Has Cancel Culture Gone Too Far

UltraDolphinRevolution · Jul 2, 2020

notimp said:
But first - I used harsh words, because It got me emotionally, but even in retrospect I think that you 'defend' the taboo around 'racism' with emotion, so it projects, that people will do so with moral fervour.

If sb states "women and men" are different, this person is a) not automatically a sexist and b) not emotional about it.

I hope you do not consider this an ad hominem, but could it be that you are lying to yourself because you are afraid of your own thoughts? Never in my dreams would I come up with sick thoughts like giving people medication.

notimp said:
As for the counter arguments. There can be genetic differences - which amongst 'race' usually should be superseeded in effect by cultural ones.

Should? Are you argueing from morality again? It depends what you are measuring. But I am glad we come to an agreement: there are genetic differences. And we agree that they are not strong enough to justify different treatment, e.g. by a university. (Hope I did not misunderstood you)

notimp said:
- There would be no way to express a small (lets say it is small) difference, in a way - that it would lead to public action that would actually represent that small difference. There would always be prejudice that kicks in. And it would be the very bad kind - because of presumed tribalism tendencies. So you have to go with the zero sum option of 'always keep it a taboo'. ("We have none of it.")

I don´t agree that we have to keep it a taboo. Nature is neither fair nor equal. People vastly differ in beauty, for example. I am against shaming anyone for sth they cannot change (e.g. my nose) but we should not keep up the delusion that everyone is equally attractive either.

notimp said:
And even if not (lets take the Harvard case of them adjusting the entry point goalposts for asians (see video)), complexity kills you here (how would you argue for an adjustment on the non public level, between races to be just). So again, its back to the other option 'always keep it a taboo'.

So are you for or against Harvard´s racism against Asian Americans? Sorry, I don´t understand this statement.

notimp said:
- On social 'breeding' due to culture, I somewhat disagree. Wealth is not a good indicator for any common characteristic. (Getting into an Ivy league college would be a better one. ) Also it should be much, much harder to keep lines 'as you'd want them' to achieve anything close to our Chihuahua result.

I would like to move away from the dog topic as I do know much about it. Generally though, your "opponent" was correct that evolution applies to us just as to any other animal. If there is separation (e.g. a busy street suddenly separating on kind of insects) evolutionary paths diverge.

notimp said:
The last argument - and that also works agains your (our culture made so much progress in that regard) is, that the average doesnt matter at all. Individual action matters. (Faster to next Einstein should not be achievable by raising the average. (US has modeled their entire education system around that I believe.. ))

Extremes matter for inventions (inventors tend to be extremely intelligent) in the positive sense and crime rates in the negative sense. That´s why women are underrepresented in both aspects (females are less "extreme" than men for obvious biological reasons). But averages do matter if we are talking societies. You shouldn´t treat individuals before you know them though. (otherwise you might dismiss Yao Ming as a basketball player)

notimp · Jul 2, 2020

UltraDolphinRevolution said:
If sb states "women and men" are different, this person is a) not automatically a sexist and b) not emotional about it.

I hope you do not consider this an ad hominem, but could it be that you are lying to yourself because you are afraid of your own thoughts? Never in my dreams would I come up with sick thoughts like giving people medication.

Sick thoughts? Please ask yourself historically what we did to racial minorities, and then understand where I'm coming from. How are you turning this against me, when I tried to make racial targeting outrageous ('no one could be in favor of that') using that very example?

UltraDolphinRevolution said:
Should? Are you argueing from morality again?

No statistically. How could the difference between lets say an average caucasian and an average black person be larger than the difference between the worst and best person within either ethnicity in any characteristic (different cultures within an ethnicity)? To me it seems obvious that it cant be. But I cant prove it, so I used should. It should be a truism though. (Should in front of truism does not hint at a moral argument).

UltraDolphinRevolution said:
I don´t agree that we have to keep it a taboo. Nature is neither fair nor equal.

Who cares about nature? Have you missed the internment camp craze around the second world war? I'm interested in keeping societies at a point where we dont start to lock people away again, or have racial prejudices become usable as part of our daily language again. Because people cant change race.

UltraDolphinRevolution said:
So are you for or against Harvard´s racism against Asian Americans? Sorry, I don´t understand this statement.

Against - if it is just to keep 'students more diverse'. For - if it would have societal planning implications. Which I made up - and am not at all sure, if it does. This only makes me a theoretical hypocrite..

UltraDolphinRevolution said:
I would like to move away from the dog topic as I do know much about it. Generally though, your "opponent" was correct that evolution applies to us just as to any other animal. If there is separation (e.g. a busy street suddenly separating on kind of insects) evolutionary paths diverge.

I didn't argue, that I wouldnt acknowledge evolution, I argued that 'dog races' are in an entire different category in regards to the definition of race, because of selective breeding efforts that went on over generations.

UltraDolphinRevolution said:
Extremes matter for inventions (inventors tend to be extremely intelligent) in the positive sense and crime rates in the negative sense. That´s why women are underrepresented in both aspects (females are less "extreme" than men for obvious biological reasons). But averages do matter if we are talking societies. You shouldn´t treat individuals before you know them though. (otherwise you might dismiss Yao Ming as a basketball player)

I actually personally agree. I'm not in favor of the US education system.

But for our policeman example, you only could give him a rough ('racial') guideline based on an average -- when individual decisions matter much more, in his case (work day). (He's more interested in 'who would react extremely violent'.) So you dont give him a 'simplification' along the line of a prejudice.

Hanafuda · Jul 2, 2020

https://www.thecollegefix.com/schol...d-police-shootings-not-biased-against-blacks/

CraddaPoosta · Jul 2, 2020

UltraDolphinRevolution said:
I have followed the discussion between notimp and SG854 and would like to chime in.
I am not going to resort to name calling and expect the same from others.
Notimp, one can lose an argument only if there are better arguments. Unless you define argument as "fight" and just hit the other person because you do not like his/her opinion. You called yourself the victor just because you were offended. Not an argument.

Let´s entertain the idea that for whatever reason there are no genetic differences at all (magic? God?) between groups of people (e.g. sex, race). Therefore women are not actually worse at sports than men. It is oppression by men. Therefore violence is justified against men.
Then differences in wealth between e.g. European Americans and African Americans must be due to oppression. Violence is justified. Oh wait, we don´t have to imagine it. It happens right now in the streets and there are hundreds of videos about this online (just random people attacking random people for perceived oppression).

So I do not even grant you the moral victory, let alone the scientific one.

That said, I also believe that culture is more important than genetics because all human ethnic groups are very similar to one another. However culture and genetics influence each other: a certain culture will select certain genes (let´s imagine a culture that teaches red-headed people are demons - their genes would be selected against) and vice versa.

I believe it was you who asked whether we breed people across generations. We absolutely do, namely by culture. Traditionally the richest people had the most children. Today it is the other way around. E.g. in Germany there are families of wellfare recipients across generations. Let´s zoom out a bit more (on the time scale): Pop stars in Korea are very feminine. Could it be that Korean women have had a different taste in men (and possibly the other way around)? They were not bred in cages, obviously. But to assume that selection does not affect humans would be insane - I hope you agree.

I need to correct SG854 in terms of the use "aggression". A female-looking male Korean popstar is not less aggressive than Hulk Hogan. But he has probably less testosterone. "aggression/aggressive" is not a well-defined term. I do not know (or care) about dogs but testosterone levels vary between ethnic groups, it´s a fact. And an important one (for medical healthcare).

You sound very extreme.
We do not need to do anything. If a group of people wants to improve, they will do so through self-reflection and cultural adjustments. But if they have other groups of people to blame, they choose the easy way out by finding excuses. I am neither German nor Chinese and do not want to reveal my ethnicity. But all I can say is that my ethnic group has made a lot of progress because we didn´t have this excuse. Believing in magical premises prevents progress.

Let me put it this way: Chinese people are bad at soccer. A nation of 1,4 billions is worse than all European nations, including the small ones. They might have a genetic disadvantage (e.g. height - very important for goal keepers and defenders, for example) but their main "problem" is a lack of interest in the sport (culture). They might never be number one, but they could be good enough (if they wanted to).

You earned a tearful slow clap from me for this, brother. Well done. One tear. A MAN tear.

CallmeBerto · Jul 2, 2020

Hanafuda said:
https://www.thecollegefix.com/schol...d-police-shootings-not-biased-against-blacks/

Not the first study that has debunked this crap. Won't stop people repeating the same nonsense that has been debunked 100x already.

