TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

RebeccaTwatson Archive

View 2 posts and 69 comments by RebeccaTwatson on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Yes indeed. Part of it is the relative docility of the Canadian populace, I suppose. The other part of that low-ish number is that our population is only 10% that of the United States, so in order to compare the two rates, you have to look at it on a per-capita basis. However, the original claim of the presenters is still suspect, at least.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 04:24 AM
3

It would seem that there are people who think this, yes. I mean, I'm sure some small subset of people go missing or are murdered and no one notices or cares, but it's unlikely that it's that significant. 300 women murdered at the hands of their significant other (read: wife-beatin' man) would amount to 8-9 murders per day on average, which is not something that I could see going unnoticed, especially in Canada's sociopolitical climate.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 01:34 AM
5

My father - an erudite teacher and scholar - had the misfortune of sitting in on one of their "lectures" to an all-male class of grade 7/8 students. You know, part of their outreach campaign to demonize every behaviour of the pubescent male and warn them that they're all Schroedinger's Batterers. Apparently, this 50% umbrella statistic about abuse wasn't even their most egregious claim. One of the presenters made the odious claim that over 300 women are killed by their partners every year in the…
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:19 AM
1

Exactly. No idea what stats are or how they're supposed to work to give some semblance of the truth.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 07:01 PM
0

Two points: 1) Is the masturbating hobo on the train really "harassing" anyone directly? I mean, sure, he's got his dick out and is swinging it to and fro, but that's just mental instability (most of the time), not de facto harassment. Being offended by that - and I'm sure most of the offence would come from it being "gross" - is more of a reflection of the character of the offended. Case in point: I once saw a guy with Down's syndrome picking his nose and eating it/smearing it all over the plac…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 05:35 AM
4

Precisely! It's all part of the problems of these DIY surveys. No controls, no oversight - it's just another way of forcing the conclusion you want under the guise of empiricism.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 12:05 AM
5

Good for them indeed! This type of bullying on the part of white knights is just ridiculous.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 10:22 PM
29

This is probably obvious to most, but this method of surveying suffers from ridiculous confirmation bias. If you have had the misfortune of being harassed on public transit, you're certainly be more likely to go and seek out/fill out this type of survey than the average denizen of OC Transpo. As such, their "97%" statistic is just laughable in its own right - most people who would take such a survey voluntarily have probably been harassed. The "journalists" and activists then take this erroneous…
/r/MensRights24/07/13 09:55 PM
5

Are you sure the texts you quoted aren't just parodies by Alan Sokal or others? Well, Foucault is indeed an idiot (and I can imagine him making such stupid conjecture), but that other stuff you quoted just seems like a deliberate exercise in masturbatory sociology. I'll be the first to say that our unfaltering reverence of medicine is foolish - we have quite a bit to learn yet - but the idea that everything within the field can be analysed through the lens of post-modernism is just retarded. Who…
/r/MensRights30/05/13 02:29 AM
1

As a person who works a lot with mostly shoddy statistics, let me attest to the rampant stupidity of the masses. People are horrible at connecting things or separating them; they'll link data which is unrelated and dissociate data which is causally related. Oh and there's also a whole realm of psychological foibles, like biases, emotional appeals, etc., that prevent even a rudimentary interpretation of the data. Never mind that, as a rule, stats are only representative if the group that was samp…
/r/MensRights08/05/13 11:06 PM
1

I think the 25% comes from "Springtide Resources," not from StatsCan. How they arrived at that number is largely a mystery; they don't disclose their methods. This only reinforces that stats can be manipulated any which way it pleases someone or some group to give you confusing math as you've cited. I have trouble finding the reference to 1 in 4 women being sexually assaulted during their tenure in university in any documents, but I did find the following: Looking through this StatsCan document …
/r/MensRights08/05/13 05:14 PM
1

Update on Tuesday, May 7, 10:30 a.m: Police spokesperson Sgt. Jean-Bruno Latour said on Tuesday that the investigation was handled properly and that there was a reason the investigation was going to take a long time, but he couldn’t share it because the police have to protect the confidentiality of the victim. “We didn’t do anything wrong,” he said. Don't get me wrong, I am no big fan of the fuzz, but this update makes me think of the Rehteah Parsons debacle (which this student cites as one reas…
/r/MensRights08/05/13 04:55 AM
2

I love how media outlets paint anyone opposed to identity studies and professional victimhood as some sort of mouth-breathing basement dweller with hairy palms and an unhealthy obsession with Hannah Montana. It's particularly infuriating that they'll be the first to scream NAFALT (not all feminists are like that!!1!!) but will lump all the denizens of a subreddit in together as cogs in the machine of some curmudgeonly hive mind. We're about as diverse here as anywhere else , for better or worse,…
/r/MensRights12/04/13 07:03 AM
1

I'm tempted to side with your view - this is how things would be done in a rational world. However, I've seen quite the opposite happen in practice. For example, my father was arrested after our bats hit retarded neighbour tried to run him over with his snowblower. The neighbour apparently called the cops and they showed up and arrested him without so much as a cursory explanation. I also had a friend who was arrested for telling a cop to mind his own business after the cop told him to "sit prop…
/r/MensRights12/04/13 03:16 AM
4

I suppose it's called "being entirely full of shit." While I appreciate the contributions of philosophy to progress and the modern world, yadda yadda yadda, at some point you have to stop and ask "what's with all the fucking labels?" It seems really hard to find anyone who has, well, thoughts of their own and whose views aren't primarily informed by some identity and/or ideology. I really wish I could talk to anyone who doesn't appeal to authority or willingly stand on the shoulders of giants. I…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 04:17 AM
3

Let's just say that the "Twat" is a way of preemptively goading SRSers and A+ers. I'm actually a rather hairy man who treats reasonable and rational people of all sexes, colours, genders, races, etc. with respect. The aforementioned "hip" ideologues don't fall into that description, however - reasonable and rational.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 10:13 PM
3

Precisely; debate ideas on their merits and then voice your support or opposition for them based on their merits. Blindly falling behind one view or the other - because to do otherwise is "---ist" - doesn't do any favours for anyone. But that's just not going to cut it in today's rhetoric. I can either be for the rights of women or for the rights of men; there's really no middle ground with these types...
/r/MensRights02/04/13 10:10 PM
8

That's the sad reality of our "post-modern" world. Everyone needs a label; one simply cannot have an opinion or diverse rational beliefs. If you are anti-racist, you must automatically be pro-affirmative action! If you're for the equality of women before the law, you must therefore also be against exposing and treating the problems that boys face. It fucking infuriates me to no end. For example, I'm ostensibly "anti-Zionist" but this doesn't mean I'm automatically "pro-Palestine." I'm just less …
/r/MensRights02/04/13 08:23 PM
1

I think I figured it out. The definition of dialogue as a verb is: Take part in a conversation or discussion to resolve a problem. As a noun, the definition is: Conversation between two or more people as a feature of a book, play, or movie. I think Adria and her chums have conflated these definitions. To them, I suppose a dialogue is a scripted and farcical piece of showmanship, rather than a serious attempt to resolve a problem.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 04:38 PM
2

Lucky guy; when I dialogue, I need to wipe for half an hour and then lift up the seat and clean the spatter from underneath...
/r/MensRights28/03/13 04:34 PM
1

I've read about the technical aspects of it; not so much the people involved, so I will be sniffing it out. I'm particularly fascinated by the rope-core computing employed on the Apollo guidance computers... From what I understand, MIT employed some people with very diligent sewing skills to make sure everything was kosher...
/r/MensRights28/03/13 04:27 PM
3

Will do! And, I am genuinely interested. I've heard much about women in biology and in physics/astronomy, but never much in the way of engineering. This might have more to do with the education I've undertaken to date and less with reality. That being said, I still see the bandwagoneers (of both genders) not doing any of the dirty work but taking all of the credit and/or hogging the spotlight.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 07:05 AM
9

REMEMBER! According to Adria, a dialogue is actually a monologue where the responses of the other party are just taken for granted. On a more serious note, Adria has apparently been "dialoguing" with countless individuals for many years now. The following snippet is telling about what Adria's version of dialogue actually is. At the time I was really angry and frustrated. We were unpaid volunteers organizing this event, and she never gave us the opportunity to try and solve the problem and was ab…
/r/MensRights28/03/13 05:01 AM
11

So, in many ways, she and her bleeding-clams supporters aren't so much interested in a real dialogue, but some highfalutin monologue where they get to proclaim what is right and wrong. Business as fucking usual...
/r/MensRights28/03/13 04:37 AM
18

Here's one thing I've always wondered. Why is it that at the dawn of the computer age, it was mostly (almost entirely?) men who were sweating in their mom's basement while etching PCBs and the like? Where were the women in the genesis of this new technology? (Serious question; my ignorance on this matter is rather large. I can blab on about females in astrophysics as nauseum, however...) The feminist answer, of course, is sexism and oppression. However, there have been many female pioneers in di…
/r/MensRights28/03/13 04:16 AM
19

This little gem: Debate and recrimination can and must give way to dialog (sic) that explores the root causes of these issues in the tech industry. So, debate must give way to "dialogue," huh? Last time I checked, debate is supposed to be about presenting rational arguments for or against something. I suppose, then, that "dialogue" is just newspeak for "you have to shut up while I yammer on about nothing, and then you have to agree with me." If this type of feels-based bullshit ever happens, goo…
/r/MensRights28/03/13 04:07 AM
4

"Many male offenders share the same depressingly familiar issues of abuse, drug and alcohol dependency and mental health problems," said the Conservative minister. "Men who commit crime should be punished, but we must not forget that a significant number have been victims during their lives and need targeted support to break the cycle of offending. I should post this slightly edited quote to Facebook/social media and see how few likes it gets...
/r/MensRights23/03/13 03:45 PM
1

Feminism, Religion, Identity Studies and their Reddit derivatives are all founded upon the same basic tenet: dogma. That's the difference between those insular communities and the "real world." In order to be part of any of the above insular groups, you have to believe in some stuff (or a lot of stuff) which cannot be proved, demonstrated, falsified or quantified. As such, your entire reason for being in those communities hinges on presuppositions which cannot withstand scrutiny. For example, fe…
/r/MensRights23/03/13 06:26 AM
1

There are plenty of people like that in all walks of life. In fact, they represent the majority of people, I would suppose. The difference between the normal world and SRS is the homogeneity of opinions in that community. Dissent is ubiquitous in real life; dissent in SRS/Feminism/Victimhood Studies/Religion is a one-way ticket to the pillory.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 08:33 PM
3

Found it! Via Wiki, no less... To quote: There has been some controversy over the interpretation of evidence purporting to show theory of mind ability—or inability—in animals. Two examples serve as demonstration: first, Povinelli et al. (1990)[11] presented chimpanzees with the choice of two experimenters from which to request food: one who had seen where food was hidden, and one who, by virtue of one of a variety of mechanisms (having a bucket or bag over his head; a blindfold over his eyes; or…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 12:36 AM
1

I'm not sure that it has been demonstrated in any other animal that your-species-truly. Perhaps you're referring to this? Basically, we've discovered that a number of higher-primates can recognize themselves - that they're aware of themselves as individuals. The basic test for this is to plop them down in front of a mirror - if they react with hostility or become aggressive/defensive, it suggests that they cannot recognize that the reflection is actually "them" instead of another animal. This is…
/r/MensRights21/03/13 10:58 PM
27

Indeed. I'm certain that if SRStrs were asked to do the test, they'd have to ask their Victim Studies professor what view they should pick.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 06:50 PM
22

Succinctly, it's to test whether or not a person (usually a child) has shaken off their egocentrism. In other words, whether a person is capable of acknowledging that other people may have different perspectives. In the case of the three mountains (Piaget's test), a person seated in front of a model of three different mountains is asked to draw/pick a picture of what a doll seated somewhere else around the model would see. A person who fails the test would only pick out or draw what they can see…
/r/MensRights21/03/13 06:39 PM
1

Same applies to musicians, artists, scientists, economists, etc.. The smart ones die; the dumb fucks keep on churning out garbage.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 10:01 AM
1

Belushi is great in that one. Enjoy!
/r/MensRights21/03/13 02:42 AM
1

How about 1941? That film was hilarious.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 12:04 AM
1

Or John Candy from Stripes?
/r/MensRights20/03/13 10:04 PM
1

There's nothing ostensibly wrong about the letter or the subject matter from a general perspective. There are other problems with the presentation and context, however. For example, the letter is not designed to be read by her children, but by a group of ideological adults. The simpler thing to do for your actual children would be to sit down and talk to them and suggest that, if for no other reason, you shouldn't treat people badly because you wouldn't want to be treated badly. Following up on …
/r/MensRights20/03/13 07:51 PM
1

My apologies, but whenever I think of "Army" now, I immediately imagine Buster Bluth cavorting around in a late 19th century Austrian military uniform. Accurate?
/r/MensRights20/03/13 07:45 PM
1

It is fun indeed... Cribbage: You drive pegs into holes? On wood? Sexism. You need to count your cards? If you get your count wrong, your opponent gets to "mug" you? Ableism! Dominoes: Simple. Cultural appropriation. From whom? PoC, of course... Chess (alternate): EVERYTHING ON THE BOARD IS SHAPED LIKE A PENIS! Jenga: Kids shouldn't play this in case one of them makes an off-hand comment about "gripping/fondling/holding wood." Twister: r/creepshots! Monkeys in a Barrel: RACISM!!1!!!1 Tic-Tac-Toe…
/r/MensRights20/03/13 09:10 AM
3

I'm sure it doesn't break any laws, nor is it indecent (per se). It's more that instead of being kids, they're being subjected to ideological horseshit - like being told that they or their friends are protorapists unless they were properly educated. I imagine that when they play any board game, Mom interrupts with some bullshit about 'rape culture' and 'oppression.' For example: Monopoly: Bad because of predatory capitalism; give your brother half of your money and go straight to jail. Connect-4…
/r/MensRights20/03/13 07:03 AM
3

Yeah; I was a curious young lad many moons ago and I recall having myriad questions about human anatomy. I was the exception, however, not the rule. As such, I doubt that Jim-Bob and Billy-Joe brought up the topics themselves. Instead, it would seem that Mom's political discourse interjected. That's really the only reason I can think of for sitting your two toddlers down and explaining how to use a fucking rubber.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 06:26 AM
3

you know all about sperm and eggs and penises and vaginas and vulvas... This part, not so troubling. Humans have body parts; they're bound to be curious about them. This next part, however: ...and orgasms and condoms and all that. I hope it's just because little Jim-Bob and Billy-Joe have sent a few too many comforters to the laundry room in the middle of the night. The alternative(s) are somewhat troubling.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 05:43 AM
2

I'm OK with talking to my hypothetical children about the birds and bees at any point if they bring it up. I won't lie to them about such matters because that would be dishonest and disingenuous of me. If they're 2-3, then yeah, I'd sugarcoat it at the very least, with all sorts of garden metaphors and what have you. But I'd never deny them access to reality or to the truth. That being said, it seems like the author of this letter sits these boys down with a dildo, a fleshlight and a blowup doll…
/r/MensRights20/03/13 03:23 AM
3

That's precisely what irks me about it - the presumption that unless you sit down with your children and patronize them, they'll turn into little rapists and molesters. This same tone also vilifies some normal facts of growing up, like making mistakes with romantic interests, being a dickhead and being called out for it, etc.. I'm not saying rape is a learning tool; with the attitude this article supports, these boys will be perpetually afraid of stepping over the line, no matter how innocuous. …
/r/MensRights20/03/13 02:43 AM
2

I understand the knee-jerk reaction that was bound to accompany the hoopla surrounding the media's coverage of the Steubenville rape trial, but... Well, is it really beneficial or healthy to preemptively inculcate preteen boys in all of this?
/r/MensRights20/03/13 02:03 AM
2

No problem; I'm human and I'm fallible - I also know that I know nothing in the grand scheme of things - but it's nice remind people of the same. That there's so much more to it than pop science yammering leads on; might as well get that message out too.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 10:33 AM
1

I meant growing parts of the human brain, possibly genetically modified so that it wouldn't actually be a human brain, because that would be monstrous. ...and the following are related And how would any of those neurons ever get information? The short answer is that you'd have to find a way to tell the neuron what kind of role it should play and what kind of behaviour it should exhibit. This might be accomplished through the use of gradients of various chemicals/factors, as is the case during no…
/r/MensRights15/03/13 09:46 AM
2

I can only imagine what a truly artificial biological computer would be like :/ Probably something monstrous. If we try to apply silicon construction techniques to build a brain, it's be fucking huge. There is one project - the BlueBrain Project - which seeks to accurately simulate cortical columns. The short of it is that it takes a multi-multi core supercomputer to simulate just 10,000 neurons. The human brain has trillions; we've a long way to go still. Here's the paradox, of sorts. Technolog…
/r/MensRights15/03/13 07:50 AM
1

Agreed. But you seemed to also be saying that size wasn't a factor at all. "Size" is only a factor when it comes to the number of neurons, if anything. Presumably, more neurons = finer discrimination or higher resolution, but even that is debatable. That being said: 10% of a big melon is still larger than 10% of a small melon. On average, the whole brain is about 10% neurons, with the remainder being glia and axonal tracts. Now, if an amygdala is "larger," this could mean that it is uniformly bi…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 08:15 PM
1

Sorry, the first part was a typo of sorts; I mean to say that size doesn't matter. Your saying that complexity and composition matter, which says nothing about size. What I'm saying is that complexity and composition are far greater indicators of function, intelligence and behaviour than just "size." In fact, when it comes to the number of sulci and gyri, we are in fact talking about "size", except on a folded 2-dimensional plane. More folding of cortical layers = larger surface area = more neur…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 05:31 AM
1

Obviously reading isn't your forté. I'm going to guess that you're American. Now, my username is basically Rebecca Twatson. There is a big difference in the surname, you see... Most notably the added part about how that hag of a cumdumpster for PZ Myers' chode being a twat. Get it? Now, how was it that I lied, again?
/r/MensRights14/03/13 04:01 AM
1

My lying, huh? Where?
/r/MensRights14/03/13 03:39 AM
1

I'll take that as a concession of defeat on your part. Cheers to you; have fun disseminating late 18th century science to the masses!
/r/MensRights14/03/13 02:21 AM
1

I'm not ignoring your presupposition; I'm giving you evidence to the contrary, that "size matters." Luckily, some people have already been doing the comparisons you propose with humans, which are, on the whole, more easily assessed for emotion and intelligence. Here The correlation coefficient of this particular relationship is 0.49, which is about as close to "no real correlation" as you can get. Here's a summary of what correlation coefficients represent from Wikimedia. Look, the basic argumen…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 02:17 AM
1

Go read up on some neuroscience & put away your crystals & incense. Your statements are not supported at all. Funny enough that the research you're citing is basically phrenology and incantation. And, yes, I have read up extensively on neuroscience because I am a neuroscientist. If there's one lesson I would give to any prospective students, it's that "human beings generally get shit dead fucking wrong." I don't suppose you have any facts or extensive studies to support your previous statement? …
/r/MensRights14/03/13 02:05 AM
0

It's 3 am here now, so I'll make this reply brief. http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1364661305000823-gr3.gif If you look at the linked graph, you'll see brain size as a proportion of body weight for a variety of animal species. What is most striking is that the animals on the far left, that have incredibly high brain weight to body weight ratios, are also less intelligent on many measures than say, whales, pigs, horses or elephants. The latter all have relatively low brain weight to …
/r/MensRights13/03/13 08:58 AM
1

Men use one side, the hemisphere devoted to logic to solve logical problems. They did this with focus. See, that's the problem - there is no "logical" or "emotional" hemisphere any more than there is a lobe that "contains the soul." These types of "facts" were proposed decades ago and have now entered the public sphere as truths when there is no evidence that this is in fact the case. And this is what I'm trying to do, I guess - if we're going to study differences in sex in the brain, it should …
/r/MensRights13/03/13 04:52 AM
2

