I.
I recently read Sarah’s excellent post about why she has come to be more sympathetic to the ideology of Jonathan Haidt, which she calls Haidtism. Interestingly, her post crystallized my understanding of exactly why I disagree with Haidtism.
I broadly agree with the point that, all things considered, it is better to be able to endure things than not to be able to endure them, and generally better not to be an oversensitive weenie. (Although Ben Hoffman’s point in the comments is well-taken that proper Greek virtue is not stoic or Stoic; the ideal Greek hero might be courageous and strong, but he is also moved by beauty and emotional to a degree that Haidt might find quite repulsive.) However, the precise problem with Haidtism is that it doesn’t work to make students strong.
Sarah gives the example of exercise as something that strengthens people, despite being painful in the moment. This is true! But not everything that’s painful strengthens. Sometimes your leg is broken. Walking on your broken leg will not make you any stronger; it will just make your leg more broken. And saying “I’m taking away this crutch so you can get stronger!” will not actually help. Sometimes you just have to sit on the couch and rest until your leg heals.
Haidtism, as a philosophy, seems to me to fundamentally not realize that some people have broken legs.
Consider a veteran who wants to become a physicist, but who has flashbacks when she hears loud noises. (I would like to thank veterans for having such a common and such an apolitical trigger; it is truly an aid to thought.) I think it is perfectly reasonable for her to email her professors and say “excuse me, if there’s going to be a demonstration in which a loud noise is made, can you film it so I can watch it at home with the sound off?” Meanwhile, she works with her therapist to learn to cope with loud noises.
To me, this seems obviously superior to the alternatives. She could perhaps delay college until she no longer gets flashbacks, but that means that instead of developing two strengths– her ability to cope and her knowledge of physics– she only develops one. She could perhaps go to the demonstrations and have a flashback, but then she’s not learning whatever physics the demonstration was meant to teach, as people who are currently having flashbacks do not generally do a great job at learning physics. Therefore, if your value is people being strong, there are instances where you should accommodate people and– yes– even use trigger warnings.
Haidt’s confusion about this point is shown through him deciding to target his “virtue involves being able to do things that make you afraid and miserable!” message at mentally ill students.
Like, as a group, mentally ill people don’t actually have to be told that we need to do things that make us afraid and miserable. Doing things that make you afraid and miserable is the one virtue mental illness successfully inculcates. Personally, I am made afraid and miserable by leaving the house, going grocery shopping, the fact that my husband has to go to work, and going to therapy, and the thing about being made afraid and miserable by routine activities everyone has to do as part of their everyday life is that you get good at forcing yourself to do things that make you afraid and miserable. In fact, I feel I’ve somewhat reached the point of diminishing returns on the virtue of Make Yourself Do Things That Make You Afraid and Miserable, and would like some accommodations so that I only have to practice it, say, two or three hours a day.
Hell, you could probably make the argument that that’s true of all marginalized groups of people. You can make the case that I, Ozy, should be more tolerant of people who misgender me, and that it is important to my development of strength and resilience that I work on this. On the other hand, it appears to me that very very few cis people get daily practice in strength and resilience through putting up with being misgendered. This seems to be a very unfair gap in their education! I am now imagining a special class for members of privileged groups in which people with rich parents go hungry, native English speakers are asked to constantly repeat what they’re saying because no one can understand their accent, and abled people have to try to enter inaccessible buildings while people constantly tell them how brave they are.
II.
Much like Treebeard, in the college trigger warnings/safe spaces wars, I am on nobody’s side because nobody is on my side. My primary interest is in neurodivergent students having access to an education, which neither side seems particularly interested in.
There are lots of things one could campaign for if one wanted to improve the positions of neurodivergent people in colleges. For instance, one could campaign for teachers to follow universal design for learning best practices, or for improved transition planning for high school students in special education so that every student who should be in college is there, or for better college-provided mental health care, or for better training about neurodivergence for staff, or for not kicking students out of school for suicidality, or for peer-run support groups for neurodivergent people, or for disability services to be less goddamn incompetent. (True story: I once had disability services try to deny me an accommodation the professor had suggested because it would interfere with the educational purpose of the school.) It does not seem accidental to me that the one issue people seem to have picked up on isn’t actually that good at improving the positions of mentally ill people in the classroom, but is good for neurotypicals who would like to show off how upset they are about racism and– in some cases– to not have to put up with emotionally harrowing books.
Part of the problem with the concept of trigger warnings is that they mix up “how do we help people with mental illnesses that lead them to experience extraordinarily strong negative effects from things most people don’t?” with “how do we teach emotionally harrowing material in the classroom?” These are two different issues. If you were trying to warn for things that commonly cause people to have extraordinarily strong negative effects due to mental illness, you’d warn for common phobia triggers (snakes, spiders, heights, enclosed spaces, public speaking), common eating disorder triggers (moralizing eating, diet talk, calorie and weight numbers), and common anxiety triggers (health stuff). Depictions of racism would not show up on the list, because depictions of racism are not actually a common trigger for any mental health issue.
Racism is, however, a very emotionally harrowing issue. Students– particularly black students– may feel a lot of pain when they see pictures of a lynching, which vividly shows how a century ago they would have been hated to the point of their murders being socially acceptable and approved of. Clearly, some emotionally harrowing material does belong in the college classroom; equally clearly, it’s bad pedagogy to suddenly spring emotionally harrowing material on your students as if you were a monster in a haunted house doing a jump scare. As part of good teaching, a professor will contextualize what they show their class, allowing the students to emotionally prepare themselves, which is essentially what the “trigger warning” students are advocating for.
I guess the argument is about whether or not they should be put on the syllabus? Even so, in my experience as a student, it wasn’t exactly difficult to figure out that Jewish History 1000 AD-1945 would talk about anti-Semitism a lot or that the class in which we were assigned the Bell Jar would talk about suicidality.
Conversely, actual triggers are very diverse, are often hard to figure out from the syllabus, and often can be easily removed from the curriculum with no harm to the educational purpose of the course (“a student who is triggered by teddy bears is taking my differential calculus class? yes, of course I’ll remove the teddy bear image I used to decorate one of the PowerPoints”). There are a variety of reasonable ways to accommodate actual triggers– which is something schools can and should do– but standardized disclaimers on syllabi seem to be a uniquely terrible way of doing so.
Doug S. said:
My mental illness tended to have the opposite effect: a reduced capability for doing things that made me afraid and miserable (relative to what was expected of me) was among the primary symptoms. My whole life people have been telling me that I have to learn to do things I don’t want to do, and I’ve never been able to actually learn that lesson. Sometimes I can make myself want to do things I don’t like, but that’a a bit different. If I “have” to do something that makes me afraid and miserable, my brain shuts down and I lose the capacity to use creative thought or decision making skills while attempting that task – I can follow directions or execute algorithms, but that’s about it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Umberia said:
My mother who taught college at various colleges (community colleges, small private, large state affiliated) as an adjunct pointed out another issue in the trigger warning discussion. As a part time professor she was often handed a syllabus for a class a week or two before it started and was often playing catch up with the materials as the semester went on. The more colleges look to adjuncts and part timers the harder it will be to really implement the sort of helpful teaching skills Ozy refers or to give useful context warnings. While I understand the frustration with people who just dismiss accommodations as weakness – I do hope that the conversation also takes seriously just who the burden of new work falls on and whether they actually have the resources needed to do it.
I also find it amusing that the book she most got requests to skip was Harry Potter because many of her students worried that it contained positive images of witch craft.
LikeLiked by 2 people
michaelkeenan0 said:
I was totally with you until the last sentence. Maybe my reading comprehension is bad (I read this while distracted and exhausted so it will be unusually bad) but why are disclaimers on syllabi terrible? I get that you’re saying they aren’t as good as other accommodations, but don’t they cost approximately nothing, and do at least a little good? If they currently warn for things like racism and not for things like moralizing eating, then just add moralizing eating to the list of things to disclaim.
I know there are a zillion triggers and you can’t disclaim them all, but that’s why we have round numbers. Do a survey to find out what the hundred most-common triggers are, and that’s your list. If anyone begs to add their triggers to it too, then just do it. It costs nothing!
Am I missing something?
LikeLiked by 1 person
rlms said:
I think checking a large number of courses for the hundred most-common triggers would be a non-trivial amount of work. After the low-hanging fruit of things like sexual violence and suicide (which are probably often not that useful if they can be deduced from course titles and descriptions) it gets hard. What’s the 73rd most-common trigger? It’s probably something like “large mammals” or “medical accidents”. Checking through a few books to see if they contain references to those would take a few minutes. Multiply by the number of triggers and the number of courses, and you have hours of work that probably doesn’t give much of a benefit beyond “put trigger warnings on when it’s obvious, and when people ask you to”.
LikeLiked by 3 people
ozymandias said:
It seems like less work for the professor and likely to be more benefit for the students to have some way for students to (perhaps anonymously) say what their triggers are, and then the professor can say whether those come up in the class. (This also allows the professor to remove educationally irrelevant triggery material, such as my teddy bear example.) Admittedly, for very large lecture classes, a disclaimer about the most common triggering material on the syllabus might be less work for the professor (depending on what percentage of students wish to take advantage of the accommodation).
LikeLike
Jack V said:
I’m reminded of Scott’s post tearing into people who compare “not having triggers” to exposure therapy.
He said, exposure therapy typically involves suggesting to the patient that carefully, safely, in a reassuring and controlled environment, they do something related to the things that they have a terrifying response to, something JUST A LITTLE BIT outside their comfort zone, what they’re uncomfortable with but don’t freak out over. And then do that repeatedly until it seems ok. Then stretch the comfort zone a little further.
He said, going up to random strangers who have repeatedly disavowed your competence and told you that they consider it assault and dumping buckets of tarantulas on them is clearly ineffective AND unethical AND will get you instantly struck off.
I don’t know what Haidt said, but based on this post, I’m very angry at it.
Although also, I can’t help but notice, all the specific examples anyone cites, the answer always seems fairly obvious. (It will help this student learn and not do any harm? Do it. It will be a massive burden and not help anyone? Don’t do it.) It seems to be an argument between (A) people who refuse to acknowledge the existence of anyone with any actual PTSD or abuse or anything, and are arguing against a straw man of never teaching about anything mildly controversial ever and (B) people who have a fairly sensible set of proposals like you set out here. I’m not sure if any of the straw men actually exist, but if they do, I guess I disagree with them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Susebron said:
The linked article links another article near the top which is actually by Haidt (I think it may be a speech he gave?). Personally I thought that the actual Haidt piece was pretty terrible and not really worth the time it took to read it. A surprisingly literal summary: ‘people who agree with me are good and value truth and virtue; people who disagree with me are terrible and hate truth and think that it’s impossible for a member of the six marginalized groups to ever do anything bad.’ Even if I agreed with him I would strongly object to the presentation.
LikeLike
Lawrence D'Anna said:
I find this debate excruciating because both sides just blatantly lie about what their interest in it is. The left claims it’s about keeping people “safe” from “harms”, but their interest is clearly in using that as an excuse to find innovative ways to compel ritual observances to leftist ideology. The right claims it’s about “challenging” students instead of “coddling” them, but clearly their interest is just in saying “fuck that” to what the left is doing. The whole thing is a fight over semiotics and almost all the concern about how it affects students is pretense.
The end result is just that at this point if a student does have an individual need to ask for an accommodation that if the professor is right-wing it’s likely to get projected onto a left-right axis and treated with hostility, whereas before it would have been seen as a reasonable request. Or if the student needing the accommodation is a right-winger, they won’t even ask for an accommodation because that’s something lefties do.
Making this a political issue has been good for no-one except the pundits.
LikeLiked by 4 people
tcheasdfjkl said:
I agree with you that politicizing this is probably* bad for people who actually need accommodations but must you really argue that people are literally lying about their beliefs all the time?? Why??
Free speech does, actually, cause harm. That doesn’t mean we need to get rid of it – it has very substantial benefits as well, obviously. (I spend quite a lot of my time examining the boundary between speech-that-should-exist and speech-that-shouldn’t-exist; it’s very thorny and there are many hard decisions.) Why is it unbelievable to you that some people would be sincerely on the side of there being less harm and others on the side of more speech?
*I say “probably” because the awareness-raising may have done more good than making it politicized did harm.
LikeLike
Lawrence D'Anna said:
“must you really argue that people are literally lying about their beliefs”
I guess I was thinking “nobody could possibly be so foolish as to believe this debate is about what’s best for students, because it’s so transparently about ideological symbols”.
But then again of *course* people could be so foolish. This hardly even scratches the surface of how foolish and hypocritical the political mind can be. In fact I was arguing this exact point in another thread, that political polarization creates a powerful illusion of dishonesty.
So you’re right. They’re not dishonest, or at least most of them probably aren’t. They’re just political. I got caught up in my own curse-both-your-hoses ideology and mistook what I saw for what was in the world.
This world belongs to the ideologies. We’re just living in it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
blacktrance said:
“Universities should challenge students and not coddle them” can be said when you can’t or don’t want to say “Universities shouldn’t let themselves be pushed around by censorious leftists”. I don’t know if this is Haidt’s motivation, but it seems to be a relatively common position on the anti-warning side.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Machine Interface said:
I never got why “Universities should challenge students and not coddle them”. Oh sure it’s a nice souding value statement, but it doesn’t sound like something that happens in practice; students pay to study X, they study X, and they mostly come out of it maybe a bit wiser and knowledgeable, but mostly with their ideological priors reinforced rather than challenged.
LikeLike
Murphy said:
I get the impression that the veterans are often in a fundamentally different cultural camp. What you outline with the veteran (asking to be told about loud noises so they can watch the lecture at home with the sound off) sounds like a pretty typical sort of scenario that you’d get from them. But they tend to put the focus on the individual making adjustments and people around them doing minimal stuff to allow them to do so. The onus is on the individual to ask the lecturer and to do most of the heavy lifting themselves.
On the other hand there seems to be a second cultural group who put the focus in the opposite direction such that if the professor doesn’t predict the students trigger or go digging for it themselves (“I told a secretary 3 years ago about it, the college should know!”) to find out the triggers of people in their class or just go with the lowest common denominator and never ever include anything likely to trigger someone. Where “likely” is based on opinions formed by people who’s entire social circle is made up of people who play up their triggers who thus massively overestimate how common and severe their personal triggers are.
If loud bangs are a big trigger for someone in the former culture and there’s a local fireworks display the course of action that will seem obvious to them will be to put on headphones under earmuffs and go wrap themselves in a blanket before an expected fireworks display because they know most people enjoy fireworks and they would never dream of demanding everyone else change.
If loud bangs are a big trigger for someone in the latter culture and there’s a local fireworks display the course of action that will seem obvious to them will be to protest it as being exclusionary, try to get it cancelled and to call the organizers various slurs like racist,sexist, intolerant etc because as they see it they shouldn’t have to change their plans to go for a walk at the fair that evening.
With the latter culture if the student clearly told the disability support service about their teddybear issues when they started then a professor failing to remove all tedybears from the slides (perhaps because nobody told him or perhaps because he heard about it 6 months prior and forgot) means that the professor and university is being oppressive and cruel and rude. Even if the professor does remember the memo and emails them to say they might not way to be in the room for part of the presentation then that’s even worse because they’ve not changed the course to suit them.
Latter culture articles seem to follow a pattern. Multiple paragraphs about trivial changes that nobody would argue against that are mostly veteran-culture style changes with the final para suggesting that “oh and by the way, if someone isn’t willing to change their course around and cut material out entirely then [vague implication that they’re horribly rude, intolerant unreasonable people]” trying to mix together the 2 cultures in peoples minds because they know damned well that people are much more willing to help members of the former culture.
I get the impression that Haidtism is largely a push back against the latter culture. Hell some of the people I’ve encountered who hate that culture the most are themselves veterans who hate that they get lumped in with that group.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Patrick said:
Yeah…
Plus like 90% of the debate about trigger warnings could be fast forwarded through if one side would just say “Well, really, what we want is for universities to preemptively provide mental health accommodations for students with unregistered and self diagnosed mental health needs. We want some things other than that along the way, but that is the furthest extent of what we want.”
But its nearly impossible to discuss because one side picks out the most ridiculous examples of “problems” students self diagnose with and laughs at it, and the other side picks out the most valid examples and defends based on those. But since none of this is a package deal and we can in fact pick and choose who to accommodate (for example, we might only accommodate students with diagnosed mental health issues, and we might provide said accommodations only after having been informed of the need for them), its an invalid defense.
Related issues are subject to the same mendacity. “Safe spaces” are defended by reference to the more popular idea of “private spaces,” for example, even though there are material differences.
LikeLiked by 4 people
yacheritsi said:
So we have two points:
1) Some requests for trigger warnings are reasonable.
2) Some requests for trigger warnings are unreasonable.
It’s easy to see how both of these things can be true at the same time. This raises the question, why isn’t the debate about determining where the line is between reasonable and unreasonable trigger warnings?
I suspect the answer to be that making these decisions will involve saying “no” to students, and their subsidized tuition dollars. Also, “no enemies to the left.” Arguing for the unreasonableness of a demand for accommodation will look too much like the wrong side of the arguments between Republicans and Democrats.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ozymandias said:
Actually, combat veterans do ask people not to set off fireworks. I suspect your ‘two cultures’ might not quite be as separate as you think; most mentally ill people in my experience use an combination of coping with it themselves and asking for other people to change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
AcademicLurker said:
Your link seems a bit different from the situation Murphy was alluding to. The veterans in the story weren’t objecting to a planned fireworks display, but to neighbors spontaneously setting off fireworks without warning. In any case, diagnosed PTSD is and should be addressed through the ADA office. The whole trigger warnings debate makes me wonder what people think university ADA compliance offices are there for in the first place.
Patrick puts it nicely: “Well, really, what we want is for universities to preemptively provide mental health accommodations for students with unregistered and self diagnosed mental health needs.” When stated plainly like that, it becomes clear how unworkable such a demand in fact is.
I find these discussions more or less pointless at this time, because what exactly is being talked about constantly changes. One minute it’s about making reasonable accommodation for students with PTSD. The next minute it’s about content notices for obvious red flag subjects like sexual assault of graphic violence. Then it’s about how The Great Gatsby needs a trigger warning. Then it’s about how instructors should somehow magically anticipate every idiosyncratic reaction that any student might or might not have. Then it’s about…
As Lawrence D’Anna said above, it’s basically all tribal signalling at this point.
LikeLiked by 2 people
ozymandias said:
I do actually support accommodations for undiagnosed and self-diagnosed students. That’s what universal design for learning, which I mentioned in the post, is all about! I think whenever possible classes should be designed so that accommodations for a wide variety of disabilities occur automatically, instead of having to go through disability services to get them. For instance, one might send PowerPoints to students after class, allow students to choose between creating an essay or a video to explain their research, or have non-timed tests whenever possible. It’s the same thing as having an elevator everyone can use instead of having a special elevator that’s locked unless you have a pass from Disability Services.
LikeLike
Murphy said:
@Ozy You list 3 examples which just on their own and not including things that would be listed if you asked a second person would require utterly restructuring how courses are run and assessed, some with massive downsides for many students bar the tiny minority who it might help.
many lecturers prefer not to email out slides or if they do they have additional information they talk about that isn’t in those slides because the reality is that they know from experience that a large fraction of students don’t bother turning up if they believe everything will just be emailed to them. They intend to study but at that point they just end up cramming at the end of the year and failing. You can start claiming it as a moral failing on the part of those students but ultimately it increases the fail rate.
For every student you help you very plausibly throw 10 under the bus.
An essay can be read by an experienced marker at something like 250 wpm plus pauses for making notes.
Normal speaking speeds are half that and that’s if the students speak fairly fast and don’t have a lot of dead space in their video SA’s
So if half of students elect to submit video SA’s you’ve just increased the number of hours you need to budget for marking by ~50%.
it also makes it harder to annotate results.
So unless you accompany this change with a large budget increase or expect the people running courses to work for free you’ve just significantly decreased the hours that can be spent on everything else.
non timed tests? So we’re just throwing out testing ability to work under time pressure entirely and making it dramatically harder to host/run/schedule large numbers of exams close together in one fell swoop?
And that’s just 3 examples you happened to bring up.
So far you’ve screwed more students than you’ve helped and effectively cut the hours available to the staff running the course dramatically.
And that’s just your suggestions, someone who is logical and reasonable.
If we ran through suggestions from the >90% of the population who are less reasonable who are going to have completely batshit demands who are never going to have even thought about the possible downsides of their suggestions.
There’s a reason that not every toilet stall is a disabled toilet stall: because it effectively halves the number of toilet stalls for everyone and you then either spend twice as much on toilets or leave everyone with half as many toilets as are needed.
If everyone gets to use the elevator then the chances of it being broken down on any particular day and unusable to the people who need it most is far higher. Everyone else can just use the stairs but your policy just screwed everyone who cannot. So realistically then we need extra lifts which brings us back to resource allocation and space allocation.
In a fair and just world what percentage of the budget is it reasonable to spend on, say, the 1% of the population least capable of coping or on measures to allow them to not be singled out? Certainly not zero. That wouldn’t be right but you very quickly and easily enter the territory of “throwing everyone else under the bus” with measures which sound reasonable but imply very significant expenditure.
Sort of relevant clip:
LikeLiked by 2 people
tracywilkinson said:
Does anyone else find the idea of non-timed tests scary? You can’t just do the best you can in three hours, then walk away. Nope, you have the whole: do I spend another hour checking my work and rechecking? Another hour? Another hour?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Orphan said:
Eh. I’d prefer we please stop pretending universities are educating people, as opposed to certifying that people have gone through the acceptable trials to demonstrate their employability.
Not that the trials haven’t already been diluted by a dozen other things, mind. But they’re tests for acceptable levels of neurodivergence and capacity for delayed gratification, and insofar as we make them more accessible, we make them more useless.
Granted, I can see an argument for tearing the whole edifice down, given that its purpose has nothing to do with education and everything to do with class signaling.
LikeLike
jossedley said:
It doesn’t really answer whether trigger warnings are a reasonable accommodation, but one unfortunate effect of trigger culture is that it creates an incentive to be really upset.
If I don’t want my professor to talk about the arguments on one side or the other of the Armenian genocide and I ask her not to, she’s probably reasonably going to say that’s not what education is about.
If I say that I find it upsetting, she’s probably still going to say the same thing – that college should be about confronting challenging and upsetting ideas in an intellectual way.
But at some point, if I’m upset enough, then I’m triggered, and (1) I get to leave class when the side I don’t want to hear about comes up and (2) I don’t have to know about the material to pass the test. (The more central the idea is to the class, the more triggered I have to be, but for most things, there is some number of people and some level of triggeredness that will result in an accommodation).
So under those circumstances, where I get rewarded for being really, really upset, and where my cultural value is that the more upset I am, the more authentic I am, them I’m probably honestly going to be more upset than I would be if I knew going in that the rule was “get over it.”
————-
Minor anecdote: A classics professor I know taught a Bible course, and included a section following through the textual analysis identifying the various authors of the Bible. According to him, there were lessons where it looked like some of his students were about to start running up and down the aisles shrieking like early Stravinsky audiences, but by the end, most students were able to discuss the subject thoughtfully.
I don’t know that trigger theory would accommodate evangelicals who couldn’t tolerate Biblical scholarship, but my guess is those kids suffered some harm. Without a reasonable process to separate out the triggered kids from the merely very upset kids, I think you have a mess.
LikeLiked by 3 people
gazeboist said:
abled people have to try to enter inaccessible buildings while people constantly tell them how brave they are
The natural state of the human firefighter? :p
(I may return later with substantive commentary)
LikeLiked by 1 person
rash92 said:
I think the best way to deal with it, given that triggers can be tons of silly things that are hard to predict, is to have students to make a list of triggers, just have it on the form as something you can leave blank, and central processes it.
then the professor, before the course starts would get a list of triggers that people in their class have. And they can then either adjust their material if it’s easy enough/ they want to, or tell central that ‘yes yes no yes these triggering things may come up’ and then central notifies the person who has them.
Could even do it online and have ‘central’ be a computer. All the students would put a list of triggers in, and since presumably the university will have a database of which student is in which course, can send a list of all the triggers of all the students that are in the class, and the teacher can basically just go down the list and but a tick or an x and have the website notify the students.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tracywilkinson said:
It does strike me that it is a burden on professors to remember triggers for incidental things. Let’s say a student tells a professor they’re triggered by rabbits. The professor has no slides about rabbits or anything. But one day several months later during class discussion a question comes up, students are struggling with a point and it occurs to the professor that the story of Brer Rabbit and the Briar patch would be a great illustration of the point. What’s the odds of the professor remembering the request, or being able to come up with a suitable alternative on the spot?
LikeLiked by 1 person