"Liberals are on the right side of history"
 

I keep seeing this a lot. But what history, specifically, and how? I know that societies like our own, historically, seem to fall apart after 200 years. Is there a lot of data about societies like our own lasting longer than 200 years that get super liberal (in the way that we think of it today and what they push for) that have thrived I'm not aware of?

I'm not being snarky. I genuinely want to know.

Come on man, you know Plastroncafe is not gonna come back anytime soon no matter how much you try :lol: (Not that I want her back anyway).

As for the question, I assume that most liberals believe they are morally superior to a vast number of societies in history and most societies nowdays stand for when you consider how their social stances are radically different (homosexuality and abortion being examples), thus them considering themselves to be on the "right side of history".

"Right side of history" is just a slogan, a catchphrase meant to sell an opinion, you'll find them all over politics. They don't have to make sense in any broader context, they just have to be punchy. Same thing with "MAGA" and "Change", these things tend to fall apart when you actually think about them.

People who are saying "we are on the right side of history" without any hint of irony or self-awareness, usually are very dangerous.

How'd I know this was going to be an Andrew thread...

This.

Neither political side has never been exclusively on the right side, nor exclusively wrong side. The real right is a mix of the good in both, but the tribalism of growing stupidity seems to be trying to make everything entirely black and white, all good or all bad, all right or all wrong, when that isn't reality and the world just doesn't work that way.

I blame social media and retarded journalists.
First, had allowed to create enclaves echo-chambers, which are radicalizing people, second, chasing clicks, has become more and more "sensationalist" and basic, fueling division and radicalization of people.

Only issue with that is that this nonsense started up before social media really became much of a thing. The advent and popularity of it has only been a factor in helping make it worse, but not a root cause.


As for journalists... Just doing their jobs and not a root cause either. People can choose to ignore them. They are not some great "enemy" as certain loud mouths at the top seem to want to push people into believing.

I know right I didn't even have to click the thread to know that

History itself will define who is on the right side or not in the end, not the other way around. But I think liberals at least have their hearts in the right place for the most part. We can only get to that ideal of equality when we leave the "different = bad" crap behind us. Star Trek had the right idea. That's how it SHOULD look.

You mean the future where there's no more money and the person sleeping on the beach is just as well off as the guy who programs for Microsoft? Essentially? The idea that without money people will just do basic services and advance technology because it's the right thing to do?

As long as we have the holodeck and the replicator, hell yeah. :trazz:

What Cylons said.

Well, it has started after the fall of Soviet Union, when people wanted some "big idea" to replace fighting commies.
"Spreading Democracy / War on Terror" didn't caught up, so they went with "liberalism" instead. And the bigger the movement - the more radical idiots it incorporates until the whole thing is warped to the point of being parody of itself.

Warping the news to fit people's desire to see yet another sensational headline, while the actual news has nothing to do with it, is not a job of journalist.
It's a job of mediocre propagandist or a low-tier writer who has nothing else to do, but create crazy titles for his Z-tier newspaper like "Hitler's mummy has been discovered in CIA basement!" or "Trump had sex with aliens!".

While you can say that they are doing their job, i.e. bringing clicks and money for their owners, it should be obvious that they are one of the primary sources of the division in the society, by virtue of constantly pandering to crazies and radicals with their headlines, as well, as having none of the desire to take any responsibility for their reporting.

Good luck with that. :lol:

Bolsheviks also had their hearts in the right place: abolishing classes, creating society without money, "everyone receive as much as they need and as much as they are ready to work for", e.t.c.
The whole world knows what it had led to.

Depends on what kind of difference we are talking about.
Because, the logic "different =/= bad" can be used to justify some crazy and inhuman practices.

Sorry, not rising to your bait. The game got old long ago. Bored now. Moving on.

I mostly hear/read the "conservatives are always on the wrong side of history" instead. I guess by default this makes the "liberals"(why do Americans call left-wingers liberals?) the ones on the right side?

It's one of those sayings. There's a lot of sayings out there. Most of these type of sayings don't apply to every single situation and always have another one that contradicts them. I mean there's also the "if you're 20 years old and not a liberal you have no heart, if you're 50 years old and a liberal you have no brain" saying...

Totally false. Their new "job" is instigating confrontation and making people emotional, because they thus get better ratings and more money.

It's a work.

Please, everyone, watch this video if you have the time. It's long, sure, but it's 100% true, and having had the privilege of speaking with this man personally, I'm proud to know that we see things from the same angle.


The entire thing is thought-provoking and goes into great depth, but to sum it up in one paragraph:

"The first rule of producing professional wrestling is to know that when it comes to the audience, it doesn’t matter if they love or hate a wrestler. As long as they feel passionately one way or another, business will be good. Cable news is a similar art. The next time you’re watching the news and you find yourself getting angry, you will realize that is how they want you to feel. It’s not about informing you or making you think. Just like professional wrestling. This is a bipartisan phenomenon, and we need to react with awareness of this tactic."
----------------

Genuinely not seeing Sumac "bait" anyone, but I do see a simple and accurate report of history. Hard to find anything inciteful. Just saying. What happened happened, what's happening now is happening now.

Am I the only one who's okay having a conversation with someone I don't personally get along with, as long as they're telling the truth? Just curious, but it's a serious question. Sumac - with respect - has sometimes said some things that I've found bonkers but that post wasn't one of those.
---------------

I'unno. Anyway, nobody knows the "right side of history" until a long time has passed and everyone can look back with the proper perspective through which to form an agreeable consensus. Until then, it's "just history". Regardless, it's a pretty arrogant and elitist thing to say, because c'mon, everybody thinks they're right, all the time. You can't just go around proclaiming it, like I do. That's how people get angry. :trazz:

Anyone who says "liberals are on the right side of history" are dangerous, uneducated fools.

Lets not forget that the rise of the Nazi party in Germany was considered a social liberal party who ideas was for workers and strict government control/socialist government. And we all know what this lead too......

Also more recently lets not forget Clinton who sexually assaulted an intern and the dems refused to impeach him. This is also the man who signed NAFTA, Repealed the glass straggle act (which caused the last recession) and increased trade with China..... so YEAH... Democrats are always right!!!! :lol:
Liberals and Conservatives both of been on the wrong sided of history from one time or another.

Well, as I said, it usually takes many years to figure out which side really was "The Right Side" of any issue, and indeed it does vary a lot by issue, so no one side is ever "on the right side of ALL history." So anyone proclaiming theirs to be in the present day is very arrogant and presumptuous.

Like, sure, a lot of them are really just using it to support common-sense ideas like, "Don't be racist", "Don't hate gay people", etc., but by making it a much bigger deal it also makes them as people sound much more noble and important than they really are. "We're crusaders! History will remember us!" They'll remember Stuff Happened, sure. You, specifically? Ehhhh...

People like David Hogg and Whatsername, the other one with the shaved head; they actually use slogans like "Right side of history" and "changing the world" to make these issues about them, specifically, because they want to be notorious. Again, it's all very arrogant and off-putting, and a lot of people, thankfully, see through that kind of thing.

Most Liberals hate Jews, some secretly and others quite openly, so I find it ironic that anti-bigotry is their current Noble Cause when secretly they all want Israel to go away, "Because then the Arabs will all calm down and stop fighting everyone (and each other)." Because yeah, that's gonna work. :lol: Just goes to show you, nobody's side is right ALL the time, thus picking sides for anything but case-by-case issues is folly.

Eh not really? Most left-wingers, especially the ones who are further to the left such as Communists are anti-Israel and pro-Palestine and consider Zionists to be the new Nazis, but I don't think they hate Jewish people per se. Anti-semites tend to be far-right wingers. So, if anything, the hatred for Israel is the biggest thing both far-left wingers and far-right wingers have in common with each other.

It depends. If you sit and talk with some of them and listen carefully, a lot of times it starts with "It's really just about Israel", but there's a lot of "hidden" Anti-Semitism under the surface with a lot of Liberal types. Don't forget, the banks are "evil" and keeping everybody poor, and "The Jews run the banks", so... connect the dots. Also, sounds kinda familiar, don't it?

Truthfully, a lot of Liberals are just as prejudiced as anyone else, they either just hide it better because they know it's not "polite", or, they disguise it as "helping", like affirmative action. Affirmative action is racist because it implicitly suggests that minorities can't succeed without Special Help being given to them, but liberals argue that it's merely a course-correction in response to the Evil White Male Agenda holding everybody down. But the truth is, it's just racism with a pretty skirt on. "It's not your fault you're not good enough" is still saying "You're not good enough." Which is racist.
----------

Being raised Catholic, and with my awesome Irish blood being diluted with some Polish pisswater, the far-Right have no love for my mongrel ass any more than they do for the Jews. :lol: And yet, I'm a white, straight male, so I'm currently not a friend to the far-Left, either, simply by existing. Tough to find an ally on either pole, these days. The safest bet, as always, is somewhere far away from extremes and somewhere in the middle.

Oh now I see what you mean lol

Portugal has barely any Jews. They all got progrommed, expelled or forced to convert to Christianity. And then the Inquisition came and we all know how much they loved the Jews, don't we? Most of the Portuguese Jews escaped to other places, primarily the Netherlands.

"Mongrel ass" just became you have roots from two different countries? By that logic 90% of Americans are "mongrel asses" no? :lol:

Yeah, but you can't argue logic with a hatemonger. Hitler was half-Jewish, lest we forget.

Once you pick out a group of people to blame all society's ills on, "logical though" isn't gonna be part of the discussion anymore.

Hitler being half-Jewish is one of those myths. The sheer irony of it makes it a rumor that's not hard to believe, but I've never seen any conclusive evidence of that. Half Jewish implies one of his parents being Jewish, neither were. Ofc you go back 200-300 years you might find ONE Jewish ancestor in his large family tree, but that would apply to many other Europeans in that region as well. And when you're going back 200-300 years it no longer matters. I could have had a German or a Russian ancestor from the 17th century, for all I know, but clearly I was not influenced by those cultures at all.

Oh I'unno, I swear I'd read something about it again recently, but you might be right.

It's not like I go out of my way to keep up on it. :lol: The broader point still stands, I maintain: Logic and hate-mongering don't go together.

I hope Hitler still only had one ball, I don't think I could take it if that were disproven. :lol:

A lot of rumours and myths are repeated ad nauseaum to a point where many people start to believe them. There's the saying "a lie that's repeated constantly eventually becomes the truth". So yeah, this is why rumours and myths can be very dangerous.

A quick google search about Hitler only having one testicle tells me that... that's true, according to a German historian, at least. I don't feel like reading the articles, but I hope he used medical reports to confirm that.

Here's two other Hitler myths tho:

1) He wanted to destroy paris: Nah. He'd have done it if he truly wanted to.
2) He was very short. No, he was 1,75m which is 5'9 in imperial. Back in the first half of the 20th century that was the average height for a European man. Goebbels was much shorter. 165cm or 5'5. And he limped. Some master race specimen :lol:

As for your point, yes ofc. A lot of hate mongers aren't very bright. I remember a few years ago, reading about a woman and her kids at a WWE show insulting Roman Reigns... by calling him the n-word. Let's remind ourselves that Reigns is Samoan and not Black. So if you're gonna insult a guy at least use the proper slur. :lol:

I once saw a girl throw that word at a couple of clearly Hispanic kids, who were from the Caribbean, no less.

We were all like 5, but still. Once people decide, "I don't like you", the rest is whatever they want it to be.

A lot of Europeans nowadays use that word online, even as just a noun for Black people. Because, for one thing, it upsets a lot of people and kids and young people are assholes in general. Second, tons of European nations barely have any Black people and don't have a history of slavery and colonialism thus don't feel much guilt for being racist against Blacks.

If you ever meet a guy fresh out of Europe and hear him casually refer to Black guys as THAT, then it's because of what I said above.

Um... actually, sweaty. Liberals are on the left side of history.






https://media.giphy.com/media/ueaJb8cf33S80/giphy.gif

No arguments as usual? OK.
;)

Leo has a few interesting points, though I think it might be over-generalizing a bit. But my earlier point stands, that history itself will eventually prove who is right or wrong on any given issue. Differences of ideology aside, both sides can only ever be "right" if history shows that their approach and/or views were more beneficial. But it's arrogant for either side to proclaim such prematurely.

CandyKappa, thank you for this beacon of light in the darkness that is this bait-chumming thread

There's a lot here I take issue with, and not because it's flat out wrong, which it isn't, but it doesn't paint a complete picture.

First, everyone is prejudiced. There's no escaping that. If I think I'm going to meet a lot of Irish out drinking on St. Pat's, that's prejudiced, but not racist. There's nothing inherently wrong or harmful about prejudging what demographic is going to demonstrate certain behaviors.

Racism is oppression. That's shutting down the bars on St. Pat's to bar the Irish from celebrating their culture.

And while we can certainly find instances of "liberal" figures being racist, the current trend is for the GOP and the alt-right to be engaged in racism.

That's what the idea of "Right Side of History" means in this context. Deliberately trying to hurt other groups based on some negative trait unfairly attributed to them is wrong.

Currently, the GOP and the alt-right are running on a political platform that is racist.

Muslims bans.
Building a wall to stop immigrants.
Voter laws that primarily affect voters, making it prohibitively difficult for them to participate in elections.

And this is just a few things off the top of my head. And it brings me to the next point:

Affirmative Action

Every few years there's a bit of an uproar over this. That it unfairly stacks the deck, or that it belittles minorities.

Perhaps that's true.

The problem is that we need it. Despite great strides made in racial equality, racism is still a big issue. There's a vast disparity between suburban (white) and urban (black) schools in America. It's leading to a new era of segregation that goes unnoticed because while the doors are open for social mobility, the general tools and disciplines are not present for inner city residents to make that move.

Obviously, this lends itself to the argument that it's the fault of the blacks for not being able to seize the opportunity. However, THAT'S the racist part. The idea that blacks in America are just predisposed to being lazy leads to harmful action against them. Here's where we get the "welfare queen" dog whistles, the "bad hombre" rhetoric that Trump uses to characterize Latinos.

The current state of minorities in America is affected by past racial thought and current racial practices. It's true, social mobility is possible. There are a number of minorities who can rise out of the squalor of the ghetto. But the fact of the matter remains that it's incredibly difficult to do so.

It's essentially saying, "you are good enough, but you'll be too busy working three jobs to feed your siblings to actually show us."


Finally, are "liberals" on the right side of history? It depends on what a "liberal" is. That's a pretty broad term that needs a solid definition. Are we talking about "don't assume my gender", open chakra, raw water chugging weirdos who believe they can astral project themselves? Or are we talking about people like me, who believe that gays should be allowed to marry and that we're not getting much by bombing the **** out of the Middle East?

I typically lean left. And that doesn't mean I attach myself to a single political figure, or condone certain actions simply because a politician did something.

I'm against Obama's bailing out the banks, bombing Syria, and increasing drone strikes. I think that's bad. But that doesn't mean I can't support the good policies he pushed as well.

In the end, this requires a far more nuanced argument. If you feel targeted by not "being on the right side of history", give a long good think about what the really means in the context of how we're treating other human beings.

The Muslim travel ban is an extremely bad example and is a good example of democrats pushing their agenda.



The travel ban did not target Muslim countries, but radical countries and a response to San Burnidino as North Korea imprisoning Americans. Non Muslim countries were also on the list, but the democratic party saw an opportunity.....

Also public schools is not an issue of racial equality, but class equality. If you ever go to appellation states that are prodominantly white they a much poorer than most inner city schools by far and are worse.

Also Affirmative Action is a racist and sexiest practice that hurts many people, but it does help as well. Its essentially a double edge sword. I do agree that is was needed in the past. In the present I really don't think so as much.

I do agree with your view on prejudice. Everyone has them. Prejudice comes from mental schemas that we cognitively develop through out our entire life and perfectly natural. These schemas are essentially a mental shortcut.

Seeing a lot of good opinions and points in this thread.

I don't consider myself being targeted by this, but I think stating "I am on the right side of history" is incredibly arrogant.
Especially, since that slogan or its variations were used by almost every other movement in the past and most of those movements didn't had interests of people in mind.

What are some or any examples of racism -- actual racism, not what the media is telling you is racism -- from the GOP? Since everything you imply is predicated on that.

A gross oversimplification of a temporary travel restriction that has nothing to do with any faith. If, say, Brazil was to restrict travel from the US, would that make it a "Christian ban," because the US is primarily Christian? I'm not Christian.

These are buzzwords created within a narrative to incite outrage that has very little to do with the reality of the situation and you appear to be drinking the kool-aid. But you also appear to be intelligent so I would love to hear you out.

That said, it is strange the countries omitted from the travel restrictions, given all of the data. But then, I don't have the data that the White House has on the bigger picture of things. But also, neither does CNN or Rachel Maddow.

