Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#15 - snowshark (05/20/2013) [-]
'Murrica. Where nationalism is called patriotism and progressive thought is called heresy.

America. Where the population spends most of their time assuring the rest of the world they don't come from 'Murrica.
#102 to #15 - anonymous (05/21/2013) [-]
Progressive policies only serve to impede progress.
#96 to #15 - wobblewub (05/21/2013) [-]
Whoa, I kinda dodged a bullet in Arkansas. My jimmies are rustled.
Whoa, I kinda dodged a bullet in Arkansas. My jimmies are rustled.
User avatar #94 to #15 - kyrill ONLINE (05/21/2013) [-]
10/10 they mad as ****
#92 to #15 - pikininja (05/21/2013) [-]
That boy ain't right.
That boy ain't right.
#82 to #15 - coleshepard (05/21/2013) [-]
I`m from `Murica. Ain`t even mad.
User avatar #88 to #82 - snowshark (05/21/2013) [-]
Well, you appear to be the first. xD
User avatar #80 to #15 - gibroner (05/21/2013) [-]
hurr durr republicans are stupid democrats are smart
User avatar #56 to #15 - phunkyzilla ONLINE (05/21/2013) [-]
You some kinda commie son?
User avatar #57 to #56 - snowshark (05/21/2013) [-]
Maybe a little.

Just a smidgin.
#47 to #15 - extravix (05/21/2013) [-]
I don't have anything to express my rage, so here. Have this.
I don't have anything to express my rage, so here. Have this.
#54 to #47 - snowshark (05/21/2013) [-]
What up?
#44 to #15 - anonymous (05/21/2013) [-]
hold on their hippie you got them mixed up
#43 to #15 - anonymous (05/21/2013) [-]
Where the **** is Arkansas?
#31 to #15 - achingandachong **User deleted account** (05/21/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #35 to #31 - snowshark (05/21/2013) [-]
Okay... that is bloody hilarious.
User avatar #27 to #15 - Ruspanic (05/21/2013) [-]
This is a 2012 election map, you stupid **** .
You're also missing Arkansas.
User avatar #28 to #27 - snowshark (05/21/2013) [-]
This is a joke, you stupid **** .
You're also missing the point.
User avatar #30 to #28 - Ruspanic (05/21/2013) [-]
No, I think the point is that you're stereotyping entire regions of the country based on their voting record.
User avatar #34 to #30 - snowshark (05/21/2013) [-]
No, the point is it is a parody of reality based upon stereotypes.

It is a post on the internet by somebody you likely will never meet in your life. It is not to be taken personally because it has no direct impact upon the subject matter being parodied.
User avatar #38 to #34 - Ruspanic (05/21/2013) [-]
If you genuinely meant it as a joke, and don't actually believe this stuff, then I apologize. But I don't think that's the case, judging by your other comments on this thread.

This isn't the first time I've seen this picture, or this joke. Whatever you may think, spreading partisan ******** on the Internet has an impact on public opinion, especially on the opinions of the younger generation who will inherit the country.
User avatar #49 to #38 - snowshark (05/21/2013) [-]
Granted, however it is the duty of their parents to raise them to know better rather than the duty of those who do know better to never parody such things. My comments are all subjective to the nature of those that inspire them. To some people they understand the parody, hence I continue it and elaborate, adding elements of wit or humour. To others they take it to heart and react violently, in which case I either disregard them or delve further into the subject based upon the perceived level of debate I can get from them.

The youth that will inherit the world will either learn or they will not. To be grown in a pastoral culture of kindness would do them a far greater disservice than to grow them in a culture such as the internet. When people are unaccustomed to being the butt of joke they react differently to when they are. People in countries foreign to America know a great deal about this because the cultures that children are brought up in are far less "Friendly" than that which is forced upon America.

The results are fairly clear. People with no respect nor understanding of the nature of parody nor the strength of character to accept it will ultimately suffer on the internet whereas those who accept the nature of wit and parody will flourish. To hide people from those factors would be worse than exposing them to them.
User avatar #22 to #15 - pokedigimon ONLINE (05/21/2013) [-]
I'm from Georgia, and that is mostly true. I knew a kid the size of a bear who hated blacks, and screamed at the top of his lungs "YOU CAN'T TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM! THIS IS 'MURICA!" when he got a detention. He was upstairs, and I was downstairs, at the other side of the school when he did it, and it sounded like he was screaming in my ear. I feel bad for whoever was in the same classroom as him.
User avatar #16 to #15 - noobhax (05/20/2013) [-]
why is florida a part of America?
User avatar #110 to #16 - Ruspanic (05/21/2013) [-]
Because it voted for Obama, evidently.
User avatar #17 to #16 - snowshark (05/20/2013) [-]
Florida isn't full of Murrikans.

It's full of incredibly stupid Americans.

They're almost Murrikans but they lack several key factors in the development of a true Murrikan. Consider them to be sort of the mid-ground between the two. Where progressive thinking and ingenuity meets poor foresight and gun-lust.
User avatar #24 to #17 - doodogger (05/21/2013) [-]
Gun lust, as in the wish to keep the 2nd amendment and not ban guns?
User avatar #26 to #24 - snowshark (05/21/2013) [-]
No. Gun lust is the collection of guns to a ridiculous level. To the point where it passes a simple hobby and becomes an obsession. A lot of "developed" countries deal with this by ensuring the guns are disabled before they can be collected but due to the laws in America these people accumulate dangerous amounts of firepower.

Couple this with questionable moral values in certain places and poor mental healthcare and you've got a melting pot of madness waiting to happen.

Guns aren't bad but Gun Lust is a worrying thing indeed.
User avatar #29 to #26 - doodogger (05/21/2013) [-]
How do you feel about collecting stamps? Lots of them.
User avatar #32 to #29 - snowshark (05/21/2013) [-]
Stamps are not capable of rendering multiple human beings deceased at range at a high frequency.

I don't mind the collection of guns nor the owning of live guns and ammunition. However the collection and owning of large number of live assault weapons is something that, from a socio-psychoanalytical point of view is as worrying as it is intriguing.
User avatar #36 to #32 - doodogger (05/21/2013) [-]
Guns aren't capable of such a feat.

You need the human element to kill someone.

You ever see all those guys who go to machine gun shoots with a bunch of automatic rifles? I've never heard of one of them going on a killing spree.

You think a guy wants a bunch of "assault rifles" because he wishes he had a bunch of big penises and that he is being pressured by society to have them?
User avatar #45 to #36 - snowshark (05/21/2013) [-]
No, I think there are numerous factors that go into the collection of assault-capable weaponry.

However drop the "Guns don't kill people" ******** . It's an argument old as dirt and the moment it's brought up you instantly stigmatise the conversation. Your bringing it up places you in a position of clear immovability making anything I say on the subject pointless to your ears. To you I am another idiot who sees everyone who has more than one gun as a psychopath.

If you wish to be regarded as worthwhile to converse with by those who hold opposing viewpoints to you then I would suggest you have a more original opening sentiment.

Still, I'll point out that assault weaponry is more than just a penis replacement. It is something shockingly deeply rooted to fundamental factors of humanity. The most obvious one is the lust for power. People want the power to protect themselves but if that were simply the case then a single shotgun or pistol would suffice. No, the obsession with guns goes deeper than that. It is a greed. A lust. Just as some crave money, others crave power through different means.

If it were a simple admiration of the craftsmanship and technology of the weapons themselves then the fact of their being active becomes a moot point. There are many countries that allow the collection of deactivated guns but prohibit the purchase of live ammunition.

Then you take into account the factor of youth and just how deeply this factors into the very culture of the people. There are children whom learn to operate assault weaponry before they hit puberty. I've nothing against the mediated use of guns as a hobby, even for youths, as the respect of fatal power is important to understand. However the culture is one that is so free and easy with these weapons that that fatal capacity is either disregarded or misunderstood.

I've nought against guns, but the way the culture interacts with them is severely broken in America.

(I do love a good debate on a heated subject.)
User avatar #53 to #45 - doodogger (05/21/2013) [-]
1.) To me, I would say that someone wants them because it's their hobby/passion. Not really for power, it's hard to imagine.

