Taking the Free Speech Argument a Step Further


unixknight
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest LiterateParakeet
23 minutes ago, Mores said:

You're parroting rather than really considering all the ramifications yourself.  You're not looking at the other side before making a argument.

Ba ha ha! When I dry the tears from my eyes from laughing so hard, I'll consider reading the rest of your post.  You clearly don't know me at all, which is fine, but you should refrain from making such sweeping judgments about someone you don't know simply because they have a different opinion.

...Okay looked at more of your post, I see we've hit the point where you result to insults to make your point appear stronger. We're done, because I'm not interested in that sort of contention. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Mores said:

How on earth did that become a standard by which we restrict free speech?

"Everybody's a winner!" culture from the '80s/'90s, which has produced a generation whose feelings are so fragile that they consider words to be violence.

..what does that say about them, I wonder, when they think words = violence and so quickly resort to insults, name-calling and attacks.  I guess that means they think they're bringing violence upon us.  Do you think they're surprised when we don't clutch our wounded chests and fall over dead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

"Everybody's a winner!" culture from the '80s/'90s, which has produced a generation whose feelings are so fragile that they consider words to be violence.

..what does that say about them, I wonder, when they think words = violence and so quickly resort to insults, name-calling and attacks.  I guess that means they think they're bringing violence upon us.  Do you think they're surprised when we don't clutch our wounded chests and fall over dead?

I don't think that's (bolded above) the cultural correlation.  The cultural correlation is Identity Politics and Political Correctness - the foundation of Oppression Olympics.  The marriage of Identity Politics and Political Correctness gave birth to "you can't say that because it's offensive to me", which grew up to "you're a racist/sexist/homophobe/bigot", and led to, "racists/sexists/homophobes/bigots hurt people", and matured to Canada compelling speech for gender pronouns... eventually this will lead to "it's okay to kill racists/sexists/homophobes/bigots".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
2 hours ago, unixknight said:

"Everybody's a winner!" culture from the '80s/'90s, which has produced a generation whose feelings are so fragile that they consider words to be violence.

..what does that say about them, I wonder, when they think words = violence and so quickly resort to insults, name-calling and attacks.  I guess that means they think they're bringing violence upon us.  Do you think they're surprised when we don't clutch our wounded chests and fall over dead?

What this also means is that it is a very short jump for them from free speech to free-murder.  Take a look at the fires and riots in Greece and other parts of the EU because of entitlement mentality.

It also explains why "simply disagreeing" with a homosexual = homophobia and hate speech.  It's just a different mentality.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Ba ha ha! When I dry the tears from my eyes from laughing so hard, I'll consider reading the rest of your post.  You clearly don't know me at all, which is fine, but you should refrain from making such sweeping judgments about someone you don't know simply because they have a different opinion.

...Okay looked at more of your post, I see we've hit the point where you result to insults to make your point appear stronger. We're done, because I'm not interested in that sort of contention. 

WOW!  This is exactly what I was talking about.  She claims she is not the kind of person I'm talking about.  Then in the very next sentence she exemplifies exactly what I accused her of. 

Insults?  She does exactly what I described, then decides she can take the moral high ground because she's insulted?  Does anyone on the left even know the difference between real insults and a literal observation of something negative?  Perhaps an alcoholic would be offended at being told he's abusing a drug.

I could just read bureau of labor statistics without preamble or commentary that paint some groups in a bad light and be called a racist.  I guess I didn't couch it in enough "trigger cushioning" words.  So, I'm automatically the bully.

Well she's got the right to ignore me if she wishes.  I'm sure I'll get on her list.  But that doesn't really help her case.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Ba ha ha! When I dry the tears from my eyes from laughing so hard, I'll consider reading the rest of your post.  You clearly don't know me at all, which is fine, but you should refrain from making such sweeping judgments about someone you don't know simply because they have a different opinion.

...Okay looked at more of your post, I see we've hit the point where you result to insults to make your point appear stronger. We're done, because I'm not interested in that sort of contention. 

 

1 hour ago, Mores said:

WOW!  This is exactly what I was talking about.  She claims she is not the kind of person I'm talking about.  Then in the very next sentence she exemplifies exactly what I accused her of. 

Insults?  She does exactly what I described, then decides she can take the moral high ground because she's insulted?  Does anyone on the left even know the difference between real insults and a literal observation of something negative?  Perhaps an alcoholic would be offended at being told he's abusing a drug.

I could just read bureau of labor statistics without preamble or commentary that paint some groups in a bad light and be called a racist.  I guess I didn't couch it in enough "trigger cushioning" words.  So, I'm automatically the bully.

Well she's got the right to ignore me if she wishes.  I'm sure I'll get on her list.  But that doesn't really help her case.

@LiterateParakeet, you and @Mores are talking about 2 completely different things.  Unfortunately, the thread subject is talking about the thing Mores is talking about, so...

So, here is where your conversation fell off the rails - LP is talking about what a "decent" person should do in polite company regarding words that someone else finds offensive.  Mores (and @unixknight's OP) is talking about powerful organizations restricting speech they find offensive.  These are 2 totally different things that it can co-exist in a discussion and not be in direct contradiction. 

But the direction this discussion took is THE PRIMARY PROBLEM why these discussions become contentious.  The right talk Group Principles applied to Individuals.  The left talk Individual Offenses applied to the entire Group. 

Dr. Jordan Peterson's interviews about the Canadian Bill C16 is another perfect example of this phenomena.  Peterson finds C16 (compelled speech to call people the proper pronoun) absolutely reprehensible because of the Group Principle of compelled speech being reprehensible when applied to Individuals.  But most of the "gotcha" interviews he gets about the bill always asks the question, "So, you're saying, that if a transwoman wants to be called a She, you wouldn't do it?" - something COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to Peterson's position on compelled speech.  The interviewers try to use that individual case of a transwoman talking to Dr. Peterson to apply to the entire Group of Canadians.  Peterson's answer is always - He's a clinical psychologist, he has professional training on what would help a person.  If calling the person a specific pronoun helps to make the person better, then he'll use the pronoun.  But if calling the person a specific pronoun simply validates his pathological ideological possession, then he wouldn't use the pronoun.

In any case, what we're talking about in this thread is not what individuals should do in polite society.  Rather, what we're talking about is the plague of political correctness and identity politics that has led to groups such as the SPLC declaring Pepe the Frog as a hate symbol of white supremacy while defending Antifa's violence as - justifiable response to hate.  It wouldn't be so bad if the SPLC is just some fringe group that people ignores.  Unfortunately, big outfits such as Twitter and even Congress, reference SPLC as the authority on hate groups and make decisions accordingly.  This kind of stupidity is what has caused Bill C16 to become law, the EU to "ban memes", and Big Tech to deplatform people out of the public square.  This kind of stupidity caused the Covington Kids to be viciously defamed with impunity and Jusie Smollet gets all charges dropped after he falsely claimed MAGA hat wearing white males tried to lynch him.  Meanwhile, Alex Jones, Tommy Robinson, Lauren Southern, et. al., gets un-personed and even banned from entry into certain countries.  These things have GIANT CULTURAL RAMIFICATIONS.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
52 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

you and Mores are talking about 2 completely different things.  Unfortunately, the thread subject is talking about the thing Mores is talking about, so...

So, here is where your conversation fell off the rails - LP is talking about what a "decent" person should do in polite company regarding words that someone else finds offensive.  Mores (and Unixknight s OP) is talking about powerful organizations restricting speech they find offensive.  

How individuals respond to one another is applicable to the whole, after all a group or organization is simply individuals who now have more power to push their agenda. 

In Proper Role of Government, Pres. Benson talks about how government is essentially a group of individuals, and a citizen cannot give to the government powers that he doesn't have as an individual. So I could argue that my opinion on the importance of individuals in this discussion is from a Conservative source.:)  

I can see your point though about how my line of reasoning led to some misunderstanding.

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

How individuals respond to one another is applicable to the whole, after all a group or organization is simply individuals who now have more power to push their agenda. 

It isn't.  THIS IS THE PROBLEM.

Blaire White says this repeatedly.  She's a transwoman and a lot of people think because she's trans, she's <insert whatever group descriptor is the current trend>.  Candace Owens says this repeatedly.  She's a black woman and a lot of people think because she's black, she should be <insert group descriptor here>.    And just recently, Tim Pool - who is a "card carrying" liberal - was labeled Alt-Right by the New York Times because he pinned Jack Dorsey to the wall for banning Alex Jones, et. al. on Twitter.

 

19 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

In Proper Role of Government, Pres. Benson talks about how government is essentially a group of individuals, and a citizen cannot give to the government powers that he doesn't have as an individual. So I could argue that my opinion on the importance of individuals in this discussion is from a Conservative source.:)  

This is messed up.  A individual citizen generally do not directly give powers to government in the USA.  He can only VOTE to give powers to government.  The citizens of the USA, through a representative democracy, give powers to the government that then has power over the entire citizenry regardless of whether such individuals consented to the power transfer or not.  A Conservative in the USA, therefore, is mindful of the impact of government power that rules over individuals as a Group and strives to make that government as weak relative to the individual as possible.

 

19 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I can see your point though about how my line of reasoning led to some misunderstanding.

It is not a misunderstanding.  It is simply talking about 2 different things and being cognizant that you are talking about 2 different things.  I don't think @Mores was cognizant of that either by the way he responded to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm remembering when Alan Dershowitz defended the right of Nazis to march in a heavily Jewish neighborhood. I'm remembering when liberals championed free speech on college campuses. I'm remembering some of the political antics I pulled at my college (part of growing up and learning...playing around with on-the-edge political ideas as I found my grounding)...I must be getting old...'cause I sure miss them days of liberty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
33 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It isn't.  THIS IS THE PROBLEM.

Blaire White says this repeatedly.  She's a transwoman and a lot of people think because she's trans, she's <insert whatever group descriptor is the current trend>.  Candace Owens says this repeatedly.  She's a black woman and a lot of people think because she's black, she should be <insert group descriptor here>.    And just recently, Tim Pool - who is a "card carrying" liberal - was labeled Alt-Right by the New York Times because he pinned Jack Dorsey to the wall for banning Alex Jones, et. al. on Twitter.

 

This is messed up.  A individual citizen generally do not directly give powers to government in the USA.  He can only VOTE to give powers to government.  The citizens of the USA, through a representative democracy, give powers to the government that then has power over the entire citizenry regardless of whether such individuals consented to the power transfer or not.  A Conservative in the USA, therefore, is mindful of the impact of government power that rules over individuals as a Group and strives to make that government as weak relative to the individual as possible.

Okay, we're having a  disconnect here. I'm not quite clear on where you are going with the first paragraph. 

The second, I think you're misunderstanding Pres. Benson's point, which is understandable given that all you have to go on is what I said.  He was how to discern if a government policy/program/law is right. He used the example of the old west. And said if neighbor Jones, has no cows, and neighbor Smith has 2 cows, the other neighbors can't decide that Smith should give Jones a cow. Therefore as a people we can't authorize (by voting) the government to do that. The individuals who make up the government cannot do that.  So, I figure the same applies to individuals. I can't tell neighbor Smith to shut his mouth because he is being hateful, but I could lend my support to neighbor Jones who is being insulted.  

I think I agree with you more than we disagree...because even though I do hate hate speech and it is tempting use the muscle of larger groups to make them stop, I don't think that is the best answer. Besides government rules/laws don't stop bad behaviours, prohibition taught us that.  So I think something needs to be done about hateful speech, but the best place to address this is with individuals.  That is also why I really admire the work of Better Angels.

Pres. Benson also said that the world would try to change a man by changing his circumstances, but the Lord changes a man by changing his heart. (Of course it depends on the kind of change you are trying to make, but I think it applies here.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Okay, we're having a  disconnect here. I'm not quite clear on where you are going with the first paragraph. 

Your statement - "How individuals respond to each other is applicable to the whole" - is the tragedy of Identity Politics.  A transgender woman being offended by being called a He does not make being called He offensive to all transgender women.  Making this erroneous conclusion is how you end up with Bill C16.  A black person being offended by a statue of General Lee does not make General Lee offensive to all black people.  Making this erroneous conclusion is how you end up with the lawful destruction of historical artifacts.  Etc. etc.

 

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

even though I do hate hate speech and it is tempting use the muscle of larger groups to make them stop, I don't think that is the best answer. Besides government rules/laws don't stop bad behaviours, prohibition taught us that.  So I think something needs to be done about hateful speech, but the best place to address this is with individuals.  That is also why I really admire the work of Better Angels.

My issue is what you consider hate speech may not be hate speech at all.  It's simply what you, as an individual, found hateful.  Just like how Pepe the Frog and the OK sign is NOT a symbol of white supremacy at all.  We have a bunch of kids wearing Pepe the Frog t-shirts in the exact same manner that kids of the 90's played Mortal Kombat and kids of the 80's went punk rock.  It has zero to do with hate and more to do with a new generation sticking it to The Man (which in today's cycle is the PC police).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Your statement - "How individuals respond to each other is applicable to the whole" - is the tragedy of Identity Politics.  A transgender woman being offended by being called a He does not make being called He offensive to all transgender women.  Making this erroneous conclusion is how you end up with Bill C16.  A black person being offended by a statue of General Lee does not make General Lee offensive to all black people.  Making this erroneous conclusion is how you end up with the lawful destruction of historical artifacts.  Etc. etc.

 

My issue is what you consider hate speech may not be hate speech at all.  It's simply what you, as an individual, found hateful.  Just like how Pepe the Frog and the OK sign is NOT a symbol of white supremacy at all.  We have a bunch of kids wearing Pepe the Frog t-shirts in the exact same manner that kids of the 90's played Mortal Kombat and kids of the 80's went punk rock.  It has zero to do with hate and more to do with a new generation sticking it to The Man (which in today's cycle is the PC police).

 

I think we are mostly in agreement here.  In the way, you describe the individual to general, I agree. Not everyone is going to be offended by the same things. I think my Proper Role of Government is a different angle for la k of a better word, and I still stand by that. I don't see the two as opposites.

About the next part, I have kept up with this frog issue but I get the idea because I am familiar with the ok/wp issue.  I think we can agree that is part of the reason these issues shouldn't be handled on a government level. At the same time, I might change my mind on a case by case basis, and we would likely disagree on those. I like talking about this in more general terms and focus on whatever  commonalities we can find.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
4 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I'm remembering when Alan Dershowitz defended the right of Nazis to march in a heavily Jewish neighborhood. I'm remembering when liberals championed free speech on college campuses. I'm remembering some of the political antics I pulled at my college (part of growing up and learning...playing around with on-the-edge political ideas as I found my grounding)...I must be getting old...'cause I sure miss them days of liberty.

We might disagree on much of this--if we drilled down to specific cases---but in general... I totally agree that we are losing liberties rapidly. Honestly, I think everyone (both sides of the political isle) is losing liberties. Its pretty alarming actually. 

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
17 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

 Its pretty alarming actually. 

It worries me as well. For years I was in the ACLU because they used to defend (defend, not support) all sorts of people. From conservative kids who offend hothouse flowers with politically incorrect speech to liberal activists who burned the American flag. Now, we're losing our sense of humor along with our liberties. I find it incredibly troubling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
17 hours ago, anatess2 said:

 

@LiterateParakeet, you and @Mores are talking about 2 completely different things.  Unfortunately, the thread subject is talking about the thing Mores i talking about, so...

I know that.  That was the whole point of my post.  Instead of learning from it, LP decided to be offended by it.  Shows you how much enlightenment she seeks.

17 hours ago, anatess2 said:

LP is talking about what a "decent" person should do in polite company regarding words that someone else finds offensive. 

Yes, I'm with you so far.

17 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Mores (and @unixknight's OP) is talking about powerful organizations restricting speech they find offensive. 

Wrong.  I was saying that LP's definition of a "decent" leftists is often (just so I'm P.C. -- not ALL "decent" leftists) involved in behavior that will strip rights from conservatives.  They don't realize just how intrusive their insistence upon "polite" language is. 

Not only that.  But the virtually everyone on the left has supported the foundational elements that motivate those in power (both polititicans and elites, as well as protesters, and individuals who use the courts to sue conservatives into submission) to continue to take rights away from conservatives.  And ultimately, this will also take rights away from liberals.  They just don't want to fess up to it or recognize it.

17 hours ago, anatess2 said:

In any case, what we're talking about in this thread is not what individuals should do in polite society. 

No, that's not what we're talking about.  We're talking about how "hate speech" is and should be Constitutionally protected free speech.  That's the problem.

I don't think anyone here is going to say it would be a bad thing if everyone policed their own speech and simply tried to be nice to each other.  The problem is when others choose to be offended where no offense was intended.  The problem is when others impose their own idea of polite speech on others with intimidation, harassment, disruption, and political/legal action.

That is what even the "good guys" on the left don't understand.  And, yes, I admit there are plenty of good guys on the left.  I know some.  And I thank God for them.  But they don't understand that even imposing "polite" speech on others is a dangerous road to go down if done with force or intimidation, or even open displeasure.

17 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Rather, what we're talking about is the plague of political correctness and identity politics that has led to groups such as the SPLC declaring Pepe the Frog as a hate symbol of white supremacy while defending Antifa's violence as - justifiable response to hate.  It wouldn't be so bad if the SPLC is just some fringe group that people ignores.  Unfortunately, big outfits such as Twitter and even Congress, reference SPLC as the authority on hate groups and make decisions accordingly.  This kind of stupidity is what has caused Bill C16 to become law, the EU to "ban memes", and Big Tech to deplatform people out of the public square.  This kind of stupidity caused the Covington Kids to be viciously defamed with impunity and Jusie Smollet gets all charges dropped after he falsely claimed MAGA hat wearing white males tried to lynch him.  Meanwhile, Alex Jones, Tommy Robinson, Lauren Southern, et. al., gets un-personed and even banned from entry into certain countries.  These things have GIANT CULTURAL RAMIFICATIONS.

OK.  Now you're finally saying what I'm talking about.  How LP doesn't understand this is beyond me.  She seems like she's intelligent enough to recognize this.  But the leftist news and literature she digests doesn't let her see how even "decent" people like her are contributing to this.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
17 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is messed up.  A individual citizen generally do not directly give powers to government in the USA.  He can only VOTE to give powers to government.  The citizens of the USA, through a representative democracy, give powers to the government that then has power over the entire citizenry regardless of whether such individuals consented to the power transfer or not.  A Conservative in the USA, therefore, is mindful of the impact of government power that rules over individuals as a Group and strives to make that government as weak relative to the individual as possible.

No, I'm with LP on this one (sort of).  You don't have it straight.  What she quoted from Benson was true.  The Declaration says

Quote

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Notice the bold.  Anyone can TAKE power.  Anyone can IMPOSE authority on others.  This is called unrighteous dominion.  But JUST powers are those we agree to give the government.  The Declaration also speaks of having governments with some longevity.  If we have to each individually agree to every single law and policy, then it is just a direct democracy or mobocracy. That Federalist Papers warn us that this is as damaging as a tyranny.

So, for the purpose of longevity and to stave off mobocracy, we have a written Constitution that the Founders put a lot of time and effort into creating.  This document gives the framework of just how much power a just government should have.  And any effort for a governmental body to exercise power or authority beyond that which individuals themselves have is an unjust government.

If you haven't already, please read Benson's The Proper Role of Government.

I'm pleasantly surprised that LP has read this and agrees with it.  It makes me wonder at anyone who has read and agreed with this document could support socialism, or affirmative action, or the idea of a "protected class", or legally enforced speech.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores

And here's what I'm talking about when I consider the left's claim of dog whistles to be crying wolf 99% of the time.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-for-dems-whining-is-power-in-the-2020-race-just-ask-pete-buttigieg

Note that in that 1% of the time when implied language is used to promote actual violence against anyone, I'll be right alongside you to defend actual victims.  But it is hard to get all riled up every time a claim is made when 99% of the time, it is just plain false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

Ironically, when I said we are "losing our sense of humor" something happened last night that showed it perfectly. I posted a light hearted poke at all religions from the Babylon Bee on my Facebook, and someone commented that it was "rude". 

It's impossible to be offended by this. If you say you are, you really aren't-you just want attention, are tired, want to play the martyr card, want to show how holy you are,  etc. No one can be legitimately offended by this.


So yes, we are losing our sense of humor. Rapidly. 

57987850_2383653321864561_4932544049946034176_n.jpg

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh sure it's possible to get offended by that.  The joke plays on Obama and Hillary's tweets identifying the Sri Lankan victims as "Easter Worshippers".  When held up against their tweets after the New Zealand killings, which clearly used the word Muslim, one wonders if they've got some sort of problem with using the word "Christian".  

So the bee just spread that across all religions with some halfway decent political satire to illustrate how you look when you use the word "Muslim" when Muslims die, but won't use the word "Christian" when Christians die.  

So, if you're politically aligned with the left, and are big fans of Obama and Hillary, you get offended because someone is talking smack about your team.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, if you're politically aligned with the left, and are big fans of Obama and Hillary, you get offended because someone is talking smack about your team.

I didn’t like it much either, to be honest.  Where do they get off, calling me “polite”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Ironically, when I said we are "losing our sense of humor" something happened last night that showed it perfectly. I posted a light hearted poke at all religions from the Babylon Bee on my Facebook, and someone commented that it was "rude". 

It's impossible to be offended by this. If you say you are, you really aren't-you just want attention, are tired, want to play the martyr card, want to show how holy you are,  etc. No one can be legitimately offended by this.


So yes, we are losing our sense of humor. Rapidly. 

57987850_2383653321864561_4932544049946034176_n.jpg

HAY I M OFFENDED BCUZ I M A DM AND I M NOT A SATANIST I DEMAND U TAKE IT DOWN AND U SHULD APOLOGIZE (WICH I WONT ACCEPT ANYWAY) AND U SHULD BE N JAIL BCUZ U R A NAZI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Oh sure it's possible to get offended by that.  The joke plays on Obama and Hillary's tweets identifying the Sri Lankan victims as "Easter Worshippers".  When held up against their tweets after the New Zealand killings, which clearly used the word Muslim, one wonders if they've got some sort of problem with using the word "Christian".  

So the bee just spread that across all religions with some halfway decent political satire to illustrate how you look when you use the word "Muslim" when Muslims die, but won't use the word "Christian" when Christians die.  

So, if you're politically aligned with the left, and are big fans of Obama and Hillary, you get offended because someone is talking smack about your team.

 

Maybe, but I still don't think someone could be honestly "offended" by this. It's a cry for attention or however else I described it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, Mores said:

I guess I need to ride my bike more. It may improve my politeness (or lack thereof).

You could do the Tour De France daily and it still wouldn't help much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
 Share