top 89 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 117 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (6 children)

FYI, The Straits Times is basically a step down from a state mouthpiece. If you don't believe me, just read the article:

The cannabis seized from Omar is sufficient to feed the addiction of about 144 abusers for a week.

Here's a Human Rights Watch article from five days ago not flagrantly trying to justify the state-sanctioned murder of a man convicted of an entirely harmless crime. Fuck TST for this journalistic swill.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 6 months ago

    144 abusers for a week

    By my calculations, that's about 18 ounces (144/8, assuming an eighth per person per week).

    That's not that much, as far as international smuggling goes.

    Still, it's a bullshit reason to execute someone over.

    If you wanna smoke weed, Singapore isn't the place for you...

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    You think it is harmless, Singapore does not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 55 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    William Gibson (author of Neuromancer among other things, not all of them good) published an article about Singapore 30 years ago. It's titled Disneyland with the Death Penalty.

    33 years later and much of this is still very relevant. It has dated somewhat, but accurately reflects what I experienced in Singapore during work travel over the past few years.

    At the least, if you're interested in what dystopian science fiction writers think about Singapore it certainly dropped some puzzles pieces into place for me.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Fuck that sounds weird and uncomfortable of a place. I need some sketch to feel comfortable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    Disneyland with the Death Penalty

    I've also heard it referred to as China Lite.

    Long ago, I dated a Singaporean woman, closely connected to the ruling elite, educated at British public schools and a top-tier university. According to her, along with the relentless propaganda claiming Singapore is a meritocracy, there is also a deep underlying culture of corruption. It's bad for your health and future income to compete in business against ruling-family-connected ventures. When bidding on major contracts, you'll need insiders or their proxies to be partners or you'll be frozen out. There's nothing as vulgar as open bribery happening, but self-dealing, conflicts of interest and biased courts deliver the same outcomes. And whatever you do, don't be a prominent member of an opposition party if you value your livelihood and freedom.

    And if you're a Singaporean Malay, know your place or you'll end up in deep trouble. There are a few tokenism opportunities if you don't rock the boat.

    I've been there on business a few times. At least it seems they're not persecuting gay people as much anymore, and civil society is a bit more open than it was a couple of decades ago. They even seem slightly less obsessed with caning and massive fines for minor offences than they used to be. But "less stifling" is far from the same as "free."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    Singapore loves to pretend it's a modern country with it's gardens and fancy buildings.

    But beneath the surface is an overworked population ruled by a family dictatorship.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    family dictatorship.

    It's effectively a single party state with an elected dictator, but AFAIK their prime ministers and presidents don't come all from the same family.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago*

    You're right it's not a dictatorship like North Korea, but it's elections are also not as clean and fair as other modern democracies.

    The same ruling party has dominated since independence, and maintained structural imbalance suppressing the ability for any meaningful opposition to rise.

    While leadership in Singapore isn't hereditary, the nation has been guided by a very small political elite originating from Lee Kuan Yew.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    The dictatorship is how you get the gardens and fancy buildings.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    No, that's from science and engineers and public works. Fascists just like to co-opt that because it LOOKS socialist and try to use that to trick people.

    Giant bronze statues of themselves, castles, starvation, fear, poor decisions, and heavy militarization is what dictatorships ACTUALLY get you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    No, that’s from science and engineers and public works.

    We have scientists, engineers, and city planners too in America, despite what anyone says. But we don't have the draconian enforcement that these places have.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 90 points 6 months ago (43 children)

    Imagine killing a human being for possession of a harmless plant. It's wildly unjust.

  • source
  • hideshow 43 child comments
  • [+] -32 points 6 months ago* (6 children)

    a plant so harmless that someone felt compelled to smuggle it into a country thats known to be extremely hostile to it, ignoring hundreds of warnings, bypassing several opportunities to get rid of it, and ultimately being caught with it and facing the very predictable, very openly warned and expressed repercussions?

    A plant that drives someone to do that doesnt sound so harmless to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Well that's only natural because you're just a random idiot.

    People would smuggle chocolate bars if they were made illegal, that doesn't make them harmful.

    So far the Singaporean government has killed a lot more people than cannabis ever did, and for what?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    People would smuggle chocolate bars if they were made illegal, that doesn’t make them harmful.

    What if I told you a chocolate bar killed my family?

    Well I would be lying but WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -50 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (29 children)
  • [–] 26 points 6 months ago

    Everywhere that has legalized weed had this same bullshit scaremongering about how cars are going to be running over schoolchildren every 5 seconds because everyone would just be driving around high all the time.

    That hasn’t happened at all, so why do you still make the bullshit claim?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Weed + cars doesn't seem to be a big problem in a state where legal weed is everywhere unlike alcohol.

    A great deal of alcohol is consumed out late at night in places one is likely to drive to and from. Almost all accidents happen to people who are plastered not least of which because drunk people get increasingly confident and simultaneously incapable of judging their ability.

    Worse drunk people even quite drunk people can reasonably pilot a car which is why most DUIs are given only after hundreds miles of drunk drinking.

    People's false confidence is rewarded right up until they go to jail or kill someone.

    Weed rarely produces the degree of impairment and when it does you aren't going anywhere. Also since there are no legal venues to smoke it you are most commonly at home

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    In places where cannabis has been legalized, a common side-effect is a decline in traffic fatalities. Weed smokers are more likely to be couch-locked when they've had too much, rather than going out driving like drunks do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Exactly there are no legal places out and about to smoke so people smoke at home then rather than feeling energetic and pugnacious they are mellow and sleepy so they have neither the need nor desire to drive.

    As we speak imbeciles are trying to ruin this by developing testing designed to harass minorities on the side of the road and test whether the have smoked within several days instead of several hours. Soon you may face driving while brown charges for having smoked yesterday because testing cannot accurately measure impairment or recency of usage.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    have such hubris that they believe those averse effect only affect others

    TBF there is a lot of variability in how cannabis affects different people. I’ve got a friend who had to quit because it made him extremely paranoid, to the point that he’d hallucinate. That isn’t universal by a long shot. I haven’t experienced paranoia or hallucinations, the biggest side effect I’ve experienced is sleepiness. Meanwhile my friend found it harder to sleep while high because his brain kept playing tricks on him. Very different brains, very different results.

    Though I don’t doubt that plenty of people misjudge their abilities while high, just as they misjudge their abilities when drunk. But it’s important to note that it isn’t necessarily hubris that makes a person say, “Weed doesn’t do that to me.” Some of us genuinely experience different effects. You can’t truly know what’s going on in someone’s head unless you’re the one living in it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    True.

    That's just my own experience with my own potheads friends. Some of them who got into accidents because they thought they where better than other, and misjudged how much cannabis affected them.

    Not everyone is like them, sure. But to this day I never met someone who act rational when under the influence of drugs. Maybe I didn't met enough drugs user, who knows.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (10 children)

    so why isn't insomnia punishable by death or otherwise? That would potentially lead someone to crash a car too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Driving while knowingly impaired is an offence in the UK.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (6 children)

    Do you chose to take insomnia? I'd doubt that.

    But to be clear : I am against death penalty. It robs any chance for someone to change for the better, and even the worst criminal can change and try to repair, even partially, the damages he did. In the current case the death penalty is way overblown. But not everyone would be of that opinion, unfortunately.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago* (4 children)

    I can absolutely choose not to go to bed, yes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Not going to bed and insomnia are two different things. Insomnia is a condition where you try to sleep, and can't. Not going to bed, well, is a choice.

    In both cases, you can be held responsible if you end up falling asleep on the wheel while sleep deprived, and cause an accident.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    In both cases, you can be held responsible if you end up falling asleep on the wheel while sleep deprived, and cause an accident.

    But that's not what you said - you were saying that because people have the potential to cause an accident when smoking weed they should be executed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    If is was the case, I understand better the downvotes. That wasn't my intention de frame it like that, I'm against death penalty.

    What I intended to say is that people who takes substances that impair their judgement, and go drive afterward are a danger to everyone around them. They should be sanctioned, just not by death penalty, which, again, make no sense whatsoever in any situation.

    Cannabis isn't a harmless plant, unless it is a variety without THC (study: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9940647/). And I doubt a smuggler would import Cannabis without THC. Smuggled cannabis are almost always THC heavy plants, and considering how much he seem to have with him, he either intended to fly to the moon and back, or to sell it around.

    Now, THC heavy cannabis is a problem because, like alcohol, it impair the jugement about how ready to drive one is, and I've seen many of my friends get into accidents because they thought they where somehow not affected by THC. My words were harsh, no doubt, but I never called for any of them to get death penalties.

    Edit: drug resistance exists, of course, but isn't frequent. I happen to have a mild resistance to opioid based painkillers (found out after a surgery, worst pain I have been for a long time 😅)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Cannabis isn’t a harmless plant

    Nothing is. Thinking otherwise is fallacious zero-tolerance binary thinking. But in terms of magnitude and incidence rate of harm, it's far less harmful than just about any other intoxicating substance.

    it impair the jugement about how ready to drive one is

    I've never heard that one before, and it's contradictory to decades of first-hand experience. Let's have an anecdata war, but not now, since I'm busy. Meanwhile, got any studies to cite? Evidence from US states that have legalized directly contradicts you.

    drug resistance exists, of course, but isn’t frequent

    While it's not physically addictive like cocaine, alcohol, benzos and opioids are, cannabis tolerance builds up quickly in habitual users (if that's what you mean by resistance).

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (12 replies)
  • [+] -9 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    It's a question about respecting a society's conventions. When you enter a country, you choose to abide with the laws in place, even if you disagree with them. Singapore makes it very clear what happens to those who smuggle drugs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 69 points 6 months ago (11 children)

    Singapore is such a fucked up place, yet righties love to act like it's some utopia.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -22 points 6 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] 17 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Singapore's main party (PAP) doesn't fit cleanly in the western right-left paradigm.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Action_Party

    Center-right, Democratic socialist, anti-communist, "Communitarianism"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    They are not democratic socialist. They even got kicked out resigned from Socialist International.

    The PAP was officially committed to democratic socialism from its inception in 1954 until its resignation from the Socialist International in 1976.

    In 1976, the PAP formally resigned from the Socialist International (SI) after the Dutch Labour Party had initially proposed to expel the PAP for the Singapore government's internment of political prisoners without trial, and accused it of human rights violations.[116][117]

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    I think they were referring to Chia Thye Poh and various other crackdowns of "commie scum" boogiemen. Its worth noting Singapore only became a country in the 60s.

    As a result, and without ever facing indictment or criminal trial, he became one of the longest-serving political prisoners in the world. Restrictions on his civil rights remained in force for more than 32 years following his arrest, and the duration of his detention was often compared to that of Nelson Mandela, who spent over 27 years in prison following his conviction for treason, sabotage and other political crimes.[1]

    (NCMPs kinda sorta address the issue of a single party system. Feels more like a bandaid at best and controlled opposition at worst)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago*

    and it promotes harmony between different cultures in a way I've never seen - you can't talk shit about anyone based on religion, for example.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Singapore

    "The Sedition Act also prohibits seditious acts and speech which "promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore," and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) empowers the Minister for Home Affairs to take a pre-emptive approach by issuing restraining orders against a religious leader that has committed or is attempting to commit certain acts threatening religious harmony."

    it's a microcosm of different cultures crushed together with little room for debate, should things go partisan conflict tragedies would rapidly ensue; but the restrictions on freedom of speech seem fraught with potential pitfalls....

    I look at Singapore like Taiwan - they seem to genuinely try to do the best for a broader range than most, and each face unique ethnic and geographic complexities that they've overcome through enginuity and clever, hard working populaces.

    But yeah, murdering people for pot... fuck man....

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Dunno shit about Singapore but even if this is true, the economic style of the country does not dictate its capital punishment statutes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 47 points 6 months ago* (19 children)

    The cannabis seized from Omar is sufficient to feed the addiction of about 144 abusers for a week.

    What the hell is up with this bizarre line in the article? "Addiction"? "Abusers"? Is the the article writer fucking serious with this Reefer Madness shit? What a god damn clown.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Those hopeless addicts are consuming a bit over 3 grams of weed per week. Definite threat to society there.

    And of course the guy being executed is not from the Chinese elite, he's a Singaporean Malay.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    No, 1009.1g divided by 144 potheads is 7g. So the article assumes they are smoking a gram a day each. There should be protests about this, and I think the author of this article should be fired, it's so insensitive.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago* (8 children)

    As someone who has smoked weed for nearly 10 years now, it is addictive and can be abused.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (7 children)

    "addiction" used to mean physical withdrawals... now it means weed, television, working out, phones, sex, and more.

    Weed withdrawal is milder than caffeine withdrawal for most people.

    With 10 being death from withdrawal (like from alcohol), on a scale of 1 to 10 cannabis is a 1.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah, when I had a heroin addiction it kind of used to piss me off when people would talk about addictions to porn and stuff. I'd think they had no idea what addiction really meant. Try going cold turkey from smack. But TBF even though maybe the word addiction doesn't apply in the same way, it's certainly true that any compulsive behaviour that's detrimental to your life is a problem that needs help.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    Anytime someone compares those two, you can just point out that people aren't dependent on porn or gaming. That their bodies won't shock themselves to death if they go cold turkey.

    The keyword being dependency. People use those interchangeably, but they're two medically distinct things and you usually have both to a drug, but not necessarily. You can be addicted and not dependent or dependent without addiction. The first one would be someone who still wants to use and dreams about it despite having had no substance for years, and the second one is for instance a long term pain patient who didn't even know what medication they were on but start shivering and getting nauseous as they forget to take their meds, despite them not having any psychological need to take them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence

    It's somewhat okay to use them interchangeably but it would be super rude to talk about how addicted to one's phone one is while someone is talking about having gone through actual substance use disorder, addiction, dependency and all.

    Good job on pulling through man!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    addiction" used to mean physical withdrawals

    No it didn't. That's dependency. They're two medically distinct things. Addiction is a brain disorder, dependency isn't.

    If stupid people didn't exist and the world wasn't as unjust as it is, I wouldn't get any withdrawal from quitting weed. As it is, I get quite irate, but I think that's just my default setting nowadays, not a withdrawal symptom.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

    Yeah, it did, and does.

    I'm speaking of common vernacular, not in medical terms. The common vernacular has changed over the years (as it always does).

    Things without (and with) dependency are called addictions often, even "habits". I see it constantly in social media. The term "addiction" used to be much more limited.

    If you don't believe me, feel free to consult a dictionary.

    Medical terms are a different matter. Like the word "retarded", a word can mean one thing medically, and quite another in common parlance.

    Your correction has been corrected.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago*

    Your correction has been corrected.

    Lol no. You're just angry I corrected you. "Nuh-uh, I'm actually right, also go and do your own research."

    I have. I've also been using the terms for like 30 years in several languages.

    Addiction is a brain disorder. Even in common vernacular. Dependence is different. Usually with SUD they overlap, but for instance cannabis doesn't cause dependency (because there's really no physical withdrawal) which is why you hear a lot of addicted teenager weeders saying "weed isn't addictive, man", because they don't understand the difference between those two words.

    Just because they are using a word prescriptively wrong because they don't understand what it means doesn't make it wrong for them to use in that context, descriptively. And no, not everyone who knows the difference of "addiction" and "dependence" is speaking in 'a medical context'. They're really not that challenging as concepts.

    Feel free to consult a dictionary for what "prescriptive" and "descriptive" mean. ;> Perhaps you should also check what "vernacular" means?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    Regardless... that's enough to be considered trafficking pretty much everywhere... and he did it in Singapore?! Nice Darwin Award.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago* (5 children)

    A single kilo?

    That's literally barely the limit of a "severe" drug crime in Finland, and if you had exactly 1kg you wouldn't get sentenced for a severe/serious/aggravated ("felony" as the Americans would say) drug crime.

    Having to go to prison for an amount like this wouldn't even happen in Finland. Our justice system sucks in lots of places, yeah, and the attitudes towards drugs are verifiably archaic, especially on a social level, but you wouldn't have to actually go to prison unless you managed to get caught with a kilo at least once a year for a few years in a row, and the chances are that they still wouldn't put you in as a non-violent offender.

    Drugs are everywhere. The severity of the laws only affects the price and quality, not availability. (Case in point, there's a booming drug industry inside prisons, everywhere.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    That’s literally barely the limit of a “severe” drug crime in Finland,

    The article's about Singapore.
    Laws vary widely by country and a kilo is not a small amount (unless you're a murican troll). Most countries are in the grams.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    The article's about Singapore.

    Yes, I know. I can read the title just as I can read your comment saying "pretty much anywhere" and afterwards incredulously pointing out Singapore. Meaning your "anywhere" means actually anywhere, and not just "anywhere in Singapore." Last I checked "anywhere" did indeed contain Finland as well.

    nd a kilo is not a small amount (unless you're a murican troll)

    No I'm a person who's been growing weed for the past 20 years. I once had three large tents, hundreds of grams and more than two dozen plants taken from me. They didn't even try accusing me of a "felony", but the basic non-aggravated version of the crime. The production capability I had was about 400-500g/m2 and I had 2.49m2 of growing room plus my balcony. Kilo is a medium amount. It's not a small amount, no, but it's by no means a huge amount. It's one good harvest, grown in a couple of tents (or one really large one but I've never liked >1.2m tents) in an apartment building.

    Are you aware of the distinction of de jure and de facto?

    Because de jure we have quite draconian drug laws, but de facto you never go to prison for drugs unless you're dealing "harder" stuff and there's also violence/properly organised crime (which we don't have a lot of in the first place.)

    For instance de jure I have all sorts of rights as a person. But de facto, I was literally tortured by the cops in a jail when they took my plants away. And they didn't even have a reason to put me in jail in the first place. None of my friends who've been caught growing have been taken to jail and the other time I got caught I didn't either.

    Yet the cops kept me in an isolation cell with the lights constantly on while denying me my prescription medication while I went psychotic over three days and drew on the walls with my blood. And that mattress and blanket weren't there, they took them away and only put them back for the photo.

    My point being ALL COPS ARE BASTARDS, even if some laws in other places are harsher than some.

    But you said a kilo is "traffficking" almost anywhere. That's just not true. Especially in a lot of places you actually have to prove the trafficking or intent to traffic. For instance the cops asked me about my small plastic baggies, told them they're for freezing food. He laughed, obviously. They missed my scale, despite the fact it was literally right on the table next to my keyboard. But... if you look at the colour scheme it's not entirely unreasonable they missed it.

    (and yes I need to clean ik)

    But to add to that, they also missed a massive glass jar sitting on my kitchen table with almost a hecto of bud in it. Which was a nice surprise once I got home.

    I ended up influencing Finnish law since the cops prevented me from filming them and I got that part on video (them taking my phone away saying "youre not allowed to film the police when they work") and it went all the way to the supremely court.

    Anyways, I ramble, I'm aware. I'm not sorry about it though it's all related I just know most people can't handle lots of language and prefer shorter comments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Riiiiight... Claude was it? You pro'lly should get high on your own supply then. Bye.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Jesus, before the last couple of years it used to be "get a therapist" now it's all "lol you use LLM's" to write your comments. Sure I do buddy. Because... ... Why exactly? Genuinely? I see about the same amount of reason as using hacks in gaming (only LLM's would make any non-developmentally challenged persons comments shittier, not better). You wouldn't be able to repeat the performance in real life so you'd never impress anyone so why would you bother?

    Do you want photos of my grows? Can't really be arsed to go on PC to retrieve older ones but let's see

    Oh and the supreme court thing

    https://www.hs.fi/suomi/art-2000009654524.html

    Ofc I get high on my own supply. That's why I grow it, dumbo. Can I please have some more platitudes as bad jokes?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 6 months ago

    No matter how you spin it thats barbaric

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    13 comments in c/world view that post