Announcement: Join the FF Saturnalia Party 2017.

Archive | Society

The Case for Unconditional Assisted Suicide

I’m not telling everyone to kill themselves. I’m here to argue that suicide should be institutionalized in a way that minimizes the suffering of both those choosing to end their lives on their own terms and the loved ones they intend to leave behind. This system would allow for people to have access to both counseling and humane ways to end their life should they so choose. It would handle documenting their last wishes and minimizing the work a grieving family would have to deal with.

Our lives belong to us completely. Arguably, this idea is the basis of laws forbidding murder, because earlier iterations of them allowed for the murder of slaves by their owners. A slave’s life is owned by their master, thus the master can kill them if they should so choose. But given this basis, shouldn’t it necessarily follow that the right to commit suicide is a right just as fundamental as the right to life?







This week, we heard about the suicide of Chester Bennington of Linkin Park and with it came the slew of comments calling him weak and selfish, asserting that suicide is a cop out. Even in the countries where assisted dying is legal, we still see a bias against those who are young, physically fit, but dealing with mental illnesses like in the case of Adam Maier-Clayton. We saw this same level of vitriol when a Dutch court ruled to allow a 20 year old abuse victim to take her own life (with assistance) as a mercy killing. These reactions are natural since we’re hard wired to be repulsed by death. But this undermines the amount of time they might have spent pondering this decision, and it ignores the fact that people almost never commit suicide to hurt others.

Studies have shown that while most people who have living wills would rather not be kept on life support, an overwhelming majority of those faced with the choice to keep a loved one on life support would choose to extend their life as much as they can. This choice is often a selfish one and the lengths we are willing to go to just to stay alive aren’t as far as the lengths our loved ones would rather put us through. This is usually because the idea of allowing a loved one die on our watch makes us feel responsible for their death, regardless of how much involvement we had.









Allowing people to take the timing and means of their death into their own hands minimizes the suffering of both those dying and the loved ones they’ll leave behind, no matter how repulsed most of us are with the idea of death, not to mention our own death. We should move beyond that impulse and instead be repulsed by people trying to assert their wills on the lives of mature, independent adults. Just like how we abhor the idea of forcibly ending a life, we should abhor the idea of forcing someone to continue living a life they no longer want.

We should hold the right to die on one’s own terms just as sacred as the right to life.

Posted in Society0 Comments

In Defense Of Nadine Lustre And Cohabitation: A Response To Anna Cosio

Yesterday, I stumbled upon an article by Anna Cosio claiming that cohabitation is Bad For You, and chastising Nadine Lustre for implying that living-in is no big deal.

Lustre, in what appears to be a rushed ambush interview in a hallway, had this to say about her rumored live-in situation with James Reid: “If that was true, so what?”

She said a bit more, but that, to me, sums it up.

So what if financially independent consenting adults choose to live together? As long as they are not harming anyone, or being abusive to each other, then nobody has any right to intervene, or to even demand any answers from them regarding their personal lives.

Leaving Lustre and Reid to their own privacy, let us now move on to discussing the science of cohabitation, which Cosio appears to make much of in her response. She cites a total of ten studies to back up her claims that cohabitation is Bad For You. Out of these, only one study from 2009 is within the past decade, while all the rest are more than ten years old.

The 2009 study which Cosio cited as proof to “clearly show that cohabitation is not the way to go for a successful marriage”, does not actually back up her claims.

The study acknowledges that the link between cohabitation and divorce is not conclusive, and needs to be updated with more recent data:

… many studies published on cohabitation have been based on a single data set, the National Survey of Families and Households. Although it comprises a random sample of the United States population, it is now somewhat outdated, for the first wave occurred in the late 1980s.

… good estimates of the strength of the association between premarital cohabitation and divorce are not available. For example, studies have shown that those who cohabited premaritally experienced a divorce rate that was somewhere between 1.29 and 1.86 times greater than the rate for those who did not cohabit premaritally … these estimates are based on couples who married as early as the 1960s and none of these studies included participants who married later than the 1990s. Updated samples will be necessary before steadfast conclusions can be drawn about the degree of risk for divorce.

And here’s what the study actually said when discussing the question of whether or not cohabitation should be discouraged:

… some might say that the question about dissuading couples is really more about religion than practice based on social science. Others would say that, even when it comes to social science, blanket proscriptive advice is not indicated or, at best, is premature. Not even the three authors of this paper completely agree on what would be the best practice under differing circumstances.

So, has anything changed since the 2009 study? Or, as Cosio asks:

But is cohabitation or “living-in” suddenly a good idea just because “it’s 2017”?

Actually, yes, if one bothers to look at more recent studies, it turns out our scientific understanding of cohabitation has been significantly updated.

Previous studies did indeed establish a link — known as “the cohabitation effect” — between premarital cohabitation and higher rates of divorce. However, the link does not prove that it is the act of cohabitation itself — and not other factors — which increases the risk of divorce.

If you’re trying to figure out whether or not cohabitation itself causes subsequent divorce, you must rule out other factors.

A 2014 study shows that previous studies failed to rule out an important factor — the age of the couple when deciding to commit. The age of this commitment — whether it is cohabitation or marriage — is the statistically significant factor in divorce risk, not cohabitation itself. A person who makes the commitment decision at age 23 (Nadine Lustre’s age) has half the divorce risk of someone who makes that decision at age 18.

In an interview, the researcher behind the study explains:

Previous studies compared the divorced rates of couples who cohabited with those who didn’t by using the age of marriage. Kuperberg did something new: She compared the relationships using the date of first moving in together. That date, she reasoned, is when a couple really takes on the roles of marriage, regardless of whether they have a legal certificate.

Using this method, she found no link between whether people had cohabited before marriage and their rate of divorce. The turning point in age for picking a life partner seems to be about 23, Kuperberg said.

“That’s when people are able to pick a partner who is more compatible,” she said. “Maybe they are a little more mature. They’re a little set up in the world.”

Previous studies did not account for age at cohabitation. Those that accounted for age at all used age at marriage, or age at the time of data collection. When the 2014 study accounted for age at cohabitation, the statistical link between cohabitation and divorce risk diminished or disappeared.

Standardizing by age at marriage in statistical comparisons of marriage dissolution among premarital cohabitors and direct marriers resulted in an artificially inflated “gap” in divorce rates relative to both models that standardized age using age at coresidence and models that did not take into account age at all. Hazard ratios for the effect of cohabitation on marriage dissolution when controlling for coresidence were 54% to 76% smaller than those found when controlling for age at marriage. The association between cohabitation and marriage dissolution was nonsignificant in models that controlled for age at coresidence and demographic characteristics, even in the cohort who married prior to 2000, for whom all prior research has found a significant positive association of cohabitation and divorce. These findings indicate that previous research on cohabitation and divorce that typically standardized age using age at marriage may have overstated the association between cohabitation and divorce if controlling for age at coresidence is the correct model specification.

By the way, a 2017 study shows that the health benefits associated with marriage and cohabitation are the same (and any differences are mostly explained by childhood backgrounds, not by the act of cohabitation):

Results show no differences in self-rated health between cohabiting and married people in Norway, Germany, and for Australian women. In the U.K, and U.S., and for Australian men, however, marriage is significantly associated with better health. Much of this association disappears when accounting for childhood disadvantage and union duration in the U.S., Australia, and for British women, but differences persist for British men. Our study indicates that early life conditions can be an important source of selection for explaining marriage benefits, and that policy makers should focus on reducing disadvantage in childhood rather than legislating incentives to marry in adulthood.

All of the above is from research abroad, though. Unfortunately, I have not found cohabitation research specific to the Philippine context, but if anyone knows of any, please do share your links in the comments.

In the meantime, I’m inclined to believe that it is not cohabitation which inherently affects a relationship’s outcome. I agree with the following recommendations from the cited studies:

The 2009 study calls for strengthening communication and understanding so that couples can “make better, more informed choices in their relationships”.

The 2014 study advises avoiding making major commitment decisions at a young age, and waiting until they are “more established in their lives, goals, and careers”.

It makes sense to me that the couple’s level of maturity, responsibility, sincerity, communication skills, healthy boundaries, and kindness and respect for each other would matter much more than whether or not they live together outside of marriage. Or whether or not they have sex or children outside of marriage. Or whether or not they’re heterosexual. Or whether or not they’re monogamous.

I do agree with Cosio’s statement that “cohabitation is not a recipe for happiness”, and I would add that neither is marriage. I’m not sure that it is possible to find anything that guarantees happiness. But I’m all for supporting people who find moments of happiness in their relationships, whatever form those relationships may take, provided that they do not abuse each other or hurt anyone else.

Posted in Media, Personal, Philosophy, Pop Culture, Science, Secularism, Society0 Comments

Pride March and Prejudice


I’ve been to many pride marches but the most recent one in Marikina was the first time that I got to talk to one of the Christian protesters from the other side. His name was Koy, and we were able to have conversations about topics ranging from morality to epistemology. And although we may have disagreed strongly with each other’s conclusions, we didn’t devolve into a shouting match. I was listening intently to his arguments and I felt that he was also listening intently to mine.

I imagine that many people would say that I am wasting time trying to engage these so-called “fundamentalists.” To assume this, however, smacks of prejudice. I also think it’s not fair because it denies both parties a chance to learn from one another. If someone else knew that I was terribly wrong in my assertions, I would like that person to explain to me why, the same way that if I honestly believed that someone would go to hell for what they were doing, I would try my best to save their souls. Frankly, I have a bit more respect for these people who think they are saving other people from eternal damnation than for those who would rather watch other people burn in hell than have to endure social confrontation. I believe that they may be misguided, but I don’t think that they bear malice in their hearts, which is why I think it is unfair to characterize all of them as “full of hate”. Some of them may be, but definitely not all.

It is also quite unfortunate that quite a few people from the march started showing bad form when engaging the protesters, even going so far as to use their educational attainment to prove how they are on the “right side.” I think that this too is unfair and uncalled for, and does not help the cause, as it risks adding legitimacy to highly-educated fundamentalists as well as alienating less-educated members of the pride community.

Alas, not all discourse will go smoothly and there are inevitably cases where it’s best to disengage. What’s important is to be able to identify these cases as soon as possible. Let me give an example:

One of the protesters was shouting that there are no nonhuman animals who practice homosexuality. I tried to tell him that contrary to what he was saying, homosexual behavior has been widely observed in nonhuman animals. He then backtracked to say we shouldn’t be basing morality on animals, which wasn’t at all related to what I said, and actually nullified his original statement completely. When I tried to expound, he replied that I couldn’t possibly convince him of my point through discussion. And with that, I thanked him for his honesty and walked away.

Had I had more time, I would have loved to talk more to Koy about deconstructing the bible as a source of absolute truth and discussing studies about God as a projection of the self. The least I was able to do was hand him a bottle of water on the way back to my contingent. He asked me if I was sure that I wanted him to have it, us being on different sides of the event and all. I was a bit surprised at the question and just had to remind him: “Lahat tayo nauuhaw. (We all get thirsty.)

This short experience of mine made me hope that we can all find the compassion in us to resist othering those we disagree with and instead find our common humanity. Let us engage each other as individuals who are capable of love and change, however slowly, however small.


Below are some shots from various pamphlets circulated around the event:

The helpful

The hellful

And the sellful!

Posted in Education, Freedom of Expression, Gender Rights, HIV/AIDS, Personal, Philosophy, Society, Stories0 Comments

Phelim Kine on Duterte’s War on the Poor and Human Rights | FF Podcast

This week, we talk about Duterte, extra-judicial killings, and the Davao Death Squad. Phelim Kine from the Human Rights Watch gives us facts on crime statistics in Davao and Duterte’s drug war. We discuss what people need to look out for as these human rights violations might become more common as the threat of martial law looms.

Posted in Media, Podcast, Politics, Society, Video0 Comments

Imperialism of the Tagalog-Filipino

Filipino, which is largely Tagalog-based, can be just as imperialistic as English is, and probably more in its own way. Speaking Filipino does not automatically you maka-Pilipino or nationalistic.

Hear me out: Filipino (being mainly Tagalog) is a language that was imposed on the rest of the country. Just because almost everyone in the country speaks it now, does not mean it was not forced on them through education, necessity or practicality over the decades. The Tagalog territories being the dominant center of economic activity for so long did much to make learning Filipino advantageous at best, or necessary at worst.


Can you truly claim you are maka-Pilipino if you use Filipino as a tool of elitism over other Filipinos, or tout its primacy over the rest of the Filipino languages? Before you go “English is the language of the colonizers and foreigners!”, remember that you probably take for granted the fact that anyone in this country can speak Filipino, even if it may not be their own beloved or native tongue.

True, most Filipinos may be familiar with Filipino, even intimately, but that does not necessarily make the language their own. In some cases, they even appropriate it for use in their own way. But, how different is that for Filipinos who appropriate English, because that is what they grew up with or it was practical for them? I was born and raised Tagalog and it took staying in Bikol for years to realize this. The look in people’s eyes when you have to tell them that they must speak to you in Tagalog (because you do not know their language) is not hostile, but it is certainly strange and possibly uncomfortable even if they do not say so.

Most of the time they just carry it in stride or not recognize their discomfort themselves. But sometimes, you get a nervous laughter of sorts or an embarrassing moment where you’re left with a lingering feeling that they think you’re just trying to one-up them.

Some people, like myself, would try to learn the local language, and you can see people appreciate it. It is difficult to learn another Philippine language, but it helps you get a measure of what you’re asking non-Tagalog speakers to set aside for you (probably without a single thought).

It’s when you realize that you simply cannot learn all the Filipino languages though, that you end up with a dilemma; we do need to efficiently and effectively understand each other, after all. You realize that Tagalog/Filipino is fine, English is fine, Bikol is fine, any other language is fine, so long as you can understand each other. However, it’s the change of mentality that comes with the realization that’s important.

I understand that some people use language as a tool of elitism (whether that be Tagalog or English), but that’s part of the problem I’m trying to speak against: if you somehow accept the primacy of Tagalog among Filipinos (or worse, actively using imposing it), then you are as elitist as someone who uses English to step on other people.

We need to treasure our Filipino languages and make them grow, that is true, but perhaps there is a better measure of what makes a Filipino a Filipino. Maybe it’s better if we can look past the language used, see the use of the language, and stop using it to superficially judge our fellow citizens.

Posted in Language, Society0 Comments

What We Can Do in the Age of Fascists

As the world watched the meteoric rise of eventual presidents Duterte and Trump, Filipinos could not shake the pair’s family resemblance. Both were seen as clowns who only lacked the ridiculous facial hair to complete the cartoon villain caricature. But, when Duterte cussed and bullied all the way into Malacañang, that should have been a clue to us that Trump would do a lot better than what the polls were saying.

Now that Trump has won despite all the ridicule and naysaying, there has been a lot of finger-pointing and self-flagellation among liberals and Democrats. Chiefly, we shouldn’t have been so smug, painting Trump supporters as racist inbreds.


Frequent users of the SJW epithet were quick to blame progressives for being overly sensitive to the Trump campaign’s overt racism and misogyny. Anti-globalists with particular disdain for the United States pointed to “neoliberalism’s” neglect of the American working class. Political nihilists blamed Hillary’s being a corrupt Washington insider for failing to convince independents to vote against Trump.

It is true to some extent that odious self-righteousness is a turn off and does little to convince fence-sitters. But, just like Ken Bone, people who were on the fence about Trump and about the values he validated weren’t fence-sitters for lack of reasonable arguments for either side. Breaking down the Trump voter demographics, it is clear that his base was not full of people left behind by eight years of Obama.

The median yearly income for Trump voters is $72,000, above the $62,000 median for Clinton’s.  Singling out Trump’s poorer voters, only 14% earned less than $50,000. And, as Trump whipped up anti-immigrant sentiment, a Gallup study showed that his average voter was “no more likely to be unemployed or exposed to competition through trade or immigration.”

This false narrative of revenge-against-the-elites should remind Filipinos of the lie that the Duterte vote was an anti-elite, anti-oligarch vote. As with Trump, the wealthier you were, the more likely you would have been a Duterte voter. Rather than being victims of the Aquino administration’s “neoliberal” economics, Duterte’s supporters flourished more than their countrymen. Add to that, among Filipinos living abroad, Duterte and Marcos polled highest.

Rather than an uprising of the victims of capitalism and globalization, the wave of nativism and fascism sweeping the world: from Duterte to Brexit to Trump, is a backlash from the privileged classes: the male segment, in particular. It used to be that men could comfortably make misogynistic, homophobic, and racist comments without much pushback. Now, progressives can be relied upon to cast light on what used to be socially acceptable but bigoted behavior. In response, there is resistance from the privileged class against “political correctness,” which has now become shorthand for, “I’m not allowed to speak my mind about people outside my group.”

Progressives have been playing identity politics for much of the past ten years, and it has finally blown up in our faces. We forgot that the ruling class can also play identity politics, and play it they did.

We have to realize that though we think we are right to call out oppression, the other side, well-to-do (white) men, are still the ones in charge. And though we feel empowered as the momentum in the politics of language is on the side of progressives, politics itself is still largely out of the hands of the underprivileged, women, and people of color.

To be sure, moralizing has not worked. Even before the elections, Duterte critics unceasingly reminded Filipinos of the carnage he had wreaked on Davao and would wreak on the rest of the Philippines. Every day now, we see photos of people, generally poor, murdered in the streets. Over 4,000 Filipinos have been killed so far and his support has not wavered. And this is on top of Duterte’s misogynistic behavior. In the US, liberals constantly picked apart Trump’s misogyny and his supporters’ racism and racial resentment.

It may seem to many of us that state-sponsored killings, misogyny, and racism are self-evidently wrong, but 2016 should show us that, no, they are not. And, we should have known this from the start.

We were seduced by the religious certainty of moralizing. Yes, you can probably argue from many moral frameworks how homophobia is wrong or how vigilante justice is a net negative on our social institutions, but politics on either side is rarely about reason, but emotions.

Duterte’s key supporters are richer than their neighbors, and so are Trump’s. They are largely isolated from those most affected by murders and racism, respectively. As long as the oppressed remain hypotheticals to them, they will not empathize.

Like Harry Potter’s Dudley Dursley complaining about having 36 presents when he had 37 last year, the privileged classes are lashing out against having fewer words to say and, dare I say it, fewer pussies to grab. It doesn’t matter what you think is fair. If the privileged classes experience the insecurity of their status, they will reliably lash out in the way they have in electing Duterte and Trump.

Schadenfreudists have been satisified in calling liberals smug, and saying that Clinton/Roxas/Poe/etc. offered no alternative, while Trump/Duterte at least offered something new and different. And yet, schadenfreudists have offered no alternatives either.

So, what is left for progressives to do in the face of obvious oppression? If calling bigots bigots and fascists fascists does not work, do we just let Duterte call diplomats white monkeys and faggots (the more appropriate translation of “bakla” when said in contempt)? Do we just let him ogle the Vice President’s legs and cat-call reporters? Do we just let him threaten our right to due process? Do we just let American racists tell non-white citizens to go “home”?

I believe that there is room for multiple approaches. And though we shouldn’t stop pushing back against fascism and call it out when we see it, we must also recognize that it is not a given that our opponents share our values for fairness. This is a lesson we should have learned when we were on its receiving end from religious conservatives. They call contraception murder and secularism immoral. To them, these issues have consequences as heavy as heaven and hell. But, these concerns are incomprehensible to secular progressives.

Some people have called for constant dialogue, though I think that this is not as effective as it makes us feel better about “going high.” What is left to say on the matter of state-sponsored murders? What is left to say on the matter of barring Muslims from the US? I believe that the strongest argument against the fascistic urge, rather than play their winning strategy of populist dishonesty and demagoguery, is quiet perseverance.

We organize. We defend our institutions, our environment. We stop congratulating ourselves over recognizing our faults. We have to fight against the normalized fascism we already see in the Phlippines and will soon see in the United States. And, critically, we have to do better than Hillary Clinton. We have to do better than Mar Roxas or Grace Poe. We have to offer something better than status quo.

Trump’s and Duterte’s voters did not vote against a better future. They believed they were making the best choice available. And, I am sure both administrations will improve on the previous in some, perhaps many ways. Nevertheless, a vote for a fascist is a vote to define who gets to share and who does not in that better future.

Yes, quiet and continued perseverance is not sexy. It’s not noisy. And it’s not going to promise anything big by 2020 or 2022. But, as Martin Luther King, Jr. said, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. In the long view, the world is only getting better. Let’s not forget that over a million people more voted for Clinton than Trump and Duterte won by plurality, not by majority. We just have to make sure the world exists long enough for it to get even better.

Posted in Politics, Society0 Comments

Chatting Back to Life | FF Podcast

Chatting Back to Life | FF Podcast

This week, we talk about the resurrection of the dead… with chatbots. We discuss a case where a dead person was “revived” into a bot that emulates his texting patterns and whether we should all want a bot of our own.

Posted in Media, Podcast, Society, Video0 Comments

The President Asks, What If There is No God?

The President Asks, What If There is No God?

In a recent speech, President Rodrigo Duterte raised the question, “What if there is no God?” He asked this in light of criticism of his stance on the war on drugs and the reinstatement of the death penalty, particularly to those who argue that only God can take a person’s life.

As freethinkers and secularists, we applaud the President’s recognition in that speech that not all Filipinos believe in a god. This might be the first nod toward non-believers by any sitting Philippine President in history. He also raised the valid problem of suffering in a world supposedly designed by a benevolent god.

Perhaps the Filipino public might begin to ask themselves that question, “What if there is no God?” How differently would we organize our lives if there were no God? How would our values change as a society? How much importance would we place on social justice in this life, rather than postponing it to a supposed afterlife?

We believe that it is about time that non-believers were recognized as equal citizens in this Catholicism-dominated country. Despite the Constitutionally protected separation of Church and State, too many politicians have used their belief in God to justify their policies, with Senator Manny Pacquiao leading the charge.

However, we also decry the misuse of atheism and agnosticism to promote non sequitur conclusions. President Duterte raised the issue of God because he believed that the death penalty would be his answer to the absence of a god judging the living and the dead.

We disagree that imposing the death penalty follows from the lack of justice in an afterlife. On the contrary, the highly likely execution of innocent citizens would be exponentially more despicable in the absence of an afterlife. There is no undoing the execution of an innocent life. There is no consolation for the wrongfully executed. In the United States, whose system of criminal investigation is already much more advanced and scientific than the Philippines’, an estimated 4% of defendants on death row are still wrongfully convicted.

And even when we are certain of a person’s guilt, the application of the death penalty should take into account its probable disproportionate imposition on the poor since the drug trade is often a refuge for those abandoned by society to fend for themselves. There is also little evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent against crime, when it can also serve to escalate and perpetuate the cycle of violence.

If there is no God, if there is no afterlife, justice in this life is of supreme importance. There would be no God to sort out the dead. Only we can provide justice, and there is no justice without due process.

Posted in Advocacy, Featured, Organization, Politics, Religion, Society1 Comment

Saint Teresa of Suffering | FF Podcast

Saint Teresa of Suffering | FF Podcast

This week, we talk about the new Saint Teresa of Calcutta. We discuss some of the myths surrounding her and whether it’s better to let the false idea of her inspire people to do good than to tell people the truth.


Mother Teresa: Blessed Billionaire, Holy Hypocrite

Posted in Media, Podcast, Religion, Society, Video0 Comments

Casting Trans Roles  | FF Podcast

Casting Trans Roles | FF Podcast

This week, we talk about the movie directed by Mark Ruffalo, “Anything.” We discuss the portrayal of a trans woman by Matt Bomer and whether only certain actors can portray certain roles.

Posted in Media, Podcast, Society, Uncategorized, Video0 Comments

France Bans Burqinis | FF Podcast

France Bans Burqinis | FF Podcast

This week, we talk about France’s burqini ban. We talk about oppressive rules about women’s clothing and where to strike the balance between freedom of religion and protecting people from coercive religious beliefs.

Posted in Media, Podcast, Religion, Society, Video0 Comments

Filipino Freethinkers Condemns Davao Terrorist Attack

Filipino Freethinkers Condemns Davao Terrorist Attack

The Filipino Freethinkers condemn the attack in Davao. This attack was recently claimed by Islamist terrorists allied with the Abu Sayyaf, calling themselves Daulat Ul Islamiya. They have made demands of installing Islamic hadiths as laws for the Philippine nation and its people.

We strongly denounce the use of violence as a coercive tool for political agendas over peaceful solutions respecting human rights. We strongly denounce the demand to impose sectarian beliefs of any stripe on our ostensibly secular nation.

We express our condolences for the victims of this attack and share with them our grief in the loss of innocent lives.

Posted in Press Releases, Society0 Comments

What’s up with Catholic schools? | FF Podcast

What’s up with Catholic schools? | FF Podcast

It’s back to school this month. This week, we’re talking about Catholic schools and how freethinkers fit in a country that’s dominated by Catholic educational institutions.

Posted in Media, Podcast, Religion, Society, Video1 Comment

Internet Lynch Mobs Against the Innocent | FF Podcast

Internet Lynch Mobs Against the Innocent | FF Podcast

This week, we talk about the false accusation Top Gear Philippines made concerning a road rage incident. We also talk about how violence has become an acceptable response nowadays.

Posted in Media, Podcast, Society, Video1 Comment