Has P.E.T.A. gone too far this time? Brainwashing poor Heidi Klum?

Are you sure she's not intending to marry a Navy Seal? Underwire support for the troops?

If forced to push much deeper, it's also part of my continuing criticism of the WashPo.com for being
1) apparently unedited most of the time
2) absolutely whorish in its use of lurid celebrity news to attract googlers. Sometimes with stories that don't appear in the print edition at all--certainly almost never with the same prominence.

But mainly, it just sounded like she was marrying a seal. A dark blue one. A "navy" seal.

See, it can go on forever!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081013/ap_on_fe_st/odd_name_change

There is a weirdly teenaged shortsightedness in that: surely in a few years they'll be driving to a new re-branded website with a different URL!

I wonder which one of her family members is all "Yeah that's cool I'll call you Cutout..."

Dave Coulier

^^ joke would have been 10,000 x funnier phrased as "Uncle Joey"

I wouldn't mind if Ms. CutoutDissection.com had the heavenly voice of Heidi Klum's husband and production by Trevor Horn.

I support her decision, though it does, as nabisco says, seem a liyyle short-sighted. Why not change her name to Stop Dissection Now?

http://www.kingdomgraphics.biz/images/blog/cutitout.gif

Slightly dated, but still worthy of mention:

Burlington, Vt. - This morning, PETA dispatched a letter to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, cofounders of ice cream icon Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc., urging them to replace the cow's milk in their products with human breast milk.

http://www.peta.org/Sea_Kittens/index.asp#

LOL

People don't seem to like fish. They're slithery and slimy, and they have eyes on either side of their pointy little heads—which is weird, to say the least. Plus, the small ones nibble at your feet when you're swimming, and the big ones—well, the big ones will bite your face off if Jaws is anything to go by.

Of course, if you look at it another way, what all this really means is that fish need to fire their PR guy—stat. Whoever was in charge of creating a positive image for fish needs to go right back to working on the Britney Spears account and leave our scaly little friends alone. You've done enough damage, buddy. We've got it from here. And we're going to start by retiring the old name for good. When your name can also be used as a verb that means driving a hook through your head, it's time for a serious image makeover. And who could possibly want to put a hook through a sea kitten?

Now I'm starting to think of kittens as slithery and slimy.

I already have one land otter.

http://209.180.204.251/endangered/eel-dog.jpg

Is there a good reason (fundraising , not looking wishywashy?) that peta chooses causing that are publicly unpalatable and unlikely to be successful?

Turns out calm, rational discussions don't grab as much attention as TITS TITS NAKED LADIES BOOBIES BOOBIES BOOBIES.

there is only one Dot Com:

http://www.observer.com/files/imagecache/vertical/files/021930rock.jpg

This "Sea Kittens" bullshit makes me wonder if PETA actually wants to be laughing stocks.

My cat eats "sea kittens" all the time. CANNIBALISM!

cattibalism

So EComplex was Pato, right?

I am angry now that there are not sea kittens. Fuck fish, I want real, actual sea kittens!

I'm just sayin' - there's a serious problem with cause and effect here. It's not that people think the word 'kitten' is cute, it's that they think kittens themselves are cute. Anyway, if people will eat something called 'scrod' there's no way that any renaming will change their habits. Call fish 'Natural Ds' if you want - people will still want to eat 'em. Okay, maybe that's not the best example.

http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/will.html

h. That one of my thumbs be removed, mounted upwards on a plaque, and sent to the person or institution that, in the year of my death or thereabouts, PETA decides has done the most to promote alternatives to the use and abuse of animals in any area of their exploitation

that should encourage them.

d. That one of my eyes be removed, mounted, and delivered to the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a reminder that PETA will continue to be watching the agency until it stops poisoning and torturing animals in useless and cruel experiments; that the other is to be used as PETA sees fit;

Please please please please let me get that EPA job before Ingrid Newkirk dies, please, please....

Oh shit, I didn't see that the other eye "is to be used as PETA sees fit"!

Please please please please let me get a job with PETA before Ingrid Newkirk dies so I can do whatever I see fit with her other eye, please, please....

what would you do with it? or should this be a separate poll thread?

what a fucking nutcase.

catfish are delicious

eyekabobs

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE55H4Z220090618

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc50xF6E7-8

loooooool I admit my first reaction to the Obama fly-killing was wondering what type of complaint PETA would lodge

Isn't PETA just doing more harm than good at this point? I mean they've managed to turn a genuine concern for the well-being of animals into a laughingstock.

That is exactly how I feel about them and why I wish they would go away.

how cool would it be if obama's official presidential response to PETA's complaints was "lol."

or "u mad"

C'mon PETA, he gave the fly a chance. "Get outta here!"

Hey all, I'm usually on ILM, but this thread caught my interest.

In PETA's defense, the group did not volunteer its view on "flygate" (awesome name). Media outlets came to them for an answer, and the answer they got wasn't at all inflammatory or outlandish. Follow the link above. PETA said:

"Believe it or not, we've actually been contacted by multiple media outlets wanting to know PETA's official response to the executive insect execution," a blog on the group's website explained. "In a nutshell, our position is this: He isn't the Buddha, he's a human being, and human beings have a long way to go before they think before they act."

Basically, PETA wishes Obama exercised a little thought before killing the fly. Maybe he could've caught it and taken it outside or something. (It's what I do when flies enter my home.)

They then sent him a fly catcher that doesn't kill the fly. Oh, and PETA's Bruce Friedrich later added that the organization was appreciative of Obama's voting record on animal rights. And that's about it! There are no real fireworks or controversy here. It's media really trying to create something for us to click on and read.

Good take on "flygate" here:

http://ow.ly/eO6F

PETA could have said "no comment"

And here's PETA's original blog post:

http://ow.ly/eO7g

Hardly inflammatory and crazed.

That reminds me, I need to add "____gate" to that other thread.

PETA could have said "no comment"

almost 100% convinced PETA is incapable of saying "no comment"

Why would PETA say "no comment"? Part of the group's job is to voice the opinions and views of its membership and supporters. Now I'm not on board with everything PETA does or says, but I am glad it presents alternative ways of looking at things, even when those ways are distorted by the media.

I'd be a lot more pro-PETA if they hadn't advocated killing Michael Vick's dogs without even a cursory evaluation.

That's one of the reasons why most of my $$$ goes to Best Friends.

i'm gonna go ahead and say "Yes, yes they have"

what the fuck?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0vQOnHW0Kc

that web addy is on some clownpenis.fart shit

i think i'm glad i don't understand what you just typed

http://www.dula.tv/watch.php?file=clown-penis-dot-fart.flv

old snl sketch

even worse - wtf is with the bandaged hand?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vux2Gv-3kw&feature=relmfu

haha ok that was funny, i feared some kinda 1 girls/wallogina/goatse thing

ooh xpost not that ad :(

PETA is such a fucking horrible and weird organization

dont they like famously kill billions of animals or something

What the fucking hell is this?

the whole "injure your partner through aggressive lovemaking" is just... ugh

kinda wanna post this on the gender thread it's so fuckd up

Yeah, exactly.

that second spot is one of the most revolting things i've ever seen. not that the first one wasn't bad, but holy hell. nothing but gross. can't believe they think anyone will be "into" this shit. fuck PETA.

i have been a vegetarian for 13 years and i dream of somehow causing ruin to PETA

better them than women, you vegetarian stallion

Nah, you gotta go vegan for that. Vegetarians are too half-assed for PETA.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2008/01/224-consumer-group-asks-virginia-government-to-reclassify-peta-as-a-slaughterhouse/

Center for Consumer Freedom are trolls too but at least their pro-hamburger-deregulation shtick doesn't involve putting pregnant ladies in cages (that link was the mindblosingest).

kinda wanna post this on the gender thread it's so fuckd up

The way they exploit women and minimize violence against them comes across as PETA thinking women are less worthy of rights and respect than animals.

They can go fuck off and die any time.

wait -- PETA actually takes in animals they say they will find homes for, and then kills 97% of them? WTF.

yeah tbh i've never heard a pro-PETA defense of their policy of kill shelters. no-kill shelters exist, and are viable, why wouldn't they just do that?

humanely euthanizing sick abandoned animals may be icky but its kind of a modern necessity

that said, 97% seems like a kind of crazy rate tho

god you guys already have me defending peta

http://www.peta.org/issues/companion-animals/euthanasia.aspx

ok, this is understandable (although i think a lot of stuff about the "dignity" of euthanasia is dubious) -- but still -- 97%???

ahhh the cat in the picture on that page looks a lot like my cat and now I'm going to have nightmares that PETA is trying to kill my cat

this is some bullshit.

humanely euthanizing sick abandoned animals may be icky but its kind of a modern necessity

that said, 97% seems like a kind of crazy rate tho

― ⚓ (gr8080), Tuesday, February 14, 2012 7:57 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it's the 97% bit that seems off, not the euthanizing bit

yeah, exactly. one gets the feeling that although they promise to try to find the pets good homes, they don't make any effort to do so.

too busy fucking obv

no matter what, if you kill animals, thousands of animals, perhaps millions of animals, simply because there are too many of them around and you can't be bothered with keeping them alive and happy yourself, then you can hardly waggle your fingers disapprovingly at people who occasionally eat meat, or drink milk, or wear fur. perhaps some of that food or fur came from animals killed humanely and with dignity, after all, and/or animals that would have no other place in the world if they weren't eaten or worn.

if your solution to animal suffering is to kill the suffering animals, then it's monstrously hypocritical to condemn people who kill animals for other reasons. hey, in either event, their suffering is alleviated, right? and would we ever consider euthanizing millions of humans (painlessly and with dignity, of course) simply because we lacked the resources to prevent them from living unhappy lives? fuck no! the right to life trumps the right to be free from suffering, except in the most extreme of cases.

when we kill animals in this way, we're not really alleviating their suffering, anyway. we're alleviating our own sympathetic awareness of their suffering. after all, can an animal tell us that it would rather die than go on? no. then what right does a supposedly super-humane, super-righteous animal rights organization have to make that decision for untold numbers of healthy animals? fucking none. it's mere convenience, easing the pangs of a guilty conscience.

^ overstating the case, there. i mean, i know why peta does this. they take the animals in because they feel morally obliged to, because no one else will and because they would be killed less humanely otherwise. they give the animals a shot at adoption, but they can't provide for the numbers forced on them, and they aren't allowed to release the animals back into the "wild". so, eventually, they do what they must, in a sense taking the moral bullet for a society too cowardly to deal directly with the consequences of its own decisions. i get all that, but no matter how noble their aims may be, the compromise makes the aggressive self-righteousness of peta's rhetoric and tactics rather galling.

i agree that peta are a bunch of morons and would like to know a little more abt the 97% report but bro you cant equate euthanizing unwanted animals with raising and slaughtering animals in an inhumane way for profit

not doing that though, just talking about the way we construct the moral right to kill. peta allow itself to kill animals in order to prevent anticipated suffering, as a sort of antidote to potential suffering. that's all well and good, but why shouldn't a similar exculpatory logic be applicable to other animal killings? regardless of whether or not such killings specifically intend to prevent suffering, they do in fact accomplish this end. no life, no pain. and the animals involved hardly have a place in the world otherwise.

i know i'm splitting moral/philosophical hairs here, but peta's approach strikes me as deeply hypocritical. when i see stray cats in the garbage cans (on kauai, say), i don't think, "oh my god, someone needs to rescue those poor helpless things!" i think, "hey, there are some wild animals." and i figure they have as much right to be there and do that as any wild animal. even if they're diseased. even if they die young. i do not imagine that their lives would be improved by euthanasia. the fact that they descend from domesticated creatures does not suggest to me that they must either be repatriated into pet-dom or be killed.

"after all, can an animal tell us that it would rather die than go on?"

Having euthanized two very sick cats last year, trust me, they can.

yeah, that's OTM. i've been in that position myself.

i was primarily addressing peta's euthanization of healthy animals. their moral logic seems to be based on the assumption that the animals would probably suffer if left to their own devices, and that seems super questionable to me.

"Dude, since you are currently unemployed and sick, I'm just going to go ahead and extrapolate from here that the rest of your life is going to suck and just kill you now so you can avoid that suffering. You're welcome."

Tags:
BWV BWVAKTBOOM Funny Testimonial Vegan Vegan Boyfriend Sex Sex Injury Humour

Sex Sex Injury Humour

contenderizer, there is no place for those animals to go. it's a completely different situation from the meat industry. peta isn't euthanizing those animals because it likes the way they taste. they euthanize them because no one will take care of them and they have to make room for more animals that will also not be adopted. if you have a place that will take care of these animals, I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear about it.

Sex Sex Injury Humour

This should be a Wii game.

BWV BWVAKTBOOM Funny Testimonial Vegan Vegan Boyfriend Sex Sex Injury Humour

Shouting Lager Lager Lager Lager

contenderizer, there is no place for those animals to go. it's a completely different situation from the meat industry. peta isn't euthanizing those animals because it likes the way they taste. they euthanize them because no one will take care of them and they have to make room for more animals that will also not be adopted.

yeah, but peta doesn't have to take in all the stray and unwanted animals in the world. if they end up killing the vast (VAST) majority of them, then how in any way can they claim to be serving the animals' best interests by taking them in in the first place? the only argument i can see is that they intend to kill them more humanely than others might, and that's an awful narrow ledge on which to prop your moral authority.

i'm not objecting to the euthanasia, per se. i'm objecting to the combination of peta's massive, massive euthanasia rate with their total intolerance for the way other people deal with animals. it's the hypocrisy that bugs me, not that they kill animals. i'm a meat-eater, after all...

personally I am objecting to PETA thinking it's a-okay for vegan men to beat the shit out of their female sex partners, if we can get this thread back on track

aerosmith and DJP both otm

I am objecting to PETA thinking it's a-okay for vegan men to beat the shit out of their female sex partners

with love

and penises

On the issue of beating the shit out of their female sex partners, not only is PETA well beyond the pale, but it conclusively demonstrates its head is so far up its ass it is in danger of disappearing. Condemnation seems like too weak a response to shit like that.

(In 2006, PETA...) managed to find adoptive homes for just 12 animals. Not counting pets brought to PETA for spaying or neutering, the organization killed 2,981 of the 3,061

otoh, this is entirely wtf. It's like a bunch of kids having an imaginary tea party, except its a bunch of clueless people playing at running an animal shelter. They have all the tiny teacups and the little table and say grown up things to each other, but allow me to point out that 2006 was the height of the fucking housing boom and they still couldn't find homes for more than a dozen animals??!!

I won't go into whether or not euthanizing 97% of the animals in their shelter fits PETA's moral pretensions or not. Those statistics reek of incompetance.

(In 2006, PETA...) managed to find adoptive homes for just 12 animals.

this is incredible

I'm not gonna excuse the numbers, but I have volunteered for animal adoption organizations, and it is very, very, very hard to place animals, especially adult animals, and ESPECIALLY adult animals with behavioral or health problems, as a lot of animals up for adoption are likely to be.

I'm not gonna excuse the numbers, but...

I think we all understand the mission of animal shelters and how hard it is to fulfill that mission, so it really does come down to the numbers here and what they say about the way that shelter is being run.

(In 2006, PETA...) managed to find adoptive homes for just 12 animals. Not counting pets brought to PETA for spaying or neutering, the organization killed 2,981 of the 3,061

i would guess that the money peta spends on making battered women look sexy could also have been spent on keeping a few of those animals alive for a while

contenderizer otm ^^^^ I was trying to think of something similar to say earlier, instead of paying a big celeb to do a photoshoot, spend that money keeping some animals alive

I suspect the celebs donate their phiz to The Cause, but the production of ads and placing the ads costs $$$.

Ok just to get some comparison statistics up in here, in 2011 Battersea dogs and cats home in London housed over 5000 animals; in 2009 it had to put down one third of the dogs it took in.

And from the first article linked:

(despite its $32 million budget), PETA does not operate a public “shelter” where members of the public may select dogs or cats and adopt them into their homes.

Basically they're not even trying.

(Battersea 2011 budget £13.5 million)

when we kill animals in this way, we're not really alleviating their suffering, anyway. we're alleviating our own sympathetic awareness of their suffering. after all, can an animal tell us that it would rather die than go on? no. then what right does a supposedly super-humane, super-righteous animal rights organization have to make that decision for untold numbers of healthy animals? fucking none. it's mere convenience, easing the pangs of a guilty conscience.

yes. thank you. i cried reading this because i've felt this way for some time without being able or willing to articulate it.

does this mean that, as a rule, we should watch our pets suffer until they die "naturally"? i don't know that i could insist on that or even follow through on it myself. but a lot of the blandishments we use to justify the inevitable decision to euthanize our dogs and cats seem very dubious to me. much more so when the animals aren't obviously suffering but simply can't be provided for in the way we think domestic animals should be provided for.

there is no right and certainly no easy answer for this problem, but the type of blandishments folks use to make themselves feel better about euthanizing pets seem deeply false to me.

it seems really weird to describe death as "alleviating suffering." yes, in a sense that you are eradicating the consciousness that defined that suffering, you are "alleviating" it. but is non-being really preferable to suffering? that's obviously something that individuals have to decide for themselves. unfortunately pets do not get that opportunity, so to mollify our consciences we find all kinds of ways of describing the eradication of consciousness as peaceful, humane, etc.

we could extend this to humans but i don't even want to go there.

but is non-being really preferable to suffering?

Hell, yes!

personally I am objecting to PETA thinking it's a-okay for vegan men to beat the shit out of their female sex partners, if we can get this thread back on track

― (thinks and smiles) (DJP), Wednesday, February 15, 2012 2:08 PM (Yesterday)

hmmmm there are obvious problems with that ad but i don't think domestic violence is one of them. you could make the case that it trivializes domestic violence, but that's not what you're saying

who knew it was that simple?

xpost

it seems like even if they were dying to go with this dumb concept, they could have easily made a second version with the genders switched \o_o/

i think they think they are being "un-P.C." and thus cool.

fucking morons.

Or two vegan guys, what about that then?

Too edgy?

http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/thecutline/peta-jenny-2.jpg

"would smash"

dang

anyway, wouldn't a psa that parodies the seriousness of psas dilute the effectiveness of peta's actually serious psas?

like, any time from now on when they do an ad about how cows suffer to provide milk i'm gonna assume there's going to be a punchline about how milk makes you spunk harder or something.

That'd be Soya Milk, obviously.

well, yeah, i just think that my first instinct when i hear that somber piano music should be be something like "this is a horrible tragedy; i should donate a lot of money and do a march or volunteer," not "and then i knocked the bottom out of that shit."

OT but it is really weird as a Britishish to hear that the weirdly prissy 'knocked the bottom out of me' is actual slang for vigorous sex. I'd say hilarious but, you know, within the general context of sexytimes being conflated with assault..

it's funny that the guy still looks schlubby and bespectacled and .. you know, vegan.

I resemble that remark

yeah, but he PACKS!

Basically, it's a crap advert, as well as being terrible.

what would happen if everybody did go vegan? Cows would become extinct within a couple of generations and everybody would be left without bottoms. That's not a future I believe in, PETA.

And without bottoms, we'd all become extinct!

I never want to watch that ad again but is it explained at any point why going vegan gives you lots of sexy vim? I know, there's lots to object to apart from the internal logic, but still...

is it explained at any point why going vegan gives you lots of sexy vim?

No. And That's why it's a crap advert.

The other objectionable stuff is why it's a terrible advert.

In fairness, all the vegans I know are really hott, so there might be something in it. However, the sample may be too low to be statistically significant.

being as it's a sample of three people, and two of them are seeing each other.

any injuries?

i had never heard "knocked the bottom out of me" used in any context before. so thanks for that, peta.

would we ever consider euthanizing millions of humans simply because we lacked the resources to prevent them from living unhappy live

Negative utilitarianism

It hasn't be espoused outside of philosophy thought pieces but its out there.

Humans die on their own when you withhold life's necessities, or if you put them in a war zone, and this has been thought a sufficient substitute for euthanasia of millions of humans since time out of mind.

BTW, I'm another vegan that kinda hates PETA. Not for their motives, or the euthanasia, but for their tone-deafness.

There's a bit of a rationale why vegan diets might prevent erectile dysfunction (both male and female) in the middle aged. Here's its handled outside PETA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4ECnqXQpDA

PETA could have made a perfectly convincing vid featuring an attractive middle aged woman lamenting her hamburger eating partner's inability to satisfy and looking longingly at the affectionate similarly aged vegan couple. But I guess we wouldn't be talking about that one.

re: negative utilitarianism

lol, yeah. there books and "movements" dedicated to non-procreation. not just the idea that people should refrain from having kids, but that the entire human race has a moral obligation to voluntarily extinguish itself by not reproducing. this because life necessarily entails suffering, you see, and we can't have that.

makes sense.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/scientists-look-onethird-of-the-human-race-has-to,27166/

One of those 'movements', Chris Korda's Church of Euthanasia released a fabulous electroclash album about ten years ago but they seem to have disappeared.

Or two vegan guys, what about that then?

Too edgy?

― Mark G, Friday, 17 February 2012 09:34 (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

My bad, there is a whole set of these, and yes there is a 'gay guys' one.

lol, yeah. there books and "movements" dedicated to non-procreation.

like certain groups of shakers

huh i remember touring a shaker village as a kid and that point in partics stuck out the most

(i was with my family, i didn't go on some childhood tour of shaker villages)

i knew that the shakers don't procreate, but i didn't (and still don't) know anything about their reasons for this. always figured it was probably a puritan thing, rising above base urgings and all. are you saying, amateurist, that it reflects an antinatalist objection to bringing children into a world of suffering?

antinatalism

the voluntary human extinction movement

an antinatalist muses on 'the shaker problem'

“Kanye can't help making himself look like an idiot, whether at an awards show or a fashion show,” PETA'S Matthews lashed into Yeezy during the time. “He and his girlfriend look like pathetic creatures from a shabby roadside zoo.”

classy

worst.

They deserve each other.

they sorta do look like that though, if you look at the pics

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/05/peta-tucker-max-donation-planned-parenthood_n_1406795.html?ref=green

^^ actually funny

http://cdn.buzznet.com/media/jj1//2010/01/kanye-fur/kanye-west-amber-rose-fur-coats-louis-vuitton-paris-fashion-week-02.jpg

kanye looks like a furry with a "rolling in dirt" fetish

she looks like she's wearing a polar bear costume

Wow, that Huff post piece describes Ticker Max as "the author," as in "would not accept the author's donation."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/19/showbiz/tv/peta-animal-practice-canceled/index.html?hpt=en_c1

okay lol

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2012/10/08/peta-pokemon-animal-abuse/

These people are ridiculous.

You can't spell incompetance without peta.

they are ridiculous yet I want to defend them just because my animal-hating trapper of an uncle constantly posts anti-peta shit on his fb.

i'm fine with their claiming a victory when ppl aren't interested in a comedy about vets featuring a monkey in a lab coat

otm

I've seen this article being passed around a bit today:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html

I haven't seen it picked up by any real publications. Wondering about how real these claims are? It seems pretty fucked up if true.

Pretty much all my vegan acquaintances on other sites despise PETA, though usually for their pandering sexism than their negative utilitarianism.

As far as I'm concerned, about the only worthwhile thing PETA does is partially fund the The Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine, and even there, I wish Dr. Bernard found other benefactors.

Also xp, the allegations are well founded. The HBO documentary I am an Animal: Ingrid Newkirk and PETA follows along Newkirk and some PETA workers who "rescue" a pit chained to a tree, bring it to the HQ, and pretty swiftly euthanize it. Its not out of cruel intention, just a peculiar, insular and cultish groupthink among Newkirk's inner-circle that non-existence is a better fate than the vicissitudes life might bring.

One almost expects the DC news to report PETA's steering committee found slumped over their conference table surrounded by empty pentobarbital syringes.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0gbwdY1MH1qjt6h1o1_500.jpg

Wait no this one is better

http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1121/4733436305_5bb8e96eef_z.jpg

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--oiXL6Gk1--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/rscbbcjjclalycxdrhz8.jpg

this facial expression

UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH