site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   24778 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

We are now in the timeline where the journalistic integrity of the New York Times rests upon whether or not it is physically possible to train a dog to anally rape a human.

The New York Times ran an opinion article by Nicholas Kristof wherein a number of Palestinians report being raped or otherwise sexually assaulted in Israeli prisons. There’s not much in the way of physical evidence, but that is hardly unusual in rape crimes. Israel has strenuously denied the allegations, characterizing them as blood libel. It seems to be a he-said/she-said that comes down to whether you believe the Palestinian prisoners (who often have ties to Hamas or other extremist groups, hence why they ended up in Israeli prisons) or the IDF.

Certain enterprising young pro-Israel influencers think they can to better than appeal to untrustworthiness. They puport to have found a smoking gun that proves the NYT published a complete fabrication in order to libel the State of Israel, and by extension all Jews. One of the more salacious anecdotes regards a man from Gaza who alleges that he was raped by a dog.

On one occasion, he said, he was held down, stripped naked, and as he was blindfolded and handcuffed, a dog was summoned. With encouragement from a handler in Hebrew, he said, the dog mounted him.

”They were using cameras to take photos, and I heard their laughs and giggles,” he said. He tried to dislodge the dog, he said, but it penetrated him.

If, in fact, such a thing were impossible, then it would prove without doubt that the paper of record recklessly printed unverified falsehoods. We are now in the “doctors arguing with the author about the medical literature” stage of the discourse. See, even though we have documented evidence that dogs can cause rectal injury to humans, in none of those reports was the initial contact involuntary on the part of the human.

I am not well acquainted with dogs, but my understanding is that it is not particularly hard to get them to hump things. I guess the people making this argument are hoping that others won’t want to think too hard about the mechanics of dog rape.

Despite calls and rumors to the contrary, The Times so far has declined to retract the article.

Hamas livestream themselves via GoPro gang-raping Israeli women on October 7th, numerous Israeli women independently report rape at the hands of Hamas squaddies on October 7th, numerous doctors report injuries consistent with rape and sexual assault, photos are circulated of Israeli women bleeding from their groins, the UN believes Hamas squaddies committed gang rape on October 7th.

Woke leftists: "Well we don't know for sure that Hamas raped anyone on October 7th!"

One Palestinian claims that he was penetrated by a dog while IDF soldiers watched and laughed. He presents no medical evidence nor corroborative testimony in support of this claim.

Woke leftists: "OMG can you believe how depraved Israel is???!"

Hard to avoid the conclusion that there's a double standard being applied here.

And these are the same woke leftists who think that Brett Kavanaugh's career should have been derailed on the basis of an allegation of sexual misconduct (completely devoid of direct or circumstantial evidence) being brought against him three decades after it allegedly occurred.

I thought it was common knowledge that Hamas squaddies committed extensive acts of sexual violence on October 7th (many of which they filmed and distributed as a form of psychological warfare). But some people still refuse to accept this, so in the interests of proactively providing evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory my claim might be, please consult this report.

Dunking on woke leftist strawmen might be a fun past time, but I'm not sure the NYT qualifies in this particular instance. From the opening paragraph of the article:

It’s a simple proposition: Whatever our views of the Middle East conflict, we should be able to unite in condemning rape.

Supporters of Israel made that point after the brutal sexual assaults against Israeli women during the Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Benjamin Netanyahu and many U.S. senators, including Marco Rubio, condemned that sexual violence, and Netanyahu rightly called on “all civilized leaders” to “speak up.”

And yet in wrenching interviews, Palestinians have recounted to me a pattern of widespread Israeli sexual violence against men, women and even children — by soldiers, settlers, interrogators in the Shin Bet internal security agency and, above all, prison guards.

It seems the author was one step ahead of your critique.

Both sides claim rape is a horrible crime when committed against them. To reiterate the point: Should all parties not be against rape then? And to pontificate further, if we believe one side is not against the rape of their enemies, does that make it OK for us to rape them?

I don't see a double standard. I see two backwards third world populations making appeals to morals and standards that have nothing to do with them. They both play the shivering hurt animal and as soon as they think no one is looking the teeth and claws come out.

I wasn't critiquing the Grey Lady in particular here. I very much doubt the author of this specific article would dispute that Hamas committed sexual violence on October 7th. I'm critiquing the double standard among woke leftists, who demand exhaustive beyond-reasonable-doubt proof when a member of their in-group is accused of sexual misconduct, but when a member of their out-group is accused of sexual misconduct, even hearsay is deemed sufficient to condemn them.

None of this requires you to support Israel, think Israel isn't committing a "genocide", think Israel isn't a settler-colonial apartheid state, think the Palestinians don't have a legitimate grievance etc. You're welcome to think the IDF is just as bad (or even worse) than the people they're fighting. You can sympathise with the Palestinians (even sympathise with Hamas) while acknowledging that Hamas committed acts of unspeakable cruelty on October 7th. But you do, in fact, have to acknowledge that Hamas committed acts of unspeakable cruelty on October 7th. That part is not open for debate.

And it is absolutely not a strawman to say that some woke leftists, pro-Palestinians or Joo-posters will deny to this day that Hamas committed any sexual violence at all on October 7th. I have personally met these people. I may have been dunking on a weakman, but I was not dunking on a strawman and I quite resent that accusation.

Ontological status: If you rape your enemies, they win.

You're not describing a double standard insofar as you can observe this exact same behavior from JIDF posters. Where mass rape on Oct.7 definitely happened and is super important, but these rapes did not, or don't really matter. It's just the standard.

So maybe we are looking at some motivated reasoning that can afflict us all. Rather than a specific trait of the woke left. And perhaps you're not dunking on a strawman, but what are you dunking on, and to what end? The motivated reasoning of one side irks you, but not the other?

So no, the woke left don't have to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization that committed acts of unspeakable cruelty on Oct.7 anymore than the JIDF has to acknowledge that Israel is a a genocidal nazi state that commits acts of unspeakable cruelty in their prisons. You hold no leverage to make that claim. You are just asserting a one sided rhetorical frame on woke leftists. They would be right to recognize what you are doing, call you a genocidal zionist and continue on inside their bubble where Israel is bad and Palestine is good.

Rape denialism is inexcusable coming from anyone, but particularly hypocritical coming from individuals whose catchphrase was "believe women" for the better part of a decade.

And my point would be that it's not particularly hypocritical when those individuals are just playing the same game everyone else is. Including Israel, that is not really concerned with whatever amount of dead or raped Palestinians they leave in their wake. I mean, I don't think the worst part of that is the hypocrisy but whatever.

I, for one, do not assign zero moral value to members of my outgroup. While I accept that the average Israeli is probably more likely to take seriously accusations of rape made against Palestinians than accusations made against Israelis – I do nonetheless believe that the modal Israeli assigns greater moral value to members of his outgroup than the modal Palestinian does. Call me a Zionist shill if you must, that's what I believe.

I do nonetheless believe that the modal Israeli assigns greater moral value to members of his outgroup than the modal Palestinian does.

According to one n>2000 poll, if you're willing to equate judgments of the other side's "humanity" with judgments of their moral worth, the modal Israeli and Palestinian assign each other equal moral worth, namely 0/100:

The results show one of the most symmetrical mirror images – each side almost completely dehumanizes the other, and completely humanizes itself. This is another indication of mutual zerosum attitudes not only towards the conflict but at the human level. When characterizing their side, 83% of the Palestinians selected the number 80 or higher and 17% selected numbers less than 80. On average, Palestinians gave themselves a score of 88 out of 100 on the humanity scale. When characterizing the Israeli side, only 1% selected the number 80 or higher; 71% selected the number 0 and 27% selected a number between 1 and 50. On average, Palestinians gave Israeli Jews a score of 6 out of 100 on the humanity scale.

...However, Jewish Israeli views regarding the humanity of Palestinians show sweeping negative assessments, as a mirror image of the Palestinian view of Israeli Jews. Just 2.7% give a score above 80 for Palestinians. 92% give a score of 50 or lower; and among those, 42% gave the lowest possible score (zero). The average score was 14 (from 0-100). The portion who gave a score of zero to Palestinians regarding levels of humanity is higher among settlers (56%), and highest among the ultra-Orthodox (70%). There is hardly any difference between traditionalists and national religious Israelis – 57% ad 58%, respectively, give Palestinians a score of zero humanity, and 41% of seculars. The age gap is also prominent: 59% of young Israeli Jews (18-34) gave a score of zero, compared to 41% of those 55 and above.

Jewish Israelis are apparently slightly less inclined to dehumanize Palestinians than vice versa, but it's risible to suggest that the average (let alone the modal) Israeli is deeply moved by high-minded European notions about the intrinsic value of human life in their attitude towards Palestinians.

More comments

Hamas livestream themselves via GoPro gang-raping Israeli women on October 7th

Did they? Where is the proof of this?

Here (Ctrl-F "Filming and digital dissemination of SGBV"):

A highly disturbing and recurrent pattern documented by the Commission is the extensive use of digital technology and social media, particularly perpetrator-generated images and videos, to document, glorify, and amplify acts of SGBV [sexual and gender-based violence]. Perpetrators documented themselves during the attacks, including while assaulting, humiliating, abducting, and killing women and desecrating their bodies.

Footage circulated by Hamas and its collaborators depicts women and girls being violently dragged, humiliated, and abducted; female corpses being abused, mocked, or burned; and female hostages being tormented, abused, taunted, or humiliated on camera.

Footage circulated by Hamas and its collaborators depicts women and girls being violently dragged, humiliated, and abducted; female corpses being abused, mocked, or burned; and female hostages being tormented, abused, taunted, or humiliated on camera.

None of this is "rape", let alone "gang rape".

Also with the possible exception of the abuse/mocking/burning of female corpses basically all of these accusations would hold true if you replaced "Hamas" with "Israel".

Hard to avoid the conclusion that there's a double standard being applied here.

I feel like it's really not that difficult to make the cognitive leap from the assertion in one sentence "Hamas filmed and distributed themselves committing acts of sexual and gender-based violence", to the inference that the word "assault" in the following sentence is referring to sexual assaults. In fact, it's such an obvious cognitive leap that I think not making it could only be the product of motivated reasoning.

But if you insist on me excerpting other relevant portions of the report for you, you lazy sod, then so be it:

From the section "key findings":

Hamas and its collaborators used sexual torture to maximize pain and suffering. Victims endured brutal acts, including burning, mutilation, rape, restraining, forced insertion of objects into the genitalia, shootings to the faces and genital area, killings and abuses in front of family members, and executions.

Hamas and its collaborators inflicted SGBV in multiple locations, employing recurring patterns of abuse. The Civil Commission identified at least thirteen patterns of abuse across multiple sites, including: 1) Rape, gang rape, and other forms of sexual assaults; 2) Sexual torture, including intentional burning and mutilation; 3) Deliberate shootings to the head, face and genital area; 4) Killings and executions following or committed in conjunction with SGBV; 5) Postmortem sexual abuse, humiliation, and desecration of bodies; 6) Forced nudity and exposure; 7) Handcuffing, binding, and restraint of victims; 8) Public displaying and parading of women and children; 9) Abduction of mothers and children; 10) SGBV inflicted in the presence or near vicinity of family members; 11) Filming and digital dissemination of SGBV, including use of social media to document, glorify, and amplify the atrocities; 12) Threats of forced marriage; 13) Rape and other forms of sexual violence against boys and men.

From the section "operational preparation prior to the attack":

A wide range of documentary material seized from the bodies and homes of perpetrators, and recovered from October 7th sites, demonstrates that the attacks were not a spontaneous outbreak of violence but rather were planned and rehearsed with specific instructions to kill, kidnap, and humiliate civilians.107 The Civil Commission has reviewed extensive operational materials, notebooks, checklists, maps, phrasebooks, and tactical guides that guided perpetrators on how to enter civilian communities, how to control victims, and what commands to use in Hebrew during abductions... These materials further include Arabic‑to‑Hebrew phrase lists with imperatives and humiliating commands (for example, commanding victims to “take off your pants/take your clothes off,” “lie down,” “spread your legs”), as well as kits containing zip ties and other materials to physically restrain victims.

The word "rape" appears 309 times in the report, 29 of those as part of the phrase "gang rape". The section "Rape, gang rape, and other forms of sexual assault" is five pages long, while the section on "filming and digital dissemination of SGBV" is three pages long. None of this is open for debate.

Also with the possible exception of the abuse/mocking/burning of female corpses basically all of these accusations would hold true if you replaced "Hamas" with "Israel".

It is so, so tiresome how you immediately pivot to arguments-as-soldiers mode. You demand evidence that Hamas did the things I claimed, I provide it, and you instantly pivot to "well Israel is just as bad so who cares". We weren't debating whether Israel was just as bad as Hamas, or who is worse: we were debating whether Hamas really did the things they filmed themselves doing and disseminated. It is a simple factual question, not an ethical one.

Hard to avoid the conclusion that there's a double standard being applied here.

Only if your worldview depends on you failing to understand what's right in front of your nose. The rape, gang rape, sexual abuse, torture and humiliation committed on October 7th was exhaustively documented, perhaps an outright majority of it by the perpetrators themselves. If this Palestinian man really was raped by a dog belonging to the IDF, that event was not exhaustively documented by anyone, including the alleged perpetrators. Joo-posters have no trouble believing that the dog-rape occurred, but it seems no amount of documentary evidence will persuade them that Hamas really did the things that they filmed themselves doing and proudly disseminated. (By contrast, if the IDF filmed this Palestinian man being raped by a dog and distributed it on their own channels as a form of psychological warfare against Hamas and the Palestinians, I would have no trouble believing that it really happened. I'm not the one with the double standard.)

Look, you literally said

Hamas livestream themselves via GoPro gang-raping Israeli women on October 7th

I ask for evidence of this happening and it turns out that, in fact, you have no such evidence whatsoever. No such livestream exists. You lied. You made it up. Why did you do that?

Instead you pivot to an "investigation" by an Israeli "Civil Commission" which, if we're being objective, should really be given about as much credibility as an "investigation" by the "Hamas Health Ministry". Yet even the "Civil Commission" doesn't claim Hamas live streamed themselves raping anyone; in the section actually covering "Filming and digital dissemination of SGBV" they don't even make that claim. They claim to have found secondary evidence of rape after the fact but even this dubious Israeli investigation isn't claiming to have it on video, let alone on livestream.

The word "rape" appears 309 times in the report, 29 of those as part of the phrase "gang rape". The section "Rape, gang rape, and other forms of sexual assault" is five pages long, while the section on "filming and digital dissemination of SGBV" is three pages long. None of this is open for debate.

Why are we expected to unquestioningly believe Israeli war propaganda without debate, exactly? Putting aside the fact that it isn't even claiming what you claimed.

It is so, so tiresome how you immediately pivot to arguments-as-soldiers mode. You demand evidence that Hamas did the things I claimed, I provide it, and you instantly pivot to "well Israel is just as bad so who cares". We weren't debating whether Israel was just as bad as Hamas, or who is worse: we were debating whether Hamas really did the things they filmed themselves doing and disseminated. It is a simple factual question, not an ethical one.

Nope, you made a false claim, you provided "evidence" from a dubious source that doesn't even back up your false claim and now you're going on a hysterical rant about things I never said.

Only if your worldview depends on you failing to understand what's right in front of your nose. The rape, gang rape, sexual abuse, torture and humiliation committed on October 7th was exhaustively documented, perhaps an outright majority of it by the perpetrators themselves.

I mean, if Hamas livestreamed themselves committing gang rape then surely a link to it exists somewhere, right? Why are you unable to provide this clear, irrefutable evidence that would instantly resolve this dispute, rather than paging through entirely secondhand Israeli war propaganda reports?

I mean, if Hamas livestreamed themselves committing gang rape then surely a link to it exists somewhere, right?

AIUI that would be considered rape porn and nonconsensual* porn (usually given dysphemistic legal names) in basically all jurisdictions, and therefore illegal to (host, view, download, link to) (maybe strike out the last one in the US), and therefore purged from all legal websites including the ones that normally function as anti-Orwell archives. I suspect that @FtttG doesn't want to literally commit crimes trawling darknet sites in order to commit more crimes supplying you with a link to illegal material.

I get that this is a bit frustrating when the illegal material is also (if it exists) critical historical evidence.

*As in, not all the people in the video consented to the publication of the video.

LiveLeak has been shut down (news to me), and apparently its successor website is ItemFix. I did do a cursory search of ItemFix which didn't return anything relevant: it seems pretty light on war footage across the board (it seems police bodycam footage is their bread and butter). I didn't look any further than that; besides LiveLeak, I don't know where one would locate this kind of footage, nor do I especially care to find out. If respectable academic researchers have watched this footage and confirmed that it depicts what I believed it to depict, that's good enough for me.

It's not like I even want to watch gory footage of Hamas raping and torturing people, but it sure would be nice if their Western apologists could see exactly what it is they're defending instead of retreating into these "false flag" muh Hannibal doctrine evasions.

If you'd prefer me to amend my comment to "Numerous witnesses independently witnessed Hamas squaddies gang-raping women on October 7th; Hamas squaddies filmed and publicly disseminated footage of them assaulting, humiliating and sexually torturing women; but they did not, strictly speaking, livestream themselves gang-raping women", then fair enough. But this seems like just about the most macabre kind of hair-splitting I've ever encountered.

Even then, if a group of armed men surrounded a woman and collectively forced her to undress before humiliating and sexually torturing her, I think few people would object to characterising that as "gang rape", even if technically none of the men forcibly penetrated the woman with his penis. Likewise if the men in question were wearing GoPros on their person, I think few people would object to characterising that as "a group of men filmed/livestreamed themselves committing gang rape", even if, again, none of the men forcibly penetrated the woman with his penis.

But why am I even saying any of this? You've preemptively decided that any factual claim that makes Hamas look bad and portrays Israelis as victims is "Zionist propaganda". You've preemptively decided that any organisation advancing any factual claim that makes Hamas look bad and portrays Israelis as victims is therefore a sinister Zionist organisation. I might as well argue with a brick wall.

I ask for evidence of this happening and it turns out that, in fact, you have no such evidence whatsoever. No such livestream exists. You lied. You made it up. Why did you do that?

If this specific claim turns out to be untrue and you want to accuse me of having been duped by Israeli war propaganda, then go for it. But I didn't "make up" this claim. It did not originate with me.

you're going on a hysterical rant about things I never said.

Dude, it's right there. You said "Also with the possible exception of the abuse/mocking/burning of female corpses basically all of these accusations would hold true if you replaced "Hamas" with "Israel"."

I mean, if Hamas livestreamed themselves committing gang rape then surely a link to it exists somewhere, right?

There is the film Bearing Witness to the October 7th Massacre, which edits hundreds of hours of Hamas-produced footage into a 47-minute documentary. According to people who've seen it, some of the Hamas-captured footage implies sexual violence has recently taken place. Netanyahu defended the decision to publicly screen the footage on the grounds that, without doing so, people would deny or downplay the extent of Hamas's brutality. Sadly, it didn't have the desired effect, if your reaction is any indication.

In addition, the Civil Commission maintains a more extensive archive of footage, although for obvious reasons it isn't a publicly accessible database. They are planning to give access to academic and legal professionals over time. I look forward to the day when several of these individuals watch the footage, confirm that the linked report described its contents accurately, and get immediately dismissed as "Zionist shills" by you and your ilk.

Andrew Fox claims to have seen footage which was not included in the aforementioned documentary:

Back in 2024, with a visiting group of senior military officers, I was shown part of the sexual crime evidence discussed in the Civil Commission report released today; evidence far beyond the infamous 47-minute reel. It remains the most horrific thing I have ever seen in my life, which to this day causes my voice to hoarsen and the hair to stand up on my arms when I talk about it.

There are things that permanently alter your sense of what human beings can do to one another. There are images and details that do not fade, because they are not merely violent; they are desecrations. They are crimes against the body, against the dead, against the living, and against the idea that humanity has limits... the rapes are what [Hamas] are most desperate to deny. Every time I have written about what I have seen, the response has differed from the usual abuse. The bots arrive in far greater numbers. The replies are filled with smears, mockery, deflection and outright denial. The purpose is not persuasion. It is intimidation. It is to make bearing witness so exhausting, so poisonous, and so socially costly that people stop doing it.

But I know you've already dismissed his account as lies.

entirely secondhand Israeli war propaganda reports

I have a very hard time believing that the only reason you don't believe this report is that it's "secondhand information". I don't think you would immediately change your mind and accept that Hamas really did what they're accused of doing if you personally spoke to the people who attended Nova and confirmed to you the things they'd witnessed.

this seems like just about the most macabre kind of hair-splitting I've ever encountered

Yes, but it's still important. There is a significant value in truth and precision. If nothing else, it prevents people from saying, "Aha! You were lying or exaggerating about this, clearly I can disregard the rest of your claims equally!"

If you're not prepared to stand behind a claim, you shouldn't make it.

More comments

This is exactly what I would expect. Of course both sides do it. "Law and order is good, except jan 6th does not apply."

"Police shooting unarmed civilians is bad, except jan 6th does not apply."

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