|
Athanatos posted:The general feeling in this thread says this is not true and people would like it to be harsher. Deploying a mod with a grenade launcher to every corner of USPol is not really what I'm suggesting by more aggressive moderation. I'm really suggesting the mod team be more assertive about moving discussion into existing or new threads about specific topics (including specific news events if they're significant enough) so that actual conversations can happen and there's less low-drag-maximum-thrust style posting in one megathread. E: To Dr Nutt's point here VVVV, I think USPol makes bad posters of us all.
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I agree with most of this, and I doubt there's a single Biden primary voter in D&D; he was severely unpopular among people under 40, after all. My point was more that "we agree on 80% of issues!" is a bit of nonsequitur; "yeah, we do, and yet we're both hostile to each other anyways, clearly that 20% is important". I mean while it's possible that the hostility comes because the 20% of disagreement is that significant, I think it has more to do with what I just pointed out, the common misrepresentation of others views, and also the fact that there aren't really many if at all genuine conservative posters that stick around anymore. While I don't shed any tears for the lack of ghoulish right wing hot takes such as "maybe the poor deserve to starve and die and not be counted in the census," having a lack of easy whipping posters around means that discussion is necessarily going to become more granular and nuanced and we end up tearing each other apart over differences both significant and not. I've been guilty of these things too, I'm not immunized from making bad posts obviously, and maybe this next bit is naive on my part, but one thing that would probably benefit everyone is taking a step back and remembering that everyone on the other end of the monitor is a human being and has feelings and internal agency all their own. Attempts to condense people down into massive generalizations rarely ends well. This conversation with you and I could have gone a lot differently, and I appreciate that you took the time to respond thoughtfully.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
I think the fact that the example used in service of the discussion almost started an argument is proof enough that the subject matter is partly to blame. Edit: vv I think the prevalence of whataboutism contributes to the knee jerk reaction to people giving counterexamples. If you say this isn't the worst thing ever, you're actually saying it's not that bad. Which, I admit, has merit, because it's a really pedantic thing to say unless you're trying to make a bigger point or deflect. But goons like being pedantic without a greater purpose, so we have to square that circle. KillHour fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jan 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 21:54
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, hang on a second though - look at what you're saying from another perspective. There are posters in USPOL and DnD more broadly who come from countries where the U.S. has done some extremely awful stuff. When someone (a former WH aide, at that) says that what happened in the Capitol on Wednesday is "the worst thing a President has ever done," how is that not minimizing what they and their families and their countries of origin have experienced? How does that not show a serious lack of empathy? I get that the Jan. 6 riot was traumatic for a lot of people, and I empathize with them. But that doesn't mean they're entitled to say whatever they want without pushback. As someone born and raised in the Middle East and have witnessed some of those horrors first-hand, I'm still definitely not going to tell my fellow Americans that the January 6th event was not actually the worst thing a US President has done. Even if it is technically a false statement, we should all be capable of recognizing figure of speech when we see it, and not interpret everything literally and object to it based on that interpretation using "well, actually..." It's like when someone says "wow, today was the worst day of my life", they're complaining about how badly their day went, and don't really mean it was literally the worst day of their life. But if you point that out, you'll just come across as a jerk, and it should be easy to understand why. (The other thing worth considering is that said former WH aide obviously was talking to an American audience.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 21:55
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Even with just sixers, you get a lot of catty cross-forum invasions and commentary. I've eaten some sixers for not calling The Democratic Party by its trademarked name (which is whatever, I dont really care about rap sheet size, I like that I have double digit fishmech probations), and I'd start reading Succ Zone and see posters commentating on the probation being bad, and then shortly afterwards an argument in USPOL over proper terminology for an hour, and that's just with a sixer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:00
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:It's like when someone says "wow, today was the worst day of my life", they're complaining about how badly their day went, and don't really mean it was literally the worst day of their life. But if you point that out, you'll just come across as a jerk, and it should be easy to understand why. I really don't think posting for affirmation purposes in a debate & discussion forum and then characterizing others as jerks when they debate and discuss what you posted clears the bar of "disagree but not disagreeable."
