site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   6209 thread views

Quality Contributions Report for December 2022

This is the Quality Contributions Roundup. It showcases interesting and well-written comments and posts from the period covered. If you want to get an idea of what this community is about or how we want you to participate, look no further (except the rules maybe--those might be important too).

As a reminder, you can nominate Quality Contributions by hitting the report button and selecting the "Actually A Quality Contribution!" option. Additionally, links to all of the roundups can be found in the wiki of /r/theThread which can be found here. For a list of other great community content, see here.

A few comments from the editor: first, sorry this is a little late, but you know--holidays and all. Furthermore, the number of quality contribution nominations seems to have grown a fair bit since moving to the new site. In fact, as I write this on January 5, there are already 37 distinct nominations in the hopper for January 2023. While we do occasionally get obviously insincere or "super upvote" nominations, the clear majority of these are all plausible AAQCs, and often quite a lot of text to sift through.

Second, this month we have special AAQC recognition for @drmanhattan16. This readthrough of Paul Gottfried’s Fascism: Career of a Concept began in the Old Country, and has continued to garner AAQC nominations here. It is a great example of the kind of effort and thoughtfulness we like to see. Also judging by reports and upvotes, a great many of us are junkies for good book reviews. The final analysis was actually posted in January, but it contains links to all the previous entries as well, so that's what I'll put here:

Now: on with the show!

Quality Contributions Outside the CW Thread

@Tollund_Man4:

@naraburns:

@Bernd:

@FiveHourMarathon:

@RandomRanger:

@Iconochasm:

Contributions for the week of December 5, 2022

@zeke5123:

@ymeskhout:

@FiveHourMarathon:

@gattsuru:

@Southkraut:

@Bernd:

@problem_redditor:

@FCfromSSC:

@urquan:

@gemmaem:

Sexulation

@RococoBasilica:

@problem_redditor:

Holocaustianity

@johnfabian:

@DaseindustriesLtd:

@SecureSignals:

Coloniazism

@gaygroyper100pct:

@screye:

@urquan:

@georgioz:

Contributions for the week of December 12, 2022

@SecureSignals:

@Titus_1_16:

@Dean:

@cjet79:

@JarJarJedi:

@gattsuru:

@YE_GUILTY:

@aqouta:

@HlynkaCG:

Contributions for the week of December 19, 2022

@MathiasTRex:

@To_Mandalay:

Robophobia

@gattsuru:

@IGI-111:

@NexusGlow:

Contributions for the week of December 26, 2022

@FCfromSSC:

@gattsuru:

@LacklustreFriend:

@DaseindustriesLtd:

20
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But a direct reading of the document supports the Revisionist case for the German plan.

It doesn't. Just read it. It's like 10 pages.

The different path was evacuation to the East.

And I am telling you, for the third time, that the protocol explicitly states what this "evacuation" entails:

  1. forced labour (p.7)

  2. which means that a majority will die (p.7)

  3. the survivors will have to be "treated" as not to serve as the "gamete of a new Jewish reconstruction" (p.8)

The Wannsee Conference was organized after Goering gave a famous order to Reinhard Heydrich “to submit to me as soon as possible a general plan of the administrative material and financial measures necessary for carrying out the desired final solution of the Jewish question.” Reinhard Heydrich was killed by ;artisans during the war.

But after the war Goering flatly denied the exterminationist interpretation of the "final solution" in the above context:

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you still say neither Hitler nor you knew of the policy to exterminate the Jews?

GOERING: As far as Hitler is concerned, I have said I do not think so. As far as I am concerned, I have said that I did not know, even approximately, to what extent these things were taking place.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You did not know to what degree, but you knew there was a policy that aimed at the extermination of the Jews?

GOERING: No, a policy of emigration, not liquidation of the Jews. I knew only that there had been isolated cases of such perpetrations.

The Wannsee Protocol explicitly establishes that this was the planned proposal:

Chief of the Security Police and of the SD, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich, reported that the Reich Marshal [Goering] had appointed him delegate for the preparations for the final solution of the Jewish question in Europe"

The Reichsfuhrer-SS [Himmler] and the Chief of the German Police (Chief of the Security Police and the SD) [Heydrich] was entrusted with the official central handling of the final solution of the Jewish question without regard to geographic borders.

The Chief of the Security Police and the SD then gave a short report of the struggle which has been carried on thus far against this enemy, the essential points being the following:

a) the expulsion of the Jews from every sphere of life of the German people,

b) the expulsion of the Jews from the living space of the German people.

In carrying out these efforts, an increased and planned acceleration of the emigration of the Jews from Reich territory was started, as the only possible present solution.

By order of the Reich Marshal [Goering], a Reich Central Office for Jewish Emigration was set up in January 1939 and the Chief of the Security Police and SD was entrusted with the management. Its most important tasks were

a) to make all necessary arrangements for the preparation for an increased emigration of the Jews,

b) to direct the flow of emigration,

c) to speed the procedure of emigration in each individual case.

[...]

In the meantime the Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German Police had prohibited emigration of Jews due to the dangers of an emigration in wartime and due to the possibilities of the East.

III. Another possible solution of the problem has now taken the place of emigration, i.e. the evacuation of the Jews to the East, provided that the Fuehrer gives the appropriate approval in advance.

Here, the protocols explicitly identify the "evacuation of the Jews to the East" as the planned proposal. This is also how Goering describes the plan. This is also how Lina Heydrich, Reinhard Heydrich's wife (the one who organized the Wannsee Conference and appointed by Goering) denied the Holocaust and said the plan was to implement a 'territorial solution’ as described in the protocols.

The Wannsee Conference makes no mention of a gas chamber extermination policy whatsoever. A direct reading supports the Revisionist case, and historians have to rely on the accusation of camouflaged language and euphemism.

Josef Bühler, the deputy governor of the General Government and attendee of the Wannsee Conference testified at the IMT as a defence witness for Hans Frank, and claimed that the purpose of Wannsee was to discuss the forced resettlement of Jews in the northeast of Europe:

I ask you now, did the Governor General send you to Berlin for that conference; and if so, what was the subject of the conference?

BUEHLER: Yes, I was sent to the conference and the subject of the conference was the Jewish problem. I might say in advance that from the beginning Jewish questions in the Government General were considered as coming under the jurisdiction of the Higher SS and Police Leader and handled accordingly. The handling of Jewish matters by the state administration was supervised and merely tolerated by the Police.

During the years 1940 and 1941 incredible numbers of people, mostly Jews, were brought into the Government General in spite of the objections and protests of the Governor General and his administration. This completely unexpected, unprepared for, and undesired bringing in of the Jewish population from other territories put the administration of the Government General in an extremely difficult position.

Accommodating these masses, feeding them, and caring for their health-combating epidemics for instance-almost, or rather, definitely overtaxed the capacity of the territory. Particularly threatening was the spread of typhus, not only in the ghettos but also among the Polish population and the Germans in the Government General. It appeared as if that epidemic would spread even to the Reich and to the Eastern Front.

At that moment Heydrich's invitation to the Governor General was received. The conference was originally supposed to take place in November 1941, but it was frequently postponed and it may have taken place in February 1942.

Because of the special problems of the Government General I had asked Heydrich for a personal interview and he received me. On that occasion, among many other things, I described in particular the catastrophic conditions which had resulted from the arbitrary bringing of Jews into the Government General. He replied that for this very reason he had invited the Governor General to the conference. The Reichsfuehrer SS, so he said, had received an order from the Fuehrer to round up all the Jews of Europe and to settle them in the Northeast of Europe, in Russia. I asked him whether this meant that the further arrival of Jews in the Government General would cease, and whether the hundreds of thousands of Jews who had been brought into the Government General without the permission of the Governor General would be moved out again. Heydrich promised me both these things. Heydrich said furthermore that the Fuehrer had given an order that Theresienstadt, a town in the Protectorate, would become a reservation in which old and sick Jews, and weak Jews who could not stand the strains of resettlement, were to be accommodated in the future. This information left me definitely convinced that the resettlement of the Jews, if not for the sake of the Jews, then for the sake of the reputation and prestige of the German people, would be carried out in a humane fashion. The removal of the Jews from the Government General was subsequently carried out exclusively by the Police....

I am getting incredibly annoyed by your evasive tactics. Nothing of what you wrote adresses my point, namely what the so-called "evacuation" was expected to entail, as described by the Wannsee minutes, pages 7-8, and that, furthermore, this "evacuation" is explicitly introduced in the protocol as an alternative to expulsion efforts.

We already know that this plan was called an "evacuation". That is not new (in fact, I mention it in my very first reply) and is about as good an argument as saying that North Korea is a democratic people's republic because of its name. I am also not surprised that war criminals would deny their war crimes. The main issue still stands. Here again quoted for your convenience. Stop evading, adress the issue.

And I am telling you, for the third time, that the protocol explicitly states what this "evacuation" entails:

forced labour (p.7)

which means that a majority will die (p.7)

the survivors will have to be "treated" as not to serve as the "gamete of a new Jewish reconstruction" (p.8)

Let's recap then. Historians claim that the "Final Solution" denoted the extermination of the Jews, using mostly gas chambers disguised as shower rooms. Historians furthermore claim that the Wannsee Conference stands head and shoulders above other documents in proving the intent of the "final solution."

But if you actually press the issue, you learn that there is no mention of gas chamber extermination whatsoever in any of the Protocols, and that the Protocols explicitly describe the "final solution" as the evacuation of the Jews to the East. This is what Revisionists say the "final solution" was, and this is what the document says. The best the mainstream can do to support the "Wannsee Conference" legend is cite a couple paragraphs in a 10-page document that predicts labor attrition but otherwise makes no reference to gas chamber extermination. Here they lean very heavily on the accusation of "euphemism and coded language", because the language itself supports the Revisionist case.

Even in the most comprehensive, top-secret direct report from Globocnik to Himmler after the major resettlement actions, there was no reference or allusion whatsoever to mass gas chamber extermination. The "so-called evacuation" was discussed as an evacuation. So To_Mandalay, who relies very heavily on the trustworthiness and accuracy of NKVD documents which were released decades after the fact by the FSB, accuses the SS of using deception to hide their treatment of the Jews in their own top-secret internal reports.

In addition to Globocnik's report, which identifies the "so-called evacuation" as an evacuation, there is also:

  • Hans Frank, the Governor General, who would have known without any doubt that the "so-called evacuation" was a euphemism but he denied any knowledge of that and testified to his understanding of a policy of resettlement and not extermination.

  • Josef Bühler, Frank's deputy, who attended the Wannsee Conference and testified to the fact that the conference was about the resettlement of the Jews and not the extermination of the Jews.

  • Goering himself, who gave the famous "final solution" order to Heydrich, but at Nuremberg flatly denied that this was a policy of extermination, and stated it was a policy of resettlement.

  • Oswald Pohl, who worked directly with Himmler and Globocnik on Operation Reinhardt, and also testified to his understanding of a policy of resettlement and not a secret policy of gas chamber extermination. And so did the rest of his organization that was involved in this initiative.

All of these high-level officials directly involved in these events and related documents would have known about the actual policy underneath the "so-called resettlement" but they all maintained that this was not euphemism, it was the actual plan. Historians rely on the confessions of lower-level officials extracted under torture or duress in show-trials after the war (in many cases, decades after the war), and the dubious testimony of Jewish eyewitnesses.

But the coup-de-grace is the debate on the physical evidence which you will notice none of my interlocutors want to touch with a 10 foot pole. They want to say that 900,000 people were gassed, buried, unburied, cremated, and reburied in a known location within a small camp in Poland. But they do not want to discuss the physical evidence for that claim, they are only interested in demographic studies and a paragraph here and there from the Wannsee Protocols.

They know that the biggest strength in the Revisionist critique lies in the technical arguments made by Revisionists, technical arguments which were proven true at the alleged Majdanek extermination camp and which mainstream historians will never acknowledge or try to answer.

You are disingeniously moving the goal posts because you cannot address my very simple point. The starting point of the discussion was not the claim "all or most Jews were murdered via gas chambers", it was your claim that:

There was no German plan for the physical extermination of world Jewry

To which I pointed out that there was, for Europe.

And no matter how much you try to avoid the issue, there is clear, explicit evidence, that there was a German plan to kidnap millions of Jews (and yes, this number is also in the document, p.5-7), murder them via forced labour, and "treat" the survivors. Your obsession with the fact that this murderous undertaking was euphemistically called an "evacuation" when the very document from which this nomenclature stems explicitly details its murderous implications is rather telling.

But since you are so keen on physical evidence, I'd like to ask you where the evidence of resettlement is. Where are the thousands of Eastern cities and villages to which the Jews were evacuated? And where are they and their descendants now?

And no matter how much you try to avoid the issue, there is clear, explicit evidence, that there was a German plan to kidnap millions of Jews (and yes, this number is also in the document, p.5-7), murder them via forced labour, and "treat" the survivors. Your obsession with the fact that this murderous undertaking was euphemistically called an "evacuation" when the very document from which this nomenclature stems explicitly details its murderous implications is rather telling.

So @SecureSignals are you going to continue to ignore this?

Why would I address it when you aren't even trying to defend mainstream historiography?

Mainstream historiography states that "evacuation" was a euphemism for "one-way ticket to homicidal gas chambers", where millions were allegedly murdered and buried in known locations- and precisely 0 of the mass graves allegedly associated with this secret plan have ever been excavated. You refuse to engage in any sort of debate for the physical evidence for that claim, like everyone else who has argued with me so far. And you furthermore try to take the non-mainstream position that "evacuation" was a euphemism for "murdered with forced labor."

You are quite the Revisionist already, since your proposal for the denotation of the "euphemism" stands in contradiction to mainstream historiography!

The Germans predicted high mortality with evacuation and labor, that's true. You can call that murderous, that's no sweat off my back. Although forced labor in the Soviet Union would have to be regarded as murderous as well. You could also call being conscripted and sent to the front line "murderous." You don't think the German, or Allied governments for that matter, would be aware of high mortality for conscripts being sent to the front line? "We will deploy workers here and we expect high mortality" is less murderous than conscription for active combat?

Documents show that these workers were very important for the war effort, and the German government was desperate to reduce the mortality rate in the concentration camps. The head of the WVHA sent orders to all the concentration camps demanding reductions in the mortality rate of workers (during the period when the German government was allegedly murdering them in gas chambers).

Yes, the German government deported the Jews and concentrated them in camps where they were made to perform labor. That is very different from the allegations in mainstream historiography- of chemical slaughterhouses where millions were murdered in makeshift gas chambers disguised as shower rooms and buried on-site, which you aren't even bothering to defend in your comments.

The reason it's not a euphemism is because evacuation actually meant evacuation, it wasn't code for "murdered in gas chambers" as claimed in mainstream historiography.

Documents show that these workers were very important for the war effort

Because Germans were famous for not-terrible-treatment of conquered areas where everyone had first-hand experience of USSR.

Oh wait, they were so terrible that people as result initially welcomed USSR as liberators (despite that things then went almost as bad as "liberation" by Third Reich). And put plenty of effort into sabotaging German war effort to help USSR.

Germans had hilariously poor treatment of potential recruits and workers, they actually believed that they as subhumans and failed to even pretend otherwise.

Oh wait, they were so terrible that people as result initially welcomed USSR as liberators (despite that things then went almost as bad as "liberation" by Third Reich). And put plenty of effort into sabotaging German war effort to help USSR.

This is hilariously backwards. Ukranians volunteered for the German War effort at such a rate that Germany had one of the largest foreign volunteer armies in history, composed mostly of slavs and Soviet citizens. IIRC it was something like a million Soviet citizens volunteered for the German war effort. The legacy of eager Ukranian support for Germany lingers to this day.

What happened was as the Soviets advanced an enormous number of people fled to west and caused overcrowding and catastrophic conditions as Germany was being destroyed from all sides. Then the Allies roll in and say "look at all the people the Germans murdered", which fine, if you want to say that they were under German custody so dying in any way counts as "murder", that is up to you. But that isn't the essence of the Holocaust lore, that essence are the matters that none of you want to talk about because you know the case for it is very weak.

It is well known that the Germans gave some prisoners at Auschwitz the option to either remain in the camp to be liberated by the Soviets or flee west with them. Many chose to go with the Germans, if you can believe that, with Elie Wiesel being among the prisoners who chose to go with the Germans rather than wait for the Russians.

More comments

Why would I address it when you aren't even trying to defend mainstream historiography?

So you are agreeing that Germans murdered millions of Jews, just not with gas chambers?

I am not interested in where you moved the goalposts for the umphteenth time. I am no mainstream historian, I am no historian at all. I am, however, interested in this eyebrow-raising claim of yours:

There was no German plan for the physical extermination of world Jewry

But there was, for Europe. There were plans to "rake through Europe, West to East" (p.8), to round up "roughly 11 million" (p.5) Jews, subject them to forced labour, during the course of which the majority was expected to die (p.7) AND "treat" the survivors so they would not serve as the "gamete of a new Jewish reconstruction" (p.8).

It is this second part that you once again ignored, willfully, for the fifth time. I ask you again: what do you think "treatment" means in this context?

This, my dear SS, is no mere labour expedition, this is planned genocide. How many of the victims that were rounded up during this process later died in gas chamber is immaterial for this discussion.

You can call that murderous, that's no sweat off my back.

I call that genocidal.

When historians say that the Germans had a plan to exterminate the Jews, what they mean is that the Germans secretly decided that the final solution to the Jewish Question was to murder them all. It is claimed that this murder took place mostly with gas chambers disguised as shower rooms. These are the core claims that Revisionists contest.

It is strange to accuse Revisionists of "moving the goalposts" when you refuse to defend the core elements of the mainstream narrative. You are of course free to not take the mainstream position and propose your own historical interpretation, and that makes you a Revisionist. Congratulations.

You are trying to say "the concentration of Jews in labor camps is an extermination plan". You are free to say that but it has no relation to what the "Holocaust" actually is. The translation I am reading says:

The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)

This passage clearly means that they are not to be allowed back into Europe, but it is obviously vague on how this is supposed to happen. Given the continuity of the Wannsee Protocols with the Havaara Agreement and Madagascar Plan, it is clear that that "treated accordingly" would mean "moved away and not allowed back in." You are free to use your imagination for what "treated accordingly" is supposed to mean, but you are only proving how weak your case is for using the most vague parts of the document as the best evidence for your claims.

Obviously this question was not even in the scope of the conference.

You all rely on:

  • Desperately avoiding debate for the physical evidence of what you claim happened.

  • Assuming euphemism and coded language in hundreds of documents across a sprawling bureaucracy with an extremely impressive compliance... not to mention the confusion that would be caused by using "resettlement" as a code word when even historians admit there were all kinds of resettlements of people that were not euphemism.

  • Citing a few sentences from a document, where the document as a whole supports the Revisionist case, take something vague like the words "treated accordingly" and use that as the best evidence you can come up with for your interpretation of the document.

This is one of the reasons the mainstream has generally moved away from emphasizing Wannsee Protocols so much... when you actually read it and consider the context then you're just left desperately pointing to something like "look, it says 'treated accordingly'!" while the document as a whole is simply a verification of what Revisionists are claiming.

More comments

explicitly describe the "final solution" as the evacuation of the Jews to the East

See https://www.themotte.org/post/297/quality-contributions-report-for-december-2022/51776?context=8#context

Even if you interpret it in painfully positive way it still has explicitly (1) A majority of people will not survive this (2) The survivors will have to be "treated" as not to serve as a "gamete" for the reconstruction of European Judaism (3) Mixed children will, with some exceptions, be expelled, forced into "evacuation", or sterilised.

Calling it evacuation is extremely misleading and you know it. I bet that you would be really unhappy if you and your family would be "evacuated" in this way.

I bet that you would be really unhappy if you and your family would be "evacuated" in this way.

Of course I would be unhappy about it. I might be motivated to lie about my experiences in order to inflict maximum damage on my oppressors, and I'm sure the Soviet Union or Steven Spielberg would have been happy to use my eyewitness testimony in their investigation and show-trials and Oscar-winning films.

The "final solution" was the expulsion of Jews from Europe. So the Protocol's emphasis that Jews cannot be allowed to reestablish themselves in Europe after the war is 100% consistent with that interpretation. Why would they expel them just for them to come back after the war? That doesn't mean they are going to be exterminated. On the other hand, the long-standing Nazi support for the idea of a Jewish state as well as documents proving the Madagascar Plan was still under serious consideration by Hitler himself well into the war... these well-documented plans were fully compatible with the proclamation you are trying to claim is indicative of an extermination plan.

Letter by Franz Rademacher, Head of AA Referat D III (Jewish Affairs), to Harold Bielfeld, Head of AA Pol. X (Africa and Colonial Affairs), February 10, 1942.

In August 1940 I gave you for your files the plan for the final solution of the Jewish Problem, drafted by my office, for which purpose the Madagascar Island was to be demanded from France in the Peace Treaty, while the Reich Security Main Office was to be charged with the actual execution of the task. In accordance with the plan, Gruppenführer Heydrich has been ordered by the Führer to carry out the solution of the Jewish Problem in Europe.

In the meantime the war against the Soviet Union has offered the possibility of putting other territories at our disposal for the final solution. The Führer accordingly has decided that the Jews shall not be deported to Madagascar but to the East. Therefore it is no longer necessary that Madagascar be taken into consideration for the final solution.

Again, the direct reading is what Revisionists claim while historians rely on allegations of coded language.

The "final solution" was the expulsion of Jews from Europe.

Except that by 1942, when the Wannsee conference took place, this effort had been abandonded. In fact, expulsion was banned. All of this is explicitly described in the Wannsee protocols.

In fact, you quoted the part of the document mentioning that expulsion had been banned in another reply to me, so you must have read it. Why the amnesia?

You have misunderstood the documents. Voluntary emigration was banned for security reasons. Involuntary deportation was the final solution.

Yes. Involuntary deportation to different parts of Europe during the course of which the majority of victims was expected to die and the survivors would have to be "treated". That is very different from your claim that the Endlösung means "expulsion from Europe".

What do you think "treated" means in this context? If you wanted to be extremely charitable, you could argue that it means sterilisation. But I'd like you to actually make that claim.

Boy, it sure would've been a big coup if somehow, someone had managed to get a hold of the guy who prepared those minutes and asked some questions about it. Maybe have a big trial or something, I'm just spitballing. Then we could really get to the bottom of this. Too bad it never happened.

I would like to note that this entire time Mr. SS has been using the exact "levering" tactic I wrote about in the comment that sparked this whole chain of discussion. Of course it's all disingenuous, and there's ultimately no end to it because the impetus isn't just a bullish sort of contrarianism but also (rather obviously) a hate for Jews. There's no way to win on logic or a sound argument because that's not what put him in his position.

Boy, it sure would've been a big coup if somehow, someone had managed to get a hold of the guy who prepared those minutes and asked some questions about it. Maybe have a big trial or something, I'm just spitballing. Then we could really get to the bottom of this. Too bad it never happened.

I don't think there is much point to getting into the trial of Eichmann when our dear SS hasn't even read the Wannsee minutes. Which is awfully suspicious, given his encyclopedic knowledge of WWII trivia.

(rather obviously) a hate for Jews.

Quite 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