Jordan Peterson's Most Shocking Message!

[Music] it's possibly one of the most famous Canadians in the world right now no not Justin Bieber or Justin Trudeau it's the academic Jordan Peterson the past two years the Canadian psychologists and academic has been adopted as a hero are you a radical right winger it's a silly question what's the evidence for that I'm not asking for I'm asking you it's ridiculous to defend yourself against an accusation that has no grounds so what is your political perspective I don't really have a political perspective I'm not trying to play a political game and I don't think that the problem that we're having right now is a political problem I think it's deeper than that which is what I said right from the beginning which is why I think that what I'm doing is resonating Stevens teammates is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto a youtube sensation and the author of the big new international bestseller 12 rules for life ladies and gentlemen Toronto's Jordan Peterson [Music] [Applause] so how did he become so well-known he first came to national prominence in Canada in 2016 in a debate about new laws on gender identity bill c16 made it an offence to refuse to call someone by their chosen gender pronoun you say you've been painted as an extreme right winger and some people have tried that not very successfully but they've tried it and you came to prominence in part over your opposition to this law that we just talked about in Canada proposing the use of preferred pronouns for transgender people just the comand aiding them Yeah right so what you should do no you had to do it right you had to do it by law but just hundreds of thousands subscribed to his online lectures and his videos where he talks everything from identity politics which we've touched on to the Bible to Disney movies have been viewed over 150 million times and then finally there's also and I don't know what you think about this with regards to evidence but what constitutes evidence is not always that easy to determine even in the scientific domain so emeriti think about how we think about ourselves and other people and how we treat ourselves and other people you could imagine that you're like a clock running down and that's like a deterministic model but people aren't clocks were dissipative structures a clock is something that runs downhill we're not we're not clocks by any stretch of the imagination and we take energy in and we disperse energy and so what we see in front of us is a an array of potential universes and those are the universes that we could bring about as a consequence of our actions and it and we make choices to the right or the left there's a lot of mythological speculation about that sort of idea - in an ethical sense because we decide what sort of reality that we want to bring into being and so we encounter potential like God did at the beginning of time when he made order out of chaos chaos is this chaotic potential we confront chaotic potential with our consciousness and we cast that into reality in a way you're appealing to a certain political viewpoint people claim that's your fans your fan base seems to come from that side no I don't agree with that at all I think that first of all you know whether or not what I have our fans is debatable rock stars have fans I'm not a performance artist I don't have fans I have people who are listening carefully to what I'm saying and it's very complicated what I'm saying so they're not just fans it isn't man precisely who I'm who I'm speaking to it's it's people I'm a clinical psychologist I'm actually interested individuals and I'm interested in their fortification against tragedy you know every time I do an interview the interview is always political it's always political well then what the glue is in the title of this program we all the day I'm not casting aspersions at this program but the fundamental news that's important about what I'm doing isn't the political element if you treat yourself like you're a free moral agent with choice and that you can determine the course of your life then you seem to get along better with yourself and to be less anxious and to be more productive and if you treat other people like that that they're free agents that are making voluntary choices about how reality is going to come into being and you reward them when they do it properly and you punish them or otherwise discipline them when they don't when they do it badly then your relationships with them seem to work and then if we predicate our society on the presupposition that each individual human being is capable of doing just that then we seem to have extremely functional societies and so and this is something that Sam Harris has been taken to task for many times is if you dispense with the idea of free will how is it you organize your relationship to yourself your interactions with your family and your relationships with the broader social community it's a very complicated issue so I believe strongly that we have free will that were responsible for our choices those choices are constrained in many many ways so there's a chaos within that can manifest itself that can disrupt whatever order you are and you know that minor ways because everybody's always running around doing things that aren't good for them that they know they shouldn't do and that they can't control and so there's a chaotic and an orderly aspect to everything to the individual to the family to the social world to the natural world it's chaos and order at every level of analysis simultaneously thank you for your support for more and better debate on the big issues of the day it's great to have you as virtual participants in tonight's proceedings great starts at the debate Michelle thank you I'm now gonna ask Jordan Peterson to speak for the con team so we should first decide what we're talking about we're not talking about my views of political correctness despite what you might have inferred from the last speaker's comments this is how it looks to me we essentially need something approximating a low resolution grand narrative to unite us and and we need a narrative tonight is because otherwise we don't have peace what's playing out in the universities and in broader society right now is a debate between two fundamental low resolution narratives neither of which can be completely accurate because they can't encompass all the details obviously human beings have an individual element and a collective element a group element let's say fools for good or bad PC well I think at the moment it's clearly a force for bad I think it's corrupted the universities perhaps beyond repair and I think the reason for that fundamentally is that the the PC ideologue types think that the proper way to classify people is by their group affiliation and there's all sorts of problems with that one is that there's an endless number of ways that you can classify people by their group affiliation Jordan let's have you jump in on this idea of what you see is the pernicious danger of groupthink when it comes to ethnicity when it comes to gender why do you think that that's one of the primal sins in your view of quote political correctness well I think it's one of the primal sins of identity politics players on the left and the right just to be clear about that personally since this has got personal at times I'm no fan of the identitarian right I think that anybody who plays a game a conceptual game where group identity comes first and foremost risks and exacerbation of tribalism it doesn't matter whether it's on the left to the right with regards to the idea of group rights the idea of group rights is extraordinarily problematic because the the the obverse of the coin of individual rights is individual responsibilities then you can hold an individual responsible and an individual can be responsible and so that's partly why individuals have rights but groups how do you hold a group responsible but I hear a lot of category creep in again the argument against political correctness or against seeking group redress the idea that kind of that way lies dehumanization or you know that you're kind of one minute you're acid Steven come in on this is a part of your opening remarks you're a category creep Steven don't respond to that it's nice I'm I'm still very lost about why we aren't talking about political correctness we're talking about politics and that's fine and I share you know and share exactly what you think about it I'm not an enemy of identity politics per se I can obviously see where it goes wrong and where it's annoying let's be empirical about this how well is it working for you in America at the moment well not well at all really easy I you can ask me in a moment the reason the reason the Trump and brexit in Britain and all kinds of nativists all over Europe is succeeding is not the triumph of the right it's the catastrophic failure of the left it's our fault we absolutely my point is not that I've turned to the rice or anything like that or that I'm nice and fluffy I want everybody to be decent I'm saying political correctness resist fight if you have a point of view fight it in the proper manner using democracies it should be not channels of education not language you know it's so silly but there's a chess rule you know in chess the best move to playing chess is not the best chess move it's the move your opponent least wants you to play at the moment you're being recruiting sergeants for the right but by annoying and upsetting and instead of fighting either fighting or persuading I've been given a huge grief already simply because I'm standing here next to professor Peterson which is the very reason that I am standing here in the first place I'm standing next to someone with whom I have you know differences shall we say in terms of politics and all kinds of other things precisely because I think all this has got to stop this rage resentment hostility hostility intolerance above all this some with us or against us certainty a grand canyon has opened up in our world the fist year the crack grows wider every day neither on each side can hear a word that the other shrieks and nor do they want to I think one of the things I loved about Jordans book which I read speed-read last night so forgive me Jordan have not read every life but one of my favorite rules in Jordan's book is rule 9 which says assume the person you are listening to might know something you do it hmm chaos is something that you say is distinctly feminine whereas we're symbolizing it's symbolized by the feminine yeah okay so you posit that so this almost seems like in certain ways an antidote to femininity is that not the case it's an it's an attempt I think that let me think here for a minute how to how to put that properly under under under other political conditions it could have been an antidote to order but I think that the fundamental threats that our society faces now are threats from the side of chaos from the size of site of destabilization rather than in our culture at least rather than from the side of tyranny if you read maps of meaning there's a section on neuropsychology that's also buttress by a book written by Ian McGilchrist called the master and his emissary that lays out the relationship between the right and left hemisphere now it's quite strange that we have a right and left hemisphere it's almost as if we have two consciousness as dwelling in our in our in our in our being and they're quite separable if you cut the corpus callosum that unites the two then the two hemispheres will act independently to some degree you can communicate with each of them somewhat independently so they actually view the world quite differently and that that hemispheric distinction is not only there in human beings but also in animals along way down the phylogenetic chain and so you're wired so that you're not just order and you're not just chaos your order continually confronting chaos so that the order remains updated see something is meaningful the reason that something is meaningful is because you're getting a deep instinctual signal that you're encountering normally at a rate that doesn't exceed your capability that's also the rate at which you can keep yourself updated optimally and so meaning isn't epic phenomenal and it's and it isn't it isn't some kind of delusion that rationality can and should overcome to say well everything's meaningless it's like no it's not meaning is the most fundamental instinct for adaptation and so that's partly why in twelve rules for life I said one of the rules um I think it's rule seven is do what is meaningful not what is expedient Michael give us your rebuttal I feel freer already I don't know what mythological collective mr. Peterson refers to I'm part of the left they're cantankerous when they have a firing squad is usually in a semi-circle part of the skepticism of rationality was predicated upon the Enlightenment project which says we're no longer going to be subordinate to skepticism to superstition we're gonna think and we're gonna think well I'm gonna stand here at the podium I'm a preacher and I will ask for an offering at the end of my presentation this is the swimsuit competition of the intellectual beauty pageant so let me show you the curves of my fault oh my god was that a politically incorrect statement I just made how did we get to the point where the hijacking of the discourse on political correctness has become a kind of mannequin distinction between us in them and I ain't seen nobody be a biggest snowflake than white men who complain mommy mommy they won't let us play and have everything we used to have under the old regime where we were right racist and supremacist and dominant and patriarchs and hated gays and lesbians and transsexuals that yeah you got a share this ain't your world this air about his world and let me have my saying this your amends story from David Foster Wallace Fischer going down to fish are going and the older fish comes to the opposite direction he said hello boys how's the water they swim on they turn each other what the hell is water because when you in it you don't know it when your dominance you don't know it nothing Keyser söze he said is more interesting that the devil did then to make people believe he didn't exist that's what rightfully [Applause] the phenomena of meaning is a manifestation of the complex orienting reflex you're the force that confronts chaos and transforms it into habitable order and there's an idea that if you do that using truthful speech it's probably the deepest idea in the Bible if you confront chaos and the unknown using truthful speech then the order that you produce is good the left hemisphere is specialized for for what's known and the right hemisphere is specialized for a normally and feeis Ramachandran who's a famous neurologist an MD in in California has also made a very similar claim based on his analysis of brain-damaged individuals but Goldberg's case was the left hemisphere is specialized for what you know how to do and the right hemisphere is specialized for response to what's unknown and that maps on to this order chaos dimension that the right hemisphere is concerned with reaction to anomaly and so so what happens in some sense is something unexpected happens that's the domain of chaos and that stops you in your tracks it freezes you and that's a predator response a prey response actually you're frozen the unknown has manifested itself you're not in order anymore like so you freeze and then you cautiously start to explore and then it's imagistic you start making imaginal representations metaphoric representations dramatic representations of what might constitute the unknown and then those representations are practiced and implemented in the world and they become more and more fine-grained and automatized and as that happens the locale that they're represented in in the brain shifts from right to left so so so the reason I'm telling you all this is because you know this is where the metaphysical and the physical unite and this is the sort of argument that I was trying to make to Sam Harris and I hopefully will be able to continue doing that because I'm going to meet him three times in the next few months so that the the yin-yang idea the chaos order idea is metaphorical in some sense to say that the world is made up of order and chaos doesn't sound like an empirical statement but strangely enough the world to which our brains are a optin is actually the world of chaos and order you can think about it as unexplored and explored territory too that's another that's another you know take on it two different modes of looking at the world are necessary for survival right so that's real and so the idea that the world is made out of chaos and order is perhaps the most real idea the fundamental low resolution grant narrative that we've oriented ourselves around in the West is one of the sovereignty of the individual and it's predicated on the idea that all things considered the best way for me to interact with someone else is individual to individual and to react to that person as if they're both part of the process because that's the right way of thinking about it the psychological process by which things we don't understand can yet be explored and by things that aren't properly organized in our society can be yet set right the reason we're valuable as individuals both with regards to our rights and responsibilities is because that's our essential purpose and that's our nobility and that's our function one of the lines in the New Testament that I've tripped over many times is Christ is being anointed with a very costly vial of perfume and and his disciples are taking the woman who does that to task for wasting money that could have been spent on the poor it's a very complicated story but Christ tells his disciples that the poor will be with us always and that's something that I've I've spent a lot of time trying to understand why that statement would be made that and to those who have everything more will be given and from those who have nothing everything will be taken which is a discussion which is a very very succinct observation about the continuing existence of inequality so there's there's evidence throughout the New Testament of observation of the inevitability of inequality that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a moral good men are having a lot of crises at the moment in terms of mental health suicide issues and their own sense of identity because I think some of the stereotypes put on men are quite limiting for them as well I think they make men quite unhappy as well The Devil's in the details with regards to equality because I'm an advocate of equality of opportunity but that Hiedi outcomes that's an appalling doctrine well I all right Lang because they'll have to produce an unbelievably potent burek bureaucracy to make the ever greater and ever finer distinctions that are necessary to enforce equality of outcome how many group differences are you going to equalize across is it just gender and sex how many Gentiles is gender and ethnicity how many genders how many ethnicities how many races last year he supported X Google employee James Day more who had been fired for suggesting men and women have different interests due to biological differences see one of the things that's happened in the analysis of the differences between men and women is that the social constructionist claim is that the differences are socially constructed all right is that it's a consequence of environment that men and women differ but what the scientific literature indicates is that as cultures become more egalitarian like they have in Scandinavia the differences between men and women actually increase rather than decreasing which is a direct repost to the social constructionist view so they just deny all that your science folks I'm going to get Jordan then to you let's assume for a moment that I've benefited from my white privilige okay so let's assume that that's fine yeah well that's what you would say so so let's say here let's get precise loans okay was that in the very individual of you let's get precise about this okay it's good precise what degree is my present present level of attainment or achievement a consequence of my white privilege and I don't mean sort've I mean do you mean 5% do you mean 15% do you mean 25% do you mean 75% and what do you propose I do about it how about a tax how about a tax that's like specialized for me so that I can account for my privilege you saw it I great read about it now let's get the sites about one other thing okay we get the precise about one other thing there's ice yeah precisely yes and so if if we can agree and we haven't that the left can go too far which it clearly can't hmm then how would my worthy opponents precisely define when the left that they stand for has gone too far you didn't like equity equality of outcome I think that's a great marker but if you have a better suggestion and won't sidestep the question so let's figure out how I can dispense with my white privilege and so that you can tell me when the left is going too far since they clearly can and that's what this debate is about about political correctness it's about the left going too far and I think it's gone too far in many ways and I'd like to figure out exactly how and when so the reasonable left could make its descendants again and we could quit all this nonsense Jordans point about how does he in a sense get an equal voice in this debate back if it is implied that his participation brings with it this baggage of white privilege that doesn't allow him to see clearly the issues that are before us but that is to be complicit in the very problem itself terminologically your beginning at a point is there's already productive and controversial you're saying how can he get his equality back who are you talking about Jordan Peterson trending number one on Twitter Jordan Peterson internationals in an international bestseller I want him to tweet something out about me in my book Jordan Peterson right this is what I'm saying to you why the rage bruh you're doing well but you're a mean man wait man and you're gonna get us right and I have never seen so much wine and snowflake ink so I don't think Jordan Peterson is suffering from anything except an exaggerated sense of entitlement and resentment and his own privilege is invisible to him and it's manifest with lethal intensity and ferocity right here on stage well what I derived from that series of rebuttals let's say it's twofold the first is that saying that the radical left goes too far when they engage in violence is not a sufficient response by any stretch of the imagination because there are sets of ideas in radical leftist thinking that led to the catastrophes of the 20th century and that was at the level of idea not at the level of violent action it's a very straightforward thing to say you're against violence it's like being against poverty it's like you know generally speaking decent people are against poverty and violence doesn't address the issue in the least and with regards to my privilege or lack thereof I mean I'm not making the case that I haven't had advantages in my life and disadvantages in my life like most people you don't know anything about my background or where it came from it it doesn't matter to you because fundamentally I'm a mean white man that's a hell of a thing to say in a debate I'm going to point out two things again the first is that my question about when they're out when the left goes too far still hasn't been answered and then the second thing I'm going to point out is that you know it's conceivable that I am a mean man you know I mean maybe I'm meaner than some people and not as mean as others I think that's probably more the case but I would say the fact that race got dragged into that particular comment is a better exemplar of what the hell I think is wrong with the politically correct left than anything else that could have possibly happened or explains your opposition to this idea of a law mandating you to use an odd pronoun is because you don't actually believe that that's the truth that a trans woman is a woman and therefore you can't use that Pro no that's not my argument yeah really my argument is that no commentary speech no but I know what your argument is I know but it is very likely and there's little motivation behind behind it but you don't believe would I put everything on my law online in my life to take the stance I did unless I had thought that through very deeply and I've thought it through very deeply there aren't hidden motivations that have to do with some arbitrary prejudice against trans people it's purely pure and simply this there's never been a time in English common law history where the government compelled speech and the Canadian government dared to do that and that was unacceptable and they masked it with this show of of compassion for the oppressed and I don't buy it [Applause] [Music] now it's it's interesting to hear that there doesn't seem to be a problem button yet I think we all instinctively know that there is some kind of problem there isn't censorship of course not in the way that there is in Russia but that's not why I came to this debate I was interested in what I've always been interested in the suppression of language and thought the closing down the rationalist idea that seems beguiling that if you limit people's language it may somehow teach them a different way of thinking something that would have delighted the inventors of George Orwell's new speak for example and it seems to me it's just implausible it doesn't it doesn't work this feeling of being silenced which I understand although it seems very vague right you kind of are not quite putting your finger on who is silencing you except for a vague fear that if you say something untoward you're going to be the subject of I'm not sure shaming right but by what by the attractive that's the point is that I'm gonna fear what I'm saying is that it's it's a feeling it's a feeling that is this sort of intangible result of all right now you've all seen the sort of show trial thing where the person that apologizes I have so much to learn about sexual politics I am really sorry that signed a lawyer crossed out the name of the person it's it's you think the real mistake of our left is that we underestimate the right the right isn't as stupid as we'd like them to be if only they were if only there weren't so cunning so sly so smart so aware of our shortcomings and and I just fear that political correctness is a weapon that they value that the more were the more we tell the world how people should be treated how language should be treated what words are acceptable what attitudes are acceptable what HR meeting is going to tell you in a long full appointed list about how you look at people all of this is is meat and drink to bad people to malefactors to bad actors not cooking myself as one of those bad actors in that sense I mean bad actors in the other set I think I should just really say that the ghost hovering over for me is it's a letter Oscar Wilde wrote and he said to Bozize love you said the fact that you didn't get the degrees is nothing but you never acquired what is sometimes called the Oxford manor and I'll say for that the university manor he said Oscar said I take that to mean the ability to play gracefully with ideas I think that's disappearing from our culture I think we should underestimate how much this feeling is prevalent in the culture of this strange paradox that the Liberals are a liberal in their demand for liberality they are exclusive in their demand for inclusivity they are homogenous in their demand for heterogeneity they are somehow undiversified diversity you can be diverse but not diverse in your opinions and in your language and in your behavior and that's a terrible pity people don't think through what freedom of speech means because they tend to think it means the right to criticize those who are in power for example which is one of the things it means but freedom of speech actually means the freedom to formulate ideas badly and awkwardly in public well you're trying to think them through including offending people well it's inevitable that you're going to offend people if you're going to talk about anything difficult because if you talk about something difficult then people are going to become emotionally involved and that's especially true if you talk to large numbers of people about something difficult like if I address an audience of a thousand people about anything vaguely contentious which is obviously something that needs to be thought about then the small percentage of them are going to be offended and so what that means is that as your audience scales or as the importance of the topic increases your ability to say anything decreases that's not and that's part of this pernicious politically correct doctrine I've been speaking about when a hierarchy becomes corrupt and the only way to ascend it is to exercise power that's essentially the definition of a tyranny but that doesn't mean that the imperfect hierarchies that we have constructed in our relatively free countries which at least tilts somewhat towards competence and ability as evidenced by the staggering achievements of civilization that we've managed to produce it doesn't mean that the appropriate way of diagnosing them is to assume without reservation unit dimensionally that they're all about power and as a consequence everyone who occupies any position within them is a tyrant or a tyrant in the making and that is certainly the fundamental claim of someone like Foucault and it's part and parcel of this what would you call it this ideological catastrophe that's political correctness I'm not here to argue against progress I'm not here to argue against equality of opportunity anyone with any sense understands that even if you're selfish you're best served by allowing yourself access to the multiplicities talents of everyone and to discriminate against them for arbitrary reasons unrelated to their competences it's abhorrent that has nothing to do with the issue at hand there's no way I'm going to agree but political correctness is the way to address any of that and there's plenty of evidence to the contrary some of which I would say was displayed quite clearly tonight look when you look at the world you look at the world with a set of presuppositions outlined that in Chapter ten in in rules and twelve rules for life called be precise in your speech it indicates that when you look at the world you look at it through a value structure you can't help that because you're always aiming at something in the world and you're always aiming at something you want and you're trying to get it and so that means that you look at the world through a value structure now the question is whether or not that value structure is valid and that's a very complicated question okay so how do you know if it's valid number one you lay it out and you act it out you you implement it perceptually and then you act it out and if you get what you wanted what the theory predicted that's another way of thinking about it but wanted is a better way of thinking about it then the fact that that behavioral routine and perceptual structure produced the intended result validates it as a tool for obtaining that result and that's a form of truth now it might be the only form of truth although I'm not convinced of that completely but it might be it's a very complicated question and so if you immerse yourself in meaning you can learn to do that you can learn to do that you can make that goal your highest goal and so then the highest goal would be to be the sort of mythological hero let's say to embody and incarnate and imitate the mythological hero like the imitation of Christ which is what you're called to do if you happen to be Christian that means that you live in meaning and that meaning is the antidote to the suffering of life that would otherwise make you brutal and vengeful and unhappy and miserable and like that that young guy who just mowed down 12 people in Toronto these are real things you lose your sense of meaning you end up in hell and in hell you do all sorts of terrible things these are these are dreadful realities and it isn't as if they're not grounded in the appropriate science so again we're gonna go right now to Stephen Fry Jordan Peterson get their thoughts on how the evening played out [Music] gentlemen thank you thank you we're gonna do a quick discussion with the online audience watching right now just to get your reactions to the debate and maybe just start with you Jordan there were some heated moments here did that that surprised you that the exchanges that you had with Michael Eric Dyson well I wouldn't say it surprised me well I suppose it probably did it just seemed didn't seem like a very good tactical move you know and I stand by what I said I don't see any reason at all that my racial identity needed to be dragged into the discussion independent of my personality proclivity so what I'm saying to you is that I would invite you in terms of the surrender of your privilege to give you a specific a specific response come with me to a black Baptist Church come with me to a historically black college come to me to and to an indigenous or First Nations community where we're able to engage in some of the lovely conversation but also to listen and hear and when I added race to that I was talking about the historical events in ability to acknowledge others pains equally to the one that they are presently enduring so after human beings have to be loved rumbles what I say about my daughter well I've seen the sorts of things that you're talking about I happen to be an honorary member of an indigenous family so don't tell me about what I should go see with regards to oppression um you don't know anything about me you ask me a question I gave you a response yeah you gave me a generic response it's done Eric Raina space or suppose Jordan Peterson I would like for you to come with me Michael Eric Dyson to a black Baptist Church you've been happy to do that okay all right I love you up I would say what I just said to mr. Frye here is that it was a pleasure sharing the stage with him I've rarely heard anyone ever deliver their convictions with such a remarkable sense of passion and wept and forbearance and erudition it was it was really something I believe one of the greatest human failings is to prefer to be right than to be effective and political correctness is always obsessed with how right it is without thinking of how effective it it might be but I'm not sure and I would like this quotation from my hero Bertrand Russell to hover over the evening one of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision let doubt prevail and I realize that that's not a political point of view it is a personal right and the the gap between the personal and the political which is especially obviously very interested in as a psychologist is one that is rarely explored people are either so personal that it has no application in the outside world and the organization of human affairs or they're so political and so much to do with structure and distinguish between higher networks and so on that they forget the individual and that's the space in which the impassioned liberal lives and it's not easy to do it because you often do sound rather wet and I'm aware that I know but I enjoyed it what should I say in closing get your act together much as you can there's things to do in the world and it would be good if everyone was out there doing them let's see how we could beat this old globe back into some reasonable shape or into better shape than it's ever been that would be lovely thing to do so goodbye for now

Channel: Jason A

Views: 1,771,201

Rating: 4.8096876 out of 5

Keywords: jordan peterson, jason a, jordan b peterson, phycology

Id: 6QAY0qc0u-4

Length: 38min 54sec (2334 seconds)

Published: Sun May 20 2018