So apparently JonTron is a racist

[Leg End]

What does this have to do with anything about jon, how people responded to him, or what I was talking about in my first post?

I'd like to know this as well because how on Earth did we go from the OP to taxes?

 

[runic knight]

What does this have to do with anything about jon, how people responded to him, or what I was talking about in my first post?

I'd like to know this as well because how on Earth did we go from the OP to taxes?

Actually, you know what? Maybe you can tell me because Addendum sure as hell can't seem to do it. Ok, here is my initial post of the quote tree with him

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.948071-So-apparently-JonTron-is-a-racist?page=12#23931537

and here is his reply.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.948071-So-apparently-JonTron-is-a-racist?page=12#23931563

My next reply

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.948071-So-apparently-JonTron-is-a-racist?page=12#23931600

And it goes downhill from there.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

You have done nothing I asked here.

First, on what you did put forth here, you didn't define anything, you just ramped up on another rant.

I asked you to properly define things first, since I knew if you didn't it would be another rambling incoherent mess of irrelevant data that is utterly useless to anything at all but your own mental constructions.

You asked me to define white collar crime and tax evasion. I did. It's you that haven't proven a fucking thing. I want you to back up your idiotic rhetoric that rich people do not, by capita, commit more crime than the average poor person.

I don't know what your statement of "rich commit more crimes" relates to as you switch between multiple nations and yet don't make any comprehensive stand on if you meant worldwide.

Because charting white collar crime and tax evasion is fucking hard to investigate. But let's not pretend for an instance that a nation like the U.S., with even less capacity to investigate such things, wouldn't suffer from the same problems.

There are more companies registered in the state of Delaware then there are people living there for a reason.

I still don't know how you define "rich" or "poor" in this case. You list "super rich", which only further confuses the point by adding a subgroup to an already not defined group comparison.

Finally, a real question. Rich in terms of most financial measures in the Western world typically assumes 10M+ of holdings. But given aspects of white collar crime, tax evasion and its prevalence, I'm willing to settle for Wealthy being anywhere merely in the upper echelons of the highest decicile.

Poor typically represented by the lowest quintile in most Western markets.

I don't know how you are defining "crime" even, as you seem to be just rolling with it defined as "felony" which is just a specific type of crime, and yet later on you switch back to general "breaking the law" type of crime. And throughout you seem to switch between arguing the amount of money involved in such crimes to arguing the amount of such crimes happening. So are we talking all crime in this comparison? Just felonies? Are we judging the amount of crimes committed by either group based on the financial impact?

All serious crime (not civil wrongs). Tax evasion, environmental breaches, fraud, insider trading, etc ... All crime, but in particular white collar crime and tax evasion. All of which are crimes (under any fucking definition of crime) ... and by capita, the wealthy commit these far more often than the average poor person commits any other type of crime.

At this point your entire argumentation presentation is the equivalent of vomiting on the desk and attaching thumb tacks with string between various chunks.

And so far your retorts have been nothing but straw, mate. It's as clear as crystal glass.

You examples are extrapolated based on phantoms and baseless assertions. I mean come on, the differences in legal systems alone between australia and the US make the claims to crime shakey at best as actions that are illegal in australia are not always in the US, and that isn't even taking into account that tax loopholes, business breaks and other perfectly legal shenanigans exist so that people don't even need to break the law in order to screw the system and reap benefits for doing so. What is a felony tax evasion in one may not be the same in another, and without some sort of valid breakdown, your previous example still isn't anything more than saying "but look, there was 5000 criminals" when talking about a nation of many millions. The new example you tacked onto the discussion about tax havens is a little better in that regard, but again because you didn't define shit, it is just more useless ontop of old.

And yet you've done nothing to show otherwise. We know this happens far more than not ... hell, predatory lending alone in Black and Hisanic communities rose from 2% in 1993, to 18% by 2004 as a share of CDOs of mortgage markets. It was so bad, that some economists have called it one of the prime architects of the GFC. Something that is technically illegal (racial discrimination in the terms of access to certain loans), but nobody bothered to investigate then and nobody is bothering to investigate now.

Heaven forbid if the arseholes that created the problem in the first place stay one night in prison.

Am I suppose to be looking at the amount of money involved?

Am I suppose to be looking at the total amount of people connected to the banks?

Am I suppose to be looking at the 100,000 people you defined as super rich?

Am I looking at the entire suspected 100 million connected as all criminals?

Yes, to fucking all of it ... believe it or not actively evading taxation by putting profits and capital gains into offshore tax havens (called base erosion and profit shifting) is a fucking crime.

So much so the U.S. government started demanding that certain banks have to provide detailed records of American clients using accounts in these tax havens. Funnily enough they won't return the favour when Latin American countries start demanding that Miami (also a BEPS stronghold) do the same with wealthy agribusinesses and drug barons in Central and South America to aid in their own criminal prosecutions.

And who am I suppose to be comparing them to as the "poor" in this irrelevant comparison to justify your weird statement? I don't even want to say this is comparing apples ot oranges as at least the two of those are still fruit. This is comparing apples to questioning if robots feel love.

Let's make it easier and just say working class and lower. Basically anybody too poor to afford buying into a trust fund racket as EviltheCat adequately displayed, tax evasion is something central to many professionals and their families.

Compared to worldwide populations of 7 billion, 100 million is barely a drop in the bucket, and that is giving you full credit that what you are citing is "evidence" that all 100 million connected to the bank havens are criminals themselves.

Yes, and if you had an ounce of reading comprehension, you'd realise 100 million entities (not merely people but accounts) also include things like lendee insurers, banks, and trust fund financial services. Accounts that have multiple parties of interests. Multiple people materially benefitting from one account. Multiple accomplices.

As they say; "It takes two to tango...." Though in case of a fraudulent, or tax evading trust fund at the very least 4 or 5 people complicit.

Yes, 100 million entities (not just people) holding 21-32T of the world's wealth in BEPS strongholds is bad news for all of humanity. It is the single largest criminal enterprise in the history of the world. It is bigger than the British Empire at the heights of its power. There is and has never been anything like it.

It is the Galactus of crime.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

What does this have to do with anything about jon, how people responded to him, or what I was talking about in my first post?

I'd like to know this as well because how on Earth did we go from the OP to taxes?

Because of the idiotic statement that wealthy, black people commit more crime than white, poor people ... my argumenyt was that was a racist argument because all wealthy people commit more crime by capita than the average working class poor person. Only Runic Knight refuses to accept the notion. White collar crime and tax evasion alone constitutes more active criminality by capita of wealthy people, than the average poor person will ever be able to commit by doing things like sticking up gas stations, pickpocketing people, or through confidence games.

We know tax evasion and white collar crime is rampant. Just good luck charging people with it and getting them locked up for it. Wealthy people can and do commit far more crime than the average working class poor by capita. That is a fact of life. It is not a racial issue, it is an economic one. More money you have, the more means to circumvent legal institutions in gaining greater unlawful wealth.

This is well enough known everywhere in the world, but Australia is one of the few places yet where you can actually start tallying the real numbers and examining the true extent of things like organised international financial crime. It's a simple enough argument ... wealthy people commit more crime by capita than the working class poor. Regardless of race.

I fail to see why people have problems grasping this. Street crime is not the only crime in existence. As it stands, it's the least of our worries when compared to the scope and magnitude of international financial crime.

One example I used was a mild example of loan fraud and microtransfers to slush funds for short term market speculation by two financial consultants in the Commonwealth Bank and CommSec ... which lead to hundreds, if not thousands, of victims. Who used predatory lending and fraudulent claims on the nature of their lending agreements and of which had many repeatedly benefitted parties as part of their activities, of the extenbt of which will never be truly known.

There were numerous branch directors and various private interests and the like that knew this was happening, have been written up for it, and yet will never be formally charged.

That's one minor, all-too-common instance of white collar crime that will never be properly investigated. There'll be a martyr ... namely the two directly involved. But good luck catching everyone who actively benefits and props up people like this working in complicity of it. Far more wealthy people by capita (regardless of race) doing things like this and more, than working class people like farmhands and waitstaff stealing cars, or pinching wallets.

The working class simply do not have the money and power to commit the same number of self-interested criminality.

 

[Naturally Sound]

A Racist would be a person who thinks any other race is inferior or weaker to themselves.
John in this case is not a racist, As he worded his ideas poorly.
Check back to the video if you're curious.

But yeah, The only difference is context, A racist would try to protect their ideas with their soul, A person who believes racist ideas would try to [I hope] Debate peacefully and try to understand past their believes and try to hopefully lose their racist believes.

I'm still not getting it. You draw the line at ad hominem? The 'I hope' certainly doesn't help either. There is something that needs to be said though. Racism does not implicitly require malicious intent. Like most forms of social bias it's a product of ignorance and paraedolia.

Jon's not stupid. He's also not very scientifically literate. He's seeing a correlative and mistaking it for something causal. In this case, that wealthy black people are arrested more often than poor white people on average. He assumes that the problem must be racial because of the black/white distinction. But he didn't read far enough to see that poor white people actually committed more crimes than wealthy black people, they just didn't get arrested as often. The fact that he makes the mistake of thinking that being black or living in "black culture" is a causal factor of this phenomenon is by definition racist because the logic hinges on race being a causal factor.


Jon's mistake is one of ignorance, and one he can correct if he has the will. Either way he's gotta own it.

Looking on him now and his response video to the backlash, he didn't even issue a non-pology. He clarified on what he meant and doubled down on his racist messages. Racist or not, he is taking pride in his Breitbart inspirations. What is scary is indeed his ignorance. Why? Because he is acting like a cult recruiter with his many subscribers which are young minds. He is spreading hate.

 

[runic knight]

You have done nothing I asked here.

First, on what you did put forth here, you didn't define anything, you just ramped up on another rant.

I asked you to properly define things first, since I knew if you didn't it would be another rambling incoherent mess of irrelevant data that is utterly useless to anything at all but your own mental constructions.

You asked me to define white collar crime and tax evasion. I did. It's you that haven't proven a fucking thing. I want you to back up your idiotic rhetoric that rich people do not, by capita, commit more crime than the average poor person.

No, I asked you to define what the hell you meant by "crime" in your use of the statement where you claimed rich people commit more of it. Instead you jumped ahead, again, ranting about tax evasion.

Here is the problem that you seem unable to grasp.

I don't know what your statement actually applies to and what you are comparing here. You never defined that properly and every time you are asked, it became a huge rant that doesn't actually address that, just assumes I can read your mind and know what direction you are shooting off in this time. And you do this every time, you latch onto something, shoot off into the abyss with it, then act haughty about the fact that it makes no damn sense to anyone else.

So try it again, and as I told you last time, don't fucking rant and rave alongside it.

Just define what the hell you are comparing in the first place when you said rich people commit more crime than poor.

It is no wonder I am not offering any actual counterargument when I don't know what the hell you are comparing here. At best I can point out possible flaws in your examples and comparisons.

also no surprise when I still don't get what the hell any of this has to do with the topic itself or what I was talking about when you jumped in howling like a madman at a street corner about yourself being a criminal.

I don't know what your statement of "rich commit more crimes" relates to as you switch between multiple nations and yet don't make any comprehensive stand on if you meant worldwide.

Because charting white collar crime and tax evasion is fucking hard to investigate. But let's not pretend for an instance that a nation like the U.S., with even less capacity to investigate such things, wouldn't suffer from the same problems.

There are more companies registered in the state of Delaware then there are people living there for a reason.

Are you making the statement applying worldwide or simply across a specific nation? Is it specific to western nations? This is what I was asking you to define here, what the hell your original statement is actually encompassing.

I still don't know how you define "rich" or "poor" in this case. You list "super rich", which only further confuses the point by adding a subgroup to an already not defined group comparison.

Finally, a real question. Rich in terms of most financial measures in the Western world typically assumes 10M+ of holdings. But given aspects of white collar crime, tax evasion and its prevalence, I'm willing to settle for Wealthy being anywhere merely in the upper echelons of the highest decicile.

Poor typically represented by the lowest quintile in most Western markets.

You understood this question, but not the others when all of them are asking about what the hell you are talking about? I am not sure if I should be relieved at this point or just baffled further.

Of course you still didn't exactly define things well. Rich is >$10M? ok, how many people is that totally? And what is poor then, in a more clear description than "lowest quinile in most western markets" as that isn't very specific at all. What would be the average income level to define them as poor in your statement? How many people are in that group?

I don't know how you are defining "crime" even, as you seem to be just rolling with it defined as "felony" which is just a specific type of crime, and yet later on you switch back to general "breaking the law" type of crime. And throughout you seem to switch between arguing the amount of money involved in such crimes to arguing the amount of such crimes happening. So are we talking all crime in this comparison? Just felonies? Are we judging the amount of crimes committed by either group based on the financial impact?

All serious crime (not civil wrongs). Tax evasion, environmental breaches, fraud, insider trading, etc ... All crime, but in particular white collar crime and tax evasion. All of which are crimes (under any fucking definition of crime) ... and by capita, the wealthy commit these far more often than the average poor person commits any other type of crime.

Ok, you are working specifically from white collar crime when you made your statement that "rich commit more crime than poor"? Is it correct to say you meant "rich commit more white collar crime than poor" in your statement? Good to know. Why does that specific example matter compared to the statement jon made that in no way specified white collar crime and instead seemed to be general illegal activity, civil and federal? Why discuss a specific comparison of crime category in retort to a comment describing a general one? How does that relate to how people are responding to jon's comments?

At this point your entire argumentation presentation is the equivalent of vomiting on the desk and attaching thumb tacks with string between various chunks.

And so far your retorts have been nothing but straw, mate. It's as clear as crystal glass.

My retorts asking for you to be more clear and actually define yourself have been nothing but straw? Rather odd thing to say since I haven't started much in the way of addressing any argument because I have instead have had to deal with trying to understand what the hell your point is actually saying in the first place. You, however, have been as clear as a brick wall when not constantly asked to properly make yourself clearer. And even still it is far from clear.

You examples are extrapolated based on phantoms and baseless assertions. I mean come on, the differences in legal systems alone between australia and the US make the claims to crime shakey at best as actions that are illegal in australia are not always in the US, and that isn't even taking into account that tax loopholes, business breaks and other perfectly legal shenanigans exist so that people don't even need to break the law in order to screw the system and reap benefits for doing so. What is a felony tax evasion in one may not be the same in another, and without some sort of valid breakdown, your previous example still isn't anything more than saying "but look, there was 5000 criminals" when talking about a nation of many millions. The new example you tacked onto the discussion about tax havens is a little better in that regard, but again because you didn't define shit, it is just more useless ontop of old.

And yet you've done nothing to show otherwise. We know this happens far more than not ... hell, predatory lending alone in Black and Hisanic communities rose from 2% in 1993, to 18% by 2004 as a share of CDOs of mortgage markets. It was so bad, that some economists have called it one of the prime architects of the GFC. Something that is technically illegal (racial discrimination in the terms of access to certain loans), but nobody bothered to investigate then and nobody is bothering to investigate now.

Heaven forbid if the arseholes that created the problem in the first place stay one night in prison.

Another new example pulled out, lovely. What does this matter at all beyond showing, yet again, you have a chip on your shoulder about other rich criminals that you already admitted to being part of? How does any of this relate to jon?

Am I suppose to be looking at the amount of money involved?

Am I suppose to be looking at the total amount of people connected to the banks?

Am I suppose to be looking at the 100,000 people you defined as super rich?

Am I looking at the entire suspected 100 million connected as all criminals?

Yes, to fucking all of it ... believe it or not actively evading taxation by putting profits and capital gains into offshore tax havens (called base erosion and profit shifting) is a fucking crime.

I know it is is a crime, but what relevance does it have to anything? What is the context here and why does it relate to what everyone else in the thread is talking about with regard to jon's statements being racist or how people are responding to them?

Even on its own you have just shotgunned examples that lack any coherence in why they are being used.

So much so the U.S. government started demanding that certain banks have to provide detailed records of American clients using accounts in these tax havens. Funnily enough they won't return the favour when Latin American countries start demanding that Miami (also a BEPS stronghold) do the same with wealthy agribusinesses and drug barons in Central and South America to aid in their own criminal prosecutions.

What does this have to do with jon's comments, how people responded to them, or what the hell I was talking about in my first post though?

And who am I suppose to be comparing them to as the "poor" in this irrelevant comparison to justify your weird statement? I don't even want to say this is comparing apples ot oranges as at least the two of those are still fruit. This is comparing apples to questioning if robots feel love.

Let's make it easier and just say working class and lower. Basically anybody too poor to afford buying into a trust fund racket as EviltheCat adequately displayed, tax evasion is something central to many professionals and their families.

And that would be defined as, what, exactly? A specific income level across the board? A specific percentage per individual nation they belong to? How many people would that then be in the end?

Come on man, the very barest bones when comparing things would have clearly defined groups you are comparing in the first place. Income levels, amount of people in that group, and total amount of crimes commited by each group.

Actually, that bring up a previous point, are you comparing total crimes per each group, or percentage of crimes to group member ration even? I suppose it doesn't matter at this point, as soon as you defined it solely as talking about white collar crime alone, you seemed like you stopped being relevant to the statistic jon used (one that wasn't specifying white collar alone) and were entirely ranting on a tangent into the abyss again.

Compared to worldwide populations of 7 billion, 100 million is barely a drop in the bucket, and that is giving you full credit that what you are citing is "evidence" that all 100 million connected to the bank havens are criminals themselves.

Yes, and if you had an ounce of reading comprehension, you'd realise 100 million entities (not merely people but accounts) also include things like lendee insurers, banks, and trust fund financial services. Accounts that have multiple parties of interests. Multiple people materially benefitting from one account. Multiple accomplices.

And what does that actually matter to what jon said and why people are calling it racist, or what I said in my first post?

You keep complaining about my reading comprehension, yet you fail every time you are asked for simple clarification and you are so far off topic that it simply boggles the mind.

Even on your off-topic diatribe about rich committing more crimes than poor, your example lacks any context or meaning here. It is just "look, 100M entities". And? Why does that matter to anything being discussed here? How does that support your claim even?

As they say; "It takes two to tango...." Though in case of a fraudulent, or tax evading trust fund at the very least 4 or 5 people complicit.

Yes, 100 million entities (not just people) holding 21-32T of the world's wealth in BEPS strongholds is bad news for all of humanity. It is the single largest criminal enterprise in the history of the world. It is bigger than the British Empire at the heights of its power. There is and has never been anything like it.

It is the Galactus of crime.

And?

What does this have to do with anything about jon, how people responded to him, or what I was talking about in my first post?

 

[Strazdas]

There aren't particularly large numbers of Muslims emigrating to Europe either, but don't let that stop you.

I think over 2% of population in less than 1 year is enough to be classified as particularly large.

What year would that be, I'd like to see the numbers.

That would be 2016, though granted it is an unusual year due to politican events in europe. Other years may be less. Still a significant number though.

Is anyone actually surprised by this? He has a picture of the git that played Kramer on his wall. You know that comedian that lost his mind on stage and proceeded to yell he's a ****** on stage repeatedly.

Liking a comedian who said a "bad word" makes you a nazi.

Keep those claims going, please. they get more ludicrous every time, its very entertaining.

> "Let's have an honest conversation about race."

> Literally says wealthy blacks commit more crimes than poor whites with absolutely no basis in actual fact.

You know, honest! /s

So stating facts is dishonest? I want off this planet!

 

[CaitSeith]

Woah! 15 pages!?

Spoiler: And it just keeps going and going...

 

[Erttheking]

> "Let's have an honest conversation about race."

> Literally says wealthy blacks commit more crimes than poor whites with absolutely no basis in actual fact.

You know, honest! /s

So stating facts is dishonest? I want off this planet!

Ok, I have lost track of how many times I have asked for a fucking source for that claim, and no one, NO ONE (Including you), has delivered. So when you actually back up your words with facts, then you can act like people are jumping on JonTron for just saying facts they don't like. After. Not until.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

There aren't particularly large numbers of Muslims emigrating to Europe either, but don't let that stop you.

I think over 2% of population in less than 1 year is enough to be classified as particularly large.

What year would that be, I'd like to see the numbers.

That would be 2016, though granted it is an unusual year due to politican events in europe. Other years may be less. Still a significant number though.

Got a source for that? I'm having a hard time finding one.

 

[Avnger]

Is anyone actually surprised by this? He has a picture of the git that played Kramer on his wall. You know that comedian that lost his mind on stage and proceeded to yell he's a ****** on stage repeatedly.

Liking a comedian who said a "bad word" makes you a nazi.

Keep those claims going, please. they get more ludicrous every time, its very entertaining.

First: On what plane of reality is a grown man having a complete meltdown going on a non-comedic rant including a racial slur numerous times count as "a comedian who said a 'bad word?'" That is one hell of a historical rewrite of events taking place in your perspective.

Second: No one called him a Nazi due to him liking Kramer. Please point out a single instance of anyone in this thread saying "likeing a comedian who said a 'bad word' makes you a Nazi". I'll wait. (Actually, I won't because it didn't happen). Is this supposed to be honest discourse to you?

Third: The admiration of a comedian who went on a racist rant is an entirely fair characteristic to bring up when discussing a person who was spouting racist talking points. It could be completely unrelated, or it could simply be another part of the whole. That's why it's being talked about.

> "Let's have an honest conversation about race."

> Literally says wealthy blacks commit more crimes than poor whites with absolutely no basis in actual fact.

You know, honest! /s

So stating facts is dishonest? I want off this planet!

Like @errtheking said, source or gtfo. The only person in this thread to attempt to provide evidence (which was shown to not back the statement at all) backing this so-far unsubstantiated dogwhistling was the one who immediately went on the perfect example of an extreme alt-right rant including "cuck" and everything.

edit: @Skatologist you might be getting a notification cause I messed up a quote box. Sorry >_>

 

[McMarbles]

There aren't particularly large numbers of Muslims emigrating to Europe either, but don't let that stop you.

I think over 2% of population in less than 1 year is enough to be classified as particularly large.

What year would that be, I'd like to see the numbers.

That would be 2016, though granted it is an unusual year due to politican events in europe. Other years may be less. Still a significant number though.

Got a source for that? I'm having a hard time finding one.

You're not going to get one. At least not a reputable one.

 

[Parasondox]

This has been going on for 15 pages? Wow.

 

[McMarbles]

First: On what plane of reality is a grown man having a complete meltdown going on a non-comedic rant including a racial slur numerous times count as "a comedian who said a 'bad word?'" That is one hell of a historical rewrite of events taking place in your perspective.

It is a bit weird to see bigots insisting that bigotry somehow requires a verbal explosion of slurs immediately followed by an act of violence. And even then, there's a 50/50 shot they'll still say such a person is being unfairly persecuted by SJWs and the "regressive left." They see bigotry in everything except bigotry.

Who's the real racist... the racist, or the one criticising the racist's racist ideas?

(It's the first one.)

 

[Kolby Jack]

So I'll admit I haven't read the last... 14 or so pages of crazy-long essays and manifestos and stuff because fuck that noise, but I just watched Jon's unlisted reaction video to all this controversy, and I think I'm okay to move past this. I still think Jon is ignorant about the reality of the situations he was speaking about, but when he actually had time to articulate his viewpoints it was a lot more coherent and a lot less racist-sounding. That, plus the fact that it seems he's going to avoid politics from now on is enough for me.

 

[bluegate]

Just some extra information, not sure if this has been posted already;

http://www.dualshockers.com/2017/03/23/yooka-laylee-jontron-jon-jafari-removed/

Apparently, JonTron's voice work will be patched out of Yooka Laylee in an update because of all of this.

 

[CaitSeith]

Just some extra information, not sure if this has been posted already;

http://www.dualshockers.com/2017/03/23/yooka-laylee-jontron-jon-jafari-removed/

Apparently, JonTron's voice work will be patched out of Yooka Laylee in an update because of all of this.

Oh, man! That's too bad.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I haven't looked into this mess much. I saw this thread be made a while ago but since I have no interest in this case I just clicked away. I return now since I read the article about him being removed as a voice actor from a game, however, so here I am making a post. I don't even really care about the game he is being removed from (more of a crash banticoot fan as far as older platformers go) but I just had to say it is horrible that someone can't be honest with his views and not lose a job that he clearly can do sufficiently enough if not better than whoever may replace him. I'm no fan of this guy but the few videos I have watched of his have been very amusing and well done. I don't care if he's a nazi supporter or whatever. I just want good content being made.

 

[Baffle]

I just had to say it is horrible that someone can't be honest with his views and not lose a job that he clearly can do sufficiently enough

I don't think that's horrible at all. We're judged by those we associate with. If I went to the pub with the ex-lead singer of the Lost Prophets, people would assume I was okay with the idea of paedophilia (I went for low-hanging fruit here, my next example is much more subtle); if I went on a date with Hitler, to the cinema, people would probably think I wasn't overly bothered by the whole gassing the Jews thing.

People are tarnished (or raised up) by those they associate with, because you're tacitly endorsing their behaviour to some degree. Sure, they could have left him in and just added a line in the credits to state that they in no way endorse his weird racist views, but no one reads the credits.

Or, maybe, they felt strongly, on a personal level, that the guy they initially hired to do the thing, was not the guy who subsequently said bad things, and realised they'd made a mistake.