Playtonic removes controversial YouTuber JonTron from Yooka-Laylee
“We do not endorse or support JonTron's personal viewpoints”
UK developer Playtonic has removed the controversial YouTuber JonTron from its upcoming title Yooka-Laylee.
JonTron - real name Jon Jafari - has found himself in the news in recent weeks following a series of far-right views about immigration, ethnicity and nationalism.
Jafari is the founder of channel network Normal Boots, plus the host of a series of other YouTube shows. He personally has over 3m subscribers to his channel. His views were made apparent on Twitter and spilled over onto a video stream, and included the idea that Mexican immigrants are attempting to claim parts of America.
He reportedly lost a number of subscribers on the back of the controversy, although he has since attempted to clarify and downplay some of those views.
Jon Jafari has over 3m YouTube subscribers
In February 2015, when it became apparent that Jafari was a big fan of Banjo-Kazooie, Playtonic invited the YouTuber to voice a minor character in Yooka-Laylee - the spiritual successor that generated over £2m via Kickstarter. An offer that was accepted.
However, following the recent controversy, the developer has decided to remove him from the game. The title launches on April 11th.
"We recently became aware of comments made by voice artist JonTron after development on Yooka-Laylee had been completed," the firm told GamesIndustry.biz in a statement.
"JonTron is a talented video presenter who we were initially, two years ago, happy to include as a voice contributor in our game. However, in light of his recent personal viewpoints we have made the decision to remove JonTron's inclusion in the game via a forthcoming content update. We would like to make absolutely clear that we do not endorse or support JonTron's personal viewpoints and that, as an external fan contributor, he does not represent Playtonic in any capacity. Playtonic is a studio that celebrates diversity in all forms and strives to make games that everyone can enjoy. As such, we deeply regret any implied association that could make players feel anything but 100% comfortable in our game worlds, or distract from the incredible goodwill and love shown by our fans and Kickstarter backers."
Update: Jafari has responded to Playtonic's decision on Twitter. He wrote: "Unfortunate to see Playtonic remove me from Yooka Laylee, but I understand their decision. I wish them the best with their launch!"
Makes perfect sense to me.
When you *$&! on people, they stop wanting to help you.
But doing that while at the same time claiming to "celebrate diversity in all forms"? I just think it's bad phrasing and sounds contradictory to me.
If you want to complain about the word 'diversity' being appropriated from its literal meaning then take it up with words like 'terrorist', or poor 'freedom', which is being violently abused right now.
You can't say what's "Good", or "Positive", and in the same way you can't say what's "Bad" or "Nasty", because that is COMPLETELY subjective. For instance, I could say you're a damn evil person, because you support communism, and thus YOU should be silenced and shut down, but I imagine you'd have problems with that.
(Not that I know your personal view points but I imagine you, based on your defense of shutting down "Offense speech", probably a supporter of of at least socialism, but again, just an example here, I don't know your personal viewpoints)
This being said, the viewpoints and ideas expressed by JonTron are not supported by hidden racists, nor did a bunch of magically evil people emerge from the forests to vote in this past election. His views clearly haven't detracted 3 million people subscribed to him. What you are effectively saying, is that JonTron, and roughly half the nation, are "wrong" and "nasty". That is insane. You are effectively saying millions of people are evil, which is not even vaguely true, but that's how you see them.
You create the habits, patterns, and power to silence unpopular opinions, or popular ones, and the minute someone you don't like gains power you've given them power to silence you.
So yes, you even let nutjobs that say "Hitler was right" talk, just as much as you do people who say "Che Guevara was a nice guy" continue to talk, because if you silence an opinion you don't like, it will just make that opinion more popular.
You can of course quote me the dictionary definition, and I'll go 'Wow I did not know that, having no access to a dictionary, boy do I feel silly.' Maybe they should explicitly say 'positive diversity' to head off the concern trolling - seriously, that's a good idea.
JonTron said, among other crazy things, quote, “Wealthy blacks also commit more crime than poor whites. That’s a fact. Look it up." It's not a fact. And it's not even a freedom of speech thing, this is a private company deciding they don't want to be associated with a dumbass - that's bonafide freedom of association right there. Gaming's reputation is dismal enough already.
Edited 2 times. Last edit by Ron Dippold on 24th March 2017 5:28am
You are also taking wrong how "diversity" work; it's doesn't mean that they have to tolerate absolutely everything and everybody.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Alfonso Sexto on 24th March 2017 8:21am
Surely you can see the distinction between that and whatever bizarre Communist Stasi police state you've dreamt up?
There is only a highlight I can point in your statement:
"So yes, you even let nutjobs that say "Hitler was right" talk, just as much as you do people who say "Che Guevara was a nice guy" continue to talk, because if you silence an opinion you don't like, it will just make that opinion more popular."
There is where the problem is; you confuse "disagree with a point of view" with "try to silence somebody". He's not silencing anybody (Arguably, that would have been Playtonic in this case); when somebody (anyone) writes something or say something he has that right, of course, but people around him have the right to challenge, disagree, or state his opinion about his idea. That is what Ron did here, he did not try to silence him at all: he challenged his idea and stated his desired (also a right) of not listening to a guy that he considers racist.
Now, with this stated, let me remind you how you registered in the web JUST to answer him. You focused your entire statement into proving him wrong, suggesting he has personal issues against the guy instead of his ideas and a secondary and kinda shy (everyone noticed, I'm afraid) attempt to discredit him by putting him in the socialist spectrum, which I'm going to guess you dislike.
So basically: Rod was trying to "disagree with a point of view", and you tried to "silence somebody"
It's as simple as, they are a company that employs many people, some of which are mexican. By endorsing this guy they are sending a clear message that they do not respect their mexican employees.
They also serve many people, some of which are mexicans.
It's not about saying half the population is evil, just that those views are not what they endorse. And if half the population hold irrational fears that mexicans are trying to take over I'd think there was a serious issue with the mental health of the nation - though a quarter of voters did believe the Pizzagate hoax!
If you can understand that it should not be difficult to understand why racist views (including irrational racial fears) is also not within the context.
Is it really that complicated?
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Keldon Alleyne on 24th March 2017 1:31pm
Celebrating diversity does not mean giving a platform to the undiverse.
Celebrating diversity does not mean celebrating bigotry, hatred and ignorance.
You cannot celebrate inclusion by accepting exclusion.
I'm afraid it does (though I'd use the word "accepting" rather than "celebrating", for bigotry, etc).
Otherwise all that you're doing is excluding people you label as ignorant/bigots/haters (which is a subjective label you put on them, not an objective reality), and then celebrate diversity with the set of people that do conform to your ideas, which you believe to be the absolutely correct ones.
So in effect, you don't really want to celebrate diversity, what you want is to celebrate support for your ideas with people that think like you. Which is fine :)
Edited 2 times. Last edit by Ruben Monteiro on 24th March 2017 7:47pm
"Freedom of speech to those who would use it to eliminate the very principle upon which they rely is paradoxical" to quote Popper. Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. Therefrom in the name of tolerance, their must be restrictions on the tolerance of the intolerant. This is a logical truism.
Even the most staunch freedom advocate admits we must restrict people in certain ways to preserve our way of life. But everyone makes their own decisions on where that line is. We are all free to do so, but pretending unless someone advocates total unlimited tolerance we aren't being tolerant is being logically unsound and perhaps even willfully malicious.
Edited 2 times. Last edit by Shane Sweeney on 27th March 2017 11:04am