7071
Comments (1699)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
10
HumasTaint 10 points ago +15 / -5

Cringe is cringe. I'd laugh in the face of anyone shouting "shame" at me, fuck you would be a bit more effective.

11
Geeee 11 points ago +12 / -1

You'd laugh in the face of it, yet it dictates SCOTUS decisions

8
Wtf_socialismreally 8 points ago +9 / -1

Actually burning, looting and murdering is what SCOTUS rules based on, especially since we don't arrest them.

8
Maga0351 8 points ago +8 / -0

One mans cringe is another patriots point. It’s not the catchiest thing in the world, agreed, but I’m not going to make fun of patriots storming the state building when I’m working from home today in a different state. I’d rather they show up and chant shame then stay home and do nothing.

5
zooty 5 points ago +5 / -0

You think everyone should be reading speeches in unison? Chants have to be simplistic by their nature. Though "You can stick your poison virus up your arse" is catchy. The UK have a lot more experience with complex chants though due to soccer. Speaking of which, "You're going home in a fucking ambulance" might be a good one to adopt.

0
iDinduNuffin 0 points ago +1 / -1

You don't have to chant anything, strong numbers in dead silence doing whatever they're doing is a lot stronger.

2
zooty 2 points ago +2 / -0

Respectfully disagree.

1
iDinduNuffin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nobody's scared of people saying things anyway, so the implication's that we're done talking. I remember seeing it a few years back during some of the Ukraine protests I think, or Belarus.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
BasedInFact 2 points ago +2 / -0

I agree with you both.

I get the differences in styles and chants, reasons and rationales, but on the side of liberty, it’s literally all good.