It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
almabrds: I can see why they would wish to erase his work in the game.
People that got offended by Jon would refuse to buy the game.
They're trying to repair the damage they would get in sales, who knows if it will work or not.
It makes perfect sense from a business point of view but that doesn't make the whole situation any less pathetic.

I mean that peoples say stupid or controversial or event racist, sexist, philatelist things, etc... and that others peoples don't want to purchase a game made by this person, watch his/her Youtube channel or a movie in which he or she plays in, that's perfectly understandable.

But that it result in some hysteric witch hunt against this person, his/her friends, all persons he/she ever had contact with, every company he/she ever worked with, and that the fear of guilt by association push those peoples/companies to release apologetic statements, erase his/her work, because if they don't they will be seen as fully endorsing everything that this person says, had said and will ever say until the end of time.

That's stupid and it's no surprise that things have become so polarized and that more and more peoples are pushed towards the extreme on both sides.
avatar
Gersen: [...]But that it result in some hysteric witch hunt against this person, his/her friends, all persons he/she ever had contact with, every company he/she ever worked with, and that the fear of guilt by association push those peoples/companies to release apologetic statements, erase his/her work[...]
Now where have we seen such extreme "guilt by association" mechanisms, hm?
/InB4Godwin's Law
Just to speed up things a little around here.
Post edited March 25, 2017 by Klumpen0815
low rated
avatar
DaCostaBR: It's far more serious than that.

When he said "Wealthy blacks also commit more crime than poor whites. That’s a fact. Look it up.” I can probably tell you where he got that from.

There was a study about the rates of incarceration between different ethnicities and levels of wealth in the US, that determined that a black person is more likely to be incarcerated than a white person that commited the same crime, even if the black person happened to be wealthier than the white person.

The study was then misconstrued by some people to say that black people commit more crimes than white people, to imply that socioeconomical factors actually don't play a part in the matter and that black people just have a propensity for criminal behaviour. That's just not a conclusion of the study, neither was that something they were testing for either way. That was deliberate, and that was racist.

Like I said to CharlesGray I won't fault JonTron for merely being ignorant of something and taking a misleading article he read at face value, however he then made "non-pology" apology video. The usual "I'm sorry you were offended" type of stuff. In it he said basically the same thing you just did "People get up in arms when you quote an unconfortable statistic". But never does he acknowledge the things he said that were flat out wrong, or the statistics that were wrong, like the one regarding the statement I quoted, and trust me the whole internet told him about it.

At what point does a person cross the line from "He just didn't know any better" to "He is being racist and he just doesn't care"?
I agree with you here. Stats are raw data, and are an insufficient basis for forming conclusions. In this particular case, race and class correlate closely, and you have to factor in systemic issues in the criminal justice system, which in America is a for-profit industry.
Post edited March 25, 2017 by richlind33
low rated
avatar
Bookwyrm627: Efficient use of resources means targeting crime prevention efforts at the areas where crime is more likely to occur.
Actually, in this case, efficient use of resources means targeting crime prevention efforts at the areas where crime has actually occurred more often.
avatar
Bookwyrm627: Charging more for insurance: This is all about identifying where the payouts are more likely to occur (or larger). Young drivers routinely have higher premiums. This is not ageism since stats tend to show that young drivers are more likely to incur costs. Are there insurance pools based on ethnicity?
Actually, I would argue that that is ageism. Even if young drivers *are* more likely to get into accidents, I consider it unfair to penalize all young people for that sort of thing.

Also, don't forget the practice of charging different premiums for men and women, which IMO should be illegal (for all insurance types). It's especially problematic when insurance (or anything else) discriminates against someone for being the gender that the person doesn't even identify with in the first place (or, for that matter, against being transgender).

For instance, according to an article found with a simple google search, muslims are more likely to experience death anxiety than other religious groups. Should they have to pay more because of that? Similarly, I could mention that people of Jewish heritage are more likely to carry certain mutations that can lead to genetic diseases; should they be penalized because of that?
Post edited March 25, 2017 by dtgreene
Currently looking at the comments under their Kickstarter page from the people who backed Yooka-Laylee. It's a mess. Playtonic have torn their fanbase apart.
low rated
..
Post edited March 25, 2017 by budejovice
high rated
avatar
Bookwyrm627: Efficient use of resources means targeting crime prevention efforts at the areas where crime is more likely to occur.
avatar
dtgreene: Actually, in this case, efficient use of resources means targeting crime prevention efforts at the areas where crime has actually occurred more often.
avatar
Bookwyrm627: Charging more for insurance: This is all about identifying where the payouts are more likely to occur (or larger). Young drivers routinely have higher premiums. This is not ageism since stats tend to show that young drivers are more likely to incur costs. Are there insurance pools based on ethnicity?
avatar
dtgreene: Actually, I would argue that that is ageism. Even if young drivers *are* more likely to get into accidents, I consider it unfair to penalize all young people for that sort of thing.

Also, don't forget the practice of charging different premiums for men and women, which IMO should be illegal (for all insurance types). It's especially problematic when insurance (or anything else) discriminates against someone for being the gender that the person doesn't even identify with in the first place (or, for that matter, against being transgender).

For instance, according to an article found with a simple google search, muslims are more likely to experience death anxiety than other religious groups. Should they have to pay more because of that? Similarly, I could mention that people of Jewish heritage are more likely to carry certain mutations that can lead to genetic diseases; should they be penalized because of that?
Its called personal responsibility. Facts are stubborn things (John Adams). You pay more because you cost more. That is fair. Charging all people the same amount regardless of cost factors is irresponsible and unjust.

I am a 65 year-old, chain-smoking, alcoholic, 320-pound obese male who has had 2 heart attacks, kidney failure and replacement and chemo for a bout of cancer. I should pay the same amount as a 27 year-old, non-smoking, non-drinking, physically fit and active 185 pound male with no previous medical conditions.

No. The answer is no.

As far as muslims experiencing highest death anxiety - well stop beheading each other, stop strapping bombs to yourselves and your 7-year-old kids, stop flying airplanes into buildings, stop driving trucks into crowds, stop stoning each other. Basically, stop being a muslim and try being a human.
avatar
dtgreene: Actually, in this case, efficient use of resources means targeting crime prevention efforts at the areas where crime has actually occurred more often.

Actually, I would argue that that is ageism. Even if young drivers *are* more likely to get into accidents, I consider it unfair to penalize all young people for that sort of thing.

Also, don't forget the practice of charging different premiums for men and women, which IMO should be illegal (for all insurance types). It's especially problematic when insurance (or anything else) discriminates against someone for being the gender that the person doesn't even identify with in the first place (or, for that matter, against being transgender).

For instance, according to an article found with a simple google search, muslims are more likely to experience death anxiety than other religious groups. Should they have to pay more because of that? Similarly, I could mention that people of Jewish heritage are more likely to carry certain mutations that can lead to genetic diseases; should they be penalized because of that?
avatar
MajicMan: Its called personal responsibility. Facts are stubborn things (John Adams). You pay more because you cost more. That is fair. Charging all people the same amount regardless of cost factors is irresponsible and unjust.

I am a 65 year-old, chain-smoking, alcoholic, 320-pound obese male who has had 2 heart attacks, kidney failure and replacement and chemo for a bout of cancer. I should pay the same amount as a 27 year-old, non-smoking, non-drinking, physically fit and active 185 pound male with no previous medical conditions.

No. The answer is no.

As far as muslims experiencing highest death anxiety - well stop beheading each other, stop strapping bombs to yourselves and your 7-year-old kids, stop flying airplanes into buildings, stop driving trucks into crowds, stop stoning each other. Basically, stop being a muslim and try being a human.
Oh boy, the truth. The local left are going to be all over you. I'll probably get a warning for this too. :P
avatar
dtgreene: Actually, I would argue that that is ageism. Even if young drivers *are* more likely to get into accidents, I consider it unfair to penalize all young people for that sort of thing.

Also, don't forget the practice of charging different premiums for men and women, which IMO should be illegal (for all insurance types). It's especially problematic when insurance (or anything else) discriminates against someone for being the gender that the person doesn't even identify with in the first place (or, for that matter, against being transgender).

For instance, according to an article found with a simple google search, muslims are more likely to experience death anxiety than other religious groups. Should they have to pay more because of that? Similarly, I could mention that people of Jewish heritage are more likely to carry certain mutations that can lead to genetic diseases; should they be penalized because of that?
avatar
MajicMan: Its called personal responsibility. Facts are stubborn things (John Adams). You pay more because you cost more. That is fair. Charging all people the same amount regardless of cost factors is irresponsible and unjust.

I am a 65 year-old, chain-smoking, alcoholic, 320-pound obese male who has had 2 heart attacks, kidney failure and replacement and chemo for a bout of cancer. I should pay the same amount as a 27 year-old, non-smoking, non-drinking, physically fit and active 185 pound male with no previous medical conditions.

No. The answer is no.

As far as muslims experiencing highest death anxiety - well stop beheading each other, stop strapping bombs to yourselves and your 7-year-old kids, stop flying airplanes into buildings, stop driving trucks into crowds, stop stoning each other. Basically, stop being a muslim and try being a human.
Whew, that post is gonna get you a few down repping stalkers...



1+
low rated
avatar
MajicMan: As far as muslims experiencing highest death anxiety - well stop beheading each other, stop strapping bombs to yourselves and your 7-year-old kids, stop flying airplanes into buildings, stop driving trucks into crowds, stop stoning each other. Basically, stop being a muslim and try being a human.
If Muslims weren't so easy to wind up, Israel would have zero settlements outside of what was allotted to it under the UNGA partition plan. Israel has benefited enormously from the radicalization of Islam, because without it it would have been forced to accept a peace agreement based on the UN Charter, meaning NO territorial expansion whatsoever.

One day Israel is going to pay a price for obstructing international law for decades on end, and it will be very, very steep.
low rated
avatar
dtgreene: Actually, in this case, efficient use of resources means targeting crime prevention efforts at the areas where crime has actually occurred more often.

Actually, I would argue that that is ageism. Even if young drivers *are* more likely to get into accidents, I consider it unfair to penalize all young people for that sort of thing.

Also, don't forget the practice of charging different premiums for men and women, which IMO should be illegal (for all insurance types). It's especially problematic when insurance (or anything else) discriminates against someone for being the gender that the person doesn't even identify with in the first place (or, for that matter, against being transgender).

For instance, according to an article found with a simple google search, muslims are more likely to experience death anxiety than other religious groups. Should they have to pay more because of that? Similarly, I could mention that people of Jewish heritage are more likely to carry certain mutations that can lead to genetic diseases; should they be penalized because of that?
avatar
MajicMan: Its called personal responsibility. Facts are stubborn things (John Adams). You pay more because you cost more. That is fair. Charging all people the same amount regardless of cost factors is irresponsible and unjust.

I am a 65 year-old, chain-smoking, alcoholic, 320-pound obese male who has had 2 heart attacks, kidney failure and replacement and chemo for a bout of cancer. I should pay the same amount as a 27 year-old, non-smoking, non-drinking, physically fit and active 185 pound male with no previous medical conditions.

No. The answer is no.

As far as muslims experiencing highest death anxiety - well stop beheading each other, stop strapping bombs to yourselves and your 7-year-old kids, stop flying airplanes into buildings, stop driving trucks into crowds, stop stoning each other. Basically, stop being a muslim and try being a human.
The "personal responsibility" argument falls apart when you are looking at things that the person has no control over, like age, sex, and race. How is simply being younger a failing of personal responsibility? For that matter, how is having cancer a failing of personal responsibility?

It isn't fair that someone should have to pay more because of bad luck, or because of the actions of others.

The "personal responsibility" argument doesn't work.
low rated
avatar
MajicMan: As far as muslims experiencing highest death anxiety - well stop beheading each other, stop strapping bombs to yourselves and your 7-year-old kids, stop flying airplanes into buildings, stop driving trucks into crowds, stop stoning each other. Basically, stop being a muslim and try being a human.
avatar
richlind33: If Muslims weren't so easy to wind up, Israel would have zero settlements outside of what was allotted to it under the UNGA partition plan. Israel has benefited enormously from the radicalization of Islam, because without it it would have been forced to accept a peace agreement based on the UN Charter, meaning NO territorial expansion whatsoever.

One day Israel is going to pay a price for obstructing international law for decades on end, and it will be very, very steep.
Post edited March 27, 2017 by MajicMan
low rated
Another hate monger thread.
One goes another takes its place.

The GOG logo should be a burning cross.
Post edited March 25, 2017 by tinyE
avatar
MajicMan: Its called personal responsibility. Facts are stubborn things (John Adams). You pay more because you cost more. That is fair. Charging all people the same amount regardless of cost factors is irresponsible and unjust.

I am a 65 year-old, chain-smoking, alcoholic, 320-pound obese male who has had 2 heart attacks, kidney failure and replacement and chemo for a bout of cancer. I should pay the same amount as a 27 year-old, non-smoking, non-drinking, physically fit and active 185 pound male with no previous medical conditions.

No. The answer is no.

As far as muslims experiencing highest death anxiety - well stop beheading each other, stop strapping bombs to yourselves and your 7-year-old kids, stop flying airplanes into buildings, stop driving trucks into crowds, stop stoning each other. Basically, stop being a muslim and try being a human.
avatar
dtgreene: The "personal responsibility" argument falls apart when you are looking at things that the person has no control over, like age, sex, and race. How is simply being younger a failing of personal responsibility? For that matter, how is having cancer a failing of personal responsibility?

It isn't fair that someone should have to pay more because of bad luck, or because of the actions of others.

The "personal responsibility" argument doesn't work.
Yes it does work and it is fair. A person chooses to smoke, a person chooses to drink, etc.

To get to be old you have to be young at some point, therefore, you paid less when your risk cost was less. You increase cancer risk by doing or not doing certain things (Smoking). You increase heart disease risk if you only eat bad foods.

And bad luck does come into play at times, but that doesn't change the fact chemo therapy cost money, and if you have a history of it, your cost is higher because the cost to insure you is higher. You cost more money.
This thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euXQbZDwV0w