Because the New Religion is not the woo laden superstitious nonsense of old but the New and Improved version: the GroupThink of Identity Politics and its faithful followers the Social Justice Warrior, the Storm Troopers who form the legions of the Regressive/ctrl Left.
This religious social movement – and all its sectarian branches, from Black Lives Matter and the #MeToo bandwagon to transactivism and the McCarthy-esque motives of the Southern Poverty Law Center lists – is in desperate need of loud, sustained skepticism and legitimate criticism. We need New Atheists of this New Religion.
This New Religion is a pernicious ideology that is attacking and dismantling the core uniting tenets of our Western liberal democratic civilization by vilifying classical liberal values (like freedom of expression, due process, the presumption of innocence, individual autonomy and equality in law and so on) and now are attacking studies of inconvenient science. It is a destructive political ideology based on believing groups of people are real and concrete things, real units that are divided cleanly and neatly into oppressors and the oppressed, victimizers and the victims, the morally virtuous and morally bankrupt, that not only seeks to silence its legitimate critics through violence and interruption but uses the bludgeon of social and professional shunning, by campaigning for deplatforming, disinviting, censoring those who do not support the GroupThink, by using accusation as the launchpad for vicious and untrue personal attacks carried out by offence archaeologists on social media. It is led by people who believe most fervently that they are the ones of the people, by the people, for the people who alone can determine what true social justice looks like in action even if it relies on personal injustice. The belief is that we are all an omelette, you see, and so the breaking of a few eggs – each individual that constitutes any social group – is an acceptable and reasonable cost.
This is the Big Lie.
The New Religion is recognizable by its promotion of a mirror language, a verbal means to hide its ideological injustices and shortcuts and perniciousness and fascism upon which it stands, a inverted language that means the opposite of the term. We see it ina action when free speech is banned in the name of protecting free speech, intolerance implemented to justify tolerance, supporting diversity by implementing equity of outcomes, and so on. The clerics of the Ctrl Left rewards those invertebrates who stay silent when the duplicitous actions are carried out against real people in real life, who congratulate those who self censor, stay silent, say nothing, who go along with whatever these fascist wannabes claim is the necessary personal cost and injustice of some to obtain its Utopian social end point of justice for all… except those real world victims who don’t deserve it because they don’t support the GroupThink ideology, you see.
Truth, as the saying goes, is its first victim and I will be posting regularly on just how prevalent and obscene is this movement’s actions here and now and how cowardly has been the public and professional response to its illiberal intrusion into the public domain.
We need to wake the fuck up and start challenging this toxic GroupThink ideology on principle before we are all silenced by its institutionalized corrupting power. It’s already happening. We need to return to and uphold respect for classical liberal values of individual autonomy in law, with individual rights and freedoms and responsibilities, and never, ever, let anyone or any organization take it from us in the name of something else. We need to stop foolishly and naively believing in this New Religion of Identity Politics and the political correctness it demands from its adherents and collaborators. We need to be its outspoken New Atheists more than ever and we need to tear away the facade that hides its totalitarian mechanisms and reveal its illiberal tenets. If we don’t, no one else will be able.
tildeb
Questionable Motives 
Looking forward to the series. I will, naturally, raise a certain objection to progressive ideals being associated to some flavour of fascism. Yes, the response to some of the extreme nonsense hatched on the right is not how I’d direct things (if asked), but to lump both in the same basket, as somehow equally deplorable, equally dangerous, equally prone to violence, equally retarded, is a mistake.
Comment by john zande — October 23, 2018 @ 7:27 pm |
Can you clarify a bit, John, which progressive ideals you are referring to?
Comment by tildeb — October 23, 2018 @ 10:32 pm |
Environmental, education (access/freedom), rationalism, equality.
Comment by john zande — October 24, 2018 @ 5:42 am
As you well know, language is important. It’s really important. That’s why ideology that substitutes regressive polices and actions under the justification that it will advance ‘progressive ideals’ is – or should be – a huge red flag. The flip side is that to point out this trick is to then be categorized as ‘anti progressive’. And we see this little trick done all the time. But, to be clear, we’re being fooled by going along uncritically with this linguistic trick into believing the progressive effect we want can be achieved by its opposite and regressive cause… if only we would elevate the group over the individual, if only we would divide people into this artificial Us and Them, the privileged over then oppressed. We see this regressive ideology with its bell tone terminology being carried out successfully in every area you mention under cover of being ‘progressive’. When we embed our classical liberal values into such pernicious faith-based partisan political ideology and take up the language as if true when it’s not as so many on the Left has been fooled into believing is ‘progressive’, we are doing the work of the fascist ideologues and taking as a matter of faith that this divide in classical liberal values is real. It’s not. It’s bullshit. In fact, many classical liberal values are fundamental to what has been vilified as conservative ideology and – something that should cause a huge concern but doesn’t – active support for them is being carried out ONLY by organizations from the extreme Right. Sam Harris has been pointing this fact out for over a decade. It’s a warning sign just how ubiquitous is the blind spot among liberals from the Left how far they have strayed from liberal principles. It’s time to get back on track, time to stop believing the ideological language is true. It’s not. It’s the Big Lie.
Those of us on the Left do not by virtue of this membership on the political spectrum own classical liberal ideals – especially when we support policies in direct opposition to them. Isn’t it amazing that this even has to be said? In fact, we are acting illiberally when we act against the very values we think we are supporting and which we use to justify our contrary actions! Censoring to save free speech. Demanding equity in the name of diversity. Discriminating to eliminate discrimination. It’s insane. It’s identical in craziness to the claim non belief is another kind of belief. It’s a linguistic trap that far too many people have fallen into… with the same righteous zeal we see from the worst religious fundamentalists. And then doubling down on the craziness when it’s pointed out.
We are being fascist when we supplant the supremacy in law of the individual and her rights, freedoms, and equality treatment under it when we replace it with the supremacy of group rights, group freedoms, group responsibilities, group privileges, group discrimination, group quotas, group access, and so on. That switch away from the focus on the individual in law is the regression. It is more than just anti liberal. It is anti Enlightenment. It is anti scientific. It is a faith-based position contrary to reality. It is regressive and leads only to totalitarianism, the dictatorship by the group over the individual, the dismantling of our core Western liberal values that support the fundamental tenet of what justifies public governance, namely, the consent of the governed… in the name of being ‘progressive’. When the individual is stripped in law of individual autonomy – which is what GroupThink does in fact – then what’s being stripped is individual consent. That’s why this belief in groups as real things is an attack on each and every one of us. It is an attack against our individual autonomy which is the core principle of classical liberalism itself.
Comment by tildeb — October 24, 2018 @ 9:34 am
“We need to wake the fuck up and start challenging this toxic GroupThink ideology on principle before we are all silenced by its institutionalized corrupting power.”
What distinguishes this mass of outspoken New Atheists from the GroupThink ideology you’re condemning?
Comment by John Branyan — October 24, 2018 @ 12:22 am |
Honest critical thinking and a good dose of skepticism against the faith-based belief used to promote this Post Modern Marxist ideology called Identity Politics. Anyone who does that can be considered a New Atheist in opposition to the evangelical ideology sweeping the Left.
Comment by tildeb — October 24, 2018 @ 9:43 am |
I actually agree with you about Identity Politics. I’ve never been a fan of GroupThink. So we’re on the same page philosophically. That’s why I’m raising my hand and gently suggesting that “New Atheists” are just as guilty of “GroupThink” as Marxists and SJW’s. As soon as we form a group based on an ideology (ANY ideology) we have GroupThink. So long as we’re willing to adjust our ideology to new data, there’s no problem. I would suspect that some New Atheists will take exception to the statement, “Honest critical thinking and a good dose of skepticism against …this Post Modern Marxist ideology called Identity Politics. Anyone who does that can be considered a New Atheist…”
Comment by John Branyan — October 24, 2018 @ 9:57 am
Maybe you skipped over the part where I say groups are not real things. New Atheists is simply a category term artificially created that describes those who can think critically and be justifiably skeptical about the truth merit of any faith-based beliefs whenever and wherever they rear their methodologically disabled and dysfunctional heads.
Comment by tildeb — October 24, 2018 @ 10:11 am
Cool. I’m a New Atheist!
Comment by John Branyan — October 24, 2018 @ 10:13 am
You are, JB, in the same way every religious believer is an atheist versus other religious beliefs they reject. Although none of us are perfect, there’s that consistency element you might want to work on….
Comment by tildeb — October 24, 2018 @ 10:17 am
I’ll work on my consistency. You work on yours.
In the meantime, let’s unite under this artificially created category label to dismantle those other artificially created category labels that we reject. HUZZAH!
Comment by John Branyan — October 24, 2018 @ 10:23 am
Count me in!
There has to be a place that exists in the in between. A place where sanity lives and the far right and the far left are equalled out.
Of course with the awareness of the Argument to Moderation fallacy being understood as not the ideal, but something to avoid. Facts are a baseline. How we interpret them as humans is along the sliding scale. While the middleground wont always be the right answer, it will be closer to it than the extremes.
Comment by shelldigger — October 24, 2018 @ 3:30 pm |
So you think identity politics is an invention of the left? What would you call it when people are excluded because of their identity? The way of the world?
Comment by The Pink Agendist — October 24, 2018 @ 6:09 pm |
I think today’s identity politics is very much a creation and imposition of the Left (even though I think it’s many forms were quite reasonable to understand as originating as a response to group discrimination… the same problem reversed). I think the version we see today comes from various grievance studies, and it has taken over academia. I think the ideology is Marxist and has come to us under the name of Post Modernism where this ideology has become part of the public educational system where it indoctrinates young people into becoming the faithful, the justice soldiers of tomorrow, and is now becoming even further institutionalized in very pernicious ways like changing the search engine algorithms of Google with sites that ‘properly’ align with the ideology. Remember, Pink, any use of viewing the world as groups is the problem, whether historical or modern. That’s what’s at the heart of apartheid and Auschwitz and the Gulag.
Comment by tildeb — October 24, 2018 @ 7:06 pm |
Are the Evangelicals, for example, not “posterboys” of identity politics?
Comment by The Pink Agendist — October 25, 2018 @ 5:09 am
I just wanted to add – I say this because the religious crowd have used wedge issues precisely to identify and exclude groups that don’t submit to their ideology. The religious right anti-gay movement of the 20th century kicks off in Florida when Anita Bryant opposes anti-discrimination legislation in housing regulations. This pattern of wanting legal means to deny the basic rights of citizenship to other socio-cultural groups carries on today. When restaurant owners want the right to deny service to gays (as has been the case with proposed legislation in various southern states) that’s identity politics. Refusing gays serving in the military = identity politics. Zero tolerance policies = identity politics. Anti-abortion initiatives = identity politics. The Israeli right’s desire to equate any form of criticism to anti-semitism = identity politics. Even these exceptions for medical providers to “abstain” from providing birth control are identity politics because they aim to exclude the women who don’t follow religious tenets. I don’t think one could say that the groups fighting back are responsible for the social dynamic, as it was imposed on them.
Comment by The Pink Agendist — October 25, 2018 @ 5:34 am
The difference, Pink, is that we used to see these actions clearly as anti-liberal. Now we are taught to see the same thinking as a social virtue when applied in reverse and called social justice. It’s still anti-liberal.
Comment by tildeb — October 25, 2018 @ 7:00 am
But are we really? The effort to discriminate is alive and well. Right now women in America are being denied access to insurance covered birth control. So legislation to protect that specific class is a necessity – and not some left wing conspiracy.
I used to think the idea of a “safe-room” was childish, I suppose in a way I still do; However, I can see how it’s possible that some people feel they are a permanent target. A woman once explained to me how (living in a big city) she was on alert all the time. Extra careful when getting in a cab, even more careful parking alone at night – worried 100% of the time that she might be in a situation where she’s a victim of violence, sexual or otherwise. So making certain allowances, as we do in France asking for people to give up their seats on public transport to the elderly or pregnant women, isn’t discrimination against the young and able bodied, but a request for people to make an effort working towards a kinder society.
Comment by The Pink Agendist — October 25, 2018 @ 8:09 am
tildeb,
Is it safe/wise for me to summarize this your first installment this way? … 😉
The entire Homo sapien population of 7.6+ billion on Earth are technically NOT Homo sapien. There are those in the human populace with 1 – 4% Neanderthal genes. Therefore, human/Homo sapien labels or taxonomies are NOT hard and fast set in stone, ever. Yes? Maybe?
Though more precise comprehension for humans sometimes demands dabbling in extremes — e.g. determining a mean, median, with range and/or mode — to find the homeo stasis, a plum-line if you will, no matter how minute (my-NOOT) one goes all objects/entities (organisms) are on some level different than all others. Categories or taxonomies like “New Atheists,” or “Progressives” or “Conservatives,” etc, are merely a steady-yet-fluid method for general cognitive organization that do not necessarily reflect any external reality.
In terms of 1-hour, 1-week, or 1-year time spans this MIGHT seem untrue and that many things are always the same, to our perceptions. However, in time-frames of a century or millennium or 10-millennia it will be greatly modified again, then again, ad infinitum until it is NOTHING at all what it once was or perhaps extinct altogether and in a new form. In short, any mechanisms that attempt to keep all known things exactly the same for all of eternity with no exceptions… is in fact a Totalitarian Authoritarian mechanism(s) cloaking its illiberal tenets. Eh? 🙂
For me personally, this is a fairly accurate representation of life, human nature, reality, this planet, and the Cosmos of which we float and move through endlessly. Or am I way off base, off my geriatric-rocker, and ready for admission into a psych ward? 🤪😄
Comment by Professor Taboo — October 24, 2018 @ 10:14 pm |
Your comment reminds me of the movie The Endless, a story about how we give away our lives – creating our own time loops in movie-speak where no real living can be done – when we give in to surrendering our personal autonomy to some other agency. This speaks to what I think is of fundamental importance to living well, namely, understanding the responsibility we inherit as Westerners, respecting this shared state of common value in the Other regardless of tribe, and then acting upon and directing our personal autonomy no matter what our lives may be. We own our own lives and are responsible for how we act with it. I think of this autonomy as the most fundamental value of what it means to be fully human, not out a selfish self-centered base but of sharing the same fundamental value as all others. This is the foundation of Western liberal democracies, a revolutionary idea that personal autonomy and not inherited authority is the sacred value upon which all else is built.
This is the value that differentiates the Western world, this civilization that has been built, from others… especially communal civilizations built on the fundamental value of belonging to a tribe, namely, tribalism. I see Post Modern ideology as a direct challenge between this fundamental value of the individual in law and one that favours tribalism in law. This tribalism is toxic to Western liberal democracies because it is contrary and opposite to that which makes us Western, namely, respect for individual autonomy in law no matter what other social tribal associations one may freely have. This personal autonomy in law is the cornerstone of legitimate political authority, governance of the people, by the people, for the people not as a group but as a willing coalition of every individual who constitutes it and benefits from its practice. In exchange, the government will do its duty to the by respecting each individuals shared rights, freedoms, and responsibilities, and ask for their permission to act on their collective behalf. This is the principle not only of legitimate political government but the principle of fair and equal treatment in law. It may be subverted in practice a thousand different ways, but eventually attaining the principle remains the goal.
Of course we fall short of achieving such ideals all the time privately and publicly but this is no reason to abandon trying to achieve the principles in reality one step at a time, trying to keep at the forefront this idea of moving towards rather than away from this shared value of individual autonomy in action, the principle that has brought us towards achieving the better angels of our nature (think of the beneficial social changes, the social improvements for the collective in Western culture between, say, 1500 AD to 2000 AD). Now compare and contrast this with all other versions of tribalism. There is simply no equivalency. Individual autonomy in law is a superior value by every progressive measurement even though it has fallen woefully short in many areas in need of improvement.
Post Modern ideology attacks these shared principles by convincing people that tribalism offers a better solution, that the former must be torn down and its supporters suppressed in order to bring about some new Shangri-La through communal rights and tribal privilege, all in the name of achieving justice for all the victims and oppressed of the failing system. It’s an ideological system (a demonstrably failed system in achieving comparable results, let us never forget) that must perceive the world differently than it is – a black and white, good and bad, Us and Them world where our choice is to select either one side or the other (choose to submit to some god or burn in hell for eternity, choose to submit to this coin of identity politics I think of as tribalism repackaged or be… what… censored, silenced, shunned, shut down, vilified, professionally destroyed, accept accusation from a warrior who represents the victimized or opporessed as sufficient proof of both privilege and guilt, grovel and apologize for offending the delicate sensibilities of the faithful, or be labeled and then treated for blaspheming?).
This sick and toxic ideology is infecting the culture of Western civilization by well meaning but duped citizens, utilizing the tools of liberal democracy – it’s legal tolerance, respect for diversity, its protections for the individual, its laws of equality – to destroy its central value: individual autonomy in law… in the name of social justice, in the name of promoting liberalism, in the name of protecting free speech, free assembly, the pursuit of classical happiness, the pursuit of honest inquiry and revealing what’s true about reality, by determining by group identity who deserves this legal privilege or that… to make things fair-ER, of course! The believers of tribalism, of this social justice through injustice to the individual, already know all the answers why Western civilization is not worth saving, not worth protecting, not worth standing up for, because they believe in the righteousness of their social cause for the tribe to tear it down. Like the living dead popular in today’s entertainment, True Believers of this PoMO Marxist ideology have so much work ahead of them turning all of us into the automatons of the Great Tribe they believe is both our highest calling and actually exists if only we would submit to it.
Comment by tildeb — October 24, 2018 @ 11:18 pm |
I’m SOLD!!! Where do I sign? 😉
No, seriously. I have nothing more to add to your reply. Agreed on all points. Another question please if I may. And you are under no obligation to answer, of course, but I am curious primarily for the sake of better understanding WHY you tildeb fully comprehend and understand extensively this “toxic movement” and yet not so many (on the whole) have any clue, no idea what is occurring socially and politically (educationally?) in the West. My question…
What level of accredited education do you have? I can make a guess, but I’d rather know precisely if it isn’t too personal a question on a public blog. Thank you. 🙂
Comment by Professor Taboo — October 25, 2018 @ 10:18 am
Just Honour degrees (meaning four year programs here). Summa cum laude in my program. Nothing post degree and of exceptional expertise, although unique in that internationally my program was deemed ‘co-requisite’ for their Masters programs. I describe that as ‘Been there, done that’, meaning I had already done the same academic writing, the same original thesis presentation and defense inside my degree to a panel of professors as with these other Masters programs but with a much longer annotation and reading list (as well as dozens and dozens of bi-weekly thesis papers). I really enjoyed making relevant connections between different areas of expertise and what appeared as disparate ideas brought together to offer new perspective or insight. I was particularly successful demonstrating certain ideas of quantum mechanics musically… by the seminar group itself in a stairwell. Some classmates still remember the words and melody I wrote, which they now use to teach others! I thought that approach was easier for me than trying to explain the unexplainable. My advisory teachers all wanted me in their particular seminar classes (2 hrs a day) because it was always a packed house dealing with my creative ‘contributions’. It was so much fun… and really useful.
I was trained to do two things every week for every work under study for three years in my main program: 1) ask a key question, and 2) explain in writing why it was an important question and then present this to my classmates for their adjudication as well as adjudicate theirs. You would not believe how difficult this concept was to grasp for students trained to answer questions rather than learn how to ask the right ones. Add in the connections I brought forward from across the academic spectrum as part of my reasons why the question was important (why it was interesting, relevant, insightful, and practical), present it to highly capable, highly critical, highly creative, highly intelligent as well as really smart and insightful people, add a dose of good will and humour, and the seminars were an absolute blast to attend. Learning hard ideas – I mean really understanding them to the point of being able to teach them successfully to others – and having a lot of fun and laughing doing it was conducive to high attendance and very active and exciting student participation. Who knew? Well, certainly not today’s typical lecture hall attendees careful not to say anything that might cast any social doubt on their Leftist bona fides.
Comment by tildeb — October 25, 2018 @ 11:13 am
Ah, then I was somewhat on the mark. 😉 I was guessing a MINIMUM Master’s level, if not Ph.D. Or maybe two Bachelor’s, even two Master’s degrees would not have surprised me. This explains a lot for me. Thank you for sharing tildeb! I’ve always enjoyed any of your comments around the blogosphere and found them exceptionally compelling, provocative, and professionally written. I do admire your level of intellect. It shows. 🙂
Comment by Professor Taboo — October 25, 2018 @ 12:20 pm
You don’t throw out the principle and legal status of individual autonomy to try to achieve a shortcut in the name of fighting discrimination without taking on board the real world effect of undermining legal autonomy of the individual in law. That’s the real cost of submitting to this communal ideology, harming real individuals in real life in the name of helping some fuzzy ‘group’.
The issue of discrimination is of actions carried out against individuals that have crossed this boundary illegally and not an action by some fuzzy group victimizing some other fuzzy group. It’s the GroupThink that only adds to discrimination practices once you begin to believe that groups are real things, that they are equivalent or superior in legal considerations to that of the individuals… in this case those harmed by discriminatory practices carried out by other individuals responsible for their actions, individuals involved in personal actions of discrimination. Again, groups aren’t real agents. They are linguistic constructs based on selective criteria. They do not become any more real or responsible once you throw away individual autonomy in law but the ideology does become manifest in totalitarian law enforcement. It always does. Every time. That’s the real cost in believing that groups are real things in the same way the real cost of submitting to a theological doctrine that demands submission becomes manifest in authoritarian theological regimes. The results are causal, Pink: one inevitably follows the other. Believing things will be better this time using this New and Improved communal ideology over individual autonomy in law is a clear cut case of doing the same thing but expecting a different result. And we know what that belief defines: craziness.
Comment by tildeb — October 25, 2018 @ 9:59 am |
You got that right brother. The regressive left is an ever growing menace to society and it’s only going to get worse if we don’t do something about it now.
Comment by Ashley — November 1, 2018 @ 5:40 pm |
It’s a tidal wave, my friend. And it’s already well past getting worse. It’s has now been institutionalized in education for a generation and we get to ‘enjoy’ the results as it moves ever more quickly throughout the corporate world. Just watch what happens to Google over the next two years as it implodes over having to reap what it has helped sew with this idiotic GroupThink political correctness bullshit when the targeted group is Google administration itself! Fun times as all those who insisted the social justice ideology be implemented as policy! Too funny.
Comment by tildeb — November 1, 2018 @ 7:50 pm |
I just finished listening to Joe Rogan’s podcast this evening. He had James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian on as guests. They detailed their experiment where they were quite successful at perpetuating their admittedly made up bullshit into published papers and even winning an award from one journal for doing so. Made up statistics used to buttress non existent studies. Many journals they submitted to fell for their nonsense hook, line and sinker.
My hope is that this turns into some kind of wake up call to defund and/or cancel these non-scholarly subjects (gender studies, women’s studies, etc) because they’ve been shown up to be the ideologically driven gibberish that they are. They have no place at an institution of higher education.
I’ve been following the debacle at google since last summer. It would appear to me that the lawsuit that James Damore et al has filed has some genuine merit. White men and conservatives are the targets of some serious discrimination. As for their product, I’ve stopped using google as my search engine (I use DuckDuckGo now) and am in the process of shutting down my gmail account.
How bad do you think it’s gonna get at google?
Comment by Ashley — November 1, 2018 @ 11:06 pm
I will be doing a post about the New Sokal hoax. But first I want to explore why we have so much information about ‘groups’, who collects it and why it forms the essential basis of group based ideology… cherry picked information, that is.
James Demore failed to understand that using reality and good science to support his memo about the very real problems of equity hiring practices to match ‘diversity’ quotas doesn’t matter to the illiberal liberal ideologues when facts stand contrary to their social justice assumptions. Sound familiar? It’s analogous to religion, of course, as are the apologists who will stoop to deception and dishonesty and misrepresentation and vilification of the blasphemers to garrison their cherished beliefs. (The problems raised by Demore must belong to Demore, of course, and all the ‘discredited’ sex research he used… the same research that matches scientific consensus on very real sex-based differences… which is why the ideology is used to actually attack the scientific method itself as bigoted and racist but only when it contradicts or conflicts with the ideology. The apologists just keep doubling down on this lunacy in the same way creationists vilify evolution and apologists then serve their role to defend the indefensible). I think it’s a fun time to be a New Atheist versus this faith-based belief in GroupThink. There’s so much material to work with!
I think Google will be the canary in the coal mine once the ideologues that changed the search engine algorithms to align with their ideology zeal will realize the same group-based reasoning and vilification by other SJWs can also be redirected at them and used to destroy them by accusation alone. The company will survive but not the SJWs in charge of it. Beyond, that, I have no idea.
Comment by tildeb — November 1, 2018 @ 11:35 pm
Hey Tildeb. I’d do this privately if I could. Are you planning on attending the Quillette social function in Canada later this month? You have my email if you’d like to discuss privately. I’ll definitely be there and would be good to meet you in person if you’re planning on going.
Comment by Ashley — January 7, 2019 @ 11:16 am |
No, I can’t. My schedule doesn’t allow it.
Comment by tildeb — January 7, 2019 @ 12:18 pm |