Some are more equal than others:

Green and other activists for transgender rights view it as deeply offensive to deliberately use the wrong pronoun for a trans person. Doing so could be an offence under the Malicious Communications Act, which makes it a crime to send messages that are indecent or grossly offensive, threatening, or contain information which is false or believed to be false, if the purpose for sending it is to cause distress or anxiety.

People can view anything as anything; that doesn’t make it true. People can “view” something as deeply offensive when it isn’t, or when reasonable people would agree it isn’t, or when reasonable people would disagree over whether it is or isn’t, and so on. “Deeply offensive” is an opinion word, and also an emotion pump. We’re supposed to feel an extra flush of anger because of the “deeply” – the offensiveness must be at the level of blasphemy or similar.

The reality is that many activists for transgender rights have made a lot of things “deeply offensive” by shouting about them for a long time without stopping. Sometimes when people do that it’s a good thing: slavery is “deeply offensive”; genocide is “deeply offensive”; white supremacy is “deeply offensive”; rape and sexual abuse are “deeply offensive.” But other times when people create a new category of “deeply offensive” it’s not a good thing. Whether and when and in what circumstances and for what reason someone “uses the wrong pronoun for a trans person” can vary, plus of course the claim that the pronoun is “wrong” is already debatable.

With all that, and more that one could say, it’s a little dubious to accept the claim that it in fact is “deeply offensive” to use a disfavored pronoun in a world where calling women cunts is laughed off.

Meanwhile in another part of the forest…

The Open University was forced to cancel a conference on prison reform following threats from the transgender lobby, it has emerged.

Is there really such a thing as the transgender lobby? Not exactly, but there is a mandatory orthodoxy and a large group of people eager to enforce it, so maybe that’s an okay label for it.

The CCJS, an educational charity, has been accused of “transphobia” for its stance that transgender female prisoners should be incarcerated separately from female prisoners.

“The Open University faced quite significant pressure from transgender activists. They received a number of emails where some of the language was extraordinarily overheated,” a source told The Telegraph.

It’s odd that that’s what trans activists want to be known for – overheated language filled with threats and absurd claims. Maybe it’s inevitable when the core mandatory belief is so very…what to call it…counter-reality.

Last month, the CCJS released a statement on transgender prisoners which said that prison service has “a duty to provide fair, decent and respectful provision for trans prisoners”.

It went on: “Given the current state of the prison system, in the case of trans women prisoners, we consider that this can best be achieved through the provision of accommodation that is separate from female prisoners.”

The CCJS statement was released following the case of transgender prisoner Karen White, a  convicted rapist and paedophile who was born a man but used a transgender persona to attack female prisoners in a women’s prison.The prison service has since apologised over failings in the case.

Justin Weinberg at Daily Nous, part 2:

There did not appear to be many such calls to pull the interview, though. This is not to suggest that a certain number of such calls, itself, is sufficient reason to pull an interview, but it does speak, perhaps, to concerns editor and owner Andrew Gallix might have about the survival of his publication.

Besides the feedback on social media, four of the magazine’s editorial board members resigned in protest of the publication of the interview. [Update: they are Eley Williams, David Winters, Hestia Peppe, and Joanna Walsh; for those curious, none of the four is an academic philosopher.]

So four members of the editorial board resigned in protest of the not-silencing of Holly Lawford-Smith.

It would be a significant loss to the philosophical community if this led to the end of Marshall’s interview series, which has included philosophically substantive conversations with an incredibly wide range of philosophers. Marshall has been with 3:AM for 19 of its 20 years in existence. In an email, he writes that he has had “absolute freedom” to conduct and edit his interviews as he sees fit and won’t continue “if I can’t guarantee that when I publish it it will remain published no matter what the response.”

It’s interesting that he had that freedom for 19 years and lost it over this.

Someone (I’m sorry I’ve forgotten who, or where)* recently borrowed Cheshire Calhoun‘s idea of an “abnormal moral context” to characterize the current public understanding of various matters related to transgender persons. In her essay, “Moral Failure,” Calhoun describes an abnormal moral context as one in which “some segment of a society produces advances in moral knowledge that outrun the social mechanisms for disseminating and normalizing that knowledge in the society as a whole.” In these circumstances, there is a gap between “what from a (presumably) advantaged epistemic position is viewed as the right thing to do” and what everyone else thinks. “The gap, of course, will be obvious only to those who take themselves to be reasoning from a more advanced, socially critical point of view.” Those who act on this “more advanced” view Calhoun calls “moral resisters.”

Of course. We know that. It’s Owen Jones constantly saying we’re “on the wrong side of history.” There’s a pattern, which we’ve noticed many times: people tend to be morally blind to a lot of stuff they should see. John Stuart Mill was considered loony for writing The Subjection of Women. Abolitionists were considered dangerously loony by almost everyone. Post-abolition racism and legalized slavery (vagrancy laws and the like) were taken for granted. Lesbians and gays were considered freaks. But, you know…both can be true. We can be morally blind until a new generation of radicals takes our blinders off, and some new generations of radicals can be just wrong (anti-vaxxers, recovered memory apostles, Goop fans). Trans ideology could be the latest form of awakening, or it could be the latest blind alley of bullshit and magical thinking.

JW isn’t allowing comments on that post.

Justin Weinberg of Daily Nous was on it promptly:

Richard Marshall, who has conducted astonishingly rich interviews with hundreds of philosophers for 3:AM Magazine, has resigned from the publication over its editor’s decision to remove one of his interviews from public view.

He quotes Leiter then shares some tweets by the deeply unpleasant Christa Peterson (which poisons the well a good deal, in my view). Then:

There were also a handful of calls for the interview to be deleted, ranging from the thread that begins with

disappointed/disgusted at @3ammagazine choosing to amplify transphobia in a fawning, uncritical interview. in a world where trans comrades are regularly attacked, the publication of this piece is an act of violence. yr readers expect+deserve better than right-wing contrarianism.

— josie sparrow (@ofthesparrows) March 19, 2019

and ends expressing the hope that 3:AM “reconsiders this move”, to briefer responses such as

This is incredibly offensive and you should be ashamed of yourself for publishing it. The ignorance here is astounding. Delete the interview, sell the domain name to your website, pick up a new hobby or something – just fuck off.

— Nora (@MadeOfBarges) March 19, 2019

I was naturally curious about this Nora made of barges so I looked and behold, Nora has 87 followers. Nora is trans. Nora is angry.

Here's a piece of fucking trash by a shit mag. "The toxic debate around transgender"? Yes, and "the toxic debate around black"! This is literally a TERF interviewing a TERF, neither of whom knows anything about trans issues. They outright call trans women 'male.' It's repulsive. https://t.co/vahjE8wTwE

— Nora (@MadeOfBarges) March 19, 2019

"Whatever it is, we're against it."

Especially if it's the dignity of trans women!

Who runs this magazine, fucking Ricky Gervais? pic.twitter.com/PxekL4ibkZ

— Nora (@MadeOfBarges) March 19, 2019

Such dignity.

Followup on this – 3:AM has deleted their whole Twiter (lol) and also removed the article from their website (good).

— Nora (@MadeOfBarges) March 19, 2019

I would just like to add: get fucking wrecked Holly Lawford-Smith you braindead idiot, everyone is laughing at you, why don't you go listen to some Orson Scott Card audiobooks and cry in a corner.

— Nora (@MadeOfBarges) March 20, 2019

So, why cite Nora of the 87 followers who is not very philosophical?

I leave it to your wisdom to determine.

More of the same:

i've just woken up to the news that @3ammagazine has de-platformed me by removing my interview with richard marshall, because of the comments i made about gender. and even though the bulk of the interview was about my other work. h/t @BrianLeiter. https://t.co/HQa4tlOBsI

— Dr Holly Lawford-Smith (@aytchellesse) March 19, 2019

Leiter Reports:

3AM Magazine’s radical chic motto–“whatever it is, we’re against it”–turns out to be bollocks

Their real motto is “whatever right-thinking zealots in our little corner of the universe agree on, we’re for it.” The magazine has withdrawn Richard Marshall’s interview with philosopher Holly Lawford-Smith (Melbourne) because in the course of the interview she denied that trans women are women, and expressed the gender critical view of these issues familiar to readers of the blog from the work of philosopher Kathleen Stock (Sussex).

Richard Marshall has resigned from 3AM Magazine, given this insulting treatment of his work.  He is right to do so, even though this is a huge loss for philosophy.  As he told me, it means the “end of the series” of interviews he has done over many years now, which now numbers nearly 400 interviews with philosophers about their work in accessible terms and freely available on the Internet.

If you value Mr. Marshall’s work and freedom of expression and thought, then e-mail the owner and co-editor of 3AM to make that known.  He is Andrew Gallix, reachable here:   andrew@3ammagazine.com

This is completely outrageous. Why deplatform @aytchellesse, who has a lots interesting things to say? This is just usual invalid argument: Holly thinks X, I disagree with X, so everything Holly thinks is wrong. I expect more from philosophers – shame on you @3ammagazine. https://t.co/DQCTF7gTIQ

— Dr Sophie Allen (@sophie_r_allen) March 19, 2019

The norm against unpublishing stuff is weakening and I promise you you should be worried about it, even if you don't think this tactic will ever affect you or someone you care about. Three years ago we didn't think Trump could possibly be elected. Shit changes fast, in big ways. https://t.co/FB1JS8C2XF

— Jesse Singal (@jessesingal) March 20, 2019

Women must be silenced so that trans women can do Being a Woman correctly.

Michelle Goldberg asks a very good question: why don’t Princess Ivanka and Prince Jared have impostor syndrome when they are in fact impostors? Why indeed?

According to “Kushner, Inc.,” Gary Cohn, former director of the National Economic Council, has told people that Ivanka Trump thinks she could someday be president. “Her father’s reign in Washington, D.C., is, she believes, the beginning of a great American dynasty,” writes Ward. Kushner, whose pre-White House experience included owning a boutique newspaper and helming a catastrophically ill-timed real estate deal, has arrogated to himself substantial parts of American foreign policy. According to Ward, shortly after Rex Tillerson was confirmed as secretary of state, Kushner told him “to leave Mexico to him because he’d have Nafta wrapped up by October.”

How can they sleep at night? How can they show up every day not dripping wet from flop sweat?

Partly, the Jared and Ivanka story is about the “reality distortion field” — a term one of Ward’s sources uses about Kushner — created by great family wealth. She quotes a member of Trump’s legal team saying that the two “have no idea how normal people perceive, understand, intuit.” Privilege, in them, has been raised to the level of near sociopathy.

Ward, the author of two previous books about the worlds of high finance and real estate, has known Kushner slightly for a long time; she told me that when he bought The New York Observer newspaper in 2006, he tried to hire her. She knocks down the idea that either he or his wife is a stabilizing force or moral compass in the Trump administration. Multiple White House sources told her they think it was Kushner who ordered the closing of White House visitor logs in April 2017, because he “didn’t want his frenetic networking exposed.” Ward reports that Cohn was stunned by their blasé reaction to Trump’s defense of the white-nationalist marchers in Charlottesville, Va.: “He was upset that they were not sufficiently upset.”

I don’t know how the restraining influence thing ever got off the ground, unless it’s sheer “well she cleans up real nice so she must be an okay person” magical thinking.

Aww Trump has a new twin.

President Trump hosted Jair Bolsonaro, the Brazilian president, at the White House on Tuesday, and it was something like looking in the mirror.

Like other authoritarian leaders that Mr. Trump has embraced since taking office, Mr. Bolsonaro is an echo of the American president: a brash nationalist whose populist appeal comes partly from his use of Twitter and his history of making crude statements about women, gay people and indigenous groups.

Isn’t that sweet? They’re simpatico.

Since taking office, Mr. Trump has repeatedly confronted and challenged the United States’ closest democratic allies, including the leaders of Canada, Germany and France, while speaking with glowing admiration of America’s adversaries.

At the top of Mr. Trump’s friendly authoritarians have been some of the globe’s most brutal dictators: Kim Jong-un of North Korea; Vladimir V. Putin of Russia; Xi Jinping of China; Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt; Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey; and Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines.

Trump has a taste for brutes.

Oh, gawd, here’s a book no one needs: The Four Horsemen: The Conversation That Sparked an Atheist Revolution.

Noooooooooo no no no please no.

But it’s too late, it already exists.

This meandering, unmoderated discussion among Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett, a group dubbed the New Atheists, presents their unique positions in provocative but underdeveloped arguments. Composed mainly of transcriptions of a conversation among the four that was posted to YouTube in 2007, the book opens with introductory essays highlighting key points from the three surviving thinkers (Hitchens died in 2011).

I saw it via a tweet from CFI.

Today is the U.S. release of "The Four Horsemen: The Discussion that Sparked an Atheist Revolution," with new essays by @RichardDawkins @danieldennett @SamHarrisOrg and a foreword by the one and only @stephenfry. Proceeds from the book benefit the Center for Inquiry. pic.twitter.com/PUBY5FqeGZ

— Center for Inquiry (@center4inquiry) March 19, 2019

Oh hell yes, step right up and buy this book of a conversation that happened 12 years ago among four men, two of whom have gone on to become droning narrow seers of Angry Dude Twitter.

No thank you.

Devin Nunes is suing, suing I tell you!

Stung by obscene and pointed criticism, Representative Devin Nunes, a Republican from California, has sued Twitter and three users for defamation, claiming the users smeared him and the platform allowed it to happen because of a political agenda.

Poor man. Has no one ever told him that politicians have to expect a lot of harsh criticism?

Though absorbing criticism comes with the territory for politicians, the complaint described the objectionable tweets from the three users as something “that no human being should ever have to bear and suffer in their whole life.”

Welllll, Dev, you kind of signed up for it.

To make his case, he cited a wide variety of tweets that included accusations of criminal misconduct, crude jokes at his expense and relatively banal criticism. The complaint says the tweets “falsely stated” that Mr. Nunes had brought “shame” to his family and that he was voted “Most Likely to Commit Treason” in high school, and that one of them included a cartoon image of a sexual act with Mr. Trump and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. The complaint lists dozens of other tweets he found insulting.

He’s certainly going the right way about encouraging us all to ignore them.

Mr. Nunes singled out Liz Mair, a Republican strategist who said on Twitter that she would not comment on the lawsuit, and two parody accounts: @DevinNunesMom, which was suspended last year, and @DevinCow, which is still active. The complaint says that Ms. Mair coordinated with the anonymous accounts on “a vicious defamation campaign” but did not offer evidence she was behind them or communicated with them, except for one tweet encouraging people to follow @DevinCow.

Yes but that one tweet totally counts!

“As part of its agenda to squelch Nunes’ voice, cause him extreme pain and suffering, influence the 2018 Congressional election, and distract, intimidate and interfere with Nunes’ investigation into corruption and Russian involvement in the 2016 Presidential Election, Twitter did absolutely nothing,” the complaint said.

Naughty Twitter, sitting there in its Twitteroffice giggling into its Twittersleeve about Nunes’s extreme pain and suffering.

The lawsuit by Mr. Nunes had the perhaps unintended effect of sharply increasing the reach of @DevinCow, the parody account that had around 1,200 followers before the lawsuit was filed. The account was up to 46,000 followers as of Tuesday morning and rapidly growing.

Oops.

Morgane Oger continues to peak trans anyone who is paying attention.

The Cost Of Prejudice:

Vancouver Rape Relief would need 9000 donors giving $10 per month each to replace their $1.1 million annual income that relies on govt contracts and a charitable status – both incompatible with discrimination against women on any basis whatsoever.

— Morgane Oger M.S.M. (@MorganeOgerBC) March 18, 2019

The replies are universally hostile.

Wait, not quite, one trans woman is on Team Oger.

Are there any inclusive organizations in the area that this funding might be better suited for? This seems like a great opportunity for a more inclusive service provider to grow and become the primary care center in Vancouver.

— Julie Rei Goldstein (@JulieRei) March 19, 2019

Are there any refuges for raped/battered women that are more incloooosive of the people who rape/batter them?

Oger continues with the “But I am a woman” bullshit.

It's really hard for women to be prejudiced against ourselves.

— Morgane Oger M.S.M. (@MorganeOgerBC) March 19, 2019

Haw haw, see? We have no basis for disagreeing with him because he’s a woman just as we are, why do we keep hitting ourselves?

Quite a few replies point out how very male his sense of entitlement is.

That feeling you have?
That immediate reflex? The expectation that even in crisis, even at our most vulnerable, we should prioritize you.
That your needs being met should come first.
That’s inside you, so deeply held and malignant you can’t even see it.
Why?

— Lu (@lu_hold) March 19, 2019

This one in particular…

The Fake News Media is working overtime to blame me for the horrible attack in New Zealand. They will have to work very hard to prove that one. So Ridiculous!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 18, 2019

What a filthy human being he is. He couldn’t possibly care less, could he. All he cares about is what people say about him.

It’s not ridiculous. Race hatred is race hatred; xenophobia is xenophobia. Trump holds frequent rallies at which he spews both at a screaming audience, and that stuff is not inert. Trump absolutely is encouraging and fostering racist xenophobic rage, and that has effects. That doesn’t make the Christchurch slaughter all his fault, of course, but it sure as hell does make him blameworthy.

But he’s such a callous selfish narcissistic toad that he can’t pause to think about that for a second.

Oh my I bet Trump is really jealous of Volodya now.

This week, Russian lawmakers advanced a package of new legislation aimed at curtailing internet freedom. Among the laws awaiting the president’s eventual signature is a measure that would allow authorities to jail individuals for insulting government officials online.

Yeah. That’s what Trump would like to see.

Russia is not China, and the country still has a relatively boisterous online culture. But the proposed laws would widen the definition of restricted speech, calling for penalties of up to 15 days in administrative detention for those found guilty of posting information that shows “disrespect for society, the state, (and) state symbols of the Russian Federation,” — including, presumably, Putin himself.

Well that’s fine. There’s plenty to talk about besides society, the state, and state symbols. There’s cooking, and knitting, and…cooking, and…

The UN Women’s Conference is on.

The Trump administration is lining up with less liberal nations such as Saudi Arabia and Malaysia at a major United Nations conference on women this month to roll back international consensus on climate change and migration, while seeking to prevent the expansion of rights for girls, women, and LGBT people.

…

The U.N. women’s conference, focused on empowering women and girls through social protection programs and promoting access to public services, runs from March 11 to March 22. Negotiations on the final outcome document are expected to resume on Thursday.

The U.S. delegation, which includes anti-abortion conservatives in line with the Trump administration’s broad policy stances, is seeking to weaken international support for the Beijing Declaration, a landmark 1995 agreement that stands as an internationally recognized progressive blueprint for women’s rights.

…

“Their efforts to undermine global commitments to gender equality and sexual and reproductive health and rights should lay to rest any notion that the Trump Administration cares about women or their human rights,” said Shannon Kowalski, the director of advocacy and policy for the International Women’s Health Coalition. “Instead they are trying to use the Commission to strip women and girls of their ability to exercise control over their lives.”

Does it matter? Yes.

For civil society advocates and smaller U.N. member countries, these changes to U.N. documents are more than just words on paper. “A lot of other countries look to these agreements as a framework. They are using these agreements and outcomes to advance national laws and policies,” said one source familiar with internal CSW negotiations, who declined to speak on record.

The U.S. delegation is also seeking to chip away efforts by other states to elevate international issues anathema to the Trump administration, including language on climate change and collective bargaining as well as sexual and reproductive health, in the final outcome documents.

For instance, the United States proposed that references to “sexual reproductive health and rights” be removed from a section addressing human rights. Social conservative advocates who follow these international negotiations have long viewed such language as implicitly condoning abortion.

If women don’t have the right to stop being pregnant, they don’t have reproductive rights.

Mostly Science on Facebook:

32,000 yrs ago an Arctic ground squirrel cached some fruit in its burrow, which was later sealed by sediment & frozen.

In the 2000s scientists unearthed the fruit & cultivated its tissue. It grew into this: a Pleistocene ancestor of the narrow-leafed campion (Silene stenophylla)

Wow. Thirty two thousand years ago. Pretty damn amazing.

Some of the excavated squirrel burrows contained hundreds of thousands of ancient fruit & seeds. All that genetic information the ungerminated generations, the apparitions of Ice Age Earth frozen in time & place, preserving the possibility of resurrection.

H/t Vanina

Representative Steve King is such a jokester.

Rep. Steve King of Iowa posted a meme on Saturday to an official Facebook account that seemed to revel in the idea of people in more conservative states killing those in more liberal states in an armed conflict.

“Folks keep talking about another civil war,” the meme said. “One side has about 8 trillion bullets, while the other side doesn’t know which bathroom to use.”

King captioned the image with a smirking emoji. “Wonder who would win….” he wrote.

Hurr hurr. So funny. The last civil war was hilarious too – killed 620,000 people.

He deleted it but of course there are screenshots.

Just an elected official joking on his verified Facebook account over the weekend about a civil war and how his side would be more heavily armed pic.twitter.com/DrzHr0q4V5

— Tim Mak (@timkmak) March 18, 2019

King, a notably racist member of Congress, has in the past openly voiced support for white supremacist ideas. An incomplete list of things he has said and done includes calling white people the “subgroup of people” who have contributed the most to the world; tweeting that “we can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies;” blaming immigrants for ISIS and Ebola; displaying the Confederate flag, despite his state, Iowa, not having been a part of the Confederacy; blaming abortion for killing “millions” of white babies; and complaining that for every child of undocumented immigrants “who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.”

How we live now.

George Conway makes a point.

Don’t assume that the things he says and does are part of a rational plan or strategy, because they seldom are. Consider them as a product of his pathologies, and they make perfect sense. https://t.co/k9rAK3tGFT

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) March 18, 2019

I always do. Not that I can brag about it; he’s nothing if not obvious. The Twitter blurts are so nuts they can’t possibly be part of a rational strategy.

pic.twitter.com/sDGW8nrEft

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) March 18, 2019

Ah, okay, we’re going there.

pic.twitter.com/k40Z2oJR2P

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) March 18, 2019

1, check, 2, check, 3, check, 4, check, 5, check, 6, check.

pic.twitter.com/54ffIL0zcg

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) March 18, 2019

1 through 7, check.

He ticks every single box, and not with a light tick in pencil but with a loud heavy one in his beloved sharpie. He doesn’t just show all the behaviors, he flaunts them, he performs them in tights and a spangled leotard, he hires planes to pull a banner advertising them. He’s the most florid narcissist most of us will ever see in action.

Chris Cillizza at CNN is also amazed at Trump’s prolific crazy on Twitter yesterday.

He summarizes:

1. The Federal Communications Commission or Federal Election Commission should investigate whether “Saturday Night Live” and late-night talk shows are in collusion with Democrats and/or Russia because they attack him so consistently.

3. Urged Fox News Channel to reinstate host Jeanine Pirro after she was suspended for questioning the patriotism of Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who is Muslim.

4. Urged FNC to stand up for host Tucker Carlson, who has seen some advertisers pull out of his show following the release of a series of caustic and offensive remarks he made on a radio show between 2006 and 2011.

6. Attacked FNC anchor Shep Smith and two other weekend anchors at Fox, alleging they had “been trained by CNN prior to their ratings collapse.”

7. Alleged that Democrats tried to “steal a presidential election,” calling it “the biggest scandal in the history of our country.”

8. Retweeted Jack Posobiec, who among other things, is a leading promoter of the Pizzagate and Seth Rich conspiracy theories.

All of this — and lots, lots more — in the space of a single day.

He’s always tweeted crazy shit, but (Cillizza says) not this much this crazy in one day.

[W]hat we witnessed on Sunday is somewhere between concerning and absolutely terrifying. The most powerful man in the county — and maybe the world — spent his day touting unproven conspiracy theories about stolen elections, suggesting collusion between Democrats and comedians, attacking a military hero and Republican senator, and trying to program his favorite cable network’s broadcasts. And he did all of this while failing to send even a single tweet about the tragic mass shooting in New Zealand.

George Conway, the husband of White House senior counselor Kellyanne Conway,tweeted an image to the diagnosis for “Narcissistic Personality Disorder” and said bluntly of Trump: “His condition is getting worse.” Brian Klass, a political scientist at UCL, was slightly more expansive: “We have a seriously dangerous normalcy bias, where we move on because we desperately want to pretend it’s okay. Trump’s Twitter meltdown today—which shows a deranged and unhinged person—will just be forgotten by Monday afternoon. But the deranged man will still control the nukes.”

I don’t move on and I don’t forget and I don’t want to pretend it’s okay. I want it to be okay, but that has nothing to do with pretending it’s okay.