2.) I don't see you as an idiot. You have the subject framed in a different way than I do. For me, it's a freedom thing. For you, it appears to be a psychological issue to desire lots of guns.

3.) Have you considered why the 2nd amendment was made and that they put no limit to how many weapons one can own?

4.) Some people crave power by rape, and that's clearly bad. Is owning guns for power bad? Can you prove that a significant number of gun owners want power? Did you know that the 2nd amendment was put here primarily to empower the citizens against a tyrannical government?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" - Thomas Jefferson

5.) Let them.

6.) It's better to learn how to operate it and respect it than to accidentally blow your brains out.

7.) I agree with you.

User avatar #62 to #53 - snowshark (05/21/2013) [-]
... than their political rivals. The forcing of religious views on others (even though it is in complete contrast to the beliefs and wants of the founding fathers) and the enforcement of laws from the red party is more tyrannical than what comes from the blue party. By this very simple fact we see that the allowance of weapons to defeat tyranny is no longer valid as it does more to support it than it does to defeat it.

Now I am clearly far more supportive of the blue party than the red but let's not get bogged down in which is right or wrong and stay focussed on the issue at hand.

5) Fair enough. However it has been shown time and time again that there is no need for the weapons to be active nor for the ammunition for said weapons to be easily purchasable over the counter. I've nothing against the owning of the weapons, rather my quarrel is the way the culture interacts with them and views them.

6) Agreed, but is it necessary to own one or more guns at a young age (where your emotions and brain are yet fully developed and you are prone to irrational behaviour) for them to know how to operate them.

I come from the UK where the gun laws are immensely strict. However I have still, in my time in the Territorial Army learned how to operate a heavy machine gun, a pistol, a sniper rifle, an assault rifle and a shotgun. (Let's not go into details here.) I know how to use them and enjoyed doing so when I had the chance. I also indulge in paintball and laser tag frequently.

I can understand the want for weaponry and the need to understand it, but I come from a culture of restriction yet I know and respect weaponry far more so than most I meed from the states simply because of those stigmas and restrictions. It is the culture at fault, not the weapons nor the want to use them recreationally.

7) I agree with me too. I just wish the juicy topics didn't come with so many red thumbs. Still, I'm in the top 100. I can suffer a few reds my way here and there. It's all in fun.
User avatar #60 to #53 - snowshark (05/21/2013) [-]
1) Oh, certainly. Everyone needs a hobby. However ones choice of hobby says an awful lot about their own psychology. But what is more important than the hobby they keep is the question as to why they keep it. Why do some people collect stamps, others collect miniature models to arrange and paint and others collect large tools built with the primary purpose of severely injuring another human being from range?

2) Thank **** for that. I'm glad we got that out of the way and we're onto a more debate-ish track of conversation now rather than what previously amounted to tossing words at each other and hoping one would stick.

3 & 4) I have. The original reasons were numerous. For one, wildlife was dangerous. Another one was that the natives were also pretty nasty. People needed them for hunting too and it made conscription easier if the government didn't have to pay for the guns. It was also, as you said, to empower the people.

However all of those above reasons have become completely void and compromised by unforeseen factors. Wildlife is still dangerous but not to the same degree. Now, the hunting of wildlife is less for food or protection and more for sport. Food comes into it but there are easier and safer ways to feed one's family. The natives are also far more docile and though liable to steal your money with rigged blackjack they're not likely to dash your brains against a rock with another rock.

You're also much less likely to suffer an invasion from the european superpowers, namely since none of them exist anymore. Guns have also become more reliable and no longer take 2 minutes to load a single round. They have become far more effective killing tools. The hoarding of weapons beforehand was beneficial as it allowed for one man to share his firepower with many men. Now though, times have changed and the reason for those laws have faded.

The governmental party that is supported by the states where this 'gun lust' is at it's highest are far closer to tyrants...
User avatar #76 to #60 - doodogger (05/21/2013) [-]
1.) Not necessarily. A person might like reaching out and touching something a distance away, to have an effect on it. It could be, but it isn't necessarily always true that a person likes shooting because he's sublimating his urge to kill.

3/4.) Americans don't tend to trust their government as much as other countries seem to. Either our government is a little more corrupt than most, or we just hold ours to a higher standard in that sense. We want power over it, to balance out it's power so that it can't do what it pleases. The 2nd amendment here is basically a check and balance.

Both main political parties (democrat and republican) have their potential to be tyrants. Reactionaries (far right republicans) could embellish the government with christian views and ban gay marriage/abortion. Radicals (far left democrats) could ban all kinds of things, over regulate, violate privacy, and basically trade freedom for security (in various degrees of course). Both can be too bad if not moderated.

Explain you reasoning behind this "By this very simple fact we see that the allowance of weapons to defeat tyranny is no longer valid as it does more to support it than it does to defeat it."

5.) People of other countries might appreciate looking at them and knowing what they were built to do, but Americans appreciate more the ability to operate them. Americans view a disabled gun as museum asset. There's nothing wrong with the latter though.
User avatar #86 to #76 - snowshark (05/21/2013) [-]
5) I agree and worry. Whilst I agree that there's nothing wrong with a gun being a museum piece (some are works of sheer beauty after all) I do worry about what you say about the American culture. It is a culture very alien to many of the values other nations hold and it's not something that endears you on the world stage. Not that that should matter, but it's food for thought. I shan't go into the damaging/self-destructive nature of that culture though as it's a different topic.

6) Agreed. It is simply poor parenting ti give a child access to such a tool without first going through the filter of a well-minded adult. However it is poor parenting that stems from a lack of respect for the weapons and the lack of respect for them comes from the culture. I'm not saying that all americans don't respect weapons but there is a clear distinction between those who do and those who don't. Neither is any less dangerous than the other, mind, as a man who is obsessively meticulous in every detail is as dangerous a psychopath as a man who cares little for the details. (Note, I'm not saying these people are psychopathy by their nature, I'm saying if a psychopath were to embody these traits.)

I personally feel the US has a severe problem with the antiquated views it holds, largely due to the fact that much of the political system is dictated to by hundred years old political scripture. There's an amendment here or there but it's still an outdated document.

Yes, a lot of what goes on in that document is still frighteningly relevant, but much like the bible, there are problems that arise when one comes across a passage or two which isn't as culturally relevant as it once was.

P.S. I expect as much, but a thumb is just a thumb at the end of the day. I'm here to enjoy myself. The ranking is merely a bi-product of my being quite funny/witty/intelligent merged with my openness with which I communicate. It doesn't matter to me as much as enjoying myself does.
User avatar #83 to #76 - snowshark (05/21/2013) [-]
1) I'm not saying that is the case most of the time. What I am saying is that there is always a reason why something happens, even why someone chooses a hobby. The hobby of gun-collecting or shooting isn't itself a problem, rather it is the reasons behind it and one must question why that hobby was chosen over all of the others.

Personally I think culture once again has an awful lot to do with it as I stated I enjoyed a good shoot every now and then and truth be told I do own one licensed, active double-barreled shotgun but that has me stand out as the oddity rather than the norm, indicating that the culture is perhaps what cultivates the mass-indulgence in what is, in most other places in the world, a minority hobby at best.

3/4) I agree with that sentiment, but when you think about it, what do those guns actually do? You've only once had cause to use them when when that happened the country broke into a civil war over their rights to own the lives of other human beings. It was seen as a breach of their freedoms and they tried to overthrow the tyrannical, negro-loving government, killing many Americans in the process.

The guns do not play a part in politics these days. They serve as insurance but so too does the United Nations, the EU and numerous other bodies inside the US itself. All do more good for national stability than the guns do. All they could do for politics is kill people. Governments need to respect the people they want to vote for them, not fear them.

I would agree with you there but I personally feel that the reactionaries are far greater in numbers and far more dangerous than the radicals. The internet has been threatened a lot lately by the radicals but every time they have been sussed out and shot down. Neither party is good, but I feel the democrats are the lesser of the two evils here.

There are more republicans with an awful lot of guns than democrats. There are more of one ready to fight the government and kill than the other.
User avatar #143 to #83 - doodogger (05/21/2013) [-]
So you're saying the psychology behind why someone likes to shoot is a pathology?

You have to understand that the vast majority of American gun owners are very responsible and respectful of their guns. A few bad apples can make us all (including me) look bad. I think this because every gun owner I know keeps guns wither in a gun safe, or locked away with a gun lock, separate from the ammunition. The culture thing goes for the UK too. Americans see your strict gun laws as crazy as you see our laxed gun laws.

Guns are more of a deterrent than anything when it comes to balancing of power between the government and the people.

The U.S. government can't respect the people, and it cannot be trusted. This is why we should have guns. If the government can't respect us, it better fear us, or we will fear it. The rights of the people will slowly be eroded away if we let the horse stick it's head in.

Do you live in the United States? I do. I find that there are more radicals than reactinaries. You can see it in our culture. Old close minded white men tend to be reactionaries. Young naive kids who do not know what the real world is like, and rich people who never had to wipe their own ass tend to be radicals. There are definitely more reactionaries in America. In my philosophy, neither of the evils are worse, there just tends to be more far leftists in America at this time.

Who cares if there are more guns in the hands of republicans?
User avatar #165 to #143 - snowshark (05/21/2013) [-]
... tend to cater more towards the protection of the people in comparison to right-wing policies which seem to cater more to the appeasement of their voters. I wouldn't mind either if the protection of the people was as necessary as they say it is. In terms of gun-crime, there is change needed but the rest of it is greedy assholes trying to rule the world.

However, I would rather a world of rich assholes than a world where religions that I or other people do not care for force their oppressive teachings as law. I've nought against religion (actually I find it fascinating and beautiful in places) but the enforcement of religious beliefs as law is completely against the morals that the US was founded upon.

I may not be a US citizen but I consider myself to be human before I am a Brit. I take great pride in looking back on the human achievement that happened in the founding of the US (less so on most of the stuff that happened between then and now, mind you) and such laws would simply be a spite to the memory of great men and an offence to the morals of freedom upon which the country was founded.

At the end of the day though, either side is simple the greater or the lesser of two turds because of the incredibly antiquated and unhelpful system of politics still in use both in the US and the UK.

5) If guns enforced the balance of power, as you said, then that gives one party more power than the other. If the blues are doing something the reds consider tyranical they may just take up their arms in protest. Granted, the same is true of the blues but the nature of the red/blue divide is more than just red and blue. It is a study of the individual states, their cultures and sub-cultures and their attitudes towards the subject. I personally believe that if what you said were to happen, the death toll from the reds would be far higher than that from the blues.
User avatar #164 to #143 - snowshark (05/21/2013) [-]
1) Yes and no. In some cases the answer is simply no but in other cases the answer is most definitely yes.

2) I'll give you that. I'm not the kind who an only distinguish between Cowboys and Rednecks when it comes to gun ownership, however as you say your laws are very lax and an awful lot of innocent people suffer every single year from gun crime. It is at the point where America has an annual psycho shootout somewhere in the country and a lot of people suffer. Granted, in the grand scheme of things the people who suffer are a small number but the frequency that people are made to suffer bereavements or grievous, life-altering injury because of the lax gun laws is shockingly high.

If you are as responsible with your guns as you say you are (which I do not doubt, btw) then surely increased laws to regulate and control guns in the US would not harm you all that much whilst still saving lives. Personally I do not see why shooting ranges can't store the assault weaponry there for people rather than them having them in their home. A deactivated rifle on the wall is a decent ornament and if you want to shoot something with a little bite to it then you go to the shooting range.

Still, it's not a subject so easily sorted out. Change needs to happen for the sake of the victims but the nation's culture is one that will be unreceptive to any change, however small, in their gun culture.

3) The same is true of the British government, however our two countries are in very similar positions without the need for the people to own guns to justify it. Groups like anonymous show that fighting for one's rights is no longer a matter of blowing off someone's head, but appealing in a diplomatic process. More people just need to be made aware of the power they have through democracy and the violence need not play a part in it.

4) I personally prefer the left wing to the right and the middle to the left. The left wing policies...
User avatar #77 to #76 - doodogger (05/21/2013) [-]
6.) No it's not necessary for a small child to own a fire arm. The parent should be in possession of it and should educate and teach the child to respect it and out to shoot it. The minor should be able to own the gun when they are 18.

PS: I didn't thumb you down at all, other people who can't handle a debate maturely did.
User avatar #55 to #53 - doodogger (05/21/2013) [-]
I can see how some may want them for power, mainly drug lords and gang members. Criminals.
#19 to #17 - noobhax (05/20/2013) [-]
I dunno, whenver I go there, I really just want to leave.   
Unless you love Sonics and Ruby Tuesdays, and Hate Abortions.   
Then you would love it.
I dunno, whenver I go there, I really just want to leave.

Unless you love Sonics and Ruby Tuesdays, and Hate Abortions.
Then you would love it.
User avatar #20 to #19 - snowshark (05/20/2013) [-]
True, but then there's also Disneyland.

Whilst I'm no fan of Floridians I'm pretty sure they're not the right kind of crazy for Murrika.
#25 to #20 - komradkthulu (05/21/2013) [-]
I don't see how being in a red state means you're a ******** or even the people there are ********* . Blue states are filled with as many ******* idiots, perhaps not rednecks, but in their own way.
User avatar #37 to #25 - snowshark (05/21/2013) [-]
The moment somebody on the internet parodies close to home you can tell. Most people who hold something dear are unable to separate the parody from the truth.

Do you truly believe that even one person alive whose opinion matters in the slightest views the world as black and white (or red and blue, as is the case)? I don't think you do and I don't think anyone else does. At the end of the day the truth of the matter is just that it's the internet and a joke here has little to no direct impact upon how you live your life.

(That said, I do enjoy stirring a little ********* here and there. You find the best reaction pics and end up with the best conversations, due in part to the passion people feel. I'd suggest it sometime.)
#46 to #37 - komradkthulu (05/21/2013) [-]
No, for you see, I just don't see the logic or intelligence of stereotyping entire geopolitical regions as " ********* ".

You'd be surprise just how many pseudo-intellectuals use that picture as if it's some form of bolstering evidence. It just makes left leaning people look hateful and condescending, and that's not something we need.

Your original use of it wasn't much of a joke either, mate.
User avatar #51 to #46 - snowshark (05/21/2013) [-]
You'd be surprised. It is actually very funny, however it simply is not to your sense of humour

I fear that a conversation with you will ultimately lead us both nowhere of any particular interest as you give off the impression that you would prefer a sterile environment where all parody need be based upon the truth as opposed to based upon the perception of the truth whereas I believe all comedy is fair game by the very nature of comedy.

9/11 jokes? Fair game. ******* hilarious too.

The nature of comedy to me is one where anything can become a joke and anything can be funny. Politics (as well as political stereotypes) have been used in humour for as long as there have been politics to mock. To search for a form of morality or higher purpose in the whole thing is a fruitless effort because whilst it is appreciated when comedy has one, it is not inherently necessary for the comedy to be good.

I'd point out David Mitchell as a good example of this. He manages to create social and political commentary in wild abundance but at the same time some of his best jokes are also pointless and really rather silly.

An insult is as much an insult as you think it to be. The same as a joke is as much a joke as I think it to be.
#59 to #51 - komradkthulu (05/21/2013) [-]
It appears that a site filled with other pseudos, fellow liberals, atheists, etc. tends to slightly disagree that this was a joke and not just a hypocritical opinion, mate. Just a smidgen.
User avatar #66 to #59 - snowshark (05/21/2013) [-]
I see what you did there.

However, I believe in freedom in humour which means accepting that people either won't get all the jokes or they will not appreciate them. It's all cool, just a part of the comedy. It is the experimentation with it that proves to be the most fun, mind.

Even this simple conversation with you is good fun, however obviously you imply your distain for me.
#69 to #66 - komradkthulu (05/21/2013) [-]
Disdain? It's more like disappointed indifference, to be honest.
User avatar #70 to #69 - snowshark (05/21/2013) [-]
That really is something of a shame, but it's not my problem. I've enjoyed this conversation somewhat, thank you.
 Friends (0)