This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Big leak of the Young Republicans groupchat, spanning multiple high level members across the nation's "premier Republican youth organization" (as it calls itself), including staffers for GOP representatives, at least one Trump admin employee, at least one elected official, and other high ranking conservatives. "Young" in this case is 18-40, adults working in a professional capacity.
The leaks showcase praise for Hitler, jokes about gas chambers, comments on Jewish dishonesty and other antisemitic messages. Also comments supporting slavery. Along with it is generic racism and bigotry such as widespread usage of slurs.
It also shows an interesting insight into what ordinary republican activists are thinking behind close doors.
One interesting thing is their fear that tying a political opponent within the party to white supremacists and Nazis might hurt them in the general election, but make them more popular among the base.
The response has been mixed.
Elected state senator Rob Ortt says
Adviser for Elise Stefanik says
And Roger Stone says
However, some Republicans in high places don't seem to view it as a major deal. Such as JD Vance, whose only comment is to call it "pearl clutching"
Now I have to disagree with our vice president here, I don't think it is pearl clutching to oppose support of Hitler. I also have to wonder how sincere it is to deflect away the topic and talk about "powerful people call for political violence." when it seems calls for violence happened in the chat given the many jokes about gassing and even bombing political opposition. Is it not possible to be against neonazism such as "I love Hitler" and talk about sending opposition to the gas chambers your opponents and Jay Jones's awful comments? Stefanik, Ortt and others seem to manage. Plenty of others also seem capable of this feat and have criticized both.
Richard Hanania, author of The Origins of Woke, suggests that these sorts of group chats are actually really common among the right wingers he interacted with. In fact his response to this seems to indicate agreement this chat is tame compared to many conversations he has seen.
Some beginner questions for discussion.
is neonazism, support of slavery, and unabashed bigotry such as this actually common among young conservatives as Hanania and the group chat themselves seem to believe?
In that same vein which response is better, someone like Ortt and Stefanik or Vance? And should the Republican party be concerned about the rise of neonazis and support of slavery if question 1 is yes?
Often what we see now is people "hiding their power level" with extremism, and it's often not revealed till they get to the point no one seems denouce them much. This is happening with Jay Jones now, and has happened before in cases like Mark Robinson "black Nazi". Even now Vance can't bring himself to denouce this. Is this tribalist loyalty helping to empower extremism and violence?
A common complaint among the right is "they called us Nazis". But often, we see some right wingers calling themselves Nazis. The aforementioned "black Nazi" Mark Robinson, candidate for LT Gov John Reid in Virginia, etc. As Hanania himself pointed out, the only major national politicians to refer to Trump as Hitler was JD Vance (and RFK per community note, but that might not have counted under his usage of "national politician"). Even the leaked group chat expressed this belief about the Kansas delegation. Now I've been a strong believer in individual responsibilities and have fought for it consistently, so I do the same here and believe that the only people who should be called Nazis are the individuals who praise Hitler/want gas chambers/call themselves nazi/etc. But question 4 is, why do so many of these self identifying Nazis seem to feel at home in the GOP, and why do they seem to believe they might have decent levels of support? How many others are "hiding their power level" too as suggested?
After the lefty reaction to the Kirk assassination I absolutely don't care about this, and will never care about anything like this from my own side ever again. OP wildly overestimates the number of fucks the right has left to give.
Well, the flip side of this is that with the righty reaction to the lefty reaction to the Kirk assassination, the Right has also thoroughly burned its "it's just banter" card. If the two competing party programmes in the US actually start being perceived as "install a modern version of Hitler" vs. "shoot all Charlie Kirks", which one do you figure will have majority support?
(In other words: any fucks you give are for your own sake, not the left's. As with everything in US politics, it doesn't matter what someone who would vote the same party no matter what anyway thinks, except to the extent this thinking becomes known to those who are willing to change their vote.)
Fuck 'em anyway. Anyone who still wants to go soothe ISIS's concerns about blasphemy at this point will have to do it without me.
More options
Context Copy link
The difference is that after getting his opinions from (relevant) people on the left, someone went and did shoot all (relevant) Charlie Kirks. And the reaction was mostly (with notable and appreciated exceptions) not a sobering realization of the impact of their words. To compare, no one (relevant) installed, attempted to install or even proposed installing a modern version of Hitler.
That should inform as to which was only banter and which was not.
/* (using relevant here to exclude non-central, lizardman constant people on both sides)
By "all Charlie Kirks", I meant outspoken relatively extreme right-wingers, not the set consisting of just Charlie Kirk. Otherwise it would make no sense that posters here (who are presumably not his reincarnation) would feel personally threatened by the rhetoric.
Shooting Charlie Kirk was at most a small step towards a hypothetical end goal of shooting so many of the most outspoken right-wingers that even some Motte posters make the cut. My impression is that, in the Left's eyes, the Right has already gone relatively further towards a hypothetical goal of installing Mecha-Hitler - after all, they have installed a norm-breaking nativist president with a significant cult of personality who removes ethnic outsiders and openly defies mechanisms that are meant to prevent concentration of power in the system.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do you believe that all of politics can only be summed up as "left" and "right" and that it is impossible to be both against killing people like Kirk and against racism/neonazism/etc?
If you do believe this, then why do Republicans like Gov Scott, Elise Stefanik, Roger Stone, etc seem to be able to denounce the chat without saying positive things about killing Kirk? Are they fake right wingers or something?
Yes.
Let me put it like this. When a high profile Jan 6 defendant gets tenure at a major university, and becomes the mentor to the next president, I might be willing to entertain the notion that I have enemies to the right. If the town my daughter is growing up in doesn't flip from 80% white to 30% white over her lifetime like mine did, I might be willing to entertain that I have enemies to the right. If I can look up resumes in my field and not see that 50% of them have some variation of "we prioritize hiring diversity", I might be willing to entertain that I have enemies to the right.
But my life has been made so infinitely worse by my enemies to the left, I don't understand why I could possibly care about these theoretical enemies to my right. They've literally never done anything to me.
Feels a bit like being a Weimar conservative who would rather get shot by the Nazis than give the Communists one more inch.
But such is life.
More options
Context Copy link
You appear to think of politics entirely on the basis of whether policies create material problems for you in your life (and, granted, in your daughter's). Don't you have a concept of politics as rooted in moral values unrelated to your own personal fate? Is there any amount of evil that people to your right could wreak on strangers that would outweigh making the trains run on time in your specific neck of the woods?
1990's colorblind liberalism is dead and it wasn't the right wingers who killed it. Since we now live in some kind of post-liberal racial spoils hellscape, I'll be voting for my own team, thanks.
I ask again: how do you justify this morally? Some might say that unpleasant circumstances when doing the right thing will give you a material disadvantage is when it is most important (and indeed admirable) to behave ethically.
How does a soldier morally justify shooting the enemy instead of his squadmates? Traditionally, it was by begging forgiveness from God, though I have no idea what the modern recommendation is. The point is, it's in almost every case a secondary concern to victory.
Yes, but the more apt analogy to the problem I had in mind is the temptation to commit war crimes that would increase your odds of victory. "Well the enemy have started torturing toddlers for information, so we might as well do the same thing" = "Well the Left aren't doing anything to rein in their evil loonies, so why should I lift a finger about evil loonies in my own tribe?". In both cases, ethics dictate that if you actually hold a moral belief that [torturing children in wrong]/[a given Tribe has a responsibility to rein in its crazies], you should hold fast to that principle even if your enemy violates it first and indeed, even if it places you at a material disadvantage in a given set of circumstances. Fair-weather principles are not principles at all. They're just norms.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Clearly
is a moral position.
It may not be one you agree with, but it's no less a (n a) moral position than the "post-liberal racial spoils hellscape."
You seem to be begging the question that there is an objectively correct morality and deviating from the progressive racism violates that, without actually filling in the gaps of why that is objectively correct and the losers should enjoy
being in the hands of an angry godsacrificing their children for the wellbeing of the ungrateful.None of what I've been saying has been about racism, or indeed any object-level Right vs Left issue. My objection is to the principle of basing one's politics exclusively on what will lead to one's personal comfort. That seems to be a textbook example of amoral behavior no matter what moral principles you subscribe to, assuming you have any at all. Sure, "support my own team" could be a moral position! But what @Skeletor posted was:
And what bothers me about that is the "Since" clause, not the "I'll be voting for my own team" in a vacuum. It makes it sound rather as if he is voting in whichever direction will maximize his personal comfort at a given time, not in a principled way based on moral positions for which he would be prepared to make sacrifices to his own personal welfare. "I'll always vote for my team no matter what" would be a moral position. "It seems the outgroup has defected and it's a free-for-all, so I'm looking out for Number One" is not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why should I need to justify it morally at all? Whose team should I be on if not my own? I didn't create this system, I just refuse to play along with progressives who seem to think I'm obligated to accept the bottom rung in it.
You shouldn't be on a "team", not to the extent that it directs all your actions. You should be trying to do the right thing, whatever this appears to be to your conscience.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The other side sure doesn't care about my fate. Why is it on me to be their infinite moral superior, to sacrifice myself and everyone I care about?
Any, yes. When the amount of evil is somewhere near the "actual death camps or radio broadcasts telling people to hack apart their neighbors" level, I would care.
Does that amount include my people being the only acceptable target of racism and sexism, to the point the other side tried changing the dictionary so their bigotry doesn't count? No.
I wasn't asking anybody to sacrifice themselves. I was just really struck by the way WhiningCoil's grievances seemed entirely rooted in "my daughter", "my field", "my life" and wanted to interrogate that, because I was curious whether he would genuinely endorse the idea that he chooses his politics for the benefit of himself and his immediate inner circle, and not for any question of principle. This isn't even really a Blue versus Red thing - it would satisfy that condition if he mentioned some important Red Tribe moral causes which might guide his vote, but where policies have no material effects on him or anyone he knows.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I was going to post a reply of my own but I think I'll just updoot this one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
…did you ever?
I’ve found the people most interested in policing comments about Kirk are the ones who were already jumping at the bit.
Ever is a long time. Probably the single largest cohort of people here are disaffected liberals who would have been pretty seriously offended by those group chats 15-20 years ago, I certainly would have been.
Fellow former liberal here. I also would had been offended by those chats 10 or 15 years ago. These days, I just shrug. When the left wing stopped being about tolerance and acceptance and started being about finding a new group of people to hate (e.g. how the illiberal left hates men who date in other countries[1]) I became a lot more jaded, cynical, and apolitical.
[1] I have a lot of real world female platonic friends, and they all universally support me living in another country and dating women there. The only people in the real world who at all opposed me dating in another country are both men: One straight man and one gay man.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Who the fuck are you to say otherwise? Back before the blue team made being racist against me hip and tried to get my niece to cut her tits off, I was a Daily Show watching Dem-voting asshole internet atheist. Now when the thing that side has become comes calling, wearing its little civil rights skin suit, to tell me how so-and-so said some no-no words, I just snuggle in among all the Jesus freaks and right wing dickheads I used to think of as my enemies and say, well, at least they weren't aimed at me.
Thanks for asking.
Even the guy who used to write for John Oliver and still is liberal in every conceivable way is getting fed-up of the activists blowing up mountains out of molehills and the 'trust the science' bullshit being, well, bullshit.
Interesting link. Does anyone else feel the author writes jokes exactly like ChatGPT?
Guy drives me up the wall about 90% of the time with his posts about how he used to write for John Oliver, but every so often reality bonks him over the head hard enough that there is common ground between us on "this is freakin' stupid".
And he was where I heard about Katie Porter's performance, and that one was genuinely funny (though with the material he had to work with, it would have taken real genius not to be funny there).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Would you happen to be the Twitter Skeletor? That guy rocks and you rock.
Nope, never heard of them, but thanks. lol
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It is interesting to see it potentially developing as the last straw for a lot of people, where a passive lack of charity crosses into something more active.
Once, I did care, but I burned out before this. I don't really consider the right "my side" in an affirmative sense, but my anti-leftness solidified sometime during the whole "whiteness is the source of all evil but technically doesn't mean white people wink wink nudge nudge" era of egregious bigotry.
This is not good for society, and it's definitely not good for my intellectual charity when talking to whatever infinitesimal fraction of the left refused to tolerate that shit, but I don't really feel like the ball is in my court for solving it, either. For all my many flaws and failures, I've never declared an ethnicity a contract with the devil, or tried to create high-minded academic fig leaves for virulent racism.
More options
Context Copy link
I did. The whole reason I got into /r/SSC and The Motte is because I thought they represented a chance for dialogue between the two sides, and a chance for each of us to say "I guess they make some good points sometimes", come together, and either forge a common path, or at least forge a pact to purge the crazies on each respective side. All I got for the trouble was "not good enough" said in so many ways, and a litany of denials that there's anything wrong with the progressive side, and that if I think otherwise, it's because I'm being uncharitable.
Now... you know me (and I know me), I know I'm prone to sperging out at times, but I was actually trying, but at this point, why bother? This isn't even accusatory, I know your heart's in the right place, but I know that you and people like you are incapable of stopping the things I find offensive and distasteful that come from your side, so why should I police mine?
Well, "morality" would be the obvious reason why. Policing evil on one's own side is desirable in itself, by definition. If my brother has gone crazy then it is my duty to do something about it, whether or not my neighbor is dealing with his crazy brother.
I'll take another stab at this, and try to answer the point you were actually making. Going with your analogy:
More options
Context Copy link
Your brothers are crazy and I've never seen a single indication that you even think it's a problem. You just engage in pure "arguments as soldiers" arguing.
But by all means, show us the way. Demonstrate some policing of your own side.
Again, morality is not a tit-for-tat game. If you actually believe people on your own side to be evil then you have a duty to oppose them if it is in your power. Whataboutism regarding the outgroup's bad behavior is simply not relevant, no matter how bad that behavior is!
You have to be trolling, right? This is the most naked and shameless call for a double standard I've ever seen.
Everything you just said also applies to you. If morality is not tit-for-tat, then you still have an obligation to police your own side. And you don't even engage with the concept! Just slide right past it and press the attack. It's like you're brain damaged, or suffering some kind fo anti-memetic effect.
Or just egregiously obnoxious.
Which I do! I didn't emphasize the point because like, you have to take my word for it. I'm not going to self-doxx and I'm not important enough to make an observable difference on the general state of leftist discourse. But I happily acknowledge that I have a duty to push back against evil in my own Tribe. I have never claimed otherwise, and I do not claim the behavior of the Red Tribe affects this duty in any way. Red Tribers in this thread are the people who claimed that defection on the Blue Tribe's part freed them from any responsibility to oppose evil among their tribesmen, and that is the claim I sought to refute. That my own position on evil in my own Tribe reflected the values I espoused, I thought was obvious from context and didn't need to be spelled out.
I also want to emphasize that I am not saying "Red Tribers have a responsibility to repress fellow Red Tribers whom I, a Blue Triber, deem evil". I am saying "Red Tribers have a responsibility to repress fellow Red Tribers whom they consider evil by their own standards" - eg if you're Right-wing but consider slavery to be evil then you should be putting genuine effort into opposing slavery apologists on your own side. If you don't claim to consider slavery apologia evil, or if you don't think people currently accused of being slavery apologists are actually pro-slavery, then fine! Where I push back is when they say "sure, I agree slavery is evil and that there are pro-slavery crazies in the Red Tribe, but the Blue Tribe doesn't punish its equally-evil pro-assassination crazies so why should I lift a finger to stop my crazies?", which I think is a morally untenable, hypocritical stance.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mostly agree in theory, but as far as I can see, this being applied in a rather one-sided manner has serious real-world consequences that can't be overlooked. In many parliamentary democracies, the moderate right refuses to work with the far-right, while the moderate left happily works together with the far-left, which means there is a strong bias in favor of the far-left of getting their way. Germany is the most extreme example here, as the moderate right has boxed itself into a corner of now only being able to coalition with left-wing parties. Only a fool would think this has no practical impact on politics, and indeed, the CDU was forced to put extremely stupid far-left green current-day demands into the german constitution just to avoid working together with the far-right.
The same happens with violent protests ; Several dozen organized, masked left-wing extremists can storm a moderate right (CDU) office, threaten staff and trash furniture and it will not even go into political violence stats since it gets recorded as a "protest". The moderate politician has to fear violent altercations with the left if he speaks or votes the wrong way. Again, this has practical impacts on political outcomes.
The same, again, in science, my own field of employment; Far-left activist-scholars (their own moniker!) get to openly admit that they consider their political views as more important than there scientific integrity, can openly involve themselves in blatant witch hunts, and there will be not only no repercussions, but they will be, if anything, rewarded with government money. On the other hand, a politically unaffiliated researcher who gets unfortunate results (by left-wing views, that is) in a study but stands by them due to the methodological strength of the design risks his whole career, and other moderate scientists around him are pressured to denounce him as far-right lest they get the same fate. That this is possible is a direct result of genuine right-wingers having been stringently excluded much earlier - not only would they have the moderate's back on this topic, it also means that the demand for right-wing extremism exceeds supply, so you have to start to cancel moderates to keep the far-left happy.
And I can only repeat it, I don't even consider myself right-wing. All I want is being able to do independent research(in my employment) or common-sense governance (in politics), and the far-left is fucking scary, has actual positions of power and can openly do what it wants with little fear of reprisal. The far-right is a bunch of truckers or anons that have to keep their head down lest it gets chopped.
This is the reason why Trump got elected, and why the Afd in germany is literally the largest party.
More options
Context Copy link
I can understand going out of my way to police the shitposters on my side when the two sides have roughly the same values, mutual respect for one another, and are committed to having a rational conversation. In that case this sort of policing of my side to conduct itself in a way that is not offensive to you reaffirms our mutual respect, serves as tangible evidence that our values are mostly aligned, and helps ensure that the rational dialogue continues. But when:
Why should I work to make my side conform to your aesthetics? This has nothing to do with morality, your aesthetics are not morals.
Oh, if you don't believe that the shitposters in this particular case are evidencing any evil beliefs, or potential for harm, as you would recognize them in moral terms, then that answers that. I understood your talk of "coming together to (…) forge a pact to purge the crazies on each respective side" as applying to 'crazies' who you would find morally reprehensible by your own standards, as much as a sincere principled leftist might find assassination-supporting accelerationists or an indiscriminate cancel-mob morally reprehensible. I hadn't understood it as a question of 'aesthetics' at all. It is in that framework that I was arguing that you should still deal with the evil extremists on your own side even if the opposite side isn't repressing its own. If you agree with this principle, but simply don't think it applies to the YR chatlogs then we have no real disagreement and I'd simply misunderstood you.
Yeah, I think I was all over the place. The "purge the crazies" bit applied to past conversations that got me here. I wasn't sure how much the YR situation applied originally, but now it seems pretty clear to be humor.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
…would you actually believe him if he said ‘yes’?
any number of players can play this game.
It seems rather obvious to me that for a very large number of people on the right or their sympathizers, the bottom has absolutely fallen out in terms of their regards to how they are perceived by their self-declared enemies.
On a personal note, I certainly don’t care. I’m interested because I’m intellectually inclined to want to really understand and discuss why things are the way they are, I enjoy it and it gives me pleasure and I think it makes the world a better place.
But I don’t care about leftists, at all. Certainly not about their perception of me and the right. I have no concern for their wellbeing, even just as people, and any pangs of sympathies I might have had for them are gone. I don’t actively want them to suffer, at least for no reason, but for most of the people who celebrated Kirk’s death I wouldn’t piss on them if they were on fire.
I did not feel this way ten years ago when I was more of a garden variety paleo-libertarian, I didn’t even feel this way five years ago after I had become a really strident right winger. Not even close.
As far as I’m concerned, open war is upon us whether we will it or not. The way the culture war has proceeded simply cements that notion.
Eh, it’s possible. People here are unusually likely to pass that sort of Turing test.
And I don’t disagree that the bottom, so to speak, has fallen out. There are a lot of people who are feeling more afraid, alienated, polarized. What they aren’t feeling is vindication. That’s something you get from people who were already thinking about a CW model.
If the turing test for denying wrongthink can be made by people on this board then the turing test isn't especially useful as a gauge, just like the actual turing test is just copeslop for teacher pets obsessed about their defining characteristic of intellect being supplanted by fancy calculators.
Also, how does one assess what other people are actually perceiving in their mental reward mechanism? This typical mindedness is especially uncharitable, and runs the serious risk of overinterpreting basic metaphor for much deeper meaning simply to fit ones own biases. Reading others as scared dumb animals simply because they find it unnecessary to explicitly verbalize the readily obvious sneering at the moral masters being shown as toothless is just contempt levelled from a different direction.
The test isn’t for denying wrongthink, but for “caring about anything like this from my own side.” More likely here than on the vast majority of forums. ArjinFerman and professorgerm both gave credible, level-headed examples of how they gave something genuine thought.
And I’m not interpreting mental rewards mechanisms. I’m arguing that we’ve gotten “the bottom falling out” on the object level, but not the meta level. People are rightfully upset about Kirk’s murder without coming to the same conclusions as Skeletor.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A daring synthesis.
champing at the bit
jumping at the chance
Damn. I really screwed the shark.
I dare you to share your favorite search result for 'Shark Waifu'.
It has been 15 years since I have had occasion to use this.
https://i.postimg.cc/9F82dHCz/9b3qjdl5vpx21.jpg
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's water under the bus.
No no no, it'll be water under the duck once your bridges are in a row.
More options
Context Copy link
I should have known better than to count my gift horses before they hatch!
We'll burn that bridge when we get to it.
More options
Context Copy link
Now, now don’t get your horses in a bunch.
More options
Context Copy link
You're replying to a filtered comment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, I'm going to need anyone leaning left to rank these comments on a scale of "I want to shoot you in the head and watch your children die in your wife's arms".
Have you not been paying attention?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link