REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Post-modern philosphy: Is this your basis?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Thursday, August 24, 2017 14:06
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1903
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, August 24, 2017 9:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I don't recall how I got there, but I stumbled on this little gem while bunny-trailing my way through a topic, and found it very interesting. I think that part of the disconnect that happens on the board is that some people treat everything as a matter of opinion, which is a feature of post-modern philosophy

Quote:

Postmodern philosophy is a philosophical direction which is critical of certain foundational assumptions of Western philosophy and especially of the 18th-century Enlightenment. It emphasizes the importance of power relationships, personalization and discourse in the "construction" of truth and world views. Postmodernists deny that an objective reality exists, and deny that there are objective moral values....


many postmodern claims are a deliberate repudiation of certain 18th-century Enlightenment values. A postmodernist might believe that there is no objective natural reality, and that logic and reason are mere conceptual constructs that are not universally valid. Two other characteristic anti-Enlightenment postmodern practices are a denial that human nature exists, and a (sometimes moderate) skepticism toward claims that science and technology will change society for the better. Postmodernists also believe there are no objective moral values. Postmodern writings often focus on deconstructing the role that power and ideology play in shaping discourse and belief. Postmodern philosophy shares ontological similarities with classical skeptical and relativistic belief systems, and shares political similarities with modern identity politics.


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2017 10:01 AM

6STRINGJOKER


They are absolutely part of the post-modern philosophy movement, with a dash of Marxism for good measure.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2017 10:56 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


THIS is the reference I first stumbled on, it gives a much better description ....

Quote:

Postmodernism as a philosophical movement is largely a reaction against the philosophical assumptions and values of the modern period of Western (specifically European) history—i.e., the period from about the time of the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries to the mid-20th century. Indeed, many of the doctrines characteristically associated with postmodernism can fairly be described as the straightforward denial of general philosophical viewpoints that were taken for granted during the 18th-century Enlightenment, though they were not unique to that period. The most important of these viewpoints are the following.

1. There is an objective natural reality, a reality whose existence and properties are logically independent of human beings—of their minds, their societies, their social practices, or their investigative techniques. Postmodernists dismiss this idea as a kind of naive realism. Such reality as there is, according to postmodernists, is a conceptual construct, an artifact of scientific practice and language. This point also applies to the investigation of past events by historians and to the description of social institutions, structures, or practices by social scientists.

2. The descriptive and explanatory statements of scientists and historians can, in principle, be objectively true or false. The postmodern denial of this viewpoint—which follows from the rejection of an objective natural reality—is sometimes expressed by saying that there is no such thing as Truth.

3. Through the use of reason and logic, and with the more specialized tools provided by science and technology, human beings are likely to change themselves and their societies for the better. It is reasonable to expect that future societies will be more humane, more just, more enlightened, and more prosperous than they are now. Postmodernists deny this Enlightenment faith in science and technology as instruments of human progress. Indeed, many postmodernists hold that the misguided (or unguided) pursuit of scientific and technological knowledge led to the development of technologies for killing on a massive scale in World War II. Some go so far as to say that science and technology—and even reason and logic—are inherently destructive and oppressive, because they have been used by evil people, especially during the 20th century, to destroy and oppress others.

4. Reason and logic are universally valid—i.e., their laws are the same for, or apply equally to, any thinker and any domain of knowledge. For postmodernists, reason and logic too are merely conceptual constructs and are therefore valid only within the established intellectual traditions in which they are used.

5. There is such a thing as human nature; it consists of faculties, aptitudes, or dispositions that are in some sense present in human beings at birth rather than learned or instilled through social forces. Postmodernists insist that all, or nearly all, aspects of human psychology are completely socially determined.

6. Language refers to and represents a reality outside itself. According to postmodernists, language is not such a “mirror of nature,” as the American pragmatist philosopher Richard Rorty characterized the Enlightenment view. Inspired by the work of the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, postmodernists claim that language is semantically self-contained, or self-referential: the meaning of a word is not a static thing in the world or even an idea in the mind but rather a range of contrasts and differences with the meanings of other words. Because meanings are in this sense functions of other meanings—which themselves are functions of other meanings, and so on—they are never fully “present” to the speaker or hearer but are endlessly “deferred.” Self-reference characterizes not only natural languages but also the more specialized “discourses” of particular communities or traditions; such discourses are embedded in social practices and reflect the conceptual schemes and moral and intellectual values of the community or tradition in which they are used. The postmodern view of language and discourse is due largely to the French philosopher and literary theorist Jacques Derrida (1930–2004), the originator and leading practitioner of deconstruction.

7. Human beings can acquire knowledge about natural reality, and this knowledge can be justified ultimately on the basis of evidence or principles that are, or can be, known immediately, intuitively, or otherwise with certainty. Postmodernists reject philosophical foundationalism—the attempt, perhaps best exemplified by the 17th-century French philosopher René Descartes’s dictum cogito, ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am”), to identify a foundation of certainty on which to build the edifice of empirical (including scientific) knowledge.

8. It is possible, at least in principle, to construct general theories that explain many aspects of the natural or social world within a given domain of knowledge—e.g., a general theory of human history, such as dialectical materialism. Furthermore, it should be a goal of scientific and historical research to construct such theories, even if they are never perfectly attainable in practice. Postmodernists dismiss this notion as a pipe dream and indeed as symptomatic of an unhealthy tendency within Enlightenment discourses to adopt “totalizing” systems of thought (as the French philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas called them) or grand “metanarratives” of human biological, historical, and social development (as the French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard claimed). These theories are pernicious not merely because they are false but because they effectively impose conformity on other perspectives or discourses, thereby oppressing, marginalizing, or silencing them. Derrida himself equated the theoretical tendency toward totality with totalitarianism.

As indicated in the preceding section, many of the characteristic doctrines of postmodernism constitute or imply some form of metaphysical, epistemological, or ethical relativism. (It should be noted, however, that some postmodernists vehemently reject the relativist label.) Postmodernists deny that there are aspects of reality that are objective; that there are statements about reality that are objectively true or false; that it is possible to have knowledge of such statements (objective knowledge); that it is possible for human beings to know some things with certainty; and that there are objective, or absolute, moral values. Reality, knowledge, and value are constructed by discourses; hence they can vary with them. This means that the discourse of modern science, when considered apart from the evidential standards internal to it, has no greater purchase on the truth than do alternative perspectives, including (for example) astrology and witchcraft. Postmodernists sometimes characterize the evidential standards of science, including the use of reason and logic, as “Enlightenment rationality.”

The broad relativism apparently so characteristic of postmodernism invites a certain line of thinking regarding the nature and function of discourses of different kinds. If postmodernists are correct that reality, knowledge, and value are relative to discourse, then the established discourses of the Enlightenment are no more necessary or justified than alternative discourses. But this raises the question of how they came to be established in the first place. If it is never possible to evaluate a discourse according to whether it leads to objective Truth, how did the established discourses become part of the prevailing worldview of the modern era? Why were these discourses adopted or developed, whereas others were not?

Part of the postmodern answer is that the prevailing discourses in any society reflect the interests and values, broadly speaking, of dominant or elite groups. Postmodernists disagree about the nature of this connection; whereas some apparently endorse the dictum of the German philosopher and economist Karl Marx that “the ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class,” others are more circumspect. Inspired by the historical research of the French philosopher Michel Foucault, some postmodernists defend the comparatively nuanced view that what counts as knowledge in a given era is always influenced, in complex and subtle ways, by considerations of power. There are others, however, who are willing to go even further than Marx. The French philosopher and literary theorist Luce Irigaray, for example, has argued that the science of solid mechanics is better developed than the science of fluid mechanics because the male-dominated institution of physics associates solidity and fluidity with the male and female sex organs, respectively.

Because the established discourses of the Enlightenment are more or less arbitrary and unjustified, they can be changed; and because they more or less reflect the interests and values of the powerful, they should be changed. Thus postmodernists regard their theoretical position as uniquely inclusive and democratic, because it allows them to recognize the unjust hegemony of Enlightenment discourses over the equally valid perspectives of nonelite groups. In the 1980s and ’90s, academic advocates on behalf of various ethnic, cultural, racial, and religious groups embraced postmodern critiques of contemporary Western society, and postmodernism became the unofficial philosophy of the new movement of “identity politics.”



https://www.britannica.com/topic/postmodernism-philosophy



-----------
By the way, GSTRING, I predicted your response PERFECTLY
* ... and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.*

And voila! Here it is http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61835&mid=1
035581#1035581

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2017 11:56 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I think I fit somewhere between Enlightenment and Post-Modernism

Quote:

1. There is an objective natural reality, a reality whose existence and properties are logically independent of human beings—of their minds, their societies, their social practices, or their investigative techniques. Postmodernists dismiss this idea as a kind of naive realism. Such reality as there is, according to postmodernists, is a conceptual construct, an artifact of scientific practice and language.
I think if you want to deny the existence of an independent reality, you should test your theory by stepping in front of an 18-wheeler going 35 mph. Come back, and tell us how it went.
Quote:

This point also applies to the investigation of past events by historians and to the description of social institutions, structures, or practices by social scientists.
Just because societies are complex doesn't mean that they can't be understood better.

Quote:

2. The descriptive and explanatory statements of scientists and historians can, in principle, be objectively true or false. The postmodern denial of this viewpoint—which follows from the rejection of an objective natural reality — is sometimes expressed by saying that there is no such thing as Truth.
Just as an aside, I follow the philosophical understanding that truth is an accurate description of reality. There is often a disconnect here on the word "truth" or "true", which is often used to mean "honesty" or "honest".

The ACCURACY of one's understanding is the ability to RE-CREATE or at least PREDICT a certain outcome. Newton's understanding of gravity was tested by being able to predict planetary orbits; Einstein's understanding of gravity was tested by being able to predict the path of starlight as it traveled past the sun.

Quote:

3. Through the use of reason and logic, and with the more specialized tools provided by science and technology, human beings are likely to change themselves and their societies for the better. It is reasonable to expect that future societies will be more humane, more just, more enlightened, and more prosperous than they are now. Postmodernists deny this Enlightenment faith in science and technology as instruments of human progress. Indeed, many postmodernists hold that the misguided (or unguided) pursuit of scientific and technological knowledge led to the development of technologies for killing on a massive scale [And yet, more people are alive today than the totality of all people who ever lived before- SIGNY] in World War II. Some go so far as to say that science and technology—and even reason and logic—are inherently destructive and oppressive, because they have been used by evil people, especially during the 20th century, to destroy and oppress others.
The Postmodern disagreement with reason and logic as leading to a better world is perhaps a half-argument against Enlightenment. The Enlightenment viewed human rationality as the center of the universe around which all understanding orbited. However, Enlightenment philosophers never attempted to turn that rationality around to try to understand humans, societies, the presence of parasites and cancers in human economies, and the limitations of "rational logic" itself. I think that societies are complex organisms made of human individuals as cells, and understanding human societies is as possible as understanding biology. It's complex, and we are nowhere towards understanding the full scope of biology - and we never will be - but it's possible to gain a CLEARER understanding of what drives us.

We will know whether a school of thought is accurate or not by whether it can predict events.

Quote:

4. Reason and logic are universally valid—i.e., their laws are the same for, or apply equally to, any thinker and any domain of knowledge. For postmodernists, reason and logic too are merely conceptual constructs and are therefore valid only within the established intellectual traditions in which they are used.
I'm not sure how philosophers define "reason" and "logic". My view of philosophers and philosophy is that they can be pretty limited in their definitions, and as such "reason and logic" may not encompass anything like the "scientific method" (the process of gathering information and proposing and validating hypotheses). So I'm not sure whether the Postmodern philosophers also dismiss the scientific method or not. They probably do.

Quote:

5. There is such a thing as human nature; it consists of faculties, aptitudes, or dispositions that are in some sense present in human beings at birth rather than learned or instilled through social forces. Postmodernists insist that all, or nearly all, aspects of human psychology are completely socially determined.
People can only live in a very limited environmental context of pressure, gravity, oxygen, water etc and many of our unconscious drives are geared towards seeking and maintaining homeostasis, and have been selected for individual and species survival. On that basis alone, I would say that "human nature" is already predetermined in many important aspects; because those that don't have these responses simply don't survive and reproduce. "Human nature" can best be noticed at the ends of a spectrum; I pose "autism" as a model of pre-determined "human nature".

HOMOSEXUALITY as a genetic or developmental variation is ALSO denied by Postmodernism; so Postmodernistic gays who advocate that their sexual preferences are genetically or developmentally determined carry a contradiction in their own philosophy.


Quote:

6. Language refers to and represents a reality outside itself. According to postmodernists, language is not such a “mirror of nature,” as the American pragmatist philosopher Richard Rorty characterized the Enlightenment view. Inspired by the work of the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, postmodernists claim that language is semantically self-contained, or self-referential: the meaning of a word is not a static thing in the world or even an idea in the mind but rather a range of contrasts and differences with the meanings of other words. Because meanings are in this sense functions of other meanings—which themselves are functions of other meanings, and so on—they are never fully “present” to the speaker or hearer but are endlessly “deferred.” Self-reference characterizes not only natural languages but also the more specialized “discourses” of particular communities or traditions; such discourses are embedded in social practices and reflect the conceptual schemes and moral and intellectual values of the community or tradition in which they are used. The postmodern view of language and discourse is due largely to the French philosopher and literary theorist Jacques Derrida (1930–2004), the originator and leading practitioner of deconstruction.
Human language is, by itself, a tool for transmitting knowledge, but it can only exist in a context of "praxis" ... where one continually tests one's knowledge by working in the real world .... and visualization, which is the other important half of the human brain. In addition, "words" tend to be treated as a actual "things". We can say "cup" and think we know what it means, or "purple dragon" AS IF it were real. Language tends to enforce "subjective idealism" on human thinking. We must always keep this problem with "language" in mind.

Quote:

7. Human beings can acquire knowledge about natural reality, and this knowledge can be justified ultimately on the basis of evidence or principles that are, or can be, known immediately, intuitively, or otherwise with certainty. Postmodernists reject [the acquisition of knowledge- SIGNY] philosophical foundationalism—the attempt, perhaps best exemplified by the 17th-century French philosopher René Descartes’s dictum cogito, ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am”), to identify a foundation of certainty on which to build the edifice of empirical (including scientific) knowledge.
If human beings COULDN'T acquire knowledge of the real world, babies would never learn how to nurse, see, or reach for things.

Quote:

8. It is possible, at least in principle, to construct general theories that explain many aspects of the natural or social world within a given domain of knowledge—e.g., a general theory of human history, such as dialectical materialism. Furthermore, it should be a goal of scientific and historical research to construct such theories, even if they are never perfectly attainable in practice. Postmodernists dismiss this notion [hypothesis formation?- SIGNY] as a pipe dream and indeed as symptomatic of an unhealthy tendency within Enlightenment discourses to adopt “totalizing” systems of thought (as the French philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas called them) or grand “metanarratives” of human biological, historical, and social development (as the French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard claimed). These theories are pernicious not merely because they are false but because they effectively impose conformity on other perspectives or discourses, thereby oppressing, marginalizing, or silencing them. Derrida himself equated the theoretical tendency toward totality with totalitarianism.
The vast gap in Postmodernism is ignoring "praxis", whereby the real world imposes its reality on you. While it is possible to construct grand meta-narratives, one must also grind them against the real world. Some cultures, based on different activities in a different environment, may have better narratives on some aspects of nature or society than ours.

Quote:

As indicated in the preceding section, many of the characteristic doctrines of postmodernism constitute or imply some form of metaphysical, epistemological, or ethical relativism. (It should be noted, however, that some postmodernists vehemently reject the relativist label.) Postmodernists deny that there are aspects of reality that are objective; that there are statements about reality that are objectively true or false; that it is possible to have knowledge of such statements (objective knowledge); that it is possible for human beings to know some things with certainty; and that there are objective, or absolute, moral values. Reality, knowledge, and value are constructed by discourses;
Knowledge and value are propelled by discourse, reality is not. But if reality is constructed by discourse, I guess advertising can construct reality?
Quote:

hence they can vary with them. This means that the discourse of modern science, when considered apart from the evidential standards internal to it, has no greater purchase on the truth than do alternative perspectives, including (for example) astrology and witchcraft.
Try blowing holy smoke on someone to cure them of tuberculosis and see how far you get. Now, postmodernists might reject this "evidential standard", but then, they reject that there is any reality at all. I loop back to the 18-wheeler challenge.

It's interesting that they pack "objective moral standards" along with "objective reality". Moral standards are procedures by which a society or part of a society, such as the elite) achieve certain goals. But the goals, of course, are subjective. They can range from "the greatest good for the greatest number" (and then of course, you have to define "good") to simple How can I achieve the greatest personal power?".

Quote:

Postmodernists sometimes characterize the evidential standards of science, including the use of reason and logic, as “Enlightenment rationality.”

The broad relativism apparently so characteristic of postmodernism invites a certain line of thinking regarding the nature and function of discourses of different kinds. If postmodernists are correct that reality, knowledge, and value are relative to discourse, then the established discourses of the Enlightenment are no more necessary or justified than alternative discourses. But this raises the question of how they came to be established in the first place. If it is never possible to evaluate a discourse according to whether it leads to objective Truth, how did the established discourses become part of the prevailing worldview of the modern era? Why were these discourses adopted or developed, whereas others were not?

Part of the postmodern answer is that the prevailing discourses in any society reflect the interests and values, broadly speaking, of dominant or elite groups.

IF THIS IS TRUE, POSTMODERNISM ALSO REFLECTS THE INTERESTS AND VALUES OF TODAYS ELITE GROUPS. Therefore, it is a self-canceling philosophy with no way out.

While I agree that the prevailing OFFICIAL discourse reflects the elite ... and this OFFICIAL discourse can be found in churches, schools, universities, mainstream media, advertising, and other organs of consensus-building; OTHER discourses surrounding praxis ... the exercise of knowledge .... are pinned by real-world consequences and real-world experiences.

Quote:

Postmodernists disagree about the nature of this connection; whereas some apparently endorse the dictum of the German philosopher and economist Karl Marx that “the ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class,” others are more circumspect. Inspired by the historical research of the French philosopher Michel Foucault, some postmodernists defend the comparatively nuanced view that what counts as knowledge in a given era is always influenced, in complex and subtle ways, by considerations of power. There are others, however, who are willing to go even further than Marx. The French philosopher and literary theorist Luce Irigaray, for example, has argued that the science of solid mechanics is better developed than the science of fluid mechanics because the male-dominated institution of physics associates solidity and fluidity with the male and female sex organs, respectively.
Scientists are well aware of the influence of funding and prejudice on the practice of science. I refer you to The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Gould, The Descent of Woman by Elaine Morgan (VERY readable), and Man Against Myth by Burrows Dunham.

Quote:

Because the established discourses of the Enlightenment are more or less arbitrary and unjustified, they can be changed; and because they more or less reflect the interests and values of the powerful, they should be changed. Thus postmodernists regard their theoretical position as uniquely inclusive and democratic, because it allows them to recognize the unjust hegemony of Enlightenment discourses over the equally valid perspectives of non-elite groups. In the 1980s and ’90s, academic advocates on behalf of various ethnic, cultural, racial, and religious groups embraced postmodern critiques of contemporary Western society, and postmodernism became the unofficial philosophy of the new movement of “identity politics.”


The "proof of the pudding" of a narrative is its success in manipulating or at least predicting the real world. Just because a former narrative is seen as elite-driven doesn't mean that you reject the narrative, especially when it is so successful at producing real-world results. What it means is that your philosophy has to ENCOMPASS the former approach; it must not only explain everything that the former philosophy explained, it must also transcend the former philosophy;s limitations.

I guess Postmoderism, to me, is just lazy thinking; encouraged by an elite who want you to believe their propaganda (advertising). But it does explain not only the rightwing distrust of climate science, but also the leftwing focus on "opinion".

The challenge isn't finding the right paradigm for understanding the world (and ourselves) better. We KNOW how to answer questions. The challenge is in asking the right questions.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/postmodernism-philosophy


-----------
By the way, GSTRING, I predicted your response PERFECTLY
* ... and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.*

And voila! Here it is http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61835&mid=1
035581#1035581

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2017 1:47 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I don't recall how I got there, but I stumbled on this little gem while bunny-trailing my way through a topic, and found it very interesting. I think that part of the disconnect that happens on the board is that some people treat everything as a matter of opinion, which is a feature of post-modern philosophy
Quote:

Postmodern philosophy is a philosophical direction which is critical of certain foundational assumptions of Western philosophy and especially of the 18th-century Enlightenment. It emphasizes the importance of power relationships, personalization and discourse in the "construction" of truth and world views. Postmodernists deny that an objective reality exists, and deny that there are objective moral values....

many postmodern claims are a deliberate repudiation of certain 18th-century Enlightenment values. A postmodernist might believe that there is no objective natural reality, and that logic and reason are mere conceptual constructs that are not universally valid. Two other characteristic anti-Enlightenment postmodern practices are a denial that human nature exists, and a (sometimes moderate) skepticism toward claims that science and technology will change society for the better. Postmodernists also believe there are no objective moral values. Postmodern writings often focus on deconstructing the role that power and ideology play in shaping discourse and belief. Postmodern philosophy shares ontological similarities with classical skeptical and relativistic belief systems, and shares political similarities with modern identity politics.


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

that just sounds like dressed-up excuses for avoiding critical thought, reason, pertinent questions.

And embracing weed.

Embracing emotion (irrational reaction) as displacement for reason (rational and critical thought.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2017 2:06 PM

6STRINGJOKER


Nothing wrong with weed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 06:06 - 7511 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 06:03 - 4846 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 05:58 - 4776 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:43 - 32 posts
Joe Rogan: Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:41 - 7 posts
Biden will be replaced
Wed, November 27, 2024 15:06 - 13 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL