EPTJapan, Refutation of Neoliberalism
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue23/Locke23.htm
Google's New Approach to China - Page 14
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
igotmyown
United States4291 Posts
Japan, Refutation of Neoliberalism http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue23/Locke23.htm | ||
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21243 Posts
For those who say that arguments against freedom of speech in China boils down to keeping the current party in power: That is exactly why freedom of speech should not happen as it does in the west. The current party is the only thing that is keeping China unified and ordered, and preventing it from dissolving into chaos. For five thousand years, the Chinese people were used to having a vague sort of higher entity and government governing things. The fact that they rarely interfere in the lives of your average person means little - it's the knowledge that there is -something- governing us that gives China order. The emperor can do what he wants in the Forbidden Palace, as long as he is providing the sense of a unified government, all is well. When there is not a "governing" presence, chaos presents itself. China is simply not ready for anarchy - the bloodiest periods in Chinese history are, ironically, in the often glorified revolutions that shift the control of the country from one dynasty to another. No ruler wants his ascension to be marred by an image of abject poverty and destruction, so this image isn't as readily available to the general imagination, but the truth of the matter is, when one dynasty is weak, chaos tends to spread, and famine and war tend to grip the country for a chaotic decade or so before another governing body asserts itself. We don't even need to look at the dynastic shifts for evidence of this - just think of the period after 1911, immediately following the collapse of the Qing dynasty. The Republic of China did not magically assert itself and give order to the Chinese people. In a country as big as China, both in terms of land and population, it is simply not feasible for unity to spread. In the vacuum of a government, we had, during the not-so-glorious rule of the Nationalist party, stuff like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord_era It is, essentially, a civil war with dozens of factions claiming areas big or small. Which, obviously, is not an environment conducive to unity or stability. If "freedom of speech" suddenly became a universal presence in China, there would obviously be uprisings against the PRC. Whether or not they're consisted of enough people to pose a concrete thread is irrelevant, the fact will be that they will be there, and government, unsure of what would happen but certain that if it were to collapse, there could be no good outcome, would respond through the simplest and most effective means to control an angry mass - military action, and crushing riots. Now, either this doesn't psis enough people off and the status quo remains, or it pisses off enough people that the government gets overthrown. And then we have another chaotic period until another vague entity asserts itself in Beijing, and the status quo is, once again, restored. This is obviously a gross simplification with many assumptions to make things straightforward, but it's realistic enough for my point: when the government is week, people will try to capitalize on it, whether for their personal gain, making a stand on principles, or whatever. Socially, discontent in China is at its highest when a government is weak and not when it's authoritatively ruling over every aspect of life. The point is, China functions very efficiently when there is an authoritative governing entity. And if it comes at the cost of some amount of freedom of speech, the average Chinese citizen is fine with that, because honestly, they're not missing anything from a lack of "freedom of speech." The right to the freedom of speech, for the vast majority of people, don't benefit their lives at all. Chinese morality is much less focused on individualism than Western morality, and that is the thing that strikes observers as so odd about why the Chinese people aren't rioting in the streets every day demanding individual rights. For five thousand years, we were brought up to respect authority - the foremost tenet of Confucianism is the respect that the ruled has for the ruler, and the ruler's obligation to provide security to the ruled. Second is your duty to your ancestors, third your duty to your spouse, fourth to your friends, and fifth to your brothers. Nowhere does it dictate that you have a duty to yourself beyond the security that the ruler provides you. Chinese people don't -need- the same set of rights as Westerners, so for a Chinese person to see an American or an European trying to force their values on us, we would obviously judge you to be at best ignorant, and at worst maliciously offensive. | ||
|
old times sake
165 Posts
On January 15 2010 09:23 TwoSugarsAndACream wrote: Can you explain what you mean in a short paragraph or couple of sentences. It confuses me, especially the last part. But if I'm not mistaken, you are trying to tell me that I should allow people to criticize China because they are only opinions? Well what of my opinions then? Shouldn't I express them? Think about that. I don't understand where in this paragraph you quoted you are getting this. I'm referring to the revisionist/denialist tendency of the media that is permitted in China and its negative effects. You seem to be referring to things I said elsewhere in my post, but you specifically quoted one paragraph and asked me only about it, so I am confused. Assuming you mean my whole post and not the part you quoted, however, notice that I am saying who I believe is in the wrong, not who should and should not speak. Saying some should not speak would be a Chinese approach. Saying who I believe to be wrong isn't. On January 15 2010 09:56 KissBlade wrote: Considering he's saying that it's ok to make sweeping racial judgments across the board with little to no knowledge (or in less polite words, be a racist), I'm not sure you should mind being confused by his post. Not at all. I specifically said that there are exceptions to generalizations and specifically gave examples of how generalizations are nonetheless real and legitimate. You are exactly the kind of wrong my post was supposed to challenge. We can make general terms above the species level. They are not false or unfair. e.g. "mammal" We can make generalizations about them even when there are exceptions. We can make a word for a group that shares some characteristics at this level. Clearly it's possible to talk about mammals without listing every category-defying exception. The word exists legitimately, out of what generally is common between many individuals/particulars. We can make general terms at the species level. They are not false or unfair. e.g. "dog" We can make generalizations about them even when there are exceptions. We can make a word for a group that shares some characteristics at this level. I might say something about dogs, but it isn't going to be true for 100% of dogs and that's not what people generally mean when they talk about groups larger than particulars/individuals. We can make general terms within or "below" the species level. They are not false or unfair. e.g. "chihuahua" (all breeds of dog are the same species fyi) We can make generalizations about them even when there are exceptions. We can make a word for a group that shares some characteristics at this level. I might say something about chihuahuas, even if it doesn't apply to your chihuahua. We can make general terms smaller than that, still. They are not false or unfair. e.g. "John's chihuahuas" We can make generalizations about them even when there are exceptions. We can make a word for a group that shares some characteristics at this level. I could say, John's chihuahuas seem particularly fat and yippy. Does this mean that one might come along that isn't? No Does it mean there has never been an exception? No. It is talking about the whole group, compared to another whole group. It's possible and fair. Is it unfair to talk about Texas? The culture of Texas? People from Texas? Why not larger areas then? Because they are "a race"? But we've just shown that groups less particular and more particular than race are both legitimate categories to discuss, despite what anthropologists may have declared. If not race, then the p.c. equivalent, i.e. people descendant from blah blah who live here and speak this and their ancestors have for blah blah time period. In other words, yes, race/culture/nationality or some blend of them. It's really embarrassing to see so many people sensitive/embarrassed/outraged because people say bad things about a government or a culture that their ancestors are a part of. If anything, people doing this are the real race-ists, because they're assuming more of a connection to "their race" than they really should believe in. If you did not grow up in China, go to school in China (in a Chinese-speaking school), watch Chinese television (with no access to anything else), then in what way do you group yourself with the culture and regime people are referring to here, in such a way that you take offense and have to defend them? If you had to go live in some city in China you would observe the same detrimental qualities about them, if you were not so busy defending them like they are your family. Frankly, it's a bit pathetic to see people who clearly have been raised in western schools by speakers of English to think that Chinese people are just like them, and that any insult to China (particularly as a culture or government) is an insult to them. This would be like black people (in the u.s.) bending over backwards to defend Somalians and the Somalian way of life, culture, government etc. It makes no sense, sorry. edit: there's nothing efficient about the way China functions (re: above post). Go there and see. | ||
|
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21243 Posts
On January 15 2010 20:00 old times sake wrote: It's really embarrassing to see so many people sensitive/embarrassed/outraged because people say bad things about a government or a culture that their ancestors are a part of. If anything, people doing this are the real race-ists, because they're assuming more of a connection to "their race" than they really should believe in. If you did not grow up in China, go to school in China (in a Chinese-speaking school), watch Chinese television (with no access to anything else), then in what way do you group yourself with the culture and regime people are referring to here, in such a way that you take offense and have to defend them? If you had to go live in some city in China you would observe the same detrimental qualities about them, if you were not so busy defending them like they are your family. Frankly, it's a bit pathetic to see people who clearly have been raised in western schools by speakers of English to think that Chinese people are just like them, and that any insult to China (particularly as a culture or government) is an insult to them. This would be like black people (in the u.s.) bending over backwards to defend Somalians and the Somalian way of life, culture, government etc. It makes no sense, sorry. edit: there's nothing efficient about the way China functions (re: above post). Go there and see. Blood runs thicker than water. I'm sorry that you do not feel the same kind of attachment to your heritage that many Chinese immigrants take pride in. That's fine, but to attack it is downright ignorant. That's like saying someone's wrong for supporting a sport team if they aren't related to any of the players. Why would you support this team? Why would you hold this team to be better than its rival when you have no real say in it? People are allowed to have loyalties to things, for good reasons, for vague reasons, for no reason at all. It shouldn't need to be defended. It's one of the things that makes us human. And China runs pretty damn efficiently from what I've seen (I've been there. I've lived there. I don't think you have.), and its growth rates agree. | ||
|
old times sake
165 Posts
And yeah I've been in China and lived there and it doesn't run efficiently at all. Sorry. Tell me how you get a train ticket or any ticket to travel in China and tell me how that's efficient and "running well" Tell me about the hospitals. Tell me how many schools there have soap, even during H1N1 outbreak. Tell me what hours cabs don't pick people up because it's "between shifts." Tell me more brilliant things. Hell, tell me what exactly you think is done well there. Just name a couple things--should be easy. | ||
|
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21243 Posts
On January 15 2010 20:30 old times sake wrote: And yeah I've been in China and lived there and it doesn't run efficiently at all. Sorry. Tell me how you get a train ticket or any ticket to travel in China and tell me how that's efficient and "running well" Tell me about the hospitals. Tell me how many schools there have soap, even during H1N1 outbreak. Tell me what hours cabs don't pick people up because it's "between shifts." Tell me more brilliant things. Hell, tell me what exactly you think is done well there. Just name a couple things--should be easy. You buy a train ticket the same way you buy a train ticket or a plane ticket in America. I have no idea what you're going on about - do you think it's less efficient because the lines are longer or something? During the H1N1 outbreak, the actions by the Chinese government, albeit slightly extreme, have generally been credited as preventing a much bigger spread of the virus in China considering its population density, compared to, say, SARS. There are far more cabs in New York City that are always not picking people up than in China. I can't believe you think taxi drivers who don't pick people up is a result of...I don't even know what you're saying here. Your examples are getting more and more inane. And to the first part of your post, you basically think no one should ever take pride or be loyal to anyone. Gotcha. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10705 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42690 Posts
| ||
|
TwoSugarsAndACream
Canada21 Posts
On January 15 2010 20:30 old times sake wrote: That's exactly what I'm saying. Taking pride in your blood like a sports team is not only stupid, but dangerous. It's the exact kind of thing we should all be very cautious of--the reason for so many problems in the world today. The reason racism and cultural cleansing can exist. It's also ignorant to defend something you really have no information about. If you told me that Lebron was an asshole in the lockerroom I wouldn't stand up for him just because I liked him as a player, or, say, was his great grandchild or something (in the future, obviously). That's ridiculous. Just like it's ridiculous to say "how dare you say Chinese people are stupid? I'm Chinese! I'm not stupid! RRRGGG!!!!" to people who actually have experience and knowledge of China and clearly mean people there, not Chinese-race-cheerleaders who other than their family and appearance, are almost not Chinese at all (sorry). And yeah I've been in China and lived there and it doesn't run efficiently at all. Sorry. Tell me how you get a train ticket or any ticket to travel in China and tell me how that's efficient and "running well" Tell me about the hospitals. Tell me how many schools there have soap, even during H1N1 outbreak. Tell me what hours cabs don't pick people up because it's "between shifts." Tell me more brilliant things. Hell, tell me what exactly you think is done well there. Just name a couple things--should be easy. Taking pride in my blood is stupid? Oh geez...I'm going to take this as a personal opinion and leave it alone, but don't repeat that again because I will make fun of you. I think you haven't been to China long enough to understand anything. Efficiency? Do you know anything about China? Like holy watermelons, taxis are all over the place in China, but in Canada you have to friggin CALL to get a taxi....my first impression when I moved to Canada was, where are all the buses? I have to wait 15min for the next bus? Wth is this? Seriously compared to some of the cities in China, Canada seems more like a village than anything. No buses, no taxis, no arcade. I will say, however, Canadian cities are cleaner and feels safer to live in, despite the lack of stores, cheap food and transportation. So no, western cities are not necessarily more efficient and the government is slow. By the way, as Carnivous said about the train ticket issue, I feel bad for you. Just go up and get a train ticket, maybe Chinese people just wanted to screw around with you. And by the way, your analogy of the dog-cat-sheep-elephant-tigers should be treated equal idea doesn't make sense. Human beings are not normal creatures. We Rape. Everything. I didn't quote your previous post while talking about it, kinda long and incoherent. Maybe you can condense it to a shorter version next time, the length of my quoted section is about right. | ||
|
KissBlade
United States5718 Posts
On January 15 2010 15:57 Boblion wrote: Eh i was just using your reasoning. It was obviously ironic. Don't worry i don't think that the Chinese guys at my uni will stab me. However i have still troubles to understand. What is so bad about the environment and the community in China to change the wonderful adaptative Chinese immigrant into a dangerous persona ? Stealing, lieing, killing aren't perceived morally bad ? I think that some Chinese have already stated in this thread that they disagree with this idea. I also think we agreed before that the average human beings have the same fundamental moral values ( at least regarding murder / robbery ) and i don't know why the Chinese would became serial killers or thieves because of more freedom of expression. It seems that you can't understand that freedom of expression is compatible with order and justice. Money to hire policemen and juges shouldn't be a problem with the impressive China GPD growth. Also China has billions to hire teachers and build schools everywhere and teach kids proper morals. Eh they are already quite good when it comes to teach bs nationalism. Again i know it is cliche to use the Indian example but i'm pretty sure that they have living conditions as bad if not worse than the average Chinese guy. Corruption and crime are rampant ( in China too sup Wen Qiang ) but they still have freedom of expression. You will probably say that half of the population is too illiterate or poor to care about politics but w/e India is still rising. I think that the real reason for the lack of freedom of expression is not that crime rate will skyrocket but that people will question the legitimacy of the government and since it has none except its power well i guess that it makes the top guys of the CCP quite insecure. So basicly i think that the "not ready for" argument is just a pretext for immobilism hence the same guys can stay in power. Actually in most situations, state control had always had a contrary effect on crime within a nation/state. Though I don't think that's the true reason why freedom of speech is limited; I just wanted to point that out. I actually think the main reason China wouldn't relax it's policies is because it just appears to be kow-towing to Western demands. If foreign powers would just shut up, I actually see no real reason China would actually keep some of it's current censors. I think both arguments that state that it's there to keep the political party in place or that anarchy would take effect, are too extreme. Honestly, if you examine how the party is doing their job, I think they're doing one heck of a job and the growth of China and the higher average living standard can be directly attributed to their work. | ||
|
CTStalker
Canada9720 Posts
On January 15 2010 23:04 TwoSugarsAndACream wrote: Taking pride in my blood is stupid? Oh geez...I'm going to take this as a personal opinion and leave it alone, but don't repeat that again because I will make fun of you. I think you haven't been to China long enough to understand anything. Efficiency? Do you know anything about China? Like holy watermelons, taxis are all over the place in China, but in Canada you have to friggin CALL to get a taxi....my first impression when I moved to Canada was, where are all the buses? I have to wait 15min for the next bus? Wth is this? Seriously compared to some of the cities in China, Canada seems more like a village than anything. No buses, no taxis, no arcade. I will say, however, Canadian cities are cleaner and feels safer to live in, despite the lack of stores, cheap food and transportation. So no, western cities are not necessarily more efficient and the government is slow. By the way, as Carnivous said about the train ticket issue, I feel bad for you. Just go up and get a train ticket, maybe Chinese people just wanted to screw around with you. And by the way, your analogy of the dog-cat-sheep-elephant-tigers should be treated equal idea doesn't make sense. Human beings are not normal creatures. We Rape. Everything. I didn't quote your previous post while talking about it, kinda long and incoherent. Maybe you can condense it to a shorter version next time, the length of my quoted section is about right. canada only has 35 million people spread across the second biggest country in the world. buses coming ever 5 minutes when there's nobody waiting at the stop seems pretty inefficient. and what old times said is pretty correct; nationalism is stupid | ||
|
KissBlade
United States5718 Posts
On January 15 2010 23:12 CTStalker wrote: canada only has 35 million people spread across the second biggest country in the world. buses coming ever 5 minutes when there's nobody waiting at the stop seems pretty inefficient. and what old times said is pretty correct; nationalism is stupid Except that's not really how old times put it until people started calling him on his arguments. You can blanket your argument with a premise that really has nothing to do with what you're saying. For example, if I just say "Nationalism is stupid. People shouldn't get upset if I think most Americans/Canadians are retarded because I wasn't talking about them specifically," how would you feel? In fact, I find it ironic that you would state "nationalism is stupid" and jump so readily at the defense of Canada in the same post. | ||
|
ghostWriter
United States3302 Posts
| ||
|
CTStalker
Canada9720 Posts
On January 15 2010 23:18 KissBlade wrote: Except that's not really how old times put it until people started calling him on his arguments. You can blanket your argument with a premise that really has nothing to do with what you're saying. For example, if I just say "Nationalism is stupid. People shouldn't get upset if I think most Americans/Canadians are retarded because I wasn't talking about them specifically," how would you feel? In fact, I find it ironic that you would state "nationalism is stupid" and jump so readily at the defense of Canada in the same post. nationalism had nothing to do with my post. bus scheduling is a logic problem. and apparently i "jumped" at your post by simply responding to it? that's a little silly | ||
|
TwoSugarsAndACream
Canada21 Posts
On January 15 2010 23:12 CTStalker wrote: canada only has 35 million people spread across the second biggest country in the world. buses coming ever 5 minutes when there's nobody waiting at the stop seems pretty inefficient. and what old times said is pretty correct; nationalism is stupid Except the 35mil ppl aren't spread across the whole country, just that thin strip touching the U.S. border. Though I should apologize for Canada bashing, I did say some pretty negative things about a country that I've lived in for quite sometime. | ||
|
KissBlade
United States5718 Posts
On January 15 2010 23:23 ghostWriter wrote: Why would you not support the country of your origin? It helps you formulate a sense of identity and ironically, a sense of self as well. It might be dangerous, but it's useful. When you have a conflict, you want more people on your side. Who are you going to side with? People who look and think like you. No man is an island, no one can survive by themselves. It might be wrong, but we all look towards a group to offer us safety and protection and contribute to it. I think it's less about that and more to the point that in most areas, people tend to accept more easily those who looks like them than not. For example, when most people immigrate to a country, their natural disposition is to seek out those from their native country just because getting help there would be easier. In a perfect world, there will be no national lines but the world we live in is less than perfect. Of course, judging from the tone of "old times sake's" post, it really doesn't even read as if his main point is against nationalism anyway. As I said, the premise of his claim really doesn't have anything to do with the examples and language he's using. | ||
|
Dracid
United States280 Posts
Which for the most part is true. Except Chinese-Americans (substitute Canadian, European, etc.) aren't completely American either, because they're not white. I mean, technically they should be American, and legally they are, but realistically someone who's Chinese-American generally has much closer roots to China than say, someone who's German-American to Germany. I'd say this is a problem with America, but that's a different discussion and I'd rather not derail the thread with a rant on contemporary racism. Anyhow, a lot of the people arguing on behalf of China aren't doing it because they feel personally attacked by criticisms of the Chinese government. For instance, I'm not a fan of the Chinese government. I just find most of the criticisms directed towards it baseless, shallow, and ignorant. I don't have to be a fan of China's government to appreciate that not everything they do is cruel and oppressive as the media would have you think, and I acknowledge that at least for now, it's a necessary establishment for the country. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things wrong with China, but the last thing it needs now is a revolution for the sake of freedom and democracy or whatever other ideals people like to spout out. China is not a country full of miserable oppressed peasants longing to be free (what does it mean to be free?). I just wish more people would understand this. | ||
|
Orlandu
China2450 Posts
On January 16 2010 00:05 Dracid wrote: Well, his point mostly lies with the fact that Chinese-Americans aren't actually Chinese, aside from ethnicity. Their education, lifestyles, and upbringing are all largely American, with perhaps a bit of Chinese cultural influence, but for the most part they shouldn't be considered Chinese, so them defending China seems pointless. Which for the most part is true. Except Chinese-Americans (substitute Canadian, European, etc.) aren't completely American either, because they're not white. I mean, technically they should be American, and legally they are, but realistically someone who's Chinese-American generally has much closer roots to China than say, someone who's German-American to Germany. I'd say this is a problem with America, but that's a different discussion and I'd rather not derail the thread with a rant on contemporary racism. Anyhow, a lot of the people arguing on behalf of China aren't doing it because they feel personally attacked by criticisms of the Chinese government. For instance, I'm not a fan of the Chinese government. I just find most of the criticisms directed towards it baseless, shallow, and ignorant. I don't have to be a fan of China's government to appreciate that not everything they do is cruel and oppressive as the media would have you think, and I acknowledge that at least for now, it's a necessary establishment for the country. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things wrong with China, but the last thing it needs now is a revolution for the sake of freedom and democracy or whatever other ideals people like to spout out. China is not a country full of miserable oppressed peasants longing to be free (what does it mean to be free?). I just wish more people would understand this. I agree a lot with this post. The argument that Chinese-Americans are quite different from Chinese is, well, not much of an argument to be honest, and Dracid is right that it's kind of irrelevant here. There really has been no blind nationalism on the part of Chinese in this particular thread. I also agree with Dracid that just because you're defending China doesn't mean that you support everything that the government does. The reality is, most people here really do not understand China, and understanding China is critical in understanding why things are the way that they are in China now. The government, while it has plenty of problems, is not some evil entity. They're doing, for the most part, what they believe is best for the people. And from this thread it's pretty clear who knows about China's history and who doesn't, because those that do realize that it's not a simple matter of just granting freedom of speech and unlimited access to information. Yes, China does deserve those things, but it has to be done carefully. That said, and to comment on something more on-topic, I think that it's really interesting that not many people have talked about the actual hacking itself. Anyone who knows anything about computer security or has any experience with the military knows about China and it's "army of hackers" and how many attacks organizations fend off from them every day. Granted, every country probably engages in some kind of less-than-honorable activity, the extent that China has done it regarding cyber attacks is really quite noteable and this is going to cause more problems in the future for sure. While I'm not so concerned with Google's "human rights" approach to the situation, I think it's good that they're bringing these kinds of hacking allegations to the public (not that they've been the first, but they're definitely making a scene with it). It's something that China really won't be able to get away with forever if they hope to retain good relations with other countries and organizations. That's really the root of the problem with Google here, not "human rights." That's just something additional that will net them a lot of support. Also, I think it's pretty clear that the government won't budge on the censorship issue, so I'm really curious to see if Google will indeed back out of China. Regardless of whether or not China needs Google, many people here will be sad to see it go. | ||
|
old times sake
165 Posts
On January 15 2010 20:54 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: You buy a train ticket the same way you buy a train ticket or a plane ticket in America. I have no idea what you're going on about - do you think it's less efficient because the lines are longer or something? During the H1N1 outbreak, the actions by the Chinese government, albeit slightly extreme, have generally been credited as preventing a much bigger spread of the virus in China considering its population density, compared to, say, SARS. There are far more cabs in New York City that are always not picking people up than in China. I can't believe you think taxi drivers who don't pick people up is a result of...I don't even know what you're saying here. Your examples are getting more and more inane. And to the first part of your post, you basically think no one should ever take pride or be loyal to anyone. Gotcha. LOL. Same as America! Same as America! Lines? just LOL. H1N1 at first was denied. Everyone in China would tell you "we don't have that here." They would think only Americans had it. This is because this is what they were told to believe for a long time. They had no idea whether it was dangerous or not. They simply denied that it was present in China for a long time. It could have wiped China out if it turned out to be dangerous. Tell me how that's an efficient system of governance? Cabs? You are saying there is a 1-2 hour period daily in NYC where you can't get a cab--dinner time! O RLY? Gotcha yourself, you make no sense. And yeah, pride is stupid, especially racial pride, let alone remote racial pride. It ruins the world. Stand up for it if you want. If I was white and not Chinese, I would look ridiculous standing up for German or French or Irish heritage, defending stupid mistakes of their governments or their citizens and framing all criticism as racism against whites. Somehow with other races though it's okay for them to be racist. Probably because you look down on us. You think we need the extra boost of racism--only whites can really be racist, right? Is that it? | ||
|
KissBlade
United States5718 Posts
| ||
| ||
