• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

Talk host Arsenio Hall and ESPN analyst/host Steven Smith discuss Kobe Bryant, Tawana Brawley, racism and critical thinking and how it relates to the Zimmerman case:


Miss me with this.

The reason for being angry about Zimmerman not being arrested are many:

1: He was clearly hostile towards Martin, because Martin was "walking around, looking about", or in other words, walking down the street like an ordinary pedestrian.

2: He was clearly following Martin, while spewing curses and complaining that "they always get away".

3: He left the safety of his vehicle to pursue Martin on foot.

4: Martin was obviously attempting to avoid him, as both he and Rachel Jeantel state.

5: He was found around a corner from where his vehicle was, even though this makes no sense according to his own version(s) of events.

6: Rather than arrest him, the police chief make several false and inflammatory statements, including that Zimmerman "Never mentioned Martin's race" even though he did, and that Martin "must regret what he did", despite there being no evidence that Martin actually did anything wrong, except for the word of the guy who chased him, and who was obviously lying.

7:All of the above was known (apart from Rachel Jeantel's testimony) when the protests against the Sanford PD's behavior began in earnest.

8: Juror B37 was excellent at recreating outrage, with her thoughtless dismissal of testimony and evidence, her false claim that there were "riots in Sanford" over the case, and her clear bias towards "George" over "the boy of color", to use her words.

Now, when Christopher Lane was shot by two black kids and one white kid, black people weren't upset, by and large. We weren't calling him a thug because he had a picture of himself with his baseball cap backwards. Instead, the vast majority of us nodded our heads and said "put them in jail." So the claim that this was about skin color for us, and Martin supporters of other skin colors, is laughable.
 
Moderated status removed.

Please ensure your posts are civil/polite, on topic and address the argument; if discussion gets out of hand this thread will again be placed on Moderated status.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
This discussion is too heated. I'm going back to USA Politics to enjoy the relative calm and civility. ;)
 
Miss me with this.

The reason for being angry about Zimmerman not being arrested are many:

Let's do this.

1: He was clearly hostile towards Martin, because Martin was "walking around, looking about", or in other words, walking down the street like an ordinary pedestrian.

He certainly doesn't sound like a man who is "hostile" toward anyone in the recorded call. He sounds like someone who is annoyed, frustrated perhaps - with the hoodlums who've been trickling into the neighborhood lately. He sounds pretty confident that he's discerned something about Martin based on how he is carrying himself, moving through the environment, etc.

People have always acted like there's only one version of "walking through a neighborhood" and that it is 100% innocuous, period. This just isn't the case. Ask any seasoned cop or even just someone who lives in a bad area, and they'll tell you that you can often spot the troublemakers a mile away. When people adopt a criminal lifestyle they start reflecting that sometimes in how they behave, even down to how they move through an environment. They're looking around to make sure they aren't being watched, they're noticing things most of us wouldn't (things that look like opportunities) etc. I have no doubt at all that you've noticed suspiciousness in a person who wasn't really doing anything objectively wrong.

Since neither you nor I were there watching Martin when Zimmerman made that call, we aren't in a position to know whether Zimmerman was reasonable in deciding Martin looked suspicious. We do know that the (black) neighborhood watch coordinator from the Sanford PD testified on the stand that calling NEN based on Martin's described behavior was appropriate, and was exactly the sort of thing they encourage people to call about. We also know from information that came out about Martin later, that Zimmerman was pretty much right on the nose about Martin.

2: He was clearly following Martin, while spewing curses and complaining that "they always get away".

I don't know if I'd call it "spewing" but he did curse a couple of times, true. I think again this was just indicative of frustration. Frustration plus trying to establish a comradery with the police dispatcher (the kind of comradery people build by complaining about the same sort of things together) and maybe trying to firm up his own courage a bit, as he walked into a dark area this person had recently been.

And I agree he was "following" Martin briefly, but the evidence (timeline, witnesses, physical object locations, etc.) backed him up on his claim that this had only been at a distance, briefly, with no running, and only to try to reestablish a visual from a distance, NOT to try to have any direct contact with Martin.

99% of the outrage people felt about the following thing is because they wrongly assumed Zimmerman initiated the direct confrontation when all indications are he didn't and couldn't have. There really isn't anything left to be outraged about when you learn the truth which is that he had no intention of direct contact with Martin, and Martin was the one who decided that would take place.

3: He left the safety of his vehicle to pursue Martin on foot.

He did leave the safety of his vehicle and I'm sure he wishes he hadn't. I guess he underestimated the level of Martin's criminality and the threat he posed. He learned the very, very hard way. I think we can better understand this decision in the context of the time though, by realizing that he didn't think there was any danger. He appears to have been completely convinced Martin would continue running, and that by the time he reached the "T" intersection Martin would be seen in the distance at best.

"Pursue" is possibly accurate, but it's one of those loaded words. Does it imply merely going in the same direction and wanting to keep an eye on someone? Or does it imply more, like direct confrontation being a goal?

4: Martin was obviously attempting to avoid him, as both he and Rachel Jeantel state.

Martin was obviously trying to avoid him at one point. Obviously the opposite later. Did this have something to do with Zimmerman no longer being on a lit street, in a big metal truck, with a phone up to his ear? Did it have something to do with an already high level of anger at having an eye kept on him getting even higher (to the level of violence) when he saw this guy had gotten out and come around the corner on foot? Was it this anger combined with the impulsive inability to pass up an opportunity to act out his frustrations with a whole string of recent events in his life where he was getting busted? Did Zimmerman become the embodiment of cops, parents, teachers, and anyone who'd been getting in the way of his delinquency? Did Zimmerman obliviously make himself the "last straw"? Possible, but just my speculation.

Based on all my observations of this case I'm completely convinced Martin was never scared of Zimmerman. I think he may have been briefly concerned about cops showing up, but I think his primary emotion was anger.

5: He was found around a corner from where his vehicle was, even though this makes no sense according to his own version(s) of events.

If he went to the top of the corner to take a look, and then blindly stumbled in the direction he'd already been facing to react to Martin confronting him, upon being hit, then it makes sense. He really wasn't that far down south, and if he sustained an unexpected blow to the nose which made it difficult to see, and triggered a panic, it isn't completely unbelievable that he would just start trying to flee his assailant without giving any thought to the optimum direction. Strange things happen in physical altercations. They move very quickly, and when people are afraid and dazed they do odd things.

The trail of items does seem to back him up in showing movement from north to south. More importantly, multiple ear witnesses attested that the attack and screaming began at the "T" and then rapidly moved south. That's exactly what Zimmerman describes, and exactly what would need to have happened to make his final location make sense.

6: Rather than arrest him, the police chief make several false and inflammatory statements, including that Zimmerman "Never mentioned Martin's race" even though he did, and that Martin "must regret what he did", despite there being no evidence that Martin actually did anything wrong, except for the word of the guy who chased him, and who was obviously lying.

What people said was that Zimmerman didn't volunteer Martin's race, which is true. He mentioned it in response to the dispatcher directly asking what Martin's race was in order to get a description. He did later revisit it in what sounded like a confirmatory statement of "and he's a black male" - to erase the earlier uncertainty of "he looks black." - Interestingly, the fact that he felt he had to remove this uncertainty later would seem to undermine the racial profiling narrative somewhat, because it indicates he didn't even know Martin was black during the all important period of time he was deciding he looked suspicious.

There's plenty of evidence Martin did something wrong, because it's wrong to do what the injury photos showed no matter what. If you want to claim those injuries were inflicted in self-defense, you can believe that if you'd like but recall that Zimmerman was the one screaming, not Martin, and Martin had no injuries... and Martin got shot in a way which seemed to indicate obliviousness to the presence of the gun, and he left no trace of himself on said gun... so it doesn't appear there was a struggle for the weapon.

As for Zimmerman lying? Most of that meme seems to just be people deciding early on he was evil, therefore he's lying, etc. I've never seen real compelling evidence for him lying in that early portion of things. He was exceptionally candid with investigators, and he passed two voice stress tests. So, while I have always felt he might have embellished or outright lied about things like "you're gonna die tonight" and Martin going for his gun, I could be wrong about those being lies and even if they are, it seems (based on the evidence and other considerations) that he was largely truthful, to the best of his recollection, about most of it.

7:All of the above was known (apart from Rachel Jeantel's testimony) when the protests against the Sanford PD's behavior began in earnest.

The protests, much like in Ferguson and many, many other examples - are based primarily on racial solidarity and emotion.

Criminals get shot from time to time by cops and by their victims. This is unsurprising and not anything that needs outrage or correction.

8: Juror B37 was excellent at recreating outrage, with her thoughtless dismissal of testimony and evidence, her false claim that there were "riots in Sanford" over the case, and her clear bias towards "George" over "the boy of color", to use her words.

Not everyone is as precise with language as we might like. I don't think it's that outrageous to call angry protests "riots" and Ferguson is another good example of how the line can blur. I don't think it's particularly damning that she confused that issue. She wasn't super bright, and clearly hadn't paid the kind of attention to this beforehand that you or I did.

The "of color" thing (as incredibly silly as it is) is embraced widely by the very sorts of people who hate her for using it. Hypocrisy, and indicative of a willingness to do anything to maintain senseless outrage.

She cried during that interview about what happened to Trayvon. She clearly had great sympathy for both parties. She was an emotional person without a very high IQ. She fulfilled her oath.

Now, when Christopher Lane was shot by two black kids and one white kid, black people weren't upset, by and large. We weren't calling him a thug because he had a picture of himself with his baseball cap backwards. Instead, the vast majority of us nodded our heads and said "put them in jail." So the claim that this was about skin color for us, and Martin supporters of other skin colors, is laughable.

So you think black people should receive accolades for not supporting three black kids (the one kid wasn't white, just very high white admixture - which in America is not considered white. In some pictures of him it's much more clear that he is a "boy of color") who outright murdered a completely innocent person jogging down the street?

You think that's an equivalent situation to a criminal being shot while brutally attacking someone? :eye-poppi
 
They are who we thought they were.

...Although, I find it amazing that they thought it was a good idea to disclose this:

And you wouldn't come up with something similar if you were of the belief based on numerous threats against you and your family, that you might have an armed mob attack your home?
 
They are who we thought they were.

The interesting part about all this is that so much was made of what kind of people Trayvon Martin's family were. They were criticized for appearing to try to capitalize on their son's death. Terms like "broken home" and "inner city" were thrown around. Martin's father was alleged to have gang ties. Time and again, the character of these grieving parents was attacked.

And all this was important because... reasons.

Now here we are two years later, and the Martins have been working to turn the tragedy they suffered into a positive.

Meanwhile, the Zimmerman clan are collectively unemployed, living in a state of delusional paranoia, waiting around for the next media pay day.

I'm just wondering if the same reasons it was important to attack the Martin family still hold true for the Zimmermans.
 
And you wouldn't come up with something similar if you were of the belief based on numerous threats against you and your family, that you might have an armed mob attack your home?

I guess that depends. Are these actual, tangible threats? Or just random threats on Twitter I've used to fuel my hyper-paranoid fantasies?
 
And you wouldn't come up with something similar if you were of the belief based on numerous threats against you and your family, that you might have an armed mob attack your home?

You missed it.

Why is their keyword for running out the door with their guns blazing, code black? And why did they think it wise to announce that, in a nationally-printed magazine? As opposed to code blue, which means police are at the door, or code brown, which means "get your guns?

In the face of what many of us think was a shooting based entirely on the fact that Martin was, himself, black, why did they tell us, that they consider "code black" to mean "shoot wildly"?
 
Last edited:
The interesting part about all this is that so much was made of what kind of people Trayvon Martin's family were. They were criticized for appearing to try to capitalize on their son's death. Terms like "broken home" and "inner city" were thrown around. Martin's father was alleged to have gang ties. Time and again, the character of these grieving parents was attacked.

And all this was important because... reasons.

Yes, I remember,. I ignored such people, because they were clearly telling us that they were bigots. "Oh, Here's a pic of Tracy Martin in a red shirt, that makes him a Crip, please ignore the logo of the Masonic Lodge in the corner."

Again, they are who we thought they were.
 
Last edited:
Moderated status removed.

Please ensure your posts are civil/polite, on topic and address the argument; if discussion gets out of hand this thread will again be placed on Moderated status.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

Thank you!

I thank you too but...

I just don't want to discuss it anymore. :blush:
 
No civil rights charges expected

The Justice Department is not expected to bring civil rights charges against George Zimmerman in the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin, according to three law enforcement officials, despite allegations that the killing was racially motivated.

The federal investigation of Zimmerman was opened two years ago by the department’s civil rights division, but officials said there is insufficient evidence to bring federal charges. The investigation technically remains open, but it is all but certain the department will close it.

Investigators still want to “dot their i’s and cross their t’s,” said one official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on the matter.
 
It is a national embarrassment that civil rights charges were even looked at as a possibility, let alone for this long (though in reality I suspect even Holder knew 2+ years ago such charges would never happen, and was just too cowardly/calculating to announce it sooner.)

The entire "was this a racially motivated killing?" question ONLY made sense in the context of enormous ignorance about the evidence, and was a question which arose very early on and should have also disappeared very early on, but didn't.

Asking that question about someone who was shot while on top of someone else beating them does not compute and never did.
 
It is a national embarrassment that civil rights charges were even looked at as a possibility, let alone for this long (though in reality I suspect even Holder knew 2+ years ago such charges would never happen, and was just too cowardly/calculating to announce it sooner.)

The entire "was this a racially motivated killing?" question ONLY made sense in the context of enormous ignorance about the evidence, and was a question which arose very early on and should have also disappeared very early on, but didn't.

Asking that question about someone who was shot while on top of someone else beating them does not compute and never did.

Zimmerman's superficial injuries, which required no medical intervention whatsoever - not even so much as a single band-aid - are inconsistent with your narrative and Zimmerman's. The EMT who "treated" Zimmerman on scene merely wiped him off with peroxide and sent him on his way.

Furthermore, the physical evidence simply did not corroborate Zimmerman's tale. He told of being punched multiple times in the face, having his head lifted up and then slammed against the ground multiple times, having his nose and mouth covered in a supposed attempt to suffocate him, etc. Yet miraculously there was no corroborating evidence to be found during Martin's autopsy - no bruising or busted up knuckles (save for one small abrasion on the inside of one finger); none of Zimmerman's blood, hair or DNA under his fingernails or on his hands; no signs of Zimmerman biting or grabbing at Martin's hands or wrists in an attempt to avoid being suffocated; etc. No defensive wounds on Zimmerman's hands or arms from blocking punches; no marks on his head or face from where Martin supposedly grabbed him or tried to smother him; etc.

If you find Zimmerman's story convincing, then either you are not really familiar with the evidence or you just aren't very good at being a skeptic. Just my opinion, of course.
 
Zimmerman's superficial injuries, which required no medical intervention whatsoever - not even so much as a single band-aid - are inconsistent with your narrative and Zimmerman's. The EMT who "treated" Zimmerman on scene merely wiped him off with peroxide and sent him on his way.

Furthermore, the physical evidence simply did not corroborate Zimmerman's tale. He told of being punched multiple times in the face, having his head lifted up and then slammed against the ground multiple times, having his nose and mouth covered in a supposed attempt to suffocate him, etc. Yet miraculously there was no corroborating evidence to be found during Martin's autopsy - no bruising or busted up knuckles (save for one small abrasion on the inside of one finger); none of Zimmerman's blood, hair or DNA under his fingernails or on his hands; no signs of Zimmerman biting or grabbing at Martin's hands or wrists in an attempt to avoid being suffocated; etc. No defensive wounds on Zimmerman's hands or arms from blocking punches; no marks on his head or face from where Martin supposedly grabbed him or tried to smother him; etc.

If you find Zimmerman's story convincing, then either you are not really familiar with the evidence or you just aren't very good at being a skeptic. Just my opinion, of course.

Have you watched Vincent Di Maio's testimony in full, John Good's testimony in full and listened to the audio recordings of the screams for help? Both the witness and physical evidence place Martin on top of Zimmerman and assaulting him. The screams for help that were captured on recording seem very likely to have been coming from Zimmerman given the evidence presented at the trial. GZ may not have sustained any serious injuries, but he was under attack and was apparently terrified and screaming for help apparently wasn't causing TM to relent.

(I'm not saying this necessarily justifies the shooting.)
 
Have you watched Vincent Di Maio's testimony in full, John Good's testimony in full and listened to the audio recordings of the screams for help? Both the witness and physical evidence place Martin on top of Zimmerman and assaulting him. The screams for help that were captured on recording seem very likely to have been coming from Zimmerman given the evidence presented at the trial. GZ may not have sustained any serious injuries, but he was under attack and was apparently terrified and screaming for help apparently wasn't causing TM to relent.

(I'm not saying this necessarily justifies the shooting.)

Here's what Florida law says about the use of use of force in self-defense:
A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.


The popular narrative that has been uncritically accepted by Zimmerman's supporters is that poor, innocent George was attacked by the violent drug-fueled thug Trayvon Martin as Zimmerman was innocently walking to his vehicle, doing absolutely nothing wrong because of how innocent and meek he is.

Of course, zero corroborating evidence was ever presented to support such a narrative.

No one saw how the altercation started. They only saw how it ended.

There was evidence at the time - and evidence since the trial ended as Zimmerman gets embroiled in altercation after altercation - that strongly indicates Zimmerman initiated a confrontation with Martin, and when he found himself on the losing end of the fight he started, he shot and killed Martin.

Trayvon Martin may very well have died while lawfully defending himself against Zimmerman.
 
Have you watched Vincent Di Maio's testimony in full, John Good's testimony in full and listened to the audio recordings of the screams for help? Both the witness and physical evidence place Martin on top of Zimmerman and assaulting him. The screams for help that were captured on recording seem very likely to have been coming from Zimmerman given the evidence presented at the trial. GZ may not have sustained any serious injuries, but he was under attack and was apparently terrified and screaming for help apparently wasn't causing TM to relent.

(I'm not saying this necessarily justifies the shooting.)

Yes, I followed the case from beginning to end, and saw literally every piece of evidence, which as you obviously know was released to the public under Florida's "Sunshine laws," and every bit of the trial that was broadcast. I followed the case very closely.

First, upon consideration of this point in isolation [which one was heard screaming on the 911 call] I happen to believe that it makes far more sense that the person who was unarmed and who ended up shot dead was the one screaming for help, as opposed to person in possession of the loaded gun and who ended up with only superficial injuries. Call this my prior assumption, if you will.

Upon considering this point in the context of the rest of the evidence and testimony, I feel even more confident in my belief that it was Martin heard screaming. To my mind, the fact that the screams stopped directly upon the shot being fired suggests that it was more likely Martin. There is a confirmed direct physical cause, namely the bullet entering his body, that would explain this fact if we assume Martin was the one screaming. Whereas there is no such convincing explanation if we assume Zimmerman was the one screaming. Recall that Zimmerman claims that he didn't immediately realize that he had shot Martin, and so (according to his own statements at least) he still would have been in fear for his life and so I believe he more likely would have continued to scream for a bit longer until he had time (e.g. at least a second or two) to mentally process what had just happened. Further, Zimmerman claims that he was being punched, having his head slammed, having his nose and mouth covered - and yet none of that can be heard on the 911 audio. I would expect to hear very clear signs if this were happening to a person repeatedly screaming for help, namely interrupted words, the screams being fully or partially muffled, etc. whereas none of that is heard on the audio.

As to the testimony, nobody (except for Zimmerman) could say with any degree of confidence that they actually saw Martin punching Zimmerman, slamming his head, or trying to smother him. I didn't find the testimony claiming that it was Zimmerman screaming to be convincing at all, and so I am left going by which seems more likely to be true and which explanation fits with the rest of the evidence. Their testimony is, IMO, just as consistent with Martin struggling to avoid being shot by an overzealous and untrained wanna-be cop, as it is with Zimmerman fighting to save his life from a thug who decided (apparently unprovoked) to just beat a total stranger to death with his bare hands in front of nearly a dozen witnesses. I find the former explanation much more reasonable and likely than the latter one, especially given the physical evidence and Zimmerman's multiple statements to the police.

Call me crazy, but I just don't buy Zimmerman's story. I think his story has too many logical holes in it and that it's not corroborated by the evidence nor by convincing testimony.
 
Yes, I followed the case from beginning to end, and saw literally every piece of evidence, which as you obviously know was released to the public under Florida's "Sunshine laws," and every bit of the trial that was broadcast. I followed the case very closely.

First, upon consideration of this point in isolation [which one was heard screaming on the 911 call] I happen to believe that it makes far more sense that the person who was unarmed and who ended up shot dead was the one screaming for help, as opposed to person in possession of the loaded gun and who ended up with only superficial injuries. Call this my prior assumption, if you will.

Upon considering this point in the context of the rest of the evidence and testimony, I feel even more confident in my belief that it was Martin heard screaming. To my mind, the fact that the screams stopped directly upon the shot being fired suggests that it was more likely Martin. There is a confirmed direct physical cause, namely the bullet entering his body, that would explain this fact if we assume Martin was the one screaming. Whereas there is no such convincing explanation if we assume Zimmerman was the one screaming. Recall that Zimmerman claims that he didn't immediately realize that he had shot Martin, and so (according to his own statements at least) he still would have been in fear for his life and so I believe he more likely would have continued to scream for a bit longer until he had time (e.g. at least a second or two) to mentally process what had just happened. Further, Zimmerman claims that he was being punched, having his head slammed, having his nose and mouth covered - and yet none of that can be heard on the 911 audio. I would expect to hear very clear signs if this were happening to a person repeatedly screaming for help, namely interrupted words, the screams being fully or partially muffled, etc. whereas none of that is heard on the audio.

As to the testimony, nobody (except for Zimmerman) could say with any degree of confidence that they actually saw Martin punching Zimmerman, slamming his head, or trying to smother him. I didn't find the testimony claiming that it was Zimmerman screaming to be convincing at all, and so I am left going by which seems more likely to be true and which explanation fits with the rest of the evidence. Their testimony is, IMO, just as consistent with Martin struggling to avoid being shot by an overzealous and untrained wanna-be cop, as it is with Zimmerman fighting to save his life from a thug who decided (apparently unprovoked) to just beat a total stranger to death with his bare hands in front of nearly a dozen witnesses. I find the former explanation much more reasonable and likely than the latter one, especially given the physical evidence and Zimmerman's multiple statements to the police.

Call me crazy, but I just don't buy Zimmerman's story. I think his story has too many logical holes in it and that it's not corroborated by the evidence nor by convincing testimony.

There's also the fact that from the timestamps of the various calls, from the time Zimmerman is on the phone to the time the alleged attack can be first heard, there's about four minutes of unaccounted for time in which Zimmerman claimed to be traveling about 60 feet to his car. Since his only explanation for this time is that he went straight back to his car but was stopped and viciously attacked there, what happened to him over those minutes? It's pretty obvious he continued looking for the "suspect" during that time. In fact, witnesses saw people running from the south of where the first voices were heard. This suggests that Zimmerman chased Martin back up to the sidewalk.

Furthermore, Zimmerman claimed on multiple occasions that he was hit once and went immediately down to the ground where he was attacked. The final kill shot occurred some 40 feet from that location, and he's never explained how a person flat on his back moves that far while being pummeled.

There were also multiple witnesses who saw the person on top get up after the last fired shot. This suggests that even if Martin was on top of Zimmerman for part of the scuffle, Zimmerman got back on top and then killed Martin.

There's also fact that witnesses saw both people standing while scuffling. This isn't what Zimmerman claimed where again, he said he was on his back the whole time.

There's also the fact that Zimmerman told his friend that Martin had his knees shoved into Zimmerman's armpits when Zimmerman somehow reached around Martin's legs and got a gun out from his backside, while Zimmerman was flat on his back.

There's also the fact that Zimmerman spent 9 hours a week studying MMA fighting, which he then claimed hadn't taught him anything over the course of at least a year.

There's also the multiple instances since the trial of Zimmerman threatening people with guns and assaulting women, combined with his pre-trial history of assault, and it becomes pretty bizarre to take his word about anything, much less a ridiculous story that paints him as a meek and mild victim of an unprovoked attack.

Either that, or he's the most unlucky person in the world who can't go three months without being arrested or otherwise coming into contact with police. It's constant. The man is a menace.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom