Is There Too Much Political Correctness Now?

AlbqOwl · May 4, 2014

ChrisL said:
I don't really attribute these types of acts to "evil" as much as I do to mental illness, and I don't really think it's fair to compare the politically correct crowd with Hitler. The PC crowd just doesn't seem to understand the way real life works.

I didn't compare them with Hitler or anybody else. I used as illustration a number of examples of people who believed they were doing the right thing when in fact they were doing evil. One can be a paragon of virtue and still be so wrong in his/her actions that the result is evil. In my opinion those who think they are doing good by acting as thought police are doing evil.

“Causing any damage or harm to one party in order to help another party is not justice, . . . "--― Christine de Pizan, The Book of the City of Ladies

“To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.” ― Friedrich Hayek

“No one can take away your Natural Rights, but they can do great damage making you think they can.”― J.S.B. Morse

And a friend who has been reading along here but does not post just e-mailed me this (emphasis mine):

“The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

ChrisL · May 4, 2014

AlbqOwl said:
I didn't compare them with Hitler or anybody else. I used as illustration a number of examples of people who believed they were doing the right thing when in fact they were doing evil. One can be a paragon of virtue and still be so wrong in his/her actions that the result is evil. In my opinion those who think they are doing good by acting as thought police are doing evil.

“Causing any damage or harm to one party in order to help another party is not justice, . . . "--― Christine de Pizan, The Book of the City of Ladies

“To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.” ― Friedrich Hayek

“No one can take away your Natural Rights, but they can do great damage making you think they can.”― J.S.B. Morse

And a friend who has been reading along here but does not post just e-mailed me this (emphasis mine):

“The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Look, I'm not interested in arguing the definition of "evil." I just told you my opinion, that I don't really believe in "evil." The thread is about people boycotting businesses or otherwise shunning them. It really has nothing to do with evil IMO.

AlbqOwl · May 4, 2014

ChrisL said:
Look, I'm not interested in arguing the definition of "evil." I just told you my opinion, that I don't really believe in "evil." The thread is about people boycotting businesses or otherwise shunning them. It really has nothing to do with evil IMO.

Fine. Boycott away. But if you organize an angry mob for the explicit purpose of harming that person physically and/or materially for no other offense than he is politically incorrect? Then in my opinion you are doing evil. And if you don't wish to talk about that then don't respond to any more of my posts because we will have nothing to discuss.

ChrisL · May 4, 2014

AlbqOwl said:
Fine. Boycott away. But if you organize an angry mob for the explicit purpose of harming that person physically and/or materially for no other offense than he is politically incorrect? Then in my opinion you are doing evil. And if you don't wish to talk about that then don't respond to any more of my posts because we will have nothing to discuss.

Wow, okay then. Seriously though, you think boycotting is evil? I think things like murder, rape, child molestation, now those might evil things. Boycotting is a citizen's right. We have the right to do business with whom we choose, just as you say the businessman has the right to choose who he does business with. :shrug: He can have his opinions, and he can make them public, but society will be the ultimate decider.

polgara · May 4, 2014

AlbqOwl said:
No. Again it was a matter of good manners which was really grilled into folks from the earliest American settlers up until sometime in the late 20th Century. We all knew different standards applied to different settings, different standards applied to the young vs the old, etc. Sometimes it dictated how something should be expressed--we were to be polite and not rude--and certain bad words were not to be used in polite company. But there was never any effort to do mind/thought/speech control as you have in political correctness, and there is not even the slightest inference of that in that list of good manners attributed to Washington.

:agreed: Manners and social mores seem to be changing. Were people more polite in the past? Recently there was a thread on here that generated pages of discussion on whether it was proper to wear whatever you felt like wearing in different social settings. You could almost gauge the age of the responders by their replies. The around-30 crowd apparently think that today's standards on what is considered appropriate behavior is the freedom to express themselves in whatever manner they choose. The over-30 posters felt that society has certain guidelines for a purpose, and you are judged by society based on your adherence to those rules, usually on generational differences. As an example, young men wearing their trousers which showed parts of their bodies which normally would be covered is acceptable behavior today to many younger people. Were people more controlled by their parents in the past? Maybe, but we didn't have the problems we see today, either.

Greetings, AlbuOwl. :2wave:

AlbqOwl · May 4, 2014

polgara said:
:agreed: Manners and social mores seem to be changing. Were people more polite in the past? Recently there was a thread on here that generated pages of discussion on whether it was proper to wear whatever you felt like wearing in different social settings. You could almost gauge the age of the responders by their replies. The around-30 crowd apparently think that today's standards on what is considered appropriate behavior is the freedom to express themselves in whatever manner they choose. The over-30 posters felt that society has certain guidelines for a purpose, and you are judged by society based on your adherence to those rules, usually on generational differences. As an example, young men wearing their trousers which showed parts of their bodies which normally would be covered is acceptable behavior today to many younger people. Were people more controlled by their parents in the past? Maybe, but we didn't have the problems we see today, either.

Greetings, AlbuOwl. :2wave:

I believe the standard was for far more civility and good manners in every aspect of the American culture in the past and yes, there was a dress code for just about everything and parents required their children to be well mannered and adhere to those dress codes. And that civility extended to a broad tolerance and acceptance for differing points of view. I believe I have previously posted that it would be unthinkable to disrespect a person invited to speak at a college campus no matter what that person's religion, politics, or point of view. There was a lot of political intolerance for communism. But to the best of my knowledge, there was no such thing as political correctness.

AlbqOwl · May 4, 2014

ChrisL said:
Wow, okay then. Seriously though, you think boycotting is evil? I think things like murder, rape, child molestation, now those might evil things. Boycotting is a citizen's right. We have the right to do business with whom we choose, just as you say the businessman has the right to choose who he does business with. :shrug: He can have his opinions, and he can make them public, but society will be the ultimate decider.

If you are going to tell me what I think, you had better go by what I say I think. I have not said boycotting is evil. It is your right to be a totally repulsive, obnoxious, ill mannered, and disgusting tool too. But it doesn't mean that we should culturally tolerate that. But apparently understanding and relating to a point made isn't your strong suit?

Enola · May 4, 2014

What is evil is people who are told something in private and then they sell it to some media outlet to cause harm to the person who said it privately. Sort of like the Paula Deen thing. Freedom of speech means people shouldn't have to whisper or be ruined financially due to that whisper. It's just wrong, and it has gotten way out of hand.

ChrisL · May 4, 2014

AlbqOwl said:
If you are going to tell me what I think, you had better go by what I say I think. I have not said boycotting is evil. It is your right to be a totally repulsive, obnoxious, ill mannered, and disgusting tool too. But it doesn't mean that we should culturally tolerate that. But apparently understanding and relating to a point made isn't your strong suit?

What exactly is it that you think I didn't understand? I simply said that it's the public's right to not do business with a certain business. Problem is?

AlbqOwl · May 4, 2014

ChrisL said:
What exactly is it that you think I didn't understand? I simply said that it's the public's right to not do business with a certain business. Problem is?

Reread what you wrote and you'll see what you said.

ChrisL · May 4, 2014

AlbqOwl said:
Fine. Boycott away. But if you organize an angry mob for the explicit purpose of harming that person physically and/or materially for no other offense than he is politically incorrect? Then in my opinion you are doing evil. And if you don't wish to talk about that then don't respond to any more of my posts because we will have nothing to discuss.

ChrisL said:
Wow, okay then. Seriously though, you think boycotting is evil? I think things like murder, rape, child molestation, now those might evil things. Boycotting is a citizen's right. We have the right to do business with whom we choose, just as you say the businessman has the right to choose who he does business with. :shrug: He can have his opinions, and he can make them public, but society will be the ultimate decider.

AlbqOwl said:
Reread what you wrote and you'll see what you said.

Above is what you said and that is what I responded to. I mean, people get together as groups to boycott. Boycotting isn't very effective when it's just a couple of people now is it? Obviously, the goal of boycotting is to hurt the business owner in his pocket book to send a message. That does not qualify as being "evil" in my eyes.

Moot · May 5, 2014

AlbqOwl said:
I live in a world where a Senate Majority leader was forced to relinquish his position for saying something entirely innocuous but deemed 'politically incorrect' when he was extemporaneously praising a colleague on that colleague's 100th birthday.

I live in a world where the PC police organized and did their damndest to financially hurt a radio talk show host who used the word 'slut' in reference to a Washington lobbyist.

I live in a world where the PC police organized and did their damndest to physically and financially hurt a guy who was asked a question about what he believed the Bible said and answered it honestly.

I live in a world where the PC police organized and did their damndest to financially hurt a CEO who expressed his defense of traditional marriage.

I live in a world where the PC police did their damndest to get J.C. Penney to fire Ellen DeGeneres in their corporate advertising for no other reason than Ellen is gay.

I live in a world where the PC police demanded that a Food Network star lose her position and livelihood for admitting that she used a single politically incorrect word in a deposition years before.

I live in a world where the PC police did their damndest to financially damage a baker for not wanting to participate in a gay wedding.

I could go on and on and on. But the fact is, that is what political correctness is. It denies people the ability to be who and what they are without fear that some mob will descend upon them to punish them physically and/or materially because they are not 'politically correct.'

It is wrong. It is evil. And it should be condemned in all of our society.

Evil...is that a pc label for someone you don't agree with? Who else is considered evil....Hitler, perhaps? Osama Bin Laden? Satan? So using politically correct terms such as African American instead of the N word is more evil than the slaughter of millions of people? Really?

PC simply makes people think twice about what they're saying in a civil society and that isn't evil....it's reason. Reason and science are the real principles this country was founded on.....

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Governed by Reason

I love how you said you'd fire anyone in your company who openly expressed bigotry and racism...all the while demanding your right to openly express yourself anyway, anyhow and anywhere you want without criticism or backlash by society. Would you fire an employee for expressing bigotry and racism if it was openly accepted by society? Probably not.

PS...you didn't mention the Dixie Chicks in your list. That was a fine example of conservative PC, was it not? Or how about Rev. Wright's right to freely express himself? He wasn't even a public figure...but that didn't matter as long as his reputation and church were destroyed on the road to destroying Obama.

Moot · May 5, 2014

AlbqOwl said:
I didn't compare them with Hitler or anybody else. I used as illustration a number of examples of people who believed they were doing the right thing when in fact they were doing evil. One can be a paragon of virtue and still be so wrong in his/her actions that the result is evil. In my opinion those who think they are doing good by acting as thought police are doing evil.

“Causing any damage or harm to one party in order to help another party is not justice, . . . "--― Christine de Pizan, The Book of the City of Ladies

“To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.” ― Friedrich Hayek

“No one can take away your Natural Rights, but they can do great damage making you think they can.”― J.S.B. Morse

And a friend who has been reading along here but does not post just e-mailed me this (emphasis mine):

“The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

"The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others" - John Stewart Mill, On Liberty

Mills appears to be saying that where others and/or society are concerned a person's conduct must be "amenable".

Amenable is defined as: open and responsive to suggestion; easily persuaded or controlled.

There are only two kinds of government....one that uses force and oppression to control people....and one that uses reason and/or persuasion to appeal to peoples self interest. Our country was founded on the latter. PC uses reason and persuasion...not force. If Sterling was forced not to be a racist...then he'd probably still be a member of the NBA. Nobody forced him to be a racist or not be a racist. He knew it wasn't acceptable in society....but he never dreamed it wasn't acceptable in private to his racially mixed girlfriend's face or the players on his team or his head coach. To him, he was just being himself...while he was undermining everyone around him. Why someone didn't say something sooner is a mystery.

Most people live in a society or at least around other people most of the time. We are after all...social creatures and very seldom truly alone.

Censoring violence, sex and cursing on TV is political correctness that was blamed on the left but it was really Christian leaders who lobbied the government to impose the censorship. Did that make you feel oppressed or take away any of your unalienable individual freedom to control your own mind and body?

It's not torture....it's 'enhanced interrogation'....another attempt by conservatives at PC.

Starbuck · May 5, 2014

grip said:
Because it's not fair to judge someone harsher because of their position in life. It's not the way the law works, nor should it be the way society judges. If we're all equal, then we should be treated that way. In your concept, someones achievement equates them as better than others.

I've never been much of a fairness junkie, but I do agree that double standards are inappropriate, especially where the law comes into play. However, we aren' talking about anything legal here. This thread is mostly concerned with civil matters, which means anything goes.

grip said:
Though in reality someone in a more notable position will be given more attention, therefore more judgment. Some will say, with position and fame comes more scrutiny and worthiness, but that's still not really fair.

Thing is, maybe it's not fair that some people get to enjoy position and fame while others don't.

Life isn't fair, and when you make it to the top being held more accountable is just part of the game. Besides, when you've got more to lose shouldn't that be a motivating factor in not saying/ doing things that will find it all taken away?

Weakness should never be rewarded, especially when you're at in a higher position.

Starbuck · May 5, 2014

ChrisL said:
This is true, but there are certain groups who will go out of their way to ruin a person's life and livelihood over a comment.

This is definitely true, but I suppose that's a risk anyone takes each time they say anything.

Just kind of a part of living in society.

grip · May 5, 2014

Starbuck said:
I've never been much of a fairness junkie, but I do agree that double standards are inappropriate, especially where the law comes into play. However, we aren' talking about anything legal here. This thread is mostly concerned with civil matters, which means anything goes.

Thing is, maybe it's not fair that some people get to enjoy position and fame while others don't.

Life isn't fair, and when you make it to the top being held more accountable is just part of the game. Besides, when you've got more to lose shouldn't that be a motivating factor in not saying/ doing things that will find it all taken away?

Weakness should never be rewarded, especially when you're at in a higher position.

Don't believe in fairness, huh? Bet you would if you were on the wrong end of unfair practices.

AlbqOwl · May 5, 2014

Moot said:
"The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others" - John Stewart Mill, On Liberty

Mills appears to be saying that where others and/or society are concerned a person's conduct must be "amenable".

Amenable is defined as: open and responsive to suggestion; easily persuaded or controlled.

There are only two kinds of government....one that uses force and oppression to control people....and one that uses reason and/or persuasion to appeal to peoples self interest. Our country was founded on the latter. PC uses reason and persuasion...not force. If Sterling was forced not to be a racist...then he'd probably still be a member of the NBA. Nobody forced him to be a racist or not be a racist. He knew it wasn't acceptable in society....but he never dreamed it wasn't acceptable in private to his racially mixed girlfriend's face or the players on his team or his head coach. To him, he was just being himself...while he was undermining everyone around him. Why someone didn't say something sooner is a mystery.

Most people live in a society or at least around other people most of the time. We are after all...social creatures and very seldom truly alone.

Censoring violence, sex and cursing on TV is political correctness that was blamed on the left but it was really Christian leaders who lobbied the government to impose the censorship. Did that make you feel oppressed or take away any of your unalienable individual freedom to control your own mind and body?

It's not torture....it's 'enhanced interrogation'....another attempt by conservatives at PC.

PC uses neither reason nor persuasion. It is a vicious, angry, vindictive, and hateful mindset that leads to bullying and huge injustices. It has been implemented by tyrants for millenia who used thought police to squelch dissent and make people too terrified to trust each other and therefore more manageable by the state. It is no accident that the government gets behind it and encourages it. It is the greatest destroyer of liberties ever conceived by humankind. Inch by inch, protest by protest, vindictive action after vindictive action, the gullible are drawn in and made to believe it is good and normal. And each time it happens, our individual liberties, choices, options, and opportunities are eroded. And once the government chooses to enforce it, we will no longer be a representative republic. We will be a totalitarian state.

Moot · May 5, 2014

AlbqOwl said:
PC uses neither reason nor persuasion. It is a vicious, angry, vindictive, and hateful mindset that leads to bullying and huge injustices. It has been implemented by tyrants for millenia who used thought police to squelch dissent and make people too terrified to trust each other and therefore more manageable by the state. It is no accident that the government gets behind it and encourages it. It is the greatest destroyer of liberties ever conceived by humankind. Inch by inch, protest by protest, vindictive action after vindictive action, the gullible are drawn in and made to believe it is good and normal. And each time it happens, our individual liberties, choices, options, and opportunities are eroded. And once the government chooses to enforce it, we will no longer be a representative republic. We will be a totalitarian state.

If you've ever boycotted a company or a product then I guess that makes you a vicious, angry, vindictive, hateful, bullying tyrant, too. Your nonsense is little more than a logical fallacy taken to the extreme....which unfortunately is where some conservatives always seem to go when logic and reason fail them.

If conservatives had their way there wouldn't be a Constitution or a Republic to protect your freedoms, at all.

ttwtt78640 · May 5, 2014

Moot said:
If you've ever boycotted a company or a product then I guess that makes you a vicious, angry, vindictive, hateful, bullying tyrant, too. Your nonsense is little more than a logical fallacy taken to the extreme....which unfortunately is where some conservatives always seem to go when logic and reason fail them.

If conservatives had their way there wouldn't be a Constitution or a Republic to protect your freedoms, at all.

There is a huge difference between any individual selecting A over B (or B over A) and in having the gov't (or any other outside force) eliminate either A or B as a possible choice.

AlbqOwl · May 5, 2014

Moot said:
If you've ever boycotted a company or a product then I guess that makes you a vicious, angry, vindictive, hateful, bullying tyrant, too. Your nonsense is little more than a logical fallacy taken to the extreme....which unfortunately is where some conservatives always seem to go when logic and reason fail them.

If conservatives had their way there wouldn't be a Constitution or a Republic to protect your freedoms, at all.

No. The only time I have boycotted a company is because of their violation of human rights; their bad practices that were seriously harming people. And the boycott was strictly refusal to buy their products UNTIL they changed those bad practices. And when they changed their policies, we went right back to buying those products.

Poltiical correctness does not punish people for what they DO. It punishes people for what they THINK, what they SAY, what they BELIEVE, and who and what they are.

I can see the difference between those two things. Can you?

Moot · May 5, 2014

ttwtt78640 said:
There is a huge difference between any individual selecting A over B (or B over A) and in having the gov't (or any other outside force) eliminate either A or B as a possible choice.

I'm not seeing where the government has eliminated either A or B as a possible choice in the name of political correctness. Do you have any examples?

ttwtt78640 · May 5, 2014

Moot said:
I'm not seeing where the government has eliminated either A or B as a possible choice in the name of political correctness. Do you have any examples?

Not allowing alcohol sales on Sunday, not allowing carrying a legally purchased handgun without first paying for the privilege and a tax/fine for not buying "gov't approved" medical care insurance come to mind. Many things are mandated for no other reason than "it should be so" based on the opinions of the elite (political correctness).

Moot · May 5, 2014

AlbqOwl said:
No. The only time I have boycotted a company is because of their violation of human rights; their bad practices that were seriously harming people. And the boycott was strictly refusal to buy their products UNTIL they changed those bad practices. And when they changed their policies, we went right back to buying those products.

Poltiical correctness does not punish people for what they DO. It punishes people for what they THINK, what they SAY, what they BELIEVE, and who and what they are.

I can see the difference between those two things. Can you?

If it can be said that people are what they eat...then why can't it be said that people are what they think and believe, as well? If someone has racist thoughts and speech then chances are pretty high that person is probably a racist.

Boycotting and peaceful protests are fundamental to a free capitalist society which is why your hatred for the first amendment is rather odd in your proclamations to love freedom so much. Personally, I would prefer that society make the moral changes and for government to simply to protect that right. Which is pretty much how it is now, isn't it?

Moot · May 5, 2014

ttwtt78640 said:
Not allowing alcohol sales on Sunday, not allowing carrying a legally purchased handgun without first paying for the privilege and a tax/fine for not buying "gov't approved" medical care insurance come to mind. Many things are mandated for no other reason than "it should be so" based on the opinions of the elite (political correctness).

Local governments are closer to the people....so perhaps it's the people who don't want alcohol sales on Sundays. Don't you think people should have a right to decide what businesses are allowed in their local community?

Medical insurance was mandated because the private sector made insurance a necessity to getting health care.

Fearandloathing · May 5, 2014

PoS said:
Just an observation from the Sterling fallout in the NBA, or CEO's resigning because they supported a political cause that was unpopular with the masses or the usual media fauxrage (Huffington Post headlines cough cough) that every time some politician (usually from the GOP) makes some sort of statement about gays or minorities or anything that the mainstream thinks is unacceptable and must be spread out across the internet so that outrage can pile on outrage. Is it getting out of hand or should it continue?

Vote and be heard.

It is offensive to use the word "too"....we degrade people by saying they are "too" fat, or "too" thin and causes them social insecurities, and relegates them to second tier humanity.

So, it is morally wrong to suggest any attempt to save mankind by finding non-offensive ways to communicate is in any way beyond the necessary.

So the question itself is an abuse, therefore there cannot be "too much" political correctness.

Is There Too Much Political Correctness Now?

Is there too much political correctness now?

Yes, its gotten out of hand

No, needs more bacon

More options

AlbqOwl

ChrisL

AlbqOwl

ChrisL

polgara

AlbqOwl

AlbqOwl

Enola

ChrisL

AlbqOwl

ChrisL

Moot

Moot

Starbuck

Well-known member

Starbuck

Well-known member

grip

Slow 🅖 Hand

AlbqOwl

Moot

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

AlbqOwl

Moot

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Moot

Moot

Fearandloathing

How long is now?