NATION

PASSWORD

Learning about white privilege is anti-white, studies prove

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

How shocked?

I've been telling them this for a while
194
57%
I admit it's disturbing and will reconsider my beliefs
15
4%
I don't believe the evidence
22
6%
I disagree with the conclusions OP has drawn from the evidence
108
32%
 
Total votes : 339

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 50707
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Learning about white privilege is anti-white, studies prove

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri May 10, 2019 7:33 am

Just like your critics have been telling you for ages now.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/neaz ... WhEKu2EwQE

The Disturbing Thing I Learned Studying White Privilege and Liberals
I found a blind spot in my empathy, and our study confirmed it.


here is the takeaway:
Image

We recruited 650 liberals and conservatives, the majority of whom were white (68.8%) or Black (16%), from across the United States to complete our study online. At the start of the study, we randomly divided participants into two groups. One group read about white privilege and were asked to list several privileges experienced by white people in America (e.g., “White people are never asked to speak for all people of their racial group”). The other group did not learn about white privilege at all.

Participants then read about either a poor white man, or a poor Black man. All of the participants learned that the man’s name was Kevin, that he lived in NYC, was raised by a single mom, struggled with poverty his whole life, and was currently receiving welfare assistance. The only difference was his race.

As we expected, liberals who learned about white privilege expressed more sympathy toward Kevin when he was described as Black (vs. white). In contrast, conservatives expressed relatively low levels of sympathy for the poor regardless of race and regardless of whether they read about white privilege.

However, what we found startling was that white privilege lessons didn’t increase liberals’ sympathy for poor Black people. Instead, these lessons decreased liberals’ sympathy for poor white people, which led them to blame white people more for their own poverty. They seemed to think that if a person is poor despite all the privileges of being white, there must really be something wrong with them.


Emphasis mine.

These findings felt both personal and frustrating. Personal, because they suggested that being liberal may have contributed to my struggle to fully sympathize with poor white men—even the one I was falling in love with. Frustrating, because they suggested that discussing white privilege may not always increase sympathy for struggling Black people—an important part of my work.

The United States has become increasingly politically polarized in recent years. And, I share the concern of many about increasing divisions in our country and especially the increasing amount of open hate toward others based on their race/ethnicity. Yet, I also need to question the role that I may play in amplifying these divisions. My prior insensitivity to the experiences of poor white people might be just the type of attitude that contributes to an increasingly polarized US political climate—a climate that ultimately causes further harm to Black people too.


*FF7 Victory music*

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

We got one. We actually got through to one.

I can't believe it, I-

I feel strongly that white privilege lessons are still important because they highlight the fact that racism persists in our society. In fact, across several studies, which we are preparing for publication, we find that teaching people about white privilege leads both liberals and conservatives to be more likely to perceive racism when Black (vs. white) men are shot by police. Thus, instead of trying to decide whether white privilege lessons are “good” or “bad,” we should think more about whether they are likely to have the effects we intend.

One possibility is that discussions of privilege may benefit from taking a more intersectional lens. For example, although privilege certainly occurs because of race, it can also emerge based on social class, gender, sexual orientation, age, ability, nationality, and so on. Because of this, most of us have experienced both privilege and marginalization at some point.


*Sigh.*

They're gone. We lost them. The cycle of nonsensical rationalizations reclaimed them.

Just in case you think this is a solution, this is what you guys already try and do.

So, NSG, discuss?

How shocked are you by this study?
Was it already obvious to literally everyone except the type of people who talk about white privilege?

I think so. As i've pointed out before, the privilege narrative does not actually provide an emotional impetus for anything except resenting white people by placing the focus with them, instead of on disadvantages others face.

The concept of privilege makes people dislike the privileged group, rather than increasing support for the disadvantaged group.

It is not pro-minority, or pro-equality, but anti-white. The data shows that to be the case.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Fri May 10, 2019 8:19 am, edited 3 times in total.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Shanhwa
Envoy
 
Posts: 272
Founded: Mar 18, 2019
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Shanhwa » Fri May 10, 2019 7:40 am

Not shocked at all, to be honest.
The Free State of Shanhwa

自由州的山红瓦


Alt-universe and alt-account of Sicaris.

