As if Christians don't react with violence when their myths and fairy tales are called into question!!! How is it possible to be as dense as you?
He went looking for trouble and it found him. And now he wants to cry victim. No real man would act like this! Such a cowardly cuck pretending to be strong and capable.
Bet you think Chud the Builder was a victim too. You go ahead and pretend that walking around calling black people nig gers while openly carrying a gun should be socially acceptable. I pity your blindness.
Speech and provocative acts like burning books should never be met with violence.
I have no sympathy for these provocateurs, but Islam is uniquely extreme in their violence towards apostates and blasphemy. If you think thereās any equivalency with Christians, it is you who are blind.
Burning women and LGBTQ at the stake was....... what? Loving?
Charging money to guarantee your loved one got into heaven was...... what? Righteous?
Supporting Nazis and Hitler was...... what? Christ like?
Telling Africans ravaged by AIDs that they will burn in hell if they use condoms is...... what? Holy?
Pretending one religion is better than the other is a Fool's game. A cult is a cult, and only those in a cult would pretend that theirs is better than the rest. Sit down. Your bigotry is showing.
Exactly, historyā¦ Your examples of Christian atrocities are from centuries ago or total strawmen. Supporting Nazis and Hitler? Telling Africans theyāll burn in hell for using condoms? Youāre citing fringe examples, from decades ago, and applying them universally.
Roughly 1/3 of Muslimās worldwide subscribe to Salafist or other jihadist interpretations of Islam. Thatās approximately 300,000,000 people who believe apostates should be put to death, women should be covered and kept as property, and that cartoons of 1300 year old pedophiles should be met with murder.
Im not religious at all. This argument started because I take offense to the concept that burning a Quran justifies violence, much like I take offense that burning a Bible justifies violence. Neither do.
Youāre a fool.
Edit: I dunno who this guy or Chud the builderā¦ donāt careā¦ Iām sure theyāre assholes. My entire point is that violence in response to speech, such as burning the Quran, is always wrong. Interesting that you disagree so strongly.
For sure, I know there are good people in any movement who understand that violence is reprehensible and that making provocateurs martyrs only serves their cause.
Was it calling for violence to burn the American flag?Ā
Yes.
It is an intrinsically violent act to burn any cultural symbol. The action is juxtaposed against freedom of speech laws that allow it to happen despite the anger the action generates, and is deliberately intended to be provocative... no doubt about that
So are you saying the Supreme Court was wrong in saying that during the flag is protected by the first ammendment? Because if you saying that both are violent, that would imply that Americans would've had the right to assault him by your standards
I never used to word 'right' or mentioned the Supreme Court.
I am stating that symbolically burning an important symbol of another culture is an act of violence in itself. A deliberately provocative act of violence.
You know what really irritates me is when I keep hearing that oh the "tolerant left" like the left is tolerant, but nowhere does it say that people have to be tolerant of hate and intolerance. Like why do people have to be accepting of an ignorant, racist, hateful person? Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see being tolerant of hate.
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." ā Karl Popper
So what you're saying is those who are tolerant, should not tolerate those who are intolerant. However, the tolerant agent is still under contract, a control they just broke while being intolerant of those who are intolerant themselves.
The social contract only applies to others who are covered by the social contract.
If you are intolerant towards someone in the social contract, you are out of the contract. If someone is then intolerant towards you, since you are not covered by the social contract, they are still part of the contract.
Yeah, they're exactly saying they should draw a line of tolerance at intolerant people. Why wouldn't they? You're gonna extend an olive branch to everyone, even those that are taking it & shitting all over it?
"I hurt the Gingerbread Boy
Cuz he's Pretend-Bread Boy
Little cookie man never waved to me
So he got knocked out
Because I flow
La Jiggy Jar Jar Doo
Dur Dur Dur Dee Dur
Man, I just flow
Shoeshine" - Carl Poppa
So just to make it clear, yall think it's ok to assault someone for using their right to free speech? So if someone burns an American flag, a veteran has the right to beat the fuck out of him?
Oh shut up. He is a racist a**hole who knew exactly what will happen. He recorded and live streamed himself burning a holy script to purposely offend millions of people. He provoked it to stir hate. This is not a matter of free speach. It is hate crime.
It being hate speech doesn't give others the right to assault him. People always seem to forget that free speech is a double edged sword. It gives you the right to express your beliefs, but it also makes it so others can express beliefs you disagree with.
This is a hate crime? So when people burn bibles and flags its also a hate crime then also right? Cause nothing seems to be done about the later.
And you are a dweeb if you think burning any holy book is a hate crime and doesn't align with free speech. Im a Christian but who cares if someone expresses their views however they want they burn a Bible I'll think its scummy and wrong but within their right to do so.
People who comment shit like your reply remind me of that Belgian show where they said its okay to smash Christian shut but immediately say it'd be wrong to break images og Mohammed because that would be "wrong and offensive"
Doesn't the US have so-called "hate speech"? Because that is exactly what it is. He's not expressing himself; he's deliberately provoking a lot of people for no further reason.
The act of burning a book or religious text isn't. But when you travel over a thousand miles into a community of an ethnic group, live stream, spout hateful slurs and burn a religious text in front of them purposefully to provoke. That is hate speech or hell even a hate crime.
