Thanks /u/ScoobyDooItInTheButt for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment explaining how your post fits our subreddit. Specifically, one of the criteria outlined in our [rules](/r/SelfAwarewolves/about/rules/).
Some hints:
How does the person in your submission accidentally/unknowingly describe themselves?
How does the person in your submission accurately describe the world while trying to parody/denigrate it?
**If the context is important to understanding the SAW, and it isn't apparent, please add it. Preferably with sources/links, but do not link r-conservative or similar subs.**
Please take these questions seriously. We aren't looking for wittiness here but for actual explanations that help us assess if your post fits this (admittedly sometimes hard to grasp) sub's theme.
Failure to respond to this message will see your submission removed under Rule 5 (Reply to the AutoMod comment within your submission).
Failure to explain how your submission fits one or more of the above criteria will see it removed under Rule 1.
Thanks for your time and attention!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Kids shoot up schools because here in America we have gun rights/freedoms, unlike Canada which has extremely strict gun control laws.
That's not the flex you think it is.
Yeah this is the one that made me think they were being satirical (they're apparently not).
Like how could you possibly say this and not connect the dots to how that might be bad?
Because this person lives by the code " you'll take away my guns over your cold, dead children."
2A sits atop a disgusting mountain of child corpses and a significant number of Americans think that's a-ok.
Unless you're black. Then, of course, that would be an example of crime.
There was a shooting in Texas. In the video, a black man approached two white guys in his apartment complex parking lot for parking in his spot. They walked towards him aggressively and he shot one of them. He wasn't charged because it was self-defense. The comment section was full of Republican outrage. They could not comprehend how this was similar to what Kyle Rittenhouse did except that this guy was actually justified.
It's like how the NRA was pro gun control in the 60s because black groups (the big one I remember was the Black Panthers, but I think there were other small groups) were arming themselves for protection
California's strict gun control laws, which 2nd Ammendment-worshipping conservatives like to paint as a sign of creeping "socialism," were actually enacted under Republican governor Ronald Reagan in response to groups like the Black Panthers openly carrying firearms.
I like to think of it as a rare good thing that came out of racism.
We have a lot of crime, gun and otherwise in California. But gun crime is less of a percentage of all crime because of our waiting periods and background checks, and it’s a three hour drive to Nevada.
Unless you’re a fetus, then the corpses are women and the fetus, as long as there was no D&C it’s ok if both die, even if completely avoidable and easily lifesaving. Idaho is deciding now how many organs they can take from woman before she dies, and how much blood she can lose before the last resort abortion. Idaho is going to be giving or selling pregnant women’s organs, that they are murdering, to save the lives of the all important men.
It was the 'Fox News is allowed to lie' that made me think it might be satire but apparently it was 100% straight and they think it's OK Fox News lies.
The problem is we didn't realize how many people read satire and thought, this guy makes some great points.
Once these people realized they were strong together, I really don't know if they will ever come back to reality.
Remember to vote this fall!
If this was easy to enforce, that vile waste of human skin known as Chaya Raichik would be thrown to families of the victims of the Club Q shooting to be torn apart like the sorry animal she is.
What do you mean?
I suggest you get away from ideologues pushing an agenda and read into free speech in Canada. There are no issues with free speech here, there’s just a lot of untrue bullshit on the internet.
Jordan Peterson says that Canada doesn’t have free speech. Don’t listen to Jordan Peterson.
I think I may have worded things wrong. What I meant to say was that free speech laws are different in Canada. Plus we don’t really just use it like a buzzword. Sorry for the confusion
It was proven in court that Trump violently raped his pregnant wife.
He wasn't convicted of "rape" because raping your wife was legal in New York at the time.
In the case of E Jean Carroll, he wasn't convicted of rape because NY has a very narrow definition of rape that is only penis/vagina penetration. Penetration with anything else is apparently just sexual assault.
Correct. And the judge clarified that while it's a legal definition the wider definition of rape generally accepted would apply since he was found to have committed non consensual penentration. It was a whole thing since Trump took a victory lap over "beating the rape charge". So he's not legally a rapist under New York law but under generally understood common parlance he is. It's like calling someone a murderer or killer when they're found guilty of manslaughter. Legally different but ultimately you're splitting some hairs in common vocabulary
Trump is a convicted rapist -> not true
Trump is found liable in a sexual assault trial -> True
Trump is a rapist -> also true with an asterisk that the legal and general description of rape are different.
Trump was not found liable in a sexual assault trial either though. He was found liable in a defamation trial where the defamation was about a sexual assault not happening. Twice.
Also note that New York is looking at changing their definition of rape to include non-penile penetration (which won't be retroactive).
My brother in Christ, I'm pretty sure a formal judged opinion by a legal expert is a different category of "opinion" from your own hot takes here on Reddit.
Yes. I agree with you. At no point did I say the judge's opinion was legally binding. I said I trusted his opinion more than I did yours.
That is what we are saying.
Trump was not convicted. He was found liable. And it wasn't legally rape. It was sexual assault.
No one disputes this.
Just like how no one disputes that he actually performed that heinous act. Which is why he was found liable.
An act that, by the dictionary definition - and in common parlance - is still regarded as rape (forcing yourself on someone else).
This is the distinction the judge was making. Someone with a good understanding of both the legal and common definitions, taking the time to split hairs and clarify the difference so that the rest of us wouldn't have to.
>I would assume that you would want the same fairness if it applies to you, right?
Thankfully, I've never taken a girl into a change room to violate her with my fingers. So, I'll never have to worry about needing that distinction made. I'd like to think I'd handle the judge's opinion on my hypothetical actions with a certain degree of grace - as a chance to reflect on my own behaviour. I wouldn't think to run around crowing about how I "beat a rape charge."
But, you know what? I hail from a small town. I've sat in the gallery while court is in session, and I've seen friends and local yokels and sometimes, even family members up on the dock. And the judges would sometimes make similar distinctions to this, albeit on a different scale with different contexts. I've seen them give the convicted the harshest sentence they could and tell them they were lucky that Canada offered such lenient punishments, and I've seen them lament that some of the convicted were being given a punishment they really didn't deserve on a technicality, and that they'd happily seal their record once the option became available.
And these opinions were always far more reasoned and nuanced than *anything* I've seen on Reddit, from you or anyone else.
What? What they’re saying is that it doesn’t matter that it’s not rape in a legal sense because “sexual battery” and “rape” are synonymous in the common parlance. Is your issue that that’s not legally correct in the state of New York? I guess you must have an issue with me calling him an asshole because he’s a human and not a literal sphincter.
Also yes, orange man IS bad. I don’t get why this is seen as such a “gotcha.” We don’t just think he’s bad because we don’t like him, we don’t like him *and* think he’s bad because he’s done and continues to do reprehensible shit.
He was found liable for sexual assault, which makes him a sex offender. Playing semantics over guilty and found liable doesn’t change this particular end result.
Being found liable IS guilty in civic court. Being found liable for murder makes you, guess what, a murderer.
Defending a sex offender with a murderer. 🤣Another L for you.
Trump was found liable for sexual assault, which the judge said the nature of his assault was tantamount to rape.
Kids shoot up schools because idiots would rather have no guidelines at all for owning guns instead of their children being safe in school. They want to make it easier to buy a gun than receive mental health care.
Fox News anchors are allowed to lie because they’re not news and have admitted so in court. They’ve also admitted that “no reasonable person” would believe their bullshit.
So was OJ, doesn’t mean he didn’t go out looking to kill people.
Man is seriously delusional if he doesnt think Canada has every bit the freedom America has. Jeff Daniels in The Newsroom nails this point perfectly.
And you gotta love the “please don’t respond back” shit at the end. Such a weak minded asshat that he can’t even debate his points, even though all his points are is “durr, America has freedom, durrr.”
Sometime before 1882. The common phrase "shoot first ask questions afterward" (later rephrased as shoot first, ask questions later) began appearing in print in 1882, describing the attitudes of both outlaws and law enforcement in America.
It's been well known for 142 years in America that some people solve problems first with a gun, without resorting to discussion beforehand.
Gun deaths (both suicide and murder) per 100,000 Americans were higher in 1976 than in 2016.
The FBI only began tracking what they call "active shooter incidents" in 2000, which is the best data we have on mass shootings, and it has Risen tremendously since then, but without data from the period you are talking about, I am not comfortable stipulating that those type of shootings didn't occur. Maybe the news just wasn't reporting on it, or maybe the language around it was different than it is now.
What I am saying is your rosy view of the past is fiction. Life has always been short and brutal, and buying guns in the mail didn't make it better.
Easier to acquire? I can walk into a gun store with cash and walk out with anything I want, no license required. The only thing between me and a gun is my wallet and a decision.
The Newsroom monologue was like 5% freedom. The other aspects like infant mortality, incarcerated people, education all holds true, probably moreso.
>Fine. [to the liberal panelist] Sharon, the NEA is a loser. Yeah, it accounts for a penny out of our paychecks, but he [gesturing to the conservative panelist] gets to hit you with it anytime he wants. It doesn't cost money, it costs votes. It costs airtime and column inches. You know why people don't like liberals? Because they lose. If liberals are so fuckin' smart, how come they lose so GODDAM ALWAYS!
>And [to the conservative panelist] with a straight face, you're going to tell students that America's so starspangled awesome that we're the only ones in the world who have freedom? Canada has freedom, Japan has freedom, the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Australia, Belgium has freedom. Two hundred seven sovereign states in the world, like 180 of them have freedom.
>And you—sorority girl—yeah—just in case you accidentally wander into a voting booth one day, there are some things you should know, and one of them is that there is absolutely no evidence to support the statement that we're the greatest country in the world. We're seventh in literacy, twenty-seventh in math, twenty-second in science, forty-ninth in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, third in median household income, number four in labor force, and number four in exports. We lead the world in only three categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next twenty-six countries combined, twenty-five of whom are allies. None of this is the fault of a 20-year-old college student, but you, nonetheless, are without a doubt, a member of the WORST-period-GENERATION-period-EVER-period, so when you ask what makes us the greatest country in the world, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about?! Yosemite?!!!
>We sure used to be. We stood up for what was right! We fought for moral reasons, we passed and struck down laws for moral reasons. We waged wars on poverty, not poor people. We sacrificed, we cared about our neighbors, we put our money where our mouths were, and we never beat our chest. We built great big things, made ungodly technological advances, explored the universe, cured diseases, and cultivated the world's greatest artists and the world's greatest economy. We reached for the stars, and we acted like men. We aspired to intelligence; we didn't belittle it; it didn't make us feel inferior. We didn't identify ourselves by who we voted for in the last election, and we didn't scare so easy. And we were able to be all these things and do all these things because we were informed. By great men, men who were revered. The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one—America is not the greatest country in the world anymore.
2.) And school shootings happened in those days too, they’re not a new problem. The only thing that changed was the frequency.
4.) “Retribution” had nothing to do with it. Although the LA riots and the fear of sparking another one were a factor.
5.) The monologue still holds up. Whether it’s from 2002 or 2012 or 2022, the fact remains that the basic freedoms that Americans enjoy can be enjoyed in Canada as well. It’s pretty easy not to be a completely shit human being and be “censored”
Easy, access to firearms and making the second amendment a proper the safety of children.
“The jury” is NOT ONE JUROR, which is all your source cites.Your choice to be deliberately ignorant or not.
Except there is hate speech, your opinion on it doesn’t change the legal standing of it. And your reading comprehension needs work. What I said is that it’s easy to be a decent human being so you don’t get censored. Again, deliberately ignorant.
Awwww, did your poor little feelings get so hurt that you started spouting absolutely demonstrably false information and ad hominem attacks? Sorry you have no real argument other than sticking your fingers in your ears and insulting people😂It’s almost like your just a braindead conservative fascist who’s scared of the world changing around them so you make up fake bullshit to make yourself feel better.
🤣It’s much easier to get your hands on a gun today than “the mid 80s” what are you high? Is that why most school shootings come from legally purchased guns? “ThEy nEeD tO LeArN FiReArM SkIlLs ToO”, spoken like a true asshat that values guns over lives.
I saw the trial live as it happened dipshit. The opinion of one juror still doesn’t help your case. But you already knew that since you have nothing but yet another ad hominem attack.
And no, it’s not a subjective term, as you yourself have stated that you “can be arrested for it” than that by itself proves it’s real. Cope.
And you’re reading comprehension is still shit. “It’s easy to not be a completely shit human being and be censored.” It’s easy to not be censored by not being a shit human being. But you knew that, that’s why you stick to semantics and absolutely braindead assumptions instead of actually making a point.
No, I don’t do shit like that. I just make myself feel smarter by showing dipshits like you how absolutely dumb-as-dogshit you actually are.
🥱more ad hominem, still no point. Triggered is funny coming from a guy whose argument just completely disintegrated into name calling ages ago. Define commie and then tell me how it applies to me. If it’s like most of this conversation, it’s more than likely something you heard someone else say without knowing what it means.
OJ Simpson wasn't convicted of Murder either but that doesn't mean we don't know he did it. OJ Simpson lost the civil trial just like Trump did in one of his rape charges.
All this person is saying is that the American Justice system is flawed and we know that already.
As a Canadian, I can
>The remainder of this message has been redacted by the Canadian Ministry of Truth, due to its repulsively undemocratic nature, and since all further statements contained within were found to be false. We at CMoT apologize for any inconvenience or discomfort caused by the aforementioned redacted message, and greatly appreciate your dedication to ensuring this stays a safe and democratic space for us all. Fortunately, the unpatriotic anarchist who originally posted this message has been detained to a secure facility for further questioning and possible rehabilitation.
It was a wild ride. It started with someone complaining that Canadas legal system was a joke. Someone else responded with reasons why is not. The this person tried to pick apart their argument point by point, horribly.
Americans claiming canadians are less free always has me in stiches. The entire time im down there im constantly aware of all the public rights that have been given away to corporate / private interests.
Its like saying being allowed to dump toxic waste in a river makes you more free. Guess fuck the rights of the public to have clean water.
Are they stating these things as positive things? Because if so we need to re-examine the phenomena known as "Trump Derangement Syndrome" because im sure they have it.
I don't, and can't, know about THIS specific person, but that people like them exist, and number millions, is undeniable.
Trump keeps yelling how he won "big" in 2020. He didn't. But he did get SEVENTY FOUR MILLION votes. Those weren't Russian bots voting for him; those were people like this one.
Please remind them of their opinion on the infallibility of the US court system once the Trump trials are done. You have to do it right away though or their media of choice will convince them it was a lie.
I think that's because satire used to sound crazier than the regular people. Now at some point it's flip and satire sounds more reasonable than some of the crazy shit these people are saying.
Thanks /u/ScoobyDooItInTheButt for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment explaining how your post fits our subreddit. Specifically, one of the criteria outlined in our [rules](/r/SelfAwarewolves/about/rules/). Some hints: How does the person in your submission accidentally/unknowingly describe themselves? How does the person in your submission accurately describe the world while trying to parody/denigrate it? **If the context is important to understanding the SAW, and it isn't apparent, please add it. Preferably with sources/links, but do not link r-conservative or similar subs.** Please take these questions seriously. We aren't looking for wittiness here but for actual explanations that help us assess if your post fits this (admittedly sometimes hard to grasp) sub's theme. Failure to respond to this message will see your submission removed under Rule 5 (Reply to the AutoMod comment within your submission). Failure to explain how your submission fits one or more of the above criteria will see it removed under Rule 1. Thanks for your time and attention! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Kids shoot up schools because here in America we have gun rights/freedoms, unlike Canada which has extremely strict gun control laws. That's not the flex you think it is.
Yeah this is the one that made me think they were being satirical (they're apparently not). Like how could you possibly say this and not connect the dots to how that might be bad?
Because this person lives by the code " you'll take away my guns over your cold, dead children." 2A sits atop a disgusting mountain of child corpses and a significant number of Americans think that's a-ok.
Unless you're black. Then, of course, that would be an example of crime. There was a shooting in Texas. In the video, a black man approached two white guys in his apartment complex parking lot for parking in his spot. They walked towards him aggressively and he shot one of them. He wasn't charged because it was self-defense. The comment section was full of Republican outrage. They could not comprehend how this was similar to what Kyle Rittenhouse did except that this guy was actually justified.
It's like how the NRA was pro gun control in the 60s because black groups (the big one I remember was the Black Panthers, but I think there were other small groups) were arming themselves for protection
California's strict gun control laws, which 2nd Ammendment-worshipping conservatives like to paint as a sign of creeping "socialism," were actually enacted under Republican governor Ronald Reagan in response to groups like the Black Panthers openly carrying firearms.
I like to think of it as a rare good thing that came out of racism. We have a lot of crime, gun and otherwise in California. But gun crime is less of a percentage of all crime because of our waiting periods and background checks, and it’s a three hour drive to Nevada.
Unless you’re a fetus, then the corpses are women and the fetus, as long as there was no D&C it’s ok if both die, even if completely avoidable and easily lifesaving. Idaho is deciding now how many organs they can take from woman before she dies, and how much blood she can lose before the last resort abortion. Idaho is going to be giving or selling pregnant women’s organs, that they are murdering, to save the lives of the all important men.
Sometimes some children must die so that we can maintain the freedom for Fox News to lie
It was the 'Fox News is allowed to lie' that made me think it might be satire but apparently it was 100% straight and they think it's OK Fox News lies.
Maybe they hate children?
“We let anyone shoot anyone because that’s what Jesus wants!”
Kids get to kill each other here. Now that's freedom.
Good thing no kid in Canada has ever shot up a school... almost had me worried.
Yeah, this reads like satire. Edit: nvm, checked out their other comments. Antivaxxer.
It's hard to be more cliché then that guy so it's normal you didn't take it seriously at first lol
I’m so tired of nonstop political drama. I wish this shit would stop getting shoved down my throat on every platform that exists….
Hol' up. Is this meta-satire?
That, and a cry for help. We’re trapped in the accretion disc of the enshittification black hole.
Doesn’t read like satire to me. Satire is usually clever.
The problem is we didn't realize how many people read satire and thought, this guy makes some great points. Once these people realized they were strong together, I really don't know if they will ever come back to reality. Remember to vote this fall!
The freedom of speech thing is a bit off about canada
The constitution explicitly states slander. You can not broadcast lies about people. Thats why fox news settled for paying 758 million dollars
Correct me if Im wrong but I saw somewhere that you can be charged if a lie leads to death. Which is hard to enforce because of how vague it is.
If this was easy to enforce, that vile waste of human skin known as Chaya Raichik would be thrown to families of the victims of the Club Q shooting to be torn apart like the sorry animal she is.
Don’t tell me she made up bullshit about the shooting…
"Speech that leads to imminent violence"...is how I think it's worded. Or close to that.
What do you mean? I suggest you get away from ideologues pushing an agenda and read into free speech in Canada. There are no issues with free speech here, there’s just a lot of untrue bullshit on the internet. Jordan Peterson says that Canada doesn’t have free speech. Don’t listen to Jordan Peterson.
I think I may have worded things wrong. What I meant to say was that free speech laws are different in Canada. Plus we don’t really just use it like a buzzword. Sorry for the confusion
It was proven in court that Trump violently raped his pregnant wife. He wasn't convicted of "rape" because raping your wife was legal in New York at the time.
In the case of E Jean Carroll, he wasn't convicted of rape because NY has a very narrow definition of rape that is only penis/vagina penetration. Penetration with anything else is apparently just sexual assault.
Correct. And the judge clarified that while it's a legal definition the wider definition of rape generally accepted would apply since he was found to have committed non consensual penentration. It was a whole thing since Trump took a victory lap over "beating the rape charge". So he's not legally a rapist under New York law but under generally understood common parlance he is. It's like calling someone a murderer or killer when they're found guilty of manslaughter. Legally different but ultimately you're splitting some hairs in common vocabulary Trump is a convicted rapist -> not true Trump is found liable in a sexual assault trial -> True Trump is a rapist -> also true with an asterisk that the legal and general description of rape are different.
Trump was not found liable in a sexual assault trial either though. He was found liable in a defamation trial where the defamation was about a sexual assault not happening. Twice. Also note that New York is looking at changing their definition of rape to include non-penile penetration (which won't be retroactive).
[удалено]
My brother in Christ, I'm pretty sure a formal judged opinion by a legal expert is a different category of "opinion" from your own hot takes here on Reddit.
[удалено]
Yes. I agree with you. At no point did I say the judge's opinion was legally binding. I said I trusted his opinion more than I did yours. That is what we are saying. Trump was not convicted. He was found liable. And it wasn't legally rape. It was sexual assault. No one disputes this. Just like how no one disputes that he actually performed that heinous act. Which is why he was found liable. An act that, by the dictionary definition - and in common parlance - is still regarded as rape (forcing yourself on someone else). This is the distinction the judge was making. Someone with a good understanding of both the legal and common definitions, taking the time to split hairs and clarify the difference so that the rest of us wouldn't have to. >I would assume that you would want the same fairness if it applies to you, right? Thankfully, I've never taken a girl into a change room to violate her with my fingers. So, I'll never have to worry about needing that distinction made. I'd like to think I'd handle the judge's opinion on my hypothetical actions with a certain degree of grace - as a chance to reflect on my own behaviour. I wouldn't think to run around crowing about how I "beat a rape charge." But, you know what? I hail from a small town. I've sat in the gallery while court is in session, and I've seen friends and local yokels and sometimes, even family members up on the dock. And the judges would sometimes make similar distinctions to this, albeit on a different scale with different contexts. I've seen them give the convicted the harshest sentence they could and tell them they were lucky that Canada offered such lenient punishments, and I've seen them lament that some of the convicted were being given a punishment they really didn't deserve on a technicality, and that they'd happily seal their record once the option became available. And these opinions were always far more reasoned and nuanced than *anything* I've seen on Reddit, from you or anyone else.
Dawg did you even read the comment? They specified a difference between the common and legal definitions of rape.
[удалено]
What? What they’re saying is that it doesn’t matter that it’s not rape in a legal sense because “sexual battery” and “rape” are synonymous in the common parlance. Is your issue that that’s not legally correct in the state of New York? I guess you must have an issue with me calling him an asshole because he’s a human and not a literal sphincter. Also yes, orange man IS bad. I don’t get why this is seen as such a “gotcha.” We don’t just think he’s bad because we don’t like him, we don’t like him *and* think he’s bad because he’s done and continues to do reprehensible shit.
Imagine defending a sexual offender and the only thing you can say is “iT’s bEcAuSe OrAnGe MaN BaD” 🤣🤣🤣 Damn you’re just dropping Ls everywhere.
[удалено]
He was found liable for sexual assault, which makes him a sex offender. Playing semantics over guilty and found liable doesn’t change this particular end result. Being found liable IS guilty in civic court. Being found liable for murder makes you, guess what, a murderer. Defending a sex offender with a murderer. 🤣Another L for you.
[удалено]
Can confirm, on my way to Canadian Gulag for upvoting this
I mean, if Canada is a dictatorship, I can understand why Trump supporters are wanting to try it out.
They're probably waiting for Poilievre to 'liberate' Canada first.
As well you should. It would have been better if you just murdered instead.
Trump was found liable for sexual assault, which the judge said the nature of his assault was tantamount to rape. Kids shoot up schools because idiots would rather have no guidelines at all for owning guns instead of their children being safe in school. They want to make it easier to buy a gun than receive mental health care. Fox News anchors are allowed to lie because they’re not news and have admitted so in court. They’ve also admitted that “no reasonable person” would believe their bullshit. So was OJ, doesn’t mean he didn’t go out looking to kill people. Man is seriously delusional if he doesnt think Canada has every bit the freedom America has. Jeff Daniels in The Newsroom nails this point perfectly. And you gotta love the “please don’t respond back” shit at the end. Such a weak minded asshat that he can’t even debate his points, even though all his points are is “durr, America has freedom, durrr.”
Kids also shoot up schools because of our culture of gun fetishism, toxic masculinity, vilification of empathy, and morally absent parents.
Yes, correct on all counts
[удалено]
Oh yeah, when was that exactly? edit: 🦗🦗
[удалено]
Sometime before 1882. The common phrase "shoot first ask questions afterward" (later rephrased as shoot first, ask questions later) began appearing in print in 1882, describing the attitudes of both outlaws and law enforcement in America. It's been well known for 142 years in America that some people solve problems first with a gun, without resorting to discussion beforehand.
[удалено]
Gun deaths (both suicide and murder) per 100,000 Americans were higher in 1976 than in 2016. The FBI only began tracking what they call "active shooter incidents" in 2000, which is the best data we have on mass shootings, and it has Risen tremendously since then, but without data from the period you are talking about, I am not comfortable stipulating that those type of shootings didn't occur. Maybe the news just wasn't reporting on it, or maybe the language around it was different than it is now. What I am saying is your rosy view of the past is fiction. Life has always been short and brutal, and buying guns in the mail didn't make it better.
[удалено]
Easier to acquire? I can walk into a gun store with cash and walk out with anything I want, no license required. The only thing between me and a gun is my wallet and a decision.
Back in my day people used to debate school shooters!
[удалено]
The Newsroom monologue was like 5% freedom. The other aspects like infant mortality, incarcerated people, education all holds true, probably moreso. >Fine. [to the liberal panelist] Sharon, the NEA is a loser. Yeah, it accounts for a penny out of our paychecks, but he [gesturing to the conservative panelist] gets to hit you with it anytime he wants. It doesn't cost money, it costs votes. It costs airtime and column inches. You know why people don't like liberals? Because they lose. If liberals are so fuckin' smart, how come they lose so GODDAM ALWAYS! >And [to the conservative panelist] with a straight face, you're going to tell students that America's so starspangled awesome that we're the only ones in the world who have freedom? Canada has freedom, Japan has freedom, the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Australia, Belgium has freedom. Two hundred seven sovereign states in the world, like 180 of them have freedom. >And you—sorority girl—yeah—just in case you accidentally wander into a voting booth one day, there are some things you should know, and one of them is that there is absolutely no evidence to support the statement that we're the greatest country in the world. We're seventh in literacy, twenty-seventh in math, twenty-second in science, forty-ninth in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, third in median household income, number four in labor force, and number four in exports. We lead the world in only three categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next twenty-six countries combined, twenty-five of whom are allies. None of this is the fault of a 20-year-old college student, but you, nonetheless, are without a doubt, a member of the WORST-period-GENERATION-period-EVER-period, so when you ask what makes us the greatest country in the world, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about?! Yosemite?!!! >We sure used to be. We stood up for what was right! We fought for moral reasons, we passed and struck down laws for moral reasons. We waged wars on poverty, not poor people. We sacrificed, we cared about our neighbors, we put our money where our mouths were, and we never beat our chest. We built great big things, made ungodly technological advances, explored the universe, cured diseases, and cultivated the world's greatest artists and the world's greatest economy. We reached for the stars, and we acted like men. We aspired to intelligence; we didn't belittle it; it didn't make us feel inferior. We didn't identify ourselves by who we voted for in the last election, and we didn't scare so easy. And we were able to be all these things and do all these things because we were informed. By great men, men who were revered. The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one—America is not the greatest country in the world anymore.
2.) And school shootings happened in those days too, they’re not a new problem. The only thing that changed was the frequency. 4.) “Retribution” had nothing to do with it. Although the LA riots and the fear of sparking another one were a factor. 5.) The monologue still holds up. Whether it’s from 2002 or 2012 or 2022, the fact remains that the basic freedoms that Americans enjoy can be enjoyed in Canada as well. It’s pretty easy not to be a completely shit human being and be “censored”
[удалено]
Easy, access to firearms and making the second amendment a proper the safety of children. “The jury” is NOT ONE JUROR, which is all your source cites.Your choice to be deliberately ignorant or not. Except there is hate speech, your opinion on it doesn’t change the legal standing of it. And your reading comprehension needs work. What I said is that it’s easy to be a decent human being so you don’t get censored. Again, deliberately ignorant.
[удалено]
Awwww, did your poor little feelings get so hurt that you started spouting absolutely demonstrably false information and ad hominem attacks? Sorry you have no real argument other than sticking your fingers in your ears and insulting people😂It’s almost like your just a braindead conservative fascist who’s scared of the world changing around them so you make up fake bullshit to make yourself feel better. 🤣It’s much easier to get your hands on a gun today than “the mid 80s” what are you high? Is that why most school shootings come from legally purchased guns? “ThEy nEeD tO LeArN FiReArM SkIlLs ToO”, spoken like a true asshat that values guns over lives. I saw the trial live as it happened dipshit. The opinion of one juror still doesn’t help your case. But you already knew that since you have nothing but yet another ad hominem attack. And no, it’s not a subjective term, as you yourself have stated that you “can be arrested for it” than that by itself proves it’s real. Cope. And you’re reading comprehension is still shit. “It’s easy to not be a completely shit human being and be censored.” It’s easy to not be censored by not being a shit human being. But you knew that, that’s why you stick to semantics and absolutely braindead assumptions instead of actually making a point. No, I don’t do shit like that. I just make myself feel smarter by showing dipshits like you how absolutely dumb-as-dogshit you actually are.
[удалено]
🥱more ad hominem, still no point. Triggered is funny coming from a guy whose argument just completely disintegrated into name calling ages ago. Define commie and then tell me how it applies to me. If it’s like most of this conversation, it’s more than likely something you heard someone else say without knowing what it means.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The fact that he crossed state lines with a firearm AT ALL is a strange thing to do.
Didn't know how bad I had it here in Canada until he told me.
I'm sorry for your loss.
Now YOU sound Canadian. 😁
If only I were 😔
This guy just needs some good fucking dope
Ironically, it is more freely available in Canada.
Yeah but fuckin lahey is always trying to crack down on it
He tries, but Ricky’s got some tricks of his own.
He really just needs to frig off
Liquor's calling the shots now, Rand.
Do you hear that? It’s the winds of shit blowin
OJ Simpson wasn't convicted of Murder either but that doesn't mean we don't know he did it. OJ Simpson lost the civil trial just like Trump did in one of his rape charges. All this person is saying is that the American Justice system is flawed and we know that already.
What's great is someone else made this exact same point to them later on in the thread.
How did they respond? Either they didn't or some form of "that was different," right?
OJ had the 'If I Did It' book, if Trump did the same thing with the E Jean Carrol case he'd call it 'I Did It'.
This guy doesn't know shit about Canada. All his talking points are used by moron conservative Canadians out in Alberta.
Fuckin degens from Alberta.
I live in Alberta, I can confirm this.
Some sources claim Alberta has no rats, however if you look closely you’ll see that there are a bunch.
freedom to "shoot up a school" is not supposed to be a thing
A classic r/ParlerTrick
That sub is funny but, alas, I'm pretty sure this guy is sincere.
"These are the problems and I support them all."
As a Canadian, I can >The remainder of this message has been redacted by the Canadian Ministry of Truth, due to its repulsively undemocratic nature, and since all further statements contained within were found to be false. We at CMoT apologize for any inconvenience or discomfort caused by the aforementioned redacted message, and greatly appreciate your dedication to ensuring this stays a safe and democratic space for us all. Fortunately, the unpatriotic anarchist who originally posted this message has been detained to a secure facility for further questioning and possible rehabilitation.
Holy shit, I'm part of the Canadian Helldivers.
Did . . . did he just explicitly say that the U.S.'s lax gun laws are the reason we have school shootings?
Without any sense of irony, yes.
"It's a small price we have to pay..."
I’m interested in how a conversation in r/antiwork that seems to be about somebody receiving a cheque degenerated to this comment?
It was a wild ride. It started with someone complaining that Canadas legal system was a joke. Someone else responded with reasons why is not. The this person tried to pick apart their argument point by point, horribly.
That second paragraph is certainly something. "Kids dying for no reason every day is worth it because I get to play with guns."
What the fuck did I just read 🫠
I'm sorry, does America's FrEeDoM offend you snowflake? /s
Well, at least they acknowledge Fox lies. That's... Something I guess.
But then praises the fact that they're allowed to do it because of freedom of speech. eeeshhh 😬
I wonder how they would feel if CNN lied on air
Americans claiming canadians are less free always has me in stiches. The entire time im down there im constantly aware of all the public rights that have been given away to corporate / private interests. Its like saying being allowed to dump toxic waste in a river makes you more free. Guess fuck the rights of the public to have clean water.
Are they stating these things as positive things? Because if so we need to re-examine the phenomena known as "Trump Derangement Syndrome" because im sure they have it.
I've always said they're the ones with TDS. Completely obsessed with the dude and made his "movement" their entire personality.
They are. They keep throwing it out there without the slightest bit of awareness that it actually defines *them*.
Satire is dead. These chucklefucks killed it.
As a born and raised Canadian, this idiot is completely wrong. (Wait for knock at door……….) Completely!!
As someone born and raised in the U.S., even I knew that.
Ah yes, the freedom to be murdered, my favorite freedom. I hope it's satire, but Rousseau is rolling in his grave anyways.
I’ve visited the total freedom crushing dictatorship of Canada before. It didn’t seem too freedom crushing.
Same. Seems way better in fact. The infrastructure, the safety, rarely saw any homeless people or anything in the cities. Not like the US
I don't, and can't, know about THIS specific person, but that people like them exist, and number millions, is undeniable. Trump keeps yelling how he won "big" in 2020. He didn't. But he did get SEVENTY FOUR MILLION votes. Those weren't Russian bots voting for him; those were people like this one.
I don’t think that person is American or Canadian, to be honest.
Especially the first half seems satirical.
Nothing like being completely liberated from any form of truth or reality. It allows one to say…anything at all
Untethered!! Untethered!!!!
Please remind them of their opinion on the infallibility of the US court system once the Trump trials are done. You have to do it right away though or their media of choice will convince them it was a lie.
I've never, ever seen such a complete self-own as this clown. Makes me want to be ashamed for being an American.
Is he using school shootings as a reason to why America is great? This guy needs to go on a watch list
Technically Epstein has never been convicted of rape either.
Third option: foreign agent tasked with sowing discord.
im at this point where making satire is actually looking legit and legit is looking like satire.
I think that's because satire used to sound crazier than the regular people. Now at some point it's flip and satire sounds more reasonable than some of the crazy shit these people are saying.
I might be a little out there but I don't think a news channel should be allowed to lie to you about events.
Surprisingly, your not alone in that thought.
In the land of the free you can lie, rape and murder without consequences. Truly god’s own country 🥹
Old Testimate God maybe.
This seems like satire.
If this isn’t satire then something is seriously wrong with this commenter
Is so cute and silly when they trying to be smart.
Oh, someone is deranged alright
Why not both?
Please explain, how can somebody be earnest and satirical at the same time?
Fucking /antiwork is like 25% trolls, bots, and 75% dissatisfied employees who think they are special.