This message reflects my views pretty accurately, except that at that 2012 Reason Rally, I was on the stage…so I’ve fallen even further in my disillusionment.
He’s promoting the Secular Social Justice Conference, which will be held on April 7 in Washington DC. That’s a Saturday! I might be able to escape to attend that one, if I can just scrape up the cash to make it. I think I might need to go to find something to re-inspire me about atheism.
De-platforming is never the right answer. Neither is unopposed speech. Social justice is important but Steve and others are forcing it to be the issue in places it is NOT the issue. I’m personally not a fan, but Dawkins is NOT a leading figure in the atheist movement because he is a good human being, but because he can express the arguments against theism in a way that 1) atheists like and 2) is usually thoughtful and intelligent, and 3) non-atheists can understand. He could be a wife beater and deserve every social justice criticism in the book, but I would still want him speaking/debating at an atheist conference. Steve talks about finger pointing and being unable to take criticism but that is exactly what this entire video is. Nothing in this video was about addressing issues, and his solution as seen at MM and more recently his involvement with TAC has been de-platforming, and non-engagement. He finishes the video confirming this, anyone who doesn’t see or believe as he does is “not his people”. Steve and people like him remind me of good old GW Bush. They violently attack people (verbally vs physically) and instead of “winning” just create more people who are against them. Does anyone think that human rights has gotten better in the middle east since the wars started 15 years ago? Does anyone see improvement in social justice because of people like Steve? We have seen a nice improvement in social justice over the past 200 years, but it was not from people like Steve. Luckily I’m guessing that the speakers at this conference are not really like Steve and will have something useful to say.
@1
And not like, in prison, for beating his wife?
@paxoll
Assertion. Also what is your definition of De-platforming? It’s recently become politically useful but I’ve seen a lot of versions in the wild.
Assertion. On what basis do you assert that the specific social justice issues are irrelevant?
Your lack of concern for the personal conduct of your beloved authority figures is noted.
I point out it’s lack of relevance to the problems other people have with Dawkins’s behavior.
You offer nothing of value to people affected by the behavior of your beloved authority figure, a thing clearly relevant to other people in a common political community with you.
I find that I’ve got more in common with religious social justice workers than definition atheists. Some followers of Jesus have their heart in the right place and they are as bothered by their church as I am. My mind is not as full of falsehoods as theirs, but I’m also not as happy. I’m a little jealous.
Dawkins can argue with the best of them, and I’ve learned a lot from his writing, but I can choose not to associate with him because he treats people with disrespect. I’d love to find “my people”, but I’d also love to find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Wait…you can suggest that Dawkins would do something heinous that he has never been accused of, and you’d still want him headlining a conference? What the fuck does he have to do to get you to say “no”?
What a thoroughly horrible thing to say. If this were my blog, you would be “deplatformed,” which I assume means that it wasn’t your platform to begin with, and I would not hesitate to remove your horrible shit from my sight, since it contains nothing of value.
Which fucking issues, asshole? The ones you don’t give a shit about and don’t want addressed, the ones you do give a shit about, or any issues whatsoever?
But of course you would want them speaking/debating at atheist conferences, if (1) they say things atheists like, except when they don’t because in fact we don’t always agree, (2) are usually not too thoughtless or stupid, and (3) non-atheists are capable of comprehending the words that they say. Doesn’t sound like you’re asking for much … would you be a little more picky about murderers? Or I don’t know what. Do you really have no ethical standards whatsoever, other than I suppose “they speak words good and tell me what I want to hear”?
Winning what, and why does it need scare quotes?
Wait, maybe “winning” is some kind of Trump reference. So they’re losers and lacking in atheist covfefe. I think I’ve got it.
But that’s not a verbal attack, obviously. It’s just a statement of fact and/or matter of debate, about a serious biological phenomenon.
I’ll say this for the atheist community. They’ve really made me doubt whether atheism in the west deserves or requires any advocacy, protection, or promotion at all. Made me doubt that we need secular social justice. Maybe the dickydawks and shitbros of the world, left to their own devices, will eventually spend a tenth as much effort on protecting atheists in Bangladesh and the Maldives as they do on attacking women and black people, and the world will become a better place where it counts. But here in the United Snakes, what is atheism? A truth that doesn’t do shit to make you a better person, apparently. Might even help turn one into an epic shithead.
In short, do we actually need secular social justice here, or can secularism just resign itself to some hateful sewer and let other strains of social justice do the good stuff? I’ll watch the video and see what this guy thinks. Open mind. I’d rather not believe being an amurrican and atheist must forever make one part of a demographic as hateful and regressive as dominionists.
He hits on a point somewhere around ten minutes that strikes me important: Regressive atheists are embarrassing. It’s the reason good people feel like distancing themselves from atheism altogether. It’s like we enthusiastically signed up for the “fundies in government need to be fought” convention and 80% of the crowd showed up wearing nothing but diapers and bonnets.
9:55 where he mentions the embarrassment.
I want a society that attempts to act reasonably and at least has a fighting chance of not destroying us, itself, etc. in the process. I’m sure it’d be far from perfection no matter what we do; but we need honest, clear, non-arbitrary, no-bullshit, fact-based reasons why we ought to have the policies we do or structure it in certain ways, ones that people can agree upon by being honest and not bullshitting themselves, by understanding what our situation actually is. Religions fail spectacularly in that respect, whatever you may want to say about this or that specific religious individual/institution which occasionally does some good.
Of course, atheism doesn’t “cause” good behavior and neither does religion. Human behavior is much more complicated than that. If that’s what you were looking for — a quick fix to “make you a better person” — then you were hoping for snake oil, and there is nothing specific I could name which actually does that. We can include that (how people work and how they don’t work) as just one of the many types of facts that we need to understand, when figuring out how to aim for justice in a society.
I get that some people like (or at least accept) more liberal religious people or organizations for what they do; I feel much the same. However, if you’re honestly asking yourself whether secularism has any practical relevance or importance to us, and this is supposed to be motivated by an observation that there are shitheads among us that you don’t want to associate with (which is a curious reason to ask such a question, but no matter), then I think the answer is obviously that it does. Leave the shitheads to the side, and hopefully the following will make some sense….
The world works in a fairly regular and predictable way, utterly without our welfare in mind. So, ideas/strategies/etc. that people devise are not likely to be effective or useful, if they don’t correspond to what the world is actually like. This of course is not to say there’s nothing we can do to improve our situation (because the improvement itself “doesn’t correspond” to the real world). Instead, it’s to say that, if for example you think bridges are supported by magical powers wielded by angels and/or are constantly threatened by demons or witches of vengeful gods, then you won’t know how to build or repair the bridges that you may need to build to make your society better. That’s because there aren’t any such things acting on bridges, and the world doesn’t care that you may have good intentions or intend on fixing this bridge with superstitious methods. It will simply not work that way. And if you know that (obviously some don’t), then you know that things like this are certainly worth fighting for (figuratively speaking, using peaceful and rational means), because disaster is waiting around every corner for us if we don’t.
That’s what I meant, not “of” the witches. Witches may think they have vengeful gods (don’t know or care), but either way, there aren’t any such things. And that would not be a good basis for social policy.
Gah, or of the gods. It’s obvious what I meant.
Lol, wow, how many misrepresentations of what I wrong was just flung about. It is actually comical now after seeing it so often here. Especially how violent it is, almost like I mentioned that somewhere…
@PZ
I never suggested anything of the sort. I merely used him as a hypothetical foil based on his popularity and celebrity, to make a point about issues. Would you find your classroom an appropriate location to talk about the economics of socialist coups in south america? If you say yes, then I would hope your students would write strongly worded letters to your department head about it. Of course someone who was physically beating their wife, should deserve to have CRIMINAL justice applied to them (nothing I said implied he shouldnt). SOCIAL justice, which I was talking about is another matter.
Misrepresentations of what I WROTE. Hard to type in a hurry.
Will the criminal justice be applied before or after you want him speaking/debating at atheist conferences? That is what you were talking about, even on the condition of Dawkins (or a hypothetical person like him) beating his wife. Why exactly do you want that again? Is there supposed to be something rare about being minimally capable of speaking in public about a fairly straightforward topic that’s been done to death for literal centuries? Is this qualification supposed to be strongly correlated with beating your wife? Are there non-wife-beaters who would be suited to the job, which at least conceivably are preferable to wife-beaters? Is this actually supposed to be one of the desirable qualities of a so-called “leading figure,” along with being comprehensible and non-stupid and so forth? No need to answer any of this…. I think you’re just full of shit and can’t/won’t recognize your mistakes and apologize for them. But I’d hate for you to think that you’re fooling anyone or that you have some kind of a legitimate point to make, because then you might try to do it again, and it was bad enough the first time.
Personally, I couldn’t give less of a shit whether or not Dawkins attends or speaks at an atheist event – the community is a vipers nest of deplorables and I’d rather hang out with people I agree with on meaningful matters than people I agree with solely on our lack of belief in a god.
That said, I’d like to believe that the atheist community would be able to find speakers who aren’t also regressive morons (or wife beaters, as per the example.)
@consciousness razor, its a pretty simple point, which everyone here is pretty intent on ignoring. Let me simplify and rearrange what I said so you don’t have an excuse. Social justice is important. Social justice is not the most important topic in every setting. People who make social justice a topic in every setting, piss people off who want to deal with the topic of that setting. Pissing people off is not an effective method for obtaining social justice.
Now quick, think of a scenario where pissing people off IS an effective method for obtaining social justice to try and undermine everything I said.
Funny how “deplatforming” was the first response, when I never saw an invitation to speak that was later retracted. Somebody knows buzzwords, but can’t think….
They and any further responses from such liars will be dismissed.
paxoll, you’re just failing to defend this statement:
If you do (at least now) recognize that it’s indefensible, and if you were an honest person, you would simply admit it, because it’s the truth. As an atheist/skeptic/secularist (presumably, and trolls may just ignore the rest), there is something valuable that you see in truthfulness and honesty, so what you should do is clear. The same would go if you thought the quote above is defensible: you would proceed to address that topic by defending it, because that’s the topic at hand. If you’re a coherent person freely engaging in a dialogue about it, who can read the English words in this thread and respond to them with something that you could believe is relevant, then that is how you should proceed, whatever your response may be like in detail. But if somebody were holding a gun to your head, preventing you from speaking on the topic, forcing you to say bullshit or create distractions, or some such thing, then of course I wouldn’t hold it against you. I just strongly doubt that’s the kind of situation you’re in, because it’s much more likely that you’re just a bullshitter.
@19
The civil rights movement of the 1960’s pissed off a significant amout of people, and also led to some of the most important laws of the century.
Like, when you piss off enough people to revitalize the then-dying KKK and make literal State Officials attempt to physically block black children from integrating into schools, I’d consider that a large degree of pissing people off.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that pissing people off enough to act is one of the main and most important forms of advocacy and campaining. It’s certainly the primary tool for political campaining, as well as for things like civil and ecological rights.
Personally, I’m stoll wondering why anyone should give a fuck about the atheist movement if it is deprived of any social justice interests.
Why should I give a fuck if someone disbelieves in gods but is just as bigoted as the bible thumping redneck two buildings over?
Literally everything beneficial about the atheist movement – defending seperation of church and state and opposing religious intolerance – have been ostensibly social justice pursuits.
Get rid of the social justice interests and you have nothing but a “Oho, ain’t I just the smartest for not going to church.” circlejerk.
Consciousness razor – We have some agreement, and anywhere we don’t have agreement would require more discussion than I have the juice for at the moment, isn’t worth either of our time.
Ultimately, the video ends with his promotion of the event, which reminds me of the cool people putting in the hard work. That’s encouraging in itself.
–
I don’t know exactly how to put it. Let me try this way. Not everyone is as coldly and perfectly rational as you claim to be. Allowing someone like that to be a speaker at your conference does communicate certain ideas to everyone; particularly it communicates some amount of tacit approval of wifebeating. This is a brute fact. I believe that we should be effective communicators, and therefore I believe that, as a general rule, we should not invite known wifebeaters to be speakers at atheist conferences.
This is a discussion about strategy and tactics, which is precisely a conversation about how to address issues. Unless you mean “address issues” in some abstract, academic sense, completely detached from actual strategy and tactics about how to accomplish our goals, but that would be silly.
As a simple brute fact, this is simply false. Cultural battles like this are never won by being nice, accommodationist, non-confrontational. I always cite Martin Luther King Jr and the circa 1964 American civil rights movement as the best example. Martin Luther King Jr was a pacifist, yes, but a technical pacifist. He was as confrontational as you can get. His strategy and tactics can be summed up as “being as in-your-face as possible to the general public while remaining non-violent”, which includes his sit-ins, his bus boycotts, and other “economic terrorism”. I have no doubt that if he were alive today, MLK Jr would have been leading the way at BLM actions to block freeway traffic as a means of protest. MLK Jr makes this abundantly clear in his Letter From A Birmingham Jail, which I strongly suggest that you read.
https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
This confrontational approach will alienate some people, but it will also bring people to our side, and it’s the only that we can make social progress, and again it’s the only way that social progress has ever been made. How do you think women got the right to vote? How do you think any effective protest movement works? How can you be this ignorant of history?
What?
Yes.
There is an implied comparison here. The implied comparison is between this scenario, and the scenario where we invite a wifebeater to be a speaker at an atheist conference. The comparison is shit. We should not invite a wifebeater to be a speaker at an atheist conference, and there’s probably a good argument to be made that wifebeaters should be fired from teaching positions as well. The comparison is nonsensical – “inviting a wifebeater to be a speaker at a conference” has nothing to do with “a teacher in class speaking about a topic unrelated to the class”.
Loosely, yes it is. Every goal is merely a proxy goal for the single, true, ultimate goal, which is to make the world a better place for everyone. If you’re reaching for a goal which is in conflict with the goal of making a world into a better place for everyone, then you’re doing something wrong.
Having said that, there is room for a discussion of strategy and tactics, and whether it’s effective to try to turn every conversation into a conversation about social justice. Of course there are many situations where it’s probably not effective to try to change the topic to be social justice. Having said that, atheist conferences should always be about social justice.
YES IT IS
PS:
I believe that one needs to walk a careful line about de-platforming. However, I find that almost everyone who uses the term “de-platforming” is just wrong, and they need to be more radical, divisive, and confrontational.
Lol, are you serious? You are comparing Steve with Martin Luther King Jr? Did MLK call everyone who disagreed with him a racist or a racist apologist (using modern vernacular)? Did he refuse to talk with or debate people he disagreed with? Did he chase around people he disagreed with harassing them, trying to shame the people who listened to them? No, he spoke about the issues and how to identify the causes of the problems, how to fix the problems.
No, that is not the methods of people like Steve. While MLK would be out peacefully marching and protesting with BLM, Steve would be sitting somewhere safe pointing out all the racists to the violent protesters, then saying he didn’t do anything wrong just pointing out injustices.
Did you seriously consider the classroom comparison was implied to be
, if so you are beyond stupid, but I don’t think you are, you are simply being dishonest and making a strawman argument. Most of your post is opinion that I see no point in even talking about as obviously the majority of people would disagree with you.
@27
I mean, MLK did condemn both the extreme obvious extremists and “white moderates”, so yes, he did use the time-appropriate equivalent of calling everyone who didn’t agree with civil rights racist.
MLK is not particularly well known for debating people, so yes, presumably. His speeches and sermons were primarily given to audiences that consisted of people that were already convinced that segregation was wrong.
Does Steve? I’m not aware of him actively chasing anyone around. Engaging in a bit of hyperbole, eh?
Insofar as shame is involved – yes, MLK did shame people. Pointing out that racism is inhumane and evil is inherently a condemnation of the people that act that way.
Sounds fine to me. If anything, I’d prefer that he take credit for it – less nazis and whatnot is an admirable goal, and I support anyone who makes that goal happen.
Porivil Sorrens covers most of it. Let me add a few more bits.
Please. The amount of violent leftist protesters in this context, i.e. Antifa, is grossly exaggerated, so much so that it’s basically mythical. The left does not engage in personal harassment campaigns. The left does not engage in targeted assassinations or other such violence. This insinuation that Steve is calling out targets for violence is ridiculous on its face. You’re going to need some mighty strong evidence on this point, and until you provide it to my satisfaction, I’m going to just deny and disregard your wild assertions. If you don’t like that, tough.
Yes, I did believe that, and I still do. I believe the fault lies mostly with you and your poor communication. If you wish do something other than just name-calling me, such as making some progress, perhaps you could bother trying to make your point again in some other way.
Note the inherent self-contradiction here. “They” violently attack people, but not physically. You need to look up the word “violent”.
paxoll @19
You underestimate the power of pissing people off. Since you mentioned him: back in the day Dawkins pissed off a lot of religious folks with his books and speeches, but his output undoubtedly contributed to the increase in number of atheists in the past decade or so, which was his goal. The important part is not that he irritated religious people, it’s that he had good points about the inexistence of gods.
Similarly, Steve and others may be irritating you, but you are missing the important part: they also have good points. They say social justice should be an important part of every progressive movement and should be a priority to every decent person. You seem to disagree, as you suggest this will somehow backfire. You are reacting just like critics of Dawkins reacted to his God Delusion: focusing on the “stop pissing people off!” part instead of the message.
Also, please respond to consciousness razor @21
Paxoll,
Now, please, explain to me why social justice should not be important in every setting. How is it a bad thing to try to redress wrongs, to make people feel included, to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable? Do you really believe that we are too mentally uncoordinated to hold multiple goals and ideals in our heads at the same time?
@lesofa There is a difference to someone getting pissed off at you, and pissing people off. Can you understand the difference? Let me make an example that hopefully will illuminate for you and @a_ray_in_dilbert_space.
Imagine for a moment you are at a conference listening to a panel for your job. A chemistry confererence discussing polymer output for some company using process #1 and another using process #2. They have a question time for the audience and someone stands up and says “Company #1 is facing a discrimination lawsuit for wages, what do you think was the reason behind it”. Do you think that would annoy a lot of the people there who want to talk about polymer production? Do you think the presenter might get pissed off at the question in that venue? Imagine you are business owner sending your employees to this conference and the organizers spend a bunch of the money bringing in speakers to talk about sexual harassment in the workplace, so the cost to send them is getting spent on topics that are not why you are sending your employees there. Now the majority of people are perfectly happy and consider those SJW topics important and would happily talk/listen to those things….at the right time, which is NOT at this conference. Now there is a small amount of people who are anti-sjw and will get pissed off at the topic no matter when or where it is brought up. That is a completely different thing, and I feel it takes some pretty intentional misunderstanding to jump to that position, pretty much confirming when I said
Perhaps if everyone is “misrepresenting” what you wrote, the problem isn’t with the people who read it but with the writing itself.
We social justice warrior atheists believe that morality does not come from religion. We often say that one of the extreme negatives of religion is the (moral) harm that it enables and causes. I assume that you share this belief. I dare say that most atheists care deeply about the harm that is being done by religion. If religion really was just some “mostly harmless” thing that old uncle Bob did, and didn’t affect old uncle Bob’s voting, then the atheism movement would be much much smaller than what it is today.
Thus, atheism conferences are the perfect time to talk about social justice. The idea that “non-belief” is better for morality than “religious belief” is a core and central tenant to why most of us are atheists, and why we care so much about the atheism movement. This facet is one of the big draws to most atheism conferences.
Unfortunately, as we’re discovering, “non-belief” is not always better than “religious belief”. Some of us wrongly assumed that humanism would magically fill the gap, but as we’re seeing, that’s not true. That’s why many of us will sooner identify as “secular humanist” with pride compared to identifying as “atheist”. “Secular humanist” is who we are, and what we care about. Atheism without secular humanism is often just as bad as religion, as this conversation so aptly shows.
Atheism conferences are the perfect place for social justice discussions, for all of the reasons that I just gave.
Yeah. Kind of have to say… What, if it doesn’t involved morality, and by extension either the nature of injustices, never mind how one redresses them, exactly happens at these “atheist conferences”. I mean, seriously, once Sam Harris gets down having a melt down over Muslims, and Dawkins chuffs haughtily about how silly gods are, do they all jello wrestle? Play pin the tail on the slightly drunk female attendee? Just sit around nodding at each other?
What the F point is there of a conference in which the end goal is to, apparently, do nothing at all, other than whine about how you don’t want all those silly people around that don’t think their personal privilege should exist, and that someone ought to actually be bloody doing something to make the world better?
Because.. I just don’t get it, at all. Why not just do what the fundies do, create a forum (or just make one on 4chan), and harass/ban people that don’t spend all their time telling the forum owner, the moderators, and each other, just how super brilliant they are for all agreeing about this god thing. What, again, is the bloody point of the whole thing, if its not just to hear your own BS echoed back, without the tiresome issue of people telling you, “You know, you are not such a nice person, outside of this one single issue.”?
Definitely have to agree with Enlightenedliberal and others. Its freaking absurd, like.. they have an adult version of some childish, “Hating helping people club.”
@paxoll 15
You can’t claim misrepresentation when you ignore the substance of their response. You had nothing to say about the rest of the comment where PZ identified the fact that you would want a wife-abusing authority figure to remain an authority figure, and questioned where your moral limit is with respect to authority figures.
PZ seems to have understood the important part. I find it interesting that you chose to avoid a response to your “hypothetical foil”. You, like Dawkins, choose to ask the “tough question” and haven’t actually taken that act seriously.
Hate the tone all you want but don’t pretend the substance wasn’t there.
@paxoll
My bad, you weren’t “asking tough questions” like Dawkins, you were asserting that we shouldn’t pressure our political groups to cancel speakers via political shorthand. Your hypothetical was similarly offensive.
I wouldn’t want you tripping over an irrelevancy.
@33, paxoll
Is there a real-life event you’re basing this off of? If so, I wonder how valid your comparison is. If this isn’t based on a real life example, it might be helpful to bring up a real life example to look at.
(I should probably have watched the video before commenting)
@consciousness
“Winning” in the sentence quoted could just refer to succeeding. Successfully achieving social justice goals. That’s a good thing, it’s what we want.
Trump’s ideology, on the other hand, is obviously anti-social-justice. Trumpians have a social dominance ideology. Their notion of “winners” and “losers” is warped by their poor thinking skills, and short sightedness, among other things, and thus false values. Which means achieving the wrong goals. They don’t realize that they are scoring on the wrong net, essentially. Even while their crimes, fraud, and misconduct come home to roost (hopefully).
Brian Pansky:
It could, but then what use were the scare quotes? They’re clearly not regular quotes, of something said previously in the thread or something which is a prominently used word/concept among SJWs or what have you. On the other hand, perhaps they just don’t mean much of anything, like the rest of paxoll’s pathetic drivel. But if they are scare quotes, as they seem to be, the word isn’t supposed to have the ordinary meaning. In that case, your guess would be as good as mine, about what it actually is supposed to indicate.
@paxoll If you’re satisfied on a desert island Not Believing In God, fine. But given no heaven to look forward to, shouldn’t we try to make this Earth worth living on? Otherwise what’s the fucking point?
Imagine you’re at a job fair and examining two chemical companies where you’d like to work as a polymer chemist. One of them has a thoroughly nasty reputation and is embroiled in a discrimination lawsuit. The other has a policy of an inclusive workplace. What does it say about you if you’d rather work for the first one?
@George How utterly dishonest are you?
Have I EVER indicated that I don’t think social issues are important? Every possible quotemine you could make would be taken out of context where I have repeatedly called people who commit these crimes or acts horrible, and have called SJW causes important.
Now I’m going to assume this is in reference to my hypothetical Dawkins example. You are saying that if Dawkins was a horrible person, choosing to have him speak at a conference is the same as choosing to work at a horrible company. Well kudos on trying to force my hypothetical and my analogy together. Too bad it fails in every aspect. The alternative to horrible Dawkins would be who? Who is as famous and good as he is? Well I’m sure you might say Steve Shives but I’m not even going to dignify that with a response. So what you are really comparing, say Bell Labs as Dawkins and some local chemical factory as the alternative? Lets switch industries to make this a little more relate-able to more people, lets go with publishing cause they are in the news (no pun intended) all the time for bad behavior. So a journalist gets to choose between a really great home town newspaper, or the misogynistic, sexually assult ridden environment of the New York Times. Obviously choosing the NYT is going to show you to be a patriarchy affirming, rape apologist….. which is a ridiculous wrong and irrational conclusion to make. Yes I would be picking the NYT. Any of you who would choose the small hometown newspaper, bravo, you are absolute in your crusade. To be intellectually honest, you also think anyone who invites Bill Clinton to speak, or goes to a function to listen to him speak is a horrible rape apologist. You shouldn’t see ANY mainstream movies, because someone associated with making that movie is a shitty human being, whether it is the star who sexually assults people, or the producer that watches kiddy porn, or Harvey Weinstein himself. These are at least more reasonable analogies as you are only dealing with them for a short amount of time to deal with an area they are experts in, not spending 40 hours a week with like a job.
paxoll, #1
I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, okay, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay?