File: The Racist Tree.swf-(8.71 MB, Other)
[_] The Racist Tree Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)15:29 No.

Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)15:35 No.

  I feel bad for the racist tree.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)17:32 No.

  I don't get it.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:28 No.

  >>1846534
  The racist tree did not evolve socially, it just made the pact to appear not to be racist so that
  it wouldn't be ostracized. That's the joke-ish message at the end: that racists are still being
  racists, just that they are socially forced to leave their ideologies. But not inside. So social
  progress is not really something you force. It is something people grow to learn and understand
  in time.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:29 No.

  >>1846588
  But it was his apples. He had every right to deny the child apples. Why should the others hate it
  for his views?

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:30 No.

  >>1846588
  its like how i dont fap to loli in public

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:30 No.

  Hey Monsanto! where are you hiding these trees?

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:31 No.

  >>1846591
  A cynic would disapprove.

  If only your hunger could be cured by rubbing your stomach.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:34 No.

  >>1846590
  free speech and freedom of choice is a two way street. he has the right to deny a child apples,
  they have the right to deny him attention for his faulty and offensive reasoning

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:37 No.

  >>1846595
  His reasoning was offensive to him, but how was it faulty?

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:38 No.

  >>1846588
  you can't force a person to change their views, but you can force people to accept other views as
  the law of the land in order to allow for greater productivity and inclusiveness and to establish
  them as a cultural norm that later children will accept, like mandating speed limits or
  illegalizing segregation

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:38 No.

  >>1846595
  It seems unreasonable that ALL the children would refuse the racist tree, after all, he wasn't
  being racist to THEM.

  Besides, wouldn't the tree rather drop its apples and grow more little racist trees?

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:41 No.

  In the racist tree's defense, Sam WAS a nigger.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:45 No.

  >>1846597
  the children considered the reasoning faulty because it was a non-sequitur - what does being
  black have to do with giving apples? after being further pressed, the tree simply stayed
  steadfast in its decision, meaning the tree refuses to provide actual logic beyond "no apples for
  blacks.". thus, there's no other answer but to either not bring sam to the tree anymore or not
  acknowledge the tree, and because they dislike unreasonable intolerance more than they like
  apples and playing, they do the latter.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:50 No.

  >>1846605
  >Implying sam being a nigger isn't perfectly logical reasoning

  AROUND BLACKS
  NEVER RELAX

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:53 No.

  >>1846599
  contrary to popular belief, many people actually care about other people even though there is no
  immediate personal gain to be had; they're usually known as "friends", but friendly feelings can
  be expressed even without non-personal relationships. the children evidently considered sam a
  friend because they brought him to the tree that they loved so much and wanted him to have one of
  the apples that they enjoy.

  because the racist tree didn't want to provide an apple, the children felt that, even though
  there's no direct effect toward them, they care about their friend enough to be willing to
  support him by treating themselves as equals to him and not taking an apple.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:53 No.

  >>1846615
  >AROUND BLACKS
  >NEVER RELAX
  Someone hood this flash

  NAO

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:56 No.

  >>1846619
  But the racist tree had been nothing but kind to them before that.

  Shouldn't they consider the racist tree their friend as well? They're going to pick some stranger
  over their long and cherished friendship with the racist tree?

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:57 No.

  >>1846620
  By my calculations, the ideal hood entry-point is either around where Sam is revealed as black,
  or when the Racist tree calls Sam a Nigger.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:57 No.

  >>1846625
  obviously they're also racist, but not against people with black skin, against people with bark
  for skin

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:58 No.

  >>1846625
  They grew up being taught that no matter how good a person is in all aspects, if they're racist,
  they aren't worth anything

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:59 No.

  >>1846627
  But they're just fine with the tree until he refuses Sam the apple.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:59 No.

  >>1846628
  That's awful though. One aspect overwhelming an entire equation? There is no balance, no
  consideration there. Someone may be racist, but they still have great capacity for good.
  No one is perfect.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:01 No.

  >>1846631
  That's not what you're taught in school, TV, parents, newspapers, magazines and most of the
  internet

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:01 No.

  >>1846631
  It's just as bad, if not WORSE than being racist itself.

  The Children aren't the true villains here, it's Society.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:02 No.

  >>1846633
  Yeah, and all those places say 4chan is a place frequented only by criminal, racist paedophiles.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:04 No.

  >>1846635
  Big surprise. Free thought is against society and almost against the law

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:06 No.

  >>1846636
  >Thought Police
  >Don't you think you've had a bit too much to Think already?

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:06 No.

  >>1846625
  that's true, the racist tree was kind to them, and they did treat the tree as a friend by asking
  it why it won't give an apple to sam instead of just turning their backs on him immediately. but
  the tree refused to speak about it at all, so there was now an intractable difference between the
  children and the tree. there could even be new reason to question the friendship as well - did
  the tree only like them because they were not black? - but that's irrelevant. the only relevant
  point is that the children were left with a decision: support a longstanding friendship with
  someone who is illogically and (to them) revoltingly offensive, or stand up for what they feel is
  right.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:07 No.

  >>1846638
  Closed minds stop thought crimes, citizen.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:10 No.

  >>1846639
  Why can't being black be a reason in itself for the tree though? Why must it "explain" further
  than that, really?

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:11 No.

  >>1846645
  Because the kids were brainwashed

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:12 No.

  intelectual /f/aggots

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:16 No.

  >>1846650
  >intelectual

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:17 No.

  >>1846654
  Yes.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:18 No.

  It just means that if you wanna hate black people, do it subtlety with jokes and behind their
  backs with good company :)

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:18 No.

  >>1846645
  see
  >>1846595

  he doesn't have to defend anything, legally. he has the right to not give apples to anyone. but
  the children want to be friends with people (and trees) that aren't morally repugnant - which is
  their right as well. if the tree refuses to work with the children, there's no reason for the
  children to work with the tree. in the same way the tree shouldn't have to relinquish his
  beliefs, the children don't either.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:21 No.

  >>1846663
  >morally repugnant
  >free apples
  >obligation to hand out apples to anyone that demands of it

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:22 No.

  Can we archive a thread on /f/?

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:23 No.

  >>1846668
  They're automatically archived.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:27 No.

  >>1846631
  "good" is intrinsically subjective. perhaps the children believe that equal treatment and/or
  logical reason are mandatory qualities to being "good;" we don't know.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:29 No.

  >>1846666
  The tree has no obligation to give apples to everyone. However, having irrational hatred of one
  group of individuals will make some people think of you as morally repugnant.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:30 No.

  >>1846666
  more like

  >free apples
  >obligation to be consistent or logical

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:30 No.

  >>1846673
  meaning you're pretty much ascribing whatever values best suits your agenda in this story?

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:31 No.

  One thing I'd like to note. While I'm not speaking out against the idea that blacks aren't dumber
  or worse in any aspect by nature, even if the tree thought this way, it really wasn't an excuse
  to deny the apple.

  I doubt a young child would shank or otherwise harm the tree, and it seems silly to think that
  he'd deny dumber children apples. The tree is behaving in an irrational way in it's hatred of
  Sam. And while it certainly has the right to refuse apples to anyone it pleases to, the children
  have the same right to deny the tree their business.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:32 No.

  >>1846675
  i'm pretty sure you don't own it to anyone to explain your beliefs, internal/external
  (in)consistency.

  also i'm pretty sure that being able to provide something of value has nothing to do with being
  consistent or logical?

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:33 No.

  >>1846677
  >it really wasn't an excuse to deny the apple.
  Um, it was the tree's apples?

  The tree owned the apples, therefore it is his/her/it's right to deny them with or without valid
  reason.

  Remember, this is different from a job application, it is not a public service, no tax monies are
  being paid towards these apples.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:35 No.

  >>1846681
  and it as the children's free time. It's their right to associate with the tree or not.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:36 No.

  >>1846676
  what's my agenda? i don't know why the kids dislike racism.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:36 No.

  >>1846677
  Disliking a black because he's black is practically equivalent to disliking an idiot because he's
  an idiot

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:37 No.

  >>1846681
  See >>1846595

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:37 No.

  >>1846685
  Yes, because in this case the tree is immobile, it is dependent on those children to come to it.

  This is where the logic of the story falls apart when applied to real life.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:39 No.

  >>1846688

  > faulty and offensive reasoning

  please refer to >>1846689

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:39 No.

  >>1846689
  No, it doesn't

  If the tree were mobile, it could go to the children all it wanted and they'd still deny to give
  it their free time, to eat his apples and play under his racist branches

  Or he'd take over the world.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:40 No.

  >>1846690
  I don't see how the mobility of the tree has anything to do with the children not wanting to
  associate with him

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:41 No.

  >>1846691
  Well then its clear from your explanation that this is just one of those fantasies then.

  *shrug*

  Not so much social progress as more of a progressive fairy tale. heh

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:42 No.

  >>1846681
  No, no, no, you misunderstood. He has every right to deny the apple, but it wasn't a logical
  excuse. If he saw that Sam killed kittens, that would be a logical excuse to withhold them.

  >>1846687
  But there are concrete reasons do dislike idiots, they're dumb. Even if blacks are dumber, more
  likely to commit crimes than the other children, those hardly apply to a child. Hell, the tree
  would be assuming he was one of the majority of blacks who are that way, though in this case,
  that might be a safe assumption.

  Also, why hate a dumb person, especially a dumb child? If their lack of intelligence is harming
  something, sure, withhold the apple. Sam, dumb or not, had done nothing wrong except being black.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:42 No.

  >>1846693
  Oh nothing, just a tongue in cheek poke at "faulty and offensive reasoning".

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:45 No.

  >>1846695
  No, no, no, you misunderstood. He has every right to deny the apple, but it wasn't a logical
  excuse. If he saw that Sam killed kittens, that would be a logical excuse to withhold them.

  refer to: >>1846679

  >But there are concrete reasons do dislike idiots

  Within the rigid realms of the story, it's sort of meaningless. I mean sure, you expect me to
  suspend disbelief, but then try to address social issues at the same time is just stupid.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:45 No.

  >>1846679
  the children's company is valuable to the tree in the story, so reapply your post to the kids.

  >>1846689
  true, in real life, racists can go associate with other racists. that's self evident. but the
  tree wants to associate with non-racists. thus, it has to appear non-racist, which is the point
  of the story.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:50 No.

  >>1846702
  which in turn i ascribe that in real life(which i'm sure this is what the story is trying to do),
  the racist 'anything' could just find other friends.

  >. but the tree wants to associate with non-racists. thus, it has to appear non-racist, which is
  the point of the story.

  Oh I'm well aware of the alternate understanding of the story, I was just wondering if all this
  garbage about being logical or obligatory offering of apples was just posters being idiotic or
  not.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:54 No.

  >>1846701
  you guys keep basically saying the tree doesn't owe anybody anything, that's obvious. there is no
  compelling moral force demanding the tree to do anything - god isn't coming down and telling the
  tree to be reasonable or give the kid apples.

  this story is about society and the free market. it's saying that people are free to hold any
  beliefs they want, even if they go against societal norms, but that society will reject them if
  they feel that it's sufficiently serious as a result. if the person with unorthodox beliefs wants
  to be a part of society, he must act the part. that's it. the "social progress was made" was a
  joke about how people think social progress works (people gradually get more progressive) rather
  than how it really works (society shuns them until they give in). sheesh

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:56 No.

  >>1846710
  Yes yes we get the point.

  However >>1846598
  doesn't.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:57 No.

  >>1846706
  that's not an "alternate understanding", that's the explicit point of the story. they say it
  straight out. the "logical" arguments are just trying to explain why the children might be
  bothered by the tree. it's just personal belief

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:58 No.

  >>1846712
  whatever you say, friend

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:01 No.

  >>1846711
  how doesn't he get it?

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:04 No.

  I guess my bigger question in all of this is "Why are people racist?"

  Not racist in the sense of "I believe blacks (or whoever) are genetically inclined to be less
  intelligent than whites," because there is some evidence for that.

  But still, why should we hate black people because they're dumber? If that were officially
  acknowledged, what would happen? Obama would still be President, he isn't dumb, but even if he
  were, you can be dumb and president. All I can think of is that people could say that and not be
  shunned from society, and Rev. Al Sharpton would yell a bit less on his show.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:05 No.

  >>1846710
  Also, to someone with a mindset of a militant progressive, that sort of outcome is perfectly
  acceptable.

  That's the sort of dual meaning it has, afaiu it anyway.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:06 No.

  >>1846723
  But still, why should we hate Chinese people because they're yellow?

  I do love how the attention is about black/white racism, but when it comes to asians its
  perfectly okay to rip on them.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:08 No.

  >>1846723
  There is racism with no explanation, anon

  We have tastes, opinions, stuff like that. And we also have those for people. Some of us simply
  don't like black people. There's nothing else to it.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:08 No.

  >>1846727
  I said "whoever" in my post. I was going with blacks because Sam was black.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:09 No.

  >>1846730
  It's just a segue into "explain your racist beliefs" which in turns lead into you being on the
  defensive.

  Progressive are sort of mindless that way.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:09 No.

  >>1846730
  Alright, that's fair enough. Thanks for the help, o friendly racist.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:10 No.

  >>1846731
  Explain the asian hate, it's a lot more interesting than the black/white racism stuff which has
  been thoroughly covered by almost everyone.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:11 No.

  >>1846735
  Social progress in action.

  (lol)

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:11 No.

  >>1846734
  No, it wasn't. I was curious, and got what I kinda suspected was my answer. You're free to
  believe that, and I'll be honest, it is sort of a shame you'll be ostracized for that.

  This is coming from someone who not only would identify as a "progressive" politically, but
  actually works for my county Democratic Party.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:11 No.

  >>1846734
  What is "progressive"?

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:12 No.

  >>1846737
  I suppose so.

  I learned to be slightly more tolerant of racists today, if 4chan hadn't done that to me already.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:13 No.

  >>1846741
  Why would you ever dislike a racist? Unless they're racist against you, i mean. Or they beat up
  and kill their 'prey'

  It's like judging someone by their opinions

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:14 No.

  >>1846739
  It could be used to describe people who's political views are to the left of the mainstream
  democratic party in the US (Think Kucinich, Nader, and what Obama said he would be) or it could
  describe people who want more social progress, which can sometimes/often be bad.

  The two often cross over, though I'd definitely identify myself with the first, and not as much
  with the latter.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:15 No.

  >>1846591
  you and me both

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:15 No.

  >>1846741
  Oh you're just a bit amusing because you think your brand of american/(western?) progressivism
  applies to everyone.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:16 No.

  >>1846745
  I'm yuropoor and not into american politics

  pls halp

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:16 No.

  >>1846738
  >and I'll be honest, it is sort of a shame you'll be ostracized for that.

  Pity is easily doled out by one who assumes they are the victor eh? :P

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:17 No.

  >>1846748
  Yes, I'm giggling at american politics too.

  When I want a good laugh I just read the international news segment, brings a smile to me usually.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:18 No.

  >>1846744
  It's just what was (unfairly?) ingrained as a child, I never though about it much before I came
  to 4chan.

  >>1846749
  I don't see myself as one of them, but to be honest, racism doesn't seem to be on the up and up
  in america today.

  >>1846748
  Just think of your biggest part to the left of center.

  >>1846752
  We don't just giggle here, we guffaw.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:18 No.

  >>1846749

  >>1846748

  >>1846747

  YOU ARE ALL GAY AND BAD

  sincerely, ITALY

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:18 No.

  >>1846753
  >biggest party*

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:20 No.

  >>1846753
  > racism doesn't seem to be on the up and up in america today.

  It's only gotten better at hiding, legislating social norms will only get you so far.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:20 No.

  The "fuck off you goddamn nazi" part was meant to dig at "progressives" as much as it's meant to
  dig at racists and other anti-societal behavior. It shows that people who support "social
  progress" just assume the worst in people who don't adhere to their ideas. This isn't some kind
  of leftist parable like everyone's claiming.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:20 No.

  >>1846754
  >ITALY
  >YOU ARE ALL GAY AND BAD

  lol

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:21 No.

  >>1846758
  People stopped claiming that pretty high up.

  >>1846757
  Oh, so voter ID is intended to be racist? And to think I had dismissed that as Kos-esque trash
  from my coworkers.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:22 No.

  >>1846758
  We know(and it is funny, believe you me), but as mentioned, the bully pulpit is very effective at
  suppressing things.

  Besides, if you are of a militant mindset, it is very acceptable to bully people into whatever
  you want them to think.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:23 No.

  >>1846761
  I think you kind of misunderstood what I meant by legislating social norms, sorry.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:24 No.

  >>1846753
  But yeah, you're interesting, tell us(me?) more about your beliefs? I promise I won't flame you
  for it.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:24 No.

  >>1846761
  Everyone's still talking shit about "progressives" and "leftists" as if that was the point of the
  story

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:25 No.

  >>1846745
  Reminder that not all Progressives are bad. Theodore Roosevelt was a Progressive, for instance.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:26 No.

  >>1846772
  It has its place and uses.

  But the current ones are no good.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:27 No.

  >>1846772
  The main reason i like Roosevelt is because of teddy bears

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:28 No.

  Why on earth are there so many god damn posts itt?

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:28 No.

  >>1846776
  Read the thread

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:31 No.

  Full disclosure:

  Where I live, the black people are on student visas where its just a pretext to commit crimes and
  smuggle drugs into the country. They are also predominately muslims.

  As much as I want to love everyone, you can understand how and why this is hard to do right?

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:33 No.

  >>1846782
  Yes, anon. You're on 4chan. You're welcome here.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:34 No.

  >>1846766
  Ah, so I did. I get you now.

  >>1846767
  My beliefs? I'm a mostly typical Democrat, farther to the left that the main party (I think
  Obamacare was pretty weak), but not as far as reddit and Daily Kos (I think capitalism is a good
  economic system, and that Occupy Wall Street had a vaguely decent idea and then killed it). As I
  said, I work for my county's Democratic Party - I managed one of our house candidate's field
  offices this cycle - where I work with a lot of reddit-esque people, which even gets on my
  nerves. I'm a political organizer by trade though, and if it ever gets too bad, next county over
  there's a nice, socially liberal Republican congressman where I can run to.

  I try to avoid the general online model of liberals/progressives ("Obama for dictator!" The NDAA
  was inexcusable. "Womyn for overlords!" I'm not that inclined to work against my own interests.)

  cont.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:34 No.

  >>1846788
  Now, I guess, I'm not really inclined to be anti-racist, as much as my job'll let me.

  At the very least, with stuff like >>1846782, I know where they're coming from. I live in a place
  where mexicans would be a more likely problem, but they're fine to me.

>> [_] Congratulations, /f/ Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:36 No.

  You managed to break the 100 replies barrier, all with intelligent, rational and level-headed
  discussion about a very controversial, problematic and trouble-making theme.

  In fact, this may be the first time such a long discussion about such a troubling subject has
  been held without turning into utter circlejerk was ever witnessed in the history of mankind

  You're the best, /f/aggots. I love you all

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:37 No.

  >>1846793
  (I'm >>1846788) I love you too, anon.

  This was really an educational experience for me.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:38 No.

  hey guys I have nothing to add but this thread is really long and I wanted to be part of it.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:40 No.

  >>1846798

  you should call people gay and bad. that's how i enjoy getting active in intelligent discussions.

  corgidogdogcorgidgodgodgodgodogdogdogdogdo

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:40 No.

  >>1846788
  Ah, a leftist that doesn't want to silence all that was ever oppressive or against libertarianism

  You're a good person and the world needs more of you

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:43 No.

  Alas, dear children, there are other children in this world who will partake of those tasty red
  treats in the shade of that lonely tree while you slowly starve beneath the cancerous sun. But at
  least you'll be black when you're done!

  yeh i no, mean and all, but reality ain't no storybook

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:44 No.

  Well done OP

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)20:45 No.

  >>1846804
  No, those are the Daily Kos-liberals. The dyed-in-the-wool morons who seem shocked that anyone
  could disagree with them.

  Apparently, I need to join the Tea Party because I don't think Stalin was a very good person.
  (Not making this up, really weird college kid called himself a Stalinist, and defended the guy.)

  As for libertarianism, I would much rather see the Republican party be run by the likes of the
  Pauls and Gary Johnson. Hell, when it comes to some things (Defense, the NDAA and maybe the Death
  Penalty) I'd rather have them.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)21:03 No.

  rapist tree plz

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)21:04 No.

  122 comments!!!!
  >grab popcorn

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)21:06 No.

  >144 replies

  wow a thread with a regular amount of replies

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)21:08 No.

  >>1846814
  To be fair, besides the whole Gulag thing, Stalin was a hell of a leader. He found Russia with
  pitchforks and frozen soil, but when he left they had heavy industry and a stockpile of hundreds
  of atomic bombs. Say what you want about commies or dictatorship, the guy got shit done.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)21:12 No.

  >180 Comments
  Holy shit suck my! dick

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)21:12 No.

  "...and it called him a nigger."

  Beautiful.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)21:13 No.

  >>1846840
  Oh, definitely. I was judging his character, which to me, was affected by the Gulags. I won't be
  taking any apples from the Stalin tree.

  The ironic part is that his only criticism of the man was that his improving of the economy led
  to the collapse, so Stalin should've sent 'em to the gulags, and made the country worse.

  Morons, I know.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)21:16 No.

  >>1846848
  Yeah, plenty of college kids act like that. I'm pretty far to the left too, by US standards at
  least, but saying that Stalin was anything short of a power-hungry sociopath is ridiculous.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)21:35 No.

  >>1846843
  Not that impressive. The 4chan Adventure game got over 300 several nights in a row while the
  people on /f/ tried to figure out how to beat it.

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)21:37 No.

  >>1846863
  Oh, the harsh life of a newfag

  How long ago was that?

>> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)21:38 No.

  >>1846793
  >>1846793
  >>1846793
  >>1846793