• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

BrownieBrownBrown
Junior Member
(03-21-2017, 12:33 AM)
JohnTron
How About No
Banned
(03-21-2017, 12:34 AM)
How About No's Avatar

Originally Posted by Gun Animal

"To begin with, we are not what you'd call...human"
Gun Animal
Member
(03-21-2017, 12:35 AM)
Gun Animal's Avatar

Originally Posted by How About No

"To begin with, we are not what you'd call...human"

THIS IS THE REAL S3 PLAN
Neoriceisgood
(03-21-2017, 12:37 AM)
Neoriceisgood's Avatar

Originally Posted by Aquillion

For the reasons you said, I don't view "here's a random chart showing some data I threw onto it" to be reputable. There's a reason why peer-review is important; if we're trying to prove a broad social trend, it requires a lot more care than that. Every angry political blog is full of charts and figures that they say prove their points, but producing useful data out of all that requires a lot more work.

Again, blogs like that appeal to people who want easy answers.

Yeah, I just figured it'd help to specify that our objection isn't that we don't think the dataset is real or not, but that it's way too raw & unpolished to actually draw anything meaningful from.

Your post could be misconstrued as "darn librul just doesn't trust FACTS" without that little caveat added. :)


Basically if a neonazi was disinvited by people who are in the GOP it counts as from the left and if a trostkist is getting thrown out by Dems it count as from the right.
this tells us basically nothing of value.
I won't comment on the value of the article when the very metric it is based on is so useless to begin with.
This stuffs would be shredded by any journal worth its salt.


I noticed this too when looking how they actually defined "left" and "right" within the context of the research.

When harassment can count as political disagreement & the GOP can be categorised as "left" ... that data set's got some interesting possibilities for interpretation.
Last edited by Neoriceisgood; 03-21-2017 at 12:39 AM.
darksol devil
Member
(03-21-2017, 12:41 AM)
darksol devil's Avatar

Originally Posted by Neoriceisgood

In terms of the increase of reports, Heterodox itself briefly notes (albeit then seems to forget) that the self-reporting nature of FIRE means that more familiarity with it may be the result of more reports, rather than an actual increase.

It suffers from the same issue as "more people have cancer/autism, so there must be more of it due to some reason!"; when a lot of it might simply relate to an increase of reports or a change in metrics.


This is the difference between a carefully crafted dataset in high level research, which is designed to eliminate as much noise as possible; And waving around a few numbers you agree with.


I think on face value I don't think it's too shocking that protests at colleges generally lean left of the speaker being protested, as young college-aged kids should statistically speaking be on the left side of the political spectrum almost by definition.

I agree with most of this. Though it's not "numbers they agree with" so much as "the only numbers available." I haven't looked into college student demographics for politics. It would be interesting to see if there was a correlation.

Originally Posted by Mael

You explained nothing about why heterodox is a valid site for anything when anyone who would want to discredit the source would just have to basically quote them.

You can discredit the post by disputing the data analysis. The data is freely available.
Last edited by darksol devil; 03-21-2017 at 12:45 AM.
InterMusketeer
Junior Member
(03-21-2017, 12:43 AM)
InterMusketeer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Canucked

moderate stances are for spending, not for humans.

So being far-right is fine as well, by your standards?
Or is this just another way of saying: "If you don't have the exact same opinion as me you're a shithead."
guybrushfreeman
Member
(03-21-2017, 12:43 AM)
guybrushfreeman's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

I agree with all of this. Though it's not "numbers they agree with" so much as "the only numbers available."



You can discredit the post by disputing the data analysis. The data is freely available.

"The only numbers available" is meaningless. That doesn't make them valid
Charamiwa
Banned
(03-21-2017, 12:43 AM)
I used to love JonTron, as far as dumb entertainment on youtube goes some of his videos are masterpieces. And when he left GameGrumps I was definitely in the "fuck Arin" camp (not out loud mind you). To me JonTron was the shit.

Ironically, now I can't stand him (even his show has gotten stale, souless and overproduced) and I enjoy some Arin & Dan action from time to time. And honestly all this shit makes me grateful for how chill GameGrumps is.
Mael
Member
(03-21-2017, 12:47 AM)
Mael's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

You can discredit the post by disputing the data analysis. The data is freely available.

