Ditiovo Turcuemrex Rysteyslon

Adjust content blockingContent Blocking

cockassunited Rank: #58

Channel: politics

next random

Comment

Ditiovo Turcuemrex Rysteyslon. . The Case of Allen : t Anonymous (ID: ) E Boy goes up to statue and says nothing, only salutes. After !strait" hour of stoic sil

The Case of Allen :
t Anonymous (ID: ) E
Boy goes up to statue and says nothing, only
salutes. After !strait" hour of stoic silence against
an increasingly vitriolic crowd a step away
from lynching the poor guy the police escort
him away. As he leaves, he simply states
188 his we want these protesters to know the truth; that
what my ancestors fought for wasn' t about
slavery.‘ As he leaves in :'t] police car It, a' t! l, is heckled by lli, tr," woman
shoving !itr,' phone and in his face. The policeman turns
simply asks ‘you want another Saturday, don' t you? You should
be ashamed.’
And in the end, this guy who only wanted to quell the violence
is forcefully removed from his university, probably losing
thousands in the process due to wasted tuition, another
sacrifice to political correctness.
No doubt that woman domed him.
We cannot have Ft' society that rewards violent communists and
destroys those who simply want to preserve the past.
38132095 if

...

+1518

Views: 61906 Submitted: 08/19/2017

Block User's Content

Block Channel Content

Related Top Content:

Sounds like child abuse

3577

Cards Against Common Sense

2754

Bucourr Nidagsagiv Zabyt

2835

Who are the real racists?

lively nippy horrible Lapwing

2496

Sexual harassment

2447

Pisug Ytuctof Tochimugl

2429

Meanwhile in South Africa...

2410

Sambyoch Edinilt Umercalyod

Hide Comments

Add Comment Refresh (414)

First 2 3 4 5 Last Next

[ 414 comments ]

Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest

Live Updates: On

Options

asd

#252 - lotengo#109 on commentsRank#109

Reply+100

(08/19/2017)[+](11 replies)

stickied by cockassunited

cockassunited gimme a sticky

Charlottesville Man With Confederate Flag AR 15 Gets Confronted By Protesters

#257 to #252 - distortedflare#178 on commentsRank#178

Reply+13

(08/19/2017)[-]

So wait when i shout terrorists go home I am a Islamophobic racist but when they do it to a dude because he has the same beliefs as some **** wit suddenly it is okay?

#260 to #257 - lotengo#109 on commentsRank#109

Reply+9

(08/19/2017)[-]

Are they shouting terrorists go home?

I figured the dude was called Terrance and they want him to go home.

#292 to #252 - theite

Reply+2

(08/19/2017)[-]

My god, they're like children

#416 to #252 - crazycommando

Reply0

(08/21/2017)[-]

And these are supposed to be "adults" that kid was acting more like an adult than those asshats just yelling on and on and on...

Funny how when they want something they need to have it, but when a kid wants to just salute a statue they los etheir ****... and these are the same people fighting for "freedom of speech" give me abreak

#365 to #252 - mistadou

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

"that blood is in your hands not mine" -disgusting bitch

#353 to #252 - ognuggetry

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

you know it's wrong to tread on other people's cultures. That's why there's freedom of expression. We allow other cultures to live here in the U.S. and we don't penalize them for their beliefs or cultural practices. I am sure there's plenty of people that believe the civil war was about independence other than slavery. From the south's perspective the rich were the only ones that would lose a lot from the abolition of slavery while there would be a massive increase in demand for new services and goods now that slavery was gone.

#347 to #252 - mcegear

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

God does that bitch at the end sound like a cunt

#253 to #252 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply0

(08/19/2017)[-]

Only cause I love you

#10 - lelouchtherebel

Reply-205

(08/19/2017)[-]

It definitely shouldn't of gotten as out of hand as it did, but he is just flat out wrong about why his ancestors fought.
As a fellow southerner i get where he's coming from but you cant change history

#269 to #10 - dyalibya#485 on commentsRank#485

Reply+18

(08/19/2017)[-]

44 replies hidden: Please view thread directly to view.

#259 to #10 - TheLizardKing

Reply+2

(08/19/2017)[-]

44 replies hidden: Please view thread directly to view.

#267 to #10 - adrilazzaro

Reply-14

(08/19/2017)[-]

44 replies hidden: Please view thread directly to view.

#301 to #267 - MatthewsGauss

Reply+22

(08/19/2017)[-]

mostly because the only left wing dudes on here go in autistic rants about how we are all evil racists bigosts ect which is the same kind of person we make fun of because it's ridiculous the **** they believe in

#342 to #267 - anon id: 4d4bc986

Reply+8

(08/20/2017)[-]

I am a center-left liberal and I agree with these people. The progressives are slowly becoming more and more totalitarian. First they came for the Nazis, then for the alt-right, then for the conservatives, then for the liberals. It's just like the 30s in Germany except for this time the commies have the power.

#343 to #342 - carlonord#156 on commentsRank#156

Reply+2

(08/20/2017)[-]

I want to thumb you down for the picture, but thumb you up for the text.

#384 to #343 - iamthepapercut

has deleted their comment [-]

#388 to #343 - iamthepapercut

Reply-1

(08/20/2017)[-]

I honestly don't understand at all how you see that picture as a coherent statement on collectivism or individualism

I have a lot of critiques but I guess I'll stick to one main one for now. First, definitions. Collectivism is defined as giving the needs of a group priority over the needs of individuals. Individualism is the opposite, giving the individual the freedom to act of their own desire outside the control of a collective. The core of individualism is personal sovereignty, the idea that you own yourself and your actions.

How, though, can this idea be made "toxic" to the point that it contradicts the idea that we belong to a group? Moreover, how does having the ability "to contextualize yourself as part of a larger whole" equate to making that whole more important than yourself?

#406 to #342 - anon id: e5f74a56

Reply-1

(08/20/2017)[-]

Actually, I quite like the picture.

