Christopher Hitchens - Freedom of expression must include the license to offend

October 16, 2006.
Christopher Hitchens, Philip Gourevitch and Signe Wilkinson vs Daisy Khan, David Cesarani and Mari Matsuda.
Credit to IQ Squared: intelligencesquaredus.org/deba...

[@TheBurg1207]

Holy Shit! I came for Christopher Hitchen's but his entire side was fantastic

[@tomarintomarin9520]

It's a plagiarism by an epileptic of the worst bit of Judaism and Christianity lmaoooo

[@-_V_V_-]

I was the 69th like... ... ... NICE

[@Mister.X.11]

My sentiments exactly. I read Philip Gourevitchs book.

[@Wyrd80]

The opposing side was so completely and utterly outmatched that it is almost sad.

[@Wyrd80]

Star Trek Theory I think Gourevitch was just as much of a heavy hitter in this debate as Hitchens. Wilkinson also expressed herself formidably. I have to say every single member of the team arguing for the motion would have outclassed all three of their opponents.

[@BillM1960]

Wyrd80 Did it occur to you that the available pool of intellect on that side of the argument might be pretty small? The majority of truely smart people, I would hope would be on the supporting side.

[@gyanarihant7113]

The funny fact is you don't even mention which our side is and I still know ;)

[@Ssrghvcf]

I thought the first speaker for the opposition was quite convincing. I would have liked to hear the proposition rebutting her point about libel and equal participation but second speaker (pro) ignored that( maybe because of the format).

[@Ssrghvcf]

1:34:40

[@GrumpleSenior]

Matsuda. The soft voice of authoritarian intolerance.

[@comdrive3865]

I think she was rather misguided. Perhaps her father beat her too much as a kid

[@kainnosgoth7336]

"Christopher Hitchens - Freedom of expression must include the license to offend." Truer words were never spoken.

[@darrrrrby]

+Kain Nosgoth technically truth is an absolute, so something cannot be more true than something else which itself is also true...

[@kainnosgoth7336]

+James Darby Well put.

[@SyCoVenom]

+James Darby Im not sure about the concept of absolute truth. I think Descartes proofs argued it was how much doubt a statement had... I guess in theory but seems hard to apply in practice.

[@henochparks]

Thus said the Nazis. Hitch lied about other peoples beliefs that is not freedom of speech. It is slander hate speech. He was a pig.

[@robertdanielmorris]

My pit😅snnn😅binj😅 jh😅inj😅innn😅nnnnn😅ininnj 5:35 jjnn😅n 5:36 jenjj 5:36 jnjun 5:37 jijni 5:38 5:38 5:39 😅😅😅😅bank ju😅😅ij😅i😅I n MMst

[@Xanatos712]

That closing statement from Hitch was fucking brutal. I'd expect nothing less.

[@sarcastaball]

I miss him spraying his AK-47 bullets

[@Macconator2010]

Hitch starts at 41:05. There I saved you time.

[@askagorn]

thank you based hairy ass

[@tonykelsi8865]

Lol Thks.

[@jorgeferreira2009]

Saved me time alright.

[@AFMMarcelD]

Thank you Sire, most grateful.

[@ashy2127]

Closing remark of Hitchens was the final nail in the coffin for the opposition. I wish he had made that point during the debate, because I am sure none of the opposition would have been able to defend it.

[@brett3862]

Near the end, Daisy Khan (against) said something along these lines "Once you make the effort to understand the perspective of the other person, you can begin to understand their rationale and criticize/change their mind." So, by making it illegal to say things that some groups my take offense to, youre doing the exact opposite of what you claim to be right. If they have vitriolic things to say, address what they say and do not silence them. Begin to understand why some people say things that might bring up offense rather than silencing them. The hypocrisy and childishness of the against side is just saddening. You will not change the minds of those who might say hateful/untrue things by making it illegal for them to express their thoughts. Allow them to express them, and then confront them and attempt to change their mind.

[@Ssrghvcf]

I agree that daisy khan was confused and her arguments contradictory. However the first speaker made good points about libel and equal participation. It was a shame that the opposition argument closed on her rather than someone reasonable. (The opposition building its own straw man)

[@fancymonkeyman4139]

Christopher was a fucking boss.

[@scatton61]

44:08 Shutting down opposing views make you a prisoner of your own opinions..... enough said

[@AndyGeorgiadis]

Love watching Gourevitch while Hitchens speaks.

[@itsfine5818]

I'm here for Hitch but the best jab came from Philip when he said "Extraordinary that people who want to restrict public speech won't shut up!" after Matsuda ignored the fact that her time was up and continued with her rambling that had no point and zero substance to it. Part of being in a debate is to present argument within the timeframe that is given to you. If you ramble on after you're told that your time is up, that only tells me that you were not properly prepared.

[@thesprawl2361]

There's a certain amount of arrogance in that kind of behaviour that you wouldn't suspect from her quiet, halting, slightly creepy voice. And if you think through what she's advocating it becomes more and more toweringly arrogant. She talks in abstract terms about limiting speech, but what she has in mind is _her_ limiting speech _she_ doesn't like. I found her nauseating.

[@that_heretic]

Christopher certainly had a way with words. Thanks for this James V.

[@plekkchand]

"Simpering" is accurate. I found the woman in the yellow dress intolerable.

[@jon123xyz]

A leader in Critical Theory. No surprise.

[@desiii420]

Hitchens Lived. Hichens Lives. Hitchens Will Live.

[@PaulJones-ld9xk]

is that the trilogy??

[@desiii420]

***** nope, just his words carrying on.

[@PaulJones-ld9xk]

Know what you mean, Hitch's death did leave a bit of a void, Sam Harris seems to be stepping up to the plate and I hope he continues but no one can replace The Hitch

[@desiii420]

***** I guess they all have their own approach. Hitchens had the intellect and give no quarter approach that made it refreshing for our side of the debate. But yeh your right, he can't be replaced.

[@christopherhitchens163]

The opposition dodged the notion, they argued that speech should not be absolutely free instead of the notion

[@jmtnvalley]

I am not a Christian, but why do we get to insult Christians, but not Muslims? It's not my religion and the U. S. is not an Islamic theocracy.

[@jmtnvalley]

***** OK, in this case I agree with you. Islam is not a race. And Muslims are not of any single race. Ask the Indonesians if they are Arabs!

[@jmtnvalley]

***** Not really interested in what Jesus supposedly said. I am interested in people being able to discuss, and if necessary, criticize a religion. Christians (well, most) tolerate criticism, but as a general rule, Muslims get seriously butt hurt if anyone discusses and criticizes Islam.

[@jmtnvalley]

***** Just replying like atheists get: murdering pagans who eat babies and have no morals, no idea of what they want in life, etc. No contradiction, but all christians, muslims, jews, etc. can do is quote their respective books, mate. Same o, same o.

[@herauthon]

***** he did - did he - the intention is good

[@jmtnvalley]

Unless at the beginning of s sentence... "he"

[@stevespin2384]

David disproved his entire sides argument - when the lady says she was offended when Daisy spoke about her Jewish friend, then David says he wasn't offended... thats the whole point of what we mean... who is the aribiter of what is offensive or not or the arbiter of what can and cannot be said?

[@taurak84]

The more debates I listen to on various topics the more I discover how closed minded I am in some areas. Its easy to have a side and root for your team, but keep in mind that despite how closely held you beliefs are there is always a chance you could be wrong.

[@mosfet7977]

Who decides who's "WRONG"?

[@taurak84]

Mos fet Lets take the statement (or belief if you want in this example it doesn't matter) the earth rotates around the sun. You hear me make this statement. Do you get to decide if its right or wrong. No. Its either right or wrong independent of anyone's opinion.

[@Bohewulf]

Scot McDonald I agree. But what Mos probably ment was how we decide. My answer: arguments backed up by evidence Was it wrong that people in ancient times considered the sun moving around the earth? Yes. Was it reasonable to consider it right at that time? Yes. Why? All available evidence seemed to point in that direction.

[@taurak84]

Bohewulf Agreed. I am just sick of hearing the Sye/Hovand line of questioning which prompted that response.

[@brianjacob8728]

yes, introspection is something many people lack. And we suffer as a humanity b/c of it.

[@MsNilbymouth]

Thankfully, its a hard sell to argue for the limitation of free speech/expression

[@itsfine5818]

Hi, I'm from the future. It's not a hard sell at all, apparently.

[@werthermarciales3264]

@@itsfine5818 The Ministry of Truth has identified you as a propagater of misinformation. You will be banned from all social media communication platforms

[@itsmylife2624]

Oh my god the woman saying that danish cartoons were oppressing muslims like nazis in germany oppressed jews, holy shit. Hahahaha.

[@NunyaBusinessMK]

RIP Hitch 10 years today

[@jmtnvalley]

Open dialog and criticism, of Islam? Never happen. No religion wants criticism. No religion can or will accept criticism.

[@jmtnvalley]

***** So, the good capitalist criticizing communism is wasting his time? No one objects to others exercising their faith, UNTIL the faithful person does something that crams that faith down the throats of the non-believers. Forced prayer in public schools. Prayers at city counsel meetings. Disenfranchising 10-20% of the population by a pledge that states "under god". I wish the faithful would understand that their "rights to have faith" do not extend to forcing others to follow that faith via the government.

[@jmtnvalley]

***** Teaching the bible in a comparative religion class is cool. But as mainstream, you gotta pray in class, violates the US Bill of Rights, 1st Amendment. This is not a "rejectionist" forcing his will on the rest, it's the majority violating the law. If we go with you plan, the country turns into a theocracy and will soon become no better than Iran or Saudi Arabia.

[@kwijibothegringo2386]

***** First off, it's not "rejectionists" doing this, it is secularists, and some theists that understand the value of the separation of church and state. Secondly, the majority could, theoretically, enslave the minority in a majority-rule situation. Making ad populum arguments will get you nowhere because the flaws with pure democracy are very well known. Majority rule = minority oppression.

[@jmtnvalley]

Kwijibo TheGringo Nicely said. Our founders realized this problem and tried to put in safe guards. As for separation of church and state and schools: a child can pray on their or discuss religion with other classmates, if they are willing; but a teacher CANNOT lead the classroom in prayer, because the teacher represents the government as a tax paid employee and the children have no say in whether they want to participate. Excluding children who do not want to participate only isolates and degrades them. If a teacher wants to discuss religion after class, where the kids can come and go as THEY choose, no problem.

[@jmtnvalley]

***** So by that reasoning I am justified in referring to theists as mythologists or fairytalers? Also, what about theists who are not christian? Are muslims, jews and hindus rejectionists? After, if they don't believe in the true faith, they don't really have faith, do they? What about Buddists?

[@eragon2121]

He does the German accent so well, lol.

[@Creamy6oodness]

The first male debater would be perfect for reading WWII news bulletins

[@neglesaks]

53:30 - idiocy of the highest order. Utter, utter poisonous idiocy. I am myself Danish and I can attest that ever since those cartoons were printed, the ONLY people why had been under threat of violence and persecution has been the CARTOON ARTISTS THEMSELVES. The person in the centre of the cartoon debacle Kurt Westergaard was target of a failed axe asassination attempt in his home. (Incidentally, another national Islam critic Lars Hedegaard, was likewise target of an firearms assassination attempt and barely avoided; the assailant was arrested in Turkey, released to later be found to have joined ISIS in Syria.) Khan is peddling noxious lies and distortions. That idiotic speaker thinks that one bloody cartoon of a "prophet" with a bomb in a turban is "racist, xenophobic drivel" and hinders "constructive dialogue". Oh, what terror everyday life must be for her and likewise "anti-bigots". Sweep their creeping totalitarianism off the table and into the bin where it belongs. Mari Matsuda is hardly better. If there is a problem with showing up in Nazi garb to actively heckle and harass ethnic-minority debaters, that is not as much speech as it is *action* and THAT is reasonable to restrict - which is already restricted under statute - and that SHOULD be restricted for anyone who are guarding functional democracy, no matter of it is racist hecklers at town hall meeting or ideologically monomaniacal students that disrupt controversial speeches and debates.

[@jon123xyz]

Best arguments for free speech ever!!!

[@comdrive3865]

1:34:40 this guy always says FIRE. always says the perfect things.

[@LivinInLuxury]

1:17:08 best part of the debate

[@woundedhealer5416]

Look, I get it. I know that words hurt and carry consequences. I know that it stings and that it's scary to have no control over that. But stipulating what people can and can't legally say is neither going to give you control, nor rob words or those who use them in ignorance of their power. There is no way to effectively govern that, and the moment you start trying, you're only accomplishing the opposite of what you want. You're amplifying the power of the words you're seeking to outlaw, you're giving impetus to the people who use them, and you're robbing context from the discussions that need to happen in order to move forward. The only way to gain control, to annihilate the power that words can have on you, is to decide for yourself what will and won't offend you, and to decide how much credibility *you* assign to the stimulus.

[@comdrive3865]

I agree with Hitchens 1:37:40 This is the moment Daisy said a line that made her look most dumb.

[@Tsnore]

Hitch swatted away these feeble minds as if they were pestering fruit flies.

[@sadomoreno5829]

David's NOSE though lol - I'm exercising my right to offend

[@KnowThyself619]

Oh come on now 🤣🤣🤣

[@kreyvegas1]

Great debate, so good in fact that one can easily see valid points being made on both sides, never advocating for the silencing of those voices that might disagree with or protest against irrational claims of superiority.

[@joegalley2187]

There wasn’t a single “valid” point made by the anti-side of this debate that wasn’t quashed or made in a superior way by their counterparts.

[@Ssrghvcf]

@@joegalley2187 the first speaker for the opposition raised points about libel and mentioned equal participation. I thought these were reasonable.

[@Ssrghvcf]

Cogent argument given US racist suppression in voting despite 15th amendment

[@magicbuns4868]

@@Ssrghvcf It would be reasonable maybe, if it had anything to do with freedom of expression. It was just dishonest, and sly.

[@1984isnotamanual]

@@magicbuns4868agreed but it does in some places like the UK where they don’t have free expression as a base constitutional law like in the USA. Im very much on the pro-free speech side but I try to be charitable. The problem with the anti-free expression people is they say they won’t don’t silence for opinions but they do. It always devolves into that when you start to micromanage speech to spare people’s feelings.

[@Based_Druid]

Thank you.

[@mrYTonthemoon]

Regardless of whatever she says I’m offended by Mari Matsuda’s voice

[@Paine137]

George Carlin also obliterated this nonsense. It’s the intent, the context behind the words that should be questioned or criticized, not the words themselves.

[@SuperUtron]

It was a bloodbath...

[@manamaster6]

Isn't it ironic that the one that proposed censorship as a good way to make everyone feel right was the one that wanted to say more words after her time was over? She fought against her own proposition by asking for more time to speak, even going against the rules. 24:47

[@Macconator2010]

Excellent point.

[@seal869]

The proposition is so self-evidently true, it's terrifying they could find three academics willing to take the contra position. And in 2006 no less. Not finding traction with arguments such as these, they have indoctrinated university students with the similar but more urgent idea that speech itself can be violence, and now that persistent indoctrination is beginning to bear fruit in a generation of young people who actually believe it...because it was thrust upon them by authority figures whose wisdom they implicitly trusted. In fairness, the Aussie guy especially propounds such a watered down version of this proposition -- that people should "preferably voluntarily...know where to draw the line"-- that it can hardly be considered arguing for it. Mari Matsuda actually supports it sincerely, and whaddya know, she's from that lunatic branch of academia known as critical race theory.

[@christopherhitchens163]

1:24:45 Next

[@fabianrunn]

Oh my God, whenever someone is afraid of words or offended by a fucking collection of letters that describes a pronunciation that makes a certain sound - I feel like I'm talking to a five year old who don't understand context, meaning and intention.

[@blove142]

this was the greatest gathering of brain power, since Hitchens dined alone.

[@larymcfart4034]

Tho their side won, the appeal to an authoritative magistrate seems to be the outcome in the western world. Too sad for the moment, how we the public are only now realizing the great occupation of the universities over the past few decades.

[@jon123xyz]

Funny

[@Cyfix15]

lol Hitchens is a funny guy

[@cyber6sapien]

SoldierCyfix As much as it pains me to correct you: "Hitchens was a funny guy". . . : (

[@bicknaynard]

+cyber6sapien I like your revision, but dislike that it is true.

[@Sigmund1924]

Are you saying he’s a clown? Are you saying that he’s there to entertain you?

[@frommycoldhands]

It’s not an assault. When anyone is silenced of anything they feel to say good or bad it is a destructive action of all of us.

[@user-no2vw8tm2s]

Would be interesting to do that now.

[@frommycoldhands]

If Freedom Of Soeech wasn’t so important and powerful these folks wouldn’t be discussing it now and wouldn’t being torn down at all costs

[@BillieJolene1]

I'm falling asleep listening to the second speaker. But I'll carry on listening. She makes no sense but I'll keep listening to her points.

[@roryllewellyn4526]

This country is a nation of victims. If someone spits on my shoe, I smile that much wider and keep walking. I don't file a complaint and shake my fist at them in court! Whatever happened to being strong and secure in ourselves? Whatever happened to being an adult, rolling with the punches and letting things roll off your back? If words hurt you then you should wear earplugs, you shouldn't put a gag on someone.

[@billmiller3425]

Words are one thing, spitting on you is an entirely different issue!! The majority of us would do thew right thing and punch that ahole.

[@bradlii]

The license to offend is not the same as the license to assault or defame. That’s a problem that doesn’t seem understood by most of the panel.

[@ENIGMVTIK]

Geddy Lee called, he wants his bloody nose back, David.

[@hairetikos6402]

This entire argument comes down to the conflict between negative freedom and positive freedom. Your feelings are not a justification for limiting my freedom. If I say anything that offends you, you have the freedom to register that offence, however you have no right to silence me because you disagree with me.

[@novacancy7253]

In the closing arguments I can’t help but find irony on Sidney’s mention of woman.

[@kdott9476]

Hosted by Jeffrey “Lubin’ with Lovin’” Toobin.

[@MrLoveandKindness]

46:00 here i think is where the debate was won. A precise clarification of the motion being about opinions and convictions. I can very much sympathize with the other side, but hitchens is right that the arguments they're making are part of a separate motion.

[@FL_Cottonmouth]

“Next!”

[@MichielVanKets]

the most ridiculous part of those that want to limit speech is that they to offend people, they're just such hypocrites!

[@josephrohland5604]

Hey Kids! Always remember and never forget, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."

[@frommycoldhands]

This isn’t working together, this is bowing down to this evil group

[@KeenanMag1]

Why is she whispering?

[@markaaron9957]

I admit I only just started watching, but I'm baffled how somebody could even consider the opposing position. No matter what super-benign thing you say there's always somebody somewhere who'd be offended. (an exaggeration, but you get the point) So if the opposition's ideas were made policy, ALL speech would be outlawed.

[@aoeu256]

Nope only speech that goes against the status quo would be banned.

[@duderyandude9515]

@@aoeu256 Which is almost as bad.

[@comdrive3865]

@@aoeu256 The status quo of where? Each state in america, hell each corner of every street could have it's own status quo with the deatyh penalty attached. Say the word "motherfucker" on 21st street? you'd get stoned to death, legally.

[@paramidge8935]

Signe Wilkinson is clearly a natural intelligence. She also disproves an infamous Hitchen's assertion, that: "Women cannot be funny". She is witty and humorous in the best, self effacing way - truly civilised. I really rate Hitch for what it's worth but she, also, expressed great charm, brevity and wit and is powerful as his ally in this debate. Hitch's closing comment though - pure metapraxis! Brave, reasonable Hitch.

[@freedomofspeech2238]

Freedom is a concept and limiting it, we would have to find another word for limited freedom = NOT FREEDOM

[@SiRushBass]

The moderator really didn't want the hitch to say much

[@deenloon]

And this is why I grew up and stopped reading The Guardian.

[@frommycoldhands]

Ones who are wounded by words must feel they actually are those words

[@comdrive3865]

1:25:00. very relevant

[@frommycoldhands]

Everyone including one’s opinions and voices which may not be agreed with must be protected. If we do not allow this to happen we all will lose everything

[@martini7454]

Wow. Mari was really hard to listen to. Watching at 2x speed she sounds normal.

[@frommycoldhands]

Freedom of speech has zero to do with race or anything else. Freedom of speech only is found insulting to one’s who hide. Everyone, every subject, every voice no matter if we’re offended or not must be allowed to be spoken

[@jmtnvalley]

In all fairness, the team against the proposition did pick more than 50% of their previous vote (24% vs 39%). The debate was good that the undecided, mostly, were able to make a decision.

[@kevinfloyd808]

The fact that 14 people sided against the prop. based on what was said is shocking and sad..yes a vast majority were on the right side and 24 switched to the right side, but it's terrible that 39 seemingly inteligent people are that terrible at thinking, and worse that 14 listened to that blowout of a debate and somehow switched to the side that was so soundly beaten at every point..and several times inadvertently made great arguments FOR the proposition they were trying to oppose.

