Slippery Slope

Adjust content blockingContent Blocking

syrinx

Channel: politics

next random

Comment

Slippery Slope. . First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out- Because I was not a Nazi. Then they came tor the , and I did net speak DUI- Because I

Tags: anti fa communis

First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Nazi.
Then they came tor the , and I did net speak DUI-
Because I was not a .
Then they came tor the , and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Conservative.
Then they came tor menard there was he one left he speak for me.
201 7)

...

+1242

Views: 58424 Submitted: 08/21/2017

Block User's Content

Block Channel Content

Related Top Content:

Sounds like child abuse

3574

Top ----ing KeK

3122

Cards Against Common Sense

lively nippy horrible Lapwing

2490

Sexual harassment

2442

Pisug Ytuctof Tochimugl

2428

Meanwhile in South Africa...

2408

Sambyoch Edinilt Umercalyod

James woods getting sassy

2297

Hide Comments

Add Comment Refresh (145)

First 2 3 4 Last Next

[ 145 comments ]

Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest

Live Updates: On

Options

asd

#3 - sgtmajjohnson#93 on commentsRank#93

Reply+201

(08/21/2017)[+](6 replies)

stickied by syrinx

>>#1, Their are many versions of the original quote by Lutheran pastor Martin Niemoller, but the most famous is a slightly inaccurate translation. It's about the Nazis targeting certain groups in succession.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

#5 to #3 - syrinx [OP]

Reply+9

(08/21/2017)[-]

Thank you.
I thought it was important to express that the roles have been reversed in the current political climate but that the warning is just as relevant.

#15 to #3 - manter

Reply+3

(08/22/2017)[-]

That's the reason why, no matter how much I disagree, I will always believe people should be allowed to express their beliefs.

#46 to #3 - misterfrog

Reply+2

(08/22/2017)[-]

its funny because all three of those groups were mostly jews

#88 to #3 - Einsty#439 on commentsRank#439

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

First they came for jews and I did not speak out because I was not a jew.
Then they came for communists and I did not speak out because I wasn't a commie.
Then they came for gypsies and I did not speak out because I was not a gypsy.

By then all the problems were pretty much solved and we had a small, gentle tea party.

#80 to #3 - simulatedsim

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

And the true original is?

#45 to #3 - jimmydeeftp

Reply-2

(08/22/2017)[-]

but nazis were socialists?

#4 - leonhardt#86 on commentsRank#86

Reply+205

(08/21/2017)[-]

>First they came for the Nazis
>So a guy hit them with his car

#6 to #4 - lawxyuno#158 on commentsRank#158

Reply+5

(08/21/2017)[-]

**lawxyuno used "*roll picture*"**
**lawxyuno rolled image**

be happy his gatling was at his home, in moms garage.

#129 to #4 - anon id: 24d4be5f

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

I said hey man nice shot

#8 - WutsAtroll

Reply+34

(08/22/2017)[-]

why should a normal person speak out and defend Nazis?

#10 to #8 - syrinx [OP]

Reply+85

(08/22/2017)[-]

If they take away Nazis' freedom of speech then they may be emboldened to silence other groups as well. It's about the principle, not the Nazis.

#17 to #10 - howunexpected

Reply+21

(08/22/2017)[-]

The freedom of speech is not the freedom from repercussions. In the same vein that that comedian could hold up the bloodied Trump head and not get work for it, Nazis are welcome to show their true colours and not get work as a result.

Also, the freedom of speech is only the freedom from government repression of speech. If pricate citizens deem that speech unacceptable then nothing at all can be done about that. So in reality, nobody's "freedom of speech" was infringed upon because the government didn't stop any of it.

#44 to #17 - anon id: 986ade42

Reply+10

(08/22/2017)[-]

>The freedom of speech is not the freedom from repercussions
Of course not. If you call someone a ********, you have to bear the consequences. But getting called bigoted nazi ******** and then banned because you dare complain about muslim 'refugees' forcing sharia law down your throat (just an example) is completely bonkers. I remember when I was shadow-banned from Youtube because I dared argue that copyright is contradicting its purpose and stifling innovation.

Most services (email, social media, video games, hosting providers, domain name registrars etc.) have abusive terms that allow them to terminate your account at their own discretion without prior notice, whether the service be free or paid, or you depend on it to work makes little difference. They can just ban you because because a couple of delusional triggered SJWs wrote an angry email or simply because **** you.
Do you think this **** is ok? No, it's tyranny.

#128 to #44 - glenncornick

Reply+1

(08/22/2017)[-]

But we're talking about actual Nazis here. False accusations boil my blood so of course they deserve defense. In a day when we have actual Nazis and people that are just called Nazis, it gets really frustrating defending the common man

#54 to #17 - commontroll

Reply+6

(08/22/2017)[-]

While this is true, but if the government will not prosecute anybody for enacting physical violence against people who offend them, that is the government being complacent and can easily be argued that it is a paramilitary force at that point. "Oh, no they're not our guys, we just happen to not arrest them or stop them from beating the **** out of people they deem fascists."

#19 to #17 - syrinx [OP]

Reply+2

(08/22/2017)[-]

ter·ror·ism - the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
You are condoning terrorism to silence the views of people you don't agree with. They should be allowed to peacefully gather as well as those opposing them. The government favoring either side a misuse of power.
Would you have been for people suppressing the civil rights movement or the protests against the Vietnam war?

#21 to #19 - howunexpected

Reply+7

(08/22/2017)[-]

Terrorism is not marching against far right and Nazi individuals. Terrorism is not firing or not hiring people who hold those views.
Terrorism is driving a car through a crowd of people who don't agree with your protests and riots. Terrorism is marching with torches through a college campus to surround a black church in prayer. Terrorism is shooting black churchgoers, elementary school members, people on the Capitol Beltway, bombing cities and universities, shooting up your high school or college.
Terrorism is burning down the Reichstag to cement your power as a dictator.
The far right and the Nazis are FAR more familiar with terrorism than anyone on the left is

#23 to #21 - syrinx [OP]

Reply+7

(08/22/2017)[-]

There has not been Nazi violence in a long time, the events you are talking about happened decades ago. Just in the last year Anti-fa has been causing violence at several free speech events such as Berkeley and Charlottesville. We can all see for ourselves who the real threat to our democracy is.

Highlights of Violence at the Milo Yiannopoulos Berkeley Protests

#47 to #23 - anon id: 69b0d868

Reply+4

(08/22/2017)[-]

So why can't we argue

>first they came for antifa
>then they came for socialists
>then they came for liberals
>nobody left for me

This ******** logic works every single way, up down left and right. You can't argue one without opening up the WIDE door for everything else.

Nazis have the freedom to express? So should Antifa. So should muslims. So should BLM.

Tell me how they're different. Tell me how nazis are okay and BLM isn't. Tell me how a group that the entire world went to war over equates to one created in 2014.

You're full of ****. Every one of you.

#55 to #47 - commontroll

Reply+6

(08/22/2017)[-]

Free speech isn't violence of action. I am all for Antifa spewing their ******** and such, but their actions and their violence, specifically them initiating the violence, is why they are terrorists. Grievous bodily harm is NOT free speech ya dip.

#25 to #21 - lulzey

Reply+2

(08/22/2017)[-]

How about when the left tears down statues, beats white people because they might have voted Trump, constantly demonizes whites, brings weapons to events and starts fights, and try to kill conservatives with guns like that guy that tried to shoot up a baseball game practise?

#40 to #17 - policexplain

Reply+1

(08/22/2017)[-]

You're right that the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on the natural rights to free expression, but our rights are not granted by that document and they do not stop with it. Freedom of speech means just that freedom, and it is a concept that is different from the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution. If the social ramifications of speech are so egregious that nobody will speak, then it isn't free. Just because it's not being infringed by the government doesn't mean that it's not being infringed. Further, our laws are made and interpreted by people, and if enough people decide that natural rights don't need to be protected, then we take a large step toward totalitarianism.

On top of this, firing, or refusing to hire a person because of their political beliefs can very well constitute illegal discrimination.

Ideas, even hateful, hurtful, terrifying ideas, must remain free. There is no justification for forcing silence upon a group.

#90 to #17 - wrpen

Reply-1

(08/22/2017)[-]

Except freedom of speech is freedom from repercussions. Not in terms of jobs, or the way people react, no, but you cannot be legally persecuted for your speech, nor can anyone use your speech as a justification to avoid being legally persecuted. Beating someone with a bike lock is no less illegal no matter what they say before you do it. Stabbing someone is no less illegal no matter what kind of person they look like.

Cherry picking two recent cases of "Nazi" violence (one of which has happened a dozen times before with conveniently no response from the left, and was legally deemed manslaughter in the first place) does not hold much weight when "Antifascist" violence has become so common, it isn't even noteworthy at this point.

#56 to #10 - amuter

Reply+1

(08/22/2017)[-]

>>#8, Besides, silencing and socially shunning a group simply forces them to only ever be able to socialize with people who agree with them, causing them to become more extreme in an echo-chamber since they had nowhere else to go and slowly that echo chamber grows to a sub-culture and then it will only grow faster.

As long as you don't need to worry about getting attacked by them you shouldn't be afraid to grab a beer with either a nazi or an SJW and talk about stuff other than politics, you don't become a nazi for assocating with one so you might as well even make friends with them if the stars align. If you want them to ever become ever so slightly open to your views then show them how people with your views can be. Just because someone is a follower of an ideology or religion that in itself preaches violence it does not mean that they will pratice it.

They aren't less than human despite their beliefs and despite their intolerance and in the case where they're criminals it's even despite that too. If you don't see that then you certainly aren't tolerant either, evil is in fact may the mighty Admin have mercy on my soul for uttering this term a social construct. This does not mean we should remove punishments or never strike back, but it means that we should treat people like people. Don't drink with thy enemy should only apply for when there's a risk of your drink being poisoned.

#76 to #10 - WutsAtroll

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

I agree with freedom of speech, but there are always going to be social consequences if you have extreme views like that. Saying that people aren't allowed to respond to nazis in a negative way is a bit unrealistic

#91 to #8 - OsamaBinLadenz

Reply+11

(08/22/2017)[-]

You don't have to defend their ideas. But you should defend their right to hold and discuss their ideas.

#78 to #8 - frozo

Reply+9

(08/22/2017)[-]

Because "Nazi" and "fascist" is such a loose term that can be used to define literally anyone.

The moment they manage to push through some kind of stupid asshat justification that it's ok to kill or silence "Nazis", you can bet your ass they'll either expand the definition or call everyone that disagrees with them "Nazis" to silence the opposition.

It's such a slippery slope, and this is realistic, too. It's authoritarian dictatorship 101.

#100 to #78 - WutsAtroll

Reply+4

(08/22/2017)[-]

Although technically true, I assume for the sake of discussion a Nazi is someone who actually supports Hitler and his ideals. As long as a clear line is drawn I don't see a problem with people lashing out against Nazis. Same with muslim extremists

#109 to #8 - marinepenguin

Reply+7

(08/22/2017)[-]

#116 to #109 - WutsAtroll

Reply+2

(08/22/2017)[-]

I assumed that it was more about vigilante communists targeting nazis rather than actual laws. But I agree. Defending freedom of speech only has value when it's regarding something that you disagree with

#63 to #8 - migch

Reply+5

(08/22/2017)[-]

Why should a normal person speak out and defend you?

#75 to #63 - WutsAtroll

Reply+11

(08/22/2017)[-]

Because I don't want to exterminate undesirable people

#85 to #75 - anon id: ecff6d98

Reply-1

(08/22/2017)[-]

I don't really see a danger, since that would be illegal to do. I have my own list of idiots I think the world would be better off without, but you really don't have the right to end another person's life based on that. The comic is a spin off from the original WW2 reference, showing that standing by and doing nothing is just as bad as killing them yourself, which you only realize when it's your turn

#83 to #8 - anon id: ecff6d98

Reply+1

(08/22/2017)[-]

I thought we learned something about killing off groups of people in world war 2, but I guess we need another one just for you.

#103 to #83 - WutsAtroll

Reply+6

(08/22/2017)[-]

Are you really equating Nazis with their victims? That's like saying that police shooting a terrorist as he's killing people are just as bad

#36 to #8 - severepwner

Reply-4

(08/22/2017)[-]

Why shouldn't you? You don't actually believe they don't have anything valuable to say.

#86 to #36 - WutsAtroll

Reply+1

(08/22/2017)[-]

Yeah I don't think what they say is valuable, but I'm not basing my decision on value. I just can't find a reason to tell people that they can't oppose nazis however they see fit

#130 to #86 - wraithguard#122 on commentsRank#122

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

What if "oppose" includes physical violence?

#131 to #130 - WutsAtroll

Reply+1

(08/22/2017)[-]

Yeah I said however they see fit. As long as their targets are legitimate nazis then I'm fine with it honestly. I know it's unpopular to say that but I can't blame people if they get outraged at the idea of someone wishing to exterminate them and everyone they love

#132 to #131 - wraithguard#122 on commentsRank#122

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

How can you define a "legitimate nazi"?

#133 to #132 - WutsAtroll

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

Someone who supports Hitler and his plan to wipe out undesirable races.

#138 to #133 - severepwner

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

Then you are liberately already basing your definition upon a misunderstanding, while also disregarding every other single policy that is held by National Socialists. You probably would agree with much of what they do, but you won't admit it because "muh evil empire".

#139 to #138 - WutsAtroll

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

Well feel free to go into more specifics if you want. But there are certainly people who feel the way I described, and it's those people I'm talking about

#144 to #139 - severepwner

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

Wanting a state that exists for the sake of your people and not for the sake of someone else's doesn't inherently mean you want a holocaust or genocide. This is the same guilt by association conspiracy that made people catch on that Trump was "literally hitler" for wanting to deport illegal immigrants, and that he was a racist when he has literally never said anything racist from the start of his campaign.

For example Hitler's original solution was to deport Jews and set up the state of Israel, which would be a state for them by them. This was being negotiated in the Haavara agreement, but was not able to come about. Jews revolted at the suggestion. Ironically after the war they were more than willing to take such an offer from the Allies. Being a nationalist, or even a National Socialist, does not inherently equate to White Supremacy, or any kind of supremacy. It can, but so can everything else. Take Black Lives Matter for instance, a supposed equality group is undeniably a Black supremacy group. Just because you want a home for your people, does not mean you don't want there to be a home for anyone else, like how Hitler believed Israel should be a home for the Jews. Mexico should be a home for Mexicans who came here illegally to begin with. Abraham Lincoln wanted Africa to be a home for the Africans, and by that I mean the slaves. He assumed they would have been overjoyed to be returned to their ancestral homeland, but they refused. And their descendants have been crying about "oppression" centuries later. Would you look at that? Abraham Lincoln was a NAZI WHAAAAT?

Beyond social and racial policy, Hitler did not come to power by promising the German people a holocaust. He rose to power on the fact everyone knew, the German economy was a complete disaster, and he could fix it. And fix it he did. He reduced unemployment in the most rapid recovery in human history, he fixed the German industry, raised the value of their currency, and implemented countless Socialist policies that Canadians and Europeans alike masturbate to on a daily basis. Nationalized healthcare, increased benefits for workers, big education, free daycare you had children literally being raised by the state, very pro abortion, public works projects to provide employment and produce infrastructure. These things are never talked about when we're talking about the "evil nazis", for some reason the only thing that was relevant were the tragedies of World War 2.

Do you really believe normal people (whether you like it or not, those people who are roman saluting and waving Nazi flags are normal people) would follow an ideology purely on the basis that it only represents racial genocide? Do you think such a narrow ideology would even be worth existing? Do you think everyone who voted for Trump, went to his rallies and chanted his name and "USA" only did so because of the illegal immigrants? You don't believe there was a single other thing on their mind that actually related to them personally? Like how their country's economy would be, or what job and wages they would have in the future?

#145 to #144 - WutsAtroll

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

First paragraph: I agree, I'm not talking about those people though. Anyone who wants minority groups to leave peacefully is fine with me, as long as they are respectful and civil about it.

Second paragraph: His original solution isn't really relevant though. I'm referring to his final solution, which was still supported by himself + his followers (although not all of them)

Third paragraph: He was pretty clear in his speeches and his book how he felt about Jews. He promised to bring Germany out of a terrible economic and political situation following WW1 which is what got him a lot of support, but he also blamed a lot of problems on Jews and openly described them as subhuman and traitors to Germany. Most of Germany's successes were also attributed to Hitler's advisers rather than Hitler himself, although many of them were Nazis so it's not a huge distinction.

I think there are certainly people who do follow an ideology purely for the racial purification that it promises, definitely. As for Trump voters, the vast majority of them are not Nazis

#135 to #133 - wraithguard#122 on commentsRank#122

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

What about someone that's incrementally less bad by one degree? Can we do whatever we want to them too?

#136 to #135 - WutsAtroll

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

Incrementally how? You either support him and his ideology or you don't. Being close to supporting him doesn't count

#137 to #136 - wraithguard#122 on commentsRank#122

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

There are all sorts of disagreeable people in the world, and some of them are worse than others. Humans aren't binarilly evil or good.

#35 - cubicalpayload

Reply+31

(08/22/2017)[-]

First they came for the black people, but I did not speak out because I was not black.
Then they came for the Jews, but I did not speak out because I was not Jewish.
Then they came for the Muslims, but I did not speak out because I was not a Muslim.
Then they stopped coming for people because all the problems were solved.

#37 to #35 - drkinferno#11 on contentRank#11

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

god bless america

#125 to #37 - anon id: 805566eb

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

Too bad you couldn't fit brown people in there. I mean it's nice that Jose mows my lawn but his lack of citizenship and family of 17 is really eating into our taxes

#60 - anon id: ac4ccead

Reply-22

(08/22/2017)[-]

#79 to #60 - anon id: 448b791b

Reply+26

(08/22/2017)[-]

I do it all for you

#89 to #79 - anon id: ac4ccead

Reply-9

(08/22/2017)[-]

So USA never fought against the nazis... ok then

#94 to #89 - grasman

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

The point is not if america fought nazis or not.
The point is that people are not comfortable being called nazis and racists just because they have a different opinion on something that doesn't even have anything to do with nazis or racism.

#98 to #94 - anon id: ac4ccead

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

The point is that people are not comfortable being called nazis and racists just because they have a different opinion on something that doesn't even have anything to do with nazis or racism.

lol

#99 to #98 - grasman

Reply+7

(08/22/2017)[-]

I didn't say there aren't any nazis.
But the left is just calling everyone nazi if they disagree with anything.
We can play this game all day long and search for pictures that support our narrative.
But it's a fact that the left is calling everyone they don't like a nazi or some other ********.

I'm not a nazi, even though I'm coming from germany.
I'm saying the refugee stuff going here is irresponsible and badly managed.
Does that make me a nazi? Don't all the terror attacks prove I'm right about this?

The left is just putting everyone into some kind of stereotype, including themselves.
I don't have to become some trans-whatever or gay to be someone.
I am already someone but the left is trying to take that away from me.
I'm male and white, so I'm the most horrible being on this planet?
I've never done anything to anyone.

So, I'm just supposed to accept that, huh?
That I'm for whatever reason a terrible person because of my skin color?
How is that not racist?

The alt-left is a political tool to suppress threats to the government.

#104 to #99 - anon id: ac4ccead

Reply-3

(08/22/2017)[-]

The left blahblahblah the left the left the left...

#105 to #104 - grasman

Reply+3

(08/22/2017)[-]

Got brain damage from the logic?
See this is the problem:
You're discrediting someone because you don't like what he has to say.
After all I'm just a nazi, right?
That's the reason why people are trying to defend free speech.

#108 to #105 - maradon

Reply-1

(08/22/2017)[-]

You mean trying to take it from honest Americans and immigrants alike?

#110 to #105 - anon id: faef63de

Reply-2

(08/22/2017)[-]

Ok moron since I see you're confused I'll simplify it for you:
Someone waving a nazi flag and making the roman salute should get the same treatment as someone waving isis flag: SHOT DEAD.

#112 to #110 - grasman

Reply+1

(08/22/2017)[-]

Well, ok, this is a stance we could talk about.
I never felt the need to wave any flag.
Because there's no flag I want to support.

Shooting them right away might be a little over the top if they're just holding a flag.
Personally I can live with banning the symbol.
As a matter of fact the swastika is banned in germany a long time already.
You can get in trouble if you wave one.

In any case if it applies to the swastika and the isis flag by now it should also apply to the antifa flag and communist flags.
I can't really see how antifa is doing anything productive.
They're just destroying property and attacking people.

#64 to #60 - drewjitsu

Reply+19

(08/22/2017)[-]

illustrated by someone who honestly doesn't have a clue

#66 to #64 - kibuza

Reply-2

(08/22/2017)[-]

And is a very bad artist.

I mean I know art is subjective but this **** is just painful and ugly to look at.

#43 - kristovsky#87 on commentsRank#87

Reply+13

(08/22/2017)[-]

You can hate nazis, but they get every right to express their opinion as you do, as everyone else does. Commies, Islamic extremists, those stupid ******* sovereign citizen people, they all get their rights to freedom of speech and assembly. And if you feel the need to silence them because they say things you don't like, well that says one of two things; either you're too emotionally weak to hear different opinions than you're own (in which case you need to grow the **** up) or you're afraid of the things they have to say.

#53 to #43 - guillem

Reply+4

(08/22/2017)[-]

Agreed. As long as it's just speech, people should be able to say what they please. The moment it turns into raelity (or legitimately threatens to), that's when it stops. I wish people defended freedom of speech for everyone, not just those they agree with.

#97 - lotengo#101 on commentsRank#101

Reply+8

(08/22/2017)[-]

First Tump came for the islamists from countries with cultures that do not respect our freemdom and values, and I did not speak out.
Because I am not an islamist from a country with a culture that does not respect our freedom and values.

Then Trump came for the illegal immigrants from Mexico, and I did not speak out.
Because I am not an illegal immigrant from Mexico.

Then Trump came for the radical leftist, who used violence and intimidation to fight Trump every step of the way, and I did not speak out.
Because I am not a radical leftist.

Then Trump stopped coming for people, but he fixed the economy.

#9 - verycoolcat#327 on commentsRank#327

Reply+6

(08/22/2017)[-]

I decided the left wing were assholes when they started attacking games

#1 - blatherskite#99 on commentsRank#99

Reply+6

(08/21/2017)[-]

I think there's a much older quote relating to this

Can someone help me find it?

#2 to #1 - pitifulsoul

Reply+2

(08/21/2017)[-]

Nothing personal... I just haven't used this in a while.
lmgtfy.com/?s=d&q=%22first+they+came+...

#7 to #1 - spikefish#113 on commentsRank#113

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

I'm not aware of an earlier form than the famous Niemoller quote.

#51 - anon id: eebc198e

Reply-4

(08/22/2017)[-]

In every other (normal) western nation it's illegal to go around chanting racist abuse at people. America has an utterly pointless and bizarre obsession with something that doesn't exist and has never existed: the right to go around yelling abuse. That's not "freedom of speech"; that's being an obnoxious moron who has no place in a civilised society. If you think free speech is a human norm then try going up to your mother/father/neighbour/cop whom you despise and saying "You know what? You're an as.shole". Then you'll find out really quickly how the actual social contract works instead of this fairyland puerile idea Americans seem to have about human society's rules. So America (which is still a young and deeply immature polity) has two choices: a) Change your stupid laws and get rid of this bizarre obsession with the constitution (it's not the bible; it's just a piece of 18th century political theory), or b) Uphold your absolutely mindlessly stupid addiction to "free speech" and therefore spend millions of dollars on extra cops to line the route of all KKK marches and all other far-right parades. Either you "believe in free speech" or you don't. As for the alt-left nutjobs, the country doesn't belong to you either - if you don't like freedom then go live in Saudi Arabia. All of these people are as bad as each other; a load of First World Problems whining and too much time on their hands.

#57 to #51 - usarmyexplain

Reply+5

(08/22/2017)[-]

Who gets to decide what we are allowed to say, Brit bong?

To what length will the government go to suppress my right to call your an asshole? Will they cut out my tongue? Because that's the only way I'll stop

#114 to #57 - anon id: 69b0d868

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

"It's okay for me to call you an asshole but I still cry about the time when HRC called me a deplorable"

Uh huh....

#117 to #114 - usarmyexplain

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

She called me deplorable, I never suppressed her right to say that, instead I exercised my rights to stop her from being president

#72 to #51 - jerichoqua

Reply+1

(08/22/2017)[-]

I think you are missing the point. Freedom of speech allows you to truly be free in most regards, as for the consequences for the things you say... those are upheld by the average citizen. You CAN say what you want, but everyone else also CAN say what they want. When people start to attack you for things you have said, then who is the more civilized human being? Words are just words and have never EVER hurt anyone, but physical violence takes the slobbering caveman award.

#61 to #51 - Hightower

Reply0

(08/22/2017)[-]

Good points, but here all you're going to get is a bunch of rednecks and cuntservatives chanting "Muh freedumz!"

First 2 3 4 Last Next

[ 145 comments ]

Add Comment