Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Sexism, Racism, Etc.


Domarius
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not that I expect this to be a huge debate or something, I just wanted to say some things without further polluting that thread.

 

(Also I don't want to publicly draw attention to the parties involved, so please don't mention them)

 

Really, to test the sexism hypothesis scientifically, you would need to recruit simultaneously a man and a woman who were otherwise identical apart from their sex - experience, personality, etc would all have to be held constant. Then, if their treatment differed you could conclude that it was gender-based. Unfortunately it is almost impossible to conduct such a study, since no two people would ever be similar enough to act as a scientific control.
Of course the other way to prove something to yourself is to experience it first hand or watch it happening right in front of you. You can't go through life scientifically proving everything that confronts you.

 

And you're right that you can never really "prove" it beyond all doubt. You have this constant doubt in your head "maybe it's just me" and that's how you cave in. Watch the people in the vid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu6jLOapt1o (It's not nearly showing the best bits, but maybe it gives you an idea) They get angry and frustrated very quickly, and quickly start making fools of themselves. Because that's the first reaction, you say "Hey this isn't fair!" but if you watch the vid you soon see how it can be impossible to get a fair say.

 

In fact the people that confide in me (out of all the females I know), most of the time never thought it was sexism, they just wanted to talk to someone to make sure nothing was wrong with them. And that's the sad part.

 

The video I saw, I remember an african-american father saying "Your kid comes home and keeps asking "What's wrong with me Dad?" and every day you're saying "there's nothing wrong with you, there's nothing wrong with you"

Jane Elliott's focus might be on racisim but she works in sexism into the demonstration because its the same thing - making the blue eyed people wear the collars is just a generic way to segregate people based on some arbitrary factor.

 

And eventually, things happen that maybe aren't a form of predjudice, but you have to wonder "okay was that a coincidence or was that related to my problem?" that's how it slowly affects you.

Well, it's not so clearcut, because some use the disabillity and complain if others don't pay attention fast enough.

Yes that's true, but that's just the way it is. Different people deal with it differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 201
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I haven't read the thread that this is from (yet; maybe a good thing?), but I don't think it should stop me from replying.

 

I would just point out to Orbweaver that the kinds of experiments he suggested are actually done all the time. The context I've seen this happening is legal cases for gender discrimination (or racial, etc...).

 

Say a prospective employer denies a job to a woman or an apartment owner denies an apartment lease to a woman (or black or gay or whatever; we'll stick with woman) without reason and she suspects it's because of sexist reasons. She goes to a lawyer, and the first thing the lawyer will want to do is get in touch with a research agency that specializes in this sort of thing.

 

They will start sending control and variable subjects (men and women, across a wide range of traits) to call in about renting the room. They are all very carefully scripted to ask for the same things, and react in the same ways.

 

And very quickly the agency can see whether the owner has a double standard across, e.g., a gender line. I don't think it is as difficult as you think. I've read some of these transcripts, and very often it's obvious because if an owner is really sexist, he is really going to use much different language between male and female applicants that stands out when the exact same questions are met with very different responses. And when this same pattern shows up over 20+ subjects -- every time the same double-standard in the same way across 10 men and 10 women -- this kind of evidence is so powerful in court because it is so damning.

 

This applies to overt sexism in a more "scripted" sort of situation (like renting an apartment or getting a job). I'm not sure if here you guys are talking about this or maybe something which is more like passive/non-overt sexism in more "open" situations, where it might be harder to decide whether sexism is really driving the negative response. This is probably a harder question (although you might be surprised how a creative experiment could really separate discriminatory behavior from non-discriminatory once you read the transcripts). But, one thing to say, that difficulty shouldn't detract from being able to notice clear, overt sexism when it occurs.

 

Maybe a general observation I've made is that context matters; very often the more obvious the discrimination it is, the more ethically wrong it seems it will be to the victim. And discrimination seems much worse in government or market transactions than just day-to-day banter (the kind of wrong we should probably be taking more seriously, IMO; more legally wrong, e.g., in terms of what relief they can expect, from expecting an apology up to compensation). At the same time, even in day-to-day banter, some people might not realize what they're saying hurts the victim a lot more than they might expect because of history and prior experiences of the victim, etc., (of course, it's much worse when they *do* realize how much it will emotionally hurt the victim).

 

Anyway, the point is, one should always try to keep this sort of context in mind, IMO, in any discussion about whether a behavior seemed discriminatory and how morally wrong we can say that that discrimination was in the larger picture, as well as when thinking about what we might do to make the world a more pleasant place for everybody.

Edited by demagogue

What do you see when you turn out the light? I can't tell you but I know that it's mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I saw a photonics catalog, and on the back of it was a scantily clad woman posing next to some huge telescope optics or someting. I was like, wow, you've got to by kidding. I don't think anyone who is putting down $200k on a laser system is going to be influenced by whether the company paid a model to drape herself over it or not.

 

Btw, on a semi-related topic:

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/biz2/0...st_2007/15.html

 

The whole article is great, but that one in particular is germane to this thread. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say a prospective employer denies a job to a woman or an apartment owner denies an apartment lease to a woman (or black or gay or whatever; we'll stick with woman) without reason and she suspects it's because of sexist reasons. She goes to a lawyer, and the first thing the lawyer will want to do is get in touch with a research agency that specializes in this sort of thing.

 

This reminds me of an episode of Boston Legal (I think it was the very first one or mayb the second, because I haven't seen much more). A movie company was casting for a 10 year old girl who could sing, for a Peter Pan movie main character. Obviously Peter Pan is white, so they were looking for a white girl, but one black woman insisted that this would be racistic ond so the company allowed her girl to sing as well. She was the best singer, but the movie crew selected a white one, as that was the requirement for the role. The mother went to court on the basis of racism, because she said that her girl was much better at singing (which was true) and totally disregarded the actual requirements. And she won. :)

 

Well, I know this is just a fun series, but the case presented was still quite funny and showed the ridicule of the extreme take on racism.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the other way to prove something to yourself is to experience it first hand or watch it happening right in front of you.

 

Only if you are willing to accept that as "proof", which I am not. Personal experience is only a single, limited perspective and can very easily be fooled (unless you are the sort of genius who can attend a magic show and not be fooled by a single trick).

 

You can't go through life scientifically proving everything that confronts you.

 

No you can't, but you can learn to tell the difference between scientific proof and jumping to conclusions. I certainly don't claim to do this correctly in all cases, I am just as fallible as anybody else, but it is something I aspire to.

 

I should point out that in your case I don't really doubt what you say, it is just necessary to point out the existence of the "victim fallacy" because it does apply in many cases. This was very obvious at university which was infested by spoiled, whining feminists setting up special women-only groups to complain about how unfair it was that they didn't have dedicated bins to put their sanitary towels in, and other really stupid nonsense.

 

Yes that's true, but that's just the way it is. Different people deal with it differently.

 

As regards to the behaviour of disabled people, I wouldn't treat a rude or aggressive disabled person any differently to a rude or aggressive non-disabled person. Being disabled is unfortunate but it is not excuse to act like an ass, particularly to someone who is trying to help you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And very quickly the agency can see whether the owner has a double standard across, e.g., a gender line. I don't think it is as difficult as you think. I've read some of these transcripts, and very often it's obvious because if an owner is really sexist, he is really going to use much different language between male and female applicants that stands out when the exact same questions are met with very different responses. And when this same pattern shows up over 20+ subjects -- every time the same double-standard in the same way across 10 men and 10 women -- this kind of evidence is so powerful in court because it is so damning.

That's the kind of repetition I'm talking about, that I've seen and been told about. This girl said this happened with this person. Huh, that's wierd. This girl also said this about this person. Hm, okay, coincidence. This other girl AND this other girl ALSO said this about this person... Okay now its starting to form a pattern...

 

Only if you are willing to accept that as "proof", which I am not. Personal experience is only a single, limited perspective and can very easily be fooled (unless you are the sort of genius who can attend a magic show and not be fooled by a single trick).

What I'm saying is, it's all very well to say "well you can't really prove it's sexism/racism untill you do a scientific test in a controlled environment" but that's not the reality. You experience these things, and you can't pin anything on it, but you're like "What the fuck... I feel like shit, what's going on?" What do you do in that situation? What advice do you have for the girls that have come to me asking why they are constantly being ignored and swept under the rug? What advice do you have for the african-american father in the video trying to convince his son there's nothing wrong with him, like every other black parent?

 

And the people who have confided in me are multiple people, not one person - multiple people, saying the same things about the same people.

 

 

This was very obvious at university which was infested by spoiled, whining feminists setting up special women-only groups to complain about how unfair it was that they didn't have dedicated bins to put their sanitary towels in, and other really stupid nonsense.
Well now I understand why you took the position you did, so quickly :)

 

As regards to the behaviour of disabled people, I wouldn't treat a rude or aggressive disabled person any differently to a rude or aggressive non-disabled person.
I don't think its fair, I think you have to cut them some slack. A disabled person is not as well off as a non-disabled person. They are (to state the obvious) at a disadvantage. You can't imagine how hard life would be when your body is your own prison and what effect it would have on you having to deal with it every day of your life.

 

Try and think back to a time when you were somewhere you didn't want to be. I had a time where I got swept out in the ocean, and realised - I was too tired to swim back, and there was no sand under me. I didn't want to be there. I wanted it to end, but I couldn't end it, and my strength was rappidly declining. When the realisation hit me that I was only going to go down, I started to panic. I'll never forget that feeling. Imagine feeling like that, every day, and trying to block it out. What would you resort to?

 

I'm not going to blame them for being cranky. No sir.

 

(BTW all I did was shout for a lifeguard and they swum over on a surf board. I'll also never forget the releif.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think its fair, I think you have to cut them some slack. A disabled person is not as well off as a non-disabled person. They are (to state the obvious) at a disadvantage. You can't imagine how hard life would be when your body is your own prison and what effect it would have on you having to deal with it every day of your life.

 

I think you should actually live with a dsiabled person for some time, and you would soon change your mind. That's the typical response of people who think they are goodnatured and have to help above everything else, without knowing the real situation.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My late grandmother was blind, and we were very close - I was her favorite out of all the grandchildren. She only died a few years ago, so I knew her well. She always accepted help, and was exceedingly generous to everyone around her.

 

Not everyone deals with things as well as others. And everyone has bad days, when they are more subceptable to the things they are sensitive about. Personally, I think I can afford to give someone the benefit of the doubt, especially if I've got the use of more limbs than they have. Yeah we all have our problems, but I don't have to live with them to see when someone elses's are worse than mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you could look for a simpler answer. Maybe the reason women are discriminated against in many fields, is because men are generally better than them in those fields.

Then you get into the dubious area of positive discrimination, where, by law, you have to have a certain number of disabled people, a certain number of ethnic people, and a certain number of women, even though there are able bodied white men who are actually better than them at the job, and then you end up wiht a workforce that isn't as good as it could be because you have all these whining minorities forced upon you.

It happens.

We all know how evolution, the system that created us, works - survival of the fittest.

I don't think we're doing ourselves , our gene pool any long term favours by always taking pity in the weakest people and promoting them.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe black people are not as evolved as us white people then?

 

What you proposed is one possibility, but you don't know its true. How can you, if a certain demographic is never given a chance to prove themselves?

 

What I'm seeing are perfectly intelligent females and quite obviously more talented than their male coutnerparts - not even given the chance to have their input considered, much less rejected.

 

I cannot beleive they are inferior because I've seen their work. I've even had them tell me that, for example, when applying for jobs, they first, don't even look at the portfolio once they find out if they're a girl, and then when they do, acknowledge that the work is better - and ask to buy it off them so their currently employed male can work on it.

 

I don't say that you shouldn't help disabled persons, but that also doesn't mean that you have to put up with everything just because of that disability
No, you shouldn't have to put up with everything. I didn't mean that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe black people are not as evolved as us white people then? What you proposed is one possibility, but you don't know its true. How can you, if a certain demographic is never given a chance to prove themselves?

 

The way to answer that question properly is to conduct appropriate scientific studies. This will never happen of course, because of the emotional outcry that would happen if anyone tried to conduct a study into the relationship between race and human traits (intelligence etc).

 

Censorship and taboos are the worst products of humanity that exist, because you can never find answers if you aren't allowed to ask the questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, no undeniable scientific study has been conducted, so nobody can really make the claim (with any credibility) that women are generally less capable than men. In areas not purely based on physical strength obviously. Or peeing over a fence.

 

But as for specific instances, there's no need to conduct scientific studies if you've seen the bleeding obvious like I have.

In my example above, regarding the job application, (as 2 random examples)

this is the work of the currently employed male;

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/47352767/

vs this is the work of the female applicant;

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/47334975/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you proposed is one possibility, but you don't know its true. How can you, if a certain demographic is never given a chance to prove themselves?

 

What do you mean with "never given a chance"? Of course every race has it's chance. If some tribe overcomes another, how many "chances" do you need? Evolution doesn't work this way.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, no undeniable scientific study has been conducted, so nobody can really make the claim (with any credibility) that women are generally less capable than men.

 

Making such a claim is quite ridicoulous, especially on such a broad basis. This always reminds me of claims like "a dog is better than a whale" kind of comparisons. Throw a dog into the sea and see how good it performs. Use a whale to sniff after cocain and see how well it performs. Man's are the counterparts of women, and women are the counterparts of man. Saying one is better then the other, without even saying AT WHAT, is like saying that oranges are better than apples.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean with "never given a chance"? Of course every race has it's chance. If some tribe overcomes another, how many "chances" do you need? Evolution doesn't work this way.

I mean in specific instances, instances I've seen. Not "as a race".

 

Making such a claim is quite ridicoulous, especially on such a broad basis. This always reminds me of claims like "a dog is better than a whale" kind of comparisons. Throw a dog into the sea and see how good it performs. Use a whale to sniff after cocain and see how well it performs. Man's are the counterparts of women, and women are the counterparts of man. Saying one is better then the other, without even saying AT WHAT, is like saying that oranges are better than apples.

I agree. Which is why I said - someone CANNOT claim that men are better than women. Indeed, at what? I was referring specifically to oDDity's statement "Maybe the reason women are discriminated against in many fields, is because men are generally better than them in those fields." That's a self perpetuating scenario. You can't prove what came first, the discrimination, or the lack of women in those fields. People like Jane Elliott, psychologists, etc. prove how easily it is to make it appear that someone is less capable than they are, and even make that person come to beleive it after a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to make a few general points:

 

Part of the problem with trying to determine the particular characteristics of one group or another is that the tests used to make those measurements are often heavily biased by the culture of the group that produced the tests. In the U.S., in the early part of the 20th century native americans were often tested using tests that asked questions like "How many miles does the milk delivery man have to travel if the highway is five miles, the state road is three, and the dirt road is one mile?" This question was presented to a people who didn't drink milk, drive trucks, and who may not know the difference between highways and dirt roads. Little distractions like these are terrible obstacles to a student, even if they can do the simple addition the unfamiliar terms and ideas can throw them for a loop. I see this happen daily in my own classroom.

 

Also, historically marginalized groups, like women, ethnic minorities are often denied access to the basic education necessary to successfully take such tests. If you have poor literacy skills, you may be very bright and still fail a test on reading comprehension. I have seen this firsthand too. I understand some efforts have been made to change this, my brothers girlfriend is actually getting a masters in special education and she administers these tests to children. She tells me they are ridiculously skewed towards white, Euro-centric culture.

 

Race is a bankrupt concept. It has its origins in the European/US. slave trade and the attempts of pro-slavery intellectuals to find a rationale for slavery in the face of religious and ethical condemnation of the practice. Race was predicated on a supposed set of charactersistics that human beings could be divided up into. Superficial attributes like hair type, skin color, and the shape of facial features were used classify people, and then other attributes like intelligence and moral capacity were piggy backed onto these categories. The one enabled the other.

 

We have a much better, scientifically based method of organizing people according to their characteristics, or rather the blueprint of those characteristics, thats called genetics. Genetics has dealt a heavy blow to the notion of "races." Why? Because it turns out that members of some groups are farther away genetically from their supposed racial colleagues. So some people of the black race are related to members of the white race or asian race more so than other members of the black race.

 

Claiming that one group of people is more evolved than another is problematic too. No living thing is "more evolved" than another, this implies that evolution is some sort of goal or race, which it is not. Rather, it is a process of change in response to environmental pressures. A microscopic plant in fact may be much more evolved than a human, in the sense that its species is much older and has changed a number of times to accomodate its environment while humans have only been humans for about a million + years and have only undergone a relatively few changes in that time.

 

When we are talking about human societies its gets even trickier. If one group of people overcomes, subjugates, or exterminates another (or is trying to justify why its trying to do so) its commonplace to say that the victors were "more evolved" in terms of physical traits or in terms of cultural characteristics. So for example, we in the U.S. are fond of saying that Muslims are violent and irrational while Westerners are clear headed and ethical. The implication is that Western civ. is more evolved than Islam, I think this is the famous "Clash of civilizations" crap being touted about today to help rationalize U.S. imperialism. Supposedly, the rational, moral West is clashing with the barbaric East in a struggle (survival of the fittest) to lead the world. The implication is that this clash is inevitable and that the West is basically the good guys/white hats while Islam and the East wear black hats. The whole pile of shit uses evolutionary ideas to attempt to justify itself.

 

But lets look at it closer. Imagine you have two groups of people with vastly different cultures that are in conflict with one another. One group has an advanced technical civilization, radios and automobiles, while the other is still mostly agricultural and underdeveloped. Who is more "evolved?" Well, it would have to be the hi-tech culture, right? But consider this. What if that culture has vast problems with poverty, with human suffering, with the strong exploiting the weak? What if all that technology was actually poisoning those people, killing their children, killing their land, killing the animals and plants they depend on. The second group has a "slower" pace of development and tech, no doubt, but they are also much more in step with the demands of the natural world, things like sustainability of their culture and the stability of their future prospects. They don't have automobiles, but then they also dont have smog, cancers, wars for petroleum, high rates of traffic death, jammed roads, etc. So what standard are you going to apply to judge who is more evolved than whom? Both cultures have pluses and minuses, and no one can tell which may actually survive in the long run. A high tecch culture may let individuals live much longer but it may poison its nest in doing so, wrecking the long term survival for the short term life extension of its members. A low tech society may watch its individuals die at fifty but the society itself is resilient and doesn't destroy its future for a happier present. So which society is more evolved?

Edited by Maximius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, no undeniable scientific study has been conducted, so nobody can really make the claim (with any credibility) that women are generally less capable than men. In areas not purely based on physical strength obviously. Or peeing over a fence.

 

If you look at the olympics for example, every event is won by men, not just the strength and stamina events, but the skill events as well.

Men and women are not the same, apart from obvious physical differences, there are mental differences caused by the different roles our ancestors evolved to perform.

I am technically a racist, but not practically a racist. I do believe that the european race, again due to a separate path of evolution, evolved superior mental traits, when compared with the races who stayed where they were in africa.

I don't know why people have a problem accepting that such a thing could happen.

It's simply because the new europeans had new frontiers and new challenges to overcome, and had to keep evolving, while the african races stagnated. I think the same is true of the oriental races, which more or less match europeans intellectually, even though they didn't achieve as much, but that's due to factors other than intelligence.

THe difference between a black west african and a nothern european is not just the colour of the skin, there is at least 20,000 years of evolution separating them as well.

I suppose this makes me a white supremacist of sorts, but I'm not practically a racist, I don't think people should be discriminated against on grounds of race, but I don't like positive discrimination either, I don't think they should get extra help or pity. Judge everyone on their individual merits regardless of other factors.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a good read, Maximus. :) I thoroughly enjoyed that. And I read every word, at a time where I'm naturally skipping posts of that length in threads like this, because of my lack of time.

 

oDDity; the olympics is about physical superiority. Just because a man can hit a target with an arrow says nothing about his ability to manage a business. I know two females personally that have more business sense than any male I know and are quickly on the way to running their own lucrative business. They are very strong and independant, and it shows what can be done when you are not affected by all the repression.

 

Also, you missed one of Maximus's major points. If you give me your definition of superior, then I would direct you to Maximus's last paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read his last paragraph, it's all very PC and elegant, but Ill ask him which of those societies he would rather live in...but we already know the answer to that.

It's nothing but hypocrisy, talking up these quaint little backward cultures. I don't see you going to live there.

Ha, you ask which one is 'the best' - well, you choose to live in this one, so I'll take that as your final answer.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are certainly differences between men and women, however if I woman can be better then a man in the same field, which happens, yet cannot get the position because people asume that she is less qualified, that's a problem. I agree that everyone should be based on individdual merit, however I think the notion that western europeans are "more evolved" in 20,000 year, nothing on an evolutionary level, is ridiculous. I don't know about where your at, but I know black and whites born on the same social level with the same educations and neither group outperforms the others. You can say that due to certain cultural and societal ideals other races at are current point and time are behind in their education but you would have to be a fool to not realize historically this is totally false. Lets not forget that middle eastern and north african cultures enslaved white barbarians and had advanced astrological and mathermatical ideals while the europeans were still wearing bear pelts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a good read, Maximus. :)

 

 

thank you sir! (Will that be check or money order?)

 

Let me add one more point. If we are talking about physical superiority, lets look at a few negatives on the male side. For one, lower thresholds of pain, although I dont have the studies on hand I understand that women can withstand higher levels of discomfort than men can. Might have something to do with that birth thing they do.

 

Secondly, lets look at long term survival. Males tend to be much more aggressive than females. Great for getting into fights and staying involved until completion. Really bad cause, well, you get into fights and stay until completion. So although aggression can make you a good defender of the group, to an extent, because of your willingness to confront adversaries or potential adversaries, its a real detriment to the individual male who is much more likely to get hurt or die and then fail to reproduce its genes. As to intellectual abilities, I am not personally aware of any body of evidence that points to men being mentally superior to women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are certainly differences between men and women, however if I woman can be better then a man in the same field, which happens, yet cannot get the position because people asume that she is less qualified, that's a problem. I agree that everyone should be based on individdual merit, however I think the notion that western europeans are "more evolved" in 20,000 year, nothing on an evolutionary level, is ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous at all, its quite obvious and logical, except no one wants to say it for fear of being called a racist.

It makes perfect sense that the poeple who stayed in africa didn't have to evove much furthur, becasue their lives stayed pretty much the same for the last 50,000 years, while the poeple who moved out of africa into new environments, faced a lot of change and therefore carried on evovling at a relatively faster rate.

If europeans had time to evolve different physical traits from africans, then I don't know why you find it impossible to believe that they also developed different mental abilities at the same time.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see you going to live there.

Ha, you ask which one is 'the best' - well, you choose to live in this one, so I'll take that as your final answer.

 

An entirely fallacious argument. There is a high "switching cost" associated with choosing to go and live in a different culture to your own, therefore people's reluctance to do so is not a valid indicator of the comparative merits of the respective societies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • Recent Status Updates

    • peter_spy

      What a lovely game, perfect way to relax before sleep.
      · 3 replies
    • STiFU

      Anyone here clocking in some times in Neon Light?
      · 0 replies
    • JackFarmer

      Boris Johnson's resignation does not change the fact that Australia is home to 29 million kangaroos and Wales has a population of just over three million.

      If the Australian kangaroos were to invade Wales, one resident would have to fight almost ten kangaroos at a time.
      · 8 replies
    • peter_spy

      Deathloop – what a mess of a game. I'd love to see a post-mortem on it some day. I hope Arkane is doing okay though.
      · 27 replies
    • OrbWeaver

      I like house-cleaning and taking out the trash.
      · 3 replies
×
×
  • Create New...