Open Forum: You Are The Substitute Teachers Now

On days like this I am especially grateful for both the Ethics Alarms Open Forums and the verve and seriousness with which readers here participate in them.

I thought of the substitute teacher theme because of a story circulating on social media, so it must be true. A substitute teacher (I always felt sorry for them, didn’t you?) claimed on Tik-Tok that she had been fired by one school because she refused to “meow” back to a girl in the class who, she was told by the students, “identified” as a kitten. The teacher laughed, made a joke about a litter box, and the girl/kitten complained. I assume that the story is fake and intended to make a point that hardly needs to be made again, but the fact that we can’t be 100% certain it’s fake is the real ethics issue here. How did we allow people so extreme and irrational to have so much influence over the culture that we would even be in doubt? Can this get worse? Can it be reversed?

But heck, I might have dreamed the whole thing anyway in my fevered state. Never mind. I’m going back to bed; I just sneezed on the screen.

49 thoughts on “Open Forum: You Are The Substitute Teachers Now

  1. If you believe your inner experience is supposed to dictate reality, it’s hard to argue against anything like this. I don’t mean to sound like a cranky old conservative (I’m only 34), but when you severe the link between objective reality and inner experience, anyone can identify as anything.

    Why can’t people identify as another race or age? Physical limitations are no longer a boundary line. Heck, why not identify as mentally disabled and then go on welfare? Where is the limit? Physical characteristics are no longer a limit, so where do we go?

  2. Years ago in another life I had an alternative program. Some of the stuff I did in those days would probably had me in jail today. But I had a girl show up and she kept on barking because she claimed she was a dog I found. The second day in class she did it I rolled up a newspaper and came over and hit her in the nose with it saying bad dog. We had a few such incidents until she got tired of the game. About a month into her stay in the program he asked me if I thought she was crazy. I told her as far as I’m concerned the only ones who are crazy are those that feed into your crap. This is not to diminish those that really have some serious emotional issues, but after awhile it experience tells you when you’re getting a pile of manure.

  3. Alexander Vindman: “We’re About To Have The Largest War in Europe Since World War Two” | Video | RealClearPolitics

    Okay. So, this Ukrainian guy who tried to take down an elected president is now considered an expert on the coming war in Ukraine that Europe and the United States should commit troops to? Why does this remind me of the Iraqi guys who were advising the Bushies on how to occupy Iraq? Fool me once, shame on you… Who gives this guy a platform?

      • He’s not wrong though. We’re in a kind of maneuver of minutiae right now. Every move at this point is to 1) avoid being the first one’s to give the other a “righteous cause” while 2) angling to cause the other to make a move giving us a “righteous cause” while 3) marginally increasing the odds of an advantageous outcome.

        Biden has squandered ALOT of time.

        We should flood Ukraine with weaponry. It gives the Ukrainians a fighting chance to hold out or at least bloody the Russians badly AND it gives Russia pause to decide if it has a chance to win. One thing Russia cannot afford is a loss here and it will NOT risk rolling the dice if it cannot be assured of something it’s people will call a victory.

        Russian chances of victory diminish significantly the more tank-killing and air-asset-killing weapons we flood into Ukraine. This is a minimal investment on our part while giving Russia a weak reason to attack (as their primary talking point is they want to “rescue” Ukraine from a western soft-takeover)…but if Russia does attack, it’s a weak “righteous cause” on the world stage while giving us a *very* righteous cause.

        We should also consider putting “advisors” on the ground. This is called a tripwire. Russia will be *very* leery of engaging in action that might get an American soldier killed because if that happens, then we have to respond. Putting our soldiers on the ground in a limited capacity, however, gives Russia a slightly better talking point even while being a stronger deterrent.

        This is all about balancing marginal increases to risk now. And in the long term this is a multi-year race – where we have to dissuade Russian aggression long enough that their on-going demographic collapse reduces their ability for aggression below a worrisome level.

        But desperate animals always lash out when their strength is almost gone. This is what caused Germany to lash out in 1914 – enacting plans that had been in the works since the late 1800s as a desperate bid to establish German power before western European powers locked them out of the oceans (and direct access to the global economy) entirely.

        One victory, that would be big for Russians, and only a tiny survivable “defeat” for Americans (and therefore worth all this brinksmanship for Russia, is simply getting us to a negotiation table and them not conceding anything.

        • Of course those are direct actions we can take.

          Messing with Russia’s periphery is useful – like chaos in places like Kazakhstan or the Caucuses. And oppositional nations like Turkey are useful here.

          Russia is trying to show other nations on it’s periphery that it can call on it’s own periphery if needed, and trying to cow us with it’s latest China-Russia-Iran naval exercise plans.

          • But Michael, it’s the messenger. I have no idea what the right thing to do in Ukraine is, but I sure as hell don’t want to hear anything from this guy. He’s a dual U.S. and Ukrainian citizen? Ukraine wanted him to be their minister of defense!? Would Putin be pulling any of these stunts if Trump were still president? No. Same with China and North Korea.

        • So two things — I believe our foreign policy for nearly a century has been that Europe is a vital interest of the United States. If we do nothing whilst Putin takes over Ukraine, is that then the Munich agreement of our time?

          Anything that we can do to help Ukraine resist the Russians seems to me to be worthwhile — I don’t know that Putin will go to war if he can foresee major casualties and even possible defeat.

          As well, look at Ukraine’s history over the last hundred years or so. Stalin treated Ukrainians so badly that a huge number of them saw him as a worse threat than Hitler (until Hitler taught them different). I mean the Nazis organized something like an entire army corps or more of Ukrainians to fight with them against the Soviet Union.

          Given all that, and given what Putin’s already done, I don’t see the Ukrainian people tamely submitting to a Russian invasion.

          OK, then let’s tie that theme to the other major theme here — what if we could travel in time and kill Hitler as a baby (or abort him)?

          My thinking is that fascism in the 20s and 30s was not something that was a one man phenomenon. The inter-war period was a time that bred fascist movements and I think there is a reasonable chance that, even if Hitler weren’t around, Germany would have fallen into the grip of fascism.

          Sooooooo, think of a German leader who wasn’t a racist psychopathic lunatic. Germany came damned close to beating the Soviet Union under the Nazis. What if they had somewhat rational people in charge? What if they befriended the Ukrainians, Poles, and other groups that Stalin spent a couple decades oppressing? What if they made use of the Jews as regular German citizens?

          The Holocaust was horrific and horrible and all the other adjectives we can pile on it — but 6 million Jews were just a fraction of the total number who died during World War II.

          Am I suggesting that Hitler was perhaps the lesser of available evils during that era? Yeah, maybe so. Alternate history makes for some strange possible outcomes.

          • Europe is a vital interest insofar as it commands the Mediterranean and the North Sea and provides immediate influence on the Atlantic. I real vital interest is maintenance of the Pax Americana – a world condition existing since the end of WW2 where the United States and the World have made a trade with each other (often times without consent of much of the world) that the United States would have sole command of the world’s oceans in exchange for the United States literally expecting nothing from the other nations and they’d be free to use the open oceans for peaceful pursuits.

            It’s been an incredibly excellent arrangement – enriching the entire world through almost unimpeded commerce and cultural exchange.

            Therefore any threat to America’s ability to freely patrol the world’s oceans and seas are when we get a little bit bristly. Almost no nation on this planet can engage in any real threat to the shipping lanes of the world without expecting a massive and ruinous response by the United States. And the only chance any one nation has of establishing conditions where they can carve out their own ability to impede trade guaranteed by the United States is by forming some sort of regional hegemony.

            That’s where we are now. China is working to establish a hegemony in the western pacific. Russia would love to reestablish the hegemony it had under the USSR – the long time single organization that could have interfered with the Pax Americana. But, for the most part, Russia right now is concerned with rebuilding buffer zones around it’s core centered on Moscow. The Ukrainian border is a 6 hour drive from Moscow – in militarily strategic terms, that’s *nothing*.

            Ukraine falling to the Russians (which it won’t – Russia could only hope to tenuously secure the lands east of the Dnieper and spent exorbitantly on securing Kyiv) doesn’t reestablish Russian hegemony and therefore doesn’t represent an immediate ability to threaten the Pax Americana, so it isn’t 100% essential for us to stop a move there. But.

            But we’ve made implied promises and there are larger ripple effects regarding European attitudes towards America’s ability to stop bad actors in their back yard. That, very much is an incentive to stop Russia in Ukraine. It may not be a deterministic incentive – I don’t know yet. So, yes, at a minimum, as you hint at, we should give tons of military aid to Ukraine even if we don’t directly intervene.


            Yes, alternate histories are interesting to pontificate. One rebuttal to the time travel theory of “fixing mistakes in the past” is – what if time travelers have gone back and tried every alternate to the rise of Hitler and what if, during their watching of the new history unfold, every single alternate led to something even worse than Hitler – no matter what they tried – and they eventually returned to the future with their findings and decided they were only making things worse and so let things play out?

    • I’m old enough to remember when we were told that Trump’s wild cowboy actions were going to plunge us into WW3. Then I’m old enough to remember when his actions actually caused bad actors to back down. So my conclusion is that periodic chastisement of bad actors keeps them in check – this requires someone willing to take bold action from a position of strength.

      We now have a feckless weakling in charge who can’t bumble his way into making a coherent threat to save his life.

      This will actually plunge us into WW3.

      But the media is silent.

  4. The biggest problem many people have with stray cats is that they breed uncontrolled.

    Stray female cats would often have kittens in backyards, sheds, garages, and crawlspaces.

    Since they are stray, there are no owners to spay them, and they will not go into cat carriers

    The most that can be done is to catch the kittens and surrender them to the pound.

    • Most animals will breed uncontrollably if they are left to their own instincts. Spay and release programs work to limit such populations. Damn shame we can’t neuter or spat some humans who become nuisances.

      With that said cats often become strays because humans abandon litters of kittens their own unspayed cats having given birth.

      The most humane thing pet owners can do is to get their pets fixed if they don’t want to create kittens. Many feral strays can be domesticated but it takes time money and commitment. I have been doing this for over 20 years and know that can be done.

  5. Hoax or not, it’s entirely plausible. A handful of young adults have been openly identifying as animals (otherkin) on college campuses for close to a couple decades now. They tended to be as tolerated as well as any odd sub-culture, though I imagine they raise fewer eyebrows nowadays. Individually, I’d have judged them back then as harmless but at times annoying. Yes, I have my reservations about them as a collective.

    There’s no way openly identifying otherkin haven’t bled into high school or earlier by now, so even if a teacher hasn’t yet been fired for not acknowledging a said identity yet, it’s only a matter of time.

    If this is a hoax and anyone’s waiting to pass judgement, they deserve a smack upside the head.

  6. Periodically, someone tries to play stump-the-chump with the “Would you kill baby Hitler Time Travel” question. The hope is to get you to admit to killing an apparently innocent baby versus allowing said baby to move on to orchestrate the murder of millions later on.

    Pretending that all the effects of ridding the world of Hitler could be magically reduced to only stopping the negative effects – that is the positive effects of say, you being born because your grandparents met each other due to war displacement, etc, could still stay.

    The actual ethical answer isn’t that you kill baby Hitler nor that you allow WW2 to occur. It’s that, if you really are dedicated to the job, you stay put and do everything you can to influence Hitler’s life for the better. OR you just kidnap baby Hitler and bring him to the future where ideally he can be raised as a normal and non-maladjusted boy. Our outcomes are not genetically predetermined.

    But the reality is that it was more than just Hitler that led to the misery of the mid 1900s and eliminating him would only mitigate the suffering some.


    • Yrah, some martried couples actually met as inmates in the death camps.

      Of course, killing Hitlee upon his release from prison (let alone as a baby) might result in 2021 Earth being all but a radioactive wasteland, with humanity only consisting of scattered bands of cannibals.

    • I’m of the opinion that we can’t change the past and that it wouldn’t be ethical to do so if we could. I can elaborate on both of those on request. However, time travel without the ability to change the past still allows us to send nanobots to copy everyone’s brain at every point in history.

      We can then instantiate those copies in the “present” (which would probably actually be centuries in the future) and let all the copies of each person decide how to merge themselves together, and what they want to remember and forget from their lives, before integrating them into whatever groups they wish to be a part of so they can be brought up to speed on whatever aspect of our (necessarily utopian) society they wish to be a part of. (Yes, we will have to have some rehabilitation realms to purge evildoers of their bad ethical karma.) With this setup, nobody needs to ever have died, but they can choose to lose the parts of themselves that were shaped by tragic or traumatic events.

      (I say necessarily utopian because nowhere but a utopia would even bother trying to rescue people from the past and bring them to a futuristic “afterlife”.)

      That’s my best case scenario for time travel into the past.

    • Michael why is the choice to kill or allow him to grow to become the instigator of the holocaust and WW2.

      Why is their no possibility – if time travel is possible- that one could not alter the psychological development of the baby Austrian.

      Hindsight is required to know that baby Hitler will grow up and be that which we abhor. If hindsight is required to engage in an ethical choice it stands to reason that we had to allow adult Hitler to exist.

      If hindsight is not required how will you be sure you are not making a mistake and if you feel certain of things does that justify you executing offspring of those with chronic prison histories?

      • Michael
        I initially misread your post reading the ethical choice was to kill the baby Hitler.

        My response was along time he same line as your approach. I need to read more carefully.

      • This is like a “Boys from Brazil” scenario. It wasn’t just Hitler’s DNA that created these little sociopaths, but Mengele made sure the boys were placed in homes similar to Adolf’s. A cold, distant father; warm, indulgent mother. Of course, none of them were placed in the exact same socio-political atmosphere that surrounded young Adolf’s and there were any number of other factors that made the man, so to speak.

        But, you’re correct. If you should have a time machine, there are other ways you can stop the Holocaust and the war by not killing an innocent baby in 1889.

    • I am of a deterministic camp when it comes to the passage of time. There is one universe, and we get one shot at it.

      If time travel exists, then everyone who will travel through time and intervene has already done so and completed their intervention. The the state of affairs that we have now is the best we could do. When we as a society get to the point of inventing a time machine, all that we could do is go back and do what we already did.

      After the time travel intervention (attempt?), we would note that our history books already recorded what was attempted.

      But, let’s for a moment image a non-deterministic universe, where intervention via time travel is possible. Time travel has an ethical problem. Hitler killed let’s say 10 million people. If we kill Hitler before he kills those people, everyone born before that moment survives. However, we inherently alter the course of history from that point forward.

      Let us set up a hypothetical. We go back in time and give Mrs. Klara Hitler a secret dose of RU-40 at 12:00 AM on July 20, 1888. Tiny zygote Adolf falls into an Austrian latrine before his mother or anyone else was ever aware of his existence.

      Because we are non-deterministic, random chance is entered into every interaction. Let’s say another couple conceived a child a few moments after Hitler was killed in the original time line at 12:01. In the revised timeline, this couple may still conceive a child; however, like the butterfly effect, enough small changes occur that a different sperm penetrates the egg. Rather than “Dan” being conceived at 12:01, technically the original “Dan’s” brother or sister may be conceived at 12:02.

      In 9 months, the new Dan or Danielle is unleased onto the world. The new Dan may grow up and have children, or remain a life long bachelor. The original Dan, however, never existed. The original Dan’s children will never grow up. An entire blood line from 1888 forward has been eliminated!

      Hitler killed 10 million. 6 Billion people were born since 1888. Who is the monster, here?

      • It’s hard to accept, but the vast majority of events in this universe are deterministic. In fact, if you take out human interactions 100% of the events are deterministic. They follow laws of physics and chemistry. If a rock slips off the top of a cliff, it *will* go down barring another force coming into play.

        Looking at human interactions however, it becomes a touchy subject, much of which we ultimately have to admit is also deterministic. If someone stabs me…I am *going* to bleed and *feel pain* and *react*. I have literally no choice in any of that.

        But what about choosing steak versus choosing maggoty-roadkill? I assure you, that choice is also very deterministic.

        What about choosing chocolate or choosing vanilla? This may be closer to 50-50. But if you zoom in space to my brain and look at every little neuron firing in that decision and zoom in time to the very instant before I make my selection, you’ll see an arrangement of neurons that was in place before I made the decision that ultimately leads to the decision I settle on that had to lead to the selection and would have had to be arranged differently to lead to a different selection.

        So is my final selection there pre-determined?

        Good question.

        There’s room in a mostly deterministic universe for some level of free will. But where does that free will occur in the zoomed in timeframe and the zoomed in scale…which is the spark of *inspiration* that can change the outcome?

        • That is the underlying mystery of the universe. Can everything be perfectly predicted, given a big enough mathematic model, or is the dice rolled at some, and how deeply down?

        • From an existential standpoint, at least with my homemade brand of existentialism, the basis for describing anything starts with order and chaos. Order represents our knowledge and certainty, how well our mental models of reality predict what happens. Chaos represents our ignorance and uncertainty, the mistakes and the blank areas in our maps of the territory that is reality. Either we know things (order) or we don’t (chaos), or we’re somewhere in between (which is what probability lets us describe).

          Free will just means sometimes we don’t know what we’re going to do until we’re faced with the options. We discover what we choose to do, when we weren’t certain.

          Maybe everything we do is locked on a certain path ever since the Big Bang. But the Big Bang could have set us on any number of courses, and we we have no way of knowing which one we’re on. Part of living is figuring that out, dealing with the unpredictable material liability of disaster/discovery, and the unpredictable motivational liability of conflict/choice. That’s part of conscious existence as we know it. And we can always choose to build things up to be a little more certain when we want to, by invoking the predictable material liability of scarcity/stability and the predictable motivational liability of stagnation/identity.

          Does that make any sense?

          • Chaos in your organizing method here seems to only be a feeling, not actual chaos. A well ordered machine, such as an internal combustion engine – with cylinders firing, cams rotating, valves opening and closing, crankshaft spinning madly – following physical laws and doing precisely what it is designed to do may *look* like abject chaos to some pulled from 2000 BC. But it isn’t actually chaotic.

            But yes, there is a clear delineation between what we know or have time to know and what we do not know nor have time to find out.

            If the internal combustion engine cracked, and exploded. The entire event could last .1 second. And a wobbling piston head flopping past your eyes pursued by rapidly diminishing flames while a shower a valves flings towards the ceiling, some embedding, some ricocheting – all *looks* like chaos because we wouldn’t have time in that split second to analyze that indeed, the valves that embedded in the ceiling versus the ones that ricocheted all hit at such an angle that embedding was the *only* thing they could do; the rapidly diminishing flames could *only* do that since the oxygen in the immediate area was consumed.

            Chaos and chance are how we describe that which we have no time to calculate.

            But, that’s the non-human environment. I am still not convinced that *all* of our choices are deterministic even why many are and most are made within a context of alot of constraints that, while they may not guarantee a particular outcome, prohibit a lot of outcomes.

            • I agree with your description of mechanically ordered systems only looking like chaos. I forgot to clarify a few things about how I define order and chaos existentially.

              As I use the terms, order and chaos are subjective. They are based on the frame of reference of a person or group of people. This means they are also subject to change. As we learn more about the world, chaos becomes order, and then it turns out that what we learned was mistaken or incomplete. The more we learn, the more we realize we don’t know. The boundary between order and chaos keeps changing.

              Conscious beings explore the territory and make maps. Order just describes where the map corresponds to the territory. Chaos describes where it doesn’t. Using these definitions, the territory isn’t orderly or chaotic; it’s just there*. The degree to which it can be predicted is up for debate. I think we can do better at learning advantageous knowledge and breaking through undesirable limits, though.

              *You could say that a territory is orderly if the map describing it can be compressed (based on information theory) into something less complex, though, and that a chaotic territory doesn’t make for an easily compressible map. I find these connotations both intuitive and rigorous enough to not try to think of new words for them.

              I see no reason to think that conscious beings are more or less deterministic than the world around us, but I don’t see that it matters. We are ignorant of many things that we and the world around us will do.
              Whether quantum uncertainty has “hidden variables” or not, whether randomness is still happening or whether all randomness happened at the start of the universe, the effect is the same unless and until we uncover those hidden variables and use that information to reverse entropy or something. Disaster and discovery, conflict and choice; the day we lose these is the day conscious existence as we know it ends and something else begins.

              Does that all make sense?

              • It does. But the starting point should be “orderly”. I don’t think the territory is just “there”. It’s there AND orderly. We just call it chaos in areas we haven’t figured out how to describe or predict it.

                • Insofar as “orderly” means “following deterministic rules ever since its initial state was randomly determined,” I can provisionally agree with the idea of the territory being called “orderly,” until and unless we discover otherwise. I just avoided using the term “orderly” to avoid confusion, because I tend to use “order” as a technical term with reference to a person or group’s point of view. How does that sound?

  7. Deconstruction method:
    1. Make them comfortable
    2. Make them think
    3. Make them choose

    Cat is as cat does. The label “cat” is just a shorthand that lets us synchronize our expectations of the entities that we apply it to, just like all words. Calling something a “cat” gives us a mental picture of it, and we can modify that mental picture based on further conversation. This cat is de-clawed. That cat has no tail. This cat has no fur, et cetera.

    However, sometimes people have different expectations associated with the same label. That’s when you can set aside the label and look at the expectations directly.

    What do the people involved think it means to be a cat, functionally? To have fur and claws? To always land on one’s feet? To require the diet of a cat (which probably does not include lasagna)? To be the only cat who knows where it’s at?

    Cats don’t require humans to meow back at them, and they don’t speak human language, so it should be easy to explain to a human acting as a cat that there are certain human-like behaviors required in certain human-designated spaces.

    Categories are made for people, not people for the categories, as they say. It’s people’s qualities and abilities that we make decisions on. The labels are just there for convenience. They’re shortcuts, and they must not be allowed to rule us for the exact same reason bureaucracy must not: We cannot allow the tail to wag the cat, as it were.

  8. Since the theme today is insanity in schools, I thought this sounded applicable.

    From the article:
    “ In spring 2018, the math ethnic studies program was piloted in six schools. The school board had approved the pilot program to decrease the achievement gap, writing “1. We affirm our belief that the integration and addition of ethnic studies into the education of Seattle Public Schools’ students can have a positive impact on eliminating opportunity gaps. 2. We direct that the Superintendent incorporate ethnic studies . . . as a high-leverage gap eliminating strategy.”

    On the next state math exam, the performance of black students at those schools plummeted. At one pilot school, John Muir Elementary, black achievement had been rising steadily every year, but all those gains and more were wiped out, with the black passing rate dropping from 28% to under 18% the next school year. At another pilot school, 69% white and with only seven black students, the white students’ pass rates also plunged, from 60% to 36%.

    Confronted with these results, Castro-Gill replied that she never had any intention of narrowing the achievement gap. Gaps, she believed, are a good thing, because they ensure that we focus on race. “Closing ‘Achievement/Opportunity’ gaps is a Western way of thinking about education,” she said. “We should never ‘close’ that gap because it provides space for reflection and growth.””

    What are the ethical implications of deliberately lowering the ability of non-white students to learn math?

      • I wish any “news” media were trustworthy. They all make things up. Take this for example:

        The Federalist is accusing the media of completely making up the mass grave of indigenous children story. The propaganda is thick these days…

        Regardless, it’s still an interesting ethical question. What are the ethical implications of making kids dumber and more ignorant in the name of equity?

        • Obviously someone insidiously evil has robbed the mass grave and made off with all of the… bones? Leaving it completely unrecognizable as a grave?

          This issue reminds me of the book Small Gods by Terry Pratchett. The Omnian High Priest Vorbis recounts the story of a missionary they sent out to a heathen country, who was killed by the natives. Well, at least, that’s the deeper, spiritual, fundamental truth of what happened. The trivial, mundane, surface-level truth is that the heathens threw things at the missionary and drove him away, and the Omnians executed him for his failure.

    • I’m skeptical of the source but assuming that the story is true…

      Aha, she’s playing the long game! Preventing progress on the problem and causing setbacks so that people don’t lose interest in solving the problem! Because there’s no way that could possibly backfire.

      Also, this may be me armchair school superintending, but I feel that if “math ethnic studies” was going to be that awful in the first place someone should have realized that without them trying to test it. I could have told them that just from the name.

      To answer your question, it’s treating people (students!) as a means to an end, sacrificing them on the altar of social justice, et cetera. Violates basic Kantian ethics. Not to mention it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. I hate those. (Which is obviously the most important priority, here.)

  9. Oregon is proposing the elimination of the requirement to pass the bar exam to become a lawyer.

    The Oregon Supreme Court unanimously supported the concept of two alternatives in addition to the Uniform Bar Exam — currently, the sole pathway to attorney licensure for people in the state. Those alternatives are: An experiential learning pathway for students, and a postgraduate supervised practice pathway.


    I haven’t heard much about the rationale, but I would strongly suspect it is all about “disparate impact on people of color.” Given we’re talking about Oregon, I figure that is fairly likely.

    • “It’s unclear if the ending was altered out of self-censorship or by government order. Tencent Video declined to comment. A source familiar with the matter said the film was edited by the copyright owner and then approved by the government before it was sold to streaming sites for distribution.”

      If it was by CCP order, then the key takeaway here is that, with a worldview this fragile, if we can’t easily bring down the CCP, then what are we even doing?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.