Click to expand


Last status update:
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 19
Steam Profile: johnthegamer19
Date Signed Up:10/15/2011
Last Login:7/05/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#4860
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
Content Views:1926
Total Comments Made:138
FJ Points:1030

Funny Pictures

  • Views: 827
    Thumbs Up 14 Thumbs Down 8 Total: +6
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 06/09/12
    Title Title

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
User avatar #42 - sketchE (07/04/2015) [-]
if you have them on pc id suggest getting tale of two wastelands. it lets you play through them both with one character and you can ADS in FO3
#32 - So I actually bought both Fallout: New Vegas and Fallout 3 GOT…  [+] (8 new replies) 07/03/2015 on A Fallout comp +1
User avatar #60 - funpunk (07/04/2015) [-]
I'd recommend starting with 3. It's more beginner-friendly.
#33 - tapeboy (07/03/2015) [-]
yes. legit doesn't matter. but things you should know in three you can't aim down your sites and in nv you can't sprint.
User avatar #54 - fitemeirlbro (07/04/2015) [-]
You can't Sprint in 3
#59 - tapeboy (07/04/2015) [-]
thought in three you could sprint if you had a high enough agility
User avatar #61 - fitemeirlbro (07/04/2015) [-]
Nope no sprinting
#62 - tapeboy (07/04/2015) [-]
huh. will have to play again.
User avatar #34 - jomeara (07/03/2015) [-]
Sweet, thank you
User avatar #42 - sketchE (07/04/2015) [-]
if you have them on pc id suggest getting tale of two wastelands. it lets you play through them both with one character and you can ADS in FO3
#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.

Wonderful idea.
User avatar #338 - anonymoose (06/29/2015) [-]
A permanent fix*
#255 - John Cena (06/29/2015) [-]
It's the person's choice to go through it, and most of them are happy in the years that come with the hormone therapy. I'm pretty sure if there was an operation to 'fix' schizophrenia over taking an ass-load of pills (that don't work 100% of the time), you'd get a bunch of schizophrenics with parts of their brains cut out.

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
User avatar #297 - perform (06/24/2015) [-]
He even has the fucking Starbucks cup.
User avatar #265 - abesimpson (06/24/2015) [-]
Indeed he is allowed to do it. That's why it's a free country.

That said, it's still not going to stop someone from beating the shit out of him. So its still not a very good idea. Depends how offensive one can be in public.
#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.
User avatar #278 - abesimpson (06/24/2015) [-]
I'm not justifying it but you try holding a "I hate niggers" sign in public like in that scene with Bruce Willis and see what happens.
#284 - John Cena (06/24/2015) [-]
It'll only prove why I hate them if they think beating me up will solve anything.
#303 - abesimpson (06/24/2015) [-]
Assuming you survive yelling I hate niggers in da hood
#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.
#241 - biater (06/24/2015) [-]
First they came for the trade unionists, but I wasn't a trade unionist...
User avatar #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) [-]
There's something called "fighting words" meaning this shit actually isn't protected by the first amendment. so yeah hate speech actually is illegal and people have been arrested for less than what this guy is doing. paying attention in government class sure was hard for a lot of people huh? but lots of people read the Constitution once and think they know everything so it's not just you.

tl;dr the guy with the sign is not protected by the first amendment and hopefully went to prison.
User avatar #387 - whinyjunk (06/25/2015) [-]
Why is everyone such a fucking faggot? fuck you, you fucking faggot.
User avatar #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.
#377 - drummaman (06/25/2015) [-]
yes he is, just like when the supreme court ruled in a favor of west boro babtist church
User avatar #345 - lonelybaloney (06/25/2015) [-]
what are you on, whatareyouon?
User avatar #309 - ubercookieboy (06/25/2015) [-]
7/10 almost fell for it.

Would read your bait again
#294 - presentdent (06/24/2015) [-]
Fighting words have repeatedly been disputed by the supreme court and they have regretted that decision ever since. Take your commie shit elsewhere, man.
User avatar #289 - slapchoppin (06/24/2015) [-]
well if fighting words are illegal then its no wonder the world is being pussified

if someone is saying fighting words then you fight them

no need to bring the law into it
#269 - whitie (06/24/2015) [-]
#403 - phantompaladin (06/25/2015) [-]
User avatar #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
User avatar #419 - phantompaladin (06/26/2015) [-]
i think you mistook the point of my reply.

threatening is not spelt "threath"ening
User avatar #406 - whitie (06/25/2015) [-]
*Whatareyouon* not anon
#257 - slendermanvagina (06/24/2015) [-]
User avatar #258 - slendermanvagina (06/24/2015) [-]
thems fightn words
User avatar #255 - circularsquare (06/24/2015) [-]
>government class
Kekasaurus Rex
User avatar #193 - moldybreadcrumb (06/24/2015) [-]
government class? do other schools have that?
#165 - MrHighflier (06/24/2015) [-]
you communist faggot.
#107 - John Cena (06/24/2015) [-]
shut up you communist faggot
#39 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
Actually he is protected under the constitution in reference to R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) and this could be argued more to incitement not fighting words.
#342 - ogloko (06/25/2015) [-]
that ruling was mostly based on the statute they were charged under. i think this could still be considered fighting words or hate speech and thus not protected
User avatar #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.
User avatar #353 - respirator (06/25/2015) [-]
Ah, so Communism.
#296 - presentdent (06/24/2015) [-]
So, basically, it's awful and unfree. No wonder I dislike Canada.

You saying mean words doesn't impede on anyone's rights.
User avatar #375 - ericzxvc (06/25/2015) [-]
Considering we're the 6th most free country and you're the 12th I don't think you can really describe us as "unfree".
#404 - presentdent (06/25/2015) [-]
As if there's an unbiased body that declares the "freeness" of countries. We ain't got no aliens to look at us from a non-nationalistic perspective.

(Also, take a joke.)
User avatar #235 - wellimnotsure (06/24/2015) [-]
I knew Canada sucked somehow
User avatar #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.
User avatar #194 - ronniesan (06/24/2015) [-]
That's fucking shitty. No one is impeding on anyone elses rights in this video.
User avatar #372 - ericzxvc (06/25/2015) [-]
"That's fucking shitty"
I'm sorry what place sounds better, one where people can carry around signs saying "you deserve rape" or one where you can't?

If you could make what the Westboro Baptist Church does illegal you're telling me you wouldn't?
User avatar #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.
User avatar #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.
User avatar #381 - grogabusk (06/25/2015) [-]
Definitely the place where you can carry the signs. They aren't censoring people.

Yeah, it's a shitty thing to say to someone, but god dammit, the man can say what he wants.

You communist canada loving faggot
User avatar #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.
User avatar #313 - toosexyforyou (06/25/2015) [-]
No wonder everyone hates Canadians.
#288 - ronniesan (06/24/2015) [-]
Grow a sack you fucking commie
#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.
#300 - kingderps (06/24/2015) [-]
Don't bother. Non-Americans can't grasp the concept of free speech. They're too stuck on "offensive" being a crime.
User avatar #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.
#273 - xgolgothax (06/24/2015) [-]
"on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender"

"You deserve rape" - applies to everyone equally. "You" applies to exactly everyone reading the sign.
User avatar #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.
User avatar #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.
User avatar #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.
User avatar #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.
User avatar #26 - MegaAwesomeSauce (06/16/2015) [-]
Nah man, you punch a colleague while drunk, you're fucking gone mate. Why should it be any different just because it's a famous person?
#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
#18 - fjantasjell (06/10/2015) [-]
huh, that last one was actually pretty real.
#33 - To add some backstory, I read where this was originally posted… 06/09/2015 on Oops I ran a red light 0
[ 138 Total ]

user's friends


Total unique items point value: 1050 / Total items point value: 1250
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - datgrass (06/25/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
 Friends (0)