Richard Land, Bocephus and the Scandal of Evangelical Ethics

Hank Williams Jr. lost his job with ESPN recently after saying on a talk show that President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are “the enemy” and comparing them to “Hitler.”

Williams, sometimes known as “Bocephus,” had a long-time gig singing before the Monday night NFL game every week. That gig is now over because the sports network reasonably decided that allowing an inflammatory idiot to Godwin the pregame show wasn’t the best way to get a national TV audience ready for some football. Ratings have not suffered from his dismissal.

ESPN did what any responsible business would do. They did what every responsible organization does when confronted with a public employee saying the sorts of things that Williams said. Comments like Williams’ would get any employee fired or suspended or at least disciplined almost anywhere.

Almost anywhere, but not everywhere. Because not every organization is a responsible organization. Not every organization has even the minimal ethical standards of Monday Night Football.

We should note that Bocephus’ role in the Monday night broadcasts did not require him to be an ethical or spiritual role model. He was there to warm up the audience with his catch phrase and his redneck charm (and because we all still love his dad’s songs). Williams was never hired to lead the NFL’s “ethics commission.” He was just an entertainer — but even an entertainer is required to meet minimal standards of decency and honesty. When he failed to meet even those minimal standards, Bocephus lost his job.

Whatever minimal ethical standards the Southern Baptist Convention has, they are far below those of Monday Night Football. Richard Land — who has served for more than 20 years as the president of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission — has a long track record of saying things even more outrageously inflammatory and maliciously dishonest than what Hank Williams Jr. said. And yet his standing is undiminished as the convention’s chief spokesman for “ethics.” Bocephus was fired and has made himself a pariah in the sports community. Richard Land still has his job, has not credibly apologized, has not been disciplined, and remains a respected expert on ethics in the SBC and in the broader evangelical community.

That’s astonishing. Richard Land’s job is to teach and promote ethics on behalf of the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, yet his ethical violations as a public speaker exceed those of a bumpkin entertainer fired by ESPN. The ad hoc, informal community of football fandom apparently has higher ethical standards than the ad hoc, informal community of American evangelicalism.

This suggests that anyone who hopes to become an ethical person would be better off watching football on television every Monday night than attending worship at a Southern Baptist church every Sunday morning. Monday Night Football might not make you a better person, but the Southern Baptist Convention has long employed an “ethics” spokesman who seems determined to make you a worse one.

Neither Williams’ dismissal nor Land’s continued employment is controversial in the respective communities of sports broadcasting and evangelicalism. ESPN’s decision to part ways with Bocephus was widely viewed by football fans as sadly necessary and proper. His own vile words left them with no other responsible choice. Land’s ongoing role with the SBC, despite his vile words, has never been seriously questioned within the SBC hierarchy. His claims that gays prey on children and his calling a respected Jewish scholar “Mengele” has never stirred any hint of controversy among those who hold power in the SBC.

The example of Richard Land’s undiminished standing as a respected evangelical ethical expert might lead one to suspect that there is nothing one could say or do that might put one’s job in jeopardy in the evangelical world. But as we’ve seen in a series of recent examples discussed here, that’s not the case. Calvin College professor John Schneider was pushed into “early retirement” for questioning the idea of a “historical” Adam and Eve. Activists and media figures have encouraged Grove City College to rethink its employment of psychology professor Warren Throckmorton due to his refusal to deny the science disproving their belief in religious “reparative therapy” for gays. The same cast of characters has questioned Eastern Nazarene College’s continued support for Karl Giberson, a physicist who teaches actual physics, and Randall J. Stephens, a historian who teaches actual history. Their so-called “offense” was, again, arguing that Christians should stick to the facts. The activists and self-proclaimed bishops upset with all of these professors urge wealthy conservative donors to all of those colleges to pressure the schools to silence or remove such unacceptably truthful professors.

Consider this pattern. Speaking the truth is “controversial” and can get you in a lot of trouble. Outrageous lies, on the other hand, do nothing to diminish your job security or your standing as a respected expert on ethics.

In the American evangelical community, no shame or scandal or disapproval comes from bearing false witness against one’s neighbor — provided one targets the right neighbors. Such outright lies do not create controversy, but a refusal to lie is seen as making waves. Refusing to bear false witness against certain neighbors can put your job in jeopardy.