User avatar
Communist Zombie Horde
Diplomat
 
Posts: 938
Founded: Jan 04, 2018
Corporate Police State

Postby Communist Zombie Horde » Fri May 10, 2019 7:42 am

White privilege is a racist lie.
NS Parliament: Arnold Delbert; National People's Party

This nation is not entirely representative of my views. I've had some fun with the stats and I want to keep them that way.

User avatar
Caracasus
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7456
Founded: Apr 23, 2015
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Caracasus » Fri May 10, 2019 7:48 am

Any analysis of privelage that doesn't take into account material circumstances and class is doomed to tie itself up in weird knots like this. Hardly surprising.
As an editor I seam to spend an awful lot of thyme going threw issues and checking that they're no oblivious errars. Its a tough job but someone's got too do it!



Issues editor, not a moderator.

User avatar
Kustonia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 528
Founded: Jun 14, 2015
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Kustonia » Fri May 10, 2019 7:49 am

"White privilege" is a myth that is used to destroy white people, and cause them to hate themselves. This myth then makes whites open up their countries' borders and social institutions even further, because they are afraid of being viewed with privilege. Total nonsense. Whites have worked and have fought long and hard for what they have, it is not through privilege that they have what they have.
I'm a National Syndicalist, Traditionalist, White Nationalist
Pro: Nationalism, Socialism, Collectivism, Fascism, Nativism, Essentialism, Pluralism, Synocracy
Anti: Capitalism, Communism, Individualism, Liberalism, Multiculturalism, Modernity, Egalitarianism, Democracy
Favorite Philosophers/Theoreticians: Ernst Jünger, Oswald Spengler, Carl Schmitt, Aleksandr Dugin, Alain De Benoist, Georges Sorel
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the equal wisdom of individual ignorance.

User avatar
-Ocelot-
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1252
Founded: Jun 14, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby -Ocelot- » Fri May 10, 2019 7:50 am

There is going to be a time when you'll regret spending so much of your time and youth defending white supremacists and MRAs in a niche nation-building forum, Ostro.

As for the study, is it a study. You could probably find a study proving the opposite.
Post tenebras lux


⭐No such thing as too much yellow⭐

User avatar
Valrifell
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20846
Founded: Aug 18, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Valrifell » Fri May 10, 2019 7:51 am

Is 60 sympathy a lot or a little?
I like to imagine Sisyphus happy
I did some things

How not to debate: put snarky things implicitly calling out other posters in your sig

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 50707
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri May 10, 2019 7:52 am

Caracasus wrote:Any analysis of privelage that doesn't take into account material circumstances and class is doomed to tie itself up in weird knots like this. Hardly surprising.


Do you have any evidence that adding a class axis would impact the results noticably?

Because here's the thing. We now know this is basically a racist framing device.

Do you honestly think rambling constantly about "Wealthy Jews though, not working class ones." would prove a suitable impediment to anti-semitism growing?
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 50707
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri May 10, 2019 7:52 am

-Ocelot- wrote:There is going to be a time when you'll regret spending so much of your time and youth defending white supremacists and MRAs in a niche nation-building forum, Ostro.

As for the study, is it a study. You could probably find a study proving the opposite.


Can you find that study? Please, by all means.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 58361
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Fri May 10, 2019 7:53 am

This actually makes sense, to be honest.

Think about a conversation about the American worker done in two ways.

1) The American worker deserves high pay, benefits, etc, as he's here legally working his tail off to support his family, and complying with all relevant workers.
2) Dem darn illegal immigrants stealing our jobs

The first is likely to increase your sympathy for the American worker, and take steps to protect him by say, supporting unions, mandatory benefits, etc. It will increase your sympathy for the worker based on the workers needs.

The second is likely to decrease your sympathy for the illegal immigrants, and take steps against them.

Both conversations may surround the needs of the Good American Worker (tm), but they will have very different psychological effects on sympathy.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Valrifell
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20846
Founded: Aug 18, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Valrifell » Fri May 10, 2019 7:54 am

No really, what the fuck does the sympathy axis mean?
I like to imagine Sisyphus happy
I did some things

How not to debate: put snarky things implicitly calling out other posters in your sig

User avatar
Sungai Pusat
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15049
Founded: Mar 27, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Sungai Pusat » Fri May 10, 2019 7:56 am

See, the reason why people went "gosh, why is that white person so poor" is probably because they were only exposed to one form of privilege that can exist.

You know. Like the study says it does.

Also, the logical extremes would suggest that talking about privilege of any kind, some of which you would hopefully agree really does fucking exist (e.g... the privilege of having more money to start with in your life versus having little at all) would be bad because it would encourage anti-rich people sentiments, even though not everyone who is rich is a bad person.

The fault in your interpretation of this is assuming that all this exists as a simple on-off switch; talk about one form of privilege is bad because anti-people "with that privilege", supposedly because, y'know, poverty. Talking about them all means everyone suddenly becomes anti-white/rich/Christian/male, etc. Instead of recognising that having less empathy for someone based on the things they're supposedly privileged for is kind of fucking nonsensical because hey, maybe they've got some other bullshit in their life, like... being poor. Or being LGBT. Or having mental issues, etc.

It's a whole fucking system. Just as the professor. Fucking. Mentioned.

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Caracasus wrote:Any analysis of privelage that doesn't take into account material circumstances and class is doomed to tie itself up in weird knots like this. Hardly surprising.


Do you have any evidence that adding a class axis would impact the results noticably?

Because here's the thing. We now know this is basically a racist framing device.

Do you honestly think rambling constantly about "Wealthy Jews though, not working class ones." would prove a suitable impediment to anti-semitism growing?


Oh god, this is "anti racist = anti white" with a new coat of paint, isn't it?
Last edited by Sungai Pusat on Fri May 10, 2019 7:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Now mostly a politik discuss account.

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 129888
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Ifreann » Fri May 10, 2019 7:58 am

So we should figure out how to better educate people to avoid this reaction. I don't think we should throw out facts just because people don't tend to have good reactions to them.

Also, you have a plural in your title that should probably be a singular.
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Banter For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Snark That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Sarcasm
He/Him

Dangerous this Jack o' Hearts.
With his kiss
the riot
starts

User avatar
Sungai Pusat
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15049
Founded: Mar 27, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Sungai Pusat » Fri May 10, 2019 7:58 am

Valrifell wrote:No really, what the fuck does the sympathy axis mean?

Um, how... sympathetic you are?

More seriously, knowing how much more or less something is sometimes requires a numerical approximate, even if it isn't entirely accurate.
Now mostly a politik discuss account.

User avatar
Caracasus
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7456
Founded: Apr 23, 2015
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Caracasus » Fri May 10, 2019 7:59 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Caracasus wrote:Any analysis of privelage that doesn't take into account material circumstances and class is doomed to tie itself up in weird knots like this. Hardly surprising.


Do you have any evidence that adding a class axis would impact the results noticably?

Because here's the thing. We now know this is basically a racist framing device.

Do you honestly think rambling constantly about "Wealthy Jews though, not working class ones." would prove a suitable impediment to anti-semitism growing?


Not really my point. What you seem to have here is people missatributing to personal responsibility what is more adequately explained by a better understanding of class divisions and material circumstances.
As an editor I seam to spend an awful lot of thyme going threw issues and checking that they're no oblivious errars. Its a tough job but someone's got too do it!



Issues editor, not a moderator.

User avatar
-Ocelot-
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1252
Founded: Jun 14, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby -Ocelot- » Fri May 10, 2019 7:59 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
-Ocelot- wrote:There is going to be a time when you'll regret spending so much of your time and youth defending white supremacists and MRAs in a niche nation-building forum, Ostro.

As for the study, is it a study. You could probably find a study proving the opposite.


Can you find that study? Please, by all means.


I have better things to do with my life than fighting meaningless wars with MRAs who will never account to anything in the long run.

Please listen to what I'm telling you Ostro.
Post tenebras lux


⭐No such thing as too much yellow⭐

User avatar
Hystaria
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 495
Founded: Jul 04, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Hystaria » Fri May 10, 2019 8:01 am

-Ocelot- wrote:There is going to be a time when you'll regret spending so much of your time and youth defending white supremacists and MRAs in a niche nation-building forum, Ostro.

As for the study, is it a study. You could probably find a study proving the opposite.

I don't see any defense to white supremacy.

I think he is trying to say that White and Black people are equal. even in moral standards.

I can't see where he is saying that white people are better in any regard.


My only opinion is that using the fact that some white people can be racists and their past may have it rampant, does not damn an entire race.

Cause i met plenty of racist people across the races, but i don't see the collective people worse for it.

See a persons character, not their ancestors or nations past. We aren't judging european monarchs, those things no longer matter as much.
A [Tier:9 Level:1 Type:9
Power Comparator: (see below)5.2, according to this index.

(Please quote me in forums to find your response, please, that would be nice.)
Trade with me, trade without Idelogys harming us, Money doesn't care what side you are on.
i swear my eternal service to the lasaga lord and wish to spread it to all i meet .
[spoiler= Official Allies]Bolkenia
Kowani wrote:Hystaria. They’re both edgy, but only one of them is a special kind of edgy.

I dont use NS states, I use factbooks.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 50707
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri May 10, 2019 8:01 am

Sungai Pusat wrote:See, the reason why people went "gosh, why is that white person so poor" is probably because they were only exposed to one form of privilege that can exist.


Nonetheless, white privilege reduced empathy for whites rather than increasing empathy for blacks, so what good is it exactly?

You know. Like the study says it does.


Not all it says.

Also, the logical extremes would suggest that talking about privilege of any kind, some of which you would hopefully agree really does fucking exist (e.g... the privilege of having more money to start with in your life versus having little at all) would be bad because it would encourage anti-rich people sentiments, even though not everyone who is rich is a bad person.


You can stop being rich, you can't stop being white.

The fault in your interpretation of this is assuming that all this exists as a simple on-off switch; talk about one form of privilege is bad because anti-people "with that privilege", supposedly because, y'know, poverty. Talking about them all means everyone suddenly becomes anti-white/rich/Christian/male, etc.


Pretty much. Because you can talk about how people face problems, rather than bitterly noting how other people don't. What's your excuse for that type of framing device?

Instead of recognising that having less empathy for someone based on the things they're supposedly privileged for is kind of fucking nonsensical because hey, maybe they've got some other bullshit in their life, like... being poor. Or being LGBT. Or having mental issues, etc.


And yet, that's what the study shows.

It's a whole fucking system. Just as the professor. Fucking. Mentioned.


No actually, they rationalized that excuse but didn't study it to back it up.

Oh god, this is "anti racist = anti white" with a new coat of paint, isn't it?


Well, do you have a counter argument?
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Valrifell
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20846
Founded: Aug 18, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Valrifell » Fri May 10, 2019 8:02 am

Sungai Pusat wrote:
Valrifell wrote:No really, what the fuck does the sympathy axis mean?

Um, how... sympathetic you are?

More seriously, knowing how much more or less something is sometimes requires a numerical approximate, even if it isn't entirely accurate.


Fair point, but I don't understand why these would need a graph to visualize that, especially if it reads weird like this. Maybe I don't read enough psychology papers.

I also wonder how they arrived at their numerical interpretation
I like to imagine Sisyphus happy
I did some things

How not to debate: put snarky things implicitly calling out other posters in your sig

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 50707
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri May 10, 2019 8:02 am

Ifreann wrote:So we should figure out how to better educate people to avoid this reaction. I don't think we should throw out facts just because people don't tend to have good reactions to them.

Also, you have a plural in your title that should probably be a singular.


Right, now here's how you do that.

Talk about disadvantage, not privilege. Real simple.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Valrifell
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20846
Founded: Aug 18, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Valrifell » Fri May 10, 2019 8:03 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Ifreann wrote:So we should figure out how to better educate people to avoid this reaction. I don't think we should throw out facts just because people don't tend to have good reactions to them.

Also, you have a plural in your title that should probably be a singular.


Right, now here's how you do that.

Talk about disadvantage, not privilege. Real simple.


It's a relative scale, they'd be more or less the same thing.
I like to imagine Sisyphus happy
I did some things

How not to debate: put snarky things implicitly calling out other posters in your sig

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 58361
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Fri May 10, 2019 8:03 am

Ifreann wrote:So we should figure out how to better educate people to avoid this reaction. I don't think we should throw out facts just because people don't tend to have good reactions to them.


To be honest, unless it clearly and unambiguously fits and is inappropriate for the given people to have at all, we should probably throw out "privilege" as a concept altogether. The way the dominant group is treated is the way all should be treated.

Would it be better for white people to be treated more like black people for instance, or better for black people to be treated more like white people?

If being treated the way white people are treated should be the standard for everyone, then white people don't have privilege - they have the "standard" treatment, and we need to work on raising black people up to that level of treatment. If everyone should be treated the way black people are treated, then focusing on white privilege makes sense - as you need to tear them down to the level of black people to get equality.

I've not been the most consistent in this regard, I'll admit, but given the results of this study, I'm going to attempt to do better.

Also, you have a plural in your title that should probably be a singular.

There is that.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 50707
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri May 10, 2019 8:04 am

Valrifell wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Right, now here's how you do that.

Talk about disadvantage, not privilege. Real simple.


It's a relative scale, they'd be more or less the same thing.


That isn't true because of the emotional impetus behind the discussion. How we discuss things also matters.

"What is the problem with discussing this shooting as, 'The bullet was fired and entered the suspects head? it means the same thing as, The Police Officer Shot Mr Baker in the head.'"
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Fri May 10, 2019 8:07 am, edited 4 times in total.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Estanglia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1649
Founded: Dec 31, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Estanglia » Fri May 10, 2019 8:07 am

I'm wondering if the same lack of sympathy (or lack of an increase in sympathy) would be there if they talked about disadvantage, not privilege.

Because, yes, it's one study, but, if talking about privilege leads to this result, why would talking about more privilege solve it?
Last edited by Estanglia on Fri May 10, 2019 8:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Some random guy who spends way too much time in General and has a sig for the sake of having a sig.
Yeah: Most of capitalism, some of socialism, egalitarianism
Meh: Brexit
Nah: Some of capitalism, most of socialism, redefining discrimination to excuse your discrimination

User avatar
LiberNovusAmericae
Minister
 
Posts: 3225
Founded: Mar 10, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby LiberNovusAmericae » Fri May 10, 2019 8:08 am

Sungai Pusat wrote:Oh god, this is "anti racist = anti white" with a new coat of paint, isn't it?

Criticizing SJW bullshit is not the same as peddling neo-Nazism, so no.
Supports: Liberty, Capitalism, Libertarianism, Low Taxes, Free Speech, Civic Nationalism, Representative Republics, Secularism, Atheism

Against: Crony Capitalism, Fascism, Antifa, Ethnic Nationalism, alt-right, Communism, Religion, Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism
Fascists on Gameside have declared me an Enemy of the State! lol.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Blargoblarg, Bombadil, Che Triumphant, Dooom35796821595, Einsiev, Google [Bot], ImperialRussia, Infected Mushroom, Necroghastia, NeuesTeutony, New Bremerton, Nouveau Yathrib, Nova Cyberia, Proctopeo, Sarbonne, Syfenq, The Batorys, The Lone Alliance, Uiiop

Advertisement

Remove ads