The Family - a very interesting and disturbing series.

[Erroll 49]

I recently came across this series on Netflix, and while this is not my normal fare, | decided to give it a go. It seemed that in the present political climate in the US, with Donald Trump sinking to new lows almost every week, this show might be enlightening....

I have not seen enough to form an opinion yet, but from what I have watched so far, disturbing is  one of the first words which comes to mind.

[ryoder 1,384]

Damn. I thought this was a fictional series until I watched the trailer.

Wikipedia entry for Douglas Coe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Coe

[ryoder 1,384]

I just watched the first episode.

(BTW Well-known documentary-film-maker Alex Gibney is involved with this.)

It is astonishing, and I'm surprised I had not heard of it before, considering that the author's first book about it was published in 2008, then a followup book in 2010.

Almost cult-like, it is a religion based on only the books Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, & Acts.

A core belief is that political power is given by Jesus, so those in power are the chosen ones, entitled to do what they please.  This dovetails with the evangelicals blind allegiance to the current administration.

Rolling Stone review: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/netflix-the-family-jesse-moss-secret-christian-cult-washington-dc-869396/

Wikipedia page about the group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_(Christian_organization)

Edited August 11, 2019 by ryoder

[Erroll 49]

1 hour ago, ryoder said:

This dovetails with the evangelicals blind allegiance to the current administration.

Although, it does appear that it goes back at least as far as Eisenhower.

 

(I have been keeping an eye out for a grassy knoll, but have not seen one yet.)

[Coreece 190]

On 8/11/2019 at 3:32 AM, ryoder said:

 I'm surprised I had not heard of it before, considering that the author's first book about it was published in 2008, then a followup book in 2010.

Right, this is nothing new.  Leftist groups have been crying conspiracy for years and have even given Obama shit for attending the national prayer breakfast.  It just never gained much traction because like most conspiracy theories it's based primarily on biased preconceptions and suggestive innuendo that fails to make the case - and this series is just more of the same - a sloppy, incohesive and somewhat inconsistent 5-hour long gish gallop around the world and back.

But don't take my word for it:

The Atlantic:

"dramatic reenactments, a plinky and faintly menacing piano score, selective splicing of clips featuring Maria Butina and Muammar Qaddafi. And yet, as the series continues, it’s unclear whether the Fellowship is as powerful as it would like to be, or whether its aura of mystery is its most distinct asset."

"it’s hard to believe after five episodes that the Fellowship has more political influence than any K Street lobbying shop or Christian coalition."

 

Mashable:

"what could be a scathing exposé of a theocracy in the making falls flat, following too many leads that go nowhere in an already complex narrative."

"The narrative weaves together numerous accusations of apparent wrongdoing, but fails to tie them off with any one "Ah-ha!" moment."

 

Indiewire:

"The big frustration with “The Family” is that it explores so many different tentacles of the organization that it fails to come to a cohesive whole."

 

WaPo:

"Many progressives will love the documentary because it gives them what they want to hear, while conservatives will probably question the motives of those involved."

 

 

On 8/11/2019 at 3:32 AM, ryoder said:

A core belief is that political power is given by Jesus, so those in power are the chosen ones, entitled to do what they please. 

I can see how you might get that impression from the first episode which is basically an unflattering series of overly dramatic reenactments, but given the next 4 episodes that follow a more traditional documentary style, I'd say that being "entitled to do what they please" is a fairly inaccurate assessment depending on what you're actually talking about.

[yobnoc 142]

I just watched episode 1, and I’m torn between being horrified (my atheist self) and shrugging my shoulders (my conservative Lutheran upbringing saying “Christians gonna Christian”).

 

In context, I grew up with parents who flat out said and say to this day openly that they believe the United States should exist as a Christian theocracy.

 

So yeah, Coreece...this isn’t some far-fetched conspiracy theory. These people are out there, doing their best (and a damn good job) to influence the powerful to enact their agenda. The only wall that needs to be built in this country is the wall of separation between government and religion. 

 

I don’t give a shit what constituents you are elected by. If you submit policies and legislation that cannot be justified but for religious faith (any religion), that should be grounds for removal from office on the basis of treachery against the Constitution of the United States of America. I don’t want them thrown into prison, but they ought to be disqualified permanently from making laws.

 

No religion should be able to dictate laws. Period. Y’all don’t want Sharia law; I agree wholeheartedly. But that means Christianity based laws ride the pine too. Nobody has the right to inflict their religious tenets on me or anyone else in this country.

Edited August 23, 2019 by yobnoc
Grammatical error

[DJL 232]

This one isn't really getting on my radar.  It's not exactly explosive news that people who are wealthy, from the same religion and working in the same government will interact and attempt to influence things to their own benefit.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

8 hours ago, yobnoc said:

...These people are out there, doing their best (and a damn good job) to influence the powerful to enact their agenda. The only wall that needs to be built in this country is the wall of separation between government and religion...

...I don’t give a shit what constituents you are elected by. If you submit policies and legislation that cannot be justified but for religious faith (any religion), that should be grounds for removal from office on the basis of treachery against the Constitution of the United States of America. I don’t want them thrown into prison, but they ought to be disqualified permanently from making laws.

No religion should be able to dictate laws. Period. Y’all don’t want Sharia law; I agree wholeheartedly. But that means Christianity based laws ride the pine too. Nobody has the right to inflict their religious tenets on me or anyone else in this country.

 

18 minutes ago, DJL said:

This one isn't really getting on my radar.  It's not exactly explosive news that people who are wealthy, from the same religion and working in the same government will interact and attempt to influence things to their own benefit.

And that is part of our 'democracy'.

People of like beliefs or interests usually band together to have stronger influence on their legislators. 

Bikers, gun owners, even real estate agents. All have lobbying groups promoting their interests.

And I fully agree that it's just a little bit hypocritical to scream and yell "THOSE people want Sharia law!! THEY want to force their religion on us!!! 
While at the same time saying gay marriage, abortion, even Sunday alcohol sales go against their beliefs.

[DJL 232]

10 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

And I fully agree that it's just a little bit hypocritical to scream and yell "THOSE people want Sharia law!! THEY want to force their religion on us!!! 
While at the same time saying gay marriage, abortion, even Sunday alcohol sales go against their beliefs.

Agreed.

[Rick 67]

talk about tightening up gun laws and people will point out the 2nd

and then try to make laws based on religious beliefs and totally ignore the 1st

yep hypocrisy at it's finest 

[Coreece 190]

13 hours ago, yobnoc said:

I just watched episode 1, and I’m torn between being horrified (my atheist self) and shrugging my shoulders (my conservative Lutheran upbringing saying “Christians gonna Christian”).

Surely there's a middle man in there somewhere.

 

13 hours ago, yobnoc said:

In context, I grew up with parents who flat out said and say to this day openly that they believe the United States should exist as a Christian theocracy.

And yet it still isn't.  Do you think it's more likely to become a reality now than any other time in our past? 

 

13 hours ago, yobnoc said:

So yeah, Coreece...this isn’t some far-fetched conspiracy theory.

I felt the documentary failed to make it's case against this particular group and the level of influence they actually have.

But what stuck out to me was how people like Mark Siljander and Newt Ginrich admittedly were so eager to take power that spirituality became a "side anecdote" to the process in how they "plotted and planned" to take control of the house with a series of wedge issues to mobilize Christians and deliberately divide the country - and this was before Siljander was even associated with this so called "family."

And while that might not be anything new,  when you consider how this type of mindset plays out in groups like the federalist society, you get a better idea of what's actually influencing today's political climate.

 

15 hours ago, yobnoc said:

I don’t give a shit what constituents you are elected by. If you submit policies and legislation that cannot be justified but for religious faith (any religion), that should be grounds for removal from office on the basis of treachery against the Constitution of the United States of America.

Is that hyperbole, or are you suggesting an amendment to terms found in Article 3, Section 3 on what constitutes treason?

 

16 hours ago, yobnoc said:

No religion should be able to dictate laws. Period. Y’all don’t want Sharia law; I agree wholeheartedly. But that means Christianity based laws ride the pine too. Nobody has the right to inflict their religious tenets on me or anyone else in this country. 

And if anyone wanted to implement a moral tenet of sharia law that violated the constitution, it would be struck down as well - and it wouldn't really matter if Islam was used to justify the proposed moral law or not.

[yobnoc 142]

19 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Surely there's a middle man in there somewhere.

>>>There isn't.

And yet it still isn't.  Do you think it's more likely to become a reality now than any other time in our past? 

>>>It will if groups like these go unopposed

I felt the documentary failed to make it's case against this particular group and the level of influence they actually have.

But what stuck out to me was how people like Mark Siljander and Newt Ginrich admittedly were so eager to take power that spirituality became a "side anecdote" to the process in how they "plotted and planned" to take control of the house with a series of wedge issues to mobilize Christians and deliberately divide the country - and this was before Siljander was even associated with this so called "family."

And while that might not be anything new,  when you consider how this type of mindset plays out in groups like the federalist society, you get a better idea of what's actually influencing today's political climate.

 

Is that hyperbole, or are you suggesting an amendment to terms found in Article 3, Section 3 on what constitutes treason?

>>>Treachery is not the same as treason.  Treachery has many other synonyms.

And if anyone wanted to implement a moral tenet of sharia law that violated the constitution, it would be struck down as well - and it wouldn't really matter if Islam was used to justify the proposed moral law or not.

>>>Problem is: we're actually dealing with laws that are adjudicated "constitutional" by hand-picked, religious zealot justices because in Christianity, "the laws of god are higher than the laws of man."  So: Abortion, Birth Control, Discrimination, Marriage equality...we shouldn't even be having a conversation about these things, much less fighting to keep them legal (or illegal, for discrimination), yet here we fucking are - fighting christian zealots who want to impose the ideals of their religious flavor on the rest of us.  The whole while, these are distraction issues to keep us fighting each other while they laugh their asses all the way to the bank.  You think any of these congresspeople give a flying fuck about abortion?  Make the laws, who cares?  They'll just take their mistresses privately to some other more liberal country and get the procedure done while poor folk without the means to do so will be forced into further poverty due to lack of means to access abortion.

 

[Coreece 190]

19 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Is that hyperbole, or are you suggesting an amendment to terms found in Article 3, Section 3 on what constitutes treason?

>>>Treachery is not the same as treason.  Treachery has many other synonyms.

Is there any documentation on this idea of "Treachery against the United States Constitution" and the process by which one can be removed from office?

 

25 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

And if anyone wanted to implement a moral tenet of sharia law that violated the constitution, it would be struck down as well - and it wouldn't really matter if Islam was used to justify the proposed moral law or not.

>>>Problem is: we're actually dealing with laws that are adjudicated "constitutional" by hand-picked, religious zealot justices because in Christianity, "the laws of god are higher than the laws of man."  So: Abortion, Birth Control, Discrimination, Marriage equality...we shouldn't even be having a conversation about these things, much less fighting to keep them legal (or illegal, for discrimination), yet here we fucking are - fighting christian zealots who want to impose the ideals of their religious flavor on the rest of us.  The whole while, these are distraction issues to keep us fighting each other while they laugh their asses all the way to the bank.  You think any of these congresspeople give a flying fuck about abortion?  Make the laws, who cares?  They'll just take their mistresses privately to some other more liberal country and get the procedure done while poor folk without the means to do so will be forced into further poverty due to lack of means to access abortion. 

I'm really not inclined to argue with you about all these various social issues, but what you describe here seems to have more to do with wedge politics and groups like the federalist society that hold much more influence than the group portrayed in this documentary.  And for the most part, this documentary wasn't even really about all these social issues, but rather how religion was used to gain access to various government institutions and world leaders.

[yobnoc 142]

20 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Is there any documentation on this idea of "Treachery against the United States Constitution" and the process by which one can be removed from office?

 

I'm really not inclined to argue with you about all these various social issues, but what you describe here seems to have more to do with wedge politics and groups like the federalist society that hold much more influence than the group portrayed in this documentary.  And for the most part, this documentary wasn't even really about all these social issues, but rather how religion was used to gain access to various government institutions and world leaders.

You're really stuck on the word treachery, so I'll use a synonymous phrase instead:

 

Impeachment for not adhering to, and acting in bad faith toward the Oath of Office (you know, the one that says you'll uphold the Constitution?)

Upholding the Constitution requires that one does not give preference toward any religion.  Ours is a secular Republic, regardless of the majority of the populace identifying as some flavor of christian. 

 

From Jefferson's Danbury Letter:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

[Coreece 190]

40 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

You're really stuck on the word treachery

I'm trying to understand what you're talking about.  Your statement seemed a bit peculiar to me.

One of the problems tho is that you said "If you submit policies and legislation that cannot be justified but for religious faith,"   but ideas about things like abortion aren't necessarily justified just by faith.  I know plenty of atheists/agnostics that are against abortion and they don't need religion to justify that belief.   Even a lot of christian just file it under murder - no religion necessary.

40 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

separation between Church & State

I agree, I don't want religion in government and I don't want government in my religion -  it's a conflict of interest and that's when corruption sets in.

[yobnoc 142]

24 minutes ago, Coreece said:

I know plenty of atheists/agnostics that are against abortion

 

I'm gonna go ahead and say that I can't take you at your word for this for two reasons: 1) "Out" atheists are roughly 3.1% of the US population.  Those demographic trends are likely higher concentration in urban areas, and if I remember correctly, you're from Northern Michigan - a rural area.  and 2) Evangelical Christians don't make much of a habit of spending time with atheists.

It's no more murder than taking someone off of life support, or DNR directives.  There isn't much demographic data out there on the subject, but what I could find on Pew Research indicates that among atheists, 11% say that abortion should be illegal in all/most cases.  Among evangelicals, it's a whopping 66% for illegal in all/most cases.  I think that qualifies it as a religion-based issue, and no amount of mental gymnastics can make me see it any other way.

[Coreece 190]

2 hours ago, yobnoc said:

I'm gonna go ahead and say that I can't take you at your word for this for two reasons: 1) "Out" atheists are roughly 3.1% of the US population.  Those demographic trends are likely higher concentration in urban areas, and if I remember correctly, you're from Northern Michigan - a rural area.

Raised in the middle of Detroit City for the first half of my life.  After college I lived all over the country from Pittsburgh, to Chicago, to Clearwater, FL, to Santa Clarita, CA where I worked in Hollywood with almost every major film studio in the country - no atheist/agnostics there, right?  

And still plenty of atheist/agnostics up here, but maybe they're all just bluffing since many of them, except the two right across the street from me are all people I play poker with - not the most trustworthy guys if you know what I mean.

 

2 hours ago, yobnoc said:

Evangelical Christians don't make much of a habit of spending time with atheists.

Not that I particularly label my faith as such, but maybe you just have a shallow view of evangelicals - which is understandable considering all the animosity that seems to have build up toward your parents while growing up in Petoskey.  I actually dated a preacher's daughter from Petoskey when we were at MSU, and I've heard plenty of unpleasant stories from others that were raised in similar religious households like yours.  But I can't really relate since I was baptized as Catholic and didn't come from a very religious home.

So I don't know, maybe I just get along with these atheists because they never really displayed that " crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."   It's really hard not to think of that quote when reading some of your posts here.

 

2 hours ago, yobnoc said:

among atheists, 11% say that abortion should be illegal in all/most cases.

So there you go, surely they justify the moral objection to abortion with reasons other than religious faith.

 

2 hours ago, yobnoc said:

Among evangelicals, it's a whopping 66% for illegal in all/most cases.  I think that qualifies it as a religion-based issue

It's interesting because this was one of the wedge issues mentioned in the documentary used to garner votes, but just because religious people support it more than atheists doesn't mean that the sole justification is by some exclusive religious tenet/belief - that's just absurd.

And nevermind that you're starting to move the goal post.  First it was "justified by religious faith" now it's "a religion based issue."

 

2 hours ago, yobnoc said:

no amount of mental gymnastics can make me see it any other way.

No mental gymnastics needed.  You said "policies and legislation that cannot be justified but for religious faith."  Clearly there are other justifications for it, therefore it does not fit your qualifier for treachery/impeachment.

Edited August 24, 2019 by Coreece

[yobnoc 142]

15 hours ago, Coreece said:

Raised in the middle of Detroit City for the first half of my life.  After college I lived all over the country from Pittsburgh, to Chicago, to Clearwater, FL, to Santa Clarita, CA where I worked in Hollywood with almost every major film studio in the country - no atheist/agnostics there, right?  

And still plenty of atheist/agnostics up here, but maybe they're all just bluffing since many of them, except the two right across the street from me are all people I play poker with - not the most trustworthy guys if you know what I mean.

 

Not that I particularly label my faith as such, but maybe you just have a shallow view of evangelicals - which is understandable considering all the animosity that seems to have build up toward your parents while growing up in Petoskey.  I actually dated a preacher's daughter from Petoskey when we were at MSU, and I've heard plenty of unpleasant stories from others that were raised in similar religious households like yours.  But I can't really relate since I was baptized as Catholic and didn't come from a very religious home.

So I don't know, maybe I just get along with these atheists because they never really displayed that " crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."   It's really hard not to think of that quote when reading some of your posts here.

 

So there you go, surely they justify the moral objection to abortion with reasons other than religious faith.

 

It's interesting because this was one of the wedge issues mentioned in the documentary used to garner votes, but just because religious people support it more than atheists doesn't mean that the sole justification is by some exclusive religious tenet/belief - that's just absurd.

And nevermind that you're starting to move the goal post.  First it was "justified by religious faith" now it's "a religion based issue."

 

No mental gymnastics needed.  You said "policies and legislation that cannot be justified but for religious faith."  Clearly there are other justifications for it, therefore it does not fit your qualifier for treachery/impeachment.

Soooo...social policy should be based on something that only 11% of people with no religious leaning can even attempt to justify on secular terms? 

Don't like abortion?  Don't have one. 

As for the trip out of my theist upbringing, I admit it was painful, and is still.  But to pigeonhole my motivations based on some silly quote is inappropriate. 

Imagine waking up every day in a world where most people you interact with on a daily basis are absolutely convinced that there are invisible unicorns all around us.  You don't buy it, and try to go about your day, but the overwhelming majority of people in your country not only believe in these unicorns, but they try to enact laws that you have to follow in order to avoid upsetting their invisible unicorns.  You see where I'm going with this...

It's painful every single day.  Because of my lack of belief, I'm in a minority group so discriminated against that I'm less likely than any other minority group to be elected to office were I to run.  But please, go on with the condescending "crusading spirit of the professional atheist."

I wasn't around for it, but I'd bet that was the same condescending attitude that was prevalent in days past with women's suffrage, civil rights (still a problem today; can't those blacks just know their place and stop being so loud about 'injustice'?), marriage equality (I was around for that one). 

So yeah, when people are legitimately discriminated against because they don't believe the same mythology you do, we tend to get real loud and pissed off.  Because I don't want anyone in this country to be limited by their fairy tale of choice (or those without one).  Just be a good person, and that should be it.  No religion needed. 

Funny, I hear a lot of christian angst about the "Muslim Brotherhood" infiltrating our government.  Rules for thee, but not for me, right?

 

[Coreece 190]

5 hours ago, yobnoc said:

Soooo...social policy should be based on something that only 11% of people with no religious leaning can even attempt to justify on secular terms? 

Secular Pro-Life seems to think they can.

And remember this is more about how people justify their objection to abortion in the first place.

Secular Pro-Life's justifications against abortion is practically the same stuff you hear coming from religious groups, and clearly it's not justified solely on religious faith, if at all.

 

7 hours ago, yobnoc said:

they try to enact laws that you have to follow in order to avoid upsetting their invisible unicorns.  You see where I'm going with this...

You're going to provide legal documentation of proposed laws citing "the appeasement of deities" as justification against abortion?

 

8 hours ago, yobnoc said:

to pigeonhole my motivations based on some silly quote is inappropriate. 

Sez the guy that makes dumb ass assumptions about where I'm from and who I hang out with rather than staying on point.

 

As for the rest of your post, it's all over the place.  But that part about how you're so discriminated against was precious, flame on. . .

[yobnoc 142]

8 hours ago, Coreece said:

As for the rest of your post, it's all over the place.  But that part about how you're so discriminated against was precious, flame on. . . 

Oh hey look!  Data to support my specific claim!  You should try this sometime

Catholic, eh?  81% says "wouldn't matter" in their voting habits.

Is it really a dumb-ass assumption about where you're from?  You live in NoMI, right?  That's what I was trying to clarify; not your complete residential history.  Was I wrong about that?  Do you still hang with all your famous Hollywood elites?  Yacht trips with Tom Cruise?  Cocktail parties with the Wachowski siblings?

Also, there are about a dozen states that have so-called "religious freedom" bills.  They flat-out allow for discrimination based on theistic beliefs.  If you don't understand how they allow discrimination, insert the word "blacks" or "jews" in where you see "gay or lesbian" in the descriptions.  I'm not going to do your homework for you.  Also: why did you put quotes around "the appeasement of deities," when I never used that phrase? 

Talk about all over the place.  Sheesh!

Edited August 25, 2019 by yobnoc
Misgendered the Wachowskis.

[ryoder 1,384]

11 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Cocktail parties with the Wachowski brothers?

Pssst!

The politically correct term now is Wachowski siblings, or just "the Wachowskis".

;-)

[yobnoc 142]

1 minute ago, ryoder said:

Pssst!

The politically correct term now is Wachowski siblings, or just "the Wachowskis".

;-)

Is it?  I'm not up to speed on the Hollywood news; I'm sure Coreece will know though.

[ryoder 1,384]

1 minute ago, yobnoc said:

Is it?  I'm not up to speed on the Hollywood news; I'm sure Coreece will know though.

One came out as transgendered in 2008;

The other came out in 2016.

I just learned about this when I was reading up on the background of "Cloud Atlas"(2012) which I recently watched.

[yobnoc 142]

3 minutes ago, ryoder said:

One came out as transgendered in 2008;

The other came out in 2016.

I just learned about this when I was reading up on the background of "Cloud Atlas"(2012) which I recently watched.

Oh.  Well, then, an edit is in order.

[Coreece 190]

4 hours ago, yobnoc said:

Catholic, eh? 

Tho I was baptized as Catholic, I didn't come from a particularity religious household like yours which might help explain our varying perspectives on the issue.  Prior to identifying with protestant Christianity in my late 20s I held a rather contemptuous view of religion that didn't offer much peace.

5 hours ago, yobnoc said:

Is it really a dumb-ass assumption about where you're from?  You live in NoMI, right?  That's what I was trying to clarify

You were trying to pigeonhole me based on your narrow-minded view of evangelicals and people in northern Michigan in an attempt to divert from having to address the inconsistency of your hyperbolic bullshit.

 

5 hours ago, yobnoc said:

why did you put quotes around "the appeasement of deities," when I never used that phrase? 

Ok, you said "to avoid upsetting their invisible unicorns." I thought I was making it easier for you by defining it more broadly.  Doesn't really matter tho since you have about the same odds of finding either one being cited as the sole justification against abortion.

So based on what you've said so far, we're still stuck at the point where it would be OK for representatives of people in groups like Secular Pro-Life to propose anti-abortion legislation based on secular justification, but representatives for religious groups using a similar justification should be charged with Treachery and banished from the chambers of Congress!

Or should the representatives of SPL be impeached as well for holding their nose and allowing Christians into their group?

. . .and then you expect to be taken seriously about how you're so discriminated against?  Please, If I don't vote for you, it's not because you're an atheist, it's because of your inability to focus and recognize bigoted shit like this.