site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   24728 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 23, 2026

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.

(1) Three dead American servicemen confirmed by Centcom

U.S. Central Command said Sunday that three American service members were killed and five others were seriously wounded during Operation Epic Fury, the joint U.S.-Israeli military operation against Iran

(2) A disinformation war is happening in regards to whether a school in Iran was hit, and if it were hit, whether its destruction was caused by Iran, Israel, or America. 100+ Iranian girls were killed.

(3a) It isn’t clear why negotiations failed with Iran. A day before the attack, the designated Omani mediator asserted that Iran conceded fully on enrichment and nuclear weapons: “The single most important achievement, I believe, is the agreement that Iran will never, ever have a nuclear material that will create a bomb,” said Albusaidi, describing the understanding as “something completely new” compared to the previous nuclear deal negotiated under former US President Barack Obama. He said the negotiations have produced an agreement on “zero accumulation, zero stockpiling, and full verification” by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), calling it a breakthrough that makes the enrichment argument “less relevant.” On existing stockpiles inside Iran, Albusaidi said that “there is agreement now that this will be down-blended to the lowest-level possible … and converted into fuel, and that fuel will be irreversible.”

(3b) It appears that Witkoff and Kushner were instrumental in the decision to strike Iran: ”Witkoff and Jared Kushner, U.S. officials said. They told him the talks had gone badly: Tehran wasn’t willing to end its nuclear enrichment or dismantle its missile program, the officials said. That further confirmed for Trump that he had one option left, the officials said. The U.S. also had intelligence that Iran considered attacking American targets before Trump authorized strikes, a senior administration official said, adding a sense of urgency to the president’s decision. U.S. casualties and damage to American interests would be higher unless the U.S. moved first, the senior official said.”

The death of Khamenei has spurred protesters to rise up and assault the security forces of the failing regime!

In Bahrain

Here's my question: What would have to happen for Iran to stop being attacked by the United States and Israel? There are three reasons that people give for why Iran should be attacked:

  1. Iran funds terrorism and Islamist militias. This is true, but they mostly fund Shia militias and direct resistance to Israel (i.e. Hamas). Islamic terrorism in Western countries is almost always ISIS or Al Qaeda inspired. The Shia militias are the ones who did the dirty work of defeating ISIS on the ground, so it's not clear to me that removing Iran's funding of these groups would reduce terrorism in the United States and Europe.

  2. Iran is building a nuclear weapon. We had a deal on this, and Trump tore it up. If they were deadset on building a bomb, they would have done it by now. This seems like the kind of concession we could get in negotiations if the United States and Israel participated in good faith.

  3. Iran oppresses its own people. Okay, what's your plan for a regime in Iran that doesn't opress its own people? Here are some common options and why they don't work:

  • An Islamic Authoritarian Regime - This is what we have now. It resulted in massive protests from the secular urban population which had to be repressed by force.

  • A Truly Democratic Regime - Lots of potential problems here, but even if it had mass buy-in and legitimacy the Iranian population hates Israel and would likely continue support for the Axis of Resistance.

  • A "Democratic" Regime - This would be a US puppet government. Devout muslims would be disenfranchised and oppressed (obviously we can't allow terrorist parties to run).

  • A Secular Autocratic Regime (i.e. The Shah) - Same problem of being a US puppet as the "democratic" regime, but even less popular legitimacy.

Let's not forget the events that led to the Islamic Revolution to begin with - democratically elected government cancelled imposed agreements and expropriated BP (Western oil extraction), the West organised a coup to install the Shah to get back the oil, he was so unpopular that the devout faction then successfully revolted. And now, Trump is already openly being grabby about oil again. Perhaps advances in propaganda mean we could now stop the Iranian populace from wanting to control their hydrocarbons or sedate them with short-form video enough to make them put up with the Shah, but how confident are we of this and do we have enough national executive function to never slip up with the opinion control?

More. For the first two points I think America/Israel feel like we’ve already dismantled terrorist networks/nuclear program for probably a decade. I’m not going to pretend that America cares that much about Iran killing 30k Iranians. So for the three things you mentioned I think we already feel like victory has been achieved.

My gut says we want the events to unfold to at a minimum to make Iran unaligned in global geopolitics. They are not a big player outside of the ME but they still for geopolitical reasons align with Russia/China. It’s why when Iran does have something useful like drones they get sold to Russia.

Then the question is what sort of vassal do we want out of Iran. If you are going to play the game thing is no reason to stop the game with Iran being neutral especially since Iran has long had elements that are Western. The Saudis are a vassal but still get to run some of their geopolitics independently. They have played games in the oil markets we did not like. Then there is a level of vassal that has to do whatever you tell them to do. Venezuela may be in this camp now, but they bring very little value. Argentina may have chosen this path now. Trump could probably call Milei he needs 50k soldiers for peacekeeping on Wednesday and the troops would be delivered on Friday.

To summarize at this point we are not talking any given action they take. It’s alignment. Probably some change in government structure to guarantee the alignment change.

What would have to happen for Iran to stop being attacked by the United States and Israel?

There's no good way to knock over a regime but the Trump Method is probably close to optimal for minimizing human suffering. This question demonstrates why. It's the same question CNN anchors keep asking. What's the plan, what do we want, how do we structure this new blah blah blah....

The Hegemon has conveyed that it is unhappy with the current leadership of the country. It doesn't care how or in what form the Iranian people choose to reconstitute their leadership. That is - as it should be - up to them. The Hegemon has simply declared the existing leadership unacceptable in the clearest way possible.

How do you get it to stop? Show the Hegemon that someone / something else is in charge that's sufficiently different in behavior from the previous leadership. What's sufficiently different? Intentionally strategically ambiguous - you do seem to have the strongest possible incentive to make it something acceptable to the Hegemon, though, and it can continue communicating its displeasure until you find an acceptable answer.

It's like training a dog or a model.

I just don’t understand any way to explain the US caring about Iran other than us being Israel’s slave

The mental model that I find predicts things the best so far is that the US is not Israel's slave, and Israel is not the US' slave. Rather, they are one entity.

If that were the case, wouldn't there be a symmetrical relationship? For instance, you'd see Israeli troops fighting in US wars like how British or Australian troops fight alongside America. Or maybe America would sell Israeli technology to Israel's rivals like Iran like how Israel sold US technology to china.

That's a good point. The Israeli troops not fighting in US wars makes sense. The US doesn't need the help, and I have a sense that when countries like Britain send soldiers to help the US in its modern wars, the main benefit to the US government is just that it makes the wars look less unilateral and gives the allied militaries a bit of very rare combat experience - the US government certainly does not need the military help. Israeli troops, on the other hand, because of how hated Israel is, would be counterproductive to the US government's PR.

When it comes to the sale of technology, however, I have no explanation. Other than, maybe just that Israel does not create enough new technology for it to be worth while for the US to sell it? I don't know.

Israel already sells its technology to third-party powers that can easily export it onward to Iran (and already have trading relationships with Iran), this isn’t really a gotcha, there’s no defense against that happening.

The US has a whole legal requirement to maintain Israel's 'qualitative military edge', so they refuse to sell advanced hardware to anyone that might be or become anti-Israel. The Egyptians for instance get the crappiest versions of the F-16, no AESA radars and no AIM-120s.

Israel meanwhile has no such concerns about damaging US interests by selling on technology. This is what I mean by the relationship being asymmetric.

Good article exploring how Iran is a key geopolitical chess piece regarding China: https://open.substack.com/pub/zinebriboua/p/the-iran-question-is-all-about-china

China imports roughly 70% of its oil, most of it transiting the Strait of Malacca. In a Taiwan contingency, those sea lanes become contested. Beijing will need alternative energy sources and will look westward to Iran, Russia, and any Gulf state willing to sell outside the dollar system. If the Middle East has already drifted into Beijing’s economic orbit by the time that crisis arrives, China begins the confrontation with a strategic energy reserve that American planners cannot disrupt.

The Strait of Malacca wouldn't be "contested": it's a narrow choke point that the US will easily dominate. No oil from any country in the Middle East is reaching China in the event of a Taiwan contingency. There are also no overland pipelines from Iran to China: the inconvenient Himalayas stand in the way, making it uneconomic. Whether Iran is a American or Chinese pawn doesn't really play into it.

The main thing taking Iran's regime off the map does is they won't be able to cause (additional) trouble in the world economy by shutting off Persian Gulf oil.

Sometimes I wonder if it has to do with airspace and access to China from the west. If Iran isn't a problem, a plane could get from Saudi Arabia to Western China without much trouble.

The desired end goal is to blow Iran to pieces and leave a bunch of squabbling separatist factions fighting each other, like Libya on steroids.

It isn’t clear why negotiations failed with Iran.

Who can say for sure, but I’m sure Israel smelled the abundance of blood in the water and after having laid the ground work of dismantling the proxy network and showcasing the lack of relevant defenses over Iran, they knew a joint hit with the US could deal a near deadly blow. The negotiations might have just been for show in the end.

Israel is also the reason that this isn’t likely to be another Venezuela situation. While that was the Trump admin acting on whims and under constraints of how much engagement the US populace will allow, there’s no doubt that the whole of Israeli intelligence and military assets are going to be dedicated that this biggest break they’ve had yet is going to go their way.

This war was not popular before the war

The wars in the middle east tend to age like milk with steadily declining once they start running into problems. Trump is attempting to achieve in weeks what the US failed to do in 20 years in Afghanistan with trillions wasted. It isn't going to work. Oil prices will rise and the media will be full of pictures of war and disaster. Trump really shot himself in the foot.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll of Americans held after the strikes began shows:

27% of those polled approve of the strikes, 43% disapprove.

55% of Republicans approve, 13% disapprove.

7% of Democrats approve, 74% disapprove.

19% of Other approve, 44% disapprove.

I haven't been able to find the actual language of the poll, however.

This feels really early for polling. At least if you are not a partisan hack.

I approve of these strikes if we win. I disapprove of these strikes if we lose. I am not sure how I would vote on this poll. I tend to think Trump has mostly won in the geopolitical games especially when he tasks kinetic action. So I am either voting “unsure” or support based on a belief that in the past he’s been good at war.

The voting on this seems to be Dems against probably based on orange man bad logic and some portion of the Dems being legitimate third worlders. GOP he has tacit support on probably thinking like me where I do not love military entanglements but if he wins and <50 Americans die I am fine with it.

At this point I might even need to include the Afghanistan withdrawal as a geopolitical win. Maybe the withdrawal was always going to be messy and it was great foresight to punt that to the next administration or at least past the election.

Going to get Maduro is 100% a win for Biden. My guess is 30-50% of Dems would still say it was bad. Those are either partisans or third worlders. Polling will be the same on this action. If we win with few American deaths then popular support should hit 70-80%. If you lose then support drops to 10%.

US public support for the Iraq War just before it started, and when the outcome was not known, was much higher (about 50% in favor) than this poll shows for the current Iran war.

I think that just means we trust our leaders less today and partly from Iraq we now start with an assumption that foreign interventions fails instead of a belief America would win.

Anyway I haven’t been a big fan of public opinion polls for a long time because small changes in how you frame a question vastly changes the results. If I were Trump and had to decide on go or no go; I would rather see the opinion of the top 500 betters o polymarket on whether the action would be a success versus an opinion poll.

I haven't been able to find the actual language of the poll, however.

Link (source)

Overall, do you approve or disapprove of U.S. military strikes against Iran?

Thanks!

(2) A disinformation war is happening in regards to whether a school in Iran was hit, and if it were hit, whether its destruction was caused by Iran, Israel, or America. 100+ Iranian girls were killed.

I find it tremendously frustrating that Iran can be indirectly and directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians over decades and decades but suddenly this is a huge problem.

I think it's a sign that most westerners are fundamentally unprepared to defend their societies from aggression and stagnation.

I think it's good, actually, when people push back on their government killing civilians for bad reasons, and the bigger problem by far is that we're much too quick to accept nebulous assertions of national security as a justification for collateral damage. If the US were intervening to stop the IRI from massacring protestors, the comparison would have some bearing, but that isn't what is happening.

Notably, there was fairly little consternation over coalition-inflicted civilian casualties in Mosul or Raqqa because it was generally accepted that ISIS was Really Bad and coalition forces were trying to stop them (even if not for purely selfless reasons) and taking reasonable precautions while dealing with an adversary using human shields. US airstrikes more broadly were criticized because there was no clear aim/end beyond killing terrorists and the target selection was often incredibly careless/callous. By contrast, this current campaign looks like gunboat diplomacy at best.

I think it's a sign that most westerners are fundamentally unprepared to defend their societies from aggression and stagnation.

I think it speaks more to the damage the Iraq War (and to a much lesser extent Libya) did to the credibility of military interventionism. Many, if not most people have no faith that these actions aren't going to squander a bunch of money and lives for no worthwhile outcome.

I think it's a sign that most westerners are fundamentally unprepared to defend their societies from aggression and stagnation.

Huh? What does Iran have to do with any of the problems afflicting Americans domestically? Sex recession, unaffordable homes, the meaning crisis, woke more broadly? This is just another foreign policy distraction because it's the only thing elite American conservatives have to address their own meaning crisis.

Precisely.

No Iranian ever called me an incel.

Like the similar statement by Muhammed Ali: How do you know, do you speak Persian?

We know because their religion still promises you 72 virgins. One captured by Western feminism would not.

Feminism has nothing to do with the fact that low status men are an object of derision everywhere and there are more men than women in Iran in every age bracket up to about age 55.

People die in war and conflict. Iran is a country actively engaged in killing its own people and those abroad (civilian and otherwise). People are arguing about the alleged death of some school children as if this event means that Iran should be allowed to go back to killing whoever they want.

That is stupid.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but look at the other side - just because America and Israel kill the current leadership does not in any way guarantee that Iran's future is any brighter.

Absolutely, we have a millions reasons why getting involved is a bad idea.

This isn't one of them - but it has gotten some of the most play on social media.

It's a shallow emotional appeal that makes no logical sense, but that is where the population is at right now. It's embarrassing.

I think it's also an issue with Hollywood, videogames, and the US & Israeli militaries being too good at what they do. Especially for the US, who can often afford to put a premium on civilian lives due to overwhelming firepower and distance, many people seem to think that mistakes no longer happen in warfare, explosions are limited to arm's reach like those sword-missiles, missiles and bullets are always precisely on target, and any collateral damage or civilian target hit must have only been deliberate.

I'm not sure the US is prepared for a near-peer conflict where they can't afford to be so careful. There was a West Point (?) article on this very premise I read years ago, but haven't been able to find it since.

(2) A disinformation war is happening in regards to whether a school in Iran was hit, and if it were hit, whether its destruction was caused by Iran, Israel, or America.

Something has to be said for the incredible success story that is "stop hitting yourself" as a propaganda strategy. From what I can see, it was first deployed successfully with the Nordstream pipeline bombing, after which both sides in the Ukraine war have been routinely throwing it around for every less than unambiguously "clean" impact (though the only case I remember where the self-hit was unambiguously established in the end was the Kramatorsk train station thing on the UA side). Now, with this case, you can't open a normie comment section without encountering people posting that the Iranians must have done it themselves and deliberately (going beyond even the "failed AA/launch" explanation) to all-around applause.

Was Nordstream before or after the one hospital that a Hamas rocket fell on? That was the big one in my eye.

Which story is the hospital thing referring to? Nordstream was mid-2022, shortly after the Ukraine war started, so still in the year before the current Israel/Gaza round (Oct 2023-).

Al-Ahli, so near the start of the most recent war (but yes, after Nordstream).

Ah, thanks. (@DeanoBongino, too) I still don't know what to make of that one - media seems to have largely come down on the side of the Palestinian misfire story, but then the media-NGO blob is almost united about asserting it was the enemy when the target is bad even in cases that are more implausible from the start, with only rare defections. Then there is what Wikipedia quotes as

In the immediate aftermath, Hananya Naftali, an aide to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, posted a tweet stating: "Israeli Air Force struck a Hamas terrorist base inside a hospital in Gaza. A multiple number of terrorists are dead. It's heartbreaking that Hamas is launching rockets from hospitals, Mosques, schools, and using civilians as human shields." He then deleted it after Israel blamed a Palestinian rocket for the explosion.

which I guess could be explained away as part of a general media strategy executed without the aide actually having any privileged information but anyhow would fit the conspiracy (IL did it, media reports whatever IL wants) explanation well.

I guess could be explained away as part of a general media strategy executed without the aide actually having any privileged information but anyhow would fit the conspiracy (IL did it, media reports whatever IL wants) explanation well.

"We're going to be bombing hospitals. Here's what you say when--not if--we're accused of bombing them" as a strategy wasn't quite prepared for "The enemy hit a hospital and we're falsely accused of it".

Yeah, that's what I meant by general media strategy.

The Al-Ahli hospital explosion. October 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion

According to the Washington Post it was also a sudden burst of last-minute Saudi support:

“Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman made multiple private phone calls to Trump over the past month advocating a U.S. attack, despite his public support for a diplomatic solution, the four people said.”

After the strikes last year, attacks on proxies, the mass protests, the calculation by Iran’s enemies (principally Saudi Arabia and Israel) seems to have been that this is as weak as they’ll ever be, so might as well attack now. Unfortunately, that they’re as weak as they’ll ever be doesn’t mean they’re weak enough to be overthrown.

Once Iranian AA defense is disabled - from there US and Israel can afford to kill officials until only those willing to unconditionally surrender are left. It may take months or years. But it will be quite cheap and affordable. And if USA and Israel have functioning brains - will move the war to drones.

unconditionally surrender

An unconditional surrender by the Iranians isn't a US victory, given the (quite correct and bipartisan) US preference for the status quo over the typical result of an unconditional surrender, which would be the US occupying Iran.

The win condition for the US is the formation of a government in Iran

  • Which can control the territory without US help
  • Which the US can do business with

Something which is notoriously hard to do with punitive bombing alone.

I think Netanyahu would consider a failed state in Iran a win for Israel. But it doesn't look like a win for the US or the US's local allies - failed states are bad neighbours and their oil and gas industry is uninvestable.

An unconditional surrender results in formation of a government in Iran with a few extra steps -- a period of occupation, someone translates the Japanese constitution into Farsi, we find some reasonably reliable Iranians to take over. Could fail of course, but the US has done it before.

formation of a government in Iran with a few extra steps -- a period of occupation,

The whole point I was making is that the US (and on this point, exceptionally, the US is united) has no interest in occupying Iran. All important factions in the US would prefer leaving the status quo in place to a US occupation. We can argue about whether the US is making a mistake here, but this is closer to "the utility function isn't up for debate" than "let's get a bunch of experts in post-mullahocracy occupation and reconstruction to discuss how likely it is to produce a good outcome" - not least because the relevant body of expertise doesn't exist.

Sure, the US doesn't want to occupy. But unconditional surrender from a power capable of that (which may not exist) would lead to the more desirable condition (acquiescent self-rule) through the undesirable one.

It’s hard to picture exactly what a failed state in Iran looks like. Certainly it doesn’t look like Libya, Iraq or Syria.

Why? Firstly, the specific dynamics of Sunni sectarianism that drove conflict in Syria and Iraq don’t exist. Iraq is not ethnically homogenous but it is mostly Shia. Secondly, the longstanding, centuries old tribal dynamics of postwar / civil war Libya also don’t apply.

There are ‘factions’ in Iran. There are the Azeris. There are the Kurds (although more assimilated and pacified, even compared to their neighbors). There is a small Sunni minority. There are some Afghan refugees, although many have been returned recently. It has been a relatively contiguous polity for a very long time, unlike much of the Levant.

What does “failed state” Iran look like? Kurdish and Azeri militias fighting each other in the ruins of Tehran? Bourgeois university professors squaring off against remnants of the IRGC? It all seems pretty unlikely.

There are the Kurds (although more assimilated and pacified, even compared to their neighbors)

The Kurds are no more pacified that the rest of the population - i.e. they won't stay pacified if the regime collapses, unless the new regime incorporates or crushes them. As with Syria, any likely failed state scenario includes either a Kurdish statelet (de facto independent, not internationally recognised, but probably west-friendly in practice) or Turkish military intervention to prevent one forming, or both (as happened in Syria). Israel appears to be explicitly encouraging Kurdish separatists to take up arms against the weakened regime.

In terms of Iranian domestic politics, Iranian Kurds are a key part of the Khatami/Rouhani reform faction in the mullahocracy. They don't get on with the hardliners (because of religious differences) or with the Pahlavite resistance (because of Persian nationalism).

There is a small Sunni minority.

(Mostly the same people as the Kurds, who are much more religiously diverse than ethnic-Persian Iranians)

The US bombed Yemen for years and yet during Operation Rough Rider the Houthis nearly downed American jets before Trump ultimately chickened out and cut a deal.

If Rough Rider couldn't disable Houthi air defenses then why would anyone expect a similar operation against a much larger opponent to succeed?

Houthi air defenses were, to be fair, constantly being replenished by Iran. The Houthis are also a tribe who spent decades hiding out in the caves and mountains of Yemen, and still have forces concentrated there. The Iranians have a conventional military built along standard lines with standard bases, supply chains, etc.

In addition, there were ways of defeating the houthis but they involve a return to the brutal counterinsurgency tactics of the mid-20th century that are still considered, for now, too inhumane.

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