I had nooo idea. Holy shit!
-
@xaade negligence is when you DON'T do something when you know that NOT DOING it has negative consequences. Here, we're talking about ACTIVELY ACTING - that is, DOING things you could choose not to do.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@boomzilla said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@boomzilla said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
This is getting really stupid. Let's try to get stuff back on track. What, specifically, would you outlaw?
Intentionally causing psychological damage.
Did you not understand the question?
I understood it no less than you understood mine. You asked what I wanted to be illegal. I aswered this.
This is completely contrary to the post history in this thread.
I'm not sure how you think that's an actual answer to my question.
It relates directly to what you asked for and it used common words everybody knows meaning of.
What does that mean, though?
Oh, a clarifying question. Well, what I meant is:
- intentionally - as in, doing things while being fully aware of consequences;
- causing - as in, being the actor that chooses to do these things (so lower management isn't really responsible if it's higher-ups' decision);
- emotional - as in, not physical;
- damage - as in, altering how the person functions in a negative way.
So...you really can't explain what you're talking about? It just feelz like something is bad?
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@xaade negligence is when you DON'T do something when you know that NOT DOING it has negative consequences. Here, we're talking about ACTIVELY ACTING - that is, DOING things you could choose not to do.
That's why I said it's closer to negligence.
You don't intend every outcome of your actions, even if you know what they could be, even with high likelihood.
Besides, a poor work environment could be described as "failure to create a proper work environment".
-
@boomzilla I don't know what more I could do to make myself more clear. Which part is still unclear to you? Or are you just fucking with me, trying to trick me into talking like Simple English Wikipedia editor?
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
I don't know what more I could do to make myself more clear.
You could stop being vague and posting generalities.
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
Which part is still unclear to you? Or are you just fucking with me, trying to trick me into talking like Simple English Wikipedia editor?
Are you trying to go full mason? Never go full mason.
Look, just answer the question with an actual answer: Which of Amazon's practices would you specifically outlaw?
-
@boomzilla said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
I don't know what more I could do to make myself more clear.
You could stop being vague and posting generalities.
You could stop being vague about your problem with what I say.
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
Which part is still unclear to you? Or are you just fucking with me, trying to trick me into talking like Simple English Wikipedia editor?
Are you trying to go full mason? Never go full mason.
I'm just trying to retain sanity. You're being unusually unhelpful on that front.
Look, just answer the question with an actual answer: Which of Amazon's practices would you specifically outlaw?
Whatever makes people work 12+ hours a day on regular basis. The article itself is very vague, so there's not much to go on about - but if it's being truthful, at the very least it means there's SOMETHING wrong with Amazon's rules. I don't know what they are, so I can't say what's wrong with them, but it not normal to have so many people crying at work. Maybe it's bureaucracy. Maybe it's how and how often employees are evaluated. Maybe it's overdose of manipulative "soft-skill" "trainings" and "team-building" "exercises". I don't know, I never worked there. But if the authorities were let to investigate, I'm sure they would uncover a lot of shady psychological play. Assuming the article is telling the truth.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
I'm just trying to retain sanity. You're being unusually unhelpful on that front.
Sorry, I can't possibly see how this could be true.
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
But if the authorities were let to investigate, I'm sure they would uncover a lot of shady psychological play. Assuming the article is telling the truth.
Maybe.
-
@boomzilla said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
But if the authorities were let to investigate, I'm sure they would uncover a lot of shady psychological play. Assuming the article is telling the truth.
Maybe.
Corruption notwithstanding.
-
I'm going to bring in one of the top comments on the first article as it makes an interesting point:
After reading this article, I want to vomit from sheer empathic anxiety. It's "mean girls" amped to "mean geeks gone manic." It's probably just a question of time before "going postal" gets revamped to "going amazon" when some disgruntled former "Amazonian" girds up in black commando gear & gets an AK-47.
This kind of workplace is not new. Compare & contrast: sweatshops in the U.S. & beyond. This kind of workplace is what made unions necessary. The 40-hour workweek that included weekends was negotiated between unions & management to prevent the kind of overwork that killed people before their time. Don't argue that Amazonians aren't being crushed in metal-presses as were their forebears, because the level of stress Amazonians are under is way beyond what's healthy & reasonable for human bodies to stand.
Friends, Amazon's culture described herein is nothing short of tyrannical oligarchy. Of course the company is secretive--only where there is transparency can there be justice.
That being ranted, I admit it---I use Amazon's services frequently. But jeez, can't there be middle ground between pedal-to-the-metal employee abuse & a mentally healthy workplace? Americans have accomplished a LOT in the 40-hour week. And if you do like your weekend, thank a union.
-
@xaade said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
Amazon's practices cause intentional psychological damage to employees
I doubt they want damaged employees.
Only if they're not yet too badly damaged for maximum productivity; then they'll discard the burned-out husks. They also don't seem to have any qualms about damaging the spouses and families of the employees who are required to work 85 hour weeks.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
Intentionally causing psychological damage.
So, not what Amazon is doing then.
-
So I'm assuming a 6 day workweek. 80 hours = ~13 hours per day. How the fuck is that even possible?
-
@stillwater Didn't you read the article? They're working nights and weekends. They're answering emails after midnight. They're being criticized for poor response time while on vacation. Why would you think they're only working 6 days?
BTW, it is possible; I've done it (for a limited time, and never again). I was once in the position of having to accomplish a specific goal by a specific date, or be fired, where there was basically no way in heck that was a reasonable goal. (Not coincidentally, this was from one of the few truly bad managers I've had in my career, the one whose disregard for his employees' personal time is most memorably demonstrated by routinely scheduling a "quick, half-hour" meeting just before lunch, knowing full well — because it did so every week — that it would run a full hour and a half, ending only we got kicked out of the meeting room by the next meeting, depriving some of the people of any opportunity to eat lunch.) I worked 16–18 hours a day, 6 1/2 days a week, for 6 weeks, and just managed to finish — not quite, but "close enough." So it's possible, but I'd never want to do anything like that again, and most definitely not where long hours were a routine expectation (even 50 hours would be seriously pushing it, and I no longer have the kind of family responsibilities I had then). One nice thing about being a contractor, I'm only authorized to bill 40 hours; I only work 40 hours, and nobody expects more.
-
@hardwaregeek said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
Why would you think they're only working 6 days?
I assumed at the least, on sunday one would pass the fuck out because of all the long hours. The kind of day where you are barely conscious and you pass out otherwise you would not be able to work long hours the next day.
@hardwaregeek said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
knowing full well — because it did so every week — that it would run a full hour and a half, ending only we got kicked out of the meeting room by the next meeting, depriving some of the people of any opportunity to eat lunch.
That sounds like pure malice :( .
@hardwaregeek said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
16–18 hours a day, 6 1/2 days a week, for 6 weeks,
I could not even in my wildest dreams imagine doing that for 6 whole weeks.
INB4 someone calls me a pussy for not being able to put in 60+ hours a week.
-
@stillwater said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
That sounds like pure malice
I don't think so; that would require intent. I think he just didn't care. Or else he was so incompetent that he didn't even know he was doing bad things to his employees, which is also entirely possible.
-
@hardwaregeek said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
Or else he was so incompetent that he didn't even know he was doing bad things to his employees, which is also entirely possible.
I bet everybody here has worked with someone like that.
-
@hardwaregeek said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@xaade said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
Amazon's practices cause intentional psychological damage to employees
I doubt they want damaged employees.
Only if they're not yet too badly damaged for maximum productivity; then they'll discard the burned-out husks. They also don't seem to have any qualms about damaging the spouses and families of the employees who are required to work 85 hour weeks.
Oh, I didn't say it wasn't pure evil. Just that the side effects aren't intentional.
I'm not sure why people are having a problem with words. I think emotions are getting caught up in the mix.
-
@xaade said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@hardwaregeek said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@xaade said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
Amazon's practices cause intentional psychological damage to employees
I doubt they want damaged employees.
Only if they're not yet too badly damaged for maximum productivity; then they'll discard the burned-out husks. They also don't seem to have any qualms about damaging the spouses and families of the employees who are required to work 85 hour weeks.
Oh, I didn't say it wasn't pure evil. Just that the side effects aren't intentional.
There's no difference between intentional side-effects and known side-effects.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@xaade said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@hardwaregeek said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@xaade said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
Amazon's practices cause intentional psychological damage to employees
I doubt they want damaged employees.
Only if they're not yet too badly damaged for maximum productivity; then they'll discard the burned-out husks. They also don't seem to have any qualms about damaging the spouses and families of the employees who are required to work 85 hour weeks.
Oh, I didn't say it wasn't pure evil. Just that the side effects aren't intentional.
There's no difference between intentional side-effects and known side-effects.
Maybe not from a pragmatic standpoint from the person affected.
However, these things have meanings when you talk about crime and sentencing and such.
It's like saying there's no difference between knowing someone will die, and murdering them.
So, choosing not to risk your life to save someone is murdering them?
So, no, I fundamentally disagree, and I think this is where we part ways. (for the sake of this discussion)
-
@xaade said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@xaade said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@hardwaregeek said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@xaade said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
Amazon's practices cause intentional psychological damage to employees
I doubt they want damaged employees.
Only if they're not yet too badly damaged for maximum productivity; then they'll discard the burned-out husks. They also don't seem to have any qualms about damaging the spouses and families of the employees who are required to work 85 hour weeks.
Oh, I didn't say it wasn't pure evil. Just that the side effects aren't intentional.
There's no difference between intentional side-effects and known side-effects.
However, these things have meanings when you talk about crime and sentencing and such.
It's like saying there's no difference between knowing someone will die, and murdering them.
Depending on circumstances, it very much might qualify. If you fire a gun in a crowd to kill a sealion, but instead kill a pedestrian, you'll be charged with at least voluntary manslaughter (if you live outside California, that is).
So, choosing not to risk your life to save someone is murdering them?
No, because there's a huge difference between an action and an inaction. A much, much bigger difference than between intentional side-effects and known side-effects.
-
@xaade @Gąska The phrase that comes to my mind for consequences that are known and not intended is "reckless disregard". And it's enough for a criminal conviction in the US and the UK (and possibly elsewhere as well).
-
@khudzlin I don't know the precise legal terms used in codes of either country, but a quick google says reckless disregard is a form of gross negligence, and gross negligence is due to inaction. My argument is that Amazon's practices can't be classified as negligence because they're actively doing things in planned, systematic manner that result in mental health problems of many employees.
-
@gąska The definition I got from wikipedia was "the consequences of the action were known and undesirable, but the actor went on with the action despite them". That does sound like what Amazon is doing if we assume they don't intend the mental breakdowns (I think they don't give a flying fuck, the greedy scum).
-
@khudzlin well, if that's the case, then it fits Amazon's actions perfectly.
-
@boomzilla said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
I'm just trying to retain sanity. You're being unusually unhelpful on that front.
Sorry, I can't possibly see how this could be true.
Yeah, I agree with @boomzilla.
He is as unhelpful as usual, there is nothing unusual here.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@xaade said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@hardwaregeek said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@xaade said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
Amazon's practices cause intentional psychological damage to employees
I doubt they want damaged employees.
Only if they're not yet too badly damaged for maximum productivity; then they'll discard the burned-out husks. They also don't seem to have any qualms about damaging the spouses and families of the employees who are required to work 85 hour weeks.
Oh, I didn't say it wasn't pure evil. Just that the side effects aren't intentional.
There's no difference between intentional side-effects and known side-effects.
Liar.
-
@boomzilla never go full blakey.
-
@gąska It's funny sometimes and really, your statement was so ludicrous that it seemed appropriate.
-
@boomzilla at least I made some statement. You, on the other hand, just make snarky comments without ever saying anything substantial. I'd love to have a good discussion even if it turns out I'm wrong (ESPECIALLY if it turns out I'm wrong). But what you're doing isn't discussion - it's laughing at me for reasons unknown to anyone but yourself.
If your goal was to piss me off with your trolling - congratulations, you won. Now, get the fuck out and let me have a serious discussion with the fine people over here about what exactly Amazon should be found guilty of, if at all.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
You, on the other hand, just make snarky comments without ever saying anything substantial.
Not at all. I mean, sure, I make plenty of snarky comments but I've said plenty substantial.
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
But what you're doing isn't discussion - it's laughing at me for reasons unknown to anyone but yourself.
No, when you say that there's no difference between intentional side-effects and known side-effects a lot of people are laughing at you.
If your goal was to piss me off with your trolling - congratulations, you won. Now, get the fuck out and let me have a serious discussion with the fine people over here about what exactly Amazon should be found guilty of, if at all.
I could say the same thing for you going around saying that THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW...but then not being able to even hint at what the law should be. I asked you multiple times to clarify what you were talking about before you actually admitted that you didn't know, after acting like it was totally obvious what you were talking about.
-
@boomzilla said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW...
And often there already is, and has been for hundreds of years. ;)
-
@boomzilla said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
I asked you multiple times to clarify what you were talking about before you actually admitted that you didn't know
Clarification: I do know what I'm talking about. I just don't know specifics of this particular situation. But I know that the situation is bad. I also know there are already laws against psychological abuse and against workplace abuse, even though I don't know specifics of those laws (IANAL).
Let me ask you this: which of the following sentences do you agree with, or consider highly plausible?
- Amazon's office workforce are representative of general population of office workers.
