Tanoomba's Toxic Tank of Traducement

  • Guest, it's time once again for the hotly contested and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and fill out your bracket!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Once again, only you can decide!
Status
Not open for further replies.

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
So Tanoomba Tanoomba for a long time has been peddling this concept that a person making a statement isn’t responsible for it but instead it’s the person offended by it. It is almost right wing if you took it at face value.

So in his mind anyone opposed to Anita, or any SJW, could have just ignored them and let them be. They didn’t though and so are directly responsible for her, and others, having the following that they have.

Yes, this is completely ridiculous but this is the mind of the most intellectually dishonest person I have had the displeasure of reading.

It totally ignores that they have to get a group behind them before anyone hears about them. It is also pretty much “victim” blaming.

Tanoomba: It isn’t rape if you just went along with it, then it’s consensual sex.
Everyone: Umm that’s after the fact of the rape.
Tanoomba: No it’s not, you are giving the rapist power by not just ignoring the dick in your ass.
Everyone: .....
Accuses me of intellectual dishonesty, uses straw men to make his point. Can't explain that.

I never said or implied that a person isn't responsible for the statements they make. Sarkeesian is absolutely responsible for every word she's ever said. Her words weren't the catalyst for her becoming a public figure, though. The way she was treated by a bunch of assholes very much was.

I also never said or implied that people should have just "let her be". In fact, you'll notice I specifically said that criticizing her work would have done wondersfor limiting her influence. It's extremely unfortunate that the few examples of good-faith criticism of her work didn't get more attention, but it's also completely understandable that the media chose to focus on the more provocative story of mass harassment and bad-faith smear campaigns. It is not an exaggeration to say that if it weren't for the misguided and dishonest witch hunt, the media (at least video game media) would have been happy to feature counter-points to her arguments.
 
  • 3Picard
Reactions: 2 users

gshurik

Tranny Chaser
<Gold Donor>
2,517
-56
Accuses me of intellectual dishonesty, uses straw men to make his point. Can't explain that.

I never said or implied that a person isn't responsible for the statements they make. Sarkeesian is absolutely responsible for every word she's ever said. Her words weren't the catalyst for her becoming a public figure, though. The way she was treated by a bunch of assholes very much was.

I also never said or implied that people should have just "let her be". In fact, you'll notice I specifically said that criticizing her work would have done wondersfor limiting her influence. It's extremely unfortunate that the few examples of good-faith criticism of her work didn't get more attention, but it's also completely understandable that the media chose to focus on the more provocative story of mass harassment and bad-faith smear campaigns. It is not an exaggeration to say that if it weren't for the misguided and dishonest witch hunt, the media (at least video game media) would have been happy to feature counter-points to her arguments.

Is it that surprising that the criticism got more and more offensive though?

I remember the early days of Anita and a lot of the well thought out criticism would be completely ignored or misrepresented by her and her cabal. Part of the reason for that is because Anita has always been a mouthpiece for McIntosh so it was pretty impossible for her to actually debate the position she claimed to hold. A lot of the Sarkeesian hate came toward her after she and her writers chose to ignore the completely valid criticism and decided to ignore actual debate and rely on twitter white knights to brow beat anyone who dared speak out of line.

Part of the reason Gamergate blew up was because of people like Anita making people feel like they didn't have a voice.
 
  • 2Solidarity
  • 1Like
Reactions: 2 users

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Is it that surprising that the criticism got more and more offensive though?
You say "criticism", as though people were making reasonable points but being a little rough around the edges about it. That's not what happened. They had an agenda. They wanted to discredit her completely, to "expose" her so she would be ruined, and they went over every detail of her life with a fine-toothed comb in order to find something, ANYTHING they could dishonestly twist to suit the narrative they had committed to (much like we've seen with the anti-Trump crowd). These types of smear campaigns say a lot more about the people doing the attacking than they do about the one being attacked, and the people who weren't deeply offended by someone talking about boobies in video games picked up on that immediately.

But to answer your question: No, it's not surprising. People LOVE an excuse to get judgmental and act like assholes towards what they believe is a deserving target. Unfortunately, BECAUSE they couldn't stick to "criticism", their campaign backfired spectacularly and had the opposite of intended effect.

I remember the early days of Anita and a lot of the well thought out criticism would be completely ignored or misrepresented by her and her cabal. Part of the reason for that is because Anita has always been a mouthpiece for McIntosh so it was pretty impossible for her to actually debate the position she claimed to hold. A lot of the Sarkeesian hate came toward her after she and her writers chose to ignore the completely valid criticism and decided to ignore actual debate and rely on twitter white knights to brow beat anyone who dared speak out of line.

Part of the reason Gamergate blew up was because of people like Anita making people feel like they didn't have a voice.
What do you mean? It's the internet, EVERYONE'S got a voice. Are you implying Sarkeesian had a responsibility to showcase people who disagreed with her on reasonable grounds? People like to suggest that Sarkeesian silenced criticism of her work, but she's never done anything of the sort. Ironically, it's the crowd who felt justified in harassing her and attacking her personally that prevented legitimate criticism of her work from being heard, by completely overshadowing it.
 
  • 2Picard
Reactions: 1 users

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
I can't even "solidarity" Fanaskin's Ricky Gervais tweet. Fuck this censorship bullshit.
 
  • 2Picard
Reactions: 1 users

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Who cares?
Are you kidding here?

YOU are the one who compulsively responds to my posts with comments highlighting your lack of understanding, but then you pull out a "Who cares?" when I correct you?

If you don't like me correcting you, don't lie about me.
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,845
137,945
Are you kidding here?

YOU are the one who compulsively responds to my posts with comments highlighting your lack of understanding, but then you pull out a "Who cares?" when I correct you?

If you don't like me correcting you, don't lie about me.

I was talking about obama's kid you self centered dumbo
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
This pathetic sequel thread will never achieve the quality level of shitposting that my original thread led to.

For shame.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Arbitrary said:
I don't know why you would even bother inviting these people to demo your game at all. The upside is you get an article no one is going to care about and the downside is they pitch a massive fit on the internet and try and get you fired and your project closed down.

If I was a developer looking at this mess I'd just straight up refuse to do any press work that didn't involve people I had carefully selected beforehand.

Why? Best thing that can happen to a dev is having SJWs flip out over his product, which gets a ton more attention and way more sales. Even better if the SJWs try to fuck with his livelihood, and better still if the media gets on board. That never ceases to provoke a strong reaction from anti-SJWs, who will offer vocal and financial support to the dev they believe has been wronged. Heck, the dev could literally end up actually being fired then make more money doing speaking tours about his experience than he ever would have made as a dev.

Jordan Peterson and Anita Sarkeesian have both turned their being wronged into lucrative careers in and of themselves. Controversy sells and a polarized public will rally to the defense of someone on their "side".
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Chanur

Shit Posting Professional
<Gold Donor>
26,341
38,017
Anita was never wronged. She was never anything but an opportunist and leech.
 
  • 1SJW
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Anita was never wronged. She was never anything but an opportunist and leech.
Even if those labels were accurate (and that's certainly not a given), she was still wronged and received a tremendous amount of support because of it. People don't like to see someone fall victim to the whims of those who would eschew logic and reason for a good old-fashioned witch hunt, and that's true for both "sides".
 

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Anita Sarkeesian - Wikipedia

I admit that I don't follow her so from what I know she made her comments and videos etc and THEN was attacked for them.

She wasn't fired from any job as a result. She made a website and some videos while doing her masters degree. She has worked with that every since. No adversity ever.
Welll... kinda? She had her Feminist Frequency brand for a couple of years, but no one really noticed or gave a shit until her "Women vs Tropes in Video Games" Kickstarter. Once that started, she got decent support, was targeted by harassment campaigns which got a lot of attention, then received exponentially more support because of it... All before her first video game-themed video was made.

Being wronged doesn't mean being fired. She was targeted by harassment campaigns and personal attacks designed to exploit feels and silence "unacceptable" views. People picked up on the dishonest nature of the vitriol she was receiving and came to her support.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>
29,948
29,762
Welll... kinda? She had her Feminist Frequency brand for a couple of years, but no one really noticed or gave a shit until her "Women vs Tropes in Video Games" Kickstarter. Once that started, she got decent support, was targeted by harassment campaigns which got a lot of attention, then received exponentially more support because of it... All before her first video game-themed video was made.

Being wronged doesn't mean being fired. She was targeted by harassment campaigns and personal attacks designed to exploit feels and silence "unacceptable" views. People picked up on the dishonest nature of the vitriol she was receiving and came to her support.
I get what you are trying to say but you are wrong because you aren't understanding cause and effect.

So you have Anita who is chugging along and making up her bullshit, hey she believes it and that is her prerogative. She is making videos and blogs and talking stuff. At this point she hasn't been "wronged" in any way. We can probably argue that she has not been wronged even to this day. She started out with "wronging" people from the jump. Her discussions were not based on her being wronged her discussions were wronging other people from the start.

Then you have people like Petersen or really anyone else in this discussion. They have lives and realities based on reality. They say whatever they say and they get shit on for it. That doesn't mean they are innocent or victims just that there is a huge difference between living a life based on creating drama and drama shitting on you.

So have they both had harassment slung their way? Yes. Does that mean that both "turned being wronged into a lucrative career"? No. In this one for one comparison only one side was wronged and it was not Anita.

Disagreeing with is not being wronged. Saying mean things is not being wronged. Stalking and harassment isn't even really being wronged. I am sure you are going to go grab some definition that you like to disagree with me though. Being wronged needs a tangible effect. Being fired, ostracized, jailed, put on trial, etc etc are examples of being wronged. Having people not like your videos and engaging you in harassment commensurate with the level of harassment that you have been involved with in the past is not.

More and more I see just how desperate you are to hold on to this narrative that you are on the side of a downtrodden woman who needs our respect and protection. You don't even realize that you contradict yourself in your very defense.

Let's now explore your assertion. Anita has been wronged. She has taken that and molded it into a springboard for a lucrative career. Okay I will pander to you and say she has been wronged. How though has she been wronged and at what point in her timeline? You are stating she has spun it into a financial win. At what point is that despicable behavior? At what point are you going to take that as proof that she is disingenuous? You would not trust a person in politics that is paid to shill for a pharma company that they would make the right decision when it comes to a vote against that pharma company would you? We have a person that at one point may have been "wronged" by some mean words but has had no tangible harm done to her. She has spun that into drumming up an army of sympathizers to pay her. When would you shut off that spigot of money and say that you were never actually wronged to begin with? When would you stop beating the drums of war to get the people behind you and funneling more money into your pockets? The very basics of human nature would say that just would not happen.

Now take a person like Jordan who I don't really follow either so don't pretend I care more about him than Anita, I care about neither. He has been wronged objectively. His life and career have demonstrably suffered and he has definitely turned that around into a positive for his checkbook. You even agree that he has been wronged. Okay now what is the difference between him and Anita? The stuff he is talking about are universal and have very little to do with how he was attacked. He is helping people directly with books and talks that are about taking your life and your environment and making something of yourself within that framework. Anita is just whining about the problems with no solutions given and no facts behind them. They are what ifs essentially that have very little backing. They are trope bogeymen that she has trotted out to stir up her base. Is she all that different from a religious leader or a shock jock radio host or one of those game devs that do anti SJW bullshit? Nope. You were very right that there are game devs taking advantage of the political landscape. I don't blame her, I don't blame the others on that list I made.

You are crossing a line when you try to pretend that she was wronged in a comparable way to a person like Jordan Peterson though. You are showing off your bias and your close mindedness.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
I get what you are trying to say but you are wrong because you aren't understanding cause and effect.
On the contrary, I understand the cause and effect here very well.
Cause: Formerly unremarkable feminist claims she will take a critical look at the portrayal of women in video games.
Effect: Video Game Gatekeepers decide (incorrectly) that their hobby is at risk and that they must stop said feminist.
Cause: Harassment campaigns, personal attacks and dishonest analyses of every detail of her life attempt to discredit her.
Effect: The public who otherwise would never have heard of Sark are shocked at how low her detractors are stooping and decide to support her.

So you have Anita who is chugging along and making up her bullshit, hey she believes it and that is her prerogative. She is making videos and blogs and talking stuff. At this point she hasn't been "wronged" in any way. We can probably argue that she has not been wronged even to this day. She started out with "wronging" people from the jump. Her discussions were not based on her being wronged her discussions were wronging other people from the start.
- "Making up bullshit", according to YOU. That is not an objective fact, and it certainly doesn't justify her being targeted.
- She didn't "wrong" anybody. I'm not sure where you're even getting this from, especially if we're going by your "needs a tangible effect" definition.

Then you have people like Petersen or really anyone else in this discussion. They have lives and realities based on reality. They say whatever they say and they get shit on for it. That doesn't mean they are innocent or victims just that there is a huge difference between living a life based on creating drama and drama shitting on you.
Yeah, that "huge difference" is feels. Do you feel Sark was asking for her harassment? Then she was creating drama and is not a victim. So say the feels.

So have they both had harassment slung their way? Yes. Does that mean that both "turned being wronged into a lucrative career"? No. In this one for one comparison only one side was wronged and it was not Anita.
Bullshit. Instead of entering a pointless semantics argument, I'm going to quote Anne Rice: "internet campaigns to destroy authors accused of inappropriate subject matter or attitudes are dangerous to us all."

Disagreeing with is not being wronged. Saying mean things is not being wronged. Stalking and harassment isn't even really being wronged. I am sure you are going to go grab some definition that you like to disagree with me though. Being wronged needs a tangible effect. Being fired, ostracized, jailed, put on trial, etc etc are examples of being wronged. Having people not like your videos and engaging you in harassment commensurate with the level of harassment that you have been involved with in the past is not.
Being targeted by a witch hunt is being wronged. Your feels tell you she was asking for it and therefore it wasn't a witch hunt. Anne Rice and I disagree. Also, I'd like to know what you mean by "harassment commensurate with the level of harassment that you have been involved with in the past"... It reads very much like shallow attempts to justify someone being unfairly and dishonestly targeted.

More and more I see just how desperate you are to hold on to this narrative that you are on the side of a downtrodden woman who needs our respect and protection. You don't even realize that you contradict yourself in your very defense.
Desparation has nothing to do with it, a_skeleton_03, and I'm not sure why you choose to emphasize "more and more" when I've been nothing but consistent since the topic first came up years ago. Also, please watch your straw men again. I never said Sarkeesian needs our respect nor our protection. And I didn't contradict myself either, unless you'd like to show otherwise.

Let's now explore your assertion. Anita has been wronged. She has taken that and molded it into a springboard for a lucrative career. Okay I will pander to you and say she has been wronged. How though has she been wronged and at what point in her timeline?
Again, the turning point was the "Women vs Tropes in Video Games" Kickstarter. That was when the witch hunt went full steam and it has continued since, albeit with less steam now.

You are stating she has spun it into a financial win. At what point is that despicable behavior?
At no point. Why is it despicable to find a way to benefit from the actions of those using dishonest means to attempt to ruin you? It's poetic justice in action and is more deserving of the "admirable" label than the "despicable" one.

At what point are you going to take that as proof that she is disingenuous?
At no point. There's nothing disingenuous about it. She wanted to criticize video games, she was targeted by a witch hunt, she used that attention to put those attacking her under the spotlight. What's the problem?

You would not trust a person in politics that is paid to shill for a pharma company that they would make the right decision when it comes to a vote against that pharma company would you? We have a person that at one point may have been "wronged" by some mean words but has had no tangible harm done to her.
Ugh. This is an impossible point to argue. Your feels tell you being the target of a witch hunt (which you conveniently call "some mean words") is simply no big deal and doesn't merit the support Sark amassed. I and many others disagree.

She has spun that into drumming up an army of sympathizers to pay her.
You're mischaracterizing what happened here. According to you, Sark was the victim of mean words which led to her seeing dollar signs and realizing she could exploit naive SJWs for their money. What's closer to the truth is that, after being subject to an obscene amount of harassment, Sark decided that the way she and others were being targeted was a problem worthy of drawing attention to. The public agreed and appreciated her exposing some of the shittier behavior that's still considered "normal" on the internet. They fought back against this element by supporting the victim, essentially more than undoing the harm the anti-Sarkies had been trying to cause.

When would you shut off that spigot of money and say that you were never actually wronged to begin with? When would you stop beating the drums of war to get the people behind you and funneling more money into your pockets? The very basics of human nature would say that just would not happen.
Why is it against human nature to attempt to turn a negative into a positive? Why is it against human nature to fight back against people trying to destroy you? Why is it against human nature to use the words of your detractors against them in order to expose their dishonesty?

Okay now what is the difference between him and Anita? The stuff he is talking about are universal and have very little to do with how he was attacked. He is helping people directly with books and talks that are about taking your life and your environment and making something of yourself within that framework. Anita is just whining about the problems with no solutions given and no facts behind them. They are what ifs essentially that have very little backing. They are trope bogeymen that she has trotted out to stir up her base. Is she all that different from a religious leader or a shock jock radio host or one of those game devs that do anti SJW bullshit? Nope.
Welcome to the conversation, Thought Police. Thank goodness you're here to tell us what topics we are allowed to discuss and which ones merit a witch hunt. Also, you got several things wrong there:
- Sarkeesian isn't whining about problems with no solutions. The solution is literally "be creative", and that's something we've actually seen more of in the game industry. It could even be argued that Sark helped the game industry mature and become more creatively flexible.
- There are absolutely facts behind much of what Sark says. She has made many objectively true statements and has referenced scientific studies to support her points. You might know this if you weren't only familiar with out-of-context quotes used in conjuction with hyperbole and straw men to discredit her.
- "To stir up her base" is a feels-based assumption of her motives. Again, it's not a given that she intentionally tried to rile anyone up at all.
- Yes, she is different from each of those people you listed. All she wanted was to draw attention to and generate discussion about an issue she considered worthy of attention. She made her points civilly and in good faith, in exactly the way Anne Rice (herself a target of campaigns designed to hurt her professionally) explicitly approves of.


You are crossing a line when you try to pretend that she was wronged in a comparable way to a person like Jordan Peterson though. You are showing off your bias and your close mindedness.
There's no pretending, it's entirely comparable. Both spoke civilly about topics in a way that certain snowflakes considered dangerous. Both were unfairly targeted by dishonest campaigns designed to discredit them. Both took advantage of their status as the target of a witch hunt to expose their detractors as the ones who were actually in the wrong. Both received tremendous support from those who were disgusted at how they were treated.

You are showing off your bias and your close-mindedness by trying to justify the campaigns against Sarkeesian and by trying to put her in a different category than Peterson. You're making assumptions (about her motivation, among other things) and using feels-based conclusions to support your argument. And you know what? Those who believe Peterson is dangerous would attempt to do the same thing.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Faggotry
Reactions: 2 users

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
If you seriously waste your time reading, much less responding, to that wall of garbage above this post, you deserve to have the shit kicked out of you
 
  • 1Solidarity
  • 1SJW
  • 1Like
Reactions: 2 users

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
On the contrary, I understand the cause and effect here very well.
Cause: Formerly unremarkable feminist claims she will take a critical look at the portrayal of women in video games.
Effect: Video Game Gatekeepers decide (incorrectly) that their hobby is at risk and that they must stop said feminist.
Cause: Harassment campaigns, personal attacks and dishonest analyses of every detail of her life attempt to discredit her.
Effect: The public who otherwise would never have heard of Sark are shocked at how low her detractors are stooping and decide to support her.


- "Making up bullshit", according to YOU. That is not an objective fact, and it certainly doesn't justify her being targeted.
- She didn't "wrong" anybody. I'm not sure where you're even getting this from, especially if we're going by your "needs a tangible effect" definition.


Yeah, that "huge difference" is feels. Do you feel Sark was asking for her harassment? Then she was creating drama and is not a victim. So say the feels.


Bullshit. Instead of entering a pointless semantics argument, I'm going to quote Anne Rice: "internet campaigns to destroy authors accused of inappropriate subject matter or attitudes are dangerous to us all."


Being targeted by a witch hunt is being wronged. Your feels tell you she was asking for it and therefore it wasn't a witch hunt. Anne Rice and I disagree. Also, I'd like to know what you mean by "harassment commensurate with the level of harassment that you have been involved with in the past"... It reads very much like shallow attempts to justify someone being unfairly and dishonestly targeted.


Desparation has nothing to do with it, a_skeleton_03, and I'm not sure why you choose to emphasize "more and more" when I've been nothing but consistent since the topic first came up years ago. Also, please watch your straw men again. I never said Sarkeesian needs our respect nor our protection. And I didn't contradict myself either, unless you'd like to show otherwise.


Again, the turning point was the "Women vs Tropes in Video Games" Kickstarter. That was when the witch hunt went full steam and it has continued since, albeit with less steam now.


At no point. Why is it despicable to find a way to benefit from the actions of those using dishonest means to attempt to ruin you? It's poetic justice in action and is more deserving of the "admirable" label than the "despicable" one.


At no point. There's nothing disingenuous about it. She wanted to criticize video games, she was targeted by a witch hunt, she used that attention to put those attacking her under the spotlight. What's the problem?


Ugh. This is an impossible point to argue. Your feels tell you being the target of a witch hunt (which you conveniently call "some mean words") is simply no big deal and doesn't merit the support Sark amassed. I and many others disagree.


You're mischaracterizing what happened here. According to you, Sark was the victim of mean words which led to her seeing dollar signs and realizing she could exploit naive SJWs for their money. What's closer to the truth is that, after being subject to an obscene amount of harassment, Sark decided that the way she and others were being targeted was a problem worthy of drawing attention to. The public agreed and appreciated her exposing some of the shittier behavior that's still considered "normal" on the internet. They fought back against this element by supporting the victim, essentially more than undoing the harm the anti-Sarkies had been trying to cause.


Why is it against human nature to attempt to turn a negative into a positive? Why is it against human nature to fight back against people trying to destroy you? Why is it against human nature to use the words of your detractors against them in order to expose their dishonesty?


Welcome to the conversation, Thought Police. Thank goodness you're here to tell us what topics we are allowed to discuss and which ones merit a witch hunt. Also, you got several things wrong there:
- Sarkeesian isn't whining about problems with no solutions. The solution is literally "be creative", and that's something we've actually seen more of in the game industry. It could even be argued that Sark helped the game industry mature and become more creatively flexible.
- There are absolutely facts behind much of what Sark says. She has made many objectively true statements and has referenced scientific studies to support her points. You might know this if you weren't only familiar with out-of-context quotes used in conjuction with hyperbole and straw men to discredit her.
- "To stir up her base" is a feels-based assumption of her motives. Again, it's not a given that she intentionally tried to rile anyone up at all.
- Yes, she is different from each of those people you listed. All she wanted was to draw attention to and generate discussion about an issue she considered worthy of attention. She made her points civilly and in good faith, in exactly the way Anne Rice (herself a target of campaigns designed to hurt her professionally) explicitly approves of.



There's no pretending, it's entirely comparable. Both spoke civilly about topics in a way that certain snowflakes considered dangerous. Both were unfairly targeted by dishonest campaigns designed to discredit them. Both took advantage of their status as the target of a witch hunt to expose their detractors as the ones who were actually in the wrong. Both received tremendous support from those who were disgusted at how they were treated.

You are showing off your bias and your close-mindedness by trying to justify the campaigns against Sarkeesian and by trying to put her in a different category than Peterson. You're making assumptions (about her motivation, among other things) and using feels-based conclusions to support your argument. And you know what? Those who believe Peterson is dangerous would attempt to do the same thing.
:emoji_fork_knife_plate::emoji_poop::emoji_coffin::emoji_gay_pride_flag:

What now hodj hodj ?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Doesn't even come within a cosmic light year of the old threads top tier shitposting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.