site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   26562 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 3, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Next week I am gonna join a big and important global event regarding innovation, AI, tech and sustainability, with thousands of participants, investors, startups etc.

The prime attention on both social media is given to left-wing NGO, that are arriving in full force to do political propaganda on stage. It is always fun to check the background on LinkedIn of all these, always female, speakers, and see that it is completely unrelated to the issue they are talking about.

For example, of the 5 women speakers from @WomenInAI, only two are graduated, with bachelor, in Engineering, and then they moved to managerial roles, HR or NGOism. One is an "Afrofuturist feminist" who has done nothing in life apart launching her shitty art with the NASA.

In my opinion, the greatest fault of Capitalism, and the real problem that is behind it, is that it is so productive that can share money to unproductive people, creating a new caste of Priestly Propagandist, that exists only because they receive money from society. A parasitical relationships between the producers of wealth, the managers and the oppressed/activist class, who can rearrange the chairs to receive more money, prestige and wealth.

The only way in which a productive capitalist society can work is to introduce a huge shame against this kind of behavior. Sadly, if introduced, it would be,correctly, interpreted as anti-women discrimination.

In my opinion, the greatest fault of Capitalism, and the real problem that is behind it, is that it is so productive that can share money to unproductive people, creating a new caste of Priestly Propagandist, that exists only because they receive money from society. A parasitical relationships between the producers of wealth, the managers and the oppressed/activist class, who can rearrange the chairs to receive more money, prestige and wealth.

Unproductive priestly castes, including unproductive priestly castes which fail to provide spiritual comfort and moral guidance to the 2nd and 3rd estates while also failing to live up to the tenets of their own religion, predate capitalism. In our own post-Protestant culture, the paradigm example is the Catholic Church immediately before the Reformation.

The expensively-educated 110-130 IQ white women who go into left-wing NGOery are working harder and earning less (when government benefits are included) than they would in the government, or in some suitable support role in the private sector like HR or in-house legal. So at least they have skin in the game in a way the Renaissance party Popes didn't*.

* Except Julius II, who had very literal skin in the game because he personally led the armies of the Papal States into battle.

The 'unproductive priestly caste' thing is protestant propaganda, which seems obvious if you let it roll around in your head for a minute. You typically had to pay your way into the monastery, because you'd be getting room, board, clothes, etc without ever paying another penny. But in fact, it was so expensive, that you were also expected to have a trade or some way to support yourself/the monastery. One example that comes to mind is the many years the monks at Gottweig abbey have made a very popular apricot schnapps

There's a name for moralizing women who enforce the social consensus: it's called culture, and we need it. It's your mom teaching you to wipe your ass and chew with your mouth closed.

Power flows through the male line, culture flows through the female line.

In a healthy male society, the young male capacity for violence is channeled to defend the society. Men defend the weak from the depredations of the strong, and the insiders from the outsiders. Status and the right to use violence are conferred by older men to those who use violence to defend the society. This is "patriarchy", and it has been so successful that young women think the purpose of patriarchy is to keep young women from dating other young women, when it's real purpose is to keep young men from killing you.

When that healthy society breaks down and the patriarchs lose authority, young men do not lose their capacity for violence, but now status and authority go to those most capable of exercising it.

Violence is exercised for its own sake, for the difference between a gang and a police force is merely that one is accountable. When people sneer that a corrupt police force is just a gang in blue, they are more correct than they understand.

Destroy the systems containing male violence to pro-social ends and you have the child soldiers of Africa and the gangs of Central America.

In a healthy female society, female social power is used to benefit the culture as a whole. Female social power is the old woman that will give you a dirty look if you litter, the young woman who won't marry you unless you have a job. In a healthy society the librarian, the school teacher, and the nun guide people, especially young women, into orderly lives that benefit the society as a whole. That's the under-discussed matriarchy, the rule of mothers over children and younger women.

Unfortunately, as Louise Perry suggests, the feminists took a big swing at the patriarchy and took down the matriarchy instead. The stabilizing power of older women and their social structures has been destroyed, leaving millions of atomized women who are in their own way every bit as dangerous as atomized men.

We don't live in a healthy society, and female social power is now exercised for the benefit of the user. Young women cancel each other over tiny or imagined infractions, they whip up social media mobs against each other, and they grift in any industry that generates excess revenue. They extract money and status from the productive without providing any value, and they attack each other in endless status games. Many PMC women, having been removed from the old containment structures of female social communities, now live in a social war of all against all.

Gang colors are to atomized young men what causes are to atomized young women - a set of symbols to fight over in the quest for social dominance. There's no real value in being able to wear blue on 18th street, and nobody believes any AWFL activist that claims to fight for AI safety for globally warming people of color. Both of them are just symbols of power.

Great post. It's refreshing to read something with some thumos [Greek: spirit] on The Motte. I agree with the critical mass of this, but I am going to focus on the things I don't agree with:

  • I believe that the job of passing down culture falls equally on men and women, but they play different roles by passing down different elements of culture. It is the responsibility of men to live out and pass down the virtues that ensure life goes on. It is the responsibility of women is to live out and pass down the virtues that make life worth living.
  • You wrote, " When people sneer that a corrupt police force is just a gang in blue, they are more correct than they understand." I believe they are profoundly mistaken. No two things are exactly the same, but the degree of difference between different things, and whether or not that difference is categorical or not, depends on one sees the world. The difference between cops and robbers is the difference between fighting to indulge one's carnal desires, and fighting in the line of duty -- and a healthy society regards that difference as night and day.

Once upon a time I dated a woman whose boss kept a closet full of posters so that she'd always have one appropriate for whatever the next protest was

I don’t think this destruction of the matriarchy was necessarily unintentional. Young women tend to hate the matriarchy because it places restrictions on their behavior and interferes with maximal sexual success. The downside of this destruction is that women will now lose most of their social capital by the time they turn 30. But many young women (like many young men) have very low time preference and poor ability to visualize themselves in the future.

Unfortunately, as Louise Perry suggests, the feminists took a big swing at the patriarchy and took down the matriarchy instead

I'd like to hear more about this. Could you expand, or share a link?

In my opinion, the greatest fault of Capitalism, and the real problem that is behind it, is that it is so productive that can share money to unproductive people, creating a new caste of Priestly Propagandist

What makes you think that pre- or non-capitalist societies didn't have unproductive Priestly Propagandists? What were the nomenklatura bureaucrats of the USSR, or the mass of the ecclesiarchy of the Roman Catholic Church during the middle ages? What were drunken courtiers at Versailles?

One can argue that, those mordern Priestly Propagandists, is the exact same Priestly Propagandists from the pass

Priest as a social class, in the pass, is either the ruling class in theocracy, or a propagandist class for the ruling class, their primary function is to stablize the society, so that everyone "stay in their place"

while this might seems counter intuitive, I and many aruged that, the modern activist class was created by the elite to enable in-fighting between lower classes, to avoid "class struggle" between elite classes and other lower classes, which is functionally equivalent to Priest as described above

In my opinion, the greatest fault of Capitalism, and the real problem that is behind it, is that it is so productive that can share money to unproductive people, creating a new caste of Priestly Propagandist, that exists only because they receive money from society. A parasitical relationships between the producers of wealth, the managers and the oppressed/activist class, who can rearrange the chairs to receive more money, prestige and wealth.

That is not a fault of Capitalism. That is lack of capitalism. If the capitalistic system was working as intended Disney would have been reigned in long before they burned 3 money printing franchises to the ground. But the crybulling of racism and sexism and similar removes the normal "fuck you, pay me" feedback that capitalistic investors would require.

But the crybulling of racism and sexism and similar removes the normal "fuck you, pay me" feedback

If it wasn't for activist shekel shufflers with DEI/ESG money (blackrock etc) we wouldn't be at this level of disfunction.

Capitalism is not the only lens through which to view the world, I feel, even though people nowadays including here like pretending it is! Money is a ridiculously super-strong force that acts both on individuals as well as larger groupings. So yes, capitalist structures matter. But other structures and forces also exist and interact!

In terms of fundamental human needs and motivations, we all know Maslow. That's not the only game in town though. I won't bore you to list them here, though it might be an interesting effortpost to talk about a few less-known ones. Although many fundamental needs interface significantly with money, not all do, and other structures might better meet or fulfill many of them. For example, sense of belonging is an easy one. These can explain seemingly irrational, non-capitalist results even in a heavily capitalist society.

The USSR wasn't Real Communism. It suffered from a lack of communism. It was only because wreckers not devoted to true socialist ideals corrupted the system that it failed.

I can't tell if you're serious or sarcastic.

To be clearer, I'm suggesting that it's not useful to defend actually-existing capitalism with an appeal to ideal capitalism, just like it's not useful to defend actually-existing communism with an appeal to ideal communism.

Frankly I disagree on both counts, the idea of workers owning (only some of, let's not go crazy here) the means of production is not necessarily a bad idea just because Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, Lev Davidovich Bronshtein, and Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvil (Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin) were not particularly good champions of that idea. I'd point to mid-sized german fabrik's that are run as co-ops

Similarly, if the laws of the land are incompatible with an effective market, that is also not a strike against the idea that consumers will typically prefer cheaper prices and producers will try to attempt to accommodate them if there is genuine competition. One thinks of the 'gas wars' back in the 70's when every street corner in America was owned by a franchisee who declared they had the cheapest prices in town

Capitalism has been tried many times and even when executed with flaws has been a resounding success. If capitalists were in charge of the corporations instead of the PMC IYI - disney's experiments with putting a chick in and making it gay would have been cut way shorter. Harvard wouldn't fuck up their reputation for no tangible benefit. DEIs would have been dead in the water. NY Times wouldn't have turned into - the worst of gawker media, but with less typos. And the businesses would have been way less political.

News is dead, but it seems to me that Substack - which is purely capitalistic venture is doing fine.

It's interesting how some of the biggest defenders of capitalism ironically are academics,.. Friedman, Sowell the Chicago School. It's one things where why not practice what they preach. In reality, a cushy academic job writing books and giving lectures beats the high failure rate and uncertainty of small business. Same for office jobs. The actual capitalism that involves people putting their money on the line is much risker and it's understandable why so many people take the easier path. The failure rate is too high and too hard to get funding. The problem is not regulation as often blamed but rather getting the customers and capital and dealing wit everything else that can suddenly go wrong. Regulation and taxes factors low on this yet it's always the part that gets the most attention.

Regulation and taxes factors low on this yet it's always the part that gets the most attention.

It varies from state to state, but what I've read from business owners is that taxes factor low but compliance with vague and shifting regulations can be a disaster:

"As a business owner in California, I am going to have to do a ton of research to figure out just how we can comply with all this, and even then I will likely be wrong because whether one is in compliance or not is never actually clear until it is tested in court. I had to do the same thing with California meal break law (multiple times), California heat stress law, new California harassment rules, California sick leave rules, the California minimum wage, Obamacare rules, Obamacare reporting, the new upcoming DOL rules on salaried employees, etc.

Five or ten years ago, I spent most of my free time thinking about improving and growing the business. Now, all my mental bandwidth is consumed by regulatory compliance. I have not added a new business operation for years, but instead have spent most of my time exiting businesses in California. Perhaps more important is what I am doing with my managers. My managers are not Harvard MBAs, they are front-line blue collar folks who have been promoted to manager because they have proven themselves adept at our service process. There are only a finite number of things I can teach them and new initiatives I can give them in a year. And instead of using this limited bandwidth to teach some of the vital productivity enhancement tools we should be adopting, I spend all my training time on compliance management issues."

To be fair, this might be partly selection bias; the business owners who stay in business long enough to write a lot about it are the ones who already survived dealing with capital and customers and emergencies and all.

Capitalism has been tried many times and even when executed with flaws has been a resounding success. If capitalists were in charge of the corporations instead of the PMC IYI - disney's experiments with putting a chick in and making it gay would have been cut way shorter.

If we are talking about the execrable Star Wars sequel trilogy, capitalism isn't telling Disney to knock it off. All three movies made money hand over fist, and The Farce Awakens set US box office records. Capitalism can create good art, but it usually doesn't. The best art appears to be created by priestly types who actually believe in their religion, like Bach or Michelangelo. Walt Disney himself is something of a weird case that in my view proves the rule - Disney was a for-profit company organised on capitalist principles, but based on his writings Walt saw himself as a priest of the American civic religion (that included capitalism) rather than a pure capitalist who made movies because it was more lucrative than soap, and left "running Disney like a business" to his brother Roy.

If we are talking about the execrable Star Wars sequel trilogy, capitalism isn't telling Disney to knock it off. All three movies made money hand over fist, and The Farce Awakens set US box office records.

No one knew what was coming during the Force Awakens, and they were cashing in on nostalgia, not on putting a chick in it, and making her gay and lame. If capitalism wasn't telling Disney to knock it off, they wouldn't be whinging about their precious franchises falling off a cliff.

Weirdly specific comment, but a guy in the row in front of my group happened to get up and go to the bathroom during the scene in the next movie (don't remember the name and don't want to bother to look it up) where Princess Leia got blasted out of the starship and I told him 'I'm so sorry to have to be the one to tell you, but Princess Leia just died'

And then a few seconds later she flew herself back into the starship.

Because some invocations of "not real X" are wrong doesn't mean that all are.

Remember Woke Institutions is Just Civil Rights Law. That's inherently non-capitalist.

I know a couple actual women in AI (not in the "I can call an LLM through an API" sense but in the "I was a listed author on the GPT-4 paper" sense), and the funny thing is that they despise things like @WomenInAI, who constantly spam them begging for a crumb of interest or validation. Their general attitude seems to be "why bother to spend time with a bunch of wannabe clout chasers whose only exceptional quality is being a mid-tier woman adjacent to tech, when I could instead spend the time helping create a God?" Which is, at the least, an attempt to produce something real.

Maybe it's just that it's an AI event where this kind of thing is par for the course? I mean, one of the best-known AI "experts" is Yudkowsky, who doesn't even have the benefit of a GED and never did any substantive work on AI in his life. He founded an NGO at 21 and has been leeching off of the Silicon Valley money machine ever since. At least an HR manager has experience in making sure everyone gets paid on time.

In my opinion, the greatest fault of Capitalism, and the real problem that is behind it, is that it is so productive that can share money to unproductive people, creating a new caste of Priestly Propagandist

Is that a fault of Capitalism? Most societies, including non-capitalist/pre-capitalist ones, have/had some kind of priestly/moral class. Such as literal priests.

Capitalism is an economic system connected to a society that is primarily status driven. It's superiority at transferring goods and services does not imply an immunity to spending the resulting profits on signaling.

That's why capitalism works. It's not for itself.

A parasitical relationships between the producers of wealth, the managers and the oppressed/activist class, who can rearrange the chairs to receive more money, prestige and wealth.

American society used to have a much larger distaste for money being wasted in this kind of corrupt way. However, as taxes increased and government grew, the focus on economy fell by the wayside and it became a lot easier for these sorts of cash flows to just disappear in the torrent of Federal spending.

When would you draw the line?

The Gilded Age was notoriously corrupt, often in the exact way you describe. Before that, there were the sinecures of Jacksonian democracy. In the interim, we saw the country split in half, developing a duplicate bureaucracy and army specifically to protect a managerial class.

I don’t think the project has ever risen above those human, tribal tendencies.

But the thing about all the grift and corruption in the gilded age was that it was guys saying things like "this town will die if you don't build a road out here" or "Give me the permits for this hotel or I'll shoot you" or "I'm going to a build a library in every town in America and you'll have to put me in jail to try to stop me"

That's societally beneficial grift

But to answer your question it seems obvious to me democracy in and of itself was a mistake if the first thing we did was raise an army to fight against veterans of the revolutionary war and we didn't even make it 100 years without a civil war. The Romans had 400 years of republic before their first real civil war, and we think we know better (lol)

Some of it, sure. Other parts were garden-variety and embezzlement and obstruction. Calling that “societally beneficial” is like judging the Soviet Union only by its number of tanks.

As for the Romans—half their early conflicts were rebellions; they just hadn’t got around to calling their socii “Romans” yet. But by a stricter standard, the first Roman equivalent to the Whiskey Rebellion happened in 495. Well, it’s marginally longer than our record!

All of that was still considered corruption back then, and was occasionally punished.

Now it's considered normal.

American society used to have a much larger distaste for money being wasted in this kind of corrupt way.

I think societal norms and character of a people play a bigger role in outcomes than people tend to think. Our turn to welfare spending following the great depression changed pretty dramatically how people relate to the government, and it is bad.

Is this federal money? My impression around Silicon Valley is that this is much more likely to be VCs/grifting startups spending pensioners money on pointless marketing events like this.

It's both, plus state money. Plus, the big foundations that finance a lot of this receive favorable tax treatment to pretend to be charities.

In my opinion, the greatest fault of Capitalism, and the real problem that is behind it, is that it is so productive that can share money to unproductive people, creating a new caste of Priestly Propagandist, that exists only because they receive money from society.

This logic seems incomplete, but there’s obviously some merit to it. It’s easy to be an advocate when one is completely removed from the negative consequences of their advocacy. Commies eventually got so triggered by repeatedly being called out on their revealed preferences that they made a webcomic just to snark at it (without actually refuting the original criticism, naturally).

The utopian socialist Star Trek narrative of cornucopia technology making war obsolete is itself born from the luxury of living in a hyper secular capitalist paradise bereft of any real ideology. Every great story of central planning returning man to the Garden of Eden begins by skipping the part where capitalism made a technologically advanced civilization possible. The endless irony of 1984 is the unchallenged assertion that a fascist shithole like Oceania could actually foster and cultivate a scientifically rich inner circle, when Hitler’s relatively kind and gentle Third Reich couldn’t even figure out the atom bomb.

So capitalism continues to pave the way for its enemies to live comfortable lives attacking its excesses in as many novel and uncharitable ways as possible. Easier to try to build civilization in the skeleton remains of a better one than to have to figure out how shit works on your own. And when everyone’s starving and hauling hay as a peasant, they’re too miserable to listen to your screed on inclusion and diversity.

Just as a real specific issue, Nazi Germany did not get the nuclear bomb due to a lack of scientific innovation. They simply were bombed too often in too many places, didn't have a lot of access to the right resources, and more. The US basically threw a ridiculous amount of money at the problem and the program never got bombed once and it still took years and years to build just two bombs and even by the time they did, they had air superiority anyways. So I think that's worthless as evidence. In fact, I think there's plenty of evidence that a lot of scientists are perfectly happy "doing their thing" without much regard for what society is doing outside their research bubble.

Yes, being a fascist society makes being technologically advanced hard, for all the reasons you stated. A society that requires constant war to flourish eventually runs out of reasons to research and develop a bigger gun.

A society that requires constant war to flourish

But does fascism actually require war to flourish? Spain and Portugal, Pinochet's Chile, etc. seem like strong counterexamples for this.

Easier to try to build civilization in the skeleton remains of a better one than to have to figure out how shit works on your own.

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a black woman twerking on the ruins of a nuclear reactor, forever.

Sounds like a good way to generate energy?

More effort than this, please.

Every great story of central planning returning man to the Garden of Eden begins by skipping the part where capitalism made a technologically advanced civilization possible

In the Motte tradition of taking a good post, and pointing to a nitpicky error...

Marx did theorize that humanity had to pass through capitalism as a stage between feudalism and communism. For that reason, communists in the early 20th century thought that advanced economies such as Germany or France were ripe for communism, while backwards countries like Russia would have to wait.

Just one more thing Marx was wrong about.

I don't think this is something that Marx was wrong about in the simple and obvious way you are suggesting. Marx is vague about what "communism" (as opposed to the intermediate stage of "socialism") was supposed to be like, but most of the circumstantial evidence points towards Marx's uptopia being what the youth of today would call "fully automated luxury space communism" - a world in which the economy was so productive that all material needs were met and there was sufficiently little disagreeable work to do that the kind of gentle social pressure used to get roommates to do the washing up was sufficient to get it done.

Marx absolutely knew that even early C20 Britain or Germany was too poor for communism - part of the point of the socialist stage was to preside over the period of economic growth needed to get to the level of wealth where fully automated luxury steampunk communism was a material possibility. (Marx was wrong in believing that rational planning under socialism would generate faster economic growth than the chaos of market capitalism, but until the Soviet system started to fall apart under Brezhnev almost everyone made the same mistake).

The other thing that would have surprised Marx is just how high material standards of living can get before the average Joe is willing to give up toys in order to have more leisure time to play with them. Keynes famously thought that a society as productive as C21 America would have a 15-hour work week*. I think almost anyone from the 1970s or earlier who looked at modern America and saw people working extra hours in a not-fun job to afford an F250 instead of an F150 would have a WTF response, but this is the choice that modern blue-collar Americans fairly consistently make - including people who have enough control over their work hours that it clearly is a choice like self-employed tradesmen.

* Some of increased leisure Keynes predicted has happened, but in the form of shorter careers as a fraction of life expectancy rather than a shorter work week. Blue-collar workers in Keynes' day started full-time work at 14 and worked until they were no longer physically able to do so. Now they start working full-time at 18 (pace the Florida child labour bill allowing high schoolers to work full-time hours on top of their schooling) and expect to retire in their early 60's and enjoy a decade or so of being healthy enough to work but not required to do so.

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