I don't care about the analysis when the data used is so useless on its face.
It's like trying to explain why racism is not a problem by counting discriminations based on the skin color delta between the guy on the receiving end and some nameless guy dishing the discrimination.
It may very well be the only (and freely available too!) data around but it's still worse than having no data at all.
InterMusketeer
Junior Member
(03-21-2017, 12:49 AM)
InterMusketeer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Titanoboa

I don't think anyone's trying to argue that far right people aren't shitheads.

My point is, that if you can't be right-wing, and can't be moderate, there's basically only one way to go, now isn't there? If you won't accept any opinions other than your own, you should probably take a good long look at yourself.
ScientificPizza
Member
(03-21-2017, 12:49 AM)
ScientificPizza's Avatar

Originally Posted by InterMusketeer

So being far-right is fine as well, by your standards?
Or is this just another way of saying: "If you don't have the exact same opinion as me you're a shithead."

this is a leap
Neoriceisgood
(03-21-2017, 12:49 AM)
Neoriceisgood's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

I agree with all of this. Though it's not "numbers they agree with" so much as "the only numbers available."

I think they're a bit too generous with interpreting the data as to indicate an actual uptick in their conclusion considering they earlier noted that the self-reporting nature & possible knowledge of FIRE itself may be the reason for the uptick.

Some of the conclusions they've drawn would get me in flack with my teachers at Uni based on the actual data available, the source & the possible reasons it may be corrupted.

When I talk about "numbers they agree with" I talk about them being a bit careless in how charitably they interpeted them. It's not rigorous science by a long stretch.



--

That aside, I haven't had this much fun poking a data set since a gamergater on gaf posted research "proving" men get harassed more than women online. Long story short, Piers Morgan is such an outlier that he was harassed more on twitter than the entire male + female dataset combined & skewed it entirely towards men loloololol.
Toxi
Member
(03-21-2017, 12:50 AM)
Toxi's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

I linked Heterodox, which while not peer reviewed is reputable. Do you really think colleges, which have objectively much higher rates of liberal professors than moderates or conservatives, are going to fund studies on which political party does the most disinvitations? It's an obvious fact that the left is doing way more disinvitations, I really don't see how that can be disputed, even anecdotally.

This argument exists for literally every fringe idea.

"It's not peer-reviewed, but, like, that's because the academic establishment doesn't want to fund research to challenge their viewpoints!"

I've seen it for Bigfoot, I've seen it for aliens, I've seen it for anti-vaxxers.
Last edited by Toxi; 03-21-2017 at 12:53 AM.
darksol devil
Member
(03-21-2017, 12:51 AM)
darksol devil's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mael

It may very well be the only (and freely available too!) data around but it's still worse than having no data at all.

I mean, pretty much everybody who works with statistics would disagree with you about this.
excelsiorlef
Member
(03-21-2017, 12:51 AM)
excelsiorlef's Avatar

Originally Posted by InterMusketeer

My point is, that if you can't be right-wing, and can't be moderate, there's basically only one way to go, now isn't there? If you won't accept any opinions other than your own, you should probably take a good long look at yourself.

You can be whatever you want to be, but you aren't entitled to respect of your political opinions just because you have a right to have them....
Mael
Member
(03-21-2017, 12:54 AM)
Mael's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

I mean, pretty much everybody who works with statistics would disagree with you about this.

I'm pretty sure working with shite data is worse than having none at all, it's pretty much why we don't use guestimates in any kind of serious research (or there's serious disclaimers about the methodology to account for it).
This does nothing with it, it takes a shitcake of data and use that crap to get to a conclusion it already decided upon before.
It's not peer reviewed because it would be thrown out for being so sloppy.
guybrushfreeman
Member
(03-21-2017, 12:56 AM)
guybrushfreeman's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

I mean, pretty much everybody who works with statistics would disagree with you about this.

No one in statistics would try to draw conclusions from a biased and incomplete data set. There is no form of statistics like that
joe2187
owns a house that doesn't even have piss-covered floors.
(03-21-2017, 12:58 AM)
joe2187's Avatar

Originally Posted by InterMusketeer

My point is, that if you can't be right-wing, and can't be moderate, there's basically only one way to go, now isn't there? If you won't accept any opinions other than your own, you should probably take a good long look at yourself.

Being moderate is for those who believe they're too intellectual to actually make a fucking decision, and lack any sort of empathy in their interactions with people.

With the right and the left, you understand what you are getting, and nobody has an issue.

