site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   27305 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 25, 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.

There's definitely strong selection bias in effect. The people who aren't hardcore fans are almost certainly not paying money for access.

Funnily enough, I personally think that the war in Afghanistan wasn't violent enough. If you can't solve your problems through violence, you're not applying enough violence. The American brass thought you could win against an insurgency by being nice, and that never gets you anywhere I'm afraid.

From my understanding, the US was willing to use drones to attack weddings to kill a few Taliban along with dozens of civilians. Are you arguing that they should have done more of that?

A classical counter-insurgency strategy is to figure out (or guess) where an insurgent was coming from, and then simply kill all of the people in their home village. Roughly since WW2, strategies of this kind are universally recognized as war crimes, however.

Besides, while this might deter secular insurgents, religious insurgents are often indifferent towards the life of their countrymen. See Hamas. So the way this strategy would have made peace in Afghanistan would have been through genocide.

The US had the technical capabilities to turn Afghanistan into a desert and call it "peace", but they thankfully did not have the political capabilities to do that.

Yes. I do think the US military should have been more ruthless. The British conquered Afghanistan and held it for a long time, at a time of far less technological disparity. A lump sum of competent ultraviolence often adds up to less net violence than a prolonged quagmire where you're desperately trying to use the bare minimum, below which you would straight up lose. And in the end, the US did lose.

The British successfully invaded Afghanistan multiple times, but never held it for prolonged periods. Which is probably what the US should have done.

There's this book, No Good Men Among the Living, which argues that the US successfully destroyed the Taliban in the invasion, but then stupid governance and our taking sides in the vast web of tribal politics brought it back.

So in every district Jan Muhammad appointed a Popalzai governor and police chief, or figures from closely related tribes. The trouble was, many of these communities had already chosen their own leaders during the waning days of the Taliban. In Khas Uruzgan, elders had elected as district governor an anti-Taliban personage from the mujahedeen era, a former school janitor named Tawildar Yunis (“Groundskeeper Yunis”). He was working out of the governor’s house, along with a locally elected police chief and other officials, collecting weapons from surrendering Talibs. But they were not Popalzais and, even worse, maintained political links to one of Jan Muhammad’s rivals from the civil war years. So Muhammad appointed a local Popalzai elder and friend of the Karzais, Abdul Qudus, as his governor. But Yunis refused to budge, the imprimatur of Khas Uruzgan elders lending his claims an undeniable air of legitimacy. Unswayed, Abdul Qudus then requisitioned the local school for himself and his coterie of followers, declaring that it was now the rightful governor’s residence and that it was his job to collect Taliban weapons. In response, Yunis appealed to everyone from Gul Agha Sherzai to President Karzai himself, but none were willing to wade into the growing mess. Tensions rose by the day. Jan Muhammad’s side began openly questioning Yunis’s anti-Taliban bona fides, throwing him into fits of rage. He returned the favor by declaring Jan Muhammad’s men soft on the Taliban.

The actual Taliban were perplexed. During the standoff, a trio of senior Taliban officials made their way to Khas Uruzgan to surrender to the new government: Tayeb Agha, an erudite, well-spoken twentysomething who had served as Mullah Omar’s personal secretary and adviser; former finance minister Agha Jan Mutassim, who had publicly rejected calls from Pakistani clerics to wage jihad against the Americans; and Health Minister Mullah Abbas, the official who had been responsible for recruiting Heela and other women to study as nurses and midwives. All three had been members of the Taliban since the movement’s inception. Their surrender should have been a political coup for the young Karzai government. But surrender to whom? Who was actually in charge?

And then the Americans, acting on bad information, stormed both 'government' offices in a nighttime raid, killing Abdul Qudus and his fellow officials (Yunis managed to escape and was never seen again). The three former Taliban guys decided that surrendering didn't seem like such a good idea and went back to Pakistan where they helped lead the new Taliban insurgency.

I don't really know anything about the history of Britain in Afghanistan, but it's worth noting that the Empire tended to operate on the Roman model - the incoming Brits put and keep an appropriate member of the local royal caste on the throne, we help keep things orderly, we invest to some extent and we make various rather one-sided trade deals.

The Americans (and probably the USSR) were hamstrung by being explicit regime-changers rather than 'you can keep things basically the same as they were, with us technically on top but generally hands-off'.

That's not a good comparison though. USSR also invaded it, and they lost. And then USA lost too. Like sure they could have won if they went full scorched earth, and decimated any civilian areas. But at that point it's a slaughter, it's not a war. There wouldn't be anything left to conquer.

And I think that if they were more ruthless, there would be far more attacks on the West too.

I'm think USA could've actually won if they were far more aggressive and stern handed, and focused into making it into a new state of USA, and not the half-assed version they did. But ultraviolence wouldn't be the answer.

The US didn't lose for lack of violence. If they'd chimp out, the Taliban could just hide, wait until it blows over, at atart taking shots once the guard is lowered again. The technological disparity is an American diaadvatage there, because the costs of mobilizing a modern army are higher than leaving some IEDs on the road.

The reason why they lost is that they got high on their own supply about muh freedom, democracy, and whatnot. In some inverse of "magical dirt theory" they thought that if you give Afghans and Iraqis a few western institutions, they will become westerners, and neglected basics like teaching them that they should fight for their own country.

The US probably could have destroyed the Taliban, but it would have involved getting into a war with a (supposedly friendly, though that comes with more caveats than Trump's Mar-a-Lago files) nuclear power. Still, suppose the US actually wins. Fighters killed, all remaining people too cowed to put up armed resistance. What does the US get out of it? Some land halfway across the world. Sure, it's not worth NOTHING; it would certainly make Russia and Iran nervous. But it wouldn't be worth the squeeze.

Our understanding of insurgency is pretty developed at this point, and applying more violence is not the answer.

The problem in Afghanistan was lack of clarity from the very top about America's goals, which is why the military couldn't build a coherent insurgency or counter-insurgency plan. Instead they just applied violence to whoever happened to be looking funny at the US at any given moment. More of that would have been disastrous.

Our understanding of insurgency is pretty developed at this point, and applying more violence is not the answer.

Uh, Hadrian wants a word.

Somehow I doubt the "understanding of insurgency" that you imagine exists actually works in any real sense. More violence or no violence are the only two answers.

Somehow I doubt the "understanding of insurgency" that you imagine exists actually works in any real sense. More violence or no violence are the only two answers.

How much of modern "theory of war" (for want of a better term) ever gets empirically confirmed or rejected by military practice? I used to assume the sort of people who wrote for Foreign Policy/Foreign Affairs knew what they were talking about, but after browsing /r/geopolitics over the past two years and constantly seeing similar headlines from those sorts of sources that always end up proving laughably wrong I'm beginning to wonder how much insight these people really have.

It's all officers, who by definition are not soldiers and know fuck and shit about fighting all making up theories about how soldiers fight. They quite literally know nothing. They're vaguely aware that they're in charge of fighting, and a good officer might even know which sergeant he needs to tell to go fight, but they know as much about the process as a big city mayor knows about trash collection.

Very nearly 100% of all military analysis, history and theory has been catalogued and written by people who have never even seen a gunfight firsthand, much less kicked a door. Interesting so far as it goes, but to use any of it as a practical manual is ridiculous.

Do you have any idea why we still have this system where our officers (mostly, with commissioning-program exceptions) don't start as soldiers? It feels like an outdated relic of "aristocrats get to be officers, commoners just get to be enlisted" days that are now centuries past. I could imagine a system of "try to pick out your smartest recruits, and put them in charge of the others when they've had enough study and experience", but the attitude "put them in charge when they've had enough study; what good is experience?" is baffling to me. It seems like the system depends in part on at least some of the smartest recruits getting missed by or rejecting it. That happens (one of the smartest kids I knew went enlisted Air Force, and I had a friend decide "Chemical engineering has been so stultifying, I'd rather be marching on Baghdad"), but it seems dangerous to rely on.

It's not like the system has just been unaware of the importance of its NCOs, either. Supposedly one of the Army OCS test questions from ~1950 was "You are in charge of a detail of 11 men and a sergeant. There is a 25-foot flagpole lying on the sandy, brush-covered ground. You are to erect the pole. What is your first order?", to which the answer was of course "Sergeant, erect that flagpole."

Every society in history has had this distinction, it's necessary to have sufficient elite buy-in to the military to not get conquered by steppe nomads. It's dumb but it's necessary. Elites aren't going to march around under full pack and get shot at- and they won't send their sons to do it either. Flying a jet over camel jockeys with no anti-air capability, or bossing the real soldiers around? That's a convenient prep for high-status civilian roles. Serving in the infantry or driving a tank or whatever are not.

How necessary is elite buy-in for modern first world militaries? Are there not enough soldiers that the best can be selected and promoted into officer roles?

It just seems bizarre to me that you can have people making on-the-ground military decisions who have no actual fighting experience.

Very. Militaries neglected by their civilian elites tend to underperform, as it turns out you can't shoot budget cuts.

More comments

Again, this is a widespread practice that has been going on for a very long time. Officers in the British army used to literally buy their commissions. Officers in the Roman army (above the rank of centurion, who were basically the equivalent of modern noncommissioned officers) were political appointees and political office holders.

There has never been an army where the officer class has been made up of promoted grunts; they always come from a higher social class than the men and start their careers as officers. And armies are the most ruthlessly selected of all human institutions; any that fail to perform are literally killed off by their rivals. That makes the officer-enlisted dichotomy one hell of a Chesterton's fence; I don't know why it works, but it does.

More comments

I know embarrassingly little about the military, but don't officers typically start out as soldiers? Or are full-on wars these days so rare that by the time they're promoted to officers, most of them haven't actually done much fighting?

I know embarrassingly little about the military, but don't officers typically start out as soldiers?

No. Officers and enlisted (both are soldiers) are two completely separate, parallel career tracks. Officers are the middle-class track; they require a college degree and usually start at 22. Enlisted are the working-class track, and usually start at 18. All officers outrank all enlisted (in theory, anyway; in practice, only a very stupid lieutenant would try to boss around a senior enlisted, who would quickly have a word with a higher-ranking officer to put the kid in his place). A small number of officers (referred to as mustangs) start out as enlisted, but that's rare.

Heinlein takes a shot at this system in Starship Troopers:

The Commandant continued: "That’s the Moment of Truth, gentlemen. Regrettably there is no method known to military science to tell a real officer from a glib imitation with pips on his shoulders, other than through ordeal by fire. Real ones come through — or die gallantly; imitations crack up.

"Sometimes, in cracking up, the misfits die. But the tragedy lies in the loss of others... good men, sergeants and corporals and privates, whose only lack is fatal bad fortune in finding themselves under the command of an incompetent.

"We try to avoid this. First is our unbreakable rule that every candidate must be a trained trooper, blooded under fire, a veteran of combat drops. No other army in history has stuck to this rule, although some came close. Most great military schools of the past — Saint Cyr, West Point, Sandhurst, Colorado Springs didn’t even pretend to follow it; they accepted civilian boys, trained them, commissioned them, sent them out with no battle experience to command men... and sometimes discovered too late that this smart young ‘officer’ was a fool, a poltroon, or a hysteric.

"At least we have no misfits of those sorts. We know you are good soldiers — brave and skilled, proved in battle else you would not be here. We know that your intelligence and education meet acceptable minimums. With this to start on, we eliminate as many as possible of the not-quite-competent — get them quickly back in ranks before we spoil good cap troopers by forcing them beyond their abilities. The course is very hard — because what will be expected of you later is still harder.

"In time we have a small group whose chances look fairly good. The major criterion left untested is one we cannot test here; that undefinable something which is the difference between a leader in battle... and one who merely has the earmarks but not the vocation. So we field-test for it

"Gentlemen! — you have reached that point. Are you ready to take the oath?"

But every military in the world uses a similar structure, so there must be something to recommend it.

According to the Peter principle people in a hierarchy tend to rise to the level of respective incompetence. Since it is apparently so important to have competent sergeants, I'd guess the command would prefer them remain sergeants rather than be promoted to officers.

No, almost none go that way. Officers start out in college, usually with a communications degree. Then they get a couple weeks learning military terminology, a few schools for their specialty, and then they get a platoon of dudes who don't respect them and wouldn't follow them into a public restroom. 99% aren't in combat billets. For the few who are, they spend six months to a year as second lieutenants on "the line", the only time in their career they'll regularly interact with real soldiers. Mostly they'll be bailing them out of jail and handling their pay.

After that, it's administration for twenty years, and if you're shit hot, maybe a command.

Thanks for the explanation.

No. Officers are officers and enlisted (including "non-commissioned officers") are enlisted, and going from enlisted to officer is rare (and for some reason called "going mustang"). Two separate hierarchies, the officer one being formally entirely superior to the enlisted -- that is, the newest second lieutenant could give an order to the Sergeant Major of the Army (the highest enlisted soldier). (Though in practice that ain't gonna happen)

and for some reason called "going mustang"

MUSTANG, n. An indocile horse of the western plains. In English society, the American wife of an English nobleman.

  • Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

I think the military usage came first, but am not certain. I recall it being used for the character Sharpe in the eponymous books, but that may have been an anachronism.

Mustang comes from the Spanish 'mestengo', itself derived from a medieval Spanish legal class of runaway livestock which was no longer the property of the original owner due to long-straying. It basically means 'feral animal', although Americans are more familiar with its use to refer to runaway slave communities deeper in Latin America.

Or are full-on wars these days so rare

You can probably answer that question yourself.

Who am I kidding, you're blocking me.

Well, i'm not a "hardcore fan" but I somehow found the change to pay $6 for access to non-censored, full episodes. other comments say the same thing.

I think you're just too young and underenformed about the war in Afghantistan. We weren't "nice". We stayed there 20 years killing a ton of civilians. It makes WW2 look nice by comparison.

edit: sorry that came across too harsh. I didn't mean to insult you. I just disagree with your opinion about the war in Afghanistan.

While I agree we weren’t ‘nice’ in Afghanistan, uh, worse than WWII is quite a take.

Lol, WW2 was nicer than afghanistan?

See, this is the sort of thing civilians believe that makes it necessary for vets to have their own entertainment. Bonkers.

It makes WW2 look nice by comparison

WW2 involved deliberately flattening German and Japanese cities. Allied strategic bombing alone is estimated to have killed over a million civilians in the space of about four years. And that's before we talk about the Soviets or the Axis.

It makes WW2 look nice by comparison.

This is a bit extreme, even if you were going for hyperbole. I mean, WW2 ended with the US dropping two nukes on Japan lol

Let me rephrase that for you, @Skibboleth, @quiet_NaN and @JTarrou. (Yeah I should have written that differently. I was wrong.)

Since this post was inspired by a TV show, I was mostly thinking of the stuff that happened in the show. Which yeah, I know, isn't real, but it seems to portray itself as "based on true events" or something. All the episodes have comments saying things like "Scary how accurate this is" or "It's like I'm home again". The audience seems to really love it. If the events didn't happen, they wish it did.

Obviously nothing can compare to the sheer overall size of WW2. 50million+ dead is just mind boggling. But the US at least didn't have to do much counter-insurgency there. The places we occupied were pretty friendly to us. The strategic bombing, while it kill a lot of civilians, was at least nominally aimed at military targets and done in an impersonal way.

The stuff they show in "A Grunt's Life" is just straight-up war crimes. Any court would agree. Bombing Nagasaki certainly wasn't nice, but it was legal. This stuff would just get you sent to prison. That's the sense in which I think it's worse.

edit: here's another interesting comment i just saw on an episode from a paid subscriber: "Gotta love War Crimes 2/7. Some of the guys who were around for the 08 deployment told us how fucked up it was. Guys from 3/7 and 3/4 called us War Crimes when I was in the unit from 2012-2015." Granted just some anonymous internet comment, but... it raises my suspicions.

The strategic bombing, while it kill a lot of civilians, was at least nominally aimed at military targets and done in an impersonal way.

From acoup:

[Arthur Harris] wrote that, “the aim of the Combined Bomber offensive…should be unambiguously stated: the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany…these are not by-products of attempts to hit factories.”

The difference between dragging a civilian out of their house and shooting them in the head and dropping a bomb on the from the air is that for the former, there is no ambiguity of intent. Luckily for us, Sir Harris has left no doubt about his intent. WP estimates peak around 350k dead Germans from the air raids, while the total number of civilian deaths in GWBs Afghan adventure is given as 46k.

Both of these numbers include casualties which were genuinely unintended. Some civilians will always die in war. But in my world model, the median Afghan civilian death was unintended while the median German air raid death was intended.

(Lest there be any confusion about me whining about dead Germans, let me also state that the conduct of the Western Allies in WW2 was the least war-criminal of all the parties involved.)

That being said, I agree that any intentional killing of civilians is terrible. Ideally, it should happen very rarely and the perpetrators should be punished similarly to civilian murderers. For the US troops in Afghanistan, I do not think that there existed a directive to kill as many civilians as possible, but GWB was obviously not very concerned with human rights. So I think that there was a widespread culture of commanders turning a blind eye to any human rights violations their unit might commit.

"War crimes"

Jesus. Son, you need an education.

Read up on the US civil war, especially the "irregular" areas. Go look up Canadian war trophies, WW1. Go read the history of the Red Army's advance to Berlin in WW2. Go read absolutely any actual memoir from any actual soldier in any actual war, and see how much of it you've been taught to think is "war crimes". Then go read the actual history and definition of war crimes and the incidence of prosecution (or not).

And when you're done, come back and tell the class what you learned. Right now, you simply don't know enough about the subject to even ask the right questions.

Why do you put war crimes in scare quotes like it's some kind of joke? Your argument is "it's OK for US soldiers to commit murder and rape because other armies in other wars did even worse shit." Think for a second about how stupid and fucked up that is.

This is the 3rd time now that you've just straight insulted me. We're just two nerds on the internet typing words, so there's not much point to that. But if we were two grunts this is the point where I'm supposed to punch you in the face, right? Establish dominance by physical violence and all that shit. What a great system.

So imagine we've done that. I've punched you, you've punched me, we've both got some brain damage but we're best buds now. I'll also buy you a shitload of booze if that helps.

Are you willing to admit that maybe... just maybe... the rank-and-file of the US military did some bad stuff in Afghanistan? Or are you still going to be like "no we were perfect angels! We did nothing wrong! It was those evil officers and stupid civilians who caused all the problems!"

Most people have no idea what actual war crimes are. They think any random fucked up thing that happens in a war is a war crime. Real war crimes are defined by the Hague and Geneva conventions. They are things like "fighting out of uniform" and "pretending to surrender" (e.g., Gabi's destruction of the armored train in Attack on Titan is definitely a war crime; she should have gotten hanged for that, along with her commander for authorizing it, but they won, so they just killed the witnesses and called it a day).

I'm saying if you want to use civilian definitions that every single platoon that has ever deployed to a hot zone commits "war crimes". Fuck me, even pictures are "war crimes". People have cell phones. Even soldiers. It's a meme in the vet community for a reason. There's war misdemeanors and war felonies. Even a few war capital crimes, but if you don't have a single technical "war crime" to your name, you've never seen combat. Bet.

Also, the laws of war are a bit like the laws of politics. It matters who wins.

The stuff they show in "A Grunt's Life" is just straight-up war crimes. Any court would agree. Bombing Nagasaki certainly wasn't nice, but it was legal. This stuff would just get you sent to prison. That's the sense in which I think it's worse.

I think you might be doing a little WWII-washing of what wars are like. Everything you described seeing in A Grunt’s Life is stuff that occurred in WWII, and received much more of a wink and a nod or a slap on the wrist at the time. On the topic of body part collections, in 1944 a sitting U.S. Representative (D - Penn) presented President Roosevelt with a letter opener made from a Japanese soldier’s arm. That’s way higher level than an Lt hiding his tooth collection or whatever.

Fair enough! But those acts were also condemned at the time by most people. And it's not like they helped the war, they actually made things much worse by making the Japanese public more angry. Even the Greeks in the Iliad understood that desecrating dead bodies was not justified.

I think what you are seeing is less a difference in kind between WW2 and WiA and more that a) the memory of WW2 is heavily sanitized b) there are marked values dissonances within American subcultures.

In a modern context, compare and contrast reactions to, e.g. the Haditha Massacre and the Eddie Gallagher case. Nobody was like "actually the Haditha Massacre was good". There were excuses and denials, but approximately nobody was pro-massacring civilians. By contrast, the Gallagher case was divisive. Plenty of people were appalled, but no small number took the view that Gallagher did nothing wrong. Sure, he murdered a prisoner and desecrated the body, but the victim was ISIS so the whole thing was really an act of justice.

To be honest, I had actually never heard of either of those cases. Maybe I heard about them in passing but I don't remember. So I assume the general public was the same. They're both bad, but not enough to be an extended major news story in the US.

Reading up on it now... they seem pretty similar? In both cases you've got enlisted men going way over the line, committing multiple war crimes. Murdering civilians and prisoners. They're caught red-handed, and either let off with a warning or given only a minor punishment. I... don't see how that's supposed to make me feel good? It seems like the military has learned nothing from its 20 years in the war on terror and is still playing coverup to people who would have been hung in the Nuremburg trials.

100% agreed. Obligatory acoup on strategic airpower, aka morale bombings.

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