Meaningless and wrong. Building a wall to deter illegal immigrants looking to breach the border, not coming to valid points of entry to either seek asylum or refugee status. We can talk about the potential effectiveness of said wall but it makes a lot of sense on a practical level... and bottom line, has 0 to do with racism.

"Illegal immigrant" is not a race. And if people are approaching a valid port of entry to seek asylum or refugee status, the fact that the border wall might be a little more impermeable 3 miles east where there is no port shouldn't be an issue. Should it? Why? How?

I have read a few stories a couple of months ago of some allegedly dubious practices of placing voting places a little far out of reach of largely minority communities in like 2 cities, and I don't doubt that that's probably the case in terms of winning an election.

But is that racism? On the left, we have white politicians all the time either pretending to be overly Mexican to win the Mexican vote or pretend to be all about Mexican immigrants -- illegal or not -- because they know they're prevalent in their given state and know that's the right move politically to get them the most votes. Happens all the time. California literally had a mayor change his last name to a Hispanic name at the time of his election to win votes and it did. Surely racial exploitation rates even worse?

This is the dangerous thing that's going on. Like, actually scary. To me. That there is whole races being brought up with this left-propagated idea of "systemic racism." That no matter what, say, an African Amercian (or any minority) invests into their life, they will be faced with insurmountable oppression.

It is as false as it is dangerous, creating an idea in heads that ultimately says, "Why even try, if there's no point?"

Also, while I'm positive there is legit examples of racism in the US (the distinction being, while there is racism IN the country, it is not a racist country... there is a narrative now to the opposite, largely angry at Trump), the actual examples cited by people of actual racism encountered in people's day to day lives in a given week is... laughable? Highly questionable?

Nor do I. Apparently these days I lean a little right, which isn't to say they're not dead wrong about a few pretty big things. If the left would pull their heads out of their asses about a lot of the social nonsense and "the feels" divorced from logic and fact I'd love to vote for them again. I don't really feel like I've moved politically at all in the past 15 years or whatever. My post has been planted. The left and the right have shifted around me, so now... it is what it is.

It's like... the left, I'll make you a deal. If you stop being weird about "social justice" and illegal immigration and crazy gun stuff, I would get behind you again. Conversely, the right, shut the f*** up about going after women and abortion and reproductive stuff, wake up about the environment and education, stop bible thumping and I could get behind you 100%, too.

I suspect neither side will bend to my wishes, so here I am sort of in a limbo. Forced to pick the lesser of two semi-not-really-evils. And that's the thing now... like, "PICK YOUR SIDE!" even if you only agree with 60% of what they preach... which people still find attractive, because we're in an era where people want to belong to something, anything. Though particularly at this point in US history, I think I am glad both are in place to keep both sides in check, because if either had full power it would be insanity. But... at this juncture I absolutely think it would be 200% crazier if the left 100% had their way.

Yeah, I've seen a lot of that over the years. In my late-teens/early-20s, particularly. There was always a lot of racial tension in the town I grew up in, but frankly a lot of that had to do with the fact that 90% of the black kids were already cutting school at age 10 to sell drugs in the park. It was a really small town where everyone knew each other, so there was a fair amount of "Your kid sold crack to my daughter!" going around. Or the dealer kids would go into school loudly taunting the white kids about their parents buying drugs from them, sh*t like that. That's gonna start some sh*t.

The "bad" kids carried it all through life and stayed that way, getting arrested hundreds of times, never getting a real job, some of them are dead, and so on. The ones who stayed in school and stayed out of trouble were, and are, doing quite well for themselves. But that was the minority of that minority, so to speak. Running into them as adults, they'd tell you to a man there was "No point" in sticking to the straight and narrow, because everything was stacked against them from the start, so being a goddamn criminal was "the only way to survive", which is horse sh*t.

But usually, you'd find out they learned it from their parents, who usually ALSO didn't work and had very poor opinions about "the system". Just like racism can be passed down from generation to generation, so is Minority Victim Culture. "White people won't let us get ahead, so there's no point in trying to do things 'their way'." Even when I joined the work force a lot of black people I worked with were using their "real" job as a front for their parents or parole officer, while they were actually just drug dealers. Same story, "I ain't gonna waste my time at no McDonalds working for white people." That would be "oppression", mind you, and "they're better than that." Because selling poison is... better?

It's bullsh*t, of course, but it's what some of them truly believe. Meanwhile, my boss came from down south, where who even KNOWS what kind of ACTUAL racism he had to go through, worked his way up in the financial industry and was making 6-7 figures, didn't like it, and now owns a few gyms that are doing well. And he's black. We don't always agree, but we DO agree that "victim culture" is bullsh*t, no matter what color you are. If you want to legitimately succeed in life, you'll find a way.

It's like if you really wanna see racism and oppression everywhere you turn, you're gonna see it. And if you wanna use it as an excuse as to why you're a total failure at life, it's a convenient one. But I know for a fact it's not true, because I've seen people succeed. I've already mentioned my boss as an example. One of my clients is from Egypt, and she owns a pharmacy in a well-off neighborhood. To say nothing of all the people I interact with through wrestling, some of them making upwards of 6 figures.

When you constantly meet and interact with successful people, of every color in the rainbow and every religion or creed under the sun, hearing that "The White Man holds everybody down" nonsense is beyond irritating. It simply isn't true, and as Andrew pointed out, repeating it does nothing but breed dissension and make people believe they're forever victims. That's where criminals and terrorists come from. It's dangerous thinking.

I just think it's funny that the things people blast Trump for both Obama and Hillary did

Border wall? Hillary voted for it while she was a NY senator. Obama also supported it while he was Senator in Illinois.
Obama separated children from their parents at the border. Obummer also used tear gas against fence hoppers.

People really want to pretend Trump is somehow this unique or horrible force. Read history. Look at how Bill Clinton exploded the prison population. Look at how Hillary called black youths SUPER PREDATORS.

Being a liberal doesn't put anyone on the right side of history. It just means they're easily duped by the corporate oligarchy that are manipulating stupid people through both social and traditional media.

I used to be a progressive liberal. I thought they were the people with empathy and respect. I then read a little and realized that they're horrible. They just use PR firms to dress that horrible **** up in a nice little package.

And, frankly, although I'm more right leaning, the right isn't any better really. You can look at the BS Bush 41 did with contra and the mideast. You can see what W did as well in Iraq.



Hitler's paternal grandfather was Jewish.

He was not Jewish. He was not raised in a Jewish home with the culture. Hitler was raised Catholic.

Ah that would make more sense than his father being Jewish as some rumors say.

The Jewish population in Germany and Europe as a whole was much higher back then. They were a rather numerous minority and clearly high enough in numbers for people to fear or distrust them. After all, millions of Jews were killed in the Holocaust. So it wasn't that uncommon for someone from Central/Eastern Europe to have a Jewish relative in their family tree back then. That's probably why the nazis decided that, under Nuremberg Laws, a person had to have at least 3 Jewish grandparents in order to be considered Jewish by law. Because, if they considered anyone who had one single Jewish relative in their family tree to be Jewish they'd have killed EVEN MORE people.

Hitler having a Jewish grandfather is highly inconclusive considering we don't know who Hitler's paternal grandfather is, since his dad Alois was registered as a illegitimate child with no father.

The rumor stems from Hitler's grandmother allegedly working as a servant for a Jewish family named Frankenberger in the town Graz, and she had a relationship with the family son. But there are no records of a Frankenberger in Graz, and further problems is that Jews where expelled from Styria where Graz is back in 1496 and wasn't allowed back into the state until 1856... When Hitler's dad was at the age of 19.

And the whole Frankenbergers of Graz was a story that came from Hans Frank, Hitler's lawyer who got jaded with Hilter and Nazism but still was a huge anti-Semite. And Hans's story was full of janky contradictions.

There was a headstone from a Jewish cemetery that read Adolf Hittler which have spun some conspiracy theories. But Hittler the hatter is unrelated to Hitler the dictator, which should have been a clear case considering Alois' first surname was Schicklgruber, and he changed his surname after his step-dad; Johann Georg Hiedler. But it got written as Hitler.

There was a study in 2010 that tested saliva from relatives of Hitler, and in some tests they found a chromosome called E1b1b1 Haplogroup which is more common in Berbers (North Africans), Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, but it does appear in other ethnic groups. While the study is inconclusive, it'd probably be enough for the bastard to spin in his "grave".


But, these stories are just too juicy to give up despite facts getting in the way. It's similar to the story that Albert Einstein failed in math or an apple fell on Newton's head.

Epic Sax Guy is Epic. Also, Olia is Fantastic.