Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Topic: ICE should deport everyone who complains about America.
Anonymous A started this discussion 4 hours 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 hour 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 hour 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 hour 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 hour 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 hour 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 hour 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 hour 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.