Skip

Jerk Theory
June 9, 2014 10:38 AM   Subscribe

We need a theory of jerks. We need such a theory because, first, it can help us achieve a calm, clinical understanding when confronting such a creature in the wild. Imagine the nature-documentary voice-over: ‘Here we see the jerk in his natural environment. Notice how he subtly adjusts his dominance display to the Italian restaurant situation…’ And second – well, I don’t want to say what the second reason is quite yet.

The Phenomenology Of Being A Jerk, and Aaron James' Theory Of Assholes, a review of James' book, which according to the blurb is "In the spirit of the mega-selling On Bullshit," reviewed at Bookforum by Heather Havirlesky:
White-Scholar Crime - A new, profanely titled tract highlights the shortcomings of the cottage industry of pop philosophizing.
Assholes: A Theory turns out to be a way of taking a subject that’s naturally evocative and spicy, and digesting it until it becomes limp and bland and tasteless. James’s exercise amounts to stating the obvious at a maximum word count.
Higher Social Class Predicts Increased Unethical Behavior (previously, previously) and maybe a neat solution to the high-class jerk problem.
posted by the man of twists and turns (57 comments total) 30 users marked this as a favorite

 
Luckily, if you go the reverse modest proposal route there's already an appropriate spice rub widely available.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 10:51 AM on June 9 [13 favorites]


Animals are a lot like people, Mrs. Simpson: some of them act badly because they’ve had a hard life or have been mistreated. But, like people, some of them are just jerks.”
posted by Drinky Die at 10:56 AM on June 9 [9 favorites]


Someone paged me?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:57 AM on June 9


Yes, the Jerk Store called, and they're all out of YOU.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:59 AM on June 9 [24 favorites]


An utterly nonacademic Theory of Jerks is contained in The Curriculum, a useful and fun-to-read primer on workplace and corporate psychosis that serves as a highly practical and probably superior alternative to getting an MBA.

"The Curriculum: Everything You Need to Know to Be a Master of Business Arts" by Stanley Bing
HarperBusiness 2014

You can get it at your local bookstore or you can be a jerk and buy it on Amazon.
posted by Wandering_Dude at 11:04 AM on June 9 [9 favorites]


Yes. What this world is missing are more labels that people can use to dehumanize and fracture society. That's a wonderful idea.
posted by dios at 11:04 AM on June 9 [6 favorites]


> I submit that the unifying core, the essence of jerkitude in the moral sense, is this: the jerk culpably fails to appreciate the perspectives of others around him, treating them as tools to be manipulated or idiots to be dealt with rather than as moral and epistemic peers.

Low-level sociopaths, then? That sounds about right.

Everyone's the jerk sometimes. A couple of years ago I was driving down a highway on the way to work, simply maintaining my lane slightly over the speed limit, but everyone who passed me honked, flipped me off, or both for seemingly no reason. Eventually I realized that I had my middle finger, and only my middle finger, wedged up between the window and the rubber seal and was effectively giving the finger to everyone who passed me.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:06 AM on June 9 [29 favorites]


Creating and ontology of such precludes anyone reading the ontology from considering that they might be a jerk. Because who has the fact that they are a jerk in their self-concept? They might think that they are dominant, and include that in their self-concept. I'm not sure if it's avoidable to have people who think that they are dominant people generally. So generalizing behavior in this way could well be an example of the fundamental attribution error.

Thiel, specifically used as an example in the mathbabe blog post, is a good example of such. In specific domains, he would not have this jerkyness: he retains a sweet spot, for example, for the students who are involved with the conservative-libertarian student paper he founded, the Stanford Review. So he is not a jerk to them, even though he could well afford to. Takes them out for dinners, gives them thousands and thousands of dollars a year, stuff like that.

So it's not sociopathy he has, so much as more of a latifundia attitude towards loyalty. The stupid idea about islands seems more specific to an anti-patriotic streak to his thought. And there are frequent (maybe not good) arguments for not being patriotic everywhere on the political spectrum nowadays.

A methodological criticism with the 7 studies themselves is that 2 of them are Mechanical Turk studies, 2 of them are intro-psych-class-undergrad studies, and one of them is a Craiglist study for respondants who want $50. Would Peter Thiel ever respond to any of this shit? No. Even an upper-middle-class doctor would not respond to any of this shit, and it's hard to argue that undergrads at Berkeley are uniformly rich.

Moreover, the two car studies, which might have actually studied rich people, have a high-ass ceiling effect. What that means is that it might be that the billionaire and the middle-class-in-New-York-rich-everywhere-else lawyer ($250,000 a year, say), drive late-model Mercedes or something, but it would be a damn good that the billionaire has significantly different behavior from the lawyer, if only from the law of small numbers (cf. Diaconis, I think). And driving a top-of-the-line Maserati or something would be coded as a 5 on the 1-5 scale of car awesomeness, but it would be an order of magnitude more expensive of a car than the 4 late-model Mercedes.

I also suspect that what car a person has is much more correlated to income than to wealth, and it seems far more important to look at wealth. Will it necessarily be the case that the family doctor who scrimped and saved and saved $2 million will be more of an asshole than the MD at some investment bank who earns $600,000 a year and spends it all on coke and hookers?
posted by curuinor at 11:06 AM on June 9 [4 favorites]


(MD = managing director, and now that I think about it, an MD at an investment bank earns more than that, so think about some VP at some investment bank)
posted by curuinor at 11:12 AM on June 9


Jerk Theory 101:

Now snap your back,
Like a bullwhip crack.
Now jerk your hip,
Let your backbone slip.

Jerk children, Jerk.
posted by yoink at 11:13 AM on June 9 [3 favorites]


I donno if a "theory of jerks" will work, but we should absolutely discussing human behavior as dominance displace, etc. In fact, evolutionary psychology helps do exactly this once you ignore all the straw men and just so stories.

In practice, we should remember that people's decisions, emotional lives, etc. are determined by an enormously complex web of influences. It's perfectly fine to view a particular human behavior as being influenced by an evolutionary impulse, such as dominance displays, mate seeking, etc., so long as we accept that influence as not determining the person's behavior. Only distant subtly filtered influences, never just so stories.

It's tricky because we want to discuss things like dominance displays amongst say brogrammers or women shopping as simply as we'd discuss animal dominance displays. We probably should almost exactly that, but with this big caveat stated clearly before the article, conversation, etc. gets going.
posted by jeffburdges at 11:13 AM on June 9 [1 favorite]


evolutionary psychology helps do exactly this once you ignore all the straw men and just so stories.

Serious question: what's left of evpsych once you ignore the straw men and the just-so stories? To me, it seems like the answer is "not a bloody thing."
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:16 AM on June 9 [9 favorites]


Yes. What this world is missing are more labels that people can use to dehumanize and fracture society. That's a wonderful idea.
posted by dios at 2:04 PM on June 9 [+] [!]


No one ever called anyone else a jerk before Eric Schwitzgebel? Are you also opposed to calling people assholes and trolls?

There are quite clearly jerks and assholes in the world. It's not particularly subjective. Probably all of us are capable of this behavior, but it's a persistent character trait for some.
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:21 AM on June 9


Yes. What this world is missing are more labels that people can use to dehumanize and fracture society. That's a wonderful idea.

Actually, I've long advocated the abandoning of all other labels in favor of this one, because it more accurately sums up the true cause of conflict better than any liberal-conservative/theist-atheist/sportsfan-non/etc. kind of divide can do.

Because if you think about it, the problem with a lot of jerks isn't the lens through which they use to manifest their jerkhood; it's their jerkhood itself. We didn't dislike Fred Phelps for his Christianity alone; we disliked him because he was a jerk. If he'd stayed home and kept his opinions to himself, or just plain wasn't a jerk, we'd not all have been up in arms. But because he was a jerk about it, he got everyone upset.

So, that's the problem. That some people are just jerks.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:22 AM on June 9 [13 favorites]


That first link was a good one. (I'm not reading the others out of a principled commitment to the idea that a good post needs only a single good link.) This bit is especially relevant to MetaFilter:
Furthermore, mercy is near the heart of practical, lived morality. Virtually everything that everyone does falls short of perfection: one’s turn of phrase is less than perfect, one arrives a bit late, one’s clothes are tacky, one’s gesture irritable, one’s choice somewhat selfish, one’s coffee less than frugal, one’s melody trite. Practical mercy involves letting these imperfections pass forgiven or, better yet, entirely unnoticed. In contrast, the jerk appreciates neither others’ difficulties in attaining all the perfections that he attributes to himself, nor the possibility that some portion of what he regards as flawed is in fact blameless. Hard moralising principle therefore comes naturally to him.
The single worst thing about this place is not the occasional loudmouth who insults others badly enough to get hauled into MetaTalk, or the single-issue bore; it's the much more common insistence that anything that isn't perfect must be sneered at and rejected. I swear, people read through links grunting impatiently at all the clever, interesting, or thought-provoking bits, waiting till they find the statement or opinion they can take strong exception to, whereupon they hit the back button and launch their comment. It gets tiring as all hell.

Mercy, people. It's better than snark, and more interesting.
posted by languagehat at 11:22 AM on June 9 [119 favorites]


Read Peter Singer's A Darwinian Left and browse epjournal.net, fffm.
posted by jeffburdges at 11:25 AM on June 9 [1 favorite]


feckless fecal fear mongering: Kin selection has predictive power for a lot of altruistic acts. That is, it explains and gives ratios for how much you would help a brother vs. a cousin vs. your third cousin twice removed.

There's game theoretic aspects, like the predictions that it makes for non-transitive species like the side-blotched lizard, where there's three male mating strategies that beat each other in a rock-paper-scissors-like combination. Orange-throated lizards are ultradominant, and can steal mates from blue-throated lizards but are cuckolded by yellow-throated. Blue-throated are dominant and attentive, and can avoid cuckoldry by yellow-throated lizards but get their mates stolen by orange-throated lizards, and yellow-throated lizards can't cuckold blue-throated lizards but can with orange-throated ones.

Evolutionary psychology makes predictions about infanticide (stepfathers kill more than fathers, grandmothers always attempt to prevent infanticide) which have some predictive power.

Stuff of this nature, is what evolutionary psychology does. Generally, predictive power is how you get out of just-so stories, and although it's a field that's filled with this shit, it's not the case that there's no theories with good predictive power out there. You may dispute any of this.
posted by curuinor at 11:25 AM on June 9 [2 favorites]


I find the worst thing about this place is other people telling me I'm a horrible person for not sharing their opinion on things.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:25 AM on June 9 [3 favorites]


I'm judging you. All of you. My opinion of what sort of a moral person you are depends on if you think an article sucks or not.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 11:29 AM on June 9 [1 favorite]


feckless fecal fear mongering: Kin selection has predictive power for a lot of altruistic acts. That is, it explains and gives ratios for how much you would help a brother vs. a cousin vs. your third cousin twice removed.

I'll lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins.
posted by todayandtomorrow at 11:30 AM on June 9 [7 favorites]


Yes. What this world is missing are more labels that people can use to dehumanize and fracture society. That's a wonderful idea.

I think you're right that the world doesn't need more dehumanization or gratuitous social fracture. But your suggestion that this important moral insight is in contention with the substance of the post is wrong.

Here's the operative definition of "jerk" from the first link:

...the jerk culpably fails to appreciate the perspectives of others around him, treating them as tools to be manipulated or idiots to be dealt with rather than as moral and epistemic peers.

So, it's actually kind of ironic that you'd jump to a conclusion so utterly at odds with what's being said here. From what you wrote, it seems like you'd be in agreement with the main link that jerks are problematic, since they themselves tend to dehumanize others and cause social fracture. That's exactly the problem!
posted by clockzero at 11:37 AM on June 9 [2 favorites]


(I'm not reading the others out of a principled commitment to the idea that a good post needs only a single good link.)
...
The single worst thing about this place is [...] the much more common insistence that anything that isn't perfect must be sneered at and rejected.

I'm assuming the first part of this was a tongue-in-cheek jerky statement to illustrate your point.
posted by troika at 11:37 AM on June 9 [1 favorite]


Everything is a circle.
posted by Fizz at 11:41 AM on June 9


I find the worst thing about this place is other people telling me I'm a horrible person for not sharing their opinion on things.

Not all opinions are created equal. Some "opinions" do in fact make you an asshole.
posted by kmz at 11:47 AM on June 9 [8 favorites]


Higher Social Class Predicts Increased Unethical Behavior

I sometimes wonder if the asshole drivers I encounter while out walking are in fact disproportionately wealthy based on the expensive cars they drive, or if I am simply taking note of those particular expensive cars because they stand out, and assholes drivers are the same across the board. This is evidence in the "expensive cars are in fact driven by assholes" column.
posted by Hoopo at 11:56 AM on June 9


We need a theory of jerks.

Well I don't need a theory, and I don't need you. I don't need anything except this ashtray, and that's it and that's the only thing I need. Just this ashtray.

And this paddle game.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 11:58 AM on June 9 [20 favorites]


Everything is a circle.

Some kind of circle of jerks, I suppose.
posted by Mister_A at 11:58 AM on June 9 [17 favorites]


I sometimes wonder if the asshole drivers I encounter while out walking are in fact disproportionately wealthy

One of the only two posts I've ever done actually points to money as causation for asshole behavior.
posted by Mooski at 12:01 PM on June 9


Dammit! I just added to my future-projects list a book on asshole-ness in the model of On Bullshit. Of course, that book came out two years ago, so the idea was already obsolete. And as always, my version would have been so much better ... but the space is taken now. Hate when that happens.
posted by chortly at 12:02 PM on June 9 [1 favorite]


...other people telling me I'm a horrible person for not sharing their opinion on things.

For a long time I felt that it was morally wrong to be unwilling to try out new foods. After all, if a style of cuisine is loved by millions of people there must be something good about it, even if one can't see it at first. For that reason, I developed a habit of pushing myself to be open to new tastes. I would try hard to see the good in strange new flavours, pushing myself to experience them again and again until I understood what makes them special. In time, I found I could come to see the charm of foods that had seemed repulsive at first. I was proud of myself for my openness. I wouldn't have said so out loud, but I found myself passing silent judgment on people who, for whatever reason, refused to do the same.

Eventually I realized that I should apply the same attitude to people that I do to food, and was enlightened.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:04 PM on June 9 [24 favorites]


Everything is a circle.

I bet it's all really n-dimensional superjerks. Or maybe just information. Innformation about jerks.

Whichever, it's jerks all the way down.
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:04 PM on June 9


Everyone's the jerk sometimes. A couple of years ago I was driving down a highway on the way to work, simply maintaining my lane slightly over the speed limit, but everyone who passed me honked, flipped me off, or both for seemingly no reason. Eventually I realized that I had my middle finger, and only my middle finger, wedged up between the window and the rubber seal and was effectively giving the finger to everyone who passed me.
posted by The Card Cheat


Card Cheat that is not being a jerk! It's being hilariously clueless!

(though I can't really picture how you wedged your finger that way?)

We have lots of discussions with the kiddo about what is and isn't "jerk" behavior. It's a useful term when you don't want to say the word "asshole" to an eight-year-old.
posted by emjaybee at 12:09 PM on June 9 [1 favorite]


Yes, the Jerk Store called, and they're all out of YOU.

What's the difference? You're their all-time best seller.
posted by ChuckRamone at 12:12 PM on June 9 [3 favorites]


Hey guys, I don't want to be the asshole around here so please forgive me if this comes across a little jerky, but there already is a theory
posted by Saddo at 12:14 PM on June 9 [1 favorite]


I wonder how hard it would be to make a jerk-o-meter. I mean, say you create a database of jerkish behavior, and then carry a device that records your own behavior and compares it to the database. It could even be configured to give you an electric shock if you register above a certain level of jerkishness.
posted by No Robots at 12:43 PM on June 9


It's currently a reliable source of amazement to me how many people think they've explained shocking and awful acts ('and there's an end on it') by calling some male (not quite exclusively) a jerk or an asshole.

Too scary to look below the surface of those things? OK fine; I sympathize--there's ghastly stuff down in there that nobody really likes knowing. Have a nice day.
posted by jamjam at 12:43 PM on June 9


+1 sociopaths
posted by j_curiouser at 12:45 PM on June 9


> Card Cheat that is not being a jerk! It's being hilariously clueless!

Sure, but the other drivers didn't know that. All they knew was some guy was giving them the finger for no reason. As for why I was sitting like that, it seems like the height of most standard car windows is exactly the distance from my elbow to the tip of my middle finger, so if I rest my left elbow at the bottom of the window...
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:17 PM on June 9


+1 sociopaths

No. We should have pity on sociopaths. By reason of mental illness, they are incapable of empathy. They cannot know what genuine friendship is, or love. That's deeply sad. We may need to defend ourselves against those of them who harm other people (using the legal system to deter them) but it's fundamentally not their fault that they behave that way.

Jerks do not deserve our pity. Nothing is stopping them from respecting others, and they deserve our blame and anger when they hurt others. They're just jerks.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 1:36 PM on June 9 [3 favorites]


What about the complete kneebiters?
posted by klangklangston at 1:38 PM on June 9 [3 favorites]


Eventually I realized that I should apply the same attitude to people that I do to food, and was enlightened.

How did they taste?
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 1:39 PM on June 9 [11 favorites]


> I'm assuming the first part of this was a tongue-in-cheek jerky statement to illustrate your point.

I'm sorry you found it jerky. I wasn't trying to dis the post at all, just making clear my own approach. I know a lot of people like linkfests, and that's fine; I like single-link posts. Different strokes.
posted by languagehat at 1:49 PM on June 9 [2 favorites]


"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole." -Raylan Givens, Justified
posted by stenseng at 1:56 PM on June 9 [14 favorites]


After all the irrational exuberance of the 80's, many pundits were saying we had reached Peak Jerk but with technology such as sexting, comment boards and multiplayer FPS, Jerk now touches the lives of people on a intimate and global scale.

We showed them.


jerks
posted by MiltonRandKalman at 2:11 PM on June 9


The jerk was in you all along. /lifeaffirming
posted by arcticseal at 2:17 PM on June 9 [1 favorite]


I know a lot of people like linkfests, and that's fine; I like single-link posts. Different strokes.

I guess, but that approach seems to really undercut your excellent point above:

I swear, people read through links grunting impatiently at all the clever, interesting, or thought-provoking bits, waiting till they find the statement or opinion they can take strong exception to, whereupon they hit the back button and launch their comment. It gets tiring as all hell.

In a good multi-link post, the links will support and provide context for each other. It's often the case that something not addressed in one link may be addressed in the others. If you only read one link then come back to comment and expound on a perceived flaw that is addressed in another link that you didn't read, you're doing the same thing as someone who reads one page of a one-link post and jumps back to comment on a flaw they found. Your approach ignores how people craft their posts, and seems like it could actually harm the conversation if you're making arguments while unaware that they're already address in the post links you didn't read.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:02 PM on June 9 [1 favorite]


(I'm not reading the others out of a principled commitment to the idea that a good post needs only a single good link.) 
For some reason this reminds me of Clarke's theists and deists in 3001. I'd say a good post should contain at least one good link. LH and I have talked before on posts, links and framing, and I take a more expansive view.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 4:34 PM on June 9


> LH and I have talked before on posts, links and framing, and I take a more expansive view.

Yeah, I respect the hell out of the man of twists and turns, who makes excellent posts; we just have different philosophies. I respectfully but strongly dissent from the idea that I am somehow dishonoring his post by not reading all the links before I respond, and that attitude is one of the reasons I don't like the proliferation of multilink posts.

> If you only read one link then come back to comment and expound on a perceived flaw that is addressed in another link that you didn't read, you're doing the same thing as someone who reads one page of a one-link post and jumps back to comment on a flaw they found.

Exactly what "perceived flaw" are you suggesting I am expounding on?
posted by languagehat at 5:07 PM on June 9


Exactly what "perceived flaw" are you suggesting I am expounding on?

I didn't suggest anything of the sort for this post. I'm saying it's something that can happen, the same as with only reading 3 pages of a 6 page article. Your position is that you will intentionally respond without reading the available material, which you protest against in this thread.

It's not about "dishonoring" a post, it's about responding without having read the material. It goes beyond "different strokes" and into harming discussions, just as someone declaring that they intend to only skim a few pages of a single-link article before commenting would.
posted by Sangermaine at 5:24 PM on June 9


The single worst thing about this place is not the occasional loudmouth who insults others badly enough to get hauled into MetaTalk, or the single-issue bore; it's the much more common insistence that anything that isn't perfect must be sneered at and rejected. I swear, people read through links grunting impatiently at all the clever, interesting, or thought-provoking bits, waiting till they find the statement or opinion they can take strong exception to, whereupon they hit the back button and launch their comment. It gets tiring as all hell.

Is it really all that different when you agree with the thing you click back from, but are otherwise equally jerky?
posted by Sys Rq at 5:29 PM on June 9


"The meaner you are, the more assholes you will meet."
posted by Freen at 5:32 PM on June 9 [2 favorites]


Schwitzgebel's article was interesting, as most of his pieces are. But I'm not sure I understand the core idea:
The jerk culpably fails to appreciate the perspectives of others around him, treating them as tools to be manipulated or idiots to be dealt with rather than as moral and epistemic peers.
In many cases we interact with people who are, objectively, not our moral or epistemic peers. Some people are our moral and/or epistemic superiors. And some are our moral and/or epistemic inferiors. Do we have to treat people as our peers in order to treat them decently and as ends rather than means? Does a person suffer a moral failing if he or she treats others as morally and/or epistemically valuable without automatically treating them as peers? And if so, in what way?
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 5:36 PM on June 9 [1 favorite]


justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow: No. We should have pity on sociopaths.
If she could give love to IT perhaps it would shrivel up and die, for she was sure that IT could not withstand love. But she, in all her weakness and foolishness and baseness and nothingness, was incapable of loving IT. Perhaps it was not too much to ask of her, but she could not do it. But she could love Charles Wallace.
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 5:36 PM on June 9 [1 favorite]


If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold jerk.
posted by wenestvedt at 5:52 PM on June 9 [1 favorite]


I find myself wondering how jerk and jerk off are related, and which came first (no pun intended) -- in other words, if jerk is a reduction of jerk off, or if jerk off (which is clearly a more specific phrasal verb based on the more general verb to jerk) arose independently from the same root, or neither.

In what way does a jerk jerk, is what I'm curious about, or is it that a jerk jerks off (and are jerks conceptually a subset or a superset of jerkoffs)? Or are these flavours of jerkery unrelated?

There are the things I think about sometimes.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:33 PM on June 9


Do we have to treat people as our peers in order to treat them decently and as ends rather than means?

Analytically, his criterion calls for a culpable failure to appreciate the perspectives of others...treating them as tools or idiots rather than moral and epistemic peers, so it's really a presupposition of the formula that the "others" relevant to jerk diagnosis are moral and epistemic peers in at least some basic sense. In other words, by definition you can't test for jerkishness in the absence of moral and epistemic peers (however likely that is). Sociologically, he clearly avows that I’m important, and I’m surrounded by idiots! is a sentiment highly correlative with jerkishness... ;)

The bookforum thing seems both kind of clueless and deliberately misleading about that book's project, which is to give a conceptual analysis of "asshole." Imo, that stuff (anglophone philosopher's conceptual analysis stuff) is often a pretty dull and dubiously useful sort of stuff, but it's coming from a totally different place than either Stanley Fish NYTimes stuff or Gladwellian airport bookstore stuff, and I'm not buying the suggested meta-homogeneity of professor-ly lameness or whatever. That said, it does look like a boring book.

Also, fwiw, if you're interested in the philosophy of consciousness, Schwitzgebel is a fucking great read!
posted by batfish at 7:56 PM on June 9 [1 favorite]


"Instead of introspection, try listening. Ideally, you will have a few people in your life who know you intimately, have integrity, and are concerned about your character. They can frankly and lovingly hold your flaws up to the light and insist that you look at them. Give them the space to do this, and prepare to be disappointed in yourself."

This so much. Something a true friend will care enough to do for you.
posted by edguardo at 10:33 PM on June 9


« Older Canonical Comical Cartography; or, The Batcave is...   |   It was at 5 million views this morning Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post