Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang>jurota i refuse to pay my taxes imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win tax is the best thing ever happened to us they tried to kill trump because he's the good guy trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you worst thread ever
I said that and the retards laughed. Logiko is clueless. Solis is just a dumb troll.
@Bisoromi Bear modern day nazism is called wokism/communism/socialism.
You clearly talking about yourself there, blued pilled man child.
Btw, we have a bunch of those independent journalists that had their social media nuked and either were arrested or forced to seek exile abroad. This has being happening since 2019.
@Bisoromi Bear modern day nazism is called wokism/communism/socialism.
You clearly talking about yourself there, blued pilled man child.
Post automatically merged:
Btw, we have a bunch of those independent journalists that had their social media nuked and either were arrested or forced to seek exile abroad. This has being happening since 2019.
Using crackpots as an excuse to clamp down on speech in general is some Grade A bullshit when you got Western mainstream news outlets unironically claiming that a quartet of drunk Ukrainians on a private yacht commited the greatest act of industrial eco-terrorism in history in the most heavily monitored waters on the planet by diving down at least some 250+ feet and planting enough explosives to destroy a concrete reinforced steel pipeline of some 45 inch diameter iirc.
If any courts genuinely cared about public misinformation, they'd go after the BBC or CNN. Not some random Xitter user called Cat Turd.
If any courts genuinely cared about public misinformation, they'd go after the BBC or CNN. Not some random Xitter user called Cat Turd.
Unless it is to better it, I never go against Science mate :)
Indeed. Blame liberals.
Indeed. Leftist journalists who do their job right. Investigate with care. Listen to scientists and not poll. And verifies datas.
Here are a few in France:
https://www.mediapart.fr/
https://www.streetpress.com/
https://www.blast-info.fr/
https://www.lemediatv.fr/
That's what you meant ?
I hope you never end up in a real fascist country mate. You will be shocked.
Did you really unironically use the word "Xitter" ?
Indeed. Blame liberals.
Indeed. Leftist journalists who do their job right. Investigate with care. Listen to scientists and not poll. And verifies datas.
Here are a few in France:
https://www.mediapart.fr/
https://www.streetpress.com/
https://www.blast-info.fr/
https://www.lemediatv.fr/
That's what you meant ?
I hope you never end up in a real fascist country mate. You will be shocked.
Did you really unironically use the word "Xitter" ?
Indeed. Neo-liberals are the current bane of of the planet.
Fecks sake, this fanatical culture crusader really be hitting me with the "Only my preferred political ideology tells the truth!" balony.
No, I mean investigative journalists or international relations commentators who I have noticed on various sites that I have visited and who appear knowledgeable on the subjects they discussed.
I followed them to see if:
• They got proven right on the topics they discussed.
• The world made more sense after reading their articles.
• They provided valuable insight on particular subjects (e.g. military expertise or trading relations).
• They provided an in-depth POV from the perspective of nations that mainstream media outlets don't explore (e.g. Tom Fowdy and various East Asian nations).
I don't follow these individuals because they align with my political views, I follow them cause they have made valid and insightful points.
I don't know for certain the political leanings of most of them though with some I can make likely accurate guess (e.g. Caitlin Johnston and Bradley Blankenship are probably left wing). As for others, I got everything in my feed from a French communist to a wannabe monarchist in Utah. I don't care about the latter's monarchism but the bloke has insightful military knowledge, both historical and modern. As I recall, he correctly predicted the current Ukraine conflict would happen.
I don't agree with everyone on everything and that should really be the case for any normal person but the overall insight they provide on various subjects combined is invaluable.
Bruh, you unironically said you were fine with being a literal cuck in this thread. Don't act like me making fun of Elon's obsession with the 24th letter of the Latin alphabet is scandalous.
Fecks sake, this fanatical culture crusader really be hitting me with the "Only my preferred political ideology tells the truth!" balony.
No, I mean investigative journalists or international relations commentators who I have noticed on various sites that I have visited and who appear knowledgeable on the subjects they discussed.
I followed them to see if:
• They got proven right on the topics they discussed.
• The world made more sense after reading their articles.
• They provided valuable insight on particular subjects (e.g. military expertise or trading relations).
