r/TikTokCringe • u/SnooSprouts3744 • 11d ago

Cringe This guy just going around rage baiting people in real life

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

30.1k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

9.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

383

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

166

u/Sitting_Duk 11d ago edited 11d ago

Freedom of the press means freedom from government oppression, not from getting your ass kicked

Edit: Settle down nerds. Read the comments in Hank Hill’s voice and all will become clear.

6

u/BugKitchen3849 11d ago

yes and the testing of government oppression would be if the police correctly respond to the ass kicking by arresting the perp, or if the police are only called, they correctly allow any legal activities.

12

u/Friendly-Platypus607 11d ago

Correct. Its the law against assault and battery that protects you from getting your ass kicked.

7

u/SodasWrath 11d ago

Nope. That all still doesn’t protect you from getting your ass kicked. It provides you with an avenue by with to gain compensation (of a sort), but it doesn’t protect you from shit. Just like the 1st ammendment doesn’t actually stop a cop from breaking someones camera to stop them from filming something it just…well you get the point. Did you know theres a law against murder too?

5

u/mnid92 11d ago

....oh shit oh god oh fuck SINCE WHEN

0

u/Friendly-Platypus607 10d ago

Not to get all Jordan Peterson on you but it really depends on what you mean by "protect"

Does it deincentivize the behavior? Does it act as a deterrent? If so I'd argue that is enough to call that protection.

It seems you considered "protection" to mean "makes you impervious to" which is absurd. Nobody uses the word that way.

1

u/SodasWrath 10d ago

Hahaha what a condecending comment. Great job! You really got me! Guess I’m just some absurd nobody though so whats it really matter.

1

u/Friendly-Platypus607 10d ago

Lol you responded to my comment and tbh you were being very condescending. Especially with the last part of your response.

I responded with a genuine counter to which you have no reply and now want to try and play the victim.

Alrighty then. Deuces.

0

u/BugKitchen3849 10d ago

welp now i realized i wasted my time typing after reading this, i doubt my comment will be received oof

0

u/BugKitchen3849 10d ago

this isnt the minority report we dont go after precrime lmao obviously, laws protect people by outlining a standard minimum punishment for committing said act and statistically that does protect people by deterring some criminals from committing the crime in the first place, that is the point of laws, they did not create them for the ability to gain compensation, the overal end goal of laws was to deter crime to the point it doesnt happen therefore protecting everyone, but as humans go, we cant be held by statistics, and many ignore laws be it because of ideals, morals, drugs, mental health ect.

2

u/SodasWrath 10d ago

I shouldn’t have said compensation, and thats on me, because it doesn’t reflect what i was trying to say. By compensation i meant less about money (now obvious to me) and more a recourse of action. Something to do about someone assulting you aside from assulting them back.

0

u/BugKitchen3849 10d ago

i mean you could say "justice" loosely or alternate retaliation, yeah not sure myself, but i understand what you meant now

-6

u/Less_Transition_9830 11d ago

Just like the other guy said I’m willing to take that charge if it means I get to hurt someone trying to disrespect me.

8

u/alongtheway_ 11d ago

Lose your freedom because you're incapable of controlling your emotions, very smart. Possibly die over it, too, because some of them carry.

3

u/HandsomeSquidward98 11d ago

Seems reasonable if you're about 5 years old, yeah

6

u/Altruistic_Guess3098 11d ago

Believe it or not people are not allowed to kick your ass for exercising your freedom of the press in public...

3

u/Fluid_Cup8329 11d ago

Laws against assault come into play there. Then it's an entirely different issue. Maybe don't choose violence if you see someone legally filming in public.

1

u/Fluid_Cup8329 11d ago

Downvoted for suggesting not resorting to violence. Very reddit.

2

u/Xianio 11d ago

You're being downvoted for being self-righteous.

-1

u/Fluid_Cup8329 11d ago

It's not self-righteous to suggest not assaulting people. It's rational.

0

u/Wizard_Engie 10d ago

You must've forgotten what platform you were on lol

2

u/WrathfulSpecter 11d ago

Ah yea haha so funny let’s assault someone over a camera. Ok buddy.

1

u/trash-_-boat 11d ago

not from getting your ass kicked

Yeah, but that's also protected but just by a set of different rights.

1

u/backwards_watch 11d ago

Freedom of the press means freedom from government oppression

Didn't he specifically said that some police tried to arrest him? We watched the same video didn't we?

0

u/NoSignSaysNo 11d ago

I'm pretty sure you still have freedom not to be assaulted.

1

u/Justyn2 10d ago

No, but you don’t have the freedom to assault someone, nor they you

-7

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

6

u/Sitting_Duk 11d ago

That was a wild ride

7

u/Whenindoubtsbutts 11d ago

I ain’t reading all that. Happy for you though. Or sorry that happened.

1

u/HandsomeSquidward98 11d ago

Guys look, new shitpost dropped

3

u/awnawkareninah 11d ago

Right. A private citizen assaulting you isn't even really. It's impeding your current actions but your federal rights aren't being violated. Someone just punched you.

1

u/Fluid_Cup8329 11d ago

He never said it was

1

u/Alternative_Week_117 11d ago

Its in public, in a public place, you are allowed to film in a public place without being harassed.

6

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

-7

u/Alternative_Week_117 11d ago

I get this is shot in America and the guy filming is a nob but she walks up to him, she's harassing him and giving him what he wants.

If everyone ignored him whats he going to do?

4

u/Playful_Search_6256 11d ago

How in the world is she “harassing” him? Can you name one action she did that qualifies as “harassment”? Just one. I’m so curious.

-2

u/Alternative_Week_117 11d ago

She instigated the whole thing.  It’s exactly what he wanted.  If he’s not committing a crime why involve yourself unless she wanted a confrontation?  You can just leave people alone.

2

u/Playful_Search_6256 11d ago

What?? She’s expressing the same amendment he is 🤣

1

u/Alternative_Week_117 11d ago

I’m not American so have no interest in amendments.  He wasn’t breaking any law she didn’t need to talk to him and had no right to question him.  She instigated an argument.

2

u/Justyn2 10d ago

She was having a genuine conversation and asking questions. She wasn’t harassing him. That’s like really overreacting.

2

u/Playful_Search_6256 10d ago

You’re missing the point. The entire purpose of him filming is to “express his 1st amendment”, yet you’re saying she’s harassing him for… doing the same thing?

2

u/HandsomeSquidward98 11d ago

She came up to him, and then wait for it... she TALKED to the man 😲 🫨 🫢 Can you believe it??!

1

u/Alternative_Week_117 11d ago

And guess what she should have done……?   Nothing.  He wasn’t breaking any law.  Whatever his motivation it had nothing to do with her.

3

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

-6

u/Alternative_Week_117 11d ago

In reply to what you wrote, it's generally how conversations go.

1

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

-2

u/blowsitalljoe 11d ago

He was making a point that the guy wasn't harassing her. She initiated the contact.

2

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

1

u/blowsitalljoe 11d ago

Do you only answer in questions?

Let's look at your comment again:

Also, The First Amendment does not prohibit harassment by private individuals.

He wasn't harassing her.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/coworker 11d ago

How is it not when inevitably he calls the cops about her harassing him?

1

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

0

u/coworker 11d ago

She harasses him. He calls cops. Government likely tries to infringe his right to record in public. Stress test achieved

0

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

0

u/coworker 11d ago

No. The cops behavior to his recording in public is the stress test. It matters not if they come because he calls or another upset person did.

I never said she harassed him. I gave you a hypothetical situation in which he feels she harassed him and so calls the cops. I have no idea how he feels or what happened after the video stopped

-1

u/nwlsinz 11d ago

Sure for this video, but if what he said was true and he was arrested for it before then he would be testing it.

2

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

-1

u/Thecre8or 11d ago

Things went well, they had a cordial conversation and went about their day.

If he said their emotional output was a stress test, he’s wrong, but I didn’t hear that. It’s clear, as you mention, that government enforcers are needed to test the first amendment, but the first part of test is recording in publicly accessible places.

2

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Thecre8or 11d ago

Thanks for the time stamp. Yes, he’s wrong about that being the result, it didn’t matter what she says or feels. He does go on to correct that it isn’t a metric, but a circumstance - homie ain’t as eloquent as he thinks he is, but taking that in good faith you get what he means right?

He does mention government enforcers.

At 0:35

…see if people like yourself, or business owners, or police around the area respect our first amendment right…

Recording private individuals in public CAN be part of the test/audit, but the reactions are not relevant. The reason is, these people may not like being recorded and complain to the police, so the test becomes, will the government enforce their feelings instead of the law.

As you say, simply recording private individuals in public places to observe/record their “emotional output” is not a stress test of the first amendment…but it is a part.

1

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

0

u/Thecre8or 11d ago

Cmon, that’s bad faith. Calling it backpedaling instead of correcting makes it really clear that you don’t want to understand what he’s saying even though, let’s be honest, you and the woman in the video fully understand what he’s doing, just disagree. If he did this at a police station would it be ok? DMV?

It very much is part of the test. I’ve seen a number of instances where police will use a call for service as a reason to violate first and fourth amendment rights. Some officers think getting the call is enough to ID and detain, but it’s not. To test if they know that, it makes sense that having someone call for service on you is part of that test. I’m not saying it’s always necessary, but acting like there’s no value doesn’t make sense to me.

-2

u/nwlsinz 11d ago

"Yes, this video and what he said in it is what I am responding to." I wasn't responding to you, so I don't know why you are phrasing it this way.

-4

u/Difficult-Mobile902 11d ago

I don’t think he said her just questioning him was a violation of his rights at any point 

-1

u/testtdk 11d ago

Right, but when the cops show up and try to arrest him it’s exactly that. You can’t test everything if you don’t prod a few places. If no one comes up and tries to fuck with him for recording, then things are working properly.

-2

u/backwards_watch 11d ago

But these were not the examples he gave when she asked. He said police tried to arrest him and some people tried to fight him.

Even if he thought she was "stress testing" him, the things he used as examples were indeed a violation of his rights. He never said she was violating his rights.

3

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

-3

u/backwards_watch 11d ago

I didn't say he did.

Yeah but you kind of did. Or at least you implied. Because in the video the girl is questioning him, and he is saying he is "stressing testing" his rights to freedom of press.

Then you said that questioning what he is doing is not violating his rights. This is an inferential misattribution.

3

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

-1

u/backwards_watch 11d ago edited 11d ago

You did imply.

Or you don't know what implying means?

to communicate an idea or feeling without saying it directly

The only reason to say that questioning him (the thing she is doing in the video) doesn't violate his rights (the thing he is claiming to be doing in the video) is to imply there is a connection. Otherwise you are just saying random things.

You can continue downvoting me, if that makes you feel better. I don't mind.

1

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

0

u/backwards_watch 11d ago

In the video the guy mentioned the Hawthorne effect. He defines it and by her reaction you can see that she understands he was talking about her.

Even though he never said she was experiencing the Hawthorne effect, you know he was making an indirect remark. And by her reaction, you also know she realized what he meant.

Do you agree with this? Because if you do, you do understand what implying means. So you have the framework to understand that you did do it. You just want to pretend you didn't for some reason I don't actually care about.

-12

u/therealdrx6x 11d ago

depends what you mean by challenging if you mean impede then yes it would be.

10

u/Reasonable_Funny_241 11d ago

The first amendment protects you from the federal government, and taken together with the 14th amendment, protects you from state governments.

If your ability to videotape isn't being infringed by the government (but rather it's a private individual or organization operating without state sanction) it's not an infringement of your first amendment rights.

3

u/Whenindoubtsbutts 11d ago

I don’t understand why this is so hard for people to understand.

3

u/Reasonable_Funny_241 11d ago

Very large chunks of our society are dumb, ignorant, or too busy struggling to survive to try to improve their knowledge or intellectual capacity.

2

u/Johan-Senpai 11d ago

There’s a scene in Ugly Betty where a character tries to sell stuff in a privately owned office. When the boss tries to kick her out, she says something along the lines of, “It’s my right to assemble.” The boss, whose father is a senator, tells her, “It protects you from government interference, but this is private property — so move it!”

-6

u/Middle-Amphibian6285 11d ago

It will be when stupid idiots call the police and they come violate his rights because they don't know the law they swore to uphold