Bring Back the Woolly Mammoth

Scientists successfully splice Woolly Mammoth DNA into Elephants

Finally, after thousands of years (Or millions, depending which book you read) humanity has made its first step towards manifest destiny. No, America is not the final frontier. Space is also not the final frontier. Neither of these frontier solve the crucial problems that people have been unjustly forced to deal with.

Our world contains no Woolly Mammoths.

The fact that people aren’t even aware that it’s a problem is proof that it’s a problem. Since both thinking and not thinking it’s a problem constitutes as proof in this case, I declare the lack of Mammoths to be set as the top priority at the UN.

We have made progress regarding our recognition of the problem. Ice Age was a pretty popular series of animated films, which starred a Woolly Mammoth. Skyrim, a terrible game known for committing the crime of not having Turn Based Combat with Pause Button, has mammoths in it. It wasn’t enough, though. Ice Age isn’t recognized as the most important film series. People still think Skyrim is at fault for not being Icewind Dale. No one is discussing mammoths.

Scientists do, though. After doing some reflecting, here are a few of the problems that we will solve by bringing back Woolly Mammoths

No More Countries

There will be no need for countries. Every place will be recognized as to whether it has mammoths or not, and it will be desirable to be only close to mammoths. Anywhere that doesn’t have mammoths will be abandoned. There will be no need to draw lines between zones. Mammoths know no bounds

No More Religious Arguing

Everyone will convert to mammoth worship. Atheism will become irrelevant. Who cares whether there’s a God or not? If he exists, he also worships mammoths.

People Will Stop Breeding

We will voluntarily extinct. Once the mammoth is back in the house, our job is done. We were put here to bring it back. It’s time for us to leave the Earth alone and let the mammoths enjoy it, instead of clogging it with more babies. Competing against them for resources is a crime punishable by being exiled back in time to an era without mammoths

Veganism Dies

We will have to eat any animal that is making the mammoth angry. You might see a contradiction here. We’re supposed to die off, yet also serve the mammoth? Yes. So long as we’re here, we need to do our best by eliminating anything that hurts a mammoth. We need to kill any animal that competes with it. We should also eat it, so the meat won’t go to trash.

Advertisements

The Elections in Israel

There were elections in Israel. If you haven’t heard of it, Israel is a country that’s known to make Muslims feel bad because of its rather secular laws and all the gays that don’t get executed. If you have followed the news of the election, you probably heard Netanyahu won. You probably also encountered a lot of insults with very little evidence that made you wonder whether 13-year-old Rage Against the Machine fans now run the news agencies.

Here are a few views from inside.

The elections are for the Knesset, the lawmaking body. The more votes a party gets, the more Knesset Members (KM’s, also known as mandates) get in. Then, after everyone finds their seat the coalition and opposition form. Coalition will always be bigger than the opposition, and it’s the governing body. It won’t necessarily be led by the biggest party. You don’t just need a lot of KM’s, but you also need a lot of other parties by your side.

Parties sometimes join forces and run for the elections as “lists”.

These are the big parties:

Likud – led by Netanyahu, recognized as the main right-wing party
Zionist Camp/HaMachane HaTzioni – A united list of Labor/Ha’Avoda party and The Movement/HaTnua’a. It’s recognized as the main left-wing party, and is led by Herzog from Labor.
Future/Yesh Adit – Led by Yair Lapid, is recognized as centrist
The Jewish Home/HaBait HaYehudi – a more far-right party led by Nafatali Bennet, and represents the more religious population of Israel
Meretz – The far-left party, led by Zehava Galon.
Israel Our Home/Israel Beitenu – A secular far-right party, let by Avigdor Lieberman, generally associated with the secular Russian population
Shash – An Ultra-Orthodox party
Judaism of the Torah/Yehadut HaTorah – Another Ultra-Orthodox party
All of Us/Kulano – Led by Moshe Kachlon, formerly part of the Likud
The United List – A union of the biggest Arabic parties. The controversial Chanin Zoabi is here. There’s a decent amount of illegalities going around in this party that are probably overlooked in order not to seem racist.
Together/Yahad – A much more far-right and religious party. It’s led by a former member of Shash, and includes Otzma LeIsrael (Power to Israel), a very far-right party that’s known to be borderline racist

There are also a lot of small parties, such as:
Green Leaf/Ale Yarok – A party whose sole purpose is the legalization of marijuana. It’s popular among self-centered morons
The Greens/HaYerukim – A party with an evironmentalist agenda
The Pirates/HaPiratim – Part of the global pirate movement
Orr/Light – A strictly secular party dedicated to the seperation of church and state
Economy Party/Mifleget Kalkala – A weird thing that sits very close to satire.

In order to get into the Knesset, you need to get a certain percetentage of the votes. That percentage is loosely translated as “Block Percentage”. A common thinking in many Israelis is to only vote for parties that can pass this percentage. Votes for parties that don’t pass don’t count in the end.

Now, which party gained my vote?

Choosing was a tiring process. I haven’t encountered enough reasons for or against Netanyahu. He did a few moronic things, such as responding to a report regarding rising prices with “Yeah, but Iran”. The Jewish Home is too religious. Like Likud, I haven’t encountered a reason to vote for Zionist Camp. If anything, the fact they poured so much money into a campagne that’s nothing but ad hominem made them look like little kids. The few times I saw interviews by Herzog, he seemed like he cared much more about replacing Netanyahu than anything.

Kachlon, aside from the reform he did with the mobile companies, didn’t seem to have much to offer. There wasn’t anything bad there, but nothing for it. Lapid seemed like a great option, but there was a lot of criticism against him. Some of which was horseshit (“He didn’t do anything!” the previous Knesset lasted barely 3 years), some of which made sense (He wasn’t very consistent, and what he said didn’t reflected in his actions). While I respect Lieberman’s bluntness, his party says little but keeping Israel safe. He actually has potential to be a right-wing party that’s also about secularism, but he doesn’t take his party much further.

While I agree with a lot of Meretz’s views, their method seems to be mainly “We’re not right-wingers!”. Their leader is especially very emotional. When it was revealed that a lot of members in Jewish Home are against gay marriage, Galon wrote a long Facebook post that was supposed to make me think Bennet and his buddies are on some ISIS shit. Lapid just mentioned he was for gay marriage. Meretz also seem to be totally unaware of the realities of Islamic terror.

The Ultra-Orthodox parties and the United List are a no-brainer. The Ultra-Orthodox parties care about almost nothing but the interest of the Ultra-Orthodox. The United List contains a few extemists (Chanin Zoabi is the most famous ones) who are actually breaking the law. Yahad is supposed to be on the extreme side of the right-wing, much more than Lieberman and Bennet. While I think Israel should remain ‘Jewish’, as in, this is the ethnic majority, the religion must stay out of the gouvernment.

So, I found myself looking at the small parties, the ones who don’t pass the percentage.

Green Leaf were worthless. They had a few interesting points in their website, but it was obvious their main concern is marijuana. The only reason to vote for them is if you’re a self-centered teen who thinks marijuana is actually going to save us. The Pirates had great ideas, but Orr had better.

There was a great Facebook post by Orr where they pointed out that the division is, in fact, not between right/left wings but between the religious and the secular. They are right. Meretz to Israel Our Home, all of these parties are talking about the same subjects. They have different views, but there is room for dialogue. The Ultra-Orthodox parties, however, are concerned mainly with their populations and ditto for the united list. Orr, unlike Meretz, also recognize we’re fighting a religious enemy. This is not just a nationalistic conflict, but a religious one – between Islam and secularism.

Orr didn’t pass the percentage, obviously. They barely got 500 votes. I don’t care. They’re the only ones who deserve my vote.

As for the result, my main disappointment is the structure of the coalition. Herzog and Netanyahu fought like little kids, and now we’re stuck with Ultra-Orthodox parties in the coalition. It’s too bad they couldn’t see that it’s better for the country if they both sit together, rather than apart. I don’t know if I can blame them.

If I learned anything from the Israeli media during the elections, it’s that there’s no room for debates. Leftists are drugged idiots who will sell us and kill us all. Rightwingers are paranoid schizophrenics who want to kill every single arab. Political debates are terrible. People try to convince you to vote for their party not via evidence or logic, but by raising their voice and strawmanning. The idea that a party you won’t vote for can still have valid points escaped people. Go tell a Likudnik that Meretz’s secularism is needed, and he’ll go off on how crazy they are. Tell a Herzog fan that we need the right-wing’s caution, and you’ll be called a murderer.

The thing I worry about the most is not how the coalition will function, but that we haven’t hit rock bottom of discussions. Anti-intellectualism has been aggressively promoted, and I fear that in the next go round it will get even stronger. I hope not.

Thoronton Wilder – The Bridge of San Luis Rey

t100_novels_bridge-of-san-luis-rey_copy
This is not a conclusive review. You can’t absorb a novel like The Bridge of San Luis Rey in one reading. It’s actually the shortest novels, like this and The Old Men and the Sea that require re-reading. Although it seems on the surface that huge novels like Infinite Jest or Gravity’s Rainbow¬†show their merits only on second reading, it’s mostly to understand What’s Really Going On. In San Luis Rey, it requires re-reading to get the meaning under it.

The story is simple, but it’s obvious Wilder wants to do more than just tell a story. The Bridge of San Luis Rey consists of three chapters, each focusing on one or two characters and two other chapters that tries to point out a common theme in these stories. The premise already makes it clear it’s all about What It Means rather than the story itself. The book is about the five dead people. It’s not about how their death affected others or what happened after, but tells stories that we already know how they ended with hope to get meaning out of them.

It’s a bold feat. It’s a novel that confronts the themes of ‘pointless deaths’, something authors like Martin use in attempting to cover up for their awfullness (Or just to ‘inject realism’). In reality, death seems random. Tragedies hit you out of nowhere and great people end up on crumbling towers. We see life always through the lens of stories though, and we only tell stories because of what they mean.

This sounds more like a philosophical text, and it reads like what. Wilder tells more than he shows, throwing a lot of details but never lingering on them too much. It’s an example of too much minimalism. Wilder tried to trim all the bullshit that will clog the novel, but he ended up trimming too much. Although we got the core of each character, the core is still just one single piece. In order to understand a character we need both its core and what revolves around it. A picture of the sun is not a picture of the solar system.

Thus, Wilder attempts to examine his characters doesn’t really work. It feels more like entertaining snippets, but what he needed was a grand narrative that gives the deaths meaning. “One More Thing” is a fantastic story, one that manages to say a lot with a single page. No matter how much Carver tells you with this story, he couldn’t connect it to any grand purpose. By keeping back most of the information about the characters, Wilder doesn’t make them deep enough to be able to derive a grand conclusion from their stories.

It’s sad that Wilder failed doing what most authors must do. Aside from not telling enough, San Luis Rey is a fantastic novel. Although it asks you to reach conclusions using fictional evidence, Wilder makes his character feel real enough. Their stories are different, and each has to be approached differently. Although Wilder offers a conclusion at the end of the novel, he still offers the reader the option of reaching a different one by reading the stories again and finding different threads. The two ‘non-story’ sections read more like Wilder first wrote the stories, read them, and then put an analysis of his own.

As for his conclusion, it’s one that in any other book would be considered just an attempt to make the reader feel good. It’s a testament to Wilder’s talent that he takes “All you need is love” and makes it deep. That’s because his notion of ‘love’ is beyond romantic love, and the stories he writes about the subject deal with it from different angles. He also puts this idea face-to-face with its worse challenge, and only then asks himself if it still holds up. Often, the stories are about when this idea of love fails and hurts others. An idea is only as strong as the challenges it faces. Was the challenge Wilder put hard enough? I’m not sure, but I’m willing to discuss it with anyone.

How good this novel is, I will only know with more readings of it. At least as an attempt to create a brilliant, short novel, it’s good enough. Wilder has interesting ideas, interesting stories and interesting prose. It wasn’t great on the first read, but it left me thinking about it enough to make me want to read it again. A book has to be first good enough on the first reading before it gets a few more. I don’t consider it one of the greatest yet, but it’s one that may get there someday.

 

3 fallen bridges out of 5

Rape is Beautiful: Dismantling a Crazy Idea

A true test of intelligence is how well you can handle a crazy idea. Calling a statement ‘crazy’ or ‘stupid’ is easy, but the obviousness can make us think we already know why. Without basis, without understanding why a statement is stupid, it’s all just name-calling. If an idea is so obviously wrong, it will take minimal effort to point out the holes. It’s not necessary to go through the emotional turmoil

Rape is beautiful, according to Kurcaba

Actually, that title is a bait. His statement doesn’t say that rape, in and of itself is beautiful. Rather, he thinks that it’s beautiful that a child could come out of it. He thinks that pregnancy is some sort of silver lining.

I find rape to be one of the most terrible things you can do to another human being. Me and Kurcaba don’t really disagree here. You might be able to salvage a discussion over his usage of the word ‘awful’, but there’s no need to create targets when they’re here.

Kurcaba’s view doesn’t stem from misogyny. It probably stems from a deep convinction of natalism. He views childbirth as something so positive that even if it’s caused by rape, it’s a good thing.

Sadly, this was only a line. I don’t know why exactly Kurcaba thinks that. Maybe he’s well-versed in natalist philosophy, or maybe he just takes it for granted. Either way, I disagree with him.

First off, you do not ‘give’ birth. You force it. The baby isn’t given the option of refusing. Even if he grows up, he doesn’t have the option of euthanasia – suicide is still viewed as irrational and something that must be prevented. If you value consent, then birth isn’t something you should value.

Then again, you have to exist first in order to consent. So let’s go from the position it’s okay to give birth, but is it always moral and good? Isn’t giving birth to a child when you can’t raise him, is basically throwing a child to suffering?

Even worse is when the child is the product of rape. The women is not necessarily ready to raise a child. She could be in a position in life that’s not friendly to children, like high school. Second, she will still suffer from the trauma. Third, the child will be a stronger reminder of the rapist.

It will hurt both the child and the woman. The woman will have extra work, on top of facing all the emotional baggage of being raped. The child will be with a mother who’s in a position very, very far from capable of raising a child.

There can always be exceptions, sure, but all signs point that a bith out of rape is a bad idea. It’s not a chance worth taking.

The Shawshank Redemption

54ce3671dc
Stephen King is an awful storyteller, but he has good ideas. I hoped that translation to the big screen will do his stories justice. Plenty of adaptions of his work won critical acclaim, so I sat down, sure to enjoy a good film. I didn’t expect Shawshank to be brilliant, just good. I didn’t expect to fall in the same way King fails.

It hints at first it may a sort of Full Metal Jacket in prison. The introduction of Warden Norton (Bob Gunton), the way the old inmates abuse new inmates and the performance of Tim Robbins in the first scene (Playing the main character, Andy Dufresne) all point to an emotionally gripping and complex film. The direction keeps pointing at that, too. The small moments of banter between prisoners is always on the verge of revealing the characters. As it goes on though, the film reveals there’s nothing beneath.

The Shawshank Redemption is as blunt as a hammer. There is no theme to explore. There are clear, good guys who may regret their crimes but that’s enough. There are evil people who are evil because they’re evil. There’s narration all over the film, to make sure you understand also what the film means. One of the film’s only bright spots, how institution like prisons can make to dependent on them is given that treatment.

The film quickly puts a dichotomy of poor, oppressed prisoners and evil guards. Prison life is awful, but some of the people in it are there for a reason. The inmates themselves are also some of the reason prison is sometimes pointlessly cruel.

There’s no exploration of that theme here. Prison is just a stand-in for an oppressive environment. The film touches on prison rape, but the people who do it are just monsters. They have no character. There’s no reason for them to do it beyond pure sadism. Even the narration tells us.

Warden Norton could have been an interesting character. He’s not given a cruel set of morals though. He’s just evil. Like all bad villains, Norton has no reason to do what he does beyond being evil beyond a shade of a doubt. Even selfish people have a reason to do what they do. Norton could have been an exploration of Christian hypocrisy (Which the film suggests and then drops) or of selfishness and too much power. Norton isn’t given character time to help us understand them. He does his evil things so we could rejoice in his defeat.

The Drill Guy from Full Metal Jacket also received this treatment. That’s to give us the same distance the soldiers have from him. We saw the whole thing from the soldiers’ point of view. The Drill Guy seeemd like an alien, distanced presence because that’s what he was trying to achieve. Jacket also has the satirical edge, which excuses that. Shawshank always hints at character moments. It’s a serious, deep film. The main character gets close to Norton. Norton is a human being, yet the film treats him like he treats the prisoners. Two wrongs don’t make a right though.

The prisoners are also just as one-dimensional. Once the film is done with the rapists, the prisoners somehow stop being assholes to each other. Worse, we’re never given any insight into who they are. A story about a prison full of well-meaning guys can be convincing if the characters are there. Any time that banter starts between the prisoners, the scenes end. There’s no oppurtinity to learn about them.

Andy and Red both don’t have characters. They’re both educated prisoners, but that’s it. The first scene hints that Andy may be a troubled man with a unique personality, but when he reaches prison there’s nothing to him. Freeman also doesn’t add anything to his character beyond his general charisma. Robbins’ acting is especially disappointing after the first scene. He doesn’t even try to capture the anxiety, anger, and all the other emotions he expressed in the first scene.

It’s a shallow story based entirely on emotional appeals, and good guys versus senseless bad guys. The final half-hour is especially bad. Stories end you wrap up the themes, not when the life of your character stops being interesting. What Andy does in the end tells us nothing, not about his character or about his themes. Remove these 30 minutes, and the film wouldn’t lose its meaning.

The only good arc is Brooks (James Whitmore). Brooks has character, and his story has actual themes. The way some people become dependent on such institution was an original theme I haven’t encountered before. Sadly, it’s not one of the central themes. It’s just one for one arc that exists to push Andy further. Why focus on Andy though? Brooks’ arc is more meaningful and well-developed, and when it ended it truly felt like a proper place for a film to end.

The Shawshank Redemption is a typical acclaimed film. It’s serious and deep, but it’s all on the surface. Warden Norton is a comic book villain. Andy is a poor oppressed prisoner who is also smart. That’s the gist of it. Perhaps if it didn’t pretend to be so deep with all these profound sentences, I could have said it’s a fine, entertaining drama film. Instead, it’s a film that doesn’t even try to be good and fail. It’s a film that thinks appearance is enough.

2 bibles out of 5

 

Coldplay – A Rush of Blood to the Head

art_arushofbloodtothehead

“The Scientist” towers above everything else here. It’s the one song that doesn’t try to fit a stadium. It’s the one song that sounds like it could be on Parachutes. This is not a co-incidence. It’s also one of the few songs that Chris Martin improves, instead of dragging down.

Coldplay became a pretty big band after the release of Parachutes. Here, they decide to live up to the their popularity by sounding big. It’s a miracle they’re still around. Nothing here works in the same way “Yellow” or “Shiver” did. Nothing here, aside from “The Scientist”, tries to achieve what these songs did. Songs like “Don’t Panic” don’t really translate well to a live performance, but is this a good reason enough to wreck the beautiful melody of “In My Place”?

That’s the problem with Rush of Blood. It tries to take the basic sound of Parachutes and make it fit for a stadium. That’s a misunderstanding of both what made Parachutes great and what makes stadium music great. Music for stadium needs to be loud, catchy and also energetic. The best stadium rock has an aggressive edge. You don’t go to a Nickelback or Def Leppard show to contemplate the meaning of life. Even stadium ballads don’t work in the same way Coldplay think they do.

As for Parachutes, it was a minimalist and intimate album. These two qualities are what stadium bands try to avoid. Since Coldplay are not talented or versatile enough, they can’t merge these qualities. Instead, we have a compromise that sucks the life out of everything.

“In My Place” and “Clocks” best illustrate this. The former has a beautiful guitar melody, but the production tries to make it an anthem. Chris Martin sings like that, too, as if the song is so profound it will be played in a climatic scene. It doesn’t mesh well. “Clocks” is just bad. It’s admirable to have a pop song with an instrumental chorus, but it’s hard to get over how hard it tries to big.

Who thought that putting a lot of guitar noise behind Chris Martin is a good idea? It was the scarcity of sounds that made “Sparks” beautiful. “In My Place”, “Warning Sign” and “A Whisper” all have that guitar noise that Oasis love so much. The production team forgot that Oasis is muscular and tough, and even when they wrote ballads where they toned down the noise. “A Whisper” is especially bad. What exactly they were trying to achieve is unclear. Perhaps all that noise was a borrowed idea from Ride, but the execution is too incompetent. You don’t produce such a mess of noise when you have an example to follow.

There are some other sonic experiments, and most of them fail too. They offer more than just size, though, so they’re far more interesting and may worth a couple of listens, “Daylight” has a nice orchestral backing, but Chris Martin sings a non-existant melody and the song remains awful until the end. “God Put a Smile Upon Your Face” is a more aggressive track that should’ve been played by Oasis. You can feel how uncomfortable they are in it. “Politik” is another Space Rock-influenced track, but unlike “Yellow” it also wants to be big. It’s still interesting to see Coldplay attempt these things though. These songs at least have ideas behind them, and most of them fail because Martin’s melodies are bad. If “Politik” was instrumental, it would be pretty good.

Only the title-track, “The Scientist” and “Amsterdam” are worth listening to. That’s not an exaggeration. There only three worthwhile tracks here, and two of them could fit on Parachutes. The title-track is a little different. It’s the first time they actually sound like Radiohead, not just sonically but the emotions are the same. It sees Coldplay truly departing from Parachutes, because the what they are trying to achieve is different. It doesn’t have anything special that makes it good. The chorus and the lyrics are all good, and Martin doesn’t sing with a falsetto.

It’s sad that a song as brilliant as “The Scientist” and the pretty great title-track are here. The former could have slotted in Parachutes, and the latter would have made a nice closer in X&Y. It’s a wonder how Coldplay stayed relevant when everything they do here is a career-killing move. It’s easy to see X&Y as a disappointment when you consider how hard Coldplay tried here, but the regression was improvement. I wonder how Viva La Vida will fare. It’s supposed to be even bolder.

2 scientists out of 5

Manspreading

I told a friend that men spreading their legs on public transportation
became a recent feminist issue. He laughed. He wasn’t drunk, but you’d be
forgive for thinking he downed a pint or two of Maredsous. The silliness of
focusing on Manspreading is easy to point out. Still, tackling crazy idea is
a fun and challenging thing to do. No matter how crazy an idea is, an
emotional, “That’s so stupid!” reaction is never valid. Intelligence is
tested when you’re confronting stupidity.

I know this paragraph is full of implication that the Manspreading debate is
stupid, but bear with me.

In a previous post, I said that something becomes a feminist issue when it
targets women. Manspreading cannot be a feminist issue. No matter how many
people Manspread, it will target women specifically. It’s a rude behavior,
just like talking loudly with your friends or blasting unoriginal Death
Metal through your phone speakers (1). However, no one is targeted
specifically. A person who Manspreads will annoy a fellow man just as it
will annoy a woman.

Not only is Manspreading not a feminist issue, it’s a fairly misandrist
term.

It’s definitely a sexist term. Sexism is giving a different treatment based
on sex. You give men a special treatment by attributing this behavior
specifically to them in the word itself.

This is not the same case with rape. A lot of discussion about rape talk
about man-on-woman rape, which is valid because they tend to back it up with
statistics. It’s also valid to worry more about the persecution and violence
that’s targeting your group. However, the word itself isn’t sexist. You can
only know if the rape in discussion is commited only by men by context. The
word ‘Manspreading’ implies it’s a behavior that’s unique to men.

This would only be valid if Manspreading can only be done by males. Women
can also spread. There’s nothing preventing women from doing it, not even a
few funny looks. Some mentioned that women who get on public transportation
with plenty of shopping bags are also taking up space. Isn’t that a
stereotype, saying women are such shopaholics?

Sitting with your legs spread when the train is full is rude behavior.
Sitting with your legs spread when the train isn’t full is logical, because
why sit uncomfortably when no one’s there?

I’m not sure what to make of ‘it’s a sign of male dominance’. Let’s assume
it is. Let’s say that in a patriarchy, men will feel much more comfortable
taking up space. How exactly is focusing on that going to solve the problem?
It reads like a symptom, but not the disease itself.

As for the “Men Taking Up 2 Much Space” tumblr, it’s a very ugly blog that
should be named and shamed. There’s rude behavior and there’s immoral
behavior. People taking up too much space is annoying, but you feel the need
to shame these people, who doesn’t deserve to be shamed? Where do we draw
the line? Good friends have done to me things much worse than this. I did
things much worse than this. None of it was that bad.

Feminists should throw that debate in the trash bin. There enough serious
women’s issues. By focusing on petty things that are unrelated to your
cause, you end up being caricature of yourself.

Manspreading appeared on The Daily Show. It’s awful. It’s really awful. Stewart can’t see the absurdity of paying so much attention to just some rude behavior on public transportation. All it does is create a straw man and punch it. It doesn’t say anything, other than “These men are whining”. If you’re putting a lot of effort in making sure people don’t spread their legs, if this really bothers you, maybe you need a little self-criticism.

 

(1) It’s bad more because Death Metal is not a very good genre of music. If
you blast music I like, then it’s okay.