About Harper's Letter July 7, 2020 5:30 PM   Subscribe

I was about to post about it when I discovered it has been deleted twice already. While I understand the reasoning, I feel it's important to have a place to discuss the letter and its responses, especially considering many of its signatories have been posted about on Metafilter positively in the past. Ignoring this letter because of how "sucky the sucky stuff is" contributes to hide their willing participation and endorsement.
posted by simmering octagon to Etiquette/Policy at 5:30 PM (57 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

I'm okay with talking out the reasoning on the deletes and the context on the site, but I'm going to ask that this not turn into a proxy thread for discussing that Harper's letter etc.

There's a couple other threads on the front page whose links are in a sort of "when diversity/anti-racism go too far" topical territory:
- The Weaponization of Diversity
- Look at me. Look at the color of my skin.

I think those, and the two deleted Harper's posts, were made in good faith, and those undeleted two posts are both links that seem to be trying to grapple with complexities of anti-racist/anti-oppression activism whatever the specific merits. But it's already kind of a rough twofer for anyone who doesn't feel like hearing arguments in opposition of anti-racist work, etc.

Stacking the genuinely yech Harper's thing, cosigned by among others noted transphobe JK Rowling, on top of that feels like overloading the front page and in this case not even to tackle something complicated but to note that, indeed, this shitty letter is shitty and people think it's shitty.

If it were the only thing happening today, or the only thing operating in that general "but what if...not anti-racism?" territory, it might feel different. Today in particular it feels really unnecessary to me and mostly like an opportunity to put ugliness in front of people who already have to deal with too much ugliness already.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:40 PM on July 7 [12 favorites]


The "conservative" comments towards the end of the deleted thread were a bit odd. Margaret Atwood, Noam Chomsky and Salman Rushdie don't seem like political conservatives in any modern or even classical sense of the word, but they joined in and signed their names to something — people who are recipients of state-sponsored censorship and death threats. Maybe Metafilter isn't a place for discussion about what they signed to, and that's fine, but if a link can draw knee-jerk responses like that, that's probably more of a good reason to delete that thread than anything else.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:44 PM on July 7 [7 favorites]


Good call.
posted by AdamCSnider at 6:01 PM on July 7 [2 favorites]


It's not about "ignoring" the letter -- it's about not making Metafilter yet another place on the web where we have to see shitty people being bigots. The pain this kind of FPP would probably cause marginalized members of the community really isn't worth the value of any discussion that might happen.
posted by Frobenius Twist at 6:04 PM on July 7 [47 favorites]


Came in to say what Frobenius said. There are plenty of places in the wide world where you can posit and theorize and discuss all you’d like about whether this letter is really full of a particular set of code words and dog whistles. This doesn’t have to be one of them.
posted by Etrigan at 6:07 PM on July 7 [13 favorites]


But it's already kind of a rough twofer for anyone who doesn't feel like hearing arguments in opposition of anti-racist work, etc.

My main objection against this argument is that it really feels like the only thing that matters is who posted first. The Weaponization of Diversity post is a dude going "well, it didn't happen to me, therefore" for five thousand words. Why is that more important than more than a hundred writers, many of them mefi darlings, endorsing a letter that actively harms the current discourse for multiple minority groups?
posted by simmering octagon at 6:08 PM on July 7 [3 favorites]


I think those, and the two deleted Harper's posts, were made in good faith,

The first Harper’s post was made with a very neutral framing but with an explicit plan to immediately drag the content to hell. “OutrageFilter” is now given less of a side-eye than it once was, which is probably good, but I guess I wish that I knew why the content was significantly different from something we’d seen before. (Prior “thin” OutrageFilter posts that have been okay by me have often elevated an issue that I was unaware of and felt were under-represented on the site.) The second post -which deliberately mentioned both the left- and right- (so to speak) signatories felt like it was getting at something a bit more interesting than a crowd of MetaFilter’s usual suspects complaining about being silenced. The framing being a smidge more overtly outraged didn’t particularly bother me -and even seems to fit better with the notion of allowing more OutrageFilter stuff.

My general feel is that there is a place for a post about the Harper’s Letter on the site, but the framing and conversation should stress why this letter is interesting and/or particularly significant, as opposed to, as cortex found it, just another one of “these pieces [that suck]”, and a news cycle that will be over by Thursday. If this Harper’s piece really matters, we should be free to be as angry as we want in as boring a manner as possible. If it’s new and strange, we should be angry at its newness and strangeness. If it’s just big ol’ stink bomb, we should lump it in with the general garbage.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:12 PM on July 7 [4 favorites]


(e.g. the thread by Emily VanDerWerff linked in one of the comments was -if not the most brilliant thing- an interesting meditation on how conventional authors would be suckered into signing this letter. More material like that would be great.)
posted by Going To Maine at 6:15 PM on July 7 [5 favorites]


My guess is that there will be some actually interesting and thoughtful pieces published responding and reacting to “the letter,” which was poorly written, dull, and not particularly well argued. Maybe at that point it would make for a better FPP.
posted by sallybrown at 6:55 PM on July 7 [25 favorites]


If it turns out to have a worthwhile angle, there'll be time enough to discuss it. It doesn't seem like there's any immediate urgency to the topic, and jumping on it now seems like it would preempt the currently unfolding "Wait, you meant *that*? I didn't sign on for that" response from some signatories, as one example.

Otherwise the question becomes "What's the expected tone for that thread?". Dunk on terrible people signing their names to terrible things? Can do, but that'll cause some grar from people who want to be very serious about Both Sides and Censorship of the Mob and other rot.
posted by CrystalDave at 7:03 PM on July 7 [3 favorites]


This topi needs to marinate a bit more. Let's have other platforms do the "first take, worst take" on this incredibly arrogant and tedious letter. Commentary from people affected by and fighting the issue would be far more interesting.
posted by scruss at 7:04 PM on July 7 [12 favorites]


What is this about?
posted by NotLost at 7:27 PM on July 7 [5 favorites]


searching historical context....artists sign letters denouncing communism and letters signed by artists denoucning government hunt of communism.

Noam Chomsky, now that weirds things up.
so...drawing attention, here, fair enough, I see no stiffle of dialogue
yet.
posted by clavdivs at 7:38 PM on July 7 [1 favorite]


I’m with NotLost, whose name is sadly not appropriate here. I know how to google, so it didn’t take long to figure out what “harpers letter” meant, but there’s nothing in the post or the first few comments to clue someone in. I thought we were trying to move away from mystery meat? More context would be appreciated.
posted by kevinbelt at 8:04 PM on July 7 [2 favorites]


What is this about?

the relevant info is accessible via the "sucky the sucky stuff is" link at the top of this thread -- which is to one of the deleted FPPs in question.

A motley crew of intellectuals, writers and journalists, from Noam Chomsky to J.K. Rowling, Orlando Patterson to Margaret Atwood, Zephyr Teachout to Salman Rushdie have signed an open letter published by Harper's Magazine decrying the "stifling atmosphere" of contemporary public discourse, where "the free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted". It's being taken as a rebuke to "cancel culture", and it's going over like a lead balloon with its intended targets

I'm assuming folks are discussing it all over the interwebs.
posted by philip-random at 8:08 PM on July 7


just google: Harpers Letter
posted by philip-random at 8:09 PM on July 7 [2 favorites]


One of the Metafilter norms that I've internalized is something like: If you're making a post just because you want to see the discussion that ensues, that's not a good post. This seems like a pretty good example of that principle in action. I'm very happy with the mods' choices here.
posted by dbx at 8:09 PM on July 7 [28 favorites]


I miss the internet of hand edited blogs detailing some guys lifelong love of East German kids toys from the 1960’s.

Where’s that stuff.
posted by nikaspark at 11:49 PM on July 7 [31 favorites]


One deleted: let's stick to the topic, rather than devolving into throw-away sarcastic jokes.
posted by taz (staff) at 1:31 AM on July 8 [4 favorites]


The FAQ says a good post: "most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others."

1 and 3 might be true, but 2?

