Putty posted:

https://twitter.com/JonTronShow/status/839567041749209088

8-Bit Scholar posted:

You sure are fuckin' talky for a Pokemon

8-Bit Scholar posted:

I mean, there absolutely was a bunch of people annoyed they'd remake Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, but that was also when Myspace was new, wasn't it? Social media hadn't created this obnoxious echo chamber effect. We didn't have industries who make money off generating page views constantly telling people that their childhood was being ruined.

Robocop remake was basically shat upon by the people who loved the original. The Red Letter Media videos on it are a great example of that.

Ghostbusters, on the other hand, starring women yes, rebooted by studio executives, shoved its "diversity" angle in its face, manufactured its own controversy, and ended up being a wet fart that failed to connect to audiences. It's actually pretty sexist in its own right, given how it treats its male characters.

8-Bit Scholar posted:

Well, if he wanted to test the strength of his brand, this is the way to do it. I think he's been making a relatively consistent "political" point in that there's been an unreasonable wave of people who seem to want to strip everything out of context and broadcast it in a vacuum to defame or delegitimize people who speak politically unpopular or contrary views. That's what he'd talked about in a few out "scandelous" interviews, like the time he was featured on Breitbart and he said...absolutely nothing outlandish at all, beyond reiterating the above statement and making an argument that it's sort of bad that speaking your mind about politics is so dangerous today.

8-Bit Scholar posted:

Boy this thread really improved eight pages ago when Moridin showed up.

Having read the actual quotes of Jon's words, I'm painfully unsurprised that he doesn't say anything terrifically outlandish. He doesn't say "exterminate the Jews" or anything like that.

He (gasp) said that it's a weird double standard where you can hold white people accountable for the colonialism of eating tacos, but if white people complain about immigration or whatever, they are racist.

If I was going to critique his position, I'd ask him to provide more specific examples because, like everything else Jon says, he sounds like he's vaguely alluding to something he heard someplace.

I fail to see how anything he said there is alarming or newsworthy to anyone. Do you feel alarmed? Do you feel Jon Jafari is about to host a rally to put your life in danger?

His last name has Jafar right there in it so he's probably pretty villanous IDK but see, I just read his words and think "he doesn't sound very politically educated" and then I move on with my life, which means smoking this fat bowl of weed.

So whats' everyone super upset about? Why is there 16 pages on this topic do people think Jon should be punished for something?

8-Bit Scholar posted:

People are calling him a literal Nazi. I mean, it's not the same tone as most mock threads, there's a lot of genuine fury and bile here, which is...I get it, but I also don't, because he just said poo poo and that's all. People are taking what he said, though, and attaching the most inflammatory possible labels and descriptors to it. The thread, the article, a lot of people are actively attempting to use as damaging of words and labels as possible, in a manner that feels dishonest, especially since it comes down to picking out a sequence of quotes to justify a point about a person's character.

It's not like this is the first time too. It's really creepy, it happens a lot, and it tends to be politically oriented. People used to just be able to say poo poo, and y'know what, the world kept spinning. Now people say poo poo, other people say poo poo, and then it becomes a Discussion and then the truth keeps getting splintered and reinterpreted and it's tedious to then track down what is real and what isn't about a controversy that isn't important.

It doesn't seem worth it to crucify a man over. In fact, the fact that this is so upsetting is honestly very alarming to me. It's like the very notion of conservative rhetoric is anathema to half this thread. Hey, some people have different ideas than you. They live here too. Make nice.

8-Bit Scholar posted:

gently caress Ronald Reagan.


Why is that such a laughable comparison, given how many filmmakers have literally gotten their start posting their work to Youtube?

I also think it's pretty pointless for the Yooka-Laylee guys to publicly sever from Jon like that. I get why, and at least he's being gracious about it, but frankly I kind of think this will hurt them more than help. Jon was a huge part of the surge of Banjo-Kazooie nostalgia that got Yooka-Laylee funded in the first place, and he was a vocal supporter for the game; I suspect a few of his fans would probably refuse to buy the product now out of solidarity. I doubt it'll make a big impact, but I hardly think this was remotely bad press for it and I think their attempt to fix that potential bad press has potential to be more harmful.

8-Bit Scholar posted:

Yeah but Jontron said nothing of the loving sort about killing anybody. What I'm saying is, people think he should be punished for it, and that isn't free speech. Rebukes or whatever, fine; if Playtronic legitimately wants to make a political statement by excising Jon Jafari from their game, then they are well within their rights to do so, but I don't really respect it. Particularly in the face of the fact that Jontron was no small part of the resurgence of Banjo-Kazooie nostalgia that helped feed into Yooka-Laylee's successful Kickstarter. He promoted the game and brought attention to the Kickstarter and while that certainly entitles him to nothing, you would think that there'd be a little more...something there. He didn't even say any of the stuff on his channel, he shared an opinion in a public open forum. This is what you are supposed to be free to do in this country, so why is it increasingly so that people can expect to be punished for it? It's a lovely thing to do, I think; we encourage people to speak their mind and be honest and true to themselves or whatever, unless we decide they said something we don't like, then we literally do not care if they live or die.

The most assinine thing about this is Playtronic threw gasoline onto a brush fire. There was NO negative buzz connected to this game and nothing but hype. Most people had no idea Jontron was even a part of it. Now there's a story where immediately everyone has "sides" to take and there's immediate controversy and maybe some people will buy this game out of solidarity for this loving "bold" political statement being taken and maybe some people will not buy the game out of solidarity for Jon, but I can't help but think this only leaves a really sour taste surrounding the game on the cusp of its release.

Which makes it better, that they decided to poo poo on this guy for no better reason than they disliked his politics, or that they did it to use his popularity once more as a generator of controversy to get more exposure to their title? I'm honestly not particularly impressed by either.

8-Bit Scholar posted:

Tell us more about what Nazis say at their meetings, it sounds like you've been.


I don't recall him saying that.


Also don't recall him saying that, although I do believe he suggested he thinks American culture is superior to other cultures? Is that such a terrible position?


Who is "we" here? The fact is is that he isn't a Nazi, you can't just say everyone who you don't like or agree with is a Nazi, it doesn't make sense and it dilutes the word. People feel you can justifiably be violent towards Nazis, so if you say somebody is one, you're very well suggesting to others that they are worth being violent towards.

Again, the guy voiced. Opinions. That you don't like. That's all. "We don't accept open racism" oh well my apologies, my Lord, pray forgive these verbal trespasses but I don't recall electing you to the Decency Brigade.

And, again, I really find it disturbing that we hate differences of opinion so much that we'd rather see those who voice different opinions suffer for it. Again, I had asked, we enjoy a right to be able to speak freely in a public forum without fear of governmental reprisal; why is it then that we have taken it upon ourselves (and our corporate masters) to wield the tyrant's club?

Like, all of you who are so earnestly saying such and such is a Nazi, okay, but what part of being pro-censorship fascistic information-control zealots equates to "opposing Nazis" because I'm not sure I see it

8-Bit Scholar posted:

Oh, I've been genuinely distressed by our vicious lack of regard for our own first amendment rights for a lot longer than Jontron's even been in the public eye.

But I suppose I'm just somebody who values a difference of opinion, and the freedom for people to voice evil thoughts. I think that if you make that which is unpleasant hidden, it becomes more dangerous. I think all things should be brought to light, and rather than feeding into Jon's paranoia that SJWs are actively abandoning rationality to prey upon political opposites by...well, doing just that, I think that certain companies involved in this fiasco could have handled themselves better.

Either way, it's distressing to me. The Internet is full of noxious, odorous ideas and dialogues and discussions; that's it's place, to facilitate unrestricted human communication. Once we abandoned anonymity, the Internet, once a marketplace of ideas, become a bear trap.

8-Bit Scholar posted:

I'm still waiting for you to explain what racist poo poo I said, since you accused me of saying "racist poo poo all the time" about a million pages back.

Anyway, I went and watched the Jon/Destiny debate and I'm still...plainly just puzzled by all of this. It took five minutes for the twitch stream chat to call Jon a Nazi, the debate doesn't really get interesting until about 12 minutes in, and I eventually had to stop about 45 minutes in because it's 2 hours long and both sides are stupid.

Destiny or whatever regurgitates a lot of talking points I've heard before, as does Jon. Destiny also tends to back Jon into a corner OR put words in his mouth a lot. Jon basically says why shouldn't the white majority of America be allowed to express upset if they perceive their majority being encroached upon? He emphasizes that every stable society has a "majority" and with that "majority" presently being, in his opinion, eroded at by, in this case, immigration, is blowback against that truly racist, or is the race issue a knee-jerk thing?

He also said that he's guilty of association because neo-Nazis responded to his words; he also asked Destiny why he doesn't denounce his Communist followers. Destiny rather wimply said that Communism is an economic thing, nothing like the fascistic and racist ideologies of Naziism, clearly forgetting his own history as Chairman Mao used Communism to justify exterminating religious temples and religious sects and forcing secularism by gunpoint upon his populace.

8-Bit Scholar posted:

So then, are racism and cultural identity not intrinsically tied? Is it possible to have a cultural identity devoid of racism? If so, would it be devoid of ALL measures of dividing peoples into groups? Can we define ourselves without defining "others"?

As I recall, you're not American, so I'll not weigh your assessment of American uniformity very heavily, but there IS a sincere case to be made that there is no actual "American" cultural identity. Most people identify with their "home lands" from generations back, or else identify as a racial, political or religious entity; but not as an American one.

Conservatives, and what Jon is touching on ties into this, believe America would be a better place if there was such a thing. They define it using race, which I do not think is the best route to take, but it's a point to be made: if this is a "melting pot" should not then by the end of the melting process the fondue be, while flavorful and blending all that which went into it, should it not be recognizable as a singular "whole"?

ISIS, ideologically, opposes Democracy and Western individualism. It is an anathema to all this country stands for, and worse yet it is becoming the loudest voice for Islam in the world today; is it not logical for some to equate Islam with the very opposite of everything America represents, individual liberty and freedom of choice?

8-Bit Scholar posted:

Well fortunately I'm not disallowing anybody anything, but I am saying that we are, culturally, really bad at criticizing ideas, because it seems that when we are critical of people's ideas, it tends to be very all or nothing. Somebody who holds different opinions from you is a Bad Person and many are happy to see them punished for what they say.

I want everyone to speak without fear, generally speaking. I think silencing a person out of moral authority was lovely when it was done by conservatives in the 1950's and it's lovely today; it's the same hypocritical nonsense repeated time and time again.

The fact that people either choose not to see it or worse yet, see it and agree with it anyway, troubles me. We should not be so insecure about...well, anything, really, to be so bent out of shape when people express ideas we don't like.

8-Bit Scholar posted:

This is an extremely alarming equivocation. You may hate bigotry and all the vile things that spawn from it, but there is no way you can rationally say that holding a negative opinion of an idea of a race is the equivalent to somebody wanting to having sex with a child. To wit, pedophiles in this society are, once caught, effectively branded for death. The justice system does not sentence them as such, but it is left to vigilante groups or their fellow prisoners instead. The fact remains is that pedophilia is statistically quite rare; racism is quite common, and also quite subjective. I do not think somebody who wants to not have immigrants move into their neighborhood deserves to die.

And who is this we? "We're not going to negotiate with racists"? Are you part of an extremist group? Because it sort of sounds like you're talking like some kind of extremist group.

8-Bit Scholar posted:

That's sort of the thing, you have this compulsion to debate the issue, and you seem to be off target on what the issue is. Nobody is saying racism isn't a bad thing. The debate is, what should the response be to it?

Racism exists basically everywhere, in some form or another. You yourself talk about internalized racism, a concept that one can be racist without having any conscious knowledge of it. One may be racist to any varying level of degrees, and may manifest in any one of varying ways. It has existed, and has been a major factor of human society, since human society existed. From the Greeks to the Mongols, racial ties have been the primary means humans have identified themselves as social groups, and represented themselves to others. There is no denying that race has been the primary means of self-identification that humans have used when interacting with each other.

But what does this actually mean? While skin color is the means used to identify race, because in a time when everyone speaks different languages you may have no other means of identifying anyone beyond how they look, what is being conveyed is culture. Racists do not hate black people because they have black skin (well, some might) but because they represent perceived cultural values that are abhorrent to the racist. Racists associate races they dislike with traits they dislike; Americans call Mexicans lazy because Americans value hard work, and they perceive some aspect of Mexican culture, or they have been taught that some element of Mexican culture, somehow represents laziness. Heck, maybe they even dislike the concept of the Mexican devoid of any justification for a stereotype, and then just apply the notion that hey are lazy or rapacious to them later because they don't like those things, and they don't like Mexicans, so the two must go together.

Truthfully, I don't think the races matter. I'd argue that in most cases, racism is arbitrary, and likely directed simply at whatever "other" is closest at hand. Some people just define themselves by using others as an example of what they are not. Some people have been taught this, some just develop it naturally. Others may turn to racism as a means of venting their frustration at their own economic shortcomings. There's tons of reasons why somebody might want to blame all of their problems on others. If we could create a perfectly equal society in every other way, would race matter? Would skin pigment matter? We'll never know, I don't think we'll ever have--or even necessarily ever want--such a society.

All of this is to say is that, in recent years, it's become fashionable to attack persons for perceived expressions of racism. In some well-intentioned gesture on the part of a passionate few, it has become so that racism should be "stamped out" and as such it is acceptable for people to be punished, sometimes quite harshly, with a loss of revenue or public shaming, for expressions of racism. The idea is, if we keep stamping it out, then eventually nobody will teach racism, and racism will go away forever. In fact, this zeal for stamping out bigotry has become such that generally speaking it has been applied as a tactic to nearly every perceived slight to progressivism and tolerance. Bigotry, transphobia, ableism, sexism; it doesn't really matter what it is, so long as it could be perceived as being intolerant then it justifies scrutiny, criticism, harassment, and so on.

It's not that I'm not sympathetic. It may not seem like it, since I seem so ardently opposed to your viewpoint. I think that everybody, regardless of birth, sex or sexual orientation, should enjoy the same basic human rights, the same basic privilege to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I would like to live in a nation where we all could coexist peacefully, where the police do not violate human and civil rights with impunity, and where greed did not dictate legislation. In most every context, I can assure you we agree more than we don't.

However, where we do disagree, the fervor with which that disagreement is displayed is such that it becomes outright vicious. In terms of demonstrating virtue, every time I've ever pissed off any of the familiar cadre of persons who show up to these threads, the reactions are deeply ugly. There's insults hurled freely, there's absolutely no respect given because it is seen such that no respect is deserved to a person who holds opposing viewpoints. Even if you are right, even if you were wholly correct, the manner in which these debates conduct themselves is pretty loving gross. Not one of you can apparently hold your vitriolic righteousness in, not one of you can refrain from dipping your posts in condescension. And it isn't just you:

I mean, this election, the President of the United States was elected as a direct result of that contempt, that condescension, that bitter, petulant anger. Well-intentioned, maybe, but so ugly to see and ugly to endure, and for what? Self-serving satisfaction? I don't see the plight of the oppressed improving much thanks to the ceaseless efforts of Internet crusaders. Worse yet, because every media outlet and every elite in the country sneered down their noses at anyone who didn't support their candidate du jour, a loving moron was elected almost surely out of sheer spite. Live with that one!

So, looking at all that, taking all that to mind, that's my issue. That racism is not treated like what it is--a bothersome quirk of psychology that's no longer necessary in a multicultural society--but instead as something even worse than what it is, as an all-consuming, poisonous, infectious sort of heresy that if not burnt out, if not squashed at every turn it may infect the next generation, and the next, and the next. Do you want to know why I don't like people casually calling other people "Nazis"? It's because when the actual Nazis show up, when the actual fascists swoop in, nobody will recognize them, because the definition's lost all meaning.

You aren't going to beat racism out of people. Yet a lot of you seem to want to try anyway.

8-Bit Scholar posted:

The Romans certainly did. I agree, most of these peoples were not fully homogenous, but you have things like "Nubians" which still serves as a term to refer to Africans, even if its original use was quite specific to a certain group. There may have been more nuance to that end, but I do not think it's even remotely a stretch to suggest that most of these peoples, with the possible exception of Rome, which became pretty diverse due to its position as a global superpower (all roads lead to Rome etc) but I suspect that Romans probably had a hierarchy of ethnicities within its society as well, but most of these peoples likely identified themselves and others based on so-called racial characteristics.

Either way, I certainly think that for a massive portion of history, race and ethnicity has served as a means of self and other identification amongst humans, and I think there's plenty of evidence of that readily apparent throughout civilization, on both the East and the Western sides of the hemisphere. Again, see the Mongols vs. the Chinese (who themselves had their own ethnic power struggles).


Agreed, it's a situation where a symptom is being misdiagnosed to a stupid cause. Race is unlikely a major factor in criminality; economic position is. The fact that black communities are heavily impacted by poverty and thus crime statistics are skewed. I absolutely 100 percent believe that whatever your position on American race relations is, the War on Drugs was a heavily racist and absolutely stupid initiative to combat an epidemic of drug use brought on by a surge of poverty and racial tension. Drug use has remained popular, but the War on Drugs has served to devastate the Black community and Mexico as a nation. It will take generations to repair the damage left behind by the drug war, but that healing cannot begin while it persists, and only a full-scale end to it and the culture of mass incarceration it has spawned will be sufficient to begin soothing the USA's racial tensions.

8-Bit Scholar posted:

Skin color is literally only melanin. It has always been shorthand for cultural differences. In a melting pot like America, friction should be expected; even if the national goal is to be open to those who want for a taste of paradise, it is practical to assume that cultures will not blend smoothly. Much of the USA's racial tensions are borne of this basic fact.

But the thing is, at what point does it become absurd? Let's take the concept of privilege. Obviously it exists; but what should the reaction to it be? Let's break white privilege down like this:

Some people own cars, and can drive on their own wherever they want. Other people do not own cars, and must rely on gross public transit.

Do the people who own cars, enjoying that privilege, owe anything to those who are riding the bus? If so, what? And why?

8-Bit Scholar posted:

Y'know, here's a big question:

Do you think that if there was an African superpower, black people in America would be afforded more respect?

White people, Asians (Chinese specifically), represent superpowers. There are no South American or African superpowers, and those reflect the most oppressed racial groups in the American landscape. Do you think there's a connection?

It's kind of...y'know, I wonder if there's ever been a look at the racial relations in America as based on a reflection of international politics. I bet that'd be illuminating.


That's hardly fair, not every single racial tension can be attributed to American slavery and I was speaking broadly on racism in general, which I think is very clearly an objection of culture as depicted through skin tone. In America, certainly, you could argue there's distinction, but based on actual conversations I've had with people who have had racist views, that's the impression I've taken.

I've had Mexican-Americans literally tell me how much they hate "wetback illegals", and how proud they are that their parents legally entered the country and become true red-white-blue Americans, etc. Anecdotes, sure, but it's a clear sign that there's more at work than just skin tone here. Hispanics think they are white. Jon Jafari, a Hungarian-Persian, thinks he is white. Thinks he is American, rather, and you can make that equivocation, I'll accept it. But the fact is is that America is meant to be something of an agreement:

You can forsake all national ties, obligations, and hardships...in exchange for embracing the American ideal, the American Dream, in exchange for being American first.

This isn't a popular notion anymore, but it remains a concept firmly believed by conservatives, and there is, I think, a certain sense to it. Is it so wrong, I wonder?

8-Bit Scholar posted:

Worse still, even those who may have an open mind to the debate find themselves lacking a lot of crucial information about the important issues being debated. Now most people rely on television news, which by its very nature must condense information into a few densely-packed seconds of simple exposition, and this process has never been ideal for presenting any issue in any level of depth.

As newspapers have taken a backseat to relevance, people rely on online news to try and fill in that information void, where they are easy targets for the massive, massive, massive network of disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda posing as news that currently circulates the web.

Having been excreted by an education system that has crippled their ability to think, with plenty of subtle propaganda sprinkled therein, the average American is basically taught a lie, and goes out into a world that they think is one way, but it the other way.

8-Bit Scholar posted:

Uh...this is a really odd reaction to that statement. What do you think the reason I want it to be is? That people don't care?


I mean, some people believe that drug users deserve death or they believe that a zombie can absolve them of sin if they dip their heads in water dishes or that we should nuke Iran or any thousands of other horrifying things that people seem readily capable of believing. I've had people tell me that God created AIDS to punish homosexuals, I've had people equate bigotry to pedophilia, I have spoken to fascists and communists and anarchists...I mean, I've heard thousands of alarming points of view that I don't agree with basically since the day I was born. If I flipped my poo poo every time somebody expressed a sentiment I found distasteful, I'd be a social pariah. At some point I found that if I stopped trying to impose my point of view on other people, and started listening to their points of view, they appreciated the effort and respected my viewpoint more for it.

Like, if it isn't JUST words, then what is it, exactly?

8-Bit Scholar posted:

He certainly seems to be a bit too impressionable. My whole takeaway from his Destiny debacle is that he's attempting to repeat talking points other people have given him.

Pure tinfoil hat territory, but I think Jon found himself on the receiving end of a petty SJW-esque critique, I think he used the word "retarded" in a tweet ages ago. This was stupid and dumb and it left a sour taste in his mouth. As far as he's concerned, these SJWs are silly and kind of demented, and worse yet he gets dragged into Gamergate too. Just tons of stupid stupid "controversies" that get warped and twisted and it's a pain. Then he runs into other persons who have had similar experiences, and they say it's all political, and now they're telling him all these things that the race-baiters in the media don't want you to know and he's probably never had any exposure to any "contrary" viewpoints before, so he accepts it all at face value. Now he's in with whatever you guys call "alt-righters" and they're putting stuff in his ear.

He needs more education on what he's talking about, but somehow I don't think the way these lessons are conducted will find fertile purchase with him until he basically figures out on his own that he's involved with a bad crowd.

Thing is, I still don't really believe any of his sentiments are "hateful" in the typical sense. I think he's been led to believe something, and now he's going to think his position is even more valid because there's a seemingly active effort to denounce his viewpoint. I genuinely do not believe Jon Jafari is actually racist i.e. that he hates persons of other races based solely on that. I don't get that impression. I get the impression he has been convinced of a racist viewpoint, which while not better, makes a lot more sense.

8-Bit Scholar posted:

You sure are fuckin' talky

8-Bit Scholar posted:

You sure are fuckin' talky

8-Bit Scholar posted:

You sure are fuckin' talky

8-Bit Scholar posted:

You sure are fuckin' talky

Tired Moritz posted:

very hard not to be a nazi in 2017

Cubone posted:

Cubone posted:

Cubone posted:

Flubby posted:

Is this the youtubers thread now? Cause I got a question. What are these? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd-VFBOOL5c They must be pretty important because Youtube is pushing me to watch them more and more. Feels like Pewdiepie started doing them, now everyone else wants in on it. Personal vlogs with a serious tone of voice and sometimes tears. Is this the new thing then? I scream at video games but I'm actually a very emotional and deep person?

Cubone posted:

Cubone posted:

LethalGeek posted:

So can we all just agree 8-bit here is a thundering moron and should be treated as such across the forum until they leave in shame? Assuming they are capable of such feelings.

LethalGeek posted:

So can we all just agree 8-bit here is a thundering moron and should be treated as such across the forum until they leave in shame? Assuming they are capable of such feelings.

Streak posted:

Was there anyone who didn't already feel this way about him who isn't also a retard?

Cubone posted:

LethalGeek posted:

So can we all just agree 8-bit here is a thundering moron and should be treated as such across the forum until they leave in shame? Assuming they are capable of such feelings.

Have Blue posted:

It's a bad sign when you're so obtuse that your arguments become non-Euclidean snarls.

As for Jontron: what single part of this entire saga is "pc gone mad!!!"? There's a trail of evidence leading back months showing exactly how much of a thunderous buffoon he is, and when given the chance to explain himself in a live interview/debate he doubled down on pants-making GBS threads retardation. It's not an isolated incident, it's not a quote taken out of context, it's a clear and consistent right-wing ethnonationalist agenda. Whether it's malice it misinformation that lead him down the road is another matter, but either explanation doesn't garner much sympathy in my mind.

XMNN posted:

it's not his fault, he's just so loving thick he repeats things he heard like "non white people might get into the gene pool if they assimilate" and "black people are more likely to be criminals" with no racial agenda, he just wants to fit in and people were mean to him

how can you judge a fat neckbearded manchild for that, it's like Nazi Germany or something

scarycave posted:

I was expecting this thread to be full of jokes but all it seems to be is people saying they're racist or trying to prove they're not racist.

a misanthrope posted:

its actually incredibly easy

pc lithman posted:

jontron is so stupid that he pulled an allnighter for his aids test & still failed the drat thing

uber_stoat posted:

he's part Persian. he isn't even really white by the exacting standards of white nationalists. they'd stick him in a cattle car.

Aesop Poprock posted:

I remember there was some hilarious scandal years back that jontron jerked off onto egoraptors wife while she was sleeping and everyone believed that was the reason they stopped working together