What does it feel to live in a reddit country?

What does it feel to live in a reddit country?

Invited: scandicucks, northern euro cunts, burgers

NOT invited: Balkan niggers, bydlos, macacos.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/MbiAHnjHlHg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

America isn't a reddit country

It is

100% reddit

reddit is barely known in my country

HOLAAAAA REEEDIT :DDDDDDDDD

this is the comment of a redditor.

>re

go back to /b grease

You forgot the leafs
youtu.be/MbiAHnjHlHg

t. rumanei cigani

>mfw massive oldfag
>literally ditched 4chin for plebbit two years ago
at least the kids there arent edgy autists

The only actual Reddit country is Denmark.

Quiet, sterile, and boring,

L.O.L.

there are a lot of edgy autist subreddits but they keep it more contained than here

It's true though. We don't have any socialist policies, truly left parties, or any other hallmarks of a reddit country.

stfu it ahs nothing to do with socialism, in your countries you all have a job, laws are respected, people always smile and never backstab you, no relevant mafia, gypsies or other shit.

>We don't have any socialist policies
You have food stamps and gibsmedat.

>NOT invited: macacos.

america is literally the festering grounds for the sjw movement la
it always starts from there

Section8, medicaid, obama-phone, foodstamps, affirmative action etcetc

But the thing is, SJWs are people who want America to be more like Europe

does europe have safe spaces, feminist gamer reviewers, word triggering etc
that's america through and through

maybe in britain

>he doesn't know sweden

Surprising lack of leafs in this thread.

trump is a literal redditor

>You have food stamps and gibsmedat.
Every country worth mentioning has a basic welfare system.

>Section8
Subsidized housing is found in every civilized nation.

>medicaid
It hogs almost no resources at all in comparison to the bloated to all hell eurocuck socialist single payer model.
>foodstamps
Welfare is not a uniquely American phenomena.
>affirmative action
That is also far from a uniquely American phenomena.

>does europe have safe spaces
Gun control cucks have indeed turned most of yurop into a "safe space" for criminals, who need not fear victims violently telling off aggressive thugs.

Americans know better.

>muh gunz
this was never an issue in europe, at least in greece.
Villagers had guns for hunting and because police was potentially slower to react, but city folk didn't need to act like rambo in their everyday life.

That's probably because we were rather civil people and up until violent immigrants started to arrive from ex commie states and mena we were closely knit communities and when violent crime happened it was a scandal

america had niggers from the get go, needing guns to survive is failure of your state, not something to be proud of, despite the forced memes here.

...

>america had niggers from the get go, needing guns to survive is failure of your state, not something to be proud of, despite the forced memes here.
The police is not obligated to risk his/her life to save yours, nor do they usually respond quickly enough to be presented with such a dilemma.

The right to self-defense is a cornerstone of civilized society, in which law-abiding citizens may protect their life, liberty and property from both common bandits and the government. Without arms, you are a powerless slave beholden to do the bidding of whoever dares use force to gain what he/she wants.

There is no pride to be found in advocating a system that, in true feudal fashion, favors the strong (men) over the weak (women, children, the elderly, the sick, the disabled) - that is uncivilized, ruthless barbarism without a place in the modern era.

Free availability of firearms favors the common man and hurts the tyrant. Neck yourself, cryptofascist.

Vancouver is the most reddit place on earth

Of course this Finnish autist buys into America's insane obsession with guns and violence in general. He's probably planning on shooting up a school or something

...

>cryptofascist
ugh, that's problematic

>tfw romania isnt a balkan cunt : ^ )

Hi I'm Nigger

Reddit isn't leftist either

cont.

You don´t "need" to be a disarmed cuck either, just as you do not "need" to enjoy the freedom to express yourself orally and in writing. Fortunately for the rest of us and unfortunately for you, civilized nations are not built around the concept of "need", but rather around the concept of "right"; were it the other way around, our rulers could harass and coerce us to no end, as long as they were to provide us with food, clothing and shelter - i.e. with the only things human beings NEED for their survival.

Have you seen governments do that in modern days?

I imagine what he was talking about is something along the lines of "If your state is so incompetent that they can't even release you from the necessity of firearms, you are fucked".

I could be wrong though. Just watching you two go on about it.