#366 to #342 - anon id: 35ec3899

Reply-1

(08/20/2017)[-]

Do you have that awesome picture without the retarded text?

#339 to #267 - benjamino

Reply+2

(08/20/2017)[-]

I haven't commented here in a good few years, I'm doing so now to say that I think both you guys are right, literally the most echo chamber **** tip around

I come back for the porn

#370 to #267 - skyrimdovah

has deleted their comment [-]

#385 to #238 - iamthepapercut

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Hey look I can do that too

#391 to #385 - lelouchtherebel

Reply+2

(08/20/2017)[-]

We can go all night like this
www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/reaso...

#380 to #234 - ronaldkun

Reply+1

(08/20/2017)[-]

Damn, that's a good comparison, I'll be sure to use that next time the Civil War is brought up as a talking point.

#389 to #206 - iamthepapercut

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

And you're ******** all over them.

#392 to #389 - lelouchtherebel

Reply+2

(08/20/2017)[-]

Im not ******** on them I just disagree with what they did, last i checked America was for freedom of speech. So unless your one of those crazy liberals talking about hate speech watch your mouth.

#395 to #392 - iamthepapercut

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

>watch my mouth

How about you go **** yourself. Being free to say something doesn't validate it, stop acting like me disagreeing you is trying to silence you.

#397 to #395 - lelouchtherebel

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

I could care less if you disagree with me thats your right as an American citizen, but dont tell me I'm ******** on my ancestors when all I've done is disagree with what they did

#401 to #397 - iamthepapercut

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

********, you instantly tried to play a victim card about just exercising free speech while simultaneously trying to shame and shut me up. Hypocritical ****

And you're completely misrepresenting what they did is what you're doing, but again I'm getting to that

>>#398, thank you it's honestly the best picture-based joke I've ever made tbh

#402 to #401 - lelouchtherebel

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Im not trying to shut you up i enjoy the argument, I just don't think that im ******** on my ancestors and i don't appreciate being told that i am

#403 to #402 - iamthepapercut

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Then say what you mean, without the weaselly emotional argument

Also I appreciate else being able to be told to **** off without going full rreeeeeeeeee and getting offended

#404 to #403 - lelouchtherebel

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

No problem, I just like debating about this kinda stuff helps me learn more ****.
And in Texas we're taught to have backbone, I may be liberal but Im not some crazy SJW or something

#356 to #225 - willgum

Reply+4

(08/20/2017)[-]

congratulations you just killed a man

#387 to #356 - lelouchtherebel

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

ummm is that good?

#399 to #387 - willgum

Reply+2

(08/20/2017)[-]

depends on the man

#400 to #399 - lelouchtherebel

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Im gonna go with yes then

#376 to #225 - ronaldkun

Reply+2

(08/20/2017)[-]

Now this is a real American right here, ladies and gentlemen. I hope you're taking notes.

#386 to #376 - lelouchtherebel

Reply+3

(08/20/2017)[-]

If i was willing to show my face on this site, you would see that i'm blushing

#371 to #190 - anon id: 8ccdee44

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Funny how the Emancipation only freed the Southern Slaves. It was such a pressing an important issue..but ONLY in the South according to the Union apparently.

#390 to #371 - iamthepapercut

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

tfw he has really strong opinions until he has to defend them himself

probably still searching for a youtube video to "prove" you wrong

#394 to #390 - lelouchtherebel

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

oh and don't worry its not a video this time

#396 to #394 - iamthepapercut

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Still not your argument or opinion which was the whole point. I rest my case here

I'll get back to the main thread in a bit, I'm actually reading what you linked so that I can dismantle the flimsy **** myself.

#398 to #396 - lelouchtherebel

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Oh by the way i like your prof pic gave me a giggle
100% serious

#393 to #390 - lelouchtherebel

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Didn't i already reply to you

#381 to #127 - ronaldkun

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Good post anon, I'm going to save it for later use.

#364 to #169 - swagbot

Reply+1

(08/20/2017)[-]

Please give a source / factoid / site / link / anything for this statement.

"...but they asked To abolish it slowly over time so they could find other means of production and make sure an entire half of the country didn't go belly up overnight..."

I figured this was the case, even back in Junior High School when we were first learning about the Civil War.... i just never heard any claim to this effect.

#349 to #169 - anon id: 05abb15b

Reply+1

(08/20/2017)[-]

Do you have a source that suggests the south agreed to abolition over time?

#281 to #111 - bellrunner

Reply+7

(08/19/2017)[-]

They're livid because it's a chance to be livid for a 'righteous cause.' Being indignant is fun if you feel like you're on the right side.

Nobody in my generation or the generation before mine lived through the draft, or through the bulk of the civil rights movement. We've lived fairly ordinary, safe lives. So now is the chance to either a) feel like you're fighting nazi **********, or b) protecting your race and culture from degradation and oppression.

I also think that a major aspect of the whole thing is that there are no longer any civil rights (or even KKK) leaders to help define any of these movements.Without an MLK or a Malcolm X to be the face of civil rights, the opposition get's to define their goals for them. The same goes for the alt right. Both sides spew as much vitriol as possible towards the other side, with the 24 hour news cycle feeding the flames, and both come out the other end looking disgusting.

#348 to #104 - severepwner

Reply+4

(08/20/2017)[-]

******* THANK YOU. I am thumbed down every time I try to explain that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, and I am always hit by "Haha you are wrong you stupid idiot. My highschool social studies class said so!"

It is BEYOND frustrating. Thank you for this.

#377 to #104 - ronaldkun

Reply+2

(08/20/2017)[-]

Of course, slavery was the sticking point in the whole matter, though of course the actual heart of the conflict wasn't 'white supremacy' but rather a political and monetary power struggle between the north and south.
Your post was very informative, thank you.

#408 to #377 - doctersmiles

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Children post civil war to today in intermediate, middle, highschool we were told that the civil war happened because slavery is bad.
An future kids will even more so be taught the same way.
It really is just propaganda made by ourself an spread to ourself..

It's an interesting topic that was covered in my college history class how a student from the north new York an a student from the south Alabama will be taught completely different information about the civil war then.
An then it segways very well into how history is not accurate because the winner of the war or arguments changes **** around or clouds stuff with every generation because they lead the education system of the whole country. (insert cod quote here)

#273 to #97 - djinkieberg

Reply+2

(08/19/2017)[-]

But wasn't slavery the most important cause for the start of the civil war?

#378 to #273 - ronaldkun

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

Yeah, it was. But it could have been something different. From what I read, if tensions hadn't gotten so high and finally exploded, slavery would have become obsolete and phased out on its own. It just wasn't sustainable. Furthermore, America was a nation founded on the concept of liberty and freedom, the cognitive dissonance of enslaving a people and extorting monetary gain from them without their consent was already putting a strain on the industry as more and more people began to protest it. At that time period, slavery was only considered a necessary evil at best, and at worst, a sin against mankind.

#282 to #97 - bellrunner

Reply0

(08/19/2017)[-]

Then don't minimize a single issue to fit your opinion. Slavery was the backbone of the Southern plantation economy. It played a huge role in the lead up to the war.

#379 to #282 - ronaldkun

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

You are correct. Slavery was the primary issue that causedan strife and tension, but it was political and economic power that was at the heart of the struggle. There was a lot of differences between the agrarian South and the more metropolitan North, and the South feared that the North was favored more by the central government as that was where it was located.

#293 to #58 - anon id: da083177

Reply-3

(08/19/2017)[-]

The south did not intend to preserve slavery, and were willing to abolish it if they were given enough time.
The north pushed them and said they had to abolish it immediately.
What the south wanted, my friend, were states to decide for themselves what was legal and what was illegal, and not a big central government(read:monarchy) to tell them what to do. They wanted to abolish slavery on their terms with their own legalities, not because one man said "no more"

And if they had been allowed to, and people voted, the southern states likely would have abolished slavery very quickly, as only about 32% of the entire population of the south owned slaves. And if not, it would have been abolished eventually regardless from interference by organizations like the UN which would have come to power either way.

The north weren't these angels they'd like everyone to think they were, but history is written by the victors.

#407 to #34 - iamthepapercut

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

What a ******* non-argument. Who's to stop the states? Who's to stop the federal government from doing away with the bill of rights? Answer, the citizens, from whom all power and sovereignty is derived. The individual's autonomy being the single most important virtue, which is eroded the farther political power gets from the community level. Meaning yes, the larger federal government has less right than the state to decide how said state chooses to govern itself.

And I think it's hilarious that you're simultaneously making calls for the importance of the federal government being the arbiter of the constitution when Lincoln explicitly violated it in order to start the war in the first place as well as forcibly silent dissent in the north

#1 - drkinferno#12 on contentRank#12

Reply+84

(08/19/2017)[-]

And what does one do with commies?

#263 to #1 - bringmesolo

Reply+15

(08/19/2017)[-]

#13 to #1 - stupidgandulf

Reply-2

(08/19/2017)[-]

You mean those fake commies?

#3 to #1 - anon id: 8c7f1959

Reply-17

(08/19/2017)[-]

Burn them alive?

blocked huh? cheers mate.

#4 to #3 - drkinferno#12 on contentRank#12

Reply+19

(08/19/2017)[-]

#9 to #3 - anon id: fadf1579

Reply+4

(08/19/2017)[-]

>communism "works"

To reduce populations

#63 - thugnatzie

Reply-76

(08/19/2017)[-]

Lmao he looks like a literal pig. Maybe he should loose a few tons and stop eating dem bus loads of hamburgers if he wanna portray his own race as superior.

The woman on the other hand, oh damn. She got the looks and the courage to step up to this flabbyMc'gee here and flip him off. You can clearly see that he's fighting his urge to eat her really hard.

#98 to #63 - ganjalf

Reply+17

(08/19/2017)[-]

10 replies hidden: Please view thread directly to view.

#115 to #73 - anon id: 72c9185a

Reply+14

(08/19/2017)[-]

She looks like a single mother white trash ho, but whatever floats your boat.

#244 to #65 - kurbeh

Reply+5

(08/19/2017)[-]

That is not female-minded, that is asshole-minded.

#346 to #65 - seriousdoom

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

I think it's funny that idiots always pick the most retarded statements coming from the opposition as the best and typical example of their behaviour. It's even funnier, though, when some dark lord-tier *********** troll makes a comment to get downvoted some more and idiots don't even notice.

#100 to #94 - grannygroper

Reply+4

(08/19/2017)[-]

10 replies hidden: Please view thread directly to view.

#102 to #100 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply+4

(08/19/2017)[-]

10 replies hidden: Please view thread directly to view.

#117 to #90 - anon id: 133f9b7d

Reply-5

(08/19/2017)[-]

You've realized you're wrong and now feel the need to substitute insults for actually having an argument.

And yes, I have been here. Thats how I know you're so full of ****.

#119 to #117 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply+2

(08/19/2017)[-]

I've presented my argument
Your counterargument was the non-argument of "nuh uhn!"
Not really sure where you want me to go with that.

Keep crying though.

#129 to #119 - anon id: 133f9b7d

Reply-2

(08/19/2017)[-]

"You said you make fun of everyone, and just told someone to not make fun of someone, which is a direct contradiction."
"All you said was nuh-uh!"

What a fun world you live in. May those of us in reality come visit?

#130 to #129 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply+1

(08/19/2017)[-]

I didn't tell him to not make fun of someone. Point out where I did so. I'll wait.

#133 to #130 - anon id: 133f9b7d

Reply-2

(08/19/2017)[-]

>>#65

inb4erruhherr...datnotwhatisaid!!

#135 to #133 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply+1

(08/19/2017)[-]

Except that's not telling someone not to make fun of someone. Which was your claim. Sorry, thanks for playing.

#136 to #135 - anon id: 133f9b7d

Reply-1

(08/19/2017)[-]

"err uhh err...dat not what I said!"

When you fall into precisely what retarded argument I predicted you'd make, you don't exactly win the argument there, hot pants.

Try again.

#139 to #136 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply+1

(08/19/2017)[-]

Because that's not what I said, lmao.

You can't claim i've said something, point to a comment that doesn't say the thing you claim I said, and then go "hurr you'll say it doesn't say that i win."

That's not how this works. That's not how logic works.

#145 to #139 - anon id: 133f9b7d

Reply-1

(08/19/2017)[-]

It's the same with blatently lying about what your comment says just because you dont want to own up to your own hypocrisy. Didnt we have this argument before where someone tweeted something with no direct reference to violence, and your argument amounted to "clearly she means violence"?

#146 to #145 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply+1

(08/19/2017)[-]

My comment says what it says. It doesn't have an underlying subtext simply because you want to be upset on behalf of a troll lmao.

#149 to #146 - anon id: 133f9b7d

Reply-1

(08/19/2017)[-]

Neat...so shall we apply that logic to the asinine argument you had before with the liberal who tweeted about generals working to remove Trump from office?

#150 to #149 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply+1

(08/19/2017)[-]

You're going to have to link said argument. I argue with a great deal of butthurt leftists.

#154 to #150 - anon id: 133f9b7d

Reply-1

(08/19/2017)[-]

Then unblock me so I can find it.

#229 to #154 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply+3

(08/19/2017)[-]

2. >Prove you haven't done something. That's not how argument works.
3. Complete deflection. Either your logic applies here as well or it doesn't apply at all.

#232 to #229 - lolollo#366 on commentsRank#366

-4

(08/19/2017)[-]

2. Then dont make claims you cant back up
3. What are you referring to?

#226 to #154 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply+1

(08/19/2017)[-]

2. True
3. Not unless he considered himself fat. It still stands to reason by your logic that the original commenter wanted the kid to lose weight. Which is again, silly.

#227 to #226 - lolollo#366 on commentsRank#366

-3

(08/19/2017)[-]

2. Prove it then
3. There being a subjecrive nature to fatness directly contradicts the philosophy of this website, try again.

#221 to #154 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply+1

(08/19/2017)[-]

1. Kay
2. True
3. That isn't the point though. If making fun of someone means you want them to stop or change that specific thing about him it would stand to reason the original commenter would want the kid to lose weight. Which is kind of a silly claim since we both know the dude is just a troll being an asshole and has no interest in the kid slimming down.

#223 to #221 - lolollo#366 on commentsRank#366

-2

(08/19/2017)[-]

2. False
3. If the kid weren't fat, would calling him fat be an insult?

#203 to #154 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply+1

(08/19/2017)[-]

1. I don't believe it.
2. You have not said anything factual thus far in relation to this actual argument.
3. The guy I "made fun of" again. Does he want the person in the content to lose weight, or is he simply making fun of him to make fun of him.

#204 to #203 - factual

(08/19/2017)[-]

it's a fact

#218 to #203 - lolollo#366 on commentsRank#366

-2

(08/19/2017)[-]

A) K
B) False
C) He's using the kid's weight as an argument for why he shouldnt have been out saluting the statue, which is a falty argument and what you should have called him on.

#194 to #154 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply+1

(08/19/2017)[-]

Except that's a load of ****. People making fun of someone doesn't mean they want that person to change. Did Natzie insult the guy in the content because he wanted him to change? Or simply because he thought it was funny?

In regards to your other comment, let's be real, you would've argued with me over any way I phrased this comment.

#199 to #194 - lolollo#366 on commentsRank#366

-2

(08/19/2017)[-]

A) No I wouldn't have. I may be aggressive, but I know how to phrase my arguments.
B) You not being convinced by something factual =/= it being ********.
C) Im not sure who youre referencing with "Natzie insulting someone", but yes, the reason you insult someone is to get that individual to change an aspect about them in an aggressive manner. Its hilariously inefficient, but thats still the intention.

#189 to #154 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply+1

(08/19/2017)[-]

I make fun of people all the time. Literally every day on this site. Am I attempting to make someone not have down syndrome if I make fun of you? Of course not.

You having no argument means it's not an argument.

I was going through my tabs and saw the one with your profile still blocked. I tried to unblock you again, but it blocked you, so I resent the friend invite. I hecked up

#193 to #189 - lolollo#366 on commentsRank#366

-1

(08/19/2017)[-]

For example, had your comment been "thats not an argument, you're an idiot", then I wouldnt be making this point, because what you would have done was insult the fact that he's an idiot for thinking his weight has anything to do with anything.

#192 to #189 - lolollo#366 on commentsRank#366

-1

(08/19/2017)[-]

Insults are designed to get people to stop being a certain way by challenging some aspect of the person. Thats what a possitive punishment is. Its an added stimulus for the designed purpose of stopping a behavior. Your comment insults the fact that thugnatz was insulting his weight, which indicates that your intentions were to shame him into not shaming the kids weight, as well as indicating general disaproval over his insultation. It's hypocritical to do that and then say that you advocate for "making fun of everyone".

So I say again, you being too dense to understand what the argument is =/= its not an argument.

#177 to #154 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply+1

(08/19/2017)[-]

>no reference to violence
>calling for a military coup

Hmm

>making fun of someone making fun of someone
>literally everyone involved is being made fun of in this situation
>HURR YOU TOLD HIM TO STOP MAKING FUN OF PEOPLE

You have no argument

#183 to #177 - lolollo#366 on commentsRank#366

-3

(08/19/2017)[-]

> adding positive punishment to a stimulus
> somehow isnt attempting to get them to stop

You being to dense to understand the argument doesnt mean its not an argument.

And did you delete me from your friends list to re-add me?

#165 to #154 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply+1

(08/19/2017)[-]

Kay i'll friend you so you can look around for it

#171 to #165 - lolollo#366 on commentsRank#366

-1

(08/19/2017)[-]

Also then I found it, you can reblock me.
/channel/politics/Report+thots+and+th...

#168 to #165 - lolollo#366 on commentsRank#366

-1

(08/19/2017)[-]

I just went and found the tweet instead.

#166 to #165 - lolollo#366 on commentsRank#366

-1

(08/19/2017)[-]

I think its more that your settings are set to private

#162 to #154 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply+1

(08/19/2017)[-]

Have at it

#164 to #162 - lolollo#366 on commentsRank#366

-2

(08/19/2017)[-]

Clever, but that wont work either.

#157 to #154 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply+1

(08/19/2017)[-]

Depends on who you are. If you're a "natzie" troll or a tito alt you can find it yourself.

#417 to #157 - theancienthawaiian#142 on contentRank#142

(08/22/2017)[-]

I don't do alt anymore, this is my main account. Tito is someone else right now and he's a much nicer person

#359 to #157 - theancienthawaiian#142 on contentRank#142

(08/20/2017)[-]

Irish tito is my only remaining legacy.

#358 to #157 - theancienthawaiian#142 on contentRank#142

(08/20/2017)[-]

I dont do alts anymore

#160 to #157 - anon id: 133f9b7d

-1

(08/19/2017)[-]

lolollo

It was on one of your uploaded bits of content. I know exactly which one it was. I had to reply to you as anon (because of the blocl) so it isnt going to be linked to my account, and since it was days ago it wont be accessable from front page. If you decide to take the "lol no you find it some other way!" I'll know that you know exactly what I'm talking about and are trying to keep me from proving you wrong (again).

Your move.

Oh uhh...and...don't forget to delete the content in question before unblocking me.

#172 to #154 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply0

(08/19/2017)[-]

I'm not sure what the contention is here, what specifically did I say that you took issue with?

#174 to #172 - lolollo#366 on commentsRank#366

-1

(08/19/2017)[-]

> no reference to violence in her tweet
> "clearly she means X"
> "There's no reference, at all"
> "Yes, but my mental gymnastics says otherwise."

> direct shaming of individual for making fun of someone who fits your narrative
> then makes claim that you "make fun of everyone"
> "yeah but i never said they should stop..." when directly challenged for positive punishment of doing just that.

Yes you do.

#103 - kamion

Reply+65

(08/19/2017)[-]

He got kicked out of his university?
How does a place of learning justify removing people based on a political stance and caving in to violent mobs?

#231 to #103 - sciencedebunk

Reply+17

(08/19/2017)[-]

He was enrolled at a private Christian college in Florida (Pensacola Christian College). He violated several rules in their code of conduct -
You need to login to view this link

I don't agree philosophically with a college operating like that, but he presumably knew what he was getting into when he enrolled.

#242 to #231 - kamion

Reply+2

(08/19/2017)[-]

Their code of conduct is a bit special, but it's also short and doesn't refer to anything he did in the incident, but I might be missing something.

#278 to #242 - sciencedebunk

Reply+4

(08/19/2017)[-]

Kindness and consideration for others—Christians are to actively seek opportunities to show kindness to others. Common courtesy and politeness are qualities to be developed.
...
Etiquette and manners—Mature and educated individuals know how to speak and act in an expected way according to what is appropriate for the setting.
...
Students must avoid the use of divisive or inflammatory comments, symbols, or actions of any kind, even in jest.

Last one isn't ambiguous. The Confederate flag is currently divisive and inflammatory no matter how you look at it. I would argue he also violated the first two because his protest was in extremely poor taste given that locals were already distraught.

#419 to #278 - anon id: 42c8b245

Reply0

(09/05/2017)[-]

Didn't the people around him also violate those rules? I feel like he only really violated the third rule if anything, the rest of those people acted uncivilized and plain poorly.

#285 to #278 - kamion

Reply-5

(08/19/2017)[-]

You sound like a person I would profoundly dislike if I knew you in real life, you hold your values in a way I find strange and a bit disgusting and say things that at first make me confused and then kinda angry. There's nothing I can or want to do about it though, so a good old "go **** yourself" will have to suffice.

#300 to #285 - sciencedebunk

Reply+4

(08/19/2017)[-]

I'm not sure which of my personal values you think you've extracted from that?

I was trying to interpret the University's code of conduct from a Christian mind set.

So... same I guess?

#112 to #103 - anon id: 0496d132

Reply-28

(08/19/2017)[-]

Because he obviously doesn't understand basic American history. That's like removing someone from University for not being able to read

#14 - welodog

Reply+50

(08/19/2017)[-]

Yall don't understand how pissed this whole thing with him got me today. Ive met this guy a few times around town and he's like the picture definition of southern manners. AND THEY ****** HIM. They got him kicked out of his college ( now granted that particular establishment is an annoyance to a lot of people here. Hell we even have something called Bible Season because they produce bible thumpers on literally every damn corner every year). SO these peaceful respectful ******* cunts mobbed his college,who of course caved. Nevermind he's been doing the EXACT SAME ******* THING here the last at least several years,and didn't seem to be a problem then.Not once in at as far as I am aware of his display for 3 years. But people who have no impact to our community or the school OOOOHH BOOOOYYY WE IN THE DEEP **** NOW SON. **** THESE PEOPLE He went there to help PREVENT the association of the flag and these Neo Nazis. Here's the article for proof.
You need to login to view this link

#20 to #14 - joetraincool

Reply+14

(08/19/2017)[-]

If it's true you know him, and happen to see him again, let him know that our prayers are with him, and that we hope he is blessed for his patriotism. God Bless this patriot, God Bless the South!

#243 to #14 - anon id: 5be54b91

Reply0

(08/19/2017)[-]

God bless that man

also idk why but ur blocking me

- bionicpanda

#2 - carlonord#156 on commentsRank#156

Reply+36

(08/19/2017)[-]

No words, just disappointment.

#216 - anon id: 7c99072d

Reply+26

(08/19/2017)[-]

This proves most of what the white nationalists are saying is right. This kid did a simple non violent, legal, demonstration, and the state kicked him out of school over it.

Leftists just pushed me over to the other side. I still don't consider myself one of them, but I support their cause.

#383 to #216 - ronaldkun

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

You don't need to be a racist asshole to disagree with Antifags. Both the Neo-Nazis and Antifa are bad news. They are both violent, anti-freedom ideologies and they have no place in America. We cannot rally behind either one, both must be opposed.
And it's not like you only have to choose between the two evils, I know that back in Berkeley Antifa got BTFO by sane, non-white-supremacist Americans. Hell, we even had help from the blacks and Hispanic guys, in a lot of cases the Antifa were the group with a higher white to black/latino/etc ratio than the right wing groups.

Again, do not let either one of these two evils gain traction in America. It's only asking for trouble if you do.

#351 to #216 - severepwner

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

It hasn't taken me long to figure out White Nationalists and "Nazis" are the ones on my side. I always find it strange when straight white males always denounce these groups with a passion, when these are the only groups on the planet that are on his side.

#305 to #216 - graycalibur

Reply0

(08/19/2017)[-]

To be fair it was a private Christian college, not the state.

#8 - northkoreanguy#204 on commentsRank#204

Reply+26

(08/19/2017)[-]

I hate history revisionists and commies.
So ******* much.

#30 to #8 - keisariroope

Reply-6

(08/19/2017)[-]

Wouldn't you say that him saying his ancestors didn't fight for slavery is revisionism?

#264 to #30 - thegamepixel

Reply-3

(08/19/2017)[-]

are you implying that the south fought for slavery? I thought they only put that lie in American textbooks.

#271 to #264 - keisariroope

Reply+3

(08/19/2017)[-]

I've never said that slavery was the only reason, state rights and protection of southern economy are good examples of the cause of the war. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_... There are so many reasons that lead to the war but I am making the case that one of the causes the south fought for was slavery and that many people are trying to ignore that slavery was what confederates fought for.

#275 to #271 - keisariroope

Reply+2

(08/19/2017)[-]

I mean, ****. When people say that the south fought for state rights and to protect their economy, it indirectly means that the south fought for the right to stop slavery from being abolished because it was their right as a state and it was the mainstay of their economy, they couldn't let their economy and rights be taken away.
I don't think there is anything wrong or evil in the fact that the south fought for slavery, why do people try to ignore or hide the fact so hard?

#290 to #275 - thegamepixel

Reply-1

(08/19/2017)[-]

slavery was just one issue on a laundry list of issues where the north had voting power over the south and could call the shots on all decisions at the federal level. That had been an issue since America's founding. The real issue the south had was with Lincoln winning the election, hence why the secession movement was proposed well before the abolition of slavery was. Lincoln wasn't even inaugurated at that time.

#299 to #290 - keisariroope

Reply+1

(08/19/2017)[-]

Wow, its almost like we are in agreement, but the statement ''my ancestors didn't fight for slavery'' is revisionism at its finest, the statement directly says that slavery had no part in the equasion.

I would even argue that that slavery wasnt just one issue on a laundry list, multiple issues stemmed from slavery, the state rights issue, economical issues, territorial crises where people couldnt agree whether to make new territories slave free or not, us versus them mentality in the political stage, republicans were almost single issue on slavery.

I also have copypastas that give a very different perspective on what was the real issue.
By 1860, sectional disagreements between North and South relate primarily to the maintenance or expansion of slavery in the United States. Historian Drew Gilpin Faust observed that "leaders of the secession movement across the South cited slavery as the most compelling reason for southern independence" Among the ordinances of secession passed by the individual states, those of three—Texas, Alabama, and Virginia—specifically mentioned the plight of the 'slaveholding states' at the hands of northern abolitionists. The rest make no mention of the slavery issue, and are often brief announcements of the dissolution of ties by the legislatures.[73] However, at least four states—South Carolina,[74] Mississippi,[75] Georgia,[76] and Texas[77] also passed lengthy and detailed explanations of their causes for secession, all of which laid the blame squarely on the movement to abolish slavery and that movement's influence over the politics of the northern states.

#105 - dankknight

Reply+8

(08/19/2017)[-]

>That what my ancestors fought for wasn't about slavery
Thats not true
and even if it was true, how would saluting a statue prove that
and if he wanted to quell the violence, why would he do something that would obviously upset people if not to get a rise out of him.
You guys are acting like this guy is a hero and not just some irl **********

#195 to #105 - theattackmaster

Reply+11

(08/19/2017)[-]

Man, it's almost like 90 percent of Southerners never owned slaves.

#198 to #195 - dankknight

Reply-4

(08/19/2017)[-]

"Maintaining the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior colored race" is not just a matter of owning slaves.

#202 to #198 - theattackmaster

Reply+7

(08/19/2017)[-]

Oh, I was unaware that slavery was not just about owning slaves.
Strange, I could've sworn it was.

#210 to #202 - dankknight

Reply-4

(08/19/2017)[-]

Perhaps at one point, but it became ideological, which is why most of the post war restoration period is mired by attempts to retain power over black demographics such as through Jim Crowe laws

#211 to #210 - theattackmaster

Reply+4

(08/19/2017)[-]

Which you can thank the gov't for. Because the vast majority of people did not care about that. This is easily proven by the fact that the governments had to implement Jim Crow laws, because people (most notably businesses) didn't treat blacks as any different.
It was the actions of the few who did that.

#212 to #211 - dankknight

Reply-4

(08/19/2017)[-]

>business didnt treat blacks any different
>implying thats not what the civil rights movement was about

#213 to #212 - theattackmaster

Reply+4

(08/19/2017)[-]

Businesses only treated blacks different once the government forced them to.

You do realize that, right? That segregation really only started once the government forced it, right?

#214 to #213 - dankknight

Reply-3

(08/19/2017)[-]

you think so?

#215 to #214 - theattackmaster

Reply+3

(08/19/2017)[-]

That lynching occurred in 1930. Jim crow laws were started in 1877.
So tell me, was getting blown the **** out part of your plan?

#276 to #215 - anon id: 3e29cde4

Reply-5

(08/19/2017)[-]

Why cant you admit that your tiny penis makes you hate black men?

#280 to #276 - theattackmaster

Reply+2

(08/19/2017)[-]

Yes, that's the reason. How'd you figure out my secret?

My tiny penis makes me hate black men, but only them. And not the females either. Just males from the continent of Africa.

I'm so ashamed.

#240 to #214 - rangerofthesea

Reply-4

(08/19/2017)[-]

#217 to #214 - dankknight

Reply-4

(08/19/2017)[-]

So the Jim Crowe laws forced people to lynch? I dont get it

#236 to #202 - Endofzeeworld

Reply-6

(08/19/2017)[-]

>Could have sworn it was
It was so much more complicated than that. Slavery was about socio-economic dominance of whites over blacks. Even non-slave holding whites benefited because even the poorest most downtrodden white man was above a slave. You'd think that wouldn't be enough to motivate a people to war but the Slaveholding aristocrats played that one up pretty hard to the yeoman farmers.

#241 to #236 - theattackmaster

Reply+3

(08/19/2017)[-]

I would assume that Cletus joined up to fight because his home was literally being invaded.

But no, Cletus and his family joined up because he wanted to continue a system that placed Africans on the lowest levels of society.

Because if that's the case, why didn't the vast majority of Irish and Chinese Americans flock to the CSA recruiting centers?

#266 to #105 - sstony

Reply+4

(08/19/2017)[-]

A quick google search will tell yu that William T Thompson did not create the confederate flag. Please research before you post, bro. I used to make that mistake too; it's okay as long as you learn from it and stop.

You need to login to view this link

www.historynet.com/embattled-banner-t...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Co...

www.snopes.com/confederate-flag-history/

#265 to #105 - scowler

Reply0

(08/19/2017)[-]

Wrong flag in the background. That's the Battle Flag. The one he's supposedly describing is the Stainless Banner.

#288 to #265 - spyderslicer

Reply0

(08/19/2017)[-]

Kind of true. The 'stars and bars' (Not actually the stars and bars) were actually part of the confederate flag for around half of the civil war. What basically happened was the people of the Confederacy actually preferred the 'stars and bars' over the actual flag. So they redid the flag in 1663 to have the battle flag in the corner over a white background. Then adding a splash of red like two months before the war ended.

So while true that it was never the full flag. It isn't true that it was never part of the Confederate flag.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Co...

#188 to #105 - anon id: 64710b52

Reply-2

(08/19/2017)[-]

Slavery just happened to be part of what people were defending.

#185 to #147 - iwaswithyourmum

Reply+8

(08/19/2017)[-]

You can respect the Japanese soldiers, you can respect the Crusaders, but you can not respect ISIS. ISIS are not soldiers, they do not have a country to be soldiers of, they do not have a war to be fighting in, they are terrorists, bandits, plunderers. We do not celebrate the highwayman who stole and killed from the people, nor do we celebrate those who attacked innocents who had no stake in a war. They are scum. Now fall into the the red you piece of terrorist supporting trash.

#178 to #147 - deathtoheretics

Reply+3

(08/19/2017)[-]

Why the **** would you show terrorististic scum like Isis any respect. They are animals and deserve to die like such

#196 to #147 - legodude

Reply+2

(08/19/2017)[-]

respect should be shown to all fallen soldiers Not terrorists

#201 to #196 - dankknight

Reply-5

(08/19/2017)[-]

>implying ISIS militants arent soldiers
what about al queda
or the taliban

#155 to #151 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply+2

(08/19/2017)[-]

19 replies hidden: Please view thread directly to view.

#158 to #155 - dankknight

Reply+2

(08/19/2017)[-]

1. No it doesnt. I can wear a nazi uniform and go volunteer at a soup kitchen. That says literally jack **** about the intentions of nazis
2. Im not excusing anything. Its just obvious thats what would happen so if he didnt want to raise tensions he shouldnt have done it. If he didnt know that his actions would raise tensions, hes a dumb ass
3. Hes just a ****** larper who has a hard on for a failed separatist movement. If you or anyone else thinks he proved his point, its because you are not actually objective and claiming his intentions are anything other to be an irl shiposter and race baiter

#159 to #158 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply-1

(08/19/2017)[-]

1. Simply wearing a nazi uniform is not the same as what this guy did. It's a false equivalency
2. How is it obvious that people would get so violent he would need to be escorted home by armed policemen over standing still and saying nothing? He's to blame for that? **** off.
3. >if anyone else disagrees with me they're a poo poo head

You're a child.

#167 to #159 - dankknight

Reply+2

(08/19/2017)[-]

1. what makes what he did any different? hes a wearing a uniform and doing something no confederate soldier actually did. Explain to me please how it is that what he is doing proves that the confederacy wasnt about slavery
2. If you dont think showing up to an sjw meet up larping as a confederate soldier would make people belligerent, youre a dumbass too. I should have to explain that,
3. I'm not saying youre wrong about this guys intentions. Im saying you dont have the proof or argument to claim to be right.

#173 to #167 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply-1

(08/19/2017)[-]

Because throwing on a nazi uniform, with no connection to any nazis or germans at all doesn't equate to putting on a uniform of you ancestors to honor them
>showing up to an sjw meetup
I wasn't aware the Robert E Lee statue was an official sjw meetup, seems kind of silly
I have more proof than anything to the contrary thus far.

#176 to #173 - dankknight

Reply0

(08/19/2017)[-]

1. I wasnt asking you to explain why its a false equivalency. Im asking you to explain how what this guy is doing proves anything about confederate intentions nice try though
2. It doesnt matter if its kinda silly, why the **** would you do to an sjw meetup larping as confederate if you didnt want to incite violence knowing that sjws get violent in mob. If you didnt know that would incite violence, youre a dumbass
3. You have no proof of anything. You have no right to assert anything. You dont actually know what this guys intentions are. You dont actually know what his ancestors intentions were. All you know is what happened. All i know is what happened. We can however, make assumptions about other things, such as this guy being a dumbass as ive argued for above

#180 to #176 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply0

(08/19/2017)[-]

>what makes what he did any different
1. Yes you were. And secondly being peacful does exactly that.
2. Because he's been doing it for years? Again, you're literally here excusing people mobbing a guy for STANDING STILL AND DOING NOTHING
3. >the guy himself states what his ancestors fought for Again, that is more evidence than anything you have. Would you presume to know what my grandfather's intentions were over myself?

#184 to #180 - dankknight

Reply0

(08/19/2017)[-]

1. I literally said "Explain to me please how it is that what he doing proves that the confederacy wasnt about slavery" which you have yet to do.
2. IM NOT EXCUSING ANYTHING YOU ******* DINGUS FOR THE THIRD TIME. Im telling you whats going to happen if you show up to an sjw meetup if youre larping as a confederate.
3. In your other response you chose c) which states that this guys ancestor had no feelings on the matter. From this we can conclude that the guys ancestor is not representative of the confederacy. From this we can conclude that whatever this guy is doing, he is not proving anything about the confederacy's intentions, but the intentions of one individual who was at best indifferent and at worst mislead or genuinely interested in slavery. Thank you for that concession. Now we're getting somewhere

#191 to #184 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply+2

(08/19/2017)[-]

I've explained this point numerous times. If you cannot grasp a simple argument that isn't my fault.

You're literally saying "hurr durr someone should go somewhere he is legally entitled to be and be peaceful because sjws might get mad. That is an excuse

For the 50th time. I didn't say his ancestor was representative of the confederacy. I said he was honoring his ancestor. Which he was. And that's what I said. I really don't understand why you have a hard time reading this portion.

#197 to #191 - dankknight

Reply-1

(08/19/2017)[-]

1. You havent explained anything. also thanks to your concession on c) im going to call it such henceforth as it will become you instrument of destruction the most the guy is representing is his ancestor. Since youve already conceded that the ancestors intentions are not at all representative of the confederacy, this guy is not representing confederate intentions in any capacity
2. Again you say im excusing them when I have made no such indication. If your argument relies on pulling things I say out of context, it is a failed argument.
3. Youve already indicated in c) that his ancestors intentions are not representative of the entire confederacy or anyone else aside from him so you cant use this line of argument to make claims aboutthe intentions of anyone apart from the one, or however many, ancestor

#209 to #197 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply+2

(08/19/2017)[-]

I think you may have had a stroke. I've said multiple times his ancestor didn't represent the whole of the confederacy, and neither did he.

#200 to #197 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply+1

(08/19/2017)[-]

1. I have. And how is it a concession? It's what i've been saying since the original comment lmao
2. You are excusing them. You're literally sitting here saying he shouldn't have gone because his actions would've made them act violent towards him. That is an excuse for the lawbreakers
3.I didn't make any argument about anyone other than his ancestors. Read.

#208 to #200 - dankknight

(08/19/2017)[-]

Thank you so much. Ladies and gentlemen we have finally arrived at our stop.
Now would you be so kind as to admit that nothing about this gentleman's actions reflected on confederate values. If they reflected on anything which is dubious considering how far removed he is from his ancestor , they reflected on his ancestor who either
a) was impartial to the movement
b) didnt actually know what the movement was fighting for
c) actually supported slavery
THanks everyone. Its been great. Ill be here all of my life

#220 to #110 - anon id: 7c99072d

Reply-1

(08/19/2017)[-]

Why don't you look up what the word ancestor means idiot.

#153 to #141 - dankknight

Reply+1

(08/19/2017)[-]

19 replies hidden: Please view thread directly to view.

#156 to #153 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply0

(08/19/2017)[-]

19 replies hidden: Please view thread directly to view.

#161 to #156 - dankknight

Reply0

(08/19/2017)[-]

#409 to #161 - sstony

Reply0

(08/20/2017)[-]

A quick google search will tell yu that William T Thompson did not create the confederate flag. Please research before you post, bro. I used to make that mistake too; it's okay as long as you learn from it and stop.

takebackourhistory.com/index.php/2015...

www.historynet.com/embattled-banner-t...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Co...

www.snopes.com/confederate-flag-history/

#163 to #161 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply-1

(08/19/2017)[-]

Again, I wasn't aware William T Thompson was his ancestor.

#170 to #163 - dankknight

Reply+3

(08/19/2017)[-]

>"As a people WE are fighting"
so at best this guys ancestor didnt know what his movement was actually fighting for
at worst he was fighting for slavery

#175 to #170 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply-3

(08/19/2017)[-]

Or, a guy was ******* drafted and got a gun thrown in his hands. Because you know, war and stuff.

#179 to #175 - dankknight

Reply+4

(08/19/2017)[-]

So youre admitting that if his ancestor did fight, he either
a) believed and supported slavery
b) didnt know what his movement was actually fighting for
c) didnt have an opinion on the matter
if you chose c), then his ancestors intentions do not reflect at all on the intentions of the south during the civil war and what this guy is doing is pointless because his ancestor didnt really give a ****

#182 to #179 - cockassunited#58 on contentRank#58 [OP]

Reply-3

(08/19/2017)[-]

I'm choosing C. Which is exactly what the guy is ******* saying you goddamn retard he's talking about his own ancestors and not the entire ******* south.

#187 to #182 - dankknight

Reply+4

(08/19/2017)[-]

Im referring to your answer here for my other response by the way. Thank you for you concession

#247 to #187 - urfunnyman

Reply0

(08/19/2017)[-]