Topic: ICE should deport everyone who complains about America.
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 month ago#135,652
They don't believe America should be a country. They don't believe in national borders. The feel entitled to gibmedats, and will hold their communities hostage if they aren't given enough.
Citizen or not, deport them. They say America isn't so great, that these third world countries are actually wonderful, let them see it first hand.
> Sure let them deport every single citizen that disagrees with them so that they can be reminded of how tyranny starts and it ends. > > A mandate of compulsory humanitarian service between 18-35 years old for one year is sufficient enough.
"Humanitarian" is a funny way of saying kill people in third world countries because a politician had a bad day.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,441,517
Arguing for deporting citizens for criticizing the government is insane. Even if you’re a citizen of a country like Russia or China if you criticize the government, they’ll throw you in jail. Sending you to a random country is ridiculous. No country even does that, that’s the most authoritarian bullshit I’ve head in a long time.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,441,518
@1,441,516 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
I'm talking about people that don't even believe in free speech. Learn some social contract theory, you can't bitch about your rights when you never supported them for others.
They are net losses for society, they vote to take other people's shit. That isn't liberalism, that's parasitism. Not my job to support them.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,441,521
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
Depends on what that means here.
If they are attacking people who believe in free speech, and support themselves, they can go too.
If they are "neo nazis" because the fight back against woke tyranny, no. Self-defense isn't the problem. Stop stealing and censoring people if you want them to leave you alone.
> I'm talking about people that don't even believe in free speech
This is one of the logical flaws with freedom of expression. You don’t believe in freedom of speech either because you don’t think we should protect the freedom of speech of people who don’t believe in freedom of speech. Absolute freedom of expression is paradoxical which is why some countries like Canada have exceptions to freedom of expression that conservatives get mad at, even if Canadian law would actually be closer to what you believe in. Since in Canada for example, hate speech is a crime. So if you’re a Nazi who doesn’t believe in free speech, your speech isn’t necessarily legal. Whereas in the US, hate speech is considered free speech, so you can legally say you think people shouldn’t be allowed to have free speech because you hate certain groups of people.
> Depends on what that means here. > > If they are attacking people who believe in free speech, and support themselves, they can go too. > > If they are "neo nazis" because the fight back against woke tyranny, no. Self-defense isn't the problem. Stop stealing and censoring people if you want them to leave you alone.
This doesn’t make sense, Nazism is against freedom of speech and against racial minorities. What does "woke tyranny" mean to you? Woke was originally a term used by African Americans during Jim Crow to mean someone has awareness of racial injustice.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade triple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,441,525
You can’t eat your cake and have it to, either you have absolute free speech and you can’t punish people for saying things you don’t like, or you can have limited freedom of expression. It seems like you support limited freedom of expression.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,441,526
So technically, you don’t agree with the American constitution, which I mean, you don’t have to. But what I have a problem with is you aren’t being straightforward with that. If you don’t agree with freedom of speech as laid out in the constitution, you should say that you want to change the constitution. Because what your proposing is fundamentally illegal without revoking the first amendment.
> This doesn’t make sense, Nazism is against freedom of speech and against racial minorities.
Actual Naziism is, but I have idea what you mean by it.
A lot of people will say you're a Nazi if you don't use preferred pronouns.
> What does "woke tyranny" mean to you? Woke was originally a term used by African Americans during Jim Crow to mean someone has awareness of racial injustice.
This is such a tired line. Jim Crow was 70 years ago, and the word has made a resurgence with a completely new meaning.
Trans ideology, censorship, redistribution, and racial discrimination are all part of modern day wokeism.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,441,530
@1,441,526 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
I agree with it, but the constitution is meaningless if half the country stops following it.
Leftists want to take property from others and censor dissidents. Once that gets to a point, the other half won't see any point in following it themselves.
> I agree with it, but the constitution is meaningless if half the country stops following it. > > Leftists want to take property from others and censor dissidents. Once that gets to a point, the other half won't see any point in following it themselves.
Oh so basically this entire thing is you wanting to censor people who disagree with you because they like the other political party. Got it.
But anyway, you don’t support the American constitution or the idea of American democracy. How can the United States be a republican democracy if there are only two political parties and you make it illegal to support one of them? Effectively, what’s the difference between that and the system that China has?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 37 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,441,537
@1,441,535 (A)
Nobody’s censoring you. You’re the one arguing for censoring people who disagree with you. I’ve never once advocated for censoring republicans because I don’t like what they’re saying.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,441,557
@1,441,516 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
I don’t agree with op’s logic. Let’s pretend for a moment that they’re being serious. They’re advocating to deport people whom are citizens that happen to exercise their constitutional rights.
Like I understand it’s cool and hip to subvert the obvious for some shock humor and bait but there are legit retarded assholes probably lurking that would eat this narrative as gospel and probably have fantasized a dozen for something like this to occur.
That’s why I mentioned a mandatory compulsive humanitarian service as an idea. Make people go out for about 6-12 months, offer aid/support so they can see how it really is and come back with a newfound appreciation that you don’t live a third world country. Yea we have peace corps and the like but those are voluntary and people only do those to make their resumes virtuous or because they’re bored and wanna have an adventure.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 19 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,441,560
@previous (C)
I don’t really agree with that. Third world countries are poor because of colonialism, there are poor countries in Africa that are actually democracies with free and fair elections and there are wealthier countries in Asia and the Middle East that are full blown authoritarian dictatorships. The United States is wealthy mostly due to geography. We’re almost as large as China in terms of land area with 2 coasts instead of 1 giving us access to the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, but we have 1/4th the population of China, and we’re located at a latitude where our agriculture can be very productive. Even if we had an authoritarian government, we would still be wealthy.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,441,561
Or even just look at Asia, India is poorer than China, China is getting close to the United States in terms of nominal GDP, if you account for exchange rates and measure GDP in terms of purchasing power parody, China has a larger economy than the United States. Except India is a democracy and China is a one party state controlled by a communist party without freedom of speech or free and fair elections. How nice a country is has almost nothing to do with whether it’s a democracy or not. The fact that the west is wealthy has nothing to do with the fact that the west is democratic, it’s the other way around. The west became wealthy by exploiting colonies in the America’s, Africa, and Asia. However, during that time period, the vast majority of ethnically European nations had authoritarian governments. The democracy happened when their citizens became wealthy enough that they could devote time to advocating for democracy rather than for towards struggling to survive.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade triple-posted this 1 month ago, 48 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,441,562
Europe didn’t really become democratic until after World War One. Before that, they were mostly absolute monarchies with no freedom of expression with a couple notable exceptions.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,441,563
Of course, that didn’t last very long because European culture didn’t instantly become democratic after World War One. People were very suspicious of democracy which is why Fascism and Nazism emerged as populist movements leading to World War Two. Communism was also fairly popular.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,441,567
@previous (A)
I’m just saying he’s not alive for us to ask him if he would be okay with deporting people for criticizing the government. Maybe he wouldn’t have agreed with that, I don’t know.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 10 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,441,580
@previous (G)
It wouldn’t, the US is split 50:50 between democrats and republicans and we have 340 million people, you can’t deport over a hundred million people. It’s a dumb fantasy that’s unachievable.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,441,581
If you think about it, even the Nazis never deported a hundred million people. Mostly because they couldn’t have because Germany never had a hundred million people to deport in the first place.