For all the racists out there...
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
184 comments displayed.
#5 to #4
-
schnizel (11/24/2015) [-] 
Yes, I like hurting women. I read the book but it's really oversimplified and makes many assumptions and avoids many, many important factors.
Asian civilizations had arguably superior starting advantages. The area of Pakistan 5000 years ago had a batter civilization than the whole of Germania which was nothing more than a big ass swamp with various tribes raiding eachother. Victor Davis Hanson makes a similar “one factor” argument in his book Carnage and Culture in which he claims that Europeans are better at warfare because we have a Hellenic/Roman heritage. Kinda ignores the rise of Japan and the invincibility of Mongol raiders rather puts his theory to fault, but it’s at least as important as geography. There is also the matter of historical perspective. Diamond writes as if everything leading up to the present time of European world cultural domination was some kind of historical inevitability, and that, of course, thus it will always be. This is the sheerest nonsense. At various times in human history, “Western Civilization” consisted of illiterate barbarians living in mud huts. In very recent times in human history (like, say, the 1940s), it kind of looked like that's where the West was heading again. Other civilizations culturally and physically eclipsed or dominated the West through history: the Japanese, the Chinese, the Islamic civilizations, Egyptian, Assyrian, Mongolian, Persian or Russian (if you count them as different, which they are for the purpose of categorization, even though they’re mainly caucasoid–with some mongoloid) civilizations made Western civilization irrelevant through vast swathes of human history. Such civilizations may again eclipse Western civilization. Just to take one example, the Zoroastrian Persian civilization lasted longer than Rome, covered more territory, and was in many ways more advanced. They even generally beat the Romans in warfare in the Middle East.
Asian civilizations had arguably superior starting advantages. The area of Pakistan 5000 years ago had a batter civilization than the whole of Germania which was nothing more than a big ass swamp with various tribes raiding eachother. Victor Davis Hanson makes a similar “one factor” argument in his book Carnage and Culture in which he claims that Europeans are better at warfare because we have a Hellenic/Roman heritage. Kinda ignores the rise of Japan and the invincibility of Mongol raiders rather puts his theory to fault, but it’s at least as important as geography. There is also the matter of historical perspective. Diamond writes as if everything leading up to the present time of European world cultural domination was some kind of historical inevitability, and that, of course, thus it will always be. This is the sheerest nonsense. At various times in human history, “Western Civilization” consisted of illiterate barbarians living in mud huts. In very recent times in human history (like, say, the 1940s), it kind of looked like that's where the West was heading again. Other civilizations culturally and physically eclipsed or dominated the West through history: the Japanese, the Chinese, the Islamic civilizations, Egyptian, Assyrian, Mongolian, Persian or Russian (if you count them as different, which they are for the purpose of categorization, even though they’re mainly caucasoid–with some mongoloid) civilizations made Western civilization irrelevant through vast swathes of human history. Such civilizations may again eclipse Western civilization. Just to take one example, the Zoroastrian Persian civilization lasted longer than Rome, covered more territory, and was in many ways more advanced. They even generally beat the Romans in warfare in the Middle East.
#7 to #5
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] Eurocentricity accounts for any lack of reference to Asiatic cultures. There's no denying that, whilst Japan and china have made striding contributions to the world, there's nothing quite like European innovation.
Western civilisation as it is understood currently migrated north from the Mediterranean with the rise of the Roman empire, thus those "barbarians" are not to whom we refer, anymore than modern mongolia is similar to the pillaging raiders of ancient times. In reality, "western civilisation" is merely the culmination of works from around eurasia, from the Indus Valley to Oxford University. And perhaps soon it might move again, but that's unlikely given the sheer number of educated people in the world now.
To put it simply, the most civilised are those who learn from as many cultures as possible, the centre of the world is that which sees most of it.
Western civilisation as it is understood currently migrated north from the Mediterranean with the rise of the Roman empire, thus those "barbarians" are not to whom we refer, anymore than modern mongolia is similar to the pillaging raiders of ancient times. In reality, "western civilisation" is merely the culmination of works from around eurasia, from the Indus Valley to Oxford University. And perhaps soon it might move again, but that's unlikely given the sheer number of educated people in the world now.
To put it simply, the most civilised are those who learn from as many cultures as possible, the centre of the world is that which sees most of it.
#8 to #7
-
schnizel (11/24/2015) [-] >Eurocentricity accounts for any lack of reference to Asiatic cultures.
Such as?
> thus those "barbarians" are not to whom we refer, anymore than modern mongolia is similar to the pillaging raiders of ancient times.
But after all the raping and pillaging, the fun parts they start making cities, roads, government, waste dumps, aqueducts, etc.
>In reality, "western civilisation" is merely the culmination of works from around eurasia, from the Indus Valley to Oxford University.
And you base that hypothesis on? Also, do you know what the word merely means?
>To put it simply, the most civilised are those who learn from as many cultures as possible, the centre of the world is that which sees most of it.
We would all be living in the Mongolian empire if the Mongols figured out who was going to be in charge of the horde instead of pulling an Alexander. It's got more to do with will than anything.
Such as?
> thus those "barbarians" are not to whom we refer, anymore than modern mongolia is similar to the pillaging raiders of ancient times.
But after all the raping and pillaging, the fun parts they start making cities, roads, government, waste dumps, aqueducts, etc.
>In reality, "western civilisation" is merely the culmination of works from around eurasia, from the Indus Valley to Oxford University.
And you base that hypothesis on? Also, do you know what the word merely means?
>To put it simply, the most civilised are those who learn from as many cultures as possible, the centre of the world is that which sees most of it.
We would all be living in the Mongolian empire if the Mongols figured out who was going to be in charge of the horde instead of pulling an Alexander. It's got more to do with will than anything.
#11 to #8
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] >Such as?
Such as "asian civilisations had arguably superior starting advantages". By the way, they did not have wheat, only rice, which is by far inferior.
>mongolia etc.
And are they a world superpower? No, they're borderline third world.
That hypothesis would be based on the migration of technology. Paper, after all, comes from the orient, and forms the basis of all education.
The mongols wouldn't have gotten a much bigger empire, large empires become too hard to manage.
Such as "asian civilisations had arguably superior starting advantages". By the way, they did not have wheat, only rice, which is by far inferior.
>mongolia etc.
And are they a world superpower? No, they're borderline third world.
That hypothesis would be based on the migration of technology. Paper, after all, comes from the orient, and forms the basis of all education.
The mongols wouldn't have gotten a much bigger empire, large empires become too hard to manage.
#13 to #11
-
schnizel (11/24/2015) [-] Asian, as in those in the Fertile crescent, and India.
>And are they a world superpower? No, they're borderline third world.
They were, at the time of the Great Khan.
>That hypothesis would be based on the migration of technology. Paper, after all, comes from the orient, and forms the basis of all education.
And yet it stopped and settled when it reached Europe.
>The mongols wouldn't have gotten a much bigger empire, large empires become too hard to manage.
Have you read about his conquests?
>And are they a world superpower? No, they're borderline third world.
They were, at the time of the Great Khan.
>That hypothesis would be based on the migration of technology. Paper, after all, comes from the orient, and forms the basis of all education.
And yet it stopped and settled when it reached Europe.
>The mongols wouldn't have gotten a much bigger empire, large empires become too hard to manage.
Have you read about his conquests?
#17 to #13
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] Sure, and now that is gone... sounds like a migration to me.
Europe is an area of immense turmoil. Because so many different cultures are pressed together, advances happen far more rapidly; especially in the arms races stemming from war.
I'm pretty sure he wasn't immune to natural corrosion of empires.
Europe is an area of immense turmoil. Because so many different cultures are pressed together, advances happen far more rapidly; especially in the arms races stemming from war.
I'm pretty sure he wasn't immune to natural corrosion of empires.
#19 to #17
-
schnizel (11/24/2015) [-] >Sure, and now that is gone... sounds like a migration to me.
And you base that on the Hegelian theory? Even Hellenic cultures were advanced and they did not descend from the ME cultures.
>Europe is an area of immense turmoil. Because so many different cultures are pressed together, advances happen far more rapidly; especially in the arms races stemming from war.
****** , war was present everywhere, we got advanced because we got good at it.
>I'm pretty sure he wasn't immune to natural corrosion of empires.
No, but he was awesome.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_conquest_of_Khwarezmia#Sieges_of_Bukhara.2C_Samarkand.2C_and_Urgench
And you base that on the Hegelian theory? Even Hellenic cultures were advanced and they did not descend from the ME cultures.
>Europe is an area of immense turmoil. Because so many different cultures are pressed together, advances happen far more rapidly; especially in the arms races stemming from war.
****** , war was present everywhere, we got advanced because we got good at it.
>I'm pretty sure he wasn't immune to natural corrosion of empires.
No, but he was awesome.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_conquest_of_Khwarezmia#Sieges_of_Bukhara.2C_Samarkand.2C_and_Urgench
#21 to #19
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] All people descended from humans in that region, so technically they did, just much earlier.
War was present, but most countries aren't as tiny and packed in as europe.
War was present, but most countries aren't as tiny and packed in as europe.
#24 to #21
-
schnizel (11/24/2015) [-] Yeah, I've read about the migrations of haplogroups.
>War was present, but most countries aren't as tiny and packed in as europe.
>but most countries aren't as tiny and packed in as europe.
>but most countries
>europe.
Sargon of Akkad smiles upon you.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kingdoms
>War was present, but most countries aren't as tiny and packed in as europe.
>but most countries aren't as tiny and packed in as europe.
>but most countries
>europe.
Sargon of Akkad smiles upon you.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kingdoms
#26 to #24
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] So you will concede that we're all the same?
I do not understand the relevance of this link. Enlighten me.
I do not understand the relevance of this link. Enlighten me.
#32 to #30
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] Humans are no longer constrained by food or survival, so we only evolve based on sexual factors.
wat.
wat.
#41 to #36
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] Modern needs are just as valid. Unless you're going to tell me you live in the mountains hunting for wild game then you can **** off with the "ancient man was wiser" thing.
#47 to #43
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] Ah yes, so much smarter. That one guy 3000 years ago who invented rocks was a genius.
Shocking how farmers don't have to buy food, whereas people in the city do.
Shocking how farmers don't have to buy food, whereas people in the city do.
#42 to #40
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] Why would you resort to violence when nature has granted you the intelligence to know that it's wrong?
#49 to #44
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] Violence doesn't make things. Violence burns all things it touches. Violence lost us our knowledge of the ancient world.
#55 to #53
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] That just proves how twisted humanity is. In reality, people will claw each others eyes out to try and see, but we are also capable of better, and that's what we should aspire to.
#62 to #58
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] It's not about murdering the weak, no one has to die.
#68 to #65
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] Mother nature does not care whether you are weak, so long as you reproduce.
#103 to #102
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] Why is it bad to idealise traits of a specific race? Maybe because it's ******* stupid.
#105 to #103
-
schnizel (11/24/2015) [-] No, it's glorious. That's how only the best traits are kept alive, that's not just about keeping your race pure, it's about selecting a good partner to breed with. And I know you are a wasted product by being race mixed yourself and as its manifestation you ask for degeneracy and corruption, but keep it to yourself.
#107 to #105
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] I would say I don't have a race, I am unburdened by culture or racism. Besides, since only the best traits survive, the best way to find them would be for all humans to mix together.
#112 to #109
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] Don't they? Then in what way are your genes superior?
#74 to #71
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] You seem to have a very poor understanding of how evolution works. To a carrot, a rabbit is a wolf.
#80 to #77
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] How about the example of cats in australia, which are now vermin because marsupials are simply inferior to mammals.
#96 to #88
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] Eugenics is the most sickening thing humanity has yet conceived. Except minions **** those things.
#85 to #83
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] No, I claim that weakness should not be derided for being so.
#15 to #14
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] I'm not depressed, I'd say I was liberated. I can experience culture through an clear lens.
#18 to #16
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] By the way, chances are your ancestors think rather poorly of you. Nothing personal, people just hate change.
#22 to #20
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] Old people don't like young people, extend that over 200 years and they'd be positively disgusted. I mean, you don't even know how to work the land!
#25 to #23
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] Well gee how could I have known that. Free pass there.
Maybe old people like you because you're rather conservative? Maybe because you're referring to your own family. I mean old people as a general group, their distaste for the youth and the future are well-known.
Maybe old people like you because you're rather conservative? Maybe because you're referring to your own family. I mean old people as a general group, their distaste for the youth and the future are well-known.
#31 to #27
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] For you. You are pretty conservative.
The "youth" have a distinct culture, and some old people don't have any manners. The problem is that times change and people don't.
The "youth" have a distinct culture, and some old people don't have any manners. The problem is that times change and people don't.
#34 to #31
-
schnizel (11/24/2015) [-] Not really, the only conservation I can have is making another Golden Horde.
>The "youth" have a distinct culture, and some old people don't have any manners. The problem is that times change and people don't.
And war has changed and my dick is the new weapon that will surpass metal gear but I don't like the way we're going with the whole "generation z culture".
>The "youth" have a distinct culture, and some old people don't have any manners. The problem is that times change and people don't.
And war has changed and my dick is the new weapon that will surpass metal gear but I don't like the way we're going with the whole "generation z culture".
#35 to #34
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] Well I don't particularly like human culture at all yes I know so edgy , but at least the young people of today aren't trying to lynch each other. Much. As much.
#37 to #35
-
schnizel (11/24/2015) [-] >The "youth" have a distinct culture, and some old people don't have any manners. The problem is that times change and people don't.
ayy lmao
>but at least the young people of today aren't trying to lynch each other. Much. As much.
That's a shame, every atom of my body yearns for violence.
ayy lmao
>but at least the young people of today aren't trying to lynch each other. Much. As much.
That's a shame, every atom of my body yearns for violence.
#57 to #3
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] >>#54
Well probably none, not that I would have any need of them to. I suppose it depends on the cause.
Well probably none, not that I would have any need of them to. I suppose it depends on the cause.
#63 to #61
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] What's wrong with that? Why would they fight for me? I'm not related to them, I have no connection to them bar a general proximity.
#73 to #70
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] Well why would I get into that situation in the first place? Firstly, rape is most common by people known the victim; I make it a habit not to associate with rapists.
#78 to #75
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] People do bad things, people are criminals whether the law says rape good or rape bad. In the end all that matters are the decisions of people.
#116 to #3
-
schnizel (11/24/2015) [-] There is no strong gene VS weak gene in genetics, but dominant VS recessive genes. If you mix in whites and blacks you won't get a person with the best of both, you would get the person with the most black genes since blacks have dominant genes and whites have mostly recessive genes, plus you would get outbreeding depression, lower fertility, unmatched traits and unused "activators along with every single disease from one and the other side.
#127 to #116
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] So black genes are dominant? Therefore superior, since nature only makes the strongest creatures. I don't have low fertility or "unmatched traits", whatever that means. I don't have any sort of disease whatsoever.
>>#125
I'm not a mongrel, and I do look like my parents, dumbass.
>>#125
I'm not a mongrel, and I do look like my parents, dumbass.
#170 to #127
-
schnizel (11/24/2015) [-] What the hell do you mean identical situation? The blacks turned a white colony of Haiti, which was a paradise to live in into a ******** , they have turned Rhodesia, the main exporter of grain into a cannibalist ******** driven into starvation and poverty. They have turned South Africa from the country were blacks had one of the highest living standards in Africa into the rape capital of the world.
g ******* g
g ******* g
#129 to #127
-
schnizel (11/24/2015) [-] >So black genes are dominant?
Mostly.
> Therefore superior, since nature only makes the strongest creatures.
Elephants are stronger animals than blacks, therefor, blacks are useless. Looking at the accomplishments of the Sub-Saharans and the Indo-Aryans, I can see who's superior. It weren't the Africans who conquered the world, Europeans did.
>since nature only makes the strongest creatures
Who, when and where said that besides you?
>I don't have low fertility or "unmatched traits",
>>whatever that means
> I don't have any sort of disease whatsoever.
Right...
>I'm not a mongrel, and I do look like my parents, dumbass.
Sure.
Mostly.
> Therefore superior, since nature only makes the strongest creatures.
Elephants are stronger animals than blacks, therefor, blacks are useless. Looking at the accomplishments of the Sub-Saharans and the Indo-Aryans, I can see who's superior. It weren't the Africans who conquered the world, Europeans did.
>since nature only makes the strongest creatures
Who, when and where said that besides you?
>I don't have low fertility or "unmatched traits",
>>whatever that means
> I don't have any sort of disease whatsoever.
Right...
>I'm not a mongrel, and I do look like my parents, dumbass.
Sure.
#132 to #129
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] This goes back to the ******* video, they have what they have because what matters is the starting location and resources, not the colour of your damn skin.
Do you know what happens when you mix two human's dna? You get offspring dna. The people's skin colour is not relevant to that.
Do you know what happens when you mix two human's dna? You get offspring dna. The people's skin colour is not relevant to that.
#135 to #132
-
schnizel (11/24/2015) [-] >not the colour of your damn skin.
>Do you know what happens when you mix two human's dna? You get offspring dna. The people's skin colour is not relevant to that.
Race=/=Skin color
>This goes back to the ******* video, they have what they have because what matters is the starting location and resources,
<
>Do you know what happens when you mix two human's dna? You get offspring dna. The people's skin colour is not relevant to that.
Race=/=Skin color
>This goes back to the ******* video, they have what they have because what matters is the starting location and resources,
<
#139 to #135
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] Ok fine
1) Western europe and china have far more favourable climates for agriculture, and thus can support larger population, leading to greater advancement. Meanwhile, africa is mostly desert and rainforest, and has giant ******* cats that will eat you. In fact, egypt was a great civilisation because it sat on the nile, giving it fertile land enough to build up an empire.
2) That actually seems to be evidence for the point, not against. Great civilisations have great starch supplies. Africa has dirt.
3) Nothing in the plant world is comparable to wheat in any way. Vegetables don't provide as much starch as grains, and rice is too finnicky to grow in most places. China has the right land for the job. Most of the americas was forest or plains, both of which are poorly irrigated and make for terrible farmland. Ideally a river valley is needed, which is why the native americans lived in those regions. Look no further than australia, the blasted continent, to see what happens when you have no farmland or crops.
4) Africa has animals that resist farming, either by brute strength or by agility. Cows are not ******* dangerous, nor are the fast, and so you can pen and breed them. Australia did not have any mammals at all, as they would have out-competed marsupials long before humans arrived.
5) Civilisations are required to be stationary to advance beyond a certain level. That much is clear by the fact that no culture still does this.
6) The war was won far before the settlers started to fight. People were decimated by disease and then picked off. Of course superior technology helped, but you can't deny the reality.
7) I have nothing to say on this...
8) Urban populations are attuned differently to rural ones, skills differ between areas.
Conclusion: Europe and china had advantages in agriculture, as is still seen today. Saying any different is insane.
1) Western europe and china have far more favourable climates for agriculture, and thus can support larger population, leading to greater advancement. Meanwhile, africa is mostly desert and rainforest, and has giant ******* cats that will eat you. In fact, egypt was a great civilisation because it sat on the nile, giving it fertile land enough to build up an empire.
2) That actually seems to be evidence for the point, not against. Great civilisations have great starch supplies. Africa has dirt.
3) Nothing in the plant world is comparable to wheat in any way. Vegetables don't provide as much starch as grains, and rice is too finnicky to grow in most places. China has the right land for the job. Most of the americas was forest or plains, both of which are poorly irrigated and make for terrible farmland. Ideally a river valley is needed, which is why the native americans lived in those regions. Look no further than australia, the blasted continent, to see what happens when you have no farmland or crops.
4) Africa has animals that resist farming, either by brute strength or by agility. Cows are not ******* dangerous, nor are the fast, and so you can pen and breed them. Australia did not have any mammals at all, as they would have out-competed marsupials long before humans arrived.
5) Civilisations are required to be stationary to advance beyond a certain level. That much is clear by the fact that no culture still does this.
6) The war was won far before the settlers started to fight. People were decimated by disease and then picked off. Of course superior technology helped, but you can't deny the reality.
7) I have nothing to say on this...
8) Urban populations are attuned differently to rural ones, skills differ between areas.
Conclusion: Europe and china had advantages in agriculture, as is still seen today. Saying any different is insane.
#149 to #148
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] Cows might be hard, but buffalo and zebras are impossible.
#152 to #150
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] I know on good authority that zebras hate being ridden, and it's bad for their spines, but whatever.
If 10000 years ago those people swapped places they would turn out almost exactly the same.
If 10000 years ago those people swapped places they would turn out almost exactly the same.
#154 to #153
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] I base that on the fact that people are defined by their environment more than whether they are brown or not.
Seriously, you're going with "equality is bad"? That is not a good position to be in.
Seriously, you're going with "equality is bad"? That is not a good position to be in.
#157 to #154
-
schnizel (11/24/2015) [-] >I base that on the fact that people are defined by their environment more than whether they are brown or not.
Race=/=Skin color yet again and the word environmental is misused here. It is the forces in an environment that force an organism to become the way it is. The inferiority of blacks was proven from Haiti to South Africa when people tried to civilize them.
Race=/=Skin color yet again and the word environmental is misused here. It is the forces in an environment that force an organism to become the way it is. The inferiority of blacks was proven from Haiti to South Africa when people tried to civilize them.
#158 to #157
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] Race is also not somehow magically responsible for all good things your race does.
#162 to #160
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] I'm pretty sure Einstein was of jewish descent, renowned for being "untermensch"
#165 to #162
-
schnizel (11/24/2015) [-] >whenever I'm winning an argument?
Oh my god you're retarded, you lost the argument sweety. Your arguments are childish at best and you derail from each topic you encounter.
>Why would anyone try to exterminate a race that's intelligent?
Yes, you are retarded, you are definitely retarded.
>Maybe because it has nothing to do with race?
It's got something to do with that Kosher diet, right?
Oh my god you're retarded, you lost the argument sweety. Your arguments are childish at best and you derail from each topic you encounter.
>Why would anyone try to exterminate a race that's intelligent?
Yes, you are retarded, you are definitely retarded.
>Maybe because it has nothing to do with race?
It's got something to do with that Kosher diet, right?
#166 to #165
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] I'm losing? Are you kidding? You belong to a fringe group of crazies, I've already won.
#168 to #163
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] Give me evidence that suggests that african people are in any way inferior to white people in identical situations.
#164 to #163
-
platinumaltaria [OP](11/24/2015) [-] What is it with people and "damage control" whenever I'm winning an argument?
Why would anyone try to exterminate a race that's intelligent? Maybe because it has nothing to do with race?
Why would anyone try to exterminate a race that's intelligent? Maybe because it has nothing to do with race?
#156
-
hexproof (11/24/2015) [-] Wow his is very interesting :3 but whats up with the comment section tho
