Jump to content

What evidence is there to support Canada being 'systemically racist'?


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

So you ascribe no responsibility to individuals simply because the outcomes aren’t equal.  In that case Asians should be disadvantaged by EDI hiring policies until white people achieve the same higher outcomes as Asians.

We're not talking about individuals.  We're talking about meta-statistics spanning millions of people.  Asians earning more than white people (I haven't researched it) may be another example of systemic racism, but with a positive stereotype of how good they are at math or, whatever.  

5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You ignore any cultural influences.  “I am Groot” makes important points on this.  There are hard truths in the statistics.  Trying to lay it all at the feet of “systemic racism” is a stretch, considering that no one on here has presented evidence of it.  

Cultural influences might explain part of it, but we're talking about hundreds and hundreds of thousands of black people coming from dozens of different countries, all with different backgrounds and cultures.  The fact that 1st generation black immigrants earn more than 3rd generation is a worrying sign.  The "cultural influences" may be how black people are treated and perceived once they get here.  Say what you want about white racism, but prejudices against black people are generally worse in other parts of the world, and those attitudes come to Canada too.  

5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

We’re watching a lot of foot stomping about systemic racism, policies that are blatantly discriminatory against groups of people defined as oppressors, and a shaming of people deemed as privileged solely on the basis of skin colour.

I think that fundamentally misunderstands what "systemic racism" means.  It's not a specific accusation, but rather an acknowledgement that certain minorities are (for a large variety of reasons) clearly at a socio-economic advantage.  At this point there's as much foot-stomping and outrage from angry white folk as there is within whatever woke crowd they're protesting.  

5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 I won’t even get into the Marxist origins of these ideas.  

Yeah...don't.  Those are stupid.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

There are no laws or policies at all that are designed to benefit only white people. There is however a system that's been resulting in that. Thankfully it's being dismantled...in fits and starts but Rome didn't collapse in a day either.

"Thankfully it is being dismantled..." suggests that parts of this system continue to be 'systemically racist'. Which parts? Where are they?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Moonbox said:

No, I linked the article showing the income and unemployment disparity for 3rd generation black Canadians vs basically everyone else.  There are only two explanations for that:

1)  A racist one

2) One that acknowledges there are observable and statistical disadvantages to being black in Canada.  

You are responding to one post referencing your response to another that I have already dealt with.

Your belief that any disparities between one group and another must be due to racism is almost laughably unscientific. As is your lumping all blacks into a single category as if they were one people. Nigerians are doing far better in Canada than Jamaicans. Explain that through racism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

We're not talking about individuals.  We're talking about meta-statistics spanning millions of people.  Asians earning more than white people (I haven't researched it) may be another example of systemic racism, but with a positive stereotype of how good they are at math or, whatever.  

Or, gee, maybe it's because they're better at math. Maybe it's because Asian parents are strict and very closely supervise their children's education, insisting on hard work and high marks. Maybe the absence of such supervision in the single parent families common to most of Canada's Caribbean black population is also a cause.

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

 The fact that 1st generation black immigrants earn more than 3rd generation is a worrying sign. 

What if the 1st generation is primarily made up of people from African coming in through the skilled worker program while the 3rd generation is mainly made up of the grandchildren of Caribbean blacks who arrived mostly as domestics, or their kids who arrived through family sponsorship.

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

I think that fundamentally misunderstands what "systemic racism" means.  It's not a specific accusation, but rather an acknowledgement that certain minorities are (for a large variety of reasons) clearly at a socio-economic advantage.

You mean the fact certain minority groups tend to have children out of wedlock without fathers supporting them while others tend to have high marriage rates with parents insistent on education? Or that certain minority groups tend to be disproportionately involved in crime vs other minority groups?

 

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

At this point there's as much foot-stomping and outrage from angry white folk as there is within whatever woke crowd they're protesting.  

Can't imagine why a white guy born and raised in Canada who gets rejected for a position in favour of an immigrant from Somalia who has less qualifications because hand-wringing progressives are feeling guilty about American slavery might be a tad upset.

 

 

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Yeah...don't.  Those are stupid.  

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Or, gee, maybe it's because they're better at math. Maybe it's because Asian parents are strict and very closely supervise their children's education, insisting on hard work and high marks. Maybe the absence of such supervision in the single parent families common to most of Canada's Caribbean black population is also a cause.

No doubt all of the above are factors but then why are single parents so much more common for Black children?   Do they love their kids less?  

2 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

What if the 1st generation is primarily made up of people from African coming in through the skilled worker program while the 3rd generation is mainly made up of the grandchildren of Caribbean blacks who arrived mostly as domestics, or their kids who arrived through family sponsorship.

Third-generation Canadians were born here, and their parents were born here.  Their grandparents immigrated.  

2 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

You mean the fact certain minority groups tend to have children out of wedlock without fathers supporting them while others tend to have high marriage rates with parents insistent on education? Or that certain minority groups tend to be disproportionately involved in crime vs other minority groups?

Yes, again, all of the above.  Why is that?  I know what you think the reason is, but there's far more to it than that.  

2 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Can't imagine why a white guy born and raised in Canada who gets rejected for a position in favour of an immigrant from Somalia who has less qualifications because hand-wringing progressives are feeling guilty about American slavery might be a tad upset.

I too think that affirmative action (especially in the public sector) is problematic.  That doesn't mean that systemic racism doesn't exist.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

We're not talking about individuals.  We're talking about meta-statistics spanning millions of people.  Asians earning more than white people (I haven't researched it) may be another example of systemic racism, but with a positive stereotype of how good they are at math or, whatever.  

Cultural influences might explain part of it, but we're talking about hundreds and hundreds of thousands of black people coming from dozens of different countries, all with different backgrounds and cultures.  The fact that 1st generation black immigrants earn more than 3rd generation is a worrying sign.  The "cultural influences" may be how black people are treated and perceived once they get here.  Say what you want about white racism, but prejudices against black people are generally worse in other parts of the world, and those attitudes come to Canada too.  

I think that fundamentally misunderstands what "systemic racism" means.  It's not a specific accusation, but rather an acknowledgement that certain minorities are (for a large variety of reasons) clearly at a socio-economic advantage.  At this point there's as much foot-stomping and outrage from angry white folk as there is within whatever woke crowd they're protesting.  

Yeah...don't.  Those are stupid.  

They aren’t stupid at all.  Selective listening.  You should research the origins of this rhetoric.  It didn’t just appear.

If you want to get more accurate, look at particulars.  The comparison of Nigerian outcomes to Jamaican is interesting.  Again though, you’re playing the fool’s game of trying to explain away difference of outcomes solely on the basis of race.  It’s actually the game of eugenics.  Remember the Western professor who claimed that Asians are the smartest people, followed by Caucasians, followed by Blacks?  It caused controversy for good reason.  It’s a form of racial determinism.  What would happen, assuming it was possible, if you could add up the total injustices faced by a person and give them special privileges and reparations to “level the playing field”?   What would happen if such individuals were unsuccessful anyway?  How would you explain the successes of those who overcame multiple obstacles and became successful without such monetary incentives?

The truth is that ability and motivation are important factors that can’t simply be ignored in favour of social conditions.  Also, within the same culture, parents raise their kids quite differently.  How will your social engineering account for particular family contexts?

These are mugs’ games.  Equality under the law and in employment policy is all we should be ensuring at this point.  The EDI attempts to level the playing field through hiring are hugely discriminatory.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

These are mugs’ games.  Equality under the law and in employment policy is all we should be ensuring at this point.  The EDI attempts to level the playing field through hiring are hugely discriminatory.  

On this, I sort of agree, but then where does that leave us?  A lot of the stuff you say isn't necessary wrong.  I'm not a fan of family-reunification immigration policy, or of affirmative action in the public service, or a great many other things. 

That being said, we're a country full of immigrants.  Are we not better off trying to understanding the reasons why certain ethnic communities struggle so much, and trying to find ways to lift them up rather than find reasons to blame them and keep them there?  

Certainly I think we can try to prioritize immigration that can offer useable skills, education and self-sufficiency, but that doesn't do anything for aboriginal communities etc.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

"Thankfully it is being dismantled..." suggests that parts of this system continue to be 'systemically racist'. Which parts? Where are they?

In the parts where people like you work for government would be my guess. I don't feel any being directed towards me per se so you might want to ask someone who does for something more specific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

On this, I sort of agree, but then where does that leave us?  A lot of the stuff you say isn't necessary wrong.  I'm not a fan of family-reunification immigration policy, or of affirmative action in the public service, or a great many other things. 

That being said, we're a country full of immigrants.  Are we not better off trying to understanding the reasons why certain ethnic communities struggle so much, and trying to find ways to lift them up rather than find reasons to blame them and keep them there?  

Certainly I think we can try to prioritize immigration that can offer useable skills, education and self-sufficiency, but that doesn't do anything for aboriginal communities etc.  

 

Stick to merit and character, regardless of race, in educational assessment and hiring.  These policies of giving money to black-owned businesses or extra points in a job interview to racialized people is blatant favouritism solely on the basis of race.  I now know certain black colleagues who aren’t very good at their jobs but have a sense of entitlement. No one will dare attempt to demote or reassign such personnel. Discrimination is always wrong, no matter who is at the end of it.  Of course there are also white people who aren’t very effective at their jobs, but they don’t have the wind at their backs of human rights’ tribunals and accusations of systemic racism.

What happens if in your analysis of why certain groups are struggling economically, you find cultural reasons? How far do you want to take that analysis?  We hear a lot about systemic racism, but no one likes to point out cultural reasons, as they’re often written off as nothing more than racist stereotypes.  So we see in our society a massive inquisition to dismantle systemic racism that doesn’t exist in any policies and we see an attempt to regard honest conversations about cultural differences as racist.

I think the only reasonable solution is for governments and organizations to drop EDI programs, reassign “equity and diversity officers” to productive work, and end these discriminatory EDI hiring policies.

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No need to provide examples of the obvious to people who are blatantly racist at heart.

Thinking the economic status of specific races disproves the existence of racism is simply f***ed in the head thinking. Posting "Asians earn more than white people" to make your point... honest to God. Like a bunch of Proud Boy Yanks justifying that there's more blacks in jail because more blacks are criminals...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Stick to merit and character, regardless of race, in educational assessment and hiring.  These policies of giving money to black-owned businesses or extra points in a job interview to racialized people is blatant favouritism solely on the basis of race.  I now know certain black colleagues who aren’t very good at their jobs but have a sense of entitlement. No one will dare attempt to demote or reassign such personnel.

Your personal anecdote, true or not, is both highly subjective and also informative on why you feel the way you do.  There are certainly some folk who milk affirmative action for all its worth, but it's pretty common for people to claim favouratism and bias when someone's promoted ahead of you.  

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Discrimination is always wrong, no matter who is at the end of it.  Of course there are also white people who aren’t very effective at their jobs, but they don’t have the wind at their backs of human rights’ tribunals and accusations of systemic racism.

Perhaps, but there's a lot of discrimination that's not overt.  As I said before, if you wrote two hundred identical CV's, but half of them were from Lashondra and half of them were from Allison, you can pretty much guarantee that Lashondra only gets a fraction of the interview requests that Allison does.  That's been proven.  

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

What happens if in your analysis of why certain groups are struggling economically, you find cultural reasons?

If living in a poor, crime-ridden neighborhood is determined to promote a culture of hopelessness and failure, you do things to lift them out of that rather than reinforce a status quo that helps nobody.  The cultural reasons argument is only useful if we're using it to find ways to tailor solutions, rather than being excuses used to maintain the status-quo.  "Black people just like doing crime," is not productive or helpful for anything.  

Edited by Moonbox
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The federal government through the CRTC approved a porn channel and prohibited Christian channels or heavily limits and controls them and forces them to broadcast all the heathen religions on their channel, citing all the wars in history involving religion as the reason for denying a purely Christian channel.  However, they totally neglect the fact that the people fighting in religious wars were not following the Bible and teachings of Jesus who opposed wars.  He said turn the other cheek.  But ignorant people always blame Christianity even if the Bible opposes religious wars that are fought purely for the sake of religion.  Also of course a nation always has the right to defend itself against aggressors as in WW1 and WW2.

So far they have not allowed child porn or bestiality on the airwaves, but with the lack of morals in this country and with the political leadership, who knows what is coming down the road.  The philosophy seems to be if it doesn't effect anyone else directly, it should be permitted.  That is why they allowed a porn channel, assisted suicide, abortion, etc.  Abortion does affect someone else, the unborn baby.

Perhaps all this virtue signaling about systemic racism is a diversion to take the attention off all the immorality in government laws and policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

"Black people just like doing crime," is not productive or helpful for anything.  

Why do the courts in Toronto release so many people charged with gun offences in the GTA?  There were about 300 people out on bail not long ago.  Is it perhaps not to appear to be systematically racist by locking up so many at one time?  I forgot it's a "social problem" caused by lack of housing, jobs, education, blah blah blah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Your personal anecdote, true or not, is both highly subjective and also informative on why you feel the way you do.  There are certainly some folk who milk affirmative action for all its worth, but it's pretty common for people to claim favouratism and bias when someone's promoted ahead of you.  

Perhaps, but there's a lot of discrimination that's not overt.  As I said before, if you wrote two hundred identical CV's, but half of them were from Lashondra and half of them were from Allison, you can pretty much guarantee that Lashondra only gets a fraction of the interview requests that Allison does.  That's been proven.  

If living in a poor, crime-ridden neighborhood is determined to promote a culture of hopelessness and failure, you do things to lift them out of that rather than reinforce the enforce a status quo that helps nobody.  The cultural reasons argument is only useful if we're using it to find ways to tailor solutions, rather than being excuses used to maintain the status-quo.  "Black people just like doing crime," is not productive or helpful for anything.  

All of your comments are anecdotal.  My comments on the culture in my workplace have nothing to do with my own opportunity or lack thereof.  I’m commenting on work performance and saying that right now there are policy protections and advantages for racialized workers over non-racialized.

As for your comment on CV’s, it’s the content of the CV’s that counts.  Your presumption of racism in hiring is just that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

All of your comments are anecdotal.

I'm not sure you know what anecdotal means if you think that.  

20 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

My comments on the culture in my workplace have nothing to do with my own opportunity or lack thereof.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't.  Your personal experience in your own workplace is purely anecdotal however, and not very useful for this debate.  

22 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I’m commenting on work performance and saying that right now there are policy protections and advantages for racialized workers over non-racialized.

There undoubtedly is in many places, and I don't think these are great policies either.  The underlying reasoning for these protections (flawed or not) are the disadvantages these groups face.  Pretending they don't exist isn't going to end affirmative action and make things more fair for you.  Solving the underlying factors might.  

25 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

As for your comment on CV’s, it’s the content of the CV’s that counts.  Your presumption of racism in hiring is just that.  

That's the point.  The content in the CV's for these experiments were identical.  This phenomenon has been repeatedly studied all over (at least North America).  When a racialized black name is on the top of the document, it consistently gets way less interest than when it's an everyday white name, with everything else being equal.  That's systemic racism.  It's not overt and it's almost impossible to track or monitor.  It happens for other things too, like how a female or male might be preferred for certain roles, with CV's being otherwise identical.  "John" vs "Jean" will get more call backs based on the role despite there being absolutely no difference in their CVs.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I'm not sure you know what anecdotal means if you think that.  

Maybe they do, maybe they don't.  Your personal experience in your own workplace is purely anecdotal however, and not very useful for this debate.  

There undoubtedly is in many places, and I don't think these are great policies either.  The underlying reasoning for these protections (flawed or not) are the disadvantages these groups face.  Pretending they don't exist isn't going to end affirmative action and make things more fair for you.  Solving the underlying factors might.  

That's the point.  The content in the CV's for these experiments were identical.  This phenomenon has been repeatedly studied all over (at least North America).  When a racialized black name is on the top of the document, it consistently gets way less interest than when it's an everyday white name, with everything else being equal.  That's systemic racism.  It's not overt and it's almost impossible to track or monitor.  It happens for other things too, like how a female or male might be preferred for certain roles, with CV's being otherwise identical.  "John" vs "Jean" will get more call backs based on the role despite there being absolutely no difference in their CVs.  

Firstly, provide an actual study within the last decade that illustrates this bias.

Secondly, bias and policy are different animals.  Bias is formed through experience and natural affinity for what is safe and known.  The current attempts to undo biological natural affinity through “leaning into discomfort” won’t change our fight/flight instincts.  We can certainly be rational and fair, however, by following fair hiring policies.  Our policies are fair.

I’ve always supported leaving names off CV’s.  However, at some point people need to meet.  I don’t think most people today in Canada are racist, certainly not to a degree that would bar someone admittance to opportunities.  If you want to further change attitudes, implementing new forms of discrimination isn’t going to warm hearts. It will only breed contempt and, yes, racism.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2022 at 11:01 PM, Bill67 said:

1. Okay. I will ask an indigenous woman to tell me how no taxes, free education, every company in Canada dreaming of having that hiring box ticked, and so many programs available about systemic racism. 

2. Name a law or policy in Canada in 2022 that is racist.

 

 

1.  Imagine having nothing and not getting taxed on that... How are the FN people doing with these perks ?
2. Some policies aren't published... such as 'stop and frisk' policy, strategies for managing FN projects in light of the politics of the day.  

It strikes me as strange that people who think that the government is poorly managed also think that this aspect of government is run without making mistakes in this area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Imagine having nothing and not getting taxed on that... How are the FN people doing with these perks ?
2. Some policies aren't published... such as 'stop and frisk' policy, strategies for managing FN projects in light of the politics of the day.  

It strikes me as strange that people who think that the government is poorly managed also think that this aspect of government is run without making mistakes in this area.

So government is about assessing how much people have in order to decide what or how much they should be given for free?  There’s nothing here to affirm effort or investment in one’s community. It’s all about who is most deserving freebies at the expense of working taxpayers.  How inspiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

No doubt all of the above are factors but then why are single parents so much more common for Black children?   Do they love their kids less?  

But it isn't that common for ALL Black children. Africans get married to have kids and both parents are involved in their upbringing. Caribbean Blacks often don't. In the US two thirds of black kids grow up in single parent families. Canada has done little to study the issue or to differentiate between Black-Canadians who immigrated, or whose parents or grandparents immigrated from different countries/continents. 

Canadians don't talk about stuff like that. They don't bring it up. So it never gets addressed.

The only people in the US talking about it are Black conservatives or Black moderates. And there aren't very many of them.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

In the parts where people like you work for government would be my guess. I don't feel any being directed towards me per se so you might want to ask someone who does for something more specific.

I don't work for government. I work for me. And my industry is strictly merit based. And so highly competitive and highly profitable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, herbie said:

No need to provide examples of the obvious to people who are blatantly racist at heart.

Thinking the economic status of specific races disproves the existence of racism is simply f***ed in the head thinking. Posting "Asians earn more than white people" to make your point... honest to God. Like a bunch of Proud Boy Yanks justifying that there's more blacks in jail because more blacks are criminals...

You seem to me to be a male Karen ranting incoherently in the dark with no one listening...

Edited by I am Groot
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Perhaps, but there's a lot of discrimination that's not overt.  As I said before, if you wrote two hundred identical CV's, but half of them were from Lashondra and half of them were from Allison, you can pretty much guarantee that Lashondra only gets a fraction of the interview requests that Allison does.  That's been proven.  

Maybe if we had a higher standard for immigrants, particularly with respect to language abilities, people wouldn't prefer to hire those with clearly English sounding names.

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

If living in a poor, crime-ridden neighborhood is determined to promote a culture of hopelessness and failure, you do things to lift them out of that rather than reinforce a status quo that helps nobody.  .  

We provide everyone with free education. Including adults. We're in an economy where it's not that difficult to find jobs. Many immigrants take advantage of these things. Many immigrants from diverse countries do very well here. And some, from other countries do not. 

Blaming it all on racism is a cheap out against the effort of discovering why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a young FN guy swaggering and stumbling around today and wondered why this kind of public behavior should be legal?   Seems to me the progressive lefties and red power activists are always whining about systemic racism and if the police arrest a drunk or drug addict for being intoxicated on the street, the police and authorities will be accused of "systemic racism".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2022 at 6:46 PM, Moonbox said:

?

You don't need anyone here to explain it to you.  If you actually wanted the evidence you'd just type "Examples of Systemic Racism" in Canada.  The first thing that will pop up is the residential school system. 

This thread is just another place for you to rant about the "others" and about how downtrodden all us poor white people are.   

What rights does a white person have that a "person of colour" does not have?

Second question: Why do so many millions of "people of colour" want to live in Canada if indeed we are a systemically racist country?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I saw a young FN guy swaggering and stumbling around today and wondered why this kind of public behavior should be legal?   Seems to me the progressive lefties and red power activists are always whining about systemic racism and if the police arrest a drunk or drug addict for being intoxicated on the street, the police and authorities will be accused of "systemic racism".

The standard politically correct answer to your observations is that this man’s alcoholism is due to his suffering of inter generational trauma caused by colonialism, residential schools, and other oppression.  Yet not everyone who has suffered from obstacles or trauma becomes an alcoholic.  What’s more, there were issues with the raiding of trading posts and Indigenous alcoholism centuries ago.  I’ve read about it.  Again, I’m sure there are reasons that some Indigenous are more susceptible to alcoholism because of social conditions and perhaps even genetics.

Until we start emphasizing the importance of personal responsibility and charting your own destiny instead of blaming or relying on others, the culture of dependence will persist.  Yes there are things we can do to help Indigenous, but it’s not all about money, or rather, if it’s about money, that reinforces dependence.  They’re complex issues that are ultimately for Indigenous to decide for real progress to endure.  They won’t give up the Indian Act.  Many want self-determination and continued government funding without taxation.  Who doesn’t want to have their cake and eat it? It’s complicated.  I figure, maintain current funding levels and let Indigenous decide how to proceed.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,745
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    historyradio.org
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • User went up a rank
      Experienced
    • exPS went up a rank
      Contributor
    • DUI_Offender earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • exPS went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Rising Star
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...