| Hey, a debate question I can actually answer! Technology. And increasing population density. Bim bam boop! ...please no getting into debates with me though ): |
| "Social evil." Huh. |
 |
| Pretty much what everyone above has said. "The nail that sticks out the most is hammerd down" |
Not_Biased said: Being a gifted student and exceptionally bright individual Said without any sense of irony. But then, false modesty is such a useless thing right? On the rest of what you said, I'd argue that thinking was not encouraged because of Philistinism, I don't think that Philistinism encouraged not thinking. Not that I think the former is true either, I'm not sure how old you are exactly, but since when has the human race ever been any different/better? When we were ignorant cavemen? |
My question is, why did culture so drastically change in this regressive direction? Are you implying this change was recent? Edit: Sort of ninja'd |
 Just this once, I'll fulfill whatever your wish is. |
| I think our culture has changed because of the laziness in humans. It is far easier to accept that which you are told, than to research and educate yourself on just about any matter. It has spread to our education systems and until there is a change, future generations will have no chance in breaking the cycle. The longer we wait as people to address this issue, the harder it will become to do anything about it. As the population grows so does the number of individuals that are trapped in the cycle. Technology could be used as a tool to obtain more knowledge, but most of the time it is instead used to hinder the users ability to think about things on their own. When I was younger and I had a question for my parents we would sit down together and research things together. Nowadays, if you have a question for someone, they either tell you to google it or brush off your question because it is not worth their time. |
 |
TheAutocrat said: I'm not implying. I actually said that. Well, as InfiniteRyvius pointed out, "I'm not sure how old you are exactly, but since when has the human race ever been any different/better? When we were ignorant cavemen?" It seems there's always that 'upper' percentage of the population will have a higher grasp and knowledge outside the 'flow of these sheep'. In some ways, as our technology improves century by century, it's debatable of how much it has advanced our civilization. Of course, it's not always reliant on technology, but also the government structures in place. Whoever leads the masses will pretty much lead them into this 'regressive' trend you point out. So perhaps to answer your question, vaguely, is because the culprit is the belief that humans are not angels and therefore need to be governed, which leads to a limited spectrum of how knowledge/education is carried out. |
Just this once, I'll fulfill whatever your wish is. |
TheAutocrat said: Tavor said: TheAutocrat said: I'm not implying. I actually said that. Well, as InfiniteRyvius pointed out, "I'm not sure how old you are exactly, but since when has the human race ever been any different/better? When we were ignorant cavemen?" It seems there's always that 'upper' percentage of the population will have a higher grasp and knowledge outside the 'flow of these sheep'. In some ways, as our technology improves century by century, it's debatable of how much it has advanced our civilization. Of course, it's not always reliant on technology, but also the government structures in place. Whoever leads the masses will pretty much lead them into this 'regressive' trend you point out. So perhaps to answer your question, vaguely, is because the culprit is the belief that humans are not angels and therefore need to be governed, which leads to a limited spectrum of how knowledge/education is carried out. She was talking to not-biased when she asked said persons age. So you advocate a dictatorship, well that's the obvious answer. But how would a dictatorship improve things. This must be clarified. A metirocracy would be an interesting system I advocate in general. Also, I don't think you've had much experience with mainstream philistine culture. Living in the UK (the philistine capital) I'm personally sick of it. I was, but since this is a forum it's open to everyone to reply, that's kinda the beauty of a forum don't you think? Anyway, I don't think we as a human race have ever been any different. Perhaps in the past we aspired more for power than for possessions etc. but it was a similar aim, the only reason we changed is because positions of power became much less powerful. I don't think anything has really changed with regards to the human races attachment to materialism. It's just become more easy to acquire goods and possessions, and harder to attain power. That's all. |
| Really? Not sure. If yes, it may be the $ acquired per time+matter is shrinking. For example, there are tens of thousands of creative writers, only 10 or so get works published. For those who are outside it, even if they can write, they have work in other fields. And for those who work 16 hours a day (job, OT, home chores, transportation), they need time to sit and sleep more than creativity. Entertainment is needed but not quality-wise. With poor economy, the proportion of fortunate ones is steadily shrinking. Instead, you'd find more cheats and social class conflicts, even in Japan, its about the same. |
TheAutocrat said: Tavor said: TheAutocrat said: I'm not implying. I actually said that. Well, as InfiniteRyvius pointed out, "I'm not sure how old you are exactly, but since when has the human race ever been any different/better? When we were ignorant cavemen?" It seems there's always that 'upper' percentage of the population will have a higher grasp and knowledge outside the 'flow of these sheep'. In some ways, as our technology improves century by century, it's debatable of how much it has advanced our civilization. Of course, it's not always reliant on technology, but also the government structures in place. Whoever leads the masses will pretty much lead them into this 'regressive' trend you point out. So perhaps to answer your question, vaguely, is because the culprit is the belief that humans are not angels and therefore need to be governed, which leads to a limited spectrum of how knowledge/education is carried out. She was talking to not-biased when she asked said persons age. So you advocate a dictatorship, well that's the obvious answer. But how would a dictatorship improve things. This must be clarified. A metirocracy would be an interesting system I advocate in general. Also, I don't think you've had much experience with mainstream philistine culture. Living in the UK (the philistine capital) I'm personally sick of it. In regard to me quoting InfiniteRyvius, yes, I sort of thought it applied to you, my bad. Though, I mostly used it since he/she still brings up a point I would of brought up, even it's not meant for you, I'm making it relevant to you. The meat of the quote I should of added attention though is, "since when has the human race ever been any different/better?" Unless you have time-traveled to each and every century, I fail to see how this is a new and recent change that you bring up in the OP post. I could be just born today (not literally) and say, "Geez, it seems war is such a horrid issue these days, and because I'm new to this, this must be a recent issue for humans." Also, I must be missing something, but how am I advocating a dictatorship? |
Just this once, I'll fulfill whatever your wish is. |
TheAutocrat said: Unintelligent people have been around since people have been around. This is nothing new or recent.What is the cause of the mass anti-intellectual social attitude par cultural illness - Philistinism - that is spreading faster than ever, and has been circulating strongly in our society since the early nineteenth century? And what effect is it having on our lives? Because of this "illness", people are more ignorant, smugly narrow minded, and uncreative these days. People grasp onto conventional morality, and they hold materialistic views and values. People may undervalue and despise art, beauty, spirituality and intellect in todays contemporary world, in the philistine social context, but don't be fooled people. They are merely socially inherent notions grounded in you that are as much a product of your free will as your dreams are. In other words, the whole process is unconscious, and people need to learn the discipline required to counter this social evil. My question is, why did culture so drastically change in this regressive direction? |
 |
Tavor said: Also, I must be missing something, but how am I advocating a dictatorship? Highlighted it for you :3 TheAutocrat said: People have always been obsessed with possession and power. Everyone always wants more, in the old days it was harder to get possession, and so people had less, it wasn't because we were different. Also, something can exist before it is defined. |
InfiniteRyvius said: Tavor said: Also, I must be missing something, but how am I advocating a dictatorship? Highlighted it for you :3 LOL But for real...how did I advocate a dictatorship? |
Just this once, I'll fulfill whatever your wish is. |
TheAutocrat said: "The term philistinism describes the social attitude of anti-intellectualism that undervalues and despises art, beauty, spirituality, and intellect" (Wikipedia). If you read this and found the values therein contradictory, then that is because in the 20th century we've developed an improved understanding of science and human life called relativity. Instead of assuming a dichotomy of cultured men and brutes that was the product of the Age of Enlightenment, complete with philosophers who supposed instinctual (spiritual) ethics and aesthetics like Kant and Humes, the 20th century brought us Existentialism where we are to find our own morality and modern art that rejected the constrictions of the previous age. In the 20th century, the priority of science over religion allowed philosophers to think in new ways, with some promoting hard physicalism over spirituality, relegating things like art and beauty into mere figments of the subjective imagination: today, we understand that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", an idea known since Antiquity, but is only widely credited to a British writer in 1878.What is the cause of the mass anti-intellectual social attitude par cultural illness - Philistinism - that is spreading faster than ever, and has been circulating strongly in our society since the early nineteenth century? And what effect is it having on our lives? "Philistinism" is common today, but that's not a bad thing; rather, the phrase itself is an outdated artifact of times when it was accepted that there was one objective way to describe art, and it was commonly accepted that things like the appreciation of art and culture should be taught alongside the sciences and language in order to better understand a moral purpose. We grew out of that into a more 3-dimensional understanding that promotes different interests and perspectives instead of 1-dimensional snobbery (when anime would have been considered fake and kitsch). |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| I once called someone a Philistine to his face. All he said was, "How did you know my name is Phil?" |
| Somewhere, there is an unplugged toaster sitting on a Coleman stove. Does it feel lonely? |
Nonyflah said: I once called someone a Philistine to his face. All he said was, "How did you know my name is Phil?" Genius. |
|
| Any kind of progress is a subject to interpretation, and nothing more subjective in this world than opinion. People are sceptical of the truth, and questioning the objectivity of so called progress. It is not that they undervalues any kind of advancement, but in ordinary life, one can decide conclusively whether certain assertions correspond with reality for practical purposes or not. It is about the advancement accessibility to ordinary people that matters. |
| The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
TheAutocrat said: Maybe if you equate high culture with humanity. Thankfully, the rest of us have shed this kind of pretentious idealism. You may rock your artiste cap with a Cuban in one hand while listening to avant garde jazz or better, a Mozart opera, perched atop your pedestal looking down at us Philistine barbarians for nodding our heads to rock and roll, hip-hop, dubstep, electro-house, and visual kei -- and watching anime. Oh, us soulless creatures who know nothing of Michelangelo, but prefer Michael Jackson.katsucats said: TheAutocrat said: "The term philistinism describes the social attitude of anti-intellectualism that undervalues and despises art, beauty, spirituality, and intellect" (Wikipedia). If you read this and found the values therein contradictory, then that is because in the 20th century we've developed an improved understanding of science and human life called relativity. Instead of assuming a dichotomy of cultured men and brutes that was the product of the Age of Enlightenment, complete with philosophers who supposed instinctual (spiritual) ethics and aesthetics like Kant and Humes, the 20th century brought us Existentialism where we are to find our own morality and modern art that rejected the constrictions of the previous age. In the 20th century, the priority of science over religion allowed philosophers to think in new ways, with some promoting hard physicalism over spirituality, relegating things like art and beauty into mere figments of the subjective imagination: today, we understand that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", an idea known since Antiquity, but is only widely credited to a British writer in 1878.What is the cause of the mass anti-intellectual social attitude par cultural illness - Philistinism - that is spreading faster than ever, and has been circulating strongly in our society since the early nineteenth century? And what effect is it having on our lives? "Philistinism" is common today, but that's not a bad thing; rather, the phrase itself is an outdated artifact of times when it was accepted that there was one objective way to describe art, and it was commonly accepted that things like the appreciation of art and culture should be taught alongside the sciences and language in order to better understand a moral purpose. We grew out of that into a more 3-dimensional understanding that promotes different interests and perspectives instead of 1-dimensional snobbery (when anime would have been considered fake and kitsch). In other words, we lose our humanity. For the love of god people don't listen to this guy. Humanity -- what a joke, an illusion invented by religious priests with rose colored glasses "for the love of God"! Humanity is incomprehensible when aesthetics and morality are subjective (or more accurately, non-existent). Humanity is incompatible with causality. Humanity is what the intellectually weak fall back on when they can't describe why they value something. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
TheAutocrat said: A daring assumption? It's actually just an axiomatic truth. Whatever concept a word represents must have existed before the word was defined, otherwise it would be impossible to define the word.And Ryvius, you make a pretty daring assumption. Namely, "something can exist before it has been defined". How much thought went into that statement, is it relavent, and are you ignorant of this? TheAutocrat said: LOLAnyway instead of pointing out something pointless, you should be highly logical and efficient at all times and give me a cookie if I was right |
katsucatsJan 11, 2013 4:33 AM
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| The universe didn't exist before someone defined it! All stars were the same until someone defined different type of stars! The consciousness didn't exist until someone defined it! Definitions didn't exist until someone defined what a definition was! Yeh, you're right Auto, saying that things exist before being defined was pretty stupid. |
Not_Biased said: Being a gifted student and exceptionally bright individual I've noticed this since Not to mention humble and modest. That is certainly your greatest gift. |
MonadJan 11, 2013 4:59 AM
TheAutocrat said: I don't know of any governments that force psychiatry on anybody. Therapy and medication is expensive, and if anything, they're rejecting applications.Psychiatry is quackery. It would be worth laughing at if it wasn't such a threat to our liberty. How ethical do people feel that they vote for governments that force psychiatry on people? TheAutocrat said: Psychiatry gives people suffering from debilitating mental or personality disorders who can't properly function in society a path of reintegration.Psychiatry is merely slapping labels on unwanted behaviour and thoughts and doling out tranquilliser drugs and electroshock, nothing more. There are millions of people over the decades who have had their life shortened or died just because they were forced into psychiatry. TheAutocrat said: Lobotomies and electrical shocks are rarely administered anymore. This isn't the 1950s. And there are studies being done to ascertain the biological source of many mental illnesses. If there weren't, then we wouldn't be able to prescribe treatment.The psychiatry boldly takes for granted that their assertions are the truth despite not examining anyone's biology. TheAutocrat said: To whom?It is massive holes in the system like this that make psychiatry just another form of appeasement TheAutocrat said: Psychological illnesses are pretty common in pop culture. You wouldn't be able to find anyone who can't name at least a half dozen of them listed in the DSM.where it is deemed best if the masses stay in ignorance of such atypical behaviour. TheAutocrat said: Being "normal" isn't as important as being able to procure a living within society. If you can't function well enough in society --call it rare brilliance or illness, it doesn't matter-- your fate will be to starve to death, or depend on the social support of others. Stop whining and just take your meds.Ultimately the mentall ill person is judged according to the majorities standards and has to work doubly hard. To achieve the thing called "normal", despite these problems being inherent or due to the ignorance of the masses anyway. TheAutocrat said: If your self-proclaimed "freethinking" is more valuable than food, then be my guest. But really it's just ego and faux-pride.It is high time free thinking skeptical individuals were given the human right to not live in fear of ever being forced into this reductionistic paridigm of quackery psychiatry. TheAutocrat said: Anecdote.As for social media, people blindly take for granted that what they hear on TV is the truth. If it happens to be something you told someone, instead of thinking it through themselves and trying to understand what you said they'll most likely be thinking of something to contradict what you said after hearing the first two words. Then they hear what you said on TV and now it is an irrefutable truth. TheAutocrat said: Since when was "enlightenment and guidance" offered to the masses, and by whom? Sounds like you just replaced one form of Koolaid for another. So much for freethinking.Why are people are so seduced by the words of social media or unfounded tv stars. Maybe it is because we live in such a comfortable and lax society that people simply lack the enlightenment and guidance that was offered to the masses way before those philistine conservative bastards and now-philistine Labour Party dictated our society so. TheAutocrat said: Talking loudly at a concert contributes to the ambiance.Hopefully the aesthetic will return. Perhaps people will once again be able to distinguish between a good tune and a bad tune, they won't talk loudly to their neighbour at a concert, and they won't leach against paintings in an art gallery. TheAutocrat said: Not only have we not come to a technological standstill, our technological is improving exponentially. You keep using the word "appeasement", but I don't think it means what you think it means.As we come to a standstill in humanistic and technological evolution we can only wonder why human management, mass appeasement and "ignorance is bliss", are the ways of now... |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Monad said: Not_Biased said: Being a gifted student and exceptionally bright individual I've noticed this since Not to mention humble and modest. That is certainly your greatest gift. Indeed. I don't know why some people still use this tag, I don't have any interest on knowing how gifted they are, thanks. It's not that my admiration for a random nickname at the Internet will increase by throwing such irrelevant data. |
TheAutocrat said: Katsukats, your disagreeing for the sake of it makes the truth blurry and ellusive. Still you made a couple of points worth replying to. However you do not understand aesthetics, subjectivity, value and negation. I should enlighten you that niceness and nastiness are subjective but not taste. When I said "coming to a standstill" I meant the pace is slowing down compared to the innovation of the nineteenth and twentierh centuries. Nobody understands mental illness. Only people who have experienced it high scale truly understand it. Thus someone like me, ten times less superfical than you and ten times more enlightened and interesting are the gateways to higher understanding. It is my unorthodoxy, intelligence and mental strength that guarentees me a unique intellectual standing in histories books. I like my meds. They sort my endorphins fluctuatios. I was able to eradicate tourettes from my behaviour, overcome autism and gain grandiose emotional and personality based intelligence and knowledge. Thanks to my astonishing insight, imaginitive abilities and extraordinary Intuitive capabilities I only have to read the first two most important sentences of a definition before I can guess what they are saying halfway down the page. Having only read one book, once I have read a few more true books written by the foremost intellectually astute thinkers of our time and before, then I will infinitely surpass pretentious uni students par buckets of knowledge with fixed ability limitations. After all, bi-polar and autism grant me higher and varying limitations in some areas, and in accordance with my hard work I perceive clearly and normally. We'll see who's taste in knowledge is greater by me asking you one question. What do you think of neitzsche? This is providing of course the great katsukats has tasted both sides of the coin which of course we can take for granted from the way he so assertingly forces his "facts" onto us. You describe yourself as highly enlightened, intelligent, and knowledgeably. Yet, your statements contain contradictions, baseless assertions, and poor logic. You claim yourself to be a gateway to higher understanding, yet describe "infinitely surpassing" other people as a matter of merely reading, understanding, and becoming enlightened about the ideas of great thinkers. lol. You are also basing "taste in knowledge" (lol) on whether or not someone read the works of somebody? What if I asked you to tell me what you think of the Vedas, which eclipse any other work in terms of wisdom. Since you have not read them, does that necessarily mean that I am automatically more brilliant than you or anyone else who has not? If you want to describe yourself as a pinnacle intellect, you should at least not to pretend that you have reach true understanding. The only thing that you can truly understand is that you do not truly understand. |
RandomChampionJan 11, 2013 7:14 AM
TheAutocrat said: I did not make claim to higher understanding, merely adept understanding of psychological illness. I will by in large reach true enlightenment somwhere down the line when my knowledge and experience are at adequate levels. For me this is all I would need to surpass people. You totally misinterpreted my message. Reading solid works does not elevate one in itself. It is just my next step. Sure you will, Buddh lol That's what I'm saying. You are just assuming that you'll reach true enlightenment...a goal which has arguably eluded virtually everyone who has ever existed, including the great thinkers you speak of. I'm not saying that it's impossible for you to achieve it - that I have no clue about. It is quite foolish to think that it is guaranteed to be achievable by you, though. Also, I didn't misinterpret anything. Having only read one book, once I have read a few more true books written by the foremost intellectually astute thinkers of our time and before, then I will infinitely surpass pretentious uni students par buckets of knowledge with fixed ability limitations. With the words you chose, your are saying that the books you read and the knowledge you gain from them are what will allow you to "infinitely surpass" people. It was, however, a poorly constructed sentence with multiple grammatical errors influencing the meaning. Therefore, the meaning you intended might have been different from that implied by the sentence, which is a fact that I acknowledge. In any case, I was basically just saying that many of your observations and conclusions are not completely objectively and logically based. I will once again repeat what most of the great thinkers of human history have come up with: "I know that I know nothing." - Plato The only thing you can understand is that you cannot truly understand. Basically, it is the pursing of true enlightenment that constitutes true intellect. One of true intellect will never claim to understand the ultimate truth unless there is some kind of supernatural revelation to be claimed. This is why it would be foolish to even consider such superficial labeling as saying one concept means losing humanity, etc. What is the definition of humanity? Can it be defined, especially based only around Western Enlightenment ideas? Basically, I'm saying that it is better to look at things at on a deeper level instead of from a more established yet more restrictive level. |
RandomChampionJan 11, 2013 11:30 AM
TheAutocrat said: @Ryvius: Do not make sweeping generalizations. When it is concerning human behaviour and thought pattern, they are influenced by society. Therefore a nhilist who doesn't know he was a nhilist according to a general and encapsulating definition is not a nhilist. It does exist until acknowledged by society. An ideological way of thinking cannot die. But if the ideas of the unacknowledged individuals do not exist as knowledge then it does not exist. The very nature of things like nhilism and anarchism is that they can be grasped by society. Human behaviour and thought patterns.... Anger didn't exist until it was defined! Depression didn't exist before it was defined! The myriad of different mental illnesses didn't exist before they were defined! Emotions that were defined didn't exist before a definition was attached to the non-existent...... wait what? |
TheAutocrat said: I am disagreeing for the sake of truth. Respond to my points, not my supposed motivation.Katsukats, your disagreeing for the sake of it makes the truth blurry and ellusive. Still you made a couple of points worth replying to. TheAutocrat said: Subjectivity, or agent-dependent, is taste.However you do not understand aesthetics, subjectivity, value and negation. I should enlighten you that niceness and nastiness are subjective but not taste. TheAutocrat said: It is not.When I said "coming to a standstill" I meant the pace is slowing down compared to the innovation of the nineteenth and twentierh centuries. TheAutocrat said: Experiencing something does not give you knowledge of it. A cancer patient does not automatically know the science behind cancer. Aside from that, quit stroking your ego and present some facts -- you have not contradicted anything I've said; instead you resort to an argument from authority and character assassinations.Nobody understands mental illness. Only people who have experienced it high scale truly understand it. Thus someone like me, ten times less superfical than you and ten times more enlightened and interesting are the gateways to higher understanding. It is my unorthodoxy, intelligence and willpower that guarentees me a unique intellectual standing in histories books. I like my meds. They sort my endorphins fluctuatios. I was able to eradicate tourettes from my behaviour of my own mental strength, overcome autism and gain grandiose emotional and personality based intelligence and knowledge. TheAutocrat said: Demonstrate it before you boast it.Thanks to my astonishing insight, imaginitive abilities and extraordinary Intuitive capabilities I only have to read the first two most important sentences of a definition before I can guess what they are saying halfway down the page. Having only read one book, once I have read a few more true books written by the foremost intellectually astute thinkers of our time and before, then I will infinitely surpass pretentious uni students par buckets of knowledge with fixed ability limitations. After all, bi-polar and autism grant me higher and varying limitations in some areas, and in accordance with my hard work I perceive clearly and normally. TheAutocrat said: I prefer Camus.We'll see who's taste in knowledge is greater by me asking you one question. What do you think of neitzsche? This is providing of course the great katsukats has tasted both sides of the coin which of course we can take for granted from the way he so assertingly forces his "facts" onto us. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
TheAutocrat said: Define true enlightenment.I will by in large reach true enlightenment somwhere down the line when my knowledge and experience are at adequate levels. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| My head hurts reading TheAutocrats posts. So may words, but so little content. Though, I gotta give it to him, he completely dismantled the field of psychiatry in a single paragraph... TheAutocrat said: My question is, why did culture so drastically change in this regressive direction? Before I answer: how do you even know this is the case? Surveys? |
on TheAutocrat said: Society is comprised wholly of people. If society is rotten, then what's causing it if not the people? Note: I do not agree society is rotten, that is a subjective characterization, incomprehensible without further definition. Disparity of wealth isn't inherently wrong.You're right, but this is not aimed at individuals, it is aimed at the society we live in.... People are good by in large. TheAutocrat said: It is impossible to know whether perception is accurate because everything you know is through perception.@Katsukats: True enlightenment is universally accurate perception which can affect the greatest importance. TheAutocrat said: Are you sure? You always come up with some weak troll excuse to back out of something you say when you no longer feel like defending it. Last time it was "I was just testing you to see how you would respond".P.S -- "My"views on psychiatry were actually the views of a schizophrenic I know. I wanted to see the criticism disclosing such views would entail. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Earth is coming to an end... ( 1 2 )MRno1knows - Jun 1, 2013 |
87 |
by LunarMoonBow
»»
42 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Do you think about bombing italy?WeebIncelLoser - 5 hours ago |
11 |
by WeebIncelLoser
»»
56 minutes ago |
|
» Favorite places in the EU you have visited, and where in the EU would you like to go nextKiraraFan - Jun 12 |
11 |
by MeanMrMusician
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» How to improve intelligenceFalse_Entity - 6 hours ago |
13 |
by ghostsamurai
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Do your dress nice? ( 1 2 )PopArt - Jul 6, 2023 |
92 |
by starshiiine
»»
2 hours ago |