Ethics and Science Quarantine Zone
  • acemuzzy
    Show networks
    PSN
    Acemuzzy
    Steam
    Acemuzzy (aka murray200)
    Wii
    3DS - 4613-7291-1486

    Send message
    Oh god here we go again
  • Faction Rally done. E3 over.

    Got time for another round.
    Gamgertag: JRPC
    PSN: Lastability95
  • Wait, you guys are still engaging this moron?
  • In think In fairness I engaged first this time.
    Gamgertag: JRPC
    PSN: Lastability95
  • JRPC wrote:
    . He's utterly misrepresenting Pinker in EN.

    The catchcry!
     I'd recommend actually reading the book. 
     

    I've read better angels and Language instinct and numerous other bits and bobs of his, I'm happy enough that I know the gist of his thinking, and the onus is probably on you, not that you'll take it, to explain how it's a misrepresentation. Because if we go down the rabbit hole of you looking for the problem with inequality at a base level again, jesus.
    "Kidnapper analogy"

    Lol

    Given the last round of your analogies, maybe you need to do better than "lol." The article's explanation of the problem with better = good is pretty clear. 

    Also, triple lololol at "I ceetainly won't read anything I disagree with!" I'll just play it all off as below me and so incorrect on the face of it, and bluster my way through.
    I'm still great and you still love it.
  • legaldinho wrote:
    Wait, you guys are still engaging this moron?

    I'ma post every time NJR drops a good un on Pinker or Harris, prolly. (Harris takedown incoming, apparently.)
    I'm still great and you still love it.
  • JRPC wrote:
    Omg I totally haven’t read the article! ...
      
    giphy.gif
  • Facewon wrote:
    Ive read better angels and Language instinct and numerous other bits and bobs of his, I'm happy enough that I know the gist of his thinking, and the onus is probably on you, not that you'll take it, to explain how it's a misrepresentation. Because if we go down the rabbit hole of you looking for the problem with inequality at a base level again, jesus.
    "Kidnapper analogy" Lol
    Given the last round of your analogies, maybe you need to do better than "lol." The article's explanation of the problem with better = good is pretty clear.  Also, triple lololol at "I ceetainly won't read anything I disagree with!" I'll just play it all off as below me and so incorrect on the face of it, and bluster my way through.


    Lol I'd love you to walk me through the logic of that one.

    Is it in the same way as the onus was on me to defend the funding of the Bell Curve?

    How is it not entirely on you to know what the hell you're talking about before wading into criticism having not read the book in question?

    Oh but you've read other books though right? 

    I see. 
    Facewon wrote:
    Wait, you guys are still engaging this moron?
    I'ma post every time NJR drops a good un on Pinker or Harris, prolly. (Harris takedown incoming, apparently.)

    So just to be clear, you're doubling down on the idea that the article is actually a fair representation of Pinker's book then?

    You seriously think Pinker would endorse that representation?
    Gamgertag: JRPC
    PSN: Lastability95
  • You're all about logic aren't you JRPC. Got your C or whatever spaz grade at science A level, but you are a late developer, discovered science and rationality in your late 20s. Now everyone else is a moron. Well done you, you logical man!
  • Wow, Jrpc really is an idiot.
    Steam: Punk
    Windows Live: mr of unlocking
  • And yet people keep engaging, so, um
  • Truth be told topic is important and interesting. Jrpc is just totally inadequate at defending the other side.

    Steam: Punk
    Windows Live: mr of unlocking
  • @JRPC- simple question. I haven't read the books or full article. How does the quote from the article misrepresent the book?
    SFV - reddave360
  • Face has got jrpc stumped so he's fucked off in a tantrum.
    Again.
    Steam: Punk
    Windows Live: mr of unlocking
  • legaldinho wrote:
    Come on now, Einstein was born in the 19th century. In Germany. What do we expect?

    Iq to equate wisdom so we can save ourselves from humankind' stupidity. Sadly this is not the case.

    Steam: Punk
    Windows Live: mr of unlocking
  • Facewon wrote:
    JRPC wrote:
    Face wrote:“But why was the trolley left unsupervised?”

    “Who tied those people to the tracks in the first place?”

    “The real issue here is railway health and safety legislation”.

    It doesn't matter.



    Well no, it doesn't matter if you get to put words in my mouth and change the questions.

    So again I'll ask why you used the term "access"? 

    You could answer that, or you could keep trying to squeeze a non real world example (like the trolley problem) into a space where we had a perfectly good real world example. 

    And this is a Harrisism, btw, because the Sudanese factory bombing was the real world example, and he chose to talk about Al Qaeda sending medicine to the states or whatever the fuck his unnecessary example was.

    Access implies that there's permission to be given, access begs the question what are the barriers to it, access ignores the question of whether there is enough of whatever is being asked for. You know, all the important things about getting medicine to people who need it in the third world.

    Oh look, an unanswered question from the last time.
    I'm still great and you still love it.
  • Facewon wrote:
    Brooks wrote:

    Since we're here.

    Further to the "you haven't read it" defense.

    I'm still great and you still love it.
  • RedDave2 wrote:
    @JRPC- simple question. I haven't read the books or full article. How does the quote from the article misrepresent the book?

    I’m not so sure it's that simple to answer properly here, but take this bit...

    If poor people in America today are better off than poor people were during the Great Depression, then poverty isn’t a moral outrage. Arguments of this variety are deployed throughout Steven Pinker’s Enlightenment Now.

    No they’re not. In fact Pinker makes no such arguments at all.


    The book absolutely demonstrates the incredible progress that we’ve seen in just about every measure we could care about - wealth, health, peace, safety, knowledge...etc He covers poverty/wealth in detail, but the idea that acknowledging the undeniable gains we’ve made is somehow hostile to the idea that people suffering today remains a "moral outrage" is ridiculous and is simply not something Pinker does.


    What's more that sentiment would be entirely at odds with the foundational Enlightenment value of humanism that Pinker’s promoting here - that ultimately it’s all about reducing suffering and improving the wellbeing of people through the application of reasoned compassionate action.

    Come to think of it, there’s very little talk of “moral outrage” in the book at all, one way or the other. I’d head over to Vox or Current Affairs if that’s the sort of thing you’re after.

    It’s pure strawmanning when he goes on to all that better ≠ good nonsense as Pinker argues no such thing.

    (now of course progress does = better and may be described as “a good” but that’s not what Robinson is attacking with his terrible analogy)

    which downplays the complaints of leftists by showing that human beings now are better off than they were during, say, the Holocaust


    The holocaust!?

    That’s an idiotic dichotomy and has absolutely no basis in the character of the book whatsoever.

    There’s a gazillion versions of this on Youtube but I’ve posted the Sam Harris one, just to piss everyone off.

    First hour is a Pinker talk that briefly outlines the thesis of the book. Well worth a watch.

    Perhaps keep a tally of how many times he suggests poor people should be grateful for what they’ve got because the Jews had it worse in the gas chambers.


    Gamgertag: JRPC
    PSN: Lastability95
  • I feel like I've won this thread like 80 times now or something.

    Its just nobody but me seems to notice.
    Gamgertag: JRPC
    PSN: Lastability95
  • Delusional and missing the point by a mile.
    Steam: Punk
    Windows Live: mr of unlocking
  • JRPC wrote:
    I feel like I've won this thread like 80 times now or something. Its just nobody but me seems to notice.

    Occam's razor?
  • JRPC wrote:
    I feel like I've won this thread like 80 times now or something. Its just nobody but me seems to notice.

    Cool you can fuck off then.
  • JRPC wrote:
    @JRPC- simple question. I haven't read the books or full article. How does the quote from the article misrepresent the book?
    I’m not so sure it's that simple to answer properly here, but take this bit...
    If poor people in America today are better off than poor people were during the Great Depression, then poverty isn’t a moral outrage. Arguments of this variety are deployed throughout Steven Pinker’s Enlightenment Now.
    No they’re not. In fact Pinker makes no such arguments at all.
    I downloaded the book and skimmed some of it. I think you're right that he doesn't make this argument. Definitely not that specific comparison to the Great Depression (I did a word search). The thing he does continually though is make completely redundant arguments through besides-the-point historical comparisons. e.g. 
    The rich have gotten richer, but their lives haven’t gotten that much better. Warren Buffett may have more air conditioners than most people, or better ones, but by historical standards the fact that a majority of poor Americans even have an air conditioner is astonishing.
    There seems to be a lot of this sort of stuff. He never says (that I've read, which isn't much) "so it's ok that people are poor because historically they were poorer". But the "It's not as bad as you think" motif is everywhere. It seems to be a book that answers people who think "Things have never been this bad." which it does well. But no one really thinks this, or at least no one sensible.  If you're position is that inequality etc are causing harm and misery, impeding progress, all the rest of it, and it's happening now, and is avoidable and can be improved, Pinker's got nothing for you.
  • And lo, for the umpteenth time, JRPC says "incredible progress that we’ve seen in just about every measure we could care about - wealth, health, peace, safety, knowledge" verbatim like it's a nervous tick.

    Is it in the blurb?

    Meanwhile, taking shots at sites because heaven forbid you deal with articles that disagree with your views.

    You've basically just asserted a bunch of stuff, again. 

    I'll concede that it's possible to read the Current Affairs piece and assume that some of the analogies he mentions may be literal/taken from EN, but I read it as hyperbole, the simpler examples of limbs etc were the hint. 

    Graphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 from the other article linked are the legwork that makes the analogies work, IMO. If you only shout about progress, and fail to look at how you measure it and fail to deal with the problem of inequality properly, the CA articles crude analogies work well enough. (And lol at complaining about bad analogies. It's like the last page of this thread didn't happen.)

    As that second article say repeatedly, lip service isn't enough.
    The book absolutely demonstrates the incredible progress that we’ve seen in just about every measure we could care about - wealth, health, peace, safety, knowledge...etc He covers poverty/wealth in detail, but the idea that acknowledging the undeniable gains we’ve made is somehow hostile to the idea that people suffering today remains a "moral outrage" is ridiculous and is simply not something Pinker does.


    What's more that sentiment would be entirely at odds with the foundational Enlightenment value of humanism that Pinker’s promoting here - that ultimately it’s all about reducing suffering and improving the wellbeing of people through the application of reasoned compassionate action.

    Come to think of it, there’s very little talk of “moral outrage” in the book at all, one way or the other. I’d head over to Vox or Current Affairs if that’s the sort of thing you’re after.

    Having read his book carefully, I believe it’s crucially important to take Pinker to task for some dangerously erroneous arguments he makes. Pinker is, after all, an intellectual darling of the most powerful echelons of global society. He spoke to the world’s elite this year at the World’s Economic Forum in Davos on the perils of what he calls “political correctness,” and has been named one of Time magazine’s “100 Most Influential People in the World Today.” Since his work offers an intellectual rationale for many in the elite to continue practices that imperil humanity, it needs to be met with a detailed and rigorous response.

    Besides, I agree with much of what Pinker has to say. His book is stocked with seventy-five charts and graphs that provide incontrovertible evidence for centuries of progress on many fronts that should matter to all of us: an inexorable decline in violence of all sorts along with equally impressive increases in health, longevity, education, and human rights. It’s precisely because of the validity of much of Pinker’s narrative that the flaws in his argument are so dangerous. They’re concealed under such a smooth layer of data and eloquence that they need to be carefully unraveled. That’s why my response to Pinker is to meet him on his own turf: in each section, like him, I rest my case on hard data exemplified in a graph.

    This discussion is particularly needed because progress is, in my view, one of the most important concepts of our time. I see myself, in common parlance, as a progressive. Progress is what I, and others I’m close to, care about passionately. Rather than ceding this idea to the coterie of neoliberal technocrats who constitute Pinker’s primary audience, I believe we should hold it in our steady gaze, celebrate it where it exists, understand its true causes, and most importantly, ensure that it continues in a form that future generations on this earth can enjoy. I hope this piece helps to do just that.
    Pinker claims to respect science, yet he blithely ignores fifteen thousand scientists’ desperate warning to humanity. Instead, he uses the blatant rhetorical technique of ridicule to paint those concerned about overshoot as part of a “quasi-religious ideology… laced with misanthropy, including an indifference to starvation, an indulgence in ghoulish fantasies of a depopulated planet, and Nazi-like comparisons of human beings to vermin, pathogens, and cancer.” He then uses a couple of the most extreme examples he can find to create a straw-man to buttress his caricature. There are issues worthy of debate on the topic of civilization and sustainability, but to approach a subject of such seriousness with emotion-laden rhetoric is morally inexcusable and striking evidence of Monbiot’s claim that Pinker “insults the Enlightenment principles he claims to defend.”
    But we don’t need to look outside the human race for Pinker’s selective view of progress. He is pleased to tell us that “racist violence against African Americans… plummeted in the 20th century, and has fallen further since.” What he declines to report is the drastic increase in incarceration rates for African Americans during that same period (Figure 3). An African American man is now six times more likely to be arrested than a white man, resulting in the dismal statistic that one in every three African American men can currently expect to be imprisoned in their lifetime. The grim takeaway from this is that racist violence against African Americans has not declined at all, as Pinker suggests. Instead, it has become institutionalized into U.S. national policy in what is known as the school-to-prison pipeline.

    This brings us to one of the crucial errors in Pinker’s overall analysis. By failing to analyze his top-level numbers with discernment, he unquestioningly propagates one of the great neoliberal myths of the past several decades: that “a rising tide lifts all the boats”—a phrase he unashamedly appropriates for himself as he extols the benefits of inequality. This was the argument used by the original instigators of neoliberal laissez-faire economics, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, to cut taxes, privatize industries, and slash public services with the goal of increasing economic growth.

    Pinker makes two key points here. First, he argues that “income inequality is not a fundamental component of well-being,” pointing to recent research that people are comfortable with differential rewards for others depending on their effort and skill. However, as Pinker himself acknowledges, humans do have a powerful predisposition toward fairness. They want to feel that, if they work diligently, they can be as successful as someone else based on what they do, not on what family they’re born into or what their skin color happens to be. More equal societies are also healthier, which is a condition conspicuously missing from the current economic model, where the divide between rich and poor has become so gaping that the six wealthiest men in the world (including Pinker’s good friend, Bill Gates) now own as much wealth as the entire bottom half of the world’s population.



    There is no doubt that the world has experienced a transformation in material wellbeing in the past two hundred years, and Pinker documents this in detail, from the increased availability of clothing, food, and transportation, to the seemingly mundane yet enormously important decrease in the cost of artificial light. However, there is a point where the rise in economic activity begins to decouple from wellbeing. In fact, GDP merely measures the rate at which a society is transforming nature and human activities into the monetary economy, regardless of the ensuing quality of life. Anything that causes economic activity of any kind, whether good or bad, adds to GDP. An oil spill, for example, increases GDP because of the cost of cleaning it up: the bigger the spill, the better it is for GDP.

    This divergence is played out, tragically, across the world every day, and is cruelly hidden in global statistics of rising GDP when powerful corporate and political interests destroy the lives of the vulnerable in the name of economic “progress.” In just one of countless examples, a recent report in The Guardian describes how indigenous people living on the Xingu River in the Amazon rainforest were forced off their land to make way for the Belo Monte hydroelectric complex in Altamira, Brazil. One of them, Raimundo Brago Gomes, tells how “I didn’t need money to live happy. My whole house was nature… I had my patch of land where I planted a bit of everything, all sorts of fruit trees. I’d catch my fish, make manioc flour… I raised my three daughters, proud of what I was. I was rich.” Now, he and his family live among drug dealers behind barred windows in Brazil’s most violent city, receiving a state pension which, after covering rent and electricity, leaves him about 50 cents a day to feed himself, his wife, daughter, and grandson. Meanwhile, as a result of his family’s forced entry into the monetary economy, Brazil’s GDP has risen.

    Pinker is aware of the crudeness of GDP as a measure, but uses it repeatedly throughout his book because, he claims, “it correlates with every indicator of human flourishing.” This is not, however, what has been discovered when economists have adjusted GDP to incorporate other major factors that affect human flourishing. One prominent alternative measure, the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), reduces GDP for negative environmental factors such as the cost of pollution, loss of primary forest and soil quality, and social factors such as the cost of crime and commuting. It increases the measure for positive factors missing from GDP such as housework, volunteer work, and higher education. Sixty years of historical GPI for many countries around the world have been measured, and the results resoundingly refute Pinker’s claim of GDP’s correlation with wellbeing. In fact, as shown by the purple line in Figure 5 (right), it turns out that the world’s Genuine Progress peaked in 1978 and has been steadily falling ever since.
    While he pays lip service to the scientific principle that “correlation is not causation,” he then clearly asserts causation, claiming that “economic development does seem to be a major mover of human welfare.” He closes his chapter with a joke about a university dean offered by a genie the choice between money, fame, or wisdom. The dean chooses wisdom but then regrets it, muttering “I should have taken the money.”

    Lutz and Kebede show that a more effective policy would be to invest in schooling for children, with all the ensuing benefits in quality of life that will bring.

    Pinker’s joke has come full circle. In reality, for the past few decades, the dean chose the money. Now, he can look at the data and mutter: “I should have taken the wisdom.”

    As we can increasingly see, many of Pinker’s missteps arise from the fact that he conflates two different dynamics of the past few centuries: improvements in many aspects of the human experience, and the rise of neoliberal, laissez-faire capitalism. Whether this is because of faulty reasoning on his part, or a conscious strategy to obfuscate, the result is the same. Most readers will walk away from his book with the indelible impression that free market capitalism is an underlying driver of human progress.

    Pinker himself states the importance of avoiding this kind of conflation. “Progress,” he declares, “consists not in accepting every change as part of an indivisible package… Progress consists of unbundling the features of a social process as much as we can to maximize the human benefits while minimizing the harms.” If only he took his own admonition more seriously!

    Instead, he laces his book with an unending stream of false equivalencies and false dichotomies that lead a reader inexorably to the conclusion that progress and capitalism are part of the same package. 

    This brings us to the final graph, which is actually one of Pinker’s own. It shows the decline in recent years of web searches for sexist, racist, and homophobic jokes. Along with other statistics, he uses this as evidence in his argument that, contrary to what we read in the daily headlines, retrograde prejudices based on gender, race, and sexual orientation are actually on the decline. He attributes this in large part to “the benign taboos on racism, sexism, and homophobia that have become second nature to the mainstream.”

    How, we might ask, did this happen? As Pinker himself expresses, we can’t assume that this kind of moral progress just happened on its own. “If you see that a pile of laundry has gone down,” he avers, “it does not mean the clothes washed themselves; it means someone washed the clothes. If a type of violence has gone down, then some change in the social, cultural, or material milieu has caused it to go down… That makes it important to find out what the causes are, so we can try to intensify them and apply them more widely.”

    Looking back into history, Pinker recognizes that changes in moral norms came about because progressive minds broke out of their society’s normative frames and applied new ethics based on a higher level of morality, dragging the mainstream reluctantly in their wake, until the next generation grew up adopting a new moral baseline. “Global shaming campaigns,” he explains, “even when they start out as purely aspirational, have in the past led to dramatic reductions in slavery, dueling, whaling, foot-binding, piracy, privateering, chemical warfare, apartheid, and atmospheric nuclear testing.”

    It is hard to comprehend how the same person who wrote these words can then turn around and hurl invectives against what he decries as “political correctness police, and social justice warriors” caught up in “identity politics,” not to mention his loathing for an environmental movement that “subordinates human interests to a transcendent entity, the ecosystem.” Pinker seems to view all ethical development from prehistory to the present day as “progress,” but any pressure to shift society further along its moral arc as anathema.

    This is the great irony of Pinker’s book. In writing a paean to historical progress, he then takes a staunchly conservative stance to those who want to continue it. It’s as though he sees himself at the mountain’s peak, holding up a placard saying “All progress stops here, unless it’s on my terms.”
    Sorry brooks.
    I'm still great and you still love it.
  • Monkey:

    I downloaded the book and skimmed some of it. I think you're right that he doesn't make this argument. Definitely not that specific comparison to the Great Depression (I did a word search).


    The thing he does continually though is make completely redundant arguments through besides-the-point historical comparisons.

    e.g.

    The rich have gotten richer, but their lives haven’t gotten that much better. Warren Buffett may have more air conditioners than most people, or better ones, but by historical standards the fact that a majority of poor Americans even have an air conditioner is astonishing.

    That’s interesting. How come you see that as redundant?

    It’s a trivial example for sure, but i think that’s the point. Air conditioning could hardly be considered a basic human requirement, but nevertheless it’s a “luxury” that has a positive effect on wellbeing (having recently moved to a much warmer climate I can testify to that) and one that’s widely available across social strata.

    Now if you broaden it to less trivial examples closer to what may be thought of as 'necessity'; refrigeration, running water/sanitation, preoperative anaesthesia. When you add these up along with countless other examples it equates to massive improvement in wellbeing across the board.

    Here’s an interesting (slightly tangential) point that I’ve just remembered from the book;

    What is the value of refrigeration?

    A fridge costs what, like $200 - $2000 right? But it’s value is far, far greater than that.

    How much would of your own personal wealth would spend if push came to shove to maintain the utility of refrigeration?

    I’d bet a hell of a lot more than that.

    How much would the richest and most privileged people in the world have to spend to access this high utility technology 150 years ago? Literally no amount of money in the world, yet today even the poorest in society have access to it and benefits it brings.


    monkey wrote:
    There seems to be a lot of this sort of stuff. He never says (that I've read, which isn't much) "so it's ok that people are poor because historically they were poorer". But the "It's not as bad as you think" motif is everywhere. It seems to be a book that answers people who think "Things have never been this bad." which it does well. But no one really thinks this, or at least no one sensible.  If you're position is that inequality etc are causing harm and misery, impeding progress, all the rest of it, and it's happening now, and is avoidable and can be improved, Pinker's got nothing for you.

    Unfortunately that’s simply not true. 

    In fact there’s an entire chapter dedicated to describing and quantifying how actually the exact opposite is the case; that undue pessimism and progress-denial is widespread, despite the abundance of evidence to the contrary. He also dives into why this may be the case, including looking into the psychology that may explain it (chapter 4; Progressophobia).  


    Pinker:

    Seeing how journalistic habits and cognitive biases bring out the worst in each other, how can we soundly appraise the state of the world? The answer is to count. How many people are victims of violence as a proportion of the number of people alive? How many are sick, how many starving how many poor, how many oppressed, how many illiterate, how many unhappy? And are those numbers going up or down? A quantitative mindset, despite its nerdy aura, is in fact the morally enlightened one, because it treats every human life as having an equal value rather than privileging the people who are closest to us or most photogenic. And it holds out the hope that we might identify the causes of suffering and thereby know which measures are most likely to reduce it.

    Fascist!

    He goes on to describe ways in which undue pessimism can actually be deeply harmful, beyond the general utility of having your conceptual understanding of the world track with reality.
     
    Gamgertag: JRPC
    PSN: Lastability95
  • See? Read before you judge....

    Edit: oh ffs!
    Steam: Punk
    Windows Live: mr of unlocking
  • JRPC wrote:
    ... refrigeration... yet today even the poorest in society have access to it and benefits it brings ...
    You reckon?
  • All seems pretty straightforward to me. Big claims of rationality, Enlightenment values, looking at the facts and the numbers etc. But it's all so clearly selective and interpreted to fit an already decided narrative, which really goes against those supposed Enlightenment values, especially in the duty - as I see it - of philosophy to be critical of existing power structures.

    To be fair, it's a problem with a great deal of Anglo-American liberal political philosophy, even in more serious stuff like Rawls. It's the philosophy of the dominant ideology, effectively, which is always going to struggle to be self-reflective. And sadly also means it gets far more attention than it warrants.
  • JonB wrote:
    Yes, this 'things aren't so bad' narrative is becoming a real bugbear of mine. Notice how it nearly always comes from white guys in western countries who are doing just fine thanks.
    JonB wrote:
    All seems pretty straightforward to me. Big claims of rationality, Enlightenment values, looking at the facts and the numbers etc. But it's all so clearly selective and interpreted to fit an already decided narrative, which really goes against those supposed Enlightenment values, especially in the duty - as I see it - of philosophy to be critical of existing power structures. To be fair, it's a problem with a great deal of Anglo-American liberal political philosophy, even in more serious stuff like Rawls. It's the philosophy of the dominant ideology, effectively, which is always going to struggle to be self-reflective. And sadly also means it gets far more attention than it warrants.
    hunk wrote:
    @JonB It's called 'conservatism'. They also apply it to their 'science' which they then present as fact.

    31ae41b31634e6ad98dd6968e286e464.gif
    Gamgertag: JRPC
    PSN: Lastability95
  • @JonB
    It's called 'conservatism'. They also (subconciously?) apply it to their 'science' which they then present as fact.
    They can't be self reflective as they would have to identify themsleves as a group. Which would be identity politics.
    They don't do identity politics obviously as that would make them leftist.
    Steam: Punk
    Windows Live: mr of unlocking

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!