![CovfefeAnon's tweet photo. The idea that "rather than supporting old-fashioned sexist views, the science of sex differences actively undermines them" is entirely wrong in several important areas
Going in order from totally uncontroversial to "controversial" these are the documented and observed differences
Note that in this case "uncontroversial" means "something people with a progressive outlook [which is most people] don't *want* to accept but will be forced to so as to not look insane - they then will never actually think about the 'accepted' fact nor integrate it into their overall thinking" - very limited
The obvious comparison here is to people's views on the "black-white IQ gap" - the gap *itself* is "non-controversial" but will always be accompanied by some other shifting denial that is sufficient for the person to not have to integrate the implications of that gap into his world-view. "IQ isn't a meaningful measurement", "you can't prove it's genetic!", "nutrition!", etc.
In a way, the people who simply deny the existence of the gap are more honest - their religion [progressivism] doesn't permit to believe in the gap so there's no evidence that they can see that will convince them
Now, back to the main topic - sex differences - which are actually *far more* taboo to discuss than race differences - with the exception of Richard Lynn later in life all the famous "race scientists" backed away from discussing male / female differences, for example
First and least "controversially" - women's brains are significantly smaller with fewer neocortical neurons - 16% less - billions fewer. Heading off the objections, no this is not about body size - see the (helpfully highlighted) image. Brain size is known correlated with intelligence overall, neurons are calorically demanding and evolution is efficient at paring down caloric demands that don't provide good returns. The *implication* is that there are better returns to *something* that is being done with neocortical neurons in men than there is in women - enough so that men are saddled with the extra metabolic cost. This reasoning about those implications is standard and non-controversial in evolutionary biology
Second and less "non-controversial" but still extremely well grounded - there is at least a half standard deviation gap in general knowledge between men and women. "At least" because reliable samples for testing aren't as available as people leave compulsory schooling - men know more things about the world at about 16 years old than women at the same age do and that gap grows over time but at some point you stop getting reliable data measuring this gap
Overall, half a standard deviation is known and accepted
Next - the male intelligence distribution is fatter tailed and less clustered around the mean than the female one. Also "non-controversial" and in fact, this bit is used as a thought-terminating cliche to avoid thinking about the whole area - "more male geniuses but also more morons"
Another not-widely-known but simply factual matter about IQ testing itself is that the tests are designed intentionally to minimize the shown gap between men and women. IQ test makers have to choose which questions to include and the basis of that inclusion is supposed to be that the questions distinguish between different levels of intelligence - someone at x will get tripped up by this question, someone at x+10 will get tripped up by a different question. IQ test creators also include the assumption that women and men have the same average IQ and use this assumption when including questions. If a question reliably has women doing far worse than men it will not be included unless a question with the opposite result can be found. There are whole areas of questions where men do massively better than women that are not included in many IQ tests because there are no "counterbalancing" questions that women do massively better on than men that can be included.
In other words, the observed IQ gap between men and women *understates* the actual gap
Getting into "controversial" - women consistently score lower on average on IQ tests than men. This is consistent across multiple studies, in multiple countries over multiple decades
These are just the academically studied, massively evidence-supported differences - many other differences are evident but are harder to specifically measure (not that anyone in academia is jumping at the chance to investigate them) - one example is women's difficulty with actually understanding definitions of words as logical rules to describe concepts rather than as emotion based tags to indicate valence. The culture that women impose when institutions reshape their rules to "be more inclusive of women" utterly destroys any ability of those institutions to pursue truth or to deal with the real world
From Steve Stewart-Williams's essay:
"Why, then, does the topic [sex differences] generate so much heat?
...
Another reason is that many assume that generalisations about the sexes provide intellectual ammunition for sexism. Claims about evolved sex differences, they fear, will be used to portray women as inferior, justify inequality, and undermine women’s progress in society."
