site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   27992 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 27, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sachs is right about one thing though, America does have the means to end the war. Through violence.

Russia is a nuclear power. Engaging in direct U.S. vs Russia conflict over Ukraine of all places is insane.

Should such a conflict occur, the mean expected deaths would number in the millions easily. The chance of a limited nuclear exchange becomes quite high, and a full nuclear exchange possible.

Scott shut this argument down. You can’t just play nuclear blackmail games. Maybe Ukraine is the right place to back down. Maybe it isn’t. That is a complicated question.

The solution to Russia has nukes is not back down anytime they want something. Then the whole world would be ruled by Russia. A thing worse than nuclear war.

The one big issue with not defending Ukraine is it raises a question of who really is under the umbrella of U.S. protection. Any country that thinks they might be outside of the security arrangement would be very interested in being a nuclear state. And as N Korea has proven just about any civilization can get nukes and a missile program. The reason even places like Taiwan do not have nukes despite real risks is because getting nukes would piss off the U.S. and they view security help from the west as more valuable than nukes.

Even places like Georgia would probably buy some nukes and launcher systems as soon as possible. And those type of states do have some political instability which means eventually some people you don’t like are nuclear.

The question of who is under the US umbrella would be a lot less vexing if it weren't for the NATO expansionists and hawks such as yourself who are constantly trying to stretch it. The US and NATO has no security arrangement with Ukraine. They've never had one. And yet here you are, arguing that the umbrella should cover them, raising questions nobody was asking.

Let me guess, every day is 1938 and every enemy is Hitler and everyone who disagrees with you is Chamberlain.

The alternative is Russian Roulette. Maybe you’ll get lucky and the other guys won’t actually go through with it. But the thing is, you can’t ever misjudge in that game because if you do, the consequences, not just for your country and her allies, but for the entire world are absolutely catastrophic. Billions dead, mass extinction event, famine, radiation. And so the consequences should at least be weighed against the benefits with those consequences in mind. Is Ukraine worth it? I’m not sure. But what has always worried me about the NATO approach is that they’re playing chicken under the assumption that Putin never actually means it. And we honestly have no way to actually know this. We might guess, or assume, but we don’t know for sure that the next line we cross won’t be the one that Putin was serious about. The west in my view absolutely doesn’t take the nuclear threat seriously. They aren’t asking whether Putin would, and in fact they seem to be deluded into thinking that Putin is less likely to use them if he feels cornered. This simply defies common sense. If he loses in Ukraine his life is in danger because Russian coups tend to happen after Russia loses a war, and quite often the leader who lost gets executed. And so you have a cornered man whose only way out is the nukes, but that’s somehow something he’s going to care about. It’s nonsense, and dangerous nonsense.

You play Russian Roulette whether you fight in Ukraine or not. If you choose not to your just playing with a different gun.

Appeasement didn’t work in the ‘30’s. Looking weak today increases the risks China or Russia oversteps in the future. You even marginal raise the risks of a Russian/Chinese first strike if they think you are too soft to counter.

Playing brinkmanship is just part of the game. It can’t be removed.

"we need to fight this stupid war or we a pussy" this is the stupidest fucking argument in the world, it's responsible for so many deaths, and it's exactly why I don't trust the pro Ukraine people.

Don't uncharitably reframe other people's arguments in a way they would not agree describes what they believe.

The point's less "we need to fight wars all the time", and more "if we give the impression that someone's under our protection, we need to actually back it up or people will think our word's worth nothing".

What word, exactly, did the US give that Ukraine was under their protection? When was this agreed? This is the problem. You people are constantly trying to push the scope of US responsibility, creep it out. And you're so eager for that expansion that you think you're not beholden to actually write those decisions down or make them legible to lesser nations. America can just swoop in on any war it feels like, or not, depending on what God told the President that day.

There's an argument that we shouldn't have made noises about Ukraine joining NATO. Once those noises were made, though, the idea of leaving them high and dry got significantly less tenable.

I do agree that the USA should drop the ambiguity over Taiwan; it's not helping matters.

I would appreciate it if you didn't impute random unrelated opinions to me.

This seems like a very bad deal that allows interventionists like yourself to ratchet up international obligations when in power just by making noises, and doesn't ever allow for those obligations to be abandoned.

More comments

We should fight this war because this is at least the third time Russia has annexed or "made independent" territory from another nation under Putin. If something works, why would you not do it again?

The fallacy I keep seeing in this and other similar conversations is the assumption that if Ukraine surrenders everything stops. I don't believe that option is even on the table unless Putin is made to regret committing to this. Hell, Putin's terms for Ukraine's surrender is to pretty much dismantle their military.

At Putin's current rate of expansion, it will take him like five hundred years to conquer Europe. I'm not that worried, despite the hysterical rhetoric about him being a second Hitler on the verge of sweeping all of Europe.

Does someone have to operate on the scale of Hitler to be be compared to Hitler?

More importantly, buried in that statement is the implication that you don't really care if Putin repeats his behavior so long as it's under a certain threshold. Do I have that right?

How about the part where the ostensible reason to surrender is to cut losses and return to peace. If Putin reneges on that and attacks again then there was no reason to surrender in the first place. Ukraine is back in the exact same position but worse since Russia will have rebuilt and put in terms of surrender conditions that would prevent them from doing the same. The U.S. is in the same position where their goal of nuclear de-escalation is threatened because a dictator has proven that if you have nukes you can do whatever you want, and the only defense is having your own nukes. Putin would have every incentive to repeat this, since he was already inclined to so and previously rewarded for it.

No. And you don't need to operate on the scale of Donald Rumsfeld for me to point out that this is the exact same tactic he used to bully people into supporting the Iraq War.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-aug-30-na-legion30-story.html

I did not say that.

Maybe not in so many words, but the line of logic of "we need to show the world that we are maximally willing to engage in war" can excuse literally any level of escalation, and used to reject any effort of diplomacy - which is what you're doing, here, with the by this point very predictable accusation of appeasement, since your history book ended at 1945.

This is not my position. You are mis characterizing my position and not correctly summarizing it.

I am in favor of a peace deal if Russia offered terms.

If you are in favour of a peace deal, why the constant bringing up of appeasement, Hitler, 1938, and so on? Are you just bringing them up cynically to win this argument, or do you genuinely believe that this situation is like 1938? And if it is, why do you now say you support a peace deal?

More comments

They didn't offer terms exactly, but I am very confident that Russia would have accepted 'breakaway republics + Crimea + no NATO in Ukraine' prior to the invasion -- now they have all of that plus a bunch more, so any terms they might accept will be significantly worse for Ukraine.

'War is diplomacy by other means', so if you want to do diplomacy the time for it is before war. (assuming that you don't want war, which I'm pretty sure is not the case WRT the US State department and this particular war)

More comments

Appeasement didn’t work in the ‘30’s. Looking weak today increases the risks China or Russia oversteps in the future. You even marginal raise the risks of a Russian/Chinese first strike if they think you are too soft to counter.

Yup. Does the 2022 invasion happen if the West had a more serious response in and after 2014? Depending on what that is, it probably does not. A decade ago it was decided Ukraine was not worth too much. Things were messier then, sure, but only after Putin learns the West's level of commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty does the West decide it actually matters a bit more.

Perhaps Putin still invades thinking the thunder run will be successful before any shift in defense commitments. However, the calculation is very different. The West still does not think that Ukrainian territory and ideas of sovereignty are worth dying for. The West is just paying interest on missed payments in the past to deter further aggression.

Appeasement failed to contain the expanding ambitions of Nazi Germany. Right now, in Eastern Europe, it's NATO that has been expanding its borders while promising the Russians they would not. This metaphor can easily be read the other way!

This is a silly comparison.

A). No countries were militarily conquered

B). NATOs military has dramatically shrunk

This analogy obfuscates much more than it clarifies, unless you're arguing that the methods of Nazi Germany and NATO are similar?

The solution to Russia has nukes is not back down anytime they want something. Then the whole world would be ruled by Russia. A thing worse than nuclear war.

NATO forms a bright line that Russia knows it must never cross. Here is a map of NATO. Russia is encircled and powerless: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO#/media/File:NATO_32_Members.png

We shouldn't be willing to escalate maximally over every conflict. Quite simply, Russia cares about Ukraine more than the US does.

But take your opinion to its logical conclusion. You'd risk nuclear war to defend Ukraine. What about Georgia? Syria? Trade rights? Why aren't we invading China to stop the Uhygur genocide. Does our inaction prove that genocide is okay? Certainly the Uhygurs will get nukes if we can't protect them.

I enjoy living in a country that is peaceful and prosperous. And yet people are willing to risk nuclear war over a country on the other side of the world that has virtually no strategic value. Furthermore, we are willing to destroy that country in the process and kill a sizeable percentage of its male population. I maintain this is insane and I want no part in it.

Furthermore, we are willing to destroy that country in the process and kill a sizeable percentage of its male population.

The USA is shelling Ukraine?

We are giving Ukraine enough arms to continue the fight instead of helping them negotiate a peace.

Every day, Ukrainian men are being conscripted and forced against their will to fight on the front lines. Many of these will die or be horribly maimed. Without U.S. involvement this would not be possible. This terrible conflict is being cheered on by people in the West who have no skin in the game.

Who's killing those men and are they really unable to stop?

Russia is encircled

I genuinely don't understand this. What are you talking about? Russia has a border with a a couple of NATO countries. Where's the "encirclement"?

and powerless

Russia sucks, West to blame

NATO forms a bright line that Russia knows it must never cross. Here is a map of NATO. Russia is encircled and powerless: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO#/media/File:NATO_32_Members.png

What on earth is the fear here? Are we seriously still entertaining the idea that the west wants to invade Russia? For what possible reason? NATO doesn't expand by rolling tanks into its neighbor's territory, it expands by offering protection from Russia which does appear fond of the whole rolling tanks in approach.

Most of the pro-Ukraine side believe that Putin is basically a second Hitler, and can only be stopped by military force. And these people set policy for the west. So yes, the west does want to invade Russia. The only reason they don't is because of nukes.

Until he started invading places caring about Russia was something that got you literally laughed at in US politics. And that some people hate him does not at all imply any kind of invasion. There is zero interest in the west to occupy Russia. Get rid of Putin so he stops fucking around in Geopolitics? Sure. But what is the upside to invading and occupying Russia? Why would anyone bother even if it were realistically possible?

Then why the constant talk about appeasement and Hitler, if not to get people psychologically ready for a war?

The United States does many things that are not rational. The invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Both were unsuccessful in the long term and huge wastes of resources. But, nevertheless, the Americans reasoned themselves into doing these things. The rhetoric and rationale is very similar to what the pro Ukraine brigade says nowadays. The Taliban and Saddam are monsters, basically Hitler. America needs to project an image of strength. You can't negotiate with Hitlers. A message needs to be sent to potential state sponsors of terrorism/Hitler. What are you, a pussy?

Maybe it will happen, maybe not. Maybe it won't go as far as hot war, maybe it will. But, when I see so many people calling here and elsewhere for dramatic escalation, saying Putin is the next Hitler, calling any move for de-escalation "appeasement", drawing maps of a partitioned Russia, yes, I think the west wants war with Russia. Even knowing it would be stupid.

Then why the constant talk about appeasement and Hitler, if not to get people psychologically ready for a war?

The appeasement of Hitler is just the most recent example of appeasement not working and people keep suggesting that Russia should be appeased by letting them take over Ukrainian territory. You'll note that after Hitler was stopped the rest of the west did not colonize Germany and it still exists as an influential independent country in good standing.

The United States does many things that are not rational. The invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Both were unsuccessful in the long term and huge wastes of resources. But, nevertheless, the Americans reasoned themselves into doing these things.

These were not wars of conquest nor was proximity to NATO countries a major factor.

Maybe it will happen, maybe not. Maybe it won't go as far as hot war, maybe it will. But, when I see so many people calling here and elsewhere for dramatic escalation, saying Putin is the next Hitler, calling any move for de-escalation "appeasement", drawing maps of a partitioned Russia, yes, I think the west wants war with Russia. Even knowing it would be stupid.

I'm just not really interested on whether we've hurt Putin's feelings because after he invaded neighbors unprovoked in a war of conquest he gets compared to the last guy in Europe to invade his neighbors in wars of conquest. It doesn't somehow retroactively justify the whole invading your neighbors in wars of conquest thing. You don't get to act like an unhinged lunatic because you're concerned that people around you might treat you like an unhinged lunatic and then pretend your subsequent treatment justifies your behavior. when you escalate and have all the ability in the world to de-escalate you can't call the people you're currently invading unreasonable for not de-escalating, this isn't even behavior we'd accept in our toddlers.

All Putin and Russia need to do is get the fuck over themselves and step out of the 20th century. The whole high school bully act was lame after you graduated and decades on it's just pathetic.

Germany was, in fact, dismembered by the Allies, some millions of Germans were killed or forcibly displaced from territories in the East (so they could be given to Poland), and the proposal was seriously floated to deindustrialize the nation. In the east this was carried out to some extent with factories and plant seized and moved to the USSR. In the West, that wasn't carried out, but for reasons of geopolitical expediency. This is to say nothing of the destruction of cities, mass rapes and the largest book burning project ever conducted. Germany is indeed today, rehabilitated (unfortunately), but it was a very painful road.

I'm not really sure what you mean by step out of the 20th century. The 21st century started with the US invading countries in the Middle East to project power. Is your point that America can do these things and get away with them because they are strong while Russia is weak? But then, isn't the battlefield exactly the place to prove those things?

The reason I bring up Russia's weakness is that it is farcical that they will attack Germany, Poland, Estonia, or other NATO countries.

This is why being anti-war is hard. Every time I bring up my anti-war stance, a bunch of people appear in my replies accusing me of being pro-Russia. I am not justifying Russia's reasons for fighting. Russia is wrong.

  1. Russia is at fault for the Ukraine War

  2. Russia does not present a compelling alternative to Western hegemony. The West is best.

  3. Putin's justifications of the war are not valid

All of these are true, and yet the war should be ended immediately on practical grounds.

yet the war should be ended

The passive voice here is the problem. If I am doing British politics (and I am, as a British citizen posting on a political forum during an election campaign) then "the war should be ended" is either irrelevant cant, or a way of saying "A coalition of civilized countries including the UK should end the war" while dodging the question of how. If NATO actually wanted to end the war without relying on Russia or Ukraine's willingness to act against their perceived self-interest to help us, the fastest way to do so would be to provide Ukraine with sufficient support to win it.

As far as I can see 90% of the people saying "the war should be ended" mean "the civilized world, led by the US, should jawbone Ukraine into surrendering to Russia*". The practical consequences of this probably include the enslavement, expulsion, or extermination of the Ukrainian people (which of these being largely down to the whims of a madman), so how the jawboning is supposed to work is left as an exercise to the reader. I would not wish to speculate how many of the people on the centre and left saying "the war should be ended" would still be willing to say so if they thought about what they were actually saying. I am reasonably comfortable that the pro-Putin right know exactly what they are doing.

  • A negotiated peace which leaves Ukraine less defensible than it was in 2022 is unconditional surrender by salami slicing, given Russia's disinclination to abide be previous negotiated agreements to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. There seems to be a broad agreement that "Ukrainian neutrality" - i.e. a ban on the kind of security co-operation with the civilized world that made Ukraine defensible in 2022 - will be a necessary part of any negotiated peace that Russia could accept.

It's just not really reasonable to call people who support the defense of a nation "pro war". If someone attacks me after making it clear they want to kill me I am not pro-fighting when I defend myself. People who support me defending myself are not pro-fighting. It's unreasonable to demand I or the people supporting me should allow the person attacking me to merely severe a limb or two despite them at no point actually making any sign they'd stop after doing so. There is precisely one pro-war faction and it's the one that started the war and could end it at any time, attempting to frame it otherwise is an absurdity.

And yes, we do have some obligation here, Ukraine get rid of its nuclear capabilities under the promise that this would not be allowed to happen. Where Ukraine goes so does nuclear non-proliferation and frankly and kind of mantle of justice.

Victory at any cost is a pro-war position. Throwing out all cost/benefit calculations because Russia started it is unreasonable.

At least spell out what you wouldn't be willing to do to reclaim Ukrainian territory.

I wouldn't be willing to condone firing a nuclear weapon into Russian territory. But supplying Ukrainians with weapons is not even in the ballpark of when we start talking about "any cost", those are the minimum table stakes.

reclaim Ukrainian territory.

You're trying to change the frame. There is no such offer where Ukraine draws new borders and returns to peace with Russia, It's fictional and the Putin's equally fictional Casus Belli remains, no serious person would trust a peace agreement he has already broken.

I wouldn't be willing to condone firing a nuclear weapon into Russian territory.

Thank you. I respect that.

This discussion originally got started with U.S. boots on the ground which is what I said is "insane" and other users wouldn't renounce. So we need to decide what we're actually talking about here.

You're trying to change the frame. There is no such offer where Ukraine draws new borders and returns to peace with Russia, It's fictional and the Putin's equally fictional Casus Belli remains, no serious person would trust a peace agreement he has already broken.

I'm trying to understand how you and other people on this forum think the war will end. I suppose a frozen conflict like North Korea/South Korea is possible and if you're advocating for that I can accept it's a reasonable position.

More comments

NATO is just an arbitrary line you are drawing right now because it excludes Ukraine. The rest you are just asking questions.

I can just as easily say would you risks nuclear war over Estonia. Population 1.3 million? That’s stupid to cause millions to die in nuclear war.

There is of course no obvious line for brinkmanship.

You pick NATO. I point to The Budapest Memorandum. So yes we have treaty obligations with Ukraine.

Ukraine of course is white. Which does count for something in US discourse.

Ukraine also has strategic reasons it’s easier to defend than waiting for the brinkmanship to occur somewhere else.

The larger population means they have more meat to throw at the problem. Drawing the line at Ukraine would mean that the next line is probably something like the Baltics. Where you would need to put German and American soldiers at risks versus Ukrainians. And if you let Russia have Ukraine then you enlarge their army as Ukrainian meat becomes Russian meat to build their army.

So yes Ukraine has a lot of strategic reasons to pick Ukraine for brinkmanship versus waiting.

My opinion is that yes Ukraine is the right place to fight Russia. Russia would take all of Europe if they could. History tells us that.

My big issue is you act like these things are obvious. But they are not obvious. And if we let Ukraine fall in 2022 there is a strong chance a test in the Baltics would come. And my guess when that day comes you would make the same argument. Russia wants the Baltics more and we should have never let them into NATO.

Maybe we should take a step back. What, exactly, is your position?

Do you want U.S. boots on the ground in Ukraine? That's what I am calling "insane".

For myself, I've been extremely consistent in calling for a negotiated peace with Russia. In exchange for peace, I am willing to concede to Russia the territory they have already captured.

What downsides are you willing to accept? What personal sacrifices are you willing to make? Would you die for Ukraine? Sorry for asking so many questions, but your position seems so vague I can't argue against or for it.

Strawman. Russia isn’t offering peace for the territory they have already captured.

You either need to surrender likely all of Ukraine and hope Russia doesn’t want more or you need to escalate to deescalate.

To do that you need better weapons for Ukraine. Allowing strikes on military targets in Russia (staging grounds etc). Potentially formalizing western advisers and logistics. I would consider Polish/French troops in defensive operations. Both have shown some willingness.

I think those steps are necessary to minimize an exchange of nuclear weapons. It asserts the borders don’t change rules of the post-war era. Which limits nations like Estonia, Taiwan, Poland, Saudis, even Iran from going nuclear.

NATO forms a bright line that Russia knows it must never cross. Here is a map of NATO. Russia is encircled and powerless

I do not believe "encircled" means what you think it means. Without attacking NATO, Russia can move south through Georgia ("seeking" is not membership), Armenia, and Azerbaijan and keep going if it feels like getting into a conflict with Iran. And then there's that huge area of Russia not shown, which borders on other non-NATO countries. They could plow through the -stans to India, or go after Mongolia and China. No NATO there.

Azerbaijan is a Turkish client state, and NATO didn't exactly complain about Turkey helping Azerbaijan invade Artsakh in violation of a ceasefire nominally enforced by Russian peacekeepers and ethnically cleanse the territory.

If I am a paranoid Russian, I consider Azerbaijan part of NATO's encirclement of Russia.

If I am a paranoid Russian, I consider Azerbaijan part of NATO's encirclement of Russia.

As the story goes, you can consider a tail a leg but that don't make it so. Russia invading Azerbaijan does not trigger Article 5.

Where does this model of Russia even come from? The Ukrainian conflict has not exactly been a stunning success for Russia.

Now they're attacking India and China?

The whole Ukraine War rests on the faulty premise that Russia is so strong they'll invade Poland India if we don't stop them, but so weak that one more round of funding to Ukraine will win the war.

Personally, I don't really care as long as I'm not forced to participate. I'd especially appreciate it if more pro-war people actually volunteered for the Ukrainian military, or least the US one.

I believe the point is that it seems strange to call Russia "encircled" by NATO once you zoom the map out a bit.

With enough flexibility on a spherical planet, every region arguably encircles its inverse!

To be fair there's a pretty good pincer thing going on when you take the Arctic into consideration!

I'd agree that this style of map is probably the best balance, though I'm struggling somewhat to find a map in this style that is up-to-date.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats