Topic: Typical ride on British tram.
Ks !KansasxqvM started this discussion 15 years ago #14,659
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i47HoiM0Au8
This video has a lot of people upset. Apologists are lining up to bash this woman, I agree she certainly seems like a chav and harping people on the train is stupid, but any negativity towards immigration instantly turns to racism. Racism is a poor excuse to avoid talking about immigration, but it's damn effective.
This video has a lot of people upset. Apologists are lining up to bash this woman, I agree she certainly seems like a chav and harping people on the train is stupid, but any negativity towards immigration instantly turns to racism. Racism is a poor excuse to avoid talking about immigration, but it's damn effective.
Tek joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later[^] [v] #258,601
lol you beat me to it dude.
She's been arrested though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15923875
Also, she looks like she's gurning.
Mother of the year award eh?
She's been arrested though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15923875
Also, she looks like she's gurning.
Mother of the year award eh?
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,604
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,605
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,606
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Like the woman said. Her country has gone to shit thanks to the Black influence.
Like the woman said. Her country has gone to shit thanks to the Black influence.
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,607
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,608
@258,605 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
I'm generally in favour of free speech, but you can't just hurl racist abuse at people like that. The fuck is wrong with you?
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
I'm generally in favour of free speech, but you can't just hurl racist abuse at people like that. The fuck is wrong with you?
Tek replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,610
@258,604 (C)
Or ecstasy.
@258,605 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Yes, inciting racial hatredism. It's fucking right, a lot of people took offence on that tram.
Or ecstasy.
@258,605 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Yes, inciting racial hatredism. It's fucking right, a lot of people took offence on that tram.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,611
@258,607 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
There's an important line between free speech and hate speech.
Besides we're not the ones who are considering censoring the internet. ;)
There's an important line between free speech and hate speech.
Besides we're not the ones who are considering censoring the internet. ;)
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,615
@258,608 (D)
@258,610 (Tek)
It may sound silly, but free speech is something many Americans are quite serious about. Whether people get offended or not, that's the whole idea of free speech, to be heard not dependent of your opinion being popular. In America you could get on the train in a KKK suit and insult people all day, you'd get your shit kicked in, but not arrested.
@258,610 (Tek)
It may sound silly, but free speech is something many Americans are quite serious about. Whether people get offended or not, that's the whole idea of free speech, to be heard not dependent of your opinion being popular. In America you could get on the train in a KKK suit and insult people all day, you'd get your shit kicked in, but not arrested.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,616
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
You can't really compare American social attitudes to British ones, though. Apples and oranges and all that.
You can't really compare American social attitudes to British ones, though. Apples and oranges and all that.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,618
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,619
Tek replied with this 15 years ago, 13 seconds later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,620
@258,615 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
There's a time and a place. She was clearly out to offend. There is so many ethnic minorities in London that there was no way she could not offend.
Plus, she was very inebriated.
There's a time and a place. She was clearly out to offend. There is so many ethnic minorities in London that there was no way she could not offend.
Plus, she was very inebriated.
dreamworks !AIy/L67q.s joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 36 seconds later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,622
@258,615 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
that doesn't mean you should just go on a tram and start randomly insulting people. if this was somebody's blog nobody would've cared
that doesn't mean you should just go on a tram and start randomly insulting people. if this was somebody's blog nobody would've cared
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,623
@258,620 (Tek)
> excusing government while being stripped of your freedoms
Enjoy living in denial, bro.
> excusing government while being stripped of your freedoms
Enjoy living in denial, bro.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,624
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 6 seconds later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,625
@258,615 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
People should be able to say whatever they want - agreed. It's not that I have a problem with, but when you're on a tram full of people and decide to start screaming "Go back to where you come from. Just fucking go back. You aren't British, fuck off." at passengers (especially in the presence of kids) then you're breaking the law. Her behaviour was disgusting.
Free speech doesn't let you shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre.
People should be able to say whatever they want - agreed. It's not that I have a problem with, but when you're on a tram full of people and decide to start screaming "Go back to where you come from. Just fucking go back. You aren't British, fuck off." at passengers (especially in the presence of kids) then you're breaking the law. Her behaviour was disgusting.
Free speech doesn't let you shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre.
Anonymous D double-posted this 15 years ago, 44 seconds later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,626
Tek replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,627
@258,623 (F)
Poor effort. You're implying that freedom of speech is the same as insulting people.
We are a country of lots of minorities and everyone is welcome to live without persecution.
Poor effort. You're implying that freedom of speech is the same as insulting people.
We are a country of lots of minorities and everyone is welcome to live without persecution.
Tek double-posted this 15 years ago, 57 seconds later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,628
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 14 seconds later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,629
@258,624 (E)
I would rather my country allow me to speak my mind rather than restrict what I can say because it hurts someones or a corporations feelings.
I would rather my country allow me to speak my mind rather than restrict what I can say because it hurts someones or a corporations feelings.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,630
@previous (F)
> restrict what I can say because it hurts someones or a corporations feelings.
lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combating_Online_Infringement_and_Counterfeits_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement
> restrict what I can say because it hurts someones or a corporations feelings.
lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combating_Online_Infringement_and_Counterfeits_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,631
@258,629 (F)
Chances are that your country also has laws against racial hatred, and chances are that these laws have been used to punish people who break them.
Whatever you say about Britain's hate speech laws can also be applied to your country.
Chances are that your country also has laws against racial hatred, and chances are that these laws have been used to punish people who break them.
Whatever you say about Britain's hate speech laws can also be applied to your country.
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,632
@previous (E)
We have almost complete freedom of speech. There are very few exceptions.
We have almost complete freedom of speech. There are very few exceptions.
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
Tek replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,633
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,634
@258,632 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
The point I'm making is that most western countries have laws against hate speech, so him trying to single out Britain for it makes no sense.
Nothing against America itself.
The point I'm making is that most western countries have laws against hate speech, so him trying to single out Britain for it makes no sense.
Nothing against America itself.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,635
@258,623 (F)
People who think government is the savior are fucktarded. Just like what it's happening with the Church, at some point people realize the true function of government is simply to take money from stupid people. I fear that day may not come soon enough.
People who think government is the savior are fucktarded. Just like what it's happening with the Church, at some point people realize the true function of government is simply to take money from stupid people. I fear that day may not come soon enough.
green !6PPj7P5Iag joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 15 seconds later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #258,636
green !6PPj7P5Iag double-posted this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #258,637
marvin !CaTLdYmooc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 36 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #258,640
@258,605 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
@258,632 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
We have a shit-ton of exceptions to free speech. You don't think this woman could get arrested here?
@258,632 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
We have a shit-ton of exceptions to free speech. You don't think this woman could get arrested here?
floorboard !nIGga.SL0w joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #258,642
Walter Calton !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #258,643
I love that woman.
marvin !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 15 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #258,644
@258,642 (floorboard !nIGga.SL0w)
For what she said as well, in many jurisdictions. "Fighting words" can be criminalized.
For what she said as well, in many jurisdictions. "Fighting words" can be criminalized.
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #258,646
@258,640 (marvin !CaTLdYmooc)
If cops were around they'd surely find a reason to arrest her. I like to think I have free speech, stop crushing my dreams with your facts.
If cops were around they'd surely find a reason to arrest her. I like to think I have free speech, stop crushing my dreams with your facts.
floorboard !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 12 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #258,647
marvin !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #258,659
@258,646 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Yeah, as long as a law only prohibits speech for a particular effect it's likely to have (panic, violence, treason, another crime) rather than the nature of the content itself, it's generally considered constitutional. A state can have a law prohibiting speech that's threatening or likely to lead to violence, but they can't prohibit specific words or "hate speech" simply based on the ideas expressed. Laws can't be selective about the type of speech, just how it is used. Generally.
@previous (floorboard !nIGga.SL0w)
Okay.
Yeah, as long as a law only prohibits speech for a particular effect it's likely to have (panic, violence, treason, another crime) rather than the nature of the content itself, it's generally considered constitutional. A state can have a law prohibiting speech that's threatening or likely to lead to violence, but they can't prohibit specific words or "hate speech" simply based on the ideas expressed. Laws can't be selective about the type of speech, just how it is used. Generally.
@previous (floorboard !nIGga.SL0w)
Okay.
floorboard !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #258,661
marvin !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #258,663
floorboard !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 55 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #258,666
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #258,710
jump joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 14 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #259,036
@258,608 (D)
You can, actually. You can also be kicked off the public transportation for it. You shouldn't be arrested. If her words are so dangerous, it only means she is right (i dont know what she is complaining about , havent watched the video).
You can, actually. You can also be kicked off the public transportation for it. You shouldn't be arrested. If her words are so dangerous, it only means she is right (i dont know what she is complaining about , havent watched the video).
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #259,044
why do britfags always turn criticisms of tyrannical laws into a UK v USA shitfight? It's really quite sad.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 38 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #259,071
marvin !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #259,072
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #259,256
And another http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHwDC7vjXM8
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #259,257
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #259,260
@previous (C)
> Why shouldn't white people get free shit too?
What are you talking about? She's a stupid cunt who thinks anyone who knows Russian must be claiming benefits and "stealing our jerrbs".
And it says this in the description
> I would also like to say that my friend does not claim any money from the British government, in fact, he is on the average tax band, which means he contributes to the benefits British people claim for, hence, making a fair contribution to society.
> Why shouldn't white people get free shit too?
What are you talking about? She's a stupid cunt who thinks anyone who knows Russian must be claiming benefits and "stealing our jerrbs".
And it says this in the description
> I would also like to say that my friend does not claim any money from the British government, in fact, he is on the average tax band, which means he contributes to the benefits British people claim for, hence, making a fair contribution to society.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #259,264
@previous (D)
Jobs are the primary motivation for immigration. lrn2facts.
btw, I don't believe you've ever met a Russian. Had you, I believe you'd be more sympathetic to her position.
Jobs are the primary motivation for immigration. lrn2facts.
btw, I don't believe you've ever met a Russian. Had you, I believe you'd be more sympathetic to her position.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #259,267
@previous (C)
Exactly, they come over here to work. It's not "stealing" jobs, it's just being a harder worker than BNP voters such as herself.
Exactly, they come over here to work. It's not "stealing" jobs, it's just being a harder worker than BNP voters such as herself.
Anonymous D double-posted this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #259,269
@259,264 (C)
> btw, I don't believe you've ever met a Russian. Had you, I believe you'd be more sympathetic to her position.
lol yes I've met Russians.
> btw, I don't believe you've ever met a Russian. Had you, I believe you'd be more sympathetic to her position.
lol yes I've met Russians.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 32 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #259,270
@259,267 (D)
> Exactly, they come over here to work. It's not "stealing" jobs, it's just being a --harder-- cheaper worker than BNP voters such as herself.
ftfy
> Exactly, they come over here to work. It's not "stealing" jobs, it's just being a --harder-- cheaper worker than BNP voters such as herself.
ftfy
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Anonymous C double-posted this 15 years ago, 36 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #259,271
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #259,275
@259,270 (C)
That too. They tend to be harder workers and they don't shy away from manual labour jobs British workers refuse to take.
That too. They tend to be harder workers and they don't shy away from manual labour jobs British workers refuse to take.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #259,276
@previous (D)
You are a complete fucking idiot. You obviously have no real world experience to speak of. Jobs are OFFERED, not refused. Get your head out of your ass. For every job there are hundreds of applicants, HUNDREDS! If you don't fucking believe me put up a fake post and Craigslist and watch what happens. Jobs are the new crack.
Those manual labor jobs you speak of are not "offered" to British workers because they'll actually demand safe working conditions whereas the Russian idea of a "safe working environment" is fucking Chernobyl.
They prefer the Russians because they've been breed to accept abuses of authority.
You are a complete fucking idiot. You obviously have no real world experience to speak of. Jobs are OFFERED, not refused. Get your head out of your ass. For every job there are hundreds of applicants, HUNDREDS! If you don't fucking believe me put up a fake post and Craigslist and watch what happens. Jobs are the new crack.
Those manual labor jobs you speak of are not "offered" to British workers because they'll actually demand safe working conditions whereas the Russian idea of a "safe working environment" is fucking Chernobyl.
They prefer the Russians because they've been breed to accept abuses of authority.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #259,287
@previous (C)
By "refuse to take" I meant "don't want to apply for".
As to the rest of that, I'm guessing you don't live in Britain? So many Britons turn their noses up at low-paying manual labour jobs, then complain when East European immigrants are "stealing" them.
By "refuse to take" I meant "don't want to apply for".
As to the rest of that, I'm guessing you don't live in Britain? So many Britons turn their noses up at low-paying manual labour jobs, then complain when East European immigrants are "stealing" them.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #259,294
@previous (D)
Of course they complain about immigration. British people made one culture for themselves, East Europeans made another for themselves. So it turns out the East European culture fucking sucks and they all decide to move to Britain. But what's the first fucking thing they do when they get there? Try to make it more like their old culture of fail. lol.
Immigration is always about moving away from the shit. Stop trying to bring the shit with you.
Of course they complain about immigration. British people made one culture for themselves, East Europeans made another for themselves. So it turns out the East European culture fucking sucks and they all decide to move to Britain. But what's the first fucking thing they do when they get there? Try to make it more like their old culture of fail. lol.
Immigration is always about moving away from the shit. Stop trying to bring the shit with you.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 2 days later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,226
@259,071 (N)
@259,072 (marvin !CaTLdYmooc)
No this thread started by criticizing the lack of free speech in the UK. Britfags took this as a personal insult and started saying "who cares, there are unjust laws in the US too", turning into a shit thread, instead of one where we can discuss what we perceive to be problems in the world, and consider solutions.
@259,072 (marvin !CaTLdYmooc)
No this thread started by criticizing the lack of free speech in the UK. Britfags took this as a personal insult and started saying "who cares, there are unjust laws in the US too", turning into a shit thread, instead of one where we can discuss what we perceive to be problems in the world, and consider solutions.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,243
I saw this in sociology today for some reason. Out lecturer said something about sociological awareness I think.
So yeah, chav scum. Yells at immigrants for "taking all of our jobs innit" but is probably too fucking lazy to bother trying to get a job herself.
@previous (M)
But it's a valid point. It's hypocritical for somebody to criticise British law for taking action againsy this woman when in all probability their own country would have done about the same thing.
Not at all aimed at America specifically, just that criticism itself.
So yeah, chav scum. Yells at immigrants for "taking all of our jobs innit" but is probably too fucking lazy to bother trying to get a job herself.
@previous (M)
But it's a valid point. It's hypocritical for somebody to criticise British law for taking action againsy this woman when in all probability their own country would have done about the same thing.
Not at all aimed at America specifically, just that criticism itself.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,250
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> But it's a valid point. It's hypocritical for somebody to criticise British law for taking action againsy this woman when in all probability their own country would have done about the same thing.
>
> Not at all aimed at America specifically, just that criticism itself.
NO ONE IS CRITICIZING BRITAIN. We are commenting on the injustice of this specific event. The is not an attack on the people of Britain, or the Queen, or anything else. It is not hypocritical.
> But it's a valid point. It's hypocritical for somebody to criticise British law for taking action againsy this woman when in all probability their own country would have done about the same thing.
>
> Not at all aimed at America specifically, just that criticism itself.
NO ONE IS CRITICIZING BRITAIN. We are commenting on the injustice of this specific event. The is not an attack on the people of Britain, or the Queen, or anything else. It is not hypocritical.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 30 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,281
@previous (M)
> NO ONE IS CRITICIZING BRITAIN.
> It is not hypocritical.
See the fourth post ITT:
> They arrested her? WOW. lol Britain you so scary!
> NO ONE IS CRITICIZING BRITAIN.
> It is not hypocritical.
See the fourth post ITT:
> They arrested her? WOW. lol Britain you so scary!
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous D double-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,285
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 50 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,344
@260,281 (D)
Sensitive much? The law exists in Britain so it makes sense to say that. If he had followed by saying "This shows that all British people are retarded and evil!" I could understand you getting upset. But he didn't. Please do not attempt to silence debate in this manner.
Sensitive much? The law exists in Britain so it makes sense to say that. If he had followed by saying "This shows that all British people are retarded and evil!" I could understand you getting upset. But he didn't. Please do not attempt to silence debate in this manner.
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,356
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,539
@260,250 (M)
British law. Same thing.
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
I don't think it really became one, at least not one of the worst ones.
British law. Same thing.
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
I don't think it really became one, at least not one of the worst ones.
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,541
@260,344 (M)
lol I'm not upset. You said "it is not hypocritical" so I posted Ks' reply which implied that she wouldn't have been arrested in the US.
@260,356 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
I don't really think it started a fight. :p
lol I'm not upset. You said "it is not hypocritical" so I posted Ks' reply which implied that she wouldn't have been arrested in the US.
@260,356 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
I don't really think it started a fight. :p
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,551
@260,539 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
fuck off faggot. You have so little value as an individual person you have to view yourself as part of a group. You're weak, like those faggots at /new/.
fuck off faggot. You have so little value as an individual person you have to view yourself as part of a group. You're weak, like those faggots at /new/.
Anonymous M double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,553
@260,541 (D)
And it WASNT hypocritical. To say that the UK is scary does not imply that the USA is not scary. Lots of places around the world are scary and are getting scarier. Your butthurt nationalism helps nobody.
And it WASNT hypocritical. To say that the UK is scary does not imply that the USA is not scary. Lots of places around the world are scary and are getting scarier. Your butthurt nationalism helps nobody.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 23 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,554
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,557
@260,553 (M)
Eh, I think it was.
> Your butthurt nationalism helps nobody.
Where have I been nationalistic?
Eh, I think it was.
> Your butthurt nationalism helps nobody.
Where have I been nationalistic?
(Edited 58 seconds later.)
Anonymous D double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,559
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,561
@260,557 (D)
> Eh, I think it was.
You are wrong, and I have logically shown why. It is not enough to say "I think it was".
> Where have I been nationalistic?
http://minichan.org/topic/14659
> Eh, I think it was.
You are wrong, and I have logically shown why. It is not enough to say "I think it was".
> Where have I been nationalistic?
http://minichan.org/topic/14659
Anonymous M double-posted this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,562
@260,559 (D)
Nah this is just how fascists, racists and communists are born - from this detestation of self and identification with the group.
Nah this is just how fascists, racists and communists are born - from this detestation of self and identification with the group.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,563
@260,561 (M)
> http://minichan.org/topic/14659
Which post?
> You are wrong, and I have logically shown why. It is not enough to say "I think it was".
I disagree with your logic.
> http://minichan.org/topic/14659
Which post?
> You are wrong, and I have logically shown why. It is not enough to say "I think it was".
I disagree with your logic.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,566
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,567
@previous (M)Sorry, "logic" should've been in quotes. Allow me to rephrase -- I disagree with your "logic".
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,568
@previous (D)
Cool except logic isn't something you can just disagree with. It is not subjective. I'm not claiming that Halo is better than COD. It is objective reality. You can't just "disagree" with the answer to an equation - you have to go through the working and prove where they went wrong.
Cool except logic isn't something you can just disagree with. It is not subjective. I'm not claiming that Halo is better than COD. It is objective reality. You can't just "disagree" with the answer to an equation - you have to go through the working and prove where they went wrong.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,573
@260,553 (M)
@previous (M)
It's just the way he worded it. He seemed surprised she had been arrested ("They arrested her? WOW."), and it would have made more sense to say "that's so scary" than "lol Britain you so scary", which seems to be implying that there are other countries where the situation isn't as 'scary', and I'm not the only one who thought that's what he was implying.
Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno.
@previous (M)
It's just the way he worded it. He seemed surprised she had been arrested ("They arrested her? WOW."), and it would have made more sense to say "that's so scary" than "lol Britain you so scary", which seems to be implying that there are other countries where the situation isn't as 'scary', and I'm not the only one who thought that's what he was implying.
Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno.
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,581
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,582
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,583
@260,573 (D)
> Maybe I'm wrong
Nah, the guy's just arguing semantics for the sake of it. We haven't been nationalistic at all, since that would mean us saying that Britain is superior or some shit.
> Maybe I'm wrong
Nah, the guy's just arguing semantics for the sake of it. We haven't been nationalistic at all, since that would mean us saying that Britain is superior or some shit.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,586
Anonymous M double-posted this 15 years ago, 20 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,587
@260,583 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> We haven't been nationalistic at all, since that would mean us saying that Britain is superior or some shit.
fuck you're dumb
> We haven't been nationalistic at all, since that would mean us saying that Britain is superior or some shit.
fuck you're dumb
(Edited 8 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,589
@260,586 (M)
Sup MM?
@260,583 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Yeah, he's just a poor troll.
Sup MM?
@260,583 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Yeah, he's just a poor troll.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,590
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 14 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,591
Anonymous M double-posted this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,593
@260,590 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> not know the definition of simple words
> obsess about a nation
> claim not to be autistic
> not know the definition of simple words
> obsess about a nation
> claim not to be autistic
Anonymous M triple-posted this 15 years ago, 31 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,597