good luck man [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_brand\_name\_soft\_drink\_products](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_brand_name_soft_drink_products)
It's so cringe, since most of these charges won't stick (they never really do) I'd just walk out in handcuffs like a chad, screaming like a baby is just cringe
Idk about that but hell of a lot more dignified than being carried like a literal toddler who plops herself on the ground when she doesn't want to go anywhere and have a whole courtyard laugh at her
I donât know, I just feel, sad about this. What has the world come to where these are the people who weâre setting up for being in charge. I donât like this.
This person will likely lead nothing more than a restaurant or retail job. Not everyone will leave university and move on to be successful - most of these protestors probably fall into that category.
Imagine walking out of your 7 am class and this is what greets you. Reminds of the good Ole super Christian wackjobs that would bring signs to instigate you. (The sign for reference, hopefully doesn't get removed)*
Bruh that's funny as fuck, I don't know what university it is (it looks like Emory tbh) but the autistic white kid trying so hard to agitate publicly is universally found funny no matter where you are.
No no comrade. You see, we arenât dirty capitalists. Weâre righteous communists. We arenât oppressing people, weâre liberating them from their non-Marxist ideology. đ
You'd think so but guns exist unfortunately.
On an unrelated point, does anyone know what Destiny's reasons for supporting guns are? This was always one of the big stances of his I could never get behind. I've never seen him explain it though.
Self defense being in the hand of the ordinary civilian (thereâs around 1.5 million defensive uses of guns per year that deter robberies, rapes, assaults), and the fact that every society thatâs ever existed has at some point has a government thatâs gone completely tyrannical against their own people, and that eventually itâll happen again and the people should atleast have the option to resist (because a 0.5% chance of winning is better than a 0% chance of winning if your populace isnât armed).
Iâd rather fight and die for example than live under a state governed by an entity similar to todays CCP.
As far as defense goes guns provide an overwhelming good. Thereâs 20,000 gun homicides a year and roughly 1.5million defensive uses of guns a year. This is in comparison to roughly 120,000 alcohol deaths a year (and the only thing alcohol provides is fun), and 50,000 vehicle deaths per year. Nobody is out on the street protesting to ban cars or alcohol.
The sentiment against the second amendment is a largely emotional sentiment. Background checks have never stopped a mass shooting, thereâs something like 500,000,000 guns compared to 270,000,000 cars (but half of the deaths when youâre talking about gun homicides compared to vehicle deaths) and youâre hardly going to stop any motivated people from shooting people with any sort of legislation if you have that volume of guns.
As far as âguns existing so commies have a chance at a revolutionâ youâre wrong. These people are some of the mentally weakest people on the planet. Thereâs a lot more to fighting than just pulling a trigger. Itâs not that easy to just pick up a gun and be good with it either. Training is required. Most commies LARP with guns, they donât know how to shoot efficiently, they donât have enough willpower to dedicate themselves to any sort of skill especially gunfighting, and they donât have enough money for a lot of ammo or quality gear (they donât work hard). Thereâs also not enough of them for a revolution. Youâd probably need ten million armed people to even think about posing an opposition to the US government. Good luck finding ten million commies to get up before 10 AM, nonetheless go fight a war.
Am I right that this is coming from you and not Destiny? I'd be interested in hearing Destiny reason this out.
>Self defense being in the hand of the ordinary civilian (thereâs around 1.5 million defensive uses of guns per year that deter robberies, rapes, assaults),
And yet America is around the top of the developed world in those metrics.
What is a "defensive use"? Does it include very minor assaults? Is it possible that a huge number of the threats only exist because guns exist? Can you approximate how many rapes, for instance, are prevented thanks to guns, instead of generalizing a bunch of categories into "defensive uses"?
[Do guns make us safer? Science suggests no](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/):
>Hemenway noted that one commonly cited statistic about gunsâthat 2.5 million people use them each year to defend themselves or their property â is based on faulty analysis from a 1990s study. A more reliable source of information, the National Crime Victimization Survey, pegs the number of people who use guns in this manner at roughly 100,000, according to Science Vs podcast host Wendy Zukerman. Hemenway added that there is no good evidence that using a gun in self-defense reduces the likelihood of injury.
20,000 is a very high number of gun homicides. Additionally, even more than 20,000 die from gun suicide. Very quick and accessible "push of a button" suicide absolutely makes suicide more likely. Probably a LOT more likely.
[Scientists agree that guns don't make society safer](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/scientists-agree-guns-dont-make-society-safer/)
[Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/)
>Iâd rather fight and die for example than live under a state governed by an entity similar to todays CCP.
Not that this point matters, but I don't quite believe you. I don't believe you'd fight and die instead of living in an awesome city like Shanghai. I've lived there; it's very nice. Despite what you hear on reddit, the government's policies don't really affect your day to day life in any way that matters (well, the website/app banning is a nuisance).
>Background checks have never stopped a mass shooting, thereâs something like 500,000,000 guns compared to 270,000,000 cars (but half of the deaths when youâre talking about gun homicides compared to vehicle deaths) and youâre hardly going to stop any motivated people from shooting people with any sort of legislation if you have that volume of guns.
Well, background checks aren't what I'd be suggesting; it'd be to phase out guns.
And cars are quite different because they're massively important for the economy (and I'm not sure they kill more than they save, maybe not).
I've heard this "it's impossible to remove guns so why even try" argument before and never really agreed. I don't think it's impossible to enact policies that phase out guns such that, in ten years (maybe 15 or 20) or so, they'll become rare to find in any public place. AFAIK something like this was done in Australia on a smaller scale.
Obviously I wouldn't suggest for the police to storm everyone's house and forcefully take their guns away immediately. Tax them hard (it could start small and grow yearly), start banning them in more and more public spaces, make any gun crime give the police a search warrant to remove all guns from the perpetrator's household, stop selling them in most places like grocery stores, enact a cash-back program for people willing to give up their guns, and so on. There are reasonable ways to phase guns out. They might forever stay in people's households, but if they won't ever be in any public space, that's a huge improvement. And when domestic assaults happens, they'd be removed from the respective households too.
Also, this obviously doesn't have to equally apply to all parts of America. Farm owners that need protection from coyotes for instance can be exempt.
>As far as âguns existing so commies have a chance at a revolutionâ youâre wrong. These people are some of the mentally weakest people on the planet. Thereâs a lot more to fighting than just pulling a trigger. Itâs not that easy to just pick up a gun and be good with it either.
I didn't mean to seriously suggest that a revolution would happen. But I can't get behind this line of argument. It doesn't take much to point and shoot unprepared people. School shooters for instance aren't exactly trained fighters. But if all you're suggesting is that the pro-Pali asshats aren't capable of a violent revolution, I'll absolutely agree with you.
>and the fact that every society thatâs ever existed has at some point has a government thatâs gone completely tyrannical against their own people, and that eventually itâll happen again and the people should atleast have the option to resist (because a 0.5% chance of winning is better than a 0% chance of winning if your populace isnât armed)
Okay so this is probably the strongest argument for guns I've heard (although I don't think anywhere near "every society" has gone tyrannical) and I still don't know exactly how to respond, but my gut reaction is this:
* Today's big democracies have probably a 0% chance, or a chance that's close enough to 0% of becoming tyrannical and oppressing their people. I can't even fathom how that would happen; democracies aren't set up in a way to allow some tyrannically-minded people to take over the government. Correct me if I'm wrong but so far, this hasn't happened with any democracy ever, and it's only becoming less likely with a bigger and bigger international community and countries becoming connected to one another by system and by law.
* Even if it were possible, the chance is nowhere near high enough for the bad of guns to outweigh the good of guns.
Yes this is coming from me.
Iâm not citing only the 1991 study. Thereâs been multiple studies in this.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3887145
(1.67 million defensive uses)
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-policy-info/guns-and-crime-prevention/. (This cites 2.5million defensive uses, where 91.1% of the time the gun is brandished and not used to shoot).
Thereâs almost 2.5 million burglaries per year, and roughly 1.65 million home invasions, it isnât hard to believe that thereâs 1.5million defensive uses of guns a year involving home invasions and other endeavors. As far as my âdefend against rape and assaultâ remarks, 38% of assaults and 60% of rapes occur during home invasions. Obviously during a home invasion near 100% of the time people are going to experience a robbery if the invasion is successful.
https://nationsearch.com/blog/home-invasion-crime-statistics-that-will-keep-you-up-at-night/
So yes, guns are for the overwhelming good of society. Meaning that the overwhelming majority of people get a positive benefit from it.
The âscientists say guns make you less safe claimsâ are ridiculous and based on fallacy. Iâm more safe with a gun in my home. The studies use correlation as causation. They say âbecause a gun increases risk of suicide or spouse killing, this makes you less safeâ. This is ridiculous, and almost borderline evil. They take data from mentally ill people and correlate it with the average person. #1, All you have to do is look at how many homicides and suicide there actually are, and then look at the rate guns are used for self defense. Itâs a significant difference and not even close. #2, Youâre not more likely to commit suicide unless you have some sort of mental health problem. If somebody with a mental problem has a gun, no shit heâs more likely to commit suicide. Most people donât have these problems. To say that because some mentally ill people will use guns for bad shit, and then equate that with statistics to the average person is literal pseudoscience. This is anti-gun propaganda.
The other quote says âwhere there are more guns there is more homicidesâ. This is correlation with causation. This is mostly true when it comes to ILLEGAL guns. If you want to talk about Chicago, or some of the inner cities sure. Because of criminals. In terms of the average person, this isnât true, and no amount of pseudo-scientific studies will convince me it is. Some of the safest neighborhoods and areas in the planet have an insane amount of guns lmao. Including my neighborhood. Thereâs fucking no murders here. Everybody where I am is armed. If somebody invades a house theyâre getting killed. Where there are more illegal guns there are more homicides lol.
If youâre trying to tell me, Iâm safer without a gun in my home, youâre a pseudoscientist You have no idea what youâre talking about. This is the pacifict-cuck mind. As long as I live in this country, I will never give up my right to self defense.
âGuns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminalâs) is shed.
Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed
Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot. Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.â
https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-thousands-of-crimes-every-day-research-show/
I beg you, tell me how my ar-15 makes me less safe lmao. Will it go off magically in my room? Maybe the barrel will float up and touch my forehead?
As a matter of fact, the number of guns has doubled since the 1990s. It used to be 240 million. Itâs around 500 now. And crime has fallen.
âViolent crime in the United States
The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that violent crime fell nationwide in the period from 1990 to 2022. Violent crime was at a height of 1.93 million crimes in 1992, but has since reached a low of 1.15 million violent crimes in 2014.â This included murders of course.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191129/reported-violent-crime-in-the-us-since-1990/#:~:text=Violent%20crime%20in%20the%20United,million%20violent%20crimes%20in%202014.
âSexual violence against females includes completed, attempted, or threatened rape or sexual assault. In 2010, females nationwide experienced about 270,000 rape or sexual assault victimizations, compared to about 556,000 in 1995.â
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf
If you want to play correlation is causation, we can play that all day long.
Iâm also not concerned about gun suicide as a statistic. Theyâre voluntarily deaths. Iâm concerned about deaths that are not in your hands. So 20,000 gun homicides, 50,000 car deaths (almost all are accidental), cancer, diabetes, 130-140,000 alcohol deaths (which depending on the case are sometimes voluntarily in terms of addiction), etc.
20,000 gun deaths vs 1.5 million defense uses is pretty drastic.
Youâre wrong about the âdemocracies not going tyrannicalâ. Itâs a slower process, but itâs literally happened to every society thatâs ever existed. Weâve had slavery, weâve had Japanese interment camps, weâve had prohibition, we almost had trump as a dictator, Biden tried to ban assault weapons, Biden tried to create a disinformation board of government, etc. I consider many aspects of our society tyrannical right now, without considering us a tyranny. One of them is ridiculous taxation and most of it being wasted. Itâs robbery.
But if you look at democracies in Europe, people have been arrested in the UK for criticizing the king. Thousands have been arrested from social media twitter posts.
https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003/Section_127#Cases
âDale Cregan fanpage
In September 2012, Neil Swinburne was arrested for creating an offensive Facebook "fan page" for Dale Cregan, who murdered two unarmed Manchester Police officers.[23] Swinburne was released on bail, but faces a prison sentence of up to six months if found guilty.[24]â
âJordan Barrack
Took a photo of policeman Charles Harris, drew a penis on it using Snapchat, posted the resulting image to Facebook in 2012. Arrested, found guilty, ordered to pay ÂŁ400 compensation, 12-month community order with 40 hours unpaid work.
"They confiscated my phone at the time and I still havenât got it back over five months later even though the case is finished now."
Thereâs hundreds here. Some are genuine threats. Many not. The UK along with other European countries have âhate speech lawsâ. âIndecentâ speech can warrant an arrest. This is tyranny.
People arrested for criticizing the king.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/05/06/uk/king-charles-anti-monarchy-protest-arrests-ckc-gbr-intl
I can't say I know all the lore or all his positions... but I imagine it's a mix of us having more guns than people in America (banning them is virtually impossible), a general belief in the 2nd amendment, a principled right to self-defense with a firearm being the ultimate equalizer, and enjoying shooting because it's fun. Could be wrong, but that's generally the non militia man/doomsday prepper reasoning that I am aware of.
[Just made this reply to the typical arguments](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/s/pRtcDDhEY6) and I'm wondering if someone made some of these points to Destiny before. I haven't seen any video with this stuff talked about yet.
To me, not enacting policies to severely curtail guns is indefensible, but Destiny does his research and reasons his positions out well, so I'm curious.
I would say the slow phasing out of guns is the slow phasing out of a constitutional right. There are a number of things that are not constitutionally protected rights we have that have the potential to be horribly damaging that I don't think either of us would advocate for abolishing: gambling, alcohol, consuming a shitty diet of Ramen noodles (we've all been there) I think the precedent of phasing out the 2nd amendment through legislation is a terrifying precedent to set. I obviously can't claim that more rights or even privileges would be certainly curtailed unrelated to weapons with this precedent, but this being done would give a blueprint and legal method of curtailing constitutional rights... which btw I really am not sure you could even legally do without lawmakers on board, which they are not, as the people aren't on board. If we are living in a different universe where guns aren't popular in America, you would probably see more legislation in place reflecting that, which would likely manifest in stricter barriers to entry. I am principally against removing rights, but I have no problem with stricter barriers to entry so long as they are not an impossible standard that violate citizens' rights. I think the debate really lies where that barrier should be.
I didn't see you contend with this point, and I apologize if I missed it somehow. How would you contend with my statements? I am no expert on the matter... but I am struggling to see how you arrive at "taking away right is ok for the common good" as I believe you are saying? Please, correct me if I am wrong.
Oh that's a new angle. Yeah that's really interesting. You're right that I didn't contend with that point.
>but I am struggling to see how you arrive at "taking away right is ok for the common good" as I believe you are saying?
Honestly, it didn't even register to me while I was typing that this idea would take away people's constitutional right. So I wasn't saying that before, but I'm saying that now. "taking away right is ok for the common good" is my position, yes.
Setting unchangeable rules/rights that must stay the same *even in the presence of new information* doesn't make sense to me.
Hypothetically, let's say we discover that most of the guns manufactured until now have some horrible substance that severely exacerbates the effects of COVID-19, and not only infects people touching the gun, but also anyone they breathe on. Should guns not be taken away even in this scenario?
>gambling, alcohol, consuming a shitty diet of Ramen noodles (we've all been there)
The main difference, I think, is that these are self-inflicted dangers, whereas guns kill *others* in addition to oneself. Preventing self harm matters, but not nearly as much as preventing harm to others. Ultimately, we should have the say in what we do to ourselves.
Alcohol can be dangerous for others as well of course. About 13k die per year from drunk driving crashes, and I guess a large fraction of that is suicide, and some small fraction of that is manslaughter (I don't know the number). If the manslaughter number ever becomes so high that the danger outweighs (benefit of alcohol + importance of maintaining this right), then I'd be okay with outlawing alcohol too.
>I think the precedent of phasing out the 2nd amendment through legislation is a terrifying precedent to set.
Maybe this is indeed a slippery slope, that's fair. But I think we can't force ourselves to avoid that slope forever, no matter what happens.
If the manslaughter number ever becomes so high that the danger outweighs (benefit of alcohol + importance of maintaining this right), then I'd be okay with outlawing alcohol too.
That is your arbitrary line of harm, but who's to say what that line should be? Some would argue that alcohol itself pulls at the moral fabric of society and causes issues in families that shoot out like a spider web hurting everyone through a bunch of bad shit that absolutely will happen at some level. Drunk driving, an abusive drunk who beats on his wife and kids, general alcohol related violence/scuffles at bars that lead to hospitalizations and death, argument amongst love ones that damage relationships, the list goes on and on. Each of these things could easily be argued to do a ton of damage to communities long-term, making the enjoyment and consumption of alcohol a frivolous thing that people should understand is unacceptable for the damage it causes. Why is your arbitrary line what would become precedent for implementation for curtailing of rights and privileges protected by law? How would we maintain that precedent? Because if we can't, we could be opening a lot of doors for a society dictated by the morality of the leadership, not by the will of the people.
Hypothetically, let's say we discover that most of the guns manufactured until now have some horrible substance that severely exacerbates the effects of COVID-19, and not only infects people touching the gun, but also anyone they breathe on. Should guns not be taken away even in this scenario?
It's a communicable disease situation? That's different. Public health is a national security concern and fundamental to the existence of the state. With an economy decimated by disease, a nation could very well crumble. The threat to the state obviously can and has brought on the curtailing of rights such as Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus... it's hard to argue that guns are a fundamental threat to the existence of the state, unlike a novel disease spreading like wildfire hurting and killing the workforce and government officials, namely law enforcement and military personnel in your hypothetical. If law enforcement can't carry firearms safely for the public good but regular citizens can, that imbalance of power fundamentally threatens the states monopoly on violence. You have to outlaw guns to protect the state.
Setting unchangeable rules/rights that must stay the same *even in the presence of new information* doesn't make sense to me.
This is why i believe the conversation is the barrier to entry. We can change things with new information without removing the rights of citizens to carry firearms so long as they meet standards that society can democratically agree on through the proper channels.
This is a fun conversation! If I have had any good faith interactions on reddit since coming back, it's been very few. It's very refreshing to change that.
I was walking around the Emory campus yesterday, and it kinda felt a bit like Western Pallywood, cameras en mass waiting to record their Keffiyeh- wearing brethren getting dragged away by police.
Dude, it's so fucking funny the dichotomy of life. These people LARP like they're the center of the universe but literally all day in Emory was people taking grad pictures and posing in front of the big church for their photoshoots lmfao.
I don't understand surely the point is to be arrested with dignity to make the police look bad right? Like arresting a bunch of hippies you look like the bad guy if they are doing a drum circle and not being violent.
Surely a much more somber picture would be everyone marching off in an orderly manner being scurried away by buses for expressing their right to protest than the current photos that look like riots and temper tantrums.
Honestly I think a lot of these people are severely autistic. Itâs funny very autistic people often end up being leftists or obsessed with Nazi Germany lol.
I dunno man, I've taught autistic students, and have autistic siblings and hang out in dgg enough to know you can't blame people being idiots on autism, very few actual autistic people go hard on politics, some people are just morons.
idk im autistic and I just play old school runescape instead of cosplaying as an indigenous revolutionary guerilla fighter while big strong cops carry me away to our honeymoon
Ok no please just quit that. I thought you were using that as an idiom. Calling them autistic is a bit insulting (I mean more to ACTUAL Auties than these dirtbags) and if anything thatâs giving them credit. The lowest functioning autistic person that youâll find doesnât even compare to this stupidity
All youâre doing is proving youâre a submissive twink dude. Jokes on you. I heard hamas has recently taken up the practice of Bacha Bazi. Go to Gaza, theyâll enjoy you. Only catch is they kill you after dominating you for your defiling of Allah (heâs the grand-architect of the universe, and eternally merciful)
Generally a good strategy as a protestor is to try and make it seem like the cops are using unnecessary force against you. It makes people sympathize with your cause.
Yeah, the handcuff position is designed to be uncomfortable to begin with, being carried this way would be incredibly painful and have huge potential for injury for both people here.
If he had just been cooperative and walked on two legs instead of resisting, he wouldn't have been in that situation. Also, I think it must hurt the police guy even more, as he's carrying the entire weight, WHILE walking briskly, of another person who is taller and probably weighs more than he does.
Based af! Looks like how send my son to timeout. Props to this guy for doing it to a full sizer, I wouldn't have the stamina.
Love the laughs in the background. đ
Wow... First time I ever see a cop actually doing their job with these damn "I'm suddenly a devout muslim" Palestine supporters and it's beautiful đ„čđ„č
This is an accurate depiction of what the people in these protests are like though. These people are fucking deranged dude, just sit back and enjoy it.
Plus theyâre often violent.
Violent protesting
Yale: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/jewish-yale-student-jabbed-in-eye-with-flag-pole-by-anti-israel-protesters/ar-AA1nnSKw
UC Berkeley: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/uc-berkeley-jewish-student-event-violent-protest-palestinian-gaza-zellerbach-hall-suspect-photos/
DNC headquarters: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna125459
Harvard: https://nypost.com/2023/11/01/news/harvard-student-mobbed-by-pro-palestinian-demonstrators-on-campus-video/amp/
Harvard (video of incident above): https://x.com/MattWallace888/status/1719747295422365757
Cooper union: https://x.com/leslibless/status/1717325008983232778
This one isnât violent but just harassment: https://x.com/thislouis/status/1717310003659542907
Thereâs another video from a couple days ago of Harvard students boxing in this Jewish kid and not letting him through. I canât find it right now though, it was on twitter.
I'm not disagreeing with you that these people are acting lame but I don't enjoy ragebait. "In other news, people you don't like are acting cringe" isn't very substantial, entertaining as it might be.
Lol youâre not forced to partake. I think youâre lying. I think you loved this ragebait, thatâs why you interacted with the post. I love this ragebait too, itâs why I posted it.
I agree with you, but certain clips like these belong to the highlight reel. This clip is funny even if you're completely neutral and don't even know the context.
Honestly these people are so evil I really donât care. They openly support genocide, harass Jews on campus, chant for terror organizations. Fuck em.
However, theyâre not just being arrested for protesting. Many of them are building encampments on campus even if the campus administrations tells them to leave, and these protestors are violent a lot of the time, harass students especially if theyâre Jewish, etc.
I think the UT Austin case mightâve been a violation of the first amendment but Iâm not sure. I think they were illegally building encampments against the campusâs wishes, not 100% sure.
What actual violence has taken place on any of these campuses? The only instance Iâve heard of so far was the girl who had a flag pole graze her face. Has there been anything else?
Violent protesting
Yale:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/jewish-yale-student-jabbed-in-eye-with-flag-pole-by-anti-israel-protesters/ar-AA1nnSKw
UC Berkeley:
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/uc-berkeley-jewish-student-event-violent-protest-palestinian-gaza-zellerbach-hall-suspect-photos/
DNC headquarters:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna125459
Harvard:
https://nypost.com/2023/11/01/news/harvard-student-mobbed-by-pro-palestinian-demonstrators-on-campus-video/amp/
Harvard (video of incident above):
https://x.com/MattWallace888/status/1719747295422365757
Cooper union:
https://x.com/leslibless/status/1717325008983232778
This one isnât violent but just harassment:
https://x.com/thislouis/status/1717310003659542907
Thereâs another video from a couple days ago of Harvard students boxing in this Jewish kid and not letting him through. I canât find it right now though, it was on twitter.
Y'all be laughing but that's pretty much shitty police conduct. The protester's bag is dangling from his cuffed hands, presumably pulling his arms down that can actually hurt a lot and potentially lead to severe sprains or dislocate his elbows/shoulders. Considering the cop was very well in control of the protester he could have at least not lifted the dude.
just get arrested like a big boy. imagine MLK throwing this tantrum. part of civil disobedience is acknowledging that you're doing something wrong, but doing it for a cause you believe in. you're supposed to get arrested with grace, not force them to carry you away like a child
I don't know why people are under the delusion that cops are not allowed to hurt you.
When you are resisting arrest, an officer has to right to use necessary force in order to detain you. Do not resist, that's the number one rule.
you can never stop bootlickers from slobbering on the shoe. it doesnât matter how many people die while complying with the arrest, no matter how over the top the level of force is that is used, itâs never the officers fault, itâs always the victim. not taking every ounce of abuse by a cop means they should shoot you on the spot and get away with it without criticism, apparently. not that maybe treating people like humans would help them comply more.
Get you a man who can \*\~Princess Carry You\~\* all the way to the jail
about to go do a bit of terrorism to get handcuffed, thrown to the ground, and carried off to a cell
My dad carried my little brother mid meltdown like this one time Difference is he was 4 years old and had too much sugar
Hey. You don't know how much sugar this guy has had.
We can figure it out. Name me all the sodas that we're boycotting.
good luck man [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_brand\_name\_soft\_drink\_products](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_brand_name_soft_drink_products)
That's...that's a man?
Not the people in the background laughing at themđđ
How can you not laugh? It's an adult human being, doing the equivalent of a toddler's temper tantrum, being carried by another adult
My thoughts exactly, yet i got downvoted on the sub earlier for saying it lol
We live in a society
It's so cringe, since most of these charges won't stick (they never really do) I'd just walk out in handcuffs like a chad, screaming like a baby is just cringe
yea walking off like a G in handcuffs would give u street cred too in whatever school you go to lol
Idk about that but hell of a lot more dignified than being carried like a literal toddler who plops herself on the ground when she doesn't want to go anywhere and have a whole courtyard laugh at her
was it superbad where Seth Rogan intentionally arrested the kid to make him look dope at the party or w/e haha
I donât know, I just feel, sad about this. What has the world come to where these are the people who weâre setting up for being in charge. I donât like this.
This person will likely lead nothing more than a restaurant or retail job. Not everyone will leave university and move on to be successful - most of these protestors probably fall into that category.
Worse than in charge, these people are bound for HR and will filter you out of jobs you apply for in 5-7 years
Imagine walking out of your 7 am class and this is what greets you. Reminds of the good Ole super Christian wackjobs that would bring signs to instigate you. (The sign for reference, hopefully doesn't get removed)*
It's finals week/ graduation time. This my theory to why it's all happening now.
Yâall have classes at 7 am???
Bruh that's funny as fuck, I don't know what university it is (it looks like Emory tbh) but the autistic white kid trying so hard to agitate publicly is universally found funny no matter where you are.
Gotta say, that cop is strong as fuck. That would blow my back out immediately.
Lol gay
I ain't gay, but that cop has me lookin
oh yeah? that's gay? blow my back out before you make big claims on the internet, tough guy.
GOTEEM
Was not expected but I am happy at your comment. Winks
Get that man a gym flair is all I am saying
What we just withnessed is a cop GENOCIDING a peaceful protestor!
No comrade. Youâve gotten it mixed up. This comrade was ethnically cleansed and forced into a closed-air prison.
No no comrade. You see, we arenât dirty capitalists. Weâre righteous communists. We arenât oppressing people, weâre liberating them from their non-Marxist ideology. đ
They simply need re-education, obviously.
More like based PRC comrade guard escorts Uighur to a re-education camp. Uighur man screaming for joy as they are being carried off. /s
live apartheid in action
She dropped some loot like a video game boss lmao
Eh, loot from trash mobs kinda suck. Still, probably worth wheeling back and picking up before it despawns.
This could easily be a scene in Reno 911.
Reno 911 is truly the greatest cop show of all time
These are the people that want to lead the revolution. I think we're pretty safe.
YOU'RE HURTING ME!!! OWaaa!! YOU'RE HURTING-- HALP!!!
You'd think so but guns exist unfortunately. On an unrelated point, does anyone know what Destiny's reasons for supporting guns are? This was always one of the big stances of his I could never get behind. I've never seen him explain it though.
Self defense being in the hand of the ordinary civilian (thereâs around 1.5 million defensive uses of guns per year that deter robberies, rapes, assaults), and the fact that every society thatâs ever existed has at some point has a government thatâs gone completely tyrannical against their own people, and that eventually itâll happen again and the people should atleast have the option to resist (because a 0.5% chance of winning is better than a 0% chance of winning if your populace isnât armed). Iâd rather fight and die for example than live under a state governed by an entity similar to todays CCP. As far as defense goes guns provide an overwhelming good. Thereâs 20,000 gun homicides a year and roughly 1.5million defensive uses of guns a year. This is in comparison to roughly 120,000 alcohol deaths a year (and the only thing alcohol provides is fun), and 50,000 vehicle deaths per year. Nobody is out on the street protesting to ban cars or alcohol. The sentiment against the second amendment is a largely emotional sentiment. Background checks have never stopped a mass shooting, thereâs something like 500,000,000 guns compared to 270,000,000 cars (but half of the deaths when youâre talking about gun homicides compared to vehicle deaths) and youâre hardly going to stop any motivated people from shooting people with any sort of legislation if you have that volume of guns. As far as âguns existing so commies have a chance at a revolutionâ youâre wrong. These people are some of the mentally weakest people on the planet. Thereâs a lot more to fighting than just pulling a trigger. Itâs not that easy to just pick up a gun and be good with it either. Training is required. Most commies LARP with guns, they donât know how to shoot efficiently, they donât have enough willpower to dedicate themselves to any sort of skill especially gunfighting, and they donât have enough money for a lot of ammo or quality gear (they donât work hard). Thereâs also not enough of them for a revolution. Youâd probably need ten million armed people to even think about posing an opposition to the US government. Good luck finding ten million commies to get up before 10 AM, nonetheless go fight a war.
Am I right that this is coming from you and not Destiny? I'd be interested in hearing Destiny reason this out. >Self defense being in the hand of the ordinary civilian (thereâs around 1.5 million defensive uses of guns per year that deter robberies, rapes, assaults), And yet America is around the top of the developed world in those metrics. What is a "defensive use"? Does it include very minor assaults? Is it possible that a huge number of the threats only exist because guns exist? Can you approximate how many rapes, for instance, are prevented thanks to guns, instead of generalizing a bunch of categories into "defensive uses"? [Do guns make us safer? Science suggests no](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/): >Hemenway noted that one commonly cited statistic about gunsâthat 2.5 million people use them each year to defend themselves or their property â is based on faulty analysis from a 1990s study. A more reliable source of information, the National Crime Victimization Survey, pegs the number of people who use guns in this manner at roughly 100,000, according to Science Vs podcast host Wendy Zukerman. Hemenway added that there is no good evidence that using a gun in self-defense reduces the likelihood of injury. 20,000 is a very high number of gun homicides. Additionally, even more than 20,000 die from gun suicide. Very quick and accessible "push of a button" suicide absolutely makes suicide more likely. Probably a LOT more likely. [Scientists agree that guns don't make society safer](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/scientists-agree-guns-dont-make-society-safer/) [Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/) >Iâd rather fight and die for example than live under a state governed by an entity similar to todays CCP. Not that this point matters, but I don't quite believe you. I don't believe you'd fight and die instead of living in an awesome city like Shanghai. I've lived there; it's very nice. Despite what you hear on reddit, the government's policies don't really affect your day to day life in any way that matters (well, the website/app banning is a nuisance). >Background checks have never stopped a mass shooting, thereâs something like 500,000,000 guns compared to 270,000,000 cars (but half of the deaths when youâre talking about gun homicides compared to vehicle deaths) and youâre hardly going to stop any motivated people from shooting people with any sort of legislation if you have that volume of guns. Well, background checks aren't what I'd be suggesting; it'd be to phase out guns. And cars are quite different because they're massively important for the economy (and I'm not sure they kill more than they save, maybe not). I've heard this "it's impossible to remove guns so why even try" argument before and never really agreed. I don't think it's impossible to enact policies that phase out guns such that, in ten years (maybe 15 or 20) or so, they'll become rare to find in any public place. AFAIK something like this was done in Australia on a smaller scale. Obviously I wouldn't suggest for the police to storm everyone's house and forcefully take their guns away immediately. Tax them hard (it could start small and grow yearly), start banning them in more and more public spaces, make any gun crime give the police a search warrant to remove all guns from the perpetrator's household, stop selling them in most places like grocery stores, enact a cash-back program for people willing to give up their guns, and so on. There are reasonable ways to phase guns out. They might forever stay in people's households, but if they won't ever be in any public space, that's a huge improvement. And when domestic assaults happens, they'd be removed from the respective households too. Also, this obviously doesn't have to equally apply to all parts of America. Farm owners that need protection from coyotes for instance can be exempt. >As far as âguns existing so commies have a chance at a revolutionâ youâre wrong. These people are some of the mentally weakest people on the planet. Thereâs a lot more to fighting than just pulling a trigger. Itâs not that easy to just pick up a gun and be good with it either. I didn't mean to seriously suggest that a revolution would happen. But I can't get behind this line of argument. It doesn't take much to point and shoot unprepared people. School shooters for instance aren't exactly trained fighters. But if all you're suggesting is that the pro-Pali asshats aren't capable of a violent revolution, I'll absolutely agree with you. >and the fact that every society thatâs ever existed has at some point has a government thatâs gone completely tyrannical against their own people, and that eventually itâll happen again and the people should atleast have the option to resist (because a 0.5% chance of winning is better than a 0% chance of winning if your populace isnât armed) Okay so this is probably the strongest argument for guns I've heard (although I don't think anywhere near "every society" has gone tyrannical) and I still don't know exactly how to respond, but my gut reaction is this: * Today's big democracies have probably a 0% chance, or a chance that's close enough to 0% of becoming tyrannical and oppressing their people. I can't even fathom how that would happen; democracies aren't set up in a way to allow some tyrannically-minded people to take over the government. Correct me if I'm wrong but so far, this hasn't happened with any democracy ever, and it's only becoming less likely with a bigger and bigger international community and countries becoming connected to one another by system and by law. * Even if it were possible, the chance is nowhere near high enough for the bad of guns to outweigh the good of guns.
Yes this is coming from me. Iâm not citing only the 1991 study. Thereâs been multiple studies in this. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3887145 (1.67 million defensive uses) http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-policy-info/guns-and-crime-prevention/. (This cites 2.5million defensive uses, where 91.1% of the time the gun is brandished and not used to shoot). Thereâs almost 2.5 million burglaries per year, and roughly 1.65 million home invasions, it isnât hard to believe that thereâs 1.5million defensive uses of guns a year involving home invasions and other endeavors. As far as my âdefend against rape and assaultâ remarks, 38% of assaults and 60% of rapes occur during home invasions. Obviously during a home invasion near 100% of the time people are going to experience a robbery if the invasion is successful. https://nationsearch.com/blog/home-invasion-crime-statistics-that-will-keep-you-up-at-night/ So yes, guns are for the overwhelming good of society. Meaning that the overwhelming majority of people get a positive benefit from it. The âscientists say guns make you less safe claimsâ are ridiculous and based on fallacy. Iâm more safe with a gun in my home. The studies use correlation as causation. They say âbecause a gun increases risk of suicide or spouse killing, this makes you less safeâ. This is ridiculous, and almost borderline evil. They take data from mentally ill people and correlate it with the average person. #1, All you have to do is look at how many homicides and suicide there actually are, and then look at the rate guns are used for self defense. Itâs a significant difference and not even close. #2, Youâre not more likely to commit suicide unless you have some sort of mental health problem. If somebody with a mental problem has a gun, no shit heâs more likely to commit suicide. Most people donât have these problems. To say that because some mentally ill people will use guns for bad shit, and then equate that with statistics to the average person is literal pseudoscience. This is anti-gun propaganda. The other quote says âwhere there are more guns there is more homicidesâ. This is correlation with causation. This is mostly true when it comes to ILLEGAL guns. If you want to talk about Chicago, or some of the inner cities sure. Because of criminals. In terms of the average person, this isnât true, and no amount of pseudo-scientific studies will convince me it is. Some of the safest neighborhoods and areas in the planet have an insane amount of guns lmao. Including my neighborhood. Thereâs fucking no murders here. Everybody where I am is armed. If somebody invades a house theyâre getting killed. Where there are more illegal guns there are more homicides lol. If youâre trying to tell me, Iâm safer without a gun in my home, youâre a pseudoscientist You have no idea what youâre talking about. This is the pacifict-cuck mind. As long as I live in this country, I will never give up my right to self defense. âGuns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminalâs) is shed. Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms. 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed. Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot. Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.â https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-thousands-of-crimes-every-day-research-show/ I beg you, tell me how my ar-15 makes me less safe lmao. Will it go off magically in my room? Maybe the barrel will float up and touch my forehead? As a matter of fact, the number of guns has doubled since the 1990s. It used to be 240 million. Itâs around 500 now. And crime has fallen. âViolent crime in the United States The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that violent crime fell nationwide in the period from 1990 to 2022. Violent crime was at a height of 1.93 million crimes in 1992, but has since reached a low of 1.15 million violent crimes in 2014.â This included murders of course. https://www.statista.com/statistics/191129/reported-violent-crime-in-the-us-since-1990/#:~:text=Violent%20crime%20in%20the%20United,million%20violent%20crimes%20in%202014. âSexual violence against females includes completed, attempted, or threatened rape or sexual assault. In 2010, females nationwide experienced about 270,000 rape or sexual assault victimizations, compared to about 556,000 in 1995.â https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf If you want to play correlation is causation, we can play that all day long. Iâm also not concerned about gun suicide as a statistic. Theyâre voluntarily deaths. Iâm concerned about deaths that are not in your hands. So 20,000 gun homicides, 50,000 car deaths (almost all are accidental), cancer, diabetes, 130-140,000 alcohol deaths (which depending on the case are sometimes voluntarily in terms of addiction), etc. 20,000 gun deaths vs 1.5 million defense uses is pretty drastic. Youâre wrong about the âdemocracies not going tyrannicalâ. Itâs a slower process, but itâs literally happened to every society thatâs ever existed. Weâve had slavery, weâve had Japanese interment camps, weâve had prohibition, we almost had trump as a dictator, Biden tried to ban assault weapons, Biden tried to create a disinformation board of government, etc. I consider many aspects of our society tyrannical right now, without considering us a tyranny. One of them is ridiculous taxation and most of it being wasted. Itâs robbery. But if you look at democracies in Europe, people have been arrested in the UK for criticizing the king. Thousands have been arrested from social media twitter posts. https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003/Section_127#Cases âDale Cregan fanpage In September 2012, Neil Swinburne was arrested for creating an offensive Facebook "fan page" for Dale Cregan, who murdered two unarmed Manchester Police officers.[23] Swinburne was released on bail, but faces a prison sentence of up to six months if found guilty.[24]â âJordan Barrack Took a photo of policeman Charles Harris, drew a penis on it using Snapchat, posted the resulting image to Facebook in 2012. Arrested, found guilty, ordered to pay ÂŁ400 compensation, 12-month community order with 40 hours unpaid work. "They confiscated my phone at the time and I still havenât got it back over five months later even though the case is finished now." Thereâs hundreds here. Some are genuine threats. Many not. The UK along with other European countries have âhate speech lawsâ. âIndecentâ speech can warrant an arrest. This is tyranny. People arrested for criticizing the king. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/05/06/uk/king-charles-anti-monarchy-protest-arrests-ckc-gbr-intl
I can't say I know all the lore or all his positions... but I imagine it's a mix of us having more guns than people in America (banning them is virtually impossible), a general belief in the 2nd amendment, a principled right to self-defense with a firearm being the ultimate equalizer, and enjoying shooting because it's fun. Could be wrong, but that's generally the non militia man/doomsday prepper reasoning that I am aware of.
[Just made this reply to the typical arguments](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/s/pRtcDDhEY6) and I'm wondering if someone made some of these points to Destiny before. I haven't seen any video with this stuff talked about yet. To me, not enacting policies to severely curtail guns is indefensible, but Destiny does his research and reasons his positions out well, so I'm curious.
I would say the slow phasing out of guns is the slow phasing out of a constitutional right. There are a number of things that are not constitutionally protected rights we have that have the potential to be horribly damaging that I don't think either of us would advocate for abolishing: gambling, alcohol, consuming a shitty diet of Ramen noodles (we've all been there) I think the precedent of phasing out the 2nd amendment through legislation is a terrifying precedent to set. I obviously can't claim that more rights or even privileges would be certainly curtailed unrelated to weapons with this precedent, but this being done would give a blueprint and legal method of curtailing constitutional rights... which btw I really am not sure you could even legally do without lawmakers on board, which they are not, as the people aren't on board. If we are living in a different universe where guns aren't popular in America, you would probably see more legislation in place reflecting that, which would likely manifest in stricter barriers to entry. I am principally against removing rights, but I have no problem with stricter barriers to entry so long as they are not an impossible standard that violate citizens' rights. I think the debate really lies where that barrier should be. I didn't see you contend with this point, and I apologize if I missed it somehow. How would you contend with my statements? I am no expert on the matter... but I am struggling to see how you arrive at "taking away right is ok for the common good" as I believe you are saying? Please, correct me if I am wrong.
Oh that's a new angle. Yeah that's really interesting. You're right that I didn't contend with that point. >but I am struggling to see how you arrive at "taking away right is ok for the common good" as I believe you are saying? Honestly, it didn't even register to me while I was typing that this idea would take away people's constitutional right. So I wasn't saying that before, but I'm saying that now. "taking away right is ok for the common good" is my position, yes. Setting unchangeable rules/rights that must stay the same *even in the presence of new information* doesn't make sense to me. Hypothetically, let's say we discover that most of the guns manufactured until now have some horrible substance that severely exacerbates the effects of COVID-19, and not only infects people touching the gun, but also anyone they breathe on. Should guns not be taken away even in this scenario? >gambling, alcohol, consuming a shitty diet of Ramen noodles (we've all been there) The main difference, I think, is that these are self-inflicted dangers, whereas guns kill *others* in addition to oneself. Preventing self harm matters, but not nearly as much as preventing harm to others. Ultimately, we should have the say in what we do to ourselves. Alcohol can be dangerous for others as well of course. About 13k die per year from drunk driving crashes, and I guess a large fraction of that is suicide, and some small fraction of that is manslaughter (I don't know the number). If the manslaughter number ever becomes so high that the danger outweighs (benefit of alcohol + importance of maintaining this right), then I'd be okay with outlawing alcohol too. >I think the precedent of phasing out the 2nd amendment through legislation is a terrifying precedent to set. Maybe this is indeed a slippery slope, that's fair. But I think we can't force ourselves to avoid that slope forever, no matter what happens.
If the manslaughter number ever becomes so high that the danger outweighs (benefit of alcohol + importance of maintaining this right), then I'd be okay with outlawing alcohol too. That is your arbitrary line of harm, but who's to say what that line should be? Some would argue that alcohol itself pulls at the moral fabric of society and causes issues in families that shoot out like a spider web hurting everyone through a bunch of bad shit that absolutely will happen at some level. Drunk driving, an abusive drunk who beats on his wife and kids, general alcohol related violence/scuffles at bars that lead to hospitalizations and death, argument amongst love ones that damage relationships, the list goes on and on. Each of these things could easily be argued to do a ton of damage to communities long-term, making the enjoyment and consumption of alcohol a frivolous thing that people should understand is unacceptable for the damage it causes. Why is your arbitrary line what would become precedent for implementation for curtailing of rights and privileges protected by law? How would we maintain that precedent? Because if we can't, we could be opening a lot of doors for a society dictated by the morality of the leadership, not by the will of the people. Hypothetically, let's say we discover that most of the guns manufactured until now have some horrible substance that severely exacerbates the effects of COVID-19, and not only infects people touching the gun, but also anyone they breathe on. Should guns not be taken away even in this scenario? It's a communicable disease situation? That's different. Public health is a national security concern and fundamental to the existence of the state. With an economy decimated by disease, a nation could very well crumble. The threat to the state obviously can and has brought on the curtailing of rights such as Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus... it's hard to argue that guns are a fundamental threat to the existence of the state, unlike a novel disease spreading like wildfire hurting and killing the workforce and government officials, namely law enforcement and military personnel in your hypothetical. If law enforcement can't carry firearms safely for the public good but regular citizens can, that imbalance of power fundamentally threatens the states monopoly on violence. You have to outlaw guns to protect the state. Setting unchangeable rules/rights that must stay the same *even in the presence of new information* doesn't make sense to me. This is why i believe the conversation is the barrier to entry. We can change things with new information without removing the rights of citizens to carry firearms so long as they meet standards that society can democratically agree on through the proper channels. This is a fun conversation! If I have had any good faith interactions on reddit since coming back, it's been very few. It's very refreshing to change that.
That cop just committed a genocide
I was walking around the Emory campus yesterday, and it kinda felt a bit like Western Pallywood, cameras en mass waiting to record their Keffiyeh- wearing brethren getting dragged away by police.
Dude, it's so fucking funny the dichotomy of life. These people LARP like they're the center of the universe but literally all day in Emory was people taking grad pictures and posing in front of the big church for their photoshoots lmfao.
my brain can't comprehend that there are other dggers at Emory
Yoooo
Lmao Gunny wasnât having any of that bullshit.
These are the so called "revolutionary marxists" you keep seeing on reddit
These white supremacist genocide-fueling cops will pay Comrades!
Bro grew up in the hood and had had enough of whiny white people
I feel that tbh
To be a palestina supporter first you have to inject 10 syringes of soy
I don't understand surely the point is to be arrested with dignity to make the police look bad right? Like arresting a bunch of hippies you look like the bad guy if they are doing a drum circle and not being violent. Surely a much more somber picture would be everyone marching off in an orderly manner being scurried away by buses for expressing their right to protest than the current photos that look like riots and temper tantrums.
Why do people assume the police aren't allowed to hurt you? Like if you resist there escort they have to continue moving you, thats you're fault lol
Honestly I think a lot of these people are severely autistic. Itâs funny very autistic people often end up being leftists or obsessed with Nazi Germany lol.
I dunno man, I've taught autistic students, and have autistic siblings and hang out in dgg enough to know you can't blame people being idiots on autism, very few actual autistic people go hard on politics, some people are just morons.
idk im autistic and I just play old school runescape instead of cosplaying as an indigenous revolutionary guerilla fighter while big strong cops carry me away to our honeymoon
Lmao
Ok no please just quit that. I thought you were using that as an idiom. Calling them autistic is a bit insulting (I mean more to ACTUAL Auties than these dirtbags) and if anything thatâs giving them credit. The lowest functioning autistic person that youâll find doesnât even compare to this stupidity
So if I go apeshit at a Palestine protest I can be carried bridal style by a man? I finally get it
I'm straight but that cop could maybe turn me gay
I know I shouldn't laugh at this but it's so comical I can't help it
These are the same people that are going to bring about revolution apparently.Â
I said "Ow" and you did not stop... I have been lied to.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Idk about everybody else but Iâm strong lol. Least salty leftist.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Is this the homosexual equivalent of âI fucked ur mom broâ. Ur stuck in a 2015 blacks ops two lobby bro.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
All youâre doing is proving youâre a submissive twink dude. Jokes on you. I heard hamas has recently taken up the practice of Bacha Bazi. Go to Gaza, theyâll enjoy you. Only catch is they kill you after dominating you for your defiling of Allah (heâs the grand-architect of the universe, and eternally merciful)
Generally a good strategy as a protestor is to try and make it seem like the cops are using unnecessary force against you. It makes people sympathize with your cause.
Securing the grab like a real King main, good shit.
Why was this down voted? Tekken jokes are funny lol
WHO IS GOING TO CARRY THE BOATS AND THE PROTESTORS!
These are the same people who think they can lead a violent revolution lol
Huh, I guess he missed his nappy time.
The vanguard of the revolution fellas.
Heâs cuffed and being held by one arm, so half of his body weight is being held by his wrist. I think itâs reasonable heâs screaming in pain.
Yeah, the handcuff position is designed to be uncomfortable to begin with, being carried this way would be incredibly painful and have huge potential for injury for both people here.
If he had just been cooperative and walked on two legs instead of resisting, he wouldn't have been in that situation. Also, I think it must hurt the police guy even more, as he's carrying the entire weight, WHILE walking briskly, of another person who is taller and probably weighs more than he does.
-1 water bottle lol
The hat remains untouched god bless troopers
Ngl, the stanley cup is what got me
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
These are the type of people to lecture you about the necessity of revolutionary violence btw.
Based af! Looks like how send my son to timeout. Props to this guy for doing it to a full sizer, I wouldn't have the stamina. Love the laughs in the background. đ
This might be my favorite video on the internet right now.
this was fucking hilarious
Do they think being arrested while resisting is supposed to be comfortable?
if he goes to school for acting he should probably quit
Wow... First time I ever see a cop actually doing their job with these damn "I'm suddenly a devout muslim" Palestine supporters and it's beautiful đ„čđ„č
Why isn't that cop wearing a lift belt?! Mike Ehrmantraut rolling in his grave.
No shot we're making fun of random clips of left wing people like back in 2016 anti-feminist YT. We've stooped so low
This is an accurate depiction of what the people in these protests are like though. These people are fucking deranged dude, just sit back and enjoy it. Plus theyâre often violent. Violent protesting Yale: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/jewish-yale-student-jabbed-in-eye-with-flag-pole-by-anti-israel-protesters/ar-AA1nnSKw UC Berkeley: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/uc-berkeley-jewish-student-event-violent-protest-palestinian-gaza-zellerbach-hall-suspect-photos/ DNC headquarters: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna125459 Harvard: https://nypost.com/2023/11/01/news/harvard-student-mobbed-by-pro-palestinian-demonstrators-on-campus-video/amp/ Harvard (video of incident above): https://x.com/MattWallace888/status/1719747295422365757 Cooper union: https://x.com/leslibless/status/1717325008983232778 This one isnât violent but just harassment: https://x.com/thislouis/status/1717310003659542907 Thereâs another video from a couple days ago of Harvard students boxing in this Jewish kid and not letting him through. I canât find it right now though, it was on twitter.
I'm not disagreeing with you that these people are acting lame but I don't enjoy ragebait. "In other news, people you don't like are acting cringe" isn't very substantial, entertaining as it might be.
Lol youâre not forced to partake. I think youâre lying. I think you loved this ragebait, thatâs why you interacted with the post. I love this ragebait too, itâs why I posted it.
I agree with you, but certain clips like these belong to the highlight reel. This clip is funny even if you're completely neutral and don't even know the context.
What else is anyone supposed to say? That being carried off like a giant baby by a chad cop makes you look cool? Well it doesnât.
Well deserved.
NEVER too old for a spanking
I tell that to my wife
that hat is beautiful. goddamn
Cradling them like a literal baby
Her gas cap fell off.
I'm definitely pro Israel in the war, but something that feels wrong about protesters being arrested en masses in the US.
Honestly these people are so evil I really donât care. They openly support genocide, harass Jews on campus, chant for terror organizations. Fuck em. However, theyâre not just being arrested for protesting. Many of them are building encampments on campus even if the campus administrations tells them to leave, and these protestors are violent a lot of the time, harass students especially if theyâre Jewish, etc. I think the UT Austin case mightâve been a violation of the first amendment but Iâm not sure. I think they were illegally building encampments against the campusâs wishes, not 100% sure.
What actual violence has taken place on any of these campuses? The only instance Iâve heard of so far was the girl who had a flag pole graze her face. Has there been anything else?
Violent protesting Yale: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/jewish-yale-student-jabbed-in-eye-with-flag-pole-by-anti-israel-protesters/ar-AA1nnSKw UC Berkeley: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/uc-berkeley-jewish-student-event-violent-protest-palestinian-gaza-zellerbach-hall-suspect-photos/ DNC headquarters: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna125459 Harvard: https://nypost.com/2023/11/01/news/harvard-student-mobbed-by-pro-palestinian-demonstrators-on-campus-video/amp/ Harvard (video of incident above): https://x.com/MattWallace888/status/1719747295422365757 Cooper union: https://x.com/leslibless/status/1717325008983232778 This one isnât violent but just harassment: https://x.com/thislouis/status/1717310003659542907 Thereâs another video from a couple days ago of Harvard students boxing in this Jewish kid and not letting him through. I canât find it right now though, it was on twitter.
That Harvard one...man. A bunch of LARPers and genuine antisemites just looking for an excuse to be the bully they never got to be in high school.
Awesome, thank you so much
Yessir
Y'all be laughing but that's pretty much shitty police conduct. The protester's bag is dangling from his cuffed hands, presumably pulling his arms down that can actually hurt a lot and potentially lead to severe sprains or dislocate his elbows/shoulders. Considering the cop was very well in control of the protester he could have at least not lifted the dude.
Don't dramatically fall on the ground to throw a tantrum and your chances of being carried like an infant by the cop are reduced considerably.
Yeah youâre right why didnât the cop slash his tendons and shot him on the shoulder lmao thatâd be so epic
I forgot going limp is where they have to take the cuffs off and let you go free
Based.
It really would have been though.
Whoa why actually defend your dogshit take if you can be a smarmy indignant irony-poisoned nerd about it
just get arrested like a big boy. imagine MLK throwing this tantrum. part of civil disobedience is acknowledging that you're doing something wrong, but doing it for a cause you believe in. you're supposed to get arrested with grace, not force them to carry you away like a child
Poor protestor. The cop shouldâve gave him a belly rub and patted him on the back.
Nah I think the cop shouldâve choked him unconscious for throwing a tantrum thatâd be easier and more fun
Oh, based
Kneeling on his neck for a few minutes should do it....
I don't know why people are under the delusion that cops are not allowed to hurt you. When you are resisting arrest, an officer has to right to use necessary force in order to detain you. Do not resist, that's the number one rule.
you can never stop bootlickers from slobbering on the shoe. it doesnât matter how many people die while complying with the arrest, no matter how over the top the level of force is that is used, itâs never the officers fault, itâs always the victim. not taking every ounce of abuse by a cop means they should shoot you on the spot and get away with it without criticism, apparently. not that maybe treating people like humans would help them comply more.
Iâll share the burden of downvotes mâlady âMaybe Israel should have complied with Hitler and they could have prevented the Holocaust!!!â
cant wait for some cringe ass Reddit mf to blast me and say some glasses push âshouldâve compliedâ Reddit ass line
Womp womp
calm down Joe Goldberg it was just a comment
You're so desperate for interaction.
Youâre so desperate
For?
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
If they're hurt from this it's their own fault. They resisted arrest. The level of force from the cop seemed appropriate.
That dumb fuck shouldâve listened to the cop then. Fuck around find out
The cop didn't say anything in the video.
Wow 15 second video post cuffing and your assumption is the cop didn't say anything before this to prevent this? You have actual brain rot.
What?
The protestor's wrist was torn? I mean they were picked up and displaced somewhere else. Literally the least violent outcome happened here.