site banner
PaperclipPerfector  14d ago (text post)   32164 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I can't be the only one getting tired of the same couple topics, so here's some comparatively lighthearted fare. Well — if one can call lighthearted anything involving a first-world nation flirting with plague.

https://x.com/lara_e_brown/status/1909607333090513144

The Birmingham bin strike has reached its fifth week. Rubbish is piled high, rats are infesting the streets, and experts are concerned about Weil's disease.

🧵on how the Equality Act contributed to this, and how it may cause similar strikes across the country.

1/ In 2012, 174 former Birmingham Council employees brought an equal pay appeal to the Supreme Court.

They argued Birmingham City Council had provided lower pay to women in predominantly female jobs (cooks, cleaners & care staff) compared to refuse collectors and road workers.

Long story short: The Birmingham City Council employed (employed) garbagemen, roadworkers, and grave diggers, who naturally were mostly men. They also employ cooks, cleaners, and caregivers for the elderly; these are mostly women.

At some point someone noticed that the former set of workers tended to earn more than the latter. A lawsuit was launched which argued that this was obvious sexism and a violation of the Equality Act since, in aggregate, male employees were getting paid more than female employees. The lawsuit succeeded, which spawned countless followup lawsuits. Any woman working in a job which paid less than a typically-male job was suddenly able to sue for damages, and consequently the Council has paid out over a billion pounds in equal pay compensation. The Council estimates that it is likely to have to pay an additional 800 million or so pounds before the thing has run its course.

Naturally, they also had to fix the problem, and so slashed the pay of garbagemen, road workers, grave diggers, and so on to match the female average. (Raising female pay to the male level would have been untenable before paying out >£1B, and certainly isn't possible now, as they're already basically bankrupted.) Unfortunately, it seems that people aren't interested in doing those jobs for so much less pay, and have declined to continue.

Result: Ever-growing piles of garbage all over the place, leading to a massive population of disease-bearing rodents and other pests. Weil's disease and hantavirus are suddenly major concerns. And, as the average daily temperature rises, the already-unspeakable miasma is getting worse. And no one can do anything about it, since, afaict, it's not allowed for the private sector to 'compete' with the government.

No one's even arguing that it's different pay for the same job. It's universally agreed that it's different pay for different jobs. However, the rhetoric here has to do with the value of the job not economically, but in some ineffable moral sense. Supporters of the move argue that surely the 'value' of the predominantly-female jobs must be the same as the predominantly-male jobs. To think otherwise would apparently imply that female labor is less 'valuable' than male labor, which in turn would imply that women are less 'valuable' than men.

What can one say in reply? It's one of those things where all one can do is shake one's head. Especially in Birmingham, where anyone considering pointing out some obvious considerations on the matter is liable to be charged with misogyny. And modern polite white society doesn't seem to have any kind of defense against women's tears.

All in all it's one of the clearest examples I've ever seen of wokeness destroying a society's ability to perform basic functions.

Birmingham is, FWIW, the economic and cultural center of the Midlands region, and Britain's second-largest city after London. Now it's facing problems which sound like something out of its medieval era.

And I have to wonder: if it happened there, can it happen in London?

To add some of my own commentary, this seems to me an example of the impossibility of compromise with wokeness. There can be no detente. Wokeness can never rest until it has erased all practical distinctions between human beings, and one generation's gracious, ostensibly common-sensical compromise ('equal pay for the same job') not only doesn't address the real problem but serves as a springboard for the next generation's 'equal pay for different jobs', e.g.

The fundamental relationship between men and women hasn't been harmonious since Eden at the latest, but it has at least remained functional throughout most of history. When I see the above, it occurs to me that one side effect is even fewer men able to generate enough income to provide for a family or maintain the respect of potential mates. Another straw on the camel's back.

The funniest solution would be to lower the Supreme Court's pay and perks to match the garbagemen and see how quickly they change their minds. It seems they're on £226,193 a year which is a very, very high salary for the UK. Ironically Brave search gives me this as explanation for the judge's salaries:

These salaries are relatively high compared to other professions, reflecting the demanding nature of the role and the importance of upholding the rule of law.

This is very similar to a 2024 case against a UK clothing chain Next. Equality Act lawsuit, but this time "underpaid" and mostly female retail works vs evenly split gender warehouse workers. Alex Tabarrok from marginal revolution has a good write up.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/09/equality-act-2010.html

The court used or accepted the use of a rubric to determine if the jobs were equal in value. 11 categories, each of equal weight. The retail job scored 440, the warehouse job scored 340. Which was enough for the court to the two jobs were equal in value. Next owes 30 million in damages and must equalize pay.

The 340 vs 440 score actually suggests the courts think that the retail job is harder than the warehouse job.

Apparently, the company had offered all of its retail employees the opportunity to transfer to the warehouse, and one of the plaintiffs had turned it down because the warehouse is loud and dirty and has very limited autonomy, and the only way she would ever take a job there is if... it offered a lot more money over her retail position.

This morning I sought out and read two pieces on this news. The first was a short report from NPR which side stepped the Equal Pay Equality Act connection:

The Labour-run Birmingham City Council is effectively bankrupt because of a settlement over historic pay discrimination. As a result, it's had to make significant budget cuts of 300 million pounds ($383 million) over two years and is only providing services required by law, including waste collection.

The second was a BBC piece which more thoroughly reports on the immediate union dispute. The BBC article also more thoroughly avoids mentioning the equal pay lawsuit that set off the crisis. I do believe I am better informed by reading it, but only because I already read the broader context elsewhere. If I search "equal pay" on the BBC's website I can find articles like this one from a week ago, but the connection is almost a side note. It's a reality, not something to get upset about.

That leads me to a culture war observation: there is no Root Causeism to be found in these articles. Surely this is a case where the Root Cause is clear and could be addressed by fixing the legislation to avoid such judgments. If a city doesn't pay out hundreds of millions of dollars because a judge interprets a law a certain way, then a city is better positioned to avoid giving trash men an 8k/yr pay cut.

There are no professors, experts, or city officials quoted regarding the incredible judgment that led the city to the crisis. My expectation, were this a story on a knife crime crisis, the BBC would have criminologists to point at poverty or something. This is a union fight story, not a legislative or judicial horror show story, and those may be two different things in the UK's information environment. I feel demoralized thinking about it and I don't even live there.

The Birmingham City Council employed (employed) garbagemen, roadworkers, and grave diggers, who naturally were mostly men. They also employ cooks, cleaners, and caregivers for the elderly; these are mostly women.

I think that one aspect of this is that not all jobs are equal in prestige. Presumably, all things being equal, being a dish washer will lead to more success on the dating market than being a garbageman. So the demand-supply equilibrium for the hourly rates of a garbageman are higher than for a dish washer. The invisible hand of the market saves us yet again.

This is not restricted by gender in any way. A classical low prestige occupation (especially at low wage levels) is prostitution. Basically anyone would rather work eight hours as a supermarket cashier than have sex for money for the same period of time. Thus the hourly wages for a sex worker are much higher than for a cashier.

Another non-monetary benefit of a job is potential for advancement. The dish washer can level up to cook. The garbageman can not really expect to advance much from experience, being the one who drives the truck is more a matter of having the right driving license than being an expert in garbage collection operations. I am doubtful that leveling up your sex skill will significantly increase your income from sex work. By contrast, the cashier might plausibly get promoted to assistant manager at some point.

This is the woke thing where an unequal outcome is taken as an indication for foul play. As usual, it is bullshit. Any female cook can decide to make it big as a garbagewoman. Any nurse-in-training can decide that she would prefer to deal with the elderly in a more permanent fashion and become a grave-digger. If they don't, this does not mean that the system is unfair.

Not disagreeing with your general point, but ‘dishwasher’ isn’t really a higher-status job than ‘garbage man’- although it probably has more flexible hours. That seems like a much more relevant difference, but maybe the UK employment market is different.

Upvoting not just for the very sensible analysis but for "deal with the elderly in a more permanent fashion".

Another non-monetary benefit of a job is potential for advancement. The dish washer can level up to cook. The garbageman can not really expect to advance much from experience, being the one who drives the truck is more a matter of having the right driving license than being an expert in garbage collection operations. I am doubtful that leveling up your sex skill will significantly increase your income from sex work. By contrast, the cashier might plausibly get promoted to assistant manager at some point.

Driving the truck is determined by experience and seniority in garbage collecting - it's not much easier than being the guy who gets out when necessary, but it is easier. But your point still stands because there's nowhere to go from there - you are either the guy who drives garbage around all day or you are the guy who drives around with garbage all day. You can't collect garbage so well you get promoted to management, not these days.

Does driving the truck not open up possibilities of non-garbage truck driving?

When I was doing IT for the council here it was the other way around - everyone started off in the tip or the depot and was trying to get a job in the trucks. Driving the truck waa the easiest job there, because you never had to do heavy lifting.

I meant my comment as "does driving the garbage truck not open up opportunities for truck driving in general?"

Ah I was thinking of advancement strictly within the same company.

Yeah, my hyphenation was done intentionally, but I was afraid it might be missed.

Yeah it's interesting actually - because of the way the motte is displayed on my phone, it placed "Does driving the truck not open up possibilities of non-" on the first line and "garbage truck driving?" on the second, and due to that separation I intuitively read it as non 'garbage truck driving', so same business, but not in a truck. But when I quoted your post after you explained what you meant it printed non-garbage truck driving on the same line, and it was obvious what you originally meant. Sorry for my confusion.

Anyway it does for sure, but council truck driving is nothing like private truck driving. Despite being the most precious person I know when it comes to smells, I'd be happy to get a job driving a garbage truck if I was out of work. But you'd never convince me to drive trucks interstate or for earthworking. The amount of money you get for the work and risk is completely out of whack.

Even lower management is probably hard-gated by a degree requirement that is likely out of reach for the sorts of people who become garbage men.

But my experience in blue collar jobs is that there’s probably a few jobs like ‘route lead’ or ‘shop coordinator’ which are management in all but name and basically the senior non-coms of the place. Those jobs are probably available to garbage truck drivers after 10 years or so.

Sorry, I meant my comment more as "does driving the garbage truck not open up opportunities for truck driving in general?"

And modern polite white society doesn't seem to have any kind of defense against women's tears.

This refusal to work is that defense.

Weil's disease and hantavirus are suddenly major concerns. And, as the average daily temperature rises, the already-unspeakable miasma is getting worse.

Then the way I see it, the women have two choices- they can deal with it themselves (unlikely), or they can accept that their unwillingness to do certain types of labor makes that labor inherently more valuable.

I expect either forced arbitration or military action (financial or otherwise) will come next, perhaps both at the same time; this is a threat to the Two-Tier English order. (Ever wonder why China censors discussion of 'lying flat'? Now you know).

Uh, the result of forcing them to go back to work with a pay cut will be work-to-rule at a deliberately slow pace. This will not get garbage off the streets.

Ok, so forced arbitration then military action.

I think the current English order is evil enough to order them shot as a motivator if no alternative can be found; whether the soldiers actually pull the triggers when so ordered is another matter.

You’d start with the police, actually. The British unarmed police, many of them female, tasked with arresting physical laborers for not working quickly enough. This will go very badly and build the kind of sympathy which makes deploying regimental system armies against their social equals dangerous enough for Westminster to think twice about it, and possibly call sympathy strikes.

Like the structure of the British army makes it very bad for that kind of operation because the soldiers are loyal to their noncoms over their commanders; commissioned officers have less ability to issue unpopular orders in the breach without the support of the sergeants. And I’m given to understand that the British army is much less diverse than the American one; there’s a reason it wasn’t deployed to Liverpool.

Such an action is sufficiently unprecedented in the Anglosphere anyways that it would make senior political leaders jumpy enough to actually think long enough to consider the mutiny angle.

There is no need for any of this when the British government can just hire Polish garbage men (inventing a visa category if necessary, and it is barely even necessary) to do the job.

Well yes, there is likely a ‘scab’ option before getting on the escalation ladder to begin with. But the escalation ladder does not begin with military force, and military force is likely enough to go badly, that it would be unlikely anyways.

You left out a third option: raise taxes on the entire country to equalize compensation across the different job classes. You even get to hit highly productive men (and women) more, creating even more equality.

Do this process enough, and you can eventually make sure part time yoga instructors get paid the same as the top researchers at DeepMind!

There's also the fourth option, of doing pretty much nothing and then complaining on BlueSky about the conservative incel wreckers for causing the Fourth Bubonic Plague.

And I have to wonder: if it happened there, can it happen in London?

Garbage collection is handled individually by all 32 boroughs, so hopefully not at the same time.

In addition, almost every local authority in the UK except Birmingham has contracted out rubbish collection. Although the original reason for doing this was to bust the unions, it has the added advantage that binmen are not available to predatory lawyers as a comparator group for an equal pay claim.

I mean, not doubting that the union makes this easier, but if a private garbage collector decided to cut salaries by that much, they wouldn’t be able to collect garbage due to labor problems. In a way unions actually make fixing the problem easier- you can give them the number they agree on and everyone’s back to work.

Why not just rotate in the cooks and cleaners into the garbagewomen roles, since they're equivalent jobs?

This would be especially good if you swapped in the elderly caregivers into the gravedigger roles. It aligns incentives: if your care receiver dies, you dig the grave for them.

Obviously this situation is retarded- did you expect blue collar workers doing nasty, physically demanding, unpleasant, and not well esteemed work were in it for the exercise? Self-fulfillment?

I suspect these coullions literally did think that garbage collectors and grave diggers went to work because they’d be bored otherwise. It certainly seems like the class behind wokeness has no concept of ‘people go to work so they aren’t homeless beggars’.

Individual citizens can call their council members and burn their trash(yeah, it probably takes a ‘not getting the plague’ license). Not a lot to be done though.

Heard a piece on the radio about this the other day. IIRC apparently what happened was they were paid equally per their contracted hours but the binmen were allowed to go home when their work was finished while the cooks and cleaners had to stay until the end of their shifts. The cooks etc then sued the council for pay discrimination because they were doing more hours active work for the same pay.

It's arguable that the binmen had finished their work, so why sit around the yard drinking tea just to fill out the hours. It's also arguable that the streets are never perfectly clean so why couldn't they pick up a broom and get to work refilling the bins if they've got a couple of hours left, they're not being paid to drink tea or leave early. Obviously at that point they stop working so hard because they don't have the incentive to finish early any more. At some point the council propose reducing either the number of binmen or their hours (and resulting pay) and you get a strike.

This is one of those things where I assume it can't be as bad as it sounds. I skimmed through 5 or 6 articles on the strike and only one of them mentioned the details of the equal pay ruling in 2012. If you just looked at the current articles, you'd never know the underlying issue.

So then I asked GPT4o for some context. The city is forced to deal with the costs and have tried to find reasonable solutions but the union is understandably not into the removal of higher paying roles and cuts to wages down the line for people that take those affected positions. The roles that are in question (bin men, street cleaning, parks - all outdoor jobs AFAIK) were deemed to receive higher than market compensation during that equal pay case due to union negotiated bonuses and regular OT hours. Those rates were hard to reduce as you would expect. I couldn't find any real hard evidence of the magnitude of all of this but it sounds like par for the course for long standing union jobs like this.

I did some more digging though and the real meat is the 2012 case which hinged on the legal principal of "equal value". According to 4o:

Legal Foundation:

Under the UK’s Equal Pay Act 1970 (and later the Equality Act 2010), women and men are entitled to equal pay for: Like work (same or broadly similar), Work rated as equivalent, or Work of equal value—even if the jobs are different, so long as they require comparable effort, skill, and responsibility.

What “Equal Value” Meant in This Case:

The women bringing the case—clerical, care, cleaning, and catering staff—argued that their work, though different in nature, required:

Comparable levels of skill and decision-making,

Similar responsibility and effort,

And that their roles contributed equally to the functioning of the council.

The tribunal agreed, finding that the systematic undervaluation of traditionally female roles, particularly through lack of access to bonuses and enhancements, violated the principle of equal value. Key Implications:

The tribunal rejected the argument that physical hardship or market tradition justified pay differences on their own.

It emphasized that job evaluation studies—not tradition or union negotiations—must guide pay parity.

It also showed that indirect discrimination can occur even in the absence of explicit exclusion or bias, through structures that consistently reward one gender over another.

It's noted that the female-dominated roles include more flexible hours, less physically demanding work, less exposure to the weather, later start times and shorter expected working hours. But those things would not be taken into consideration, except that those are factors that made those roles more appealing to women and that these differences in working conditions are part of the reason for the gender divide. In other words: the higher paid jobs are harder, lower status, less flexible. That means they have to pay more and they are more likely to be held by men. And because the easier, more flexible roles are filled by more women, but the "value" they create is the same, they must be paid the same amount.

I'm sure those male-dominate roles are overpaid to some degree due to the union doing what unions do. fair. But they don't seem to care about the real reasons for the pay difference. It's wild.

Even in non-union Texas, with strong right-to-work laws and a flat ban on public sector unions, you’d have gotten the same result.

These people are making me side with the longshoreman’s union.

I wonder what percentage of Brummies think they would lose a fight with one of the many rats crawling on their streets.

I can't believe these people used to rule the world.

Perhaps it's time to start bestowing quests offering opportunities to low-level PCs children and the unemployed. Collect ten rat rails in exchange for a few coins and rep with the City Council.

Eventually, the pied piper will, after the city refuses to pay him because it would be gender unequal, lead the children into starting libertarian direct-action groups which establish an ancap utopia in which privatized courts assess fines on homeowners who don’t pay for their garbage to be hauled off.

Relevant Terry Pratchett:

Shortly before the Patrician came to power there was a terrible plague of rats. The city council countered it by offering twenty pence for every rat tail. This did, for a week or two, reduce the number of rats—and then people were suddenly queueing up with tails, the city treasury was being drained, and no one seemed to be doing much work. And there still seemed to be a lot of rats around. Lord Vetinari had listened carefully while the problem was explained, and had solved the thing with one memorable phrase which said a lot about him, about the folly of bounty offers, and about the natural instinct of Ankh-Morporkians in any situation involving money: “Tax the rat farms.”

Inspired, no doubt, by the (perhaps not true) story of the British offering bounties for cobras in India.

GNU Terry Pratchett.

And the thread is full of people saying the decision is perfectly reasonable and that "bin men" are overpaid, e.g. "Mollie"

Bin men no longer have physically manual jobs. They wheel a bin from the curb to a lorry which the householder (often a woman) has dragged down stairs or along a gunnel.

And yet women weren't signing up in droves for the job when it paid so much better. I can't see why?

Seems entirely believable that men are more willing than women to suck it up and do a "gross" job even if it has gotten much less taxing in terms of sheer physical effort. I expect there's more male sewage inspectors than female, too, even if there's no lifting involved whatsoever.

Did you just equivocate between "male/man" and "female/woman"? Spicy.

Some did! Lost the source but I read that something like 20% of the garbage workers were women, though life experience has taught me that they were probably not actually doing the same work as the men. Can't help but wonder how all of this occurs to the women who were willing and able to do the job. Their perspective hasn't been represented anywhere that I've found.

That would surprise me. I have literally never seen a bin-woman in my life.

Although the Birmingham case got the same result as one involving the clothing retailer Next. In that case, the shop-floor staff were getting paid less than the staff in the warehouse. The funny thing is, for Next, women were a majority in both areas. However, since the female majority was smaller in the warehouse, the tribunal ruled there was a case to answer (while also admitting that there was no actual discrimination happening, and that the jobs weren't the same).

It baffles me that these tribunals have the power to just dictate what jobs should pay.

Interestingly, Next, which is genuinely led by one of the best businessmen in the world (and I mean that without reservation, turning a mediocre British clothing retailer into an extraordinarily profitable and resilient operation) mostly solved the issue by rotating staff between the warehouse and storefront. If Simon Wolfson were dictator of England…well, it would be better managed, for sure.

It baffles me that these tribunals have the power to just dictate what jobs should pay.

I think this is the part of the story that's more important than wokeness or whatever; that ideological judges have such power in determining policy.

And one that could genuinely change in the UK. Starmer clearly doesn't like quangos dictating policy (e.g. the Sentencing Council deciding that everybody except white men should get reduced sentences) so I can't imagine he'd be sympathetic to an employment tribunal casually bankrupting the UK's second city.

Is it true that Starmer doesn't like this sort of thing? AFAIK he only started acting tough on the sentencing council once it became an awkward political issue, and on a more abstract level he seems to believe any outcome is sacrosanct as long as it's been determined by a legal body of some description.

He seems to be opposed to excessive government getting in the way of his growth agenda/state capacity, and has told his cabinet to stop hiding behind quangos.

Of course, Labour gonna Labour, so they're still setting up new quangos and implementing new rules about diversity and stuff, so we'll see how it shakes out.

That's fair.

Their perspective hasn't been represented anywhere that I've found.

Yes, that's called "trans erasure". These women are performing opposite-, or rather trans-, gender roles- therefore, opinion discarded for doing work incompatible with one's gender.

Doubly so because they're gender traitors- again, traditionalist and progressive thought both agree that men owe women just for existing, so what are these women doing working, and why are they co-operating with men?

Don’t weakman, please.

(Raising female pay to the male level would have been untenable before paying out >£1B

Were the people who started the movement aware of this? I have to think anyone getting such a ball rolling is angling for higher salaries for the plaintiffs in the long term. Seems weird to bother otherwise. Why aren't the women going on strike too, and demanding to be paid as much as the men were before?

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