A little bit of extreme prejudice for your Sunday

Annasopra · 31-10-2011 02:39PM

My reaction to the Eamon Delaney article is mainly to play it down and ignore it. (although I accept that challenging such nonsense calmly is a good idea too) He is like Kevin Myers looking for a reaction. He is what you might call a newspaper troll. The more that this article gets passed around and linked to the more the indo editor will see the viewer numbers rise. They will then provide us with more of the same crap on a more frequent basis. If you want the indo to keep printing this ****e then keep sending the link around.

Perhaps if we talked about well researched articles like this one then we might get more of the same

www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/wholestory.aspx-qqqt=OFF-MESSAGE-qqqs=agenda-qqqsectionid=3-qqqc=10.6.0.0-qqqn=1-qqqx=1.asp

apache · 31-10-2011 02:49PM

4ihgeyd6atcx32 wrote: »

The concept of gay marriage and the follow on issues of parenting/adoption are about extending rights that don't currently exist.
Using language like "defending marginalised groups" or "challenge our rights in the first place" highlights a lot of what is wrong with the debate from the proponents side.
Honestly, reading such posts would make you think that the government had come along and steamrolled over existing rights and outlawed gay marriage!

Get some perspective on the debate. Its about extending rights which do not currently exist. Try to persuade the public as to why the rights should be extended!
The "tell me why these rights shouldn't be extended" style of debate is immature and politically, its a nonrunner. Time for the LGBT community to engage in mature political debate.

i agree with most of your post. the bold parts i tend not to.

wonderfulname · 31-10-2011 02:58PM

mango salsa wrote: »

My reaction to the Eamon Delaney article is mainly to play it down and ignore it. (although I accept that challenging such nonsense calmly is a good idea too) He is like Kevin Myers looking for a reaction. He is what you might call a newspaper troll. The more that this article gets passed around and linked to the more the indo editor will see the viewer numbers rise. They will then provide us with more of the same crap on a more frequent basis. If you want the indo to keep printing this ****e then keep sending the link around.

Perhaps if we talked about well researched articles like this one then we might get more of the same

www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/wholestory.aspx-qqqt=OFF-MESSAGE-qqqs=agenda-qqqsectionid=3-qqqc=10.6.0.0-qqqn=1-qqqx=1.asp

Bloody ad revenue, I forgot about that... great article by the way, I should start buying the SBP more often.

floggg · 31-10-2011 02:59PM

Of course the blacks never had any rights in the USA for many years.

Thankfully they new better than seeking equality. The patiently waited for the great white man to create new rights for them (which happened to be identical to the ones they could have enjoyed had they been white)!

As for the gay family point, there are plenty of straight families where neither parent is the biological parent.

Should we deny those parents and children rights? And prevent the fertile from getting married?

Honestly, two months ago I didn't really care about gay marriage either way. It's only when I saw how ridiculous the arguments against it actually were that I took an interest.

Annasopra · 31-10-2011 03:24PM

This is a very good response

www.parallelevision.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/reaction-to-eamon-delanys-sunday-independent-article/

CrystalLettuce · 31-10-2011 03:38PM

mango salsa wrote: »

My reaction to the Eamon Delaney article is mainly to play it down and ignore it. (although I accept that challenging such nonsense calmly is a good idea too) He is like Kevin Myers looking for a reaction. He is what you might call a newspaper troll. The more that this article gets passed around and linked to the more the indo editor will see the viewer numbers rise. They will then provide us with more of the same crap on a more frequent basis. If you want the indo to keep printing this ****e then keep sending the link around.

Perhaps if we talked about well researched articles like this one then we might get more of the same

www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/wholestory.aspx-qqqt=OFF-MESSAGE-qqqs=agenda-qqqsectionid=3-qqqc=10.6.0.0-qqqn=1-qqqx=1.asp

Again, the issue is not whether we react or not. A reputable newspaper should not have published this article in the first place, and again, the "only people that already agree with him will do so" is nonsense.

People who spend a lot of time on the internet seem to forget there are many different kinds of people with different goals and motives. Not everyone who says something inflammatory is a "troll", doing it purely to incite a reaction.