• They provided an in-depth POV from the perspective of nations that mainstream media outlets don't explore (e.g. Tom Fowdy and various East Asian nations).
I don't follow these individuals because they align with my political views, I follow them cause they have made valid and insightful points.
I don't know for certain the political leanings of most of them though with some I can make likely accurate guess (e.g. Caitlin Johnston and Bradley Blankenship are probably left wing). As for others, I got everything in my feed from a French communist to a wannabe monarchist in Utah. I don't care about the latter's monarchism but the bloke has insightful military knowledge, both historical and modern. As I recall, he correctly predicted the current Ukraine conflict would happen.
I don't agree with everyone on everything and that should really be the case for any normal person but the overall insight they provide on various subjects combined is invaluable.
Bruh, you unironically said you were fine with being a literal cuck in this thread. Don't act like me making fun of Elon's obsession with the 24th letter of the Latin alphabet is scandalous.
Mate. There is a reason scientist are usually saying things that are in accordance with leftists. Leftist are literally those who care the most to tell the truth in verydomain.
You can fight it all your life if you want but know that there is a reason why those who spread the most fake news are on the right.
Being knowledgable is not enough if you don't care to look at reality as it is.
Which should be replaced by "they have a good method to process their informations".
Yeah... when I was a complotist.. the world did make sence. But I was still wrong. Not a good argument.
Good.. this means that they must have very specific subjects of expertize, right ? Because if someone knows everything on everything... it's usually a bad sign.
Good, does those information are correlated by datas and experts ?
Unless someone is talking about things like tomatoes, if someone talk about politics or political relation... there are very little chances that they won't let their political preferences transpire in their discourse, even if they are REALLY REALLY objective.
So stay careful.
As long as you get coherent and objective information, I don't see the problem. But you need to understand that one side of the political scale is not really objective. If you don't take that into account, you risk to get trapped into various potentially dangerous beliefs.
You do you. I'm not judging
You can fight it all your life if you want but know that there is a reason why those who spread the most fake news are on the right.
Being knowledgable is not enough if you don't care to look at reality as it is.
Which should be replaced by "they have a good method to process their informations".
Yeah... when I was a complotist.. the world did make sence. But I was still wrong. Not a good argument.
Good.. this means that they must have very specific subjects of expertize, right ? Because if someone knows everything on everything... it's usually a bad sign.
Good, does those information are correlated by datas and experts ?
Unless someone is talking about things like tomatoes, if someone talk about politics or political relation... there are very little chances that they won't let their political preferences transpire in their discourse, even if they are REALLY REALLY objective.
So stay careful.
As long as you get coherent and objective information, I don't see the problem. But you need to understand that one side of the political scale is not really objective. If you don't take that into account, you risk to get trapped into various potentially dangerous beliefs.
Bruh, you unironically said you were fine with being a literal cuck in this thread. Don't act like me making fun of Elon's obsession with the 24th letter of the Latin alphabet is scandalous.
Man you telling me that these always correct, always leftist scientists in the past came up with eugenics, race theory and lobotomies? 
You tried to turn Super Saiyan. You don't get to talk down to others about reality.
Mate, you were a dumb arse conspiracy theorist cause you were a dumb arse. Simple as.
I see Julian Ropcke and Bellingcat go on at various points about how Russia is running out of missiles and ammo.
I watch Will Schryver and RWA say "Lol, Bellingcat is stupid. The Russians obviously aren't running out of ammo and missiles. Also they are about to win at this place".
Russians don't run out of stuff and they take said place. Repeat 10x, which one of these is making sense?
Call it whatever you want. If they get proven right, they got proven right. Lel.
Yes, all of them regularly show the receipts whenever they can and a number of them flat out are the experts. Glenn Diesen for example is a university professor with multiple PhDs.
If they got a point, they got a point. Sure I can see that the likes of old Caitlin Johnston is coming from a left wing point of view but a point is a point and it either is there or isn't.
"Never listen to all the sides I vehemently, publicly despise! They're never, ever, ever, ever, objective!" said the notorious, radical nutjob.
I am. 
You tried to turn Super Saiyan. You don't get to talk down to others about reality.
Mate, you were a dumb arse conspiracy theorist cause you were a dumb arse. Simple as.
I see Julian Ropcke and Bellingcat go on at various points about how Russia is running out of missiles and ammo.
