site banner
PaperclipPerfector  14hr ago (text post)   2291 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Haaretz recently reported on a trove of new documents pertaining to the 1948 expulsion of Palestinians by Jewish Zionists. They are quite interesting, as they provide evidence toward the disputed claim that the Zionists used a conscious strategy of terror to expel the Muslim and Christian inhabitants.

The most important documents for closer historical examination were those that dealt with the War of Independence. One document that stood out among the papers that had been tossed into the garbage was written by Yitzhak Broshi, commander of Golani's 12th Battalion in the war. It was an order from July 1948 that Broshi sent commanders of the brigade's companies that were engaged in combat in the northern part of the country, titled "Conduct in captured villages where there is a population." The contents of this document are not the type of material one finds in Israeli history books. Broshi informed the officers that after an Arab village was captured, identification certificates were to be issued to the inhabitants. If someone transferred their certificate to another person, both were to be shot. If someone did not report on time for military inspection, they were to be shot and their home was to be blown up. If an "outside Arab" was found in a village, according to Broshi's directives, he was to be shot immediately. In general, the rule was to shoot "every 10th man" in a captured village where outsiders were found. In addition, all the men in any household in which property stolen from Jews was found were to be executed.

Moreover, while there was an order to raze villages, in some cases that was not enough. For example, when it came to Arab a-Zabah, a Bedouin community in the Lower Galilee, not a soul or a trace was to remain. "Every Arab among the Zabahim is to be killed," the order stated. These were not vague directives conveyed by word of mouth. This one and others appeared in "black on white" and were signed by Broshi in his handwriting. In another order dated July 1948, Broshi instructed his troops to mount a search for Arabs who might have hidden in the Mount Turan area of the Lower Galilee, after the site had already been conquered. The order was: "Kill anyone who is hiding."

Among the documents is one stating that "Arabs in a small number are wandering about in the [captured] villages," apparently to collect possessions and food. As per the instructions in the document: "The area is to be cleansed of Arabs." Under the heading "The method," the document adds that "every Arab who will be met with is to be annihilated."

Kotzer's vast collection, some of which was quoted above, is part of a trove of thousands of legal documents from 1948 that were declassified by the military courts due to recent procedures initiated by the Akevot Institute. This rich resource, which was approved for publication by the Military Censor, sheds new light on the history of the Palestinian refugee question. Moreover, it completely dispels the Israeli narrative according to which the country's Arab inhabitants fled of their own volition at the behest of their own leaders. Although some such instructions were indeed disseminated, and some people left at their own initiative – it can now be confirmed, on the basis of an impressive range of evidence, that the IDF expelled Arabs systematically and violently during the War of Independence. The expulsion was effected by massacres, murder and a variety of moves aimed at terrorizing this civilian population and expediting its flight.

There are a number of insightful things here that are a bit too long to quote. It mentions one Shmuel Lehis who massacred 40 Palestinians, becoming the only Israeli convicted of a war crime in this period. He received just one year in jail (in practice: hanging out at a military base) before being pardoned. He went on to work with the World Zionist Organization and became the president of the Jewish Agency in 1978. He later won the Chairman of the Knesset prize, the highest honor bestowed by the Israeli Parliament. Another interesting file involves the commander of the most prominent brigade at the time conveying the dominant expulsion strategy: "How do you expel a village? You lop off the ear of one of the Arabs before everyone else's eyes, and they all flee. In practice, no village was evacuated without stabbing someone in the stomach or by means of similar methods. We won thanks only to the fear of the Arabs, and they were fearful only of deeds that were not in accordance with the law."

I think these documents will be influential in future discourse about the Palestinian Question and the Israel Question. How justified is the Palestinian drive to take back their land from forces of terror (or their inheritors)? How justified is the existence of Israel? Should the world reward a state for taking land through ethnicity-targeted terrorism? Or are these events simply too old to inform present opinion? Comparing these events to Ukraine, we might ask: if Russia were to begin a strategy of terror bombing civilian homes, so as to lead Ukrainians to flee en masse, in how many years should we forget they they’ve done this and welcome them into the World Order?

The word “trove” always makes me think of pirates. Did they find these using ground-penetrating radar, too?

