Absent an absolute authority, who is to say what anything is.

[provoman]

For starters, I believe people can be "good" without having a religion or even a belief in a Deity. 

I watched "What is a Woman" the other night, it was interesting had many antagonist moments, some important informative information if that information is true. The main person talked to different professionals regarding gender and sex. A main point from the trans gender affirming professionals was that "gender" is a social construct. As I thought about it, absent an absolute authority, gender, biological sex label of male/female, all labels are social constructs. So I find myself thinking "live and let live, just stay away from mine".  And I kind of think, why have we humans spent so many centuries gendering objects? Also, if a person like dresses, let them wear a dress. Since when is there any reason or social benefit to gendering clothes? On the other hand, there is the verse about cunning craftiness, so it would seem we shouldn't just say "you are correct" and walk away, but should take a stand.

 

[Fether]

37 minutes ago, provoman said:

Also, if a person like dresses, let them wear a dress. Since when is there any reason or social benefit to gendering clothes? On the other hand, there is the verse about cunning craftiness, so it would seem we shouldn't just say "you are correct" and walk away, but should take a stand.

I think there is a difference between situations of debate and our day to day interactions with others

Matt Walsh’s documentary is very much a piece focused on adding to the gender debate and not meant to be a way we ought to interact with the LGBTQ in our own life

https://youtu.be/baqBFduHOoQ

 

Edited June 16, 2022 by Fether

[The Nehor]

There is something deeply disturbing about Ben Shapiro’s voice and the voices of apostles being on the same video.

[CV75]

9 hours ago, provoman said:

For starters, I believe people can be "good" without having a religion or even a belief in a Deity. 

I watched "What is a Woman" the other night, it was interesting had many antagonist moments, some important informative information if that information is true. The main person talked to different professionals regarding gender and sex. A main point from the trans gender affirming professionals was that "gender" is a social construct. As I thought about it, absent an absolute authority, gender, biological sex label of male/female, all labels are social constructs. So I find myself thinking "live and let live, just stay away from mine".  And I kind of think, why have we humans spent so many centuries gendering objects? Also, if a person like dresses, let them wear a dress. Since when is there any reason or social benefit to gendering clothes? On the other hand, there is the verse about cunning craftiness, so it would seem we shouldn't just say "you are correct" and walk away, but should take a stand.

 

It can be said that labels (language) build the world as much as describe it. Power and influence contribute to the authority that unites human minds to build and describe the world. So, promoting gender as a socially based construct or a biologically based description are a matter of taste and of who wants to build and describe the world, to what end, and how badly enough they want to do it to appeal to and gain authority.

[Metis_LDS]

10 hours ago, provoman said:

For starters, I believe people can be "good" without having a religion or even a belief in a Deity. 

I am not trying to knock your idea but I have found it also works as:

For starters, I believe people can be "bad" while having a religion or even a belief in a Deity. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 hours ago, provoman said:

As I thought about it, absent an absolute authority, gender, biological sex label of male/female, all labels are social constructs.

I will merely point out that since no one has access to this absolute authority (seeing through a glass darkly) every moral system is manmade. This is a latter-day discussion forum, but compare two extremely faithful posters (say Calm and Teddy Aware) and There sure is a lot of disagreement there. 

[bluebell]

From my perspective, the absolute authority isn't absent (or rather, doesn't not exist), we just don't often (as in rarely) have access to it.

So eventually we will all know the truth and will not be able to argue against it.  But it won't be in this life.  In this life, we all have to do the best we can with what we believe is true. 

For me that means that I can admit that many different belief systems and opinions are reasonable (ie., they make sense given the person's experiences and sincere beliefs), even if I believe that some of them are not correct.

Edited June 16, 2022 by bluebell

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

I think we have several good options when we hear the opinions of other people which are opposed to what we stand for.:

1) Realize we are not responsible for what other people think or believe

2) Realize it is not good to cause contention, remembering option 1

3) Enter into a discussion with them if we feel like we might be able to do some good, remembering options 1 and 2

4) If possible say something funny and try to change the subject of the discussion, remembering options 1, 2 and 3

Where were you when my brother FB messaged me with a political tiktok, lol.

[rpn]

I'd agree than many things about gender are a social construct --- what clothes are worn (historically vs. now, even), what colors babies and gender reveal parties use, what social expectations (music/arts vs. sports --- though this is less now)/who takes care of kids, and the like.   But there ARE and always will be unchangeable gender characteristics that aren't decided by humans, namely penis and vagina's, and genes (though there are a few with ambiguous genitalia or chromosones).

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 minutes ago, rpn said:

I'd agree than many things about gender are a social construct --- what clothes are worn (historically vs. now, even), what colors babies and gender reveal parties use, what social expectations (music/arts vs. sports --- though this is less now)/who takes care of kids, and the like.   But there ARE and always will be unchangeable gender characteristics that aren't decided by humans, namely penis and vagina's, and genes (though there are a few with ambiguous genitalia or chromosones).

Aside from sex organs most other behavioral and physical characteristics exist on a broad spectrum with substantial overlap between sexes. So while it’s true that I am stronger than most women there are tons of women stronger than me. 

[smac97]

18 hours ago, provoman said:

For starters, I believe people can be "good" without having a religion or even a belief in a Deity. 

I watched "What is a Woman" the other night, it was interesting had many antagonist moments, some important informative information if that information is true. The main person talked to different professionals regarding gender and sex. A main point from the trans gender affirming professionals was that "gender" is a social construct. As I thought about it, absent an absolute authority, gender, biological sex label of male/female, all labels are social constructs.

I'm reminded of these pictures I saw last week:

 

 

 

 

The common theme here is, of course, communication.  Words.  We need to interact and communicate with each other, which requires common understanding of words.

The challenge we now face is the one George Orwell noticed and addressed decades ago in Nineteen Eighty-Four, namely, control through manipulation of vocabulary:

Quote

"Orwellian" is an adjective describing a situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It denotes an attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, disinformation, denial of truth (doublethink), and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson"—a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments. Often, this includes the circumstances depicted in his novels, particularly Nineteen Eighty-Four but political doublespeak is criticized throughout his work, such as in Politics and the English Language.

Thomas Sowell addresses this point quite well here:

Worth a watch.

18 hours ago, provoman said:

So I find myself thinking "live and let live, just stay away from mine". 

Alas, the "live and let live" concept is dying on the vine.  Instead, I think we are in an new era of compulsory realignment of thoughts, which necessarily involves re-defining terms, punishing thoughtcrimes, and other unpleasantries.  Or as one of my favorite blogs like to put it, "You Will Be Made to Care."  Some examples:

Quote

YOU WILL BE MADE TO CARE: Twitter Suspends Spanish Politician for Tweeting ‘A Man Cannot Get Pregnant.’

YOU WILL BE MADE TO CARE: Wikipedia bans users from expressing support of traditional marriage.

 

VIDEO: Portland Activists Block Truck, Demand Passenger Give Black Power Salute And Chant ‘Black Lives Matter.’  You will be made to care, or at least to conform.

YOU WILL BE MADE TO CARE: “To all of the apolitical STEM-types who think you can just keep sitting these things out, that’ll prove increasingly difficult as the woke Antifa Left becomes more aggressively rapacious.”

YOU WILL BE MADE TO CARE: NHS staff can refuse to treat homophobic, racist, or sexist patients under new rules.

YOU WILL BE MADE TO CARE: Denver Post Columnist Fired After Arguing There Are Two Sexes.

YOU WILL BE MADE TO CARE: Teenage Girl Suspended From Manitoba School for Refusing to Wear Pro-LGBT Remembrance Day Item.

YOU WILL BE MADE TO CARE: ‘Lack of Belief in Transgenderism’ Is ‘Incompatible With Human Dignity,’ UK Court Tells Christian Doctor. “Ironically, the judges claimed to be upholding religious freedom.”

YOU WILL BE MADE TO CARE OBEY: Greatest Female Tennis Player in History Martina Navratilova Says That It’s Not Fair for Men to Compete Against Women; Trans Activists Attack Her Until She Deletes the Tweet and Apologizes.

YOU WILL BE MADE TO CARE: Christian Baker Under Fire Again, This Time For Refusing Transgender Cake, Despite Supreme Court Win.

YOU WILL BE MADE TO CARE: New California law allows jail time for using wrong gender pronoun, sponsor denies that would happen.

YOU WILL BE MADE TO CARE: East Lansing Bans Apple Farmer From Market For Being A Faithful Catholic.

YOU WILL BE MADE TO CARE: Massachusetts Forces LGBT ‘Accommodation’ Rules on Churches.

YOU WILL BE MADE TO CARE: Oregon Bakery Pays $135K for Refusing to Make Cake for Gay Wedding.

You Will Be Made To Care: Fines of up to $250K In NYC For Misgendering:

I think we're starting to see some pushback on these things, though. 

18 hours ago, provoman said:

And I kind of think, why have we humans spent so many centuries gendering objects?

Because "gender" originated as a linguistic/grammatical term for things, and did not acquire our current widespread concept of it - as describing a human characteristic (sex), until about 1955.  See, e.g., here and here.

18 hours ago, provoman said:

Also, if a person like dresses, let them wear a dress.

I don't think that's where the problem lies.

"If a biological male thinks he is a woman, let him compete in women's sports, use women's bathrooms, be housed in women's prisons, and so on."

I think such accommodations become difficult pretty quickly.  Further, there is no limiting principle.  If a biological male can "identify" as a woman, then can Rachel Dolezal and Jessica Krug "identify" as "Black?"  Can "Stefoknee Wolscht," a biological male in his 50s, call himself a perpetual six-year-old girl?  Can a 5'9" white guy "identify" as a six-foot-tall Chinese woman?  Can Eva Tiamat Medusa "identify" as a dragon?  Can Naia Ōkami "identify" as a wolf?  

If not, why not?  

Can I "identify" myself as someone or something I am not?  Can I use the force of law to coerce other people into capitulating to that identity?  

18 hours ago, provoman said:

Since when is there any reason or social benefit to gendering clothes?

Not sure what you mean here.

18 hours ago, provoman said:

On the other hand, there is the verse about cunning craftiness, so it would seem we shouldn't just say "you are correct" and walk away, but should take a stand.

If we are interested in fact and truth, then we need to resist contrivances formulated to deviate from fact and truth, and to punish those who oppose such deviations.

Re-defining terms so as to manipulate others for sociopolitical purposes is a bad thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 16, 2022 by smac97

[Tacenda]

I disagree @smac97 because I think the genitals of some babies aren't with intact either gender and then the doctor/parents decide on which gender to assign the child. This gives me the idea that a person could feel like a different sex from early on in their lives, because it's possible that the genitals could be that susceptible to either sex. 

I believe people like Chaz Bono and Caitlyn Jenner and many others besides the following celebs in link below, have it inborn in their souls.  https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/transgender-celebrities-you-need-to-know/

Edited June 16, 2022 by Tacenda

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Obehave said:

A well written post and I appreciate the truth presented in that video too.  I'm still not sure how we got to the point where we refer to people on that side of these points as being on the "left: though. That gives the word left a negative connotation, IMO.

I grew up in the old days when we referred to things as either "right" or "wrong".

I think the concepts I was referencing do tend to predominate more in one area in the political spectrum, but describing these issues via political designations can indeed be problematic.  Not all on the "left" agree with these concepts, and some on the "right" do.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

This type of “gotcha” is so lazy. Everyone in those twelve genders has a fit type. I suppose you could change it to with or without enlarged breasts if you wanted to.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

 

The exaltation of ignorance.

”Seek first to understand”

[smac97]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

The exaltation of ignorance.

”Seek first to understand”

More gaslighting.  And Ad Hominem.

Pretending that the Orwellian absurdities we have been facting are "ignorance" is not an argument.  It is not evidence.  And it is not remotely explanatory or persuasive.

I'd elaborate, but I don't think you can discuss these issues in good faith.  Insults and drive-bys are all you've got.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The challenge we now face is the one George Orwell noticed and addressed decades ago in Nineteen Eighty-Four, namely, control through manipulation of vocabulary:

Do you really think this is unique to "the left"?

Words have been used by the rich and the upper social class to oppress the poor and lower social classes forever.  The video you post has one perfect example in describing homeless people with derogatory terms such as "bums".   Christ called them "the poor and need" and would never refer to them as a "bum".  It is manipulation of vocabulary to subjugate.  The irony!  Those minority and lower class social groups are finally starting to push back against generations of manipulative and oppressive language - that is making the oppressors uncomfortable, it seems.  They are losing social control and influence by balancing the verbal playing field.  

We see it in the divisive cult-like shunning of other republican's who dare to place personal integrity and conscience and loyalty to country above party and loyalty to leadership, by calling them "RINOs". 

What has historically been called an "undocumented immigrant" is now called "criminal alien" by Trump - a step up from "wetback", I admit. 

What was termed "Coronavirus" has been called "the Chinese virus" or "the Kung flu".  What has been historically called an "ambassador", Trump calls "the woman".  

Some of my very favorites, however, are when what has historically been called "facts" are now being called "fake news" - and what has historically been called "lies" is now called "alternative facts" by republicans.

I could go on and on and on.   Wordsmithing and language manipulation is a favorite of Mr. Trump and his party. 

Don't be fooled into thinking that verbal manipulation is one sided.   

Edited June 16, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

I forgot to include the following:

What was once called a violent insurrection, is now called a peaceful protest.  What were once called violent criminals against the State are now called loving patriots. What was once called sedition is now practically considered scripture.  What was once called a fair election is now being called a stolen election.

Edited June 16, 2022 by pogi

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do you really think this is unique to "the left"?

No.

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

What has historically been called an "undocumented immigrant" is now called "criminal alien" by Trump - a step up from "wetback", I admit. 

With respect, you are quite wrong on this point.  "Undocumented Immigrant" is something of a neologism.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

"Undocumented Immigrant" Is a Made-Up Term That Ignores the Law
Jul 30th, 2018 
Hans A. von Spakovsky

KEY TAKEAWAYS

1. “Undocumented immigrant” is a politically correct, made-up term used to obscure the fact that such aliens have violated U.S. immigration law.

2. The Supreme Court, which has decided numerous cases involving federal immigration law, also uses the correct, precise legal term of “illegal alien.”

3. The Justice Department has a constitutional duty to enforce the immigration laws passed by Congress against illegal aliens.

The news media is reporting that an internal email at the Justice Department has reminded its lawyers that the legally correct term they should be using in their briefs is “illegal alien,” not the euphemism “undocumented immigrant.”

 

The Justice Department leadership is correct. Illegal alien is the correct legal term that should be used.

“Undocumented immigrant” is a politically correct, made-up term adopted by pro-illegal alien advocacy groups and liberal media outlets to obscure the fact that such aliens have violated U.S. immigration law and are in the country illegally.

Precision in the law is a vital principle, since the exact words used in statutes, regulations, contracts, guidance documents, and policy statements can significantly affect how they are applied and interpreted.

If we are going to discuss and debate the issue of immigration and what our public policy should be, we should at least use accurate, precise terms, and talk about, for example, legal aliens vs. illegal aliens.

Government lawyers in particular have an obligation to use the correct language of the federal statutes they are sworn to uphold and enforce.

Federal immigration law uses the term “illegal alien.” For example, 8 U.S.C. §1365 is a provision that deals with a reimbursement program the federal government has for states that are incarcerating illegal aliens. Its very title refers to “illegal aliens,” and that term is used in the statute itself, which defines an illegal alien as anyone “who is in the United States unlawfully.”

“Alien”—rather than “immigrant”—is the correct legal term, since “alien” is defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101 (a)(3) as “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.”

The Supreme Court, which has decided numerous cases involving federal immigration law, also uses the correct, precise legal term of “illegal alien.”

In 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen pointed this out in his decision granting an injunction against the implementation of President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, the so-called DAPA program.

As Hanen said in a footnote:

The Court also understands that there is a certain segment of the population that finds the phrase ‘illegal alien’ offensive. The court uses this term because it is the term used by the Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement pertaining to this area of the law. See Arizona v. U.S., 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012).

Hanen was, of course, correct in his assessment. The Supreme Court used the term “illegal alien” not only in that case, but in numerous prior decisions, some of which are cited in Arizona v. U.S.

Under federal law, any individual in this country who is not a citizen is an alien. And any alien who is here without permission is here illegally. End of story.

But of course, the propaganda war in the public arena cares little for facts and actual statutory language.

Pro-illegal alien groups, politicians who push “sanctuary” policies and open borders, and protesters who want to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, want to persuade the American public that those here illegally are no different than those who followed the rules to come here lawfully.

Using terms like “undocumented immigrant” is intended to blur and extinguish the line between legal and illegal immigration.

Advocates for illegal aliens want to stifle debate by making the false claim that if you are against “undocumented immigrants”—aka illegal aliens—you must be a racist, a nativist, or someone who hates all immigrants.

That is false and shameful demagoguery of the worst kind. The United States is the most generous country in the world when it comes to legal immigration. We take in more than 1 million legal immigrants a year—more than any other country in the world.

But support for legal immigration doesn’t mean we must also support illegal immigration. In fact, we have an obligation to prevent illegal aliens from breaking our laws and entering our country surreptitiously.

The term “illegal alien” is neither dehumanizing, nor demeaning. It is the precise legal term for those whose status in this country is unlawful.

President Ronald Reagan once said that “a nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.”

The Justice Department has a constitutional duty to enforce the immigration laws passed by Congress against illegal aliens. Basic standards of professionalism and good advocacy require that its lawyers use the legally correct and accurate language of the statutes they enforce as applied by the Supreme Court.

You have, i think inadvertently, proved the point I was noting.

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

Don't be fooled into thinking that verbal manipulation is one sided.   

I am not.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 16, 2022 by smac97

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

More gaslighting.  And Ad Hominem.

Pretending that the Orwellian absurdities we have been facting are "ignorance" is not an argument.  It is not evidence.  And it is not remotely explanatory or persuasive.

I'd elaborate, but I don't think you can discuss these issues in good faith.  Insults and drive-bys are all you've got.

Thanks,

-Smac

You are talking in this thread about the importance of precision in terms and at almost the same time are calling this post gaslighting and ad hominem.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

You are talking in this thread about the importance of precision in terms and at almost the same time are calling this post gaslighting and ad hominem.

I have provided a few substantive posts and resources.  All you do is insults and drive-bys.

No substance.  No evidence.  No analysis.  No reasoning.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I forgot to include the following:

What was once called a violent insurrection, is now called a peaceful protest.  

You are only further proving the point.  You are referring here, no doubt, to the January 6 riot, but I suspect you have little or nothing adverse to say about the months and months of BLM/Antifa riots that resulted in dozens of deaths, thousands of injuries, and many billions in property damage.

I condemn unlawful protests, regardless of who does them.  I also condemn violence, particularly politically-motivated violence, regardless of who does it.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

What were once called violent criminals against the State are now called loving patriots. What was once called sedition is now practically considered scripture.  What was once called a fair election is now being called a stolen election.

Don't know what you are referencing here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have provided a few substantive posts and resources.  All you do is insults and drive-bys.

No substance.  No evidence.  No analysis.  No reasoning.

Thanks,

-Smac

You posted memes.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You posted memes.

I also posted a number of personal thoughts/observations, together with quotations about Orwellian revisions to language, and I posted a video from Thomas Sowell, "an American economist, historian, social theorist, and senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution."  I also posted a number of links to examples substanting my position.  I also commented on  Rachel Dolezal, Jessica Krug, Stefoknee Wolscht, Eva Tiamat Medusa and Naia Ōkami, also in furtherance and substantiation of my point.

Meanwhile, all you have is insults and drive-bys.  No substance.  No analysis.  No reasoning.  No citation to evidence or authority.  Just glib taunts.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are only further proving the point.  You are referring here, no doubt, to the January 6 riot, but I suspect you have little or nothing adverse to say about the months and months of BLM/Antifa riots that resulted in dozens of deaths, thousands of injuries, and many billions in property damage.

I condemn unlawful protests, regardless of who does them.  I also condemn violence, particularly politically-motivated violence, regardless of who does it.

Don't know what you are referencing here.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is about language used to describe violent protests.  I am pointing out that this is not one sided.  Just providing a counter balance to your one sided attack.

You are absolutely wrong about my perspective of the BLM protests, but they don’t compare to an attempted insurrection in the Capitol of the US in terms of threat to our republic!

Edited June 17, 2022 by pogi

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

This is about language used to describe violent protests.  I am pointing out that this is not one sided.  Just providing a counter balance to your one sided attack.

I have not condoned/rationalized/justified any violent or unlawful protests.  I have not resorted to "It's not bad when my side does it"-style special pleading arguments.

You will note that I previously agreed that "describing these issues {regarding Orwellian tactics} via political designations can indeed be problematic," and that "{n}ot all on the 'left' agree with these concepts, and some on the 'right' do."

You will also note that when you previously asked "Do you really think this is unique to 'the left'?", I replied "No."

You will note that I called the January 6 event a "riot," and I further stated that "I condemn unlawful protests, regardless of who does them.  I also condemn violence, particularly politically-motivated violence, regardless of who does it."

My critique of Orwellian tactics has not been "one sided," as I think both sides of the spectrum do it (though I think it is far more prevalent and menacing on the "left").

My condemnation of unlawful protests and violence, particularly politically-motivated violence, is likewise not "one sided."

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are absolutely wrong about my perspective of the BLM protests, but they don’t compare to an attempted insurrection in the Capitol of the US in terms of threat to our republic!

The BLM/Antifa riots resulted in dozens of violent deaths, thousands of injuries, and and billions in property damage.  For months and months and months.  Much of this was endorsed or condoned or excused, and even actively encouraged, by politicians, academics, and others.

And yet here you are, minimizing the enormity of those riots.

I condemn unlawful protests, regardless of who does them.  I also condemn violence, particularly politically-motivated violence, regardless of who does it.

I have said this.  Publicly.  Many times.

But I just don't see much in the way of leftists saying this.  It's all special pleading, minimization, and even rationalizations, justifications, and celebrations of the "It's not wrong when my side does it" variety.

Thanks,

-Smac

ETA: A few days after the January 6 riot I met with a friend, whose political perspective is fairly similar to my own (some real differences, too).  He confided, gleefully, that he had just returned from participating in the January 6 "protest" (his word).  He spoke in such a way as he seemed to be expecting me to congratulate and high-five him.  I didn't.  Instead, when he asked me what I thought of what had happened, I said something along the lines of this: "I can't get on board with what you and those other guys did.  You have been outraged at the BLM/Antifa riots, at the use of violence to affect political change, and then you turned around and did the same thing.  You resorted to violence.  You broke the law.  You have undermined the credibility of your political stance by condemning the other side's violence while justifying and celebrating yours."  

He was not happy with my critique, so he continued to try to justify the protest/riot, but after a bit I shut him down, saying something like "Look, you just will not be able to persuade me on this point.  If anything, I think the day will come when you will regret what happned in D.C. because the 'other side' will point to it as proof that conservatives are as violent as they {they 'other side'} are.  And all you will have is weak tea arguments like 'Hey, our violent protest and lawbreaking was not as bad as the BLM/Antifa riots.'"

Our relationship has since been more cool and arms-length than it was before this discussion.  I am giving things time.  I was disgusted with the January 6 riot.  I was disgusted with the BLM/Antifa riots.  They differed in degree, but not kind.  Both were terrible events in our national history.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 17, 2022 by smac97