But really, "undermining women's progress in society" is the actually natural conclusion from *understanding the massively negative impact* of that "progress" - which naturally leads people to simply not want to look at the evidence at all. The tightrope act of pretending to "investigate" differences but never actually drawing any conclusions is utterly untenable](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HLlbfpNXAAEyNiz.png)
![CovfefeAnon's tweet photo. The idea that "rather than supporting old-fashioned sexist views, the science of sex differences actively undermines them" is entirely wrong in several important areas
Going in order from totally uncontroversial to "controversial" these are the documented and observed differences
Note that in this case "uncontroversial" means "something people with a progressive outlook [which is most people] don't *want* to accept but will be forced to so as to not look insane - they then will never actually think about the 'accepted' fact nor integrate it into their overall thinking" - very limited
The obvious comparison here is to people's views on the "black-white IQ gap" - the gap *itself* is "non-controversial" but will always be accompanied by some other shifting denial that is sufficient for the person to not have to integrate the implications of that gap into his world-view. "IQ isn't a meaningful measurement", "you can't prove it's genetic!", "nutrition!", etc.
In a way, the people who simply deny the existence of the gap are more honest - their religion [progressivism] doesn't permit to believe in the gap so there's no evidence that they can see that will convince them
Now, back to the main topic - sex differences - which are actually *far more* taboo to discuss than race differences - with the exception of Richard Lynn later in life all the famous "race scientists" backed away from discussing male / female differences, for example
First and least "controversially" - women's brains are significantly smaller with fewer neocortical neurons - 16% less - billions fewer. Heading off the objections, no this is not about body size - see the (helpfully highlighted) image. Brain size is known correlated with intelligence overall, neurons are calorically demanding and evolution is efficient at paring down caloric demands that don't provide good returns. The *implication* is that there are better returns to *something* that is being done with neocortical neurons in men than there is in women - enough so that men are saddled with the extra metabolic cost. This reasoning about those implications is standard and non-controversial in evolutionary biology
Second and less "non-controversial" but still extremely well grounded - there is at least a half standard deviation gap in general knowledge between men and women. "At least" because reliable samples for testing aren't as available as people leave compulsory schooling - men know more things about the world at about 16 years old than women at the same age do and that gap grows over time but at some point you stop getting reliable data measuring this gap
Overall, half a standard deviation is known and accepted
Next - the male intelligence distribution is fatter tailed and less clustered around the mean than the female one. Also "non-controversial" and in fact, this bit is used as a thought-terminating cliche to avoid thinking about the whole area - "more male geniuses but also more morons"
Another not-widely-known but simply factual matter about IQ testing itself is that the tests are designed intentionally to minimize the shown gap between men and women. IQ test makers have to choose which questions to include and the basis of that inclusion is supposed to be that the questions distinguish between different levels of intelligence - someone at x will get tripped up by this question, someone at x+10 will get tripped up by a different question. IQ test creators also include the assumption that women and men have the same average IQ and use this assumption when including questions. If a question reliably has women doing far worse than men it will not be included unless a question with the opposite result can be found. There are whole areas of questions where men do massively better than women that are not included in many IQ tests because there are no "counterbalancing" questions that women do massively better on than men that can be included.
In other words, the observed IQ gap between men and women *understates* the actual gap
Getting into "controversial" - women consistently score lower on average on IQ tests than men. This is consistent across multiple studies, in multiple countries over multiple decades
These are just the academically studied, massively evidence-supported differences - many other differences are evident but are harder to specifically measure (not that anyone in academia is jumping at the chance to investigate them) - one example is women's difficulty with actually understanding definitions of words as logical rules to describe concepts rather than as emotion based tags to indicate valence. The culture that women impose when institutions reshape their rules to "be more inclusive of women" utterly destroys any ability of those institutions to pursue truth or to deal with the real world
From Steve Stewart-Williams's essay:
"Why, then, does the topic [sex differences] generate so much heat?
...
Another reason is that many assume that generalisations about the sexes provide intellectual ammunition for sexism. Claims about evolved sex differences, they fear, will be used to portray women as inferior, justify inequality, and undermine women’s progress in society."
But really, "undermining women's progress in society" is the actually natural conclusion from *understanding the massively negative impact* of that "progress" - which naturally leads people to simply not want to look at the evidence at all. The tightrope act of pretending to "investigate" differences but never actually drawing any conclusions is utterly untenable](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HLlZuUlXUAAm7qY.png)
![CovfefeAnon's tweet photo. The idea that "rather than supporting old-fashioned sexist views, the science of sex differences actively undermines them" is entirely wrong in several important areas
Going in order from totally uncontroversial to "controversial" these are the documented and observed differences
Note that in this case "uncontroversial" means "something people with a progressive outlook [which is most people] don't *want* to accept but will be forced to so as to not look insane - they then will never actually think about the 'accepted' fact nor integrate it into their overall thinking" - very limited
The obvious comparison here is to people's views on the "black-white IQ gap" - the gap *itself* is "non-controversial" but will always be accompanied by some other shifting denial that is sufficient for the person to not have to integrate the implications of that gap into his world-view. "IQ isn't a meaningful measurement", "you can't prove it's genetic!", "nutrition!", etc.
In a way, the people who simply deny the existence of the gap are more honest - their religion [progressivism] doesn't permit to believe in the gap so there's no evidence that they can see that will convince them
Now, back to the main topic - sex differences - which are actually *far more* taboo to discuss than race differences - with the exception of Richard Lynn later in life all the famous "race scientists" backed away from discussing male / female differences, for example
First and least "controversially" - women's brains are significantly smaller with fewer neocortical neurons - 16% less - billions fewer. Heading off the objections, no this is not about body size - see the (helpfully highlighted) image. Brain size is known correlated with intelligence overall, neurons are calorically demanding and evolution is efficient at paring down caloric demands that don't provide good returns. The *implication* is that there are better returns to *something* that is being done with neocortical neurons in men than there is in women - enough so that men are saddled with the extra metabolic cost. This reasoning about those implications is standard and non-controversial in evolutionary biology
Second and less "non-controversial" but still extremely well grounded - there is at least a half standard deviation gap in general knowledge between men and women. "At least" because reliable samples for testing aren't as available as people leave compulsory schooling - men know more things about the world at about 16 years old than women at the same age do and that gap grows over time but at some point you stop getting reliable data measuring this gap
Overall, half a standard deviation is known and accepted
Next - the male intelligence distribution is fatter tailed and less clustered around the mean than the female one. Also "non-controversial" and in fact, this bit is used as a thought-terminating cliche to avoid thinking about the whole area - "more male geniuses but also more morons"
Another not-widely-known but simply factual matter about IQ testing itself is that the tests are designed intentionally to minimize the shown gap between men and women. IQ test makers have to choose which questions to include and the basis of that inclusion is supposed to be that the questions distinguish between different levels of intelligence - someone at x will get tripped up by this question, someone at x+10 will get tripped up by a different question. IQ test creators also include the assumption that women and men have the same average IQ and use this assumption when including questions. If a question reliably has women doing far worse than men it will not be included unless a question with the opposite result can be found. There are whole areas of questions where men do massively better than women that are not included in many IQ tests because there are no "counterbalancing" questions that women do massively better on than men that can be included.
In other words, the observed IQ gap between men and women *understates* the actual gap
Getting into "controversial" - women consistently score lower on average on IQ tests than men. This is consistent across multiple studies, in multiple countries over multiple decades
These are just the academically studied, massively evidence-supported differences - many other differences are evident but are harder to specifically measure (not that anyone in academia is jumping at the chance to investigate them) - one example is women's difficulty with actually understanding definitions of words as logical rules to describe concepts rather than as emotion based tags to indicate valence. The culture that women impose when institutions reshape their rules to "be more inclusive of women" utterly destroys any ability of those institutions to pursue truth or to deal with the real world
From Steve Stewart-Williams's essay:
"Why, then, does the topic [sex differences] generate so much heat?
...
Another reason is that many assume that generalisations about the sexes provide intellectual ammunition for sexism. Claims about evolved sex differences, they fear, will be used to portray women as inferior, justify inequality, and undermine women’s progress in society."
But really, "undermining women's progress in society" is the actually natural conclusion from *understanding the massively negative impact* of that "progress" - which naturally leads people to simply not want to look at the evidence at all. The tightrope act of pretending to "investigate" differences but never actually drawing any conclusions is utterly untenable](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HLlWHxdWUAEY8Un.png)
Olivia
Online
Buzzworth
@buzzissupercool
Retired professional Among Us player
Hyperborea
Joined September 2021
450 Following
61 Followers
4.8K Posts
I think this is less Netflix Casting(tm) and more a sad revelation to many of what Asian women actually generally look like
US states already have laws on the books that homeschooled students must hit a certain percentile on academic tests. The left in this country has been largely unwilling to actually engage in homeschooling research and legislation beyond just banning it.
wise words
JFK believed he was no different than brown immigrants so it's actually the exact same party still
Who to follow
Smiley ꑭ
@El_Cabo_Smiley_
Love the hustle and bustle of democracy™️ 🃏
Gilles Gignac
@GillesEGignac
A/Professor at U of Western Australia. Interested in individual differences, intelligence, financial literacy, behavioural finance, narcissism, and AI.
Roy A Frye
@RoyAFrye1
Pathologist by profession, interests include human genomics, biology of aging, neuroscience/psychology, evolutionary biology, anthropology, economics/politics.
Republicans cancel their radicals, and Democrats elect them to Congress.
Imagine a White Republican from Alabama who wins a Congressional primary in an R+30 district on the following platform:
>Openly declaring that Franco and Pinochet were based
>Abolishing all Federal civil rights laws
>Placing machine guns along the southern border
>Abolishing all immigration courts and giving the President direct authority to remove all illegals immediately after they're found
>Colonialism was a good thing, the Europeans should have never left, and we need a second Scramble for Africa because the overwhelming majority of these nations are failed states that cannot govern themselves
>Expelling every Muslim in America from the country
>Dissolving all state universities, expropriating their endowments, and sending every sociology professor in America to Gitmo
>Repealing Hart-Cellar and re-implementing the National Origins Formula, while explicitly banning anyone with a majority Third World ancestry (Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia) from emigrating to the United States at all
What do you think the average Republican would do with such a person the morning after they won a primary in a Safe R district in the Deep South?
Do you think they'd be tweeting that "the people have spoken and we need to be bolder," or do you think they'd be going on CNN to condemn "racism and fascism" while waxing poetically about how "these aren't the conservative values my party stands for"?
No. We're not doing DEI on the right to counter DEI on the Left. Our countermove is 150 million mass deportations. We don't need to compete against parasitic ethnic cartels by cultivating our own parasitic ethnic cartels for balkanized racewars.
When someone tells you “akshually socialists are winning White voters, not minorities”, that statistic includes Middle East/North African foreigners
@MidasMulligan10 @LaissezCorvid The best argument and the one I’d use is any truly effective way of keeping specifically minors from accessing porn quickly will result in the effective de-anonymization of the Internet
The idea that "rather than supporting old-fashioned sexist views, the science of sex differences actively undermines them" is entirely wrong in several important areas
Going in order from totally uncontroversial to "controversial" these are the documented and observed differences
Note that in this case "uncontroversial" means "something people with a progressive outlook [which is most people] don't *want* to accept but will be forced to so as to not look insane - they then will never actually think about the 'accepted' fact nor integrate it into their overall thinking" - very limited
The obvious comparison here is to people's views on the "black-white IQ gap" - the gap *itself* is "non-controversial" but will always be accompanied by some other shifting denial that is sufficient for the person to not have to integrate the implications of that gap into his world-view. "IQ isn't a meaningful measurement", "you can't prove it's genetic!", "nutrition!", etc.
In a way, the people who simply deny the existence of the gap are more honest - their religion [progressivism] doesn't permit to believe in the gap so there's no evidence that they can see that will convince them
Now, back to the main topic - sex differences - which are actually *far more* taboo to discuss than race differences - with the exception of Richard Lynn later in life all the famous "race scientists" backed away from discussing male / female differences, for example
First and least "controversially" - women's brains are significantly smaller with fewer neocortical neurons - 16% less - billions fewer. Heading off the objections, no this is not about body size - see the (helpfully highlighted) image. Brain size is known correlated with intelligence overall, neurons are calorically demanding and evolution is efficient at paring down caloric demands that don't provide good returns. The *implication* is that there are better returns to *something* that is being done with neocortical neurons in men than there is in women - enough so that men are saddled with the extra metabolic cost. This reasoning about those implications is standard and non-controversial in evolutionary biology
Second and less "non-controversial" but still extremely well grounded - there is at least a half standard deviation gap in general knowledge between men and women. "At least" because reliable samples for testing aren't as available as people leave compulsory schooling - men know more things about the world at about 16 years old than women at the same age do and that gap grows over time but at some point you stop getting reliable data measuring this gap
Overall, half a standard deviation is known and accepted
Next - the male intelligence distribution is fatter tailed and less clustered around the mean than the female one. Also "non-controversial" and in fact, this bit is used as a thought-terminating cliche to avoid thinking about the whole area - "more male geniuses but also more morons"
Another not-widely-known but simply factual matter about IQ testing itself is that the tests are designed intentionally to minimize the shown gap between men and women. IQ test makers have to choose which questions to include and the basis of that inclusion is supposed to be that the questions distinguish between different levels of intelligence - someone at x will get tripped up by this question, someone at x+10 will get tripped up by a different question. IQ test creators also include the assumption that women and men have the same average IQ and use this assumption when including questions. If a question reliably has women doing far worse than men it will not be included unless a question with the opposite result can be found. There are whole areas of questions where men do massively better than women that are not included in many IQ tests because there are no "counterbalancing" questions that women do massively better on than men that can be included.
In other words, the observed IQ gap between men and women *understates* the actual gap
Getting into "controversial" - women consistently score lower on average on IQ tests than men. This is consistent across multiple studies, in multiple countries over multiple decades
These are just the academically studied, massively evidence-supported differences - many other differences are evident but are harder to specifically measure (not that anyone in academia is jumping at the chance to investigate them) - one example is women's difficulty with actually understanding definitions of words as logical rules to describe concepts rather than as emotion based tags to indicate valence. The culture that women impose when institutions reshape their rules to "be more inclusive of women" utterly destroys any ability of those institutions to pursue truth or to deal with the real world
From Steve Stewart-Williams's essay:
"Why, then, does the topic [sex differences] generate so much heat?
...
Another reason is that many assume that generalisations about the sexes provide intellectual ammunition for sexism. Claims about evolved sex differences, they fear, will be used to portray women as inferior, justify inequality, and undermine women’s progress in society."
But really, "undermining women's progress in society" is the actually natural conclusion from *understanding the massively negative impact* of that "progress" - which naturally leads people to simply not want to look at the evidence at all. The tightrope act of pretending to "investigate" differences but never actually drawing any conclusions is utterly untenable
![CovfefeAnon's tweet photo. The idea that "rather than supporting old-fashioned sexist views, the science of sex differences actively undermines them" is entirely wrong in several important areas
Going in order from totally uncontroversial to "controversial" these are the documented and observed differences
Note that in this case "uncontroversial" means "something people with a progressive outlook [which is most people] don't *want* to accept but will be forced to so as to not look insane - they then will never actually think about the 'accepted' fact nor integrate it into their overall thinking" - very limited
The obvious comparison here is to people's views on the "black-white IQ gap" - the gap *itself* is "non-controversial" but will always be accompanied by some other shifting denial that is sufficient for the person to not have to integrate the implications of that gap into his world-view. "IQ isn't a meaningful measurement", "you can't prove it's genetic!", "nutrition!", etc.
In a way, the people who simply deny the existence of the gap are more honest - their religion [progressivism] doesn't permit to believe in the gap so there's no evidence that they can see that will convince them
Now, back to the main topic - sex differences - which are actually *far more* taboo to discuss than race differences - with the exception of Richard Lynn later in life all the famous "race scientists" backed away from discussing male / female differences, for example
First and least "controversially" - women's brains are significantly smaller with fewer neocortical neurons - 16% less - billions fewer. Heading off the objections, no this is not about body size - see the (helpfully highlighted) image. Brain size is known correlated with intelligence overall, neurons are calorically demanding and evolution is efficient at paring down caloric demands that don't provide good returns. The *implication* is that there are better returns to *something* that is being done with neocortical neurons in men than there is in women - enough so that men are saddled with the extra metabolic cost. This reasoning about those implications is standard and non-controversial in evolutionary biology
Second and less "non-controversial" but still extremely well grounded - there is at least a half standard deviation gap in general knowledge between men and women. "At least" because reliable samples for testing aren't as available as people leave compulsory schooling - men know more things about the world at about 16 years old than women at the same age do and that gap grows over time but at some point you stop getting reliable data measuring this gap
Overall, half a standard deviation is known and accepted
Next - the male intelligence distribution is fatter tailed and less clustered around the mean than the female one. Also "non-controversial" and in fact, this bit is used as a thought-terminating cliche to avoid thinking about the whole area - "more male geniuses but also more morons"
Another not-widely-known but simply factual matter about IQ testing itself is that the tests are designed intentionally to minimize the shown gap between men and women. IQ test makers have to choose which questions to include and the basis of that inclusion is supposed to be that the questions distinguish between different levels of intelligence - someone at x will get tripped up by this question, someone at x+10 will get tripped up by a different question. IQ test creators also include the assumption that women and men have the same average IQ and use this assumption when including questions. If a question reliably has women doing far worse than men it will not be included unless a question with the opposite result can be found. There are whole areas of questions where men do massively better than women that are not included in many IQ tests because there are no "counterbalancing" questions that women do massively better on than men that can be included.
In other words, the observed IQ gap between men and women *understates* the actual gap
Getting into "controversial" - women consistently score lower on average on IQ tests than men. This is consistent across multiple studies, in multiple countries over multiple decades
These are just the academically studied, massively evidence-supported differences - many other differences are evident but are harder to specifically measure (not that anyone in academia is jumping at the chance to investigate them) - one example is women's difficulty with actually understanding definitions of words as logical rules to describe concepts rather than as emotion based tags to indicate valence. The culture that women impose when institutions reshape their rules to "be more inclusive of women" utterly destroys any ability of those institutions to pursue truth or to deal with the real world
From Steve Stewart-Williams's essay:
"Why, then, does the topic [sex differences] generate so much heat?
...
Another reason is that many assume that generalisations about the sexes provide intellectual ammunition for sexism. Claims about evolved sex differences, they fear, will be used to portray women as inferior, justify inequality, and undermine women’s progress in society."
But really, "undermining women's progress in society" is the actually natural conclusion from *understanding the massively negative impact* of that "progress" - which naturally leads people to simply not want to look at the evidence at all. The tightrope act of pretending to "investigate" differences but never actually drawing any conclusions is utterly untenable](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HLlf3usXcAAr7df.jpg)
Red-State conservatives are the only people who still sincerely believe in liberalism, just like Blue-State Hick-Libs are the only people who still sincerely believe in progressivism.
yes, it's administrative bloat.
if you identify more with the guy on the left than the guy on the right maybe it is over for you. this is pathetic
As Céline rightly saw, the real cataclysm had already happened at Stalingrad; Anglo-American liberal capitalism and Soviet communism are sibling faiths—both bound to the same moral dogma: universal human dignity, the equality of Man, the full belly as the final end of politics...
@UsingLyft Like I knew black guys who wouldn’t mess with non black girls who had dated other black guys for instance. But I do agree that just assuming a girl messed with black guys is weird behavior
@UsingLyft I don’t think it’s “following up” as much as it says something about the kind of guy a woman gets with, like not wanting to date a woman who previously dated only complete bums (which is a horrible idea btw).
@normposter I'll go with female cop so a white surgeon can hopefully save me afterwards
It’s nice that they just admit that the very notions of non-White nationality and non-straight sexuality are “inherently political.”
Straight, white people are the only who can live unchained from politics. We are the anchor by which everyone else orients themselves. It’s great.
It’s interesting how much of the globe doesn’t understand American wealth or way of life because for decades the sole cultural export of America to the globe has been black culture and Hollywood
“Soft power” and it’s literally just giving aids medication to 80 IQ sub Saharans who rub their genitals with twigs before having sex and we get nothing in return
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
240.5M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.3M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.7M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
110.4M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.6M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.1M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.9M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
87.5M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
81.4M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
72.9M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.7M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
69.7M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.8M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.5M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
60.6M followers