Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

greyhoundfd    

Rank #1472 on Comments
no avatar Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Offline
Send mail to greyhoundfd Block greyhoundfd Invite greyhoundfd to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Steam Profile: portal_gamer270
Date Signed Up:4/08/2014
Last Login:11/26/2014
Location:In the middle of a very bad trip
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#1472
Highest Comment Rank:#983
Comment Thumbs: 4481 total,  5147 ,  666
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 33% (33/100)
Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:0
Content Views:1
Total Comments Made:2277
FJ Points:3533

latest user's comments

#57 - Holy **** , are you thick? >Black people ar…  [+] (3 new replies) 7 hours ago on I aint sayin, but I'm sayin 0
#58 - stillhearingvoices (7 hours ago) [-]
I'm not even angry. That was the first time you didn't relate rioting to reasoning or understanding. You said people are angry and that is the only thing that makes since. I took every word you said as you knowing what you were meaning. When you would say the rioting is reasonable or it is understandable then you lose me. People being angry and then acting idiotic based on their actions makes sense. Sorry you got upset and all, but I made it clear from the start that the only reason I was commenting was because you started off with rioting is reasonable. I agreed with the rest of what you said just that one part so no need to act like a dick talking about past events as if I were just born and the, " Holy fuck, are you thick?" when you continued to use bad wording. Some informative examples. OK--- It's reasonable that you ate that apple because you were hungry. Not OK--- It is understandable that you cut your arm off since the slight muscle pain was bothering you. For real though rioting is never reasonable.
#61 - stillhearingvoices (6 hours ago) [-]
There's more information about the riots.
#20 - >Believing that communism still has any real power 7 hours ago on Probably not going to be on... 0
#31 - Skim Chocolate Milk is actually pretty good, but who the …  [+] (1 new reply) 7 hours ago on Too afraid to ask 0
#35 - Womens Study Major (5 hours ago) [-]
**anonymous rolled image** People who like chocolate milk... What a dumb question.
#24 - But then the lesbians would be zombies too and tumblrinas woul… 7 hours ago on tumblr shit -2
#54 - Because "da po-po are racist!" And it's rea…  [+] (1 new reply) 7 hours ago on I aint sayin, but I'm sayin 0
#56 - Womens Study Major (7 hours ago) [-]
Of which he had neither iirc; at the very least he didn't have a taser, but Brown was a much bigger man than Wilson, so closing in to brawling range would've been a bad idea for Wilson, so he was left with two options:

One: fall back and call for backup

Two: Shoot him.

In his defense, it was a spur-of-the-moment decision that he had to make immediately. On the other hand, he could have at least made an attempt to incapacitate rather than kill Brown (shooting the kneecaps etc.)
#53 - They don't have to know him. All that's needed for a riot is a…  [+] (5 new replies) 7 hours ago on I aint sayin, but I'm sayin 0
#55 - stillhearingvoices (7 hours ago) [-]
I'm so glad you cleared that up I had no idea there was racial discrimination in the past that caused some areas to stay impoverished even up until now. I actually tried to go about this treating everyone as American citizens and not reflect any form of racial background, but to say, " Should humans use violence against other humans when an unjustifiable act it taken out on one individual?". I'd expect the answer to be no and that the crime committing individual would go to court and be judged by these same citizens. Now we have taken steps back. We say the case in question was not a racially motivated incident, however if you riot because of a white on black crime then it is reasonable because of past events between two races. That doesn't make any sense. If you tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, but it's ok for whatever reason then when is the issue ever resolved? When can it be said that those actions were to far in the past to be an excuse for how you act today?
#57 - greyhoundfd (7 hours ago) [-]
Holy fuck, are you thick?
>Black people are frustrated with societal problems
>One of those problems has to do with white people
>White person does stupid thing which draws attention to black people's problems
>Black people's frustration bubbles over into rioting and looting
I'm not saying it's reasonable. I'm not saying they should. I'm not saying fucking anything about whether or not riots were a good idea. What I'm saying, and I don't get why this isn't clicking in your mind, is that blacks do have reasons to be angry, and it is understandable that they are angry about this.

Are you arguing even arguing with me, or are you just angry and finding some way to combine everything I'm saying the wrong way?
#58 - stillhearingvoices (7 hours ago) [-]
I'm not even angry. That was the first time you didn't relate rioting to reasoning or understanding. You said people are angry and that is the only thing that makes since. I took every word you said as you knowing what you were meaning. When you would say the rioting is reasonable or it is understandable then you lose me. People being angry and then acting idiotic based on their actions makes sense. Sorry you got upset and all, but I made it clear from the start that the only reason I was commenting was because you started off with rioting is reasonable. I agreed with the rest of what you said just that one part so no need to act like a dick talking about past events as if I were just born and the, " Holy fuck, are you thick?" when you continued to use bad wording. Some informative examples. OK--- It's reasonable that you ate that apple because you were hungry. Not OK--- It is understandable that you cut your arm off since the slight muscle pain was bothering you. For real though rioting is never reasonable.
#61 - stillhearingvoices (6 hours ago) [-]
There's more information about the riots.
#50 - The facts are always uncertain, because anyone can be lying. T…  [+] (3 new replies) 8 hours ago on I aint sayin, but I'm sayin +1
User avatar #51 - lieutenantderp (8 hours ago) [-]
seems appropriate to me, why are people getting butthurt over this?
#54 - greyhoundfd (7 hours ago) [-]
Because "da po-po are racist!"

And it's really not appropriate. Yeah, if someone attacks a police officer they can use lethal force if their life is in danger, but your life isn't in danger if your assailant is running away. Even if he turned around, the guy ran at least three car lengths. At that point, Wilson should have already put away his gun and taken out a nightstick or taser.
#56 - Womens Study Major (7 hours ago) [-]
Of which he had neither iirc; at the very least he didn't have a taser, but Brown was a much bigger man than Wilson, so closing in to brawling range would've been a bad idea for Wilson, so he was left with two options:

One: fall back and call for backup

Two: Shoot him.

In his defense, it was a spur-of-the-moment decision that he had to make immediately. On the other hand, he could have at least made an attempt to incapacitate rather than kill Brown (shooting the kneecaps etc.)
#48 - No, but it's understandable that they are rioting. I wouldn'…  [+] (7 new replies) 8 hours ago on I aint sayin, but I'm sayin 0
#52 - stillhearingvoices (8 hours ago) [-]
It's just the understandable part I'm not getting. I could understand a riot if out of the blue Marshall law was placed on the city for no reason. I can't understand when I think of how many people actually new this guy and the large number of rioters doesn't fit with any form of reasoning I have.
#53 - greyhoundfd (7 hours ago) [-]
They don't have to know him. All that's needed for a riot is a lot of people with a lot of problems who feel powerless and frustrated, and then a single event which highlights the significance of one of their problems. Inner-city blacks are a group with an enormous number of societal challenges (even if we do talk about "Fuck niggas", we do need to acknowledge that inner city blacks are on average poorer, have more difficulty reaching high-paying jobs, tend to do poorly in education, and have a lower social mobility.)

Now, this is due to some very old events, like limitations on schooling, job access, and housing for blacks in the post-slavery US, which forced blacks either into sharecropping or the inner city where housing was cheap.

The problem is, this attitude of "Blame the whites" has stayed around, no thanks to us really, and means there is a lot of racial tension between blacks and whites. All you need is one questionable case of white-on-black shooting, justified or not, to send this racial tension bubbling over and leading to widespread rioting.

There are reasons to riot about Ferguson. What people are missing is that the riots happening now were caused by Ferguson, but not entirely or even mostly about Ferguson.
#55 - stillhearingvoices (7 hours ago) [-]
I'm so glad you cleared that up I had no idea there was racial discrimination in the past that caused some areas to stay impoverished even up until now. I actually tried to go about this treating everyone as American citizens and not reflect any form of racial background, but to say, " Should humans use violence against other humans when an unjustifiable act it taken out on one individual?". I'd expect the answer to be no and that the crime committing individual would go to court and be judged by these same citizens. Now we have taken steps back. We say the case in question was not a racially motivated incident, however if you riot because of a white on black crime then it is reasonable because of past events between two races. That doesn't make any sense. If you tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, but it's ok for whatever reason then when is the issue ever resolved? When can it be said that those actions were to far in the past to be an excuse for how you act today?
#57 - greyhoundfd (7 hours ago) [-]
Holy fuck, are you thick?
>Black people are frustrated with societal problems
>One of those problems has to do with white people
>White person does stupid thing which draws attention to black people's problems
>Black people's frustration bubbles over into rioting and looting
I'm not saying it's reasonable. I'm not saying they should. I'm not saying fucking anything about whether or not riots were a good idea. What I'm saying, and I don't get why this isn't clicking in your mind, is that blacks do have reasons to be angry, and it is understandable that they are angry about this.

Are you arguing even arguing with me, or are you just angry and finding some way to combine everything I'm saying the wrong way?
#58 - stillhearingvoices (7 hours ago) [-]
I'm not even angry. That was the first time you didn't relate rioting to reasoning or understanding. You said people are angry and that is the only thing that makes since. I took every word you said as you knowing what you were meaning. When you would say the rioting is reasonable or it is understandable then you lose me. People being angry and then acting idiotic based on their actions makes sense. Sorry you got upset and all, but I made it clear from the start that the only reason I was commenting was because you started off with rioting is reasonable. I agreed with the rest of what you said just that one part so no need to act like a dick talking about past events as if I were just born and the, " Holy fuck, are you thick?" when you continued to use bad wording. Some informative examples. OK--- It's reasonable that you ate that apple because you were hungry. Not OK--- It is understandable that you cut your arm off since the slight muscle pain was bothering you. For real though rioting is never reasonable.
#61 - stillhearingvoices (6 hours ago) [-]
There's more information about the riots.
#44 - I'm not sure if they got the testimony from the store owner, b…  [+] (5 new replies) 8 hours ago on I aint sayin, but I'm sayin +1
User avatar #46 - lieutenantderp (8 hours ago) [-]
The story I heard was that Brown robbed the store momentarily before being shot. And seriously, how do people not know whether he robbed a store or not? It's been months since the incident, and facts are still uncertain?
#50 - greyhoundfd (8 hours ago) [-]
The facts are always uncertain, because anyone can be lying. The general outline of what happened though seems to be:
-Brown and Johnson steal some cigarettes from a convenience store
-They walk home
-Wilson sees them in the road and asks them to move to the sidewalk
-They refuse
-Wilson notices they match the description of the reported thieves, and tries to block the road
-Either Brown interprets this as an attack, or Brown attacks Wilson
-Brown and Wilson begin fighting through the car window
-Wilson fires a shot accidentally through the car door, hitting Brown in the hand
-Brown and Johnson begin running
-Wilson gets out of the car and pursues them
-Brown turns around, makes a motion towards his waist with the shot hand, and begins moving towards Wilson
-Wilson shoots Brown six times, killing him.
User avatar #51 - lieutenantderp (8 hours ago) [-]
seems appropriate to me, why are people getting butthurt over this?
#54 - greyhoundfd (7 hours ago) [-]
Because "da po-po are racist!"

And it's really not appropriate. Yeah, if someone attacks a police officer they can use lethal force if their life is in danger, but your life isn't in danger if your assailant is running away. Even if he turned around, the guy ran at least three car lengths. At that point, Wilson should have already put away his gun and taken out a nightstick or taser.
#56 - Womens Study Major (7 hours ago) [-]
Of which he had neither iirc; at the very least he didn't have a taser, but Brown was a much bigger man than Wilson, so closing in to brawling range would've been a bad idea for Wilson, so he was left with two options:

One: fall back and call for backup

Two: Shoot him.

