site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25567 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 7, 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.

Navier-Stokes Millenium Problem Solved by GPT

OpenAI says they solved the Navier-Stokes Millenium Prize problem with an internal model that is more powerful than GPT6, so a GPT 7 candidate or something close. OpenAI has been on fire lately really casting a shadow on Anthropic. First the hugging face incident, now the first to crack the Millenium prize problems.

As for the solution to the problem, they are claiming that smoothness is disproved and that the equations do break down.

A fundamental open question for these dynamical equations has been whether the continuum approximation of the fluid can break down. Specifically, can the Navier–Stokes equations for a three-dimensional incompressible fluid with constant density develop a “singularity,” even when the motion starts smoothly? Here, a singularity means the dynamics lead to speeds in the fluid growing without bound within a finite amount of time. The development of a singularity would have to happen despite the presence of viscosity, which tends to smooth out motion. Because a real fluid cannot move infinitely fast, this would mark a breakdown in how the equations model the fluid. To continue modeling the system, one would then need to track the behaviour of each particle individually.

They say that the equation can develop a singularity, which apparently means it is not a perfect model.

This proof, produced by an internal OpenAI system, shows that the dynamics of the Navier-Stokes equations for fluid motion can develop a singularity in finite time.

This is very exciting to me as I believe it to be the first scientific result of an AI model. Previous results have been basically irrelevant to the sciences. However, this result is of course still completely symbolic in nature, which is not surprising because LLMs are not embodied enough to collect data and analyze it autonomously.

While they are generating amazing PR recently, I will say GPT-6 is somewhat disappointing for coding. It is not the same leap that 5.5 to 5.6 sol was. It would appear that the models are getting better at running very long context chains while efficiency improvements and refinements in lower level tasks are lacking. Still, it's great work from OpenAI and it's plausible to me that if there's no singularity in general by 2030, there will be for mathematicians. They will no longer be meaningful for producing math, rather they will only be humans who understand it.

At this point the AI doubters should be eating a double serving of Crow. And the best thing about it all is how this is the worst AI will ever be.

In other news, OpenAI released GPT Image 2.5 today as well, representing yet another significant advance in AI generated images. I'd feel bad for the human artists etc., except the've been dead for over a year at this point and we might as well have their eventual replacement AI be as good as possible.

  • -15

We thought art would be the first to go, but that’s clearly wrong. AI is bad at producing useable images. I know this won’t always be the case, but by the time an ad exec can produces ads without an art team, other professions will be long gone as well.

AI is bad at producing useable images

Ai is very good at producing useable images, especially for people that can't or don't want to afford an art team. I can have an idea and generate, say, cute comics for my kid for a few cents and a couple minutes of time; that would be prohibitively expensive and a much bigger hassle dealing with an actual artist.

That said, I would agree it is less good at producing high-quality, consistent-across-time, consistent-across-detail images, and defaults to an uncanny and chabuduo lowest common denominator style.

AI is bad at producing useable images.

Art is meh, writing style is terrible. Part of this is the lack of RLVR; the alternative just trains the model to produce the lowest common denominator, which is what we get.

But, fundamentally, I don't think the labs care about art or prose style. Writing can be slop and it'll annoy people for a couple years, while math is a load-bearing component of RSI. Get RSI, and you can catch up on writing over a long weekend.

But, fundamentally, I don't think the labs care about art or prose style.

That is probably true, but not really indicative that things will improve. The labs do care about programming, and LLMs still suck at programming. So even the thing the labs have put probably the most effort into, the machine is still below the level of a competent human.

Art is meh, writing style is terrible. Part of this is the lack of RLVR

I think these are categorically different than math: the theorem prover languages are at least a clear Boolean success criterion. "Is this painting/book good?" is canonically an opinion question without a singular answer.

From what I can tell, human-driven post-training has historically been done with English speakers hireable at low hourly rates, but probably not ones that appreciate Ulysses (I certainly haven't read it). Even if they could afford English department grad students, would they be willing to train, effectively, their replacements? How do you rank the writing styles of Faulkner versus Hemingway? It seems there is at least some room for legitimate creativity there.

Artistic style isn't just a matter of opinion, it's a matter of opinion in a specific context.

I swear the above sentence was an accident, and I only noticed what I was doing halfway through, but it'll work perfectly as a demonstration too. Aren't you sick of that "It's not X, it's Y" idiom right now? Judicious use of thesis/antithesis pairs was compelling back in the Before Times of 5 years ago, but because it was compelling RLHF seized upon it as Good Writing, and so now AI writing uses it everywhere and we're sick of it. Not that you loved Caesar less, but that you loved Rome more? Learn to write for yourself, Will, you hack!

Great art is supposed to have a timeless quality too, but a lot of good art is directly speaking to the wider artistic milieu of its time, and making choices about what styles and tropes can be used unashamedly vs what have become cliches that must be avoided or subverted. This is normally a stable system, because as something becomes briefly overused it immediately begins to repel other potential users, but if a huge swath of humanity is using the same handful of systems that are trained on the same total-corpus-of-human-art then we lose a lot of that stabilizing negative feedback, and the results we get stuck with are hard to avoid via simple instruction alone.

I think this is just a technical problem, frankly. You can prompt models to actually have decent writing style with enough effort which means it's possible that fine tuning or some even simpler operation on the output fixes the problem entirely. And that's a valuable product so i'm certain someone's going to come up with it eventually.

Slop writing and em dashes is the record skipping of our time, nothing more. People will miss it and try to ape it in 20 years.

You can prompt models to actually have decent writing style with enough effort

People keep saying this but never share the prompts. It's not possible.

What?

Maybe this is down to the fact that there's a high variance in what people consider to be "decent writing style", but you can just falsify that style isn't controllable by asking your favorite SotA model to write in the style of your favorite author. Never mind by using a fine tuned model.

Now if what you consider necessary for "decent" isn't quantifiable or is outside of the abilities of the current methods, fair enough, but I sure would like to know what it actually is.

That paper doesn't do it

It's a review of a whole area of research trying to do it with various levels of success. Fine tuning is still the best way of altering style AFAIK, but all this is insofar as we mean the same thing by "it". But it seems clearly we don't. So what is "it" (prose style) exactly if not text structure, sentiment, vocabulary, etc?

What's the quality you're looking for that's not described in this review?

More comments

Depends on your use case. They’re definitely usable for book covers and DnD games. Artists are losing work to AI, no reason to pretend otherwise. But there are still noticeable gaps.

If you spent thousands of hours writing a novel and are going to pay for an actual printing run, the least you can do is spend $200 for someone on fiverr or vgen or whatever to make a book cover.

Though I do suspect that alot of people who need art would just rather talk to a sycophantic robot than an annoying fleshy artist, and have the instant gratification of getting the results in 1 minute.

Using LLMs for artwork is a very interesting case of economic forces in action.

Turns out, it's entirely possible that alot of artists are simply pricing thier results too high and are getting bit because of it.

Just tried it and it's quite underwhelming. All of the artifacting from gpt-image-2 is still there making it unusable for any real usage

except the've been dead for over a year at this point

What does “dead” mean? Lots of artists still employed at video game and animation studios, lots of artists still taking commissions on patreon and the like, etc.

I’m not trying to be snarky here, but as the claims start getting more insistent and extravagant — “AGI is here”, “AGI has actually been here for a while already”, “X profession is dead” — it’s only fair that those claims start being supported with significant real world impact.

What does “dead” mean? Lots of artists still employed at video game and animation studios, lots of artists still taking commissions on patreon and the like, etc.

It is already a dead career. Just one example: email as technology was invented in 1970s. By late 1990s the email was basically default communication option for businesses. But it took another two decades for paperless office to become reality. I remember stories even in 2010 when there were people literally printing emails and creating paper folders from that. It all ultimately stopped probably after COVID as the electronic communication finally got accepted even by most backward companies.

The AI will be much more quick. All the infrastructure is already there. People are used to digital communication, they are used to outsourcing from god forsaken countries and all that. In a sense it does not matter if you outsourced your art design to somebody living 1000 miles away with whom you communicate via chat, or even in India. It is a very small step to outsource it to to OpenAI, iterate on the design via chat or voice session and get the product. Maybe I am wrong and it will not take 5 years, but maybe 10 or 15 years. But the writing is on the wall.

What does “dead” mean? Lots of artists still employed at video game and animation studios, lots of artists still taking commissions on patreon and the like, etc.

Re: video games, I think you're probably going to see a mass die-off in the next year or two. I predict with strong confidence that within the next year, Steam will see an order of magnitude increase in the number of games released. I would be very surprised if the current industry business model survives the flood.

Making predictions is always scary, as it should be, but if I'm wrong on this one by all means quote back at me. I'm currently running AI five or six hours a night, trying to make hay while the sun shines; we'll see how it goes.

Friend of mine works in Slot Machine Software Development which is essentially the most pared back coalface version of Video Game Development, and it's already absolutely ripped through the industry.

A typical small-medium slot 5 years ago would be 2 or 3 ideas guys/product managers/game mathematicians in the West, a bunch of artists in Eastern Europe and a bunch of cheap coding resources and aim to get a slot out every couple months since it's prettymuch a crapshoot which games will manage to surface through the literal 1000s of new releases each year and the publishers/distributors will usually only give a first-month bump to new titles visibility.

Now a lot of the small-mid studios have collapsed and there's a ton of one or two-man bands just yeeting stuff into the void.

As in literal slot machines? I'd always heard that the Vegas gaming authorities made that a surprisingly-regulated software industry, up there with aerospace or automotive. Not that those are perfect, but they at least have standards for their code to adhere to.

But maybe "write this in MISRA C" (automotive) isn't as much of a moat as it sounded, now that I think about it.

Honestly Vegas is pretty outgunned for slot development these days. Australia's generally the frontier for land-based physical slots since they're available in various auspices throughout most of the country, and online is dominated by brands targeting the Crypto space since there's way less regulations.

A lot of the issue with targeting 'white'/fully-legal areas is that the tax regimes tend to be nuts, the demographic trends elderly and women in a lot of cases who aren't particularly down with innovation and there's a ton more jostling when it comes to placing physical cabinets in limited floorspace. Also every single white region will have their own arbitrary ideas about harm reduction and responsible gambling, a lot of which are headaches to program since there'll be stuff like 'you can't show more than X 'near-misses' per 100 plays' with fairly arbitrary definitions since it's some random 80 year old on the approvals board.

I predict with strong confidence that within the next year, Steam will see an order of magnitude increase in the number of games released.

This is going to shift the pendulum back towards "trusted" "publishers" and stuff, where there is some sort of quality gate. Most of this flood of games is going to be games that nobody wants to play.

This is going to shift the pendulum back towards "trusted" "publishers" and stuff, where there is some sort of quality gate. Most of this flood of games is going to be games that nobody wants to play.

This implies that the publishers themselves are trusted and that the trust people place in them is being maintained. That is not the market I observe from the inside. AAA gaming seems like a dumpster fire at the moment, having arrived at a place similar to the film industry where they're actively generating anti-fandoms collectively rooting for their failure, but without the film industry's institutional moat and diversification to protect them from the consequences. There have been a lot of bombs lately, and studios, even major studios, often don't survive them. Major publishers are frequently loathed by the player-base. The studios and publishers with considerable good will are generally in the indie space or increasingly lonely titans like Rockstar, which is so lonely because those titans can and do die: Blizzard and Bungie, two of the most successful companies the space has ever seen, are arguably toast at this point. Most AAA studios appear incapable of controlling costs to anything resembling a reasonable level, so one bomb kills most of them and a second bomb kills most of the rest. Further, both workers and leadership are, from my perspective, pathologically averse to solutions to any of these problems. They'd rather unionize, blame the audience, virtue signal ideology, retreat into a bubble of toxic positivity, anything other than engage with the fact that their whole segment of the industry is a horror show at the moment.

It seems to me that the success stories follow a pattern: keeping costs low, teams small, find an audience and engage with them heavily, make the game they want as simply and quickly and responsively as possible. Alternatively, make something simple and coherent with a very small team and hope to get lucky, offsetting the risk of the gamble with pure passion. I think this latter class is already pretty large and is just going to keep growing as barriers to entry vanish. I think they're going to saturate the market, and that's going to have cascading effects on the far more leveraged-up end of the industry. Quality will rise to the top, and at some point there's so much of it that the audience dilutes and fragments, and the old business patterns become unsustainable.

https://x.com/Scearpo/status/2105435651428810884

I'm actually a moderate fan of the guy he's mocking, but yeah, pretty much this. There's already discourse around indie devs trying to build a following by posting video of their in-development projects to social media, and some prompter scoops their game mechanics and hits market shortly thereafter.

This is going to shift the pendulum back towards "trusted" "publishers" and stuff, where there is some sort of quality gate.

People have been saying that since Unity first came out. It won't. We have user reviews, no one needs """trusted""" publishers.

And more than just user reviews, you have the ability to look at Twitch or Youtube and watch someone play the game and get a feel for whether it's good and matches your interests.

For all the back and forth about games journalism, I think this was the real devastation to the industry: if you're interested in a game it's far better to actually look at gameplay than to see a X/10 score or a writeup of someone else's experience, and the barrier to entry is so low that you can pick and choose people who are actually good at the game and are choosing to play interesting games rather than terrible ones.

Sponsored streams can get a game exposure but the gameplay has to pass the gate of looking enjoyable, and a streamer who spends too much of their time on sponsored bad games will likely lose chunks of their audience (or the audience will just skip the sponsored videos/timeslots)

Gaming journalism also had a problem with fairly consistently giving high scores to games audiences didn't like. You see it occasionally in film with divergence between critic and audience scores (The Last Jedi was well received by critics), but games are longer than movies and sometimes it was clear the reviewers hadn't played much of the game at all.

Or, alternatively, they simply don’t like or play the genre well enough to engage with a game, à la the infamous Cuphead review.

More comments

Maybe coding, but I feel like something big needs to happen to convince gamers that AI is okay. Like, Larian releasing a new acclaimed RPG and then saying that humans haven't touched code, art or narrative, just playtested and gave feedback.

Nothing needs to be done to convince gamers, all the devs are using ai here and there in the background and nobody needs to know.

releasing a new acclaimed RPG and then saying that humans haven't touched code, art or narrative, just playtested and gave feedback.

All that matters is actually making a game that's good. This is a surprisingly hard feat for current AI.

I agree, but I think it’s possible to make a game that’s good and at the same time has visible marks of AI. Stuff like images, text, subheaders under titles. If gamers see that, I have a hunch that they’ll freak out even if the game is good

There are plenty of b tier games that use ai heavily, not without some controversey but people still play them. The core game itself is human made though

Ironically, the necessary skills "make an X that's good" into a useful set of instructions might be 'alignment-complete' in the same sense of being a genie you can ask "I wish for you to do what I should wish for".

... or it might just be a matter of using the right prompting technique.

!RemindMe one year.

I don’t think the number of new games released on Steam is going to increase that much, because even saying “ChatGPT, whip me up a sick new game” is already too much effort for most people. Think about how easy and accessible it is to write a short story (even without AI!), and then think about how few people ever do.

There is no reserve army of dormant creatives waiting for their potential to be unlocked by new advances in tooling. Most people who are ever going to publish anything are already doing it. (Admittedly, automated content farms make this more complicated and might skew the statistics.)

because even saying “ChatGPT, whip me up a sick new game” is already too much effort for most people

I took that personally, so I decided to start using Claude to make me a game. In 2 hours I got a basic text-based tactical RPG battle. I'll keep at it for a week and see where I end up.

I'd caveat that the numbers game here looks really goofy. It only takes one in a thousand people matching FCfromSSC's perspectives to more than double the number of game developers in the United States. Worse, these new people can be a lot more productive in the sheer output sense even if the median one falls behind on the actual quality side.

I'll put a marker down: I'd expect Iron Pagoda gets at least one of the games released and in an SNES/GameBoy Color-level or better quality enjoyable playable demo by the end of the year this year, and probably a playable (if alpha) release by this time next year.

Fanfic genuinely has seriously twisted a lot of fiction writing incentives and economics, and that's about the most degenerate case available and the lowest quality.

In the short term, I'm hoping that the high-profile examples tend to require some underlying skill, if only because the AI tools will quite happily produce high-effort and lovingly detailed terrible ideas, and it takes skill to recognize it. But that's still going to make modern automated content farms look like child's play.

Also a certain percentage of the people who currently actually get their shit together enough to make games will accept the AI-pill and then be able to shovel stuff out at 5-10x the speed they can now.

There is no reserve army of dormant creatives waiting for their potential to be unlocked by new advances in tooling.

I'm making a game with AI and it's honestly terrifying how many (mostly crap and with 1-5 reviews) AI games are being released on Steam. Pick a tag like puzzle and scroll down to 'sort by recent'. About 15 puzzle games were released on the 9th of September. 9 adventure RPG games on the 8th of September. Grand Strategy/4X games are rarer, maybe 1-2 games a day but heavily AI.

Sometimes you can tell from the AI image in the store page, sometimes it's the diction...

I think there was a phase change in the overall statistics too, you can see it in 2024-2025: https://steamdb.info/stats/releases/

'Limited games' means 'the shit ones nobody's going to play and don't count for achievements/collections'. They were already on an uptrend but that suddenly curved upwards. The number of actually popular games released per year remains static.

Yes, most people are not creative, but they don't have to be; if there is some non-negligible fraction of people who have a good idea for a game but are unable to code or draw, then we are going to see an explosion of content as soon as AI lets them overcome their barriers.

I certainly noticed a dramatic increase in my personal area of niche interest (netorase visual novels) with the advent of AI; great games that would have previously never been made, such as Stains of Blue and Blurring the Walls, suddenly became viable.

The problem with AI in games is that right now it's a mark of crap.

If I see a game with telltale AI art, what is more likely? That it's someone's passion project, that a great writer wrote some passable code, but couldn't draw anything himself and couldn't afford an artist? Or that someone prompted his AI:

  • "hey, write a story for another NTS VN that happens inside a phone"
  • "hey, turn this story into a Ren'Py game with placeholder images"
  • "hey, go through this Ren'Py game and generate a prompt for each placeholder image"
  • "hey, go to Itch.io and make a store page for this new Ren'Py game I wrote"?

Ninety percent of everything is crap, but that was true long before AI. You can look at user reviews to find the most popular games, then play the demo to see if it's worth committing to the game.

Yes, the vast majority of AI NTS games have been Netorase Phone clones with shitty writing, shitty art, shitty gameplay, and a shitty update schedule. So be it. You don't have to play them. You can just ignore them and focus on the gems. User reviews screen off use of AI assets.

90% of everything is crap. But 99.9% of ai slop is crap. Maybe you want to sort through it to find tbe gems but I'm not interested.

AI likely to change the definition of crap, too. There's always been tons of crap on the Steam storefront and the AI generation is likely going to atleast ensure a certain level of useability versus the passionate hack generation.

I am not very good at code. I have a project I've been working on for a couple weeks or months at a time every year or so; I really wanted to make this game, but going head down on it has always been exhausting, I end up burning two weeks or so tackling some stupid code problem, and then drop the project again when I just can't handle trying to tackle the next obstacle.

I've made more progress in the last two weeks than I have since I started the project, by a wide margin. There are no significant obstacles in sight. Things that would have been completely impractical pipe-dreams are reduced to easy lifts of an evening or so. I'm not sure it will stay like this, perhaps I'll run up against some more significant wall that AI can't handle, but where I'm at now is that I was probably never going to ship this game, and now it certainly looks like I am.

I am one of the dormant creatives you're claiming doesn't exist. I can directly observe the difference in effort. I might be wrong, but I would be very, very surprised.

I’m not an AI denier, I know very well what it can accomplish with code and that it’s a huge productivity multiplier. You don’t have to remind me.

IIRC you’re employed as a professional artist and have done plenty of creative projects on the side throughout your life, so you’re definitely not someone who would go in the “dude who’s just sitting around waiting for his potential to be unlocked by AI” bucket.

Will someone make a game with AI that they wouldn’t have made without it? Yes. Is it going to be so many people that it destroys the market? No. (If I’m wrong, it will be because of industrial-scale automated content farms, people who pump out AI games as their entire business model.)

Why can't the flood of games be unlocked by people like FC who were already artists but will now be able to produce the passion projects that were stuck behind technical obstacles before?

Yeah. Tons of people already involved in the process who now can shovel stuff faster and/or can elevate themselves from a piece of the orchestra to a pretty good one-man band without having to deal with anywhere near as much budget negotiation or compromising.

because even saying “ChatGPT, whip me up a sick new game” is already too much effort for most people

It's honestly shocking to the extent to which I have found this to be true. I don't know why that is yet: maybe some sort of [rational insofar the mind is evaluating the situation accurately] depression?

I think it's kind of like cooking your own food; even if technically you could do it yourself and it's gotten much easier to do so in the last 70 years, a lot of the "luxury" of eating out is having someone else do it for you, and being able to eat something out of distribution from what you'd normally eat.

I find that vibe-coding games sounds interesting in theory, but in practice it appeals much more to "people who want to make games" than "people who want to play games"; playing your own game feels kind of boring once you've put your intellectual efforts into making it.

I think we will see explosion in game mods. Just games that on release have strong potential but for a stupid decision or so fail. Right now making a good mod is non trivial. But we have stories of frontier models not even bothering with decompiling - they just read the assembly and figure out what is going on. That is massive boon for people that have solid ideas how to improve something, but lack the time or skill to reverse engineer the sources.

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