The cult of ignorance, anti-intellectualism and "dumbing down"

What's Hot
245678

Comments

  • Axe_meisterAxe_meister Frets: 4612
    Because so much information is available at the click of a finger (without any filter) people have become lazy. You used to have to put effort in to get info it (get a book from a library) the info would have been peer reviewed to even be published. Now any Tom dick or harry can place information on the net to purely support their point of view.
    I see it with my kids they don't even look at Wikipedia to gain knowledge it all come from YouTube as they don't even have to read.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • chillidoggychillidoggy Frets: 17136
    Lewy said:

    My missus is always watching "Real Housewives" cobblers on ITVBe, which appears to be tarty Amercian women who lunch trading insults with each over what the rest of us would see as petty things. She even records it, FFS.
    Ok, but is your wife a moron? I suspect she's not - I think a lot of people see this stuff as entertaining drivel but don't let it influence their world view at all. They want a bit of escapism to help them switch off from their reality. It doesn't become their reality, and they're not dumber as a result of consuming it.

    Are there little kids out there who say they want to be youtube stars when they grow up? Sure there are. But no more than say they want to play *insert sport here* for England? Is that any less ridiculous or corrosive? I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem to draw the same invective.

    I think you have to filter a lot of this sort of article for what essentially amounts to "I remember when bikes were bikes...."

    Much more terrifying is the cowardice exhibited by political leaders, which is leading to anti-intellectualism being fostered and unchallenged at the highest level. But there, the dangerous people peddling that agenda are people with commercial or religious interests, not people leafing through Heat while they're taking a shit.


    You're right, my wife is not a moron, far from it. She's pretty savvy, and willing to turn her hand to anything (rewiring the Lotus dashboard is just one example), and that's why I fail to understand why she watches what I would describe as rubbish. But, to be fair, she thinks a lot of stuff I watch is crap, so I guess it goes both ways!


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • dtrdtr Frets: 1037
    The point about us humans is we adapt to our environment.  We're socially focused and strategically calculating, and we balance immediate advantage against long term position.  Strategies that work in one environment fail in another, and as we navigate our way through the environment we find ourselves in we all tend to justify our strategies by thinking that our like-thinking group is smart and other groups are dumb and just don't understand the way things really are.

    In all groups there are plenty of individuals who genuinely buy into believing that their successful strategies are simply the right ones irrespective of environment.  After all, it it worked for them, why wouldn't it work for everyone else?  This makes them believe that anyone who doesn't follow a similar strategy is unworthy and stupid.

    I don't buy into that kind of thinking at all.  I think it's much more interesting to try and work out why strategies that are different to the ones I'm familiar with work in other environments.  I'm middle-aged, white, male, educated and privileged and work in a knowledge profession, so my own strategies aren't dissimilar to the ones expressed in the standard elite narrative.

    So I'm wondering what is going on in the social environment that makes the current "dumbing down" strategy so relevant to so many?  I've got some thoughts on that.  I think a lot of it lies in current approaches to social mobility and cohesion.  Two things are particularly relevant...

    The dominant social narrative is broadly 'meritocracy'.  This suggests that while we may all have a wide range of varying advantages and disadvantages from accident of birth (a mix of nature's genetic endowment and nurture's provisions of class, wealth and environment), the greatest share of social rewards should go to those with the greatest preexisting advantages.

    Also, as the social fabric changes to allow greater concentrations of social rewards (through underlying globalised communications and financial innovation) it is expected that these gains are separate from any expectation of increased responsibility to the social fabric that permits them.  As an analogy it's like seeing society as a camel train crossing the desert - we give the best riders the fastest camels and allow them to race off out of sight.  At some point as the distance between them increases it's obvious to wonder whether it's still one single camel train at all.  I don't mean "the 1%" here, but the professional middle classes, like me, for whom the 'meritocratic' structure does pretty well.  It's more like 20% of the camel train that's fucked off over the horizon.