In his defense, it was a spur-of-the-moment decision that he had to make immediately. On the other hand, he could have at least made an attempt to incapacitate rather than kill Brown (shooting the kneecaps etc.)
#43 - What I'm saying is that it's understandable that they're pisse…  [+] (9 new replies) 8 hours ago on I aint sayin, but I'm sayin 0
#47 - stillhearingvoices (8 hours ago) [-]
Not sure if my comments mixed with that picture up there makes you think I came off that way. Let us move a few things. A white cop shoots a white unarmed citizen. People are angry is it reasonable for the people of this city to riot and cause violent acts to their local businesses and local police force?
#48 - greyhoundfd (8 hours ago) [-]
No, but it's understandable that they are rioting. I wouldn't tell them to though, and the same goes for the riots in Ferguson now.
#52 - stillhearingvoices (8 hours ago) [-]
It's just the understandable part I'm not getting. I could understand a riot if out of the blue Marshall law was placed on the city for no reason. I can't understand when I think of how many people actually new this guy and the large number of rioters doesn't fit with any form of reasoning I have.
#53 - greyhoundfd (7 hours ago) [-]
They don't have to know him. All that's needed for a riot is a lot of people with a lot of problems who feel powerless and frustrated, and then a single event which highlights the significance of one of their problems. Inner-city blacks are a group with an enormous number of societal challenges (even if we do talk about "Fuck niggas", we do need to acknowledge that inner city blacks are on average poorer, have more difficulty reaching high-paying jobs, tend to do poorly in education, and have a lower social mobility.)

Now, this is due to some very old events, like limitations on schooling, job access, and housing for blacks in the post-slavery US, which forced blacks either into sharecropping or the inner city where housing was cheap.

The problem is, this attitude of "Blame the whites" has stayed around, no thanks to us really, and means there is a lot of racial tension between blacks and whites. All you need is one questionable case of white-on-black shooting, justified or not, to send this racial tension bubbling over and leading to widespread rioting.

There are reasons to riot about Ferguson. What people are missing is that the riots happening now were caused by Ferguson, but not entirely or even mostly about Ferguson.
#55 - stillhearingvoices (7 hours ago) [-]
I'm so glad you cleared that up I had no idea there was racial discrimination in the past that caused some areas to stay impoverished even up until now. I actually tried to go about this treating everyone as American citizens and not reflect any form of racial background, but to say, " Should humans use violence against other humans when an unjustifiable act it taken out on one individual?". I'd expect the answer to be no and that the crime committing individual would go to court and be judged by these same citizens. Now we have taken steps back. We say the case in question was not a racially motivated incident, however if you riot because of a white on black crime then it is reasonable because of past events between two races. That doesn't make any sense. If you tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, but it's ok for whatever reason then when is the issue ever resolved? When can it be said that those actions were to far in the past to be an excuse for how you act today?
#57 - greyhoundfd (7 hours ago) [-]
Holy fuck, are you thick?
>Black people are frustrated with societal problems
>One of those problems has to do with white people
>White person does stupid thing which draws attention to black people's problems
>Black people's frustration bubbles over into rioting and looting
I'm not saying it's reasonable. I'm not saying they should. I'm not saying fucking anything about whether or not riots were a good idea. What I'm saying, and I don't get why this isn't clicking in your mind, is that blacks do have reasons to be angry, and it is understandable that they are angry about this.

Are you arguing even arguing with me, or are you just angry and finding some way to combine everything I'm saying the wrong way?
#58 - stillhearingvoices (7 hours ago) [-]
I'm not even angry. That was the first time you didn't relate rioting to reasoning or understanding. You said people are angry and that is the only thing that makes since. I took every word you said as you knowing what you were meaning. When you would say the rioting is reasonable or it is understandable then you lose me. People being angry and then acting idiotic based on their actions makes sense. Sorry you got upset and all, but I made it clear from the start that the only reason I was commenting was because you started off with rioting is reasonable. I agreed with the rest of what you said just that one part so no need to act like a dick talking about past events as if I were just born and the, " Holy fuck, are you thick?" when you continued to use bad wording. Some informative examples. OK--- It's reasonable that you ate that apple because you were hungry. Not OK--- It is understandable that you cut your arm off since the slight muscle pain was bothering you. For real though rioting is never reasonable.
#61 - stillhearingvoices (6 hours ago) [-]
There's more information about the riots.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 75 / Total items point value: 175

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #2 - talldumbdork (06/29/2014) [-]
I'll be your friend!
 Friends (0)