White Pride

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) Pretending the term 'white privilege' is not about blame is silly. Of course it's about blame. It's an accusation that white people are doing economically better than black people due to unfairness on their part.

2) And I'm a conservative. Personal responsibility and merit are at the core of my belief system. If you get pregnant at sixteen and drop out of high school, it's not white privilege that keeps you on welfare.

3) As to why Blacks tend to marry less, to have single parent family, there at a lot of possible reasons. But I note that the rates are higher in sub Saharan Africa, too, among people who have never known slavery. 

1) Blame is a big part of your framework, not so much with me.  I think that people who blame individuals, or groups, are distracting from the purpose of public discussion.  Maybe I do it from time to time, but I would consider it a lapse on my part.

2) Believe it or not I share your values, however I have a bleeding heart and no those aren't incompatible.  

3) Well that is really for another thread but I would consider it, on the surface, unadulterated bullshit.

[dialamah]

30 minutes ago, Argus said:

And I'm a conservative. Personal responsibility and merit are at the core of my belief system. If you get pregnant at sixteen and drop out of high school, it's not white privilege that keeps you on welfare.

Refuting any responsibility for the things in the world that Western\European people (and nations)  have done is not "taking responsibilty".  

150 years of slavery in the US, another hundred years of blatant racism and 50 years of discrimination affects people and their community.  Denying this is not "taking responsibility". Blaming people who have been actively oppressed and disadvantaged for generations for not measuring up to the standards of those who have not been oppressed or disadadvantaged is not taking reaponsibility. Falling back on "that was before my time" is not taking responsibility.  

Especially when that attitude of "not me" is combined with the demand that other ethnic groups take responsibility for their own group's historical and current misdeeds, whether those misdeeds were carried out by leaders or individuals.

Right-wingers "take responsibility" ideology is merely a convenient trope to blame others for their own shortcomings and poor behavior.  

Edited June 5, 2018 by dialamah

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

1) Refuting any responsibility for the things in the world that Western\European people (and nations)  have done is not "taking responsibilty".  

2)  Right-wingers "take responsibility" ideology is merely a convenient trope to blame others for their own shortcomings and poor behavior.  

1) Responsibility can be given/taken to/from individuals or legal entities like organizations, corporations, or nations IMO.  They have a clear membership and corporate history.

2) It's not.  It's a good thing to follow, for kharma, but it's as much of a brand as the NDP or Liberal parties "we care about people", ie. it's great for other people...

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Blame is a big part of your framework, not so much with me.  I think that people who blame individuals, or groups, are distracting from the purpose of public discussion.  Maybe I do it from time to time, but I would consider it a lapse on my part.

And I think the people who claim not to apportion blame are lying to themselves if not others. We always want to know who is responsible for a crappy situation. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) Believe it or not I share your values, however I have a bleeding heart and no those aren't incompatible.  

3) Well that is really for another thread but I would consider it, on the surface, unadulterated bullshit.

Why would you consider it so? I included what seems like a reputable cite. 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Refuting any responsibility for the things in the world that Western\European people (and nations)  have done is not "taking responsibilty".  

I deny any responsibility for whatever the world got up to before I was born. I think anyone who wants to claim responsibility for such things is probably not sane.

Quote

150 years of slavery in the US, another hundred years of blatant racism and 50 years of discrimination affects people and their community.  Denying this is not "taking responsibility".

Where did I deny any of that?

Quote

Blaming people who have been actively oppressed and disadvantaged for generations for not measuring up to the standards of those who have not been oppressed or disadadvantaged is not taking reaponsibility.

Who has not been disadvantaged or oppressed? Would you like to compare, as an example, the history of Ireland, and how they were disadvantaged and oppressed going right up until, gee, just about the same period as blacks were in the US? The Irish were, for all intents and purposes, slaves for a longer period than US Blacks, the emancipation proclamation only happened about thirty years after Catholic emancipation. And they were heavily discriminated against right up until the late 1960s.

Quote

 Falling back on "that was before my time" is not taking responsibility.  

Why in hell should I take responsibility? Not only was I not here, not even my ancestors were here. Is it your belief that guilt should follow by race? That seems pretty damn strange given your denial of any sort of shared guilt among Muslims for the atrocities of their kindred. For that matter, Egypt was enslaving blacks long before America did, and is still doing so today! Go complain to your brother in law.

 

Edited June 5, 2018 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

47 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) And I think the people who claim not to apportion blame are lying to themselves if not others. We always want to know who is responsible for a crappy situation. 

2) Why would you consider it so? I included what seems like a reputable cite. 

1) Sometimes thinks just are ?

2) Many reasons.  Other thread, though.

[GostHacked]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Also you keep mentioning White Pride, which I haven't talked about.

What is the title of this thread again? And yes , yes you have talked about it.

[Scott Mayers]

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, you have thought about it a lot but to be fair it's hard for people to invest reading long posts, and even harder when sentence after sentence is unclear.  There's no payoff for the reader to either disagree or agree.

Example: "Your doomed if you are a male who doesn't 'agree' with them as part of the enemy and when in this climate 'cultural' interpretations is deemed more real than reality itself by a present rise in popularity overall. "

Doomed how ? What is a climate of cultural interpretations ?  When *what* is deemed more real than reality ?  Rise in popularity of what ?

Keep it short and succinct.  If you have a new idea, you can maybe get more people to read if you build it little by little.

I agree I come off relatively odd in my STYLE of writing and admit that it has its weaknesses with respect to you and others. But to use this itself as an example of your own confusion, HOW I WRITE is 'art'. "Art" is culture. To you and maybe others I appear to write as Picasso painted, not to feign any 'value' by present association to his worth today but perhaps to how it may have been understood when others first judged his work as awkward and mixed to some preferring "succinctness", a STYLE based upon a belief that any 'artist' (as 'writer') should get with the program (conform) to the standard of MINIMALIZING one's means to present their form with maximum affect.

Point here is that I already KNOW that  I'm not the socially acceptable communicator that requires improvement. But this comes first by EXPRESSING myself as I am first to the BEST of my capacity I know. Here my "expression" is 'art' and thus 'culture'. So the FACT that I even get judged by your own interpretation as though HOW I WRITE is more significant to your interpretation or what matters REASONABLY, actually demonstrates my point of that admittedly confusing long sentence you quote: Culture to you IS 'reason'. I prefer the CONTENT of the message, even if not initially understood, as what matters here and this is what I'm frustrated about. We do not have hope to understand each other in this world when there are people who demand we all become conforming to some standard of 'ettiquette', itself something about culture only.

We are "doomed" when those invested in understanding the depth of the ocean can alone be understood only when they can express themselves to the masses who are drawn to the beaches in a WAY that remains both shallow AND entertaining. I don't disagree with the beach nor the shallow waters,....they help to define the ocean. I too like these places myself in the right context. But when the majority (demos) think significant matters of politics should be discussed when everyone is at the beach, dresses (or undresses) appropriately, requires being appealing to look at, and competes to see who can hold their liqueur better, I nor anyone is hopeful to be able to BOTH express the depths of the problem to people and get through when the FACTS require expressing oneself in the VERY WAYS that are at FAULT for causing the misunderstanding. 

 

Why should I require APPEARING genetically beautiful first in order to qualify as authoritative proof THAT you cannot BE beautiful genetically by trying to APPEAR as such? It's a lose-lose scenario when these beautiful people ARE the ones in POWER regardless of popularity and define the standards of wisdom as BEING genetically beautiful itself?

Edit addition: 

Why should I require APPEARING (inherently) beautiful first in order to qualify as being an authoritative proof THAT you cannot be beautiful (inherently) by trying to APPEAR as such? [This is more general to include both genetics and ones environment. "Inheritance" is genetic while "inheritage" is the environmental part here included in my meaning. Our 'doom' is the cultural belief that "culture", as meaning the combination of genetic and environmental inheritance, has to take precedence in political rule.]

Edited June 6, 2018 by Scott Mayers
More clarity?...

[Scott Mayers]

"Pride" means "to be proud"

Being 'proud' is a subjective act because it is the positive emotional expression about something personally meaningful OF yourself. If you're a "proud" mother, for instance, you cannot say as a male that you are a "proud mother" even though you may support one's happy zeal of being a woman who may have children. 

Not all those who have the property of being X claims being 'proud'. You may, for instance be a mother but NOT proud of being one.

So those supporting, say, "White Pride", are necessarily white to be proud of what that means to them but does not include all white people. In the same way, one can be 'gay' and either HAVE "Gay Pride" or not without meaning they are against themselves as a person for not joining in on the parade.

To me, "Gay Pride" is equivalent to "White Pride", as just two examples, with respect to the form of what and how 'pride' is used in both. That is, I understand that both are using the meaning of "pride" of the same particular definition but use different adjectives to describe this emotional expression of themselves.

The problem is that those who might SUPPORT being 'gay' is NOT identical to meaning they ARE gay or that if they are gay that they REQUIRE supporting the idea of expressing ones 'pride' about it. Similarly, one who SUPPORTS those being 'white' is NOT identical to meaning they ARE white or that if they are that they REQUIRE supporting the idea of expressing one's 'pride' about it.

The problem I am expressing is THAT politics should NOT allow governments to permit nor deny expression nor support one but not the other without proving their hypocrisy to favor one SUBJECTIVE belief over another's about relative ARBITRARY factors. 

The 'arbitrary' nature of one's select preferences DO not require one be born genetically AS having some default preference and also do not require meaning that one who IS 'born' in some way REQUIRE supporting or being 'proud' of who you are genetically. 

 

Therefore, 'pride' itself is NOT a factor shareable objectively about X, in  the expression, "X Pride". But our LAWS in a 'Multicultural' OR 'Monocultural' system intrinsically favor OR disfavor some X, necessarily. Thus governments that support ANY 'pride' is itself SUBJECTIVELY discriminating in some way. And this means they default to discriminate AGAINST some subset of the very society they are in power to rule over by those laws.

 

So, being a rational person I lack 'pride' in any system of government that utilizes 'pride' as a foundational principle. We need to remove such systems of power that believe this way constitutionally or risk perpetual problems relating to discriminating that confuses people's REAL issues as ARTIFICIAL constructs.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Scott Mayers
grammar, spelling

[turningrite]

 

"So, being a rational person I lack 'pride' in any system of government that utilizes 'pride' as a foundational principle."

I tend to agree with this assertion. "Pride", whether in the form of mindless nationalism or expressed as some form of tribal superiority or entitlement, is inherently centrifugal. Rather, society and government must operate on broadly shared interests and values. We live in a country where our current PM has dangerously declared that there is no mainstream, which is both sociologically and practically ludicrous. To be fair, he probably had no idea what he was talking about, but we can put that explanation aside for now. One can be proud of one's own accomplishments, or perhaps proud of one's family's accomplishments, but in general unless personally and directly involved in some sort of collective activity, one doesn't own the accomplishments, actions or failings of any group to which one nominally, physically or theoretically belongs.   

 

[taxme]

On 5/9/2018 at 8:18 AM, Argus said:

A few items and articles have provoked thought of late about the deliberate division of people into separate identity groups that politicians and social activists are busily engaged in. For politicians it's a way to win votes by tailoring legislation and policies to specific identity groups and sub-identity group members. For the social justice activists, who are inspired by Marxist anti-Capitalist ideology its the division of the world into oppressor and oppressed so they can harangue the former while exploiting the latter.

If we're all divided into separate 'tribes' now, then tribal behaviour will follow. We are, as a species, hard wired into tribalism after all. If the politicians and media and academics keep separating us into our separate groups, then those groups become tribes. The white tribe, the black tribe, the native tribe, the muslim tribe and the christian tribe, the asian tribe and the the gay tribe among others.

The problem is that these tribes are not treated equally. In fact, one is constantly singled out for abuse and attack. That being the white one. And that produces an obvious sense of resentment we can see rising in the form of populism and far right political parties, particularly in Europe where such tribalist separation is more advanced than here (though Trudeau is fighting desperately to catch up). Political tribalism and identity group tribalism are dividing America in the same way.

At its core, the problem is simple but fundamental. While black Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Jewish Americans, and many others are allowed – indeed, encouraged – to feel solidarity and take pride in their racial or ethnic identity, white Americans have for the last several decades been told they must never, ever do so.
People want to see their own tribe as exceptional, as something to be deeply proud of; that’s what the tribal instinct is all about. For decades now, nonwhites in the United States have been encouraged to indulge their tribal instincts in just this way, but, at least publicly, American whites have not.

On the contrary, if anything, they have been told that their white identity is something no one should take pride in. “I get it,” says Christian Lander, creator of the popular satirical blog Stuff White People Like, “as a straight white male, I’m the worst thing on Earth.”

...

Or consider this blog post in the American Conservative, worth quoting at length because of the light it sheds:

I’m a white guy. I’m a well-educated intellectual who enjoys small arthouse movies, coffeehouses and classic blues. If you didn’t know any better, you’d probably mistake me for a lefty urban hipster.

And yet. I find some of the alt-right stuff exerts a pull even on me. Even though I’m smart and informed enough to see through it. It’s seductive because I am not a person with any power or privilege, and yet I am constantly bombarded with messages telling me that I’m a cancer, I’m a problem, everything is my fault.

I am very lower middle class. I’ve never owned a new car, and do my own home repairs as much as I can to save money. I cut my own grass, wash my own dishes, buy my clothes from Walmart. I have no clue how I will ever be able to retire. But oh, brother, to hear the media tell it, I am just drowning in unearned power and privilege, and America will be a much brighter, more loving, more peaceful nation when I finally just keel over and die.

Trust me: After all that, some of the alt-right stuff feels like a warm, soothing bath. A “safe space,” if you will. I recoil from the uglier stuff, but some of it— the “hey, white guys are actually okay, you know! Be proud of yourself, white man!” stuff is really VERY seductive, and it is only with some intellectual effort that I can resist the pull … If it’s a struggle for someone like me to resist the pull, I imagine it’s probably impossible for someone with less education or cultural exposure.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/01/how-americas-identity-politics-went-from-inclusion-to-division

 

White pride with it's cultures, traditions and heritages is just about all gone out the window now thanks to those traitor white politicians. It is all slowly disappearing from view.

I saw on the CTV news today where the Queen of Britain was being celebrated for her birthday by her British soldiers who were wearing their standard soldiers uniform and wearing their tall furry black hats. But lo and behold I saw this Sikh wearing his turban only and marching among them. WTH.  Why did the British politicians allow this Sikh to be in the march and be exempted from having to wear the traditional tall black furry hat but was allowed to just wear his turban only? Can't this Sikh wear his turban and be covered over by the tall furry black hat? Easy to do. The hat looks big enough to cover a lot of things even a turban.  This Sikh looked rather stupid looking marching among the other soldiers who were wearing their traditional black furry hats. Just disgusting.

This is just more of this politically correct multicultural nonsense on the part of the British traitor white politicians who now have got down on bended knees to a foreign religion and their culture. In Canada we did the same also and have allowed the Sikhs to wear their turbans in the RCMP. They also look silly looking wearing those turbans marching around in a Mountie uniform. The white people are really beginning to show that they could careless about "white pride". That should make many members here happy to hear that. I don't doubt that one day it could become law that white people will not be able to celebrate anything that has to do with their white culture and traditions anymore. When we have white leaders who show that they could careless about white pride or it's traditions then this could very well happen. Hey, don't laugh, you never know. 

PS: We were with a white liberal couple out for dinner the other night and the topic came up about blacks being killed in America by white cops by their son. I mentioned that I had heard on TV that there has been over 457 white people shot by cops in the last couple of years. Her response was "so what, who cares". Unbelievable and the typical liberal response. No problem with them if white people get killed by cops but cops killing blacks is a no-no to them. If they were not friends for years now I would have told them to go screw off and walked away. This is the problem that white people face today. They are their own worse enemy?  Deplorable. 

 

 

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, taxme said:

If they were not friends for years now I would have told them to go screw off and walked away. This is the problem that white people face today. They are their own worse enemy?  Deplorable. 

The real enemy is the courage of your convictions and lack thereof.

I bet Pinochet would have known what to do.

[taxme]

13 hours ago, eyeball said:

The real enemy is the courage of your convictions and lack thereof.

I bet Pinochet would have known what to do.

My big problem is that I am not politically correct and that bugs people like you. I believe that I should be able to challenge and question any and everything w/o be considered a racist or sexist or anti-semite or anti-gay. I have the courage not to run away and hide from voicing my opinion and points of view.  

So tell me then what Pinochet would do? You have the floor. 

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, taxme said:

I have the courage not to run away and hide from voicing my opinion and points of view.  

Then why didn't you tell your liberal friends to screw off?  Pinochet would have sent a death squad to deal with them.

[taxme]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Then why didn't you tell your liberal friends to screw off?  Pinochet would have sent a death squad to deal with them.

Why? Because that would be rude and ignorant to do so to people that we have known for decades. That would create some problems there. Sometimes one has to put up with others opinions that conflict with yours and just move on and stay mum.

But I must add that liberals are liberals and there is no way that one can get to them to at least admit that you might just be right and you do have an opinion. Liberals are well known for their intolerance and bigotry towards others. That couple were actually starting to flip out because they thought that their opinion was right and mine was wrong. How can one deal with people like that even if one tells them the true and real facts. Like I already reported. When I told them that 457 white people were shot and killed by cops her answer was "so what, who cares". That is when you know it's time to move on. 

So would Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot do the same. But you liberals always like to put out the names like Pinochet or Hitler rather than mention the names of those murdering communist tyrants who were responsible for more killings than Pinochet or Hitler could ever have done. Those communists were responsible for the murders of well over a hundred million of their own innocent citizen's deaths. Pinochet was small time compared to those communist killers. 

Hey, does the murdering of thousands of white South Africans and the stealing of their lands by the blacks bother you at all? Just curious. You have the floor. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, taxme said:

When I told them that 457 white people were shot and killed by cops her answer was "so what, who cares". That is when you know it's time to move on. 

And yet you stayed.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, taxme said:

 I have the courage not to run away and hide from voicing my opinion and points of view.  

 

No you don't, you've repeatedly said you don't.

[Robert Greene]

I'm far from racist. I'm worried that the alt-right is using minorities and especially Muslims as scapegoats. With that said the term "White Pride" is borderline hate speech and can land you in jail in some circumstances. The hypocrisy is, everyone else can use the word pride, and it's promoted by the liberal media.

"Native Pride" is seen as progressive

"Black Pride" is seen as liberating

If you say White Pride, all of a sudden your a Neo Nazi, and you will get reported to the authorities.

I think if we are going to ban the phrase "White Pride" than we can ban "Native Pride".

Because pride in one culture can't be a privileged given to one group over another.

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

...the term "White Pride" is borderline hate speech and can land you in jail in some circumstances.  

I have never heard of such a thing.  Can you give an example where that happened ?

[taxme]

21 hours ago, eyeball said:

And yet you stayed.

No silly willy. What I meant was that it is time to change the conversation. What is with liberals like you who can never seem to get the drift  as to what is being said. Shocking. 

[taxme]

21 hours ago, eyeball said:

No you don't, you've repeatedly said you don't.

???????????????????? 

[taxme]

4 hours ago, Robert Greene said:

I'm far from racist. I'm worried that the alt-right is using minorities and especially Muslims as scapegoats. With that said the term "White Pride" is borderline hate speech and can land you in jail in some circumstances. The hypocrisy is, everyone else can use the word pride, and it's promoted by the liberal media.

"Native Pride" is seen as progressive

"Black Pride" is seen as liberating

If you say White Pride, all of a sudden your a Neo Nazi, and you will get reported to the authorities.

I think if we are going to ban the phrase "White Pride" than we can ban "Native Pride".

Because pride in one culture can't be a privileged given to one group over another.

Right on. As I have found out already here is that I cannot say or be proud to be white without receiving flak and a backlash over it. It is supposed to be racist to do so. But say that you are proud to be black, gay or Native Indian and it's quite alright and acceptable to say so. No one will condemn those people for saying so. MH has a problem here with anyone who says that they are proud of their white race. He thinks that any white person that says that they are proud of the many white achievements, creations or inventions is just promoting racism. 

 

[Robert Greene]

14 minutes ago, taxme said:

Right on. As I have found out already here is that I cannot say or be proud to be white without receiving flak and a backlash over it. It is supposed to be racist to do so. But say that you are proud to be black, gay or Native Indian and it's quite alright and acceptable to say so. No one will condemn those people for saying so. MH has a problem here with anyone who says that they are proud of their white race. He thinks that any white person that says that they are proud of the many white achievements, creations or inventions is just promoting racism. 

 

This is why am against any race using the word pride. Just don't use it. It implies that one race has special privileges over the other. I don't want to hear the world white pride, and I don't want to hear the word black pride. I don't want to hear the word gay pride.

I'm ok with the world pride being used when it defines a global lifestyle.

For example, i'm ok with TrancePride, because I like trance music. But the term "pride" has to be inclusive to anyone who's interested in joining that community, despite race or gender.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Robert Greene

[Scott Mayers]

13 hours ago, Robert Greene said:

This is why am against any race using the word pride. Just don't use it. It implies that one race has special privileges over the other. I don't want to hear the world white pride, and I don't want to hear the word black pride. I don't want to hear the word gay pride.

I'm ok with the world pride being used when it defines a global lifestyle.

For example, i'm ok with TrancePride, because I like trance music. But the term "pride" has to be inclusive to anyone who's interested in joining that community, despite race or gender.

I was with the CFI group here in Saskatoon, a science and skeptic group here, and have to still compete against the majority thinking the concept of 'pride' is fine. I'm okay with people voluntarily associating with one's personal 'pride' of themselves but find it odd that even the power of the majority in that group still thinks religiously that 'pride' is a good thing.?? To offset my own disagreement, I designed a T-shirt that has what looks like a large black hole sucking the life out of a small dwarf star above it in a way that suggests the woman's clitoris and vagina. With big letters above it, it says, "Black Holes Matter!" I was planning to wear this in protest during a "March for Science" event last year to get my own point across being against all the stupidity that even our own supposed educated classes represent. Of course I opted out. It would have made the news but not so much in a good way.

[I thought it would make a good skit for Saturday Night Live though: Have someone naively intending to promote science go to a struggling poor community in a big inner city of say, Chicago south-side, by selling or giving away these shirts! ]

Edited June 12, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[Robert Greene]

2 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

I was with the CFI group here in Saskatoon, a science and skeptic group here, and have to still compete against the majority thinking the concept of 'pride' is fine. I'm okay with people voluntarily associating with one's personal 'pride' of themselves but find it odd that even the power of the majority in that group still thinks religiously that 'pride' is a good thing.?? To offset my own disagreement, I designed a T-shirt that has what looks like a large black hole sucking the life out of a small dwarf star above it in a way that suggests the woman's clitoris and vagina. With big letters above it, it says, "Black Holes Matter!" I was planning to wear this in protest during a "March for Science" event last year to get my own point across being against all the stupidity that even our own supposed educated classes represent. Of course I opted out. It would have made the news but not so much in a good way.

[I thought it would make a good skit for Saturday Night Live though: Have someone naively intending to promote science go to a struggling poor community in a big inner city of say, Chicago south-side, by selling or giving away these shirts! ]

This is how things should be handled. We need to stand our ground. If the LGBT are going to have their mega parade in Toronto, Than I encourage all real conservatives to show up, and wear a shirt that says "Heterosexual Pride Day", and walk right beside all those wearing the rainbow flag. If the our demanding equality from us, than we need to demand equality from them. They should take no issue with us walking right beside them celebrating our Heterosexual Culture. If the expect exclusive privileged, than they are demanding inequality, and we shouldn't put up with that.

I'm serious folks. Pass that around some conservative think tanks and see if it catches on. We have enough angry conservatives in Canada, fed up with the political correctness, I think a well organized resistance march could gain enough momentum to make a difference. If we can get just 1% of the conservatives in Toronto showing their support for Heterosexuality, their agenda becomes seriously compromised. You can partake in a peaceful resistance demonstration, by neutralizing their agenda. The best way to counteract LGBT extremism is to water it down.

There is no law preventing you from leaving the sidewalk and marching right infront of their transvestites floats.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Robert Greene