|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 20 2016 15:44 kapibara-san wrote:
they certainly would've done somewhat better if they made themselves a more inclusive platform overall
i'm just skeptical that it'd ever have that much market value
then again having more demographics in their userbase would make the metadata they're able to sell on their users more valuable
maybe he has a point after all
regardless, twitter's importance as a human enterprise really isn't about how well it does as a business investment to me
ODH is right in that they're business practices have done little to build up revenue which affects the share value. I was more referring to xdaunt saying that it should be "left to the court of public opinion". The public opinion (not necessarily tied to the free speech issue) has spoken and twitter has had near 0 growth in active users for 6 straight quarters (1.5 years)
|
Canada11374 Posts
On July 20 2016 15:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 15:27 Falling wrote:On July 20 2016 15:16 xDaunt wrote:
What's there to police and why should we be policing it? What the regressive PC left no longer understands is that ideas should be left to the court of public opinion. Once you stop trusting the people to make those decisIons for themselves, then you're on the road to a police state. Yes, Twitter is a private entity that grants licenses to its users to use its product, but the attitude and sentiments that are behind their decision and held by those justifying their decision are radically undemocratic, and should be universally condemned by anyone who values free speech. A start would be someone like Milo not defending people posting black people = monkeys. The lack of defence of the appalling sections is a good step. And really as far as Milo is concerned that's really all that would be needed- I really have no idea what are the political persuasions of the gorilla posters. But supposing they were of similar political persuasions, then self-regulation used to be a great thing: Buckley's reading out of certain undesired groups within the conservative movement. I doubt any such thing would matter any more as the internet is anarchic by nature, but no apologetics for the racist tweets would be great. I haven't seen any of his tweets defending people who tweeted pictures of gorillas at her, I'd love to see them because if he actually did that's fucked up. The closest one I saw was the tweet where he said "everyone gets hate mail FFS" which is not exactly a defense of hate mail.
The context of the situation is she was retweeting people's tweets. She was lashing out against all these tweets. Then people start going on about how Leslie is being unprofessional about how she was responding to the tweets. So what were the tweets that she was responding to? Critiques of her performance in Ghostbusters? Critiques of Ghostbusters in general? Critiques of her character qualities?
No.
The tweets she was going off on were:
she came at me with the "that's not nice" but I'm being called an ape.Racist people sending pics calling me nigga
34 retweets 176 likes
Or
+ Show Spoiler +
Or
+ Show Spoiler +
So now Milo enters the scene. He says Leslie is "play(ing) the victim"!
What was she playing a victim on again? Was it criticisms of the film or her acting? The above racist tweets and more. But why does Milo say she is playing the victim? Because "If at first you don't succeed (because your work is terrible)."
There was only one thing she was going after 'playing the victim'... all the racist stuff. So the first part defends the racist screed as a result her performance. The one follows the other.
And then he dismisses it all with 'everyone gets hatemail.' Honestly, I don't really care if everyone does- nobody should, not Leslie, not Milo. And getting angry for racist garbage thrown your way is apparently bad form- nevermind that the garbage is itself bad form. Notice that it is Leslie that he lectures, not anyone else. He creates a causal connection between her performance and the twitter reaction. But the twitter reaction shows no true causation as it is racial slurs not cinematic critique. That is defending the racist twitter posts. To conclude, this was not ambiguous- Leslie was very clear who she was complaining about- she was linking them... and one and all were black people = monkeys. And Milo swoops in as a shining knight to protect those poor gorilla posters from mean old Leslie. You are not going to get an "I am Milo, and I approve this message" behind these tweets... but what else could he possibly be defending? There were no other posts to defend. But I guess Leslie deserved it after all: bad performance.
|
On July 20 2016 15:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 15:36 kapibara-san wrote:On July 20 2016 15:25 CorsairHero wrote:On July 20 2016 15:16 xDaunt wrote:
What's there to police and why should we be policing it? What the regressive PC left no longer understands is that ideas should be left to the court of public opinion. Once you stop trusting the people to make those decisIons for themselves, then you're on the road to a police state. Yes, Twitter is a private entity that grants licenses to its users to use its product, but the attitude and sentiments that are behind their decision and held by those justifying their decision are radically undemocratic, and should be universally condemned by anyone who values free speech. It's reflected in its share price. Twitter has lost 75% of its value in just 2.5 years. i feel like it's pretty questionable to imply its failure as a business investment has much to do with their anti-free speech / undemocratic policies only blind optimists thought they'd be able to monetize well in any case It almost certainly is wishful thinking but schadenfreude has never required any real accuracy. Jack Dorsey has overseen the stagnation of the Twitter userbase and huge drop in its share price, Jack Dorsey does things I don't like, the things he does that I don't like are why Twitter is struggling! It doesn't really matter if that is true. It never does. It's a charge impossible to verify or refute. Unless you want to spend tens of millions of dollars on intensive market research. Show nested quote +These are basically the same tweet. Personally this is benign, especially compared to the targeted ongoing Ape calling. I laugh and joke about white people being white af all the time but I'm white. This isn't much of a smoking gun to me. I guess if everyone is going to be hyper sensitive about everything then yeah its shitty. But I grew up on Chris Rock so...Personally some racial jokes don't bother me at all as long as they're not crazy, and its not clear that the person that's telling them legitimately has hate in their heart for that group. If you make some well crafted comedy (not that these tweets are Richard Pryor) that takes some jabs at people in good fun go for it. But to equate a bunch of people calling her a gorilla repeatedly for 2 days to those is laughable. I think that movie looks like ass, I get why people are shitting on it. But you can think something looks like crap without just laying into someone and being racist af about it. If we're going on volume, there is a large amount of anti-white commentary on Twitter and in more private settings, it's not a situation where there is 1 instance of bad things said by one side and 10,000 by the other. The anti-black racists on Twitter are not lacking for anti-white counterparts. Just because you view of them as benign doesn't mean someone out there didn't feel bad because of them. I didn't but if this is the standard that's going to be applied then it should be uniformly applied. If it isn't, you get people like Trump being nominated for the presidency of the most consequential country in the world (and thanks to Hillary being a terrible candidate actually having a real shot to win), you get people like Marine Le Pen, you get parties like Austria's Freedom Party. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Letting it slide for some people and not others is not going to improve the attitude or behavior of the latter. All it does is give them the crankypants.
There's racists on both sides, yeah. I don't subscribe to the racism requires power definition. It certainly makes it mean more when you have power behind it, but Asian people can be racist, Black, Mexican, Indian, whatever. Those tweets of her were tweeted at nebulous white people. The tweets at her were directly targeting her. There is a difference there very clearly. Saying she's ugly and looks like a great ape is meant to hurt 1 specific person.
There are a million "LOL white people!" memes, there's "Black Twitter" which is mostly not black people making up stuff. I don't necessarily have any problem with either of those things if it's stupid jabs its fine. If anyone takes offense to that kind of stuff I think they're an idiot personally. People are too sensitive now days, but there is a gradient. I was at a wedding with a black friend who made some sort of "LOL White people" joke at people on the dance floor, I laughed because yeah....white people. That's one thing but it is totally possible to take things way too far. But I'm pretty damn hard to offend, everyone's different.
There is this notion lately though that 2 wrongs make a right. I think those "lol white people" tweets of hers are only offensive if you're hypersensitive. By the same token some things that "liberals" (and I'm really liberal) get bent out of shape about are only offensive if you're being hypersensitive. People on both sides are looking to be offended too much. But people online are like children going "Well he started it!" as if that absolves them. Oh, well Leslie said "lol white people" a few times so that makes calling her an ape fine!
|
there's a fundamental ugliness to the fact that most social media and semi-anonymous commenting systems (this includes facebook and platforms that require your real name, because honestly, who's gonna hunt down a random article commenter) seem to catalyze extra-vitriolic, polarized argument, insulting, and name-calling without even a slight attempt at non-rhetorical empathy
the fact that people can spend time looking for / copypasting clever ways to insult people whom they disagree with or whom they dislike much more easily in an instant-gratification way seems quite bad overall
something something greater internet dickwad theory something something echo chambers
now all this is cliche and something i've actually ironically admonished people for bringing it up here before, but my point is that free speech isn't even inherently valuable in these contexts. i'm a consequentialist and i think allowing people to fling shit at each other isn't helping anything in the slightest, while on the other hand the censorship of these not-helping-echo-chamber-platforms are making things even worse by adding to the anti-PC-pontificators' ammunition against what they feel is the problem... just shitty feedback loops on shitty feedback loops
i just dont see anything at all good coming out of these feedback loops, and outgrowths like censorship and discussion of anti-censorship in these regards are all just malignant tumors on malignant tumors to me... even if they come from meritorious principles, this isn't the place to fight for their virtue. it'd be prudent for most people not to engage in most of this shit at all. this accords with ouchydathurts' point about people from all aisles being too sensitive and picking too many fights over stupid shit overall.
i agree with milo on the general sentiment that she should've just ignored that stuff, but at the same time, the ape stuff is not the type of stuff i take issue with censoring at all, esp by a private enterprise. it's lazy provocation that has literally a 0% chance of any good outcome, and it's certainly not a good poster child for anti-censorship arguments.
i do agree that when it gets to a state level, including in schools and the justice system, censorship's legitimately bad, and that's where i'd like to see most of this energy directed. it's also generally more prudent to go case by case and defend controversial speech that's also meritorious. on the other hand, bringing it up whenever there's censorship of echo-chamber insults or shallow memes seems like a waste of time to me. there's something to picking battles.
|
Trump could seek new law to purge government of Obama appointees
If he wins the presidency, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump would seek to purge the federal government of officials appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama and could ask Congress to pass legislation making it easier to fire public workers, Trump ally, Chris Christie, said on Tuesday.
Christie, who is governor of New Jersey and leads Trump's White House transition team, said the campaign was drawing up a list of federal government employees to fire if Trump defeats Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the Nov. 8 presidential election
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-purge-exclusive-idUSKCN10003A
Maybe they will do that after the execute hillary for crimes against the state. I dont understand how we give go from giving romney the third degree for 2 off color but harmless comments to letting letting trump and his team get away with basically being Erdogan. In a little under 4 years at that.
|
Canada11374 Posts
i agree with milo on the general sentiment that she should've just ignored that stuff,
If he had actually said that, then that would have been a perfectly acceptable response. She clearly disagreed that ignoring was the way to go about it, but that's at least a decent response. Saying you are "play(ing) the victim" because your performance was bad is NOT the same thing as saying "just ignore the trolls."
|
On July 20 2016 15:58 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 15:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 20 2016 15:27 Falling wrote:On July 20 2016 15:16 xDaunt wrote:
What's there to police and why should we be policing it? What the regressive PC left no longer understands is that ideas should be left to the court of public opinion. Once you stop trusting the people to make those decisIons for themselves, then you're on the road to a police state. Yes, Twitter is a private entity that grants licenses to its users to use its product, but the attitude and sentiments that are behind their decision and held by those justifying their decision are radically undemocratic, and should be universally condemned by anyone who values free speech. A start would be someone like Milo not defending people posting black people = monkeys. The lack of defence of the appalling sections is a good step. And really as far as Milo is concerned that's really all that would be needed- I really have no idea what are the political persuasions of the gorilla posters. But supposing they were of similar political persuasions, then self-regulation used to be a great thing: Buckley's reading out of certain undesired groups within the conservative movement. I doubt any such thing would matter any more as the internet is anarchic by nature, but no apologetics for the racist tweets would be great. I haven't seen any of his tweets defending people who tweeted pictures of gorillas at her, I'd love to see them because if he actually did that's fucked up. The closest one I saw was the tweet where he said "everyone gets hate mail FFS" which is not exactly a defense of hate mail. The context of the situation is she was retweeting people's tweets. She was lashing out against all these tweets. Then people start going on about how Leslie is being unprofessional about how she was responding to the tweets. So what were the tweets that she was responding to? Critiques of her performance in Ghostbusters? Critiques of Ghostbusters in general? Critiques of her character qualities? No. The tweets she was going off on were: Show nested quote +she came at me with the "that's not nice" but I'm being called an ape.Racist people sending pics calling me nigga
34 retweets 176 likes Or + Show Spoiler +Or + Show Spoiler +So now Milo enters the scene. He says Leslie is "play(ing) the victim"! What was she playing a victim on again? Was it criticisms of the film or her acting? The above racist tweets and more. But why does Milo say she is playing the victim? Because "If at first you don't succeed (because your work is terrible)." There was only one thing she was going after 'playing the victim'... all the racist stuff. So the first part defends the racist screed as a result her performance. The one follows the other. And then he dismisses it all with 'everyone gets hatemail.' Honestly, I don't really care if everyone does- nobody should, not Leslie, not Milo. And getting angry for racist garbage thrown your way is bad form- nevermind that the garbage is itself bad form. Notice that it is Leslie that he lectures, not anyone else. He creates a causal connection between her performance and the twitter reaction. But the twitter reaction shows no true causation as it is racial slurs not cinematic critique. That is defending the racist twitter posts. To conclude, this was not ambiguous- Leslie was very clear who she was complaining about- she was linking them... and one and all were black people = monkeys. And Milo swoops in as shining knight to protect those poor gorilla posters from mean old Leslie. There were no other posts to defend. Leslie deserved it after all. Bad performance.
It's been really annoying trying to get the actual timeline of who tweeted what when since you can't see any of his tweets anymore but I think got the timeline now, the playing the victim and everyone gets hatemail were actually one tweet though.
No doubt he would say she's been playing the victim re: criticism of the movie since well before yesterday and he was talking about that larger context but from looking at her twitter feed that is not what she was doing yesterday. He was reflexively being a dick to her because of her alleged past wrongs without bothering to find out or care about the details of the current circumstances.
Oh, well Leslie said "lol white people" a few times so that makes calling her an ape fine!
It's more why are you only punishing these people, not having uniformly enforced standards turns people into 3 year olds. It doesn't even have to be oh well you all get the same punishment, it's the no punishment at all for some that is problematic. Because yeah that is unfair and, as any person who is a parent of multiple children will tell you, counterproductive.
|
On July 20 2016 16:14 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +i agree with milo on the general sentiment that she should've just ignored that stuff, If he had actually said that, then that would have been a perfectly acceptable response. She clearly disagreed that ignoring was the way to go about it, but that's at least a decent response. Saying you are "play(ing) the victim" because your performance was bad is NOT the same thing as saying "just ignore the trolls."
you're correct, he was intentionally provocative as he always is
this is where it's prudent for people to get a thick skin and reword/reinterpret other people's hostility in the most favorable context... to forget the messengers and let their guard down to the words...
but then again there will always be more thin-skinned people who like to make big deals out of little deals painting targets on themselves for trolls
that's another issue of mass semi-anonymous social media: it helps people who like to upset people find an overwhelming amount of people who easily get upset
bullies who mainly want to bully people calling "free speech" when they get called out and hiding messages and provocations with no actual merit under the banner of meritorious principles. these are the worst of the anti-PC people who give their kin a bad name.
on the other hand, there is something true about the regressive left excessively censoring or ignoring/ridiculing attempts at genuine discussion (at least on the surface) about problematic aspects of problematic cultures, islam esp... that's more of an actual issue... but idk i rarely see progress being made through this type of analysis.
EDIT: apologies to people who found this difficult to read, esp. pre-edit; i'm on some massive sleep deprivation, and i have a weird complex with capitalization.
|
Canada11374 Posts
playing the victim and everyone gets hatemail were actually one tweet though.
Yes. I've been parsing it to explain my reasoning, but it is the same tweet.
No doubt he would say she's been playing the victim re: criticism of the movie since well before yesterday and he was talking about that larger context but from looking at her twitter feed that is not what she was doing yesterday. He was reflexively being a dick to her because of her alleged past wrongs without bothering to find out or care about the details of the current circumstances.
I wouldn't doubt that- which goes to show that one should be careful about locking into a certain narrative without checking to see if THIS particular situation is a different circumstance altogether.
Absolutist narratives like "X Always Lie" "X Always Double Down" "X Always Project" create feedback loops that are not able to accept data that might counter your preconceived notions... a very dangerous situation.
you're correct, he was intentionally provocative as he always is
I don't mean VERY different as in what he said was a synonym for 'ignore the trolls', but he was being a scamp; he was being provocative. I mean he was doing something different entirely. He aligned with the racist trolls. He (perhaps inadvertently because his dickish nature is perhaps not affected, but his natural reaction) threw in his lot with the racists, justifying their actions as the natural response to a bad performance.
|
Did they actually talk about jobs today? I missed the stream.
|
On July 20 2016 16:32 acker wrote:
Did they actually talk about jobs today? I missed the stream.
As it seems there was some twitter fight between a "B" and a "C" celebrity, thats more important than anything else.
Oh, and there was a strange/racist comment about white superiority during a live interview...
Aren't you entertained?
|
On July 20 2016 16:32 acker wrote:
Did they actually talk about jobs today? I missed the stream.
Donald Trump will make every job in America great again. Being a janitor will be just as great as being a starting QB in the NFL in Trump's America. Hell, being a janitor at Mar-a-Lago is already greater than being a starting QB in the NFL and it is that greatness that Donald Trump will bring to all American jobs!*
*May not be an actual quote
|
On July 20 2016 16:18 kapibara-san wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 16:14 Falling wrote:i agree with milo on the general sentiment that she should've just ignored that stuff, If he had actually said that, then that would have been a perfectly acceptable response. She clearly disagreed that ignoring was the way to go about it, but that's at least a decent response. Saying you are "play(ing) the victim" because your performance was bad is NOT the same thing as saying "just ignore the trolls." you're correct, he was intentionally provocative as he always is this is where it's prudent for people to get a thick skin and reword/reinterpret other people's hostility in the most favorable context... to forget the messengers and let their guard down to the words... but then again there will always be more thin-skinned people who like to make big deals out of little deals painting targets on themselves for trolls that's another issue of mass semi-anonymous social media: it helps people who like to upset people find an overwhelming amount of people who easily get upset bullies who mainly want to bully people calling "free speech" when they get called out and hiding messages and provocations with no actual merit under the banner of meritorious principles. these are the worst of the anti-PC people who give their kin a bad name. on the other hand, there is something true about the regressive left excessively censoring or ignoring/ridiculing attempts at genuine discussion (at least on the surface) about problematic aspects of problematic cultures, islam esp... that's more of an actual issue... but idk i rarely see progress being made through this type of analysis. EDIT: apologies to people who found this difficult to read, esp. pre-edit; i'm on some massive sleep deprivation, and i have a weird complex with capitalization.
I generally agree with this.
People talk past each other, aren't willing to do any introspection on themselves or their "group", are too emotional sometimes, are not emotional at all sometimes, don't know what empathy is, have no interest in having honest discussions, totally discount things that might actually have some merit. Its like the world only sees in terms of black and white right now and virtually nothing in life is actually only black or only white. People are super divided right now and I don't know when or how it changes.
On July 20 2016 16:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 16:32 acker wrote:
Did they actually talk about jobs today? I missed the stream. Donald Trump will make every job in America great again. Being a janitor will be just as great as being a starting QB in the NFL in Trump's America. Hell, being a janitor at Mar-a-Lago is already greater than being a starting QB in the NFL and it is that greatness that Donald Trump will bring to all American jobs!* *May not be an actual quote
Hmmm, you don't say....I've always kind of wanted to be an NFL QB but without the brain damage or talent.
|
If the Monday box office numbers are any indication Milo could've kept his fabulous mouth shut and still got his vindication over anyone and everyone involved in the making of Ghostbusters. 12.5 million on Sunday to 4.9 million on Monday... that is not good news for Ghostbusters at all considering Star Trek and Ice Age are debuting Friday. Keeping your powder dry is the way to go sometimes.
|
On July 20 2016 16:41 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I generally agree with this.
People talk past each other, aren't willing to do any introspection on themselves or their "group", are too emotional sometimes, are not emotional at all sometimes, don't know what empathy is, have no interest in having honest discussions, totally discount things that might actually have some merit. Its like the world only sees in terms of black and white right now and virtually nothing in life is actually only black or only white. People are super divided right now and I don't know when or how it changes.
here's the point where i bring up the other cliche that there's some representation bias here; that people who are prone to see things more black-and-white tend to be louder and talk/shout more often, while people with more nuanced views often keep them to themselves, often mainly for fear of encountering someone who sees things in black-and-white shouting them down.
not sure about %s. i think in some groups it might actually be vocal majority and quiet minority rather than the more commonly cited other way around of "vocal minority vs silent majority," but i haven't done comprehensive research at all on this topic, so there's not much value to my rough impression... though i'm not sure what the value would be even if i knew definitively how many problematic (heh) people there are out there vs better people in any specific demographic/group/nation/state/community. maybe if i felt compelled to seek a somewhat high-tier community in that regard...
|
On July 20 2016 16:53 kapibara-san wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 16:41 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I generally agree with this.
People talk past each other, aren't willing to do any introspection on themselves or their "group", are too emotional sometimes, are not emotional at all sometimes, don't know what empathy is, have no interest in having honest discussions, totally discount things that might actually have some merit. Its like the world only sees in terms of black and white right now and virtually nothing in life is actually only black or only white. People are super divided right now and I don't know when or how it changes. here's the point where i bring up the other cliche that there's some representation bias here; that people who are prone to see things more black-and-white tend to be louder and talk/shout more often, while people with more nuanced views often keep them to themselves, often mainly for fear of encountering someone who sees things in black-and-white shouting them down. not sure about %s. i think in some groups it might actually be vocal majority and quiet minority rather than the more commonly cited other way around of "vocal minority vs silent majority," but i haven't done comprehensive research at all on this topic, so there's not much value to my rough impression... though i'm not sure what the value would be even if i knew definitively how many problematic (heh) people there are out there vs better people in any specific demographic/group/nation/state/community. maybe if i felt compelled to seek a somewhat high-tier community in that regard...
True, a bit like the whole smart people are less likely to have kids thing so you end up in a downward spiral, or smart people are more likely to have a lot of doubts and internalize while others are more likely to be super confident and shouting their wrong ideas. You end up in a self fulfilling prophecy or sorts, life is funny that way. RIP.
On July 20 2016 16:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:
If the Monday box office numbers are any indication Milo could've kept his fabulous mouth shut and still got his vindication over anyone and everyone involved in the making of Ghostbusters. 12.5 million on Sunday to 4.9 million on Monday... that is not good news for Ghostbusters at all considering Star Trek and Ice Age are debuting Friday. Keeping your powder dry is the way to go sometimes.
Ain't that the truth. People choose the dumbest hills to die on sometimes.
|
So
how the fuck did the Melania Trump blunder happen? The campaign has enough money to match a third-world country's GDP, and they don't employ speech-checkers?
|
If the rickroll in the middle of her speech was any indication, someone on the speechwriting team was a NeverTrump mole.
|
|
|
On July 20 2016 16:09 Shingi11 wrote:Trump could seek new law to purge government of Obama appointees Show nested quote +If he wins the presidency, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump would seek to purge the federal government of officials appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama and could ask Congress to pass legislation making it easier to fire public workers, Trump ally, Chris Christie, said on Tuesday.
Christie, who is governor of New Jersey and leads Trump's White House transition team, said the campaign was drawing up a list of federal government employees to fire if Trump defeats Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the Nov. 8 presidential election
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-purge-exclusive-idUSKCN10003AMaybe they will do that after the execute hillary for crimes against the state. I dont understand how we give go from giving romney the third degree for 2 off color but harmless comments to letting letting trump and his team get away with basically being Erdogan. In a little under 4 years at that.
If this news is accurate, this is terrifying to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KFGzcAD.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/S2pqdRR.png)
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/q7VZm/9a24d159e8.png)