If you ignore this - it sends the message it is acceptable. That is the bigger issue here.

CrystalLettuce · 31-10-2011 03:42PM

apache wrote: »

err errr wrong!
i'm gay. lesbian. i hear it a lot as i am fully out. just because i agree with a few of his points is it because maybe i'm too "mainstreamed"? what do you think or maybe because i believe his arguments were done in a constructive manner? which is more than i can say of the drivel that was posted here!
hackles up straightaway.

the whole piece was worded badly. i think he is asking these questions out of frustration more than anything else. i don't believe he has an agenda. its from a straight guys point of view. these are the questions you will be asked. if you can't deal with them and get all offended the divide will only widen and we will undo all the good work that has been done. i certainly agree with him on that point!

Read the second part of the quote -

"or at least your friends you learned that line from don't."

It is still an idea that derives from privilege. Just as there are poor people who vote for right wing parties, there are gays who inadvertently support ideas that harm their rights.

If an ally were to write off an attack on LGBT people in mainstream media, as nothing more than an "Opinion piece", I would consider them a failure as an ally. So I guess I consider you a failure as an LGBT standing up for their own rights? I've seen this before - trans people supporting for example the right for radfems to discriminate against them. It's tough being a marginalised person - and you can get in bed with people much easier if you "sell out" in the way you're doing.

You are looking to gain privileges over the average gay person in a dishonest manner.

CrystalLettuce · 31-10-2011 03:46PM

4ihgeyd6atcx32 wrote: »

The concept of gay marriage and the follow on issues of parenting/adoption are about extending rights that don't currently exist.

Straight people can marry their life partner, the person they love. Gay people cannot.

If you say "Well gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex", that means the "right" itself has been designed to give privilege to heterosexual people.

The only thing that matters is who has the most opportunities available to them, more privileges - and straight people come out on top. Straight people already have a ton of "special" rights & privileges gays don't.

http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2008/10/heterosexual-privilege-checklist.html

Keaton · 31-10-2011 03:47PM

It is insightful that there are some who would wish to see an alternative viewpoint shut down, even if that viewpoint is shared by many people. So much for tolerance. :rolleyes:

Annasopra · 31-10-2011 03:47PM

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

If you ignore this - it sends the message it is acceptable. That is the bigger issue here.

Equally if you keep sending the link around the newspaper editors will notice that it is getting a lot of hits. They will like this because they can use more hits to boost their ad revenue and will provide more of the same. I do think 'articles' like this should probably be challenged but it's also important to point out that talking about them a lot and sending around the link can be counter productive.

marienbad · 31-10-2011 03:51PM

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

The problem with THIS post is that it's made completely ignorant to the content of either person's posts. It's just the typical contrarian argument used by both conservatives and "feel good" Liberals & Centrists - the "It's just because you DISAGREE" type post that doesn't make a point at all.

I've already pointed out the enormous logical flaws in his "argument". I had the respect to do that instead of just screaming in his face or leveling a post at him that was pure ad hominem - which you are doing now. Attempting to make the argument about me instead of gay marriage.

How do you even quantify this "Self righteousness"? And isn't it a bit convenient that those defending marginalised groups are being accused of it? Just because not everyone has the patience for bigots you do doesn't mean we're wrong. Ironically you end up attacking the people who need the most defending more than those who challenge our rights in the first place!

Whether or not I'm "self righteous" doesn't make his argument any more valid anyway.

Why is it that people like you always sink to posting like this? The fact that you do shows the failure of (b) as you don't get it at all. The "remain a victim" thing is particularly disgusting, especially when LGBTs are far more likely to meet with genuine abuse. It's easy for you to defend gay marriage when convenient and then attack it's proponents because we actually dare to uphold intellectual principles in a debate.

As a supposed ally - you don't get to set the terms for what that means - we do. If you want to be supportive, that means not attacking people for standing up for themselves and their rights, criticising their methods without putting yourself in their shoes. I don't think anyone much here will agree you're a good ally after reading that post.

Firstly who said I was just an ally ? you have no knowledge of my circumstances . That poster is just asking some of the questions that most people are asking. This is not unreasonable in that until quite recently they were not even aware the issue existed much less cared about it.

As for ''you don't get to set the terms for what that means-we do'', aside from the fact that again you have no idea who or what I am, that is just naive. Society at large sets the terms, always has always will, so it is how best to convince the largest numbers. That does not rule out confrontation, just try pursuasion first particulary to those that seem open to it.

From my limited experience a lot of people are just genuinely puzzled by this , there is no hidden agenda, at least not yet. There are more ways than one to skin a cat.

stephen_n · 31-10-2011 03:52PM

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

and again, the "only people that already agree with him will do so" is nonsense. here.

Again your OPINION is totally crystalized and no point that anyone makes will sway you or make you even consider other peoples opinions or views yet you believe that everyone else is different than you somehow and lack your super powers of unswayability!

marienbad · 31-10-2011 03:55PM

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

Also, Marienbad(and everyone else) really needs to read this article -

http://www.whattamisaid.com/2009/09/marginalized-folks-shouldnt-always-have.html

It's not our duty to be the "bigger person".

I think not CrystalLettuce , been there , done that, bought the t-shirt, no one is advocating being the ''bigger person'' .

CrystalLettuce · 31-10-2011 03:57PM

stephen_n wrote: »

Again your OPINION is totally crystalized and no point that anyone makes will sway you or make you even consider other peoples opinions or views yet you believe that everyone else is different than you somehow and lack your super powers of unswayability!

Um, how about you put forward a good argument to convince me instead of judging that I won't be swayed beforehand?

I imagine because can't... this is a very lazy substitute for a good argument. From my personal experience I have received a negative reaction form people who are not right wing who have read these articles(usually older people). I do not appreciate people like you making comments like that in light of this.

glic71rods46t0 · 31-10-2011 03:59PM

mango salsa wrote: »

This is a very good response

www.parallelevision.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/reaction-to-eamon-delanys-sunday-independent-article/

I don't agree that it is a good response at all. It reeks of the same tired demands. This part really sticks out for me:
"But let me clear about something – this is not Eamon Delaney’s Ireland. This is my Ireland. His time has passed, and if he wishes to avail of the freedoms that living in a truly open society has afforded him then it is time he understood that those freedoms extend to people beyond the quite literal Pale of straight white men."

His Ireland is one where the "demands" of the LGBT community require a constitutional amendment if the extra rights demanded are to be extended. I say this because the courts are simply not going to deliver fundamental changes in interpretation. They are playing it safe and only a referendum will decide it - I agree with that.
The real-politic of this issue will be decided in the court of public opinion. The freedoms that the blogger asserts for himself do not extend to gay marriage at present - that is his Ireland. Want to change it - start a mature politicial debate in the mainstream!

CrystalLettuce · 31-10-2011 04:04PM

4ihgeyd6atcx32 wrote: »

I don't agree that it is a good response at all. It reeks of the same tired demands. This part really sticks out for me:
"But let me clear about something – this is not Eamon Delaney’s Ireland. This is my Ireland. His time has passed, and if he wishes to avail of the freedoms that living in a truly open society has afforded him then it is time he understood that those freedoms extend to people beyond the quite literal Pale of straight white men."

His Ireland is one where the "demands" of the LGBT community require a constitutional amendment if the extra rights demanded are to be extended. I say this because the courts are simply not going to deliver fundamental changes in interpretation. They are playing it safe and only a referendum will decide it - I agree with that.
The real-politic of this issue will be decided in the court of public opinion. The freedoms that the blogger asserts for himself do not extend to gay marriage at present - that is his Ireland. Want to change it - start a mature politicial debate in the mainstream!

I already dealth with this point. I'm sick of privileged people like you talking about "special" rights & privileges - it makes me want to hurl. It makes me think you have no real scruples at all, or are just utterly incapable of seeing your own privilege.

marienbad · 31-10-2011 04:21PM

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

I already dealth with this point. I'm sick of privileged people like you talking about "special" rights & privileges - it makes me want to hurl. It makes me think you have no real scruples at all, or are just utterly incapable of seeing your own privilege.

But that is the whole ball of wax right there CrystalLettuce- ''just utterly incapable of seeing your own privilege'' . That is true for everyone at some level on some issue - even you.

It is what happens after it is pointed out that such and such is a priveleged position that is the issue.

floggg · 31-10-2011 04:42PM

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

Read the second part of the quote -

"or at least your friends you learned that line from don't."

It is still an idea that derives from privilege. Just as there are poor people who vote for right wing parties, there are gays who inadvertently support ideas that harm their rights.

If an ally were to write off an attack on LGBT people in mainstream media, as nothing more than an "Opinion piece", I would consider them a failure as an ally. So I guess I consider you a failure as an LGBT standing up for their own rights? I've seen this before - trans people supporting for example the right for radfems to discriminate against them. It's tough being a marginalised person - and you can get in bed with people much easier if you "sell out" in the way you're doing.

You are looking to gain privileges over the average gay person in a dishonest manner.

So much wrong with this.

Allies? Is it a war? Do you have to take sides. Draw battle lines isn't going to help anybody, is it.

And why the feck should a person have to subscribe to a set gay agenda before they can be a real ally. There is no gay agenda. You don't speak for me, and I don't speak for you. There are gay people with a range of differing views. Not everybody wants gay marriage. That's their right. Who are you to judge somebody as being a lesser gay or ally, or a sellout because they don't share your views. That's just as intolerant as the right wing extremists.

Maybe it's this sort of attitude which got that journalist pissed in the first place. It pisses me off. Except I'm not a bigot so I'm not going to ascribe it to any one group or community as a whole. Only to an intolerant minority.

stephen_n · 31-10-2011 04:53PM

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

Um, how about you put forward a good argument to convince me instead of judging that I won't be swayed beforehand?

I imagine because can't... this is a very lazy substitute for a good argument. From my personal experience I have received a negative reaction form people who are not right wing who have read these articles(usually older people). I do not appreciate people like you making comments like that in light of this.

I refer you back to my original response to you which is backed up by social learning theory which you can read up on if you wish to do so and not just your experience of a few people and your perception of their viewpoints before and after reading peoples opinions!

wonderfulname · 31-10-2011 05:10PM

marienbad wrote: »

There are more ways than one to skin a cat.

Yes, but none of them involve leaving the skin on.

stephen_n wrote: »

Again your OPINION is totally crystalized...

Doubt a lettuce structure is the strongest though, perhaps if you guys could present your side rather than just referring to it and picking holes in CrystalLettuce's world view you might sway their opinion...

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

I already dealth with this point. I'm sick of privileged people like you talking about "special" rights & privileges - it makes me want to hurl.

You know what makes me want to hurl? The use of the word privileged to describe people in the first world in relation to other first world inhabitants, thinking you're all that hard done by when you have food, water, shelter, considerably beyond basic civil rights and liberties, a healthcare system, welfare system, education, fantastic life expectancy, I mean Jesus, equal rights for all is an end goal which we are appallingly close to compared to many, we are the privileged.

stephen_n · 31-10-2011 05:19PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

Doubt a lettuce structure is the strongest though, perhaps if you guys could present your side rather than just referring to it and picking holes in CrystalLettuce's world view you might sway their opinion...
privileged.

I expressed my opinion earlier on the author and the piece itself and crystallettuce dismissed it as ridiculous based on experiences of one person reading different articles and the effect that had on their opinion of certain issues, I responded to that with a reference to social learning theory and it's effects on peoples opinions and attitudes!

jaffacakesyum · 31-10-2011 05:21PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

You know what makes me want to hurl? The use of the word privileged to describe people in the first world in relation to other first world inhabitants, thinking you're all that hard done by when you have food, water, shelter, considerably beyond basic civil rights and liberties, a healthcare system, welfare system, education, fantastic life expectancy, I mean Jesus, equal rights for all is an end goal which we are appallingly close to compared to many, we are the privileged.

+1

Hit the nail on the head there.

CrystalLettuce · 31-10-2011 05:28PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

You know what makes me want to hurl? The use of the word privileged to describe people in the first world in relation to other first world inhabitants, thinking you're all that hard done by when you have food, water, shelter, considerably beyond basic civil rights and liberties, a healthcare system, welfare system, education, fantastic life expectancy, I mean Jesus, equal rights for all is an end goal which we are appallingly close to compared to many, we are the privileged.

I'm sorry but I've lost a lot of respect for you as you are clearly completely clueless as to the concept of privilege. I have never denied that as a white person in a a first world country, I am privileged. However compared to others who are - I am desperately underprivileged.

I am very worried if you've never heard of the privilege checklists etc. as an LGBT activist type. Whether or not I am privileged compared to starving africans has nothing to do with this argument - as I already own up to the privilege. There was never any indication that I did not. Privileges don't cancel each other out.

However in this case people such as him do not own up to their privilege. They make remarks that assume a level playing ground that does not exist - make arguments to suit them and their little world bubble. This is privileged.

You should read up:

http://borderhouseblog.com/?page_id=54

Note in particular the article on privilege, and intersectionality(as you know, you can get gay people who are starving too). This is not about an "Oppression Olympics" - however some groups do clearly have it easier than others, that needs to be recognised. It is about being sensitive to each groups needs & difficulties, and there is little that only straight white people have to deal with. If I make privileged remarks about POC - and sooner or later I will - they have every right to be sickened too - the only difference is I am far more likely to own up to it than these social conservatives.

Irish & British LGBTs seem to be particularly clueless on privilege for whatever reason. But just because you're not familiar with the concept doesn't mean I'm wrong. You're also wrong if you think that what happens in poorer countries isn't sustained as a result of the same form of thinking. Neoliberal economics, for example, right wing libertarianism, as well as the corporate welfare that they would claim to oppose as much as the left, are very much about privilege.

CrystalLettuce · 31-10-2011 05:37PM

floggg wrote: »

So much wrong with this.

Allies? Is it a war? Do you have to take sides. Draw battle lines isn't going to help anybody, is it.

Allies is the common term for advocates of LGBT, People of colour, etc.

if you're not even familiar with this term - then please don't comment, as you are not educated enough on the issue to do so. However, I would rather you educate yourself then comment.

This is a great link for starting - http://borderhouseblog.com/?page_id=54

And why the feck should a person have to subscribe to a set gay agenda before they can be a real ally. There is no gay agenda. You don't speak for me, and I don't speak for you. There are gay people with a range of differing views. Not everybody wants gay marriage. That's their right. Who are you to judge somebody as being a lesser gay or ally, or a sellout because they don't share your views. That's just as intolerant as the right wing extremists.

False equivalence. Right wing extremists would get rid of gay rights altogether. I'm not for getting rid of anyone's rights, except perhaps the "right" to perpetrate abuse disproportionately on marginalised groups. And there is certain protocol for being an ally/advocate. Read:

http://whattamisaid.blogspot.com/2009/11/when-allies-fail-part-one.html

Maybe it's this sort of attitude which got that journalist pissed in the first place. It pisses me off. Except I'm not a bigot so I'm not going to ascribe it to any one group or community as a whole. Only to an intolerant minority.

Justifying the article is little more than victim blaming. There is nothing wrong with being intolerant of homophobia either -

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant

- Karl Popper

And I agree with that. I think everyone is entitled to their view - but some views encourage hatred and violence against others, just as rape and murder do, so it is not unreasonable to oppose them and view them as negative ideologies.

CrystalLettuce · 31-10-2011 05:37PM

marienbad wrote: »

But that is the whole ball of wax right there CrystalLettuce- ''just utterly incapable of seeing your own privilege'' . That is true for everyone at some level on some issue - even you.

It is what happens after it is pointed out that such and such is a priveleged position that is the issue.

That's actually more or less correct. Nobody is at fault for being privileged. They are at fault for making a privileged remark and refusing to own up to it when it's pointed out.

also, I should not have to take heckling even from LGBTs when trying to educate a concept that is extremely widely accepted in activism&advocacy for LGBTs as well as POC and other marginalised groups. Please stop acting like I'm trying to push some Fascist PC ideology, that's only what the right want in the first place. These are important concepts and education never hurts - read up.

Shakti · 31-10-2011 05:38PM

ED is a right wing bore who writes for a rightish wing paper, full of his own brown stuff, anything I have read by him involves himself as the centre-piece and him playing(?) the borderline ambiguous bigot. Imagine this guy used to be diplomat, ED longs for the days of the british empire when the 'Oirish" knew their place and 'gays'sic were marginalised to invisibility. Best way to shut him up is to boycott the 'Independent'

marienbad · 31-10-2011 05:50PM

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

That's actually more or less correct. Nobody is at fault for being privileged. They are at fault for making a privileged remark and refusing to own up to it when it's pointed out.

also, I should not have to take heckling even from LGBTs when trying to educate a concept that is extremely widely accepted in activism&advocacy for LGBTs as well as POC and other marginalised groups. Please stop acting like I'm trying to push some Fascist PC ideology, that's only what the right want in the first place. These are important concepts and education never hurts - read up.

So let us give them the opportunity to ''own up'' as you put it before we go into attack mode.

Furthermore no one is heckling you or accusing you of pushing a fascist agenda, but you seem to think you have the monopoly on the right way and come across as intolerant of anyone who dares to drift from the party line as you see it.

Maybe you should do a bit more reading youself !

jaffacakesyum · 31-10-2011 05:51PM

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

That's actually more or less correct. Nobody is at fault for being privileged. They are at fault for making a privileged remark and refusing to own up to it when it's pointed out.

also, I should not have to take heckling even from LGBTs when trying to educate a concept that is extremely widely accepted in activism&advocacy for LGBTs as well as POC and other marginalised groups. Please stop acting like I'm trying to push some Fascist PC ideology, that's only what the right want in the first place. These are important concepts and education never hurts - read up.

Why should you not have to take it? Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't matter whether they're straight or LGBT

I am bisexual yet I admit I am hugely privileged. I have issues which would be there if I wasn't bisexual; I'm not going to blame anytime I'm going through a rough patch on the fact that I'm bisexual. And I certainly am not going to go around claiming everyone else is privileged and poor little aul bisexual me :rolleyes: Yes I also have problems relating to being bi but another straight white male may have problems related to being homeless, deaf, poor, uneducated, from a certain neighbourhood, because he has ginger hair etc. etc. which I will never have to deal with.

A straight white male could have a million and one other problems which I don't have.

I have a roof over my head, food, I am receiving a good education, I have enough money to keep me going...how many white straight males do you see on the streets who don't have that?? (and yes I'm assuming they are straight - I know there are a lot of LGBT homeless people too)

Sonics2k · 31-10-2011 05:59PM

To be fair Crystal, your posts can often come across as a little more "aggressive" than I believe you want.

You throw around the word privileged in quite a harsh way, and it makes your posts seem a lot harsher.

Step back a bit, and remember that people are entitled to an opinion.
Some people may never be entirely comfortable with gay people having children, but not too long ago people were uncomfortable with black people living in the same area's as white people.

Things will change.

I for one like to listen to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo to help me relax and just reflect on how things can be.

apache · 31-10-2011 06:01PM

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

Read the second part of the quote -

"or at least your friends you learned that line from don't."

It is still an idea that derives from privilege. Just as there are poor people who vote for right wing parties, there are gays who inadvertently support ideas that harm their rights.

If an ally were to write off an attack on LGBT people in mainstream media, as nothing more than an "Opinion piece", I would consider them a failure as an ally. So I guess I consider you a failure as an LGBT standing up for their own rights? I've seen this before - trans people supporting for example the right for radfems to discriminate against them. It's tough being a marginalised person - and you can get in bed with people much easier if you "sell out" in the way you're doing.

You are looking to gain privileges over the average gay person in a dishonest manner.

are you actually for real with that response to my post?
i am an ally to who? i have my own set of ideas and opinions. i'm not a sheep! i am not selling out!

your post is all about what is wrong with this debate.
and chicken i am far from privileged! i guarantee you i have experienced more homophobia than you and come from a working class background.
oh god well done you have actually proved my point. i agreed with the author because of this reponse. that is what i agree with.

sure you thought i was straight a few posts back!

i am also coming from a journalistic point of view. opinion pieces are important. i used to be one. the day when we have to censor our point of opinions will be a sad one.

A little bit of extreme prejudice for your Sunday

Comments