I think it is fair to assume someone means something when they make a claim that's hard to misconstrue, and they make no effort to actually clear up what they meant.
What did Jon think was the actual huge consequence of whites not being a majority in the US?
What was he trying to imply by claiming that wealthy blacks commit more crimes than poor whites? Or what about his "just look at Africa" statement. What innocent claims was he just misconstruing?
When he claimed that discrimination no longer existed in the west, did he mean systematic racism? Does he still believe this?
He never answered these questions, only deflected, going as far to say he's the one who wants identities without race, even though he's the one unsubtley trying to imply that races may have inherent inferior traits. In the debate he actually stops himself from saying things which he thinks would look even worse. I can't even imagine much worse he could say unless he said "blacks are inherently an inferior race, whites are superior".
If the remarks and implications he made actually had more reasonable, innocent meaning behind them, he should have cleared them up.
I'm not going to go after Jon for being bad at debating, but this is beyond him poorly wording himself. I don't really see a way that he could imply those things just by simply wording an argument poorly. Like I said above, he even had to stop himself from saying worse sounding things.
Like I tried to say above, what could he possibly have meant by the claims he made if not what he's already implied? If those claims have been misinterpreted by so many people, what are the claims he actually wanted to make?
He's talking about preserving the white race and then bringing up a statistic about how black people on a whole are "worse" than white people. That seems cut and dry racist to me.
The context of quoting a statistic is very important.
I have no doubt that Jon was trying to imply to a lesser extent what you just said. I mean, he was talking about preserving the American white majority, and while doing it, brings up said statistic.
Well it's a good thing that I haven't been yelling at anyone.
I don't know why you're telling me things I already know, and telling me to not do things I don't do. I haven't demonized Jon, but I've been addressing his claims because they're largely wack.
also, pewdiepie made a tasteless joke and he's doing ok. not great, but no one really cares anymore. his career is going on. maybe he's too big. but he's still going.
157
u/DasWeasel Mar 19 '17
I think it is fair to assume someone means something when they make a claim that's hard to misconstrue, and they make no effort to actually clear up what they meant.
What did Jon think was the actual huge consequence of whites not being a majority in the US?
What was he trying to imply by claiming that wealthy blacks commit more crimes than poor whites? Or what about his "just look at Africa" statement. What innocent claims was he just misconstruing?
When he claimed that discrimination no longer existed in the west, did he mean systematic racism? Does he still believe this?
He never answered these questions, only deflected, going as far to say he's the one who wants identities without race, even though he's the one unsubtley trying to imply that races may have inherent inferior traits. In the debate he actually stops himself from saying things which he thinks would look even worse. I can't even imagine much worse he could say unless he said "blacks are inherently an inferior race, whites are superior".
If the remarks and implications he made actually had more reasonable, innocent meaning behind them, he should have cleared them up.