|
Nice Tuckpointing! posted:Remember last year (I think) when Megan McCain on The View had a whole "I had no idea how important maternity leave was until I became a mother!" speech? Yeah. That pretty much sums up the mentality. A lot of people just don't understand and probably can't understand altruism or social service even if lives depend on it, until the benefit becomes clear. I suppose that a large proportion of people are just wired to only think in transactions, in terms of themselves and their in-groups. Maybe these are the same people who hear about a harassment case and their first thought is "what if it were me who was being accused" and the question of what would they do if they were victims never occurs to them. The same people who carry on about how masks are about control and tyranny and it never occurs to them that they're just an uncomfortable prophylactic to help each other out during a lovely pandemic. It's clearly incorrect to think other people will be or should be altruistic just because we are altruistic and desire altruism. It's worse for one to think all left people must actually be bad and only pretending to be good as part of some trick. It shouldn't be that hard to understand that the out-group is actually another in-group except one is excluded from it. But it's unlikely that old mate, or any JBP admirer really, is going to take anything away from this place that they didn't bring with them. A lot of the stuff about disabled access only started getting attention after WW1, (or WW2 depending on which country,) I hope people who are critical of those with disabilities come to understand why social services and accessibility requirements are good for everyone and not just those who need them directly.
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 11:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
Hamburger Sandwich posted:In the debate Zizek calls identity politics "impotent moralising", he is saying they are not able of effecting substantial political change. Peterson believes that they are the root cause of societies ills, they are effecting political change through teachings at HR Departments and University Faculties. They have different prognosis. I posted the foreword on Pastebin and needed to rot13 it first, but here's a part I could be referring to: Slavoj Zizek posted:This brings me to my next critical point. What I sincerely don’t get is Peterson’s designation of the position he is most critical about (not as the usual ‘cultural Marxists’, but): ‘postmodern neo-Marxists’. Nobody calls himself or herself that, so it’s a critical term—but does it hold? Peterson seems to like to give precise references, he mentions books, etc., so I would like to know his precise references here. I think I know what he has in mind: the politically-correct multicultural, anti-Eurocentric, etc. mess. But, where are Marxists among them? Peterson seems to oppose ‘postmodern neo-Marxism’ to the Western Judeo-Christian legacy. I find this opposition weird. Zizek is well known to be a critic of postmodernism, whatever that word means, and what I was going for is how he concedes postmodern neo-Marxism is a real, tangible phenomenon, namely, "the politically-correct multicultural, anti-Eurocentric, etc. mess". I believe a related response to Peterson's reading of something like this, in the debate, when discussing the reappropriation of oppressor/opressed narratives into the realm of race, gender and sexual identity etc., was "I totally agree with you! [...] but why do you call it Marxism?"). There's nothing unclear to me in how he says it cannot be tied to the sort of conspiratorial leftist narrative that Peterson places it into, but that's not my point. He's repeatedly said that this avenue is, for a political project, a lot of nice tinkering for the purpose of non-change over change (which I referred to and quoted directly with "not radical enough"). It's worth remembering how widely Zizek is ostracized for some of these positions. Yet his advocacy for eurocentrism, for instance, is an attempt at serious philosophical position searching for universality, in how disavowing Eurocentrism due to the legacy of Nazism, colonialism etc. is a fake prostration and modesty which takes pleasure in reserving the true universal subjective position. Zizek has criticized Butler (his friend), among others, for inserting essentialism in their constructonism, as well as constructionism in their essentialism, and this is a rather obvious feature of 21st century LGBT discourse that lands inside the "politically-correct mess" that he often critiques. I place this more at the feet of Butler's followers than themselves, but yes, fundamentally, I agree with Zizek in how some predominant ("subversive") conceptions of gender identity inhabit a surprisingly conservative and rigid philosophical position, which is dependent on presupposing a transcendental temporal horizon of an extremely neoliberal progress of history. So goes Zizek's critique on SATFA, whose main topics include attempts of overcoming this transcendentalism in search of the absolute. If you want to know why I haven't gotten into this theory in positioning Peterson's rise as a part of the failure of the post-Reaganite left or death of metaphysics (which, no, I don't mean as a simple rehash of Nietzsche or something, but the anglophone analytic turn, the death of the humanities and their replacement with the existential voids of Sam Harris and Stephen Hawking, a specific recent phenomenon), it's because I felt I need to self-moderate. If I pathologized this thread the way you are doing to me, I wonder how that would go down. You'll find many Zizekian concepts leaking through if you've read him post-SOI, including my calling JP a master in the discursive sense. I don't think a master can be called the object of anything (they are the discursive agent), but I could write a tract about Jorp's position as the Sublime Subject of Ideology. And then disagree with it. The praxis of how I wish we dealt with people was also a direct pick up from Zizek, who believes the least subversive thing you can do today is the ironic, detached, insincere distancing which carries most of this thread. The quality of hysteria I would more relate with antivaxxers than Hegel: if there is subversive potential in the (a)political posturing, it is terminally displaced with hysterical lies that rarely connect with even a shallow reading of Peterson. It feels nice, though, I hope. Stylistically, it's pretty close to how I imagine people on 8chan or Voat talk(ed) about Anita Sarkeesian. There is a genuine human anxiety about it, I just don't think it has found the real target. Maybe I'm projecting in how I feel I've grown up from that, maybe this is pathological in ways that you should be dealing with just like I'm being put in New Atheism jail. I have the bravery to talk about myself as a genuine human being with a past. I wonder how many here could think of Jordan Peterson through even the mildest critical self-reflection of themselves, and then put that up for half a dozen people anxious to dump on you. (How's that for the pathologizing?) My praise of neighborhood over allyship is also from Zizek. He says the most subversive political position for the left is that of occupying the position of the sincere, kind moral majority, using Bernie Sanders as a common example. He says he's on friendly terms with Peterson, sending his best wishes for a quick exchange with JP's daughter when he was in recovery. He yearns for a return to a sort of bipartisan friendship. If this is a respectable, intellectually serious position, it appears to me like it's almost impossible to reconcile with what I'm seeing here. Yet you'll find Zizek repeatedly praised in this thread. Is it my problem that I haven't read him enough? If you want me to write an analysis based on a book chapter you like, you can always make requests, but in saying I'm not Zizekian enough, all I'm getting from it is that I'm too Zizekian. I've put Lacan more to the side in the last couple of years, sorry. The thing is, so has 21st century Zizek. This is tiring me out for personal reasons that should be obvious by now, and I guess I should eat something on a lunch break. So I'll bow out, but hope that cleared up some things. And if not, that's fine too. Ihki fucked around with this message at 12:18 on Nov 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 11:51
|
|
|
Thanks for the effortpost, seems out of place in a mock thread in a toxic comedy forum but also I can't think of anywhere more suitable. Don't wear yourself out for the internet, outside of some very narrow criteria it's never worth it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 12:38
|
|
|
Ihki posted:bipartisan friendship I'd love to see jorp extend the olive branch
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 13:20
|
|
|
The Sausages posted:Thanks for the effortpost, seems out of place in a mock thread in a toxic comedy forum but also I can't think of anywhere more suitable. Appreciated, but don't overread it. The whole line of conversation where I'm meant to justify myself might be an unsatisfying dead end which I'm just not prepared to keep defending, but that's simple enough to fix with how I can just prefer not to. Having a rough day, maybe, but it's not the posting (ETA for a surgery through public health care: 1.5 yrs; need to think about forking some thousands for it).
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 13:21
|
|
|
Ihki you have an extremely tedious way of writing and that definitely is a major obstacle in others understanding you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 13:49
|
|
|
Is there a single serious lie about Jordan Peterson itt? His fans seem most shocked and incredulous when they are presented his own words verbatim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 14:01
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Ihki you have an extremely tedious way of writing and that definitely is a major obstacle in others understanding you. For my position on understanding, I'm against it. There's like a handful of big ticket continental theorists who are really effective writers. I'm under no illusion I'm one of them, nor are any of the people I've mentioned ITT (e: oh, I did mention Nietzsche). Maybe you enjoy someone better, maybe the entire tradition is inscrutable (which is commonly the case). I don't think I can win, either way. This came up as soon as I picked up a couple of those big words that I was told I should be getting into. Ihki fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Nov 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 14:07
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Is there a single serious lie about Jordan Peterson itt? His fans seem most shocked and incredulous when they are presented his own words verbatim. what can you make up about jorp thats more outlandish than the truth
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 14:09
|
|
|
Ihki posted:I posted the foreword on Pastebin and needed to rot13 it first, but here's a part I could be referring to: you have mastered the zizek style congratulations but yeah i think your right in so much as JP is tapping into some genuine critique of society. but he himself is not genuine, all he cares about is getting his meat money
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 14:36
|
|
|
Ihki posted:For my position on understanding, I'm against it. In that case I suggest never posting at all so this thread isn't cluttered up with unreadable slogs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 14:42
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:In that case I suggest never posting at all so this thread isn't cluttered up with unreadable slogs. If part of my theoretical point was how this thread is principally about trying not to understand things, then wouldn't that mean my posts, not so desperate to be understood as to do headstands about it, are just part of the good vibe?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 15:25
|
|
|
No.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 15:32
|
|
|
Ihki posted:If part of my theoretical point was how this thread is principally about trying not to understand things, then wouldn't that mean my posts, not so desperate to be understood as to do headstands about it, are just part of the good vibe? No
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 15:46
|
|
|
I had to check that we hadn't moved to D&D, but it makes a nice change from Kermit the frog jokes, even if I have to read each post 3 times and google a few words Edit: no Dongsturm fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Nov 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 16:01
|
|
|
Ihki posted:If part of my theoretical point was how this thread is principally about trying not to understand things, then wouldn't that mean my posts, not so desperate to be understood as to do headstands about it, are just part of the good vibe? Granted I only read the synopsis of that book, but isn't it just about focusing on healing a psych patient instead of putting too much emphasis on trying to understand them? It mentions avoiding trying to find meaning and subtext in every thing they say, and to focus on treatment. I guess you could make the argument some people in this thread are psychoanalyzing posts a bit much, but I don't think that book is saying your arguments and discourse should be beyond understand-ability by virtue. I feel like this moves into obnoxious JORP territory of "I refuse to be pinned down to concrete beliefs even though what I am saying is undeniable objective truth." Ya really got to appreciate someone who is willing to talk about things they don't understand, like Kanye. eSporks fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Nov 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 16:04
|
|
|
Ihki posted:If part of my theoretical point was how this thread is principally about trying not to understand things, then wouldn't that mean my posts, not so desperate to be understood as to do headstands about it, are just part of the good vibe? If you are not willing to be a fool, you can't become a master.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 16:04
|
|
|
Ihki posted:I posted the foreword on Pastebin and needed to rot13 it first, but here's a part I could be referring to: I have have a copy of Myths and Mayhem, I have read his preface already. I do not agree with your reading of it. I refer to how Zizek makes the explicit comparison of the term ‘postmodern neo-Marxism’ with the ideology fascism and their use of the symbolic "Jew". As it was often pointed out, fascism is, at it’s most elementary, a conservative revolution maintain or even reassert a traditional hierarchal society. A society which is capitalist, but at the same time controlled by hierarchal values with no class or other antagonisms. But, class struggle and other dangers is something inherent to capitalism, instability is the way capitalism functions. "The Jew" in Nazi Ideology is the way to explain away these contradictions. It is an ideological fantasy which puts the cause of everything wrong not as a result of the inherent tensions in the development of this society but as the result of a foreign intruder. This is why “The Jew” in Nazi ideology is a constellation of contradictorily notions. To Nazis they were both the ruling capitalist class (money grabbing, secretly running the world, exploitation of the poor) and of the lower class (dirtiness, sexual promiscuity, communism). The only consistency is as precisely a symbolic condensation of everything that Nazi ideology’s says they are against. I've pointed out previously that Peterson uses "post-modernism" the same way. Zizek says this from the preface to Myths and Mayhem referring to Petersons use of the term cultural marxism "The term Cultural Marxism "plays the same structural role as that of the 'Jewish plot' in anti-Semitism: it projects (or rather, transposes) the immanent antagonism of our socio-economic life onto an external cause: what the conservative alt-right deplores as the ethical disintegration of our lives (feminism, attacks on patriarchy, political correctness, etc.) must have an external cause—because it cannot, for them, emerge out of the antagonisms and tensions of our own societies." When you say "there's nothing unclear to me in how he says it cannot be tied to the sort of conspiratorial leftist narrative that Peterson places it into" this is explicitly contradicted by this statement. Zizek isn't saying post-modernism is part of a conspiracy like you believe, he's saying Peterson is a conspiracy theorist for believing so. When refer to Zizeks argument that "people who reject eurocentrism due to the legacy of Nazism, colonialism etc. is a fake prostration and modesty which takes pleasure in reserving the true universal subjective position.. Are you still talking about the post modern conspiracy? Your switching gears really fast. If that is the case then I have to say it is the same argument against people who say "all lives matter". Even though their spoken statement is for equality and universality because they don't recognise "black lives don't matter" they are reserving the true universal subjective position for themselves. Are race reactionaries in the post modernists conspiracy? I also don't believe that Zizek thinks there are post modernists trying to appropriate the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy because this comes form Peterson himself re-appropriating Slave/Master morality from Nietzsche and misunderstanding what class struggle is. There is nothing to reappropriate because class struggle is still here, it never went away. I don't see how Zizek's criticism of Butler's response to how we deal with discursivity in gender as ""inserting essentialism in their constructionism, as well as constructionism in their essentialism."". this is meaningless without context because on the face of it, this kind of reversal is something I expect Zizek to say we need to do. I'm not well read on Butler's work but the impression I got was that Zizek's concept of ideology and Butler's performativity are very closely aligned. They are both Hegelians who use psychoanalysis to study subjectivity and how it is developed externally. They have disagreements over interpretations of Hegel but I mean that's the point of academia? Zizek is also here the Marxist criticising Butler for not being radical enough. I thought the conspiracy existed to radicalise people, is Zizek in the conspiracy? I'm going to stop it here because I think you need to slow down mate. Rather than respond to what I have written you have shot off a hundred different ways and left other people to try and divine your meaning. I'm not saying read more, that was explicitly the opposite of what I was saying when I was referring to Pokémon. I said you should instead focus. Take your time to develop what you have already read about and relate it to what other people who are engaged in the topic are saying otherwise you'll develop your own constellation of signifiers that only you'll understand. I appreciate your trying to try something new rather than just criticise, but if your trying to build to build a collaborative political project I don't think this is a good way to do so. Even though you quoted me I didn't even know if you were talking to me as you seemed to ignore what I had to say and bounced between several disparate topics. So not only did I find it hard to understand you, I also felt unheard. And while its good to use sincerity in your politics I probably wouldn't do it if it is wearing you out emotionally and all that is at steak is this internet forums. It's Jungian psychoanalysis's that's meant to be the cause of schizophrenic and schizotypal symptoms, not Lacan. Hamburger Sandwich fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Nov 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
eSporks posted:Granted I only read the synopsis of that book, but isn't it just about focusing on healing a psych patient instead of putting too much emphasis on trying to understand them? It mentions avoiding trying to find meaning and subtext in every thing they say, and to focus on treatment. I guess you could make the argument some people in this thread are psychoanalyzing posts a bit much, but I don't think that book is saying your arguments and discourse should be beyond understand-ability by virtue. I feel like this moves into obnoxious JORP territory of "I refuse to be pinned down to concrete beliefs even though what I am saying is undeniable objective truth." Ya really got to appreciate someone who is willing to talk about things they don't understand, like Kanye. Yeah, I just thought it made for a nice quip, but I also take it seriously in the sense of how I think we should try to worry less about understanding ourselves a lot less, in the vein of what I've already put down on identity. It's not really about how you should write. Unless you ask the three people who love Lacan for the great writing, anyway. Kanye's a nice segway into how you could say he is a perfect example of the Lacanian psychotic in believing he is Kanye West. The same applies for the Jordan Peterson who thinks he's Jordan Peterson, the symbolic, prophetic messiah figure. It's this overidentification or overdetermination that I'm mostly opposed to in being against understanding. I am a neighbor to myself, blah blah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
Hamburger Sandwich posted:I appreciate your trying to try something new rather than just criticise, but if your trying to build to build a collaborative political project I don't think this is a good way to do so. Even though you quoted me I didn't even know if you were talking to me as you seemed to ignore what I had to say and bounced between several disparate topics. So not only did I find it hard to understand you, I also felt unheard. I already said it's a bit much to get worried about me. All I'm saying is this is not a very productive conversation when I'm meant to be defending my personal history and now my mental health, where the only person with these chips on the table seems to be myself (and whoever is unfortunate enough to say something neutral or better on Jorp). It's a rigged game and I don't really want to play it. In being told I was not engaging with theory and that I should read some, I cleared up what I had bubbling under, informing what I had already written about. If that's not topical enough on how I have in fact read my Zizek, that's fine, too. I appreciate the effort response, but I wasn't really meaning to debate or open a new conversation. In case you haven't noticed, that type of conversation is not welcomed here. To be clear, though, as this seems to be a major theme in your response, no, I did not say Zizek believes in some sort of postmodernist conspiracy theory, but that whatever Peterson's boogie man is, he concedes this source of anxiety exists in some form that contains elements that Peterson is correct in pointing out. This is not contradictory with how he calls Peterson a conspiracy theorist, which I thought was already established. Ihki fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Nov 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
Yeah but what are ur thoughts on lobsters?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 16:36
|
|
|
Ihki posted:In case you haven't noticed, that type of conversation is not welcomed here. It's welcome, just not when it looks like it was run through a malfunctioning translation app and back again. If you're just posting to post, don't want anyone to understand, and then whine that "that type of conversation is not welcome here" then why not make a thread in Post My Favorites where you can post all the malformed word vomit you want with no fear of jokes at your expense? Who What Now fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Nov 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 16:40
|
|
|
Ihki posted:I already said it's a bit much to get worried about me. All I'm saying is this is not a very productive conversation when I'm meant to be defending my personal history and now my mental health, where the only person with these chips on the table seems to be myself (and whoever is unfortunate enough to say something neutral or better on Jorp). It's a rigged game and I don't really want to play it. In being told I was not engaging with theory and that I should read some, I cleared up what I had bubbling under, informing what I had already written about. If that's not topical enough on how I have in fact read my Zizek, that's fine, too. I appreciate the effort response, but I wasn't really meaning to debate or open a new conversation. In case you haven't noticed, that type of conversation is not welcomed here. Mate ….. this is exactly the reason why my original point was to do the analysis from the Sublime Object. The source of the anxiety, what is repressed by ideology and what Peterson and reactionary thought is a symptom of, is liberal capitalism itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 16:47
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It's welcome, just not when it looks like it was run through a malfunctioning translation app and back again. If you're just posting to post, don't want anyone to understand, and then whine that "that type of conversation is not welcome here" then why not make a thread in Post My Favorites where you can post all the malformed word vomit you want with no fear of jokes at your expense? I took a look at the eight pages of contributions you've put in, and I have my own speculations on how you had such difficulty reading my posts even when I was trying to dumb them down. Hamburger Sandwich posted:Mate ….. this is exactly the reason why my original point was to do the analysis from the Sublime Object. The source of the anxiety, what is repressed by ideology and what Peterson and reactionary thought is a symptom of, is liberal capitalism itself. As long as we agree that it is a pathology that goes deep in this very thread as what is described as subversive leftism, then I have no objection to that. This is not exactly the point of SOI chapter one which you were condescending to me about. I'm approaching it from a different direction as informed by Zizek and so on, nevertheless. I counted the ways. If I got there without talking about Marx and the symptom, then maybe that's wrong and maybe it isn't. But I guess in hearing I'm right in the wrong way, it's curtains. Sorry and thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
Ihki posted:and so on  your actually zizek, admit it
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 17:28
|
|
|
we are increasingly falling prey to the desperation of meaninglessness,
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
the addiction clinician cold turkeyd himself into a coma because he had no idea how to not do benzos lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
like I'm gonna take advice from a Canadian
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 17:37
|
|
|
What are benzos like anyway, i gotta fathom they're p. sweet
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:the addiction clinician cold turkeyd himself into a coma because he had no idea how to not do benzos But then made a serious I'm smarter than you half frown mug for a photo with Joe Rogan so i'm not sure what to believe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
Does cleaning the living room count?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 17:43
|
|
|
Batterypowered7 posted:Does cleaning the living room count? To stand up straight with your shoulders back is to accept the terrible responsibility of life, with eyes wide open.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
Recently saw a psychologist friend of mine share a bunch of JP's self-help material for kids. The comments were very polarized, which was entertaining. However, when one comment pointed out that JP is against trans folks my friend said he couldn't "find any evidence" of this. What is the clearest example of JP being transphobic? I know he was against being required to use preferred pronouns, but I could see how someone could argue that's not directly transphobia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 17:45
|
|
|
Lol be prepared to be very disappointed by what you're going to find out about your friend's beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
he literally rose to fame by crusading against gender identity being a protected class against whom you legally cannot discriminate like he and his cronies will spew a lot of nonsense about "compelled speech" but if you think that's worth entertaining for even a second, you need to not only reevaluate your friend, but yourself as well E: to be clear, he literally wants canada to repeal the bill that says you can't discriminate against trans people, on the grounds of "freedom of speech" Zulily Zoetrope fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Nov 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
Soapy_Bumslap posted:What are benzos like anyway, i gotta fathom they're p. sweet If you like baby grand pianos, time-travel and amnesia, let me tell you - they are the loving bomb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 18:04
|
|
|
Ihki posted:I took a look at the eight pages of contributions you've put in, and I have my own speculations on how you had such difficulty reading my posts even when I was trying to dumb them down. Oh the reason is I don't respect you enough to put in the effort to parse your terrible writing. I'm sure you have very intelligent and well thought-out ideas you want to convey but you've made it not worth putting in the effort for reasons I can't fathom and also don't really care about any more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 18:05
|
|
|
Soapy_Bumslap posted:What are benzos like anyway, i gotta fathom they're p. sweet Basically booze but in pill form. Imagine if you could take two pills instead of six shots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
Protocol7 posted:To stand up straight with your shoulders back is to accept the terrible responsibility of life, with eyes wide open. Okay, but does it still count if I don't move the couches to clean under them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
Long-Time Lurker posted:Lol be prepared to be very disappointed by what you're going to find out about your friend's beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 18:09
|
|