- Amazon has enough office employees for individual differences between people to become insignificant in statistical analysis of their workforce as a whole.
- A lot of Amazon office employees have developed psychological issues that manifest in frequent emotional breakdowns.
- Amazon has designed their internal procedures and policies to maximize efficiency of employees.
- Amazon successfully implemented those procedures and policies and managed to create a workplace environment that maximizes efficiency of employees.
- For such policies to be effective, they must necessarily include many psychological tricks that indirectly and unconsciously coerce employees to participate in desired behaviors.
- The absolute limit of employee efficiency is higher than the limit of employee efficiency achievable without detrimental effect on mental health.
- Amazon managed to put a large part of their workforce in this zone of ultra-high efficiency at the cost of mental health, between the two limits mentioned above.
- It is highly unusual for general population outside Amazon to dedicate themselves to their job as much as Amazon employees did.
- Mental health is important, and damaging mental health should be treated similarly to damaging physical health (body damage, water and air pollution, putting people in direct contact with cancerogenic materials or substances).
- Amazon must have been aware of the problem for a long time before the article in the OP has been written.
- Amazon didn't take any measures to prevent detrimental effect of work on employees' mental health.
- In designing their policies, Amazon ignored traditional and industry standards of how much dedication is required from the employees. In particular, they ignore the standard 40-hour workweek.
- Given all the above, it is reasonable to assume Amazon has specifically crafted their policies to maximize their employees' efficiency at the cost of their mental health.
- Specifically crafting policies to maximize employees' efficiency at the cost of their mental health is equivalent to intentionally performing actions that are known to have a side effect of damaging employees' mental health.
- Regardless of whether Amazon did it or not, intentionally performing actions that are known to have a side effect of damaging employees' mental health should be a punishable offense.
- Even in current legal framework, intentionally performing actions that are known to have a side effect of damaging employees' mental health is a punishable offense; therefore we don't need any more laws to fight this behavior - just more enforcement.
- Intentionally performing actions that are known to have a side effect of damaging mental health is equivalent to intentionally performing actions that result in damaging mental health.
- Intentionally performing actions that result in damaging mental health is a good dictionary definition (ie. not necessarily legal definition) of emotional abuse.
-
I think I'd need more evidence for at least these:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
A lot of Amazon office employees have developed psychological issues that manifest in frequent emotional breakdowns.
For such policies to be effective, they must necessarily include many psychological tricks that indirectly and unconsciously coerce employees to participate in desired behaviors.
Amazon didn't take any measures to prevent detrimental effect of work on employees' mental health.
And no, I don't agree with :
Given all the above, it is reasonable to assume Amazon has specifically crafted their policies to maximize their employees' efficiency at the cost of their mental health.
I think your bar for "intentionally damaging mental health" is the sort of law that is impossible to enforce consistently because it has exactly those vague things I've been trying to get you away from and is therefore probably a terrible law. I think that's a reasonable goal but until you can actually be specific I'm not going to support your push for shitty laws.
-
Sometimes we forget that we don't make laws against things that are sinful, we make laws to prevent behaviors that fuck over the rest of us.
Amazon is pushing their employees so hard they destroy them. Amazon are doing it because they can, and because the trail of broken post-amazon people is not amazon's problem.
Amazon can do it because companies and employees don't negotiate on even footing.
Amazon squeezing the workforce for every drop of productivity affects everyone in the economy. Whether you believe that behaviors that damage the economy long-term should be illegal is kind of up to you and your beliefs about individual liberty, and there's lot of nuance about what kind of behaviors count and what kinds of things are enforceable.
-
@boomzilla I think I see where you're coming from. It seems your main objection is trying to define "mental health" in a way that's consistent, practical and usable in law making. Is this correct?
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
Intentionally performing actions that result in damaging mental health is a good dictionary definition (ie. not necessarily legal definition) of emotional abuse.
No, it's not.
Intent is ridiculously hard to prove in court if the defendant actually thought to hide their intent.
It's basically mind-reading if there isn't any supporting evidence.
That said, there could be a case for showing that a company continues actions that it knows are damaging, and that we come down really hard on them. But if you phrase it as intent, your law will let too many off the hook and possibly have false positives that we don't want strict sentencing for.
Which is why this one word is so damn important.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@boomzilla I think I see where you're coming from. It seems your main objection is trying to define "mental health" in a way that's consistent, practical and usable in law making. Is this correct?
Not exactly. I'm saying you shouldn't really have "mental health" in the law at all, except as one of those throat clearing "Whereas..." parts of bills that give justifications for the law.
-
@boomzilla said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
I'm saying you shouldn't really have "mental health" in the law at all
Well, no more or less so than other forms of health. If it is reasonable to prohibit employers from getting their employees to behave in ways that tend to physically injure them, it is also reasonable to prohibit employers from getting their employees to behave in ways that tend to mentally injure them. (I'm not saying which level of government should make such rules, just that such rules — where they exist — shouldn't really distinguish strongly between the categories.)
-
@xaade said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
That said, there could be a case for showing that a company continues actions that it knows are damaging, and that we come down really hard on them.
I think @Gąska was getting at this all along.
-
@dkf said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
Well, no more or less so than other forms of health.
Indeed.
-
@boomzilla we could leverage medical knowledge of mental health professionals - psychiatrists and psychologists - to make a fairly decent compromise between "so specific it never applies in real life" and "virtually everything qualifies". We're already doing just that when trying to determine whether a defendant that committed a crime is really responsible for them (in Europe, we have the concept of "insanity at the time of the crime", which basically means you're not responsible for doing things if you couldn't control yourself; not sure if USA has similar laws or not). There are abuses from time to time, but really, it doesn't happen any more often than abuse of any other law. But this aside, the concept of an expert witness is very common and used in all kinds of criminal and civil cases - property damage, workplace accidents, assessing degree of physical assault, deciding whether appropriate safety measures were carried. It's not a groundbreaking proposition to have professional psychiatrists and psychologists tell the court whether the psychological damage is real or not, and whether it could be caused by particular policies.
-
@stillwater said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
I think @Gąska was getting at this all along.
I know they were.
They just did a bad job of understanding the issue.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
n Europe, we have the concept of "insanity at the time of the crime", which basically means you're not responsible for doing things if you couldn't control yourself; not sure if USA has similar laws or not
We do, but that is irrelevant to my objections.
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
It's not a groundbreaking proposition to have professional psychiatrists and psychologists tell the court whether the psychological damage is real or not, and whether it could be caused by particular policies.
You seem to be saying (as I've been accusing you) that we should have vague laws and then try to back into figuring out the actions and hold people accountable after the fact in an ad hoc fashion. That is absolutely evil.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
in Europe, we have the concept of "insanity at the time of the crime", which basically means you're not responsible for doing things if you couldn't control yourself
It's not that you can't control yourself.
It's that you can't grasp reality and aren't aware of your actions in reality and the effects.
For example, I think my coworker is an alien monster that is harming me via gamma rays. I stab in self defense.
-
@xaade said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
For example, I think my coworker is an alien monster that is harming me via gamma rays. I stab in self defense.
Wow!
-
@xaade said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
Oh, I didn't say it wasn't pure evil. Just that the side effects aren't intentional.
I don't think they intend to damage employees, but they push employees to produce with knowing, reckless disregard of the damage they cause. Employees are simply used until they are too damaged to be of further use, then discarded with no more concern than a piece of used toilet paper. And I should stop there, because this isn't the Garage.
I feel a deep, burning anger at Amazon just reading about the way they treat their employees, because I have worked at a similar company, where there was unrelenting pressure to produce, where I hated going to work in the morning, where work/life balance meant life===work and as long as you didn't aspire to any sort of life outside work, then everything was perfectly balanced, where I regularly fantasized about workplace violence, and that was a relaxed Sunday afternoon picnic in the park compared to the way Amazon treats their employees. At least if that article presents an accurate picture.
-
@xaade said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@stillwater said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
I think @Gąska was getting at this all along.
I know they were.
They just did a bad job of understanding the issue.
And y'all did a very bad job of explaining it to me. But at least you've had a good laugh at my expense!
I'm not arguing to prove myself right. I'm arguing to learn. I'm not going to learn anything if y'all are like "nope, you're wrong" and don't say anything more. It really pisses me off how people who could teach me many valuable things in 20 seconds, instead decide to point and laugh at how stupid I am. In the 20 seconds it would take them to explain why I'm wrong.
-
@khudzlin said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska The definition I got from wikipedia was "the consequences of the action were known and undesirable, but the actor went on with the action despite them". That does sound like what Amazon is doing if we assume they don't intend the mental breakdowns (I think they don't give a flying fuck, the greedy scum).
Reckless disregard is exactly the description I thought of last night, before reading @Khudzlin's post.
-
@stillwater said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@xaade said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
For example, I think my coworker is an alien monster that is harming me via gamma rays. I stab in self defense.
Wow!
har har.... very funny.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
And y'all did a very bad job of explaining it to me.
sigh....
