that, and I'm not doing it while INSIDE their store... then fuck off. People can have a private life while still respecting a company they work for. *shrug*
> 
> This never should have had any link created between the two entities involved.


It's not a private life, though.  It's a public life.  Plus you are a nobody.  Nobody cares what you have to say on twitter or wherever.  If you were a somebody, then it would start to matter.  Jontron is a somebody.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

osaka35 said:


> Free speech means you can say what you like that isn't directly inciting violence. It doesn't mean you can say it with no consequences. If you say something about doing something illegal, expecting no consequences for that is a bit odd. Same for saying something dickish, and not expecting people to treat you like a dick.


I acknowledged that throughout the thread, that's not the topic.


UltraHurricane said:


> there's like a whole mess of it right there https://archive.fo/rxG1l
> 
> keep in mind, this was from his OWN subreddit right after the debate


Jontron must have a really hard time being a white supremacist, especially considering the fact that his father's an Iranian immigrant.

He clarified his statement several times over and isn't a white supremacist. In fact, he believes that the whole immigration discourse is too racialised which skews people's perception of statistical data.

https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/03/youtuber-jontron-tries-to-clarify-his-controversial-views-on-race/

Whether you find that racist or not is your business, I think he was pretty clear about what he meant to say the first time around, although his wording is admittedly clumsy. He's an entertainer, not a politician.


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Mar 24, 2017)

But they deserve to have some degree of SELF. Quit trying to objectify them as a non-human entity that isn't allowed a sense of self. Just be a mature person and separate your idolism from your personal beliefs.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Whether you find that racist or not is your business, I think he was pretty clear about what he meant to say the first time around, although his wording is admittedly clumsy. He's an entertainer, not a politician.



then he should do us all a favor and go back to making funny videos instead of pretending that he knows anything about socio-political issues, seriously he hasn't updated in forever besides some pointless vblogs


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2017)

TobiasAmaranth said:


> But they deserve to have some degree of SELF. Quit trying to objectify them as a non-human entity that isn't allowed a sense of self. Just be a mature person and separate your idolism from your personal beliefs.


He brought the consequences on himself.  If he had made this same statement around the dinner table with just two of his closest friends present, there would be no controversy.  Obviously it slipped past his own filter and he didn't run it by anyone else before making the statement publicly, so there was more than one failure here.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

UltraHurricane said:


> oh boy, my good buddy Karl Popper has a saying for that:
> _
> Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them
> _​There is a MAJOR difference between defending someone who just has "different opinions" to defending outright bigotry, and it pretty hypocritical to think people who spout racist misinformed garbage should take priority over them but that's just me
> ...


Overwatch has been criticised for being a bundle of stereotypes since before the game launched. I'm sorry to hear that you think diversity should be shoved into everyone's faces rather than achieved through natural societal progression. Blizzard's way of handling diversity is adding a puzzle piece for every colour of the rainbow and making sure that you're aware that's what they're doing. It's definitely pandering and it's exploiting those who actually support diversity.

As for your statement on tolerance, what you're basically saying is "I embrace diversity, unless you're different than me, in which case I'll kill you" which isn't diversity at all, it's thought police. True equality is achieved through dialogue - what you're doing is turning reality into a bizzare comic book with superheroes on your side and villains on the other. You reject the notion that both parties might have some cogent points to convey, and by doing so you're creating an echo chamber that affirms your pre-concieved notions. Good job, please continue surrounding yourself exclusively with people who agree with you so that your fragile ideas are never challenged.


----------



## osaka35 (Mar 24, 2017)

It sounds like he just watches a lot of fox news, and is parroting their poor concept of reality. I mean, I probably wouldn't want to work with douche thinking like that, either. I do hope he doesn't make a habit of being this big of a douche when he talks about games.



Foxi4 said:


> I'm sorry to hear that you think diversity should be shoved into everyone's faces rather than achieved through natural societal progression.



The problem is we tend to get all tribal and avoid diversity if we can. What we aren't familiar with, we won't embrace. So, we have to create bridges so everyone "gets it", before we'll create more natural bridges. Humans are weird like that.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Overwatch has been criticised for being a bundle of stereotypes since before the game launched. I'm sorry to hear that you think diversity should be shoved into everyone's faces rather than achieved through natural societal progression. Blizzard's way of handling diversity is adding a puzzle piece for every colour of the rainbow and making sure that you're aware that's what they're doing. It's definitely pandering and it's exploiting those who actually support diversity.


This is pretty confusing.  You want more diversity in games, but you want that to be achieved by limiting diversity in games?  IMO Overwatch does a great job of avoiding stereotypes, and it doesn't strictly adhere to real-world races, either (there are sentient robots and blue people).  Some of the characters might be pretty one-dimensional, but people mostly give Blizzard a pass on this because it's not a game that has a heavy focus on storytelling.

In any case, the solution to Overwatch's subjective flaws in diversity is not to say, "well fuck it, we tried diversity once and people complained, back to all whities for in-game characters," but rather to develop more games with diversity in which the characters are more fully fleshed out as individuals and not bound by their race/ethnicity.  The biggest barrier to achieving this I think is just an overall lack of quality writers in the gaming industry.  Obsidian is a notable exception, and Larian is mostly passable too.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

osaka35 said:


> The problem is we tend to get all tribal and avoid diversity if we can. What we aren't familiar with, we won't embrace. So, we have to create bridges so everyone "gets it", before we'll create more natural bridges. Humans are weird like that.


I acknowledge that, however I still maintain that Blizzard's approach is clumsy. They're trying to sell me on a black DJ with dreadlocks listening to dubstep as the cultural representation of Brazil, or a butch Russian lady, because y'know "Russians are stronk and like the vodka". That's a hammer bigger than Reinhardt's, but frankly, I was okay with the over-the-top representations until they started using them on political crusades. If they want to make a diverse cast, God bless them, but please don't rub that in people's faces like it's some kind of a badge of honour. Oh wow Blizzard, you did a decent thing, you deserve a trophy.


----------



## Saturosias (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> What you're describing is called fascism.


What you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with fascism. Fascism isn't a word you can liberally apply to whatever you don't like; fascism comprises socially conservative, populist, ultranationalist political movements, none of which characterize a company/person exercising its freedom of association by disassociating from someone due to their viewpoint. Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

Saturosias said:


> What you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with fascism. Fascism isn't a word you can liberally apply to whatever you don't like; fascism comprises socially conservative, populist, ultranationalist political movements, none of which characterize a company exercising its freedom of association by disassociating from someone due to their viewpoint.


Erasing everyone who doesn't think exactly like you is fascism, the word goes beyond the socio-political definition.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Overwatch has been criticised for being a bundle of stereotypes since before the game launched. I'm sorry to hear that you think diversity should be shoved into everyone's faces rather than achieved through natural societal progression. Blizzard's way of handling diversity is adding a puzzle piece for every colour of the rainbow and making sure that you're aware that's what they're doing. It's definitely pandering and it's exploiting those who actually support diversity.
> 
> As for your statement on tolerance, what you're basically saying is "I embrace diversity, unless you're different than me, in which case I'll kill you" which isn't diversity at all, it's thought police. True equality is achieved through dialogue - what you're doing is turning reality into a bizzare comic book with superheroes on your side and villains on the other. You reject the notion that both parties might have some cogent points to convey, and by doing so you're creating an echo chamber that affirms your pre-concieved notions. Good job, please continue surrounding yourself exclusively with people who agree with you so that your fragile ideas are never challenged.



if i did, i wouldn't be posting on this forum right now 

but real talk, i'm all for talking and discussing with people whose views aren't aligned with mine, but you have to draw the line at people who willfully believe in ideas grounded in dehumanizing other's and aren't keen on changing them anytime soon, these aren't impressionable toddlers, they're adults who should know better so excuse me if i have a really hard time feeling any sympathy for chucklefucks like Jon that get kicked out or fired for opening their big stupid mouths and never thinking about the consequences

but as for Overwatch and diversity, i know full well they're not perfect and even i have my issues with them but i'm genuinely confused by your statement of diversity being "achieved through natural societal progression" how is that going to be achieved? you do know that social progression is never painless and without controversy right?


----------



## Saturosias (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Erasing everyone who doesn't think exactly like you is fascism, the word goes beyond the socio-political definition.


That isn't fascism, that isn't what the poster said, that isn't what the company is doing, and the word does not have any widely accepted definition beyond the sociopolitical ones. You're attempting to co-opt the word in order to apply its negative connotations.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

Saturosias said:


> That isn't fascism, that isn't what the poster said, that isn't what the company is doing, and the word does not have any widely accepted definition beyond the sociopolitical ones. You're attempting to co-opt the word in order to apply its negative connotations.


Of course it is. The word itself is derived from an Italian name of a bundle of sticks, the implication being that an individual is weak, but a uniform collective is strong and cannot be broken. Penalising someone for a thought crime is fascistic in nature, there's no denying that. Fascist regimes subsist on destroying opposing ideas, that's how they operate. I also wasn't calling Playtonic fascists, follow the actual conversation, I was referring to a post claiming that the social justice mob should punish people for talking out of line.


----------



## Sliter (Mar 24, 2017)

is this a reason to remove him? i'm not a big fan or something but hey, his is two different things o_o


----------



## Saturosias (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Of course it is. The word itself is derived from an Italian name of a bundle of sticks,


You're already wrong right there: _fascio_ just means bundle/group, it has nothing to do with sticks. We're also not discussing _fascio_; fascism is *derived* from the word and has its own specific meaning, a sociopolitical one.


> Penalising something for a thought crime is fascistic in nature, there's no denying that.


Crimes are _by definition_ punishable by law. The company is not appealing to law; it is exercising its own freedom of association.


> Fascist regimes subsist on destroying opposing ideas, that's how they operate.


Any authoritarian regime operates that way, and authoritarianism does not necessitate fascism. Furthermore, neither the person you quoted nor the company is "destroying" ideas. It is their right to disassociate from those with whose ideas they disagree.


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Mar 24, 2017)

Emphasizing semantics above spirit of discussion. How unfortunate...


----------



## J-Machine (Mar 24, 2017)

Saturosias said:


> You're already wrong right there: _fascio_ just means bundle/group, it has nothing to do with sticks. We're also not discussing _fascio_; fascism is *derived* from the word and has its own specific meaning, a sociopolitical one.
> Crimes are _by definition_ punishable by law. The company is not appealing to law; it is exercising its own freedom of association.
> Any authoritarian regime operates that way, and authoritarianism does not necessitate fascism. Furthermore, neither the person you quoted nor the company is "destroying" ideas. It is their right to disassociate from those with whose ideas they disagree.


actually it had to do with a bundle of rods; made of wood. You could in theory call a stick a rod under the right circumstances...

As for the current meaning of facist... if it's context is as an insult, it can be used outside of the political spectrum. The word has adapted to mean more than it previously did (though in most cases it is used to describe an aspect of authoritarianism.) So Foxi is not wrong here


----------



## chartube12 (Mar 24, 2017)

I get what foxi means about overwatch. He means the diversity of characters should feel more natural. Instead they are based on outdated and old fashion stereotyping. That's variety not diversity. It's like saying you are not racist because you hate every race equally

*have not played overwatch myself. Just stating what i believe foxi means*


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 24, 2017)

hahaha that will teach idiot youtuberz not be be loud mouthed idiots!


----------



## Saturosias (Mar 24, 2017)

TobiasAmaranth said:


> Emphasizing semantics above spirit of discussion. How unfortunate...


A discussion that begins by incorrectly smearing someone and/or their ideas as "fascist" has little positive value as is. This thread is a cesspool of reactionaries who comprehend neither the concept nor the scope of free speech.



J-Machine said:


> As for the current meaning of facist... if it's context is as an insult, it can be used outside of the political spectrum. The word has adapted to mean more than it previously did (though in most cases it is used to describe an aspect of authoritarianism.) So Foxi is not wrong here


The word has been co-opted* as a smear*. It also isn't "an aspect of authoritarianism"; it's the other way around: authoritarianism is a defining characteristic of fascist movements.


----------



## VashTS (Mar 24, 2017)

they probably just pulled the janitor in and was like READ THIS NAOOOOWWW and just spliced it in lol


----------



## J-Machine (Mar 24, 2017)

Saturosias said:


> A discussion that begins by incorrectly smearing someone and/or their ideas as "fascist" has little positive value as is. This thread is a cesspool of reactionaries who comprehend neither the concept nor the scope of free speech.
> 
> The word has been co-opted* as a smear*. It also isn't "an aspect of authoritarianism"; it's the other way around: authoritarianism is a defining characteristic of fascist movements.


as I said. when used as an insult it has that connotation. whether it is apropos to the original definitions is pedantic and superfluous at this point as you are ignorantly dancing around semantics to keep up with your confirmation bias. As you can see; I have a perfectly cromulent vernacular that parrots my literacy as well. knowing words is fun and TOTALLY makes an opinion superior wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Deboog (Mar 24, 2017)

Shame on Playtonic. I even unsubscribed to Jontron over his debate.
But kicking him out of the voice cast doesn't just hurt Jon, it hurts everyone who plays the game.
One of the great things about America is the freedom of thought. In Germany it is illegal to be a Neo-Nazi, but in America we appreciate that even ridiculous extreme borderline evil views have to be tolerate because sometimes they are right. Go back 100 years and try to tell people interracial marriage is okay. You'd be called a devil worshiper.

EDIT: Not calling Jontron a Neo-Nazi. Just using an extreme example to explain that I mean literally EVERYONE should have the freedom of thought.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2017)

chartube12 said:


> Instead they are based on outdated and old fashion stereotyping.


On some of the characters I agree, such as an American cowboy and an Asian ninja, but these were characters included more than anything else because they're video game staples, not because they're meant to represent diversity.  The characters' personalities are what shine through more in terms of diversity.  If Blizzard was going to go full-on stereotypical, Junkrat would throw a boomerang, Tracer would be a dude with messed up teeth and a bowler hat, Hanzo would have super slanty eyes and a more typical fu man chu, etc and so forth.  In other words, character design would need to be a lot worse than it actually is in Overwatch.



Deboog said:


> One of the great things about America is the freedom of thought. In Germany it is illegal to be a Neo-Nazi, but in America we appreciate that even ridiculous extreme borderline evil views have to be tolerate because sometimes they are right.


What the actual fuck.  No.  Just no.  Extremism is the enemy of American culture and our rights.  The only reason we get freedom of speech at all is because we killed so many goddamn nazis.  Sick of people justifying anything in the name of tolerance, that's not the way it works.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 24, 2017)

Don't think Playtonic is necessarily wrong, but I do think it was a stupid decision. I understand companies do it all the time, but I don't think this was big enough nor was his role big enough to warrant such action. They could have just said "he doesn't represent us" and not used him from now on. That said, I think boycotting them for the decision is stupid too, especially since some wasn't planning to buy the game in the first place and dissed the game anyway. Jon himself, isn't even saying boycott the game. I understand the "principle of it all", but it just seem just as, for lack of a better word, petty as their decision. I doubt rather they let him stay in the game or kicking him out, is going much much of a difference in sells either way. 

Understand protecting yourself, but I don't like the idea of your private life affecting your job, unless it directly affects the job or cause harm to people. Would things be better if there was a law in place, to not fire people base on their unharmful private life or is that still too much?


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 24, 2017)

Thank god I can finally play Yooka Laylee now that one of the voice actors who has different opinions to me is finally removed.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Mar 24, 2017)

chartube12 said:


> I get what foxi means about overwatch. He means the diversity of characters should feel more natural. Instead they are based on outdated and old fashion stereotyping. That's variety not diversity. It's like saying you are not racist because you hate every race equally
> 
> *have not played overwatch myself. Just stating what i believe foxi means*



but what constitutes as "natural" thou? downplay their ethnicity to the point where they have no unique perspective or background? that's erasing their identity then being acknowledging of it, it may be in your face to you, but not to someone ecstatic to see representation of someone like them in a video game.

Yeah, There's a few questionable things with the character designs in Overwatch but there definitely isn't that "outdated and old fashion stereotyping" or otherwise there would be way more outrage and boycotts, and so far the only boycott of the game was people being butthurt over taking out a butt pose (ironic...)

It's silly to think that you're going to get it right the first time when trying to add diversity to something, and it's even sillier to think you should angry and spiteful with criticism and give up


----------



## Deboog (Mar 24, 2017)

Xzi said:


> What the actual fuck.  No.  Just no.  Extremism is the enemy of American culture and our rights.  The only reason we get freedom of speech at all is because we killed so many goddamn nazis.  Sick of people justifying anything in the name of tolerance, that's not the way it works.


Hm. Then on that note I think you should be thrown in jail because according to me your opinion is extremist and the enemy of American culture.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2017)

Deboog said:


> Hm. Then on that note I think you should be thrown in jail because according to me your opinion is extremist and the enemy of American culture.


You think the line isn't obvious, but it is.  Nazism by its very ideology means to take away the rights of (and likely kill) basically anyone not born of the proper race.  That would be nearly a majority of Americans at this point.  You preach nazism, and you preach war against American ideals and American lives, one in the same.  Despite that level of extremism, I'm not even suggesting one should be jailed for being a nazi or neo-nazi, just that one should probably not expect any tolerance for those views from others.


----------



## Gingerbread Crumb (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I acknowledged that throughout the thread, that's not the topic.
> Jontron must have a really hard time being a white supremacist, especially considering the fact that his father's an Iranian immigrant.
> 
> He clarified his statement several times over and isn't a white supremacist. In fact, he believes that the whole immigration discourse is too racialised which skews people's perception of statistical data.
> ...


This right here. I dont see how a bunch of you can still think he's racist. Maybe its just the age or the fact that most people dont really understand what he's trying to say.


----------



## Deboog (Mar 24, 2017)

Xzi said:


> You think the line isn't obvious, but it is.  Nazism by its very ideology means to take away the rights of (and likely kill) basically anyone not born of the proper race.  That would be nearly a majority of Americans at this point.  You preach nazism, and you preach war against American ideals and American lives, one in the same.  Despite that level of extremism, I'm not even suggesting one should be jailed for being a nazi or neo-nazi, just that one should probably not expect any tolerance for those views from others.


I see your point. I guess I don't blame Playtonic. After all I unsubbed to Jon because I was mad at what he said. I guess I just wish people with different political opinions worked together better in America. I am so sick of Congress being a gridlock.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2017)

Deboog said:


> I see your point. I guess I don't blame Playtonic. After all I unsubbed to Jon because I was mad at what he said. I guess I just wish people with different political opinions worked together better in America. I am so sick of Congress being a gridlock.


Most of the federal government is a fucking joke right now, congress has just been a joke for even longer.  Entirely too much money in politics, especially in campaigns, and I don't see Citizens' United being repealed any time soon.  Meanwhile, automation is creeping up on us to take away most of the jobs, and climate change is passing the point of no return, but of course nobody wants to address the most pressing and complicated issues head on.  To be fair of course, a foreign power is probably pulling the strings of the executive branch and that needs to be investigated, and there's a shitty (anti)healthcare bill that one side wants to push through, so plenty of distractions from the big issues to be had recently.  The political divide will likely just grow larger for some time.

In summary, the whole shithouse is going up in flames.  C'est la vie.


----------



## CLOUD9RED (Mar 24, 2017)

-


----------



## UltraHurricane (Mar 24, 2017)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> This right here. I dont see how a bunch of you can still think he's racist. Maybe its just the age or the fact that most people dont really understand what he's trying to say.



he can try to backpeddle and "clarify" his views all he wants, but he makes no attempts at an apology of any kind and it makes this video just come off as arrogant and spineless

he still very much holds these views, he's only shutting up for now because it's hurting his bottomline, it only shows to prove he has no real conviction in what he's saying, hench he's not just racist...

*he's a coward*


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

Fascism has nothing to do with the totalitarian attributes people assign to it, it's a soft form of communism.   It's a middle ground between capitalism/communism on the economic spectrum.  FDR openly praised fascism, as he was using the word correctly.  *Every* President of the modern era would qualify as a fascist on a litmus test.

Also as far as assigning ideology/language rejection of multiculturalism/globalism does not make someone a racist, there is nothing wrong wanting to live within a homogeneous group.

Demonizing those people as racists does not dissuade rejection of globalism, you're actually just expanding the base for racists and giving them common ground with people who have a perfectly reasonable viewpoint. You're not diminishing racism, your mainstreaming it again with your own hatred.


----------



## Saturosias (Mar 24, 2017)

J-Machine said:


> as I said. when used as an insult it has that connotation. whether it is apropos to the original definitions is pedantic and superfluous at this point as you are ignorantly dancing around semantics to keep up with your confirmation bias. As you can see; I have a perfectly cromulent vernacular that parrots my literacy as well. knowing words is fun and TOTALLY makes an opinion superior wouldn't you agree?


Connotations are _not_ different definitions, they're the feelings a word invokes, which I've _already pointed out_ is his purpose in using the smear. Knowing that someone calls another a fascist or a Nazi because of the connotations it carries doesn't make the usage of the word any less idiotic. If you're going to try to sound nuanced, know the garbage you're spouting. If you think any of the words I've used are particularly complicated, maybe your literacy _is_ in question.


----------



## froatsnook (Mar 24, 2017)

yodamerlin said:


> I think Freedom of Speech shouldn't protect you from the consequences of what you have said, it should just allow you to say it.



Really? If you just mean consequences other than going to jail or fines from government then what you said makes sense.


----------



## tech3475 (Mar 24, 2017)

I think one thing people forget is that we're on a privately run forum where saying certain things can and will get you banned.

Freedom of speech only goes so far in the real world before there may be consequences.

If I were to unsubscribe from his channel, Im still penalising him in some way....do I not have the right to unsubscribe or does that make me a fascist?


----------



## Whole lotta love (Mar 24, 2017)

Gingerbread Crumb said:


> This right here. I dont see how a bunch of you can still think he's racist. Maybe its just the age or the fact that most people dont really understand what he's trying to say.



His statements were quite clear in the original video.

Talking about the importance of a racially homogeneous society and then saying "oh you guys just didn't understand what I was saying" either makes him still a racist or an incredibly confused man.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Last month I reviewed a Kickstarter game called Torment: Tides of Numenera, and I loved it. It had a similar theme of a tormented protagonist, but it didn't try to be literally the same game. Everything about it was new and unique, from the setting to the story and the gameplay mechanics. I don't think your accusation, if it is one, is justified.


Nor are Playtonic trying to make literally the same game and even if they were, people like and buy remakes and ports all the time. For some reason, you hit Playtonic harder for doing the same thing. (When they not really doing so.) People want the game and they want to make it. I don't see the problem. It isn't like they are the only ones doing spiritual revivals. 



Foxi4 said:


> Either you're accepting diversity or you're shunning those who have a different opinion - you can't do both simultaneously. Perhaps it's not bigoted, but it's definitely close-minded.


Putting this specific moment aside. Should people really be tolerant or open-minded to intolerance? 




Foxi4 said:


> True diversity doesn't come on a big banner, it's not a big song and dance. I enjoyed the game for what it was and didn't give a shit about whether the characters were male, female, black or even machines and monkeys, I played them because they were fun and cool. By artificially and forcibly injecting a pseudo-narrative, you're spoiling that natural attachment. I didn't need to have my choices justified by a tearful circlejerk over diversity - it's all fake, it's pandering and it's making me sick. It's like a diversity seminar now, or a company programme that aims to reach an X% of employees of a given sex or race, or else the world will end, I guess. I thought Martin Luther King said specifically not to judge people by the colour of their skin, but the content of their character. Well, what are we doing now? We're judging them by the colour of their damned skin again, and for all the wrong reasons. "Please play as this new character, do notice that she's an ethnic minority which should be of interest to you because we're all for inclusiveness". Great, job well done, thanks, Blizzard! You really made a difference.


Why can't you enjoy the game as it is now? Why do you care now? Sounds like you just want to play the game and don't care how the characters are. Why are you so up in arms for something you don't care about? You do realizes that it is all fake, whether they are pandering or not? Why do you care that company is focusing on people you aren't normally or less represented? Enough fans like and want it. It is one thing to not care, but to be angry about it? Not like they are the only ones to touch on stereotype and archetypes. Like does Tracer being a lesbian or Symmetra having autism suddenly not make them fun and cool to play as?


----------



## Justinde75 (Mar 24, 2017)

"No people with fucking opinions in our Game!"


----------



## I_AM_L_FORCE (Mar 24, 2017)

Playtonic probably did more harm than good with this. Jon's fans were going to be a large chunk of the consumers, but thanks to Playtonic going SJWtard, they're going to lose all of Jon's fans.


----------



## De-Iracuse (Mar 24, 2017)

He said some really shitty things and the company wants to distance themselves from someone who said such stupid shit.

It's not rocket science. You act like an irredeemable prick, you get shafted like one. Freedom of speech ain't freedom from consequence.


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Mar 24, 2017)

The Kickstarter Comments page was a rather interesting read. Obviously, I ignored all comments that were "@Someone" because those are just people arguing blindly with each other, but what was interesting was how level-headed most of the replies asking for refunds were, especially compared to the replies supporting their decision. And also, many who wanted refunds even stated they didn't agree with the socio-political opinions, they felt betrayed that the company brought politics into their game and company.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 24, 2017)

The only thing I've taken from this thread is that the people who are glad that JonTron was removed are the same people who defend the Switch to the bitter end.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

KingVamp said:


> Nor are Playtonic trying to make literally the same game and even if they were, people like and buy remakes and ports all the time. For some reason, you hit Playtonic harder for doing the same thing. (When they not really doing so.) People want the game and they want to make it. I don't see the problem. It isn't like they are the only ones doing spiritual revivals.


Playtonic is making a reskin, there's no doubt in my mind that that's exactly what it is. Both games cash in on nostalgia, it's just that one is a completely original product that's good in and out of itself while the other rides on the former glory of the predecessor, and quite shamelessly at that. We've explored this extensively within this thread already.


> Putting this specific moment aside. Should people really be tolerant or open-minded to intolerance?


Yes, because they're people and they deserve the exact same protections as everybody else.


> Why can't you enjoy the game as it is now? Why do you care now? Sounds like you just want to play the game and don't care how the characters are. Why are you so up in arms for something you don't care about? You do realizes that it is all fake, whether they are pandering or not? Why do you care that company is focusing on people you aren't normally or less represented? Enough fans like and want it. It is one thing to not care, but to be angry about it? Not like they are the only ones to touch on stereotype and archetypes. Like does Tracer being a lesbian or Symmetra having autism suddenly not make them fun and cool to play as?


Your understanding of my argument is very surface-level, I suggest re-reading it. I'm okay with the characters, I'm not okay with the constant policy of appeasement and the fake "every colour of the rainbow" shtick because I see it for what it is - a shameless attempt at cashing in on the SJW trend. They're not just making a diverse cast - we get that in almost every single video game nowadays. They're making a huge song and dance about it, that's what's bothering me. It's not enough that Symmetra is an ethnic minority, she must also has autism. It's not enough that Tracer is an independent woman and poster girl for the game, she must necessarily be a lesbian. I'm unironically waiting for them to announce that the Russian chick is transgender - it really wouldn't shock me.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

Saturosias said:


> You're already wrong right there: _fascio_ just means bundle/group, it has nothing to do with sticks. We're also not discussing _fascio_; fascism is *derived* from the word and has its own specific meaning, a sociopolitical one.


I have 5 years of linguistics under my belt so this is hardly a fair fight, but your intensifying efforts to make a complete ass of yourself in public are beginning to annoy me. I assume that the term "colloquial use" is alien to you, so let me introduce you to my good friend the Oxford dictionary:



> fascist, noun
> 
> 1. An advocate or follower of the political philosophy or system of fascism.
> 
> ...


Proposing that society should seek out and punish people for their words (not actions) is authoritarian behaviour that's fascistic and domineering by definition. If you would like to argue that the term was "co-opted", I suggest taking it up with Oxford, not me, you dictionary fascist.

I specifically mentioned the origin of the word to better explain the qualities it encompasses. It appears that this attempt flew over your head, as most things seem to do.


> The Italian term fascismo is derived from fascio meaning a bundle of Rods, ultimately from the Latin word fasces. This was the name given to political organizations in Italy known as fasci, groups similar to guilds or syndicates and at first applied mainly to organisations on the political Left. In 1919, Benito Mussolini founded the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento in Milan, which became the Partito Nazionale Fascista (National Fascist Party) two years later. The Fascists came to associate the term with the ancient Roman fasces or fascio littorio—a bundle of rods tied around an axe, an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrate carried by his lictors, which could be used for corporal and capital punishment at his command.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism



I present to you Fig.1, a bundle of sticks tied around an axe:

￼

I'm calling them sticks because they're made of wood, unless you have reason to suspect that Romans used steel or bronze handles and rods. I'm sure your archaeological skills are on par with your ability to use a dictionary.



Fig.2, the flag of the National Fascist Party, unsurprisingly featuring a bundle of sticks. Next.


> Crimes are _by definition_ punishable by law. The company is not appealing to law; it is exercising its own freedom of association.



Once again your ignorance is showing through your argument. I was sure that Orwell's "1984" was still a required reading, but apparently some people missed that one in school. It most certainly should be, it's a great read. You should try reading, it's good for you. I'll let Wikipedia take it over from here:


> A thoughtcrime is an Orwellian neologism used to describe an illegal thought. The term has also been used to describe some theological concepts such as disbelief or idolatry, or a rejection of strong philosophical or social principles. The term was popularized in the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, wherein thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question the ruling party. In the book, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects.
> 
> ~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime


In case you're wondering, today the term is used in reference to penalising people for their opinions or "thoughts", if you will, because of their controversial or offensive nature. They're not actual crimes, it's a figure of speech. Don't worry, you're not the first nor last person neglected by the education system. It's okay, you can come back once you've finished your reading assignment.


> Any authoritarian regime operates that way, and authoritarianism does not necessitate fascism. Furthermore, neither the person you quoted nor the company is "destroying" ideas. It is their right to disassociate from those with whose ideas they disagree.


I have never denied them their agency to do so, I stressed this many times throughout the thread. You would know that if you read it, but as you've proven time and again, reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits. They're in full creative control over their product and nobody wants to infringe upon their rights. I simply disagree with their decision, I'm free to have an opinion. You're fighting a strawman you've built yourself. Before you ask, it's a metaphorical straw man, not an actual man made out of straw. Would you like me to explain that as well? I'll post it pre-emptively:


> A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.
> 
> ~https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


Don't worry, there is still hope for you. You can still save face if you cease and desist. I am kind and quick to forget minor infractions.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Mar 24, 2017)

Nice read, with very descriptive pictures and all. You sure put some effort in that.
Nice read, and I mean it, no sarcasm intended. (it is easy to misunderstand so I make it clear)


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> Nice read, with very descriptive pictures and all. You sure put some effort in that.
> Nice read, and I mean it, no sarcasm intended. (it is easy to misunderstand so I make it clear)


This is the first time I had to explain what a stick is and use not one, but two attachments to show evidence that it is in fact an elongated piece of wood. I don't know how I should feel about that.


----------



## B-Blue (Mar 24, 2017)

Who fucking cares just give me the game already


----------



## PkPizza (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Proposing that society should seek out and punish people for their words (not actions) is authoritarian behaviour that's fascistic and domineering by definition. If you would like to argue that the term was "co-opted", I suggest taking it up with Oxford, not me, you dictionary fascist.


As many other people had said int this thread, a private company not wanting to associate themselves with a racist != fascism.


Foxi4 said:


> I have 5 years of linguistics under my belt so this is hardly a fair fight, but your intensifying efforts to make a complete ass of yourself in public are beginning to annoy me. I assume that the term "colloquial use" is alien to you, so let me introduce you to my good friend the Oxford dictionary





Foxi4 said:


> Don't worry, there is still hope for you. You can still save face if you cease and desist. I am kind and quick to forget minor infractions.


Ok, now you're just being condescending to the guy. You're the only one making a fool of himself here by ignoring all the arguments both him and other people have posted in this thread, repeating yourself and just outright being pedantic.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

PkPizza said:


> As many other people had said int this thread, a private company not wanting to associate themselves with a racist != fascism.


You also don't seem to follow the conversation. This whole mess started with a post saying that such punitive action is not only justified, but deserved, to which I replied that this kind of behaviour is called fascism. It's completely unrelated to the main subject at hand.


> Ok, now you're just being condescending to the guy. You're the only one making a fool of himself here by ignoring all the arguments both him and other people have posted in this thread and just repeating yourself.


Purposefully so, as he was condescending to me. It's tit for tat. I wasn't particularly interested in continuing this discussion as it's unrelated to the topic, it was him who insisted that we should discuss the definition of fascism for some reason, as if everyone involved was 5 and unfamiliar with the term. That's what's condescending, and I don't have to take it on the chin.


----------



## eworm (Mar 24, 2017)

I've _come_ to this thread because I like JonTron's content and actually agree with the guy on his views...

(He basically says white people want to remain the majority in a country where the majority rules - it's not "wrong" or "racist", it's obvious self-preservation)

...but I _stayed_ for Foxi4's posts. That's a fellow Pole I can get behind. Not 100% behind, but about 85% behind, which is still a lot in Internet discussion terms.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

eworm said:


> I've _come_ to this thread because I like JonTron's content and actually agree with the guy on his views...
> 
> (He basically says white people want to remain the majority in a country where the majority rules - it's not "wrong" or "racist", it's obvious self-preservation)
> 
> ...but I _stayed_ for Foxi4's posts. That's a fellow Pole I can get behind. Not 100% behind, but about 85% behind, which is still a lot in Internet discussion terms.


You're too kind. As a side note, I love when people try to explain to me what fascism is. Our country was under Nazi occupation, we've got a bit of experience in the subject. We know it when we see it.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Mar 24, 2017)

I've read some of the stuff he apparently said and didn't see anything that was truly offensive. It's not like he said " Those fags and niggers are ruining this country" like I see a lot of hillbillies spouting around here. 

Edit: by "around here" I mean in the US.


----------



## LoganK93 (Mar 24, 2017)

Why is this guys voice such a major selling point for so many people?


----------



## LuxerWap (Mar 24, 2017)

I don't fully know the guy, but I have seen him on Game Grumps and one episode of his show.

But what I do know is that he has fans and you know it's not gonna be pretty with Playtonic.

But removing him because they disagreed to his tweet is really questionable.


----------



## LoganK93 (Mar 24, 2017)

LuxerWap said:


> I don't fully know the guy, but I have seen him on Game Grumps and one episode of his show.
> 
> But what I do know is that he has fans and you know it's not gonna be pretty with Playtonic.
> 
> But removing him because they disagreed to his tweet is really questionable.



I see it the same as say, working for McDonalds. If you post something to your social media account that can make the company look bad while employed by them, if anything on your page, be it you in uniform or something saying or doing something that doesn't fit the "corporate image" you can be fired. The general public sees employees as representative of companies as a whole. How often do you hear people get angry at individual workers? Not often. Usually the entire corporation gets lumped together. 

Now I understand Playtonics decision, seeing as they are a VERY new company, they can't afford to piss that many people off. It could mean a lack of sales and no interest from many members of the gaming community, as well as other companies.


----------



## LuxerWap (Mar 24, 2017)

Now, people are being overly dramatic about it.

"They removed Jon?! I'M NOT BUYING THIS GAME!!!" "Bring back JonTron!"

Really? Because of that?

But seriously, what did he say? I'm trying to search through his tweets.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Mar 24, 2017)

Meteor7 said:


> So they liked his voice acting, but not after it turns out he has some unpleasant opinions. That's like firing your IT guy after you find out he likes Lucky Charms.


Nope. That's like firing your IT guy after finding out he started a scandal. The company obviously wants to avoid the drama that could happen from the said PC people if he had been kept in the cast.


----------



## Elrinth (Mar 24, 2017)

Youtube better remove all his videos to avoid a scandal... Also the bankers should remove him as a customer to avoid a scandal. Also his mom should denounce him being her son to avoid a scandal. Also he should just vanish from existence to avoid a scandal.

O wait... It's not that big of a deal.

Personally a message to say they don't share his opinions would have been enough. But going the way to remove him from the game wasn't so smart of them.


----------



## Nollog (Mar 24, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Nope. That's lmike firing your IT guy after finding out he started a scandal. The company obviously wants to avoid the drama that could happen from the said PC people if he had been kept in the cast.



Do sjw's actually buy games though?


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Mar 24, 2017)

Nollog said:


> Do sjw's actually buy games though?


^
I don't know what an 'SJW' is.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> It's not enough that Symmetra is an ethnic minority, she must also has autism. It's not enough that Tracer is an independent woman and poster girl for the game, she must necessarily be a lesbian. I'm unironically waiting for them to announce that the Russian chick is transgender - it really wouldn't shock me.



so what? you think only white people can be autistic or transgender now?

if it's done right and makes for interesting characters why the fuck should that bother you? you keep saying you're ok with diversity but you're so hostile by the very idea of a poc character being autistic or transgender (these people do exist btw) that i have a hard time believing you do

seriously, what the fuck is acceptable diversity to you? cause i honestly don't feel like your criteria is something that would be satisfying or even acceptable to people that aren't like you



Foxi4 said:


> Putting this specific moment aside. Should people really be tolerant or open-minded to intolerance?
> 
> Yes, because they're people and they deserve the exact same protections as everybody else.



of course they do, but you only think we should be accepting of intolerant people cause likely *you're never been the target of said intolerance*, if we really want to treat them fairly, they should not be absolved of criticism if the ideas they project are bigoted and harmful, if they're gonna be brazen enough say that, they should nut up and take all the shit that comes their way

do i need to bring up the Karl Popper quote again? i feel like you just ignored it


----------



## Nollog (Mar 24, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> ^
> I don't know what an 'SJW' is.


But you change my sjw to SJW?

How strange.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Mar 24, 2017)

Nollog said:


> But you change my sjw to SJW?
> 
> How strange.



What? I don't understand what you are talking about, seriously...


----------



## sarkwalvein (Mar 24, 2017)

Nollog said:


> But you change my sjw to SJW?
> 
> How strange.


LOL... well perhaps he really doesn't know what is a Social Justice Warrior.
Benefit of the doubt.


----------



## LoganK93 (Mar 24, 2017)

Elrinth said:


> Youtube better remove all his videos to avoid a scandal... Also the bankers should remove him as a customer to avoid a scandal. Also his mom should denounce him being her son to avoid a scandal. Also he should just vanish from existence to avoid a scandal.
> 
> O wait... It's not that big of a deal.
> 
> Personally a message to say they don't share his opinions would have been enough. But going the way to remove him from the game wasn't so smart of them.


YouTube is a public forum, for the most part. He is not an employee of YouTube. He is not representing YouTube. His voice being in this game was a partnership. The owners of the company have every right to decide they don't want someone like that representing them.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Mar 24, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> LOL... well perhaps he really doesn't know what is a Social Justice Warrior.
> Benefit of the doubt.


Thank you. So yeah, SJWs semm to ressemble syndicalists & communists we have in France. I hate these people. Really.


----------



## MaskedMarvel (Mar 24, 2017)

Am I the only one who doesn't give anything even remotely resembling a shit about "youtubers"?


----------



## Windowlicker (Mar 24, 2017)

Political correctness can go fuck itself. I am not a racist, but I can see where all races are wrong in different aspects(including whites, they are far from perfect). And I can see how illegal immigration can harm a country's economy. When SJWs take over, remember Jon's words and you'll think he was right. I don't think some have the slightest idea of the true definition of racism and discrimination.


----------



## eworm (Mar 24, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> LOL... well perhaps he really doesn't know what is a Social Justice Warrior.
> Benefit of the doubt.


Dear Diary,
Today I have learned a new Internet term.
I also found that it's weirdly unbelievable for many people that I could NOT know it.



UltraHurricane said:


> but you only think we should be accepting of intolerant people cause likely *you're never been the target of said intolerance*


Don't make assumptions.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Mar 24, 2017)

eworm said:


> Don't make assumptions.



gosh golly! sorry for putting two-and-two together and assuming that people who think bigotry is acceptable are people that have probably never experienced it first-hand, or have witnessed it but lack the empathy to understand the effects it has others and why it's a problem that still persists in today's society


----------



## Haloman800 (Mar 24, 2017)

Liberals can't refute his arguments, so they resort to name calling "racist! Xenophobe!" 

I hope people realize how crooked this is for the developers to cut Jontron out after he helped get it funded, and that these potential customers support them accordingly.


----------



## AlanWeird (Mar 24, 2017)

As I expected. "SJW. Butthurt. Freedom of speech". All the predictable keyboard-warriorness of GBATemp. 

Jafari, pewdiepie et al need to be knocked off their pedestal, as its not a matter of freedom of speech. Its outright hate. People that believe the things they do need to visit Auschwitz. See, feel and know what the Nazis really did. They need education, not the adulation and condoning of their "fans".

Makes it all the worse when its trans, gays and furries who stand up for them. You lot think its alright when you're turned on, en masse? 

Playtonic did the sensible thing. Jafari had a good network of friends and contacts, and he's burned all of that now.


----------



## rickwj324 (Mar 24, 2017)

LoganK93 said:


> Why is this guys voice such a major selling point for so many people?



I honestly had no idea who this guy was, never heard of him nor did I know he was voicing a character in this game.  Had they not brought attention to it I never would've known.  I don't know what he said to offend, but I fail to see how it has anything to do with his performance on the game.  Seems silly to me.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Mar 24, 2017)

AlanWeird said:


> As I expected. "SJW. Butthurt. Freedom of speech". All the predictable keyboard-warriorness of GBATemp.
> 
> Jafari, pewdiepie et al need to be knocked off their pedestal, as its not a matter of freedom of speech. Its outright hate. People that believe the things they do need to visit Auschwitz. See, feel and know what the Nazis really did. They need education, not the adulation and condoning of their "fans".
> 
> ...


I still find compelling the effectiveness of the fake news campaing from WSJ.
Really, people don't read beyond titles and don't do their own research.
I don't know if I feel disappointed or just puzzled.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

UltraHurricane said:


> so what? you think only white people can be autistic or transgender now?
> 
> if it's done right and makes for interesting characters why the fuck should that bother you? you keep saying you're ok with diversity but you're so hostile by the very idea of a poc character being autistic or transgender (these people do exist btw) that i have a hard time believing you do
> 
> seriously, what the fuck is acceptable diversity to you? cause i honestly don't feel like your criteria is something that would be satisfying or even acceptable to people that aren't like you


This isn't a thread about Overwatch, you would do it a great service if you stopped circling back to it. That, and I've made myself painfully clear - I mean diversity that comes about naturally and isn't an attempt at appeasing a mob of social justice by inventing and serving stereotypes. We have a word for that, it's "token characters". That's as descriptive as it gets, there's plenty of games out there that do it well without the characters being walking representations of the singular trait they're supposed to represent. I was fine with the cast until its "diversity soup" was spoon-fed to me in the form of "lore" - I didn't need it hammered in. As you've probably noticed, I don't particularly like being treated like a child.


> of course they do, but you only think we should be accepting of intolerant people cause likely *you're never been the target of said intolerance*, if we really want to treat them fairly, they should not be absolved of criticism if the ideas they project are bigoted and harmful, if they're gonna be brazen enough say that, they should nut up and take all the shit that comes their way
> 
> do i need to bring up the Karl Popper quote again? i feel like you just ignored it


Once again, "I am tolerant towards everybody, unless they're different, in which case I'll kill them". You appealing to someone else's authority is not helping your case, we're all individuals equal under the law. You don't get to pick and choose who gets protected and who doesn't. I never said that stances you find offensive to your sensibilities shouldn't be challenged, however - on the contrary, you're more than welcome to engage in dialogue with just about anyone in a civil society. Y'know, dialogue. That's when you exchange ideas instead of surrounding someone with torches and pitchforks because you don't like the things they're saying. Any less would open the doors to massive social _injustices_, as I could find what _you're_ saying offensive and go after _your_ livelihood. It is generally not wise to load a gun that can be very easily aimed at yourself. If you value freedom of speech, expression, association etc., if you promote free and independent thought, then you must necessarily encompass everyone within the scope of said rights and accept the fact that no matter what you do, not everyone will agree with you 100% of the time. The only way to actual freedom is to accept that notion as a given, and I think deep down we all know it to be true.


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

LoganK93 said:


> Why is this guys voice such a major selling point for so many people?



It's not that it was a "_major selling point_" it's people dislike someone being discriminated against and publicly fired for having a perfectly reasonable viewpoint.

They want to make a public spectacle of not supporting someone for rejecting Globalism? Fine many people who feel the opposite will make a public spectacle of not buying their POS *SJW-Platform*er. The response to using a disenfranchisement is to disenfranchise in-kind. Fuck them and I hope it becomes so politically tinged (Since they chose that route) that no one will touch it including Nintendo.

Buying Yooka-laylee means you support terrorism, communism and mandatory gender re-assignment surgery for toddlers. You probably have blue hair and myopia that requires obnoxious hipster glasses. Playing Yooka-layelee means you Snap your fingers and/or use Jazz-hands instead of clapping to avoid triggering feminist.

And why the fuck is the protagonist doing the ISIS Salute? I am telling my 3 employees if they buy this POS or caught playing it I will fire them.

Buying Yooka-laylee means you deserve to be fired.


----------



## eworm (Mar 24, 2017)

AlanWeird said:


> Jafari, pewdiepie et al need to be knocked off their pedestal, as its not a matter of freedom of speech. Its outright hate. People that believe the things they do need to visit Auschwitz. See, feel and know what the Nazis really did. They need education, not the adulation and condoning of their "fans".


I agree with most of JonTron's views on the matter and I'm a Pole. I live in a city _with a concentration camp in it_, now a museum doing exactly the kind of education you call for. Believe me, I _know_ what Nazis did - and it was not "preserving own cultural heritage by limiting immigration to reasonable levels", which is what JonTron wants. And don't tell me race and culture is completely different, because those are very much tied together. Not the same, absolutely not, but related.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Mar 24, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> It's not that it was a "_major selling point_" it's people dislike someone being discriminated against and publicly fired for having a perfectly reasonable viewpoint.
> 
> They want to make a public spectacle of not supporting someone for rejecting Globalism? Fine many people who feel the opposite will make a public spectacle of not buying their POS *SJW-Platform*er. The response to using a disenfranchisement is to disenfranchise in-kind.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I am really against the decision from Playtonic and I don't have much of an interest for the game.
But anyway I am calling your post utter and complet bullshit.
It doesn't even make sense.
Are you longing so much to be taken as a clown and lose respect from your peers?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> Sorry, I am really against the decision from Playtonic and I don't have much of an interest for the game.
> But anyway I am calling your post utter and complet bullshit.
> It doesn't even make sense.
> Are you longing so much to be taken as a clown and lose respect from your peers?


I found it quite humorous. He's proposing an absurd scenario to satirise and mock the subject, and I'm okay with that. Frankly, I don't even know why Playtonic funded 9/11, they had nothing to gain from it. I think they just wanted to see the world burn.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Once again, "I am tolerant towards everybody, unless they're different, in which case I'll kill them". You appealing to someone else's authority is not helping your case, we're all individuals equal under the law. You don't get to pick and choose who gets protected and who doesn't. I never said that stances you find offensive to your sensibilities shouldn't be challenged, however - on the contrary, you're more than welcome to engage in dialogue with just about anyone in a civil society. Y'know, dialogue. That's when you exchange arguments instead of surrounding someone with torches and pitchforks because you don't like the things they're saying. Any less would open the doors to massive social _injustices_, as I could find what _you're_ saying offensive and go after _your_ livelihood. It us generally not wise to load a gun that can be very easily aimed at yourself.



you're forgetting one thing thou

i never *once* said that i wanted to physically harm anyone one i disagreed with

and i'm not really wishing any harm come to people like Jontron, but when anything actually does happen to them i shouldn't be faulted for not wanting to muster up any respect or sympathy for them for spouting ideals meant to dehumanize others with very harmful endgoals, so pardon my phrasing... _but they're asking for it_


----------



## Greymane (Mar 24, 2017)

whether you like it or not, no matter if it is fair or not, actions have consequences.


----------



## RemixDeluxe (Mar 24, 2017)

Just reading this story at a glance I laughed and could care less that some youtube celebrity was removed from the game.

However after reading the full story I believe it was wrong for Playtonic to have removed Jon from the game. This doesn't violate the first amendment but I believe this also doesn't violate whatever contract was set in place between Jon and Playtonic. The most painful part of this is knowing how much of a fan Jon is of the old Rare, he must of really be crestfallen over this.

I've backed the kickstarter since the very first day of it's campaign and if it weren't the case I'd pirate it. It's not censorship but this is just as bad if it was.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

UltraHurricane said:


> you're forgetting one thing thou
> 
> i never *once* said that i wanted to physically harm anyone one i disagreed with
> 
> and i'm not really wishing any harm come to people like Jontron, but when anything actually does happen to them i shouldn't be faulted for not wanting to muster up any respect or sympathy for them for spouting ideals meant to dehumanize others with very harmful endgoals, so pardon my phrasing... _but they're asking for it_


Well, if you wished harm upon them that would just make you a brute, I specifically mentioned a civil society to establish that we're all civil. Whether someone is "asking for it" or not is pretty inconsequential. It brings the recent "Punch a Nazi" shitstorm to mind, when people genuinely cheered when a man was physically assaulted, and not once, but twice, and in broad daylight. The fact that he's a terrible person aside, he shouldn't be assaulted because we don't like what he has to say and we shouldn't celebrate our descent into barbarism. If his ideology is truly flimsy then fight it on the ideological battlefield, not with your fists. To quote Winston Churchill, "the fascists of the future will be the anti-fascists".


----------



## UltraHurricane (Mar 24, 2017)

eworm said:


> Believe me, I _know_ what Nazis did - and it was not "preserving own cultural heritage by limiting immigration to reasonable levels", which is what JonTron wants. And don't tell me race and culture is completely different, because those are very much tied together. Not the same, absolutely not, but related.



then you do know that all that talk of "Germany first" and "preserving own cultural heritage" was a means of gaining support and getting people on their side right? all that nationalistic fluff had an end goal ya know


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

UltraHurricane said:


> then you do know that all that talk of "Germany first" and "preserving own cultural heritage" was a means of gaining support and getting people on their side right? all that nationalistic fluff had an end goal ya know



That's about as stupid as saying we can't drive because Hitler pioneered freeways and the volkswagen.

Wanting to live in a homogeneous society is not racism.
Rejecting Multiculturalism is not racism.

But keep calling everyone Nazi's and eventually they will say, "You win" as they shove you to a oven.


----------



## eworm (Mar 24, 2017)

UltraHurricane said:


> then you do know that all that talk of "Germany first" and "preserving own cultural heritage" was a means of gaining support and getting people on their side right? all that nationalistic fluff had an end goal ya know


You're right, JonTron is clearly doing all of this to eventually lead people on a killing spree against Mexicans. It's so obvious!

Look, I get being wary about "goals" behind people's actions, but you're getting ridiculous. This is a guy stating his opinion. When JonTron reviews a game and claims it sucks, do you suspect he wants to run the company behind the game to the ground, wishing all game designers behind it a painful death? Or do you suspect he wants to encourage good game design decisions instead of bad ones?

Handing a poor man cash just may lead to him buying a gun and shooting a bunch of people. Does that mean helping poor people is evil? Every decision can potentially have horrible consequences - that doesn't mean we should make no decisions about anything and not discuss doing anything, ever.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Mar 24, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> That's about as stupid as saying we can't drive because Hitler pioneered freeways and the volkswagen.
> 
> Wanting to live in a homogeneous society is not racism.
> Rejecting Multiculturalism is not racism.
> ...



why is multiculturalism bad thou?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

eworm said:


> You're right, JonTron is clearly doing all of this to eventually lead people on a killing spree against Mexicans. It's so obvious!
> 
> Look, I get being wary about "goals" behind people's actions, but you're getting ridiculous. This is a guy stating his opinion. When JonTron reviews a game and claims it sucks, do you suspect he wants to run the company behind the game to the ground, wishing all game designers behind it a painful death? Or do you suspect he wants to encourage good game design decisions instead of bad ones?
> 
> Handing a poor man cash just may lead to him buying a gun and shooting a bunch of people. Does that mean helping poor people is evil? Every decision can potentially have horrible consequences - that doesn't mean we should make no decisions about anything and not discuss doing anything, ever.


Nazi is the new Commie, that's just the way it is. Society has invented a new bogeyman because it's safer than ever and feels the collective need to mobilise against a common enemy. In the past it was the Soviets and the Red Scare, yesterday it was terrorists, tomorrow it'll be somebody new. It's just the wheels of history turning, you can't stop that.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Mar 24, 2017)

he has all the freedom of speech in the world, but the moment he's working with, for or around others, his speech also effects them and they have any right to move away from him.

this has been a thing in public for decades, pretty much forever.

you know you can get fired from your job if you keep spouting stuff your employer doesn't agree with, right? 

this here isn't petty, its consequential. and jon only has himself to blame for it.



jimbo13 said:


> That's about as stupid as saying we can't drive because Hitler pioneered freeways and the volkswagen.
> 
> Wanting to live in a homogeneous society is not racism.
> Rejecting Multiculturalism is not racism.
> ...



maybe not on its own, on its own, its just wishful thinking and ignoring actual reality.
because heterogenous society is already there. as is multiculturalism. at least in any relevant western country.
but if you want a homogenous society and no multiculturalism and if you actually want actions taken to make those reality, you're pretty much asking for a final solution. in addition to being racist, they are also too stupid to think two steps further. to what their wishes entail and require to happen.


----------



## GerbilSoft (Mar 24, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> Buying Yooka-laylee means you support terrorism, communism and mandatory gender re-assignment surgery for toddlers. You probably have blue hair and myopia that requires obnoxious hipster glasses. Playing Yooka-layelee means you Snap your fingers and/or use Jazz-hands instead of clapping to avoid triggering feminist.


Found 03bgood's alternate account. :V


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> he has all the freedom of speech in the world, but the moment he's working with, for or around others, his speech also effects them and they have any right to move away from him.
> 
> this has been a thing in public for decades, pretty much forever.
> 
> ...


What you're doing is called a Slippery Slope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Wishing to preserve tradition, customs and national identity does not necessarily lead to the holocaust - that's a slippery slope.

The U.S. existed for centuries with migrants from all around the world coming to America in search of a more prosperous life, assimilating with the population and making it richer. What conservatives want to avoid is creating pockets of non-assimilated migrants establishing small proxy states where they recreate the conditions of their country of origin instead of adapting to "The American Way", which is something we can observe today. The social contract of immigration assumes that the immigrant will adjust to the customs of the host country, it's how it's always been. If immigrants are creating cliques and enclaves, that's the system failing to work. If the host embraces you, you must in turn make an effort to embrace the host.


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

bugged post


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> you know you can get fired from your job if you keep spouting stuff your employer doesn't agree with, right?
> 
> this here isn't petty, its consequential. and jon only has himself to blame for it.
> 
> ...



Modern mass immigration is a product of intentional policy and can be stymied with reversal of those policies, which are only 40 years old. Quit assigning the furthest extremes to basic beliefs that people should acclimate and immigration should be regulated to avoid influxes of people who are hostile to your countries citizens and values.

And this is not simple someone was fired because they had socially unacceptable beliefs, this is McCarthy era hollywood style blacklisting of any who rejects mandatory celebration of globalism or wants basic regulations on immigration.


----------



## yuyuyup (Mar 24, 2017)

TobiasAmaranth said:


> LOL No worries, I'm just razzing you about a pet peeve of mine. I've seen the onset of 'my bad', and seen how it was latched onto by the range of people from blase-idgaf dismissive attitudes to the street-urchin-class ghetto-dwellers. I feel like it started its roots in ebonics as a subtly rude way to say sorry-not-sorry to people. So I always try to personally say 'my mistake' as it's a much more genuine way to apologize for small infractions and such.


Dude get therapy, you invented such "sorry-not-sorry" connotations with your own imagination.  Holy crap such racial paranoia, I am very embarrassed for you


----------



## flame1234 (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I said it when the campaign was announced, long before the Jontron controversy, and I'll say it again - Yooka-Laylee seems like a total cashgrab to me. The developers are desperately clinging to their former glory and instead of making a brand-new, original game they're making a pretend sequel to a game they no longer have the rights to that's basically bordering on copyright infringement by replicating everything they can including the font and replacing the protagonists so they don't get sued. That's all they can do at this point because the flame of their creativity is long since dead. They're removing Jontron because he can damage the brand, and the brand is all they have left. Yooka-Laylee, like many other games of its kind, is an elaborate attempt to cash in on your nostalgia and squeeze the last bit of money out of your wallet. I know it because I fall for it too. Some companies do this well, like inExile, others fail miserably. This is not original content, this is desperation. It's C.P.R administered to a cold corpse of an IP.


It's new IP. A new brand the developers created. Removing JonTron won't stop damage to the brand, either.

Also, reviewing the game before it's out. Wait for reviews; give the game a chance. It's OK to say it's shaping up to be bad if you actually played it, but your statements aren't based on the game itself, unless you're commenting on something like character design.

That said, I always recommend not backing games that have met their funding goals. For games that have not yet met their funding goals, you should think twice. And never preorder - wait for reviews.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> What you're doing is called a Slippery Slope.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
> 
> ...



and what is this called? false flagging? smoke screening?
'they may say one thing thats highly suggestive and can be taking negatively in 99% of the cases but what they're really meaning is that 1% case where its just about tradition and stuff'
preserving tradition, customs and national identity does not clash with multiculturalism or heterogenity either.
wanting minorities out out of a weird fear of becoming part of a non-migrant minority one day is not preserving tradition or national identity.

literally multiculturalism and heterogenity is engraved into post-native american america
not to mention all those pockets recreating countries of origin are also the norm. thats how america started. and thats how its still today in many regards

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

i also love how people are 'this is gonna damage their brand' when only overgrown manchildren and maybe the youngest, most impressionable teens out there actually care about jontrons inclusion in the thing at all. this isn't going to hurt them in any way. for the 4 people who are petty enough to not buy the game based on this, there will be 4 people who really don't care about games much that will now buy it instead.


----------



## eworm (Mar 24, 2017)

UltraHurricane said:


> why is multiculturalism bad thou?


What ties a nation is culture. When there are actually several separate cultures in a country, we have a broken nation - many groups of people whose interests collide instead of being overall about the nation's best interest. It's natural to care about one's or one's group's well-being first and foremost, but the very goal behind forming a nation of people is to have big interests that people in it _share_.

Now, if by multiculturalism you don't actually mean multiple cultures, but a single culture that's a mish-mash of many various cultural influences from around the world, that's a different story. That's basically what every culture is already, in fact, especially in America. However, *the problem is a lot of people nowadays think multiculturalism is a goal in and of itself* and a goal we should all actively and irresponsibly strive towards - it's not. Why should it be? Why should we abandon some of our roots and the meaning behind them and replace them with something from elsewhere that we share no deeper connection with? If we're bored with our ancestry, our holidays, our cultural heritage, our shared, deeply rooted values - the problem aren't those things, but the boredom itself. Bringing stuff from elsewhere just because it's new and different won't change the fact that we're getting shallow about our values.


----------



## AlanWeird (Mar 24, 2017)

eworm said:


> I agree with most of JonTron's views on the matter and I'm a Pole. I live in a city _with a concentration camp in it_, now a museum doing exactly the kind of education you call for. Believe me, I _know_ what Nazis did - and it was not "preserving own cultural heritage by limiting immigration to reasonable levels", which is what JonTron wants. And don't tell me race and culture is completely different, because those are very much tied together. Not the same, absolutely not, but related.



If you're white and christian, there is absolutely ZERO threat to your cultural heritage. Our religious celebrations are front and centre all year round. Supermarkets are filled months in advance with celebrations of easter and christmas. Our achievements and history are always the ones most discussed, celebrated and studied. Yet some of you feel your entire way of life is in danger.

Get a grip.


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> i also love how people are 'this is gonna damage their brand' when only overgrown manchildren and maybe the youngest, most impressionable teens out there actually care about jontrons inclusion in the thing at all. this isn't going to hurt them in any way. for the 4 people who are petty enough to not buy the game based on this, there will be 4 people who really don't care about games much that will now buy it instead.



I don't care about Jon Trons inclusion, I've never watched his vids I don't videos of other people playing unless it is FGC tournaments. I do care about Hollywood style blacklisting of anyone right of far left open border immigration and wont buy or support this *SJW-Platform*er.



AlanWeird said:


> If you're white and christian, there is absolutely ZERO threat to your cultural heritage. Our religious celebrations are front and centre all year round. Supermarkets are filled months in advance with celebrations of easter and christmas. Our achievements and history are always the ones most discussed, celebrated and studied. Yet some of you feel your entire way of life is in danger.
> 
> Get a grip.




Pretty sure in those liberal ethnic studies classes that you don't speak for other groups or tell them what there problem is, your failing at your SJWing.

Go tell that to people in Sweden who have to sit through PSA's telling them to wear hijabs to avoid rape.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, if you wished harm upon them that would just make you a brute, I specifically mentioned a civil society to establish that we're all civil. Whether someone is "asking for it" or not is pretty inconsequential. It brings the recent "Punch a Nazi" shitstorm to mind, when people genuinely cheered when a man was physically assaulted, and not once, but twice. The fact that he's a terrible person aside, he shouldn't be assaulted in broad daylight and we shouldn't celebrate our descent into barbarism. If his ideology is truly flimsy then fight it on the ideological battlefield, not with your fists. To quote Winston Churchill, "the Fascists of the future will be the anti- fascists".



but i never said i did so stop assuming i do, and also stop assuming that every radical ideology can always be talked down in a debate, if that where the case we wouldn't have had WWII, The Cold War, or The War on Terror and i don't say that with any enjoyment or glee for violence but it's a sad fact we have to face, to quote Hitler himself

_"Only one thing could have stopped our movement - if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement."_​or ACTUAL holocaust survivor Frank Frison_:_

_"If fascism could be defeated in debate, I assure you that it would never have happened, neither in Germany, nor in Italy, nor anywhere"_​
they don't care how flimsy their ideology might be, it's a means to a end, they're not looking to change their ways but to prove how they're right by any means which is why it's pointless to try to "talk them down" when they have no intention of listening to other's perspective

also funny you should quote Churchill for humanist advice, considering he once wanted to gun down the working class in the streets for striking


----------



## Clydefrosch (Mar 24, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> Modern mass immigration is a product of intentional policy and can be stymied with reversal of those policies, which are only 40 years old. Quit assigning the furthest extremes to basic beliefs that people should acclimate and immigration should be regulated to avoid influxes of people who are hostile to your countries citizens and values.
> 
> And this is not simple someone was fired because they had socially unacceptable beliefs, this is McCarthy era hollywood style blacklisting of any who rejects mandatory celebration of globalism or wants basic regulations on immigration.



but we're still talking about the migration thats been at a net negative for i don't know, like since 2010?
the other mass migration is a result of constant destabilization of countries in the middle east.

and no, this is playtonics freedom to choose with whom they associate themselves, their brand and their product. the same way jontron can chose to disassociate with followers and companies etc etc


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

flame1234 said:


> It's new IP. A new brand the developers created. Removing JonTron won't stop damage to the brand, either.
> 
> Also, reviewing the game before it's out. Wait for reviews; give the game a chance. It's OK to say it's shaping up to be bad if you actually played it, but your statements aren't based on the game itself, unless you're commenting on something like character design.
> 
> That said, I always recommend not backing games that have met their funding goals. For games that have not yet met their funding goals, you should think twice. And never preorder - wait for reviews.


I already said that for all I know the game might turn out to be excellent and final judgement needs to be reserved for when the game comes out, but judging by the material available to me as of right now all I'm seeing is a desperate attempt at rekindling the fire of nostalgia, except with a new coat of paint for legal reasons.


UltraHurricane said:


> but i never said i did so stop assuming i do, and also stop assuming that every radical ideology can always be talked down in a debate, if that where the case we wouldn't have had WWII, The Cold War, or The War on Terror and i don't say that with any enjoyment or glee for violence but it's a sad fact we have to face, to quote Hitler himself
> 
> _"Only one thing could have stopped our movement - if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement."_​or ACTUAL holocaust survivor Frank Frison_:_
> 
> ...


I never assumed anything, I was stating a hypothetical. I find it even more amusing that you'd bring up the Cold War in your argument, considering the fact that it was called "Cold" for a reason. There was no epic battle between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, America simply "outspent" it into bankruptcy via the arms and space races.

As for Churchill, I'm not a fan myself - he sold my country to the Soviets as a part of the same appeasement policy that didn't work against Hitler's expansion before, however I acknowledge a cogent point when I see one.

Your biggest mistake however is assuming that the result of dialogue is supposed to be the opposition changing their mind. If you walk into a debate with the presumption that your opponent will necessarily change their mind, you'll get flustered and you'll lose, as they often dig their heels in. That's not necessarily the goal, the goal might also be to expose an ideology's internal inconsistencies, which is often times enough to expose it as bogus and limit the influx of new followers. Debates are often held for the audience's benefit, not the parties involved.


----------



## GerbilSoft (Mar 24, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> Pretty sure in those liberal ethnic studies classes that you don't speak for other groups or tell them what there problem is, your failing at your SJWing.


The lady doth protest too much, methinks.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Mar 24, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> Go tell that to people in Sweden who have to sit through PSA's telling them to wear hijabs to avoid rape.


where in the world did you get that?

you mean the stickers placed around one town that are so clearly over the top, they can't be anything but a false flag attack?
it couldn't have been more obvious if they had written 'this was placed by a muslim' below them.
it doesn't work when my younger brother tried to blame a ruined white wall on his even younger brother, it doesn't work today

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> I already said that for all I know the game might turn out to be excellent and final judgement needs to be reserved for when the game comes out, but judging by the material available to me as of right now all I'm seeing is a desperate attempt at rekindling the fire of nostalgia, except with a new coat of paint for legal reasons.


well duh, that was exactly the one thing they were aiming for when they made it. and its exactly the reason why people backed them.
they didn't want new, they didn't want straying from the path, the wanted another banjo kazooie with the same lazy collectathon, no car building gimmics etc and thats whats going to be delivered. and the backers will eat it up while everyone else, who moved on from the lazy early years of 3d jump and runs will feel kinda bored. as they should be.


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> and no, this is playtonics freedom to choose with whom they associate themselves, their brand and their product. the same way jontron can chose to disassociate with followers and companies etc etc



I am glad your supporting freedom of association, lets see how much you believe it when someone applies it to someone who liberals deem a "protected class" because I am guessing the only time freedom of association matters to you is when it falls within your sensibilities.

But this is not the narrow issue of Playtronics/Jon Tron, this is PewdiePie and the whole of tech that profit of H1B1 visa's engaging in Hollywood style McCarthy era black listing of anyone right of far left open border globalism.



Clydefrosch said:


> where in the world did you get that?
> 
> you mean the stickers placed around one town that are so clearly over the top, they can't be anything but a false flag attack?
> it couldn't have been more obvious if they had written 'this was placed by a muslim' below them.
> it doesn't work when my younger brother tried to blame a ruined white wall on his even younger brother, it doesn't work today



No I mean the actual UN funded PSAs in germany, or the wrist bands police think will stop rapists or any of the other thousand public statements from Merkel, other politicians, videos that go well beyond the scope of a post on forums.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Mar 24, 2017)

eworm said:


> What ties a nation is culture. When there are actually several separate cultures in a country, we have a broken nation - many groups of people whose interests collide instead of being overall about the nation's best interest. It's natural to care about one's or one's group's well-being first and foremost, but the very goal behind forming a nation of people is to have big interests that people in it _share_.
> 
> Now, if by multiculturalism you don't actually mean multiple cultures, but a single culture that's a mish-mash of many various cultural influences from around the world, that's a different story. That's basically what every culture is already, in fact, especially in America. However, *the problem is a lot of people nowadays think multiculturalism is a goal in and of itself* and a goal we should all actively and irresponsibly strive towards - it's not. Why should it be? Why should we abandon some of our roots and the meaning behind them and replace them with something from elsewhere that we share no deeper connection with? If we're bored with our ancestry, our holidays, our cultural heritage, our shared, deeply rooted values - the problem aren't those things, but the boredom itself. Bringing stuff from elsewhere just because it's new and different won't change the fact that we're getting shallow about our values.



the funny thing about culture is that it's always changing, and it's silly to think it can and should be stopped or that we need to backpedal social progress to a supposed "golden age" like people in america wishing we could go back to the 50's but don't realize how boring, restrictive and racist it was

whether you like it or not, multiculturalism IS happening but nothing is really being erased, and i can't think of any example of that ever happening to the dominate culture that didn't involve bloody genocide


----------



## eworm (Mar 24, 2017)

UltraHurricane said:


> the funny thing about culture is that it's always changing, and it's silly to think it can and should be stopped or that we need to backpedal social progress to a supposed "golden age"


Of course it's always changing, that's exactly my point - let it change naturally and gradually as it always does and will inevitably do. Don't change it forcefully and however you damn well please. It's not a goal.



AlanWeird said:


> If you're white and christian, there is absolutely ZERO threat to your cultural heritage. Our religious celebrations are front and centre all year round. Supermarkets are filled months in advance with celebrations of easter and christmas. Our achievements and history are always the ones most discussed, celebrated and studied. Yet some of you feel your entire way of life is in danger.
> 
> Get a grip.


If by Christmas you mean "Coca-Cola Santa Claus holiday" and by Easter you mean "that bunny and eggs day", then yes, our heritage sure is doing fine.


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

UltraHurricane said:


> the funny thing about culture is that it's always changing, and it's silly to think it can and should be stopped or that we need to backpedal social progress to a supposed "golden age" like people in america wishing we could go back to the 50's but don't realize how boring, restrictive and racist it was
> 
> whether you like it or not, multiculturalism IS happening but nothing is really being erased, and i can't think of any example of that ever happening to the dominate culture that didn't involve bloody genocide



You seem to be mistaking organic cultural changes with targeted policies, deliberate social engineering and intentional demographic targeting for disenfranchisement.

One is people moving because jobs are available, welcomed, acclimating naturally as a community has the capacity and desire to accept people. The other is politicians and corporations loading hundreds of thousands people on to boats, bus's and planes like we seen China do in Tibet because they wanted to get rid of Buddhists who them deemed a nuisance.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Mar 24, 2017)

eworm said:


> Of course it's always changing, that's exactly my point - let it change naturally and gradually as it always does and will inevitably do. Don't change it forcefully and however you damn well please. It's not a goal.



but culture is a thing perpetuated by humans? how else does it change??

why do you think that cultural change is and should always be painless and quiet?


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

UltraHurricane said:


> but culture is a thing perpetuated by humans? how else does it change??
> 
> why do you think that cultural change is and should always be painless and quiet?



So you admit it's a painful disenfranchising policy, yet still are calling people racist for their objections.


----------



## AlanWeird (Mar 24, 2017)

eworm said:


> Of course it's always changing, that's exactly my point - let it change naturally and gradually as it always does and will inevitably do. Don't change it forcefully and however you damn well please. It's not a goal.
> 
> 
> If by Christmas you mean "Coca-Cola Santa Claus holiday" and by Easter you mean "that bunny and eggs day", then yes, our heritage sure is doing fine.



And whose fault is that????

Our bloody own. Your arguments hold no water. 

I roll my eyes hard at the PC crowd. I roll them harder at the fundamentalist nutcases who cite a few pathetic points to further their ideals of a white-cleansed country to live in. Grow up and get yourself out into the world and see the inherent good in people of all colours and creeds. Defending any form of negativity or evil makes you just that. A dull little parasitic shitstain on humanity. I'm done here.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Mar 24, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> So you admit it's a painful disenfranchising policy, yet still are calling people racist for their objections.



wait...

so i'm racist for saying cultural progress is painful?

hmmm... yeah, i'm just gonna reply with this image


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

UltraHurricane said:


> wait...
> so i'm racist for saying cultural progress is painful?



No one called you racist, I cited _YOU_ insuating people are racist xenophobes for objecting to having their tax dollars used to subsidize socially engineered demographic disenfranchisement with transport, housing and welfare while pretending loading people on to government provided bus's is a natural cultural occurrence.

There is *nothing* unintentional or organic about the current open border invasions.

An apt euphemism would be someone complaining of being wet, while you drone on about the rain being a natural occurrence failing to notice in fact it is someone dumping a bucket of water on their head.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I never assumed anything, I was stating a hypothetical. I find it even more amusing that you'd bring up the Cold War is your argument, considering the fact that it was called "Cold" for a reason. There was no epic battle between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, America simply "outspended" it into bankruptcy via the arms and space races.



you didn't make it clear thou, you had a long diatribe as if i advocated violence on people that disagreed with me instead of making actual rebuttals on anything else i said, which you're doing now by correcting me on the Cold War (with did have smaller conflicts and a body count btw)

i'm starting to get the feeling you're derailing the discussion so that you won't have to admit your wrong about something


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

UltraHurricane said:


> you didn't make it clear thou, you had a long diatribe as if i advocated violence on people that disagreed with me instead of making actual rebuttals on anything else i said, which you're doing now by correcting me on the Cold War (with did have smaller conflicts and a body count btw)
> 
> i'm starting to get the feeling you're derailing the discussion so that you won't have to admit your wrong about something



We all have youtube and we have all seen the typical SORRY-NOT-SORRY SJW cover for violence, you're not fooling anyone. Like you said, "_they were asking for it_" and you will look the other way.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Mar 24, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> We all have youtube and we have all seen the typical SORRY-NOT-SORRY SJW cover for violence, you're not fooling anyone. Like you said, "_they were asking for it_" and you will look the other way.



oh maaaaan, i feel so bad turning my backs against nazis, hurr durrr i'm just as bad as them


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Mar 24, 2017)

eworm said:


> Coca-Cola Santa Claus holiday


That's the best way to holiday.


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

UltraHurricane said:


> oh maaaaan, i feel so bad turning my backs against nazis, hurr durrr i'm just as bad as them



Except Jon Tron isn't a Nazi, no where close and just because you label someone a Nazi doesn't make it okay to use violence against them, anymore than me labeling all Democrats communists so it's okay to shoot at them.

That is terrorism, the act / condoning of violence for a political means.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 24, 2017)

Many thoughts. I have not especially looked into what the guy said at this point, though I did see something in passing and it looked a bit misguided at best, and don't have the greatest desire to go do a proper look into things. Likewise I am not terribly familiar with the guy in question's work. As such this will probably be more of a hypothetical.

You have the ages old art from the artists conundrum. That being does the work of an artist that is a cunt somehow be troubled, equally when that one artist is but one of many (and given solo game dev is a bit like solo film dev*, which is to say possible but tends not to make the shiniest results) then does that change things?

*not a random choice as film directors have had this trouble works before despite there being actors, producers, editors, and more vastly outnumbering them.

In a world We have technically had the ability to do a fairly deep dive into everything someone might have said for years now but it is somewhat easier now for anybody to do. As this is not an unknown variable though...

One of my favourite things I have read on the internet in recent years is https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm . It would also seem that for some where some are more equal than others that you can use variations on the themes covered on that link to trouble people, and it is not hard to do.


----------



## Haloman800 (Mar 24, 2017)

Let's recap. JonTron's voice removed by developers of new game because he used factual crime statistics while debating another youtuber that blacks commit more crime in a political debate. The company now calls JonTron, the child of Iranian  immigrants, a nazi white supremacist.


----------



## Eddypikachu (Mar 24, 2017)

Haloman800 said:


> Let's recap. JonTron's voice removed by developers of new game because he used factual crime statistics while debating another youtuber that blacks commit more crime in a political debate. The company now calls JonTron, the child of Iranian  immigrants, a nazi white supremacist.


He mentioned white purity. That speaks volumes in and of itself. Used to like him a bit but once that came out of his mouth... Nope. So what exactly is he saying about those of his fans (such as myself) whom are bi-ethnic/bi-racial? I am bi-racial and have no sympathy for him. He essentially spits in the face for what my parents stood and fought for. My parents were harassed for their relationship which was considered illegal at one point in time.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Mar 24, 2017)

What's funny is that in the US appearently liberal=left-wing. In France, we use this word in the economic meaning, so a liberals range from center-left (social-liberal) to right (ultraliberal). Anyways, thing is you don't understand the word race is nonsense. A race doesn't mean anything in science, and the last pseudoscientist to have used that were Nazis. Genetically speaking, there isn't anything that shows a 'race'. There are genes for skin color, eye color etc., and the variant of these genes you have determine what you look like. That's why a member of a Zulu tribe in Africa can have a child with your 'average' all-white-skin-blue-eyes-etc. Swedish lady and this child will be a perfectly viable human with his own look. That's what defines our *species* (and not race), _Homo sapiens. _That's all. The word race shall be only used for dogs, and even there it isn't really justified since a chihuahua and a golden retriever are in the same exact species. PERIOD. White isn't an ethnical difference.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Haloman800 said:


> Let's recap. JonTron's voice removed by developers of new game because he used factual crime statistics while debating another youtuber that blacks commit more crime in a political debate. The company now calls JonTron, the child of Iranian  immigrants, a nazi white supremacist.


Except the company isn't judging JonTron, it just wants to avoid trouble and people calling it white supremacist, whether that's right or not, for having kept JonTron.


----------



## Eddypikachu (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> What you're doing is called a Slippery Slope.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
> 
> ...


There's no such thing as the "American way", America is EVERYTHING it's a mix of every single culture and race together. And by attempting to assimilate every culture that comes here into whatever culture you think they should, that's when you're really destroying the "American Way".
"The social contract of immigration assumes that the immigrant will adjust to the customs of the host country." How come white imperialists didn't adjust to the customs of the Native Americans when they immigrated to North America then? Why is this double standard present here?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2017)

Haloman800 said:


> Let's recap. JonTron's voice removed by developers of new game because he used factual crime statistics while debating another youtuber that blacks commit more crime in a political debate. The company now calls JonTron, the child of Iranian  immigrants, a nazi white supremacist.


If we're doing an honest recap, then no, he didn't use any statistic at all but rather just a blanket statement that can't possibly be true in every situation, and is also guaranteed to offend a certain number of people.  And Playtonic didn't use any label against him in their statement, let alone call him a nazi.


----------



## Eddypikachu (Mar 24, 2017)

eworm said:


> What ties a nation is culture. When there are actually several separate cultures in a country, we have a broken nation - many groups of people whose interests collide instead of being overall about the nation's best interest. It's natural to care about one's or one's group's well-being first and foremost, but the very goal behind forming a nation of people is to have big interests that people in it _share_.
> 
> Now, if by multiculturalism you don't actually mean multiple cultures, but a single culture that's a mish-mash of many various cultural influences from around the world, that's a different story. That's basically what every culture is already, in fact, especially in America. However, *the problem is a lot of people nowadays think multiculturalism is a goal in and of itself* and a goal we should all actively and irresponsibly strive towards - it's not. Why should it be? Why should we abandon some of our roots and the meaning behind them and replace them with something from elsewhere that we share no deeper connection with? If we're bored with our ancestry, our holidays, our cultural heritage, our shared, deeply rooted values - the problem aren't those things, but the boredom itself. Bringing stuff from elsewhere just because it's new and different won't change the fact that we're getting shallow about our values.



"Why should we abandon some of our roots and the meaning behind them and replace them with something from elsewhere that we share no deeper connection with?" The mixing of cultures does not mean giving up your own for another it means accepting that there are other people around you that have different cultures than you and embracing their differences. There's nothing wrong with this.


----------



## Greymane (Mar 24, 2017)

Eddypikachu said:


> "Why should we abandon some of our roots and the meaning behind them and replace them with something from elsewhere that we share no deeper connection with?" The mixing of cultures does not mean giving up your own for another it means accepting that there are other people around you that have different cultures than you and embracing their differences. There's nothing wrong with this.



A serious question on that, in case of extreme value/culture clash then what? Wouldn't it mean one would need to compromise and thus at least change his value's or expression of his culture.


----------



## Eddypikachu (Mar 24, 2017)

There will inevitably be those who cry "muh freeze peach!" 

Playtonic has free speech too. And they chose to speak against Jon with their own free speech.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Greymane said:


> A serious question on that, in case of extreme value/culture clash then what? Wouldn't it mean one would need to compromise and thus at least change his value's or expression of his culture.


Not at all. It's really about letting people do their own thing, celebrate in their own culture while simultaneously celebrating in your culture. You don't have to abandon your own culture in order to let other people celebrate theirs. And if you want to share your culture with another person then go ahead, and if they want to share their culture to you then they should go ahead and do it. If you don't want to share your culture then that's okay too, and if they don't want to share their culture with you then that's okay too. It takes very little effort to mind you own business and let other people express who they are.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Playtonic is making a reskin, there's no doubt in my mind that that's exactly what it is. Both games cash in on nostalgia, it's just that one is a completely original product that's good in and out of itself while the other rides on the former glory of the predecessor, and quite shamelessly at that. We've explored this extensively within this thread already.


Even if I agree that this is just a reskin ( I don't), so what? This is what people wanted. Again, people buy remakes and ports all the time. I better than not having the game at all. 



Foxi4 said:


> Yes, because they're people and they deserve the exact same protections as everybody else.


I'm not saying some people don't go overboard, but what exactly are we protecting, when we are protecting, for example, racism?



Foxi4 said:


> I'm okay with the characters, I'm not okay with the constant policy of appeasement and the fake "every colour of the rainbow" shtick because I see it for what it is - a shameless attempt at cashing in on the SJW trend. They're not just making a diverse cast - we get that in almost every single video game nowadays. They're making a huge song and dance about it, that's what's bothering. It's not enough that Symmetra is an ethnic minority, she must also has autism. It's not enough that Tracer is an independent woman and poster girl for the game, she must necessarily be a lesbian. I'm unironically waiting for them to announce that the Russian chick is transgender - it really wouldn't shock me.


I understand you don't like appeasement, but I still don't get what that has to do with weather, for example, Tracer is an independent woman that happens to be a lesbian or not. Are devs not allow to have a ethnic minority with autism or a transgender Russian now, without being afraid or accused of appealing to someone? I don't see why the reason even matters on how diverse and complex a cast is.

Besides, if they or devs in general didn't appeal this way, it would have been something else to appeal with. 



Clydefrosch said:


> 4 people who are petty enough to not buy the game based on this, there will be 4 people who really don't care about games much that will now buy it instead.


I thought about this. Wasn't quite sure it was fair to say.



the_randomizer said:


> If JonTron was smart, he would've waited till game release and then said his uh *ahem* views.  But I digress, that's not the issue here, it's all a big effing mess to be sure. Ugh.


Not like he knew this was going to happen, but he would have still been patched out.


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Anyways, thing is you don't understand the word race is nonsense. A race doesn't mean anything in science, and the last pseudoscientist to have used that were Nazis. Genetically speaking, there isn't anything that shows a 'race'. There are genes for skin color, eye color etc., and the variant of these genes you have determine what you look like. That's why a member of a Zulu tribe in Africa can have a child with your 'average' all-white-skin-blue-eyes-etc. Swedish lady and this child will be a perfectly viable human with his own look. That's what defines our *species* (and not race), _Homo sapiens. _That's all. The word race shall be only used for dogs, and even there it isn't really justified since a chihuahua and a golden retriever are in the same exact species. PERIOD. White isn't an ethnical difference.



Nazi science put a man on the moon, citing it as Nazi does not validate or invalidate it. There is little quality modern science in this regard, other than bullshit social studies people have interjected because it is socially safe and expedient.  As Jon Tron has demonstrated you can't even cite factual statistics let alone do deep research on genetic differences between humans. But what little there is, we know Asians and Europeans have substantially more Neanderthal DNA than Africans do (none generally) and Jews use DNA testing for Israeli citizen after determining Jewish ethnicity routinely.

Actual forensic Anthropologists still classify humans, (not PC social studies people)  Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Ausaloid etc. They can pick skull right off the ground and generally know the persons race/ancestry just like a breed of dog.






Because that "_unique_" trait you are citing of humans being an entirely social construct is bullshit right up there with creationism to think humans are some how exempted from genetic differentiation and Darwinism.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 24, 2017)

Goddamn, NeoGAF is having a fieldday over this. Good video on the subject.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Mar 24, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> Nazi science put a man on the moon, citing it as Nazi does not validate or invalidate it. There is little quality modern science in this regard, other than bullshit social studies people have interjected because it is socially safe and expedient.  As Jon Tron has demonstrated you can't even cite factual statistics let alone do deep research on genetic differences between humans. But what little there is, we know Asians and Europeans have substantially more Neanderthal DNA than Africans do (none generally) and Jews use DNA testing for Israeli citizen after determining Jewish ethnicity routinely.
> 
> Actual forensic Anthropologists still classify humans, (not PC social studies people)  Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Ausaloid etc. They can pick skull right off the ground and generally know the persons race/ancestry just like a breed of dog.
> 
> ...


.
That guy didn't cite any statiostics. And the 'science' you're citong is a science pulled off in 19th century to justify racist behaviors and even slavery. I am not even speaking about social studies, but about GENETICS. And did you know there was more genetical difference between two neighbor African tribes than between a Caucasian and an Asian? A race is a racist word. Period. Race don't exist, that has been proven.


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Mar 24, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Nazi is the new Commie, that's just the way it is. Society has invented a new bogeyman because it's safer than ever and feels the collective need to mobilise against a common enemy. In the past it was the Soviets and the Red Scare, yesterday it was terrorists, tomorrow it'll be somebody new. It's just the wheels of history turning, you can't stop that.



This is why I, again, bring up the strange timing of this incident as it relates to 2 Ranting Griffon:


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> .
> That guy didn't cite any statiostics. And the 'science' you're citong is a science pulled off in 19th century to justify racist behaviors and even slavery. I am not even speaking about social studies, but about GENETICS. And did you know there was more genetical difference between two neighbor African tribes than between a Caucasian and an Asian? A race is a racist word. Period. Race don't exist, that has been proven.



Because they are both anthropological Caucasoids. 

*Race* is the classification of humans into groups based on physical traits, ancestry, genetics or social relations, or the relations between them.

Scientists do not have a problem with this and still use it as a taxon, Sociologists dislike it. Not scientists.

Your shit is sociology, not Science.


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Mar 24, 2017)

eworm said:


> What ties a nation is culture. When there are actually several separate cultures in a country, we have a broken nation - many groups of people whose interests collide instead of being overall about the nation's best interest. It's natural to care about one's or one's group's well-being first and foremost, but the very goal behind forming a nation of people is to have big interests that people in it _share_.
> 
> Now, if by multiculturalism you don't actually mean multiple cultures, but a single culture that's a mish-mash of many various cultural influences from around the world, that's a different story. That's basically what every culture is already, in fact, especially in America. However, *the problem is a lot of people nowadays think multiculturalism is a goal in and of itself* and a goal we should all actively and irresponsibly strive towards - it's not. Why should it be? Why should we abandon some of our roots and the meaning behind them and replace them with something from elsewhere that we share no deeper connection with? If we're bored with our ancestry, our holidays, our cultural heritage, our shared, deeply rooted values - the problem aren't those things, but the boredom itself. Bringing stuff from elsewhere just because it's new and different won't change the fact that we're getting shallow about our values.



Our culture is now contrarianism.


----------



## Greymane (Mar 24, 2017)

Eddypikachu said:


> Not at all. It's really about letting people do their own thing, celebrate in their own culture while simultaneously celebrating in your culture. You don't have to abandon your own culture in order to let other people celebrate theirs. And if you want to share your culture with another person then go ahead, and if they want to share their culture to you then they should go ahead and do it. If you don't want to share your culture then that's okay too, and if they don't want to share their culture with you then that's okay too. It takes very little effort to mind you own business and let other people express who they are.



Then what if there expression of there value's and culture goes against law/taboo?
(Taboo)No matter how much one would try to share in such a situations, the other party might not except it or even punish them for it, and if they where to try to except it they might be punished.
(Law)And depending on in which country you are simply stating a value/culture could see you tried by law or people abusing laws to punish you.


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

Greymane said:


> Then what if there expression of there value's and culture goes against law/taboo?
> (Taboo)No matter how much one would try to share in such a situations, the other party might not except it or even punish them for it, and if they where to try to except it they might be punished.
> (Law)And depending on in which country you are simply stating a value/culture could see you tried by law or people abusing laws to punish you.



Then who ever was there first and has more people is an evil racist oppressor expected to give up their customs, but in Liberal minded racial utopia the concept that cultures might have incompatible traditions/customs and need their own space is racist. Cuz science


----------



## Eddypikachu (Mar 24, 2017)

Greymane said:


> Then what if there expression of there value's and culture goes against law/taboo?
> (Taboo)No matter how much one would try to share in such a situations, the other party might not except it or even punish them for it, and if they where to try to except it they might be punished.
> (Law)And depending on in which country you are simply stating a value/culture could see you tried by law or people abusing laws to punish you.


If you think something is taboo then just don't do it yourself and let other people do it. Accepting that other people are different is a good thing. You don't have to suddenly conform to another culture that you're introduced to, just accept that other people might do things differently to you and that's okay to see these differences. Also which laws are you referring to?


----------



## Flame (Mar 24, 2017)

Nazi white supremacist Xenophobic bigots like him don't deserve anything.

Good.


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

People do accept they are different, especially when they have their space and we have ours. The hate doesn't start until they are moved in next door and have a holiday and being a nuisance when it is a work day for everyone else.

Multiculturalism is not necessary, has not shown itself to be a benefit anywhere and the whole of the world does not need it imposed on them.


----------



## Skelletonike (Mar 24, 2017)

I am sick and tired of all this SJW pandering.
SJW's are one of the biggest cancers in the entertainment industry. 

At first, I barely paid attention to all this crap, they could complain about all they wanted as long as it did not hurt anyone. However, they do hurt people nowadays, perhaps not physically, but they have become one of the biggest cyber-bullies out there. 

As someone who loves games, I am sick and tired of this shit (and yes, I'm repeating myself). 

-It's okay to make fun of religious views (mostly Christian's);
-It's okay to make fun of all the 'rednecks' (I may not like them, but they're people too);
-It's okay to vandalize public spaces and hate white people just because (BLM);
-It's okay for a white character to become black, if the opposite happens, all hell breaks lose;
-It's okay to insult anyone who disagrees with your SJW nonsense;
...And the list goes on.

_How the hell did things get so messed up?_

Soon people won't be able to voice their opinions, Jon wasn't even a PR guy for the game, he was just a guest star, he is free to say whatever he wants. He did not commit any crime or say anything that extreme which warranted such an action like completely removing something he had already done. 

This '_inclusion_' thing is a bunch of bull. 
I didn't even know the guy that well before this, but I will withhold from purchasing this game now. The biggest hypocrisy in all of this, is that they are now blocking everyone who asks for a refund, be it on steam or on their very own official forums.

Playtonic shot themselves in the foot with this shitty PR move. In order to please a *minority* (yes, because SJW's *are the minority*), they just lost a lot of future costumers, not to mention all the people they are consistently censoring, just because they disagree with this move and are asking for the money back.




(I apologise for the rant, but I've been seeing mindsets like this the whole day today, and it's really getting on my nerves).


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Mar 24, 2017)

Sorry then, but in French the word "race" has a xenophobic meaning. Not in English appearently.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Skelletonike said:


> Playtonic shot themselves in the foot with this shitty PR move. In order to please a *minority* (yes, because SJW's *are the minority*), they just lost a lot of future costumers, not to mention all the people they are consistently censoring, just because they disagree with this move and are asking for the money back.


I don't think SJWs were the only one who didn't like JonTron's comments.


----------



## Greymane (Mar 24, 2017)

Eddypikachu said:


> If you think something is taboo then just don't do it yourself and let other people do it. Accepting that other people are different is a good thing. You don't have to suddenly conform to another culture that you're introduced to, just accept that other people might do things differently to you and that's okay to see these differences. Also which laws are you referring to?



Practices such as FGM and child brides which would be against the law in the "west".
questioning religious figures(priests,prophets,god) and practices which would be against laws in a great deal of the middle east.


----------



## Skelletonike (Mar 24, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Sorry then, but in French the word "race" has a xenophobic meaning. Not in English appearently.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Probably, yes. The issue here is that most people wouldn't really care about the opinion of just one person related to the game. He wasn't a dev or anything like that, just a guest, with a very minor part. 
SJW's however, make a shitstorm about everything and anything.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Mar 24, 2017)

Greymane said:


> Practices such as FGM and child brides which would be against the law in the "west".
> questioning religious figures(priests,prophets,god) and practices which would be against laws in a great deal of the middle east.



FGM is only a thing in Indonesia, and still have been illegal during 10 years. The law was abrogated because no one respected it, but that's another problem. And no immigrants are doing this type of things.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Skelletonike said:


> Probably, yes. The issue here is that most people wouldn't really care about the opinion of just one person related to the game. He wasn't a dev or anything like that, just a guest, with a very minor part.
> SJW's however, make a shitstorm about everything and anything.


I think Playtronic just wanted to avoid trouble. The most ironic is that now they get trouble from the other people who weren't offended by this. They had to make a choice, appearently they would've had started drama anyways.


----------



## Greymane (Mar 24, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> FGM is only a thing in Indonesia, and still have been illegal during 10 years. The law was abrogated because no one respected it, but that's another problem. And no immigrants are doing this type of things.


FGM is also practiced by a few tribes in Afrika , from what i can remember


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Mar 24, 2017)

Greymane said:


> FGM is also practiced by a few tribes in Afrika , from what i can remember


Yeah, but still, I don't think that's a good example. A small minority of people do this. Generally, people who decide to migrate to another part of the world aren't the ones with questionable/illegal traditions.


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

So what happens when they have a Demographic majority in London-stan because a majority of those polled in the affirmative also said the punishment should be death?

You going to be okay with them hanging them off Big ben like they do off cranes in Saudi Arabia?

_"Dear God Nelson, that dead homosexual hanging above the lorrie leaked in my tea."_


----------



## Skelletonike (Mar 24, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> FGM is only a thing in Indonesia, and still have been illegal during 10 years. The law was abrogated because no one respected it, but that's another problem. And no immigrants are doing this type of things.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...




Yeah, if they hadn't said anything at all, and just remained out of sight, none of this wouldn't be an issue.
Doesn't help much that their employees and literally insulting and making fun of their own clients. That's plain stupid, and those do deserve to be fired.


----------



## Eddypikachu (Mar 24, 2017)

Skelletonike said:


> I am sick and tired of all this SJW pandering.
> SJW's are one of the biggest cancers in the entertainment industry.
> 
> At first, I barely paid attention to all this crap, they could complain about all they wanted as long as it did not hurt anyone. However, they do hurt people nowadays, perhaps not physically, but they have become one of the biggest cyber-bullies out there.
> ...


First of all there's on such thing as a SJW, just people who use the term to distract from their reactionary politics

"It's okay to vandalize public spaces and hate white people just because (BLM);" So it's okay for you to acknowledge that unarmed black people are getting murdered by police but GOD FORBID they destroy a window in protest because they're fed up with being murdered?
"It's okay for a white character to become black, if the opposite happens, all hell breaks lose;" There's literally billions of white representation in the media, taking away one representation of a white person for a black person, who currently has so little representation, isn't bad. Black people have little representation in the media and to take away even more from that tiny representation in favor for a group that already has billions of representation is pretty absurd.

"Soon people won't be able to voice their opinions" People are able to voice their opinions and people are able to voice their opinion on how they disagree with your opinions. Free speech isn't being able to say whatever you want without repercussions, it's being able to say whatever you want and also accepting that other people will challenge your idea with their own opinions. Which is what we say happened. Jontron voiced his opinion, and Playtonic voiced their opinion on how they disagree with Jontron's views. People have a right to broadcast their opinions but they seem to forget that every action has consequences, if you spout hateful rhetoric you're going to upset people and they won't want to be affiliated with you. Simple as that.

"In order to please a *minority* (yes, because SJW's *are the minority*), they just lost a lot of future costumers" Like I said SJWs dont exist and are just used by people like you in order to spout your reactionary politics, and even if they were real you don't have to be a SJW to be against racism and white supremacy, dude  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Flame (Mar 24, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> So what happens when they have a Demographic majority in London-stan because a majority of those polled in the affirmative also said the punishment should be death?
> 
> You going to be okay with them hanging them off Big ben like they do off cranes in Saudi Arabia?
> 
> _"Dear God Nelson, that dead homosexual hanging above the lorrie leaked in my tea."_



i dont know where to begin...

such great image. doesnt even show the full thing
CNN
comparing London to Saudi Arabia, lol
in rest of the world it is 100% so almost 50/50 is much better


do you believe everything that CNN and Fox tells you? 

what if i told you that rest of the world think USA is going to cause nuclear war and doom us all?


----------



## Eddypikachu (Mar 24, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> So what happens when they have a Demographic majority in London-stan because a majority of those polled in the affirmative also said the punishment should be death?
> 
> You going to be okay with them hanging them off Big ben like they do off cranes in Saudi Arabia?
> 
> _"Dear God Nelson, that dead homosexual hanging above the lorrie leaked in my tea."_


Religion should never have an influence in laws in the first place so jot that down. Homosexuals really don't do anything to you other than existing so there's really no reason for why they should be illegal.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2017)

UltraHurricane said:


> you didn't make it clear thou, you had a long diatribe as if i advocated violence on people that disagreed with me instead of making actual rebuttals on anything else i said, which you're doing now by correcting me on the Cold War (with did have smaller conflicts and a body count btw)
> 
> i'm starting to get the feeling you're derailing the discussion so that you won't have to admit your wrong about something


I was pointing out the errors in your reasoning, I have nothing to gain or lose, nor do I aim at changing your opinion. I'm not the one drilling the subject of fascism, you are. I've expressed my desire to move on from the topic, which was a complete detour from the original conversation, but you keep adding additional questions for me to answer. I am more than happy to return to the actual subject at hand, which is Playtonic's decision to remove JonTron from the game - in fact, I would prefer that as I don't want the thread to continue devolving into bunk science and conspiracy theories, all of which will have to be removed by the moderation team anyways. This wasn't meant to be a flame war and I most certainly don't want it to be one.


----------



## Greymane (Mar 24, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Yeah, but still, I don't think that's a good example. A small minority of people do this. Generally, people who decide to migrate to another part of the world aren't the ones with questionable/illegal traditions.



That mostly would be the case if migration was by chose and even then there are some that migrate to spread there value's/culture.
But in case of forced migration because of conflict such traditions do tend to come with them, since such people wouldn't know or share most of the value's and laws of the country they flee to.


----------



## Eddypikachu (Mar 24, 2017)

Greymane said:


> Practices such as FGM and child brides which would be against the law in the "west".
> questioning religious figures(priests,prophets,god) and practices which would be against laws in a great deal of the middle east.


Laws should be influenced by science and science debunks that children can consent at a very young age because they aren't mentally developed enough to make rational and critical decisions. Religion needs to stay out of laws too.


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Mar 24, 2017)

Eddypikachu said:


> Religion should never have an influence in laws in the first place so jot that down. Homosexuals really don't do anything to you other than existing so there's really no reason for why they should be illegal.



There's an odd effect that I've been noticing these days. While homosexuality and all these other 'be what you want to be' decisions are harmless in their own right, the problems start to come up when they start pushing their views of what's 'right' onto other people. When a culture starts making 'being gay' into 'being cool', for example, that's a dead-end path. That culture will cease to exist, and take down everything in their path in the mean time. It pressures people in to a non-reproductive society, and given the goings-on in the Middle East and China and such, we stand to be taken over culturally as a result, just through sheer numbers. It scares me.



StarTrekVoyager said:


> Post reported this time, can't bear fucking racists hiding behind 'boo SJW leftie'



"I can't handle your words so I will seek to have you removed from the discussion and also punish other aspects of your life by denying you the ability to engage within your social circles."


----------



## eworm (Mar 24, 2017)

Eddypikachu said:


> Religion should never have an influence in laws in the first place


That is so wrong I can't even believe I'm reading this. You're kidding, tell me you're kidding.
Why are there illegal things again? Oh, due to morality? Yeah, that shouldn't be reflected in our laws. Why is murder illegal, come on, just because a bunch of people believe it's wrong, why should it influence my life?


----------



## Eddypikachu (Mar 24, 2017)

TobiasAmaranth said:


> There's an odd effect that I've been noticing these days. While homosexuality and all these other 'be what you want to be' decisions are harmless in their own right, the problems start to come up when they start pushing their views of what's 'right' onto other people. When a culture starts making 'being gay' into 'being cool', for example, that's a dead-end path. That culture will cease to exist, and take down everything in their path in the mean time. It pressures people in to a non-reproductive society, and given the goings-on in the Middle East and China and such, we stand to be taken over culturally as a result, just through sheer numbers. It scares me.


Just because homosexual people exist doesn't mean you have to become homosexual to(Keep in mind that homosexual people don't really choose to be homosexual they are born that way). Homosexuality doesn't just spread like that. Gay people are still a minority and heterosexuals will always exist as well so there's really no reason to think that the world will suddenly stop procreating.


----------



## Flame (Mar 24, 2017)

eworm said:


> That is so wrong I can't even believe I'm reading this. You're kidding, tell me you're kidding.
> Why are there illegal things again? Oh, due to morality? Yeah, that shouldn't be reflected in our laws. Why is murder illegal, come on, just because a bunch of people believe it's wrong, why should it influence my life?



because bob down the road told me so?


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

Eddypikachu said:


> Why are you so paranoid? What are you afraid of?



It's not paranoia, it is a statistical fact Muslims will have a majority in London in the near future and a voting majority support sharia law and a theocracy.

Why does western civilization have to take in How does it benefit Western Civilization to take in people who think throwing homosexuals off roofs is a normal acceptable practice?


----------



## Eddypikachu (Mar 24, 2017)

eworm said:


> That is so wrong I can't even believe I'm reading this. You're kidding, tell me you're kidding.
> Why are there illegal things again? Oh, due to morality? Yeah, that shouldn't be reflected in our laws. Why is murder illegal, come on, just because a bunch of people believe it's wrong, why should it influence my life?


Separation of church and state is there for a reason yo


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Mar 24, 2017)

Eddypikachu said:


> Just because homosexual people exist doesn't mean you have to become homosexual to(Keep in mind that homosexual people don't really choose to be homosexual they are born that way). Homosexuality doesn't just spread like that. Gay people are still a minority and heterosexuals will always exist as well so there's really no reason to think that the world will suddenly stop procreating.



Please re-read my post. I don't think you understood it correctly.


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

Eddypikachu said:


> Separation of church and state is there for a reason yo



And what mechanism are you under the delusion of that prohibits an abolition of Separation of Church and state?

Do you think this cannot be amended, voted out etc with enough people?


----------



## Eddypikachu (Mar 24, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> It's not paranoia, it is a statistical fact Muslims will have a majority in London in the near future and a voting majority support sharia law and a theocracy.
> 
> Why does western civilization have to take in How does it benefit Western Civilization to take in people who think throwing homosexuals off roofs is a normal acceptable practice?


How about we stop attempting to generalize an entire nationality to a single belief. Not every Muslim is anti-gay.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TobiasAmaranth said:


> Please re-read my post. I don't think you understood it correctly.


Sorry can you rephrase it? Don't mean to be a bother.


----------



## Flame (Mar 24, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> It's not paranoia, it is a statistical fact Muslims will have a majority in London in the near future and a voting majority support sharia law and a theocracy.
> 
> Why does western civilization have to take in How does it benefit Western Civilization to take in people who think throwing homosexuals off roofs is a normal acceptable practice?



I live in london.

how many times have you been in london.


----------



## Greymane (Mar 24, 2017)

Eddypikachu said:


> Laws should be influenced by science and science debunks that children can consent at a very young age because they aren't mentally developed enough to make rational and critical decisions. Religion needs to stay out of laws too.


If that would happen i would be quit satisfied, but that will not happen since it would mean that the structure of law  needs to change and all culture take from religion the basis for there laws.



eworm said:


> That is so wrong I can't even believe I'm reading this. You're kidding, tell me you're kidding.
> Why are there illegal things again? Oh, due to morality? Yeah, that shouldn't be reflected in our laws. Why is murder illegal, come on, just because a bunch of people believe it's wrong, why should it influence my life?


Morality is quit subjective and what is seen as moral is not fully shared between times and places, and to let religion create law would, mean to give it power over the lives of people that are not part of it.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Mar 24, 2017)

TobiasAmaranth said:


> "I can't handle your words so I will seek to have you removed from the discussion and also punish other aspects of your life by denying you the ability to engage within your social circles."


So, he is insulting all 2.5 billion Muslims on Earth, including my mother, my grandparents, all my aunts and uncles and I should treat this as an opinion? This guy certainly doesn't know any Muslim. Most Muslims are kind people who don't even throw their religion at people's faces like Christian conservatives do in the US. In France, Muslims invite Christians in mosques, and Christians invite Muslims in churches. Both communites gather to celebrate Christmas like Aid fests. Oh, and Muslim homosexuals do exist.


----------



## eworm (Mar 24, 2017)

Greymane said:


> Morality is quit subjective and what is seen as moral is not fully shared between times and places, and to let religion create law would, mean to give it power over the lives of people that are not part of it.


So atheists creating laws that rule over religious people is fine, but religious people creating laws that rule over atheists is not. Okay, I see your point.


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Mar 24, 2017)

I was pointing out how the entertainment industry and other segments of the population are trying to make homosexuality into an 'encouraged' thing instead of an 'accepted' thing. If it is encouraged, then that causes a drop in population growth, which is harmful when the modern equivalent of war is a long-term plan to overwhelm the rest of the world with population. ;


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Mar 24, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> And what mechanism are you under the delusion of that prohibits an abolition of Separation of Church and state?
> 
> Do you think this cannot be amended, voted out etc with enough people?


50% of 12.4 Muslim Londoners = 6.2% Even if that was right, how on Earth would 6.2% of Londoners impose a law to the rest of England? -.-


----------



## Flame (Mar 24, 2017)

eworm said:


> So atheists creating laws that rule over religious people is fine, but religious people creating laws that rule over atheists is not. Okay, I see your point.



atheists will create laws based on real things..

religious people will create based on their own personal gain or a book that was written by nobody years and years ago.



StarTrekVoyager said:


> 50% of 12.4 Muslim Londoners = 6.2% Even if that was right, how on Earth would 6.2% of Londoners impose a law to the rest of England? -.-



muslims in UK is about a milion.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Mar 24, 2017)

eworm said:


> So atheists creating laws that rule over religious people is fine, but religious people creating laws that rule over atheists is not. Okay, I see your point.


You're mixing up atheist and laic. Laic means that the State is free of any opinion about religion, it being Atheism or Christianism.


----------



## Skelletonike (Mar 24, 2017)

Eddypikachu said:


> First of all there's on such thing as a SJW, just people who use the term to distract from their reactionary politics
> 
> -----
> 
> "In order to please a *minority* (yes, because SJW's *are the minority*), they just lost a lot of future costumers" Like I said SJWs dont exist and are just used by people like you in order to spout your reactionary politics, and even if they were real you don't have to be a SJW to be against racism and white supremacy, dude  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



If people act in a certain way, they will get a sort of title associated to them: nerd, jerk, emo (and I mean the insulting form, rather than the style or music genre), mamma's boy, etc... Social Justice Warrior is just another one of those, it's an easy way to call that certain group with loud extreme views, which mainly includes 'modern feminists', BLM supporters, among several others.

I am not racist, nor am I a reactionary as you say. While my political vies are irrelevant here, I identify with centre-right politics. I do not agree with extremism be it right, or left. 


As for what Jon said, I don't agree with all he said, nor do I disagree with everything. All I am saying (or rather, typing), is that this company, Playtonic, did not act in a very decent way. 
Do you seriously believe that they are in the right by banning people, and insulting them, for asking for a refund?


----------



## Greymane (Mar 24, 2017)

eworm said:


> So atheists creating laws that rule over religious people is fine, but religious people creating laws that rule over atheists is not. Okay, I see your point.


Where did i say that atheists should create law? I simply said that i would be satisfied if religion(thus belief) would not create law.


----------



## eworm (Mar 24, 2017)

Flame said:


> atheists will create laws based on real things..
> 
> religious people will create based on their own personal gain.


Oh, that is rich. Atheists are now all selfless and righteous human beings. Must be due to their lack of belief in powers greater than themselves.

EDIT: Not to imply religious people can't be assholes. We can be. Point is neither atheism nor religion will create laws by themselves. People will. And denying either religious people or atheists the chance to influence laws is denying all kinds of real values these people may believe in due to their atheism/religion.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Mar 24, 2017)

Skelletonike said:


> As for what Jon said, I don't agree with all he said, nor do I disagree with everything. All I am saying (or rather, typing), is that this company, Playtonic, did not act in a very decent way.
> Do you seriously believe that they are in the right by banning people, and insulting them, for asking for a refund?



I didn't know employees did that, and that's a shame. These should be fired, and Playtronic should just publicly apologize.


----------



## Flame (Mar 24, 2017)

eworm said:


> Oh, that is rich. Atheists are now all selfless and righteous human beings. Must be due to their lack of belief in powers greater than themselves.



can you give proof of this greater thing in maths?

if you say i have faith in god and there's your proof its checkmate to me.


so go on prove to me god is real and i will beleive.


----------



## grossaffe (Mar 24, 2017)

eworm said:


> So atheists creating laws that rule over religious people is fine, but religious people creating laws that rule over atheists is not. Okay, I see your point.


This is a red herring.  It matters not whether the law maker is Christian, Muslim, Scientologist, Satanist, or Atheist.  What matters is whether the law itself is foisting religious ideals on the rest of society.


----------



## Depravo (Mar 24, 2017)

Oh, not this topic again.

Aren't we supposed to be talking about that youtube dickhead and his latest attention-seeking scheme?


----------



## eworm (Mar 24, 2017)

Flame said:


> so go on prove to me god is real and i will convert.


C.S. Lewis - "Mere Christianity".
Absolutely logic-driven thought process leading straight to theism. It has long been done. If your statement is true and you're willing to accept an existence of a god, I encourage you to read that book. But I have a sneaky suspicion you won't, because your atheism is the only possible option for an intelligent person and all religious people are ignorant and stupid, so there's no point to reading their drivel.

I could of course try to summarize the book here, but this is hardly the time and place. Like some people have already pointed out, we're already in the off-top territory.


----------



## Greymane (Mar 24, 2017)

eworm said:


> Oh, that is rich. Atheists are now all selfless and righteous human beings. Must be due to their lack of belief in powers greater than themselves.
> 
> EDIT: Not to imply religious people can't be assholes. We can be. Point is neither atheism nor religion will create laws by themselves. People will. And denying either religious people or atheists the chance to influence laws is denying all kinds of real values these people may believe in due to their atheism/religion.



I am not denying any person a hand in making law, i am simply denying belief(that which is based in nothing) a hand in it. Belief should simply not be used for the making of law, since it denies what is not in conform to it. In the debating however it should be allowed as to see why it the standpoint of the person and if the belief hold merit beyond the nothing belief is based on.

gone be reading C.S. Lewis - "Mere Christianity". so further replies might take a bit longer


----------



## Flame (Mar 24, 2017)

eworm said:


> C.S. Lewis - "Mere Christianity".
> Absolutely logic-driven thought process leading straight to theism. It has long been done. If your statement is true and you're willing to accept an existence of a god, I encourage you to read that book. But I have a sneaky suspicion you won't, because your atheism is the only possible option for an intelligent person and all religious people are ignorant and stupid, so there's no point to reading their drivel.
> 
> I could of course try to summarize the book here, but this is hardly the time and place. Like some people have already pointed out, we're already in the off-top territory.



WOW THANK YOU ! you have made me see the light. Hallelujah jesus.


----------



## SonicMC (Mar 24, 2017)

Thoughts are bouncing around in my head again... Possibly more on topic...

Wondering how far would Playtonic go to "protect" their brand:

"_However, in light of his recent personal viewpoints we have made the decision to remove JonTron's inclusion in the game via a forthcoming content update._"

This isn't believed to be the case; but suppose if it were: JonTron had developed code and art and voice clips compiling up to approximately 10-15% of the game. Let's pretend that it would take 3-6 months of work to replace those. Would they still remove all JonTron's inclusion??? or would we have heard nothing about JonTron... or would there be a statement of disclaimer but no removal...

This is a hypothetical and with that you can change the numbers; what if it would take them an extra year to replace his work... Would their answer/statements change? Is it moral for them to change their answer based on these types questions?


----------



## eworm (Mar 24, 2017)

Flame said:


> WOW THANK YOU ! you have made me see the light. Hallelujah jesus.


A: Tell me the logic behind your opinions and I may agree.
B: Here's where you can read the logic behind my opinion.
A: Ironic quip, f*ck you.

This has been productive.


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

Eddypikachu said:


> How about we stop attempting to generalize an entire nationality to a single belief. Not every Muslim is anti-gay.



Just a voting majority in London when polled repeatedly support criminalzation & sharia law. How about you stop platituding when something has been polled and proven repeatedly.


----------



## Eddypikachu (Mar 24, 2017)

TobiasAmaranth said:


> I was pointing out how the entertainment industry and other segments of the population are trying to make homosexuality into an 'encouraged' thing instead of an 'accepted' thing. If it is encouraged, then that causes a drop in population growth, which is harmful when the modern equivalent of war is a long-term plan to overwhelm the rest of the world with population. ;


Homosexuality isn't really "encouraged" its just more accepted to our society. And that's good because sexuality isn't something we choose, we're born with it and there's nothing we can do about our current sexuslity. Accepting that gay people aren't bad for being gay is good and doesn't lead to an increase in gay people and wont lead to a decrease in population. Being gay is natural, theres nothing wrong with accepting gay people.

btw love your profile pic


----------



## jimbo13 (Mar 24, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> 50% of 12.4 Muslim Londoners = 6.2% Even if that was right, how on Earth would 6.2% of Londoners impose a law to the rest of England? -.-



Census projections have them as a majority within 10 years, how are you going to stop them?  Suspend elections?



Eddypikachu said:


> And that's good because sexuality isn't something we choose, we're born with it and there's nothing we can do about our current sexuslity.



Not proven by science anywhere at anytime.


----------



## Depravo (Mar 24, 2017)

Ok, ok. My subtle hint fell on deaf ears. This thread is now irredeemably off topic.

If any of you wish to continue this fascinating theological discourse please feel free to do so via private messages. Hail Satan.


----------



## Veho (Mar 24, 2017)

Depravo said:


> Hail Satan.



つ ◕_◕ ༽つ


----------



## BORTZ (Mar 25, 2017)

Veho said:


> つ ◕_◕ ༽つ


I guess I won't share my opinion on this topic...

Oh well

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つPRAISE HELIX༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 25, 2017)

We can't have nice things, @BORTZ. Shrek is love, Shrek is life.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 27, 2017)

Quick update, apparently the developers are getting hit with refund requests over the issue. Unfortunately Kickstarter does not offer refunds directly, however many gamers pledged to return the game immediately upon receiving their copy.

 https://heatst.com/gaming/yooka-laylee-getting-slammed-with-refund-requests-after-dropping-jontron/


----------