    We know that the promises of meritocracy are rigged.  If you're young your university degree won't actually mean shit except a lifelong debt as you stare down the barrel of a zero hour contract, and you're not getting on the housing ladder gravy train so you'd better keep paying us rent.  We're very sorry, now piss off.  That's the new environment - it's one where the 'elite' strategy for success is a bust.  People are navigating their way through a strategy that promotes success through entirely separate values.  In the new environment you can win a bit of social reward and kudos with flat-earth conspiracy theory and an inside scoop on Celebrity Love Island.  Dumbing down is so popular and pervasive because it makes a lot of sense in the environment that's been left behind by the professional classes buggering off on their fast camels.  That democracy's crude numbers game serves to actually give it the upper hand politically is fucked up, but entirely deserved.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 7reaction image Wisdom
  • FunkfingersFunkfingers Frets: 14320
    In the present day, instant answers are but a mouse click or screen prod away. Hard graft is out of fashion. Anything that displeases is grounds for lodging a noisy complaint. Whatever the grumble might be, a portion of society referred to as "they" is expected to make all reparations ... and for free.

    About forty years ago, some authority figure in education decided to cease penalising schoolchildren for spelling errors for fear of upsetting the little darlings. Some of those children are now school teachers. They could not correct the current pupils' spelling even if they wanted to. (Which, they don't. Too much effort!)

    The information age bombards us with increasing quantities of supposedly factual data - to the extent that there is insufficient time to filter or organise it, let alone find uses for it.

    Information overload is a convenient distraction from the fact that the British economy is heading down the drain and, by rights, the country should be declared bankrupt.




    Be seeing you.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • Winny_PoohWinny_Pooh Frets: 7730
    There are financial (markets are too dependent on consumerism) and political incentives to keep intelligence off the table and contribute to the negative slide.

    It will get progressively worse; "intelligence", culture and education will be more carefully ring-fenced by the wealthy as time goes by to keep their position secure in the future chaos that come after post truth, overpopulation and economic stagnation. 

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • TimmyOTimmyO Frets: 7349
    edited July 2017
    "...and look at that saddle. Be like sitting on t'razor blade...."
    Red ones are better. 
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • aord43aord43 Frets: 287
    But also people are proud, or at least happy to admit they are totally ignorant or bad at science or maths.  Would they be so proud to say they are illierate?  No, not normally.  What's that all about?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • SporkySporky Frets: 27569
    aord43 said:
    But also people are proud, or at least happy to admit they are totally ignorant or bad at science or maths.  Would they be so proud to say they are illierate?  No, not normally.  What's that all about?
    Plenty of guitarists are proud not to be able to read music or understand music theory.
    "[Sporky] brings a certain vibe and dignity to the forum."
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • LewyLewy Frets: 4123
    edited July 2017

    People revelling in appearing thick is a) nothing new at all (watch any 1950s teen movie) and b) nothing to do with anti-intellectualism. Most people who think it's cool to be thick won't think they know better than their doctor and decide not to inoculate their kids, won't advocate the NHS spending money on homeopathy, or spend their time researching and promulgating conspiracy theories. I'll think you'll find most of the people presenting the real anti-intellectual threat speak and spell just fine, and think they are exceptionally clever.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • Drew_TNBDDrew_TNBD Frets: 22445
    dtr said:
    The point about us humans is we adapt to our environment.  We're socially focused and strategically calculating, and we balance immediate advantage against long term position.  Strategies that work in one environment fail in another, and as we navigate our way through the environment we find ourselves in we all tend to justify our strategies by thinking that our like-thinking group is smart and other groups are dumb and just don't understand the way things really are.

    In all groups there are plenty of individuals who genuinely buy into believing that their successful strategies are simply the right ones irrespective of environment.  After all, it it worked for them, why wouldn't it work for everyone else?  This makes them believe that anyone who doesn't follow a similar strategy is unworthy and stupid.

    I don't buy into that kind of thinking at all.  I think it's much more interesting to try and work out why strategies that are different to the ones I'm familiar with work in other environments.  I'm middle-aged, white, male, educated and privileged and work in a knowledge profession, so my own strategies aren't dissimilar to the ones expressed in the standard elite narrative.

