Talk:JonTron
|
This YouTube related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
Update[edit]
For those wondering what he's been up to lately, Jafari thought it was sensible to reply to a Twitter account called @nothinwrong1488 (Jafari's actual tweet was innocuous though). Maybe I'm being harsh, but surely he noticed the name. CowHouse (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Truth re JonTron's claim that Irishment were historically considered "white" by law and custom.[edit]
Jafari's claim that Irishmen and Jews were historically considered "white" by law and customer is not supported by the article. The fact that Jews and Irish people were allowed to go to "whites-only" schools in the South during the 50s/60s does not support the claim the Irishmen and Jews were historically considered "white". If this was the case then in 50 years - or even now, a person could claim Blacks were not historically considered inferior because integrated schools exist. Does that make sense? The author is relying on a single point in time to debunk an argument that is affirmed by the decades and centuries preceding the ones in which Jews and the Irish were allowed to attend "whites-only" schools; previous decades and centuries in which Irishmen and Jews were INDEED not considered "white". Case in point, this article. Here, the author writes, ""the masses of Jews and other Southern and Eastern European immigrants who became the foot soldiers of America's industrial revolution were despised as lesser, not-quite-white races." Look, I can take it or leave it. I don't really care that much about this, so don't feel the need to message me if I don't respond. But I do believe that "fact check" has done nothing of the sort. Jafari is wrong and even if he was right, the article cited in support does not support his rightness. Levi Ackerman (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- I read the WaPo article again and it does support the claim. The article doesn't specify a time period (e.g. Were they ever segregated in schools by law, anywhere in the United States, such that “whites” went to one school, and the group in question was relegated to another?) According to the article, Jewish and Irish people were never excluded from "whites-only" schools, as well as other examples such as bans on interracial marriage not preventing an Irish person from marrying an Anglo-Saxon. Is this false? The WaPo article also largely addresses your second point:
...many people can’t conceive of the idea that Irish, Italian, Polish, Slovak, Jewish, Greek and other immigrants to the United States could have faced a tremendous amount of discrimination from the Northeastern European establishment and yet still have been considered white. Nor do folks seem to understand that “ethnic” whites could have been considered to be white, but also been subject to racism, because people believed that there were subraces within the white category.
- CowHouse (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- First of all, your claim that the article does not specify a time period is patently false. The author explicitly uses the experience of Irish, Jewish etc groups during Jim Crow in his test. In the fourth paragraph he writes, "Here are some objective tests as to whether a group was historically considered “white” in the United States: Were members of the group allowed to go to “whites-only” schools in the South, or otherwise partake of the advantages that accrued to whites under Jim Crow?". Correct me if I am wrong but that is an explicit reference to a time period. Secondarily, as to your claim that the article does support the claim, pardon the condescending tone, but allow me to walk you through this. JonTron's claim is that that Irishmen were historically considered "white" by law and custom. In support of that claim, presumably you cited this WaPo article. In the article, the author uses a number of benchmarks in support of his overriding argument that the Irish, Italians, Jews etc have always been considered white. Namely, Were members of the group allowed to go to “whites-only” schools in the South, or otherwise partake of the advantages that accrued to whites under Jim Crow?; Were they ever segregated in schools by law, anywhere in the United States, such that “whites” went to one school, and the group in question was relegated to another?; When laws banned interracial marriage in many states (not just in the South), if a white Anglo-Saxon wanted to marry a member of the group, would that have been against the law?; Some labor unions restricted their membership to whites. Did such unions exclude members of the group in question?; Were members of the group ever entirely excluded from being able to immigrate to the United States, or face special bans or restrictions in becoming citizens? If you use such objective tests, you find that Irish, Jews, Italians and other white ethnics were indeed considered white by law and by custom (as in the case of labor unions). But the thing is, the premise of his argument is faulty. As I stated in my original comment, he has chosen arbitrary points in time, such as the Jim Crow era and arbitrary benchmarks, such as the fact that during the Jim Crow era Irish and Jewish kids could attend Whites-only schools to support his conclusion. Consider the following, the Irish were nicknamed "Negroes turned inside out", or consider the fact that recent Finnish immigrants to the US were on several occasions "racially" discriminated against and not seen as white, but "Asian", that in 1908, a trial was held in Minnesota about whether several Finnish immigrants could become naturalized United States citizens or not, as the process only was for "whites" and "blacks" in general, and district prosecutor John Sweet was of the opinion that Finnish immigrants were Mongols. When you consider these events, it becomes clear that the author's premise is faulty and his conclusion that "the Irish were always ‘white’ (and so were Italians, Jews and so on)" (emphasis on the "so on") is wrong. But like I said, I'm really not that fussed about you leaving in a fact check that isn't actually a fact check. It's only Rationalwiki. I wouldn't expect someone who is rational to use this website, least of all the JonTron article, as citation. I'm not knocking Rationalwiki! I love the work you do. I'm just saying. This is my last comment on the issue. Over to you. Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- It mentions Jim Crow, but my point was that it's not referring to that time period exclusively. The next sentence says "Were they ever segregated in schools by law..." There are multiple benchmarks that aren't all related to a single time period.
- The nickname for the Irish can, again, be explained in this part: Nor do folks seem to understand that “ethnic” whites could have been considered to be white, but also been subject to racism, because people believed that there were subraces within the white category.
- The Jafari quote only mentioned Irish, Italian and Polish people. You may have a point about Finnish people but it's not really relevant to the quote. For all we know, since he never mentioned it, Jafari agrees with you regarding Finns. CowHouse (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- First of all, your claim that the article does not specify a time period is patently false. The author explicitly uses the experience of Irish, Jewish etc groups during Jim Crow in his test. In the fourth paragraph he writes, "Here are some objective tests as to whether a group was historically considered “white” in the United States: Were members of the group allowed to go to “whites-only” schools in the South, or otherwise partake of the advantages that accrued to whites under Jim Crow?". Correct me if I am wrong but that is an explicit reference to a time period. Secondarily, as to your claim that the article does support the claim, pardon the condescending tone, but allow me to walk you through this. JonTron's claim is that that Irishmen were historically considered "white" by law and custom. In support of that claim, presumably you cited this WaPo article. In the article, the author uses a number of benchmarks in support of his overriding argument that the Irish, Italians, Jews etc have always been considered white. Namely, Were members of the group allowed to go to “whites-only” schools in the South, or otherwise partake of the advantages that accrued to whites under Jim Crow?; Were they ever segregated in schools by law, anywhere in the United States, such that “whites” went to one school, and the group in question was relegated to another?; When laws banned interracial marriage in many states (not just in the South), if a white Anglo-Saxon wanted to marry a member of the group, would that have been against the law?; Some labor unions restricted their membership to whites. Did such unions exclude members of the group in question?; Were members of the group ever entirely excluded from being able to immigrate to the United States, or face special bans or restrictions in becoming citizens? If you use such objective tests, you find that Irish, Jews, Italians and other white ethnics were indeed considered white by law and by custom (as in the case of labor unions). But the thing is, the premise of his argument is faulty. As I stated in my original comment, he has chosen arbitrary points in time, such as the Jim Crow era and arbitrary benchmarks, such as the fact that during the Jim Crow era Irish and Jewish kids could attend Whites-only schools to support his conclusion. Consider the following, the Irish were nicknamed "Negroes turned inside out", or consider the fact that recent Finnish immigrants to the US were on several occasions "racially" discriminated against and not seen as white, but "Asian", that in 1908, a trial was held in Minnesota about whether several Finnish immigrants could become naturalized United States citizens or not, as the process only was for "whites" and "blacks" in general, and district prosecutor John Sweet was of the opinion that Finnish immigrants were Mongols. When you consider these events, it becomes clear that the author's premise is faulty and his conclusion that "the Irish were always ‘white’ (and so were Italians, Jews and so on)" (emphasis on the "so on") is wrong. But like I said, I'm really not that fussed about you leaving in a fact check that isn't actually a fact check. It's only Rationalwiki. I wouldn't expect someone who is rational to use this website, least of all the JonTron article, as citation. I'm not knocking Rationalwiki! I love the work you do. I'm just saying. This is my last comment on the issue. Over to you. Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The law and cultural viewpoints are not always the same. In the Jim Crow era, Native Americans and Asians were often thrown into the "white" category for purposes of schooling and where to sit on the bus. Maybe hundreds of years from now ignorant people will use these cases to say that in the 1940s East Asians and Native Americans were accepted as white by white people. The same happens now, Middle Eastern People and Indians are often labeled as "White" legally when most white people would deny them the status of white people. If the Washington Post, a non-peer reviewed newspaper makes this mistake, fine. I would expect more critical thinking from RationalWiki, however. 172.93.177.5 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Rando
Suggestion for Page Image[edit]
I thought of a more appropriate image for this page: specifically, a scene from one of Jon’s “Starcade” videos in which he’s wearing an SS uniform. Considering what we now know about Jafari, it would only make sense (not to mention that We Hunted the Mammoth used that image when talking about Jafari’s descent into alt-right insanity.) 24.61.154.51 (talk)|
- I don't think that would be a good idea. WHTM can get away with such things due to being a blog, however RW is (or at least aims to be) a fact-checking site similar to Snopes, but in a wiki format. As thus we should attempt to contain some semblance of professionalism and refrain from using memes and meme-esque pictures in our articles if possible. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Stefan Molyneux[edit]
I posted this before but didn't provide any sources, I apologise. Basically, he's unsubscribed from Stefan Molyneux on YouTube. It is of course likely that he still watches his videos and has only unsubscribed from him to hide his views from the public, and he's still subscribed to Crowder's extra channel but I thought this was perhaps worth bringing up, maybe add in the section on Molyneux "Interestingly, he seems to have unsubscribed from him on YouTube, perhaps in an effort to conceal his views" Source[1] 2001:8003:A51D:CB00:301E:3924:EEF1:A5EE (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Surprised the Banana Republic tweet wasn't mentioned[edit]
Back in like, I believe 2020 or 2021, Jafari posted an image on his twitter of a Banana Republic store, which some took to mean that he thought Biden was gonna turn America into a dictatorship, surprised this wasn't mentioned at all? I don't have the tweet on hand though. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- This one. And yeah that wasn't just one person interpreting it as that, that's absolutely explicitly what he's saying. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Alt-right psychological projection at its finest. Hello, Project 2025 is a thing!!! --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- What does it say about the current state of the Discourse™ that this is as likely to be an actual dogwhistle as it is a troll? We are so very fucked. Anyways, I think adding this tweet to list of things that makes JonTron a Nazi is a bit much. But that's just me, and I am a well known idiot (if I can figure out how to customize my signature, I'm probably gonna put that in it). Daemonspudguy (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Alt-right psychological projection at its finest. Hello, Project 2025 is a thing!!! --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)