SCOTUS racial gerrymandering ruling - a non-Dem reaction piece

[Grinkle]

I found the below article has themes that resonate with me - most especially the theme of the progressive left having been flatly unwilling to acknowledge any progress on social issues over the past few decades.

On Benign Bigotry

The Supreme Court Takes A Step

josephklein.substack.com

I am hearing some discussion on the moderate left that this may not end up being a bad thing, politically, for American's of color. Specifically, the argument that one district that is guaranteed to produce a Dem person-of-color representative does little to force either party to pay much attention to it, while 3 or 4 districts each with 10 - 15 % person's of color who are active voters do require some attention being paid to their interests makes intuitive sense to me. I have hopes that 10 years hence we will look back on this as having been a healthy evolution for American Democracy.

I say all of that acknowledging that the motivation for this entire litigation is to differently gerrymander at least one seat away from Dems in the upcoming mid-terms. Very small minded and repugnant stuff.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

hmmm everything I've heard suggests it's a bad ruling. It will create a never ending redistricting every 2 years?

 

[Grinkle]

It will create a never ending redistricting every 2 years?

Why every two years? I can see redistricting every time power changes hands in a state legislature, which I think is already going to be the case regardless of this ruling, but why more often than that? What is the reasoning?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I suppose there could be significant changes every two years? Midterms and presidential always seem to have plenty of state and local elections.

 

[Grinkle]

Midterms and presidential always seem to have plenty of state and local elections.

According to what I see on the Internet, every election cycle history shows 1 state or maybe 2 states to flip both chambers from one party control to the other.

According to my own thinking, by the time we get to the 2028 election cycle, gerrymandering will be maxed out. The only changes will come when one party has re-gained power in a state and they can un-do what the other party did. If the statistics are predictive, this means expect one state, maybe two states to redistrict every two years. I expect this will happen regardless of this ruling - I don't see why it would change that frequency.

Looking at Texas as an example, if state control flips, a hypothetical D legislature might well appreciate flexibility to carve up some very heave D districts around Houston, Austin and Dallas into more less heavily D but still D districts if they re-gerrymander, which they absolutely would should they win state control.

If the D's don't win state control, which they almost certainly won't, Texas is already imo at max gerrymander, and the Republican prefer a 100% D district, if they can get it, because that limits the influence to one district. That is unless its possible to create zero D districts - I'm not sure what the mathematical limits are given margin-of-error in predicting how people will vote and how much margin one feels makes a district "safe" for a single party.

 

[Grinkle]

Given current 2026 maps, which might still change, there are about 12 toss up districts (close to 50/50) and roughly 2 dozen other districts that might conceivably go to either party, but are still 'lean' one way or the other districts.

That's why I argue that by 2028 we'll be as gerrymandered as we can really get - somone will probably clean up most or all of those 12 toss up districts. At that point it won't really matter what the rules for gerrymandering are - we'll be all done with it, except for when a state changes hands.

 

[MindlessPieces]

You guys need a new political system, one where every vote counts. Some sort of proportionate voting system would do it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

When you have shameless politicians, and especially in USA where one party is shamelessly racist and will do anything and everything to "win" elections. Since whites are the majority, whites will always dominate the elections. If you had 49% blacks and 51% whites in every state and if people vote based on a candidate of the same colour as themselves then you will end up with a 100% white government. I can see why the Republican supporters are all anti immigration right now. It's about keeping control of the country for whites.

 

[fresh_42]

You guys need a new political system, one where every vote counts.

No way Americans will ever learn something from someone else. They are indoctrinated by the narrative of the "best country of all" or "being free" (and all others are not) 24/7 since childhood, so there is simply no need for improvement.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Supreme Court rejects Virginia’s gerrymandering appeal after state court loss

The Supreme Court stays out of state court rulings interpreting state constitutions unless there’s also a federal issue involved.

www.ms.now

 

[fresh_42]

That merely means that they declared themselves to lack jurisdiction. As long as there are headlines like ...

Tennessee House speaker suspends all Dems from committees, citing decorum violation​

Source: https://tennesseelookout.com/2026/05/13/tennessee-house-speaker-suspends-dems-for-decorum-violation/

... as long as there is something fundamentally wrong in the system, the USA likes to call a democracy, and we others say it is not.