    So I'm wondering what is going on in the social environment that makes the current "dumbing down" strategy so relevant to so many?  I've got some thoughts on that.  I think a lot of it lies in current approaches to social mobility and cohesion.  Two things are particularly relevant...

    The dominant social narrative is broadly 'meritocracy'.  This suggests that while we may all have a wide range of varying advantages and disadvantages from accident of birth (a mix of nature's genetic endowment and nurture's provisions of class, wealth and environment), the greatest share of social rewards should go to those with the greatest preexisting advantages.

    Also, as the social fabric changes to allow greater concentrations of social rewards (through underlying globalised communications and financial innovation) it is expected that these gains are separate from any expectation of increased responsibility to the social fabric that permits them.  As an analogy it's like seeing society as a camel train crossing the desert - we give the best riders the fastest camels and allow them to race off out of sight.  At some point as the distance between them increases it's obvious to wonder whether it's still one single camel train at all.  I don't mean "the 1%" here, but the professional middle classes, like me, for whom the 'meritocratic' structure does pretty well.  It's more like 20% of the camel train that's fucked off over the horizon.

    We know that the promises of meritocracy are rigged.  If you're young your university degree won't actually mean shit except a lifelong debt as you stare down the barrel of a zero hour contract, and you're not getting on the housing ladder gravy train so you'd better keep paying us rent.  We're very sorry, now piss off.  That's the new environment - it's one where the 'elite' strategy for success is a bust.  People are navigating their way through a strategy that promotes success through entirely separate values.  In the new environment you can win a bit of social reward and kudos with flat-earth conspiracy theory and an inside scoop on Celebrity Love Island.  Dumbing down is so popular and pervasive because it makes a lot of sense in the environment that's been left behind by the professional classes buggering off on their fast camels.  That democracy's crude numbers game serves to actually give it the upper hand politically is fucked up, but entirely deserved.
    How can you say that the dominant social narrative is meritocracy?? I'd argue actually the complete opposite almost. The dominant narrative is nepotism and kowtowing to special interests rather than allowing people to stand on their own two feet and be judged for their actions. Everyone has an excuse or a get out of jail free card. That isn't meritocracy.

    Meritocracy as an outlook makes no promises other than you will be judged on your merit - what you're good at doing. Not for your social background. Not for your race. Not for your gender. Not for your sexuality. 

    But this unfortunately is not the dominant narrative. This is the ideal we are striving for, but it's so hard to obtain - and for a variety of reasons. You can't win any sort of social reward or kudos with flat-earth conspiracies and celebrity love island. What you most often get is derision. We've seen it on this forum in the guise of Sambostar and SirAxeman.

    Everyone is a comedian it seems, and nobody takes anything seriously. Nihilism really has set in and we're rotting from it.

    I agree with you broadly on your first points. But I don't think the dumbing down is anything to do with embracing meritocracy - rather I think it's to do with actively pushing it away and embracing childish selfish notions about what we value in life and how to achieve it. Foot stomping and crab-bucket mentality seems to be the order of things.

    If we had a meritocracy, we wouldn't have middle management ;)
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • holnrewholnrew Frets: 8207
    aord43 said:
    illierate
    Sweet irony.

    But I think a lot of people don't realise they're illiterate. They think as long as they get their point across it's fine. But it's corrupting the language; "literally" now has a dictionary definition which is the total opposite of what it should mean, and I see a lot of people using "ignorant" as though it means you ignore people. I know languages evolve and whatever, but this kind of thing is actually hampering communication. If you're well spoken and call somebody who isn't so eloquent "literally ignorant" they might take it as a compliment.
    My V key is broken
    5reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • guitarfishbayguitarfishbay Frets: 7953
    The cult of celebrity has been around for ages, but the trend for wilful ignorance seems to be relatively new, having popped up in the last five years or so.

    About a year ago, I was having a debate with a guy on Facebook...