When the argument is "Are black people human?"

taking a moderate stance is shoving your head so far up your ass that you eventually become shit incarnate.
Aquillion
Junior Member
(03-21-2017, 12:59 AM)
Aquillion's Avatar

Originally Posted by InterMusketeer

So being far-right is fine as well, by your standards?
Or is this just another way of saying: "If you don't have the exact same opinion as me you're a shithead."

I think they're saying that there are situations where it is necessary to make a decision; the assumption that being moderate is automatically "good" is flawed.

Beyond that, there's something else I'd want to unpack here: Having the same opinion as me is axiomatically something I think is good. I believe what I believe; therefore, if you agree with me, I think you're right, and if you disagree with me, I think you're wrong. Some opinions I have differing degrees of confidence in, or I weigh differently in terms of importance - but I feel that there's this trend sometimes, especially when defending unpopular ideas, to say "well, all opinions are equally valid, right?", which is self-defeating nonsense.

We can have useful and constructive disagreements about some things (although some others are so foundational that it's hard to see anything to discuss - and figuring out which things people consider that central can be illuminating), but the idea that all ideas need to be coddled and pampered and treated with equal tolerance is ridiculous claptrap. We tolerate all people (even people with terrible ideas), because we accept that there's a basic worth to all humanity, regardless of their race, gender, or culture, and regardless of how dumb their ideas might be. But stupid ideas deserve to be called stupid; and arguing that all ideas and all positions inherently deserve an equal hearing is obviously nonsense. There's only so much intellectual bandwidth to go around; the marketplace of ideas has winners and losers, and when an idea has lost it isn't automatically entitled to keep coming back day after day expecting hearing after hearing. If you want to try and argue an unpopular idea, be my guest, but if you find it to be an uphill fight, that's the marketplace of ideas working the way it should - good ideas get discussion and analysis and refinement; bad ideas sink to the bottom and become historical footnotes.

This also ties back into my issue with people claiming that academia is biased against their ideas. I don't believe there is a systematic ideological bias in academia; but I do believe it is supposed to be biased against bad ideas - ones that fail to convince people in a rigorous setting, ones that fail to satisfactorily prove their case, or ones that aren't useful for explaining the universe. Many of the conservative ideas that people are talking about were once completely mainstream in academia; they lost not because of some sinister conspiracy but because they were unable to hold their ground in the marketplace of ideas.
Last edited by Aquillion; 03-21-2017 at 01:05 AM.
DaytimeWhiskey
Member
(03-21-2017, 01:03 AM)
DaytimeWhiskey's Avatar

Originally Posted by Charamiwa

I used to love JonTron, as far as dumb entertainment on youtube goes some of his videos are masterpieces. And when he left GameGrumps I was definitely in the "fuck Arin" camp (not out loud mind you). To me JonTron was the shit.

Ironically, now I can't stand him (even his show has gotten stale, souless and overproduced) and I enjoy some Arin & Dan action from time to time. And honestly all this shit makes me grateful for how chill GameGrumps is.

Right there with you, I'd occasionally have Jontron on in the background when I was getting stuff done around the house and wanted a quick laugh. But his new content lost its charm for me and he's a racist idiot? Done deal

On the flip side I can't think of a better replacement than Dan on the Grumps. Dude is likeable, funny, has hella stories. I actually wanted to hate him at first, just couldn't do it.
Neoriceisgood
(03-21-2017, 01:04 AM)
Neoriceisgood's Avatar

Originally Posted by Aquillion

I don't believe there is a systematic ideological bias in academia.

I will add that while a big conspiracy against certain ideas obviously isn't true, there is in a sense a "bias" in what research will actually get funded.

See: Republicans wanting to slash funding on climate research from an ideological bias.
darksol devil
Member
(03-21-2017, 01:05 AM)
darksol devil's Avatar

Originally Posted by Aquillion

I think they're saying that there are situations where it is necessary to make a decision; the assumption that being moderate is automatically "good" is flawed.

I just wanted to chime in to say this is finally something we can agree upon. I am by no means a Colin-type of "the middle road is always best." There are issues I'm moderate on, but by and large I'm liberal. And while moderate shouldn't automatically be good, it shouldn't automatically be bad either, as is how this particular debate got started in the first place a few pages back.

Originally Posted by guybrushfreeman

No one in statistics would try to draw conclusions from a biased and incomplete data set. There is no form of statistics like that

There is no form of statistics that is wholly complete and unbiased. Sites like 538 literally aggregate polls from a variety of well-regarded sites to de-bias them via weighing. Bias and incompleteness is a fact of life for statisticians. Granted, the closer you get to the ideal, the stronger you can make your case. But it's a continuum, not a line drawn in the sand between perfection and nonperfection.
Last edited by darksol devil; 03-21-2017 at 01:17 AM.
amiablepercy
Banned
(03-21-2017, 01:09 AM)
Oy! Jon's defense of using "Retarded" made no sense but was also unnecessarily dickish and rude to the guy who politely said it wasn't cool. Though... we shouldn't hold him accountable. JonTron is "post-retarded' he breached the next level.
Last edited by amiablepercy; 03-21-2017 at 01:41 AM.
Mael
Member
(03-21-2017, 01:16 AM)
Mael's Avatar
I'd like to point out that political orientation in research means jack all.
If you're rigorous, have data to back what you're saying and your demonstration is following basic principles you can present a valid hypothesis.
This jerking off to under represented political position in academia is stupid if I'm being charitable.
A paper is not more/less valid because the guy writting it has a shrine to Reagan.

Originally Posted by darksol devil

There is no form of statistics that is wholly complete and unbiased. Sites like 538 literally aggregate polls from a variety of well-regarded sites to de-bias them via weighing. Bias and incompleteness is a fact of life for statisticians. Granted, the closer you get to the ideal, the stronger you can make your case. But it's a continuum, not a line drawn in the sand between perfection and nonperfection.

We routinely discuss 538 data validity here.
So let's not use the argument that everyone think that 538's aggregate is anything but incomplete data massaging.
And still it's wildly different from your article that use willingly shit data to come to a conclusion.
Last edited by Mael; 03-21-2017 at 01:20 AM.
Mr. Patch
Member
(03-21-2017, 01:20 AM)
Mr. Patch's Avatar
Makes me wonder how many other YouTube gaming personalities are on this bullshit. And I doubt it's an insignificant number.
guybrushfreeman
Member
(03-21-2017, 01:24 AM)
guybrushfreeman's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

I just wanted to chime in to say this is finally something we can agree upon. I am by no means a Colin-type of "the middle road is always best." There are issues I'm moderate on, but by and large I'm liberal. And while moderate shouldn't automatically be good, it shouldn't automatically be bad either, as is how this particular debate got started in the first place a few pages back.



There is no form of statistics that is wholly complete and unbiased. Sites like 538 literally aggregate polls from a variety of well-regarded sites to de-bias them via weighing. Bias and incompleteness is a fact of life for statisticians. Granted, the closer you get to the ideal, the stronger you can make your case. But it's a continuum, not a line drawn in the sand between perfection and nonperfection.

That's absurd. You can't justify the use of any old data that way. It does have to be properly collected to be useful. There is such a thing as poorly collected data that is useless. If I collected my data by asking the opinions of children on the street I couldn't justify it by saying "it's a continuum" it would just be useless data

Edit: we are off topic and I don't want to be. I thank you for the discussion but think you should honestly evaluate what you're accepting as 'evidence' for your points. There are good reasons to apply standards to the data and sources you use and if you refuse to apply them it's important to try and evaluate why that is.
Last edited by guybrushfreeman; 03-21-2017 at 01:28 AM.
InterMusketeer
Junior Member
(03-21-2017, 01:25 AM)
InterMusketeer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Titanoboa

That person was saying that if you have a moderate stance on if all people are people, you're a piece of shit.

I see now. I read it as "people should never be moderates." My bad, carry on.
Chumley
Banned
(03-21-2017, 01:26 AM)

Originally Posted by Mr. Patch

Makes me wonder how many other YouTube gaming personalities are on this bullshit. And I doubt it's an insignificant number.

PDP, Boogie, and TotalBiscuit are probably the most popular YouTube gaming personalities and they're all on it or sympathetic to it.
ScientificPizza
Member
(03-21-2017, 01:27 AM)
ScientificPizza's Avatar

Originally Posted by amiablepercy

Oy! Jon's defense of using "Retarded" made no sense but was also unnecessarily dickish and rude to the guy who politely said it wasn't cool. Though... we should hold him accountable. JonTron is "post-retarded' he breached the next level.

No you're misunderstanding the nuance of his pre-censorship argument. Not being allowed to say anything you want without consequence means that you're being pre-emptively gagged by the radical left
CannonFodder52
Member
(03-21-2017, 01:29 AM)
CannonFodder52's Avatar
Surprised to see Jim Sterling viewers defending Jontron in his comments.
excelsiorlef
Member
(03-21-2017, 01:35 AM)
excelsiorlef's Avatar

Originally Posted by CannonFodder52

Surprised to see Jim Sterling viewers defending Jontron in his comments.

I mean people brigade other places all the time
Maximo
Member
(03-21-2017, 01:39 AM)
Maximo's Avatar

Originally Posted by CannonFodder52

Surprised to see Jim Sterling viewers defending Jontron in his comments.

Jim Sterling is usually against bad practices in the industry and made the term *Fuck Konami* popular, that will bring a few *Haha so edgy fuck companies* crowd that probably don't follow Jim outside of his persona, hes a lefty and makes it obvious in his tweets and Podcast.
amiablepercy
Banned
(03-21-2017, 01:41 AM)

Originally Posted by ScientificPizza

No you're misunderstanding the nuance of his pre-censorship argument. Not being allowed to say anything you want without consequence means that you're being pre-emptively gagged by the radical left

Lol. You had me at nuance.
SuperDowns
Member
(03-21-2017, 01:41 AM)
SuperDowns's Avatar
Another "personality" that refuses to fucking apologize for being a shithead. Shocking, one got in as President by doing that. Don't expect lesser assholes to have character and rationality.
grim-tales
Member
(03-21-2017, 01:43 AM)
grim-tales's Avatar

Originally Posted by amiablepercy

Oy! Jon's defense of using "Retarded" made no sense but was also unnecessarily dickish and rude to the guy who politely said it wasn't cool. Though... we shouldn't hold him accountable. JonTron is "post-retarded' he breached the next level.

I'm against censorship but Jon certainly is a dick for using that word, imo :( It's very hurtful.
Last edited by grim-tales; 03-21-2017 at 01:49 AM.
CannonFodder52
Member
(03-21-2017, 01:44 AM)
CannonFodder52's Avatar

Originally Posted by Maximo

Jim Sterling is usually against bad practices in the industry and made the term *Fuck Konami* popular, that will bring a few *Haha so edgy fuck companies* crowd that probably don't follow Jim outside of his persona, hes a lefty and makes it obvious in his tweets and Podcast.

Its more, I thought he was extremely transparent about his politics. I know a few people who are "anti pc" folk. They despise the guy.

I get what you are saying though, I guess he would draw in some edgy guys.
WadeitOut
Member
(03-21-2017, 01:46 AM)
WadeitOut's Avatar
People who do not believe in equality and civil rights are shit heads. For sure I don't care what bad childhood/religious reason you have for it.

You can be a moderate with fiscal and geopolitical issues but not with these.
grim-tales
Member
(03-21-2017, 01:47 AM)
grim-tales's Avatar

Originally Posted by joe2187

Jontron used a clip in his video of Samantha Bee "Blaming" white people for making Trump president.

Edited to the part where only she says "White people ruined america" and then leaves out the rest of the segment and says "Well if I said black people ruined America it would be racist and double standards bullshit"

Here's the full segment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4

I watched some of that - I didnt know who Samantha Bee was, but as I watched the segment, I assume comedienne/satirist. Jon should realise this and the fact it was comedy.
excelsiorlef
Member
(03-21-2017, 01:47 AM)
excelsiorlef's Avatar

Originally Posted by CannonFodder52

Its more, I thought he was extremely transparent about his politics. I know a few people who are "anti pc" folk. They despise the guy.

I get what you are saying though, I guess he would draw in some edgy guys.

Also people like to go on other people's pages and shit in them in defense of their guy.
wandering
Member
(03-21-2017, 01:48 AM)
wandering's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

I mean, pretty much everybody who works with statistics would disagree with you about this.

Haha no that's not how stats works
CannonFodder52
Member
(03-21-2017, 01:54 AM)
CannonFodder52's Avatar

Originally Posted by excelsiorlef

Also people like to go on other people's pages and shit in them in defense of their guy.

The people I saw in the Jim video were tip toeing around the issue. They didn't seem like the /pol brigade.
excelsiorlef
Member
(03-21-2017, 01:56 AM)
excelsiorlef's Avatar

Originally Posted by CannonFodder52

The people I saw in the Jim video were tip toeing around the issue. They didn't seem like the /pol brigade.


Welp just exposes how deep the rot is then in this community
amiablepercy
Banned
(03-21-2017, 02:08 AM)

Originally Posted by excelsiorlef

Also people like to go on other people's pages and shit in them in defense of their guy.

I think, and I can only speak for myself, I need to clarify. I'm not against JonTron saying these things. If you want to be a fuckwit than you are more than welcome to be a fuckwit. I have a problem with his post-Destiny incident behavior. He continued to deflect criticism, deny responsibility, use awesomely funny and talented personalities like Samantha Bee in weak analogies, and encourage his dedicated following to consider that maybe, just maybe, this was all collusion of the mainstream media to besmirch his otherwise good name. That is Trump level obfuscation and I don't like that instilling or breeding of suspicion and fear in impressionable people. It's taking liberties with your audience, the one's affording you your lifestyle, and it is gross.

Life is about attraction not promotion in my mind. If you willingly decide to be a fuckwit like Jafari good on you and I hope you hang yourself and ruin your career with your bigotry but I have a BIG problem him denying that he's a racist twat, that he doesn't have a history of non-inclusive rhetoric, and that he is being targeted by sources who want him sunk or that he is somehow different or better than white national fuckwits like David Duke. That's my problem with this piece of shit but I do hope he keeps talking himself to the poor house because that is what racist bigots deserve, exactly nothing at all.
Pathfinder
Member
(03-21-2017, 02:13 AM)
Pathfinder's Avatar

Originally Posted by SuperDowns

Another "personality" that refuses to fucking apologize for being a shithead. Shocking, one got in as President by doing that. Don't expect lesser assholes to have character and rationality.

This. Trump has become their example of what happens if you continue being an asshole and stick to your guns above all else.

A great lesson for America.
excelsiorlef
Member
(03-21-2017, 02:16 AM)
excelsiorlef's Avatar

Originally Posted by amiablepercy

I think, and I can only speak for myself, I need to clarify. I'm not against JonTron saying these things. If you want to be a fuckwit than you are more than welcome to be a fuckwit. I have a problem with his post-Destiny incident behavior. He continued to deflect criticism, deny responsibility, use awesomely funny and talented personalities like Samantha Bee in weak analogies, and encourage his dedicated following to consider that maybe, just maybe, this was all collusion of the mainstream media to besmirch his otherwise good name. That is Trump level obfuscation and I don't like that instilling or breeding of suspicion and fear in impressionable people. It's taking liberties with your audience, the one's affording you your lifestyle, and it is gross.

Life is about attraction not promotion in my mind. If you willingly decide to be a fuckwit like Jafari good on you and I hope you hang yourself and ruin your career with your bigotry but I have a BIG problem him denying that he's a racist twat, that he doesn't have a history of non-inclusive rhetoric, and that he is being targeted by sources who want him sunk or that he is somehow different or better than white national fuckwits like David Duke. That's my problem with this piece of shit but I do hope he keeps talking himself to the poor house because that is what racist bigots deserve, exactly nothing at all.


I was talking about JonTron fans brigading Sterling's channel
amiablepercy
Banned
(03-21-2017, 02:21 AM)

Originally Posted by excelsiorlef

I was talking about JonTron fans brigading Sterling's channel

I understood but I think it wasn't being made clear that a majority of those against JonTron support free speech but don't support JonTron's handling this whole thing at all, or his handling of things regarding his fucked up views historically. I also quoted you by accident. Sorry bout that, mea culpa.
LionPride
Banned
(03-21-2017, 02:34 AM)

Originally Posted by excelsiorlef

Welp just exposes how deep the rot is then in this community

Yep...
excelsiorlef
Member
(03-21-2017, 02:35 AM)
excelsiorlef's Avatar

Originally Posted by amiablepercy

I understood but I think it wasn't being made clear that a majority of those against JonTron support free speech but don't support JonTron's handling this whole thing at all, or his handling of things regarding his fucked up views historically. I also quoted you by accident. Sorry bout that, mea culpa.

Free speech is not relevant at all to this story frankly
Pathfinder
Member
(03-21-2017, 02:44 AM)
Pathfinder's Avatar

Originally Posted by amiablepercy

I understood but I think it wasn't being made clear that a majority of those against JonTron support free speech but don't support JonTron's handling this whole thing at all, or his handling of things regarding his fucked up views historically. I also quoted you by accident. Sorry bout that, mea culpa.

ScientificPizza
Member
(03-21-2017, 02:49 AM)
ScientificPizza's Avatar
You don't agree with Jon? So much for """free speech""".....................

Thread Tools