 

[Grinkle]

They are indoctrinated by the narrative of the "best country of all" or "being free" (and all others are not) 24/7 since childhood, so there is simply no need for improvement.

I'm asking for data because it makes for more meaningful discussion, not because I don't know any Americans who feel this way. I do know some. Please provide some data to support generalizations - of course sometimes generalizations do reflect reality. In this case, I don't think yours holds water for most Americans - certainly its true about some.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/25/majority-of-americans-continue-to-favor-moving-away-from-electoral-college/

From the above (bold text not mine, its part of the snip) -

===
More than six-in-ten Americans (63%) would instead prefer to see the winner of the presidential election be the person who wins the most votes nationally. Roughly a third (35%) favor retaining the Electoral College system, according to a Pew Research Center survey of 9,720 adults conducted Aug. 26-Sept. 2, 2024.
===

A constitutional amendment is simply not in the cards given how polarized the US is and how many state legislatures would need to ratify one. The amendment process is like the filibuster on steroids.

 

[fresh_42]

I'm asking for data because it makes for more meaningful discussion, not because I don't know any Americans who feel this way. I do know some. Please provide some data to support generalizations - of course sometimes generalizations do reflect reality. In this case, I don't think yours holds water for most Americans - certainly its true about some.

Well, it is the impression that evolved from hundreds of hours of TV consumption. I know that Hollywood isn't America, but it is the image that you - literally - sell to the world. The descriptions by my nephews who live in the USA (MI) don't change that. More examples:

• The anthem fetish before any major sports events, or in schools. Ridiculous.
• The flag fetish. This goes as far as when - sorry - Hollywood productions fake a foreign environment, they spread dozens of foreign flags everywhere. That isn't even close to what countries outside the USA look like.
• The Kaepernick protest: criticism is apparently not welcome.
• The rhetoric of politicians like Cruz. It is always along the lines "we are the best".
• The lack of historical education (if my nephews who know both school systems were right).
• Dozens of stories on the internet about people being reprimanded for not speaking English. To some extent, I, too, when I was in a sports shop looking for a baseball as a souvenir.

So, yes, it is my personal impression gained over decades of cultural contact rather than a measurable fact. And to be honest, I feel a bit insulted by that attitude. It implies that the rest of the world is inferior. That is practically the reason why my impression took shape: endless repetitions of a postulated superiority.

The examples of when the USA refuses to learn from other countries are also manifold:

• Universal health care (European nations)
• Gun laws (Canada, Australia)
• Afghanistan wars (British Empire, Soviet Union)
• Democracy (one man - one vote, dependence on donations, underrepresented minorities)
• Death penalty (most Western nations)
• Biology at school
• Strict separation of religion and secularism (France)

This is also a personal impression: changes in the USA are only possible if they come from inside. Trump was a typical peak: they'd rather incorporate Canada than adapt Canada's laws. Trump didn't make America look ugly. His election revealed what was already there.

Here are a few indices that may illustrate how much the internal and external images of the USA differ:

• Freedom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices
• Press: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index
• Democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index

I admit that I tend to be polarizing and to exaggerate matters - particularly in political discussions - not least in order to spark a debate in the first place. I am also well aware that a universal generalization regarding any group, of whatever nature, is doomed to fail. The characteristics described are, therefore, attributes of the mainstream society rather than scientific facts; they have emerged from hundreds of individual impressions gathered over the course of many years. Furthermore, I recognize that such assertions do not apply to a country’s intellectual elite; however, the influence of that elite on public opinion must be regarded as highly limited - in any country.

 

[Grinkle]

Thanks for expanding on the reasons for your post - I appreciate it. All I can offer in response (not refutation, simply response) are some meandering thoughts on looking beyond where one's mood takes one.

Well, it is the impression that evolved from hundreds of hours of TV consumption. I know that Hollywood isn't America, but it is the image that you - literally - sell to the world.

Have you seen these productions?

The Wire
The Handmaid's Tale
The Newsroom
Parks and Recreation
All in the Family
VEEP
House of Cards

and there are certainly others. My point is that my own mood will very much bring to mind examples that re-inforce my own mood, and I have to remind myself sometimes that there are counter-examples. I think you can find counter-examples to the themes of most or all of the lists you posted.

Another thing that colors my mood and perception, and I think also yours, is that right now my optimism that the US might ever be similar to what it was 20 years ago is at a low point. In particular, this list of yours -

• Universal health care (European nations)
• Gun laws (Canada, Australia)
• Afghanistan wars (British Empire, Soviet Union)
• Democracy (one man - one vote, dependence on donations, underrepresented minorities)
• Death penalty (most Western nations)
• Biology at school
• Strict separation of religion and secularism (France)

has been citeable for decades, its origins have little to do with MAGA or Trump and all seem an order of magnitude more intractable today than they seemed to me to be during the Clinton or Obama administrations.

I don't know if it does any good to intentionally search out balance when my mind will only go to dark places. Its effortful.

All of the impressions you have are valid as far as they go. How far do they go - sometimes I feel like its way to far to expect America can ever see better days.

More OT for this thread, regarding whether the US may see better days or not and not really in response to your post -

I really am convinced that by the 2028 election, we will be maximally gerrymandered (I'll call it MG). When this has happened, the side doomed to never again get control of the House will be so completely angered and checked out that either things will change for the better (meaning Federal rules on district drawing will emerge) or the entire system may indeed collapse. What collapse might look like I am not sure.

If I'm right and the US gets to MG, it won't matter if 20 of those Gerrymanders are for racial reasons or other reasons. The US is not more stable if Dems are dis-enfranchised than if R's are disenfranchised because either way, half the country will be truly and without hope of change unable to get a majority in the house of representatives. That's why I am ambivalent about that SCOTUS ruling - the real cancer is Gerrymandering - there are no motivations for it (imo) that can make it a healthy thing for US republicanism. (At least this American doesn't care if we call our system a democracy or not).

 

[Borg]

I personally blame Mitch McConnell for a very large part of the last 10 years. He is the one who held up Obama's Supreme Court pick for a year which resulted in this 6-3 Court. Then he convinced Republicans not to impeach that bastard for the treasonous actions of Jan. 6th. No other person has done more to help that POS stay in power.

 

[fresh_42]

Have you seen these productions?

The Wire
The Handmaid's Tale
The Newsroom
Parks and Recreation
All in the Family
VEEP
House of Cards

Not really. And isn't The Handmaid's Tale even forbidden in some school districts? I admit that I have watched Bellisario a lot, and this is pure propaganda about how it should be, not how it is.

and there are certainly others. My point is that my own mood will very much bring to mind examples that re-inforce my own mood, and I have to remind myself sometimes that there are counter-examples. I think you can find counter-examples to the themes of most or all of the lists you posted.

Sure. There are always counterexamples to statements like this. E.g., we had an American guy at our university whom we asked whenever we had a German grammar question, and he studied Mandarin and Hungarian! However, I wouldn't call him a typical American.

In particular, this list of yours has been citeable for decades, its origins have little to do with MAGA or Trump and all seem an order of magnitude more intractable today than they seemed to me to be during the Clinton or Obama administrations.

Yes. I only listed them as examples of the - in my mind - American resistance to learning from others. There was a black guy in one of Michael Moore's movies who crossed the lake, IIRC, from Michigan to Ontario just to have a relaxed walk on a summer evening without fear. And a friend of mine calls Canadians the better Americans. I think there are quite a few Canadian laws that could be adapted rather than threatening them with incorporation.

I don't know if it does any good to intentionally search out balance when my mind will only go to dark places. Its effortful.

All of the impressions you have are valid as far as they go. How far do they go - sometimes I feel like its way to far to expect America can ever see better days.

Indeed. The political system in the USA is very robust, or inflexible if you like. What was right in the 18th century under British occupation doesn't need to be right nowadays. Comparisons with other places can be one way for improvement. National anthems, not to mention the two unofficial anthems, are fine when you compete with other nations. They are meant as praise. But if you demand such praise being sung at schools daily and at every major event, then it becomes brainwashing, in my mind. It simply obscures the view of one's own shortcomings.

That's why I am ambivalent about that SCOTUS ruling - the real cancer is Gerrymandering - there are no motivations for it (imo) that can make it a healthy thing for US republicanism. (At least this American doesn't care if we call our system a democracy or not).

Not sure whether I share your dystopic outlook. MG is a problem. Turning to a multi-party landscape and real representations instead of majority votes would be an - I think overdue - alternative. I observed how the USA has managed SCOTUS staffing over the last 20 years or so, and I am speechless at how easily this can be done in such a biased way.

And the news from TN shocked me even more. All these have little to do with democratic processes.

 

[MindlessPieces]

Well, it is the impression that evolved from hundreds of hours of TV consumption. I know that Hollywood isn't America, but it is the image that you - literally - sell to the world. The descriptions by my nephews who live in the USA (MI) don't change that. More examples:

Forcing school kids to do the Pledge Allegance to the Flag thing in school. It's down right propoganda creepy, almost on the level of getting them to hold up thier little red Mao books.

Of course generalisation especially when talking about a group of over 300 million.
I'd say the propoganda levels of "patriotism" is largest with the USA political right population, with their flags outside their houses, their need to carry guns everywhere, their lack of personal travel overseas, their knee jerk upset when anyone dares to say USA has problems or isn't the greatest. There current wanting to "go it alone" stance and pulling out of international agreements, their hate of immigrants.

It does frustrate me when non Westerners assume that USA is the flagship of democracy and freedom and the West. USA is the creepy and crazy cousin, the black sheep if you will, they are more different to the other "Western" countries, than we are from each other.

The examples of when the USA refuses to learn from other countries are also manifold:

• Universal health care (European nations)
• Gun laws (Canada, Australia)
• Afghanistan wars (British Empire, Soviet Union)
• Democracy (one man - one vote, dependence on donations, underrepresented minorities)
• Death penalty (most Western nations)
• Biology at school
• Strict separation of religion and secularism (France)

Keeping the empirical system rather than going metric, seems just downright spiteful to me.

 

[Patxitxi]

I found the below article has themes that resonate with me - most especially the theme of the progressive left having been flatly unwilling to acknowledge any progress on social issues over the past few decades.

On Benign Bigotry

The Supreme Court Takes A Step

josephklein.substack.com

I am hearing some discussion on the moderate left that this may not end up being a bad thing, politically, for American's of color. Specifically, the argument that one district that is guaranteed to produce a Dem person-of-color representative does little to force either party to pay much attention to it, while 3 or 4 districts each with 10 - 15 % person's of color who are active voters do require some attention being paid to their interests makes intuitive sense to me. I have hopes that 10 years hence we will look back on this as having been a healthy evolution for American Democracy.

I say all of that acknowledging that the motivation for this entire litigation is to differently gerrymander at least one seat away from Dems in the upcoming mid-terms. Very small minded and repugnant stuff.

In Europe the thing it's also getting so polarized that many political issues are taken to the courts which from my point of view is not the way to handle things.

I must say that for many European citizens this mainly anglo-saxon system of dual parties is perceived as a Mickey Mouse democracy in which one only has to decide if you love more Mommy or Puppy.

It seems like a "simplified system" in which voters are not forced to actually think that much because they only have two choices if the American democratic system had more parties it wouldn't be a system in which the enemy is always the OTHER party and probably less polarized.

Because the discussion is simplified the different political views are totally ignored or directly unknown, when US voters hear the word "socialist" immediately picture in their minds Stalin not Finland.

Most Europeans freak out when Americans tell us that Universal care systems are directly socialist...

 

[fresh_42]

Most Europeans freak out when Americans tell us that Universal care systems are directly socialist...

Yes, me, for example. It was originally first established by Bismarck in Germany to a) ensure the supply of workforce, and b) to lower the risk of riots. And Bismarck was a royalist to the bone!

And back to the topic: I wonder whether they have called RBG (the last hope before SCOTUS turned reactionary) a socialist.

 

[Grinkle]

I must say that for many European citizens this mainly anglo-saxon system of dual parties is perceived as a Mickey Mouse democracy in which one only has to decide if you love more Mommy or Puppy.

If the US has any hope of better times ahead, I think it lies in this perspective. There is nothing constitutional about the US 2 party system, its purely an existing power structure without any Federal legal underpinnings. There are, though, many state-level legal underpinnings that make it very difficult for a third party to get on the ballot. Still, no constitutional amendment needed to break this duopoly.

It seems to me even not so heavy a lift, given the nearly even split in the House of Representatives. If we can elect 6 or so representatives nation-wide who refuse to caucus with either party and have enough in common to caucus with each other, then nothing could get done without their co-operation, not even electing a Speaker of the House. Maybe its much easier said than done, but that path feels hopeful to me.

 

[Grinkle]

I'd say the propoganda levels of "patriotism" is largest with the USA political right population

I agree, and in my lifetime I've always felt this way about Americans who are right leaning enough to display it somehow. Its not new, imo.

Forcing school kids to do the Pledge Allegance to the Flag thing in school. It's down right propoganda creepy, almost on the level of getting them to hold up thier little red Mao books.

In the 70's where I went to grade school the morning pledge was mandatory and it was followed by a "Moment of Silence" which was understood to be time to pray. I have been atheist my entire life, and the MoS never troubled me - there were far more egregious and overt assaults on my freedom to choose my own spiritual path than that - ever since I could read, certainly from the 2nd grade on, I constantly had a book with me, and I'd read during the MoS.

I only realize as an adult that the pledge was mandatory - it never occured to me not to participate, it was a benign group experience, as I remember it. The words didn't mean anything to me or to any other student as far as I know - it was a mantra without any meaning - not even a superficial meaning, at least to me. All that said, I agree its creepy, looking back on it. It just didn't seem at all meaningful at the time to me, one way or the other.

 

[MindlessPieces]

It seems like a "simplified system" in which voters are not forced to actually think that much because they only have two choices if the American democratic system had more parties it wouldn't be a system in which the enemy is always the OTHER party and probably less polarized.

I've voted for both main parties in NZ and I've voted for a minor party as well. I have no allegiance or loyalty to a party or ideology. But if I were a USA Citizen I doubt I'd be able to vote Republican. I like separation of church and state, I'm tolerant of minorities including LQBTQ+ folk and think people should stand up for each other. I don't think it is safe to allow people to walk around town with loaded guns. As long as Repulicans keep attacking on those thing I'd be voting against them.

 

[sbrothy]

No way Americans will ever learn something from someone else. They are indoctrinated by the narrative of the "best country of all" or "being free" (and all others are not) 24/7 since childhood, so there is simply no need for improvement.

You do sometimes sound a bit cynical but I understand where you're coming from. Let's get rid of Trump first. He can't live forever after all, and something's gotta give. (Knocks on wood.)

 

[Patxitxi]

I've voted for both main parties in NZ and I've voted for a minor party as well. I have no allegiance or loyalty to a party or ideology. But if I were a USA Citizen I doubt I'd be able to vote Republican. I like separation of church and state, I'm tolerant of minorities including LQBTQ+ folk and think people should stand up for each other. I don't think it is safe to allow people to walk around town with loaded guns. As long as Repulicans keep attacking on those thing I'd be voting against them.

Well it seems to me that your nickname it's not appropriate, your "pieces" have critical thinking, as you're obviously not set up in an ideology, and reason accordingly to the moment when it comes to vote.
I live in the US for many years I was married to an US citizen and, honestly left the country as soon as I could, my thoughts are exactly aligned with your, this obsession with own self-defense is, to me, one of the worst features of the US Society.
Americans basically invented the mathematics of a statistics and even though statistics point to the incredible rate of death and violence in the US (when compared with any other civilized society) being derived from this weapon obsession, they insist in enforcing the individual freedom instead of the common good.
To me for people to stand with each other means to have a government that defends the weaker of us and level the playing field of economy. I don't mind paying taxes I just want my taxes used to help others that are not as fortunate as me.
Like you I could never vote for republicans today and, furthermore I think the US needs to introduce other parties in the mix, to have a true effective democracy.
Mind you I'm not voting to defend "my people" I am not part of the weak , I'm rich, I'm educated, I'm healthy, I'm well positioned...
I just don't think that having people bankrupt to pay medical bills (66% of the total) when they worked all their life and having cash flow as the only parameter of employment is right at all.
I think the only people that may rationally want a "small" government that is not regulating our economy leveling the social differences are those that, like me, have very little to lose.

 

[Patxitxi]

If the US has any hope of better times ahead, I think it lies in this perspective. There is nothing constitutional about the US 2 party system, its purely an existing power structure without any Federal legal underpinnings. There are, though, many state-level legal underpinnings that make it very difficult for a third party to get on the ballot. Still, no constitutional amendment needed to break this duopoly.

It seems to me even not so heavy a lift, given the nearly even split in the House of Representatives. If we can elect 6 or so representatives nation-wide who refuse to caucus with either party and have enough in common to caucus with each other, then nothing could get done without their co-operation, not even electing a Speaker of the House. Maybe its much easier said than done, but that path feels hopeful to me.

I couldn't agree anymore. You could use a mix of political ideologies so your people will have to think better what to vote in each case.

 

[Patxitxi]

I found the below article has themes that resonate with me - most especially the theme of the progressive left having been flatly unwilling to acknowledge any progress on social issues over the past few decades.

On Benign Bigotry

The Supreme Court Takes A Step

josephklein.substack.com

I am hearing some discussion on the moderate left that this may not end up being a bad thing, politically, for American's of color. Specifically, the argument that one district that is guaranteed to produce a Dem person-of-color representative does little to force either party to pay much attention to it, while 3 or 4 districts each with 10 - 15 % person's of color who are active voters do require some attention being paid to their interests makes intuitive sense to me. I have hopes that 10 years hence we will look back on this as having been a healthy evolution for American Democracy.

I say all of that acknowledging that the motivation for this entire litigation is to differently gerrymander at least one seat away from Dems in the upcoming mid-terms. Very small minded and repugnant stuff.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, this is petty politics and the judicial should be kept away, as much as possible, from political decisions.

 

[Patxitxi]

I agree, and in my lifetime I've always felt this way about Americans who are right leaning enough to display it somehow. Its not new, imo.

I see myself in your mirror.
When I went to grade school, we had to watch every morning the Spanish flag (the one with the eagle in it) go up the pole in the patio with our anthem played in the background.
Each thursday I had to confess to a priest that was later spelled from the Jesuits for humping a cleaning lady in the supply room.
You can imagine the possible sins of a 12-year-old. Bad thoughts? So of course one had to be creative and make up new sins every week, one could not repeat them over and over again, and at the same time one could not just say "No, I didn't have any sin last week" Because you were told instantly "Well... Are you a saint?"
They didn't manage to make an atheist out of me, but a complete and convinced agnostic!

 

[Klystron]

• The Kaepernick protest: criticism is apparently not welcome.

An American anecdote when Colin Kaepernick was newsworthy for kneeling during an anthem before a SF Forty-niners's football game:

Back in 2014 I visited the San Francisco Bay Area for heart surgery at Stanford Hospital. Family members bought me an elegant SF Giants baseball hoodie with a discrete black-on-black SF logo for the trip home. Months later on a cool day I wore this hoodie to physical therapy at the Southern Nevada Veteran's Hospital for cardiac patients. The lead therapist, an avid Fox News fan, went ballistic on seeing the MLB logo screaming and swearing about "traitor" Kaepernick.

Thoroughly confused as I had stopped following sports when I left the Bay Area, a fellow veteran informed her that Colin was a football quarterback while my clothing and colors -- black with orange trim -- represented the SF Giants baseball team. Mind you, this happened in a hospital setting before DJT's first election. The therapist refused to speak or even look at me though prior to wearing the MLB apparel I was her star patient for exercises.

I read up on Colin Kaepernick and greatly admire his brave stance, the definition of passive resistance to flag waving fascism.

I added a photo of the offensive clothing with the logo enhanced.

 

[MindlessPieces]

They didn't manage to make an atheist out of me, but a complete and convinced agnostic!

Agnostics are Atheists. It's just a subset. I'm an Atheist and an Agnostic and especially an Ignostic.

 

[MindlessPieces]

An American anecdote when Colin Kaepernick was newsworthy for kneeling during an anthem before a SF Forty-niners's football game:

It is bizzare that these people get all upset at such a soft gesture as quietly and peacefully as taking a knee. But actually I just think these whites are upset at any and all protests for black/minority causes, and want to shut it down. It's obviously an example of Cancel Culture which they claim to hate too.

I think so many people in USA are just highly triggered by the littlest of things, and it seems to be driven by their media of choice telling them to be offended.

 

[Patxitxi]

Agnostics are Atheists. It's just a subset. I'm an Atheist and an Agnostic and especially an Ignostic

I don’t deny the possibility that god exists, but if he does, I strongly suspect He’s male — and a son of a bitch.