Ya, no worries. I should have specified exactly what part I found objectionable in the original post. It isn't the "fact" that 'women are better multi taskers (which is perhaps a dubious claim on its own) but that widespread brain activity can in no way be correlated to better multi tasking ability.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 04:44 AM
1

If it's different, it must work differently in some way. There are differences. They account for a lot. They must, otherwise there's no reason to study the brain. However, those differences are far more specific than superficial observations about size, weight, etc.. I'm not saying it's the "end all be all" of brain differences, but it simply has to make some kind of a difference. Size might very well matter; it might very well not, however. The point is that at time in our scientific infancy, w…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 02:24 AM
1

I commented similarly in a thread about the amygdalar observation. Bigger amygdalae do not equal more rage, more testosterone, etc. Generally speaking, there is no definitive correlation between the size of the structure and some function or behaviour. Now, more or fewer neurons might impact memory and behaviour (although I still maintain that connectivity trumps absolute numbers of neurons), but the number of neurons doesn't depend on the volume of a structure. It is instead dependent on the su…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 01:08 AM
1

I find it interesting that you took offense at the idea women are better at multi-tasking, but not at the idea that men are better at getting one thing at a time done. I don't see how I was taking offence; I was pointing out the inaccuracy of that particular statement, that "using whole brain = multitasking ability." Even if the cited article reversed the genders, i.e. "men use their whole brain and are therefore better at multitasking," it would still be incorrect. Very much incorrect. Indubita…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 07:49 PM
0

Computer architecture and brain architecture, while superficially comparable, are mostly completely different. Take, for example, the observation that the human mind "holds" some 2-3 petabytes of memory. However, if we treat each neuron as a single byte or computational unit, the brain would only have a capacity of 5 GB or so. The difference between the soft computing of the brain and the hard computing of a CPU probably comes down to the nature of the connectivity. A connectivity which is itsel…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 05:46 PM
5

Well... Something like this comes to mind...
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:12 AM
3

Well, technically no. You use your whole brain all day, every day and all of the time. Some areas just become quiescent or fire in cycles during off-peak times, but nothing really ever goes dead quiet. That would basically be a coma. Seizures are the equivalent of areas of the brain firing en masse when they shouldn't be and those signals then propagate unchecked to other areas, causing a bootstrapping effect.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 09:49 AM
5

A simple examination of the sources for their medical claims reveals that they all come from some pop science hack job written in 2001. This means that the claims in this list are taken from a review book which probably cites lots of review articles itself - and these claims are a minimum of 12 years old now. 12 years might as well be 100 when it comes to most sciences. And, yes, I have a problem with any document that makes erroneous claims. Also, the fact that you're a Greek man accusing me of…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 09:39 AM
6

Yes, of course, my reply was purely because of butthurt. It doesn't have anything to do with the promulgation of outright lies or partial truths that then get repeated by the idiot masses. Then again, why hold anything to a high standard when we can just be happily mediocre? Substantiated facts are facts; unsubstantiated claims are the equivalent of random numbers generated in a MATLAB script, i.e, meaningless.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 08:23 AM
0

In addition, the amygdala (the part of the brain involved in producing emotion) is typically larger in males, resulting in more aggressive, uncontrollable emotions." If you find my other post in this topic, you can get an idea of why this specific idea is bullshit. However, for those with abnormally short attention spans (myself included): There is absolutely no evidence to support larger brain structures "making more substance X than...," "being better than...," "making person X better/smarter/…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 08:06 AM
18

9 - Scientists have discovered than men's and women’s brains actually function somewhat differently. When focused on a task, men tend to use only one side of their brain at a time, devoting all of their attention and concentration to the task at hand. Women, on the other hand, tend to use both sides of the brain at the same time, making them more adept at "multi-tasking.” Pure unadulterated horseshit. First of all, fMRI studies are still in their relative infancy. Depending on how you set up you…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 07:54 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter