Everything Wrong With Social Contract Theory (Contractarianism)

To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/PerspectivePhilo.... The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.
In this video, I break down everything wrong with Contractarianism or social contract theory. I go through what it means and it's fundamental assumptions and show how it cannot correctly form the basis of morality or politics.
▬ Contents of this video ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
0:00 - Intro
0:53 - What is Contractarianism or Social Contract Theory
3:15 - Brilliant
4:26 - Why Contractarianism or Social contract theory fails
8:36 - Hegel's refutation of the Social Contract
11:53 - Summary and conclusion
PHILOSOPHY COURSE📚
An Introduction To Western Philosophy: bit.ly/2VM6q97
Patreon:
/ perspectivephilosophy
TIP JAR 💰 paypal.me/PerspectivePhilosoph?
Book recommendations📚 www.amazon.co.uk/shop/perspec...
Discord: / discord
This video was sponsored by Brilliant.

[@PerspectivePhilosophy]

To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/PerspectivePhilosophy/. The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription

[@MassMultiplayer]

the right to wear that haircut

[@danielsurvivor1372]

I'm glad you continuing this series, hope you tackle all moral frameworks in the next videos😊

[@x-b5516]

Video on your opinion about nihilism would be great

[@MassMultiplayer]

im vegan btw. *scream for 45 seconds, herbivore juracik screetch

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

Good Girl! 👌 🐟 30. FOOD & DIET: There are THREE kinds of foods according to the three "modes" explicated in Chapter 18 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. Foods in the mode of purity promote good physical and mental health. The adage "healthy body, healthy mind" is pertinent to this mode. Such foods include, in approximate order of their importance: fruits (especially if they are tree-ripened), vegetables, nuts, legumes/pulses, grains, roots, flowers, tubers, bulbs, and of course, purified water (or milk, in the case of infants), supplemented with seeds and herbs. To be included in this classification, the food must be LIVING, that is, fresh and raw (or at most, steamed or lightly sautéed, if one is residing in a cold clime). Most animals subsist on living foodstuffs, so to be considered healthy, the food must be both living and natural. As with all herbivorous mammals, humans who consume a pure diet normally experience a bowel movement after each substantial meal. Foods in the mode of passion promote indigestion (or, at least, are more difficult to digest than pure foods) and overly-excite the mind. Such foods are basically the same as above, but with excessive amounts of oil, spices, sweeteners, salt and/or other condiments added. To be included in this category, the VEGETARIAN* foods may be properly cooked, but not overcooked, and mildly to moderately seasoned. Those who consume foods predominately in the mode of passion normally defecate after breaking their fast (i.e. the first meal of the day). Foods in the mode of darkness cannot rightly be called “food” at all, and invariably cause digestive upsets, such as constipation or diarrhoea. Such “offal” is either dry, stale, putrid, rancid, decayed, carcinogenic, overcooked (or even worse, burnt), processed beyond recognition, or the remnants of another’s meal (that is, food that has been leftover by a person who is lower in the hierarchy of society than the person who intends to consume it. For example, it would be offensive for a beggar to offer the remains of his meal to his king, yet the converse would be a rather gracious act of kindness). Again, to be included in this classification, the food is to be of wholly PLANT or fungal origin. Ideally, the bulk (if not ALL) of one's diet should comprise of minimally-processed raw foods, such as tropical fruits or vegetable salads, the latter of which often consists of fruits anyway, since such foods as tomatoes, cucumbers and olives are, in fact, fruits, since they are seed-bearing foods. If one consumes a very high proportion of raw fruits, it is rarely, if ever, necessary to fast. Fasting is beneficial for those who partake in a diet high in processed and cooked dishes. Fruit-juice fasting is possibly the best method of fasting, especially for those living an active lifestyle. Unless one is particularly active, eating more than two meals per day is unnecessary. Ideally, cooked and highly-processed foods should be reserved for the final meal of the day, since the process of digestion itself consumes more energy than any other activity. It is an undeniable scientific fact that humans are a HERBIVOROUS species (more specifically, a predominantly frugivorous, or fruit-eating animal). There is not a single aspect of human psychology or physiology that even suggests that we were designed or evolved to feed on our fellow animals. The primary visual cortex of the brains of hominids has precisely evolved to recognise the colourful fruits that grew in the tropics of the African continent. Only a veritable troglodyte could possibly take delight in the sight and stench of bloody animal carcasses! Practically all cat owners know to feed their pets with animal flesh, as they understand that felines are obligate carnivores, yet they have not the slightest clue that humans are herbivores biologically, and that the consumption of animal products is gradually destroying their health. Animal consumption is lawful only if there is a scarcity of ACTUAL food. However, to be fair, some races have adapted reasonably well to an omnivorous diet due to residing in regions of the earth where edible vegetation has been scarce, for millennia before the twentieth century. But even then, those races have been found to improve their health when their diet had been enriched with vegetation. Humans originated in the wetlands of tropical Africa and our source of food is necessarily to be found in such a climate. We humans must surely be the only species of animal life that migrates away from its food source! Who among you would not prefer tropical fruits over the “food” found in the Arctic Circle? Unnecessarily killing and/or consuming animals is an ABOMINABLE action. It is not natural for humans to hunt animals like sheep, cows, goats, rabbits, chicken, and fish, and gorge on their bloody carcasses. Sheep, rabbits, and cows are food for carnivorous animals such as lions, tigers and wolves, and fish is food for marine and semi-aquatic species. Do humans live in the ocean? Of course not! Then why is it necessary for us to go into the water to find our food? Is that sensible? Not at all, unless, as previously mentioned, one is afflicted with true hunger (and even in the event that one is literally dying of starvation, one ought to, from a moral perspective, as far as practical, eat those animals that are lower in the hierarchy of sentience, such as seafood. Slaughtering a primate is immeasurably more sinful than feeding on crustacean, for instance). Milk is intended solely for consumption by infants of the SAME species. Cow’s milk is for baby cows, not adult humans. The logic is overwhelming, but unfortunately, not all persons are capable of reaching such a base level of logic to understand that it is unnatural for a human to suckle on the teats of a cow or goat. Furthermore, like all unnatural substances, dairy products are harmful to human physiology. Ideally, one should sit in a comfortable position and eat one’s meal with a RELAXED mental disposition. Consuming food in an anxious state of mind may cause digestive upsets. If practical, eating with bare (washed) hands is more conducive to the enjoyment of one’s meal. “And God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.’” Genesis 1:29. The Old Testament portion of the “Holy Bible”. “Let food be thy medicine, and let medicine be thy food.” Hippocrates, Father of modern medicine. *The term “Vegetarian” is used LITERALLY here, that is, “one who subsists on vegetation”. One who consumes vegetation and dairy and/or eggs is properly called a “lacto-vegetarian” or a “lacto-ovo vegetarian”, respectively. The term “vegan” is not directly related to diet, but to the philosophy of the avoidance of harming animal life unnecessarily. Animal killing is permissible only in the case of true hunger, self-defence, or in order to eradicate vermin from one's dwelling and work places. Obviously, veganism is to be promoted as the ideal way of life for all humans. N.B. If you are reading this Holy Scripture, it is highly probable that you are familiar with the concept of the “Three Modes of Nature” (“trī-guṇa”, in Sanskrit). If not, it may be prudent to read or re-read Chapter 18 of “FISH” at this point. In any case, those who are, in fact, familiar with the three modes of nature have an extremely flawed understanding of how they apply to food and diet, particularly if they have studied the ancient Indian texts known collectively as “Ayur Veda” (“The Science of Life/Longevity”). Those persons invariably believe that animal products are categorized in the mode of darkness. However, that assumes that animals are actually human food, which they most assuredly are not. The system outlined above is by far the most accurate, logical, and authoritative method of classifying food, and ought to be followed by anyone who is truly desirous of living a wholesome life. Unfortunately, even most vegans seem to lean towards less-than-healthy foods. © 2019-2023 Spiritual Sciences Society.

[@thedj3319]

Somewhat flawed reasoning, chap. Knowning that the whole self exists on a apriori basis does not follow that we would also know the particulars a priori as well. That is, the particular elements of the self are known through interaction with the environment on a synthetic, a posteriori, basis. For example, we can be aware that the Universe exists, without having to know everything about how the Universe works (which we discover through experience). Somewhere in your argument you left out that while knowing a priori that there are relations to certain particulars of the self, there is no reason to claim to a priori know the nature of those particulars. For example: I know that the self relates to the sensations of the tounge and the subjective experience; but the synthetic knowledge of my preference for strawberries comes later. You say that it is unknowable due to Hume's fork; this is a misnomer on your part because in truth, it is not _fully_ knowable. This is an important caveat because the sufficiency in contractualism does not require absolute knowledge. Say I claim that "My favorite sport is football", and, for the sake of argument, I never played golf, but if I did it would become my favorite sport. It would be falacious to claim that the statement "my favorite sport" means "first in the ranking of _all_ sports", but the statement means that "out of all sports _i have tried_ , for this sport I have the most preference". There is absolutely no basis to claim that the self is immutable; the contracts I would do when I am in my 20s are not the same as those in my 60s. Both preferences and the circumstances of the self change. In fact, rarely there is any moral philosophy that presents absolutes devoid of context. Even in your sacred cow of veganism, a man devoid of any choice can eat an animal to survive, just as it is in nature, is it not? I can understand a purely pragmatic criticism of contractualism, namely that even sufficiency of knowledge about the self and the world is most often times lacking. But not on the basis of the nature of the self.

[@thedj3319]

@Child of Barbaros Except that the choice is in terms of survival, as stipulated. The preposition wasn't absolute (any choice, movingntwo steps forward, for example), but context specific.

[@thedj3319]

@Child of Barbaros Verbosity is a poor substitute for an argument, the latter of which you have barely presented. Let us elucidate. 1. [Using devoid as semantics then remains vague or misleading,] Completely unfounded assessment. My use of “devoid” was clear since I was referring to “non-existence of a concept”, in this case, “context”, in which the morality of an action is viewed, and arguing that the “non-existence of the concept” is rare in moral philosophies. In other words, most moral philosophies do not exclude context from consideration. This in turn is relevant to what was previously stated. The contracts in contractualism are context dependent for both the self (age, for example) and the other (circumstance), so to imply that there is a requirement for (perfect) knowledge of both in the self and the other as an _immutable universal criteria_ in order to make moral judgements is a fallacy. BUT if you are refereeing to the second use of devoid… then your assessment is still unfounded. The parameters of the hypothetical case are already set- the man in question has no other choices aka devoid (build a raft, signal a ship ect), in order for him to survive. 2. [And, if this is merely a thought experiment and a hypothetical case, why a false dilemma then?] ??? Thought experiments (or hypothetical cases) are, by their very nature, meant to test (in our case, moral) positions by accounting for variables that may affect that position. In fact, this is what “doing an experiment” means. So to argue that there is a “false dilemma” in a “hypothetical case” is nonsensical. A false dilemma relates to statements for objectively verified circumstances (that is, as it relates to multiple viewers in a discussion, not in an epistemological sense) where they are presented in such a way as the agent having limited number of options, when in fact there are more. But a “hypothetical case” for the purpose of the experiment already carries the set prepositions. 3. [as in survival is not inherently a demanded thing, but only a desired thing that is not shared by all sentient entities any how ] An completely and utterly unfounded stipulation, on so many levels. Not only it was clearly stated in the hypothetical case: ”a man devoid of any choice can eat an animal TO SURVIVE,” but veganism, as a _self contained philosophy_ (keep this in mind, as it is relevant) already carries prepositions that make survival an “inherently demanded thing”. It uses definitions such as “man”, “animal”, “food chain” ect. or in other words, it subjects itself to scientifically verified claims- and in biology survival is demanded for every single organism, especially when discussing the food chain Furthermore, it is both demanded and shared by all sentient (and even non sentient, to the extent we can infer “desire”) entities, and only abrogated in exceptional circumstances such as a. pathological states and b. conflicting biological necessities (such as reproduction). None of which are useful or even applicable in our hypothetical, or even when discussing veganism and using what is the overwhelming pattern that can be scientifically verified. 4. [And, we know that we is desired and of biological basis is not all ways what leads to what is ethical and moral] Yes, and completely irrelevant when discussing veganism. Here’s another hypothetical for you: If there is a cow which we can, unequivocally, determine that it has the “desire” to be eaten- seeing other cows get slaughtered and eaten, expressing joy, going to the knife, MRI, whatever objective criteria you want- would it be ethical in veganism to eat it? Of course it would be. But this hypothetical also shows why we would never have to make this assessment- because the animal has an “inherent demand”, biologically programmed, to survive. _So _*_survival_*_ is an essential context when discussing veganism, both of the animal eaten and the animal doing the eating_ And we are not even touching on the more foolish topic of not using animal products where we don’t kill the animal given that they cause distress of animals, either directly or indirectly (like not eating eggs due to chicken farms, ect). The biological state of the animal (and the person who eats them) is essential by any definition of veganism. Now, if you are arguing for veganism as it relates to certain religions, I would argue that it’s not the philosophy of veganism, it’s the metaphysical elements of the religion that manifests as the non eating of animal products. But I don’t think that this type of veganism is Perspective Philosophy’s sacred cow. 5. [And, your statement was rather still poorly articulated as not all animals are of concern any way as many of them are non-sentient, hence feeding on them becomes '' vegan ''.] It wasn’t poorly articulated- it is your understanding of it that was poor. This is not an opinion, it is an objectively verified assessment. Considering that A. I presented a hypothetical case to explain the importance of context B. I presented the adequate prepositions, some of which are essential in veganism as well (as survival, for example) C. The actions resulting from those prepositions in different contexts are morally evaluated differently _based on those different contexts_ Why in the, and pardon my French, diddly fuck would I assume, in the hypothetical no less, prepositions where _context is irrelevant_ ??? One has to make a genuine attempt at NOT understanding the point given the context of the sentence and the elements presented to claim that it was “poorly articulated”. 6. [How can you make a choice of a situation that is ontologically devoid of any?] As we have _demonstrated_ (and not merely stipulated as yourself), this is a completely unfounded assessment. And I did not even use, in all of my exposition till now, the very easy way to debunk everything you say- that such scenarios _have happened_ . In fact, humans in extreme conditions were forced to resort to cannibalism because there was no other food source. Your preposition that survival is not an inherently a demanded thing is nonsensical even by veganism’s own prepositions. 7. [You would either require to redefine and twist the linguistical value of the word, or provide some unheard of axiological analysis] As we have demonstrated, it’s neither. The analysis used is based on the prepositions found in veganism, and the context of my statements. I think that the criterion for Brandoloni’s law has been sufficiently met. The arguments you presented are flimsy at best, and so far you had two opportunities to present a valid counterargument. What resulted is a detailed explanation on my part, of what should be self-evident to you on the basis of understanding the concepts involved. And I shan’t engage in lecturing “axiological analysis”. You had your chance. Good day.

[@thoughtraindrops]

Love the series so far!

[@Grgrrr]

So can we dispel with the notion that children can enter into any type of contractual decision-making to include determining medical procedures and citizenship activities?

[@stove5035]

Liking this series! Looking forward to the "everything wrong with virtue ethics" where you just say "nothing."

[@danielsurvivor1372]

Wait, wasn't Sargon advocate for Virtue Ethics moral framework? So does it mean he had one good take? 😮

[@martingaggero8462]

I think the most common objection is how to define what is virtuous and what is not

[@stove5035]

@@martingaggero8462 there are good texts about that. I recommend After Virtue by Alistair McIntyre

[@toddfulton2280]

Sure, there can be problems with some of the formal logic of social contract theory, but in a nutshell all it's saying is that instead of having a central authority that is not subject to the will of the people, you have a centralized authority whose functions and reach is agreed upon by those that it governs. It's probably the best way to govern a large population of people we've come up with that isn't dependent on a benevolent few, or many for that matter. If someone says you can draw ethical conclusions from social contract theory, I think they've lost the plot, or are trying to impose their thoughts on the world. Some might say, well if there's problems with the formal logic, then we have to throw it out. To which, I would just like to point out that there are problems with Einstein's general theory of relativity, yet, we can still use it to go to the moon and make all sorts of useful predictions. I would go further and say that it's fine to presuppose that people, effectively, know what they want, and being that we live in a society, we have a history, or culture, of interaction with each other for the purpose of social organization, i.e. politics. I look at social contract theory more as a prescription for a way to govern, more than it is an accurate description of the way the world is. Don't confuse the map with the terrain. "Time and space are not conditions of existence, time and space is a model for thinking" - Albert Einstein

[@killiancullen6430]

Do you have any reference to where Hegel gives this argument against the social contact theory?

[@SenorFlake]

PP I wish you would've pumped these out when you had the hype train going after talking with Destiny. But still, this series is soooooo good.

[@Wearephuct-O]

Bangs on point !

[@Twistedhippy]

Going full Macintyre on us mate, do Emotivism / Expresivism next

[@PerspectivePhilosophy]

You know it 😉

[@KaosEspada]

I understand that contractarianists often particularize the self. But do contractarianists have to be particularist to keep their moral theory? I'm not seeing the necessary relationship between the two. Can't a contractarian universalize the self? Please help! :)

[@MassMultiplayer]

5:24 Sri Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi sat down naked with a smile in his linen cloth pinching his chin "hmmm interesting" Who am i. "what is Who" and "what is i" lol and "what is is" ... years of that stuff lol

[@Skylark725]

Could the contractualist not just respond to your objection by restricting their contractualism to a certain domain of ethics rather than posing it as an exhuastive account in the same way most care ethicists believe care ethics has to be supplemented by virtue ethics. They could accept that we possess all that normativity and knowledge you and Hegel suggest prior to the contract but argue that such remains at the level of the subjective ought, and that we need enforcement in civil society, an institutional system of rights and the state to bring it to the level of an objective ought. We can start from simple ethical relationships and strive towards greater objectivity once we reach a liberal-democratic state.

[@jeromyrutter729]

for me, the "self" begins at dna. There is what i am: a human being on a ball of dirt in the middle of nowhere in particular. This is the genome. Then there is who i am, which is dependent on what i am. This is more like the epigenome. The what is the equivalent of the unconscious, which is the machine itself: the neurons, bones, etc the epigenome is more like the subconscious. it changes over time (as does who i am...what is perceived as the self or an identity). then there is consciousness, an emergent property/function of the nervous system. you have your own memories particular to your own experiences, but not all your memories make you who you are. they can certainly contribute, but things like self-reflection allow their analysis and the forming of attitudes towards them (who they are a part of it, but not the whole picture). who, at the very least, is more evanescent, mutable, evolving. The "self" is derived from a few observations that become the basis of liberty. These are things like autonomy and agency, things that are the basis for moral responsibility in the first place. Yes, it is individualism. no, it's not hyperindividualism. i accept Social Individualism. I'm a left libertarian, and I get to libertarian socialism from classical liberalism. the individual is undeniable. where people disagree is the context within which it grows. hyperindividualists make people into islands. social individualists are more likely to recognize a social context that allows the individual to grow and thrive. the social individualist will seek to make social bonds, while the hyperindividualist is more alienated from other people (but still dependent on them for a context, at the very least an economy they exploit). people believe in a god, for example, not because there is or is not a god, but because it is useful. it helps with death anxiety, it answers existential questions, it creates a sense of meaning and purpose, it gives a plethora of morals to choose from (with moral codes differing even within a specific religion). like any other social construct, it serves the purposes of its adherents. any human nature is going to be generalizations rather than particulars. people want to be happy, but they don't agree on what circumstances should exist to create happiness. human nature isn't absolute. it's relative, flexible, allowing us to adapt. one of the things that supposedly sets humans apart is our ability to adapt using the creative functions of our minds. it's what creates cultures and philosophies that govern societal attitudes. As for a state of nature, i'm not sure that exists either. that's going to depend on where in our evolution you look. Indigenous people could be the state of nature, but they're not all the same either. They'll be adapted to their environments. The Sans people in Africa won't be the same as those indigenous to Canada. appealing to nature does very little for us. even apes war. you'll also find mutual aid in nature. nature is like a kaleidoscope, and people will see what they want to see. from a conceptual standpoint, it will contradict (like hierarchy, Hobbes, and mutual aid, Kropotkin, both found in nature). From a conceptual standpoint, you cannot have a collective without having individuals that make it up. The thing is both capitalism and forms of socialism/communism use collectives. the difference is the power structure (socialism being social labor/social ownership, while capitalism is private ownership/social labor). forms of socialism/communism focus on equality, while capitalism retains right-wing authoritarian hierarchies. one of these allows you to retain your individualism, the other has you sacrifice it, usually in the name of someone else's profit. capitalism's individualism is phony. your liberty is essentially connected to your economic status, with the people at the top being more free than those at the bottom. from a nature standpoint, both are synonymous with a form of symbiosis: socialism is closer to mutualism (there's even a type of socialism called mutualism), while capitalism is closer to parasitism. one is democratic, the other is more totalitarian (unless you think capitalist firms allow the subordinates a say in how they function). capitalism gives you individualism long enough to sell it off for a wage. your sovereignty is what you sell on the labor market. libertarian socialism, on the other hand, functions as both individual enterprise and cooperative via free association. BOTH require a social context. BOTH will have to deal with the individual's desire for a meaningful life. that won't be universal, even if the desire is. contract theory can exist as a social system without it being a moral system. typically, trade is seen as amoral. adam smith believed the invisible hand would guide the capitalist system, but that's not hyperindividualism. the invisible hand is moral sentiments regarding the other social participants. modern capitalism severed that hand with people like Ayn Rand (objective self-interest/anti-altruism) and Milton Friedman (trickle-down economics). rather than employ their fellow countrymen, we now exports jobs to foreign lands for sweatshop wages and tax breaks. Neoliberalism is a little less broad than liberalism was. for example, not all liberals were capitalists. Thomas Jefferson criticized capitalism, saying some of the same things Marxists say today. it makes people dependent on others. it is little better (if at all) than slavery. it creates classes. the wealthy rule the poor. etc while Chomsky (see video "government in the future") shows Wilhelm Von Humboldt's vision as more anarchist/socialist, and that the natural conclusion of the principles of classical liberalism should be libertarian socialism, not capitalism (which basically retains the hierarchies of feudalism's lord/serf relationship). anarchist/federalist Pierre Proudhon also used contract theory. it's also noted that other classical liberals like John Stuart Mill and John Dewey also supported socialism over capitalism. what we want likely changes over time. want is a universal, not even particular to humans. cockroaches want to live. that's why they scatter when the lights come on. it's a basic drive of life. this presupposes a subjective nature driven by objective processes, sure. without it, why would you bother eating? this presupposes a feeling of good: a is better than b, living is better than being dead drawn from survival instincts. but why is living better than being dead? do i know what it's like to be dead? no, and i can't. that supposes i still exist while i'm dead (for religious people that believe in an afterlife, yes, being dead and in their heaven would be better than living). would it not depend on the conditions for life? a single mother who can't afford to support herself and her children kills her children and herself can point to answers. simply being alive seem pointless. i wouldn't want to know what it's like living in North Korea. Hume's Guillotine is his most useful idea. the separation of is and ought statements is the difference between objective and subjective. ought presupposes a value; is does not. social constructs are built out of values (and therefore society, which is why Nietzsche's "god is dead" and the necessity of creating a new system of values was important). economics systems also presuppose values. the entirety of morality and politics depend on values. if knowledge was merely an illusion, then morality would be the shadow of that illusion. all systems presuppose a subjective self that benefits from claims that they ought to be the case. it is subjectivity that matters here, otherwise, people are no different from rocks or sand...uncaring things that erode with the wind. the problem with values is they're always traced back to subjectivity. even an "objective value" is contingent on an initial desire. for example, this light is better at lighting than this one presupposes i want light in the first place. to accomplish what goal? and what does the goal fulfill?

[@jeromyrutter729]

@Kombat Kompanion i never said it did. a sense of self depends on consciousness, which is an emergent property of the brain, but that doesn't mean that genes have nothing to do with it. for example, the epigenome changes over time...that is, how the genes are expressed by turning them on and off, even though the genome itself doesn't change.

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

Right and wrong are RELATIVE. 😉

[@patrick4961]

I appreciate the videos, but honestly, sometimes the thumbnails (especially this one and the one on the debate with the atheist guy) are extremely obnoxious. They're reminiscent of Mr Beast thumbnails and I think it should be below you.

[@ignatiushazzard]

You're a moral objectivist right?

[@cameron4332]

do you think you dont exist?