On social justice and social justice warriors

Split from 'Television Shows you're currently Enjoying'

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: On social justice and social justice warriors

#301  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 27, 2020 4:43 pm

I'm With Stupid wrote:
I find it becomes more of an issue in other contexts though. It's an easy decision for Warner Bros to put a content warning on something like that, where people have chosen to watch it. I can't think of a decent reason why anyone would have a problem with that. Where you often get more of a debate is in something like a TV channel choosing whether or not to show something. Would it be okay to show Song of the South on mainstream TV as the Christmas day movie, for example? Would it be okay as long as there was a warning beforehand? Or should it be relegated to the status of something you have to seek out if you want to watch it? We've had a similar thing the last few years with Fairytale of New York and it all revolves around radio play, not whether it should be censored, banned or warned against on Spotify, for example (interesting that music warning are usually based entirely on swearing, never on the content of the lyrics).



Scheduling and slotting for audience appropriate viewing is such a pain in the arse for terrestrial networks that they nearly always go for the safest option.

That's one of the many advantages of streaming platforms - they just bulk up a catalogue and let members choose what's appropriate for them. However, they're still very selective and conscious of the brand and what that becomes associated with. This year I've had 3 shows accepted by Netflix and 1 by Cartoon Network. The one for CN would absolutely not have been accepted by Netflix - instant rejection because of the content even if the purchaser and studio executives personally loved the idea themselves. Meanwhile, none of the 3 for Netflix would be accepted by CN because none of them would have been edgy enough.

A fairly significant part of my job at the moment is helping my studio and Thai production studios make content appropriate for international markets... I am sure you'd all be surprised at just how far away they can sometimes be in this regard.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27886
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: On social justice and social justice warriors

#302  Postby laklak » Dec 27, 2020 4:58 pm

Spearthrower wrote:Do you remember Andrew4Handel? Now, he was a self-declared atheist, but his atheism entailed nihilistic natalism.


He probably needed a content warning, but at least his Zero Child proposal was less than modest.

I miss our more non-traditional members.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 66
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: On social justice and social justice warriors

#303  Postby Cito di Pense » Dec 27, 2020 4:59 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
I am not in support of cancelling books or works of art based on modern sensibilities. I do, however, believe that contextualising them is part of the value they possess as a window into the minds and times of our forebears.


Notions about contextualizing are based on so-called theories of communication or of literature in general that I don't think are well-founded. When someone for whom the past is still too real sees 'contextualization', the best that can come out of that is a a tiny dose of empowerment. It's not real-world empowerment, but just a sense of it. If only there were practical ways to penalize racist communication -- to transfer privilege from those who directly harm others by racist acts (or even just pronouncing racist epithets) -- does it necessarily benefit the one(s) who experiences direct harm from it? No, probably not except for the little frisson of empowerment. It's usually somebody just as privileged who gets a shot at the privilege someone else has been forced or persuaded to give up.

You should read some of the story of Jimmy Galligan and Mimi Groves that is currently making the rounds. Though I condemn her stupid act, Groves paid a very heavy price for a thoughtless and seemingly casual or smart-ass racist remark. Was the fallout a measured response? Is big-time payback all we have in our arsenal? There's a huge gulf between contextualizing the (sometimes distant) past and dealing with casual and hurtful racism that routinely goes on, even among people you wouldn't ordinarily think of as "deplorables". That's one reason I don't think the so-called theories of communication I mentioned are "well-founded". I don't blame Galligan for the approach he took, but I don't particularly admire the people who piled on so heavily to deliver the consequences that Mimi Groves experienced, and I think few people really took the right message away from the incident. The modern equivalent of stoning in the public square is not identical to empowerment, but it is apparently what a lot of folks want empowerment to be about.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29544
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: On social justice and social justice warriors

#304  Postby laklak » Dec 27, 2020 5:25 pm

Galligan held on to the video waiting for the "right time" release it. What a fucking little shithead.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 66
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: On social justice and social justice warriors

#305  Postby romansh » Dec 27, 2020 5:31 pm

I was not familiar with this ... Mimi Groves
Thanks
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2776

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: On social justice and social justice warriors

#306  Postby romansh » Dec 27, 2020 5:33 pm

laklak wrote: fucking little shithead.

Is that an omnidirectional racial slur?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2776

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: On social justice and social justice warriors

#307  Postby laklak » Dec 27, 2020 5:34 pm

Speciesist. Directed at Sapiens Sapiens.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 66
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: On social justice and social justice warriors

#308  Postby Cito di Pense » Dec 27, 2020 7:30 pm

laklak wrote:Galligan held on to the video waiting for the "right time" release it. What a fucking little shithead.


Yes, that is what he did. Human beings Ground apes are nasty. Not that this is any surprise to you.

Ground apes. Like, you know, ground beef.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29544
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: On social justice and social justice warriors

#309  Postby arugula2 » Dec 27, 2020 7:48 pm

laklak wrote:...Sapiens Sapiens.

Just another advertisement of collective stupidity.
arugula

Podrán cortar todas las flores, pero no podrán detener la primavera.
User avatar
arugula2
 
Posts: 1973

Antarctica (aq)
Print view this post

Re: On social justice and social justice warriors

#310  Postby laklak » Dec 27, 2020 7:57 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Ground apes. Like, you know, ground beef.


Ground long pork probably sells better.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 66
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: On social justice and social justice warriors

#311  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 27, 2020 8:15 pm

Ironclad wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Ironclad wrote:Yeah sorry Spear, I’ve been busy. Xmas, babies, house renovation. I’m here occasionally but am failing to follow the threads strictly lately.


Fair enough and a merry Christmas to you.


Ironclad wrote:The reactionary stance? I guess I get bored of reading that young folk are having to fan their faces in shock at often such trivial matters, lest they faint or something; and others with the power to control media, pandering to this new wave of butthurtery. A decade ago this forum would have poked gentle fun at such farce, I’m annoyed the edge has evaporated.


It seems a significant mistake to me to caricature all forms of aspirational equality by lumping it in with the extreme kooky ideas bandied about on the fringe. I don't know and can't see why a warning on media should be either problematic or cause for mockery. The media's still there to be consumed, but now it has an advisory similar to an age advisory and for similar reasons. I personally think parents should be proactive in monitoring what their kids watch, and these advisories can help with that. That's not to say that parents should censor these older films and programs, but that they might want to be prepared to have some kind of discussion, or explain the context for their kids.

One example show that springs to mind for me is Rising Damp, which I think we're both old enough to remember! ;)

Rising Damp is interesting on many levels. It displays a period of time in recent British history that a significant percentage of tv viewers are too young to remember. In the mid 70's when the show was made, the first UK born generation of black british were growing up, going through the school systems, and entering the work-force. The violent clashes of the past had largely been replaced by a reasonable level of acceptance and a general social agreement that racism was the undesirable element, rather than the other races. The comedic crux of the show sets up the white protagonist as a foil to that old school racism with his views being shown as preposterous and the black antagonist as being charming, honest and intelligent. It's the political correctness of the 1970's and provides a really interesting window into social attitudes of that time in a comedy format. It's definitely not intended to offend black British people.

However, I think a younger black British person watching it today might still rightly be shocked at the cruder expressions of racism, even though portrayed ironically, that were still socially normal at that time (that's particularly the case when it comes to adults choosing what's suitable for their kids). The fact is that were that show made today, it wouldn't get funded or made. That's not to say that shows can't feature comedic racial based interactions between characters, but that they're comedic racial based interactions which people today find funny rather than crude and offensive.

For me, when it comes to talking about warnings on shows, there's a really simple aspect to this I think people don't acknowledge sufficiently. Firstly, it's entertainment, and shows are meant to entertain not fuck people off. Secondly, it's a business, and just as with any business, a show or network becomes successful by netting as many customers as possible, and so it needs to appeal to as many different potential viewers as possible. That wasn't the case with yesteryear when audiences were national and in many respects homogeneous, but just doesn't work from a business perspective today.

Finally, there's our aging. Just like your grandpa might have scorned the music of your day as a horrible din, so I think it's easy for old codgers like you :grin: to not grasp that society has changed already, and will continue to change, and choosing to dig in your heels isn't going to stop it; it's just going to make you a fossil. Perhaps you're right that a decade ago this forum would have poked fun at this (I don't actually believe you're right, unless you're referring to the Politics subforum which has, I am afraid to say, always been something more like a zoo from my perspective) but perhaps the world simply has changed in that time. Actually, I honestly think many people here would always have been able to recognize racism and reject it on rational grounds while also being able to spot the silly fringe nonsense and make due mock of it; I found Atheism+ to be a great big pile of wibbly bollocks for example, but I am pretty damn sure you wouldn't be able to find any post I've ever made on this forum which dismissed or made light of racism. For me, the 'edge' this place possessed was the ability to dissect bad ideas rationally - it was of course not ubiquitous among the membership which was, I suppose, at least part of the fun therein. But from that perspective, I can't say as I've seen any rational reason offered as to why such an advisory should not readily be supported. No butthurt fanned faces required.

And a very merry Christmas to you and your family too.
The levelled playing field is something to aspire to, I cannot argue there at all. It is the retrospective ‘horror’ of what once was, the Cancel Culture and the demands that annoy me. There are chances now for all to grasp, and the future needs to be written, so the youngsters could get out there and do it. Rather than changing popular culture by demand.
Rising Damp is an excellent example, we’ve had this chat recently.

How did you think things like universal voting, women's right to vote, the right to abortion and many other achievements were started?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: On social justice and social justice warriors

#312  Postby romansh » Dec 27, 2020 8:25 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:Yes, that is what he did. Human beings Ground apes are nasty.

Yes ... they can be. But in part it is genes and in part it is the environment they find themselves. In this case, the actions of this "little shithead" is partly a product of discrimination against minorities and that of snowflakery.

Will the social warriors stand up for the injustice that has befallen Groves? I doubt it as they were cheering the injustice on.
Last edited by romansh on Dec 27, 2020 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2776

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: On social justice and social justice warriors

#313  Postby arugula2 » Dec 27, 2020 8:51 pm

Only read the first few paragraphs (I doubt there's much more to it). "Social justice warrior" here - volunteering. What happened to Groves seems like a farce, and anyone not admitting this probably has a pretzel argument. It took me 8 paragraphs to conclude the dipshit who ruined her life is a mental child, and the thousands of strangers who enabled his redirected angst are equally dispshitty. None of this is complicated.

Anyway- this only demonstrates that people are dumb, and don't usually stop to think about their actions. (Moreso the enablers, not the flaky dipshit in the article, who is clearly maladjusted, but likely also coddled, and definitely misguided.)
arugula

Podrán cortar todas las flores, pero no podrán detener la primavera.
User avatar
arugula2
 
Posts: 1973

Antarctica (aq)
Print view this post

Re: On social justice and social justice warriors

#314  Postby romansh » Dec 27, 2020 9:49 pm

arugula2 wrote: and the thousands of strangers who enabled his redirected angst are equally dispshitty. None of this is complicated.

I agree it's not complicated. But it was not hundreds or even thousands that enabled the young man's angst. They together with with university administration enacted this dipshittery.

I understand the young man's actions, he was hurt and wanted to hurt someone else.

My question remains, where were the social warriors to protect Groves?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2776

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: On social justice and social justice warriors

#315  Postby arugula2 » Dec 27, 2020 10:15 pm

Probably too busy going with the flow. Most activists are, unfortunately, sheeple. They're guided by trends, not conscience.

Again, I didn't read past paragraph 8, but... if I know the way university admins react to controversy, it's mostly no different from other organizations with money at stake. The social media trending probably informed their decisions.

Addendum: almost every victimizer was a victim... it's... boring. The line should be drawn at individual dignity and safety.
arugula

Podrán cortar todas las flores, pero no podrán detener la primavera.
User avatar
arugula2
 
Posts: 1973

Antarctica (aq)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: On social justice and social justice warriors

#316  Postby Ironclad » Dec 28, 2020 12:10 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Ironclad wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Ironclad wrote:Yeah sorry Spear, I’ve been busy. Xmas, babies, house renovation. I’m here occasionally but am failing to follow the threads strictly lately.


Fair enough and a merry Christmas to you.


Ironclad wrote:The reactionary stance? I guess I get bored of reading that young folk are having to fan their faces in shock at often such trivial matters, lest they faint or something; and others with the power to control media, pandering to this new wave of butthurtery. A decade ago this forum would have poked gentle fun at such farce, I’m annoyed the edge has evaporated.


It seems a significant mistake to me to caricature all forms of aspirational equality by lumping it in with the extreme kooky ideas bandied about on the fringe. I don't know and can't see why a warning on media should be either problematic or cause for mockery. The media's still there to be consumed, but now it has an advisory similar to an age advisory and for similar reasons. I personally think parents should be proactive in monitoring what their kids watch, and these advisories can help with that. That's not to say that parents should censor these older films and programs, but that they might want to be prepared to have some kind of discussion, or explain the context for their kids.

One example show that springs to mind for me is Rising Damp, which I think we're both old enough to remember! ;)

Rising Damp is interesting on many levels. It displays a period of time in recent British history that a significant percentage of tv viewers are too young to remember. In the mid 70's when the show was made, the first UK born generation of black british were growing up, going through the school systems, and entering the work-force. The violent clashes of the past had largely been replaced by a reasonable level of acceptance and a general social agreement that racism was the undesirable element, rather than the other races. The comedic crux of the show sets up the white protagonist as a foil to that old school racism with his views being shown as preposterous and the black antagonist as being charming, honest and intelligent. It's the political correctness of the 1970's and provides a really interesting window into social attitudes of that time in a comedy format. It's definitely not intended to offend black British people.

However, I think a younger black British person watching it today might still rightly be shocked at the cruder expressions of racism, even though portrayed ironically, that were still socially normal at that time (that's particularly the case when it comes to adults choosing what's suitable for their kids). The fact is that were that show made today, it wouldn't get funded or made. That's not to say that shows can't feature comedic racial based interactions between characters, but that they're comedic racial based interactions which people today find funny rather than crude and offensive.

For me, when it comes to talking about warnings on shows, there's a really simple aspect to this I think people don't acknowledge sufficiently. Firstly, it's entertainment, and shows are meant to entertain not fuck people off. Secondly, it's a business, and just as with any business, a show or network becomes successful by netting as many customers as possible, and so it needs to appeal to as many different potential viewers as possible. That wasn't the case with yesteryear when audiences were national and in many respects homogeneous, but just doesn't work from a business perspective today.

Finally, there's our aging. Just like your grandpa might have scorned the music of your day as a horrible din, so I think it's easy for old codgers like you :grin: to not grasp that society has changed already, and will continue to change, and choosing to dig in your heels isn't going to stop it; it's just going to make you a fossil. Perhaps you're right that a decade ago this forum would have poked fun at this (I don't actually believe you're right, unless you're referring to the Politics subforum which has, I am afraid to say, always been something more like a zoo from my perspective) but perhaps the world simply has changed in that time. Actually, I honestly think many people here would always have been able to recognize racism and reject it on rational grounds while also being able to spot the silly fringe nonsense and make due mock of it; I found Atheism+ to be a great big pile of wibbly bollocks for example, but I am pretty damn sure you wouldn't be able to find any post I've ever made on this forum which dismissed or made light of racism. For me, the 'edge' this place possessed was the ability to dissect bad ideas rationally - it was of course not ubiquitous among the membership which was, I suppose, at least part of the fun therein. But from that perspective, I can't say as I've seen any rational reason offered as to why such an advisory should not readily be supported. No butthurt fanned faces required.

And a very merry Christmas to you and your family too.
The levelled playing field is something to aspire to, I cannot argue there at all. It is the retrospective ‘horror’ of what once was, the Cancel Culture and the demands that annoy me. There are chances now for all to grasp, and the future needs to be written, so the youngsters could get out there and do it. Rather than changing popular culture by demand.
Rising Damp is an excellent example, we’ve had this chat recently.

How did you think things like universal voting, women's right to vote, the right to abortion and many other achievements were started?

By lobbying, placard waving and self sacrifice? As opposed to demanding special treatment and breaking shit, say. I’ve done the former, I imagine you have too
For Van Youngman - see you amongst the stardust, old buddy

"If there was no such thing as science, you'd be right " - Sean Lock

"God ....an inventive destroyer" - Broks
User avatar
Ironclad
RS Donator
 
Name: Nudge-Nudge
Posts: 23874
Age: 51
Male

Country: Wink-Wink
Indonesia (id)
Print view this post

Re: On social justice and social justice warriors

#317  Postby laklak » Dec 28, 2020 12:23 am

Woman's right to vote? They just kept at us till we gave in. Anyone married can sympathize. I've agreed to a fucking composting toilet on the boat. You have to pack up the shit and carry it off in a bag instead of just flushing it away. Because dolphins, or something.

Never underestimate the power of a good nag.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 66
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: On social justice and social justice warriors

#318  Postby arugula2 » Dec 28, 2020 1:02 am

'Kept at us' also involved (for some of the suffragettes) being tortured & imprisoned - ergo they earned the 'W' in "SJW".

But since life is nuanced, it's also worth noting that to achieve suffrage, the movement collectively threw black suffrage under the bus. At some point, the white male establishment realized white womanhood was a useful tool against black liberation. Not that anyone should be surprised, anyway. We are sapiens sapiens, it's how we do.
arugula

Podrán cortar todas las flores, pero no podrán detener la primavera.
User avatar
arugula2
 
Posts: 1973

Antarctica (aq)
Print view this post

Re: On social justice and social justice warriors

#319  Postby laklak » Dec 28, 2020 1:05 am

but it do2.jpg
but it do2.jpg (47.85 KiB) Viewed 132 times


Ain't it the truth.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 66
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: On social justice and social justice warriors

#320  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 28, 2020 1:05 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
I am not in support of cancelling books or works of art based on modern sensibilities. I do, however, believe that contextualising them is part of the value they possess as a window into the minds and times of our forebears.


Notions about contextualizing are based on so-called theories of communication or of literature in general that I don't think are well-founded.


I don't think we mean the same thing here: by contextualise, I mean in the same way you would about a historical event your audience is not familiar with - so if you were making a film set in a particular period, the initial part of the film would setup the world and relationships therein. Similarly, when my son watches a program from the UK - a country and culture he's not familiar with despite speaking English - he often needs context to get what's going on. Back when he was a bit younger, he'd need context for other programs too - such as sci-fi or fantasy: the context there being that it's an imaginary world, dragons don't really exist, etc.


Cito di Pense wrote: When someone for whom the past is still too real sees 'contextualization', the best that can come out of that is a a tiny dose of empowerment.


I am sure in some contexts you are right, but in other contexts it empowers the viewer to understand what they're watching, or as discussed already, it empowers the adult to determine what's suitable for their kid to watch.


Cito di Pense wrote:
You should read some of the story of Jimmy Galligan and Mimi Groves that is currently making the rounds. Though I condemn her stupid act, Groves paid a very heavy price for a thoughtless and seemingly casual or smart-ass racist remark. Was the fallout a measured response? Is big-time payback all we have in our arsenal? There's a huge gulf between contextualizing the (sometimes distant) past and dealing with casual and hurtful racism that routinely goes on, even among people you wouldn't ordinarily think of as "deplorables".


Ironically, I think the context there actually does greatly help to see the story in a reasonable light. She was a kid, the guy held onto the video apparently out of spite in order to bring her down, and these two factors provide a way of accessing the story that goes beyond the superficial.


Cito di Pense wrote:That's one reason I don't think the so-called theories of communication I mentioned are "well-founded". I don't blame Galligan for the approach he took, but I don't particularly admire the people who piled on so heavily to deliver the consequences that Mimi Groves experienced, and I think few people really took the right message away from the incident. The modern equivalent of stoning in the public square is not identical to empowerment, but it is apparently what a lot of folks want empowerment to be about.


My sense is that this is again an example from the fringes, and it's noteworthy precisely because it's not normal. I think there'd be vastly more instances of people alive today who suffered from race-based prejudice with their tormentors never having to face any repercussions, justified or not.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27886
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest