-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
I had forgotten how much fun it is to argue with a lawyer when the lawyer chooses to be obtuse. Establishing that water is wet becomes a long, strange, tedious journey, filled with disputation over the nature of wetness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Your comment on the OED is odd. The OED doesn't list gah as a word.
See my earlier comment about the OED versus the 40 immortals, and the differing attitudes toward word adoption in English vs. French. If you still don't understand the contrast and underlying point, or if you wish to quibble further, let me know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
1)So any series of letters does not apply as a word.
2)Usage makes a word.
3)If they are used long enough they get to join the English club.
It would seem from 2 that any series of letters if used are a word which undercuts 1. People here certainly use gah so it must be a word. This would also mean if I simply type "ghtr is" that is also a word since I am using it. Use isn't qualified so I'm uncertain whether it applies to marks, marks that are letters or expands to sounds uttered.
Ah, the joys of hashing over an issue with a lawyer/philosopher -- and if I'm not mistaken, an academe. Use is not qualified, well, there you have it. What on earth could a Lemur have meant by the term "use"? Such vagueness is intolerable. Heh. (Is "heh" a word?)
I seriously doubt that you misunderstood "usage makes a word" on such an epic level; rather you seem to be engaging in Clintonesque disputation on what exactly "is" is. Language usage and adoption is too broad and too interesting a subject to be debated in such a stilted, tendentious manner. If you really are perplexed by the theory "usage makes a word," alert me to what part of it makes no sense to you, and I'll go grab some articles for you to read. But like I said, I doubt you've misuderstood at all. Rather, you're choosing to dispute an obvious linguistic truth to build your argument:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Is gah then a word? Has it been used long enough to join the club? If you say yes, what's the standard of measure? I think most take inclusion in dictionaries as the point of actual admittance. Since gah isn't in any dictionaries I know of this would seem to indicate no, it isn't a word. If you agree it isn't a word then whither the dogmatism in its defense?
Pindar, you silly, silly man. Dictionaries adopt words years after the fact. If a word is being used by a group of people who have a common definition, then the word is valid within that group. If a word spreads after that fact, and if it eventually is widespread enough to be adopted into a dictionary, then the word will probably have a nice, long life. Do I really need to explain the dynamics of word adoption and obsolescence to you, or are you just choosing to be lawyerly on the point to defend your indefensible position on the usage of a commonly accepted expression in the Org?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Are you suggesting this quote is a definition of what a word is? It looks like a comment on vocabulary and how languages change.
Right, right, the comment is entirely too imprecise, because it doesn't specifically reference Pindar and Gah. How could I interject it into this discussion?
Pindar, you loveable little lawyer, the quote relates to how the O.E.D. views the adoption and elimination of words in English. If you don't understand the role the O.E.D. played in defining how English works, let me know, and I'll send you a reading list. If you don't see how that philosophy and methodology applies to this argument, let me know, and I'll send you a Clue Phone.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Actually Pindar-sama substituting names to show how a comment is a bash at others is something I do fairly regularly. In no time has the learning tool been blamed.
So far you have started a thread that is a broad bash at an entire group. And then you try and limit it purely to that group.
2 point warning.
Then you have called anyone who uses Gah retarded in an emotional attack. That is a personal attack on entire sections of the Org.
2 point warning.
You have been called up on both, but instead of showing contrition for your ways you have blamed the people pointing out your errors. It's like blaming a cop for your speeding and then arguing with him.
Another 2 point warning.
Personally I think you should stop obfuscating information. Say things in a clear and concise manner, and cease from using emotionalism to try and get your points across. At this rate you appearing to be a closet emotionalist pinko. :laugh4:
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
The Left: people who consider themselves leftist. I don't think "the left" can further be generalised objectively.
Hmmm, that's kind of a bugger then. How can one make distinction between Leftism in the U.S. and Holland? How would you compare the Leftism of Holland with the Leftism of your neighbors?
Quote:
The only party we have that can really be considered conservative is the SGP, wich doesn't even allow women to enter the party.
I don't imagine these fellows are too popular.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Why did you start a thread that you considered an attack on the left?
Because I'm interested in rhetoric and I wanted to see what others thought of the fellow's commentary especially as it applied to the larger notion of identity politics. There are some people on these boards with interesting ideas.
Quote:
Group bashes can and have recieved 2-point warnings, same as personal attacks. Since you post recieved no warning (it didn't deserve one), my post was not out of line, simple. If you found it objectionable then maybe you can see the objections people had to your post, that's what I'd hoped to show you.
Your post was a personal attack. Further is was done by a Moderator. I don't think that can be justified based on what I understand are the standards for Moderators and the goals of the Org. As far as comparisons between the general and particular: if one says the Right is evil and another says Bob the Org. member is evil. These are not held to the same standard. Why? The one is a concept. The other is not. The one does not require personalization the other is explicitly personal.
Where is the hyperlink to the blog you quoted from?
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
That's how talking with Pindar always is.~D At least though, the topic and the point are very clear and the discussion actually gets somewhere when he acts like that.
I do what I can, because as you know, I care. ~:)
Quote:
Alright then, this all seems to be begging the question of whether or not another person can tell when a person's position is based either solely on emotion or with some combination of emotion and reason.
The stance of the commentary revolves around identity politics. The standard is when a person personalizes the theoretical. This personalization would then be the source of the emotionalism should it occur. The commentary is looking at the Left. Let me juxtapose another group that was brought up before: the Religious Right. From the stance of the common man does the Religious Right (RR) meet the same basic criteria as the author's object of criticism? I think if one looked at the various red button issues for the RR one could argue they do. Now one might ask why does the RR personalize topics like abortion or gay rights etc? The answer would be because their faith is part and parcel of how they define themselves and know the world. In short, their faith informs all that follows. Now the Left is not dependant on a religious ideology, but it may be that the rhetorical stance of identity politics parallels the religiosity of the RR.
Quote:
The fact remains that unless all leftists are emotional then you cannot reasonably come to the conclusion that leftism causes, or is responsible for, emotionalism.
The focus is the role identity politics plays in Leftism in general which may tie to emotionalism. See the above comment.
Quote:
First, this is assuming a coherent definition of leftism which has not been shown.
I've been asking some of the Europeans this to see how they would answer, but I would put forward that the Left or Leftism is any political affiliation or loyalty that takes as its touchstone Socialism through to Marxist thought. The stance then inextricably ties the political with the economic along specific lines and roles.
Quote:
Second, the responses here are not necessarily representative of all leftists.
No doubt.
Quote:
Third, even if it could be shown that somehow leftists were necessarily emotional, we've not established a firm defintion, and it is not clear where such a conclusion would apply.
See my comment on identity politics above which I think is the real crux of the issue more than any emotionalism which I think is more an effect and tell me what you think.
Quote:
In order for the conclusion that leftism is necessarily emotive to have credence, one would have to show the causal link of responsibility. Such a link has not been shown, and the conclusion is w/o reason.
Emotive and emotionalism are not the same, though exploring the emotive character of identity politics might also be interesting.
Quote:
Also, I think it is a bit funny that someone will claim they are being insulted by being called by their name that they chose.
I agree.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Pindar, why does it matter how we use Gah for?
It doesn't. The whole ballyhoo that led to the rise of the gaggle and the gah lobby began after I put forward a poll, one responder said he wouldn't participate because gah was not an option in the poll. I replied to him saying: gah is for the retarded. This incensed those for whom gah is near and dear.
Quote:
I don't personally use it, but you do understand that once a word is used enough people will catch on to it. The people that use Gah, use it because it has become a habit, not because they necessarily wish to denounce a specific meaning, and so put themselves in a position of having to make a choice. They simply reply Gah, automatically.