[@2Goiz_1ShanDA]

"words do too"😂 sticks stones and words all hurt me 😆

[@371francis]

The only speech that should be limited is the idea, thought or expression that free speech should be limited in any way shape or form.

[@mogznwaz]

The other side tried to argue that freedom of speech has limits, from their podium 🙄

[@ConcealedCarrier]

If anyone was present for this debate: can you confirm that we're able to see Jeff Toobin's hands the whole time?

[@jon123xyz]

Matsuda shows vacuity of CRT

[@comdrive3865]

23:22 that's so funny how the host worked with her

[@ralphtoivonen2071]

Ummm....you can't guarantee that no offence will be taken but it is useful to know if offence has been made and that free speech can be at least civil and still convey one's position.

[@elizabethmccarthy9885]

Simpering is the word. Excellent!

[@BFrydell]

"Come on, Christopher, let him talk." "Christopher. Christopher. Hahaha, come on. Christopher. Come on. Come on." 1:10:10 "We know. We know." It's as if the moderator never got the chance to be a father so he took it out on the poor debaters and questioners.

[@TheBullGangGeneral]

its too bad they didt explain what they mean by license to offend.

[@brentelisens9163]

Begging for license is the opposite of freedom.

[@ralphtoivonen2071]

Can't guarantee that speech will not be offensive but you can moderate language such that it is reasonably civil and still effective.

[@Paine137]

Or people can say what they want, how they want.

[@Whidmark]

This was so good. Long live Charlie Hebdo.

[@dwalldwall]

The against the motion team was heavily outgunned both intellectually and rhetorically.

[@frommycoldhands]

Everyone and anyone has the right to say anything they wish

[@MaskedMarvyl]

She made a great speech, but unfortunately, they can, and did stop them damn pictures from being shown and broadcast in America, except for two small papers. Tom Cruise got a South Park episode pulled from being repeated, by threatening not to do any publicity for Mission Impossible III if it wasn't yanked; it was. Two victories for religious fanaticism, two losses for the rest of us.

[@TheFlyingCougar]

Oh, Cruise got the re-runs pulled? Funny because I watched that episode on Comedy Central the other night.

[@MaskedMarvyl]

TheFlyingCougar, I'm glad you did. However, the rerun after it first aired was yanked by Comedy Central, during the run of Mission Impossible III. They didn't air it again until after that movie. Please check the history of it. There are several articles about it, and an interview with the creators of South Park.

[@johnfalcon3614]

Great video but the girls in the right side talk so slow and take so long to get to the point.

[@jays6997]

The moderator is terrible..

[@jmtnvalley]

Should have stomped on the against team for going over.

[@9000bret]

He’s even worse in Zoom meetings.

[@jorgeferreira2009]

First thing one needed to know while going to a debate where Hitch was present was: "Which side is Christopher on? The Yes. I'll be on the Yes side then". Period.

[@AtheistEve]

Aw, Christopher Hitchens making the case for turning the other cheek when we’re offended.

[@Semirouser]

Right, why is the second woman whispering ? It sounds like she was going through some kind of voice training for public speaking which clearly has not worked.

[@frommycoldhands]

Sydney Wilkins must have definitely listened to Hitchens Freedom Of Speech Lol

[@jadezee6316]

Hitchens was a giant..................

[@ammmm3315]

Please be quite lady- Everyone that has existed

[@cathalg312]

How can you pull somebody's strings if they don't have any strings to pull in the first place?

[@RagnarokiaNG]

I felt kind of sorry for the intermediary in the centre. He had such a hard time trying to keep control, which I suppose is sort of a commentary on the notion of controlling speech.

[@simpsonhenry7289]

That woman who whispers talks far too much. Uses ten words when two will suffice.

[@moonbalancedd]

Daisy Khan started with the presumption of the validity of her religion where nobody really knows who made all this and then started discussing unity in diversity. The problem was Hitchens simply does not accept it as any more than a fabrication of an illiterate camel merchant and mocks it as plagiarized childishness in its entirety. Daisy Khan has never experienced someone striking at the very root in this way in all the conferences she's been in.

[@herauthon]

are we healthy if we are being offended.. - is it good to see a line crossed - to see one of the lines - never being insulted - does that mean - we do not care?

[@Say_When]

9:32 word!!