Why I Withdrew from The Asexual Agenda and the San Francisco Bay Area Asexual Community

I’ve debated with myself writing about this for over a year.

Finally, I’m doing it. Maybe this post is terrible, but at this point writing something bad is better than asking myself month after month whether or not to write about this. That I can’t get the idea of writing this out of my mind is a strong hint that I need to write this.

I considered keeping this private and only writing to certain people (I have already discussed this privately in a very limited way). But then I’d have to choose who to contact and who not to contact. What if someone would benefit from this and not be one of my contacts? So this is public.


Foremost, I want to increase my peace of mind. In the short run, keeping quiet about why I left The Asexual Agenda and mostly withdrew from asexual communities was beneficial in that I was so emotional that I was likely to say things I would later regret, not to mention that trying to avoid the issue was worth trying. In the long run, being quiet is doing me more harm than good. I had hoped that, over a year later, I’d stop caring about this issue. Yes, I’m less emotional now, but it still bothers me more than I hoped for. Keeping quiet is no longer beneficial for me.

Second, some people deserve to know why I withdrew from The Asexual Agenda and asexual communities, especially the San Francisco Bay Area asexual community.

Third, maybe there is a lesson here about how asexual communities can become better? Maybe not? It’s worth putting this out there so that people can at least try to learn something from this.


I don’t want to start a flame war or punish anyone. That’s part of why I didn’t go public with this over a year ago (though withdrawing from the asexual community and refusing to express myself has been a form of self-punishment). If you want to start a flame war, I can’t stop you, but I’d prefer you not to do that.

SIGGY, DO NOT COMMENT ON THIS POST. If you want to respond to this post, do it on your own blog or at The Asexual Agenda.


This post “Trump’s Atrocious Trolley Tradeoff” is why I withdrew from The Asexual Agenda and the San Francisco asexual community. This comment hurt me the most:

I just don’t share this precept that comparisons to Hitler are automatically out of bounds. If the comparison bothers you, well I didn’t put that in to please you. I put it in because what is a million anyway? I’m a math person so I know I don’t know and I know you don’t know. The Holocaust is something people know, and which they know was unacceptable… I just came up with another potentially better comparison. In the US, there are about 2.8 million deaths a year. You can do your figuring from there.

Part of me just wants to end this post here. But some (most?) people probably need more explanation.

Being a descendant of survivors of the Shoah is emotionally complex. My family discusses it more openly than some survivor families. My mother started talking to me about it when I was three years old, and I’m grateful that she did because I’ve read about what can happen when people first learn that their ancestor survived (or didn’t survive) Auschwitz at older ages. Yes, my mother withheld most of the details when I was three years old, but for as long as I can remember I’ve had some level of awareness. It wasn’t a secret or a mystery.

This topic is a huge emotional minefield for us. The Shoah is not something I can discuss casually or without dealing with potent emotions. Also, throughout my entire life, it is not something which I could discuss with my family without getting strong emotional reactions from them.

Different descendants have different feelings/opinions/interpretations/etc., even my own family has quite a bit of variation. But whatever emotions we have about this are almost always strong.

Therefore, I almost never want to talk about it with people who aren’t related to survivors. Even though this blog is over nine years old, I’m not sure I’ve ever discussed it here.

For people who don’t have strong personal connections to the Shoah, the emotional cost of discussing it is much lower. I don’t wish it to be otherwise. It’s great that some people can talk about it with a much lower emotional toll, and some people use that advantage well. Sometimes, people who can talk about it with minimal emotional cost say things which need to be said so that the people for whom discussing it would impose a greater emotional cost don’t have to say it. If you have ever done this, thank you.

However, in American culture, it’s common to exploit the Shoah as a cheap rhetorical trick. Because it’s so common, it sets the norm that it’s okay to use the Shoah as a cheap rhetorical trick, which encourages even more people to do it. One reason why I prefer to say ‘the Shoah’ instead of ‘the Holocaust’ these days is that it helps me distance myself from that (though sometimes I have to say ‘Holocaust’ anyway if someone might not know what ‘the Shoah’ is).

Because it’s so prevalent, I have to ignore it to some degree. I assume that most people who use the Shoah as a cheap rhetorical trick haven’t thought it through and that, if someone personally impacted by the Shoah spoke up, they would recognize their error and act with more sensitivity. I’m usually willing to forgive people who apologize.

(And yes, sometimes survivors and people related to survivors invoke the Shoah in toxic rhetoric… but for us, it isn’t cheap. On top of whatever feelings we have as individuals, we also have to take into account the feelings our families will have if/when they find out. I have considered how my family may react if they find this post.)

When I first read the original post “Trump’s Atrocious Trolley Trade Off,” I debated with myself whether to comment. The post bothered me, but commenting required a higher level of engagement than not commenting. If it had been a stranger’s blog, I would have concluded that the blogger was either ignorant or an asshole, resolved never to visit that blog again, and think no more of it. I ultimately decided to comment because, at the time, I trusted Siggy as a friend. I wasn’t sure how he would respond, but I was confident that he would at least express empathy.

Instead, I got “If the comparison bothers you, well I didn’t put that in to please you.”

I was crying as I was writing those comments, but I tried to restrain myself in what I was writing. I realize Siggy could not figure out from my comments that I was having an emotional breakdown because I deliberately tried not to show that in what I wrote, but I still cannot understand how it is appropriate to say, “You can do your figuring from there,” in response to a descendant of victims who expressed discomfort. Like, as soon as the Shoah is invoked as a cheap rhetorical reference, my ability to deal with numbers rationally is already gone.

It’s objectively true that the Nazis murdered far fewer Sinti than Jews. Does that mean that the genocide of the Sinti was ‘acceptable’ because the numbers were smaller? Absolutely not. I would never tell a descendant of a Sinti survivor ‘the genocide of your people is less bad than the genocide of my people’ because that would be a horrible thing to say! It’s not about the numbers.

No, I don’t believe that “comparisons to Hitler are automatically out of bounds.” For example, it does not bother me that in Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India, Shashi Tharoor compares the Shoah to British colonial administrators intentionally causing tens of millions of Indians to starve to death. Why not? Because Shashi Tharoor shows empathy towards Shoah victims. He does not take this comparison casually. He acknowledges that the comparison is not perfect and that it’s a painful topic. Writing about what British imperialists did in India was clearly painful for him too, and I’m grateful that he wrote about it anyway because his book helped me understand Indians (and British imperialists) better.

If Siggy had said something like ‘I’m sorry that your family experienced that’ it wouldn’t have persuaded me of his intellectual position, but it would have made the rest of his comments less hurtful. However, his comments as they stand suggest that he only sees Shoah victims as numbers and that our feelings don’t matter.

What made this especially painful coming from Siggy is that, in an early draft of this blog post I made an analogy with gay men. Siggy complained about the analogy because he considered it offensive to gay men. Did I tell him, “If the comparison bothers you, well I didn’t put that in to please you”? No, I changed the analogy to female characters instead of gay men because I didn’t want my post to make any gay men feel uncomfortable. Apparently, Siggy isn’t willing to extend the same level of respect to families of Shoah victims.

After the last Siggy’s last comment, “I definitely think the numbers matter a great deal…” I realized that, if I had this interaction with someone applying to become a contributor to The Asexual Agenda, I would veto them. At The Asexual Agenda, a ‘veto’ means ‘I cannot work with this person and I refuse to let them join even if every other contributor approves them.’ I vetoed no one who applied to be an Asexual Agenda contributor. However, I couldn’t veto Siggy because he was an existing contributor, not to mention the most influential member of The Asexual Agenda. I could, however, veto myself.

I told myself to set the issue aside for a couple days and so I could calm down before I decided.

Two days later I was calmer, but I still wanted to veto Siggy. So I vetoed myself. I also withdrew from the San Francisco Bay Area asexual community because Siggy is also a regular there.

It was unfair that I didn’t give anyone else at The Asexual Agenda and the San Francisco Bay Area asexual community a chance to do anything. At the time, my priority was to get away from bad feelings, and avoiding you all (irrationally) felt like the safest choice. Sennkestra, for what it’s worth, I considered reaching out to you privately multiple times over the past year.

When I wrote this post, I was pretending to feel better about all this than I actually felt because I was trying to ‘fake it until I make it.’ I joined online meetups of two asexual groups outside of the San Francisco Bay Area, and that was good, but online meetups aren’t really my thing, and I felt a little tension because I wondered if the aces I was interacting would have endorsed Siggy’s comments (not that it was their fault since I never explained the situation to them and thus didn’t give them a chance). That said, withdrawing to a large extent from asexual communities has some benefits. This hasn’t been entirely bad for me.

Recently, I went to an in-person outdoors-with-masks-and-please-vaccinated-people-only ace meetup in San Francisco. I assumed Siggy wouldn’t come because he doesn’t live in the city, but to be sure, I spied the ace group to ensure he wasn’t present before I made my presence known. It was good to have low-key in person interactions with fellow aces again, and it gave me the extra little push I needed to finally write out this post.


First, if you are going to use the Shoah for rhetorical purposes a) please think about it! and b) show empathy to the victims. We may not agree, but if you show empathy, it will make the discussion less painful.

As far as broader issues in asexual communities… I’m not the first person who has been driven away from asexual communities because of issues like this. Most people who have been driven away like this kept silent, and I understand why. Vesper’s post came just as I was going through this and I am so, so grateful that they wrote that. I wish had done more for them when they were dealing with their own problems with asexual communities. Vesper, I am sorry. I wish I had done more for others who have had these kinds of problems.

What can asexual communities do? Maybe asexual communities need procedures in place for when members have personal grievances with each other. I’m a member of an organization whose protocol is this: if two or more members have a personal grievance with each other (such as making hurtful remarks), they bring it to the board of directors for mediation. Anyone in the board of directors who is involved recuses themselves. The board of directors will do their best to resolve the grievance. I’ve never tested this protocol so I don’t know how well it works, but it seems to be better than not having any procedure at all for handling personal grievances (and I noticed that they educate all new members about this procedure). Maybe asexual organizations need something similar, or perhaps something better.

21 thoughts on “Why I Withdrew from The Asexual Agenda and the San Francisco Bay Area Asexual Community

  1. Sara, I am so sorry that this happened, and I was sad to see you withdraw. I had wondered about it, but figured you had your reasons. I hadn’t read Siggy’s post until now, because I was limiting what I read about coronavirus at the time it was posted, and to some extent also withdrawing again from ace communities myself for my own mental health. So thank you for posting this. I see why Siggy’s comments were so hurtful to you. While I am not in the same position so I can’t say I understand completely and I won’t pretend to, I do find some parallels with my own experiences more generally as a trauma survivor, and I do understand why avoidance felt like the safest option for you. You have my heartfelt sympathies.

    I am glad that you made this public, because I agree with what you said in your last section, that issues like this are a widespread problem in ace communities. I don’t really have solutions for this, but I wish I did. Mediation sounds like it could be helpful, but I’m not sure how workable it would be for most ace organizations just based on the fact that, in order to have mediation, you have to have mediators… and based on some of my own personal experiences and things I’ve watched happen to some communities from afar, if the mediators aren’t effective and fair mediators, it may sometimes do more harm than good. I think it would be best to have people who are trained to do that sort of thing, and I’m not sure any ace organizations have the resources to do that at present, though it’d be great if they do! Maybe a more workable step towards something like that for now would be to focus on training leaders or community-wide education about sensitive issues like this? About conflict management, being trauma-informed, cultural sensitivity… and so on. I don’t know.

    • Thank you for your heartfelt sympathies.

      You bring up a good point about funding/resources. The organization I mentioned has more funding than any current ace organization, and can sometimes pay for training (though I don’t know whether there has ever been paid training for mediation specifically).

  2. Thank you for writing about this. I think it’s very important that we talk about how to handle interpersonal conflicts as such a small, insular community.

    I’d like to ask a little bit more about the mediation you’re proposing. I guess what sticks out to me in your story (which I recognize may not be the entire thing, and I’m not asking you to share details you don’t want to) is that it doesn’t seem to be something you pursued/wanted to pursue here. You mention thinking about reaching out to a trusted person in the community who could have potentially served as a mediator, but you decided not to, and you don’t mention talking to anyone in any other communities you’re in who might be able to give guidance or serve as a mediator. Really, in reading this I get the impression that you don’t particularly want to mediate or reconcile (which, to be clear, is your right to want and I am not implying anything negative). And what is particularly concerning to me from a community perspective is that this was not something that happened in an organization, like the one with the BoD policy you mention, but on a personal blog, so that makes it even harder to put some kind of procedure in place. It’s not on you to “solve” the community’s problems and I’m not demanding any answers from you. I just wonder if you have any more thoughts on how mediation might be useful in a situation like this?

    • In the organization I mentioned, that policy of ‘go to BoD to deal with interpersonal conflict’ is supposed to cover anything which might interfere with members working together, even if it’s something which happens outside the organization itself.

      I was so shocked by how Siggy responded that, at the time, I thought that maybe everyone would take the same stance as Siggy, and claim that I didn’t have the right to object to how other people discussed the Shoah. Or more likely that they would stay out of it. I especially at the time was wary of other Asexual Agenda Contributors because, if I predicted Siggy’s response so badly, maybe I can’t really predict how they would respond either, and since Siggy is the highest ranked person at TAA maybe none of the other contributors would feel comfortable going against him. As for the San Francisco Bay Area group… I was also uncertain about whether I could count on other people’s support, and I was afraid that if I brought it up with others it would lead to everyone ganging up on me.

      Once I had calmed down enough that I could manage my feelings a bit better, I was still lost. Who do I approach? How? Where do I start? It was just easier to… withdraw.

      To me, a big difference with having a procedure in place is that it acknowledges upfront that interpersonal conflicts happen, and it gives a map for how to try to deal with it without withdrawing. If I had this kind of interaction on the personal blog of another member of the organization, I know I could invoke this protocol and request a meeting with the BoD, and I know (in theory at least) that it’s appropriate to approach the BoD with this kind of matter. It would at least give me a map for what I could do and take out some of the guesswork on my end.

      Then again, I don’t know whether mediation would be a good solution in this case or in cases like this in general. Maybe it’s not the best approach.

      Another solution I strongly hinted at in that post I wrote about leaving ace communities is having a wider range of ace communities available so that, if someone leaves an ace community because of an interpersonal conflict, they have more options for other ace communities to join to get away from that conflict. But that solution has substantial limitations.

      • You’re talking about all of this in the past tense, but this is clearly still hurting you now. I don’t think there would have been a time limit on trying to resolve this, but there certainly isn’t now that you and Siggy have both made public statements. So, how do we make this better for you now, going forward? How do we make it so that you’re not opting yourself out of your community for having this stress and pain weighing on you?

      • I’m not sure what the best way forward is, but based on Siggy’s public response I’m going to continue avoiding him.

        No, I didn’t make the editing change I mentioned in this post because I believed Siggy as an individual was in distress, it was because, after his comments which suggested that I had discussed gay men in an inappropriate way, I didn’t want to take the chance that a gay man who might read the post once it went public would be bothered.

        That said, I’m not especially surprised by Siggy’s response. That’s why I didn’t directly ask for an apology in this post; after the interaction I had with him over a year ago, I doubted he ever would apologize. Aside from that, Laura-G’s comment pretty accurately describes my meaning which demonstrates that it’s possible for someone else to get that meaning from what I wrote. Also, uhhh, asking for emotional comfort from someone trivializing the Shoah??!! No, why would I ask for emotional comfort from someone who was in the middle of doing that? Maybe ’empathy’ was not the clearest word choice I could have made, but Laura-g was able to understand what I meant by that, so I don’t think it was THAT unclear. By ’empathy’ I mean ‘show sensitivity.’

      • I’m sorry, I’m very afraid this is going to come off as argumentative, especially as text over the internet, but I am not possessed of enough tact to say it any better, so I apologize in advance: I’m not asking to make predictions about the actual future, or to react to Siggy’s statement, because you’re right that he’s going to do what he’s going to do. What I am trying to ask is, in a perfect world, what would make you, specifically, feel like you can begin to move forward from this specific situation.

      • [con’t] I asked about mediation because, like Elizabeth, I am skeptical of solutions that go “we have a procedure now, all fixed!” because the procedure is only as good as people’s trust in it. It sounds to me from what you told me that you didn’t trust anyone at all to listen to your concerns fairly, so that says to me that a procedure for mediation wouldn’t have helped because there’s no reason to trust any of the would-be mediators. Our community failed to make you feel that you could trust anyone, and that is a difficult failing to overcome, but one we must if we’re going to do better in the future. And I want to reinforce that “doing better in the future” must involve doing right by you now. Now is part of “going forward.”

        The reason to speak publicly about a situation like this in this manner is to effect some kind of change to this situation, but it seems from reading your post that you are putting this in a frame of “it’s over now but maybe we can at least learn something from it,” but it doesn’t sound like it is over for you, and letting that situation persist is not doing right by you. What would make you feel like you could begin to repair that trust? People supporting you directly? People standing up to Siggy? A retraction and/or apology? An event at the San Fransisco meetup group educating people about the Shoah? Training at the meetup group about interpersonal conflict? More specialized training for a person or persons to learn how to be a mediator? Publicly available and advertised training from a national/international ace group? Something else?

        Obviously it is outside of my power to promise any or all of these things, but that doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t at least make genuine effort into seeing them done, and somehow I doubt that I am alone in that sentiment. The first three on the list have become/are becoming reality, so there is support here for you. If the sky was the limit, what is it you would want to see? Because I think you’re right that other people have also suffered in situations like this, and us doing right by you not only (hopefully) starts to rebuild your trust, but is a signal that perhaps their trust can be rebuilt too.

      • FWIW, your level of tact is enough for me.

        To me, having some procedure in place BEFORE an incident happens is a worthwhile symbolic gesture, even if it doesn’t work in practice. It’s an acknowledgment in advance that a) people sometimes hurt each other and b) community leaders themselves are sometimes wrong (that’s how I interpret the part about board members recusing themselves) and c) people care enough about this problem to plan how to deal with it instead of just throwing up their hands. That alone increases my trust level, though if in practice mediation was bad that would destroy trust in a way that not having any procedure does not.

        Like, if there was a point person to approach privately about these problems who EXPLICITLY said they were open and available with dealing with these matters, that would help. Obviously, this would depend on this point person being really good at this role, and realistically there would have to be multiple point persons in can an individual point person failed or was simply not available at the time.

        As for me, yes, people supporting me directly would help me restore trust. A sincere retraction and apology from Siggy would help, but at this point I’ve written off that personal relationship (and he himself says that he doesn’t want to mend the relationship, at least we agree on that). If, after my first comment on that post, he had recognized that it was hurtful, apologized, and at least modified the post, that would have been enough, but his response was way worse than what he said in the original post.

        I don’t think education about the Shoah specifically would be useful because… that’s beside the point. Even if people were more aware of the Shoah, there are so. many. other. things. which. are. sources. of. pain. No training can realistically cover ~all~ of them, and might make things worse for the people whose pain points are excluded from the training. Instead, if any kind of training would help, it would be training on how to respond once someone has expressed hurt, such as doing a training based on books like Crucial Conversations (that may not be the best choice of book, it’s just the first example which pops to mind). I guess that would fall under your suggestion of ‘training about interpersonal conflict.’

        I mean, at this point in time, receiving public expressions of sympathy from people plus a promise of interpersonal conflict training at the local ace group, even if it’s just something as informal as reading a book about resolving interpersonal conflicts together, sounds pretty good to me at this moment. I myself have room for improvement in how I handle interpersonal conflict, and it would be good for me to work on how I behave when someone else expresses that I hurt them.

      • I wanted to stop by and bring you an update: I have not received an answer yet to my message reaching out to the only person I really know involved in SF ace groups. This person mentioned they were going on a bit of an internet hiatus, though, so I suppose that is not surprising :/ I did however obtain and read Crucial Conversations, though, and I think it would probably be a good book for the situation. It was a light read, and everything was very clearly organized and summarized for a person to refer back to in the future. I would be glad to write a review of the book, if you think boosting its profile and encouraging people to read it would be appropriate?

      • Wow… I’m amazed you put this much effort into helping me.

        Yes, Crucial Conversations is the lowest-pressure book I’ve read in that genre. If you want to write a review and increase the profile, go for it. I definitely want to encourage people to think about this kind of thing, even if not everyone is going to read the book itself.

  3. Thank you for sharing this. I’m incredibly sorry that happened and that no one took your side back then.
    I’m a bit appalled at myself that I never saw both Siggy’s posting and the comments – I just now went and read them to see what happened.
    I kinda wish I had seen it at the time and I like to imagine that I would have helped you out with the argument. Hitler comparisons (and all other comparisons with grounds in Nazi Germany) are easily made, but an incredibly callous instrument if wielded wrongly. (We had a music award implode over here because of that, among other things.)
    Also, I can only hope I’ll never react to a call-out the way Siggy did, given that his response is a classical way of not handling that kind of conflict well. And I’ll strive to make my org a safe place for complaints, even if they’re levelled against me putting my foot in my mouth.
    Which is what I think is the take-away message of your posting for anyone managing an org: Make sure people feel safe to complain about anyone’s conduct and establish a way so conflict can be resolved without people withdrawing for their own peace of mind.
    Unfortunately, that’s difficult to do in any org if you’re not serious about it, and impossible to establish in the wider internet.

    • Thank you for your support now.

      In my own anecdotal experience, Germans are much more careful than Americans. Ironically, that music award might not have imploded here in the United States because trivializing the Shoah and/or the Nazi regime is more socially accepted here and fewer people might have raised a fuss (or maybe not, I don’t know what happened at that music award).

      I also hope I will never react to a call-out that way. That is exactly the take-away message I want people to get, though as you say, it’s impossible to establish in the wider internet.

  4. I’ve been asking myself whether I have anything useful to contribute to this discussion in terms of the questions you bring up. For the moment, I don’t think I do, so, at the risk of being impertinent, I will just give you one of my initial reactions to this post (which is a reaction I frequently have to your posts):

    Wow! That was really interesting. I’d never thought about it that way before.

    This post really opened my eyes to a different way of viewing Holocaust rhetoric. As you say, using the Holocaust as a cheap rhetorical device is pretty common, and the result is that I never really questioned it. I mean, the question, “Is talking this way disrespectful to Jewish people or Holocaust survivors?” probably crossed my mind at some point, but, given how many Jewish people and survivors there are in North America, and how many of them hold positions of power and influence, and how much the Holocaust gets talked about in our society… I just assumed that the way we discuss the Holocaust must be the way Jewish people and survivors are comfortable having the Holocaust discussed. I’d never before heard someone from one of those groups object to this rhetoric as a whole. Specific “Trump is just like Hitler” comparisons, maybe, but not the rhetorical device in general. So I never realised how much hurt it could cause. If I’m ever tempted to use this device in future, I will definitely put thought into whether it’s appropriate or not.

    Thank you for sharing your experience. I know it must have been hard.

    • I don’t think you’re being impertinent. I think that initial reaction is reasonable. If Siggy’s reaction to my first comment had been, “Wow! I’d never thought about it that way before,” instead of what he actually did say, our interaction would have gone in a much better direction.

      Shoah survivors and their descendants don’t agree about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate, so it’s impossible to have a universal standard which everyone agrees on. It actually was not my intention to condemn every rhetorical comparison using the Shoah (and I specifically gave an example in this post of a usage which does not bother me, Inglorious Empire by Shashi Tharoor). However, Siggy’s OP strongly implied that systematic mass murder for the purpose of exterminating entire ethnic groups is no worse than mismanaging a pandemic caused by a pathogen from an outside source… and I don’t know of any survivors or descendants who would be okay with THAT implication, especially since one of the tropes of Holocaust denial is that all those millions of people died because of a famine or disease epidemic, the idea that people would set up gas chambers for mass murder is too preposterous to believe, etc… I don’t expect the average person to have a deep historical knowledge of the Shoah, but I don’t think reasonable people need deep historical knowledge to understand why the comparison Siggy made is hurtful.

      I also can’t help but notice how the American pop culture narrative of the Holocaust is… different from my own family’s narrative. That doesn’t mean the American pop culture narrative is bad (it could be much worse), but it’s definitely biased in a way which serves American egos. And yeah, we don’t always speak up when people abuse Holocaust rhetoric because a) that would be too exhausting and b) sometimes people react the way Siggy did.

      Thank you for your comment and expression of appreciation.

      • Thanks. To be clear, my reaction was to your post, not to your comment on Siggy’s post. If I’d just read your comment without reading your post, my reaction would have been different.

        “I also can’t help but notice how the American pop culture narrative of the Holocaust is… different from my own family’s narrative. That doesn’t mean the American pop culture narrative is bad (it could be much worse), but it’s definitely biased in a way which serves American egos.”

        Interesting. I would definitely be interested to hear more about that if you ever feel up to writing about it.

  5. Pingback: A retraction | The Asexual Agenda

  6. Your overreaction makes me think that your family wilfully abused you psychologically with all that talking. I bet they’re hypocrite hardcore Sionists who want all Palestinians dead.

  7. I approved the comment by ‘No Respect’ for transparency. I do not recommend engaging with ‘No Respect.’ If a flame war erupts, I may delete that comment thread.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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