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.

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[...]

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"?

Bookwyrm627: Efficient use of resources means targeting crime prevention efforts at the areas where crime is more likely to occur.

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?

dtgreene: Actually, in this case, efficient use of resources means targeting crime prevention efforts at the areas where crime has actually occurred more often.
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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.