***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[osh kosh bosh]

Never concede brother.

oh no need to worry, certainly not to liars such as yourself.

 

[elpablo21]

Never concede brother.

 

[Mark Antony]

this is pathetic

Wow.

 

[gry60]

in a plea for internet validation, many of you have committed yourself to a ridiculous position.

The way you phrased you original statement makes it sound like there is a remote possibility that teaching that fact will be done in good faith.

Since we are all familiar with the context in which such a statement is usually mentioned (slavery wasn't all bad), and who tends to fall back on that fact (anti-CRT folks), it is a waste of time to suggest that somehow, slaves learning skills during slavery might be taught in good faith in the context of US education, especially in states that doctor other stories of the Black struggle in order to keep some people comfortable.

On that note,

And it seems that pointing out that this dumb fact is a fact here serves very little conversational purpose other than to antagonize

Well done!

 

[osh kosh bosh]

The way you phrased you original statement makes it sound like there is a remote possibility that teaching that fact will be done in good faith.

Since we are all familiar with the context in which such a statement is usually mentioned (slavery wasn't all bad), and who tends to fall back on that fact (anti-CRT folks), it is a waste of time to suggest that somehow, slaves learning skills during slavery might be taught in good faith in the context of US education, especially in states that doctor other stories of the Black struggle in order to keep some people comfortable.

On that note,

Well done!

1. You said I didn't mention the context of Ron DeSantis doing this, when I literally did in my very first post.

I think as an act of good faith you should concede that was wrong

2. If you think it's a waste of time fine, whatever I disagree. But I don't think anything you wrote here is incompatible with what I said.

I think the fact can be taught in good faith BUT

The context aka people who are doing this can't be trusted.
I said that in my very first post about this.


I didn't say slavery was good. There was no implication of that in my posts.

And I think you should acknowledge that.

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

Easy,

Man, I spent the last few hours trying to internalize this, and I feel like I got a porthole view of the way your brain makes connections. And I gotta say, unironically, that I’m rather impressed by the optimism or resilience or just plain creativity of your brain that you can:

• Hear a sentence like, “slaves learned useful skills”,
• Deeply understand the racist context of that sentence
• Synthesize your broad knowledge

And then conclude, “You know, that’s a really important lesson about the resilience of enslaved people!”

But I am completely ready to concede that you provided a complete recontextualization of that sequence of words that would have positive pedagogical value. Derrida would be proud, and I am impressed.

At any rate, I’d hope that the last few pages would help you to understand that the world is probably not ready for such optimistic, creative thinking. This thread is mostly populated by people largely sympathetic to your world view and look how it’s gone. And, yeah, you can complain about reading comprehension and lob 4-Chan esque suggestions about psychological help. Or, maybe, if you’re sincerely interested in genuine discourse, you might consider changing your style. But of course, no one on the Internet actually cares about genuine discourse. So at least I hope this morning helped you get your intellectual rocks off.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Man, I spent the last few hours trying to internalize this, and I feel like I got a porthole view of the way your brain makes connections. And I gotta say, unironically, that I’m rather impressed by the optimism or resilience or just plain creativity of your brain that you can:

• Hear a sentence like, “slaves learned useful skills”,
• Deeply understand the racist context of that sentence
• Synthesize your broad knowledge

And then conclude, “You know, that’s a really important lesson about the resilience of enslaved people!”

But I am completely ready to concede that you provided a complete recontextualization of that sequence of words that would have positive pedagogical value. Derrida would be proud, and I am impressed.

At any rate, I’d hope that the last few pages would help you to understand that the world is probably not ready for such optimistic, creative thinking. This thread is mostly populated by people largely sympathetic to your world view and look how it’s gone. And, yeah, you can complain about reading comprehension and lob 4-Chan esque suggestions about psychological help. Or, maybe, if you’re sincerely interested in genuine discourse, you might consider changing your style. But of course, no one on the Internet actually cares about genuine discourse. So at least I hope this morning helped you get your intellectual rocks off.

if the criticism is one of style. fine I can accept that.
I cannot accept intellectually dishonest claims about what I said.

if im to be criticized on style, do you really think, a bunch of people telling flagrant lies about the things that I said appropriate style of discourse?

you can criticize me for "4-Chan esque suggestions" whatever that means

but obviously I'm not going to take kindly to absurd lies about what I said,
the idea that I said anything even approaching
"slavery was good" or some kind of net positive.

is risible. and the retreat to a kind of false fragility and outrage when challenged to defend the assertion by many in here I think is really pitiful.

but I appreciate the concession.

 

[IATT]

Never forget

 

[Wargames]

you're right, if anything it's impressive.

you wrote that many words without managing to grasp even 5% of the meaning of what I wrote.

You should go take a walk and stop embarrassing yourself over this… I feel bad for you and your inability to let this go.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

You should go take a walk and stop embarrassing yourself over this… I feel bad for you and your inability to let this go.

Well yah of course not. I will never let lying go.

If you would like me to stop pointing out your absurd lies and terrible arguments

you have the option to stop lying and stop making terrible arguments.

 

[mplsdunk]

enough with the paragraphs of trolling.

You guys seen the Barbie movie?

When the kens try to take over was the most unlikely plot twist. Ryan gosling deserves an award for keeping a straight face during that movie.

 

[Methodical Management]

History texts omit more facts than they include. Every year, more history is created, and yet the duration of a school year remains fixed. Entire volumes are dedicated to people and subjects that receive a single passing reference in a history textbook - if they are mentioned at all. And even these longform treatments are, themselves, simplified and incomplete.

To develop a coherent, suitably representative narrative of American history, authors arrange facts in the way that artists place tiles to create mosaics. This is not a wholly objective process. Each choice is consequential and may skew the narrative in a particular direction.

Here's how a popular American History textbook published in 1956 addressed contemporary inequality:

American democracy – political and social – cannot fulfill its promise until its blessings reach every citizen. The plight of the minority groups must be improved, especially that of the 16,000,000 Negroes who constitute a submerged one-tenth of the nation – a population larger than Canada’s set down within the United States.

Yet the lot of the Negro has been markedly improved in recent years, Communist propaganda notwithstanding. North and South, more colored citizens are voting, more are serving on police forces, more are being elected to public office, more are enjoying fuller health, better education, bigger incomes, higher standards of living. Our 16,000,000 Negroes are driving more and better motor cars than all the 200,000,000 people of the Soviet Union. The integration of the Negro into the Army, achieved in 1950, was a giant stride toward abolishing the color line. And the memorable decision of the Supreme Court in 1954 sounded the ultimate doom of segregation in the schools and elsewhere.

Is it a "fact" that Black Americans in the 1950's had access to "more and better motor cars than all 200,000,000 people of the Soviet Union?" Sure, but it's disingenuous to suggest that this "fact" was not deployed to impart a particular - and familiar - spin on American racism.

There is no denying that the above passage contains facts, yet the main thrust here - that America is making great progress and Black Americans, on balance, actually have it pretty good - is not, itself, a statement of objective fact. It's an argument.

The "fact" about automotive access serves a rhetorical function, and its worthiness for inclusion in this particular passage, which could have been written in countless different ways, each to a different effect, is nothing if not debatable.

Common to "moonshine and magnolia" myths about American slavery is the notion that, on balance, those forcibly imported to the United States as slaves, and their descendants, were better off as a result. This context matters.


Ta-Nehisi Coates urges the use of "enslaved persons" instead of "slaves" to restore agency and humanity to those who might otherwise be reduced to historical objects as opposed to historical actors. (Some might wrongly characterize this as an exercise in "political correctness", "fancy elite manners", "thought policing," or "virtue signaling," but perhaps all those present are now in accord with respect to the legitimacy of this project.) Teaching students that "slaves learned skills from slavery", as DeSantis et al. have proposed, is not the same thing as "enslaved people risked their lives to learn and teach skills like literacy." The former again treats enslaved people as historical objects, acted upon in ways both good and bad by chattel slavery. That the latter "involves" skills does not make the former worth defending, or qualifying, as though its opponents are inclined to throw the metaphorical baby out with the bathwater.

DeSantis' supporters on this issue will likewise argue that they are only seeking to add nuance to history, that it does children a disservice to portray a simplistic view of the world with moral absolutes, and that the adaptability and resilience of enslaved people are celebrated by recognizing the ways in which they pulled themselves up by the bootstraps rather than merely complaining about the bad hand they'd been dealt.

That you can craft such an argument doesn't make it a worthwhile exercise.


You could include a "fact" about Dr. King's alleged plagiarism in a passage about American civil rights activism. And I'm sure, if you felt absolutely compelled to do so, you could twist yourself into knots trying to justify this as a means of "humanizing" Dr. King and teaching children that one need not be a saint to change the world for the better, and, conversely, that no amount of heroism exempts someone from accountability for their transgressions.

We are, however, lying to ourselves if we refuse to acknowledge the primary rhetorical function of including such material within a truncated textbook treatment of civil rights activism.

If you have but a scant few pages to explain one of the gravest atrocities ever perpetrated in human history and you seek to devote a significant portion of that to "nuance," you run the risk of creating a false equivalence.


That's the context we're dealing with here - and it's both vulgar and disingenuous to strip away that context to tilt at strawmen. No one has claimed it ought to be entirely forbidden to suggest that some enslaved people "learned skills," only that using this as some sort of counterweight to offset the evils of slavery is a blatant act of apologism, and the impulse to try and sanitize this to craft an "acceptable use" is, itself, vulgar.

Within the context of American history, people have long cherry-picked certain facts to suggest that "well, ackshyually, slavery wasn't all bad." The very real intent and impact of this exercise should not be discarded in service to some frivolous, hypothetical game of devil's advocacy.
It is beyond hypocritical to be grossly insensitive to this, and yet hypersensitive to criticism to the point of directing childish insults at anyone who dares to take umbrage against this sort of argument - which is being weaponized as we speak to whitewash American history.

if you are going to be intellectually dishonest, at least do for some tangible benefit.
not e-cred from strangers.

the entire premise of the argument is strange even with qualifiers.

guess I'm just not capable of understanding.

hopefully somebody can enslave me and maybe teach me some critical thinking skills.

Imagine that you had to scrabble together a NYT Pitchbot-style argument for this issue that allowed you to wag your finger at the progressive cultural elite and retain your special, self-ascribed status as an "independent thinker."

This would require you to carve out a niche somewhere to the left of Ron DeSantis and to the right of Tim Scott.

You've staked your identity on this position, so if it is received as anything less than an intellectual triumph then you are being called "stupid" and must respond in kind.

Now you understand the assignment.

Man, I spent the last few hours trying to internalize this, and I feel like I got a porthole view of the way your brain makes connections. And I gotta say, unironically, that I’m rather impressed by the optimism or resilience or just plain creativity of your brain that you can:

• Hear a sentence like, “slaves learned useful skills”,
• Deeply understand the racist context of that sentence
• Synthesize your broad knowledge

And then conclude, “You know, that’s a really important lesson about the resilience of enslaved people!”

But I am completely ready to concede that you provided a complete recontextualization of that sequence of words that would have positive pedagogical value. Derrida would be proud, and I am impressed.

At any rate, I’d hope that the last few pages would help you to understand that the world is probably not ready for such optimistic, creative thinking. This thread is mostly populated by people largely sympathetic to your world view and look how it’s gone. And, yeah, you can complain about reading comprehension and lob 4-Chan esque suggestions about psychological help. Or, maybe, if you’re sincerely interested in genuine discourse, you might consider changing your style. But of course, no one on the Internet actually cares about genuine discourse. So at least I hope this morning helped you get your intellectual rocks off.

Know your personnel.

 

[Brownstone]

Enslavers did develop some human capital but only so they could hyper exploit it. The ones who “parleyed” that into something better, did so because they escaped or because of Emancipation and/or the couple of years that the federal government took reconstruction semi seriously.

Ultimately though, this “debate” over school curriculum isn’t actually about history. It’s about the present and the goal is to reimagine current forms of exploitation as being good things for those who are exploited.

Good point.

America is the one country in the world that could care less about history. Why then are Republicans so caught up in the teaching of it (education, another topic that nobody cares about in this country)

I think you're on the right track in the sense that it has to be of some use for current/future exploitation

 

[osh kosh bosh]

History texts omit more facts than they include. Every year, more history is created, and yet the duration of a school year remains fixed. Entire volumes are dedicated to people and subjects that receive a single passing reference in a history textbook - if they are mentioned at all. And even these longform treatments are, themselves, simplified and incomplete.

To develop a coherent, suitably representative narrative of American history, authors arrange facts in the way that artists place tiles to create mosaics. This is not a wholly objective process. Each choice is consequential and may skew the narrative in a particular direction.

Here's how a popular American History textbook published in 1956 addressed contemporary inequality:



Is it a "fact" that Black Americans in the 1950's had access to "more and better motor cars than all 200,000,000 people of the Soviet Union?" Sure, but it's disingenuous to suggest that this "fact" was not deployed to impart a particular - and familiar - spin on American racism.

There is no denying that the above passage contains facts, yet the main thrust here - that America is making great progress and Black Americans, on balance, actually have it pretty good - is not, itself, a statement of objective fact. It's an argument.

none of this bloviation is a refutation of my original point. I think it's instructive that it's not quoted here.
I literally said a true fact can be marshaled in a racist or non racist.

I didn't additional 300 words restating what is essentially the same point.

The "fact" about automotive access serves a rhetorical function, and its worthiness for inclusion in this particular passage, which could have been written in countless different ways, each to a different effect, is nothing if not debatable.

Common to "moonshine and magnolia" myths about American slavery is the notion that, on balance, those imported to the United States as slaves, and their descendants, were better off as a result. This context matters.

Ta-Nehisi Coates urges the use of "enslaved persons" instead of "slaves" to restore agency and humanity to those who might otherwise be reduced to historical objects as opposed to historical actors. (Some might wrongly characterize this as an exercise in "political correctness", "fancy elite manners", "thought policing," or "virtue signaling," but perhaps all those present are now in accord with respect to the legitimacy of this project.) Teaching students that "slaves learned skills from slavery", as DeSantis et al. have proposed, is not the same thing as "enslaved people risked their lives to learn and teach skills like literacy." The former again treats enslaved people as historical objects, acted upon in ways both good and bad by chattel slavery. That the latter "involves" skills does not make the former worth defending, or qualifying, as though its opponents are inclined to throw the metaphorical baby out with the bathwater.

DeSantis' supporters on this issue will likewise argue that they are only seeking to add nuance to history, that it does children a disservice to portray a simplistic view of the world with moral absolutes, and that the adaptability and resilience of enslaved people are celebrated by recognizing the ways in which they pulled themselves up by the bootstraps rather than merely complaining about the bad hand they'd been dealt.

That you can craft such an argument doesn't make it a worthwhile exercise.

I don't agree, running from true facts, or pretending like it's "inherently racist" in any context to deploy this fact I think is unhelpful.

You could include a "fact" about Dr. King's alleged plagiarism in a passage about American civil rights activism. And I'm sure, if you felt absolutely compelled to do so, you could twist yourself into knots trying to justify this as a means of "humanizing" Dr. King and teaching children that one need not be a saint to change the world for the better, and, conversely, that no amount of heroism exempts someone from accountability for their transgressions.

We are, however, lying to ourselves if we refuse to acknowledge the primary rhetorical function of including such material within a truncated textbook treatment of Civil Rights Activism.

If you have but a scant few pages to explain one of the gravest atrocities ever perpetrated in human history and you seek to devote a significant portion of that to "nuance," you run the risk of creating a false equivalence.

again, all of this was addressed, real facts can be used in racist ways, I've already said this.

That's the context we're dealing with here - and it's both vulgar and disingenuous to strip away that context to tilt at strawmen. No one has claimed it ought to be entirely forbidden to suggest that some enslaved people "learned skills," only that using this as some sort of counterweight to offset the evils of slavery is a blatant act of apologism, and the impulse to try and sanitize this to craft an "acceptable use" is, itself, vulgar.

luckily no one in here is supporting that argument. you should argue with the person who does.

Within the context of American history, people have long cherry-picked certain facts to suggest that "well, ackshyually, slavery wasn't all bad." The very real intent and impact of this exercise should not be discarded in service to some frivolous, hypothetical game of devil's advocacy.
It is beyond hypocritical to be grossly insensitive to this, and yet hypersensitive to criticism to the point of directing childish insults at anyone who dares to take umbrage against this sort of argument - which is being weaponized as we speak to whitewash American history.

im hypersensitive to lies.

if you are asserting that my claim was "well, ackshyually, slavery wasn't all bad." that would be a lie.
if you disagree about the value about centering slave agency in teachings of the history of american slavery, that's fine.

but ultimately what you're saying is you are too emotionally compromised to discuss this topic in rational way
without resorting lies or made up straw men. I can accept that. fine.

Imagine that you had to scrabble together a NYT Pitchbot-style argument for this issue that allowed you to wag your finger at the progressive cultural elite and retain your special, self-ascribed status as an "independent thinker."

This would require you to carve out a niche somewhere to the left of Ron DeSantis and to the right of Tim Scott.

You've staked your identity on this position, so if it is received as anything less than an intellectual triumph then you are being called "stupid" and must respond in kind.

Now you understand the assignment.



Know your personnel.

Hilarious that you would recount arguments in which you

You tried to refute the REALITY of monkey primarily being transmitted by men who have sex with men.
with an article about ONE DOZEN children getting monkeypox.

made an argument on the effect of police funding where you cited western european police departments size and lower crime rates.
despite US police spending being middle of the pack compared to peer nations.
and when confronted with the scientific research on the impact of policing on crime rates, you response was "lol your lil Jstor search."


When confronted with inconvenient facts that offends your political sensibilities.
you retreat to gifs, name calling, and absurd distortions of what a person said.


Know your personnel indeed.

 

[cruthik3]

FACT: Slavery was awful. There's no nuance to this. WTF?

 

[biggie62]

I really don’t understand how people can argue this. I get the counter but like it’s so ******* insensitive and such cope that to actually try to spew that is to be an apologist and it’s hard to change my mind off that approach. I refuse to argue it so please don’t even bother engaging me on it.

 

[1995]

What in the "youtube debate bro" is going on in here?

 

[frshstunna]

“Contrarian” leads to a meltdown every time, like I said before it must be a no no in that part of Canada yo from

 

[RustyShackleford]

Good ******* grief

 

[biggie62]

Good ****ing grief

This should be ******* illegal and what did the Democratic Party in the state do to vet this ***?

 

[RustyShackleford]

That story is wild

She might be worst that Sinema

She was recruited to run by Republicans.

Her whole family seems to be involved in Democratic politics. She ran as a standard progressive liberal.

Three months in she says she feels alienate by the centrist NC Dem party. And then supports a clearly conservative agenda.

And she is adamant she hasn't changed

GOP straight up inserted a sleeper agent into the Democratic party.

 

[RustyShackleford]

This should be ****ing illegal and what did the Democratic Party in the state do to vet this ***?

Apparently no one in the Dem party encouraged her to run in the first place. She jumped in and one the primary in a newly drawn deep blue district after talking to top Republicans in the state.

She ran as a progressive

Her entire family are Dems and involved in politics and some lawmakers knew her since she was a child.

She basically just lied to everyone it seems. She legit has flip flopped on a bunch of issues. She went from sponsoring a bill codifying Roe v. Wade, to voting for an abortion ban.

He basically Hollywood Hogan heel turned on the Dems

 

[Based Jesus]

Morally bankrupt and ethically deficient

 

[Methodical Management]

none of this bloviation is a refutation of my original point. I think it's instructive that it's not quoted here.
I literally said a true fact can be marshaled in a racist or non racist.

I didn't additional 300 words restating what is essentially the same point.

The "fact" about automotive access serves a rhetorical function, and its worthiness for inclusion in this particular passage, which could have been written in countless different ways, each to a different effect, is nothing if not debatable.

Common to "moonshine and magnolia" myths about American slavery is the notion that, on balance, those imported to the United States as slaves, and their descendants, were better off as a result. This context matters.




I don't agree, running from true facts, or pretending like it's "inherently racist" in any context to deploy this fact I think is unhelpful.



again, all of this was addressed, real facts can be used in racist ways, I've already said this.



luckily no one in here is supporting that argument. you should argue with the person who does.




im hypersensitive to lies.

if you are asserting that my claim was "well, ackshyually, slavery wasn't all bad." that would be a lie.
if you disagree about the value about centering slave agency in teachings of the history of american slavery, that's fine.

but ultimately what you're saying is you are too emotionally compromised to discuss this topic in rational way
without resorting lies or made up straw men. I can accept that. fine.





Hilarious that you would recount arguments in which you

You tried to refute the REALITY of monkey primarily being transmitted by men who have sex with men.
with an article about ONE DOZEN children getting monkeypox.

made an argument on the effect of police funding where you cited western european police departments size and lower crime rates.
despite US police spending being middle of the pack compared to peer nations.
and when confronted with the scientific research on the impact of policing on crime rates, you response was "lol your lil Jstor search."


When confronted with inconvenient facts that offends your political sensibilities.
you retreat to gifs, name calling, and absurd distortions of what a person said.


Know your personnel indeed.

Let’s talk about “inconvenient facts.”


We were discussing DeSantis’ proposed curriculum changes, which include teaching kids that enslaved people gained useful skills through their enslavement - an addition that, functionally, serves to “balance” the impacts of slavery and include what Tim Scott characterized as a “silver lining.”

Seemingly everyone present was opposed to DeSantis on this issue - even the non-voting Elon Musk defenders weren’t going to touch it. Well, that couldn't stand.

You, perhaps out of some combination of boredom or loneliness, decided to find a way to disagree with them. To do this, you had to strip out a LOT of important context while objecting to extreme straw-man arguments that nobody in this thread had made. Who here said that no enslaved person had ever learned a skill? That it should be impermissible to teach kids that Frederick Douglass learned to read? And yet, here you were to try and pick a fight over it for some reason.

You then angrily disputed the notion that you were even disagreeing with anyone, and, even though you claimed not to be in disagreement, began reacting with increasing hostility and immaturity while feigning offense at the notion that you might, in fact, be acting like a disagreeable person who just wants to argue - and over a gravely sensitive subject.

This is not new behavior.

I didn't additional 300 words restating what is essentially the same point.

You've spent the entire weekend running yourself in circles on this, repeating yourself ad nauseam. Try practicing what you preach for a change.


Similarly, it is beyond hypocritical to call people “liars” while grossly distorting their positions with statements like this:

“if you disagree about the value about centering slave agency in teachings of the history of american slavery, that's fine.”

Selecting for inclusion within extremely limited classroom materials narratives about enslaved people being taught “valuable skills” by their captors is a lot of things, but it is not “centering slave agency.”

You are not discussing this issue in good faith.


You are engaged in a similar practice of revisionist history through your mischaracterization of our past exchanges.

It is extremely revealing that you came out hot in the police discussion by characterizing the entire “defund” movement as “magical thinking” and “bad policy”, researched it ex post facto, and now the straw you’re clinging to is “America doesn’t lead the world in per capita police expenditures” as if that somehow proves your point. If anything, it just shows how far you had to backpedal to find solid ground.

The only “magical thinking” here is your delusional belief that you acquitted yourself well in that exchange.


Likewise, you have grossly mischaracterized my position on MPX, claiming I was “refuting reality” regarding the elevated risk facing sexually active gay and bisexual men when, in fact, I had explicitly cited both CDC and WHO guidance to that end.

In truth, you were the one refuting reality by speciously implying that ONLY gay men were at significant risk, telling someone,

“Do you often have sex at the gym?

And when you do is it usually with other men?

If not I think you good.”

Are you going to apologize for “lying” now? Don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath.



A clear pattern is observable through the provided examples. You start with an edgy “third way” take, cobble together an ad-hoc defense along the way, backpedal under pressure until you grasp tightly to some “defensible” position that’s now miles away from what anyone was discussing, and, if people still have the nerve to disagree, you start stamping your feet and breathlessly flinging 4chan insults. That’s where we are now.

As you can see from all the exhausted .gifs and expressions of disgust, most everyone here, myself included, is tired of it. It's not having the effect you want, unless the effect you want is to antagonize people who, in this instance, are opposed to the whitewashing of American history.

But I guess that's everyone else's fault, right?

This 4chan meme from the MPX thread is not “mind-reading” or “fan fiction.” It’s something you posted that represents your own laughable worldview:

Apparently, you fancy yourself as some sort of “Galaxy-brain” truth-teller for bravely agreeing with MAGA fans, and brand all those “elitists” with their fancy college degrees “midwits” for lacking the originality to reflexively disagree with progressives, as a true independent thinker would.

And when the world stubbornly refuses to share your lofty self-assessment, and clearly it hasn’t, it’s Joker time.


You’re throwing an absolute hissy fit right now and you don’t even have the self-awareness to feel embarrassed.

I'm embarrassed for you and I'm sorry that this is how you've chosen to spend your weekend - finding a way to rudely disagree with people who are justifiably outraged by DeSantis' ongoing efforts to "both sides" slavery.

 

[IATT]