Joking aside, I seem to recall you consistently going to bat for Russia. I have a hard time imagining you criticizing them for their tactics. Perhaps there’s some other group where you’d apply this standard? Do you subscribe to the case for reparations?

By the way, what should be done (if anything) for the descendants of Jews who were terrorized and ethnically cleansed in the 1930s and 1940s out of Baghdad, Cairo, Gaza City, Hebron, and so on? Do you agree that this was an injustice? And if so, what -- if anything -- should be done?

All colonial partitions had displacement and some amount of killing and chaos. See also: the balkans, India/Pakistan, the US etc. As these things go, taking the worst possible interpretation of the documents here, it's barely on the scale. When India was partitioned, anywhere from half a million to three million people died or were killed and twelve million or so were made refugees.

Once again, we're supposed to care because jews act exactly like everyone else when they have to form a state, only a bit less so. States are force and violence. They cannot be created nor destroyed without force and violence. Some people have to win, and some have to lose. The alternative is the status quo.

A lot of british loyalists got run out of the states, their land stolen, and many were just killed. The Revolutionary war went on some years after Yorktown, ugly local fighting crushing the rest of the loyal colonial Americans, and subjecting them to the new revolutionary order.

This is all thin gruel. None of it creates a legal right of return, any more than Benedict Arnold had a right of return to the US. Any more than muslim refugees' grandchildren have a right to their ancestral home in India. Any more than the Hindu refugees' grandchildren have a right to enter Pakistan. This is how partition and population transfer work.

The Arabs ran all teh jews out of their countries, Israel took them. Israel ran a minority of the arabs out of their new country, and the arab countries did not take them. That's the real difference here. It's the hereditary refugee status of the Palestinians, and the refusal of their part of the partitioned territories to take them, and the failure of their own politics to produce a government that can even negotiate with the Israelis.

Indian partition violence was the result of mobs, not a top down military policy. But the violence of Israelis against Palestinians occurred as part of a conscious military policy involving ethnic cleansing and terrorism, which is shown in the documents. This makes them qualitatively different events.

Poorly-organized mobs can still engage in ethnic cleansing: see Rwanda. International law, to the extent it exists, found no trouble finding and convicting people for it.

It doesn't. It's just confirmation bias. Plenty of countries have some amount of "military policy" about displacing groups of people for any number of reasons. This is not new, it is not distinct, it isn't even illegal. It's part of the "sovereignty" that allows countries to make deals about territory and absorb population transfer.

It is not illegal to massacre civilians and ethnically cleanse populations through terror? Nuremberg disagrees with you, as does probably every expert of international law not from Israel.

You are making this sound far more clearcut than it is. The Partition and ensuing exodus involved both "organic" mobs, as well as significant action by paramilitary forces, as well as intentional complicity or willful ignorance by local police/military/judicial systems along partisan lines.

More importantly, the two nations hadn't even consolidated properly at that point, so organizing pogroms was both difficult to achieve top-down, and not particularly necessary. State force was definitely used against stragglers in the days-years that followed, both soft coercion as well as via more brutal means.

The Palestinians have been displaced for too long, and have states of their own(they’re really not that different from Jordanians, Syrians, and Lebanese), this is just balkanian Kosovo je Palestine at this point. The people claiming the land weren’t born there. Their parents weren’t born there. Life sucks for the Palestinians, retaking recent settlements in the West Bank might be reasonable, but Tel Aviv je Palestine is just stupid. The reality is both sides have blood on their hands, the Palestinians seem to now be led by actual psychopaths when they aren’t led by corrupt, incompetent assholes, and the nakhba is more or less outside living memory.

How would you apply the “living memory” rule to other conflicts, actual and hypothetical, so that we know it’s not just an ad hoc rule? Eg, if China took control of Japan for 80 years, should no Japanese ever try to take it back? Should Europe have given up on retaking Spain after 800ad? There are Israelis currently living in homes built by Palestinians; is that not sufficiently “living memory”?

they’re really not that different from Jordanians, Syrians, and Lebanese

Christian Palestinians appear to be more similar to ancient Israelites than Ashkenazim. While an Englishman might be .018 away from a German using g25 coordinates, a Russian Jew is .09 away from an ancient Israelite while a Christian Palestinian is .032 away. They’re about two Samaritans away from an Ancient Jew, which seems pretty close.

If the native Japanese rose up after 80 years of occupation by the Han, then they would have the right to. If the Japanese diaspora attempted to invade their ancestral homeland which is now majority Chinese eighty years later, that’s just stupid.

Balkans rules of possession make things terrible. The Palestinians lost in Israël long enough ago that they need to accept that- but being very upset about their treatment in the West Bank seems entirely reasonable. Just like how Cherokees advocating for better reservation conditions or whatever is fine, but trying to conquer and ethnically cleanse parts of Georgia is psychotic.

Yet people who haven't lived there for 2000 years are allowed to move to Israel.

Israel is continuing to attack its neighbours, continuing to steal land and continuing to attack christians.

By the Israeli government, legitimately elected by admittedly narrow majorities of the Israeli public. Israel’s West Bank behavior is indeed bad; both sides suck and need to stop Balkans irredentist nationalism, but Israël at least has a functioning society wherever it goes.

When you control land, that's your prerogative to let in whomever you wish.

If Palestine were in control then they could have an immigration policy as open as they wanted.

Yet people who haven't lived there for 2000 years are allowed to move to Israel.

FWIW there were Jews living in (Eastern) Jerusalem, Hebron, and Gaza City for hundreds if not thousands of years before the Arab ethnic cleansing of these areas in the 1930s and 1940s.

There have been christians there for 2000 years so why aren't all christians allowed to move there?

There have been christians there for 2000 years so why aren't all christians allowed to move there?

Why should they be? I mean, your argument is that

(1) Jews haven't lived in Israel in 2000 years; therefore

(2) It's unreasonable that Jews should be permitted to move back.

I am simply pointing out that the premise of your argument is incorrect.

It's also worth pointing out that Israel has not attacked Egypt or Jordan in quite some time. Because what you call "attacking" is actually just defense.

In any event, from whom exactly is Israel "steal[ing]" land, and how did such land come to belong to other groups in the first place? Was it simply a matter of ethnically cleansing the land and living there for a while? Or is it something else?

Is it your view that after the Arabs ethnically cleansed Hebron of Jews in the 1930s and 40s, it became Arab land forever, and if Jews come back they are necessarily "stealing"?

Israel is currently occupying parts of Syria after bombing Syria and backing jihadists for years. They are currently expanding their territory on the west bank. The few thousands of jews who lived there can stay. The Eastern Europeans can go live somewhere else.

Israel is currently occupying parts of Syria after bombing Syria and backing jihadists for years. They are currently expanding their territory on the west bank. The few thousands of jews who lived there can stay. The Eastern Europeans can go live somewhere else.

To whom does the west bank belong and how did it come to be theirs?

Also, would you agree that Palestinian Arabs who are descendants of those who moved to the area from what is now Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria "can go live somewhere else"?

Can we send other ethnic minorities back where they came from as well?

Maybe all the blacks who can prove that they have continuously occupied America since 1776 can stay, but the new ones have to go back to Africa? The whites can all stay, though, no need to expel people who are part of the same ethnic group as the one that is 'supposed' to be there. As long as they're the same color as the people I like it doesn't matter what continent they were born on. The only people who have to prove that they're 'supposed' to be there are the ones from the ethnic group that I, personally, want to kick out of the country for unrelated political reasons.

Can we send other ethnic minorities back where they came from as well?

Maybe all the blacks who can prove that they have continuously occupied America since 1776 can stay, but the new ones have to go back to Africa? The whites can all stay, though, no need to expel people who are part of the same ethnic group as the one that is 'supposed' to be there. As long as they're the same color as the people I like it doesn't matter what continent they were born on. The only people who have to prove that they're 'supposed' to be there are the ones from the ethnic group that I, personally, want to kick out of the country for unrelated political reasons.

I know you are sort of parodying here, but I think it's worth mentioning that in the early days of modern Zionism -- during the Ottoman days -- lots of Arabs moved to Palestine from what are now Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, etc. They did this in large part because of the enhanced economic activity which had resulted from Jewish immigration.

That's why, for example, "Masri" is a very common name among Palestinian Arabs. It means Egypt.

Logically, if Eastern European Jews who came into the area between 1890 and 1947 need to be kicked out along with their descendants, the same thing should happen to Arabs whose families came from Egypt, Syria, Trans-Jordan, and Lebanon.

More comments

The reality is both sides have blood on their hands, the Palestinians seem to now be led by actual psychopaths when they aren’t led by corrupt, incompetent assholes, and the nakhba is more or less outside living memory.

Phenomenal take

My stance on this since like ~2024 is "at this point both sides deserve each other" but yours is a much better way of putting it

Palestinian drive to take back their land

Are you prepared to identify exactly what land is implicated by the "Palestinian drive to take back their land"? For example, does it include, Gaza, Hebron, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, etc.?

Also, how did that land come to be "Palestinian" in your view? Was it just a matter of ethnically cleansing the previous inhabitants and staying there for a while? Or was more involved?

It would be great if you could set forth the underlying principles -- if any.

Isn't this the norm during WW2? What is the expected norm during the 1940s on military tactics related to civilian targets?

This kind of indiscriminate murder was the norm among Axis countries. For example the "kill 1 in 10" rule was something the Germans frequently deployed when "pacifying" unruly communities in Yugoslavia or Greece or Italy. (They were likely to do far worse in Eastern Europe)

For the Allies, no this was not normal. Violence against civilians in occupied territory was either very rare (western Allies) or common and unrestrained (Soviets), but in any case not typically used as an overtly political tool to quash dissent.

It’s more accurate to say that the western Allies did not use violence against civilians as a political tool after their states had surrendered. Hiroshima, etc.

Yes, that's why I specified "in occupied territory." The western Allies didn't necessarily consider enemy civilians to be "fair game" per se, but there was certainly a murkier moral world view than might have wished to be remembered. Certainly the strategic bombing offensives engaged in a similar kind of euphemistic language ("morale bombing", attacking the "enemy housing stock") as the Nazis did with respect to targeting civilian populations.

It was the norm for Allies as well, the prime example is ethnic cleansing and atrocities in East Prussia, but there are also additional atrocities after war related to ethnic cleansing of Germans in Poland and Czechoslovakia. I hope you know that Stalin decided to move Poland couple of hundreds miles to the left - just because he could. So much for third worlders whining about "artificial borders created by ignoramuses during some stupid conference of superpowers". Welcome to borders of the whole Europe - especially after WW1 and WW2. All in all around 12 million Germans were ethnically cleansed from lands they lived in for up to 1 000 years with 500k-2.5 million deaths.

But there were also atrocities committed by allies. French and especially colonial forces committed mass rapes in Stuttgart and other cities, carpet bombing of allied cities such as in France with tens of thousand of casualties, and of course we can also mention how Allies and especially French just waltzed into Indochina and especially Vietnam and committed atrocities during the liberation, basically turning WW2 into a Vietnam war. Many other bloody anticolonial wars were ignited right after the WW2 such as war in Algeria against France or war in Kenya against British Empire or "Malayan Emergency" - which also included a nice masaacre an ethnic cleansing and it was also a test of new chemical weapon called Agent Orange by Brits. You know, a cookie cutter (and very successful) allied police action. Post WW2 was incredibly bloody period, let's not kid about that.

Late 1940ies and early 50ies were a completely different period, it was still very much a period where carpet bombing, ethnic cleansing and huge conflicts was a norm. It is not as if it was not a norm after that, you still have sanctioned ethnic cleansing if you have the right backing such as ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Croatia during operation Storm, or if you are not interesting for international audience various atrocities now being perpetrated in whole Sahel region including Mali, Northern/Central Nigeria, Sudan and many other places.

Churchill gassing the Iraqis just entered the chat.

A fairly extensive Wiki article is dedicated to this mysterious subject.

The wiki isn't fantastically put together, but I didn't know about the conflicting sources. I've only ever seen it posited as an established fact, including by some individuals who otherwise defended Churchill. Thanks.

It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of [tear-inducing] gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum.

I always forget how clear a speaker Churchill is.

It may go against the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) in the following ways:

  • rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious conviction and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated. Pillage is formally forbidden.

  • It is especially forbidden to… kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army [interpreted at Nuremberg to apply to civilians]

  • It is especially forbidden to… kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion

  • The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

  • No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible

  • the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.

The Nuremberg Court notes that by 1939 this was “recognized by all civilized nations and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war”.

It seems to be fair to conclude the Jews committed war crimes while creating the state of Israel. I am not sure I care at this point.

The scale of change in the first world on these issues is shocking how fast it occurred. Segregation in the US was out in less than 20 years from the time Jews (and many others post WW2) were doing things like killing every 10th men.

My gut says people just do what is necessary for their environment. Humans can do things we view as horrific when it’s basically necessary for survival. I feel with reasonable certainty that Jews needed to ethnically cleanse their country to create state.

Another reason why I have decided having a politically ideology is stupid. I choose the my ideology for my current reality.

Notably, the Nuremberg court never bothered to try Soviet officers for similar Red Army war crimes. Katayn, for example. Has "international law" ever been much more than vae victis?

Under vae victis, America could force Israel to hand back Palestinian land tomorrow. Vae Victis does not legislate that the winning power must act without morality, it merely states that the winner’s dictates are the established reality. America could simply dictate tomorrow that Israel hand the land back to Palestinians, which would satisfy the feelings of the global hegemon while promoting regional stability. That is also Vae Victis. Why shouldn’t the winning nation opt to feel good and promote peace?

How is America the victor in the 1948 (or choose a more recent one if you want) war between the current state of Israel and various Arab powers (including the Palestinians) in the former British Mandate of Palestine to legislate the outcome? It wasn't a party there.

You seemed to imply that international law has always been vae victis. If that’s so, then America can simply do as she pleases based on her sense of justice, being the most powerful nation globally.

That presumes the US would be willing to fight and defeat the IDF (and also the other relevant parties) to enforce an outcome there, which seems laughable. It'd make invading Greenland (which by all accounts polled terribly) seem like a good idea, and isn't something a democratically-elected US government is likely to do.

Palestinian land

Would you mind identifying what land is "Palestinian land"? Does it include Gaza City? Hebron? Ramallah? Tel Aviv?

Also, how did that lend get to be "Palestinian land"? Was it just a matter of ethnically cleansing it and occupying it for a while? Or was more involved?

An international body of third-party experts should decide what constitutes Palestinian land, based on informed estimates of the areas depopulated due to the terror campaign. In the same way that one person didn’t decide the outcome of Germany after WWII, it would be silly to speculate the exact parameters of what is owed to Palestinians. A solid rule: if Israelis used terrorism to cleanse the land, that land should be returned to Palestinians.

how did that land get to be "Palestinian land"

At least around the Iron Age, based on DNA. The Christian Palestinians even have a Biblical claim to the land, being descended from the agriculturalists who “converted” to Christianity, and staying put as the Jewish community migrated to Babylon and then dispersed globally to pursue higher wages. There is no reason to think there is significant Arab admixture given how close their DNA is to Samaritans.

An international body of third-party experts should decide what constitutes Palestinian land

We had that: international parties Sykes and Picot (with the assent of a few other powers) decided the land was properly British. Surely everyone there will agree to abide by this arrangement.

Sarcasm, if unclear, but I doubt you could get the parties involved to agree to binding international mediation for much the same reasons that fell apart to begin with.

decided the land was properly British

Oh, God, please no. Once was enough.

An international body of third-party experts should decide what constitutes Palestinian land, based on informed estimates of the areas depopulated due to the terror campaign.

Ok, and I guess you agree that any area depopulated of Jews due to a terror campaign is Jewish land?

At least around the Iron Age, based on DNA.

Just so I understand this, you are claiming that

(1) DNA analysis of Palestinian Arabs connects them to what is now Israel going back thousands of years; and

(2) DNA analysis of other groups, including Jews, does not do so?

you agree that any area depopulated of Jews due to a terror campaign is Jewish land?

Sure, and that happened with WWII reparations, with Germany paying some high number of billions. What’s wrong with that? If there is some ancestral quarter for Jews in Baghdad and the government made them flee through terrorism, they should have that back or be offered compensation.

you are claiming that (1) DNA analysis of Palestinian Arabs connects them to what is now Israel going back thousands of years; and (2) DNA analysis of other groups, including Jews, does not do so?

I provided some links in this comment. The Palestinians (particularly the Christians) show direct continuity with DNA of Ancient Israel. Samaritans show the closest link of course, which makes sense, and then there’s the Iraqi Jews showing a close link. Ashkenazim are somewhat far away in terms of genetics.

More comments

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