How did evangelicalism reach this point? How did it come to be that bearing false witness against certain of our neighbors isn’t just tolerated, but required?

The answer, I think, is that for all the talk of Jesus’ “sacrificial atonement,” evangelicals do not rely on Christ for their justification or vindication. They seek that justification elsewhere — from the sacrifice of scapegoats. Foremost among those scapegoats are GLBT people and women who have abortions.

The vilification of these scapegoats is of paramount importance in evangelicalism. It is more important than any belief in vindication through Christ. And this new core doctrine reshapes evangelical ethics to such an extent that bearing false witness against those scapegoats is mandatory.

Lying about gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgendered persons will never get you in trouble with the leading spokesmen for American evangelicals. They do not consider such lies to be unethical. They consider such lies to be an ethical obligation.

Lying about women who have abortions or the doctors who perform them will never get you in trouble with the leading spokesmen for American evangelicals. They do not consider such lies to be unethical. They consider such lies to be an ethical obligation.

That’s not a good place to be.

 

  • vsm

    Yeah, he asked to be crucified upside down because he didn’t feel worthy to die the same way Jesus did

    Back in the day, my surprisingly cynical Religious Education teacher pointed out to us ten-year-olds how it also meant he’d die a lot faster than someone crucified the normal way. That bit always stuch with me for some reason.

  • Joshua

    Much as I love the Bible and Christian history, how the hell is a detailed discussion of crucifixion suitable for a class of ten-year-olds?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Kids can learn at a pretty young age what that’s all about. I remember around that age reading a story about kids being sad at the holes in Jesus’s wrists and him saying not to be upset because it meant through him they had everlasting life.

  • vsm

    She didn’t go into Passion of the Christ level detail. She just mentioned that the classic style could take several days to kill you and was really painful, while an older man like Peter would probably have stroke pretty soon hanging upside down.

    Details of his death are, of course, only found in church tradition that didn’t get written down until two centuries after Peter took his place at the pearly gates.

  • arc

    A paradox isn’t necessary a logical paradox, though – it can be as weak as an unintuitive consequence of intuitive assumptions. 

    And the case is a bit stronger than you’ve made it out to be.  Sure, it’s common enough for suspicions to cut both ways.  It’s less common to have strong arguments that sound very convincing that cut both ways, and that’s enough to count as a paradox in my opinion.

    “I stand by each and every statement in this book.  But some of them are wrong. ” certainly sounds paradoxical to me. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=581585394 Nicholas Kapur

    “I stand by each and every statement in this book.  But some of them are wrong.” certainly sounds paradoxical to me.

    Well, I think that depends on the context. I can think of a lot of people for whom such a statement would just be further evidence that they’re incompetent, double-thinking jackasses. But in the right hands, it could mean, “I stand by and take personal responsibility for the words I have written. Of course, as I continue the lifelong journey of learning, I will likely discover that some of the things I have said are wrong — at which point I will obviously no longer stand by those statements.”

    I’m not sure exactly what you’re responding to, so that may be irrelevant to (or in support of) the point you were trying to make, but there it is.

  • arc

     Goodness, are people ever inclined to read a lot into my question to WingedBeast. 

    I’m not saying that there’s no difference between creationists and
    open-minded liberally sorts, and I’m not pushing for universal
    scepticism, or anything like that, I was just trying to work out what distinction WingedBeast was making or trying to make when referring to people as ‘theoretically fallible’.  It seems to me after reading their replies that the really big difference between the ‘theoretically fallible’ and more reasonable people is just that they’re very closed-minded on a lot of topics, and while people have discussed what this means in this forum in more detail, it’s not really news (not that it needs to be – I just thought it might have been). I had half an idea that WingedBeast was picking out some important difference over and above closed-mindedness, but I’m now thinking I was wrong about that and the label ‘theoretically fallible’ was merely pointedly pointing out that some of them do officially admit to fallibility but this is a pretty empty gesture – i.e. the only difference between a closed-minded person who isn’t ‘theortically fallible’ and one that is, is just this empty gesture.

     

  • William

    Can’t let this stand. While Toby Keith isn’t exactly a paragon of progressivism (or really politically consistent at all, for that matter. He used to be a Democrat I suppose and he still comes out with high praise for Obama, but he also had a lot of praise for Mrs. Palin, so I don’t try to think about it much. Dude just loves America…), I really can’t think of anything in his work that strikes me as purveying white male resentment. Aggressive at times, perhaps too nostalgic for a misremembered past, but as far as country music goes he’s not even in the same realm of disgusting as ol’ Bocephus.

  • Tonio

    You’re right that Keith is not as disgusting as Hank. Besides the traits that you mentioned, there’s also the jingoism of “Beer for My Horses” and “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue” and the misogyny of “I Wanna Talk About Me,” and it’s those four things in combination that suggest white male resentment.

  • arc

    I was responding to Caravelle’s deflatory response to my mentioning of the paradox of the prefix  – and I could have sworn I pressed ‘reply to’!

    In that context, the writer is both careful and competent, so has excellent reasons for believing each statement in the book when taken individually – but also has excellent reasons for believing that some of them are wrong.

    Let’s put it this way:

    I know A
    I know B
    I know C…
    I know Z

    and I also know that at least one of A, B, C… Z are false.

    I think you have to be setting the bar for paradox pretty high if that doesn’t count as paradoxical.

  • Lori

     Much as I love the Bible and Christian history, how the hell is a detailed discussion of crucifixion suitable for a class of ten-year-olds?  

     

    Have you hung around with many ten year olds recently? They can be a surprisingly blood-thirsty lot. 

  • Lori

      the misogyny of “I Wanna Talk About Me,”  

    I can’t believe I’m doing this, but I’m going to stick up for Toby on this one. The humor is not everyone’s cup of tea, but I don’t think it’s misogynist. It plays on a tired stereotype about women talking all the time, but it’s not nearly enough mean about it to be truly offensive. If I took a minute I could come up with many, many songs that are far worse. 

    If you want to talk about misogyny in country music I think it’s tough to top Garth Brooks’ “Mamma’s in the Graveyard, Papa’s in the Pen”. Holy crap. Every time I hear that song I want to punch ol’ Garth in the neck. For all that he’s sort of a big ass I don’t think Toby Keith has anything in his oeuvre that even approaches that. 

  • Lori

     I think you have to be setting the bar for paradox pretty high if that doesn’t count as paradoxical.  

    I wouldn’t call your example paradoxical so much as phoney. The example you gave earlier doesn’t fit that construct at all. Under what circumstances would a person say both “I know these 4 things” and “I know one of these 4 things is untrue” (for equal values of the word “know”)? That’s not paradoxical, it’s ridiculous. 

    It seems like you’re working way too hard trying to get to “Everyone does it” from a very odd angle. 

  • arc

    Everyone who’s intellectually honest is in this position, of taking themselves to know a whole lot of stuff, and also taking themselves to know that some of what they take themselves to know is false. 

    Of course, almost no-one would put it in the stark terms that I have done.  So the paradoxical nature of one’s beliefs about one’s own beliefs isn’t usually made clear.

    And I didn’t say ‘four things’, I used 26, and that is important.

    If you’re not completely and utterly certain of every single one of your beliefs (give them probability 1 in the language of probability), you’re just very very sure, then you should be progressively less sure of conjunctions of your beliefs, and progressively more sure that at least one of them is false.

    If you’re not doing that, you’re not rational.

    If you’re going to say you know that one of 4 things is false, then you weren’t sure enough about any one of them to count as knowledge.  But there will be some number at which you become pretty sure that there’s a false on in there somewhere – 26 is plausible, but perhaps it’s actually 100 or 10000 or something.

    I can discuss this mathematically, if you want.

  • Tonio

    I hadn’t heard that Garth song, and checking the lyrics, yes, it’s astoundingly brutal. My issue with the Keith song was that it appears to not just ridicule women, but also encourage male listeners to think of themselves as victims who aren’t being listened to. It might help to describe the song as encouraging resentment, which for me places it in a special category apart from songs whose messages are more misogynist.

