​

The developer behind Yooka-Laylee, a Kickstarter-funded spiritual successor to the beloved Banjo-Kazooie series plans to remove the Youtuber Jontron (Jon Jafari) from the game's cast of voice actors via a Day 1 update after his recent series controversial tweets regarding ethnic minorities in America. Jontron was always a big, vocal fan of the series and was invited to collaborate on the project back in February 2015. Many might say that he was pivotal in reviving the interest in Banjo-Kazooie through his content, both on Game Grumps and his own Youtube channel. Playtonic explained their position in an interview with Gameindustry.biz:

"We recently became aware of comments made by voice artist JonTron after development on Yooka-Laylee had been completed (...) JonTron is a talented video presenter who we were initially, two years ago, happy to include as a voice contributor in our game. 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. We would like to make absolutely clear that we do not endorse or support JonTron's personal viewpoints and that, as an external fan contributor, he does not represent Playtonic in any capacity. Playtonic is a studio that celebrates diversity in all forms and strives to make games that everyone can enjoy. As such, we deeply regret any implied association that could make players feel anything but 100% comfortable in our game worlds, or distract from the incredible goodwill and love shown by our fans and Kickstarter backers."

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.

Naturally this is a very controversial issue, so I'm eager to hear your thoughts on the matter. What's your opinion? Tell us in comments below!

Update: Jontron acknowledged the decision via his Twitter and although he finds it unfortunate, he understands it and wishes the developers a successful launch.

"Unfortunate to see Playtonic remove me from Yooka Laylee, but I understand their decision. I wish them the best with their launch!"

~https://www.twitter.com/JonTronShow/status/845038284967493638

Source (Gameindustry.biz)

 

[Xzi]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

​

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

​

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.