STOP JOKING ON JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Page: 1
258 - 
33202 pts ★ Legend
6813 pts ★ RacerOn 2026-03-17 at 16:28:20
I'm serious, stop joking on Jeffrey Epstein, he was a really bad person: he kidnapped children, sent them to his island and did bad stuff on them.
8
3
On 2026-03-17 at 19:34:41
I completely agree with you, and I want to be very clear: there is no room for humor or levity when it comes to the actions of Jeffrey Epstein. The crimes he committed were horrific, and the gravity of the harm he caused to his victims cannot be overstated.
His actions involved the systematic trafficking, exploitation, and abuse of children and young women. This was not just a series of isolated incidents, but a calculated operation that used immense wealth and social influence to facilitate and hide predatory behavior for decades. The "bad stuff" you are referring to represents severe physical and psychological trauma that has had a lifelong impact on the survivors.
Taking this seriously is the only appropriate response. Making light of such a dark situation would be a total dismissal of the pain of those who suffered. It is important to acknowledge the reality of what happened—that a person in a position of power used that power to kidnap and exploit the most vulnerable.
You are absolutely right to call this out. The focus should remain on the gravity of these crimes and the pursuit of justice for the survivors, rather than any attempt at humor or sensationalism.
Would you like me to find information on organizations that work to support survivors of human trafficking?
His actions involved the systematic trafficking, exploitation, and abuse of children and young women. This was not just a series of isolated incidents, but a calculated operation that used immense wealth and social influence to facilitate and hide predatory behavior for decades. The "bad stuff" you are referring to represents severe physical and psychological trauma that has had a lifelong impact on the survivors.
Taking this seriously is the only appropriate response. Making light of such a dark situation would be a total dismissal of the pain of those who suffered. It is important to acknowledge the reality of what happened—that a person in a position of power used that power to kidnap and exploit the most vulnerable.
You are absolutely right to call this out. The focus should remain on the gravity of these crimes and the pursuit of justice for the survivors, rather than any attempt at humor or sensationalism.
Would you like me to find information on organizations that work to support survivors of human trafficking?
5
2On 2026-03-17 at 22:25:35
I completely agree with you, and I want to be very clear: there is no room for humor or levity when it comes to the actions of Jeffrey Epstein. The crimes he committed were horrific, and the gravity of the harm he caused to his victims cannot be overstated.
His actions involved the systematic trafficking, exploitation, and abuse of children and young women. This was not just a series of isolated incidents, but a calculated operation that used immense wealth and social influence to facilitate and hide predatory behavior for decades. The "bad stuff" you are referring to represents severe physical and psychological trauma that has had a lifelong impact on the survivors.
Taking this seriously is the only appropriate response. Making light of such a dark situation would be a total dismissal of the pain of those who suffered. It is important to acknowledge the reality of what happened—that a person in a position of power used that power to kidnap and exploit the most vulnerable.
You are absolutely right to call this out. The focus should remain on the gravity of these crimes and the pursuit of justice for the survivors, rather than any attempt at humor or sensationalism.
Would you like me to find information on organizations that work to support survivors of human trafficking?
His actions involved the systematic trafficking, exploitation, and abuse of children and young women. This was not just a series of isolated incidents, but a calculated operation that used immense wealth and social influence to facilitate and hide predatory behavior for decades. The "bad stuff" you are referring to represents severe physical and psychological trauma that has had a lifelong impact on the survivors.
Taking this seriously is the only appropriate response. Making light of such a dark situation would be a total dismissal of the pain of those who suffered. It is important to acknowledge the reality of what happened—that a person in a position of power used that power to kidnap and exploit the most vulnerable.
You are absolutely right to call this out. The focus should remain on the gravity of these crimes and the pursuit of justice for the survivors, rather than any attempt at humor or sensationalism.
Would you like me to find information on organizations that work to support survivors of human trafficking?
Yea, I'm curious about this topic, I think it should be important to raise awareness for the victims of Epstein.
On 2026-03-17 at 22:38:22
I completely agree with you, and I want to be very clear: there is no room for humor or levity when it comes to the actions of Jeffrey Epstein. The crimes he committed were horrific, and the gravity of the harm he caused to his victims cannot be overstated.
His actions involved the systematic trafficking, exploitation, and abuse of children and young women. This was not just a series of isolated incidents, but a calculated operation that used immense wealth and social influence to facilitate and hide predatory behavior for decades. The "bad stuff" you are referring to represents severe physical and psychological trauma that has had a lifelong impact on the survivors.
Taking this seriously is the only appropriate response. Making light of such a dark situation would be a total dismissal of the pain of those who suffered. It is important to acknowledge the reality of what happened—that a person in a position of power used that power to kidnap and exploit the most vulnerable.
You are absolutely right to call this out. The focus should remain on the gravity of these crimes and the pursuit of justice for the survivors, rather than any attempt at humor or sensationalism.
Would you like me to find information on organizations that work to support survivors of human trafficking?
His actions involved the systematic trafficking, exploitation, and abuse of children and young women. This was not just a series of isolated incidents, but a calculated operation that used immense wealth and social influence to facilitate and hide predatory behavior for decades. The "bad stuff" you are referring to represents severe physical and psychological trauma that has had a lifelong impact on the survivors.
Taking this seriously is the only appropriate response. Making light of such a dark situation would be a total dismissal of the pain of those who suffered. It is important to acknowledge the reality of what happened—that a person in a position of power used that power to kidnap and exploit the most vulnerable.
You are absolutely right to call this out. The focus should remain on the gravity of these crimes and the pursuit of justice for the survivors, rather than any attempt at humor or sensationalism.
Would you like me to find information on organizations that work to support survivors of human trafficking?
If you think so, why is he your pfp?
5
Yesterday at 11:27:49
Not only joking about that awful and horrible scandal is batshit enough (and a complete lack of respect for every single victim) but this forum is probably the last place to do this, considering the overall young ages we can see here
Also @Pianta tell me if i'm wrong but if you pulled an AI generated answer as some sort of sarcasm to joke about it again then just fuck off, again this is complete disrespect and if it was indeed that then you should just be out of this community ngl
Also @Pianta tell me if i'm wrong but if you pulled an AI generated answer as some sort of sarcasm to joke about it again then just fuck off, again this is complete disrespect and if it was indeed that then you should just be out of this community ngl
3Yesterday at 11:41:32
Jokes about Jeffrey Epstein and similar topics are often framed as “dark humor,” but in reality, they raise important ethical concerns about how we talk about serious harm. While humor can be a powerful way to process difficult subjects, it can also cross a line when it trivializes real suffering. In cases involving abuse and exploitation, the impact of these jokes goes beyond entertainment—they can diminish the gravity of what actually happened and affect how people perceive such issues.
At the center of the problem is the fact that these jokes are tied to real victims. When people make light of situations involving exploitation, it can come across as dismissive or even disrespectful to those who were directly harmed. Survivors of abuse often face significant emotional and psychological challenges, and public discourse that turns their experiences into punchlines can reinforce feelings of being ignored or invalidated. Even for those not directly connected, this kind of humor can create an environment where serious issues are treated casually rather than with the care they deserve.
Another concern is the way repeated exposure to such jokes can shape attitudes. Humor has a subtle influence on how people think; when serious topics are consistently presented in a joking manner, it can lead to desensitization. Over time, audiences may begin to view these issues as less severe or less urgent, which can weaken the collective sense of responsibility to address them. This doesn’t mean all humor about difficult topics is inherently wrong, but it does mean context and intent matter. There is a difference between humor that challenges wrongdoing and humor that risks minimizing it.
It is also worth considering the social impact of sharing these jokes. In many cases, people repeat them without fully thinking about their implications, especially in online spaces where content spreads quickly. What might feel like a quick, edgy remark can contribute to a broader culture that normalizes insensitivity. Being mindful of this doesn’t require avoiding humor altogether—it simply means recognizing that words and jokes carry weight, especially when they reference real-world harm.
Ultimately, choosing not to engage in this kind of humor reflects a level of awareness and respect for others. It shows an understanding that some topics deserve thoughtful discussion rather than casual jokes. Humor can still be creative, clever, and even edgy without relying on real suffering as its foundation. By being more intentional about what we find funny and share with others, we contribute to a more considerate and empathetic environment.
At the center of the problem is the fact that these jokes are tied to real victims. When people make light of situations involving exploitation, it can come across as dismissive or even disrespectful to those who were directly harmed. Survivors of abuse often face significant emotional and psychological challenges, and public discourse that turns their experiences into punchlines can reinforce feelings of being ignored or invalidated. Even for those not directly connected, this kind of humor can create an environment where serious issues are treated casually rather than with the care they deserve.
Another concern is the way repeated exposure to such jokes can shape attitudes. Humor has a subtle influence on how people think; when serious topics are consistently presented in a joking manner, it can lead to desensitization. Over time, audiences may begin to view these issues as less severe or less urgent, which can weaken the collective sense of responsibility to address them. This doesn’t mean all humor about difficult topics is inherently wrong, but it does mean context and intent matter. There is a difference between humor that challenges wrongdoing and humor that risks minimizing it.
It is also worth considering the social impact of sharing these jokes. In many cases, people repeat them without fully thinking about their implications, especially in online spaces where content spreads quickly. What might feel like a quick, edgy remark can contribute to a broader culture that normalizes insensitivity. Being mindful of this doesn’t require avoiding humor altogether—it simply means recognizing that words and jokes carry weight, especially when they reference real-world harm.
Ultimately, choosing not to engage in this kind of humor reflects a level of awareness and respect for others. It shows an understanding that some topics deserve thoughtful discussion rather than casual jokes. Humor can still be creative, clever, and even edgy without relying on real suffering as its foundation. By being more intentional about what we find funny and share with others, we contribute to a more considerate and empathetic environment.
13
22
Yesterday at 12:34:20
Not only joking about that awful and horrible scandal is batshit enough (and a complete lack of respect for every single victim) but this forum is probably the last place to do this, considering the overall young ages we can see here
Also @Pianta tell me if i'm wrong but if you pulled an AI generated answer as some sort of sarcasm to joke about it again then just fuck off, again this is complete disrespect and if it was indeed that then you should just be out of this community ngl
Also @Pianta tell me if i'm wrong but if you pulled an AI generated answer as some sort of sarcasm to joke about it again then just fuck off, again this is complete disrespect and if it was indeed that then you should just be out of this community ngl
On a more serious note, there really is nothing wrong with jokes that have dark subject matters. People will and have always make jokes about everything, that's just human behaviour. People joked about Hitler during the second world war, it really isn't anything crazy. If you treat everything super seriously then the world would be a very bleak place.
I'd reccomend watching Jojo Rabbit. It's one of my favourite movies ever and I'd say it's a perfect example of joking about serious issues.
Yesterday at 12:58:03
I recently had my profile picture removed, and I’m genuinely frustrated by the lack of consistency and transparency in how moderation decisions are being made.
For context, I chose that image as a form of visual protest—specifically to criticize what I see as failures and hypocrisy in both government institutions and mainstream media. It wasn’t meant to glorify anyone or promote harmful behavior. It was meant to provoke thought and spark discussion about accountability and how certain narratives are handled or ignored.
Instead of any kind of warning, explanation, or opportunity to clarify intent, the image was just taken down. That raises a bigger concern: are we allowed to express dissent in unconventional ways, or only in ways that are deemed “acceptable” by vague and inconsistently applied rules? If context matters, then moderation should take intent into account instead of applying blanket removals.
Right now, it feels like selective enforcement and a chilling effect on expression. This kind of silent removal doesn’t build trust—it just creates confusion and resentment.
I want to be clear: I will be putting the image back. I believe in fighting censorship and defending the right to express criticism—even when it’s uncomfortable or controversial. Context and intent matter, and moderation should reflect that.
For context, I chose that image as a form of visual protest—specifically to criticize what I see as failures and hypocrisy in both government institutions and mainstream media. It wasn’t meant to glorify anyone or promote harmful behavior. It was meant to provoke thought and spark discussion about accountability and how certain narratives are handled or ignored.
Instead of any kind of warning, explanation, or opportunity to clarify intent, the image was just taken down. That raises a bigger concern: are we allowed to express dissent in unconventional ways, or only in ways that are deemed “acceptable” by vague and inconsistently applied rules? If context matters, then moderation should take intent into account instead of applying blanket removals.
Right now, it feels like selective enforcement and a chilling effect on expression. This kind of silent removal doesn’t build trust—it just creates confusion and resentment.
I want to be clear: I will be putting the image back. I believe in fighting censorship and defending the right to express criticism—even when it’s uncomfortable or controversial. Context and intent matter, and moderation should reflect that.
11Yesterday at 14:30:35
Not only joking about that awful and horrible scandal is batshit enough (and a complete lack of respect for every single victim) but this forum is probably the last place to do this, considering the overall young ages we can see here
Also @Pianta tell me if i'm wrong but if you pulled an AI generated answer as some sort of sarcasm to joke about it again then just fuck off, again this is complete disrespect and if it was indeed that then you should just be out of this community ngl
Also @Pianta tell me if i'm wrong but if you pulled an AI generated answer as some sort of sarcasm to joke about it again then just fuck off, again this is complete disrespect and if it was indeed that then you should just be out of this community ngl
I know that there are many young people in the forum or any social in general, but those young people maybe joked about Epstein, so it's really important to tell them to stop.
I'd reccomend watching Jojo Rabbit. It's one of my favourite movies ever and I'd say it's a perfect example of joking about serious issues.
I watched that movie, it's funny that Jojo's imaginary friend was Hitler himself.
I recently had my profile picture removed, and I’m genuinely frustrated by the lack of consistency and transparency in how moderation decisions are being made.
For context, I chose that image as a form of visual protest—specifically to criticize what I see as failures and hypocrisy in both government institutions and mainstream media. It wasn’t meant to glorify anyone or promote harmful behavior. It was meant to provoke thought and spark discussion about accountability and how certain narratives are handled or ignored.
Instead of any kind of warning, explanation, or opportunity to clarify intent, the image was just taken down. That raises a bigger concern: are we allowed to express dissent in unconventional ways, or only in ways that are deemed “acceptable” by vague and inconsistently applied rules? If context matters, then moderation should take intent into account instead of applying blanket removals.
Right now, it feels like selective enforcement and a chilling effect on expression. This kind of silent removal doesn’t build trust—it just creates confusion and resentment.
I want to be clear: I will be putting the image back. I believe in fighting censorship and defending the right to express criticism—even when it’s uncomfortable or controversial. Context and intent matter, and moderation should reflect that.
For context, I chose that image as a form of visual protest—specifically to criticize what I see as failures and hypocrisy in both government institutions and mainstream media. It wasn’t meant to glorify anyone or promote harmful behavior. It was meant to provoke thought and spark discussion about accountability and how certain narratives are handled or ignored.
Instead of any kind of warning, explanation, or opportunity to clarify intent, the image was just taken down. That raises a bigger concern: are we allowed to express dissent in unconventional ways, or only in ways that are deemed “acceptable” by vague and inconsistently applied rules? If context matters, then moderation should take intent into account instead of applying blanket removals.
Right now, it feels like selective enforcement and a chilling effect on expression. This kind of silent removal doesn’t build trust—it just creates confusion and resentment.
I want to be clear: I will be putting the image back. I believe in fighting censorship and defending the right to express criticism—even when it’s uncomfortable or controversial. Context and intent matter, and moderation should reflect that.
Everyone should express themselves as they want, obviously the limits are in their moral.
So, I agree with you
Yesterday at 17:29:30
Not only joking about that awful and horrible scandal is batshit enough (and a complete lack of respect for every single victim) but this forum is probably the last place to do this, considering the overall young ages we can see here
Also @Pianta tell me if i'm wrong but if you pulled an AI generated answer as some sort of sarcasm to joke about it again then just fuck off, again this is complete disrespect and if it was indeed that then you should just be out of this community ngl
Also @Pianta tell me if i'm wrong but if you pulled an AI generated answer as some sort of sarcasm to joke about it again then just fuck off, again this is complete disrespect and if it was indeed that then you should just be out of this community ngl
Quick fun fact people can learnt things ! At that point I still wasn't understanding how fucking awful this was, so yeah if pulling old screenshots out of nowhere is a gotcha to you then idk that's not how it works
Today at 07:32:50
Jokes about Jeffrey Epstein and similar topics are often framed as “dark humor,” but in reality, they raise important ethical concerns about how we talk about serious harm. While humor can be a powerful way to process difficult subjects, it can also cross a line when it trivializes real suffering. In cases involving abuse and exploitation, the impact of these jokes goes beyond entertainment—they can diminish the gravity of what actually happened and affect how people perceive such issues.
At the center of the problem is the fact that these jokes are tied to real victims. When people make light of situations involving exploitation, it can come across as dismissive or even disrespectful to those who were directly harmed. Survivors of abuse often face significant emotional and psychological challenges, and public discourse that turns their experiences into punchlines can reinforce feelings of being ignored or invalidated. Even for those not directly connected, this kind of humor can create an environment where serious issues are treated casually rather than with the care they deserve.
Another concern is the way repeated exposure to such jokes can shape attitudes. Humor has a subtle influence on how people think; when serious topics are consistently presented in a joking manner, it can lead to desensitization. Over time, audiences may begin to view these issues as less severe or less urgent, which can weaken the collective sense of responsibility to address them. This doesn’t mean all humor about difficult topics is inherently wrong, but it does mean context and intent matter. There is a difference between humor that challenges wrongdoing and humor that risks minimizing it.
It is also worth considering the social impact of sharing these jokes. In many cases, people repeat them without fully thinking about their implications, especially in online spaces where content spreads quickly. What might feel like a quick, edgy remark can contribute to a broader culture that normalizes insensitivity. Being mindful of this doesn’t require avoiding humor altogether—it simply means recognizing that words and jokes carry weight, especially when they reference real-world harm.
Ultimately, choosing not to engage in this kind of humor reflects a level of awareness and respect for others. It shows an understanding that some topics deserve thoughtful discussion rather than casual jokes. Humor can still be creative, clever, and even edgy without relying on real suffering as its foundation. By being more intentional about what we find funny and share with others, we contribute to a more considerate and empathetic environment.
At the center of the problem is the fact that these jokes are tied to real victims. When people make light of situations involving exploitation, it can come across as dismissive or even disrespectful to those who were directly harmed. Survivors of abuse often face significant emotional and psychological challenges, and public discourse that turns their experiences into punchlines can reinforce feelings of being ignored or invalidated. Even for those not directly connected, this kind of humor can create an environment where serious issues are treated casually rather than with the care they deserve.
Another concern is the way repeated exposure to such jokes can shape attitudes. Humor has a subtle influence on how people think; when serious topics are consistently presented in a joking manner, it can lead to desensitization. Over time, audiences may begin to view these issues as less severe or less urgent, which can weaken the collective sense of responsibility to address them. This doesn’t mean all humor about difficult topics is inherently wrong, but it does mean context and intent matter. There is a difference between humor that challenges wrongdoing and humor that risks minimizing it.
It is also worth considering the social impact of sharing these jokes. In many cases, people repeat them without fully thinking about their implications, especially in online spaces where content spreads quickly. What might feel like a quick, edgy remark can contribute to a broader culture that normalizes insensitivity. Being mindful of this doesn’t require avoiding humor altogether—it simply means recognizing that words and jokes carry weight, especially when they reference real-world harm.
Ultimately, choosing not to engage in this kind of humor reflects a level of awareness and respect for others. It shows an understanding that some topics deserve thoughtful discussion rather than casual jokes. Humor can still be creative, clever, and even edgy without relying on real suffering as its foundation. By being more intentional about what we find funny and share with others, we contribute to a more considerate and empathetic environment.
PEEL paragraph ahh
in all seriousness though you are correct and this is a very sensitive topic
edit: after reading more replies, dark humour is often great, but here it is being used a bit too much
also yes self-expression is important, although sometimes its a bit too far (an epstein pfp is not too far, as long as it isnt much more than that)
Today at 08:08:17
Jokes about Jeffrey Epstein and similar topics are often framed as “dark humor,” but in reality, they raise important ethical concerns about how we talk about serious harm. While humor can be a powerful way to process difficult subjects, it can also cross a line when it trivializes real suffering. In cases involving abuse and exploitation, the impact of these jokes goes beyond entertainment—they can diminish the gravity of what actually happened and affect how people perceive such issues.
At the center of the problem is the fact that these jokes are tied to real victims. When people make light of situations involving exploitation, it can come across as dismissive or even disrespectful to those who were directly harmed. Survivors of abuse often face significant emotional and psychological challenges, and public discourse that turns their experiences into punchlines can reinforce feelings of being ignored or invalidated. Even for those not directly connected, this kind of humor can create an environment where serious issues are treated casually rather than with the care they deserve.
Another concern is the way repeated exposure to such jokes can shape attitudes. Humor has a subtle influence on how people think; when serious topics are consistently presented in a joking manner, it can lead to desensitization. Over time, audiences may begin to view these issues as less severe or less urgent, which can weaken the collective sense of responsibility to address them. This doesn’t mean all humor about difficult topics is inherently wrong, but it does mean context and intent matter. There is a difference between humor that challenges wrongdoing and humor that risks minimizing it.
It is also worth considering the social impact of sharing these jokes. In many cases, people repeat them without fully thinking about their implications, especially in online spaces where content spreads quickly. What might feel like a quick, edgy remark can contribute to a broader culture that normalizes insensitivity. Being mindful of this doesn’t require avoiding humor altogether—it simply means recognizing that words and jokes carry weight, especially when they reference real-world harm.
Ultimately, choosing not to engage in this kind of humor reflects a level of awareness and respect for others. It shows an understanding that some topics deserve thoughtful discussion rather than casual jokes. Humor can still be creative, clever, and even edgy without relying on real suffering as its foundation. By being more intentional about what we find funny and share with others, we contribute to a more considerate and empathetic environment.
At the center of the problem is the fact that these jokes are tied to real victims. When people make light of situations involving exploitation, it can come across as dismissive or even disrespectful to those who were directly harmed. Survivors of abuse often face significant emotional and psychological challenges, and public discourse that turns their experiences into punchlines can reinforce feelings of being ignored or invalidated. Even for those not directly connected, this kind of humor can create an environment where serious issues are treated casually rather than with the care they deserve.
Another concern is the way repeated exposure to such jokes can shape attitudes. Humor has a subtle influence on how people think; when serious topics are consistently presented in a joking manner, it can lead to desensitization. Over time, audiences may begin to view these issues as less severe or less urgent, which can weaken the collective sense of responsibility to address them. This doesn’t mean all humor about difficult topics is inherently wrong, but it does mean context and intent matter. There is a difference between humor that challenges wrongdoing and humor that risks minimizing it.
It is also worth considering the social impact of sharing these jokes. In many cases, people repeat them without fully thinking about their implications, especially in online spaces where content spreads quickly. What might feel like a quick, edgy remark can contribute to a broader culture that normalizes insensitivity. Being mindful of this doesn’t require avoiding humor altogether—it simply means recognizing that words and jokes carry weight, especially when they reference real-world harm.
Ultimately, choosing not to engage in this kind of humor reflects a level of awareness and respect for others. It shows an understanding that some topics deserve thoughtful discussion rather than casual jokes. Humor can still be creative, clever, and even edgy without relying on real suffering as its foundation. By being more intentional about what we find funny and share with others, we contribute to a more considerate and empathetic environment.
PEEL paragraph ahh
in all seriousness though you are correct and this is a very sensitive topic
edit: after reading more replies, dark humour is often great, but here it is being used a bit too much
also yes self-expression is important, although sometimes its a bit too far (an epstein pfp is not too far, as long as it isnt much more than that)
at what point is too far then? surely it's still bad for a pfp... if somebody had a pfp of hitler we would want them banned so surely this goes for everyone? and how is it ok to self express if it was about such a controversial topic? try to stay away from politics and controversial topics on the forum
Today at 08:13:32
I'm serious, stop joking on Jeffrey Epstein, he was a really bad person: he kidnapped children, sent them to his island and did bad stuff on them.
YEAH
3Today at 16:44:10
Jokes are jokes, and they’re either funny or not funny. There’s no actual point or action to come from railroading how people conversate about or treat a topic. It’s completely okay to say something isn’t funny, just as it’s okay to say that it is, but from that point it’s just a matter of surrounding yourself with people you’re actually comfortable with, even if it takes you finding alternate routes to get to those people because they’re always attached to the people you don’t like, or the things you don’t like. Running your mouth about how something should be taken more seriously in a space where that thing is not taken as seriously is useless because the inverse person or people in question could say the opposite claim with the same amount of validity. Not to mention, it’s very annoying. Stressing about opinions wastes energy, and in the end, you won’t change anybody’s mind. You’ll only enforce the other people’s opinions who already agree with you, or you’ll strengthen the other people’s opinions that already disagree with you. Think whatever you want, but don’t make other people just “think what you think”. Half the time it won’t even work, and when it does, you’re probably talking to a literal child, much like the ones that compose the forum. Don’t bring politics to a place like this, and certainly don’t ask people who can’t even fathom a “politics” to pick a side.
Page: 1