That is why it retards thought.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
As a hunch, I think that he voices his opposition because he enjoys people excited for no good reason. It is fun to say things that people like to get riled up about, especially over something that is not important enough to warrant getting excited about.
Now, would I do that? Scandalous indeed.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
If I had to be more specific as to what Left and Right mean to me, to me Left seems to be more about more rules with regards to economic matters (mainly about where to spend money, particularly in social services) and looser regulations in personal lives; the Right would leave the decisionmaking with regards to spending money to those who actually earn it and have it, but tends to be slightly stricter on personal lives. These are very vague definitions, and to be honest I don't really believe Right or Left can or should be defined, let alone that I'm capable of it. Generally I'd base myself in what the parties/politicians themselves claim to be.
What definition would you use for the Right and the Left?
I think your ideas are shared by your countryman.
I gave a simple definition of the Left earlier in this thread. I posted: "the Left or Leftism is any political affiliation or loyalty that takes as its touchstone socialism through to Marxist thought." For the Right or Rightism, as it were, I would say they appeal to one if not all of the following: such appeals to capitalism economically, limited government politically, save for in matters of national security, and tradition socially.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
See my earlier comment about the OED versus the 40 immortals, and the differing attitudes toward word adoption in English vs. French. If you still don't understand the contrast and underlying point, or if you wish to quibble further, let me know.
Gah remains absent from the OED. Do you want to argue it is soon to be included? If not, the OED references do nothing for your cause.
Quote:
Ah, the joys of hashing over an issue with a lawyer/philosopher -- and if I'm not mistaken, an academe. Use is not qualified, well, there you have it. What on earth could a Lemur have meant by the term "use"? Such vagueness is intolerable. Heh. (Is "heh" a word?)
This doesn't answer the incoherence of your earlier statements.
Quote:
Pindar, you silly, silly man. Dictionaries adopt words years after the fact. If a word is being used by a group of people who have a common definition, then the word is valid within that group. If a word spreads after that fact, and if it eventually is widespread enough to be adopted into a dictionary, then the word will probably have a nice, long life. Do I really need to explain the dynamics of word adoption and obsolescence to you, or are you just choosing to be lawyerly on the point to defend your indefensible position on the usage of a commonly accepted expression in the Org?
So your standard of measure is a word is something with an agreed definition in a group and that is it valid because the group says so. Does gah have a common definition? If a group (which I guess is two people on up) agree on some word meaning something, is everyone else bound to recognize the group's decision? If so why? If not, then what protects the group's decision from being labeled inane or retarded or anything else?
Quote:
Pindar, you loveable little lawyer, the quote relates to how the O.E.D. views the adoption and elimination of words in English.
That isn't what your quote says. It mentions that vocabulary in a living language doesn't have a well defined center and isn't a fixed quantity. It doesn't mention views on adoption or elimination.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Actually Pindar-sama substituting names to show how a comment is a bash at others is something I do fairly regularly. In no time has the learning tool been blamed.
Show me some examples.
Quote:
So far you have started a thread that is a broad bash at an entire group. And then you try and limit it purely to that group.
2 point warning.
Then you have called anyone who uses Gah retarded in an emotional attack. That is a personal attack on entire sections of the Org.
2 point warning.
You have been called up on both, but instead of showing contrition for your ways you have blamed the people pointing out your errors. It's like blaming a cop for your speeding and then arguing with him.
Another 2 point warning.
As of this post I have no warnings in the section that lists them. If you believe I have done what you posted above then I should have six warning points and I think that would mean being banned. All the more as this would be a public castigation which I didn't know was how warnings were given. If that doesn't occur then I will dismiss this post as disingenuous.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
I think your ideas are shared by your countryman.
I gave a simple definition of the Left earlier in this thread. I posted: "the Left or Leftism is any political affiliation or loyalty that takes as its touchstone socialism through to Marxist thought."
That's pretty limited and you know it. Or did you not study the works of Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Bertrand Russell, who are the proponents of liberalism, a major left-leaning ideology?
Marxist thought is more extreme than any leftist country today will accept.
Quote:
For the Right or Rightism, as it were, I would say they appeal to one if not all of the following: such appeals to capitalism economically, limited government politically, save for in matters of national security, and tradition socially.
The Fascists have disproven almost all of those characteristics.
capitalism economically - most right leaning regimes have a tendency to be totalitarian
limited government politically - most fascist regimes rig elections, and torture dissidents
tradition socially - social tradition could be anything...
Fascism, a major part of conservatism, cannot be ignored when talking about the right in general, can it?
Now I don't know enough about Leo Strauss's views on conervativism but they don't necessarily apply to what the international ideology of it is. You do however show your bias, but portaying the left as extreme socialists and the right as libertarians with traditional values.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
My my , thats clever Pindar , finally you give a definition of what you mean , then you say that you have already given a definition .
I am glad you finally removed the vaguenes and fuzzyness from the words you used .
Now you write of Marxism and socialism , what of Chritianity ? Jesus was a bit of a radical leftist /liberalist /progressivist wasn't he .
He certinly doesn't fit with your rightist definition , which also raise the question about the right.......and tradition socially.......now what could be more emotional about identity and perspective than traditions ?
As of this post I have no warnings in the section that lists them. If you believe I have done what you posted above then I should have six warning points and I think that would mean being banned. All the more as this would be a public castigation which I didn't know was how warnings were given. If that doesn't occur then I will dismiss this post as disingenuous.
Now that is the funniest thing I have read here in a long time .
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
To be honest I see very little point in the definition Right or Left. Perhaps it makes it easier for people to define themselves as such and removes some responsibility for independant thought, but it seems an easy way out to me when it comes to forming individual ideas. It's so much easier for politicians to define themselves as such to appeal to certain voters, and easier for the public to define themselves as either Left or Right so their chosen side can decide what they should think for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
The Fascists have disproven almost all of those characteristics.
capitalism economically - most right leaning regimes have a tendency to be totalitarian
limited government politically - most fascist regimes rig elections, and torture dissidents
tradition socially - social tradition could be anything...
Fascism, a major part of conservatism, cannot be ignored when talking about the right in general, can it?
Now I don't know enough about Leo Strauss's views on conervativism but they don't necessarily apply to what the international ideology of it is. You do however show your bias, but portaying the left as extreme socialists and the right as libertarians with traditional values.
That's a pretty cheap shot at the right, comparing them to fascists.
As for the Left, I don't think Pindar compared it directly to Marxism and socialism; what he said is that that is where the basis frequently lies, and I think he'd be right in that regard. Marxism or socialism may not be directly represented, but it is frequently common ground with regards to the origin of leftwing organisations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Hmmm, that's kind of a bugger then. How can one make distinction between Leftism in the U.S. and Holland? How would you compare the Leftism of Holland with the Leftism of your neighbors?
With regards to Europe it's more doable now since parties tend to associate themselves with similar leaning parties in the European parliament. But defining the Left on their own terms does create the issue you present, namely that labeling something Left is a very relative and subjective term that doesn't necessarily contain the same meaning in other countries. In such a case it's necessary to define parties in other countries on a relative term; as such the Republicans would be considered rather further on the Right in Holland, and the Democrats barely centre-Left.
It's these sort of ambiguities which lead to my statement in the first paragraph of this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
I don't imagine these fellows are too popular.
They're not, though they get their share of votes from the countryside.
As for Gah. If people want to use the word, fine. It can represent a statement of annoyance or a feeling of something being irrelevant, much like d'oh. But it has no place in polls or debates, and using it is merely for the sake of using it with no real point; as such it would retard a debate, and an automatic response to a Gah poll option is laziness.. Then again, if someone uses Gah in a poll option or an actual post, I could care less what their contribution could have been and it's perfectly possible to ignore it.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
That's a pretty cheap shot at the right, comparing them to fascists.
True , and what are fascists ?
What about those national socialists , they must be left since they are socialists , and they liked symbolism to identify themslves and their ideals so they must be leftist , hitlers speeches contained lots of emotion didn't they , and the emotion of the crowds was clearly evident so they must be leftist progressives then . But then again they did like traditional values and cultural identity , so they must be rightists, strong believers in national security , definately rightists .
Could this be an example of the whole premise of this topic being complete bollox ?
Now if we take William Joyce as an example , as he would be a 1940's eqivalent of a blogger .
What would his emotional take on identity politics tell us ?
Definately a Gah issue isn't it :2thumbsup:
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Nominally Hitler was a (national)socialist, however.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Nominally Hitler was a (national)socialist, however.
Exactly , but who would describe the Nazis as leftist/liberal or progressive ?
Now you could describe them as very emotional , which means they must be leftist .
"Nazism , Fascism, and etc-ism. are not merely simple politics for most of these people. Their politics to them are a core part of their identity, and, more importantly, a central support propping up their egos. They are enlightened because they believe these things; someone who does not believe these things, and yet who, superficially at least, appears to be about as smart as they might be, represents a threat to their egos. The foundation upon which a crucial structure of their sense of self-worth is undermined if they discover that there may be people who can pass as normal and intelligent and yet do not believe as they do.
If one is smart, then one believes in fascism.
If one believes in fascism, then one is smart.
Those are the two assumptions that prop up their sense of self worth, and they are refuted by examples of smart people who don't believe in fascism.
And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in nazism, they react intemperately to rejections of it. It's not merely a racial or political superiority that's being debated; it's they're very sense of importance that's being attacked. It's not merely national prestige which is being argued against; it's their value as human beings that is being uncouthly denigrated.
This tends to make the right more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues. It's all well and good to discuss a purely theoretical issue. But when you have a strong emotional investment in it -- when you have skin in the game, as it were -- it becomes not an academic debate but a heated argument."
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
To have points minused is to lose points.
But I'm telling you here, I really didn't "lose points". You wrote in some posts "minus one point..." but to date, all my points still remain...:laugh4:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Gah is for the retarded. It retards thought and is inane: as in empty.
Amazingly, I can't agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Whether you include yourself with the gah lobby is your own affair: nothing compels it be so, it is your own choice.
I do use 'Gah' as an option in polls occasionally, especially when the other answers are unsatisfactory. I guess I am included with the 'Gah' lobby then.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Gah remains absent from the OED. Do you want to argue it is soon to be included? If not, the OED references do nothing for your cause.
I never said that Gah was in the O.E.D., but thanks for propping up a lovely straw man! He'll look good when you knock him over.
While you heroically render straw men horizontal, I feel like I'm flogging a dead horse. Word adoption. English language. Difference from other languages. Crucial role O.E.D. played in same. Elasticity of English vs. other languages. *Yawn*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
This doesn't answer the incoherence of your earlier statements.
My statements could only be declared incoherent by someone who deliberately chooses to misinterpret every word and misconstrue every reference. Against that level of nit-picking, I'll admit, I haven't the patience to wrestle over what "is" is. Philosophy students and contract lawyers may consider it fun, but that's their business.
BTW, what exactly do you mean by "incoherent" anyway? I don't see that anyone's arguments in this room have had to do with a lack of a fixed phase relation between two waveforms. Are you referring to the incoherence of light, sound, or another waveform? Your use of "incoherenece" is unclear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pindar
So your standard of measure is a word is something with an agreed definition in a group and that is it valid because the group says so.
Riiiight, Pin. I thought up that definition all by my lonesome. I was having my breakfast cereal, and I said, "Let's invent some rules for linguistics, and then let's post them on the Backroom of the Org." That's exactly how it happened.
It's not my job to defend or define basic rules of linguistics to a lawyer. As I said before, if the process of word adoption in English is unclear to you, let me know, and I'll send you some reading material.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
That isn't what your quote says. It mentions that vocabulary in a living language doesn't have a well defined center and isn't a fixed quantity. It doesn't mention views on adoption or elimination.
You read that quote to mean a living language doesn't have a well-defined center? Interesting, since it states the opposite. As to how a discussion of the characteristics of English might have a bearing on our discussion, well, I'll leave it to you to see the fixed phase relation between two waveforms.
Have we gone far enough OT yet?
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
"Leftism, and liberalism, and progressivism, and etc-ism. are not merely simple politics for most of these people. Their politics to them are a core part of their identity, and, more importantly, a central support propping up their egos" All the commentary was not posted, only a paragraph. Do you note "these people" The identifier of the pronoun isn't noted as "isms" are not people. The actual thrust of the commentary was Left wing blogs.
Thank you for sharing this information now, had you done it your initial post then you had probably gotten responces in the direction you actually wished for.
Exactly were did you think that the readers would notice that this wasn't dragging in quite a few different ideologies and ideas into a big label called the Left and accused them to invest way too much feelings into an issue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
I think the misdirection is telling.
Of what? That is easy to provoke a emotional responce that contains little information on the subject at hand? Yes, I'm aware that pointing out you doing it, was a example of me doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
I don't think this is correct. The rhetorical tone of the Left in the U.S. has changed. I think the impetus may be from the Reagan Revolution followed by the end of the Cold War.
Possibly, I don't have that much insight on US politics before my (political) time. But then what policies did the left change after that? As for the shift to depend on actual politics and not something else, it has to correlate with a policy shift. If gives the shift, we can then analyse it and see if there's any true correlation or if it's depending on other factors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
So, you've succumb I see. You want to argue refutation cannot be serious?
No, I'm saying that using a refutation while preposing my own idea would either be not my style (attacking other's ideas during the presentation of my own idea) or be self-defeating (calling my own idea as gah would be quite stupid, if I don't find my idea as good, then why present it?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Really? That's amazing you have very different standards than I. If I had a student who sued it as a response to a position he wouldn't fare so well.
As I said, it's a summary of my response to a position, not my entire responce. Why? Well you said it yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Gah isn't a word.
Yes and no are words. The mimicry fails.
What exactly do you call something that is commonly used as a word, but isn't in the dictionary? As you have established that there's words and a random selection of letters, but as the language evolves it has to be a stage in between.
And for a theoretical discussion, what would happen with your position, if gah is established as a word? Would it change? If not, on what grounds?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
That's a pretty cheap shot at the right, comparing them to fascists.
In a way, it's pretty fitting in this thread.
For 5 pages, we have been informed that it isn't much difference between how people here on this forum who define themself as left in any way and how militant greens (the first group that is on the left and who falls into the catogory described at the first page I could think of) identify themself with the politics they're doing.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
The Fascists have disproven almost all of those characteristics.
capitalism economically - most right leaning regimes have a tendency to be totalitarian
limited government politically - most fascist regimes rig elections, and torture dissidents
tradition socially - social tradition could be anything...
Congratulations- you've just shown that the right is not facist. :bow:
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Congratulations- you've just shown that the right is not facist. :bow:
Congratulations on not understanding the word disproven, the point of my post, or being able to spell fascist properly.
-
Re: A perspective on the Left and identity politics
This thread grew rather long - unfortunately not necessarily due to a discussion of the topic but also diue to meandering into other topics, e.g., the meaning of "Gah", the definition of left vs. right, and last (but certainly not least) an exchange of snide remarks and close-to(if not even worse)-personal attcks.
This thread will be closed now - for any focused discussions of the "sub-issues" of this thread please feel free to start new dedicated threads.
Thanks for all contributions to the topic
Ser Clegane
:bow:
