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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Can we talk about Rebekah Jones? Should we? I'm honestly incredibly conflicted about these questions. One of the rules of the Motte is that we shouldn't weakman:
Discussing Jones feels like walking a tightrope (called "meaningful cultural and political issues") that has been strung over an open toxic waste pit (called "are my political opponents just mentally ill?"). Out of sheer both-sides-ism I want to say "there are surely equally bizarre figures in right wing politics" but I can't actually find any. The best I can do is to say, suppose you combined Marjorie Taylor Greene's extremism with George Santos' fabulism, then made the resulting chimera guilty of the things Matt Gaetz was only ever rumored to have been guilty of doing--that would get you pretty close to Jones, I think. Except that MTG and Santos and Gaetz aren't darlings of reddit and don't command fawning loyalty from major media outlets, which Jones also does.
As a refresher, I first learned of Jones back in the old subreddit, when someone posted about her COVID activism. I don't remember when I learned of her criminal activities, but to simply quote the Wikipedia:
Jones went on to say she was going to run for office in Maryland (IIRC), but when that didn't pan out for unclear reasons, she returned to Florida. I don't know how much she has received in crowdfunding from the anti-DeSantis crowd at this point, but two early efforts pulled over half a million dollars. Jones has continued to hold herself out as a "whistleblower," specifically against the DeSantis administration in Florida, even though these claims appear pretty thoroughly debunked.
"Aha!" You might say. "PolitiFact leans left, and debunks Jones, so even the Left is willing to disavow this nut!"
Sure, maybe, to some extent. She went on to win the 2022 Democrat primary to challenge Matt Gaetz for his seat in the House of Representatives, so at least 16,000 Democrats still preferred Jones to someone with an actual legal education and genuinely relevant experience. And yes--by this logic, some 50,000 Republicans preferred the candidate who was under investigation for sex trafficking minors! It's baffling, I agree. But this is one of those "meaningful cultural and political issues" I mentioned--the only way I can make sense of any of this is to take a deep breath and remind myself that most people lack anything approaching coherent principles, they don't care about these details--they only care to win.
Anyway, that's all just the background!
This morning I woke up with this in my feeds.
If you don't want to read "WhitePeopleTwitter" (and I wouldn't blame you), it is a tweet from Rebekah Jones, followed by others, which I have partly reproduced here:
Naturally, Jones also provides links to her crowdfunding platforms of choice. The reddit "discussion" is... predictable? Outrage, occasional people (mostly, but not always, downvoted) asking whether this is legit, very few people posting actual information. Well, proles gonna prole I guess. But the headline in the Miami Herald?
So, that sounds bad! But is it really why he was arrested? In fact it is not. He was arrested for posting stuff like this:
As this information was coming out, Jones added to her tweetstorm:
It's not clear when these events are supposed to have occurred; Max Nordau shared video of Jones delivering her son to the police station. Rather, as this tweet suggests, it appears that "Rebekah Jones tried to blame DeSantis and RAISE MONEY off law enforcement stopping a possible school shooting."
I don't know what Jones' problem ultimately is. Narcissism? Paranoia? DeSantis Derangement Syndrome? That she is a habitual fabulist is well-established. That she has profited substantially from vocal opposition to all things DeSantis is a matter of public record. She is a sufficiently shady known quantity that most really big national news outlets seem reluctant to continue signal-boosting her, but the Miami Herald (by circulation, reportedly Florida's seventh-largest paper) still seems happy to run false headlines at her mere behest.
This seems discussion-worthy, and yet part of me wants to just not even post about it because it seems wrong, somehow, to even discuss Rebekah Jones. Giving her any attention at all feels a bit like encouraging a delusional person to persist in their delusions; she clearly wants notoriety, she doesn't seem capable of handling notoriety in a healthy way, surely it would be best to just stop paying attention to her?
But also, this is a kid talking about doing violence at school, with guns or knives. Is narcissism hereditary? Did his home environment contribute to this? [CONTINUED BELOW]
When The Motte was on Reddit, there was a post about women possibly having a... personalised... take on what they experience relative to reality. Was the post-author... you? A childhood magazine was involved, I believe, and AOC was invoked (not in the magazine, but the comment/post, or maybe in the replies).
In combination between that post, my experiences, one of the last comments from Namrok on women being possibly p-zombies, @WhiningCoil 's recent comment on 'white-knuckling' it, and other sources such as a comment here about wishful female thinking, there is maybe something to this as to a wider unified hypothesis.
For some people, the intensity of an erotic relationship is one of the few times in their lives that they actually closely focus on another human being on a daily basis. And since all or almost all people are partly crazy, and many people act especially crazy when experiencing erotic emotions, unsurprisingly such close focus on the other person soon uncovers that... the other person is partly crazy. And since these relationships are erotically charged, it soon becomes easy to generalize the observation of craziness into "all {people of gender I am attracted to} are crazy".
More options
Context Copy link
Right, if you ask a group of men or a group of women, all you’ll get is an anecdote avalanche about the other’s tendency to twist the truth. But that is not the answer, that is the question.
It’s like the Riddle Of The Two Guardians That Say The Other Is Lying. You do know a couple of things: they can’t both be lying, and they can’t both be truthin’. So which one is lying? Is it the one associated with intuition, emotion, empathy, verbalizing, fluidity, manipulation, or the one associated with force, rudeness, objectiveness, stoicism, logical, rational, legal, systematic thinking ? I’m honestly struggling to come up with a stereotypical characteristic that would point an alien to Man the Liar.
Standard disclaimers about generalization apply, no overarching claim of male superiority.
Well, men have produced most of history's thieves, politicians, con artists, military strategists, and so on... most fields in which deception plays a big role are dominated by men, not by women. On the other hand, I've seen a statistic which seems to show that marketing employs more women than men at least in the US.
The data seems to not support that either men or women are the bigger liars.
Most fields are dominated by men without further qualification.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Used-car salesman, carnival barkers, compulsive braggarts, corrupt and scheming politicians, loan-sharks, con-men and grifters of all kinds, are far more likely to be male than female, and all of these are definitely stereotypically-male archetypes. I have personally known numerous dishonest men whose personal testimony I’ve found so unreliable that if they told me 2+2=4, I’d have to manually check their math.
I understand that you might have a more specific interpersonal context in mind - i.e. if you’re listening to a man and a woman describe who is at fault for their ugly break-up, whose account should you consider more reliable? - but the people whose lying has the most far-reaching and impactful societal effects have historically been overwhelmingly male.
Those don't really work, they're just random examples, as if ‘The Amazons, Margaret Thatcher, Aileen Wuornos” were valid counters to a thesis of men’s greater tendency for violence.
Do female politicians, car saleswoman etc, have a particular reputation for honesty? There needs to be a comparison and contrast with women in similar roles for the counters to apply. And general, widespread acceptance. So “Men like bacon, women eat hot chip and lie” fails. I can accept ‘strongly driven to achieve power and wealth’ as a decent ‘pro-lies’ male characteristic you’re trying to get at with your examples.
The numerous stereotypes I listed are claimed by women when presented in a more positive light. Both sides of the aisle back me up, like they would on male violence.
I'd probably get less pushback if I completely separated the argument into its two components: First ask A) Are women more or less X (emotional, intuitive, etc) than men? and later, a propos of nothing, wonder B) does characteristic X make one more or less likely to lie/rationalize? Because A + B together implies something negative about women, I have to contend with offtopic condemnations of men.
I don’t see what historical societal consequences have to do with the expected truth-value of men and women’s statements. You're saying it didn’t matter as much when women took liberties with the truth? I’ve read a redpill argument along these lines supporting Woman being The Liar, but like all evolutionary arguments, that one’s pretty weak imo.
@Goodguy Don’t just declare perfect equality after listing two conflicting examples. There can be only one. It’d be preposterous to do that with male violence.
But what unites the three examples you’ve provided is that they are all surprising or counterintuitive, because they represent inversions of the qualities one would associate with women. Whereas the examples I provided are recognizably masculine archetypes - Donald Trump, for example, is frequently referred to as an appealing masculine archetype, because of his pure will-to-power and his ability to “hold frame”: to adhere to a particular narrative framing in order achieve a desired result, such as obtaining/maintaining power, or humiliating his enemies. This is a dominant and masculine form of lying; it’s the kind of lying you can only do if you’re either already in power, or if you hold (or believe you hold) a hidden leverage which will soon grant you an edge over your interlocutor.
That, and they are all united by “confidence and the ability to project that confidence in order to inspire trust/deference.” Whereas the feminine counterpart is “fragility and the ability to project that fragility in order to inspire protection/indulgence.” Both are prevalent forms of lying, and I don’t see one as more frequent than the other.
Why would you assume they equalize? Who's more likely to lie, one with overt power, or one with no power/covert power? Does the master lie more to his slave, or the slave to his master? Does the dictator lie to his ministers, or do they lie to him? The mouse to the cat, lawyer to the judge, jester to the king?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
On that topic, Emil Kirkegaard has a post about sex differences in rationality. It speaks about a test called the Comprehensive Assessment of Rational Thinking (CART) which seeks to measure tendency towards rational thinking, with a higher total CART score implying higher performance on the test.
A 2016 book by Keith Stanovich found on the topic of sex differences: "[I]t can be seen that the total score on the entire CART full form was higher for males than for females in both samples and the mean difference corresponded to a moderate effect size of 0.52 and 0.65, respectively. ... Moving down the table, we see displayed the sex differences for each of the twenty subtests within each of the two samples. In thirty-eight of the forty comparisons the males outperformed the females, although this difference was not always statistically significant. There was one statistically significant comparison where females outperformed males: the Temporal Discounting subtest for the Lab sample (convergent with Dittrich & Leipold, 2014; Silverman, 2003a, 2003b). The differences favoring males were particularly sizable for certain subtests: the Probabilistic and Statistical Reasoning subtest, the Reflection versus Intuition subtest, the Practical Numeracy subtest, and the Financial Literacy and Economic Knowledge subtest. The bottom of the table shows the sex differences on the four thinking dispositions for each of the two samples. On two of the four thinking dispositions scales—the Actively Open-Minded Thinking scale and the Deliberative Thinking scale—males tended to outperform females."
There is also a possibility to indirectly measure sex differences in rationality by checking who believes irrational things, but "it is important to sample widely in beliefs without trying to select ones that men or women are more apt to believe". Kirkegaard draws attention to a 2014 study that does such a thing. This study instructed participants to select on a five-point scale how much they agreed or disagreed with a claim, and "scores were recoded such that a higher score reflected a greater rejection of the epistemically unwarranted belief". The unsupported beliefs were grouped into the categories "paranormal, conspiracy, and pseudoscience". In all of them, men scored higher than women, suggesting greater male rejection of unsupported beliefs in every category.
In other words, if one sex was more likely to distort reality in line with their biases, I would expect it to be women.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Agree that Men are no less likely to rewrite their own perspective on their own memories. I think a lot of this is linked to the need for internal self-consistency. If someone express traditionally conservative morals, yet acted in a very not conservative way earlier in life, it makes sense they would write it off as a "wild time" in their life, with a likely follow on of "but I grew up / got more mature etc." What's more, I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with this. Learning from experience and changing your views based on that experience is sort of how humans work. I'd rather someone used to be kind of an asshole and then got over it versus continuing to be an asshole but somehow "consistent" in their values?
The sex difference I see (incoming: anecdata) is that female self-revision seems to frequently remove any personal agency let alone fault. It's not that Alice chose a bunch of Bad Boy Bobs in her 20s because she wanted fun and thrills and, hey, turns out Bad Boy Bob was in fact a Bad Guy. Instead it's (ancedatally) more often "Bob turned out to be such an asshole who could've known that a guy with prison time, no job, and a stolen motorcycle wasn't a sweetheart!"
Whereas, with my male friends, I hear a lot of "Yeah, she did sleep with three other dudes but .... she was a stripper and I knew that so .... what're you going to do."
All this being said, I don't chalk it up to innate brain differences between men and women. Ideas and culture matter. Contemporary feminism is rooted in hyper-liberation theory and maximal individual freedom of expression without any consideration of personal responsibility, let alone behaviors that strengthen societal bonds. Women are told that sexual libertinism earlier in life is a profound way of expressing themselves. How can there be any self-critical examination of mate selection criteria and interpersonal trust if the whole point is to just do it!
"Well, aren't young men fed the idea that they can have fun in their 20s going out to bars and bedding dozens of women as well?" Sure, but, as has been pointed out many, many other times on The Motte, it's fundamentally harder for all but the top .1% of men to get sex on demand. Secondly, and more broadly applicable, how many Bro-movies have some variation of "don't stick your dick in crazy?" Is "fuck boi" not a term in common usage in a derogatory manner? As underdeveloped as these ideas may be, at least there is some concept of future repercussions of reckless personal decision making (bonus: hasn't "Man up" been used by both TradCon folks as well as all but the most insane gender-dismantling leftists?)
Young people in society will always have higher degress of openness and risk taking. We need this for society to continue to function. The balance that tradition and positive elder role models play is to create the acceptable outer bounds of those behaviors to create a hard check on catastrophic (both personal and societal) consequences of those decisions. I think current feminism has done a lot to blow up even the outermost of those boundaries. The current result, and future prospects, were excellently summed up in @FiveHourMarathon's quality post from this March
That does often happen with men, sure. However what also happens very often is "man gets with new girl, man's friends see that she is crazy, man doesn't see it because he's too into her to care, months later man realizes that she is crazy". Which is the same thing as your Bob example from above.
Anyway, if you ask enough guys for their opinions you will probably eventually find criticisms of women for doing pretty much anything whatsoever. If the woman goes with Bob, someone will say that she is being irrational even though she finds Bob to be hot and it's pretty rational to want to fuck people you find hot. If she follows her more logical side and goes with Tim the nice nurturing guy, someone will say "see, women are not as big risk-takers as men are" or "she actually wants Bob, she is just using Tim as a beta provider". If she decides to not sleep with anyone, someone will say that she is a prude. If she sleeps with both Bob and Tim, someone will say that she is too promiscuous.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, it's a human tendency -- this difference I notice with (not all) women (by no means limited to romantic partners, either) is that this personal narrative is much more likely to involve blatant errors in fact. My mom is particularly bad for this -- we mostly just kind of let it go, because these "facts" are by now solidified into rock-solid memories for her. It makes me wonder about some of the stories concerning myself when I was too young to remember.
More options
Context Copy link
Can we not talk about her. I skimmed your thing so maybe there’s something new but didn’t notice it.
As someone from the right and more than most here I just assume I’m being lied to constantly. It’s such a strong bias I don’t need to be reminded of when a lower class person lied to me and all the national media picked it up.
Usually it’s NYT style lying where they give true facts that are misinterpreted.
More options
Context Copy link
I’m sure I kept it around somewhere…ah…there it is
This isn’t quite dating, but I think it’s important to keep in mind. The stochastic inability of mottizens to understand women is not very good evidence of an actual, insurmountable gap.
Do mottizens do a particularly bad job of “understanding women”?
All I ever see in the sex/dating threads is men bragging about how successful they are with women.
I’m not sure how else to interpret sloot’s “wider hypothesis.”
That’s also what I was trying to get at with “stochastic.” Clearly there are some commenters who have very limited ability to model women. Not enough for me to think they’re on to something.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A p-zombie is a being that is objectively indistinguishable from a human but has no subjective experience. To imply that women are p-zombies because they behave differently from men, which is what I would guess the Namrok comment that you are referring to probably does, would be to fundamentally misunderstand the p-zombie concept. Part of the whole idea of a p-zombie is that its behavior is indistinguishable from that of a human.
If someone manages to find that comment, it might be interesting to read.
I remember it, and posted light agreement -- the instances I've noticed are more along the lines of "creates false memories that align with one's worldview" than p-zombie-ism. (IIRC this was the sort of discussion that led gemmaem to flee to theschism?)
I can see how women are disturbed by this kind of talk, but I do think there's a... tendency there. R. Jones I figure is simply a nutter -- there's lots of men that act like this but they usually just get locked up, and nobody thinks it's a bad thing when their kids are confiscated.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Comedian and marriage guy Mark Gungor has a whole schtick on why men and women are fundamentally incomprehensible to each other, the model of boxes vs wires. I’ve linked to the start of the part most people go to the video for, 55 seconds in.
Other examinations I’ve leaned on for preparing for understanding women’s behavior and choices include the Dave Sim’s Cerebus comics and Carla Speed McNeil’s Finder comics, particularly her graphic novel “Five Crazy Women”. (If a woman warns you that all women are crazy, listen to her.)
This video is very interesting to me, in the sense that it does not resonate with my experience, at least of my own internal life, at all. I think I’ve made allusions before to the fact that I tend to recognize within myself many patterns and frames of mind that are generally associated with femininity; my free testosterone levels have certainly increased over the years and I’ve observed a concomitant decrease in the prevalence of these patterns, but I still seem to experience them far more often than the modal heterosexual man. This is why I’ve always held out a bit more sympathy for a soft version of the “gender is a non-binary spectrum separate from sex” cluster of ideas than one might expect, given my opinions about many other culture-war topics.
I think it is very obvious that masculinity and femininity are bimodal distributions; in that sense, I’m certainly in strong disagreement with the full gender abolitionists and gender-sex-separators. Where I think a lot of the more fertile disagreement lies is the question of just how many people sit somewhere in the psychological overlap between those distributions, and what to do with them. I’m completely uninterested in entertaining discussions of what to do about the vanishingly small number of people who are physically intermediate between the two poles, but as someone in the awkward position of finding myself psychologically somewhere in the undifferentiated middle ground, it’s odd watching a video which clearly the vast majority of people find insightful and relatable and getting pretty much nothing out of it myself.
As a male (but not an especially masculine one), this is also very much not my experience, but I notice that most of the men I know also don't seem to have this either, even ones who are more masculine than me in general. So clearly something is wrong here. I only know my own experiences, and I don't ever think about literally nothing. I don't know what that even means, other than being unconscious. But I don't think it matches most of the men I know, so I'm mostly just extrapolating from there. It's probably not true, and if it's is true for some men it's probably not true of people who I encounter in my filter bubble. I'm torn between three possible hypotheses. In approximate order of how likely I think they are:
1: This is a made up stereotype based on conversation preferences. Nobody really experiences nothing in their mind, they just daydream about unimportant stuff and then when asked about it either lose their train of thought and forget, or are embarrassed by how silly it was. It's easier to tell your wife that you were thinking about "nothing" than it is to tell her you were imagining the broader ecological implications if squirrels didn't have tails, or that you were trying to find symmetries in the patterns on the wall, and then have her judge you and ask questions about what's wrong with you that you'd think about something silly like that. Or if you were imagining having a threesome with two of your favorite celebrities, and you think she'd get angry if you admitted something like that. It's entirely possible that enough men (not all men, but a non-negligible number) have negative experiences with women questioning their inner thoughts and starting conflicts over it, or they just don't enjoy having conversations when they're trying to have alone time to think, and they learn to say "nothing" as the easiest response. And if enough do this, and men do this more often then women, then it becomes a stereotype.
2: This is an intelligence thing, not a gender thing. Maybe people with IQ below a certain threshold really do space out and think about nothing sometimes. I suspect if you were thinking about literally nothing you'd be trapped there forever, you have to have some sort of route for external stimulus to reach your brain, but I suppose your conscious mind could be off while your unconscious is still on. Or more likely they're thinking about very little which gets rounded off to "nothing" when queried. This is pretty far from my experience, I suppose the closest I can think of is when I'm really sleepy and my thoughts seem to slow and get muddled. Maybe some people do this on purpose as a sort of micronap? I don't know. If this is the correct explanation, then I can think of two possibilities for why this is stereotyped as a gender thing. One possibility is that it is socially uncouth to criticize women in certain ways, especially about their intelligence, so if men and women both do this men who talk about women doing this will be criticized for being misogynistic, while women who talk about men doing this will be sympathized with. The other possibility is the male variability hypothesis. If this only occurs in people with IQ below 90, and men have higher IQ variance, then more men will have this feature, therefore the stereotype might get applied to men more. It could even be the case that there is a genuine gender component to this in combination with the IQ thing. Like, maybe it only happens to women with IQ less than 80 and men with IQ less than 90, so some couples with the same IQ might see differences across gender. Heck, it could even be the case that it never happens to women, and happens to all men with IQ less than 90, and it would still be consistent with lots of men in general having it, while none of the men you or I interact with have it.
3: This is a genuine gender thing. Some sort of hormone or brain structure or socially nurtured psychological patterns cause some men to sometimes think about nothing. That is, there is a common causal source (other than IQ) of many correlated masculine traits, and empty brain. The stereotypes are right, even if not universal, and you and I are just less masculine than all of the meatheads out there. Maybe I'm wrong about the inner worlds of the intelligent but not feminine men around me, and they do sometimes think about literally nothing, just not when they're around me. That seems vaguely plausible, if you actually pay attention while you're at work and socializing and save your sitting around thinking about nothing when you're alone at home.
Again, I think 1 is the most likely, then 2, then 3. But I suppose any are possible.
I am personally of the “it’s not stuff they’d actually want to remember thinking about, so they forget about their thoughts” camp. Maybe I’m an outlier here, but I can’t ge5 my brain to shut up most of the time. And unless I’m thinking about something specific, it’s generally inane stupid shit that I don’t even care about. Like, it’s pieces of tv shows, do the Cards play this afternoon, songs, what’s the word for X in Y language, what would be different if the Chinese had discovered the New World instead of the Spanish?
I don’t talk about it because it’s kinda weird and nobody would actually care that much.
More options
Context Copy link
3.5: This is a head injury thing, and stereotypical masculine activities are more likely to result in head injuries.
I hadn't thought of that. I'm doubtful that this is the main cause, because this would still be pretty rare even in men, and I'm not sure that would be enough to create the stereotype. But it could be this.
It may be rare in men as a whole, but still common enough in some notable subsets of men (eg, athletes in certain popular sports) to create the stereotype.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It is funny you mention “finding symmetry in the patterns on the wall.” I do trivial stuff like that all of the time (including whenever I see numbers try to figure out how using different mathematical functions get to the number 1)
I do that with words, when I see a new word or phrase I immediately try to find anagrams, cyphers, puns, spoonerisms or see if I can figure out the etymology in my head.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That doesn't ring any bells, but if you recall sufficient detail to dredge it up I'd be interested to see it. By "childhood magazine" are you talking, like... Highlights for Children? Teen Vogue? I'm struggling to even think of concrete examples of "childhood magazines" so if I ever wrote a post about one I'd be surprised!
Which WhiningCoil post are you talking about? CTRL-F for "knuckl" doesn't give me hits on two pages of user history.Nevermind, found it.More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link