There´s nothing autistic about believing in the concept of a right to keep and bear arms. In fact, I would go as far as to say that not believing in it is a sign of psychopathy, for who else would deny his fellow man the tools needed for excercising man´s most fundamental instinct: the perservation of one´s self.

Du är en typisk hjärntvättad socialist, vars livsöde är att leva och dö som en livegen tjänare. En vacker dag får du förhoppningsvis betala dyrt för ditt banala förhållningssätt till maktens viktigaste politiska verktyg.

didnt get shot or run over by a truck today, so pretty good

Yeah it is.

Reddit is a US based website, we are reddit: the country.

>I imagine what he was talking about is something along the lines of "If your state is so incompetent that they can't even release you from the necessity of firearms, you are fucked".
That is what he said. That very same sentence also makes zero sense, because no governor in the world is completely benevolent (and thus never to be trusted with absolute power) and no society is free from violent dregs who would hurt the innocent for any- no matter how petty or insignificant - gain.

The necessity of firearms springs from the inherently violent and unpredictable disposition of all human beings. Anyone that wants to disarm you, empower the state and attempts to justify it all with "public safety" is an untrustworthy weasel at best, and the next world-renowned warmongering massmurderer head-of-state at worst.

Do redditors know that they are despised here? What's reddits opinion on Sup Forums?

The government does not possess obsolute power though.

I do agree with you the people are inherently bad, still I'm more concerned with the brains in our societies and how to get them served first and foremost.

I've met nutjobs and filthy hunters who love the idea of being armed; Haven't met chemists, physicists or matemathicians who enjoy even the thought of it.

cont.
>Have you seen governments do that in modern days?
Plenty of governments abuse their people in this day and age. The answer is thus a resounding "yes".

By posing this question, you have also admitted to believing in one of the great lies of our times: that "modernity" has in any way changed human nature; that we are any less primitive and aggressive as a species than we were 1000, 2000 or 10 000 years ago. In regard to our general taste for violence and savagery, we are no more "evolved" than the ancient Romans or Egyptians. Need I remind you that "modern" nations continue - to this day - to extrajudicially maim and kill political dissidents, legally execute lawbreakers, and wage wars with dubious motivations.

stop

Avoid the cities and you're good.

>The government does not possess obsolute power though.
It does if it manages to disarm the common man.

>I've met nutjobs and filthy hunters who love the idea of being armed; Haven't met chemists, physicists or matemathicians who enjoy even the thought of it.
Chemists, physicists and mathematicians only differ from rednecks in this matter in that they are smart enough not to brag about their willingness to defend what is rightfully theirs. It is easier to ward off aggressors who attack you under the assumption that you lack a strong will and spine.

Plenty of American - and non-American, for that matter - philosophers, lawyers, and men of science defend and propagate a free society.

cont.

PS. Intelligence does not necessarily rid a man of all faults of character. The most brutal totalitarian figures of human history were no doubt as clever as they come, despite - due to various circumstances - displaying gross errors in judgement during their time as "top dog", so to speak.

Stalin was a bright nutjob who loved to disarm and kill political dissidents. Does this, in your opinion, make him a man of admirable qualities? No? In that case, why do you insist on depicting supporters of individual liberty as "nutjobs and filthy hunters"?

It has though, murder rate across the world has massive decreased from what it was when we were hunter gatherers

Never said the times made people good.

>extrajudicially maim and kill political dissidents, legally execute lawbreakers, and wage wars with dubious motivations.

Can't disagree with you there. But ligally executing -hideous criminals- is a good thing in my eyes.

The point you seem to be trying to make here is "should the government go bad, I wish I could have weapons". In which case I do agree, I just don't see it happening, since governants can't do much on their own, their ability to impose a violent dictatorship on you is non-existent.

>It has though, murder rate across the world has massive decreased from what it was when we were hunter gatherers
I must´ve missed the memo: at what exact point did hunter gatherers did initiate wars with the end result of human slaughter numbering in the tens of millions?

I was using hyperbole to make a point, and it still stands.

PS. The "murder rate" will not stretch out its helping hand to unarmed victims of lethal violence, of which there are countless victims annually. Daily reminder: protecting life and limb from unauthorized force by the use of arms was fully legal for all British subjects until the post-Great War years. The official reason for the disarmament of ordinary Britons? They were a threat to the people in power, as reported to Parliament by a man named Blackwell in the year 1920.

>In which case I do agree, I just don't see it happening, since governants can't do much on their own, their ability to impose a violent dictatorship on you is non-existent.
What makes you say this? Are you not aware of the People´s Party of China, the Soviet Union or 20th century history in general?

You are bafflingly wrong in your assumptions. Government can in fact do whatever it wants, with or without the support of average mortals - history has proven it time and time again.

Do you not know what the word rate means? Hunter gatherers had/still have death rates of about 50 percent when they went to war.

You were also much more likely to get murdered by someone in a non war setting, which I assume is what that ranting third paragraph is referring to. Tbh you sound a bit like you have mental issues from the way you type

The society is, in fact, already free. Of course, there are still gay and trans people who suffer the weight of prejudice, but as I see it: These are transition times, they should get their rights just as everyone else does. Should they simply start shooting people in this case?

>...defend what is rightfully theirs.

We have absolutely no natural rights. We should be focusing on science, your ability to laugh at will, your chances of succeeding in life and maintaining a society that holds these dearly. Not going crazy about owning guns and worrying about things such as impossible dictatorships.

>Stalin
>Hitler
>Bright

I agree the people working for them might have been, they on the other hands were merely nutjobs.

>individual liberty

We need a government to grant us such things, you are worrying the government will give it to you, then take it away?

Talking raw numbers =/= talking percentage =/= They could do it to use the bones and leather of their fellow man.

Yes I am aware of it. I simply can't see it happening in days where no man would die for their government, and all men would die defending their way of life and family -only-.

Canada is Reddit.
The US is Facebook.

>The society is, in fact, already free.
Your society is as far from free as they come.
>gay rights
>Should they simply start shooting people in this case?
They should shoot you for being stupid enough to bring their marginally inconveniencing fringe-issues into a discussion about individual liberty.

Homosexuals can marry in Taiwan. Does that make Taiwan a free country?

>We have absolutely no natural rights.
You misunderstood me. "Defending what is rightfully one´s own" is an English expression, which essentially translates to "defending that which one holds dear". Your lack of explicitly confirmed, God-given natural rights does not necessitate you to grant the robber your money; the military your service, or the murderer your life.

>We should be focusing on science, your ability to laugh at will, your chances of succeeding in life and maintaining a society that holds these dearly. Not going crazy about owning guns and worrying about things such as impossible dictatorships.
>Not going crazy about owning guns and worrying about things such as impossible dictatorships.
Good man. This final confirmation of your feeble mind killed any further interest I had in debating you.

>I agree the people working for them might have been, they on the other hands were merely nutjobs.
Here you go again, parroting what mommy taught you about "evil men".

>I simply can't see it happening in days where no man would die for their government, and all men would die defending their way of life and family -only-.
Such is not the world we live in. You should not mistake a lack of Brazilian patrotism for the total abscence of patriotism in every corner of the world.

>Your society is as far from free as they come.

Care to defend?

>They should shoot you for being stupid enough to bring their marginally inconveniencing fringe-issues into a discussion about individual liberty.

Still an individual liberty.

>defending that which one holds dear

And do you see people willing to die for a government? Because I covered that same instance.

>and all men would die defending their way of life and family -only-.

---------------

>Not going crazy about owning guns and worrying about things such as impossible dictatorships.
Good man. This final confirmation of your feeble mind killed any further interest I had in debating you.

>I agree the people working for them might have been, they on the other hands were merely nutjobs.
Here you go again, parroting what mommy taught you about "evil men".

>I simply can't see it happening in days where no man would die for their government, and all men would die defending their way of life and family -only-.
Such is not the world we live in. You should not mistake a lack of Brazilian patrotism for the total abscence of patriotism in every corner of the world.

1st and 2nd point disregarded.

3rd: Well, be my guest to go on with your life then.

>Lack of brazilian patriotism

Not the lack of it, I simply don't see my country changing, which is a good thing. Plus I love our way of life, I just can't bring myself to love a government.

Whenever Finland decides to slaughter it's citizens, please do post it on int. Will be the one thing that would bring me to buying into this sort of thinking.