New York and Alan are both insufferable intellectual snobs. Racism is real. Insisting that all claims of racism be humoured even when they are wrong is self-defeating. It's proof that PoCs see racism where there is none.
Please read the stickies in this forum, if you want to understand why this (and much else in your post) is highly problematic from an anti-racist standpoint.
I don't wish getting murdered by the cops on anyone, because that is by far the greater evil. But I wonder if this fucking idiot thief (currently making the FB rounds as "white privilege dance") appreciates that she was probably saved only by the colour of her skin.
http://abc7.com/news/suspected-car-thief-dances-during-dtla-police-chase...
I think you're 100% right .
What can we do to change that? Is the priority to convince white people that this difference is very much true and regularly happens?
No one should have to worry about being murdered by cops in the street. I'd say that is the priority.
Maybe it was seeing one too many instances of some people getting turned into a grease spot, while the white people almost invariably get the kid glove treatment to make sure they don't bonk their heads on the way in to the cop car.
But the fact that some stupid idiots don't seem to get just how lucky we are, even to the point of flaunting it, is kind of galling.
But the fact that some stupid idiots don't seem to get just how lucky we are, even to the point of flaunting it, is kind of galling.
In some cases I think it could be the delivery or atmosphere when someone asks questions. I've tried to get involved in this issue before elsewhere and the reaction was usually "you're a white male! STFU because you don't even KNOW".
Automatically I can see a reaction to that. "There's your white privilage thinking a POC needs to address you in a certain way!". Quite true but communication wise it's an excellent way to shut people from listening with your first sentence.
I experienced that a little bit here but I had a lot of people give me the benefit of the doubt and write very patient and helpful replies. I've even had a number of people send me PMs to further try and explain the terms and how they apply to me. Before I started chatting here I had no idea what white privilage was to say the least. Looking back now I think I felt a lot of racisim people were talking about was exaggerated. this place really opened my eyes.
If the question was how to talk to white people about race (and the goal was to show white people that a black woman would most likely been shot in the aformentioned video) maybe an answer is education and a constructive environment?
New York and Alan are both insufferable intellectual snobs. Racism is real. Insisting that all claims of racism be humoured even when they are wrong is self-defeating. It's proof that PoCs see racism where there is none.
Please read the stickies in this forum, if you want to understand why this (and much else in your post) is highly problematic from an anti-racist standpoint.
That minorities get shot in situations in which white people don't get shot is racism.
That minorities don't get jobs, or don't get apartments, or aren't treated with respect, due to the colour of their skin is racism.
Affirmative action is appropriate because historical racism as well as current racism is still impacting PoC.
In Canada the minority most damaged by racism is the indigenous people of Canada but all visible minorities face racism.
Enacting all the recommendations of the Truth and Reconcilliation committee is the minimum we can do but nothing can ever make up for the sins of the past because some things are just beyond full restitution.
The bartender could not pour the drink. It was not racist (nor sexist) to explain why he couldn't pour the drink it was normal human behavior by people of all skin colours.
There was no correct way for the bartender or Jessie to react. The only alternative was to lie to New York. I don't see how lying to PoC is respectful or a solution.
No one should have to worry about being murdered by cops in the street. I'd say that is the priority.
Maybe it was seeing one too many instances of some people getting turned into a grease spot, while the white people almost invariably get the kid glove treatment to make sure they don't bonk their heads on the way in to the cop car.
But the fact that some stupid idiots don't seem to get just how lucky we are, even to the point of flaunting it, is kind of galling.
Mentally ill or drugged white people still get murdered by cops, or those who speak a different language, or are in some other way disempowered.
White people have more power on average than minorities, at least in the western world and as a result of racism, which is obviously a huge injustice.
In that sense white people are certainly lucky and advantaged. So are the abled, the well, males and wealthy people.
No white person can know what it is like to be a PoC because even if they live as one they do so by choice. The same goes for being female, or disabled.
The message I'm receiving is that the function of the lucky and advantaged is to listen and agree. That is not a path to truth and reconcilliation.
Pondering, I don't think "It's proof that PoCs see racism where there is none" is, I think, an appropriate comment in an anti-racism forum. It's not in keeping with what are suppsoed to be agreed fundamental principles in this one forum.
Interesting profile of Rachel Dolezal. It's kind of long. Basically, she was raised by extreme Christian fundies whose abuse may have made her hate her identity as a white person. It doesn't justify what she did, but after reading this article, I can't help but have some sympathy.
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/rachel-dolezal-profile-interview
Though Rachel has rarely publicly discussed why and how her life her "hasn't been easy," news outlets have reported on Rachel's parents' extreme Christianity and the court case against her biological brother Joshua, who was accused of sexually molesting a young black girl. Rachel was a witness in the case, which also brought up an earlier sexual abuse accusation against Joshua. Rachel alleges her parents outed her in retaliation.
She seems to be a psychologically fragile person who survived a traumatic childhood, and found solace in having a black identity. Overall the article is a thoughtful discussion of racial identity.
Pondering, I don't think "It's proof that PoCs see racism where there is none" is, I think, an appropriate comment in an anti-racism forum. It's not in keeping with what are suppsoed to be agreed fundamental principles in this one forum.
It is terrible that some people think that racism is no longer an issue, just like the people that believe sexism is no longer an issue, or that false rape accusations are common.
Every time a woman is proven to have made a false accusation it sets us back. It fuels the argument that we can't trust women who say they were raped and that women use accusations of rape as a weapon against men. The whiteness of many of the women accusing Bill Cosby of rape didn't benefit them. They were still called liars until the numbers were so overwhelming that the truth could no longer be denied. Even then he still managed to keep fans willing to go to his shows.
People like to talk about intersectionality but it only seems to count in the sense of adding up grievances but not how intersectionality also mitigates. I have no doubt that Cosby has faced racism throughout his lifetime even while wealthy but his intersectionalities include male and wealthy. We had to get far into the double digits of white women to counter the word of one black man yet sexism is routinely dismissed as a frivolous complaint in the western world.
There was absolutely no correct way for the bartender and Jessie to react. None. If they agreed they were being racist the bartender would have had to serve the drink and Jessie would have had to drink it or also be accused of racism.
The flipside of racism being condemned is that being accused of it is serious. For white people to brush off accusations of racism would be to imply that it's no big deal.
This thread is entitled "talking about race with white people" not which implies white people also get to talk.
I have suffered prejudice all my life because I am female. The worst experiences of my life happened to me because I am female. That should afford me some latitude. Even so I would never say that "it is never a good look for a man to say something isn't sexist" especially when he is right. I would not interpret that as saying sexism doesn't exist at all nor even that he has never done anything sexist. I would feel patronized if he didn't speak up.
I have no idea how a PoC experiences life and I never will. It isn't possible. I do know that certain human emotions and reactions cross all boundries of language culture sex and colour.
Love and joy and anger and hatred and sorrow all feel the same. All people when attacked get defensive.
It is up to the privileged to accommodate the under-privileged not the other way around but if the goal is truth and reconcilliation communication has to be genuine and honest on both sides.
Do Lives Matter in Whitesville?
The brutal truth is that we live under an economic system that values profit above all working-class lives–whatever their hue–and indeed above human life itself, past, present, and future.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otZV-erA7jA&feature=player_embedded
I can't tell if that's racist or if I'm allowed to laugh at that.
Don't even know where 2 start. Doulbe-checked if i was on theOnion
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/03/24/the-american-lefts-history-of-racis...From the article:
An influential 1916 best-seller, The Passing of the Great Race — celebrating Nordic Europeans — was written by Progressive activist Madison Grant.
Grant and Franklin D. Roosevelt became friends in the 1920s, addressing one another in letters as “My dear Frank” and “My dear Madison”.
Grant’s book was translated into German, and Adolf Hitler called it his bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Grant
Grant was a close friend of several U.S. presidents, including Theodore Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt#Positions_on_immigratio...
When Madison Grant published his book The Passing of the Great Race, Roosevelt wrote this to Scribner's Magazine to promote it:
The book is a capital book; in purpose, in vision, in grasp of the facts our people most need to realize. It shows an extraordinary range of reading and a wide scholarship. It shows a habit of singular serious thought on the subject of most commanding importance. It shows a fine fearlessness in assailing the popular and mischievous sentimentalities and attractive and corroding falsehoods which few men dare assail. It is the work of an American scholar and gentleman; and all Americans should be sincerely grateful to you for writing it.[202][203]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothrop_Stoddard
Stoddard was a lifelongUnitarian and Republican. He was also an enthusiastic stamp collector.
UKIP Councillor criticizes BBC for "historical accuracy" over Nigerian/Jewish actor playing Margret of Anjou. Uses as evidence a tapestry which claims she was descended from a swan.
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/ukip-councillor-attempts-to-bla...
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/12/21/the-power-of-being...
Inspector Earl, a veteran who has apparently investigated hundreds of bank robberies in Toronto, also emphasized the thief’s language skills in the notes he uses to demand cash from bank employees. “The notes, to my understanding, are well written with proper grammar, which tells me that he very well may be, uh, maybe he’s never been in trouble before,” Earl said. This eagerness to explain the thief’s behaviour, to vouch for his intellect, is notable for its sympathy. Why don’t police give all suspects such benefit of the doubt? “Maybe he’s an educated individual and this is his only hope to get some kind of money,” Earl went on. Yeah, maybe. I wonder what policing in Toronto would look like if police were so generous towards all criminal suspects, particularly those who are not seen as white, male, well-educated, and well-dressed. Imagine police extended this generosity to the residents they disproportionately target through carding, people who are stopped even though they are not suspected of any crime.
The so-called lunchtime bandit has been telling bank employees he has a gun when he demands money. Yet Earl and the police have not issued the well-known public warning that the thief should be considered “armed and dangerous.” It is interesting that, in a city where police kill black people who are holding hammers or scissors, or who are unarmed, the same cops can make excuses for a white guy who had the good sense to shave before committing his crimes. That’s not privilege, it’s power, a power that transforms a public terror into an intelligent white man whose “only hope” is to take what he wants by force.
Behold - one of the most cringeworthy videos you will ever get to watch.
[youtube]iAr6LYC-xpE[/youtube]
I guess this is an example of how the anti-oppression perspective can become twisted when the left loses its soul. Self-righteousness sure is addicting.
Say you're sorry.
For what?
It doesn't matter, you have to say you're sorry.
I'm sorry.
You don't mean it! You're trivializing the issue!
What a shark tank.
You can see how furious they're getting with him because he wants to have a discussion. They were upset before, but they're getting enraged because he isn't on his knees begging for forgiveness. That's the kind of apology they want. A full confession of sins. Full capitulation and surrender.
They're dangerous. They're the problem. They're absolute cancer to the left. They are why Trump is president.
That one guy who got right in the professor's face...where does the power lie in that interaction? We're supposed to say that it obviously lies with the white, wealthy university professor, but you'd have to be insane to believe that.
1. i see no signs saying "we're on the left"
2. it seems they're upset about his personal behaviour again nothing to do with "left" thinking
3. i find your coments at least bordering on racism. you seem out to defame them at all costs.
4. wtf is your point here?
You mad?
3. i find your coments at least bordering on racism. you seem out to defame them at all costs.
What have I said that is defamatory, and what have I said that comes anywhere near bordering on racism? These students acted in an absolutely appalling manner, and it's made all the worse when you consider exactly what they were responding to.
It's old news by now, of course. That footage is just relatively recently released and shows more than previous footage had. Erika Christakis has written a good piece about the students', and others', response to her email. https://archive.is/wFuAs
Of course, these students are working to craft a narrative. People who act to complicate or thwart that narrative are seen as the enemy. We can all be guilty of this at times. I'm not going to deny that I take a somewhat perverse pleasure in spitting in somebody's soup like that. I like to counter mob mentality. I find mob behaviour extremely unnerving and dangerous. I don't even like the "NDP! NDP!" chants. It weirds me out. This is probably my preference for deliberation over action - whenever people are unanimous that something needs to be done, I want to be the person who says "Hold up a second, if everyone's agreeing, what are we leaving out of this analysis, due to groupthink?"
My point here is twofold. We need to champion freedom of speech and respect for dialogue. People are often afraid to speak up against the herd (see the above link), especially when it means they'll be accused of racism. So, we need to absolutely dismantle the idea that the role of white people in discussions of racism is just to listen and agree with whatever is being said...and that means dismantling the identity politics notion that group memership determines how authoritatively you can speak on a given subject.
We absolutely can't cede that ground to the right. Freedom of speech isn't a conservative viewpoint by any means, but there are conservatives who will gladly pretend that it is. The problem is that now some people on the left are happy to agree with them! "Oh, you're defending this professor against people saying 'How DARE you say that people upset about offensive halloween costumes should just look the other way, how DARE you minimize and trivialize our concerns,' get that racist right-wing crap out of here."
And let's not pretend that this isn't connected with left activism. It's a problem of the worldview that if people would only be more compassionate we could solve problems. I've heard some people say that it's about treating everyone as one big family. The problem is, that's impossible. There is always an out-group. So the out-group becomes political opponents, and they become seen as a threat. When compassion is the bedrock value, you can't help but divide the world up into the people who need to be protected, and the people who they need to be protected from. To quote Jordan Peterson, "There's nothing more compassion than what a mother grizzly bear feels for her cubs when she eats you because you got in the way." That's what's on display in that video. The students are hugging and comforting each other as though the Professor's words are a threat (really, he should have just said "I don't give a shit about your feelings, and you shouldn't need me to - pull yourselves together and act like adults, you bunch of babies" - try to imagine their reaction!) and they're ready to tear him apart for it. It's not really about race, it's only superficially about race. It's about dividing the world into two categories - family, and threats to the family.
My point here is to annoy the easily annoyed, and to point out what has been missing from the analysis that is costing us deeply.
I'm curious as to why you didn't post it in the thread about Peterson, seeing as you are tying it back to him. Or if you wanted to start a thread on the perils of political correctness this might be a bit more relevant there.
Not to compare Nicholas and Erika Christakis to Jordan Peterson (because they aren't like him) but this does relate a bit more to that divide. This thread has pretty much been about white people who don't have a clue about racism. And however much Erika's letter ran afoul of some students (and ended with them both leaving their positions), that wasn't actually where she was coming from.
On that issue (and with the hopes that you will take it over there, or start another thread) this very good article about constructive solutions to that divide (rather than just taking one side, and demonizing the other) makes the point claiming it is all about free speech isn't really a solution, and in fact makes the problem worse.
https://newrepublic.com/article/136600/fix-toxic-debate-political-correc...
And of course, there are a few cases in which ain't just white people.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/ben-carson-refers-to-slav...
The baffling thing there is there was no reason for Carson to frame it that way. Has he maybe been hanging around so long with people who deny the ugly truth of slavery that he just does it by reflex?
Samuel L Jackson started the #dickheadedtom hashtag in response. Found this there:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania
You can see how furious they're getting with him because he wants to have a discussion. They were upset before, but they're getting enraged because he isn't on his knees begging for forgiveness. That's the kind of apology they want. A full confession of sins. Full capitulation and surrender.
That seems to be very common place. When someone tries to have an intelligent debate the crowd gets even more pissed off. They can't handle articulate counter-points.
It's pretty comical watching singers, actors and other celebrities say something online that's misconstrued , attempt to genuinely apologize for it and get torn apart from SJWs. Any attempts to apologize is turned against them.
As for racisim I can't speak to Quizzical's intentions but getting called a racist (and nazi) is pretty much standard operating proceedure now days. It's a tactic to put someone on the defensive and shift the attention away from the debate and on to the person who's now trying to defend themselves against the henious accusation.
In the case of Peterson, there's simply no excuse for the professor's position. Using people's preferred pronouns is just courtesy and respect. Doing so doesn't compromise anyone's personal or intellectual freedom in the slightest.
These students had every reason to see his attitude towards pronouns-and his implicit rejection of trans identity at a time when trans people are facing brutal repression all over the world, as giving aid and comfort to people who want to see the trans community dead.
This is not about rarefied intellectual discourse, or the exchange of ideas. It's about physical survival, and this professor clearly doesn't care if what he says here encourages the killing of trans men and trans women.
What he's doing is no different than it would be to refuse to refrain from calling black students the "n-word".
In the case of this video, what we're seeing is a few minutes of footage from an exchange that went on for hours. We have no way of knowing how reflective the footage we're shown here(footage posted on YouTube by people with a right-wing ideological axe to grind) was of the entire exchange.
Nor do we really see what Professor Christakis did in the time leading up to the footage we are shown. His insistence on trying to act as moderator, in a situation in which he was far from a neutral bystander, likely read as a provocation to the students and convinced them that the whole thing was rigged against themselves and their concerns.
Ken: Do you mean Peterson? Or the prof in the video Boze posted? I thought the video prof was Halloween costume/cultural appropriation.
I meant Peterson, but I can understand why the reaction in the video could occur. And if you're trying to de-escalate people, the worst way to do it is to treat things they feel passionate about as nothing more than intellectual abstractions, or to imply that they are making a big deal about nothing.
Christakis doesn't sound like he's treating their concerns with respect. There's a dismissiveness in his approach-he's almost a parody of the detactched acadamic authority figure.
Mind you, that whole trip just looks like an ambush, and as such is designed to fail. Some kind of mediator probably would have helped everyone concerned.
That's true.
Self-delete. Dupe post.
In the case of Peterson, there's simply no excuse for the professor's position. Using people's preferred pronouns is just courtesy and respect. Doing so doesn't compromise anyone's personal or intellectual freedom in the slightest.
The floor recognizes the honourable Dave Chappelle:
[IMG]http://i63.tinypic.com/dg74ed.jpg[/IMG]
These students had every reason to see his attitude towards pronouns-and his implicit rejection of trans identity at a time when trans people are facing brutal repression all over the world, as giving aid and comfort to people who want to see the trans community dead.This is not about rarefied intellectual discourse, or the exchange of ideas. It's about physical survival, and this professor clearly doesn't care if what he says here encourages the killing of trans men and trans women.
Thing is, Peterson has no beef with the trans community, and has clarified that he's fine referring to a transwoman as "she" or a transman as "he".
It's the genderless/"genderfluid"/genderqueer "nirs" and "zirs" and "zims" and "zhes" and suchlike that he doesn't wish to humour. It might be a bit of an exaggeration of his position to suggest that he doesn't care if they're murdered, and also a bit of an exaggeration to suggest that not adopting the made-up term "zir" is somehow going to empower some violent k00K to murder someone. You don't have to agree with Peterson, and you certainly don't have to like or support him, but where's this really coming from?
What he's doing is no different than it would be to refuse to refrain from calling black students the "n-word".
Pretty sure that the "n-word" is a deliberate slur, with no commonly accepted usage in polite conversation and that "her" isn't.
Not calling a student Zir is litterally encourging people to murder them?
That isn't what he said, Paladin.
Maybe we should rename this to the poor hard done by white people's thread.
Irish people suffered too, you know. remember Scarlett O'Hara?
And this...
http://www.theroot.com/white-people-dont-know-when-to-quit-1793098098?re...
But. but... it isn't like anyone is being hurt by us using this to sell beer. After all, they are dead already.
It sort of sounded that way to me Smith. Maybe I'm wrong.
"what he says here encourages the killing of trans men and trans women."
I find that a hard connection to make .
Mau I ask what do you think of that video Smith? Do you find the professor sounds like he's not treating their concerns with respect? Or there is a dismissiveness in his approach?
He didn't just say the pronoun thing. He also targetted transpeople and anti-racists and said that there could be a backlash, which actually does amp his paranoia up to the veiled threat that if people get to uppity there might be violence.
And I already what I thought about that video.
Whatever I think about that trainwreck, my wider concern is about hijacking a thread about tone-deaf responses to racism with anecdotes about poor persecuted white people.
Boze: I appreciate and agree with much of your post 174 and would like to talk about it and Peterson more. I also agree with Smith that perhaps it would be best to start a new thread on it rather than continue here.
It's unclear whether regular babblers can start new threads. But meanwhile, here's the earlier Jordan Peterson thread.
Fair enough Smith, good points. As Mobo says maybe a new thread would be best.
Someone else is gonna have to do it.
Ken Burch, it must be hard work being so righteous.
In the case of Peterson, there's simply no excuse for the professor's position. Using people's preferred pronouns is just courtesy and respect. Doing so doesn't compromise anyone's personal or intellectual freedom in the slightest.
Peterson's position is the position that is implicitly adopted by the vast majority of people, who don't believe that non-binary pronouns are a real thing. There are a lot of people who don't believe that non-binary pronouns are a real thing but will make an effort to use them anyway because they don't want to get denounced as bigots or whatever. This would be an example of being what some on the right have recently taken to referring to as a "cuck." Peterson has the courage to say what he believes. Good for him!
These students had every reason to see his attitude towards pronouns-and his implicit rejection of trans identity at a time when trans people are facing brutal repression all over the world, as giving aid and comfort to people who want to see the trans community dead.
No, sorry, that's hysterics. First, the world has *never* been more accomodating to trans people, and while we could undoubtedly do better, individuals should be encouraged to make up their own mind as to whether or not they accept somebody's identity or not. We do not have a moral duty to accept identity claims, gender or otherwise. Second, Peterson has never implicitly or explicitly rejected trans identities. Trans acceptance has never been understood to also require acceptance of non-binary identities. That's because being trans has historically been understood to be about trying to opt into a category, not about opting out of the gender binary. Third, the vast majority of trans people are not non-binary and have a very strong preference for he or she pronouns. Fourth, trans acceptance is really nothing more than society deciding to treat people who don't actually belong to a given category as though they actually do. The whole "you're a bigot if you say that trans women aren't actually women, even if you treat them as if they were" thing is stupid, divisive, factually incorrect, and mostly just posturing for virtue points. I am 100% in favour of legislation that mandates protection from discrimination on the basis of gender identity - as long as "discrimination" is limited to substantive material discrimination, and not whether or not individuals decide to humour others' identity claims.
Maybe this thread isn't the place for this, but it seems like it is right now. It's time that we all realized that we don't have to defer to requests for special treatment.
Someone else is gonna have to do it.
Stand down, soldier! As I noted above, someone already did.
Gee Boze, maybe your ideas belong in this thread in a way I had not considered.
After all, you wouldn't want to defer to a request for special treatment, like staying on the actual topic of the thread in an anti-racism forum. People might start to think you are a cuck or something. Clearly the important thing is that this is the place for you to talk about whatever you want to talk about.
Since when is the term cuck acceptable in any company or on this board. I love your adoption of Republican slurs it says alot about your mind set but to use it while chastising someone is just plain bizzaro..
FYI k, if you read Boze's last post you'll notice that he uses the term in reference to people who are allegedly cowed into political correctness. Just in case you are wondering why I used that word.
I'll ignore your speculation, since I assume you may not have caught that and assumed it was bizarro (as I might have, had I not realized why it was said).
"People might start to think you are a cuck or something." IMO That is unacceptable discourse no matter who started it. For you to use it a second time normalizes its use and means you have adopted that language as your own.
Well you just did it again. Twice. If repeating the word cuck somehow normalizes it, that is.
Look k, remember when whatshisname got all bent out of shape at you because you were making a satirical reference that he took as real, and wouldn't listen to any of your very sensible explanations that you were on his side on the issue?
Consider how that might relate to this. And if you still have a problem with it, too bad.
Speaking of which, Michael Moriarity posted a very interesting link in the Trump Admin thread which includes the probable source for that nasty little word:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25psaDxHVfg
At least it brings us back to paranoid, racist white people.
I assume that "cuck" is just short for "cuckold" and hence the inappropriateness.
Seems to be plenty of cases of that word being used here without concern. And if it helps balance out the "right-winginess" of the word, it seems to be associated with "NDP cuckolds".
What about 'refusing to stand in the spray of that babbling brook of bullshit spewed by pro-USSA sycophants, and vicious kow-towing to an expired empire' by your NDP champions? How much more pro-imperial brownosing are you ndp cuckolds prepared to take?
So now the no difference party can leverage the people's pain into victory when the same ndp cuckolds submit themselves to the same game again 4 years hence. Sorry, not I.
NDP supporters, like poor cuckolds, cleave ever closer to their beloved no matter the betrayals, and console themselves with: "others are worse.."
Anyway, I guess when babble stopped being OK with politicians and others being described as "bending over willingly" or "getting down on their knees" we had to find something to replace that.
![http://i63.tinypic.com/dg74ed.jpg[/IMG]](http://i63.tinypic.com/dg74ed.jpg[/IMG]){kind=link}