Are hurtful words as bad as threats to you?

[Juxtapose]

I had a blue user tell me that the threat of violence has no reason to be unconstitutional while mean words are constitutional because "apparently" mean words can cause *schizophrenia* (LOL) & are just as bad?

"I hate blacks" = protected speech.

"I am going to kill you Joe" = incitement.

Am I alone in thinking this is a really strange false equivalence?

Yes.

No.

Updates

+1 y

I am glad to see common sense prevail.

Equating threats with name calling is retarded ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Updates

+1 y

Everyone give a certain commenter a big thumbs-up for slandering me over my disability xD

Imagine wanting to ban hate speech and then engaging in it.

[Frank_Woods]

People are a bunch of babies nowadays. Get over the mean words. You shouldn't get worked up unless someone threatens you with direct violence.

[msc545]

Mean words do not cause schizophrenia or any other mental illness.

[msc545]

Thanks for MHO!

[Juxtapose]

np man, you earned it.

[msc545]

Thanks!

[sensible27]

There are serious threats and non serious threats. Serious threats lead to incrimination because it is a precursor to damage. In reality hurtful words should only help you optimise yourself and beliefs (given that there aren't enough of them, even then) and isn't hate speech and misleading promotions banned somewhere..

[Juxtapose]

Hate speech is still protected speech but otherwise I agree.

[DaveToo]

"I hate blacks" is protected because it doesn't have an immediate effect of promoting violent actions.
"I'm going to kill you" is an indictable commentary as it's a direct threat of violence.

We may not like the first comment, but Constitutionally it IS protected by the First Amendment. It, and comments like it, infuriate and can instigate violence, but the comment itself carries no violent weight.

[devilman666]

You know, implying violence is fine, direct threats of violence not okay. That's why I always imply threats instead of directly stating them. "I hope someone doesn't slit your throat while you sleep, that'd be aweful..."

[DaveToo]

@devilman666 Exactly! Oh, and should someone enter my home while I sleep they will be up for a rude evening. Once they can hear again, they will have one of three daggers I keep next to me resting comfortably against their scrotum.

[TrueConfection]

I have pretty thin skin. I still say, "Sticks and stones..." They're just words. Threats are different.

[devilman666]

Threats are just words, aren't they?

[TrueConfection]

@devilman666 No

[devilman666]

What makes them be more than words? I mean if I say "I'm going to kill you" and then walk away peacefully, what is wrong with that?

[devilman666]

As long as the person doesn't act on the threat then I think it should fall under free speech. Even if they do act on it, they gave you warning in advance so that's all the more reason to allow it as free speech, right? Would you rather be blindsided when they attack you?

[TrueConfection]

@devilman666 Oh, you mean empty threats? Sure, those are empty.

[devilman666]

So unless I act on the threat then it is empty, so therefore threats shouldn't be illegal unless you actually go through with it and cause harm to the person.

[devilman666]

"I'm going to kill you", is literally just words. Sticks and stones, right? Unless I actually try to kill you then you're in no pain or danger. (If you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic, either words can hurt you or they can't)

[TrueConfection]

You're the only person in charge of your feeeeeeelings.

[Juxtapose]

FACTS ^^

[devilman666]

Yeah fam, so just choose not to feel threatened or fearful and threats can't hurt you. They're just words after all.

[Juxtapose]

@devilman666 The fact that you can't distinguish the difference between racism and threats says everything about this argument.

You're just trying to eroad free speech by making a huge false equivalency and going down a slippery slope of "oh, if you restrict free speech in this way why can't you restrict it further?"

You're a stubborn authoritarian who wants to shut down people you don't like by using the state.

[devilman666]

The fact that you don't understand that threats are just words and that you choose to be fearful of them, says everything about this argument.

I'm closer to a communist who wants equality for all people. I don't want people to be abused anymore, I want a world where everyone is safe. Which is why I keep arguing that threats should be legal, we both agree that protecting people from threats is more important than free speech, I just want to extend that protection to overt racism as well as threats.

You're a terrible debater, you act like an authoritarian, shutting down all discussion that doesn't go the way you like, instead of arguing against my beliefs, you just try to oppress them. It's kind of funny that you see me as the oppressive authoritarian when you're the one who refuses to listen.

Please tell me how I have made a false equivalency. Everyone refuses to explain this, and we all know why, it's because you can't explain it. It's not a false equivalency, if it was then you would be able to explain how and why it is a false equivalency.

A slippery slope? Lol if it's a slippery slope then stopping people from using threats is also a slippery slope... but of course you ignore logic and say whatever makes you feel good.

[devilman666]

I admit that I am stubborn.

[Juxtapose]

@devilman666 Threats and overt racism are not the same thing and do not have the same level of danger. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to grasp.

If a racist statement is a danger to you, then it falls under the category of a threat.

"I will shoot that wetback" is racist but a threat.

"I don't want that spook in our school, we should go to his father's funeral and say 'thank God for dead soldiers' just like the Westboro Baptist Church." = not a threat.

"I don't want people to be abused anymore, I want a world where everyone is safe."

A world where everyone is safe & suffers "no abuse" would be of totalitarian nightmare that I would want to escape with a bullet to the head.

Life is pointless without freedom and I am a left-leaning libertarian. Authoritarianism just leads to a 1984 dystopian scenario.

People should ultimately have self-determination over their lives and not be nannied over by the state. I want to obliterate censorship as much as possible and expand free-speech protections further.

[devilman666]

What level of danger do threats have?

[Juxtapose]

@devilman666 Enough to take them seriously. A person declaring intent to harm, especially face-to-face is serious business.

[devilman666]

Also, fyi when I mentioned communism, I meant I'm closer to a communist than a fascist, I misunderstood what you meant by authoritarian at first. I don't support full communism, I just don't want a world where people are murdered and robbed, and likewise I don't want a world where people are driven to suicide or insanity. I view mental and emotional harm as being just as real as physical harm. I don't see why anyone other than criminals would want a world full of abuse.

"A world where everyone is safe & suffers 'no abuse' would be of totalitarian nightmare that I would want to escape with a bullet to the head", Wow, you really enjoy abusing others that much that you would kill yourself if deprived of the ability to worsen the lives of others? If you answer yes, then I honestly think that you genuinely deserve that bullet to the head. Are you just being melodramatic? I'm really genuinely confused how a world where people are safe from abuse is so bad. Why would anyone other than a criminal want to abuse another human?

[devilman666]

@Juxtapose that's not an answer

[devilman666]

@Juxtapose so I will ask again, what level of danger do threats have? Please give me a direct and honest answer, what you did before is called avoiding the question.

[devilman666]

Better yet, go ahead and ask me about what the dangers of racism are.

[Juxtapose]

@devilman666 It is an answer, you just don't like it.

I am saying your vision of society is dystopian and would make me want to kill myself because you cannot create a society like that without treating adults like infants and micromanaging almost every part of our lives.

We would be individually in padded rooms. Something that severe is what you would *have to do to* prevent people from hurting one another completely.

And yes, I think a society where we are allowed to hurt each other's feelings is healthy and promotes resilience along with the free exchange of ideas.

And yeah, sometimes I want to tilt people in video games, get them to send me hatemail and say nasty things to me. It really makes my day and it's funny as fuck! Censoring that person and also preventing me from trolling them is bullshit. Get the government out of my life as much as possible if it is not giving me money or helping me somehow.

I didn't ascend into adulthood just so I could have the government replace my parents and police everything I do.

[devilman666]

Why is it "enough to take them seriously"? What makes threats such "serious business"?

[devilman666]

How is it an answer?

[devilman666]

Also, you're twisting my words and putting new words into my mouth. I don't want people in padded cells, I understand that you will never reach a world that is 100% perfect, what I'm saying is that there are forms of abuse which are not punished by the law. I just want less abuse in the world, again, why would anyone other than a criminal want to abuse another human?

Hurting each others feelings is not racist, nor is it abusive, you fucking moron (look at me, trying to hurt your feelings as I have done several times, because hurting someone's feelings once or twice isn't abusive or oppressive or racist or harmful). Though with that said, it can become abusive in certain scenarios, like if you constantly berated your daughter until she killed herself because she thought she was worthless, I think we both agree that is one area where hurt feelings becomes abusive.

Lol if you think pissing someone off is abusive or even close to true racism then you're stupid. I don't want people censored for saying "nasty things" (aka name calling). "Get the government out of my life as much as possible if it is not giving me money or helping me somehow", Wow, that's really entitled of you to say tbh. What was it that JFK said? "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for you country"

[Juxtapose]

@devilman666 JFK, really? The same guy responsible for the Bay of Pigs?

No, the government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. If anything the government should fear the public.

Also all of this abuse you are describing is already illegal and not covered under free speech.

Can you give me an example of something you would ban that is not already banned?

[devilman666]

@Juxtapose it's not an answer, at least not an honest answer. I asked for a direct level of danger so that I can compare it to the dangers of racism, instead I got a brushed off with "enough to take them seriously". If I asked you how dangerous a nuclear bomb was and you answered "serious business", I would have no idea of the scale. I guess the real question to ask is, what is "serious business"?

Imagine if I asked, "how dangerous is ingesting cyanide" and you answered, "it's not a joke" or, "something to be taken seriously". It's so general that the person can't tell if it means instant death or just a bad cough for a few days.

[Juxtapose]

@devilman666 Threats can't be calculated like 2+2=4 man.

"How dangerous was Bin Laden?"

"Dangerous enough to be hunted for years."

[devilman666]

@Juxtapose I agree that the government exists to serve people, and that the government should fear the people.

Yes, I understand that that kind of abuse is illegal, I just wanted to point out that hurt feelings can become abusive. That was the whole point of that example.

Overt and serious Racism. First of all, that comment that you used as an example earlier, "I dont want that spook in our school..." this is conpiracy to commit harrasment, and if they follow through with it then it would be harassment. The only purpose of doing such a thing would be to cause the person to attack you so that you have an excuse to beat the shit out of him as a group. by the way, I would call this an intent to cause harm, if you went there looking to get the other person to start a fight with you just so you could harm them.
Another example? Getting into a black mans face and saying "you're a dirty fucking n** who doesn't deserve to live in this great and beautiful country, you deserve to be enslaved and beaten and if you refuse to work like a dog then you deserve to be killed.", this carries a very clear intent to cause harm despite not openly being a threat. I believe that racism of this calibre has a very high likelihood of leading to violence. "All these niggers and Muslims are destroying this great country, they need to go, someone needs to make them dissapear, no matter what it takes", it's not directly a threat because it could be interpreted as meaning that you want America to undemocratically kick out any American citizen who they deem unworthy of citizenship. With that said it is very threatening and clearly holds a desire to cause harm.

[devilman666]

At that point you may as well answer with "he was dangerous".

How dangerous was Osama Bin Laden? The man had the Charisma to be able to acquire foreign funding for his campaign of terror, as well as convincing people to give their lives for his campaign of terror. I would say the man was dangerous to most people who would come in contact with him or one of his followers, but he didn't seem to have enough influence to be dangerous on a global scale. However with that said, while his charisma was high, his plans weren't so great at achieving their goals. Approximately 17,000 people were in the world trade center on that fateful day and less than 3,000 of them died. That's a death rate of about 18%, the titanic had about a 68% death rate, just for comparison. We do have a scale of danger by the way, it's called a micromort (the microprobability of mortality, mort is obviously short for mortality), and it's defined as a one-in-a-million chance of death. In total, it seems as though Al-Qaeda is responsible for around 4000 deaths between 1993 and 2010, meaning that your chance of dying to Al-Qaeda would be 0.000000000095 micromorts per day for the 17 year period of time between the start of 1993 and the end of 2010.

Source: www.statista.com/.../

Tl;dr Bin Laden was definitely dangerous, but not something for most average person to fear. If you lived in the middle east then I would be more likely to say yes, but to the vast majority of the world, he wasn't dangerous.

[devilman666]

by the way, Murder and non-negligent manslaughter in the USA is 48 micromorts per year, according to the fbi, or about 0.13 micromorts per day. In other words, the calculation says that for every 1 million people in the USA, approximately 48 of those people will die to murder and non-negligent manslaughter every year. 1 micromort effectively represents a 0.000001% chance of death. So you this means that on any given day, you should, statistically speaking, have a 0.00000013% chance of dying to murder and non-negligent homicide, if you live in the USA.

[devilman666]

Sorry, my calculations were wrong initually, your chance of dying to Al-Qaeda would have been 0.000095 micromorts per day. Significantly less, but 0.000000000095% would have been the chance for any random person in the world to die to Al-Qaeda on any given day, for that entire 17 year period.

[Juxtapose]

@devilman666 Trying to seriously calculate the likelihood of somebody killing you is laughable and and no way accurate. You don't have enough information, not even close to be able to determine something like that with math.

Some of those examples you gave do spill into threats but most of them are similar to things I have heard and along your lines a logic, the Westboro Baptist Church is conspiring to harass families of dead soldiers.

Unpopular speech is the most precious type of speech to protect.

[Juxtapose]

*similar to things I have heard said against myself

[Juxtapose]

When people have said discriminatory things about me concerning my autism, the answer is more speech, not less.

[Juxtapose]

"loosening up the constraints on government to allow it to punish speech because of those less tangible, more speculative, more indirect harms — that censorial power will do more harm that good, precisely because the pendulum can swing. Not that shockingly long ago it was left-wing speakers, communists and socialist, who were kept off campuses. And civil rights activists were kept off many campuses, because their ideas were certainly hated, certainly seen as dangerous and insulting. And today, there are serious government officials who are saying that Black Lives Matter is a hate group."

"one that to me was the most vile was the North American Man/Boy Love Association. That to me — they are advocating what I see as a form of child abuse. But I do agree with the Supreme Court that advocacy of illegal conduct, including child abuse, is constitutionally protected. And people may be surprised to hear that. [The Supreme Court] drew a distinction between advocacy of illegal conduct versus intentional incitement of illegal conduct.

Because if we say, 'Oh, well, mere advocacy as opposed to intentional incitement will be enough for this speech that's particularly distasteful to me' — well once you make one exception, you can't hold the line."
www.npr.org/.../free-speech-vs-hate-speech

[devilman666]

The micromort can't be used to accurately predict the future, it's more of an analytical model.

The Westboro Baptist church actively harasses and conspires to harass the families of dead soldiers, it's pretty fucked up tbh. If you thought that was a gotcha, it wasn't, because that's genuinely what you're doing when you show up at a FUNERAL to mock somebodym imagine if I showed up at your dad's funeral, pissed on his grave, shouted profanity, got drunk, and tried to ruin your day? You'd probably attack me and you'd be justified in doing so, there is no reason to show up to a funeral when you didn't even personally know the person who died, and showing up to harass and heckle people who are already in mourning, then you deserve a punishment.

So if I threaten you then the answer is more speech, not less, right? Oh wait, false equivalency, I forgot that threats are not actually words, but daggers in word form and are therefore different from all other words and cannot be compared to other forms of speech in any way. (Sarcasm)

So terrorist advocates are okay? Pedophilia advocates are okay? Spreading these dangerous rhetorics are okay? You're cool with literal Nazi's training each other and spreading their rhetoric openly as long as they don't actually commit any crimes?

Yeah go ahead an explain to me how BLM is a hate group. I'll wait.

[devilman666]

Oh yes, if we censor people from advocating for CRIMES then they we won't be able to stop the censorship, the censorship will gain a mind of it's own and censor everything and everyone!!! Here's something crazy, we already have an exception to free speech, in fact we have multiple exceptions that I have already pointed out. It's not a slippery slope, you're just even more stubborn then I am. I at least change my opinion when the data shows me that I am wrong. You blatantly ignore all the data that is in your face.

by the way, some book written by an author is not the same as scientific evidence. There are literally no credentials required to become an author.

[devilman666]

by the way go ahead and tell me how and why the things I said "spill over into threats".

[Juxtapose]

@devilman666 I don't think I can articulate my points any more clearly, you disagree with the First Amendment of the USA so fundamentally that we will never see eye-to-eye on this.

Incitement & advocacy are not the same thing. Perhaps you should talk to a constitutional law professor or lawyer about the First Amendment & the important distinction between incitement and advocacy.

You could stay a certain distance away from my father's funeral and protest all you want but pissing on the grave is vandalism. If you fall the same rules the Westboro Baptist Church does, knock yourself out. I seriously won't give a shit if you show up at a funeral of one of my family members and act as rude as you want within the confines of the law.

[Juxtapose]

*follow the same rules

[Juxtapose]

"Because if we say, 'Oh, well, mere advocacy as opposed to intentional incitement will be enough for this speech that's particularly distasteful to me' — well once you make one exception, you can't hold the line."

*you can't hold the line* yes, it IS a slippery slope.

[devilman666]

I don't disagree with the first amendment, I disagree with your interpretation of the first amendment. As I've already said many times, we already have multiple exceptions to the first amendment, which clearly shows that we as a society all agree that you are not free to say certain things. The only debate is on which things you're allowed to say, but then jackasses like you enter the converation and pretend like you're the only one who cares about freedom.

They aren't the same thing, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated similarly. Alcohol and cigarettes aren't the same thing yet they get treated very similar ways by society.

What's the difference between advocacy and incitement?

You say that now, but surprisingly, grief usually changes our opinions of things and makes it much easier to be angered.

Prove that it's a slippery slope then... oh wait, you can't.

[devilman666]

@Juxtapose 2. I will ask again, what level of danger do threats have? Please give me a direct and honest answer, what you did before is called avoiding the question.

[Juxtapose]

@devilman666 I am on the side of the current interpretation of the First Amendment, you want to impose further restrictions which do not exist.

I already gave you my answer, if you don't like it too fucking bad.

And your argument about me being emotional is bs, you don't know shit about me.

[devilman666]

You are not on any side except your own, because you refuse to hear out opinions you disagree with. I could give you all the data in the world, but I can see that it would never convince you.

It's pretty clear that you get emotional when your ego is bruised, I don't need to know much about your to know that, it's clear from your reactions during our conversation.

I don't like your answer, and I dont like talking to you. If you refuse to listen to science, logic, and reason, then honestly I think your opinion is worthless.

[Juxtapose]

@devilman666 so says the authoritarian communist who doesn't understand basic constitutional law lol.

YOUR opinion is worthless.

[devilman666]

Bro, if you think I'm an authoritarian communist then you still have no idea what my opinion is. I do understand constitutional law, do you understand that prohibition was once part of the constitution? The constitution can change. Your bias is so obvious it's nauseating. Whatever though, I'm done, you can have fun saying whatever dumbass shit you want, cause I'm done wasting my time with you.

[Juxtapose]

@devilman666 Comparing the First Amendment and prohibition is ridiculous and an argument in bad faith. If you don't like the laws America has then stay the fucking Canada and good fucking riddance.

[Juxtapose]

*fuck in

[devilman666]

"Comparing the first amendment and the eighteenth amendment (prohibition was #18) is ridiculous" I'm sorry but I had to come back to laugh at this hahahahahahaha

If you don't like the laws in Canada, then stay in America and stop whining about them online baahahaahahahahag

You republitards are just as big of snowflakes as the Demonrats. Lmao

[devilman666]

#18 )*

[devilman666]

The first amendment is REAL, TRUE AMENDMENT. It's not a FAKE amendment like the 18th which can be altered and removed. The first amendment cannot ever be changed by anything and has been the way it currently is since the founding fathers created the constitution. (Sarcasm)

[devilman666]

Like, imagine not understanding the legal system of your own country, yet you insult and whine about other countries for being different from your own country lmfao

[Juxtapose]

@devilman666 Yeah, truth hurts doesn't it? You have no idea how important the first amendment is and how fundamental it is to American society. It is not arbitrary like the 18th, it is essential for society to be worth anything. It is actually even more essential than banning slavery.

But I doubt you would understand that, especially since you are in favor of compelled speech such as forcing people to respect pronouns or parrot the government narrative lol.

You are on the wrong side of history and defend the indefensible.

[devilman666]

Look man, it's just the way the law is here in Canada. I'm on the side of the law, you want to remove further restrictions which is a slippery slope. Today you're removing the restriction to allow people to be racist and tomorrow you're allowing people to threaten each other, where does it end? You're just an authoritarian fascist who doesn't understand basic Canadian law lol.

[devilman666]

Lmfao you're an actual clown aren't you? You've gotta be, no actual human being is this stupid... oh yeah, you're autistic... I guess this is why we keep you fucking idiots so heavily medicated that we never have to listen to a word you say. Dumbass mentally ill fuckers like you should keep their opinions to themselves and should never be included in discussions of law.

[devilman666]

Tbh the truth rarely hurt me. I love truth.

[devilman666]

But I love trolling even more. Trolling you is especially funny, you say the dumbest shit and act like you said something smart, it's hilarious everytime you open your retarded mouth.

[devilman666]

1918
Congress passes the Sedition Act, which forbids spoken or printed criticism of the U. S. government, the Constitution or the flag.

Wait... doesn't this go against first amendment? Oh yeah, that's right, there is literally nothing special about the first amendment. You morons think it can never be changed but it s been changed several times in the past.

[Juxtapose]

@devilman666 Hahaha you are *SO* butthurt xD

"The first amendment has always been historically under attack so I guess we should just throw our hands up in the air, give up and embrace censorship. I'm worried some tranny is going to kill themselves over being slighted too and I think it is super cool to make a pastor parrot the government narrative."

AND you're a bigot too HAHAHA! You want to ban hate speech but you engage in it freely.

[Juxtapose]

@Fuentes @disgustingweebtrash

[devilman666]

Lmfao I absolutely love censorship and think that everything and everyone should be censored, including me...

Maybe I shouldn't use sarcasm when talking to autistic dumbasses because they can't understand what sarcasm is...

I actually have asperger too. I'm having fun mocking you and your argument, since you think that abuse like that is perfectly fine, you have no right to complain. If you don't like it then why dont you try that fancy talking yourself out of it trick that you suggested to me earlier?

[Juxtapose]

@devilman666 Insult me all you want, it just helps my case.

[disgustingweebtrash]

I can confirm with the observations over the years that slippery slope is not always fallacious in nature, it's easy to slowly erode something than suddenly take everything away, I think most people are stupid as shit and treat each political matter individually when politics is inherently collective as policies can affect each other

[devilman666]

@Juxtapose acshually, it's free speech, so me insulting you doesn't help your case at all, though it could make me look like a jackass. Learn the first amendment you fucking moron lmfao.

[devilman666]

@disgustingweebtrash right? If Canada were to remove our censorship of free speech then the slipper slope would lead to threats being made legal too. We have no choice anymore!

[disgustingweebtrash]

@devilman666 glad to have u on our side it appears you've been bullied into accepting freedom of speech, see how it benefits you now?

[devilman666]

@disgustingweebtrash I don't necessarily think you're wrong, but viewing politics as a collective of policies is difficult. I think most people would take decades of study to understand how all the policies affect each other, I don't think I have a good enough grasp on this matter myself. I try to study a lot, but I am no lawyer lol.

[devilman666]

Accepting freedom of speech? Maybe you misheard, here in Canada, we censor pastors who lie about covid-19, and if we tried to change our ways then the slippery slope would lead to threats being legal. Therefore we need to continue to censor free speech in order to prevent dangerous words, aka threats, from becoming legal.

[Juxtapose]

@devilman666 It was hate speech, I got you! Make up all the lies you want but you are a hypocrite!

[Fuentes]

@devilman666 you admit to having aspergers you don't see the world normally and you defenitley can't comprehend what is even going on around you and it sounds like you suffer with other mental illness's. Don't disguise it as

[Fuentes]

@devilman666 trolling lolol just stop you look like a kid getting picked on and made fun of right now and your pretending your actually fighting back lololol your not bro

[devilman666]

@Fuentes I'm fairly certain I have a couple of mental illnesses, with that said, I don't give a shit what you think about that.

Lol okay kid, keep pretending like I'm not trolling, I'll keep laughing everytime you showcase your hypocrisy and idiocy.

[Fuentes]

@devilman666 your not trolling you admitted you suffer with mental illness due to people calling you names, you realized you embarrassed yourself and now your crying " it's a troll, it's a troll" that's just not how this works, go take your pills and balance out your high's and low's and stop having manic outburst and making excuses for it. It's sad at this point.

[devilman666]

Yeah, I do suffer from mental illness. So what? Mental illness doesn't necessarily make people worse, just different. I only made fun of the other guy's mental illness because he was clearly sensitive about it, so I could laugh at his hypocrisy when he cried.

I didn't embarrass myself lol, I have aspergers, adhd, and possibly DID or BPD. I feel literally 0 shame or embarrassment from being mentally ill. With that said, I'm NGL, it makes it a lot more bearable knowing that even with untreated mental illness, I'm smarter than over half the population. I wouldn't call myself a genius, but I'm smarter than you average idiots. Though I'm sure you'll respond "hahah you're mentally ill" or something equally stupid and meaningless, which will only prove my point.

I don't take pills for my mental illnesses lol. Maybe I should, but I don't.

(Ps this post is me being serious)

[Fuentes]

@devilman666 yeah which proves my point someone who does not live in reality can't cover it up with "im trolling!" When it's clear you suffer with issues and because of this in reality you can't prove at all name calling makes you crazy because that is just a self trigger for you and the illnesses you suffer with. As in the normal humanbene with a rational and sane mindset will be able to easily shrug off the words of others.

So again you proved everyone to be right and you to be WRONG. Words can not cause people to go skits & threats are not the same as name calling. Clearly you are having a manic break down here so if you're so much smarter you would get help to balance yourself out because you're embarrassing yourself here & if you do this in the real world you will be 5150'd so your best bet is to accept your loss.

[devilman666]

Well you'd have to prove I do not live in reality. There is a specific mental illness which does exactly this, it's called Schizophrenia and it's a disease which hinders your ability to perceive reality or your ability to differentiate reality and hallucination. As far as I can tell, I do not suffer from Schizophrenia.

Again, name calling is not the same as abuse or hate speech. I don't get why you have trouble differentiating this.

I can and do shrug off the words of others, I don't think I've reacted negatively to any of your insults, I've been sarcastic and mocked you and laughed at you, but I haven't been offended by anything you've said about me or my mental illnesses.

I've said several times that threats and name calling are different, you seem to be unable to undersrand my words, maybe you're just even more stupid than I realized.

Do you know what a manic breakdown looks like?

In order to embarrass myself, I'd have to feel embarrassed, and I don't, I feel proud.

If you think this stupid shit will piss me off, it won't. You would be more likely to piss me off with your stupid rhetoric than your insults, I hate people who pretend like they're correct when they can't back up anything they say. I hate dishonest people, but I've already realized that you guys are not worth anything more than a few laughs, so you're not pissing me off unless you manage to say something smart enough to make me feel invested in the argument/debate.

Strange, I haven't been 5150'd yet. In fact, I'm able to lead a mostly normal life. Admittedly I do have minor emotional breakdowns occasionally, but honestly who doesn't? Most people don't have perfect control over their emotions.

I don't need help, I am able to balance myself out most of the time, I just need weed and a reason to live, because recently I've been very lonely and depressed. Hence why I'm wasting my time laughing at you idiots.

[Fuentes]

@devilman666 spending time writing a whole essay to defend yourself shows you care and shows your upset, and shows you are delusional you keep self projecting about how you feel & it's funny you have no argument you lost and you keep pretending you are doing it for the LOL'S. Yeah ok only in your delusional world will that work, all you need is help and this tantrum is laughable and it's very embarrassing. Keep embarrassing yourself and pretending you don't care but continue to write novels in self defense lololol!

[devilman666]

Right back at you

[Fuentes]

@devilman666 compare what i wrote, compare to what you wrote, you wrote a whole book. Keep sweating while you whine & smash your fingers in anger.

[devilman666]

Right back at you...

[Fuentes]

@devilman666 aww your broken stuck on repeat.

[devilman666]

@Fuentes well the only way I could debate you now would be to engage in your delusions.

[Fuentes]

@devilman666 your not debating anything you're crying just to cry now you lost & admitted you have mental illness & not everyone thinks like you because they are sane.

[Gwenhwyfar]

The First Amendment has historically protected most hurtful speech but we’ll see what happens

[devilman666]

What about threats?

[Gwenhwyfar]

@devilman666 not protected. I said most.

[devilman666]

Why not protected? After all, a threat is just words unless you act on it.

[Gwenhwyfar]

@devilman666 threats are illegal. Every Supreme Court justice I’ve ever heard of recognizes that threats are not protected speech. Why are we even arguing about this? Are you a Satanist?

[devilman666]

But why are threats illegal? Why should they be illegal? If words can never hurt you, then neither can threats.

[devilman666]

No, I'm not a satanist. Not that it matters, but I am an athiest who use satanism more as a cultural symbol rather than a religion.

We are arguing this because if some exceptions to free speech exist then we can't pretend like it's impossible to make another exception to free speech.

[msc545]

@devilman666 Threats cause fear and often lead to violence on their own.

[devilman666]

Racism causes fear and often leads to violence as well. Just look at the actions of the KKK, they created decades of fear and violence.

[msc545]

@devilman666 False equivalence.

[devilman666]

How so?

[devilman666]

Like I'm fucking done with this shit. Either explain how it's a false equivalence or get blocked. I've dealt with too many dumbasses who just want to claim false equivalence as soon as I show their hypocrisy.

[Gwenhwyfar]

@devilman666 threats are illegal in every state. Deal with it.

[Juxtapose]

@msc545 Did he actually end up blocking you?

[devilman666]

Nope

[devilman666]

@Gwenhwyfar yeah and saying Joe Biden is a bad president is illegal in every state. Deal with it! (This is sarcasm, meant to show that not all laws are good)

[msc545]

@devilman666 figure it out yourself.

[devilman666]

@msc545 you don't have any logical argument so you resort to this. Pathetic.

[msc545]

@devilman666 no, actually, you seem incapable of comprehending logic and therefore you dismiss it along with anything else you don't understand. I already made the argument - look at what I said before. Your inability to understand things is really not my problem.

[devilman666]

Just remember, you CHOOSE to be offended by threats and you CHOOSE to be fearful, they're just words, they can't cause any ACTUAL pain or harm. Obviously we should protect people, but part of protecting people is protecting their right to threaten you. If you have the right to be racist, then I want the right to threaten your racist ass. If you spread fear and pain to others, why shouldn't I be allowed to do the same to you?

[msc545]

@devilman666 I am not a racist, and I don't threaten people, and I don't bring fear and pain to anyone. I also have no idea what you are talking about or who you are talking to.

[devilman666]

Bruh, I can't dismiss something if you refuse to present it xD you can't just "false equivalence" everytime you're losing an argument.

You made an argument that threats cauae fear and often lead to violence. I pointed out that statistically speaking, racism has the same effect, even if you ignore the mental health aspect of it which also has a lot of scientific evidence supporting it (please just ask if you want the links, I have them ready). You then dismissed my argument as a false equivalence. I then asked why. You then dismissed me asking you why.

Tl;dr I don't seem to be the one dismissing the argument

[devilman666]

If you spread genuinely racist rhetoric and genuinely act hateful and bigoted towards black people based on the color of their skin, then you do cause fear and pain to others. You merely pretend that you don't.

[Gwenhwyfar]

@devilman666 are you saying that hate crimes should be punished more harshly? If so I agree with you. So do most state legislatures.

[devilman666]

@Gwebhwyfar I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond because you asked a good question. I had to think about my answer a bit. I want hate speech to be banned, in the exact same way as threats. They both have very negative impacts on society and mental health, so neither have a place. The sad truth is that some speech can be harmful, and we need to walk a very fine line of banning the truly harmful speech while leaving the non-harmful speech alone. But the only way to do this is to have open and honest debate about what types of speech are harmful and harmful enough to justify banning.

As for hate crimes being punished more harshly, I'd have to look into the current laws and statistics before I could give you a good answer. In other words, I don't know enough about the current anti-hate crime laws or the effects they are having on society, I need more data to come to a conclusion.

[devilman666]

@Gwenhwyfar typo lol

[Gwenhwyfar]

@devilman666 I agree with you. Thank you so much for answering.

[msc545]

As much as you might hate it - you cannot ban hate speech under current law as far as I can tell.

[Gwenhwyfar]

@msc545 that is true. The First Amendment protects it.

[msc545]

So why are we having this discussion with Devilman?

[Gwenhwyfar]

@msc545 I’m not sure. I agree that some speech can be hurtful to peoples self-esteem but the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court prevents the government from banning mere words with a few limited exceptions.

[msc545]

Yes, exactly. So if he wants to ban hate speech, which apparently he does, he either does not understand how the First Amendment works or thinks it should be changed for him alone. Either way is not worth my time.

[devilman666]

@msc545 here's something crazy for you, you can change the law, even the constitution, and they have before, many times.

1836
The U. S. House of Representatives adopts gag rules preventing discussion of antislavery proposals. The House repeals the rules in 1844.

1918
Congress passes the Sedition Act, which forbids spoken or printed criticism of the U. S. government, the Constitution or the flag.

Here are just 2 examples.

www.mtsu.edu/.../first-amendment-timeline

[devilman666]

Also, how are threats more than mere words? How is printing criticism on a flag more than mere words?

[devilman666]

@msc545 I am Canadian so lets leave this first amendment bullcrap behind us, okay?

[msc545]

@devilman666 Well, no. We live in the US where the stuff is a bit different. We have free speech, sort of. You apparently don't. Not my problem.

[Gwenhwyfar]

@msc545 he makes a valid argument, though I’m surprised to see someone on the right wanting to ban hate speech, but the courts have historically been very wary of infringing on the First Amendment. And with good reason.

[Gwenhwyfar]

The Sedition Act was never upheld by the Supreme Court and has not been enforced in a hundred years. In fact, I suspect it’s no longer on the books or McCarthy would have used it in the Red Scare of the 1950s.

[msc545]

Canada bans hate speech or tries to, so he is used to that.

[devilman666]

@msc545 we have free speech too, outs just works differently. You can't say it's not free speech just because you dislike it. You have restrictions on your free speech just the same as we do, your free speech is not as free as you like to pretend.

[devilman666]

@gwenhwyfar when did I say I was on the right? I'm actually pretty far left leaning on many issues but also pretty far right leaning on other issues, depending on what the data tells me. For example, I followed Bernie Sanders' whole campaign with excitement, his policies are almost completely in line with mine. With that said, I disagree with a lot of leftists on issues like guns, I grew up in a tiny rural Canadian town of less than 3000 people, guns and hunting were important, and I believe that our method of gun control is not as good as it could be. My first change to the gun control policy would be removing all almost all bans on guns, no more AR-15 ban, no more bump stock ban, etc. However this will not necessarily make it easy to acquire these things because I want a licensing system similar to drivers licenses where it is in levels. A class 5 license lets me drive normal cars, a class 1 license lets me drive 16 wheelers, so the gun license would work similarly with hand guns probably being class 2, semi-auto and full auto rifles being class 1, and pump action shotguns, break action shotguns, lever rifles, and bolt rifles will generally be class 5 hunting weapons. This means that people still have access to all guns and nothing goes to the underground market, but also it means that you have to earn the right to bear arms, that way criminals can't just buy a semi-auto rifle and stick a bump stock on it.

Again, we were originally talking about Canadian law, with the Canadian government censoring a pastor for lying about Covid-19. The first amendment simply doesn't apply to this convo, I've been nice and debated on your terms up till now, but I've gotten fed up with some people.

[devilman666]

Regardless, the sedition act is still an example of how the first amendment can be altered. I get that the supreme court is wary of it, and they should be (this should never be done lightly), but that doesn't change that it is very possible. y'all act like the first amendment is a law from God that can never be changed, but it's a law from man that has been changed several times.

Tbh I don't know much about the sedition act, I just know that there are plenty of examples of the first amendment being altered or restricted, even if many of them were eventually overturned.

[Gwenhwyfar]

@devilman666 yes but they all failed. The First Amendment is the closest thing to holy writ we have.

[Juxtapose]

"It can be altered, so why are you guys protecting it so much?"

Because if we don't protect it pastors have to parrot the government narrative via compelled speech and then you have to be forced to respect transsexual pronouns.. like in Canada.

"But genuine racism hurts people."

Not the same as threats.

"But their feelings?"

Yeah, don't care.

[devilman666]

@Gwenhwyfar I'm sorry, but calling any legal document "holy", just seems wrong and almost totalitarian to me. We should never worship the state, nor should we worship the things the state tells us.

[devilman666]

"Failed" is only true in hindsight. My point is that the law is flexible, it's your minds that aren't.

[devilman666]

@Juxtapose America already compells speech for corporate entities, just do the same for religious entities too because they also have a large amount of power over a crowd of people who assume they're telling the truth. Religion is like a corporate transaction, you are the consumers and the pastor is the corporate. Lying to your followers/consumers is wrong and abusive and should be illegal, in fact it is already illegal for companies in the USA, just not pastors. For example tobacco companoes can't lie about their product. Imagine if pfizer could legally lie about the safety of their vaccine...

You'd have to prove that threats are more dangerous than racism because I've already proven that both are dangerous.

[Juxtapose]

@devilman666 Despite what Mitt Romney says, corporations are not people and they do not have the same rights. If anything corporations already have many special privileges and should be watched very carefully because they tend to buy out and then ruin governments.. fuuuuck corporations.

A pastor is not a church, he is an individual man. A church doesn't sell you anything, it is the job of the people who work there to spout their opinions. It is also widely understood that people who go to church go there to take what it said based on faith, not evidence.

No, you have only proven that racism is dangerous when it also involves incitement.

[Juxtapose]

Oh and by the way, Pfizer has already lied.

[Juxtapose]

"Justice Louis Brandeis argued in Whitney v. California that "even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on."

[devilman666]

Guess what? Churches aren't people either. The pastor can say whatever he wants to his friends in one on one meetings and what not but when he is holding public meetings, it is much more similar to a business than an individual, I mean churches even aim to generate a profit...

[devilman666]

A church does sell you something, it sells you redemption for your soul. It sells you a story and a good feeling. It sells you the idea that if you pay your tithe and give 10-25% of your income to the church then you'll go to heaven and have an eternity of perfection.

[devilman666]

What did pfizer lie about?

[Juxtapose]

@devilman666 I am not in favor of any laws that would prevent churches from lying because otherwise they would go out of business within a day because we all know religion is fucking bullshit and has no proof lol. All the people in church are wasting their time, you know that, I know that but it is their right to believe that nonsense.

This below is how badly Pfizer employees don't want to talk about the fetal cells used in the vaccine:

https://youtu.be/50kghlaHYvM

[devilman666]

@Juxtapose yeah but you and I both know that's not what is meant nor is it how the law would be used. Nobody is trying to take religion away from you, we just don't want pastors saying they can cure covid or that covid is fake, or that the vaccine is the equivalent of cyanide. Personally, I'd put conspiracies like flat earth in that category too, we don't need that shit being spread in our churches, religion is a bit of a white lie in my view because it only harms the ones who believe it but when those lies start extending to things that actually impact the real world, yeah, I get upset.

[devilman666]

The pfizer vaccine doesn't contain fetal cells, however, when they're researching viruses and vaccines, they need cells for the viruses to grow on and fetal cells work the best for this. Personally, I don't see the problem, even if there are fetal cells in the vaccine, so what?

www.chop.edu/.../fetal-tissues

"Almost all cells die after they have divided a certain number of times; scientifically, this number is known as the Hayflick limit. For most cell lines, including fetal cells, it is around 50 divisions; however, because fetal cells have not divided as many times as other cell types, they can be used longer. In addition, because of the ability to maintain cells at very low temperatures, such as in liquid nitrogen, scientists are able to continue using the same fetal cell lines that were isolated in the 1960s."

"The retinal cells used to make the COVID-19 adenovirus vaccine (J&J/Janssen) were isolated from a terminated fetus in 1985 and adapted for use in growing adenovirus-based vaccines in the late 1990s.
Adenovirus-based vaccines that cannot replicate when administered to people need to be produced in cells that have the necessary gene to allow for large quantities of the virus to be made. The retinal cell line, called PER. C6, was adapted to enable production of these altered viruses."

[Juxtapose]

@devilman666 I personally don't care about fetal cell lining and I certainly don't care about fetuses. Pfizer knows a lot of people do and that is why they lied by omission.

The lies religion tells is baaaad. Parents being indoctrinated to believe in hell and then teaching their kid that unless they act a certain way, they will be tortured for eternity.. well religion is not a harmless white lie. Religion is what caused 9/11 also.

[devilman666]

Honestly, I hate to admit it, but I really agree with that second part of your response. I'm not advocating for the end of religion, but I definitely feel like organized religion is designed to manipulate fear into a way of controlling people, so I'd honestly prefer the organized part of religion be taken away. I don't mind the beliefs at all, I've heard many people talk about their personal religious beliefs they've come to and I think that's great for them. Indoctrinating kids and using fears and lies (when they tell you you will go to heaven if you do something specific, you gave a perfect example of this in 9/11, the hijackers believed that doing such despicable things was their ticket into heaven) as ways of manipulating people is disgusting.

When you build a structure that puts certain people at the top, they will almost always rig the system to keep themselves at the top and to push themselves highed. It's human nature, most people want more, not less. This is why I hold a large amount of respect for Pope Francis, where as other popes dressed like kings in robes of red and gold, he dresses in pure white, where as they sat themselves upon thrones made out of gold, he sits on wooden chairs painted white (they look like they have nice cushions but he's an old man so he needs that), they are mildly ornate but he seems to prefer they be nothing to fancy. He's had chairs carved for him and they really look more like fancy chairs than thrones to me. He even had one that was carved by inmates when he went to visit a prison. He sits atop a system of power and yet he is so full of humility, it's almost inhuman. (This is kind of an off topic rant, sorry)

[devilman666]

Also, if by "lied by omission", you mean they refused to hand out ammunition to their enemies, then I agree. Bruh, if you start telling religious people that you used stem cells in something then they'll boycott it even if you're just using spare cells from the umbilical cord after the baby is born.

[TheSpaceGnome]

It is false equivalency, because free speech is more important than people's opinions.
When the government controls what you are allowed to say or not say, all your freedoms go bye bye with it.

[devilman666]

Yes, both can cause mental illness to develop so both are bad. Both can lead to violence, both can lead to financial pain, both can be very negative and harmful for the person recieving the words, so both are equally bad in my view. Using language to hurt people is wrong.

[Juxtapose]

Sticks & stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

[devilman666]

Good, then you can fuck off.

[Juxtapose]

Nah, you're going to have to block me if you want me to do that.

[TrueConfection]

The words don't "cause" mental illness. Your reaction to the words causes mental illness. Stop blaming other people.

[Fuentes]

It's funny this guy calls himself "Devilman666" but suffers from a disease called "bitch assness" that's quite the contradiction.

[devilman666]

@TrueConfection so children who are verbally and mentally abused are responsible for their abuse? Yeah whatever, if you want to prove your dumbass idea correct then let me lock you in a solitary confinement room for a couple months. I'll feed you all that you need, I'll pay you at the end of it for your troubles, all you have to do is not go insane. A rich poker player once tries to do this for 30 days and lost, here's an excerpt:
"Alati was no exception, reporting that he experienced a range of side effects, including changes to his sleep cycle, and hallucinations. But why is isolation so difficult for humans to withstand?"
theconversation.com/what-are-the-effects-of-total-isolation-an-expert-explains-109091

Tl;dr you're wrong and need to study mental illness before you pretend to understand it. Your mentality is good for general things like how you choose to react to a random jerk you meet on the street, but for long term abuse and isolation that mentality becomes woefully inadequate and naive.

[Juxtapose]

In the vast majority of cases, it really is your reaction to insults that causes the problem. The fact that you had to go to such an extreme case such as solitary confinement or child abuse only proves her point.

[devilman666]

Please cite a scientific study that agrees with you or else I will assume what you just said is pure ignorance. I feel entitled to do so because what you said goes against the science I have presented and you have not made any counter you just stated the same thing again even after I showed it is wrong. I used those extreme examples to show that your reaction to things isn't what decides whether you develop a mental illness or not. When a circumstance is bad enough, it can break anybody, no matter how positively you try to react to it

Tl;dr you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Juxtapose]

I don't need a scientific study to tell you that not being a pussy is a good way to not let people get to you lol.

I have three learning disabilities, including autism. I was nearly friendless until age 17 and continue to face discrimination until I learned how to make my autism invisible to the rest of you fuckers.

Being a little bitch victim never helped me, enablers of weakness like you never helped me. What helped was growing a spine and not giving a shit what people say.

Unless subjected to severe conditions, my mental state is my responsibility and only my responsibility.

[Juxtapose]

*continued

[Juxtapose]

Harassment, solitary confinement and all these other things are already illegal. You are trying to justify the unjustifiable, such as compelling people to refer to trannies by their preferred pronouns.

[Juxtapose]

Or compel a pastor to speak against his beliefs because it goes against the government narrative.

[devilman666]

I don't need a scientific study to tell you that true communism is perfect and can never fail lol.

This is how you sound. Idgaf about the rest of the shit you said, you already showed how dishonest you are so arguing with you is pointless. In America it is innocent until proven guilty and you refuse to prove anything.

[Juxtapose]

[devilman666]

[devilman666]

I dont need scientific study or logic or reasons to tell you that Joe Biden is the greatest president ever, just look, he already wrote it into the law that it is illegal to view him as anything but the best president ever. And if it's a law then it must be good! Like if it's against the law to threaten then naturally it must be a good law too! Why would we debate the ethics of laws when the law is always good?

(I'm being sarcastic and mocking you, Joe Biden is trash)

[Fuentes]

@devilman666 if you can't handle people then you will be in a physc ward if words cause you to always go skits & that's reality. They will 5150 you if you told police or a Dr that you hear voices because you got called names. Im not sure what your malfunction is or what screw came overly loose but your not going to convince anyone that name-calling & threats are the same thing & then deny science & the dictionary. That's how people end up in the looney bin, trying to finish a puzzle that was never created in the first place & telling everyone else around them it's there when it's definitely NOT.

[devilman666]

@Fuentes cool, I'm glad to know how you feel about this issue, however if you want your opinion to matter, it has to be based in science and logic.

[devilman666]

@Fuentes fyi I'm not going to give you a real response because your dumbass shit isn't worth my time. I'm not the one denying science, I actually backed up my claims with science, when you do the same then I will acknowledge you.

[Fuentes]

@devilman666 have you taken your pills today? You seem to be going off in the manic delusional state again

[msc545]

@TrueConfection That is a really non-sensical distinction at best.

[devilman666]

Imagine saying "words will never hurt me" and then whining when you get called names. Lol

[Fuentes]

The only one here whining is you crying"im a troll" who has to admit to a troll days later after being shut down and coming back hurt in your feelings haha your weak

[devilman666]

@Fuentes ironically I'm not the one who got upset about being made fun of. I support making fun of others, as long as it doesn't go too far, but it's pretty hard to go too far online where you can just choose to ignore my message entirely. So I think making fun of others online is always fine, though with that said, I view racism and abuse as separate from making fun of others... oh shit, I don't know why I'm bothering making rational arguments to you dumbass republitards. Go suck Trump's dick, his ego is really hurting after his failed coup attempt, and even Stormy Daniels wants nothing to do with him anymore.

[Fuentes]

@devilman666 all your doing is writing massive essay's of anger and you make no sense at all. And no you don't advocate name calling cause you sat here and wrote over 50 opinions saying it will make you crazy and hear voices. Your not sane at all and now it's funny your back tracking cause you know your just a walking contradiction.

[devilman666]

Am I angry right now? Shit, in that case, I better BRB, I'm gunna go smoke some weed.

[devilman666]

I said that racism and hate speech can cause mental illness and suicide. But thanks for twisting my words once again and reiteeating why you are not worth my time. by the way, if you think hate speech and name calling are the same thing, you're wrong.

[devilman666]

Go ahead an point out how I'm back tracking though, hearing your dumbass try to explain this will be hilarious 😂

[Fuentes]

You are back tracking because now your pretending to agree, when you clearly need help because you know your wrong and your all over the place it's actually sad watching you walk into traps of being proved wrong and you just smacking your head against every wall. Sad just sad

[devilman666]

Pretending to agree that name calling isn't hate speech? I said that from the very start. Whatever though, you're a dumbass so you can believe whatever you want, you're too stupid to listen to reason anyways.

Yeah, adhd always has me all over the place, it's rather annoying sometimes, but fairly useful other times.

Walking into what traps? You guys haven't proven me wrong once, everytime I've asked you to prove me wrong, you guys made excuses.

Honestly it's a little embarrassing but I actually used to smack my head against walls when I felt overwhelmed by my adhd and my emotions. Focusing on the pain was actually a fairly good way for me to put myself at ease and to calm my thoughts. Nowadays I typically just use focusing on music to reach the same effect, though it's not really any less embarrassing because I can't sing or dance and when I get a song in my head I often like to move to it or hum along with it haha.

Your argument wasn't as hilarious as I hoped. You should put more effort into it.

[Fuentes]

You wrote me two novels on separate areas, you're the one making me laugh and feel sorry for you that im making the window licker react & go deep into his feelings and cry and whine more and more while you sit there and pretend your "trolling" by writing novels and sweating with your responses its hella funny.

[Juxtapose]

@Fuentes He really is sweating his ass off for this haha.

[devilman666]

@Fuentes you feel sorry for me? Lmfao now that's the kind of funny shit I wanted to hear 😃 It's like when my kid brother said "I dah boss of you" and kicked my parents cat. Seeing children pretend to be all powerful and shit is funny.

Also, are you sure I'm the schizo? You seem to be a little out of touch with reality if you think I'm crying or whining.

[Fuentes]

@devilman666 you're crying by writing novels because you care & our upset nobody agrees with you & still nobody believes your "trolling" you just lost horribly in your argument & now your deflecting all over the place. So yes i do feel bad for you

[Fuentes]

@Juxtapose it's clear he's having a manic episode at this point, poor guy suffers with delusions & sweats his ass off trying to whining about it

[devilman666]

You're right, my manic emotions are making me cry, I feel so sad 😢

[Fuentes]

Throw salt in your cut and grow up and go be a man and help yourself by getting pills to level yourself out.

[devilman666]

O-oh, o-okay, I guess I'll try that, it's just so hard when my emotions get the best of me!!! OwO 😢

So do I throw salt in my cut and grow up, or do I get pills? They seem contradictory, like if my emotions are so uncontrollable that I need pills then what good will throwing salt in the cut do? I get that you're telling me to be tough, but my point here is that you also seem to be saying that I'm incapable of being tough or emotionally stable, because you think I need pills.

[Fuentes]

You also talking about contradictions but understand, I'm telling you to be tough? You don't think before you type do you? I also wanna know what "trolls" write novels? None your a lame.

[Fuentes]

Lol it's everyone fault that he's not a MAN and can't take in words and fight back? Does he not know who he is? A threat is nothing like a mean word what a fairly little nancy boy.

[devilman666]

Why should threats of direct violence even be a problem? People need to learn to stop being weak little pussies, you're letting words hurt you and cause you fear because you choose to be offended and react negatively to it. Just change your reaction and it won't be a problem. K thanks bye.

[devilman666]

Be a man and stop letting threats, AKA WORDS, hurt you, fucking pussy!

[Fuentes]

@devilman666 you finally taking your own advice?

[devilman666]

@Fuentes you done being a fucking pussy?

[Fuentes]

@devilman666 im not sure if you think reverse psychology works here? It doesn't haha im not weak minded like you. It's not my fault your step dad made fun of you

[devilman666]

Then stop whining about threats. We should legalize threats in order to expand free speech, also, tobacco companies deserve the right to lie about their product and sell it to children. If you dont want your kid smoking then that's on you, ya fucking pussy.

[Fuentes]

@devilman666 so not only are you suffering from skits but also tourettes? These outburst are laughable lol!

[anylolone]

"someone has to get rid of these blacks" almost certainly incitement.

"Blacks smell" protected speech and true, everyone smells, and most smell in two different ways.

[JessieBellll]

There is a reason threats are illegal

[Juxtapose]

Which seems to slip by some people and they use it as justification for a slippery slope style erosion of free speech.

[disgustingweebtrash]

I got schizophrenia from this post

[sensible27]

I'm in your head..

[disgustingweebtrash]

GETOUTOFMYHEADGETOUTOFMYHEADGETOUTOFMYHEADGETOUTOFMYHEADGETOUTOFMYHEADGETOUTOFMYHEADGETOUTOFMYHEADGETOUTOFMYHEADGETOUTOFMYHEADGETOUTOFMYHEADGETOUTOFMYHEADGETOUTOFMYHEAD

[Frank_Woods]

The numbers Mason, what do they mean?

[jimmy2]

The vote has the truth

[ChiPaPa]

Nope 😂