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:01
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:In this paragraph is a problem that needs some work. SuccZone has a rule about not posting about D&D; it exists because posting about D&D there usually starts a forum invasion and at some point we all agreed that we are tired of those. That rule is not being enforced completely, and we're still on the receiving end of these forum invasions. Admins/Mods/IKs, would it be possible to enforce the don't-invade-D&D rule in D&D as well? Yikes. If a bunch of new people start posting, that's good. If they don't follow the rules, take appropriate action. Calling it an invasion and demanding special enforcement sounds like you want a special hugbox for your ideology.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:04
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The current state of mod affairs on SA is very heavily geared toward second chances, third chances, fourth chances, fifth chances, and so on. So I'm very limited in my ability to quickly remove the people that I consider to be troublemakers - which may not necessarily be the same people you consider to be troublemakers, which is exactly why it's important to have systems and oversight rather than just letting me run people up the stairs to the big punishments all on my own. I mostly just lurk, but for my vote I'm totally fine with mods taking big punishments against the people they think are troublemakers. You guys know better than the rest of us who gets the most reports, who stirs up drama, who is in your PMs hurling insults for minor decisions. I have no doubt that some of these folks I will be sad to see go, and some I will be totally fine with, but both will make the thread healthier and frankly the mod/IK team a lot less burned out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Yikes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
Honestly, if 'no cross-forum pollination' were more strictly enforced, you'd just see more discussion of probes/bans offsite. C-Spam has like, 5 discords (because it wouldnt be leftism without splintering).
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:14
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:This isn't ideological. By conceit, they're not following the rules, but it's the rules of another thread in another forum. The repercussions of that rule-breaking are felt both here and there. The rule you described was essentially posting about other forums/threads leading to bad posts made in those other forums threads. It's a good rule. But we already have rules in D&D to enforce against bad posts. What do you think your proposed rule adds and how do you see it being applied if not "reported for having posts in uspol AND the succ zone"
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:16
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:I really don't think posting for affirmation purposes in a debate & discussion forum and then characterizing others as jerks when they debate and discuss what you posted clears the bar of "disagree but not disagreeable." I don't know what you're saying exactly, but I can tell you what I did not say, which is that people who disagree that the events of January 6th were the worst perpetrated by a US President are jerks. I simply said that pointing that out can make someone come across as a jerk. Basically, if someone is going through a crisis, don't engage in what-aboutism about that crisis. Again, the reason should be very obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:18
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:I don't know what you're saying exactly, but I can tell you what I did not say, which is that people who disagree that the events of January 6th were the worst perpetrated by a US President are jerks. I simply said that pointing that out can make someone come across as a jerk. Basically, if someone is going through a crisis, don't engage in what-aboutism about that crisis. Again, the reason should be very obvious. If you assert something ("this is the worst thing that's ever happened") in a debate forum you should do it prepared that someone might want to debate your reasoning, and that's not what-aboutism. That's literally debating the statement made.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
QCS drama deterring anybody from doing anything is deeply silly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
You D&D posters are really good at adding Riders to your posts. 10 words about modding 250 words about some point you wanted to make about politics that you could semi-relate it to something. It's a hell of a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:The rule you described was essentially posting about other forums/threads leading to bad posts made in those other forums threads. It's a good rule. But we already have rules in D&D to enforce against bad posts. Epinephrine fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jan 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
Athanatos posted:You D&D posters are really good at adding Riders to your posts. That's politics, baby
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Yikes. Seconding this. I used to read all of uspol for a while, and these invasions didn't happen. The 'invaders' were people that posted in USPOL and succzone, whether or not someone got probed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:28
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:Procedurally, this could be set up in multiple ways. E.g. increasing probe length for a bad post if they're also posting about D&D in C-SPAM. However I'm not a mod and don't know whether this could work, in principle, under the current mod structure, and if if could the cleanest way to manage it. Hence the question. Certainly a history of cspam posting would demonstrate that someone is used to a certain posting style, as would a history of posting in gbs, but Im still not seeing what extra punishment for bad posts if you're one of those filthy cspammers really solves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:If you assert something ("this is the worst thing that's ever happened") in a debate forum you should do it prepared that someone might want to debate your reasoning, and that's not what-aboutism. That's literally debating the statement made. I mean, again, if someone is going through a crisis, you should try to be a little sensitive of their trauma, and whether the conversation is taking place in real life or on an Internet forum with a debate focus has no bearing on that. Just because people are having conversations about current events in D&D does not mean they are somehow suddenly not human, and if they accuse you of minimizing their trauma after you "well, actually" them, it is not some sort of confirmation that they just want USPol to be a safe space where only a narrow range of ideas are allowed to be discussed. I get what you're trying to say, which seems to be that if a statement is made in a debate and discourse forum, it should be fair game to challenge it. But even if I were to agree with that, I would still argue that timing is important. People may not be receptive to the idea that January 6th wasn't that important in the grand scheme of things on... January 6th, as the crisis is unfolding, or even the next day. But a month from now, their heads may have cooled enough to take a more academic stance and compare and contrast the events with others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:35
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:As an aside, the people going "we agree on 80% of things! I'm the Hillary to your Bernie! Love me!" are extraordinarily tedious. It's a very disingenuous take that ignores why these slapfights happens and casts The Electoralist as the slighted victim, when they're regularly trying to get folk like Majorian demodded for being perceived as part of the Leftist Wreckers. LOL this part of the post. USPol is people who agree on everything except electorialism. Sure there's a few people in there who are hardcore libs and a few people who have absolutely ridiculous views, but 99% of the thread is people disagreeing on whether people should engage in electorialism and then trying to create Posting Enemies out of the people who disagree with them on that point. Almost every multi-page argument except food derails is basically this point rehashed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:In this paragraph is a problem that needs some work. SuccZone has a rule about not posting about D&D; it exists because posting about D&D there usually starts a forum invasion and at some point we all agreed that we are tired of those. That rule is not being enforced completely, and we're still on the receiving end of these forum invasions. Admins/Mods/IKs, would it be possible to enforce the don't-invade-D&D rule in D&D as well? Is it expected that D&D users only post in D&D? I post in a good number of forums here and I don't think of myself as a "D&D poster" or any specific subforum poster, for that matter. I assume most people are like that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
I guess the consensus here leans towards enforcing/harsher punishments with ramps and so on - with the problem being it requiring more resources than are available. I still think just thread-banning the most toxic posters would make the thread both reasonable and readable as it has been before, especially with the recent push against rage-bait twitter posting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:As someone born and raised in the Middle East and have witnessed some of those horrors first-hand, I'm still definitely not going to tell my fellow Americans that the January 6th event was not actually the worst thing a US President has done. Even if it is technically a false statement, we should all be capable of recognizing figure of speech when we see it, and not interpret everything literally and object to it based on that interpretation using "well, actually..." Yeah, tut-tutting people for using dramatic hyperbole to talk about a failed coup that happened less than a week ago (and was led by our sitting POTUS!) is kind of weird at best
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:I mean, again, if someone is going through a crisis, you should try to be a little sensitive of their trauma, and whether the conversation is taking place in real life or on an Internet forum with a debate focus has no bearing on that. Just because people are having conversations about current events in D&D does not mean they are somehow suddenly not human, and if they accuse you of minimizing their trauma after you "well, actually" them, it is not some sort of confirmation that they just want USPol to be a safe space where only a narrow range of ideas are allowed to be discussed. Nobody's talking about trauma, and nobody's saying anything about the impact this event had on them. They're saying "this is the worst thing a president has ever done," holding to that point, and getting upset when not everyone immediately snaps to agreement. This happens all the time with current events discussion in that thread, this most recent one is just the most recent example. It happened with FTV, it happened so much with the Joe/Bernie arguments and the harm reduction vs capitulation argument that a quarantine thread was required to keep the streams from crossing, and it happened before that with the Soleimani assassination/Iran war doomposting. It happens constantly, which is why I'm saying it's a pattern. Regardless, if your answer to USPol being toxic a lot of the time is that we should put a moratorium on debating controversial, traumatic, or otherwise upsetting events for a month I think that's just coming to the ultimate recommendation of reducing the live newsposting through moderation from a different direction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Is it expected that D&D users only post in D&D? I post in a good number of forums here and I don't think of myself as a "D&D poster" or any specific subforum poster, for that matter. I assume most people are like that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
Athanatos posted:You D&D posters are really good at adding Riders to your posts. I am surprised mods are not coming down harder on pork barrel posting ITT.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:53
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Nobody's talking about trauma, and nobody's saying anything about the impact this event had on them. They're saying "this is the worst thing a president has ever done," holding to that point, and getting upset when not everyone immediately snaps to agreement. This happens all the time with current events discussion in that thread, this most recent one is just the most recent example. It happened with FTV, it happened so much with the Joe/Bernie arguments and the harm reduction vs capitulation argument that a quarantine thread was required to keep the streams from crossing, and it happened before that with the Soleimani assassination/Iran war doomposting. It happens constantly, which is why I'm saying it's a pattern. If someone says "x is the worst thing ever" it's a problem when someone jumps in to say "no it's not." Not because it's insensitive, but because it's tedious and leads to the endless back and forth for pages and pages. If you really want to argue about what the worst x ever is, create a thread for it. Anyone who cares can argue about it in there. This is substantially different from arguing about the specific effects of an ongoing or current event. "I believe the attack on the capitol was driven by racism" is fine. "The white house being burned down a couple hundred years ago was worse" is bait. KillHour fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Jan 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:55
|
|
|
If uspol has too many posts to moderate properly then maybe do something about all the constant white noise?BrianBoitano posted:posting on the 1984 page because this is full-on govermet censorship Zamujasa posted:Finally, a post about 1984 that's as correct as every other mention of it lately. Antifa Turkeesian posted:Happy End of History page, everyone! We did it! With the collapse of the Soviet Union, a Pax Americana and era of unencumbered liberalization of capital and the movement of people and trade will create the perfect world for which there is no alternative. A thousand years of dreamy 90s bliss awaits us all! BigBallChunkyTime posted:Page 2000, mothafuckas! Antifa Turkeesian posted:Happy NEVER FORGET page, by the way. I was worried that we would forget it. I've seen a bunch of posts there today that are nothing but pointing out what page the thread is on
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Nobody's talking about trauma, and nobody's saying anything about the impact this event had on them. They're saying "this is the worst thing a president has ever done," holding to that point, and getting upset when not everyone immediately snaps to agreement. This happens all the time with current events discussion in that thread, this most recent one is just the most recent example. It happened with FTV, it happened so much with the Joe/Bernie arguments and the harm reduction vs capitulation argument that a quarantine thread was required to keep the streams from crossing, and it happened before that with the Soleimani assassination/Iran war doomposting. It happens constantly, which is why I'm saying it's a pattern. Let's be very clear since this keeps getting brought up in spectacularly dishonest framing: No one in that thread posted that this was the worst thing that a president has ever done. This wasn't a statement that was made and then disagreed with in the thread. It was a tweet that was posted for the express purpose of raging at the author about libs bad. A big flaming stink posted:https://twitter.com/jonfavs/status/1348359458867462144 Then when the poster rightly got probed for poo poo stirring Majorian took up their sword.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 23:00
|
|
|
KillHour posted:If someone says "x is the worst thing ever" it's a problem when someone jumps in to say "no it's not." Not because it's insensitive, but because it's tedious and leads to the endless back and forth for pages and pages. If you really want to argue about what the worst x ever is, create a thread for it. Anyone who cares can argue about it in there. This is more or less what I'm suggesting as a strategy for reducing the scope and vitriol in USPol, yes, except that I think it's unlikely that "just create a thread for it" and leaving it at that is going to work since everyone feels entitled to post their hot unsupported takes in the USPol space and have that space preserved just for them, since it's the most frequented thread in this forum. That's why I'm suggesting the mods/IKs get more active in pushing these discussions into other, lower-velocity threads with clearer topics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
Booourns posted:If uspol has too many posts to moderate properly then maybe do something about all the constant white noise? I don't think we need to be super serious all the time. Throwaway jokes are a nice break from the constant doom and a reminder that we're all here at least partly to complain about the world and have a sense of community. They happen rarely enough and end quickly enough that you can just skip the page, IMO. Maybe if someone constantly does it way more than necessary or is incredibly unfunny about it. The Oldest Man posted:This is more or less what I'm suggesting as a strategy for reducing the scope and vitriol in USPol, yes, except that I think it's unlikely that "just create a thread for it" and leaving it at that is going to work since everyone feels entitled to post their hot unsupported takes in the USPol space and have that space preserved just for them, since it's the most frequented thread in this forum. That's why I'm suggesting the mods/IKs get more active in pushing these discussions into other, lower-velocity threads with clearer topics. This goes back to my "be heavy handed about forcing people to make threads if they want to do this" suggestion. If you get told to shut up or make a thread about it, you should eat ramping probes for ignoring that. I think we're basically saying the same thing and loudly agreeing with each other at this point. Jarmak posted:Let's be very clear since this keeps getting brought up in spectacularly dishonest framing: I think posting a Tweet just to call it stupid is essentially the same as quoting someone for the same purpose and should fall under the "Take it to the thread for Twitter hot takes or GTFO" rule that we already have. Both are bad for the same reason. KillHour fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Jan 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 23:05
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Nobody's talking about trauma, and nobody's saying anything about the impact this event had on them. They're saying "this is the worst thing a president has ever done," holding to that point, and getting upset when not everyone immediately snaps to agreement. This happens all the time with current events discussion in that thread, this most recent one is just the most recent example. It happened with FTV, it happened so much with the Joe/Bernie arguments and the harm reduction vs capitulation argument that a quarantine thread was required to keep the streams from crossing, and it happened before that with the Soleimani assassination/Iran war doomposting. It happens constantly, which is why I'm saying it's a pattern. I definitely did not suggest "putting a moratorium on debating controversial, traumatic or otherwise upsetting events for a month", unless your definition of "debate" consists of playing Dwight in the middle of a crisis. But perhaps the distinction you're missing is that D&D is not just a debate forum, it's also a discussion forum. And USPol is really good about discussing current events, which involves sharing new developments, exchanging useful information and helping others gain insight into what is going on. Things don't have to be debated all the time, and it should be reasonable to ask people to tone down the contrarianism temporarily, especially if it might result in a derail (which is indeed what happened when that debate broke out). When someone claims January 6th was the worst thing a president has ever done, correcting them by listing All The Other Horrible poo poo Presidents Have Done serves no purpose whatsoever in that current context. Post like a human being, and stop expecting others to go "beep beep, correction confirmed, thank you kind poster" whenever you tut-tut them. edit: Jarmak posted:Let's be very clear since this keeps getting brought up in spectacularly dishonest framing: Will ya look at that? It turns out it wasn't even a real thing that was said.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 23:06
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:This is more or less what I'm suggesting as a strategy for reducing the scope and vitriol in USPol, yes, except that I think it's unlikely that "just create a thread for it" and leaving it at that is going to work since everyone feels entitled to post their hot unsupported takes in the USPol space and have that space preserved just for them, since it's the most frequented thread in this forum. That's why I'm suggesting the mods/IKs get more active in pushing these discussions into other, lower-velocity threads with clearer topics. I agree with this completely, and feel like a new OP for USPOL with a solid directory of other threads and a big ol warning in the thread title to read the op (as much as I love funny topical titles) would a solid step in the right direction. Not that more granular discussions aren't welcome or possible but that there are often places more appropriate with more in depth levels of discussion in them. A lot of them are much more slowly moving and easy to keep up with as well, if you are only interested in reading about specific topics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 23:06
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:Will ya look at that? It turns out it wasn't even a real thing that was said. The twitter link to where it was said is in the post in question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 23:11
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:...This thread is asking for feedback on systemic changes to be made to USPol. ... And since I know there's been some highly repeated ideas here, I'm gonna shoot from the hip and give my personal responses to them. Everything I say in this post is just my own stance, I haven't checked to see if it's the unified opinion of the mod team or not. Kith posted:honestly a USPOL subforum would be the best possible solution just because there's so much poo poo going on in the US at any given time and/or the vast majority of SA's userbase is american Deteriorata posted:We already have a subforum for political shitposting. The problem is the shitposters don't use it (or at least don't keep their shitposting contained to it). Kith posted:i don't know why you're equating "we should shove us politics discussion into its own subforum" with "we need another subforum for shitposting" because that's very much not what i (or killhour) suggested
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
Maybe we don't need to have ten page arguments over what Binging with Babish guest and sometime movie star star Jon Favreau says about politics because he doesn't post on Something Awful? Majorian posted:I'm guessing this is a joke, but just in case - different Jon Favreau. (I should've made the joke clearer  )But yea, so often people get wrapped up in arguments defending and attacking points... that nobody in the thread even makes. Its just importing Twitter drama. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Jan 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 23:20
|
|
|
Aruan posted:Maybe we don't need to have ten page arguments over what Binging with Babish guest and sometime movie star star Jon Favreau says about politics because who gives a gently caress what he thinks? I'm guessing this is a joke, but just in case - different Jon Favreau.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
Gerund posted:The twitter link to where it was said is in the post in question. The claim was specifically talking about other posters, since this conversation is about there being a forum argument about it, and the post youre responding to is obviously continuing with the same context. quote:They're saying "this is the worst thing a president has ever done," holding to that point, and getting upset when not everyone immediately snaps to agreement. This happens all the time with current events discussion in that thread, this most recent one is just the most recent example." The quoted post is exactly the sort of posting that deserves to get someone threadbanned if they keep engaging in it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The claim was specifically talking about other posters, since this conversation is about there being a forum argument about it, and the post youre responding to is obviously continuing with the same context. It is funny to see how someone angrily posted a tweet by a liberal they don't like in order to complain about it, and that gets turned into "USPOL posters are saying they think this is the worst thing to happen to america ever" this thread is doing a good job at highlighting the precise problems we see in uspol
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 23:34
|
|
