Click to expand
Rank #4860 on CommentsLevel 203 Comments: Comedic Genius
OfflineSend mail to jomeara Block jomeara Invite jomeara to be your friend flag avatar
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||10/15/2011|
|Funnyjunk Career Stats|
|Highest Content Rank:||#30060|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#2611|
|Content Thumbs:||2 total, 17 , 19|
|Comment Thumbs:||1437 total, 1522 , 85|
|Content Level Progress:|| 3.38% (2/59) |
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
|Comment Level Progress:|| 20% (2/10) |
Level 203 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 204 Comments: Comedic Genius
|Total Comments Made:||138|
- Views: 827Title
14 8 Total: +6
latest user's comments
|#724 - **jomeara used "*roll picture*"** **jomeara rolled image **||07/03/2015 on Roll for your superpower||0|
|#34 - Sweet, thank you [+] (1 new reply)||07/03/2015 on A Fallout comp||0|
|#32 - So I actually bought both Fallout: New Vegas and Fallout 3 GOT… [+] (8 new replies)||07/03/2015 on A Fallout comp||+1|
|#70 - This will probably get red thumbed to **** , but here's … [+] (4 new replies)||06/29/2015 on title||+40|
#409 - John Cena (06/29/2015) [-]
thank you! my aunt changed gender some years ago from male to female and honestly i see no problem with it, she's a girly girl but not at all extreme or overkill, she's very simply a female. now i have also know lots of "lesbian men" who where females with short hair who would flip shit if you called one of them "she"... or even "he", those bitches just want to be mad, and of course much of it is because they hate them selves but push it back in their mind so they get unsure who to be mad at or even what gender they are, i dont comment much on gender related topics mainly because i just find it sad, not very funny when people hate them selves enough to "be gender-fluid" or whatever
#221 - John Cena (06/29/2015) [-]
A temporary fix to a mental illness is to permanently fuck up your body.
#255 - John Cena (06/29/2015) [-]
If it sounds stupid but works, it ain't stupid. You let us know when you come up with something better.
|#391 - Mention PLS||06/24/2015 on Cringe #48||0|
|#10 - Now, I don't support some kind of asshole that says you deserv… [+] (58 new replies)||06/24/2015 on 100% Triggered||+279|
#385 - failtotheepicpower (06/25/2015) [-]
oh come on, calling that obvious hate speech what it is by no means makes you a SJW. ffs, you're no better than a tumblr person going "that guy looks like a total rapist!"
I found the source on youtube and in the six minutes the guy only appears like 2 times. It's a rather fun watch, actually www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPgk0Hv-eTc
#267 - John Cena (06/24/2015) [-]
And how does beating someone up make them any better? Oh, he is saying something I disagree with lets beat the fuck out of him and go to jail.
#284 - John Cena (06/24/2015) [-]
It'll only prove why I hate them if they think beating me up will solve anything.
#326 - John Cena (06/25/2015) [-]
That'd be disturbing the peace if I yell it, pretty sure the agreement was to hold a sign.
#234 - wellimnotsure (06/24/2015) [-]
The problem comes when people think other people need to listen to them. You are free to say whatever you want, but anyone else is free to call you a stupid shit. You don't get protection from that. People think their opinions deserve to be heard. You have the right to have an opinion, I have the right to call your opinion stupid.
#144 - John Cena (06/24/2015) [-]
its mocking people without any reason
its the same as you cant go shout at people on the streets just because of "free speech"
no one cares about it, but id guess if some police dewd wandering around would want to do something about it hed be able to
#28 - whatareyouon (06/24/2015) [-]
tl;dr the guy with the sign is not protected by the first amendment and hopefully went to prison.
#383 - greyhoundfd (06/25/2015) [-]
"Fighting words" are words intended to start a fight or incite violence. They aren't words that are just controversial. There was a case on this, Texas v Johnson, where the justices wrote that "The government cannot assume that every single expression of a controversial idea will incite a riot" and ruled in Johnson's favor. This is the same thing. Just because your political ideas are controversial doesn't mean that the government can ban those ideas. If the Klan or Neo-Nazis can have rallies demanding the death of Jews or Blacks, then that's condemnable but not illegal.
#405 - whitie (06/25/2015) [-]
Certain speech is illegal if it's directly threatening to someone else for example "I'll kill you and your whole family"
Im just wondering whether whatareyouanon has mistaken this for a threat (which doesn't apply because its an accusation of guilt, not an open invitation to rape women)
Or if he's genuinely ignorant of the law and thinks his biased perception of "fighting words" somehow overrides the constitutional right to say whatever non threatening speech you so desire regardless of how vile it is
#107 - John Cena (06/24/2015) [-]
shut up you communist faggot
#125 - subaqueousreach (06/24/2015) [-]
In Canada you would be arrested for hate speech, public indecency, and probably a couple other things for doing something like this.
In the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, everyone is entitled to freedom of speech. However, should your speech or actions infringe on the rights of others, then your right of speech is revoked and you will be silenced.
This goes for any basic human right. Once your actions take away someone else's rights, your rights are no longer respected by the law. At the very least you'll be spending the day in holding and charged with misconduct.
The Charter basically reads "Treat others as you wish to be treated" in a very long and roundabout way.
#204 - klick (06/24/2015) [-]
To the people thumbing this guy down; I don't get why. He is correct. In Canada, you are free to have an opinion and express that opinion with free speech. However, if you abuse that freedom and begin harassing or verbally attacking a person or group or people, you could winde up in jail for...I think up to 30 days.
#386 - greyhoundfd (06/25/2015) [-]
I hate what the WBC says, but that doesn't mean that I think they should be censored. Telling people what to say is one step away, and arguably the same thing, as telling them what to think, and there is nothing more fascist, barbaric, horrific- hell, I don't even think there are words in the English language that can fully express just how utterly repugnant and distasteful such a thing is.
I would never express it. I would sooner have my skin rubbed off with sandpaper then bathe in seawater than condone telling people what they can and can't say.
#382 - mychaelmoar (06/25/2015) [-]
If there's even the remote chance that someone can make everything you want to say or believe in illegal because it offends them? I'll pave the fucking way for WBC no matter how terrible a reputation they gives Christians like myself.
I want to be able to speak my piece about my faith, just as a Muslim would his. If a law were to deny me because of the precedent of white-Christian-heritage causing some sort of prejudice or otherwise, but promote him, that would be bully.
#222 - subaqueousreach (06/24/2015) [-]
>You Deserve Rape
No one deserves rape. It is a terrible, terrible thing. Everyone has the right to say "No, I don't want to have sex with you" and deserves to have that respected. By saying they deserve to be raped you're taking away their right to say no to a situation by forcing it on them. That is very much infringing on their human rights.
If you genuinely believe this guy is doing nothing wrong then you make me very, very sad.
#260 - grandterskrasao (06/24/2015) [-]
Okay, but what right is he infringing on? The pursuit of happiness? Ignore the fucker, hes a prat. The right to vote? nigga where the booth at?
No rights are getting impeded. Hes a piece of shit for sure, but there are no rights getting harmed by him being a piece of shit.
#243 - John Cena (06/24/2015) [-]
He's still not taking their rights away by speech. Which was your previous argument.
#47 - whatareyouon (06/24/2015) [-]
That case did slightly change the definition of fighting words the changes are below
all that was removed was "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others"
the remained terms are "words intended to insult, or provoke violence, "on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender."
His sign was intended to insult/provoke violence. his words were fighting words he could have been arrested and sent to prison.
the case you highlighted merely commented on the possible slippery slope of fighting words, but they redefined the terms.
so actually what he is doing IS NOT protected by the first amendment.
#249 - dopeydoo (06/24/2015) [-]
no, it isn't.
Just because his sign may be the cause of violence if some butthurt sjw attacks him, the words themselves aren't provoking violence. That would apply if it said something along the lines of "I'm gonna rape you", which is a provocation of violent intent.
Likewise, his message isn't intended to insult on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender. Just because we know that he probably is targeting female tumbler warriors, the sign simply says "you deserve rape." It says nothing about any group or gender. If his sign said "all women deserve to be violently raped" or "Rape the niggers", then he could be penalized.
As it is, his sign is just an idea to agree or disagree with. Just like when Westboro holds the "God hates fags" signs. Because, boiled down, Free speech protects all speech that isn't directly dangerous speech, such as a threat, or yelling FIRE in a movie theater. That's why the KKK and neo-nazis are allowed to protest and to march, why Westboro Baptist Church is allowed to even exist, and why the very Tumblr SJWs he's intending this for aren't jailed for hate speech against men.
If he was arrested, and fought his case in a court of law, he would win 10/10 times.
#49 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
Under that same idea then the Cohen v California case where Cohen had worn a jacket that said "Fuck the Draft" which would have the near to exact sort of idea as the sign in question, But that was decided to be protected under the constitution. Or the Street v New York case in 1969 that overturned the prohibition of burning the flag or verbally abusing it and its symbolism. Also neat added fact in the Street V. New York case wold be this little adage holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". The sign is Offensive but is not fighting words.
#55 - whatareyouon (06/24/2015) [-]
Cohen v California: that case didn't go through because it lacked the "personal attack" criteria, you don't even know what the actually criteria are for "fighting words".
what that guy is doing includes all the necessary criteria to send him to prison. You are also using older evidence vs newer evidence which basically makes your argument worthless. especially since the newer evidence R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul redefined "fighting words" (not trying to be mean, this is how a judge would see it)
#57 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
Im going off the sign itself because that is your arguement that you are making. Not trying to be a dick but we still have other things in place to look at not just this is newer therefore more relevant. I still mention Street V New Yorker in the case of the sign because that is more relevant in this case regarding the sign. It is offensive but not fighting words.
#60 - whatareyouon (06/24/2015) [-]
yes, the reason he got away with that is because it didn't meet some of the criteria that particular judge used. flag burning is also considered protest meaning it serves another purpose.
The sign his guy is holding serves no other purpose than to anger and provoke violence.
#23 - alcantara (06/24/2015) [-]
Technically, you could say he is soliciting others to rape, given he is arguably using his free eech to advocate for rape; usually solicitation of any crime generates a degree of liability, so whilst he is exercising free speech, he is exercising it in a legally questionable manner.
People seem to forget that 'free speech' is actually 'free speech within these legally defined confines'
|#17 - Eh, I think that regardless of who Clarkson is, it's a bit of … [+] (4 new replies)||06/16/2015 on Clarkson||+1|
#68 - John Cena (06/16/2015) [-]
Tell you what, next time your boss does something that displeases you slightly, punch him in the jaw. See if you keep your job.
#24 - John Cena (06/16/2015) [-]
I study employment contract law and social law and the best solution is to not keep around a violent individual in the workplace no matter what the situation is.
#20 - unclewalrus (06/16/2015) [-]
It wasn't even fatigue.
He had been in a lot of emotional distress for quite some time when that happened. Furthermore, the dude he punched for doing a crap job shouldn't have been doing that job in the first place; that was a failing of the studio and the BBC.
So, yes. Have him take a hiatus from the show, potentially unpaid, put him in therapy to sort his life out, then get him working again.
Instead of, y'know, overlooking the underlying issue and just firing the sod.
On the other hand, the BBC did seem intent on getting rid of him for some time now; whenever he made some mildly offensive joke and idiots got butthurt and bitched to the BBC, it was he who got the blame for it. Despite the existence of an editing team that decides what makes the cut or not.
tl;dr: Fuck the BBC and their idiotic management decisions.
|#41 - hey man let me know||06/15/2015 on Best Pastas 17-1/?||0|
|#6 - Here's the rest of it. It's funny **** , but some o… [+] (1 new reply)||06/10/2015 on 2 Chainz lays down some facts||+9|
|#33 - To add some backstory, I read where this was originally posted…||06/09/2015 on Oops I ran a red light||0|