site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   29345 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 6, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Has the shot already been fired?

There seems to be an uptick in worst case scenario chatter, people imagining scenarios spiraling out of control until political violence increases up to the level of civil war.

Ignore whether any of these are likely. Assume a world where the US does descend into some sort of organized violence, the low end somewhere along the lines of the Balkans and the high end a slug-out like the Civil War.

When historians (and just assume historians exist, even if they're AI) look back will they identify something that's already happened as one of the primary inciting incidents? I don't think we've had a Fort Sumter but is John Brown's body already marching?

Alternatively - and again only under the pure assumption that it happens, no implication meant as to the probability - if you think it hasn't happened yet, roughly how long until it does?

I think a proper civil war in the Alex Garland, ‘true sequel to the OG Civil War’ sense is highly unlikely, and that pretty much the only way one could emerge from the current sociopolitical circumstances would be Trump (or some other dictatorially-minded future President who thinks that Trump’s biggest failure was not going hard enough) attempting a coup, and (a) failing to pull it off as a fait accompli, thus allowing (b) a -more-or-less- coherent coalition of opposing states to emerge that attempts to depose them militarily. Other than that specific scenario, I view a true Civil War breaking out to be roughly as likely as a communist revolution breaking out in America.

Low-level sectarian violence, or a transition to a more repressive style of government (with an accompanying rise in violent protests that ultimately fail to succeed in dislodging the regime they’re protesting) seem far more likely to me.

I would put a relatively high credence for uptick in political violence such as Italian "Years of lead" . If it happens, will be matter of scholastic debate which act of political violence was "the shot".

Escalation to genuine civil war: no, not yet. You would need an incident which set ups major part of military apparatus against each other. Without that, it will be "what if you had a war but nobody came". It look like unrest that the government is eventually able to do something about (crush it or embrace their demands) without it escalating to warfare.

(Consider the situation at the outbreak of Spanish civil war: military coup had support of Army of Africa and many commissioned officers, but some parts of military and substantial parts of police and Assault Guards took the Republican side, who then joined forces with left-wing militias.)

You can tell civil war is not the trajectory because of a few things. A non exhaustive list includes the simple fact that the George Floyd protests eventually stopped. That kind of street protest is not the new normal. Even slavery which was a far more potent issue than all of those today took decades and decades and decades to result in war.

only under the pure assumption that it happens, no implication meant as to the probability - if you think it hasn't happened yet, roughly how long until it does?

The American government apparatus has to actually be broken, not merely wounded but smashed. No rich country with a strong government has had a civil war without extraordinary pressure from outside. Rich countries are stable because the government is so strong compared to anyone else, power is uneven and imbalanced. They have huge security forces and loyal armies. Military coup, yes! Civil war, no! Whereas Nigeria is poor and the central government is very weak, easy to have civil wars there since the country is balanced between different power groups.

Germany at the end of WW1 - mass famine, megadeaths on the front, kaiser has given up, traditional authorities greatly delegitimized. Then you get a brief civil war as the freikorps show up and poleaxe communists. It was basically still an unbalanced country but under extreme stress the communists came out and got demolished by the army. In Maoist China, the Cultural Revolution saw militias fighting in the streets with tanks and heavy weapons but it still wasn't a civil war as the govt retained control. In Venezuela there's massive economic problems but the govt is unbroken, no major alternate power bases.

Yugoslavia is a special case where it's this anomalous composite of various nations who hate eachother intensely, propped up by Tito, a Great Man and the Cold War economics of being a 'neutral' power in Europe, courted by both sides. Yugoslavia was a balanced country with separate power bases. The Balkans were proper wars with armies, not low-level stuff like Northern Ireland.

America is imbalanced, there are no major power bases outside the central government. The state national guard aren't real armies and states don't truly hate eachother. Hundreds of millions of privately owned guns but no organization makes the guns totally irrelevant, they could not matter less. Owning guns didn't prevent machinegun bans or Patriot Act or mass surveillance or anything else. On ethnic lines, blacks are no good at fighting, they're no match for whites in numbers or organization. Hispanics aren't particularly resentful or good at fighting either. Plus there's an extra stabilizing factor of the nuclear forces, the serious players aren't going to start fighting with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, they'll choose restraint and stability. America is also very very rich and that's another stabilizing factor.

1990s Russia - economic depression, illegitimate govt, dubious elections, very unpopular president gets into a power struggle with parliament, president shells parliament into submission, no civil war. Unbalanced country, army and security forces are all united. It's very hard to break the power of a strong, rich government. Yes, Russia in the 1990s was rich. Rich is in an absolute sense of being industrialized, urban, there are televisions and electrification... not a relative sense.

So if a civil war were to happen in America, China needs to suplex the US in the Pacific, smash national myths about American exceptionalism. There needs to be an economic depression, maybe even a famine (Yellowstone going up?) There needs to be a massive, unprecedented economic crisis and delegitimization of old authorities. Somehow the central government needs to be split up or fall into different camps.

Or more likely, some black swan arrives and changes all the rules. I just don't see a civil war happening in the US.

America is imbalanced, there are no major power bases outside the central government.

There's a rather-large "unless" attached to that, which is "unless there is serious doubt about who the government is". A constitutional crisis in which multiple people claim with significant validity to be the President (e.g. if Kamala Harris had refused to count electoral votes for Donald Trump on the grounds that he was barred by the Fourteenth Amendment, and declared herself the new President), or in which there's a "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" could cause both sides to think they had the bulk of the military behind them.

Some out of the box candidates, seen from a high school textbook in the year 2525, if man is still alive, if woman can survive...:

-- The PATRIOT Act. "The First American Republic was slowly destroyed as the relationship between the population and the government became increasingly adversarial, with surveillance and control mechanisms raising tensions ultimately leading to the Third American Civil War, which ended at the Battle of Chicago with the announcement of the Greater North American Barony..."

-- NWA's Fuck Tha Police. "The song translated the alienation between ethnic black communities and the police into the mainstream of white youth culture, and despite numerous efforts the lack of sympathy between citizens and armed forces and security services lead to the development of increasing within-caste identification and endogamy, ultimately giving rise to the brief American Mamluk regime after their victory at the Battle of Chicago, the collapse of which resulted in the permanent rise of the American Caste System."

-- The Bailout. "The reality that both political parties sided with the large capital and ownership class against the peasantry lead to increasing acts of violence against corporate targets, with the Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, January 6th Movement, which culminated in the Luigi Cult Assassinations which precipitated the Second American Civil War and the events of the Chicago Commune..."

-- The Cubs victory in the 2016 World Series. "The breaking of the Billy Goat Curse ushered in a period of chaos which lasted until Wrigley Stadium burned down during the Battle of Chicago. As a result, while the Cubs are allowed to remain in Major League Baseball, their salary cap allocation is set at a quarter of the other teams in the league, in order to prevent a repeat of the prior astrological crises."

-- The Election of an Illegal Immigrant Dreamer District Attorney in a Purple State*. "White American Citizens refused to obey laws enforced by a prosecutor they did not consider to have a legitimate claim to live in the country let alone enforce its laws. Signs appeared outside police stations reading 'I'm not even supposed to BE HERE' and 'Does she even go here?' Tensions escalated as citizens began refusing to participate in the justice system: conservative whites because they refused to recognize the authority of the district attorney's office, while poor blacks took advantage of this to continue their long running rivalry with the police force. The combined force of white and black protests ultimately sparked the Battle of Chicago..."

*I'm not going to go into too much detail here, but I know at least a dozen DREAMers who are ADAs in large cities.

Nope.

If it happens—and please, consult the sign—it’ll be economic, not social. You’d need enough young men to fall below the threshold of employability. That includes our traditional safety valve, the infantry. When young men have nothing left to do but police the community, maybe we end up pivoting towards entrenched local monopolies on violence. But that also assumes the higher echelons don’t get any more effective.

According to this fantastic animation about the history of division in Congress, the turning point was sometime during Reagan's 2nd term.

Just like with John Brown, who killed a couple dozen people in a country of 30 million but whose deeds were spread wide by media and fueled fears, the inciting incident would probably be something that is not actually particularly alarming in itself, but that happens to be spread wide by media both mainstream and social, and that happens to play well on people's existing emotions. Sort of like George Floyd's death, but much more explosive. Which is not to say that George Floyd's death was not alarming, that's a separate conversation, but in the sense that on a national level, the kind of incident that Floyd's death represents is fairly rare. As are assassination attempts.

I do not think that the South seceded because they thought that Lincoln would shoot them up a la John Brown. They simply seceded because their elite's wealth was dependent on slavery, and it was clear that Lincoln would abolish slavery. Slavery was first defeated at the ballot box, and the cartridge box only did its part after Fort Sumter.

I do not think that the South seceded because they thought that Lincoln would shoot them up a la John Brown.

My understanding is that southerners were very worried about large-scale slave revolts, having observed long-term the outcome of such a revolt with the Haitian Revolution in 1791. John Brown, a murderous terrorist, made a serious attempt to ignite the same sort of slave revolt in Virginia, and for this was lauded as a hero and martyr by northerners generally, and that contemporary southerners saw this as proof that the northerners held their lives and wellbeing in slight regard.

From the first result for "southerner reactions to john brown":

In John Ellis’ letter to John Floyd and John B. Todd’s letter to Governor Ellis, they both mentioned the need for a militia in the wake of John Brown’s raid and execution. Ellis wrote to Floyd, the United States Secretary of War, about the conditions of North Carolina after the John Brown raid, and why North Carolina needed weapons for its militias. “The Sense of insecurity prevailing among the people of this State, renders it necessary that I should apply to you for arms to place in the hands of the militia…

...It is important to realize that there are exceptions to this demand for a militia. One such exception appears in The Diary of Catherine Ann Devereux, where she and her father differed on the issue of being militarily prepared after Brown’s raid. “He does not conceal that he thinks it all folly, childs play, no need of preparation for war…. I do not see how in the present attitude of the North, sample they have given us in the John Brown raid, he can be so indifferent to our preparation for a future one.”[4] Catherine’s entry reflects the attitude of several newspapers suggesting Northern fanaticism, and well as a family division between her father, a man not convinced of the need for preparing for a war, and Catherine, a woman who was convinced that war would be inevitable.

...And plenty more where that came from. The AI summary:

Southern reactions to John Brown were overwhelmingly negative, viewing him as a dangerous lunatic who threatened their way of life and sovereignty. His raid on Harpers Ferry intensified fears of slave insurrections and was seen as a direct challenge to the institution of slavery, leading many Southerners to advocate for secession and increased vigilance against abolitionist movements.

...And of course, all of this should be obvious with any understanding of who John Brown was and what he actually did. Of course, we understand now that John Brown was in the right when he attempted to secure his moral values through direct, murderous violence against those who disagreed, and of course we understand that similar murderous violence is acceptable when confronted by evil, implacable tyranny backed by force of law. The only wrinkle is that we cannot agree on what constitutes "evil" or "tyranny".

...are you on substack? I feel like a just read an article laying out this same point about John Brown.

One could point out that one way to avoid worries of a slave revolt would be to simply not build your economy on the backs of forced labor from an imported underclass that continues to grow...

...are you on substack?

Not yet.

One could point out that one way to avoid worries of a slave revolt would be to simply not build your economy on the backs of forced labor from an imported underclass that continues to grow...

Are you under the impression that I disagree with John Brown's actions?

Not yet.

Please don't.* The profit incentive to fall into a familiar but safe/profitable rut is the deathnell for open-minded exposition.

If you change your mind on any impression and make a concession of a mistake, mis-step, or overreach as a private poster, at worst people don't lean to you as a co-belligerent but at best other bystanders give you more credence. If you change your mind and make an equivalent concession as a for-profit poster, at best you maintain your current leadership and at worst you lose the money of the people who were paying you for being an ideological comfort food / co-belligerent in the first place.

The behavioral incentive of 'money' over 'internet respect' and is powerful, proven, and prone to memery.

*Exception being if this would actually let you spend more time with your family, friends, and performing more charity for your community of friends and partisan enemies alike.

Are you under the impression that I disagree with John Brown's actions?

to be honest I was, though perhaps influenced by that substack article. I guess I see how you could read it as acceptable under the circumstances, and then we are just arguing about circumstances.

I have definitely gained some respect for eg the Shane Claiborne's of the world he maintain a strict non-violence standard and just subjecting everything to that.

I think John Brown would have found another cause for his righteous violence had slavery been abolished before he started killing people.

Of course, we understand now that John Brown was in the right when he attempted to secure his moral values through direct, murderous violence against those who disagreed, and of course we understand that similar murderous violence is acceptable when confronted by evil, implacable tyranny backed by force of law. The only wrinkle is that we cannot agree on what constitutes "evil" or "tyranny"

If the left thinks it was good to assassinate Charlie Kirk because it is okay to assassinate evil public figures, and that the only disagreement was whether he was evil, they can say "we think it is okay to assassinate evil public figures, we just disagree whether Charlie Kirk was evil". They won't do this. (And I don't think that's out of fear of being arrested, either, given the rhetoric that is acceptable.)

Could you elaborate your point?

I think most people are not actually aware of the sort of person John Brown was, and the sort of things he actually did. I think those who are aware of him generally regard him as a hero, and if informed of his actual actions, would consider them justified, because he was Fighting Evil. I think this prediction would hold increasingly true the more latent social pressure it's tested under.

My point is that "it's okay to assassinate people, but they have to be evil" is a belief that's held by approximately nobody. All the people who celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk would never say that.

My point is that "it's okay to assassinate people, but they have to be evil" is a belief that's held by approximately nobody.

I disagree, but am intrigued. Huge amounts of entertainment hinge on this norm. lots of history hinges on this norm. Radicals openly advertise based on this norm.

All the people who celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk would never say that.

What would they say, in your view?

What would they say, in your view?

They'd have no principled basis for it at all.

Actually saying "but they have to be evil" would be one step towards allowing their opponents to do assassinations as well, since "he isn't evil" is a much weaker argument than "it's wrong to assassinate".

I don't think it's been fired yet, but I can imagine a "revisionist" historian in 150 years identifying the failed assassination attempt on Trump and Kirk's assassination as the start rather than the later primary inciting incident that most people think of.

If it happens, I think the "origins" would date back to the Obama administration and his intelligence community framing Trump for crimes they knew he didn't commit to derail his administration. Virtually everything is downwind of that.

If I were to pick an inciting incident, I'm torn between the failed assassination attempt on Trump, and the successful assassination attempt on Kirk. Maybe you can't separate them, because with the attempt on Trump you could kind of trick yourself into thinking "Maybe this will stop, maybe we can go back to normal", and with the assassination of Charlie Kirk you knew beyond all doubt that was impossible. They're never going to stop.

Hasn't been fired yet, but there's some obvious places where it might -- conflict between state law enforcement and Federal around immigration is one. Imagine the Portland judge's decision that Trump can't use the National Guard the way he wants stands. Antifa gets cocky and turns Portland into a riot zone again. Local law enforcement appears but essentially protects the rioters. Trump invokes the Insurrection Act (in the middle of the night of course) and sends in some National Guard unit arguably (but not definitely) in defiance of the judge's orders. Portland and Oregon declare this illegal and the staties try to stop them... there's your shot.

Alternatively, the decision DOESN'T stand. Trump uses the National Guard in more and more blue cities. Local law enforcement gets in a conflict with them, shots fired.

What actually happens is the police decide they’d rather live to cash their paychecks than shoot at federal troops.

Like sûre, the police being red is not going to stop them from carrying out liberal-coded orders. But the kind of insane far leftists who will go up against actual soldiers for leftist policy goals do not become cops.

What actually happens is the police decide they’d rather live to cash their paychecks than shoot at federal troops.

And if they're told that any officer who doesn't follow orders to shoot at federal troops will no longer have paychecks to cash, nor their precious, precious pension?

Cities in the sunbelt are hiring.

This isn’t arresting granny here, this is getting in a firefight while outgunned. They’re not suicidal.

Cities in the sunbelt are hiring.

Yes, but then you still have to start all over on building up that pension…

Beats dying before you get to it…

Police, despite being dressed in blue, are overwhelmingly red. I find it hard to believe that a significant amount of local or staties would be willing to shoot feds even if given orders to that effect.

The big difference from the actual Civil War to me is a seeming lack of enthusiasm for fighting under a state flag. Despite a recent surge in state vexillology interest --- I like Utah's new flag --- I think governors aren't going to be able to command legions, leaving a pretty big gap for who would command anti-federal forces.

The only way I can even hypothetically see the states winning is if disagreement within federal forces causes them to not show up. I think that'd happen if they were ordered to drop bombs today, but I think that's beyond the pale for even the current administration.

I mean Greg Abbott successfully raised an army and forced the feds to back down within the last few years.

Fair, but the valence of "we're going to enforce the letter of federal law because the feds have chosen not to" hits differently than "we're going to willfully obstruct federal enforcement efforts". That's probably a bit charitable to Abbott there, but he could at least claim it was seen as an act of loyalty to federal law.

Maybe that was the moment in some worlds.

I find it hard to believe that a significant amount of local or staties would be willing to shoot feds even if given orders to that effect.

It doesn't take many.

If there is one single issue I think you will have trouble rallying cops to kill feds for I really think, "Actually we don't need to allow law enforcement to use greater force on criminals and we should decriminalize even more vagrancy and brazen public lawlessness" is it.

It is nearly infinitely more likely the cops grab their own balaclavas and join the NG and ICE than line up against them. Fuck, this is the purge most city cops have been itching for. They're gonna instead form a human wall against it because the dem apparatchik who 6 months ago was calling for their total defunding and disbandment tells em to? One might even think that constantly claiming the cops are racist murderers might not endear them to your cause.

France has also been rather running into this issue. It turns out that when you constantly side with criminals over cops that cops are less inclined to take massive personal risks just because you tell them to. And, of course, the politicians dearly want to gut the police for this but they also need them more than ever.

They're gonna instead form a human wall against it because the dem apparatchik who 6 months ago was calling for their total defunding and disbandment tells em to?

Yes, because that apparatchik and his associates control their paychecks; and even more, their pensions. Just ask the cops. It doesn't matter how Red Tribe they are, or their own personal feelings, they'll do whatever they're told to if they have to in order to protect their oh-so-precious pensions.

If there is one single issue I think you will have trouble rallying cops to kill feds for I really think, "Actually we don't need to allow law enforcement to use greater force on criminals and we should decriminalize even more vagrancy and brazen public lawlessness" is it.

If local cops start shooting at feds, it is going to be because the feds are engaging in hostile and warlike acts in their communities. Trump talks about sending troops into cities to quell general lawlessness, but apart from DC he has not done so - the facts on the ground are entirely about immigration enforcement.

The MO of ICE is to seal off an area, arrest everyone vaguely Hispanic-looking, detain the citizens for a few hours and most of the legal immigrants overnight to show who's boss, and throw the illegal immigrants and a few legal immigrants for good measure into immigration detention for eventual deportation. There is enough of a pattern that I think we can assume this is policy. If you are a Hispanic-looking citizen, or a legal immigrant, or the friend, pastor, employer, or local political leader of such people, you are going to interpret this as violent hostility to your community, because it is. The MAGA base who are cheerleading the immigration enforcement operations on right-wing social media are not hiding the fact that they would be happy deporting legal immigrants and non-heritage-American citizens if the opportunity arose. The federal legality of these tactics is currently being litigated - if ICE are exceeding their authority under federal law then as a matter of state law they are committing all the crimes.

The South Shore apartment raid in Chicago is an escalation, both in terms of the tactics (SWAT tactics were used, including doors kicked in in the middle of the night) and the targets (the Blacks were arrested as well as the Hispanics). And a deliberate one - Kristi Noem put out a celebratory Youtube video. It doesn't look like ICE stole enough to matter this time, but the nature of rapidly-recruited and poorly-trained goons is that if this type of operation continues ICE are probably going to start stealing from US citizens on a large scale due to poor discipline, even if it isn't policy. If and when that happens, local cops shooting at feds who are also robbers and kidnappers seems plausible, particularly in core cities where the local police are more black tribe than red.

The other factor is that ICE can burn through any goodwill they have with local police by acting like arseholes. Too many incidents of accidentally tear-gassing cops or calling 911 on journalists and actually-peaceful protestors would bring the "local cops willing to obey an order from the governor/mayor to shoot at feds" point forward. At the margins even garden-variety assholism like driving recklessly and parking illegally when off-duty (almost all cops do this, but their getting away with it when outside their local jurisdiction is controversial) hurts.

tl;dr: Local cops are going to be sympathetic to feds engaging in immigration enforcement, but the degree of collateral damage that local cops are willing to tolerate is a lot lower than the level of collateral damage Trump's people seem to be aiming for. It is possible but unlikely that this will reach the point where local cops are willing to shoot at feds.

Trump talks about sending troops into cities to quell general lawlessness, but apart from DC he has not done so - the facts on the ground are entirely about immigration enforcement.

Until and unless he invokes the Insurrection Act, Trump does not have the authority to send troops into cities (aside from DC) to quell general lawlessness, except the National Guard with the co-operation of the state governor. It appears Trump has agreement to do so in Memphis but has not actually done so yet.

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