I watch Will Schryver and RWA say "Lol, Bellingcat is stupid. The Russians obviously aren't running out of ammo and missiles. Also they are about to win at this place".
Russians don't run out of stuff and they take said place. Repeat 10x, which one of these is making sense?
Call it whatever you want. If they get proven right, they got proven right. Lel.
Yes, all of them regularly show the receipts whenever they can and a number of them flat out are the experts. Glenn Diesen for example is a university professor with multiple PhDs.
If they got a point, they got a point. Sure I can see that the likes of old Caitlin Johnston is coming from a left wing point of view but a point is a point and it either is there or isn't.
"Never listen to all the sides I vehemently, publicly despise! They're never, ever, ever, ever, objective!" said the notorious, radical nutjob.
I'm not judging
Last edited:
Science is supposed to be objective. The moment you toss political agenda into the mix is where we get biased, BS science like eugenics or "scientist" claiming white people are a higher stage of evolution than black people.
Saying dumb shit like "leftist science!" is no different than Flat Earthers. They don't seek the truth, but any type of evidence to enforce their already held beliefs, all the while dismissing any evidence that say otherwise.
Saying dumb shit like "leftist science!" is no different than Flat Earthers. They don't seek the truth, but any type of evidence to enforce their already held beliefs, all the while dismissing any evidence that say otherwise.
Man you telling me that these always correct, always leftist scientists in the past came up with eugenics, race theory and lobotomies?
You tried to turn Super Saiyan. You don't get to talk down to others about reality.
No. Simply because I was uninformed and not well enough defended to prevent missinformation to kick in.
Sorry I'm not informed enough on the Russo Ukrainian conflict to tell you.
No. That's what you don't get. And for that it's the same problem as One Piece theorist.
It's not because you were proven right as a theorist that you were right. It just happen that your conclusion was right. In reality, if the reasonning is bad, no matter how right you are in your conclusion, you were wrong.
if you fire 1000 arrow at once on a target with a magic bow and touch the center of the target, can we say that you are a good archer ? Not really..
Good
Another thing that people don't realize is that your political view and values will influence how you see those "point".
No matter how many time I tell a conservatist that transphobia is hurtfull toward people and that allowing children to transition is vital for the trans community.. they will always find a way to ignore the point or to avoid its relevancy.. until they are personnaly impacted by their behavior.
This behavior do not only happen with political values in fact, it can also impact how we see life or elements of life. For example: Stories. We have a big example of that on this forum.
We can perfectly live with contradiction and cognitive dissonance, it human.
So we need to take that into account when seeking information.
That's not what I say. You SHOULD listen to the other side to know what said side think, but be very careful not to be influenced by it UNLESS there is a very good reason.
Information can't be delivered objectively. It's by nature impossible. The simple fact of selection certain information and the form we take to deliver them is subjective and will be a political choice.
The results delivered by the scientific practice are supposed to be objective. The process leading to those results doesn't need to be.
That's a missconception professed by people who don't really know about scientific history. The scientific history in all time has been pushed by political agendas of all sorts.
This, for example, was a case of scientist pushed by political agenda, a racist one in this case.
Indeed, there is no "leftist sciences". There are only leftists who FOLLOW sciences.
Scientific result are not "Leftists" (the scientific process, on the other hand can be), it just happens that scientific results deliver datas and conclusions that align with Leftists values. That's all.
And that's something liberals would say. In fact, I could do the same, if I was intellectually lazy, I could say stuff like "liberals are only seeking Sciences when it aligns with a purely numerical vision of the world, without humans or the social in the balance"
But I won't say that :
(even if it's a bit true)No, in reality liberals are mostly ignorant about social sciences. They sometimes don't even know it exist. Which can be quite the shock when they discover people like Bourdieu.
You have a vision of leftism or radical leftism that is completely biased mate.
I'm talking about the current state of scientific research mate.
I was 8 lmao
No. Simply because I was uninformed and not well enough defended to prevent missinformation to kick in.
Sorry I'm not informed enough on the Russo Ukrainian conflict to tell you.
No. That's what you don't get. And for that it's the same problem as One Piece theorist.
It's not because you were proven right as a theorist that you were right. It just happen that your conclusion was right. In reality, if the reasonning is bad, no matter how right you are in your conclusion, you were wrong.
if you fire 1000 arrow at once on a target with a magic bow and touch the center of the target, can we say that you are a good archer ? Not really..
Good
Another thing that people don't realize is that your political view and values will influence how you see those "point".
No matter how many time I tell a conservatist that transphobia is hurtfull toward people and that allowing children to transition is vital for the trans community.. they will always find a way to ignore the point or to avoid its relevancy.. until they are personnaly impacted by their behavior.
This behavior do not only happen with political values in fact, it can also impact how we see life or elements of life. For example: Stories. We have a big example of that on this forum.
We can perfectly live with contradiction and cognitive dissonance, it human.
So we need to take that into account when seeking information.
That's not what I say. You SHOULD listen to the other side to know what said side think, but be very careful not to be influenced by it UNLESS there is a very good reason.
Information can't be delivered objectively. It's by nature impossible. The simple fact of selection certain information and the form we take to deliver them is subjective and will be a political choice.
The results delivered by the scientific practice are supposed to be objective. The process leading to those results doesn't need to be.
That's a missconception professed by people who don't really know about scientific history. The scientific history in all time has been pushed by political agendas of all sorts.
This, for example, was a case of scientist pushed by political agenda, a racist one in this case.
Indeed, there is no "leftist sciences". There are only leftists who FOLLOW sciences.
Scientific result are not "Leftists" (the scientific process, on the other hand can be), it just happens that scientific results deliver datas and conclusions that align with Leftists values. That's all.
And that's something liberals would say. In fact, I could do the same, if I was intellectually lazy, I could say stuff like "liberals are only seeking Sciences when it aligns with a purely numerical vision of the world, without humans or the social in the balance"
But I won't say that :
(even if it's a bit true)
No, in reality liberals are mostly ignorant about social sciences. They sometimes don't even know it exist. Which can be quite the shock when they discover people like Bourdieu.
You have a vision of leftism or radical leftism that is completely biased mate.
I was 8 lmao
No. Simply because I was uninformed and not well enough defended to prevent missinformation to kick in.
Sorry I'm not informed enough on the Russo Ukrainian conflict to tell you.
No. That's what you don't get. And for that it's the same problem as One Piece theorist.
It's not because you were proven right as a theorist that you were right. It just happen that your conclusion was right. In reality, if the reasonning is bad, no matter how right you are in your conclusion, you were wrong.
if you fire 1000 arrow at once on a target with a magic bow and touch the center of the target, can we say that you are a good archer ? Not really..
Good
Another thing that people don't realize is that your political view and values will influence how you see those "point".
No matter how many time I tell a conservatist that transphobia is hurtfull toward people and that allowing children to transition is vital for the trans community.. they will always find a way to ignore the point or to avoid its relevancy.. until they are personnaly impacted by their behavior.
This behavior do not only happen with political values in fact, it can also impact how we see life or elements of life. For example: Stories. We have a big example of that on this forum.
We can perfectly live with contradiction and cognitive dissonance, it human.
So we need to take that into account when seeking information.
That's not what I say. You SHOULD listen to the other side to know what said side think, but be very careful not to be influenced by it UNLESS there is a very good reason.
Information can't be delivered objectively. It's by nature impossible. The simple fact of selection certain information and the form we take to deliver them is subjective and will be a political choice.
The results delivered by the scientific practice are supposed to be objective. The process leading to those results doesn't need to be.
That's a missconception professed by people who don't really know about scientific history. The scientific history in all time has been pushed by political agendas of all sorts.
This, for example, was a case of scientist pushed by political agenda, a racist one in this case.
Indeed, there is no "leftist sciences". There are only leftists who FOLLOW sciences.
Scientific result are not "Leftists" (the scientific process, on the other hand can be), it just happens that scientific results deliver datas and conclusions that align with Leftists values. That's all.
And that's something liberals would say. In fact, I could do the same, if I was intellectually lazy, I could say stuff like "liberals are only seeking Sciences when it aligns with a purely numerical vision of the world, without humans or the social in the balance"
But I won't say that :
(even if it's a bit true)No, in reality liberals are mostly ignorant about social sciences. They sometimes don't even know it exist. Which can be quite the shock when they discover people like Bourdieu.
You have a vision of leftism or radical leftism that is completely biased mate.
I could return the compliment
If i'm not mistaken your point of view about people like me boils down basically to "they only care about what they want to care about and confirm their bias. They are radicalized and irrationnal and mostly uneducated, the opposition is always wrong and they are always right".
Do you agree or am I making a mistake here ?
If i'm not mistaken your point of view about people like me boils down basically to "they only care about what they want to care about and confirm their bias. They are radicalized and irrationnal and mostly uneducated, the opposition is always wrong and they are always right".
Do you agree or am I making a mistake here ?
Lemme repeat some examples and talking points for the 1000th time that you always forget about.
-Western media(mostly the US), is predominantly right wing.
-every movement has morons among them, whether it's their hypocrisy, lack of knowledge, attitude, bad history, etc., these people tend to be pretty ignorant
-these people are the ones who ends up on the news to paint leftist as a whole in a bad light for propaganda, and to bring vieweship
-Given your attitude and actions, you are one of these people who would be used to demonize leftist and push progress back decades, just as it's happened time and time again. You keep thinking some people on this site have issues with leftism as a whole when in reality, it's just you.
-Western media(mostly the US), is predominantly right wing.
-every movement has morons among them, whether it's their hypocrisy, lack of knowledge, attitude, bad history, etc., these people tend to be pretty ignorant
-these people are the ones who ends up on the news to paint leftist as a whole in a bad light for propaganda, and to bring vieweship
-Given your attitude and actions, you are one of these people who would be used to demonize leftist and push progress back decades, just as it's happened time and time again. You keep thinking some people on this site have issues with leftism as a whole when in reality, it's just you.
Indeed.
I agree
I don't know what news you are looking but were I live, liberals don't invite leftists. The far right will sometimes invite leftists but those leftist won't create a bad rep. The bad rep is already existing.
The bad rep exist because the far right is spreading the bad rep, not because some leftist are a bit radical. I never met any one who was dumb enough to associate one radical or wacky behavior with a behavior of the entire group. What will rather happen is that after said interview, said interview will be dissected by far right groups, the hate for the person will expend, sometime toward liberals and THEN, the person will be marginalized by some people of it's own group UNLESS they have a social support.
Trust me on that, we literally witnessed this phenomenon in 4K during the french election: A moral panic was created by the far right because of the support of a specific leftist group for the Palestinian cause.. they propagated the rumors and fake news that said group was antisemitic and since there are porosities between the far right and liberals in France and liberals are pro-Israel, the accusation of anti-semitism started to rain down on the group like crazy.
So much that now in France, instead of having demonized far right, we have a demonized left. And this was absolutely no created because of some lunatics on TV sets. it was an organized plan to take down the legitimacy of the left.
Said plan which later made confused social democrats at the right of the softest leftist party turn AGAINST the entire leftist movement NFP !
For what ? The same reason as you : They listened to far right and liberal moral panics about leftists.
Yes. I am. That's LITERALLY the point I'm making.
The reason for that is that my point of view is a REAL leftist one and therefore something that is dangerous for liberals and far rightist as a all. So of course, if people like me were dumb enough to come unprepared to interviews, we would be used as point of evidences to demonize the left.
But what you don't realize, is that real leftist are not liberals. The soft leftists that you are used to are NOT considered as leftist where I live. Where I live, my opinion is not even radical and I could LITERALLY be considered a softy because I make a BIG case of constantly stayin respectfull to people here. Most of the politics and activists I know would be a lot more vehement than me here. I'm a teddy bear in comparison.
I'm constantly making the work of explaining and repeating things. 95% of my post are meant to expend the subject and being pedagogic about what I'm trying to share. I'm NEVER angry against people here and I'm always willing to give a second chance, even when I'm being insulted and laughed at constantly.
The activists that I'm talking about would see some of the comments. Report. Wait a day or two and talk to the mods about the problem and if the problem is not resolved quickly by the moderation or laughed at... would literally report the post to the authority before quitting the forum for good and sharing the site to prevent people from coming in.
Bro.. you guys are lucky that One Piece is mostly filled with an apolitical fanbase.. I think you don't understand that I'm a CHILL and a VERY patient guy. And this EVEN when I know that crazy stuff are being said.
Don't blindly take my passionnate behavior for a crazy one. I'm actually trying to be your ally 95% of the time on this forum. This is (ironically), something I kept from my liberal years.
It's not a thinking. It's an observation. Very basic things such as the mention of socials sciences and the inexistence of meritocracy are laughed at like crazy.
You might think that people are only laughing at me, but it's not the case. While yes, people will make fun of my point of view, they are fundamentally opposed to what I say.
I literally can and have started LARGE discussions with a SIMPLE sentence.
It has NOTHING to do with my behavior but the fact that I know EXACTLY what people will react to. The reason for that is that I know who the political demographic of this forum is for the most part. It's not even a mystery, it's just obvious.
It just happen that leftists ideas are opposed to values shared by a LOT of people here. People that are not used to see real leftist since they are used to the liberal version of progressism. And sometimes, it includes you as well.
I agree
I don't know what news you are looking but were I live, liberals don't invite leftists. The far right will sometimes invite leftists but those leftist won't create a bad rep. The bad rep is already existing.
The bad rep exist because the far right is spreading the bad rep, not because some leftist are a bit radical. I never met any one who was dumb enough to associate one radical or wacky behavior with a behavior of the entire group. What will rather happen is that after said interview, said interview will be dissected by far right groups, the hate for the person will expend, sometime toward liberals and THEN, the person will be marginalized by some people of it's own group UNLESS they have a social support.
Trust me on that, we literally witnessed this phenomenon in 4K during the french election: A moral panic was created by the far right because of the support of a specific leftist group for the Palestinian cause.. they propagated the rumors and fake news that said group was antisemitic and since there are porosities between the far right and liberals in France and liberals are pro-Israel, the accusation of anti-semitism started to rain down on the group like crazy.
So much that now in France, instead of having demonized far right, we have a demonized left. And this was absolutely no created because of some lunatics on TV sets. it was an organized plan to take down the legitimacy of the left.
Said plan which later made confused social democrats at the right of the softest leftist party turn AGAINST the entire leftist movement NFP !
For what ? The same reason as you : They listened to far right and liberal moral panics about leftists.
Yes. I am. That's LITERALLY the point I'm making.
The reason for that is that my point of view is a REAL leftist one and therefore something that is dangerous for liberals and far rightist as a all. So of course, if people like me were dumb enough to come unprepared to interviews, we would be used as point of evidences to demonize the left.
But what you don't realize, is that real leftist are not liberals. The soft leftists that you are used to are NOT considered as leftist where I live. Where I live, my opinion is not even radical and I could LITERALLY be considered a softy because I make a BIG case of constantly stayin respectfull to people here. Most of the politics and activists I know would be a lot more vehement than me here. I'm a teddy bear in comparison.
I'm constantly making the work of explaining and repeating things. 95% of my post are meant to expend the subject and being pedagogic about what I'm trying to share. I'm NEVER angry against people here and I'm always willing to give a second chance, even when I'm being insulted and laughed at constantly.
The activists that I'm talking about would see some of the comments. Report. Wait a day or two and talk to the mods about the problem and if the problem is not resolved quickly by the moderation or laughed at... would literally report the post to the authority before quitting the forum for good and sharing the site to prevent people from coming in.
Bro.. you guys are lucky that One Piece is mostly filled with an apolitical fanbase.. I think you don't understand that I'm a CHILL and a VERY patient guy. And this EVEN when I know that crazy stuff are being said.
Don't blindly take my passionnate behavior for a crazy one. I'm actually trying to be your ally 95% of the time on this forum. This is (ironically), something I kept from my liberal years.
It's not a thinking. It's an observation. Very basic things such as the mention of socials sciences and the inexistence of meritocracy are laughed at like crazy.
You might think that people are only laughing at me, but it's not the case. While yes, people will make fun of my point of view, they are fundamentally opposed to what I say.
I literally can and have started LARGE discussions with a SIMPLE sentence.
It has NOTHING to do with my behavior but the fact that I know EXACTLY what people will react to. The reason for that is that I know who the political demographic of this forum is for the most part. It's not even a mystery, it's just obvious.
It just happen that leftists ideas are opposed to values shared by a LOT of people here. People that are not used to see real leftist since they are used to the liberal version of progressism. And sometimes, it includes you as well.
Last edited:
