|
Obdicut posted:What does being unknown to you matter? You say that as though it's significant in your moral calculus: it's not. You have to assert why it is. The guy that I recommended against is also welcome to seek worse elsewhere, because remember, I don't control all employment. So why, by your logic, is the destitution of the other job seeker not on me. I don't know their name, but I know they exist. Why am I only allowed to consider the plight of the guy I know to be a fucker, and not the person that I don't know to be a fucker? Being unknown to me is the sympathetic equivalent of "starving children in africa".Of course I'm sympathetic, and I give to charity, but don't think about them for much of my day. If I'm given a picture of the man/woman and their family and told of their situation that I personally impacted, yeah, of course it's going to effect me. But as "The other applicant who was not hired" they are an abstract mental construct that I only have a general sympathy for. Hell, for all you and I know, they might be a serial killer. As for controlling all employment, I thought you had mentioned it was a small field, and that you had connections with all of the area developers. You also said that even if you were a Gilded Age industrialist, with their power and connections, that you would have done the same. It wasn't an attempt to sway your opinion, it was an example of what I am talking about. Sympathy for abstract people. We can only care so much about someone not in front of us. It's how we're wired. It's the scale of it. In the first case, your friend calls you and asks about the individual, so you oblige and speak honestly. In the second, you have specifically gone to multiple sources, and soured them on him intentionally, as he is a bad person and a terrible employee. Yes, you're helping your friends, but in the second you've caused much greater harm by the amount of people you've gone to, to prevent his hiring.
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:One of the dangers of all of this is thinking you are in conscious control of the context in which you experience the event or that you will even be consciously aware of the contextual symbolism of the event. That...That sounds really vague, man. Can you post me some links to further read up on this? These signifiers that we dont perceive and interpret are just useless, then?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:So are we. Im chiming in here, so i am missing tons of context and previous posts. But you can bloodly well walk around the strippers and not trigger their alert status. Trigerring their alert status is problematic as you now have 2-3 bodies to cover up. So my problem with your statement is that there isn't only "One possible action". You can walk around them (So yes the ignored part). They are there as a lovely narrative device to make you feel not guilty assassinating the pimp. As well they serve as an obstacle to move around, just like any other NPC in the game. So I don't really know what point you are trying to make, which is why my argument is kind of scattershot. Are you saying sexualized NPC's only exist to be sexual? Are you saying that if we see a sexy NPC we have two options (Attack or ignore?) Edit: Also I hate that sexual arrousal from violence piece. How the hell am I supposed to argue against that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:One of the dangers of all of this is thinking you are in conscious control of the context in which you experience the event or that you will even be consciously aware of the contextual symbolism of the event. If we only perceive and interperate a handful of signifiers, what does it matter on the individual level at all? And if the answer is "nothing", why is it "dangerous"? The symbolism of my avatar killing a stripper, and killing a random passerby in town, and killing a mailman, are all different, but what practical difference is there when they are all dead innocents? The issue should be that I'm a lunatic that has decided to kill innocent people regardless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Archer666 posted:That...That sounds really vague, man. Can you post me some links to further read up on this? These signifiers that we dont perceive and interpret are just useless, then? Talmonis posted:If we only perceive and interperate a handful of signifiers, what does it matter on the individual level at all? And if the answer is "nothing", why is it "dangerous"? The symbolism of my avatar killing a stripper, and killing a random passerby in town, and killing a mailman, are all different, but what practical difference is there when they are all dead innocents? The issue should be that I'm a lunatic that has decided to kill innocent people regardless. To answer both your questions http://www.amazon.com/Mythologies-C...+roland+barthes Its probably a cop-out to just link a book, but if you want to trace the idea of signs/signifiers/signified and the conscious/unconscious perception of the meaning of object and events this is where it started. But also, no, signifiers we do not consciously perceive are not useless. They still influence us. Exmond posted:Im chiming in here, so i am missing tons of context and previous posts. But you can bloodly well walk around the strippers and not trigger their alert status. Trigerring their alert status is problematic as you now have 2-3 bodies to cover up. Not to be rude but these questions have all been answered earlier on. Go, like, I dunno, ten pages back and read. Its hard to explain this argument in the middle. Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Why do so few people want to type out Sarkeesian? Also guessing there's still no coherent answer to "what makes the videos bad or wrong?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Being unknown to me is the sympathetic equivalent of "starving children in africa". Okay, so in this case, you evaluate the well-being of a guy who hosed over you and your coworkers as more sympathetic than 'starving chlidren in africa'. quote:Of course I'm sympathetic, and I give to charity, but don't think about them for much of my day. If I'm given a picture of the man/woman and their family and told of their situation that I personally impacted, yeah, of course it's going to effect me. But as "The other applicant who was not hired" they are an abstract mental construct that I only have a general sympathy for. Hell, for all you and I know, they might be a serial killer. They are really unlikely to be a serial killer. You're dodging around the point: you are saying that the guy who you know something negative about should be privileged over the person you don't know anything negative about. Why? Your explanation has not made any sense. You are saying you'd feel more sympathy for someone you know hosed people over than someone who you didn't know anything about. How is this reasonable to you? quote:
I didn't say 'all', and the 'industrialist' example was me talking about a VP. If I was an industrialist and some dockworker hosed up, I wouldn't be doing this--some foreman would be calling his foreman buddies and telling them what a fuckup is. You know this sort of thing happens inside unions, right? That if a union dude seriously fucks up and blames other guys, he's going to, depending on the union, get shafted for shifts or not get told about upcoming jobs etc.? You are also acting as though my recommendation means the guy won't get the job. Let's take a bigger example. let's say I am the only employer in town that hires people on a regular basis, the big bad capitalist. A dude who works for me fucks up and tries to blame another worker for it. I fire him. Do I have the obligation to rehire him? I'm the only job source around. Please note he was fired for job performance and I have no reason, none, zero, to believe he's changed. quote:It wasn't an attempt to sway your opinion, it was an example of what I am talking about. Sympathy for abstract people. We can only care so much about someone not in front of us. It's how we're wired. Again, why do you 'care' about a guy who hosed up and blamed it on someone else and was otherwise an rear end in a top hat? Why do you care about him more than an abstract person? You went into great detail about how the person will suffer if they don't get this job--why don't you care about that other person's suffering, but you do care, for some reason, about the suffering of a guy who caused your friends suffering? quote:It's the scale of it. In the first case, your friend calls you and asks about the individual, so you oblige and speak honestly. In the second, you have specifically gone to multiple sources, and soured them on him intentionally, as he is a bad person and a terrible employee. Yes, you're helping your friends, but in the second you've caused much greater harm by the amount of people you've gone to, to prevent his hiring. So now it's the multiple sources, rather than the proactiveness. What if multiple of my friends call me and I tell them all what a shithead he is and how bad he was to work with? This would not be at all an unlikely scenario, either. In addition, people often talk about stuff like this socially, and that's how the information gets passed around. Are you saying it's a bad thing for me to talk to others about how this guy hosed up and tried to throw someone else under the bus for it? I should keep that under my hat? You have dug yourself into a strange hole, while you're down there you've painted yourself into a corner, and you've wedged yourself into a tree. It's an uneviable position and I feel bad for you son, but this is all your own doing. Jack Gladney posted:Why do so few people want to type out Sarkeesian? Also guessing there's still no coherent answer to "what makes the videos bad or wrong?" I always forget how to spell it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
So basically it's a complex issue that someone that doesn't have a college education isn't going to just "get" when discussed. Isn't that a bit over a lot of heads when it comes to practical arguments with people on the internet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:So basically it's a complex issue that someone that doesn't have a college education isn't going to just "get" when discussed. Isn't that a bit over a lot of heads when it comes to practical arguments with people on the internet? The argument is really straightforward and doesn't need to be couched academically. The idea that we're influenced by what we see and are surrounded with is common sense, it's why advertising works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Let's take a bigger example. let's say I am the only employer in town that hires people on a regular basis, the big bad capitalist. A dude who works for me fucks up and tries to blame another worker for it. I fire him. Do I have the obligation to rehire him? I'm the only job source around. Please note he was fired for job performance and I have no reason, none, zero, to believe he's changed. The issue is if you went to all the other job's in town and blacklisted the guy. Using your influence to actively make sure he doesn't work in your industry. I have no problems if people in your industry called you for a reference for the guy. As stated before I don't think we are going to reach an agreement here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:So basically it's a complex issue that someone that doesn't have a college education isn't going to just "get" when discussed. Isn't that a bit over a lot of heads when it comes to practical arguments with people on the internet? If you want to reject someone positing criticism like Anita Sarkeesian is positing, its not ridiculous to expect basic literacy in criticism. Obdicut posted:The argument is really straightforward and doesn't need to be couched academically. The idea that we're influenced by what we see and are surrounded with is common sense, it's why advertising works. Also this Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The argument is really straightforward and doesn't need to be couched academically. The idea that we're influenced by what we see and are surrounded with is common sense, it's why advertising works. And critically, it doesn't have to be objectively right to still be a valid opinion that completely fails to warrant the reaction gamergate represents.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The argument is really straightforward and doesn't need to be couched academically. The idea that we're influenced by what we see and are surrounded with is common sense, it's why advertising works. It's the basic premise of advertising. The common myth that people are totally aware and completely autonomous agents completely unaffected by advertising is what allows it to be so effective at manipulating us. This also requires no specialized training to perceive or discuss.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:It's the basic premise of advertising. The common myth that people are totally aware and completely autonomous agents completely unaffected by advertising is what allows it to be so effective at manipulating us. My only real concern with using advertising as the primary example is that it suggests this interaction between event and significance always has a conscious controller. There are a lot of sign/signifier/signified relationships that exist without a conscious narrator empowering them. EDIT: For example, I do not think the game designers of Hitman consciously want the gamer to gain a sexual thrill from inflicting violence on strippers. DOUBLE EDIT: I do not think they unconsciously want it either. Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Why do so few people want to type out Sarkeesian? Also guessing there's still no coherent answer to "what makes the videos bad or wrong?" Don't know man. I just prefer the Nostalgia Critic, Irate Gamer, AVGN and RLM. Edit: VV Thanks for this. 
hwordhan fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
https://soundcloud.com/namelessnation/nerdcore-united-thankyouanita-were-gamers-tooultraklystron-mix
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:So basically it's a complex issue that someone that doesn't have a college education isn't going to just "get" when discussed. Isn't that a bit over a lot of heads when it comes to practical arguments with people on the internet? I'm pretty sure I could explain it to my 14 year old sister and she would understand it. "Guy fucks up, gets fired, boss tells friends how said guy hosed up, and maybe they should make sure he's not such a fuckup anymore before they think about hiring him"
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Exmond posted:The issue is if you went to all the other job's in town and blacklisted the guy. Using your influence to actively make sure he doesn't work in your industry. Again, I'm asking why. What is the difference between me going to all of them, and them calling all of me. It is also not me 'using my influence to make sure he doesn't work', it's me warning people that he's a horrible worker. Why are you positing it as 'making sure he doesn't work in my industry'? Mel Mudkiper posted:My only real concern with using advertising as the primary example is that it suggests this interaction between event and significance always has a conscious controller. There are a lot of sign/signifier/signified relationships that exist without a conscious narrator empowering them. Advertisers aren't always conscious, either, a lot of the time they're just copying what's standard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Why do so few people want to type out Sarkeesian? Also guessing there's still no coherent answer to "what makes the videos bad or wrong?" I mean, it's not Red Letter Media bad. Just kidn of bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay, so in this case, you evaluate the well-being of a guy who hosed over you and your coworkers as more sympathetic than 'starving chlidren in africa'. Give me a bit, you've turned this into a motherfucker of a trolley problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:My only real concern with using advertising as the primary example is that it suggests this interaction between event and significance always has a conscious controller. There are a lot of sign/signifier/signified relationships that exist without a conscious narrator empowering them. There isn't always. One well documented effect of advertising is that it primes people to spend money generally, though not always for the advertised products. Clothing ads, for example, make people buy clothes, but not the clothes in the ad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I'm pretty sure I could explain it to my 14 year old sister and she would understand it. Not Obdicut's statement. I'm talking about the Critical Theory and signifiers issue being discussed by Mel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Advertisers aren't always conscious, either, a lot of the time they're just copying what's standard. Touche
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Again, I'm asking why. What is the difference between me going to all of them, and them calling all of me. It is also not me 'using my influence to make sure he doesn't work', it's me warning people that he's a horrible worker. Why are you positing it as 'making sure he doesn't work in my industry'? If you can't tell the difference between you actively going out and telling everyone hes an idiot, and people going up to you and asking then.. thats a thing. Im sure there isn't a difference between going up to an interview, giving a first impression, then getting a bad reference as opposed to applying for a job, everyone in the industry knowing about issue X, everyone in the industry knowing each other and knowing that people dislike you, and then getting an interview. But yeah, no difference whatsoever between actively going to your industry peers and them calling you. No difference whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Give me a bit, you've turned this into a motherfucker of a trolley problem. I haven't, man, it's your own ethical clusterfuck. There is absolutely nothing wrong, in a very obvious way, with calling friends to tell them "This guy was an unethical fuckup on the job here, so watch out for him". In order to attempt to make it look bad, you have to construct tendentious ethical scenarios where you imagine bad fates befalling him but don't imagine those fates befalling anyone else who doesn't get the job. Moreover, your position involves being more sympathetic to someone who hosed over you and your friends to a stranger who didn't. It isn't my fault that you've taken a torturously indefensible position. You done shat your own bed. Exmond posted:If you can't tell the difference between you actively going out and telling everyone hes an idiot, and people going up to you and asking then.. thats a thing. I can tell a physical difference, I'm asking what the moral difference is. If you can't answer, that's okay. quote:Im sure there isn't a difference between going up to an interview, giving a first impression, then getting a bad reference as opposed to applying for a job, everyone in the industry knowing about issue X, everyone in the industry knowing each other and knowing that people dislike you, and then getting an interview. I'm sorry, what is the salient difference? And are you also holding that I shouldn't tell people socially, too? quote:But yeah, no difference whatsoever between actively going to your industry peers and them calling you. No difference whatsoever. Again, if you can't actually explain the difference, that's fine, but don't pretend like you've answered the question. If it's so amazingly obvious, you should be able to put it into words. Please note I'm not only saying my actions were defensible but they were morally right: I was warning people I knew about the guy for their benefit. I'm not just saying this is neutral, but that this is a good thing to do. If you know that somebody is a fucker who hosed over other people, it is the right thing to do to warn people you know who might hire him about his unprofessionalism and lovely behavior. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Video games are dumb, the patriarchy must die and people who self identify as gamers need to leave everyone else alone, but: I just saw Anita review The Hunger Games and it's absolutely terrible. I dare you to watch that poo poo and not be at least mildly offended by how bad it is. What's wrong with it? Hunger Games ain't high art, and she's not even telling you that it's bad or that you shouldn't like it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I haven't, man, it's your own ethical clusterfuck. There is absolutely nothing wrong, in a very obvious way, with calling friends to tell them "This guy was an unethical fuckup on the job here, so watch out for him". In order to attempt to make it look bad, you have to construct tendentious ethical scenarios where you imagine bad fates befalling him but don't imagine those fates befalling anyone else who doesn't get the job. Moreover, your position involves being more sympathetic to someone who hosed over you and your friends to a stranger who didn't. It isn't my fault that you've taken a torturously indefensible position. You done shat your own bed. What if you are wrong? I know, this might seem kind of crazy. But what if you were wrong and it wasn't the guys fault he hosed up? Or what if there was circumstances that you didn't know about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist There is nothing wrong with blacklisting people and you are morally right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklist_(employment)#US_real_estate_appraisers There is nothing wrong with calling my friends and telling them not to employ these people As of Aug. 28, 2008, more than 2,000 names were on the Field Review List, Countrywide's blacklist, which it sends to mortgage brokers who hire appraisers across the United State I am morally right in blacklisting people. Obviously i am taking things out of context and being a bit hyperbolic. But people pointing out why GameJournoPros potentially blacklisting someone might be wrong? Or might rub them the wrong way? I think they have a point. Edit: Ive put it into words. Its you ACTIVELY going out rather than PASSIVELY waiting for people to inquire. Things such as influence, reach and connections have to be considered. Exmond fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:What's wrong with it? Hunger Games ain't high art, and she's not even telling you that it's bad or that you shouldn't like it. Granted, she's not going for typical literary criticism; she's doing Couch Politics, she is precisely interested in the ethical implications, so this is fully coherent etc. But still - it's sufficiently close to literary criticism that the approach makes me want to throw books at her until she shuts up. Also, another admittedly: she talks a bit about stuff like the psychological plausibility of the characters, which is just boring, not aggressively bad. Also what's with the "it's not high art"? That makes it even more important to figure out what's going on with it, instead of treating it like loving devotional literature.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Exmond posted:What if you are wrong? I know, this might seem kind of crazy. But what if you were wrong and it wasn't the guys fault he hosed up? Or what if there was circumstances that you didn't know about? it wasn't, and I wasn't. Try to deal with the actual situation, not one you create so I can be wrong. Do you understand I'm not 'blacklisting' him for political beliefs or being ethical? but warning people about job performance and unethical issues? You don't appear to, since that's what the links you're using refer to. quote:Obviously i am taking things out of context and being a bit hyperbolic. But people pointing out why GameJournoPros potentially blacklisting someone might be wrong? Or might rub them the wrong way? I think they have a point. Give me your non-hyperbolic argument that is in-context, because your hyperbolic one is poo poo. quote:Edit: Ive put it into words. Its you ACTIVELY going out rather than PASSIVELY waiting for people to inquire. Things such as influence, reach and connections have to be considered. And I'm asking why there is a moral difference between these. You haven't answered. And again: i'm saying what I'm doing is a good thing, not a neutral thing, so for me being active is good, not bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:And I'm asking why there is a moral difference between these. You haven't answered. And again: i'm saying what I'm doing is a good thing, not a neutral thing, so for me being active is good, not bad. Im asking for evidence why this isn't the morally wrong thing when politics are involved. Please answer the question without deflecting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Exmond posted:Im asking for evidence why this isn't the morally wrong thing when politics are involved. Please answer the question without deflecting. It is morally wrong when it's just based on politics, and I've never said otherwise, for gently caress's sake. Have you just not read what I've said?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:And further, if someone wants to wholly reject the entirety of critical theory for the last century on a whim they have no place inserting themselves into a discussion about critical theory in the first place. I didn't know the last century of critical theory was dedicated to exploring interactive media.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It is morally wrong when it's just based on politics, and I've never said otherwise, for gently caress's sake. Have you just not read what I've said? I was talking about Alistair Pinsof this whole time. Which did have a heavy degree of politics and ethical considerations, enough that I consider the whole GameJournoPro blacklisting of him to be bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:35
|
|
The Droid posted:I didn't know the last century of critical theory was dedicated to exploring interactive media. Did this sound clever in your head?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
The Droid posted:I didn't know the last century of critical theory was dedicated to exploring interactive media. All media is ultimately sign/signifier/signified Critical theory in the 50s was analyzing soap box packaging and restaurant menus along with novels and paintings. Everything is text.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Did this sound clever in your head? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
What is GamerGate's opinion on this subject? http://onlineabuseprevention.org/letter-to-icann-july-2015/ Edit - To summarize, there's a proposal that would make a commercial website owner's personal data be mandatory as part of the WHOIS metadata for that site.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:40
|
|
The Droid posted:Did that sound clever in your head? If you don't want to spread wide the tables of your thoughts and discuss, there is always the option of returning to GBS to stare into the abyss and mutter about french fries. But if you do, you simply must give of yourself to the terror of freedom, to genuine engagement, to the hope of communication, slim though it may be in your case.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I haven't, man, it's your own ethical clusterfuck. There is absolutely nothing wrong, in a very obvious way, with calling friends to tell them "This guy was an unethical fuckup on the job here, so watch out for him". In order to attempt to make it look bad, you have to construct tendentious ethical scenarios where you imagine bad fates befalling him but don't imagine those fates befalling anyone else who doesn't get the job. Moreover, your position involves being more sympathetic to someone who hosed over you and your friends to a stranger who didn't. It isn't my fault that you've taken a torturously indefensible position. You done shat your own bed. I'm not attempting to make it look bad, to me it is bad. It's an aggressive, retaliatory act. He started it, for sure, by being an rear end in a top hat and screwing people over. But the consequences of being fired for it, are already there. He was fired. By going further and informing your associates in the industry, you've taken it to another level. However, now that you've made it clear that you're trying to protect your friends interests, that's a different thing entirely from just doing it to prevent him from working, which is what I was arguing against, and adds another problem to the dynamic. I was coming at the issue from the standpoint of just yourself and the bad worker. However, your action still would be responsible were it to have led to his death. I'm not sure how to reconcile that, ethically, were it myself in that position. I'll get back to you, I've got to pick up my son.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:to genuine engagement Oh for sure bro, there's been nothing but that going on in the past 180 pages. Mel Mudkiper posted:All media is ultimately sign/signifier/signified None of those mediums are interactive, wherein the actions taken are ultimately up to the player to some extent, and taking those actions outside of their context within the game or even particular situation only harms the interpretation of them. The Droid fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:44
|
|