fbpx
You Are Big Brother

Unfortunately our weakness is such that we are much more ready to believe and speak evil of others than good … [Y]ou should not believe any chance thing that is said to you, nor should you immediately pour out into another’s ears something you have overheard or have been told.—Thomas à Kempis.

In recent times, much virtual ink has been spilled and many hands have been wrung pondering the ramifications of government surveillance programs. From the NSA in the United States (founded in 1952, but brought into public consciousness as never before in the internet age), to the Investigatory Powers Act, which was struck down by the UK High Court last year, after a legal challenge by the human rights group Liberty, we have become all too familiar with the current iteration of that old conundrum: how to balance the state’s duty to protect us from harm with its duty to protect our freedoms.

However, significantly less attention has been afforded to a smaller-scale and often no less powerful form of surveillance: individual surveillance. As the ability of the state to observe our behavior has expanded, so too has the ability of the individual to do the same. Over one third of the planet’s population now carries out their daily tasks armed with a smartphone: a portable device capable of recording images, sounds and videos, and instantly sharing them on a public forum from which they will never be deleted. In developed nations, the percentage of smartphone users in the general population is rapidly approaching totality. We brandish devices with surveillance capabilities that the secret police forces of the last century could only have dreamt of—and we do so openly.

This brings me to the recent allegations against Vic Mignogna, an American voice actor primarily active in the anime dubbing industry. No doubt in large part due to his many roles as bishounen (roughly translated as pretty boy) characters, this is a man whose fanbase consists primarily of teenage girls. He is also famously demonstrative.

Over the past few weeks, the anime community has been rocked by stories of inappropriate behavior on his part. The most serious charges have been levied by fellow voice actors Monica Rial and Jamie Marchi, and cosplayer Jessie Pridemore, who have shared eerily similar accounts of Mignogna restraining them by the hair and whispering lewd comments into their ears. Rial has also alleged that she was forcibly kissed by Mignogna in his hotel room in the mid 2000s. These, coupled with allegations by fans of unwanted hugs and kisses at public events dating back fifteen years or more, have prompted a number of conventions to cancel his upcoming appearances, and have led to his termination both by the animation studio Rooster Teeth and the anime dubbing and distribution company Funimation. The #MeToo movement appears to have arrived on the anime scene.

Mignogna has released a number of statements, written and oral, in which he denies sexual assault or abuse, and protests that he comes from an expressive Italian-American family, for whom such displays of affection as hugging and kisses on the cheek or forehead are commonplace. He concedes only that he has been incautious in assessing whether everyone who approaches him is comfortable with such gestures, and states that in future he will no longer be interacting with fans in this way.

Let’s set aside for a moment the question of whether Mignogna is guilty or innocent—or, indeed, whether this is a case of the oft forgotten third option: a genuine mismatch between different individuals’ personal boundaries. One could very easily see Mignogna as a middle-aged creep, who has cynically played up his pretty boy image in order to ingratiate himself with teenage girls for nefarious purposes. One could also very easily see him as an affectionate individual, who has been swept up by the emotions of the fan circuit and, perhaps naively, disregarded society’s general suspicion of interactions between underage girls and unrelated men. I am more interested in his stated intention to avoid such interactions with fans in the future, and the fact that this has been welcomed by some of his critics (although at least one, Kaylyn Saucedo, has accused him of engaging in misdirection).

Photos and videos taken by an army of convention attendees of the fifty-six-year-old Mignogna posing with, hugging and kissing fans—predominantly young girls—are available online for almost anyone in the world to peruse. For anyone to interpret. For anyone to judge. For anyone to come to their own conclusions from. And, despite the insistence of many if not all of the girls who have been identified in specific photos or videos that yes, they were happy to receive a hug or a kiss or an opportunity to act out a romantic scene from a favorite anime, and no, at no point did they feel uncomfortable, it would appear that Mignogna’s new policy is the only way to avoid the worst of these conclusions, true intentions be damned.

Is this a new puritanism? After centuries of tearing down the barriers between each other, and of fighting against the evil idea that a young virgin will forever be ruined by sharing an innocent hug or a kiss with a member of the opposite sex—or the same sex, as the case may be—are we to withdraw again from one another? Must we become ever more guarded in our words? Our feelings? Our gentle and innocent gestures?

And, for that matter, is even total inaction an unsafe course of action?

When an image of a young boy in a red cap staring at an elderly drummer was shared on social media a few short weeks ago, many saw precisely what they were ready to see. Precisely what passions moved them to see. And they were wrong. It was not a government or a police force that sparked a campaign of retribution against the students of Covington Catholic. It was a still from a video taken by a college student on her smartphone. That little device, merely by watching and recording, brought death threats from all around the world upon the heads of children.

The great works of dystopic literature have presented us with worlds in which nobody is ever alone or unwatched, in which the private moment no longer exists. Big Brother is watching you. But, in our world, in which any moment, any conversation, or any one of the millions of insignificant frames of the reel that is our life—not one of which will ever be capable of capturing the whole of our being—can traverse the globe faster than the blood can flow from heart to head, I am Big Brother. And so are you.

If you enjoy our articles, be a part of our growth and help us produce more writing for you:
Total
56
Shares

40 comments

  1. Not only are you ignoring the power dynamic here (as mentioned in other comments), but you paint Vic in such an “aww shucks!” light which removes any possibility that his intent was anything but innocent. There are more than 30 years of womens and girls experiences of Vic forcibly groping, touching, and kissing them. Some 15 & 16 year-olds, and some adults. The accusations range from an uncomfortable hug without consent to forcing and holding women down on beds. Assuming at least some of the allegations are true (which statistics tell us the likely case), he’s demonstrated a very long pattern of abusive behavior.

    In addition to all that, you imply here that Vic’s decision to no longer interact with fans in such a way is the proper solution, again ignoring all of the more severe allegations against him, which happened in hotel rooms, elevators and hallways, far away from cell phone cameras and witnesses. Vic has been warned about his behavior on multiple occasions by cons and colleagues alike – and he has refused to change that behavior until it became an avalanche on social media.

    Finally, you ignore that his actions since things started rolling out a few months ago, have included instructing his fan base “Please do whatever you can to counter these lies and negativity. Remember the old saying… ‘The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.’” and then reportedly launching lawsuits against his accusers. This is not a penitent man. This is a serial sexual predator who is upset that he no longer gets to do whatever he wants to with young women and girls.

    1
    1
  2. In summary, what gets missed is that accusers in high profile cases are strangers to YOU, so you don’t implicitly trust them and thus don’t immediately believe their accounts – why would you? But they are NOT strangers to their colleagues and friends. i.e. when they tell their colleagues something, their colleagues trust they are telling the truth based on personal experience. In the same way as you’d trust your own child’s testimony about a teacher’s abuse without needing more children to come forward – because you know them. As libertarians, we don’t need courts of law to define our trust of loved ones.

    This is just one of the important, empathetic variables that gets missed in these discussions. As you are intellectuals, I assumed you’d reach this conclusion yourselves with a little prodding, but you really are all ‘slow on the uptake’.

    1
    2
  3. I think a better term to describe this is “Little Brother”. the tattling kind, who’s always telling mom and dad on you.

  4. Still don’t understand power dynamics then? Maybe after you’ve seen ‘Leaving Neverland’, it’ll make you realise that victims appearing ‘happy’ in abusive situations does not absolve the abuser or put victims in control of their own destiny. When will Aero stop isolating logic in this way and provide appropriate context to their ‘philisophical’ ramblings. That you are an academic makes this all the more disappointing.

    2
    7
    1. Speaking of logic, how then would one distinguish between ‘victims’ who only appear happy and those who really are happy and assure you that they are?

      1. You can’t, thus one must primarily remain open minded to the trauma that victims experience and prioritise them over alleged perpetrators – lots of abuse victims aren’t even aware of how the trauma has affected them until long after the abuse has taken place. There are FAR more actual victims of abuse than those wrongly accused of being perpetrators. It’s a numbers game. It is moronic to pose philosophical questions such as yours when we know that abuse of power is endemic in our society yet you leave out this context. I’d argue the real problem of our times is the use of selective logic as you have done.

        1
        6
        1. So what you are saying is that if we are to ‘prioritise’ the experiences of ‘victims’ this would seem to be code for the idea that ‘perpetrators’ are to be presumed guilty, yes? If that is the case, then it would seem to follow that the only safe course of conduct is to forbid any kind of contact between people since any contact of any kind could be grounds for a charge of ‘abuse’, no? In other words, how are ‘the powerful’ to protect themselves from being automatically found guilty of ‘abuse’ on mere accusation or suspicion?

          6
          1
          1. As a philosopher, you can obviously see your straw man here:

            “If that is the case, then it would seem to follow that the only safe course of conduct is to forbid any kind of contact between people.”

            Um, no. You jumped the shark there, Plato.

            There are literally billions of people who operate side by side without abusing each other or accusing each other of abuse.

            When you posed your question:

            “how then would one distinguish between ‘victims’ who only appear happy and those who really are happy and assure you that they are?”

            There was no context. Were we talking about raping children or whether I’m happy with my gas supplier? Obviously, once you introduce the context, it changes the nature of the question. Our entire legal system accommodates this concept of context – judges regularly decide sentencing based on the seriousness of a crime. Why shouldn’t employers take a similar approach when deciding whether someone might be a threat to other staff or subordinates. Would you be happy with a teacher continuing to teach your child after 25 unproven child rape accusations? (I’d like you to answer this one, so we can see how much value winning arguments over childrens’ actual safety).

            As the abuses of power around sex are hidden from society, this is a sensitive area and cannot simply be dismissed with the same logic as whether I’m happy or sad about something a lot less serious.

            CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING.

            1
            2
            1. Well then what are you suggesting? Please be a bit more concrete, your performative language sounds entirely woke, and it does seem to dog-whistle the idea that presumption of innocence no longer applies. If that’s not what you are saying, then please fill me in. Give me some context. In the context above, we have a pop star sort of person giving fans hugs. Should he stop? Would one fan who, it turns out, didn’t want a hug, be sufficient to send him to jail or ruin his career?

              “Would you be happy with a teacher continuing to teach your child after 25 unproven child rape accusations?”

              I would probably terminate the person after the third accusation, this presuming there was no corroborating evidence of any kind against him. If there was evidence, of course he’d be gone (or in jail) directly. What would you do?

              How do we define ‘abuses of power’? Yes, a very sensitive area and yes, there is much hidden abuse. We should be direct with our suggestions of what to do about it. You signal your virtue, but you do not say what you would do.

              1. Sure, I’ll outline it for you as clearly you’re a little slow on the uptake.

                Let’s use the gas supplier/child rape analogy and examine what it means to be happy in both contexts.

                1. Gas supplier
                Unlikely to experience trauma if ripped off by a gas supplier. Likely to be relatively happy as long as gas is supplied.

                2. Being raped as a child
                Very complex issue indeed that encompasses delayed trauma and issues like Stockholm syndrome. Generally accepted that being raped as a child is very traumatic indeed.

                So victims of these sexual abuses of power need to be treated differently to other crimes. They have experienced secret top down abuse and require support to take on Goliath.

                An abuse of power is very easy to define: an event where a senior coerces a subordinate to do something they don’t want to do because the subordinate fears repercussions due to their position

                Get it yet?

                As for this particular case, you seem to forget that the accusations relate to:

                1) Mignogna restraining them by the hair and whispering lewd comments into their ears.

                2) Rial has also alleged that she was forcibly kissed by Mignogna in his hotel room.

                These are not just hugging.

                When looking at sensitive issues, employers make a call based on the seriousness of the allegations. Your libertarian instincts should support the right to hire and fire. And in this case, the employers have seen the countless other high profile cases where the denials of powerful men were proven to be bullshit and they made a call. I agree with it. They will likely be proven right in the end, and in the interests of supporting the safety of all other employees, makes sense to write off just one. In the unlikely event he’s truly innocent, he’s a martyr for the cause. Over the long run, this is an overdue clean up of our workplaces.

                So, I agree with the actions taken. And in future, I’d suggest we just behave appropriately in work so these allegations never surface, as they don’t for the vast majority of people. If you’re worried you’re behaving inappropriately, you probably are. Abuse of power works on fear so victims will always be operating with fear in their minds. This is a move to make workplaces safe.

                Now I’ve responded to your request, please answer my revised question: would you be happy for your child to be taught by a teacher that had accusations of unproven child abuse from just two children – not three, which appears to be your arbitrary minimum? Innocent until proven guilty?

                1. You are just interested in being rude. Sorry, at first I thought you might not be a troll. My mistake.

                  1. The above detailed response is clearly not that of a simple troll. You unfairly accused me of virtue signalling, so I was sarcastic in my response. But the detailed explanation I provided still stands. Unfortunately, it’s clear you do not have the aptitude to hold your side of the debate. A shame. Or maybe your personal shame? Good day to you.

                    1. Hello all,

                      Obviously this is a sensitive topic, to say the least, and in broaching it I was attempting to lay the groundwork for my theme, rather than to address the #MeToo movement at length. Perhaps a foolhardy decision on my part!

                      Anon, to answer your question about what should be done, I (in my learned capacity as “some student”) would say that an alleged perpetrator should be suspended pending a thorough investigation. Such has been the case with Mignogna, although he is apparently making moves to legally challenge his dismissals. Until the courts have their say, there’s really nothing you or I can add beyond “I don’t know”. Statistics can tell us many things, but they can never be used to render judgement in individual cases. As you yourself pointed out, billions of people interact with each other without abusing each other. That does not mean that abusers do not exist. And if Mignogna is one of them, it goes without saying that he deserves everything he’s gotten and more. In the meantime, the #KickVic/#IStandWithVic rival tweetstorms and the furious comment wars are accomplishing precisely nothing for the delivery of justice, either way.

                      But as I said, I am more interested in the fact that Mignogna’s announcement that he would no longer be hugging and kissing his fans has been welcomed. These are acts which are sometimes acts of sexual abuse. But they are also, more often than not, frank and innocent gestures of affection. They are not inherently suspicious, and I do not think it a kind world that views them as such.

                      1. It has been welcomed because the guy is pending investigation into alleged abuses. i.e. he has now entered a different zone of trust with his fans. Why is this so difficult to understand? I have seen abuses of this hug/kiss dynamic many times, not with celebs but community members in local clubs and it is often inappropriate and unnecessary. We maybe need to ask what kind of society has children wanting to hug total strangers they know from TV. If that makes them happy, we probably need to ask deeper questions.

                        1. Except those hugs and kisses were themselves cited as evidence that he is an abuser. They were and are being treated as nefarious per se, independent of the allegations by Rial, Pridemore and Marchi.

                          And perhaps they are. I don’t know. I really, truly don’t know.

                          1. Are they? I thought you said there were reports from fans of inappropriate hugging? If so, that might explain it .Maybe you should read your own article

                            1. See? You really are a troll. Stick to Twitter please. A subject as difficult as this one requires honesty and nuance and respect for the fact that more than one perspective can be taken. As always we live in a world where sexual abuse takes place far too often. But lately we see mobs of twiterii ruining the lives of entirely innocent people, as if that really helped the actual victims. It doesn’t.

                      2. @Katie O’Flynn

                        I’m putting this as a fresh response to get full screen width.

                        I agree with you comment, it is balanced and reasonable. Unfortunately the entire thing has degenerated into a war in which prisoners are not taken.

                        “the #KickVic/#IStandWithVic rival tweetstorms and the furious comment wars are accomplishing precisely nothing”

                        Except that this demonstrates that the whole thing is about the enjoyment some mobs feel in watching others suffer. We aren’t that different from a mob in the Colosseum in Rome watching people being fed to the lions or burned — very enjoyable. The twitter mob selects a victim and then watches them burn in a comparable way.

                        “they can never be used to render judgement in individual cases”

                        True, but we need to do more than signal virtue. We need to get specific about what we propose and that can mean taking individual cases as something to chew on. For example, the ‘Believe Women’ slogan hides the idea that men should no longer be presumed innocent until proven guilty and I do not support that. Many innocent men have been destroyed, from Dr. Tim Hunt, who tried to make a few humorous remarks at a luncheon, to Al Franken who pretended he was still on the set of his comedy routine which was about sexual comedy from the getgo.

                        “But they are also, more often than not, frank and innocent gestures of affection”

                        Exactly. Hysteria and moral panic and witch burning don’t really accomplish anything good. The real abusers are more careful. Sober and sensible steps to root them out are always welcome.

                    2. (For a website that complains about snowflakes lacking robustness, I have to say I was surprised one of its readers flaked out so early)

                        1. Dude, my points were clear, thought out and concise.

                          If by ‘troll’, you mean ‘is better at debate than you’, then yes, I’m a troll.

                          1. Well then perhaps you simply need some training. Dropping snide remarks like ‘slow on the uptake’ is called an ‘ad hominem’. You are wasting keystrokes insulting me when what is important is the topic. We do not know each other, and even if we did, what we think of each other is absolutely without interest because the people who meet on this site will never have anything to do with each other except share ideas. So we should stick to the ideas. In short, what you think of me or what I think of you is of no interest to anyone.

                            Perhaps we could discuss this difficult subject a bit further, but if we do so, please behave a bit better.

                            1. Nah, I’ve said what I wanted. It seems readers of Areo don’t understand issues around people’s personal space and I sense a further descent into selective logic on your parts.

                          2. “Dude, my points were clear, thought out and concise.”

                            The main thrust of your argument seems to be that victims should be believed, and the accused should be presumed guilty until proven otherwise.

                            If this isn’t your main argument, then perhaps your points aren’t being communicated as clearly as you think. And if it is your main point, it’s ridiculous.

                            1. Phil,

                              Yes, that’s what I meant. And I’ve stood by that opinion throughout.

                              Simple analogy: Your child comes home and tells you they have been violently raped by a teacher. Do you believe them? Do you assume innocence and continue to send your kid to that teacher until a couple more children complain? No, the school suspends teacher in lieu of an investigation due to the serious nature of the allegations. As a parent, you would welcome this. Though I cannot speak for those of you that have been dumped by your exes and are extremely bitter about it. Maybe then you’d betray your child and let them continue to be taught by the person they told you had raped them.

                              As for twitter, any sane person would not use twitter as a gauge of public opinion. Twitter users are a tiny subset of human population and the number of twitter users who then go on to create a tweetstorm are an even smaller minority.

                              The fact you people use twitter shows that as well as logical gaps in your reasoning, you need education on statistical analysis.

                              You are all idiots.

                2. @Anon/Really – There’s a conflation in your argument which is common in situations like this, between egregious sexual assault or rape, and allegations of much less serious actions which (depending how they’re interpreted) are on the borderline of assault. In this case, it’s between child rape and

                  1) Mignogna restraining them by the hair and whispering lewd comments into their ears.

                  2) Rial has also alleged that she was forcibly kissed by Mignogna in his hotel room.

                  But the things Mignogna is accused of occurred between adults, not with children. Being “forcibly kissed” could mean very different things. The implications of restraining someone by the hair and whispering lewd comments in their ears vary with the context, which is not given. As with all the other cases we’ve seen on the internet over the past couple of years, it is enough for one or two people to come out with an unsubstatiated accusation without context for someone in a prominent position to be digitally pilloried and then go on to lose their career. It is enough for the accuser to be a woman and the accused to be a man for this to happen, and it’s wrong.

                  1. Mcguiness, if you actually read the full thread, rather than boring conflation as you suggest, my example was to demonstrate the difference between forms of happiness in abusive and non-abusive situations. The idea being that an abused person may not realise the extent of their trauma while experiencing it. I used extreme examples to illustrate my point. It’s called ‘an analogy’. Context fellas, context.

                    1. Why are you bothered ray? I notice you are only confident in your responses when you have support. I’m here on my own holding my corner with clear (albeit sarcastic) responses. The irony of how quickly you neo libertarians flake out is astounding. Jordon Peterson would turn in his coffin. (He sleeps there, like Dracula)

                3. Since you raise philosophy, your replies to Ray are illogical. The essence is this:

                  So victims of these sexual abuses of power need to be treated differently to other crimes. They have experienced secret top down abuse and require support to take on Goliath.

                  The argument is circular because you assume the victim’s telling the truth to justify the special measure.

                  You also suggested that 25 rape allegations were a sure sign of something. Had you lived through the satanic ritual abuse panic of the 1980s, you wouldn’t put much stock in numbers. Serial allegations are as much evidence of a social contagion (or other mimetic behaviour) or conspiracy as they are of the accused’s guilt.

                  Another illogical argument:

                  And in this case, the employers have seen the countless other high profile cases where the denials of powerful men were proven to be bullshit and they made a call. I agree with it.

                  A million high-profile cases is no evidence of anyone’s guilt.

                  What’s really damaging to your case (and nasty besides) is that you suggest that people don’t make up abuse for person gain, and then turn around an insinuate that Ray’s a sexual abuser:

                  A shame. Or maybe your personal shame?

                  Talk about self-refutation. When a person uses an allegation of abuse to bully an opponent in a comment section on a small-sale intellectual website, your case is pretty much shot.

                    1. LOL, BROFLAKES!

                      guilty until proven innocent in cases of sexual power politics due to potential danger. Really is that simple.

                  1. The shame I referred to was the shame of being wrong. You all suffer so badly from it . You get yourselves into logical messes because of it. Jokers.

                  2. This really is amateur hour. Get a book on discrete mathematics to read alongside Ayn Rand.

                    “The argument is circular because you assume the victim’s telling the truth to justify the special measure.”

                    I have been clear that I believe presumption of guilt in these cases is the safe option. Far more subordinates are abused than seniors accused. Nothing to see here.

                    STRAW MAN: “You also suggested that 25 rape allegations were a sure sign of something.”

                    I said nothing of the sort.

                    STRAW MAN: “A million high-profile cases is no evidence of anyone’s guilt.”

                    I never suggested otherwise. Pre court, guilt should be assumed to protect others. Standard practice in schools. Also a judge would would value testimony from 25 victims Vs 3 for example. Numbers matter. Satanic rituals do not.

                    “What’s really damaging to your case (and nasty besides) is that you suggest that people don’t make up abuse for person gain, and then turn around an insinuate that Ray’s a sexual abuser”

                    No, I was suggesting that all of your shame at being wrong and unable to properly process contextual logic means you all double down on your opinions in the face of clear superiority. You find cognitive dissonance too overbearing to form coherent opinions.

                    1. Take it from a professional troll, you’re the rank amateur here. Aside from giving yourself away within two posts, you made two big mistakes with me in your first line. Citing Ayn Rand only works with Randians. I could care less about Rand, so there’s no getting a rise out of me by knocking her. You misread me because you’re too invested in your ideology. You projected what the script says is there instead of forming a sketch from what I wrote and how I wrote it. People give a lot away if you know how to look.

                      Your second mistake was the remark about getting a book on discrete mathematics, which you followed up by talking about strawmen. Strawmen are informal fallacies, not formal ones, so they don’t belong to discrete mathematics. Some textbooks contain informal fallacies, to be sure, but they’re not proper to discrete mathematics—as those textbooks point out. And no one who knows discrete mathematics would want to convey the impression that they didn’t know the difference. (There’s a good piece of trolling advice free of charge.)

                      Snark doesn’t work beyond the choir and other trolls who imagine they’re trolling you back. Undecideds, whether smart or not, automatically assume you’re compensating for a weak argument with abuse, which happens to be exactly what you’re doing—not to mention it’s the sine qua non of the amateur troll. I think there’s another reason to avoid it, though. In real life, I’m a first-class prick. But I do my best not to be prickish online. Doing that tells the world you’re what the kids call a “beta male,” someone who feels weak and impotent, so he lashes out anonymously online to sate his frustration and feel alpha-ish. It’s bad for your image and bad for your trolling.

                      As for your “counter-argument”…please. You’re phoning it in now.

                      1. “Strawmen are informal fallacies, not formal ones, so they don’t belong to discrete mathematics”

                        Yes, that was my point. Thanks for clarifying it.

                        If you’re a professional troll, may be worth considering a career change. You think you’re all intellectuals, but you’re simply not. You isolate logic, leaving out essential variables for correct logical processing. You study the nature of logic but don’t understand your own shortcomings in that area.

                        I think there’s enough comment on this article now to show that I’ve been consistent and clear in my points, and apart from the author, you’ve ALL started playing the man, not the ball, which is a clear sign of debate weakness.

                        I was purposely snarky in order to extract this nonsense out of you.

                        This, for example, is the writing of a 12 year old boy who consumes philosophy through YouTube videos, not an intellectual:

                        “Doing that tells the world you’re what the kids call a “beta male,” someone who feels weak and impotent, so he lashes out anonymously online to sate his frustration and feel alpha-ish”.

                        MY WORK HERE IS DONE.

  5. Still don’t understand power dynamics then? Let’s all watch ‘Leaving Neverland’, and hopefully we’ll understand better why victims seeming happy while being abused does not absolve abusers or put victims in control of their own destiny. When will Aero stop isolating logic in this way and provide appropriate context to their ‘philosophical’ ramblings?

Leave a Reply

Inline
Inline