Liberal Logical

Liberal Logical | IF I AGREE, IT'S "FREE SPEECH" IF I DISAGREE, IT'S "HATE SPEECH" | image tagged in memes,college liberal,liberal logic | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
share
21,837 views, 200 upvotes, Made by z1776 2 years ago memescollege liberalliberal logic
College Liberal memeCaption this Meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
Best first
86 Comments
reply
6 ups, 2y
Leonardo Dicaprio Cheers Meme | INSULTS AND BELITTLEMENTS ARE NOT SPEECHES | image tagged in memes,leonardo dicaprio cheers | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Works for both sides.
reply
4 ups, 2y
. | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
4 ups, 2y,
2 replies
Z1776 NOW THAT'S A NAME I HAVEN'T HEARD IN A LONG TIME | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
I see some conservatives do the same thing, though. If they find it offensive, they say it isn't protected by the First Amendment.
reply
4 ups, 2y
Yeah, I've taken a long break. Free speech is the best speech.
reply
2 ups, 2y,
3 replies
Really. I've heard various versions of "you're dumb, just shut up" or "you shouldn't speak" but never an outright "it's not protected by the constitution"
reply
5 ups, 2y,
1 reply
I hear this crazy far left talk more than once a week. Their standard line is "hate speech is not free speech," and they consider most things they disagree with "hate speech."
reply
3 ups, 2y,
1 reply
I hear crazy far right talk pretty much every single day (I listen to AFR daily). People on the far right are pretty much a mirror image of people on the far left. If it offends them, they try to silence you. Look at the group One Million Moms, which actively tries to get "indecent" TV shows taken off the air because it offends their delicate conservative sensibilities.
reply
2 ups, 2m,
1 reply
Two years later and you still have the same single instance of conservatives crushing free speech haha ;)
reply
1 up, 2m
It still applies :3
reply
1 up, 2y
I've heard conservative commentator Bryan Fischer (he's pretty far right, mind you) say that things like profanity and blasphemy aren't protected under the First Amendment. When he says blasphemy, of course he only means blasphemy against the Christian god, because he says things on a regular basis that Muslims would consider blasphemous.
reply
1 up, 2y,
2 replies
Actually, Bryan Fischer takes it a step further. He has said on numerous occasions that the First Amendment *only* protects political speech, and *only* when it's verbally spoken out of the mouth. He doesn't believe that any non-spoken speech (like signs, artwork, other forms of written expression) is protected.
reply
1 up, 2y,
2 replies
Wow! That's bad. Well obviously I don't listen to his show, but that is not a common conservative position, especially since what is profane and blasphemous varies from person to person, and speech clearly included at least the written word from the very beginning.
reply
3 ups, 2y
reply
2 ups, 2y,
1 reply
I agree that his position is out of the mainstream, even for conservatives, but the problem is that people listen to him and believe what he says, even when he's completely and utterly wrong.
reply
3 ups, 2y,
1 reply
But I think the point of the meme is that "certain speech is not protected" is a MAINSTREAM liberal (or rather left) position. And that they often define "hate speech" as loosely as others would define profanity or blasphemy.
For example, objecting to the removal of a statue that could be considered to have historical significance is "hate speech".
reply
1 up, 2y,
2 replies
I agree that some (even many) people define hate speech far too broadly, but I don't believe that those people represent the mainstream left. Just like people on the far right don't represent the mainstream right.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 3m,
2 replies
If that's the case, why is America the *only* country in the world (AFAIK) w/ freedom of speech protections enshrined in it's Constitution, and even *that* is under attack from the Left-wing establishment (Left-leaning media, Big Tech, Unis, politicians, etc)? Why is it that in NYC & CA (Left-wing supermajority states) it's *illegal* to "misgender" (an *exclusively* Left-wing concept) someone or call someone an "illegal immigrant" (an actual *legal term*)?

Why is it that the attacks on Free Speech from the right can only be found on the scant weirdo fringes, but those from the Left are pouring every day out of the mainstream Left-wing Universities, Big Tech corporations and media? Why is it the very *concept* of "political correctness" was a Left-wing invention?
reply
1 up, 3m
"Why is it that the attacks on Free Speech from the right can only be found on the scant weirdo fringes, but those from the Left are pouring every day out of the mainstream Left-wing Universities, Big Tech corporations and media? Why is it the very *concept* of "political correctness" was a Left-wing invention?"

I don't believe that's actually a true statement
reply
0 ups, 3m,
1 reply
Illegal to misgender wha? Call an illegal wha?
In NYC it can be considered a hate crime if such is used ABUSIVELY by intent or as part of a pattern of harassment, especially after having been repeatedly requested to cease doing so. Just like racist and sexist pejoratives.
Not sure what Cali policy is, but most likely the same deal.

The Right has long sought to ban everything in libraries both in schools and public having to do with Satanism, witchcraft - including Harry Potter and The Wizard of OZ! - and, since it gave birth to Fundementalism, yes, ye good olde Theory of Evolution.

Censorship of movies and TV is on account of Conservatives.
Ditto for attempts to do the same with music from the likes of Elvis to the Beatles, accompanied by record burnings to emphasize the point.

From MLK to Harvey Milk, Right Wingers have gone to such lengths as actual murder to silence entire swaths of already oppressed (silenced) people.
If censorship by bullet ain't censorship, I don't know what is.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 2m,
1 reply
What decade are you living in, bub? It's not the right that's behind Big Tech censorship (you know, all those companies in Silicon valley), it's the right that elected the shitposter-in-chief as President that the left loses their mind over every time he tweets a meme. ;D

Better get used to it, you got another 5 years coming. XD
0 ups, 2m
Looks like your left winger pals better bring an extra bucket for your briny tears with you hitching a ride on their wagon. Does your Google app provide calendar services, or do you really require further assistance in finding out what bitter year this is for your wonderfully triggered self?
reply
1 up, 2y,
1 reply
My Facebook feed would indicate otherwise, that that is a mainstream position on the left. And keep in mind I'm a conservative, and you Facebook feed is influenced by who you have as friends, so you wouldn't expect mine to skew left. (And these aren't posts criticizing that point of view, I'm talking about earnest posts from my friends and colleagues on the left).
reply
2 ups, 2y
Getting political views and anecdotal evidence from Facebook is the first thing I'd take issue with here. I won't even use Facebook because of how terrible people's slants can be, and how they begin to take political views personally, which wasn't even a thing until the advent of social media. Echo chambers do not produce earnest views.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 3m,
1 reply
Who? I had to look this guy up b/c I'd never heard of him. One fringe weirdo does not define a political party or culture.

Meanwhile, what happened to the Whammyn's March? Oh that's right, it imploded b/c it turned out most of it's leaders were acolytes of the overtly antisemitic Louis Farrakhan (who compared Jews to Termites) and kicked out the Jewish women from leadership in the first meetings.

What happened to Black Lives Matter? Oh, turned out it was *also* led by a bunch of black supremacists, one of whom was convicted of *felony lynching* and another arrested on *seven* counts of child sex trafficking. To say nothing of all the general terrorism, riots, cop-killings, etc.

Maybe people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...
reply
1 up, 3m,
1 reply
Just because you hadn't heard of him doesn't mean he isn't an influential person. A lot of people haven't heard of Louis Farrakhan. Going by your own logic, why did you bring him up?

So some people in a group doing bad things means the whole group is bad? Well there goes all of Christianity, darn it.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 3m,
1 reply
*Leaders* of a group =/= "some weirdos on the fringes that almost no one knows or cares about".
Nice false equivalence fallacy.
Yeah, everybody has some nuts in their tree, that's life.
*Leaders* are the ones who, to state the obvious, *lead* the rest of the group. If the *leaders*, particularly the *founders* of a group or ideology are shit, that doesn't exactly inspire confidence for me about the rank and file *who voluntarily choose to follow them.* And no, it's not like the government of a country that you're born into.

The various Christian denominations have specific processes and procedures in place for dealing w/ bad leaders or when members of the congregation cause problems.

What's BLM's process for dealing w/ criminal, racial supremacist, or child-sex-trafficking leaders? Oh wait, considering their spiritual influence is Assata Shakur (real name JoAnne Deborah Byron), a cop-murdering *terrorist* who fled justice & went running w/ her tail between her legs to Communist Cuba like the treasonous coward she is, it doesn't really seem BLM has much interest in holding their own accountable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assata_Shakur#Cultural_influence

"In 2015, Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza writes: "When I use Assata’s powerful demand in my organizing work, I always begin by sharing where it comes from, sharing about Assata’s significance to the Black Liberation Movement, what its political purpose and message is, and why it’s important in our context."[237]"

But hey, I'm not the one defending a racist cult of personality to a convicted terrorist dressed up in the guise of a social movement. ;)
reply
1 up, 3m,
4 replies
"The various Christian denominations have specific processes and procedures in place for dealing w/ bad leaders or when members of the congregation cause problems."

On paper, anyway

"What's BLM's process for dealing w/ criminal, racial supremacist, or child-sex-trafficking leaders?"

I'm not sure, but I certainly hope it's better than the process used by the Catholic Church when dealing with their rampant child rapists.

"...their spiritual influence is Assata Shakur (real name JoAnne Deborah Byron), a cop-murdering *terrorist*..."

Was she ever convicted of that?

"I'm not the one defending a racist cult of personality to a convicted terrorist dressed up in the guise of a social movement."

I never said I agree with everything BLM stands for, but they aren't a cult of personality.
reply
1 up, 3m,
1 reply
"I'm not sure but I certainly hope its better than the process usd by the Catholic Church when dealing with their rampant child rapists"

Rampant? .4-4% of hundreds of thousands of priests over several decades hardly qualifies to call this problem rampant. In the the public school system however, yes it's rampant and very little is still being done there.

Are you at all aware of the process used now to prevent, report, prosecute offenders and eliminate sexual abuse in the church today? I agree its abhorrent that such a thing even needs to be discussed, but you act like the church is still ignoring the problem when that is far from the truth.

First off the Church now refuses to admit any man who has homosexual tendencies to the seminary or priesthood. And while the LGBTQ people lament this is homophobic and unfair did you realize that 80% of abuses occurred on boys? So with this mandate they've cut down significantly on homosexial and pedofile behavior.

Did you know that probably 75% of abusers were viewing porn? Yet you don't see porn as a problem. Having safeguards in place, special trainings in proper internet usage, a rigorous reporting system in place should any priest be caught viewing anything inappropriate is helping to remedy the problem of pornography leading to sex abuse.

Did you know that most abuse in the church was not at the hands of priests but at the hands of ordinary men and women serving in the church? That's why every single church now has to run rigorous background checks, require hours and hours of training for every single person over 18 who even has 5 minutes of interaction with children. I cannot be in a room with a group of children for even a second without another trained and background checked person present. Priests cannot be in a car with anyone under 18. I could write volumes on the system used to deal with abuse but i don't have the space here. But i can assure you if other denominations and professions had the same level of caution that the church does now having learned from its mistakes and scarred too many people perhaps more abuse would be prevented. Look into it, stop assuming we're doing nothing about it.
reply
0 ups, 3m
"Rampant?"

Yes, rampant. Hundreds, if not thousands of cases of sexual abuse of children, many times by priests who were just shuffled around to new churches when the abuse was discovered. Several decades? It goes back to the 1950s, if not earlier. Bringing up the public school system is irrelevant to this discussion.

"Are you at all aware of the process used now to prevent, report, prosecute offenders and eliminate sexual abuse in the church today?"

Yes, because the Catholic Church was forced by extreme pressure to do something about it. Thousands of priests and other workers. Probably tens of thousands of incidents. Accusations going back many decades. Numerous countries. $2-3 billion in settlements. Eight diocese declared bankruptcy due to sex abuse cases between 2004 and 2011. And in 2018, the pope accused victims of fabricating allegations

"First off the Church now refuses to admit any man who has homosexual tendencies to the seminary or priesthood. And while the LGBTQ people lament this is homophobic and unfair did you realize that 80% of abuses occurred on boys? So with this mandate they've cut down significantly on homosexial and pedofile behavior."

There is no evidence that gay people are more likely to sexually abuse children than straight people. This is a common lie spread by anti-LGBT people. From the Wikipedia article on the Catholic sex abuse scandal:

"Margaret Smith and Karen Terry, two researchers who worked on the John Jay Report, cautioned against equating the high incidence of abuse by priests against boys with homosexuality, calling it an oversimplification and "an unwarranted conclusion" to assert that the majority of priests who abused male victims are gay. Though "the majority of the abusive acts were homosexual in nature ... participation in homosexual acts is not the same as sexual identity as a gay man." She further stated that "the idea of sexual identity [should] be separated from the problem of sexual abuse... [A]t this point, we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse from the data that we have right now."[285] Tomasi's move angered many gay rights organisations, who claimed it was an attempt by the Vatican to redefine the Church's past problems with pedophilia as problems with homosexuality.[286]
Empirical research shows that sexual orientation does not affect the likelihood that people will abuse children.[287][288][289] Many child molesters cannot be chara
reply
1 up, 3m
Part 2 why do you think people are talking about the Catholic scandal instead of the Jewish sexual abuse or the Jehovas witness problems with incest? Because the church is attempting in recent years to be more transparent. All the reports you hear about are because the Church made that information public instead of hiding it as it shamefully has in the past. Bishops had the reporting done at their own request. And have dolled out millions in settlements, when has any other organization done that? No I'm not fishing for praise for them doing the right thing after doing the wrong for too long I'm just asking you to do your research first before pointing fingers and excusing everyone else who has a less then stellar record.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 3m
Well, I'm not Catholic, so take it up w/ the "progressive" Pope Francis.

"Was she ever convicted of that?"

Yes, actually, it was right there in the header of the article I linked

"In 1977, she was convicted of the murder of Foerster and of seven other felonies related to the shootout."

Why do you think she ran away & hid among her fellow communists like the murderous coward she is?

"I never said I agree with everything BLM stands for, but they aren't a cult of personality."

Yeah, that was a bit of hyperbolic banter on my part, but let me ask you this then - the ones who are *against* the violence (and I do acknowledge that #NotAll BLM supporters want the violence) - what's stopping them from overtly *denouncing* this convicted cop-murdering terrorist? Is is fear of speaking against their in-group? Because if so... well, that's a mark of cult-like behavior.
reply
0 ups, 3m
Fact is, not to excuse the Catholic Church, but being such a large and centralized organized institution with extensive records, accusations and evidence had been long documented, and are thus easier to retrieve in large numbers.

Smaller denominations or less centralized ones, by their nature, cannot provide such in the same numbers. Some (smaller sects and orgs) simply brush it under the rug. However, there is no indication that such abuses occur within their ranks at a lesser rate than had with the Catholic Church.

It's like crimes in big cities like NYC and LA. Everyone cites them. Put on the news here and its a parade of the daily horrors. It may seem unmatched by small towns, but when looked at in ratio to their populations, a different picture emerges. Even with Chicago in comparison per capita the reality is different than the general perception.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 2y
And if they can't, civil war.
reply
5 ups, 2y,
1 reply
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 3m,
1 reply
Is that from the DNC?
reply
2 ups, 3m,
1 reply
The people in that Klan photo are Democrats? Prove it
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 3m,
1 reply
I don't have to prove anything. It's common knowledge that Democrats founded the KKK.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
reply
2 ups, 3m,
1 reply
You're making a claim that the KKK members in that photo are Democrats. I want proof.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 2m,
2 replies
Ladies & gentlemen, I do believe we have found the autistic sperg that's trying to *fact-check a f**king MEME*. Wow. Stunning & brave. Maybe you should apply at WaPo. I hear they have a lot of empty desks these days. ;)
reply
2 ups, 2m
The fact that you use autism as an insult shows what kind of person you are

I fact-check claims. I don't give a shit if it's a meme. If you make a claim, be prepared to provide evidence.
reply
1 up, 2m
🙄😒 How the f**k do you know?! Are you a f**kin doctor?! Hey OM, this rapist has a real stiffy for you!
reply
2 ups, 2y,
1 reply
No, it's only hate speech when it is about hate. It has nothing to do with if we agree to it our not. I don't agree with you, but that doesn't make you a Nazi.
reply
3 ups, 2y,
1 reply
When trump blasts out all of his stupid ideas in his native language, twitter, we don't make a yuge ruckus about what he says. It may be wrong and we may not agree with it, but it isn't hate speech.
reply
4 ups, 2y,
1 reply
Calling refugees from a country in South America that Reagan effed up, 'rapists' is just one of many examples of hate speech ---"Punch him in the face I will pay your legal bills".... donny is king of hate
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 3m
No, that's just speech that you hate b/c you're salty about losing an election that your side rigged :D
reply
3 ups, 2y,
2 replies
reply
4 ups, 2y,
1 reply
Now that is hate speech.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 3m,
1 reply
Still a nope. Just a bunch of Leftist idiots and losers (Confederate flag = Democrat, Swastika = Socialist) expressing an opinion that we disagree with, but they still have their right to express it and be wrong. Besides, if you censored their speech, they would then have a *legitimate* grievance to add to their existing persecution complex, and do you really want to give them more fuel to add to their recruitment propaganda?

They are *losers.* They have *no* political, media, technological, cultural, etc influence or power. The only reach they get is from the mostly Left-leaning media's bile fascination w/ these fringe weirdos. *Stop* giving them attention, and they'll vanish from the public eye. They are *not* "taking over America", as much as CNN's/SPLC's wettest dream circle-jerks would like that fantasy to be true.

Or better yet, do like Daryl Davis does, and *de-radicalize* them by sitting down and having a conversation with them like an actual human being, and ask them about how they came to this set of conclusions. It works, I've done it.
reply
1 up, 3m,
1 reply
"Just a bunch of Leftist idiots and losers (Confederate flag = Democrat, Swastika = Socialist)"

If you're saying that Neo-Nazis are liberals and Democrats, what's your source?
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 3m,
1 reply
I didn't call them "liberal", I called them "leftist". There's a difference. Don't take my words out of context, pls. ;)
reply
0 ups, 3m,
1 reply
What's your source they're leftist?
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 2m,
2 replies
Really, you need a *source* to know the Confederates were Democrats & that the Nazis were the National *Socialist* German Workers' Party? It's called "crack open a history book". ;)
reply
1 up, 2m
You're saying the Confederates were leftists, what's your source?
reply
0 ups, 2m,
1 reply
There were zero Democrats in the Confederacy. ZERO. Do you know what zero is, or are you short on fingers for that dollop of math?

And no worries on your Brownshirt idols that your goosestepping ilk so lovingly emulate. Referring back to an invasion from Central Asia which domesticated their barbaric asses 4000 years ago as their glory days is about as conservative as anyone can get.

Facism. Google. Done. You're welcome.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 2m,
4 replies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats

"1861-1933. After the election of Abraham Lincoln, Southern Democrats led the charge to secede from the Union and form the Confederate States of America. The Union Congress was dominated by Republicans, save for Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, the only senator from a state in rebellion to reject secession."

So looks *all but one* of the Democrats was in the Confederacy. Now I'm not a math major, but that's... a lot more than "zero". Sorry you're butthurt that yours is the party of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, segregation... actually, scratch that, I'm *not* sorry.

Democrats then: "We won't recognize the legitimate election of a Republican President b/c he won't let us have brown-skinned slaves to pick our crops." They then proceed to resort to terrorism b/c they can't handle losing fair & square.

Democrats now: "We won't recognize the legitimate election of a Republican President b/c he won't let us have brown-skinned slaves to pick our crops." They then proceed to resort to terrorism b/c they can't handle losing fair & square.
reply
0 ups, 2m,
1 reply
Wikipedia fake newz? tsk tsk, Capt TweeTearz will be diappointed in you, Vlady.

There were zero Democrats, Republicans, Whigs, Socialists, Communists, Nazis, Fascists, and whatever Space/Time bending flatulence you wish to pull out of the delightful bosom of knowledge otherwise known as your ass, mkay? ZERO. Can you count to zero, or do you require assistance?

You know what there were in the Confederacy? Southern States. Do you require assistance with your Google Translate & GPS on that one?
Do you know what was in the Union? Northern States, including 4 slave holding ones of whose dominant party I have the sneeking suspicion you might be obsessively actutely somewhat aware of.

But keep babbling whatever, your party hack script makes for a delightful wall hanging suitable for Christmas gift giving to that special fellow simpleton of yours in your life.

Oh, and sadly for your Unite the Right KKK Alt Reich brethren, slavery really isn't going to be making a comeback any time soon despite your Conservative pre-1965 Democrat/Republican post-1965 ideals. I know that sucks for both your goosestepping parties, but surely working at the Walmart can't be that bad.
[deleted]
1 up, 2m
Yeah, go cry some more, snowflake. :D
The only fake news here is *you.*
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/06/confederate-flag-democrats/

https://www.history.com/topics/us-politics/democratic-party

http://360newslasvegas.com/history-101-all-the-confederates-were-democrats/
reply
0 ups, 2m
"You can ignore reality all you want, but you can't ignore the *consequences* of ignorign reality.

Stay butthurt, my little lolcow, it's entertaining. :D"

I can't ignore the reality of what "ignorign" is on whatever planet you pulled from your distended anus that it comes from.

But "lolcow" indicates either you're a tad drunk, or not feigning your stupidity at all.

Do continue, watching buffoons choke on their smegma is one of the joys of this site.
reply
0 ups, 2m,
2 replies
The Confedarate flag was the flag of the Confederate STATES of the Confederacy, hence why the Confedarate flag was the flag of the Confederate STATES of the Confederacy, you precious little cream puff.

It was not the flag of any political party, it was the flag of a union of STATES, you capicheing me on this, or are the fumes of your wondrous meltdown doing irreparable damage to that noggin of yours?

FUN FACT: The Confederacy HAD NO political parties, as none were allowed in it.

But I have a sneeking suspicion you won't look that up because you knew it already.

Are we done wasting my time on your deliberate ignorance?
[deleted]
0 ups, 2m
look at you, snowflake, having a meltdown about someone stating completely uncontroversial historical facts. I would *not* want to live inside your head, but I have a feeling I already do, rent-free.
[deleted]
1 up, 2m
You can ignore reality all you want, but you can't ignore the *consequences* of ignorign reality.

Stay butthurt, my little lolcow, it's entertaining. :D
reply
0 ups, 2m
Facts, Trumpy chump, or keep Orange Man Sad's irritated testes in you mouth as you have been doing oh so expertly.
reply
2 ups, 2y
reply
2 ups, 2y
Put this what usually happens i.imgflip.com/29fgtv.jpg (click to show)
reply
1 up, 2y
reply
1 up, 2y
The truth ? Hate.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 2y
reply
1 up, 2y,
1 reply
reply
1 up, 2y
cool, up vote
reply
2 ups, 2y
the left hates free speech
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 2y
I KNOW!!!
reply
1 up, 2y
reply
1 up, 2y
The sad thing is that people think the Liberals and Conservative on TV speak for every Liberal and Conservative.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 3m
Fact: "Hate Speech" does not actually exist. It is just speech that authoritarians *hate* and will try to censor because they don't have an argument against it.

The very *concept* of "hate speech" is Orwellian Newspeak to control the weak-minded. Trust me, if there really were magic words we could say to do actual, real harm to people in meatspace, we'd be using it right now to implement a final solution to the censorship question.
reply
0 ups, 2y
This is the most accurate one ever done on this template.
reply
1 up, 2y
Liberals are closed minded
reply
0 ups, 2y
And if I agree. we will spawn another devil like me
reply
6 ups, 2y
Who is talking about Trump. I never voted for him. Your comment is a non sequitur. Also, you call for violence against an individual, which is an actual use of real hate speech. Thank you for proving my point.
reply
4 ups, 2y,
1 reply
I disagree with people here, but I never call for violence. That's messed up.
reply
2 ups, 2y,
1 reply
Excellent, up vote
reply
1 up, 2y
reply
2 ups, 2y
Wow, that Love Trumps Hate thing really is a crock isn't it??
reply
1 up, 2y
reply
0 ups, 2y
And with your name on it, I'd uess.
Flip Settings
College Liberal memeCaption this Meme
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
IF I AGREE, IT'S "FREE SPEECH"; IF I DISAGREE, IT'S "HATE SPEECH"
hotkeys: D = random, W = upvote, S = downvote, A = back
Feedback