Contrast to the Osita Nwanevu piece from the day before on reactionary liberalism.
posted by gryftir at 5:27 AM on July 8


Part of the problem with the posts as they were made is that they seemed to lack context for saying anything other than "look at this vague letter and the people who signed it." I haven't seen anyone outside of linguist Twitter point out that this letter also has a very different interpretation if you're aware with the LSA/Pinker incident that has been ongoing for a week now. The letter is kind of strange in that it has a lot of different meaning for different people - I looked for and immediately found three prominent linguists in the letter, but some people noted Jesse Singal and JK Rowling, and others will probably pay attention to others. But if you didn't already know this in advance... there's nothing to say.

If future news articles provide context to this letter, I hope it would be okay to discuss those. I get the feeling this isn't going to be the last we see of the letter, unfortunately.
posted by phonemefox at 7:00 AM on July 8 [9 favorites]


My main objection against this argument is that it really feels like the only thing that matters is who posted first. The Weaponization of Diversity post is a dude going "well, it didn't happen to me, therefore" for five thousand words. Why is that more important than more than a hundred writers, many of them mefi darlings, endorsing a letter that actively harms the current discourse for multiple minority groups?

I get that it can seem that way, especially if it's a topic you want to dig into, but this is not really a new thing on Metafilter - there have been quite a few times when the mod team has decided, "It's not really a good idea for the mental & emotional health of the users and/or the mod team to have multiple live threads about a contentious topic." (For example, look at FPP's and MetaTalks from the early years of the Trump administration, when he was attempting or saying or Tweeting something newly outrageous every damn day.)

They're not so much making a call that one take on a topic is "more important" than another, they're recognizing that people only have so much emotional bandwidth to engage with a topic, especially if the main links are at least somewhat contrarian or backlash-y, as the Harper's letter and cortex's FPP links are. So yeah in practice sometimes this means that the first posts on a topic stay up and later stories need to clear a higher bar to stay.

(IMO, it doesn't help that mainstream media tends towards a herd mentality, where one big breaking story about, say, an incident that would fall under the topic of "misogyny in video games" leads to a bunch of other reporters and writers looking for other "misogyny in video games stories", so suddenly there's a bit of a burst in these kinds of stories, even if one is about harassment in Twitch and one is about assault at an indie developer and one is about lack of diversity at a major AAA games developer and etc etc etc. And it's not that these stories aren't important either individually or in conglomerate, but folks have noted in the past that it can be exhausting to be sort of confronted with a barrage of "HERE is an FPP about Terrible Thing" and "HERE'S ANOTHER about largely similar Terrible Thing" and "HERE'S ANOTHER" until the end result is like MetaFilter yelling at them "THERE'S A LOT OF MISOGYNY IN THE VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS!!!" and they're like, "YES WE KNOW but a post a day is overwhelming and disheartening and like having our faces rubbed in it.")
posted by soundguy99 at 8:39 AM on July 8 [3 favorites]


I wrote up a post on this because I thought it was actually interesting. The cluster of writers, academics, artists, nonprofit folks etc. struck me as unusual. Their statement seemed noteworthy - not dispositive - for this time.

So I added a dozen+ links to criticisms and a couple of supports to show reactions and contexts. Added a couple of intro links to the guy who organized it. I started to assemble "previously"s for some of the signatories - Chomsky, Rushdie, etc.

When I hit preview I saw the deleted posts, and cortex's negative comments, I headed over here to see if there was any discussion. I read this thread and killed my post.

Why? I still think this is worth discussing. But the consensus here is that MetaFilter does not want it as a topic.
posted by doctornemo at 8:44 AM on July 8 [18 favorites]


Hey doctornemo, if you have blog or another place to read it, I would read the post you described above there absolutely, mostly because the reactions to the letter have (obviously) been far, far more interesting than the tone-deaf, bullshit letter itself. As someone noted in another one of these threads, I'd also be interested (if it ever sees light) in how this letter came together in the first place.
posted by thivaia at 10:13 AM on July 8 [2 favorites]


I'd also be interested (if it ever sees light) in how this letter came together in the first place.

thivaia, there's a piece in the NYT about that, a few paragraphs in:
...the letter, which was spearheaded by the writer Thomas Chatterton Williams, began taking shape about a month ago, as part of a long-running conversation about these issues with a small group of writers including the historian David Greenberg, the writer Mark Lilla and the journalists Robert Worth and George Packer.
(and it continues from there)
posted by bitteschoen at 10:36 AM on July 8 [3 favorites]


yeah, Noam Chomsky got alot of things wrong about Cambodia and something's right but I don't forgive his selective views on society and culture in DK. Has he seen something we don't...moot. it would be an interesting topic down the line with more context.
posted by clavdivs at 11:02 AM on July 8


it's about not making Metafilter yet another place on the web where we have to see shitty people being bigots

Dunk on terrible people signing their names to terrible things?

From the actual letter, folks I respect, and one of whom I know personally:

Gloria Steinem, Noam Chomsky, Margaret Atwood, Zephyr Teachout, Randi Weingarten, Wynton Marsalis, Garry Wills, Salman Rushdie, Allison Stanger, Dahlia Lithwick, Jeet Heer, Atul Gawande, Todd Gitlin, Jeffrey Eugenides, Dexter Filkins, John Banville, Anne Applebaum.

I think it's more complicated than shunning a document by saying its authors are shitty and terrible.
posted by doctornemo at 11:11 AM on July 8 [24 favorites]


thivaia, my blog is primarily about the future of education, so I'm not sure this is a good fit. But maybe. Thank you for asking.
posted by doctornemo at 11:12 AM on July 8


I think it's more complicated than shunning a document by saying its authors are shitty and terrible.

Anyone who's okay with being on a list with Jesse Singal, Bari Weiss, and J.K. Rowling at this exact moment in time that is any more exclusive than "living humans", well, they should know what they're in for. I hope that MetaFilter is on the side of "If you let two Nazis sit down, then you're sitting at a table of Nazis", and the ensuing discussion doesn't need to happen.
posted by Etrigan at 11:28 AM on July 8 [22 favorites]


It's not like there are two categories of people: "those we respect" and "shitty and terrible". People contain multitudes and can be important, even groundbreaking in some areas and not great in others.
posted by ODiV at 11:30 AM on July 8 [24 favorites]


Reading the signatures, I don't see any Nazis that I can make out. Some of the names I didn't recognize; quickly Googling them didn't yield any Nazism, but I might have missed them.

If you don't mean literal Nazis, Etrigan, but people who hold other beliefs you find repellant - your mention of Singal and Rowling suggests transphobia? - and that others who don't hold those beliefs are nonetheless lumped with them, and on top of this their shared documents shouldn't even be discussed, *and* that MetaFilter as a whole thinks along those lines... then I was right to delete my post.

Personally, I don't agree with that kind of argument. But the document under question doesn't mean so much to me that I want to go to bat for it much longer.
posted by doctornemo at 11:45 AM on July 8 [16 favorites]


Contrast to the Osita Nwanevu piece from the day before on reactionary liberalism.

It's amazing how predictable this all is, that Nwanevu can have something written and published beforehand that feels to me to be the perfect rebuttal.

and that others who don't hold those beliefs are nonetheless lumped with them

It's important to understand, when people are signing a letter for 'norms of open debate and toleration of differences' exactly what is meant by those perfectly anodyne and respectable terms. Perhaps most tellingly is the surfacing of (very recent!) attempts, and successes, by some of the signatories to have speech they disagree with stifled: reporters and commentators fired, sued, access revoked and work destroyed.

It would be an act of supreme foolishness to take this letter at face value. Since since past history tells me that Metafilter is comprised of people who will insist on doing so, I think this post can at least wait.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:03 PM on July 8 [21 favorites]


others who don't hold those beliefs are nonetheless lumped with them

I mean, they lumped themselves together? If someone who’s a notorious fan of candy approaches you with a letter “Proclaiming the health benefits and emotional importance of eating sugar,” making somewhat obscured references to ill-meaning dentists out there, and it turns out the other signatories are cake bakers, sugar industry lobbyists, and the National Association of Dentist Haters, maybe you want to check before signing whether there’s some kind of ongoing fight before you jump in the middle of it?
posted by sallybrown at 12:25 PM on July 8 [12 favorites]


There's a lump of sugar joke like right there and I can't find it.
posted by ODiV at 12:46 PM on July 8 [3 favorites]


Or a Mary Poppins joke?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:50 PM on July 8 [1 favorite]


If you don't mean literal Nazis

This is supremely disingenuous bullshit, which is exactly what this letter was intended to engender, and I'm glad you're giving up on trying to foist it on the rest of us.
posted by Etrigan at 12:55 PM on July 8 [18 favorites]


Etrigan, I honestly don't follow your point about literal Nazis. If you're being hyperbolic or think some of the signatories are fascistic, that makes sense, although I don't know the latter.

I wasn't trying to foist anything. Sigh. You all see what I meant earlier?
posted by doctornemo at 1:01 PM on July 8 [8 favorites]


the surfacing of (very recent!) attempts, and successes, by some of the signatories to have speech they disagree with stifled: reporters and commentators fired, sued, access revoked and work destroyed.
Agreed, that's awful and hypocritical of some of them.
posted by doctornemo at 1:02 PM on July 8 [2 favorites]


I mean, they lumped themselves together?

Only on one level. It's otherwise a pretty heterogeneous mix. Check the list of signatories. Very wide range of ideologies (David Brooks and Noam Chomsky?), projects, professions.

But I should stop here. If we're not going to have this discussion on a main page post, I shouldn't end up driving it to this one.
posted by doctornemo at 1:05 PM on July 8 [1 favorite]


Set a timer. In one week, make the letter FPP that the world deserves, with many links to takes and explanations by signatories for why they did what they did, or unsigned if they unsigned. Then people can go buck wild about the whole mess.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:14 PM on July 8 [6 favorites]


This is supremely disingenuous bullshit, which is exactly what this letter was intended to engender, and I'm glad you're giving up on trying to foist it on the rest of us.

I think it's supremely disingenuous bullshit to call a bunch of people Nazis because you disagree with a minority of signatories about one issue and then get self righteous when someone questions it. Like, are you calling Wynton Marsalis a Nazi? Margaret Atwood? Just come out and say it if you believe that and stop with the guilt by association stuff.

Super frustrating that these sorts of things can't be discussed on Metafilter.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 1:16 PM on July 8 [38 favorites]


Well, I wish we could discuss more things but we have proved over time we aren't mature enough to handle these topics.
posted by all about eevee at 1:18 PM on July 8 [3 favorites]


Let's please aim to keep the focus here on site issues raised by the delete, and (as cortex said initially) not have this thread become a proxy thread for discussing the letter.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:18 PM on July 8 [2 favorites]


because you disagree with a minority of signatories about one issue

Trans people are not an issue. We are people who are right here and we see how you minimise bigotry perpetrated against us.

Personally, I am glad not to see yet another thread where we platform those views.
posted by xchmp at 1:23 PM on July 8 [53 favorites]


Margaret Atwood famously went to bat for a rapist and against #MeToo.

Wynton Marsalis has trashed the cultural value of rap and hip hop music.

I mean we could go through that list and most people on it have done something problematic, if not full-on goosestepping and I am content to skip out on yet another round of beard stroking "But are trans people actually PEOPLE? It's oppressing Mah Freeze Speech if you don't let me proclaim they aren't."
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 1:28 PM on July 8 [14 favorites]


Super frustrating that these sorts of things can't be discussed on Metafilter.

I’m not frustrated at all that stealth transphobia can’t be discussed as though it were an “issue” on MetaFilter. I find it to be super, righteously awesome. Thanks again to the mods for pushing back on it.
posted by Etrigan at 1:38 PM on July 8 [32 favorites]


These proxy MetaTalk fights are worse than just posting the actual link, because people are even more abrasive and accusatory, plus little actual discussion happens. I think given some time this could be a worthwhile post. Discussing something is not platforming it.

The actual letter is a bewilderingly badly-written mishmash of flawed ideas but the commentary around it and the unusual group of signatories are interesting. I didn't know about Reginald Dwayne Betts, and am now following him. Gladwell wrote, "I signed the Harpers letter because there were lots of people who also signed the Harpers letter whose views I disagreed with. I thought that was the point of the Harpers letter."
posted by oulipian at 1:40 PM on July 8 [6 favorites]


I mean we could go through that list and most people on it have done something problematic, if not full-on goosestepping and I am content to skip out on yet another round of beard stroking "But are trans people actually PEOPLE? It's oppressing Mah Freeze Speech if you don't let me proclaim they aren't."

I’m not frustrated at all that stealth transphobia can’t be discussed as though it were an “issue” on MetaFilter. I find it to be super, righteously awesome. Thanks again to the mods for pushing back on it.

The Harper's Letter is 3 paragraphs about culture and open debate. Trans issues are not mentioned, so I'm not sure why you think discussion of the link is going to devolve in to a discussion of if trans people are people. Sounds like you don't really have a lot respect for other people who post here and just assume they'll post slurs when given the opportunity, and that's another frustrating thing about the community here.

People in society, like those who signed that letter, and who hold transphobic views can be right about other positions and being transphobic doesn't invalidate that. To be clear, I don't support transphobia and wouldn't think to bring it up when discussing the Harper's letter, but it looks like that's the main concern from people who don't want it posted. On that front, I think the suggestion that anyone who wants to discuss that link is transphobic or supports those views is pretty gross.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 1:46 PM on July 8 [14 favorites]


The only delight I take in all this is that the dude who organized all this--apparently? possibly? to promote his own book is named Thomas Chatterton. There are definite disadvantages to not dying young in a garrett.

"O Chatterton! that thou wert yet alive!
Sure thou would'st spread the canvass to the gale,
And love, with us, the tinkling team to drive
O'er peaceful Freedom's undivided dale;
And we, at sober eve, would round thee throng,
Hanging, enraptur'd, on thy stately song!"


Hey, when Sam was right he was right.

Anyway, I thought Gabriella Coleman's tweets were one of the more enlightening and nuanced takes on the propositions raised by the letter.

As far as the actual letter goes, I can't decide if it's too cynical to suspect that the whole purpose of the charade is just to promote Chatterton's book and Yascha Mounk's new magazine and drive the discourse for a couple of days or if it isn't cynical enough and I should suspect that the true purpose is to be a cudgel to use on the letter's critics.

Meanwhile, Jesse Singal continues to be a menace to society.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:53 PM on July 8 [3 favorites]


It is because JK Rowling signed the letter and JK Rowling is a flaming transphobe.
posted by all about eevee at 1:55 PM on July 8 [5 favorites]


On that front, I think the suggestion that anyone who wants to discuss that link is transphobic or supports those views is pretty gross.

Yes, that’s exactly what J.K. Rowling wants people to say. She’s looking for innocence by association, for her trash dehumanizing opinions to be protected from the slightest pushback, sheltered beneath a banner of Free Speech and Civil Debate and Salman Rushdie and Noam Chomsky.

And I remain glad that MetaFilter isn’t letting her get away with that on the front page, regardless of how gross you think it is that trans people don’t want to give her yet another platform to complain that she’s being silenced.
posted by Etrigan at 1:56 PM on July 8 [31 favorites]


Please close this thread. While I still think the letter should be posted on MeFI (look at the reactions linked in this thread, they are interesting and informative!) this thread has already lost its purpose.
posted by simmering octagon at 1:59 PM on July 8 [9 favorites]


The Harper's Letter is 3 paragraphs about culture and open debate

I mean, if it’s about open debate and signed by transphobes, what exactly is it you think they want to debate?
posted by yeahwhatever at 2:03 PM on July 8 [22 favorites]


It is absolutely transphobic to minimize the concerns of trans people just because you think that several of the worst "progressive" transphobes being involved means that discussing their bigotry is some sort of annoying distraction. Using the words "I don't support transphobia" does nothing to change the impact of your views, whatever your intent.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 2:03 PM on July 8 [19 favorites]


Boy this thread sure does seem like it’s doing exactly what cortex said needed not to happen.
posted by stoneweaver at 2:05 PM on July 8 [15 favorites]


Gladwell wrote, "I signed the Harpers letter because there were lots of people who also signed the Harpers letter whose views I disagreed with. I thought that was the point of the Harpers letter."

What on earth...
posted by sallybrown at 2:05 PM on July 8 [4 favorites]


It seems like this is just a proxy thread and asking for people to stop that isn't effective since that's the discussion people want to have anyway. I think the site issues have been aired, though, and I'll close this up per simmering octagon's request. Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:07 PM on July 8 [8 favorites]


« Older Racial slurs that should never be written   |   hello sweetie Newer »

This thread is closed to new comments.