site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   23694 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 29, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Opol Ra

Or: Which way, Hapa parent?

I.

Have you guys ever heard of One Parent One Language? Basically, the idea is that if a parent speaks a second language that they want to pass down to their kids, they should speak to their kids solely in that language. So, for example, if you are a German/Spanish speaker and your wife is a French/Spanish speaker and you live in Spain, you speak to the kids only in German, your wife speaks to the kids only in French, and you and your wife speak Spanish to each other (and, of course, the kids learn Spanish in school). The ultimate goal is to have the kids be fluent in German and French as well as Spanish as adults.

Sounds simple enough, but there is a snag. How do you have conversations with the whole family? In the happy case, you and your wife speak, or at least understand, each others' second language (in our example, you also speak French and your wife also speaks German), and there's no problem: you understand what the kids say to your wife and she understands what the kids say to you.

However, that's rarely the case outside of highly polyglot areas of Europe (Switzerland?). In America, or at least my corner of it, the most common pairing that isn't two monoglots is an English monoglot and a diglot. So Father speaks to the kids in English and Mother speaks in, say, Mandarin, but Father can't speak a lick of Mandarin. This doesn't much matter when the kids are preverbal, but what is the future for such an OPOL family when the kids are old enough to have meaningful, grammatically complex conversations with a variety of vocabulary, spoken at normal adult velocity (or even faster, if passions are inflamed or someone is a naturally quick talker, or a mumbler)?

We can lay out a few possibilities:

  1. Father learns Mandarin and we're back to the happy case. The US foreign service estimates 2200 class hours to learn Mandarin. Father doesn't need to speak Mandarin, he only needs to comprehend it, but he's also not taking classes, he's trying to pick it up from "immersion" that happens whenever the family is all together. This is rare. Mandarin is among the hardest languages for native English speakers to learn, so maybe this could work for, say, Spanish, but I doubt that this works in the long run. It's easy enough to pick up ve a bañarte ahora but I doubt that you can work your way up to actually substantive conversations as an adult with such minimal exposure.
  2. Mother and the kids say everything twice, once in Mandarin and once in English. This is an unbelievable pain in the ass and completely destroys conversational flow. I seriously doubt that anyone can keep this up over a decade and a half. I suspect that this scenario degenerates into one of the following.
  3. Father guesses what Mother and the kids are talking about based on picking out a few words he knows. This is only practical for the most basic conversations ("baño! I know that one!").
  4. Father checks out of the conversation when Mother and the kids are talking.
  5. The family avoids having any substantive conversations when together.

A cursory perusal of threads about dinner table conversations on /r/oneparentonelanguage bears out that these options seem to be exhaustive. Tellingly, very few people discussing this problem have kids older than six or so; presumably the details of their life become too embarrassing to publicize or they compromise on OPOL.

II.

To put it simply, any option besides option 1 (and maybe option 2, but it's not a stable equilibrium) entails the total obliteration of joint family life. Mother addresses the kids or she addresses Father, but she does not ever address her children along with her husband. This seems to be just fine in the eyes of many women who I bin as "type A elder millenials" who seem to treat the kids as royalty and the husbands as the help. These women would trade off adult social cohesion in favor of a little more comprehensible language input for their kids all day every day. These are the women who, if their kids interrupt an adult conversation, tell the adults to wait while they talk to the kids.

A word about my own situation: my parents both speak English and Russian, which I and my siblings all learned since Russian was all we spoke at home. My sister married a man who doesn't speak Russian and had kids, and I married a woman who doesn't speak Russian either. Any time we're together and I say something in English for the benefit of all the adults present ("should we think about lunch?"), my sister badgers me about saying it in Russian unless I was specifically addressing someone who doesn't understand Russian. Meanwhile, her husband's Russian skills have been eclipsed by his kids, and I don't think he's ever going to catch up, so option 1 and 2 are basically off the table. The only remaining question is how far down the list the family is going to end up. I've seen Chinese/American couples where the parents bring kids to the park and the Chinese wife finds other Chinese women and chats with them in Chinese while the husband looks off into space (they are also doing OPOL). I expect we are going to see a lot more of this sort of thing in the future and I don't think it's going to be pretty to see the products of marriages like this. The /r/aznmasculinity poster problem is only the beginning.

III.

This naturally raises the question: why bother? Why not just teach your kids English at home so you can have conversations as a family and forget about all this nonsense? Some might believe that there's cognitive benefits from multilingualism, but I'm pretty sure those are bunk, and my sister has never brought them up. The arguments I've seen are:

  1. This allows them to have a shared language with their grandparents. I think this is fair, certainly our parents are less comfortable in English than Russian. Of course, my sister is constantly on the outs with our parents, so I'm not sure how practically useful this is. Even so, it seems insane to prioritize the kids' relationship with their grandparents over your relationship with your spouse.
  2. It's a matter of passing down the heritage. This one I find objectionable. I do not see much value in possessing "Russian heritage" and I hope that my kids see themselves as Americans rather than Russian-Americans or whatever. Our family came to this country because it is better than the place we left, why do we want to preserve the vestiges of the bad old country?
  3. Access to Russian culture. I'm glad I can read Russian literature in the original and I get a lot out of it, but I don't know that it's worth torpedoing my family life so that my kids can get the same benefit.

The base rates for language retention in second generation speakers (besides Spanish) in the US are quite poor. The overwhelmingly likely result of doing this to your family is that your kids don't speak your language as adults and they do not have a sense of the family as a cohesive unit. The odds of their kids speaking your language, even if it's Spanish, are effectively zero. Is it really worth splitting your family for this?

I think any reasonable person has to say no. I knew that marrying my wife meant that the odds our kids speak Russian is basically zero (at the time I didn't consider the simple solution of alienating my wife to pass on the language). If I wanted my kids to speak Russian, I should have married a Russian. If my parents wanted my kids to speak Russian, they should have stayed in Russia. This is America, you don't get to raise your kids in an insular culture unless you go fully Amish. You don't get both the freedom to come to this country, love a woman from a background different than yours, marry her, and start a family AND somehow pass on your idiosyncratic foreign background without compromising the relationship that is the bedrock of the family, namely, that between the wife and the husband. And I think that's basically as it should be.

Father learns Mandarin and we're back to the happy case. The US foreign service estimates 2200 class hours to learn Mandarin. Father doesn't need to speak Mandarin, he only needs to comprehend it, but he's also not taking classes, he's trying to pick it up from "immersion" that happens whenever the family is all together. This is rare. Mandarin is among the hardest languages for native English speakers to learn, so maybe this could work for, say, Spanish, but I doubt that this works in the long run. It's easy enough to pick up ve a bañarte ahora but I doubt that you can work your way up to actually substantive conversations as an adult with such minimal exposure.

If you are not trying to read and write and just speak basic "kitchen Mandarin" you can get that in six months self study. With pretty much any language it's not THAT hard to get to a basic level about household topics.

Tones are pretty hard but if you've got somebody who's willing to work with your honky ass you should be able to get toddler-level communication in 6 months. I'd be surprised by somebody who's even colloquially conversational at that point, though.

You could get by in the mainland as a tourist with less than that, but a lot of it's the phone apps being incredibly comprehensive so you really don't actually have to talk with people that much once you get your head around China-style internet.

This whole thing just seems like an insane non problem to me. Families should have one language everyone can speak. You use that language at home. You want to teach them another language, you can do that. It's really not that hard.

I'm going to give my personal take, that probably everyone disagrees with. I don't think learning multiple languages is good or desirable. I've spoken English my whole life and never felt held back by it. I'm not an extensive world traveler, but I have traveled a bit, and everywhere I go, people speak English to me. I guess that wouldn't hold if I traveled to really exotic places, like sub Saharan Africa or something, but 1. I don't want to go there and 2. none of the languages I might reasonably want to learn, and American parents tend teach their kids, would be useful to me there anyway. I think the value of learning and teaching your kids multiple languages is declining rapidly as English starts to fulfill the original vision of Esperanto. And also, text translation programs are practically flawless these days. It's only a matter of time before we have a real life babelfish device.

English would get you farther in most of Sub Saharan Africa then it will in Japan.

Fair enough. It might be my own filter bubble, but I actually don't know anyone trying to reach their kids Japanese. Mostly it's Mandarin and romance languages.

I know a few mixed race families with hapa kids. I'm in one for one thing. I've never heard of this. There are families in which one parent speaks in another language to children, but all communication involving both parents is in English; such as mine. These people are taking it way to far.

Unrelated but I find it funny that calling someone a halfsie is treated like it is racist, so instead we call half-Asians "hapa" which is Hawaiian for "half". We call them halfsies in another language and that's somehow different.

Well, it's okay to say that someone is "black" in America, but refer to them by the Spanish term for the same word and... (ironically, the former used to be considered very offensive as recently as the 2000s, and the latter used to be a standard non-offensive term some time before that).

Negro isn’t that offensive. It just sounds old.

I'd guess that calling a black man a "negro" in the USA would be considered more offensive than calling a hapa a "halfsie." Though I don't have direct experience with either to draw on. I do recall it was around a decade ago when there was some Twitter kerfuffle because some Central/South American lady posted about her black cat being named Negro, which a lot of English speakers took issue with.

Both the NAACP and UNCF are still a thing.

Despite what NAACP stands for, I think "colored person" would still be considered an offensive term to refer to someone these days (unlike the enlightened and inclusive "person of color").

Mercedes Lackey is still, four years later, off the convention circuit.

This is all upper-class theoretical min-max bullshit. Remember playing Bach to babies? Rich women were buying high-end stereo equipment and blasting their fetuses with classical tunes because there was some bullshit horseshit fuckshit "science" article that showed people whose children listened to classical music did better in school. All selection effect, of course, but that's how "Science" works.

There's always a half-dozen of these fads bouncing around the upper and aspirational upper-middle classes. It's soothing behavior for class anxiety, nothing more. Teach your kid a language or don't, having this bizarre BDSM monastical communications clusterfuck is not going to be the thing that puts him over the top. A parent's willingness to live some insane existence speaking a separate language to everyone in their family will probably do far more damage than being monolingual.

I don’t always agree with your posts, but I agree with this one.

Just live your life.

There's always a half-dozen of these fads bouncing around the upper and aspirational upper-middle classes. It's soothing behavior for class anxiety, nothing more.

With how poorly prepared I see some (a lot of) young adults are for adulthood, I have a suspicion that a lot of this is aspirational parents using these "one weird trick," "lifehacks," and such to substitute for the basic traditional stuff like providing a safe, secure home, teaching them basic life skills and inculcating useful values like discipline, and such, because the latter is really really hard and requires a lot of personal sacrifice in both time and energy.

And mostly unrelated, but these hacks remind me a lot of what seems to have happened with the way education standards seem to have evolved by taking "tricks" that high performing people use (e.g. "whole word reading," which is the way a lot of intelligent, fast readers read words in dense texts, by looking at the 1st and last letters and inferring the rest from context, or the techniques of adding or multiplying numbers in one's head more easily by adding on whatever's necessary to get to the nearest multiple of 10, then getting rid of it at the end, which is certainly the way I figured out how to do it when I was young) and teaching it as the baseline to everyone, under the false belief that that would just lift everyone up to high performance. Instead of what I believe is the reality, that high performers have internalized the standard, slower way enough such that they can build these tricks on top of it, and these tricks need that stable base to actually be effective. Looks like a lot of cargo culting.

I feel like most book-learning other than for absolutely necessary medical information regarding special needs your child has does more harm than good. The further away from "hey mom, baby's doing scary thing X." "Oh, that's just Y, here's how I handled it" parental advice gets, the less you should trust it. Millenials need to stop reading mommy blogs and call their fucking parents.

In families where both parents speak eg English and another (but different language), the child usually adopts the host country language and the mother’s language. I’ve almost never encountered a true 3-language polyglot OPOL situation outside of like Switzerland, Luxembourg, or those African countries (and to some extent India) where speaking 3-4+ languages is semi-common.

In the more normal situation you discuss, I think it’s fine. Mom speaks Mandarin when she’s alone with the kids, you speak English together at dinner, you ship the kids off to their grandparents in China for a month every summer. Problem solved.

I have encountered a single case of native polyglots- and it was English/spanish/portuguese, which hardly counts.

Interesting. I learned language A from my mom; language B from my dad; language C (English), which they used with each other; language D from school; and language E as an elective foreign language. And unlike what Bingbong said, I speak languages A, B, and C well enough that I could write (and actually have written) dissertations in them. I believe that my father learned a few obscure languages as part of his studies, which makes me think that, unless you yourself, as a parent, are proficient in multiple languages and language acquisition comes naturally to you, you shouldn't really (nor can you?) force your child to be a polyglot.

My point is more as somebody living in Malaysia it's fairly common to meet people who are verbally proficient in 4+ languages. My wife considers herself conversational in Malay, English, Hokkien, Cantonese and Mandarin for instance but she'd also only consider herself capable of formal conversation in English and Mandarin. There's plenty of people I'd meet day-to-day with 4+ languages, even excluding Chinese/dialects, who would only really be able to write an essay in one. One of my friends is Indian background and speaks Hindi, Malay, English, Mandarin, Bengali and Kadazan for instance and it's not seen as being a particularly huge deal just normal for somebody with their particular ethnic state.

I’ve almost never encountered a true 3-language polyglot OPOL situation outside of like Switzerland, Luxembourg, or those African countries (and to some extent India) where speaking 3-4+ languages is semi-common.

There are plenty of families like this in the bay area.

you speak English together at dinner

This would indeed be a non-issue. However, it's not the approach usually taken.

I probably phrased that poorly. There are plenty of attempts, but I think a true success is rare. Usually one parent will surrender at some point.

The biggest difficulty with pushing a second language is that non-English second languages are mostly useless: everything interesting in the world happens in English. Yes, if you live in a non-English-speaking country, you need to communicate with the locals in the regional language (e.g., Russian), but even in Russia, every intelligent person under 40 speaks English, and even many of the intelligent people over 40. Even in countries like China, where there is the most cultural and technological independence from the Anglosphere, a large chunk of the interesting conversation and research happens in English among the under-40s.

That said, regarding local languages, even for English itself there is the emergence of an "International English" which is distinct from native English dialects. American English is already kind of like this compared to British dialects, but the mass influx of ESL speakers across the globe into public and business discourse has rendered even native American English a regional dialect rather than a de facto international standard. Key changes are dropping the arcane rules over auxiliary verbs like "do" ("I do see the benefit of that" -> "I see the benefit of that.", "How do you start a business?" -> "How to start a business?"), dropping the redundancy in continuous verb conjugations ("I'm using Arch Linux" -> "I use Arch Linux"), use of formal verbs over colloquial constructions using "get" ("My cough got better" -> "I recovered from my cough"). Revealingly, all of these represent a move from informal to formal constructions. In fact, this is consistent with the trajectory of English since the early modern period. Most languages feature some form of T-V distinction or similar formality management, but English has lost this distinction, and in exactly the opposite direction of the stereotype: English has lost the informal form and retained only the formal form! It's not that Anglos began classifying foreigners as family: it's that they began classifying their own families as strangers. In fact, informality has been so lost that even native English speakers often perceive the T-V formality backwards: "thou" is often perceived as formal!

Even in countries like China, ... a large chunk of the interesting conversation and research happens in English among the under-40s.

Definitely not true. In china they may publish papers and stuff in English for bragging rights, but all work is done in Chinese. Chinese is still useless to learn though, because as a foreigner you have no value to Chinese.

Most languages feature some form of T-V distinction or similar formality management, but English has lost this distinction, and in exactly the opposite direction of the stereotype: English has lost the informal form and retained only the formal form! It's not that Anglos began classifying foreigners as family: it's that they began classifying their own families as strangers.

The same thing happened with Colombian Spanish. I like to think of it as politeness inflation.

In fact, informality has been so lost that even native English speakers often perceive the T-V formality backwards: "thou" is often perceived as formal!

Well, yes. Most people these days encounter thee/thou/thy in either Shakespeare and or the King James Bible (early modern English), which makes it sound more formal.

Most people these days encounter thee/thou/thy in either Shakespeare and or the King James Bible (early modern English), which makes it sound more formal.

For Shakespeare, you're going to get a severe misreading of the text if you conflate these!

Regarding the King James translation, any distinction here is chosen by the translators rather than the authors, as Koine Greek does not have a T-V distinction, and neither does ancient Hebrew afaik.

It does seem almost criminal that nearly all American students are exposed to Shakespeare, but hardly any of them end up with the skills necessary to understand what the text of his plays actually says.

The same thing happened with Colombian Spanish. I like to think of it as politeness inflation.

“Usted” replacing “tu” in familial situations?

When chicks address me with “usted” while I in turn address them with “tu,” I’ve always mentally chuckled about it as the power dynamics necessary for a heterosexual relationship being reflected linguistically.

Well, yes. Most people these days encounter thee/thou/thy in either Shakespeare and or the King James Bible (early modern English), which makes it sound more formal.

Yeah, most people have no idea that "thou" is informal. They just think of it as old, and used in religion a lot, and therefore invoke it to bring the gravitas those things lend.

Also some centraco dialects use usted for everyone.

"How do you start a business?" -> "How to start a business?"

I have a distinctly averse reaction to this construction in particular (although I know I'm not supposed to say that around linguists - all dialects are equally valid, yada yada, yeah I get it). It immediately signals to me that this is yet another one of those immigrant professionals I've had to work with over the years where communicating about complex subjects is going to be a struggle, but in an illegible way that's hard to really put a finger on. I think it's some combination of:

  • When I'm speaking off the cuff about something, and someone else thinks I'm wrong, I expect them to chime in to say so and explain why they think I'm wrong. In "my culture" (I would like to say "American culture", but this probably isn't true nationwide) this is how collaboration works. But if someone is a non-native speaker who's having trouble keeping up (as indicated by them saying things like "How to start a business?"), I can never really be sure what their silence means. If it's because they're in full agreement with me, great. If it's because they're deferring to my expertise, that's also fine, I guess I'm in charge now. But if they do actually have a substantive disagreement, but are quietly simmering in frustration because they don't know how to articulate it, then this is going to become a problem later.
  • I can tell that this person isn't going to be much fun to hang out with at lunch or around the water cooler. Not that I expect to be friends with my co-workers - in fact I rarely mix my social and professional life - but it's still nice to be able to share glimpses of what they're like personally.
  • English is my native language, the language of "my people", of Shakespeare and Chaucer etc., but for them it's just what they speak at work, yet another piece of generic international slop. Like, if you scoff at American cuisine as being synonymous with McDonalds and Coke, I feel like you've insulted my grandmother's cooking even though you probably weren't even thinking about that.

Such is the price of living in a global economic superpower, I guess.

Yeah, I honestly don't understand why companies are so pumped to hire this sort of person. In my experience, they contribute little, and it's all in a very metric-chasing but not-actually-value-adding sort of way. Yet people like Elon Musk are, in his own words, willing to go to war to let this sort of person in.

And Elon Musk is nowhere near the most smoothbrained capitalist out there running our world.

Here's one way to think about it: public sentiment on, say, Indian immigrants to the US is definitely affected positively by the heavy selection we put on their immigration. Now imagine the filters required to be a direct report to Elon. If Elon thinks that H1b/O1 tech workers are incredible at their jobs, he's probably inferring accurately from those he interacts with.

Part of the reason I'm so distrusting of this is that these visas are de facto Indian mass immigration pipelines. Yet if I look at the open source software I depend and use every day, it's... not built by Indians. It's built mostly by western Europeans, followed by ex-Soviet demographics and white Americans, with India being barely represented at all.

So, if we're so thirsty for talent, why aren't we mass importing the Swedes and Swiss?

I just find the whole thing extremely dishonest. The problem with the Kalergi conspiracy theory is even if it's not "true" in some sense, it's hard to find a more accurate model of the world.

And to the extent that capitalists are indeed responsible for the Great Replacement under some well-intentioned chart-maxxing myopia, well... I don't know, I'm kinda inclined to not object too hard when the commies have their way with them.

I think many tech higher-ups either don't believe or don't want to believe that, because they don't see it themselves (or they're not articulate/nuanced enough to say they want to close the fraud and keep the elite). The reason half these guys went rightwards is that they started believing their lying eyes, and their eyes are giving them very strong data about the immigrant engineers high up in their businesses/portcos. I agree that this state of affairs is utterly insane, but if you want to convince them you will have to explain how unrepresentative their personal experience is - for Elon, I'd just call it fraud, he likes that.

The emergent tech right seems to have switched sides for reasons unrelated to this: it was at best discontent with the social justice nonsense, though more likely as the leftists contend, because the left is actually somewhat capable of wielding regulatory power, while the right is basically clueless and incapable of wielding this power at all.

The reason I say this is JD Vance, the tech anointed heir, has an Indian wife and children that look far more like her than him. And the RNC featured a tattooed pornstar and an Indian praying to a Hindu god. This does not sound like "rightward drift": it sounds like a hostile takeover of the Republican party. The mass import of Indians and degeneracy promotion will continue just as it did when the Democrats were in power. All the right-wing voters got some token oppression of LatAm immigrants for a short period, and even that was executed with all the enthusiasm of a geriatric bingo club.

But hey, we got some WWE on the White House lawn. And I love WWE Smackdown!

Musk wants to cream skim the smartest people of the world so they come to America.

It just so happens that the same programs that enable that also enable migration of ZMP, or maybe even NMP, WITCH employees. Very few people seem to be interested in drawing a distinction between these groups for immigration purposes.

I don’t recognize any of those terms. Zero-something? Negative-something?

Zero/negative marginal product.

Because they don't distinguish between value-add and metric chasing. This makes them reliable metric pumping engines, especially if they come from a culture with normalized double-speak, e.g. "Achieve great success while adhering to the highest levels of ethics and accountability" -> "Cut every corner possible to juice the KPI as long as you don't get caught".

You're probably right.

Still, I find Elon baffling because he does sound moderately sentient when he talks. Of course, then you see his Elden Ring build and.... yeesh, one can understand why he started paying people to play on his accounts.

Musk is a goofy autist, but he's probably well-positioned to skim the cream of the crop. This is something I feel like I should just never shut up about. There's a huge disconnect between people whose experience with immigrants is massively filtered exceptions, compared to the normies. It really makes you appreciate how much a shared cultures does to smooth the friction when dealing with someone 20+ IQ points below you, much less the horror of 50+.

If he spent a week trying to help Haitians, Somalians and Guatemalans set up Starlink, he'd probably turn into Enoch Powell.

Elon isn't Elon anymore.

By all accounts the combination of family drama, widespread social censure, and depression with unconventional treatments have all rotted his brain. It's not clear if he could come back but he 100% isn't the same guy he was before unfortunately.

Without context I'm not 100% sure, but I believe American English has long had the first example -- "I see the benefit of that" would be the common construction, whereas "I do see the benefit of that" would only be used for emphasis. Same with the continuous verb conjugations; "I'm using Arch Linux" and "I use Arch Linux" would both be OK, though "using" would be the only correct one if you were actually sitting at your keyboard. I believe Spanish also uses those somewhat interchangeably.

Well, they're all valid constructions, at least to my ear, just like discarding T and always using V is a valid construction. Rather, I'm accenting a shift in linguistic preference toward more formal and less colloquial constructions, a shift that has been long underway but accelerated thanks to the rise of ESL.

I don't see the simple present as less formal than the present continuous. They simply mean different things. I could believe that one is being eroded by ESL speakers not using it, but it's not a question of formality.

Your friendly neighborhood hapa, reporting in (though I hear 'wasian' is the new hip term).

I grew up with more or less perfect OPOL i.e. my mom only spoke to me in Mandarin and my dad only spoke to me in English. I speak the former with no discernable [foreign] accent, but with a limited vocabulary and reading skills. I would say my level is quite a bit higher than the average 2nd generation Chinese-American's. Family dinners growing up were some combination of your possibilities 3 and 4. My mom would address me directly in Mandarin and my dad directly or myself and my dad collectively in English, and I would address my parents collectively in English, but my mom directly in Mandarin. There were essentially always 3 conversations happening in parallel: one between me and my mom in Mandarin that my dad didn't understand more than a few words of, one between me and my dad in English that was somewhat above my mom's English level and about subjects in which she had little interest, and a third collective discussion in simpler English.

To put it simply, any option besides option 1 (and maybe option 2, but it's not a stable equilibrium) entails the total obliteration of joint family life.

I'd say that this arrangement can be thought of as one instance of Tolstoy's unhappy families, but is not uniquely bad compared to many other possibilities e.g. divorce, abuse, absent father. When there are serious issues, the ultimate cause is usually something else i.e. if you denigrate your spouse in a language they don't understand, is it your choice of language or the lack of respect that's the main problem? Intercultural marriages typically have multiple sources of friction, and speaking the same language won't eliminate them.

This naturally raises the question: why bother? Why not just teach your kids English at home so you can have conversations as a family and forget about all this nonsense?

Some might believe that there's cognitive benefits from multilingualism, but I'm pretty sure those are bunk

That's not my understanding, but I am of course biased in this matter.

This allows them to have a shared language with their grandparents.

This was the case for me, though my grandmother didn't even speak Mandarin that well, so communication was still difficult.

It's a matter of passing down the heritage. This one I find objectionable. I do not see much value in possessing "Russian heritage" and I hope that my kids see themselves as Americans rather than Russian-Americans or whatever. Our family came to this country because it is better than the place we left, why do we want to preserve the vestiges of the bad old country?

This is the crux of it. Some immigrants recognize themselves as being here for ideological reasons e.g. escaping communism, corruption, lawlessness, and consciously intend to leave the trappings of their birthplace behind, and other immigrants are here because their friend in New York offered them a job at his restaurant that paid more than whatever they were making at the time, and they spared about as much thought to the generational consequences of moving to a new nation as you would if you got a good job offer in the next town over. Why would the latter sort of person think of their language and traditions as something bad to be shed?

The overwhelmingly likely result of doing this to your family is that your kids don't speak your language as adults and they do not have a sense of the family as a cohesive unit.

My parents were never going to form a cohesive family unit under any circumstances, so I consider it better to have at least obtained a useful skill out of it.

This is America, you don't get to raise your kids in an insular culture unless you go fully Amish.

Do Hasidic Jews count as having gone "fully Amish"?

Intercultural marriages typically have multiple sources of friction, and speaking the same language won't eliminate them.

Not speaking the same language can be a feature—not a bug—for relationship/marital bliss.

You have plausible deniability in pretending not to understand your girlfriend/wife’s whining, nagging, and/or shit-tests. Long, protracted arguments where tempers and voices increasingly rise are also less likely to ensue.

Knowing Mandarin, the pool of women you can date and marry opens up considerably. A useful advantage if you are otherwise mostly surrounded by feminist women.

My favorite part of OPOL is having a secret language to use out in public with the kids.

One time I was at Costco with my 3 year old boy. There was a dwarf walking around the store, and my son was asking reasonable questions about why an adult was small like a child... but it was in Spanish and so the dwarf didn't hear himself being talked about... but then after seeing the dwarf for the 4th or 5th time, my boy had a sudden flash of inspiration. He shouts with all the wild-eyed enthusiasm of a toddler: "Me pregunto si mi pene es mas grande que lo suyo?" (I wonder if my penis is bigger than his?) Let me tell you I've never been more happy that my child spoke spanish. The free sample lady we were talking too doubled over laughing, but no one else in the store registered the outburst.

But I'm not super strict about OPOL. I also speak a handful of other languages with the kids that I'm not fully proficient in like Korean. Unfortunately, Korean has a number of words that sound the same as English words but mean very different things. Once when we were out hiking, my then 2 year old (different kid) saw a pair of men walking a dog. He shouts at the top of his lungs "Gay!!! Daddy I see a gay!!!" You see, "Gay" means dog in Korean, and my 2yo was doing the natural 2yo thing of being excited about a dog. Of course the men were horrified, and my brief explanation that my son was talking Korean did nothing to mollify them. Fortunately for us, my son never addressed me in the 2nd person around any black people (you is pronounced "nigga" in Korean).

Anyways, the point of my stories is that language is a chance for you to bond and have fun with your kids. If OPOL doesn't sound fun to you, then don't do it. For me, speaking weird languages to my kids has been tons of fun for us and for mom. Mom doesn't speak any of the languages I do with the kids, except that she now knows lots of different words for poop. And it's fun for all of us to talk about oonga and caca and pedos and bangui.

In Chinese the word "that" is nei ge (nay guh). But Chinese people tend to not enunciate the "nay" and instead says what sounds like "nih guh". They also use it instead of "uh" or "um" as filler sounds. I once had a coworker say it a few times in a row like "nih guh nih guh nih guh" while talking to another Chinese coworker. She then saw me and laughed and said "I'm not talking about [our black coworker]." This was in the US.

Anyways I always use zhe ge (jih guh) as an alternative.

Fortunately for us, my son never addressed me in the 2nd person around any black people (you is pronounced "nigga" in Korean).

What a clown world we live in that Korean and Mandarin speakers have to worry about speaking the languages, lest blacks get triggered by hearing the no-no word.

One university professor found out the hard way how Black Feelings Matter More.

Fortunately for us, my son never addressed me in the 2nd person around any black people (you is pronounced "nigga" in Korean).

Hm, was he taught Korean in a sort of Western, status-independent way? The only time a Korean child would use that term for his father is when he's overtly trying to disrespect him, as "nigga" is only used when referring to people at or below one's status.

They always call me obba (Korean for dad), which is why this never came up.

tfw when your toddler addresses you as “nigga” (e.g., “toss me that ipad, nigga” or “nigga, I don’t want to eat those veggies”) and you’re praying that it’s only because he hasn’t mastered second person pronoun etiquette in Korean yet.

So the word is actually only used as a subject of a clause, so the first one could work, as in "would you toss me that iPad," but the latter wouldn't really work. A variation like "I don't want you to feed me those veggies" would work, though.

that my son was talking Korean did nothing to mollify them.

This is a small part of your story but encapsulates so much of what's wrong in society these days. People are looking to be and are excited to be offended (especially minority groups) and are unwilling to brush over legitimate bad action for the sake of harmony but also to accept actual accidents and confusions.

It leads to a less pleasant world.

I think people should just get used to being in situations where they don't understand every word that's being said. Maybe if you grow up speaking English in a predominantly English-speaking community, you're just used to everything being in the language you know, but the rest of the world isn't like that. People speak different languages. And even if you spend a lot of time studying, it's damn near impossible to reach the sort of native-like fluency where you understand literally everything that's being said in a big chaotic group setting, including the little jokes and obscure cultural references.

But that's OK. You don't have to understand. Most of that stuff just isn't very important. Hell, I met a guy from Glasgow once with a very thick accent, and even though we were both native English speakers I could only understand about half of what he was saying. But we still communicated just fine. People are just spoiled by media these days putting up a perfect translation of everything.

For individual advice, I think it's nice when kids make some effort to still learn and use their family's native language. If nothing else, it'll make their grandparents happy, and make family reunions less awkward. But realistically they'll never be perfectly fluent in it, and it's a lot more important for them to boost their English skills. Just don't push them so hard to practice it that they start to resent it.

The belief that you shouldn't expect to understand conversations between your wife and children is certainly A Take. I don't think you can get away with making this out to be a ridiculous American desire. In most times and places people married people of the same sociocultural background and there was no familial language barrier to speak of. In fact, in most times and places everyone in your community spoke the same language. Mixed multilingual environments were always limited to areas with a lot of people coming and going, it's just that now there's a lot more people living in areas like that.

I didn't say you shouldn't understand them. I said that if you marry into a multilingual, cross-cultural family then there will always be some things you don't understand. What do you do, forbid the wife and kids from speaking their native language in your presence? "I swear to god, if I hear one word of Russian in my presence, you won't like the consequences...?"

Tellingly, very few people discussing this problem have kids older than six or so; presumably the details of their life become too embarrassing to publicize or they compromise on OPOL

This is because people use OPOL to mean two different things that you seem to be conflating together.

The point of the stricter version, where parents will avoid speaking the other language, is to avoid confusing small children and to help them distinguish between the two languages. You want them to speak proper English and proper Chinese rather than a random mixture of the two. But they should have that down well before the age of 6. It's not about compromising, it's just already served it's purpose and isn't needed anymore.

When the kid is older, "one parent one language" just means that you use your own language when you're talking to them one-on-one. Family discussions are in whatever language is convenient.

You want them to speak proper English and proper Chinese rather than a random mixture of the two.

Lee Kuan Yew found out the hard way that this is almost impossible to impose top-down. It might work for a European language, but not for something as dissimilar to English as Chinese.

That's at the population level. It's different for a child with native-speaker parents from both languages.

You're drawing a distinction that nobody I know applies and that I have not seen applied on the subreddit. The people I am seeing have kids who fully understand the distinction between languages and that some people speak one language but not another.

I haven't seen anyone explicitly making the distinction before, but people definitely mean different things when they say One Parent One Language, and I've only ever seen the "actively avoid speaking the other language in front of the child" kind when the children are toddler / pre-school age. Plus my description mirrors what we did ourselves and what some other mixed families I know did.

Perhaps the difference is that the minority language here is English, so making sure children grow up fluent has obvious practical benefits rather than being something for Reddit language enthusiasts?

I've only ever seen the "actively avoid speaking the other language in front of the child" kind when the children are toddler / pre-school age.

It's not about avoiding speaking the language in front of the kids. It's about avoiding speaking the language to the kids.

Happy to provide a counterexample. There's many such cases, this is simply the first result I found with kids older than 6.

Fair enough, I agree that's kind of crazy. But I stand by most of what I said - I've never seen such a thing in real life and I don't think that's because the people around me are unusually well-adjusted. I continue to believe that most "OPOL" families are far more relaxed about it than the posts you're seeing on Reddit.

Yes, it’s important to remember for these kind of conversations that active Reddit posters are a fairly small portion of users; most posts are made a small portion of super-active posters; and most of those people are genuinely insane. Over-indexing on what redditors are up to is basically selecting for the beliefs of a particularly deranged subculture of a subculture.

I'm a little confused. At least in the Chinese case in most major cities there are "Chinese schools" you can send the kids too that are most analogous to me of the "catholic school" I attended growing up which was a couple hours a week at the catholic school. Where they learn Chinese and cultural stuff. I'm slowly learning some Mandarin and our plan is that the kid(s) will attend Chinese school and be able to speak Chinese but that the language of the household will be English. I've never heard of the concept of a one parent language and it indeed sounds like insanity.

In practice mixed families do a way less strict version of it. Parents when talking only to the kids use their own language, but mostly talk in a common language if both parents are present. There's a non-dumb way to handle this.

I speak 2 languages. My wife speaks three. We only have English in common. We tried OPOL, but as my kid learned to speak my wife's main language, she didn't know English, and so I couldn't speak to her at all. Since I was at work all day, my kid never learned English, so I insisted that OPOL stop and my kid just be taught English.

Because of my wife, my social exposure to immigrants and their children is extremely high. Furthermore, I have learned 3 living and 2 dead languages, am employed as a French immersion teacher. For all these reasons, I question the value of kids learning domestic Mandarin or Japanese or whatever. OPOL usually doesn't lead to kids speaking the language the way I speak English. It leads to them knowing all the language you need for home life ("bedtime," "toothbrush," "clean your damn room!"), in a slang frozen in whatever era the mom left the old country. So if the kid ever wants to do business in China, or watch Chinese movies, etc, he's going to need focused study, or he'll speak Mandarin the way Tony Soprano speaks Italian. The choice ends up being between "limited communication with one parent and you never really reach fluency in Mom's language unless you buckle down and study" or "as much communication as possible with both parents and you never reach fluency at all in Mom's language to fluency unless you buckle down and study."

Option 2 has a much better cost/benefit ratio.

Yeah, that's pretty much been my personal experience as well. My family immigrated from China when I was in elementary school, and my Chinese vocabulary is still around that level. My brother, who was born in the states, is about the same. The only people I know who've reached greater fluency either studied it in college or got really into watching Chinese dramas.

Yeah. I'm in Malaysia where my wife's family speaks a mix of Mandarin and Hokkien. They did Mandarin schooling and consume enough mainlander media that they're comfortable talking with Mainlanders, but a lot of Malaysian Mandarin speakers I know feel quite uncomfortable speaking with mainlanders due to the accent and word choices being different.

Likewise my 2 year old speaks a pidgin of Malay, Mandarin and English presently. I've got a bit more than her in both non-English languages, and it's fairly normal for Malaysians to learn this way as it's one of the most multi-lingual countries in the world and it seems to work for them. In an affluent Chinese household typically it's sort of an OPOL setup, albeit with the maid/nanny speaking Malay or Indonesian to the child, family speaking Mandarin and school/online sources trending more English.

A lot of wall of text and speculation abut something that is usually a non-issue.

Point of the practice is to ensure that the kids learns the Mandarin/whatever-speaking parent's language in the age and by same process everyone learns their native language. My personal theory is that the point of one parent one language is not necessary, having constant and separate contexts for different languages is. ( “I speak Spanish to God, Italian to Women, French to Men, and German to my Horse.”) Purpose is to avoid kid learning a creole when he/she is a toddler, and one parent one language is a clear and relatively easy rule to stick with. However, it isn't usually sufficient. If the language learning is carried by parents only, the common occurrence is that kid never learns anything beyond kid level vocabulary and is likely to actively forget it in teenage because it's not cool and appears useless. This is the process how minority languages die in larger empires. Successful Mandarin/whatever-speaking parent supplement it with some Mandarin kindergarten, later hopefully some Mandarin school or other classes, perhaps spending some time in the native country, hopefully establishing a friend circle in the relevant language, and most importantly, access to Mandarin/whatever-speaking media that seems cool.

By the age kids are old enough for substantial family discussions over dinner table, yeah I suspect the common experience is that everyone speaks in the common language. By that point experiment has been proven successful or not, the kid already should have plenty of other spaces to keep up the Mandarin use than one parent only.

E: I should add, all of this is kinda irrelevant if you want your kids to integrate to American mainstream culture, whatever it is and will be. Described practice can work, but these days very point of it is to pass on some sort of hyphenated multilingual, possibly multi-ethnic heritage. Historically some other purposes are attested, too, odd eccentrics have done it with classical languages or Esperanto or otherwise languages considered high status (19th century Russian aristocrats apparently spoke French to each other because of the coolness factor), and Russian probs don't have such status in the USA in foreseeable future.

I'm not sure why you say it's a non-issue after I laid out how the cases I encounter IRL keep having this issue.

Successful Mandarin/whatever-speaking parent supplement it with some Mandarin kindergarten, later hopefully some Mandarin school or other classes, perhaps spending some time in the native country, hopefully establishing a friend circle in the relevant language, and most importantly, access to Mandarin/whatever-speaking media that seems cool.

You can probably make this work for Mandarin in areas of the country that have a lot of Chinese people and if the home languages are Mandarin and English. But if you don't have those things, or you are trying to raise kids trilingual with a third language that doesn't have schools nearby, you are going to have to make some tough choices. As far as I can tell, the choices usually involve fracturing family communication for uncertain benefit.

I'm not sure why you say it's a non-issue after I laid out how the cases I encounter IRL keep having this issue.

Sorry, I admit that I got bored reading because what you describe in part I did not match the IRL people I know. It sounded like there was going to be several paragraphs about some ludicrously overcomplicated hypothetical issue. But I guess I have to admit it is totally possible people tie themselves to knots about language at home.

e: And yes, my sample of people is heavily conditioned on the expats and kids of expats whose parents switched countries once or twice. One of the people I am thinking of is son of expat parents, he keeps touch with friends in various countries over Discord and so. All tri-or-more-lingual people I know are language nerds who have learned the 3rd and others languages the traditional way.

I think you (and apparently a lot of OPOL devotees) are overthinking it.

The research does generally support OPOL theory, in terms of being the most effective way to raise bilingual children. But it is not the only way. The idea that "Mom speaks to the kids in English, Dad speaks to the kids in Russian" is well and good, but it doesn't mean that if Mom and Dad talk to each other in English in front of the kids that you've ruined their bilingual education.

I don't know how strong the evidence is for "cognitive benefits" of multilingualism (though I've seen enough anecdotal evidence to believe it) but I do know a lot of kids grow up regretting that their parents never taught them their native language.

I'm rather skeptical of the claimed cognitive benefits. Much like learning a musical instrument, it seems like more of a proxy for having highly motivated, involved parents who are providing general intellectual enrichment. It's quite difficult to separate out the effect of a specific activity.

Some of my cousins live in Canada, and there it is also subject to an interesting selection effect. French immersion programs are, on paper, intended to make more Canadian students able to communicate in both official languages. In practice, it's how the upper-middle class gets their kids placed in better public schools. Generally ESL students are not eligible for French immersion, since they are receiving supplemental English lessons. This makes the pool of French immersion students significantly higher SES and less "diverse".

Yeah I live in a country with very high multilingualism rates and there are plenty of people I know who speak 3 or 4 languages that I wouldn't exactly call Intellectual Titans otherwise. IMO it's really down to neuroplasticity when the languages get picked up, and I'm also probably overestimating how good they are at their non-primary languages since I don't think they'd be capable of writing a dissertation in them even if they can get by colloquially.

it doesn't mean that if Mom and Dad talk to each other in English in front of the kids that you've ruined their bilingual education.

That's not the salient question. The question is how Mom and Dad have a conversation with each other and the kids at the same time. Clearly such conversations are a significant fraction of language use in the home and having these conversations in English is compromising on the amount of language practice that the kids get, as well as encouraging the kids to be lazy in talking to Mom in Russian. There's no free lunch here.

I do know a lot of kids grow up regretting that their parents never taught them their native language.

UMC children of immigrants who grew up in a weird halfway culture and never developed their identity as Americans hold all kinds of regrets about their parents. They forced them to learn an instrument, or they didn't send them to music classes, or they didn't teach them their native language (despite fighting tooth and nail as children to speak English), or they taught them their native language but they didn't pass down the secret cooking techniques, or they taught them the native language and passed down the secret cooking techniques but didn't cultivate a relationship with the extended family, etc etc. These are mostly window dressing around the anomie of not fitting in.

The simple solution to multi language social spaces is that in any shared space where there is the potential for a person who doesn't know language X, you speak the universal language regardless of if they are there or not.

The idea that one wants to teach the kids a different language is fine. Teach them. But as soon as it starts creeping into situations where not everyone can understand you have a discipline problem. No swearing at the TV in Russian and no Chinese in the kitchen!

The problem of doing things this way is that the parents actually have to take responsibility. It's much easier to not have to put in effort, and just talk to your kids in this language whilst the other parent does it in another, rather than actively sitting your kids down every evening and doing some genuine teaching. But it's a recipe for negative social structures within the home, like you overview.

All in all it's a problem of low agency parenting in a low stakes environment. To veer slightly off topic:

Parents want 'good things' like their kids knowing multiple languages, being pitch perfect and doing well in school or sports, but they don't know why. You hit on this in portion III. It becomes harder and harder to justify teaching your kids a language or otherwise doing hard things when in practicality it is only used to impress grandma and grandpa, who might quickly turn to the universal language when they hear how poorly their studies have been going. There are no real stakes, no weight. This is because fundamentally there's no vision for the future. The kids don't actually have a purpose. The family doesn't exist in a serious context.

People like to blame the 'economy' for the downwardly mobile, but it's practically always the parents that failed. They were disinterested in securing a prosperous future for their children because they themselves are not serious. There's no identity, no ego, no belief, no nation and no border. It's all up in the air, to be discarded at whatever convenience.

Parents want 'good things' like their kids knowing multiple languages, being pitch perfect and doing well in school or sports, but they don't know why.

I'm actually going to go ahead and disagree with you there. They maybe can't exactly articulate it, but I think the fundamental reason, at least in the circles I'm in, is status. Very original take, I know. But the fact is that having multilingual kids "in touch with their culture" is high status among the generation having and raising kids today (I'm thinking basically people in their 30s and early 40s).

Same goes for perfect pitch. Are they ever going to need it? Maybe not, but it impresses others (and it preserves some optionality, what if Sally does want to become a musician after all? Of course, it would be better for her to be a surgeon). It's not just Grandma and Grampa that are being impressed, it's also your friends with kids, with whom you (as a mother) are trapped in a bitter status war in which quarter is neither asked for nor given. It's absolutely critical that you have the most well rounded little angels in the mom group. Husbands are typically dragged along and are happy to just grill.

I don't think you are disagreeing. The kids purpose is just to alleviate the emotional anguish of the parents in the most immediate sense possible, sure. But the actual problem is that there's no forethought, context or purpose that backs any of the emotional impulse the parents have.

To that extent parents having emotional impulses that drive them forwards isn't a bad thing. They would always be there in some context. But they should serve a higher purpose than keeping up with the Joneses.

I think that the "each parent pretends to only understand a single language" thing is a bit silly if carried to extremes.

The more reasonable approach would be that everyone defaults to the shared language in joint discussions, but the bilingual parent talks with the kids in the non-shared language on other occasions. If the kid replies in the shared language, she can tell him how to phrase that sentence in her language. "Can I stay up and watch a TV show" -- "Du meinst, kann ich laenger auf bleiben und Fernsehn schauen?"

Other reasons for teaching your kids two languages are if you are uncertain in which country you will stay. If an US expat and a German raise a few kids in Germany, teaching them English from age zero will enable the family to move to an English-speaking country without too much trouble. By contrast, if their monolinual son is in seventh grade when they want to move, the first year of school will likely be very difficult for him, because two years of English is unlikely to be enough to follow the lessons.

The more reasonable approach would be that everyone defaults to the shared language in joint discussions

I have not found many OPOL followers who do this.

Other reasons for teaching your kids two languages are if you are uncertain in which country you will stay.

Fair, though this is not a consideration in the cases I've seen (basically zero chance my sister moves to Russia or these WMAF couples move to China).

I have not found many OPOL followers who do this.

Would not be surprised if American / reddit OPOLers are unhingedly overboard with this. European expats and like that I know from work seem to have it more like quiet_NaN describes.

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