    10 years plus easily more

    These themes were a thing during George W Bush Era America, my own knoweldge doesn't really go any further back just due to my age... but I remember it well

    The Colbert Bush Roast from the Whitehouse Correspondant's dinner you'll find on YouTube pretty much goes into this themes, though jokingly, it was a reflection of the time..
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • digitalscreamdigitalscream Frets: 26450
    Drew_TNBD said:

    I agree with you broadly on your first points. But I don't think the dumbing down is anything to do with embracing meritocracy - rather I think it's to do with actively pushing it away and embracing childish selfish notions about what we value in life and how to achieve it. Foot stomping and crab-bucket mentality seems to be the order of things.

    If we had a meritocracy, we wouldn't have middle management ;)
    I wonder if it has its roots in the "everyone's a winner!" approach which started in the late 90s...? We now have a generation of people raised to believe that they can't possibly fail...and therefore, no matter how little they know or how ill-conceived their opinions are, they have to be right. If they're wrong or they fail, the only logical conclusion is that it must be somebody else's fault (which, in turn, reinforces the idea that they're even more right than they were before).
    <space for hire>
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom
  • dtrdtr Frets: 1037
    Drew_TNBD said:

    How can you say that the dominant social narrative is meritocracy?? I'd argue actually the complete opposite almost. The dominant narrative is nepotism and kowtowing to special interests rather than allowing people to stand on their own two feet and be judged for their actions. Everyone has an excuse or a get out of jail free card. That isn't meritocracy.

    Meritocracy as an outlook makes no promises other than you will be judged on your merit - what you're good at doing. Not for your social background. Not for your race. Not for your gender. Not for your sexuality. 

    But this unfortunately is not the dominant narrative. This is the ideal we are striving for, but it's so hard to obtain - and for a variety of reasons. You can't win any sort of social reward or kudos with flat-earth conspiracies and celebrity love island. What you most often get is derision. We've seen it on this forum in the guise of Sambostar and SirAxeman.

    Everyone is a comedian it seems, and nobody takes anything seriously. Nihilism really has set in and we're rotting from it.

    I agree with you broadly on your first points. But I don't think the dumbing down is anything to do with embracing meritocracy - rather I think it's to do with actively pushing it away and embracing childish selfish notions about what we value in life and how to achieve it. Foot stomping and crab-bucket mentality seems to be the order of things.

    If we had a meritocracy, we wouldn't have middle management
    Well, what counts as 'merit'?  I said at the moment it's a mix of nature and nurture (which is a whole wide and deep kettle of fish), but it sounds to me like you're after some idea of 'pure' merit - the nature side of things with the awful nurture stuff taken out.  I don't have the same clarity in separating the two that you appear to.  You think that "what you're good at doing" and "social background" are categorically different, while I think it's more like ingredients in a soup - if the social background wasn't an ingredient to start with that's fine, but there's no way to take it out once it's served up.

    I'd say the fact that you seem so committed to your pure vision of merit as supporting my view that it's the dominant narrative.  Like I pointed out, it's a social choice to say that we should reward those with the most prestigious 'natural' gifts - the people that win in the lottery of birth (even if we strip the 'nurture' stuff out) with everything else too.  You see this as somehow naturally the right thing to do, but I'm not completely convinced.

    You say you "can't win" with dumbed down crap, which is a hard sell in the age of Trump, but these days standing out, getting noticed, attracting views, represents a form of social currency, and for those smart enough to see that the game for old-school status is rigged against them amassing that new kind of currency is a decent strategy.  The fact that plenty of folks have derision for the current president or the cast of TOWIE doesn't mean they haven't achieved social wins in the environment that they live in.

    I don't think "dumbing down is anything to do with embracing meritocracy" either - you've mistaken my argument.  My view is that with a narrative of meritocracy (flawed as it undoubtedly is, but then I don't believe it can ever be pure) adopted by the professional classes and pushed as a social goal, and the fact that these classes have used this narrative to grab all the traditional social rewards, this has diminished social cohesion and left large numbers of people disenfranchised from the whole concept that their own individual merit is actually going to be enough, so fuck merit right in the ear.  Those people will work with the social rewards that they have left and not give a damn if that leads to derision from the 'meritocratic' classes.


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • Drew_TNBDDrew_TNBD Frets: 22445
    edited July 2017
    dtr said:
    Drew_TNBD said:

    How can you say that the dominant social narrative is meritocracy?? I'd argue actually the complete opposite almost. The dominant narrative is nepotism and kowtowing to special interests rather than allowing people to stand on their own two feet and be judged for their actions. Everyone has an excuse or a get out of jail free card. That isn't meritocracy.

    Meritocracy as an outlook makes no promises other than you will be judged on your merit - what you're good at doing. Not for your social background. Not for your race. Not for your gender. Not for your sexuality. 

    But this unfortunately is not the dominant narrative. This is the ideal we are striving for, but it's so hard to obtain - and for a variety of reasons. You can't win any sort of social reward or kudos with flat-earth conspiracies and celebrity love island. What you most often get is derision. We've seen it on this forum in the guise of Sambostar and SirAxeman.

    Everyone is a comedian it seems, and nobody takes anything seriously. Nihilism really has set in and we're rotting from it.

    I agree with you broadly on your first points. But I don't think the dumbing down is anything to do with embracing meritocracy - rather I think it's to do with actively pushing it away and embracing childish selfish notions about what we value in life and how to achieve it. Foot stomping and crab-bucket mentality seems to be the order of things.

    If we had a meritocracy, we wouldn't have middle management
    Well, what counts as 'merit'?  I said at the moment it's a mix of nature and nurture (which is a whole wide and deep kettle of fish), but it sounds to me like you're after some idea of 'pure' merit - the nature side of things with the awful nurture stuff taken out.  I don't have the same clarity in separating the two that you appear to.  You think that "what you're good at doing" and "social background" are categorically different, while I think it's more like ingredients in a soup - if the social background wasn't an ingredient to start with that's fine, but there's no way to take it out once it's served up.

    I'd say the fact that you seem so committed to your pure vision of merit as supporting my view that it's the dominant narrative.  Like I pointed out, it's a social choice to say that we should reward those with the most prestigious 'natural' gifts - the people that win in the lottery of birth (even if we strip the 'nurture' stuff out) with everything else too.  You see this as somehow naturally the right thing to do, but I'm not completely convinced.

    You say you "can't win" with dumbed down crap, which is a hard sell in the age of Trump, but these days standing out, getting noticed, attracting views, represents a form of social currency, and for those smart enough to see that the game for old-school status is rigged against them amassing that new kind of currency is a decent strategy.  The fact that plenty of folks have derision for the current president or the cast of TOWIE doesn't mean they haven't achieved social wins in the environment that they live in.

    I don't think "dumbing down is anything to do with embracing meritocracy" either - you've mistaken my argument.  My view is that with a narrative of meritocracy (flawed as it undoubtedly is, but then I don't believe it can ever be pure) adopted by the professional classes and pushed as a social goal, and the fact that these classes have used this narrative to grab all the traditional social rewards, this has diminished social cohesion and left large numbers of people disenfranchised from the whole concept that their own individual merit is actually going to be enough, so fuck merit right in the ear.  Those people will work with the social rewards that they have left and not give a damn if that leads to derision from the 'meritocratic' classes.


    I don't believe I made any argument for "natural" gifts. I'm talking about hard work. A meritocratic society would reward hard work. But how often do we see the complete opposite? We don't have a meritocratic society, at least not a pure one.

    And it's not the aristocratic elites that push meritocracy. Not in my experience. I'm from a council estate and growing up I was told I could do anything I wanted to do as long as I worked for it - school, parents, society... it wasn't a commandment handed from upon high that represented unobtainium that eventually lead to me throwing in the towel... it was simple comments and feedback designed to give me confidence to climb the social ladder. It actually improved social cohesion and social mobility in my case. And that sounds exactly like 'nurture' does it not???

    I actually think nature has much less to do with merit than we assume. People can overcome their nature by virtue of working hard. But when we have a sense that nature matters, or that it's immutable... we often give up, or we just play the part we're dealt. We pussy out and accept our place in the world, basically.

    Winning social points ... I think you're onto something there. But it seems to me that it's a short-term reward, and that isn't necessarily going to do anything for anyones sense of self worth. I don't really see it as a 'win' personally because it's so short lived and comes with a ton of baggage.

    I read this book a while back:
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Snowflake-Effect-Trey-Willis/dp/1499795424

    And a lot of it echoes what I experienced as a child and as a teenager. I think what you're talking about actually isn't an argument against meritocratic thinking. It's an argument against a lot of the 'snowflake' stuff. Because kids get brought up with the idea that they don't have to work hard to achieve things, and that simply being is enough. Which makes for a rather rude awakening when they come of age.

    Between that, and endless college and university courses that aren't worth the paper they're printed on, add in the fact that now there seems to be a requirement that everyone go to university or they're not worth anything... a lot of those disenfranchised people you speak of never really had a chance.

    Fundamentally, I think you're misunderstanding what meritocracy actually is.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom
  • Drew_TNBDDrew_TNBD Frets: 22445
    Drew_TNBD said:

    I agree with you broadly on your first points. But I don't think the dumbing down is anything to do with embracing meritocracy - rather I think it's to do with actively pushing it away and embracing childish selfish notions about what we value in life and how to achieve it. Foot stomping and crab-bucket mentality seems to be the order of things.

    If we had a meritocracy, we wouldn't have middle management ;)
    I wonder if it has its roots in the "everyone's a winner!" approach which started in the late 90s...? We now have a generation of people raised to believe that they can't possibly fail...and therefore, no matter how little they know or how ill-conceived their opinions are, they have to be right. If they're wrong or they fail, the only logical conclusion is that it must be somebody else's fault (which, in turn, reinforces the idea that they're even more right than they were before).
    I think some of it does have roots in the everyone's a winner approach. Competition has all but been eradicated at schools, and kids grow up to expect that in life too. I think it's responsible for a lot of the moral outrage and activism that we see. They want the world to be like it was when they didn't have to make an effort and they could just be looked after.

    But the world doesn't work like that. Coz we all have bills to pay!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • digitalscreamdigitalscream Frets: 26450
    dtr said:

    I'd say the fact that you seem so committed to your pure vision of merit as supporting my view that it's the dominant narrative.  Like I pointed out, it's a social choice to say that we should reward those with the most prestigious 'natural' gifts - the people that win in the lottery of birth (even if we strip the 'nurture' stuff out) with everything else too.  You see this as somehow naturally the right thing to do, but I'm not completely convinced.
    I don't think that's what he's saying at all - in the meritocracy he's describing, it certainly helps to have a natural talent for something, but that's by no means the only way to get there. Being good at something doesn't rely solely on natural talent; hell, even being the best at something doesn't require it. What is required is hard work to get there and/or stay there.

    Look at Michael Johnson and Usain Bolt - they're both built totally wrong for their chosen sport, yet excel because they found ways around it and worked bloody hard to get to the top.
    <space for hire>
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • guitarfishbayguitarfishbay Frets: 7953
    Usain Bolt is undoubtedly one of the most naturally gifted athletes of all time.

    How many people that tall are also properly fast?  He's got the sprint genes and he's got a wider stride than pretty much any other contender.  In his prime the only way he was losing is by false start disqualifications 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • scrumhalfscrumhalf Frets: 11262
    I wonder if it has its roots in the "everyone's a winner!" approach which started in the late 90s...? We now have a generation of people raised to believe that they can't possibly fail...and therefore, no matter how little they know or how ill-conceived their opinions are, they have to be right. If they're wrong or they fail, the only logical conclusion is that it must be somebody else's fault (which, in turn, reinforces the idea that they're even more right than they were before).
    It goes back further than that. When Ken Livingstone and his band of cronies organised their putsch to take control of over the Greater London Council we started seeing nasty aspects of this sort of stuff, particularly in denying competitive sports to kids.
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 11788
    UK young people are more educated than they ever have been before, but they are different, and many of us old farts don't like it

    Sure the young could learn plenty from the older generation, but that has always been the case
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.