CraddaPoosta · Jul 2, 2020

I thought this discussion was about cancel culture, not derailing into whether or not systemic racism exists in America.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Viri · Jul 2, 2020

Looks like cancel culture sometimes hits the other side. I wonder how many people she personally cancelled her self. Fucking raycis trump supporters getting me fired for saying I'm gonna stab people!

CraddaPoosta · Jul 2, 2020

Viri said:
Looks like cancel culture sometimes hits the other side. I wonder how many people she personally cancelled her self. Fucking raycis trump supporters getting me fired for saying I'm gonna stab people!

This video has been added to my playlist including compilations of Hillary supporters crying over Daddy Trump being elected. I go back to this whenever I am having a bad day, and it never fails to brighten my day.

CallmeBerto · Jul 2, 2020

Neo Draven said:
You earned a tearful slow clap from me for this, brother. Well done. One tear. A MAN tear.

That guys job was canceled for have an opinions that differs from the left.

UltraDolphinRevolution · Jul 3, 2020

notimp said:
Sick thoughts? Please ask yourself historically what we did to racial minorities, and then understand where I'm coming from. How are you turning this against me, when I tried to make racial targeting outrageous ('no one could be in favor of that') using that very example?

What will we do to e.g. Jews if we argue that all groups of people are exactly the same? Therefore Jews must be cheating and their "privilege" removed. This is also dangerous. I am not saying these differences should be taught at school, but to activly teach that there must be equality and non-equality is the result of racism is also dangerous and simply wrong.

notimp said:
Who cares about nature? Have you missed the internment camp craze around the second world war? I'm interested in keeping societies at a point where we dont start to lock people away again, or have racial prejudices become usable as part of our daily language again. Because people cant change race.

The internment camps in the USA were targeted at Japanese people, not Asians in general. The reason is simple: the US was at war with Japan. Does it make it right? No. But it is not racial in nature. German minorities (esp. after the war) were not treated well in other countries either (for obvious reasons: fear of treason).

notimp said:
But for our policeman example, you only could give him a rough ('racial') guideline based on an average -- when individual decisions matter much more, in his case (work day). (He's more interested in 'who would react extremely violent'.) So you dont give him a 'simplification' along the line of a prejudice.

I wouldn´t give the police any guidelines on this topic. Punish mistreatment (like in the case of Floyd) and don´t call them racist just because a white person shoots at a black person (the case in Atlanta). Racial profiling sadly reflects reality. A police officer usually doesn´t go out there to be racist (though there might be excecpti

Regarding the rest of what you wrote we are in agreement, it seems. Thank you for having a polite discussion about a difficult topic. Remember though: If you think racist policies (like Harvard´s) are bad, perpetuating the myth of equality is contradictory (because it is used to force equity).

notimp · Jul 3, 2020

UltraDolphinRevolution said:
What will we do to e.g. Jews if we argue that all groups of people are exactly the same? Therefore Jews must be cheating and their "privilege" removed. This is also dangerous. I am not saying these differences should be taught at school, but to activly teach that there must be equality and non-equality is the result of racism is also dangerous and simply wrong.

Thats outright dumb, imho. If groups self identify as groups, thats fine - let them. If you need information of f.e. the size of a religious group (think census), thats fine in todays world as well. You can get that.

What is not fine is 'character trait attribution' (actually positive or negative - although with positive ones you have leeway, if you are part of that group), based on race 'characteristics' - thats where we put the taboo.

And it has nothing to do with 'neglecting nature', or 'forcefully making everyone equal', it has to do with the next step - if we allow it, culturally character attributions get out of hand quickly (people go into this whole my group vs yours routine - as they always do).

And even that would be fine, if people could change group identities, like they can with jobs. But they cant. Therefore the taboo is in place. (Because dang nabbit, one group always has to be the minority..)

Its really, really hard to argue, that people will 'get better at character trait attribution, based on race' without this ending up as oversimplified prejudices again.

In our own theoretical example, it is unthinkable, that f.e. a policeman would navigate "on average 3% more likely to have that character trail" in daily life.
--

Theoretically you could build your own scientific theories around trait attribution right at this threshhold, but you are discouraged from doing so, because this will be used as legitimization, and as a slippery slope for race ideologies.

Having this taboo - literally prevents, that we have a 'the ones that look like this are better at that' and 'the ones that look like that are better at this' mindset in daily life.

Sure its a social construction, but its there for a reason. And in any case better, than your approach of 'what nature meant to say with this was, ...' ideology. Because you can make up several ones of those as needed, and all they serve as are smokescreens (has the word nature in it, so it mast be irrevokably true!) to the fact that they are ideology as well.
--

I dont see the part where this becomes 'unfair', because having those distinctions as part of our daily lives would be 'helpfull' (or 'needed').

You are alway arguing how unfair, and how unnatural it is, that we have a societal taboo - but whats your reason for getting rid of it? It actually prevents more tribalism, which we know leads to bad outcomes if people engage in it 'enthusiastically'. (And the outgroup has a fixed identity they cant change.)
--

UltraDolphinRevolution said:
The internment camps in the USA were targeted at Japanese people, not Asians in general. The reason is simple: the US was at war with Japan. Does it make it right? No. But it is not racial in nature.

You are joking right? This one even was racial at the planing level. Because they served no purpose other than 'keeping your populations morals up' during wartime. So they had something to shout at. The whole idea for implementation was 'playing with structural racism' (Populist politics (see Trump..

) .

UltraDolphinRevolution said:
I wouldn´t give the police any guidelines on this topic. Punish mistreatment (like in the case of Floyd) and don´t call them racist just because a white person shoots at a black person (the case in Atlanta). Racial profiling sadly reflects reality. A police officer usually doesn´t go out there to be racist (though there might be

As long as there is this understanding, why we cant (shouldnt) haveit at the individual decision level (policeman at work), we actually really only are talking about structural racism at the planning level and if that is sometimes justified or not.

The answer there should be, we need good, proper unbiased metrics to decide. But we also need scrutiny to correct where we are messing up. (The entire google (?) pulling facial recognition algos, because they didnt work so well on black faces, and anyone using that tech not being able to deal with that as just an added complexity..)
--

The answer why we dont discuss that stuff openly - usually lies in 'how you preserve a taboo'. If people get an idea, that 'you can always debate a thing' - taboos dont work anymore. So discussions like these are problematic, as the legitimize the position we try to get rid of with a taboo.

But once in a while we can have one, just to look at the process logic I guess..

Having the taboo there, imho is logical. And not 'unfair'.

Deleted member 412537 · Jul 3, 2020

Hmm.. I'm trying to think of something to say about Cleveland. beyond recognizing the voice of Meg from That '70s Show, I never truly paid attention to anything until I read the casting listing one day. :wtf:

Not like Cleveland's character felt offensive to me in general either. Based on my memory from viewing old episodes, he was mild mannered to me. [I think the spinoff fucked him over.] Anyway, its a shame the voice actor can't stay on until the series ends permanently. For once I think cancel culture may have ruined something pretty tame? Perhaps maybe the new voice actor won't do much damage in terms of turning people off? Anyway, I dunno anything about the rest of the people you mentioned.

Sorry if this post may offend somebody in the end...: /

UltraDolphinRevolution · Jul 3, 2020

notimp said:
You are alway arguing how unfair, and how unnatural it is, that we have a societal taboo - but whats your reason for getting rid of it? It actually prevents more tribalism...

My reason is truth.
Speaking of tribalism... denying truth boosts tribalism as we can see today in the US.

The truth is, African American (men) are overrepresented in violent crimes and are more dangerous to cops than any other group. The average American comes across African Americans 14% of the time, but a police officer (when called to investigate a violent crime) around 50% of the time.
The truth could fix it (self-reflection; adjustment to the culture; e.g. less single-motherhood) whereas the lie (which is perpetuated by you and 99% of media; which you even admit is a lie? i.e. "taboo") causes more tension between ethnic groups and leads to more violence.

I suspect (though it is merely a suspicion) that people who prevent the truth from coming to the surface ("taboo") are the actual racists who believe African-Americans are not capable of changing. I have said in my first post that genetic differences (though they are real) are insignificant. Culture can make create day and night differences (see e.g. North and South Korea).

notimp said:
But once in a while we can have one, just to look at the process logic I guess.. Having the taboo there, imho is logical. And not 'unfair'.

You have confirmed that you disapprove of Harvard´s limitation of Asian students. Why do you dislike it? Is it not unfair? They try to create equity - after all, differences in scores are founded on oppression and unearned privilege. Seems like there is a contradiction going on in your mind. Please explain.

CallmeBerto · Jul 3, 2020

@UltraDolphinRevolution

Welfare completely destroyed the black community. 70% of black children don't have a father in the home. The welfare state incentives black women to marry the state and black men to abandon their moral and finance responsibilities.

notimp · Jul 3, 2020

CallmeBerto said:
Welfare completely destroyed the black community. 70% of black children don't have a father in the home. The welfare state incentives black women to marry the state and black men to abandon their moral and finance responsibilities.

What a horrible piece of BS.

How? Why doesnt that happen to other races?

How is the wellfare state responsible for declining family structures? (Because something is a sh*t option (lets fuck over my family), now everyone has to take it?)

Boy the people you are listening to for information, really have your brain fried in a pan.

Here is how this actually went. Wages are declining, because corporate America wanted/needed a productivity increase. (In a globalized economy, where other, poorer, parts of the world are connected to your supply chain, you need higher productivity levels to compete, while retaining the same, or a similar share of world GDP.) The way to do that was to tap into the entire part of your population that - at one time wasn't working yet. This severely altered family structures. If you dont have family (and community (think churchwork, which also takes effort/time (honorary work))) to rely on - because you need people to be productive in the workforce, you need something to offset that - hence 'wellfare'. Hence communal child care.

Now was that all bad? No - because half of the population actually became financially independent in the process, which reduced dependency structures, that werent always rosy as you described them, and this also increased divorce rates.

Now to the most important part. YOU WILL NEVER GET BACK, WHAT YOU HOLD SO DEAR, your fantasy version of the family as a more important and more depended on social structure.

Why? Because the country wouldnt be financially competitive.You will never, never, ever have enough power as a social movement to change this back, against the will of half of the population, and all of corporate america.

Your 'paradise' (or believe of 'what is right'), is a pipedream, that is over.

Sorry to tell you.

edit: To soften the blow a little - a pipedream that is over, as a model for the majority of society. You still can and will find likeminded people, and construct your own communities, and live happy and fulfilled lives within that.

Just please dont advocate BS like 'wellfare is splitting up families' to the rest of society, while you are at it.

edit: Oh, and because I'm certain you just like to kick people of lower social status than you - as a lifegoal, really -- your alternative version of

- family doesnt exist anymore,
- church is all but over, because no one has time, scandals, and it only being something for 'a certain part of your population'
- lets take away wellfare

and your 'solution' of - force black women not to divorce, this will produce more family dependant social structures, which on its own will raise black communities out of structural poverty (and you are only talking about those with structural powerty, and laugh about those, because you get off on it) - is, flankly utterly insane, would never work, cant never work economically, has no logical component that would explain, why it would ever be working (Wishfull thinking? Family values will fix everything from the economy, to poor neighborhoods, to education ...).

Actually the opposite is true. The more you 'hammer in' family values, which strangely ALWAYS is connected with an anti education mantra, the more you keep those populations poor and dependent. Catholic "mission work" - is an entire worlds history of - just that (colonialization).

Larger family structures, will never solve an economic issue in todays world. Never. In fact, if you want them, today - you are effectively deciding to become structurally 'less well off' (but maybe happier

). So that you promote them as an alternative to wellfare - simply is outrageous.

Luckily - magic thinking saves the day, because at that point of your argument 'family values' come in, and solve everything, right? Wrong.

UltraDolphinRevolution · Jul 4, 2020

What CallmeBerto said is true. You don´t need to get emotional about it, Notimp.
This trend has affected all ethnic groups but it is the most pronounced in the African American community. The reason is a lower threshold for the state to be able to replace the father because the average income of African American men is lower.
Some people have also suggested that people in Africa are less patriarchal, i.e. children are brought up by the extended family and rely less on the father. I have not looked into it, just throwing it out there as a hypothesis by some.

I don´t know if you have watched American talkshows (I once used to when I tried to improve my English listening skills), but there was an episode in which the claim was made that there is an apartment complex which is full of single-mothers who were impregnated by the same African American. A true alpha male - except that he was poor. This is only possible because of (in essence) women marrying the state.

If you have time, I would still like you to respond to the last paragraph I made in my last post (your contradiction - in my view).

Viri · Jul 4, 2020

Neo Draven said:
The same mods are ignoring the fact that notimp has directly insulted another user, flamed him and used ad hominem.

Lol, I blocked him months ago, because his posts were always really long for no good reason. Some of his post hurt my head, because it felt like I was reading a bot using Google translate.

kineticUk · Jul 4, 2020

There’s nothing wrong with striving for perfection but when people start talking about erasing history I can’t help but stop listening... the world has gone f-in’ mad imo.

notimp · Jul 4, 2020

UltraDolphinRevolution said:
What CallmeBerto said is true. You don´t need to get emotional about it, Notimp.
This trend has affected all ethnic groups but it is the most pronounced in the African American community.

Correlation is not causation.

If you want to make this the fault of 'unethical black women, which are now divorcing more often, because they can' (men leaving families is nothing new, and certainly never was informed by á "oh they are getting wellfare, so I can just stroll off" thought process - in mass (there is an emotional bond, you know, and a social one, thats still in place)), you are taking the data, und you are willfully misinterpreting it.

Family structures changed (and to some extent eroded), when one salary wasnt enough anymore to bring up a family, because of economy required productivity increases.

It is that which both caused family structures to change, and made welfare a necessity. (Church or other 'traditional' social institutions, simply didnt have the capacity anymore - with no one donating their work, as everyone was expected to work for productivity gains..)

Women becoming financially independent then also (obviously) raised divorce rates.

Not the other way around (first there was welfare out of the blue, and then because of welfare women started to ruin family structures, because they could), you outrageous human being.

And again - the proposed "solution" of 'give them more family values again' doesnt work. The US cant finance that (one persons salary being enough to raise a family), at current (or boomer

) standards. (No western country can.)

In fact the proposed solution would do the opposite, and ensure, that those poor black communities you love to talk about would stay poor for generations to come. Thats why the alt right loves the idea, I assume.

(And to go over this one more time - the argument that financially independent women 'ruin families more often' is effing cynical. Because you basically say - 'if only they could be made more 'dependent'' it would 'save marriages'. *brrr*)

UltraDolphinRevolution · Jul 4, 2020

notimp said:
Correlation is not causation.

In this case though, it is a cause. Besides other causes you have correctly named. I know Europeans who have done the same. The father did not want to take responsibility and the mother did not tell the government who the father is. Therefore she got more money.

notimp said:
If you want to make this the fault of 'unethical black women, which are now divorcing more often, because they can' (men leaving families is nothing new, and certainly never was informed by á "oh they are getting wellfare, so I can just stroll off" thought process

Please don´t use quotation marks that suggest these are my words.
I have not called "black" women unethical. Men have the natural desire to spread their seed and are risk-taking. Women are risk-averse and have to deal with the consequences of sex much longer (and they can´t spread their genes as quickly).
Therefore women are more careful. But if they don´t have to be careful (because the state takes care of them no matter what) they will not be as careful.
Please tell me the error in this logic.

notimp said:
Not the other way around (first there was welfare out of the blue, and then because of welfare women started to ruin family structures, because they could), you outrageous human being.

Strawman argument, you outrageous human being. The order is irrelevant. The fact is, men are more likely to leave the child behind (because they can just produce many more with little effort) and women depend less on men if there is welfare. Before welfare careless women were shamed by the community because if the man disappears, the community would have to support her.

notimp said:
And again - the proposed "solution" of 'give them more family values again' doesnt work.

I don´t think I mentioned the solution. But if you are interested: track the father (with DNA tests) and let him pay. If he can´t pay, let him work in prison. The salary goes to the child.

notimp said:
The US cant finance that (one persons salary being enough to raise a family), at current (or boomer ) standards. (No western country can.)

The US can finance the largest military in the world by far. On the other hand, it cannot actually finance the current situation either. Bush doubled the US debt, Obama doubled that one and Trump doubled the debt once more - almost exponential growth. But that´s a different topic.

notimp said:
(And to go over this one more time - the argument that financially independent women 'ruin families more often' is effing cynical. Because you basically say - 'if only they could be made more 'dependent'' it would 'save marriages'. *brrr*)

Another strawman. Women are dependend! The state has replaced the father in many cases. How can you call welfare recipients independent? The current version of dependence is even worse because it takes money away from tax payers (who were not asked whether they want the respective woman to have children) instead of from the father.

Has Cancel Culture Gone Too Far

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Sepatown, my damie.

The Lone Wanderer

Sepatown, my damie.

Well-Known Member

Sepatown, my damie.

The Lone Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Lone Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum