CRT - Page 28 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Gardener
#15177505
Pants-of-dog wrote:The current culture war against CRT seems to be a backlash against all the gains made by anti-racism activists in the wake of the murder of Mr. George Floyd.

After his murder, there were many discussions about the role of policing in his death. The murder was so blatant that there were a lot fewer people on the right who tried to excuse it when compared to other killings. For the first time, a spotlight was shone on policing itself, and people were having serious discussions about getting rid of police altogether.

One can understand why many on the right decided to argue that Mr. Floyd’s murderer was a bad apple. An aberration, an outlier. Not part of the system.

So this is where the battle line is now. And this is why we see these attempts to stifle discussions about whether or not the system is killing people


Yeah.. one teeny tiny problem. You are conflating the murder of George Floyd with racism on behalf of the policeman. However, at NO stage - including at the trial - has racism been suggested as a motive for the murder.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15177506
@Gardener Yes, in this particular case it couldn't be proven. Yet, this seems to be the exception.

Minnesota AG explains why Floyd's death not charged as hate crime

“In our society, there is a social norm that killing certain kinds of people is more tolerable than other kinds of people,” says Keith Ellison about the murder of George Floyd. But without evidence of explicit bias, he could not charge it as a hate crime."

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... hate-crime

It's more a case of not being able to prove it more than it not being a thing.
By Pants-of-dog
#15177513
Gardener wrote:Yeah.. one teeny tiny problem. You are conflating the murder of George Floyd with racism on behalf of the policeman. However, at NO stage - including at the trial - has racism been suggested as a motive for the murder.


Actually, it is immaterial whether or not Mr. Floyd’s murderer was racist.

Maybe he was. Maybe he was not. The more important point that I made was the system of policing itself is racist, and the USA now has to examine that. Obviously, many people do not want that, thus the war on CRT.
By late
#15177514
If you were a Black father a hundred years ago, and a White guy shot and killed your son. If you went to the cops, you would be the one arrested. You would be seen as trying to upset the social order. Doyle created Sherlock Holmes hoping people would get the idea that policing was more than breaking heads, and policing would eventually be reformed.

Among all the other crap flying around, this is a struggle between old school policing, and the ongoing work to make them professional, and responsible, and focused on serving the community.
By Pants-of-dog
#15177534
It does not matter if cases showing discrimination are exactly like other cases where the guilty party gets off on a technicality.

Since this is irrelevant, it is clear that the fact that courts look at civil rights does not disprove the existence if racial bias on law.

At best, it is an imperfect mechanism for addressing such bias.

Whether or not this bias is intentional at this point is irrelevant. The laws were made and the system was designed in a racist context and there has been bo radical change. So even if most people in the system are not racist, the system still produces racist outcomes.

According to law, disparate impact is discrimination.

And since disparate impact (and disparate treatment) still occurs, it is logical to assume that the court system has not eradicated all racism from US law
By wat0n
#15177538
Pants-of-dog wrote:It does not matter if cases showing discrimination are exactly like other cases where the guilty party gets off on a technicality.


Why is it irrelevant? I'd actually say it's quite relevant since getting off on a technicality is an exceptional event (or else anti-discrimination law would be toothless, and it's not) and in any event the same could be said about any penalty.

It's like saying that it does not matter laws defending property exist to determine if the US legal system defends private property rights, simply because some burglars get off on technicality from time to time.

And I'm waiting for your example.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since this is irrelevant, it is clear that the fact that courts look at civil rights does not disprove the existence if racial bias on law.

At best, it is an imperfect mechanism for addressing such bias.


The very existence of such system falsifies the narrative that the law is written to uphold racial discrimination. If you believe the legal system is still biased, the burden of proof falls on you to prove so.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Whether or not this bias is intentional at this point is irrelevant. The laws were made and the system was designed in a racist context and there has been bo radical change. So even if most people in the system are not racist, the system still produces racist outcomes.


Actually intent matters when you claim the system is designed to support racial discrimination, you cannot design something without intent. Furthermore, this is a textbook genetic fallacy: The fact that anti-discrimination law was designed when discrimination was institutionalized doesn't mean it's discriminatory. At last, the advent of civil rights and anti-discrimination law means the system was already changed, indeed, that's exactly what their goal was.

Pants-of-dog wrote:According to law, disparate impact is discrimination.

And since disparate impact (and disparate treatment) still occurs, it is logical to assume that the court system has not eradicated all racism from US law


This is like saying that the legal systems of all countries in the world are designed for murder, simply because murders still happen in every country of the world.
By Pants-of-dog
#15177544
@wat0n

1. It is irrelevant because it does not change the fact that parties guilty if discrimination can be found to be doing so and the court can still not require any change.

2. It is logically possible for a legal to contain policies and laws that are disproportionately and negatively impacting BIPOC communities due to a legacy of racism, and at the same time, for an imperfect mechanism to exist in order to address said inequities.

The idea that s mechanism designed to address inequality somehow disproves said inequality is illogical, since the mechanism only exists because of the inequalities. The existence of the mechanism supports the idea of inequalities in law.

3. Please quote where I claimed it was designed. I think that is a strawman. Systemic bias does not require intent.

4. The existence of murder does not show that laws were designed for murder, which is a strawman. It does support the claim that the existence of laws are an imperfect mechanism for stopping the behaviour, so the mere existence of anti-discrimination laws dos not disprove the existence of racial bias in law, which is the actual claim.
By wat0n
#15177547
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. It is irrelevant because it does not change the fact that parties guilty if discrimination can be found to be doing so and the court can still not require any change.


Then I assume you believe the US doesn't defend property rights, a cornerstone of capitalism, because some burglars get off due to some technicality too. Am I correct here?

I'd actually say your point is irrelevant, a red herring meant to distract from your original claims.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. It is logically possible for a legal to contain policies and laws that are disproportionately and negatively impacting BIPOC communities due to a legacy of racism, and at the same time, for an imperfect mechanism to exist in order to address said inequities.

The idea that s mechanism designed to address inequality somehow disproves said inequality is illogical, since the mechanism only exists because of the inequalities. The existence of the mechanism supports the idea of inequalities in law.


What's illogical is to claim that the legal system is designed to support racial discrimination when its laws explicitly punish racial discrimination. The rest is a red herring meant to distract from this obvious fact, along with a good dose of a genetic fallacy.

Furthermore, saying that anti-discrimination law proves the existence of a legal system geared to discriminate is like saying that anti-murder law proves the existence of a legal system geared towards murder.

Pants-of-dog wrote:3. Please quote where I claimed it was designed. I think that is a strawman. Systemic bias does not require intent.


Systemic bias does require intent, by definition, as systems are designed. Furthermore, this is just yet another example of the "unconscious racism" nonsense that has been disproven by the inability of Implicit Association Tests to reliably measure that construct and the subsequent inability of research based on them to replicate, just as it happens with empirical social psychology in general - and is now used to support claims of white supremacism in law, as if white supremacy was something like a Freudian slip.

Pants-of-dog wrote:4. The existence of murder does not show that laws were designed for murder, which is a strawman. It does support the claim that the existence of laws are an imperfect mechanism for stopping the behaviour, so the mere existence of anti-discrimination laws dos not disprove the existence of racial bias in law, which is the actual claim.


But their existence does prove that the system is not designed to discriminate, which is exactly what CRT advocates claim and indeed is also what "racial bias in law" means.
By Pants-of-dog
#15177549
wat0n wrote:Then I assume you believe the US doesn't defend property rights, a cornerstone of capitalism, because some burglars get off due to some technicality too. Am I correct here?

I'd actually say your point is irrelevant, a red herring meant to distract from your original claims.


No, you are not correct at all.

What's illogical is to claim that the legal system is designed to support racial discrimination when its laws explicitly punish racial discrimination. The rest is a red herring meant to distract from this obvious fact, along with a good dose of a genetic fallacy.


So you are going to only address arguments about systemic racism if the argument also includes racist intent on the part of cops, DAs, judges, and/or the prison system.

Then feel free to ignore me.

In reality, systemic or institutional racism does not require racist intent on the part of individual actors. That is why it is systemic.

Furthermore, saying that anti-discrimination law proves the existence of a legal system geared to discriminate is like saying that anti-murder law proves the existence of a legal system geared towards murder.


No. It is more like saying that since murder laws can also apply to police and other state actors, we recognise that cops and other state actors can also murder.

Systemic bias does require intent, by definition, as systems are designed.



    Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded through laws and regulations within society or an organization. It can lead to such issues as discrimination in criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power, and education, among other issues. Institutional racism has harmful effects on people, especially on students in school where it is prominent.[1]

    The term institutional racism was first coined in 1967 by Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton in Black Power: The Politics of Liberation.[2] Carmichael and Hamilton wrote in 1967 that while individual racism is often identifiable because of its overt nature, institutional racism is less perceptible because of its "less overt, far more subtle" nature. Institutional racism "originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than [individual racism]".[3]

    Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the UK's Lawrence report (1999) as: "The collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour that amount to discrimination through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people."[4][5]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism

Now everyone can read the definition and see that intent by individual actors is not necessary.

Furthermore, this is just yet another example of the "unconscious racism" nonsense that has been disproven by the inability of Implicit Association Tests to reliably measure that construct and the subsequent inability of research based on them to replicate, just as it happens with empirical social psychology in general - and is now used to support claims of white supremacism in law, as if white supremacy was something like a Freudian slip.


The lack of accuracy with individual IAT tests does not disprove racism or institutional bias against BIPOC people in any way.

But their existence does prove that the system is not designed to discriminate, which is exactly what CRT advocates claim and indeed is also what "racial bias in law" means.


I think CRT scholars have a more nuanced argument than “it’s only racism if the person doing it is intentionally trying to oppress black people”.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15177551
@Pants-of-dog You posted:

Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded through laws and regulations within society or an organization.


Please give me an example of a law or regulation that has racism embedded. I'll wait.

Oh. And let me add....Your wiki article (and this is the danger with wiki) goes on to say:

Institutional racism has harmful effects on people, especially on students in school where it is prominent.


Please tell us how this prejudicial statement is justified. Where is this institutional racism "prominent". You can tell me the city or just the zip code. I'll continue to wait.......
By wat0n
#15177555
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, you are not correct at all.


Do you realize the fallacy behind your reasoning then?

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you are going to only address arguments about systemic racism if the argument also includes racist intent on the part of cops, DAs, judges, and/or the prison system.

Then feel free to ignore me.

In reality, systemic or institutional racism does not require racist intent on the part of individual actors. That is why it is systemic.


This is another evasive response. I'm not referring to individual actors but what the will of the legislator was in drafting the law. You can for instance infer such intent when segregation laws were passed in the US South, including by considering its legislative history such as the arguments the legislators used at the time to justify them.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. It is more like saying that since murder laws can also apply to police and other state actors, we recognise that cops and other state actors can also murder.


So...?

Pants-of-dog wrote:

    Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded through laws and regulations within society or an organization. It can lead to such issues as discrimination in criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power, and education, among other issues. Institutional racism has harmful effects on people, especially on students in school where it is prominent.[1]

    The term institutional racism was first coined in 1967 by Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton in Black Power: The Politics of Liberation.[2] Carmichael and Hamilton wrote in 1967 that while individual racism is often identifiable because of its overt nature, institutional racism is less perceptible because of its "less overt, far more subtle" nature. Institutional racism "originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than [individual racism]".[3]

    Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the UK's Lawrence report (1999) as: "The collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour that amount to discrimination through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people."[4][5]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism

Now everyone can read the definition and see that intent by individual actors is not necessary.


I'm, again, not concerning myself with the intent of this cop here or this DA there. I'm concerned with the intent of the legislative body.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The lack of accuracy with individual IAT tests does not disprove racism or institutional bias against BIPOC people in any way.


But it does mean you can't prove unconscious bias even exists.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I think CRT scholars have a more nuanced argument than “it’s only racism if the person doing it is intentionally trying to oppress black people”.


Thus far much of their argument is based on narrative, including stuff like "some Black guy believes the US has always been racist and it still is", which is hardly nuanced.
User avatar
By MadMonk
#15177556
Drlee wrote:@Pants-of-dog
Please give me an example of a law or regulation that has racism embedded. I'll wait.


“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”


Source

The War on Drugs began in June 1971 when U.S. Pres. Richard Nixon declared drug abuse to be “public enemy number one” and increased federal funding for drug-control agencies and drug-treatment efforts. In 1973 the Drug Enforcement Administration was created out of the merger of the Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, and the Office of Narcotics Intelligence to consolidate federal efforts to control drug abuse.


The War on Drugs was a relatively small component of federal law-enforcement efforts until the presidency of Ronald Reagan, which began in 1981. Reagan greatly expanded the reach of the drug war and his focus on criminal punishment over treatment led to a massive increase in incarcerations for nonviolent drug offenses, from 50,000 in 1980 to 400,000 in 1997. In 1984 his wife, Nancy, spearheaded another facet of the War on Drugs with her “Just Say No” campaign, which was a privately funded effort to educate schoolchildren on the dangers of drug use. The expansion of the War on Drugs was in many ways driven by increased media coverage of—and resulting public nervousness over—the crack epidemic that arose in the early 1980s. This heightened concern over illicit drug use helped drive political support for Reagan’s hard-line stance on drugs.


The U.S. Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which allocated $1.7 billion to the War on Drugs and established a series of “mandatory minimum” prison sentences for various drug offenses. A notable feature of mandatory minimums was the massive gap between the amounts of crack and of powder cocaine that resulted in the same minimum sentence: possession of five grams of crack led to an automatic five-year sentence while it took the possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger that sentence. Since approximately 80% of crack users were African American, mandatory minimums led to an unequal increase of incarceration rates for nonviolent Black drug offenders, as well as claims that the War on Drugs was a racist institution.


Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 that reduced the discrepancy of crack-to-powder possession thresholds for minimum sentences from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. Prison reform legislation enacted in 2018 further reduced the sentences for some crack cocaine–related convictions. While the War on Drugs is still technically being waged, it is done at a much less intense level than it was during its peak in the 1980s.


Source

Another great victory by the American government. Not a great track record since September 2, 1945. :eh:
By Pants-of-dog
#15177611
Drlee wrote:@Pants-of-dog You posted:



Please give me an example of a law or regulation that has racism embedded. I'll wait.


The current voter ID laws in Florida.

:roll:
Oh. And let me add....Your wiki article (and this is the danger with wiki) goes on to say:

Please tell us how this prejudicial statement is justified. Where is this institutional racism "prominent". You can tell me the city or just the zip code. I'll continue to wait.......


The current ban on teaching about systemic racism in Florida is a good example.

————————

@wat0n

1. Please tell me how my argument is fallacious.

2. Please clarify your claims about the intents of legislators, and explain how these are hot discussions of individual intent.

3. if you wish to claim CRT scholars have an unnuanced view of racism, please show this to be true with a link to, and a quote from, a respected source.
By wat0n
#15177614
Pants-of-dog wrote:1. Please tell me how my argument is fallacious.


Sure: If the existence of technicalities that may allow someone to get off a discrimination charge (I'm still waiting for examples) means antidiscrimination law is toothless, then the existence of of burglars who get off due to technicalities means the US property laws are also toothless. You said the latter is false, hence the former is false by contraposition.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. Please clarify your claims about the intents of legislators, and explain how these are hot discussions of individual intent.


Simple: If you believe the system is set up to discriminate, you should infer so from legislative discussion. I'm waiting for you to prove so.

Pants-of-dog wrote:3. if you wish to claim CRT scholars have an unnuanced view of racism, please show this to be true with a link to, and a quote from, a respected source.


Define what do you mean by "unnuanced" here.
By Pants-of-dog
#15177619
wat0n wrote:Sure: If the existence of technicalities that may allow someone to get off a discrimination charge (I'm still waiting for examples) means antidiscrimination law is toothless, then the existence of of burglars who get off due to technicalities means the US property laws are also toothless. You said the latter is false, hence the former is false by contraposition.


Since I am not arguing that technicalities make this law toothless, this criticism does not apply.

Again, the argument is that this is an imperfect mechanism.

Simple: If you believe the system is set up to discriminate, you should infer so from legislative discussion. I'm waiting for you to prove so.


Please clarify what you mean by “is set up to discriminate”. Thank you.

Define what do you mean by "unnuanced" here.


specifically, please support your claim that CRT scholars only believe racism exist when the individual actor clearly has racist intent.

Thank you.
By wat0n
#15177623
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since I am not arguing that technicalities make this law toothless, this criticism does not apply.

Again, the argument is that this is an imperfect mechanism.


Then US property rights are also an imperfect mechanism, hence the US has a systemic opposition to private property.

;)

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please clarify what you mean by “is set up to discriminate”. Thank you.


The legislators passed the laws with the goal of allowing or encouraging discrimination.

Pants-of-dog wrote:specifically, please support your claim that CRT scholars only believe racism exist when the individual actor clearly has racist intent.

Thank you.


I did not claim that, I said their claims are not in fact nuanced. The evidence can be seen by their reliance on narratives and standpoint epistemology.
User avatar
By Gardener
#15177745
Pants-of-dog wrote:Actually, it is immaterial whether or not Mr. Floyd’s murderer was racist.

Maybe he was. Maybe he was not. The more important point that I made was the system of policing itself is racist, and the USA now has to examine that. Obviously, many people do not want that, thus the war on CRT.

The thing you said was "...The current culture war against CRT seems to be a backlash against all the gains made by anti-racism activists in the wake of the murder of Mr. George Floyd..."

The implication in that sentence is that the George Floyd murder had a racist implication. However, this was not indicated by either the prosecutor, the reported witness statements, or the media. So why make the implication ? Or do you just assume - in line with CRitical Race Hypothesis teaching - that EVERYTHING is racist ?
User avatar
By Gardener
#15177756
Pants-of-dog wrote:The current voter ID laws in Florida.
.. which are not racist ?

The current ban on teaching about systemic racism in Florida is a good example.


There is no such ban ? There MAY be a ban on teaching Critical Race Hypothesis, but then that teaches a call to activism rather than being a pure hypothesis. It is also an unproven hypothesis - and a corrosive one to boot - why SHOULD it be promoted in schools ?

Hey.. I know.. why don't we teach White Replacement Theory, or Flat Earth Theory, or Scientology in schools ?
User avatar
By Drlee
#15177759
I cannot think of very many things that would be so dispiriting to a young black person than to teach them that the world in which they live conspires to keep them down.

CRT is a broad brush approach. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is possible for an exceptional teacher to craft a series of classes about the theory that were not soul crushing for the black students attending but it would be a very special teacher indeed. Now imagine an average, white, BA prepared civics teacher/JV football coach who has spent his life in rural Florida teaching the class. What a terrifying thought.

It is important to prepare students for the future. Including untested and highly controversial social theories, and then having the lesson plan constructed by someone who knows little about it and may well be offended by it is preposterous. Or how about asking the honest big city history teacher to represent the 1619 project to students all the while knowing that most of the country's most esteemed historians have condemned its inaccuracies.

I am all about depth in education. But dealing with this kind of subject is WAY above the capabilities of most rank and file K-12 teachers. So start there.
By Pants-of-dog
#15177788
wat0n wrote:Then US property rights are also an imperfect mechanism, hence the US has a systemic opposition to private property.


No, you have misunderstood.

It would be more correct to say that since US property laws are an imperfect mechanism, instances of infractions against these rights still occur and there still exists the very real possibility that the causes of said infractions are systemic.

The legislators passed the laws with the goal of allowing or encouraging discrimination.


Are you saying that the individual legislators intentionally acted against the interests of BIPOC people?

I did not claim that, I said their claims are not in fact nuanced. The evidence can be seen by their reliance on narratives and standpoint epistemology.


If your only evidence is your incorrect idea about another aspect of CRT, this argument is unconvincing.

---------------

Gardener wrote:The thing you said was "...The current culture war against CRT seems to be a backlash against all the gains made by anti-racism activists in the wake of the murder of Mr. George Floyd..."

The implication in that sentence is that the George Floyd murder had a racist implication. However, this was not indicated by either the prosecutor, the reported witness statements, or the media. So why make the implication ? Or do you just assume - in line with CRitical Race Hypothesis teaching - that EVERYTHING is racist ?


I was discussing systemic racism.

Would you like me to define that for you?

Gardener wrote: .. which are not racist ?


Actually, they are.

There is no such ban ? There MAY be a ban on teaching Critical Race Hypothesis, but then that teaches a call to activism rather than being a pure hypothesis. It is also an unproven hypothesis - and a corrosive one to boot - why SHOULD it be promoted in schools ?

Hey.. I know.. why don't we teach White Replacement Theory, or Flat Earth Theory, or Scientology in schools ?


There is such a ban. There is even a thread about it.

---------------

Drlee wrote:I cannot think of very many things that would be so dispiriting to a young black person than to teach them that the world in which they live conspires to keep them down.


Since the vast majority of black children learn this (i.e. the world in which they live conspires to keep them down) from simply existing in modern society, imaginary CRT classes are not going to be making BIPOC kids sad.

In fact, this argument seems to imply that BIPOC kids are not smart enough to see the racism in the real world, and only believe the world is racist because other people told them it was and they accepted that uncritically.

CRT is a broad brush approach. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is possible for an exceptional teacher to craft a series of classes about the theory that were not soul crushing for the black students attending but it would be a very special teacher indeed. Now imagine an average, white, BA prepared civics teacher/JV football coach who has spent his life in rural Florida teaching the class. What a terrifying thought.


Since CRT is not taught at the elementary or secondary level, this is not a real worry.

Fabricated fears are not a good justification for censorship of teachers.

It is important to prepare students for the future. Including untested and highly controversial social theories, and then having the lesson plan constructed by someone who knows little about it and may well be offended by it is preposterous. Or how about asking the honest big city history teacher to represent the 1619 project to students all the while knowing that most of the country's most esteemed historians have condemned its inaccuracies.


Please list the inaccuracies. Thank you.

I am all about depth in education. But dealing with this kind of subject is WAY above the capabilities of most rank and file K-12 teachers. So start there.


CRT is a legal theory taught primarily to BIPOC law students. It was never being taught to K-12 students.

This is one of the reasons this is a Trojan horse, and the real impact is to ban classroom discussions about systemic racism.
  • 1
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 53
Investors snapping up middle class housing

@Crantag Blasphemy. ;) https://i.re[…]

@Juin I am not a lawyer but the DOJ might deci[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

So schools are allowed to ask, and ask for eviden[…]

There are bike trips timed to happen when the lave[…]