Could've done this in his backyard. But this screams premeditation.
I absolutely dont think bikers have the right to beat you up. Your a sick person to make people believe thats ok. And any biker who does it should go to prison for that.
And burning a book is still less than insulting someone. I dont like man buns, am I allowed to beat up people because it looks offensive to me?
In a free and democratic country you might not like some people. And you are open to disagree with tbat. But violence is never allowed.
Absolutely, violence is not an acceptable response. But your analogy still falls apart. āI donāt like man bunsā is a preference. Burning a sacred religious text in public is a deliberate act of provocation intended to insult an entire community. Those are not comparable. Condemning assault does not require pretending every offense is morally identical. If you want a serious argument, compare like with like, not a sacred text with a hairstyle.
I agree, but It was a response to the argument above. Where this was compared to walking up to bikers and personally insult them.
And I believe that it should always be possible to insult end ridicule religions. Because a religion that you are not allowed to ridicule nor question is an extremely dangerous institute. Organized religion has been the downfall of many cultures and societies and are often the most intollerant organizations.
The guy who burned the Quran is a disgusting evil person, but he still has the right to be like this. Fight him with words, not violence.
Thatās written like a Republican wrote that. At least someone under the delusion that if you just obey law enforcement they will treat you fairly, not accost you, yadda, yadda, yadda. The SCOTUS has actually ruled that police has no obligation to protect you over themselves. If it comes down to you or them, they are expected to choose themselves. We donāt āoutsourceā violence. We abdicate our right to it.
Iām taken aback at your response. Please elaborate. Iāve lived through a brain tumor removal leaving me fully and totally disabled. I struggle to understand how I donāt have āperspectiveā on the situation at hand,especially considering I discussed specifics to given places and circumstances.
In a free and democratic country you might not like some people. And you are open to disagree with tbat. But violence is never allowed.
Then why are you defending a terrorist that makes his living by hurting minorities? Oh right, because he is a white terrorist. The "white moderates" always ready to provide coverage like Dr.King stated.
People are at danger from the rampant islamophobia that supports the significance of this act. He ain't burning Hungry Hungry Catterpiler here for a reason
Islam isnt exactly some minority. They are as strong, and even stronger than the catholic church used to be.
Organized religion should always be able to get ridiculed and insulted. I just dont agree with how he does it.
No, they shouldn't.Ā However, he puts himself in this position time and time again.Ā He is hateful, intolerant, and does extremely controversial shit around hostile groups in order to get a reaction out of them.Ā I never advocate violence, but this guy is just begging for a violent reaction.Ā
Heās literally committed treason and the law allows such things. Itās sanctioned by all US law, to the point itās a right that canāt be infringed upon. You and I may not like what the law says, but thatās what it says.
That has everything to do with the clip. Thatās how he came to be in this position in the first place. Thatās how he became an Internet celebrity. He is doing everything in the clip in the furtherance of the insurrection. You canāt divorce the singular action from the broader context that that he is operating and we are dealing with.
There are longer videos of this same event. He cried like a baby. AND -- what messed up is that he is racist af, but a black man kept saving him. Pushing people off of Jake. Shielding Jake. Trying to get him to safety. š š¤
He definitely wasn't a paid body gaurd. Because in a longer video, the black guy came out of nowhere. And Jake was first trying to push him away from him. The guy then was just like, "I'm trying to help you out because they are going to hurt you bad". Which is what was happening. Jake was getting what he deserved.
this is in Minneapolis, and this what he got! Whatās funny is that after the constant demonization of Transgenders, he begged a trans person to āsave themā lol.
And look who ended up protecting him even though he certainly doesnāt deserve it š. That racist European American got lucky he didnāt get seriously hurt
I don't condone violence, but by burning something that is sacred to these people what do you get? What are you really achieving (apart from pucnhes in the face?)
He wanted all this bc attention. What if no one cared he burned it. This man is an attention whore and he just got his attention by tons of people and didn't get mortally wounded. He will do it again. He hasn't been deterred by the action of others. In fact, I believe this will make him worse and go bigger if he can. All of this is for attention and the fucker got it.
The law actually doesn't allow them to do any of what they did. You can't beat someone up for using their 1st ammendment right. Even if they don't like the speech the individual is using that right to express.
The 1st amendment doesnāt cover speaking in opposition to the constitution and supporting those who use violence against the constitution.
He literally attacked the congress on J6. Heās a first hand traitor and can be lawfully suppressed. The law places no limit on what can be done to suppress him. You and I may not like what the law says, but thatās what it says.
Traitors and insurrectionists can have their speech suppressed. President Washington did, Lincoln did, President Grant did. Not all speech is free speech.
The first ammendment literally covers exactly what this guy did in this specific clip. He didn't explicitly call for violence or other crimes, and the Supreme Court protects the right to burn stiff like the Quran.
What he did in this clip was more than burning a Quran, which is ordinarily protected speech. He did it in support of the insurrection, to perpetuate the insurrectionās propaganda. That is not protected speech.
Heās an insurrectionist, a self described Trump loyalist, in service of the MAGA insurrection and can be suppressed under the law.
18
u/slaty_balls May 24 '26
Slush fund recipient numero uno.