    The larger context is that too many of the “we’re from the country” songs play to resentment to various degrees. Bocephus’ “A Country Boy Can Survive” is among the worst. But even the more innocuous entries adopt an anti-intellectual tone and a victim mentality, often defining “country people” by what they’re not. It wouldn’t be fair to call these songs racist. It’s more like the crowds at Talledega being almost entirely white, where one gets the feeling that an entire culture is trying to define itself according to skin color.

  • Lori

     I can discuss this mathematically, if you want.  

     

    Strangely, I’m not feeling the urge to be talked down to more about the math. I took probabilities so I don’t need your help with that. 

    What I could use some help with is this—what is your point? I keep thinking I know what it is and then you post more and the point slips away again. 

  • Lori

     It might help to describe the song asencouraging resentment, which for me places it in a special category apart from songs whose messages are more misogynist.  

    Have you listened to the song, or just read the lyrics? If you’ve actually listened to it, did you honestly think the point of it was that the singer is seething with resentment and encouraging others to feel the same? Really? 

  • Lori

    OT, but related to the misogyny tangent—The fetal personhood amendment in Mississippi failed. If they can’t get that crap passed in Mississippi I have some hope that they won’t be able to push it through anywhere. I’ll take that as good news for women. 

  • P J Evans

     It’s funny that the people who get most worked up about how the flag is displayed are the same ones who want to put it on everything, including clothes (which really is against the flag code). I always wonder what they’d do with people burning flags in protest, but using flags that are too worn for normal use. (Or if they even know that burning is the proper method of disposing of worn flags.)

  • Lori

     I always wonder what they’d do with people burning flags in protest, but using flags that are too worn for normal use. (Or if they even know that burning is the proper method of disposing of worn flags.)  

     

    In fairness, while burning is the proper method of flag disposal there are some rules about how it’s done and no matter how worn the flag is, your typical protest burning doesn’t meet the requirements. 

    What I can’t figure out is how someone can claim to be patriotic and still feel that the country is in any way damaged by flag burning. My perception of America is a wee bit stronger than that. Of course, I’m not from an honor based subculture so there’s a whole lot that makes no real sense to me. 

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    I seem to recall that actually happened at a US/Canada event (some sports thing?  I forget) about a decade ago.

    Someone shat on @Invisible_Neutrino:disqus ‘s couch?

  • Emcee, cubed

    OT, but related to the misogyny tangent—The fetal personhood amendment
    in Mississippi failed. If they can’t get that crap passed in
    Mississippi I have some hope that they won’t be able to push it through
    anywhere. I’ll take that as good news for women.

    Also, Maine repealed their voter-supression law, Ohio gave back collective bargaining to public employees, and Mr. “Papers Please” Pearce got recalled in Arizona. All in all, a pretty good day.

  • Emcee, cubed

    And one more I forgot: Democrats kept control of the Iowa Senate, derailing Republican plans to repeal marriage equality in the state.

  • arc

    I don’t really have a point, Lori, I’m just responding to other people’s comments – I thought the ‘theoretically fallible’ mentioned by WingedBeast seemed a bit like the preface paradox,
    Caravell didn’t feel it was parodoxical, but I still think it is, and because I had a bit of ‘reply to this’ fail Nicholas Kapur thought I was still talking about creationists or something.

    I then put the preface paradox starkly to show why I think it deserves the
    name ‘paradox’.  You called that ‘phoney’, and referred to  ’4 things’,
    so it seemed to me you weren’t understanding what I was saying (because,
    y’know, I don’t think it’s phoney, and I didn’t refer to just 4
    things), so I tried to clarify.

    Now you seem to think I’m talking down to you, which is unfortunate. You also seem to think I have some kind of agenda, which seems to be a common misapprehension – Nicholas Kapur responded to me earlier as though I was saying ‘no-one can know anything at all, and in addition there’s no such thing as an open-minded person, especially not you, N.K.’, and such a presupposition might also make some sense of Matri’s supposition that I’m living a blissful existence entirely unblemished by closed-minded dogmatic sorts. 

    All I was doing was trying to get some clarification from WingedBeast as to what they were getting at with ‘theoretically fallible’, and after that to explain why I still think the preface paradox is paradoxical.

    (It’s a paradox that can be explained with the help of probability, as I have just indicated, but many paradoxes do have explanations. )

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    E-hem. Nobody has ever done that to my couch. :P Not even a house pet. :P

  • Emcee, cubed

    And I just learned of a new one: A Democratic victory in a NC school board election derails Republican plans to re-segregate schools.

  • Lori

    It was a pretty good night for gay & lesbian candidates.

    -The mayor of Houston, an out lesbian, won reelection.

    -Daniel Hernandez, the staffer who helped save Gabby Giffords, won a seat on the Tucson school board.

    -Several cities elected their first openly gay city council members.

    It seems that at least so far the GOP efforts to make people believe that every bad thing happening in America is the fault of liberals and teh ghay seems to have failed. Here’s hoping that trend continues.

     

  • Caravelle

    I think you have to be setting the bar for paradox pretty high if that doesn’t count as paradoxical.

    … Or you have to assume that “know” != “absolute certainty”. Which I don’t think is a such a high bar.

    But whatever. I’m not a philosopher or logician, they’re the one that come up with concepts and call them “paradoxes”, I’m sure there are many, many other things called “paradoxes” out there that I wouldn’t personally use that word for. And anyway all paradoxes, even those I would call “paradoxes”, are merely a reflection of humans’ lack of understanding instead of genuine contradictions. Probably. I just hadn’t ever come across that particular one and it surprised me.

  • Tonio

    I’ve heard the song a few times, and I would agree that the song is somewhat light-hearted and comical in its delivery, but it also seems passive-aggressive. It didn’t help that the first time I heard it, the DJ launched into his own gripe about all married women allegedly acting that way, and then ridiculed the panel on The View as “cackling hens.”

  • Tonio

    Wow, I wasn’t expecting the Democrats to do so well last night…

    Anyway, the core reason “I Wanna Talk About Me” doesn’t sit well with me is because women generally don’t receive the benefit of listening from men. They’re belittled when they speak their minds, treated as though their opinion matters less because of their gender. Mansplaining. So when a man complains that he doesn’t have a chance to talk to a woman, it sounds to me like misplaced entitlement because of the larger societal context.

    Gene Weingarten dissects this same entitlement in a more saddening context. Sad partly because there are plenty of men who, in his situation, would whine about unfair it is to be suspected of domestic abuse, acting like they’re in a worse position than the women who are actually abused.

  • Lori

     I’ve heard the song a few times, and I would agree that the song is somewhat light-hearted and comical in its delivery, but it also seems passive-aggressive. It didn’t help that the first time I heard it, the DJ launched into his own gripe about all married women allegedly acting that way, and then ridiculed the panel on The View as “cackling hens.”  

    I tend to think it’s less passive-aggressive than “putting it right out there-mildly annoyed”. The DJ however sounds like a total ass. 

  • Lori

     Anyway, the core reason “I Wanna Talk About Me” doesn’t sit well with me is because women generally don’t receive the benefit of listening from men. They’re belittled when they speak their minds, treated as though their opinion matters less because of their gender. Mansplaining. So when aman complains that he doesn’t have a chance to talk to a woman, it sounds to me like misplaced entitlement because of the larger societal context.  

    There are also men whose wive really are a lot more talkative than they are and who feel like they have trouble getting a word in edgewise. 

    There are also men who rarely talk about themselves in any real way and who have wives who would love for them to do so, so there’s some irony there (although that’s may be unintentional).  

    There is nothing in the song about the guy wanting to explain women’s issue to the woman. There is nothing in the song where the guy says that the woman is wrong about anything. There is nothing in the song where the guy says that he doesn’t want the woman to talk. In fact he says he loves her talking. She just does a lot of it and he wished he got to do a bit more. So, I don’t think there’s some underlying commentary on mansplaining and or a yowl of thrwarted entitlement to always have the floor. There’s certainly nothing in it that has anything to do with domestic abuse. 

    The song strikes you the way it strikes you, and you obviously don’t have to like it. I do think you’re hearing more than is there though. 

    And with that I have to be done with this because I can’t believe I’n defending that butthead Toby Keith. 

  • Anonymous

    “I was responding to Caravelle’s deflatory response to my mentioning of the paradox of the prefix  – and I could have sworn I pressed ‘reply to’! 

    In that context, the writer is both careful and competent, so has excellent reasons for believing each statement in the book when taken individually – but also has excellent reasons for believing that some of them are wrong. 

    Let’s put it this way: 

    I know A
    I know B
    I know C…
    I know Z

    and I also know that at least one of A, B, C… Z are false.

    I think you have to be setting the bar for paradox pretty high if that doesn’t count as paradoxical.”
    No, as far as I can see it’s only a problem if you equivocate on the meaning of know. Since in the problem you “know” things with less than 100% certainty you can’t apply the methods of deductive logic* (deductive logic is invalid if you don’t trust your premises, every logic textbook makes that point in the first chapter). If you apply probabilistic reasoning as is appropriate you find no contradiction at all. Here’s a toy example with simple numbers for clarity:

    Say I “know” a fact x if Pr(x)>=90%.

    Then if I “know” 25 facts, assigning each a probability of 91%, and the truth of each is independent of any of the others, then I also “know” that at least one of them is wrong because (91%)^25 < 10%.

    *From the wiki page on the lottery paradox the three assumptions that generate it are
    1. It is rational to accept a proposition that is very likely true,
    2. It is not rational to accept a proposition that is known to be inconsistent, and
    3. If it is rational to accept a proposition A and it is rational to accept another proposition A', then it is rational to accept A & A'

    (3) isn't a valid principle of probabilistic reasoning, so you either have to give it up, or give up (1) and restrict yourself to the small number of things you can deduce from absolutely knows premises. (You could also give up (2) and become a dialetheist, but most people prefer to avoid biting that particular bullet.)

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Sad partly because there are plenty of men who, in his situation, would whine about unfair it is to be suspected of domestic abuse, acting like they’re in a worse position than the women who are actually abused.

    As a man, I do not whine about the unfairness of me being assumed to be a potential batterer until proven otherwise.  But that certainly does engender in me a certain degree of self-hatred.  There is only so many times you can hear about such asshole men before you start to feel like you share the blame for having the luck to be born with the same shaped chromosomes as those guys, and feel like you deserve to be beaten for it.  

    I do feel tired of taking that blame for the actions of others, but I never direct that frustration at women.  I direct it at the guys who propagate such infractions, and I wish I had more of an outlet for directly “correcting” their abhorrent behavior.  

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    I don’t think much of either the song or Toby Keith myself, but I always read it as being less about “I don’t get a chance to talk because my partner talks too much” and more of a (playful) lament that it’s not socially acceptable for a man to talk about mundane, touchy-feely-small-talky things: that he’s complaining about the expectation that wanting to talk about your day and your feelings and your “dreams and your crazy schemes” and “The ones that you despise and the ones you idolize” aren’t the sort of things men are allowed to want to talk about. I notice, for instance, he doesn’t mention wanting to talk about sports or politics or automechanics or any of the other traditional “manly” topics. 

    Still total First World Problems, but it makes me wonder.

  • Tonio

    I don’t think there’s some underlying commentary on mansplaining and or a
    yowl of thrwarted entitlement to always have the floor. There’s
    certainly nothing in it that has anything to do with domestic abuse.

    Yes, and I wasn’t arguing the opposite. I was using the Weingarten story partly as an analogy to make my point, which was that people in privileged positions risk sounding resentful and entitled when they air grievances. I know a few men like Toby and often they seem angry for no obvious reason, and that’s part of the context I mentioned earlier.

  • Demonhype

    “I’m not infallible, but God is, and when I say homosexuals are an abomination deserving of death I can’t possibly be wrong because then God would be wrong!”

    Yes, they are technically claiming infallibility.  They just do so by humbly claiming themselves to be fallible then projecting their own opinions into the mouth of their God who they claim to be infallible.  It’s the ultimate ventriloquist act–I didn’t say it, Howdy Doody did, and I’m not always right but Howdy Doody is always right…and never mind the hand up his ass, pay no attention to the hand up his ass….

  • Lori

     I notice, for instance, he doesn’t mention wanting to talk about sports or politics or automechanics or any of the other traditional “manly” topics.   

    I hadn’t noticed that, but you have a point. 

  • Headless Unicorn Guy

    Slack, everybody, I refer you to an essay by Thomas Merton, Moral Theology of the Devil.”
    (The above is an excerpt of the high points.  Full essay here.)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X