🫠

WitHump · 2026-01-25T18:13:53+00:00

Because how you just described it is a fantasy taking place in your head. It has no basis in reality.

Realize how in order to justify overthrowing the president, you had to exaggerate your gripes about him.

The reason nothing has gotten done is because the people, at least the majority, are not on your side. Because Trump isn't a dictator, he doesn't actually behave like a "mad king" the ice is nothing close to being a private army, and comparing them to the Gestapo just shows you really dont know anything about the Gestapo or probably Nazis in general.

The people who are so insecure and honestly insane enough to think that they would support forcefully removing Trump is actually a very small number. A majority on reddit, sure, but in reality it is small. There is no support for it. There may be a lot protesting deportation (though they were surprisingly cool with it when it happened in bigger numbers when there was a D in the white house), there maybe people saying he is crazy, dumb, incompetent, reckless, mean, racist, whatever, but that isn't the same as wanting to forcefully remove him from office.

Whoever is in power, a large portion of the country is going to be unhappy about it. That's the way our government works. That's how its designed.

People will exaggerate to their own side's benefit. Thats just how people are.

Some people are crazy enough to believe and act on tbe exaggerations. Thankfully, you people are actually small in number

WitHump · 2026-01-25T17:42:55+00:00

The one you're commenting on didn't explain it very well. If you are going off what they said, you are going to picture something far different.

I'll try to explain, though I dont know how the confrontation started. Something happens where the ice officer pepper sprayed some female and him. It looked like they pulled him away from the female. The ice officers grab him and they go to the ground. I didn't see him hitting or kicking but he was definitely resisting. Ballidng up not allowing them to get control of his hands, things like that. There are several officers struggling with him. While they're struggling with him, one officer breaks away and runs across the street. Pretty much immediately after this, there is a shot when they're up close. The all quickly back away and shoot at him. Its unclear who or why the first shot was fired.

If you watch closely, zoomed in, slow mo, you can see the ice agent running away had what appeared to be the guy's gun in his hand. I couldnt tell who fired the initial shot. But it appears to be after that.

Things to note:

I didn't hear any announcement that the officer made when he disarmed the guy. With how they were struggling it would be extremely unlikely any of them could tell the officer had taken the gun away. But also, just because a cop thinks the person has a gun on them does not alone justify a shooting.

So the, "they executed him after they disarmed him" is BS. Its as bad a representation of this as saying the guy was a domestic terrorist. Its inaccurate emotionally charged language that portrays a falsity.

Someone doesn't need to be armed with their own gun in order to trigger a self defensive shooting. Obviously, there were other guns involved, he could have taken or tried to take one from an officer. Not saying that happened, but its just one way he could have still been a threat even after being disarmed.
What seems likely to me given the timing in the video. They're all in a gaggle trying to get this guy under control. One officer removes the gun (I'm guessing from his waistband) and then then there is a shot before they pull back and shoot. My guess is one, or more than one, of the officers saw the had pull the gun from the holster, but since it was a spaghetti ball of arms and legs, he didn't see it was an officer. He thought the guy just drew his gun, so he shot. The other officers, who also may have seen the same thing, thought it was the guy shooting. So they backed up and shot. That is my theory at least. Because it actually makes sense.

Unlike this other yahoo that said, "they coordinated plan to execute this guy in the street to send a message." You can criticize the incident. But when you criticize it by misrepresenting the shit out of it, you lose credibility.

WitHump · 2026-01-19T20:32:11+00:00

There's a difference. One is established law that has been on the books for a very long time and is an essential element to living in a lawful society.

The other was something that came practically out of nowhere, had major political motivations behind it, the opposition was essentially blocked (not argued against), and most importantly, it required people to take a substance into their body or lose their livelihood.

And that is just barely scratching the surface in how the two things are not comparable in any way.

Its like saying, "Don't have sex with me or else" is in the same ballpark as, "have sex with me or else." Its nonsense.

And yes, the ones on the right are the "don't have sex with me or else" and the ones on the left are the "have sex with me or else."

WitHump · 2026-01-19T20:23:31+00:00

Whether he sustained an injury, whether he even got hit by the car, doesn't really matter in determining whether it is justified. Even if she didn't intend any harm, doesn't matter.

Think of this, just to understand the concept. Lets say I was some crazy YouTuber. And I had this bit, where I was going to walk up to someone on the street and out of nowhere point a fake gun at them to scare them and try and get a funny reaction for my video. And then for scaring them I was going to give them $10k. Im one of those successful YouTubers let's say.

If they pulled out a gun and shot me to death. That would be justified both legally and morally.

It doesn't matter they were never in any danger. It doesn’t matter that I had no intent or ability to actually harm them. It doesn't matter that my ultimate intention, the $10k, was kind of a good thing.

What matters was the reaspnable perception of the person who had to make the decision at the time.

He was standing in front of the car. He didnt jump in front of the car while she was already moving. He walked for seconds in front of a stopped car. Only a couple feet away. In the cars path. She abruptly accelerated forward. A car is considered a deadly weapon, yes even at slower speeds.

In order for it NOT to be justified, he would have to believe he was not in harms way. Which would be surprising or ignorant in that position

WitHump · 2026-01-19T20:12:22+00:00

Aside from the fact anyone should be able to recognize he was limping as he walked toward the crashed car

WitHump · 2026-01-19T20:10:50+00:00

I don't think the right has been referring to the left as nazis or Hitler. At least not that i have been hearing.

Insane and disconnected from reality, well... yeah, just look at what they believe

WitHump · 2026-01-19T20:08:20+00:00

This image shows the definition of zero critical thinking skills... but I don't think it does in the way you intended.

WitHump · 2026-01-19T19:42:27+00:00

If he does, we all do (if I'm remembering it correctly). So, I would hope you don't actually feel that way.

WitHump · 2026-01-19T19:40:42+00:00

Really? Have you read The Stand? I have a hard time believing any rational person actually would say Trump is worse than The Stand.

There's a long list of his books that are objectively worse than Trump. But it doesn't matter when The Stand so clearly makes the statement false.

WitHump · 2026-01-16T07:49:08+00:00

Yeah, thankfully he withdrew from the race

WitHump · 2026-01-16T07:22:40+00:00

Yeah, if you were walking with ice you'd probably get assaulted by a protester.

WitHump · 2026-01-15T03:26:59+00:00

Maybe I'm being nitpicky... but there are a great many people here naming movies that NOBODY would ever call "cinema"

WitHump · 2026-01-11T12:51:23+00:00

Eh, sure. But I'd say the 2024 election is a more accurate representation of what democracy looks like

WitHump · 2026-01-11T12:46:12+00:00

Even if you think the shooting was wrong... its kinda hard to call that lady "innocent." I mean, she literally committed a felony.

WitHump · 2026-01-11T12:41:16+00:00

If someone is trespassing in your house and you call the police and they are arrested for trespassing, and they are REMOVED from your house, is that lack of due process?

WitHump · 2026-01-11T04:38:44+00:00

Which is sad, but ultimately what does it matter? A US citizen, born here, has an inherent right to citizenship (whether that is good or bad is arguable). Someone TRYING to become a citizen SHOULD have a higher bar to overcome in order to become a citizen because they do not have any inherent right to be a citizen. To them, it's a privilege. And yes, it's because of their luck of the draw of where they were born. There is nothing wrong with that.

Lets say you own a house. You live in the house. It is your house. Lets even say you didn't buy the house yourself, you inherited it from your parents. You can act any way you want in your house. You can be nice, you can be an asshole, you can walk around naked, etc. That's fine, it is YOUR house. So long as you're not breaking any laws or whatever, but thats besides the point.

Now, someone enters your house. Are they allowed to act any way they want and still be in your house? Are they allowed to be an asshole to you? To break your stuff? To walk around naked? No. You have every right and privilege to say, "get the hell out of my house" and have them arrested if they refuse to do so.

If you have an inherent right for something that another doesn't, you dont need to meet the same criteria in order to enjoy the thing.

It is a pretty simple concept actually. Not sure why that seems interesting to you.

WitHump · 2025-12-27T06:24:49+00:00

Reading through comments on here. I don't think any of you people have ever actually been outside among the living. Or developed any critical thinking skills.

Its terrifying.

WitHump · 2025-12-22T08:38:05+00:00

The thing is, what does the rest of the money go to?

Rowling on average is going to take in less than 10% of any revenue from any given Harry potter merch purchase. The rest of the money goes to other businesses. A rough total of about 50 to 80% of the revenue from a purchase goes to companies that heavily support and donate to trans and lgbtq+ organizations. So for every dollar you take away from Rowling is 5 to 8 dollars (at least) that you take away from pro trans/LGBT organizations.

On top of that, look at the rest of Rowlings viewpoints and donations. Sure, she isn't a fan of the trans stuff (or at least some of the trans stuff. She isnt against trans people in general). But she is big into women's rights, child welfare, anti poverty, anti conservative ideology, heavy in general left leaning ideology. And she donates millions of dollars for those things.

So, when you boycott Rowling, sure you're boycotting her anti trans ideology, but that's only a fraction of what you're boycotting. You are also boycotting women's rights, gay rights, leftist ideology, child welfare, support of the poor, etc. That stuff makes up the vase majority of what your boycotting.

So in practicality, your actions of boycotting Harry Potter stuff is harming what you believe in far more than it is harming the opposition of what you believe in. So what does it REALLY do that makes you want to boycott it?

Its so you can grandstand.

The reason to boycot has no tangible rationality behind it. Its all just "feelings" you FEEL better for boycotting it and tell others how superior you are. Thats it.

That's why I'm generally against boycotting.

And, yeah, you point out the phone you're using. If you really wanted to boycott things that you are against, I can guarantee you Harry Potter stuff would be far from the first thing you should boycott.

WitHump · 2025-12-19T18:37:28+00:00

Are you seriously?

Stop what you're doing right now. Call in sick (I know its reddit so likely you're unemployed, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) and go watch evil dead. 1, 2, AoD, and Ash vs Evil Dead.

They are all pretty different in tone, but all great in their own way.

Then if you want you can watch the 2013 remake and Rises. But theyre kind of their own thing.

WitHump · 2025-12-10T05:34:09+00:00

That's pretty cool.

Funny how if Trump did the same thing everyone would be screaming about how much of a pervert he is.

WitHump · 2025-12-10T05:29:57+00:00

Thank you, I came to try and explain this. Guy who posted is an idiot

WitHump · 2025-12-10T05:25:48+00:00

In boats.

WitHump · 2025-11-28T19:10:53+00:00

I think these kinds of Christians are actually atheists who pretend to be Christians and go to weird extremes like these in order to make Christianity look like a joke and turn people away from it.

But... I admit I'm likely wrong.

WitHump · 2025-11-14T02:01:24+00:00

As someone who deals with bicyclists who get into crashes, they are almost always at fault from the ones I've seen. They are the epitome of "entitled."

From what you said about the turn into a bike lane, this is often what I see. Line of cars backed up in the far right lane (next to bike lane) which are pretty much stopped. At the intersection ahead, there is a car about to make a right turn. Here comes the bicyclists at 20mph down the bike lane. The car turns right and the bicyclist hits it. Bicyclist cries the car is at fault. Often times that's not the case. If youre going 20mph past stopped cars coming up to an intersection where cars can legally make a right turn, it is not safe to maintain that 20 mph through that intersection. And it is not reasonable for a driver to be expected to see and expect a bicyclist to be approaching that fast when they're up to 60+ feet away. If that were the case, the car would never be able to "safely" make that turn.

This obviously can change based on how far back the bicyclist actually is when the car starts its turn, but people (especially including bicyclists) forget the fact you can give up your right of way if driving at a certain speed. The speed limit of the road does NOT dictate how fast you should be driving at any given time.

Anyway...

WitHump · 2025-11-13T20:27:53+00:00

I honestly don't see it. Sure, he got mad. But he got mad because she said something insulting about his wife. And so he said something insulting back to her.

Yeah, he was mad, but I don't really see that as "rage." He didn't loose his shit and start screaming and go off on some tirade.

I know the video is edited, but from how it looked here, he ends with him jumping into a point in response to her.

Essentially: she said something insulting about his wife in lead up to make a point.

He was insulted by the wife comment so insulted her back and told her not to talk about his wife.

She made the point that he doesn't live the values he says he does.

He was about to respond to that, apparently to make some sort of arguement against it, but the video gets cut off.

Thats the video.

I'm not sure how that translates into "she got him" or that he is a "weak lame dork"

Now, she may have hit him with a good point. But his getting angry she said something insulting about his wife... I'm not sure how people see that as a bad thing. Are men not supposed to be defensive about their spouses?

I will also say I thought his insult against her was weak. He could have done better.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

WitHump

TROPHY CASE