Florida Bans CRT in Schools - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15177548
wat0n wrote:Please quote me on saying that. It justifies avoiding future claims of election fraud, and states should also provide free ID cards.


The actual effect is to disenfranchise legal voters, a disproportionately large number of which will be BIPOC. If you are going to claim these laws are justified, then that is what you need to justify.

If the claim is that these laws and their impact are justified because they will avoid future claims about voter fraud, that is a new argument. I think that is illogical. This is because we are currently seeing restrictions by the Florida government despite no actual threat. This shows that accusations of voter fraud do not need to have a factual or logical basis.

I'd still like to see the original source.


http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php ... lt/7-4.pdf

it also mentions that “Instruction may not utilize material from the 1619 Project”.

So, if a teacher uses materials or facts that are also mentioned in the 1619 project, that could be considered illegal.

So you want evidence like actual cases where that happened? It's as easy as looking at some civil rights era ones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernandez_v._Texas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._ ... _Education
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keys_v._Carolina_Coach_Co.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browder_v._Gayle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boynton_v._Virginia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_ ... ted_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Car ... Katzenbach
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_v._ ... ._Mayer_Co.

Will you finally prove your claims now?


I assume this is a series of civil rights cases where one example of discrimination was rooted out in each case.

My claim is that anti-discrimination law does not show that there is no racism in US law.

This is the only logical conclusion if we accept two premises:

1. There is a significant amount of racism embedded in US law, and
2. Anti-discrimination law has only challenged a fraction of this racism.

The first premise is easily seen by looking not only at US history, but also seeing how laws are used today.

These ten or so cases are then part of that fraction that has been addressed.
#15177550
Since we appear to have a number of people pontificating about this resolution by the Florida Department of Education how about we actually read it:

Instruction on the required topics must be factual and objective, and may not suppress or distort significant historical events, such as the Holocaust, slavery, the Civil War and Reconstruction, the Civil Rights movement and the contributions of women, African American and Hispanic people to our country as already provided in section 1003.42 of Florida Statutes. Examples of theories that distort historical events and are inconsistent with State Board approved standards include the denial or minimization of the Holocaust and the teaching of “critical race theory,” meaning the theory that racism is not merely a product of prejudice but that racism is embedded in American society and its legal systems in order to uphold the supremacy of white persons. Instruction may not utilize material from the 1619 Project and may not define American history as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence. Instruction must include the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.


I agree wholly with this resolution. I absolutely understand that the intent of some of its proponents is racist. I get that. However, that is irrelevant. The substance of the rule is sound.

Reminding everyone again, that this rule is for children. For those who attend college there will be plenty of time to debate theories, cockamamie or cogent.

Speaking at the meeting is Governor DeSantis. He is a fool and a racist, backing Florida's attempts at voter suppression. Nevertheless, what he said was not without merit:

During his remarks to the Board on Thursday, DeSantis called critical race theory toxic and divisive, saying it forces students to think about their skin color rather than the content of their character and “what they’re trying to accomplish in life.”


and:

"We’ve got to have an education system that is preferring fact over narrative,” DeSantis said. “When it departs from a historical record and then when it goes into trying to create narratives that basically are teaching kids that the country is rotten and that our institutions are illegitimate, that is not worth any taxpayer dollars. It’s wrong and it’s not something that we should do.”


I agree with this and, since it is coming from a man who us affirmatively trying to make our "institutions illegitimate" by supporting Trump's absurd election claims and practicing voter suppression the absurdity of the statement BY HIM is not lost on me.

But that is the deal. CRT teaches that the American system of government is specifically designed to ensure white supremacy. It is not. You can go back far enough to find that it was but the state of the law now is not racist.

So what about voter suppression? As I said, it is not minorities they are out to suppress it is democrats. And candor requires that I assert that democrats are guilty of some of this also.

None of that though has anything to do with whether or not we teach a sketchy pop culture theory in school.
#15177553
Pants-of-dog wrote:The actual effect is to disenfranchise legal voters, a disproportionately large number of which will be BIPOC. If you are going to claim these laws are justified, then that is what you need to justify.

If the claim is that these laws and their impact are justified because they will avoid future claims about voter fraud, that is a new argument. I think that is illogical. This is because we are currently seeing restrictions by the Florida government despite no actual threat. This shows that accusations of voter fraud do not need to have a factual or logical basis.


"Despite no actual threat"? It's an argument that has been used by some to delegitimize Biden's win.

If the issue lies in access, then make IDs free and allow the whole thing to be done by mail. If the State refused to apply that remedy, then I will be more than happy to reassess my views on the matter.

Pants-of-dog wrote:http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/19958/urlt/7-4.pdf

it also mentions that “Instruction may not utilize material from the 1619 Project”.

So, if a teacher uses materials or facts that are also mentioned in the 1619 project, that could be considered illegal.


Thanks for posting the link. The 1619 Project itself has been criticized by historians on its factual matters, indeed, the NYT had to backtrack some of its most aggressive claims.

I'm not sure it would bar the discussion on CRT and even the 1619 Project itself in a civics class, but I think you could make the case the wording may indeed be interpreted in that way. If so, I agree it's wrong - but I don't disagree with stating neither belong to a history class.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I assume this is a series of civil rights cases where one example of discrimination was rooted out in each case.

My claim is that anti-discrimination law does not show that there is no racism in US law.

This is the only logical conclusion if we accept two premises:

1. There is a significant amount of racism embedded in US law, and
2. Anti-discrimination law has only challenged a fraction of this racism.

The first premise is easily seen by looking not only at US history, but also seeing how laws are used today.

These ten or so cases are then part of that fraction that has been addressed.


You still have not shown 1), even voting laws you mentioned before have been subject to antidiscrimination law scrutiny. Since you have yet to show 1), dealing with 2) is a moot point.
#15177564
I'm not sure it would bar the discussion on CRT and even the 1619 Project itself in a civics class, but I think you could make the case the wording may indeed be interpreted in that way. If so, I agree it's wrong - but I don't disagree with stating neither belong to a history class.


I would most certainly ban it. Let me ask you a serious question:

How would you teach that much of the 1619 and CRT claims are factually incorrect, to a classroom with many African Americans in it, and be safe from claims of racism? And even if you were the picture of subtlety, how many of the African American students would believe you given how (understandably) eager they are to have some of these ideas be true?

I remember when I first studied "Inherit the Wind" in school. I was probably in 7th grade or so. I could not wait to go home and engage my religious parents (and all my religious friends) in the debate. I was sure that the Jonah in a whale stuff would floor them... To the person they just smiled and ignored me. Now, as an older and mellow Christian, I realize what a load of bollocks that book was. It completely missed the point from a religious standpoint.

But that is not my point. My point is that I behaved like just about any kid does when newly discovered iconoclastic point.

I have taught a shit ton of classes in my time and can confidently say I would not touch CRT or the 1619 project with a ten foot pole. At least not until the Republicans firmly reestablish racist control in 2024.
#15177567
Drlee wrote:I would most certainly ban it. Let me ask you a serious question:

How would you teach that much of the 1619 and CRT claims are factually incorrect, to a classroom with many African Americans in it, and be safe from claims of racism? And even if you were the picture of subtlety, how many of the African American students would believe you given how (understandably) eager they are to have some of these ideas be true?


I think I would start by having everyone read some of the debate around it, as historians have actually gone public here.

Shortly after the 1619 Project piece was published at the NYT, there were a couple of letters penned by historians along with a response by the editor who managed the whole thing:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200115075 ... oject.html
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174140

And these led to all sorts of discussions on its merits. You can see a few here (including further points raised by the historians and further responses by the 1619 Project team):

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... tz/605152/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... 19/604435/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ct/604093/
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/1 ... d-n28.html
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/1 ... h-n14.html
https://www.staugustine.com/news/201908 ... des-before
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/ ... 205417002/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... story.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/opin ... cisms.html
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... ake-122248 (this one is particularly damning for the NYT, in terms of its editorial policies, I strongly advise you to read it).

Of course, students shouldn't need to read all of these but I'm sure you get where I'm getting to: There has been a debate around the 1619 Project, particularly among some of its most resounding or controversial claims, and the idea would be to have this conversation in a civics class simply because there's quite a lot to say about it, there is also nuance necessary to even understand what historians are saying and even what the Project itself is claiming, and this is not just about the 1619 Project as there could be a quite legitimate debate on how the press works, how people form their opinions and furthermore even about how knowledge is generated. These are all topics that fit a civics class better than a history class.

Drlee wrote: I remember when I first studied "Inherit the Wind" in school. I was probably in 7th grade or so. I could not wait to go home and engage my religious parents (and all my religious friends) in the debate. I was sure that the Jonah in a whale stuff would floor them... To the person they just smiled and ignored me. Now, as an older and mellow Christian, I realize what a load of bollocks that book was. It completely missed the point from a religious standpoint.

But that is not my point. My point is that I behaved like just about any kid does when newly discovered iconoclastic point.

I have taught a shit ton of classes in my time and can confidently say I would not touch CRT or the 1619 project with a ten foot pole. At least not until the Republicans firmly reestablish racist control in 2024.


I think this is a debate that should be left for at least 11th graders. I don't think elementary school kids are mature enough to have it.
#15177569
I agree about leaving it until later. You say 11th grade. OK. For discussion I will agree. Now tell me how you would teach the flaws in both without the black students thinking you are racist and the white students thinking you are wimping out? My question is more practical than theoretical.
#15177570
Drlee wrote:I agree about leaving it until later. You say 11th grade. OK. For discussion I will agree. Now tell me how you would teach the flaws in both without the black students thinking you are racist and the white students thinking you are wimping out? My question is more practical than theoretical.


You could take particular care in listening what African American historians say about this matter. Maybe even invite one.
#15177572
Search around until you find an AA scholar who disagrees with CRT? Isn't that a little like the black guy who stood behind Trump at every rally?
#15177573
Drlee wrote:Search around until you find an AA scholar who disagrees with CRT? Isn't that a little like the black guy who stood behind Trump at every rally?


The historian featured in the last link I posted is actually AA. I wouldn't be sure she necessarily disagrees with CRT but she does say that the 1619 Project simply got some facts wrong - even if she agrees with its aims. That is something interesting, in the sense that you can perfectly agree with its goals yet acknowledge that some of its claims are just wrong.

That's why I think it should be discussed in a civics class (and perhaps an ethics class too): Is the Project, indeed, a good thing? Also, is it acceptable to present some claims as historical facts, even though they are not, to make a case for a good cause (assuming the previous answer is "yes")?
#15177589
wat0n wrote:
Why would it die in courts if CRT was correct?





The new laws aren't designed to withstand a court challenge. They are vague, prejudicial, and contrafactual.
#15177591
About the 1619 Project, fighting in academia is routine.

The guys behind 1619 are journalists, and the real point here is whether they have a point. To wit, does a slavery get enough attention in the education of history.

If we're talking public schools, the answer is no. History in public schools is always a tug of war between academics and popular mythology.

This is not unusual.

In the 1970s we started to face the unpleasantness of our genocide. There was a lot of arguing.

As I keep having to say, racism is the ten ton gorilla in the room. Ignore it at your peril.
#15177598
Also, is it acceptable to present some claims as historical facts, even though they are not, to make a case for a good cause (assuming the previous answer is "yes")?


Of course not is the answer and leading students through that question invites some of them to adopt a "end justifies the means" system of moral judgment.

I could flippantly answer "ask any Republican".

About the 1619 Project, fighting in academia is routine.


I do not consider the modern American High School "academia". Do you?

The guys behind 1619 are journalists, and the real point here is whether they have a point. To wit, does a slavery get enough attention in the education of history.

If we're talking public schools, the answer is no. History in public schools is always a tug of war between academics and popular mythology.


This is true everywhere. That is why it is always best to put the most pullers on the side of facts.

In the 1970s we started to face the unpleasantness of our genocide. There was a lot of arguing.


Still is. And we have yet to conclude that it was virtually unavoidable. It will take generations for that kind of intellectual honesty to manifest. If ever.

As I keep having to say, racism is the ten ton gorilla in the room. Ignore it at your peril.


Apparently there is no peril. We have, at least partly through our new minority-party rule, institutionalized it in ways not seen since Jim Crow.

Will there be an eventual reckoning? I think not. Here's why:

1) There is a decided drift of Latinos to the right. If this continues the Republicans could be the majority party in a couple of election cycles. They are already vastly over represented in the Senate and House.

2) There is no organized opposition to these (so called) conservatives legislating racism into the system. The democrats for whatever reason won't even sacrifice the filibuster for voting rights. That is the death knell of representative government in the US. (They won't even consider gerrymandering reform either.)

3) Young people do not seem to be passionate about politics. We are fat, dumb and happy for the most part. Where are the student demonstrations from the 60's.

There were more but let me just say about gerrymandering: It is insidious in two ways. The obvious is the disproportionate power it gives some citizens. We lost one-man-one-vote a century ago. (We never had it at all.) The other is that it has a built-in bone to throw to the opposition. In this case blacks. They "get" a few districts so it looks like they are represented in the government. But by concentrating black votes in fewer districts these seats do not give them much real power at all. Blacks only have any power at all as a subset of the Democratic Party which throws them this proverbial bone every now and then and bones them in a different way most of the time.
#15177605
Drlee wrote:Of course not is the answer and leading students through that question invites some of them to adopt a "end justifies the means" system of moral judgment.

I could flippantly answer "ask any Republican".


Well, the end justifies the means is as old as it gets so I don't think the lecture would tip the balance all that much. But those who think in those terms would probably face scrutiny in this scenario - and that is actually a valuable takeaway from it, even if plenty of students may actually decide to double down on it. Ultimately, they do have the right to decide for themselves what their ethics will be - a civics class has to make you think and reconsider your positions (if you had them) but not indoctrinate.

Drlee wrote:I do not consider the modern American High School "academia". Do you?


I don't either although it is also important students learn that sometimes the answers may not be clear, that following a debate can actually be useful and enlightening and also to think critically about what they read.
#15177615
wat0n wrote:"Despite no actual threat"? It's an argument that has been used by some to delegitimize Biden's win.


The fact that Trump lied about the threat of voter fraud does not magically make it a good argument to justify disenfranchisement.

If the issue lies in access, then make IDs free and allow the whole thing to be done by mail. If the State refused to apply that remedy, then I will be more than happy to reassess my views on the matter.


Since Florida is not providing free IDs, I will now assume that you ave reassessed and now agree that this is a case of systemic racism.

Thanks for posting the link. The 1619 Project itself has been criticized by historians on its factual matters, indeed, the NYT had to backtrack some of its most aggressive claims.

I'm not sure it would bar the discussion on CRT and even the 1619 Project itself in a civics class, but I think you could make the case the wording may indeed be interpreted in that way. If so, I agree it's wrong - but I don't disagree with stating neither belong to a history class.


Yes, it explicitly bars discussion about this. I literally quoted the text.

Or, more correctly, it would be legal to criticise and denounce these claims, but it would be illegal to defend the claims made in the 1619 project.

You still have not shown 1), even voting laws you mentioned before have been subject to antidiscrimination law scrutiny. Since you have yet to show 1), dealing with 2) is a moot point.


You have not shown that either of these premises are incorrect, while things like the current voter ID laws and bans on discussing systemic racism support my claim.

————————

Also, this whole thing is ridiculous since CRT was almost certainly never taught in Florida elementary or secondary schools.
#15177617
Pants-of-dog wrote:The fact that Trump lied about the threat of voter fraud does not magically make it a good argument to justify disenfranchisement.


Proving identity is not disenfranchisement :roll:

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since Florida is not providing free IDs, I will now assume that you ave reassessed and now agree that this is a case of systemic racism.


No, because this proposal has not featured in the debate.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, it explicitly bars discussion about this. I literally quoted the text.

Or, more correctly, it would be legal to criticise and denounce these claims, but it would be illegal to defend the claims made in the 1619 project.


Would it? It may also be interpreted as barring teaching the 1619 Project in a history class, as if it was factual when it's not.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You have not shown that either of these premises are incorrect, while things like the current voter ID laws and bans on discussing systemic racism support my claim.


No, that's not how it works. You are the one who has to prove the first premise is correct, and have yet to do so. Again, you can cite the legislative history of the current laws on these matters (e.g. the Voting Rights Act of 1965 or the various Civil Rights Acts currently in force) to prove this premise.

I also wouldn't be sure that discussing systemic racism was banned in FL either. For instance, how can you discuss the Civil Rights Movement - as mandated by the policy - without touching on the subject?
#15177620
wat0n wrote:Proving identity is not disenfranchisement :roll:


Are you disagreeing with the many studies that show that voter Id laws effectively disenfranchise many legal voters, and that this disproportionately impacts BIPOC people?

Yes or no?

If you actually believe that voter ID laws do not effectively disenfranchise people, then yes, you are disagreeing with the studies.

No, because this proposal has not featured in the debate.


So despite your previous assertion, you refuse to reassess our views even though Republicans have refused to provide any remedy.

Would it? It may also be interpreted as barring teaching the 1619 Project in a history class, as if it was factual when it's not.


Yes, it would be illegal to teach or defend the 1619 project, just as it is explicitly stated in the text I quoted from the website to which I provided a link. That particular point has been proven.

And so far, you have not presented any factual errors from said project.

No, that's not how it works. You are the one who has to prove the first premise is correct, and have yet to do so. Again, you can cite the legislative history of the current laws on these matters (e.g. the Voting Rights Act of 1965 or the various Civil Rights Acts currently in force) to prove this premise.

I also wouldn't be sure that discussing systemic racism was banned in FL either. For instance, how can you discuss the Civil Rights Movement - as mandated by the policy - without touching on the subject?


If you choose to disregard the evidence already presented showing systemic racism in US law, feel free.

And since I already quoted the text from the website that explicitly shows that systemic racism is a forbidden subject, we know it is banned.
#15177624
This is Right Wingers being afraid of the truth and trying to ban it. That never really works out very well. They are only giving CRT credibility.

And the whole time many of the people that are opposed to CRT simply do not know what it is. The funny thing is that by opposing it they confirm that CRT is correct.

"critical race theory (CRT), intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour. Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans."
#15177626
Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you disagreeing with the many studies that show that voter Id laws effectively disenfranchise many legal voters, and that this disproportionately impacts BIPOC people?

Yes or no?

If you actually believe that voter ID laws do not effectively disenfranchise people, then yes, you are disagreeing with the studies.


Claiming voting ID laws are disenfranchising people is like claiming that requiring proof of identity for people claiming reparations over being persecuted during Pinochet's dictatorship takes away the right to reparations from them.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So despite your previous assertion, you refuse to reassess our views even though Republicans have refused to provide any remedy.


Such refusal has not been tested, since no one has proposed it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, it would be illegal to teach or defend the 1619 project, just as it is explicitly stated in the text I quoted from the website to which I provided a link. That particular point has been proven.


No, not really. The text can perfectly be interpreted as forbidding teachers from teaching it as fact.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And so far, you have not presented any factual errors from said project.


I actually have pointed to sources regarding this debate, but I'll cite an actual expert on American slavery on it:

Leslie M. Harris, for Politico wrote:OPINION | HISTORY DEPT.

I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored Me.
The paper’s series on slavery made avoidable mistakes. But the attacks from its critics are much more dangerous.

On August 19 of last year I listened in stunned silence as Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for the New York Times, repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against with her fact-checker: that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America.

Hannah-Jones and I were on Georgia Public Radio to discuss the path-breaking New York Times 1619 Project, a major feature about the impact of slavery on American history, which she had spearheaded. The Times had just published the special 1619 edition of its magazine, which took its name from the year 20 Africans arrived in the colony of Virginia—a group believed to be the first enslaved Africans to arrive in British North America.

Weeks before, I had received an email from a New York Times research editor. Because I’m an historian of African American life and slavery, in New York, specifically, and the pre-Civil War era more generally, she wanted me to verify some statements for the project. At one point, she sent me this assertion: “One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth. At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.”

I vigorously disputed the claim. Although slavery was certainly an issue in the American Revolution, the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the 13 Colonies went to war.

The editor followed up with several questions probing the nature of slavery in the Colonial era, such as whether enslaved people were allowed to read, could legally marry, could congregate in groups of more than four, and could own, will or inherit property—the answers to which vary widely depending on the era and the colony. I explained these histories as best I could—with references to specific examples—but never heard back from her about how the information would be used.

Despite my advice, the Times published the incorrect statement about the American Revolution anyway, in Hannah-Jones’ introductory essay. In addition, the paper’s characterizations of slavery in early America reflected laws and practices more common in the antebellum era than in Colonial times, and did not accurately illustrate the varied experiences of the first generation of enslaved people that arrived in Virginia in 1619.

Both sets of inaccuracies worried me, but the Revolutionary War statement made me especially anxious. Overall, the 1619 Project is a much-needed corrective to the blindly celebratory histories that once dominated our understanding of the past—histories that wrongly suggested racism and slavery were not a central part of U.S. history. I was concerned that critics would use the overstated claim to discredit the entire undertaking. So far, that’s exactly what has happened.

...


She's based in Northwestern University's History Department, and is an African American woman who's based her academic career on the history of slavery in the US (since you believe in standpoint epistemology, as a good CRT acolyte, I'm sure you won't contest her claims).

She's not even among the signatories of the original letters that pushed back against Project 1619. She refused to sign it because 1) she doesn't like their historiography on slavery in the US and 2) she broadly agrees with the goals of the project. I have seen no historians claiming it to be historically accurate on issues like the role of slavery in propelling the American Revolution, but there may be. Do you know of any?

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you choose to disregard the evidence already presented showing systemic racism in US law, feel free.


The one you have been unable to substantiate in light of US antidiscrimination law?

Pants-of-dog wrote:And since I already quoted the text from the website that explicitly shows that systemic racism is a forbidden subject, we know it is banned.


How can you discuss the Civil Rights Movement or Jim Crow without talking about systemic racism?
#15177627
[quote="wat0n"]Proving identity is not disenfranchisement :roll:

I'm not sure if you've ever registered to vote, but to register you have to prove your identity and your residence. So proving identity have never been a problem when it comes to voting because by the time you vote... with the form provided to you by mail... you have already proven your identity.

Which makes your argument spurious on it's face.

Voter ID is not about proving identity, it's about adding another way to roadblock voters. It's not a Democracy's job to make voting harder. But in our corrupt system it is the job of the political parties to make sure that the "wrong" people don't vote.

Both sides do this in a variety of ways. Gerrymandering, primary rigging, voter poll purges... and simply refusing votes.

Voter ID is another tool in the tool set used to deny people their lawful vote.

It's only purpose is to be able to turn people away.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 16
Did You Get Vaccinated?

@JohnRawls I have a friend in Ningbo who was vac[…]

I am personally fearful of possible adverse effec[…]

Tyler Durden is Zero Hedge, meaning you've jump[…]

You know what must be done, xué sheng. The ques[…]