site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   Edited 2yr ago   38704 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 12, 2022

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.

40
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So the Canadian Green Party had a meltdown over "misgendering". . No good deed goes unpunished in the land of fringe party circular firing squads; their attempt to be inclusive by having pronouns (but mistakenly picking the wrong ones) has become a firestorm.

It all started at a Sept. 3 media event in Vancouver kicking off the party’s leadership contest. In a Zoom appearance, Interim Leader Amita Kuttner was identified using a caption bearing the pronouns “she/elle.”

Of course, there is the standard "it made me feel unsafe" stuff. All of the leadership came together to harshly criticize this and the President - a volunteer- resigned cause she felt scapegoated, regardless of the apology.

The statement from the leadership candidates:

“The September 3 incident was but the latest in a number of similar behavioural patterns that Dr. Kuttner has faced throughout their tenure,” it read.

I'm sort of bemused how they frame this as some sort of pattern of racism, like calling a black person a slur or making jokes about women coders (they even use the term "harassment" at one point)

When the reality is that this person has deliberately chosen an atypical set of pronouns that will naturally cut against how most people over 5 have learned to use those things and so will naturally get misgendered sometimes.

This just solidifies in my mind that this entire thing will generally breed confusion and then conflict. That may even the point.

Of course, the political opportunism immediately follows:

Amidst all this, Kuttner launched a fundraiser last Wednesday intending to spite Jonathan Kay, an editor with Quillette and occasional National Post columnist. Kay had tweeted that the misgendering controversy sounded “exactly like satire,” prompting Kuttner to ask supporters to donate $68,000 to counter Kay’s “hate.”

As of press time, the fundraiser has pulled in $226.69, $10 of which was donated by Kay himself.

The President laments not only not being able to get anything done to the hysterical claims of harm but it being used to basically marginalize and remove her and other party figures:

Despite my best efforts to take us forward and find solutions, I am constantly distracted by claims of harm. I have spent much time trying to work beyond naming, blaming and shaming, and have called for restorative processes – yet these things continue to evade me because I find resistance to change.

Claims of harm have been weaponized in political attempts to remove people from the party. That is the truth of it. Federal Council was told that I caused harm to the interim- Leader. There was no evidence presented. I was excluded from Executive Council meetings that were organized without my knowledge. Briefly I was subjected to much harm and disrespect, and in the interest of the GPC I chose to not make this public to avoid harm or disrepute from coming to the GPC. This is evident in all our recorded meetings.

Reminds me of that article recently about how charities and organizations can't get work done with woke employees who are constantly attacking each other.

TBH, the Green Party - despite what some people want it to be - is an utter mess and small party nonsense like this isn't surprising.

The problem is that it's unclear it'll stay small party nonsense. The problem is not just this norm being spread, but that it is being enforced by both hate speech and discrimination law (probably why "safety" and "harassment"* have been so emphasized)

* BTW: I recall Jordan Peterson argued that we would end up in a place where misgendering would lead to these sorts of claims. He was told it would never happen because it was about continued misgendering. To that I say: that's bad enough + this case doesn't bode well for that position. It was a single incident, there was an immediate apology and it still became a huge fracas. Dreher's Law of Merited Impossibility hasn't struck yet, but it's looming.

I recall Jordan Peterson argued that we would end up in a place where misgendering would lead to these sorts of claims. He was told it would never happen because it was about continued misgendering. To that I say: that's bad enough + this case doesn't bode well for that position.

At the risk of waging the culture war, no fucking shit. The excuse of "it'll only be if it happens often" was a weak dodge then, it's a weak dodge now, and it will stop even being a dodge in the near enough future. Once again, conflict theory accurately predicts the actions of the woke, and mistake theory falls flat.

At the risk of mod intervention/harsh fact-checking: Is it really so bad if Canada's Green Party is too busy having internal struggles to focus on pushing degrowth policies? If they spend more time talking about pronouns than talking about closing nuclear power plants, I'm fine with letting barking dogs bark on this one.

As of press time, the fundraiser has pulled in $226.69, $10 of which was donated by Kay himself.

Can we all just take a moment of solemn silence to appreciate the advanced level of trolling here?

Master class.

Als0, I had to look up your reference, which I posted here in case anyone else besides me was lost:

"The Law Of Merited Impossibility is an epistemological construct governing the paradoxical way overclass opinion makers frame the discourse about the clash between religious liberty and gay civil rights. It is best summed up by the phrase, “It’s a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve what they’re going to get.”"

More generally,

  1. That will never happen.

  2. When it happens, you will fucking deserve it.

Seems like there is a corrolary with this recent pattern.

  1. It's not happening.

  2. But it's a good thing that it's happening. (CRT in schools, double mastectomies for minors, etc.)

I think it reflects attempts to jump right over the Overton window, or at least treat it as so imperceptibly thin that it may not even have nonnegative width.

On the one side, X is unthinkable. Nobody is seriously proposing it, and anybody worried about it is crazy. On the other side, X is unquestionable, nobody can seriously find any fault with it, and anybody objecting to it is crazy. Because this isn't a conspiracy or almost ever an intentional strategy, you can see both at once when different people have different senses of whether the moment has passed or not.

I should also add that this individual is kind of a stereotype of a "trender"; she's gone from being a woman in 2019, to agender, to nonbinary, now to ftm trans and nonbinary, with pronouns shifting every time (as she's gained increased prominence within the Green Party/national politics). She now uses he/they/ille pronouns (that's a French neopronoun), so wow, quelle surprise that someone misgendered her.

(I would say that normally I'm fine with going along with someone's preferred pronouns, but when it is so obviously farcical you have to draw the line).

A friend of mine is engaged to a trans man. This trans man changed the name they prefer to be addressed by like three times in as many years.

I get that trans people prefer not to be deadnamed and I try to address people by their preferred name whenever possible, but really, beyond a certain point you're getting into Puff Daddy/P. Diddy/Diddy/Puffy levels of absurdity.

he/they/ille pronouns (that's a French neopronoun)

How is "ille" pronounced? My first thought would be to pronounce it the same as "il"

Yeah... is it [il], or [ij], or some other pronunciation that ignores French phonetics? Or maybe tries for some obscure argument in favor of pronuncing the final e... but again, [ilə] or [ijə]?

I want to expect [il], but that'd render it inaudible.

(I would say that normally I'm fine with going along with someone's preferred pronouns, but when it is so obviously farcical you have to draw the line).

When does it become farcical to you? My standard is that anything other than standard male or female pronouns are farcical and that you only get to switch those once, maybe twice before it's really not on me to figure out what you are today. If someone makes an obvious effort to present as a man, they get male pronouns, if they make an effort to present as female, they'll get female pronouns. Anything more is a bridge too far and I don't believe in the sincerity of even a single xir.

When does it become farcical to you?

I don't like it, but I will grudgingly refer to someone using "they/them" pronouns if they really insist on it. I absolutely draw the line at neopronouns, however.

I don't believe in the sincerity of even a single xir.

I do think they're mostly sincere, just very confused because the whole edifice is hopelessly convoluted and being pushed by their peers who in turn all have a different flawed understanding. There is no central dogma because the concepts evolve daily because if they were ever formally set then the battle lines would be clear and the whole movement would fracture irreconcilably. The whole thing is like what you get in a game of calvinball where everyone makes up their own rules and it's considered a grave sin to tell someone that their rule is silly and will make the game unplayable.

Yeah, I'm on the same page as you are. If you make a genuine attempt to present male/female I'm all good with it. No neopronouns and no they/thems though.

I’m kind of fond of they/them, if only because I find gender “abolition” more sympathetic than aggressive gender affirmation.

Cis by default, baby.

If only we could abolish gender without abolishing clarity when referring to more than one person at a time...

The book notes on page 85 that "Our research clearly shows that women do as well as men in general elections. It also shows that the reason there aren't more women in public office is that not many women have run. Women have made up a very small percentage of candidates in general elections, particularly at higher levels of office."

I kind of like xir, it sounds like I am in some kind of vaguely Star Trekian utopia. I've never been asked to use any pronouns in real life, let alone xir though.

At my previous workplace, people listed pronouns in their work profiles and one person had a long explanation of why their pronouns had asterisks in them and how to pronounce them out loud. Fortunately, I never had the misfortune of needing to engage further than emailing a group list that they happened to be on.

I used to really dislike him but I've come to sympathize with the Jordan Peterson position of "we can talk if it's the two pronouns and you legitimately make an effort but using anything else is actively supporting a radical ideological regime that naturally slides into farce".

All of the confusion of gender identity as this dualist force and "not being a boy or girl" and such are encouraged by these neo-pronouns so why should I go along? By using them I'd be helping along the very silliness I fundamentally disagree with.

TBH I'm becoming skeptical of even changing those two pronouns, since that is how this whole mess got started.

At the very least, there should be strong differentiation between a transwoman and a woman in text and reporting. It wouldn't be so bad for them to use the "wrong" pronouns if reporting didn't sometimes seem to use this to obscure cases where sex clearly matters (e.g. who just committed that sex crime? A male or a female? I think it matters when we're collecting numbers )

Keep in mind that this is the same party that spent hundreds of thousands last year forcing out Annamie Paul after she made statements about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that, while anodyne by any standards, weren't sufficiently anti-Israel for the rest of the party leadership.

Eh, I think that's underselling Paul's position. Her chief-of-staff was saying that all Green MPs have to be Zionists, and she was backing him.

The President laments not only not being able to get anything done to the hysterical claims of harm but it being used to basically marginalize and remove her and other party figures

Oh, she does not understand what is going on. The idea is as follows: there are people at or near the center of a circle who hold power and then there are people "on the margins" of the circle who are oppressed by those in the center. Once all the people on the margin band together, they can collapse the circle - this is often called as centering [oppressed category] in wokespeech. It is literally described in the book Mapping The Margins by Kim Crenshaw.

So sorry Mr/Ms/Miss Kuttner. You were not marginalized for finding yourself out of the new collapsed circle - you were just de-centered. And by your inept defense you just opened the door for future criticism to bury your career 10 feet under. I am sorry for the person, but to be frank I have some level of schadenfreude here. This is exactly the shit that was happening in the past in many countries gripped by the revolution. You cannot be just an ideologue, you have to also be savvy political operator and you have to constantly have your finger on the pulse of where things are going or you are out.

Revolution eats its own and if this new challenger actually invented the whole trap for cynical purposes to gain power, I want to congratulate them on their game. They are the harbinger of the things to come.

prompting Kuttner to ask supporters to donate $68,000 to counter Kay’s “hate.”

The grifter playbook is

  1. Say stupid shit.

  2. When outgroup points it out, say "it would make our outrgroup really mad if you give me money."

but I have seldom seem it done so literally.

As of press time, the fundraiser has pulled in $226.69, $10 of which was donated by Kay himself.

Maybe the well was run dry.

You know, maybe this is just my privilege speaking, but I've always had the feeling that if there's any big psychological pain point I have (for example, I am really squeamish about injuries or gore) it is my own responsibility to deal with it rather than want other people to change to accommodate me. Is this better or worse than trying to get myself accommodated? I can't say for sure, but I do think that just striving for resilience seems more likely to be good for me, especially to the extent I succeed.

Of course, I expect the reply to that would amount to “how dare you compare your trivial discomforts to the serious oppressions that these people face!” To which all I can say is that I can only use the information available to me; I can only look at what's going on outside and measure things that way.

The claim then tends to run (see: standpoint theory, Hegelian master/slave dialectic) that a privileged person like me can never possibly understand the experience of an oppressed person; that I am, for my privilege, the most stunted and insensate type of human who can exist, blind to everyone else's experience whereas everybody else can see right through my own. If that's true, well then – there really is nothing I can do.

But to the extent I have any valid judgment of my own, I note that this seems to violate all notions of “people are [anything] like each other inside” and seems to be a claim that belonging to an oppressed category makes a person a utility monster. And at some point, I have to ask which is more likely: that I cannot possibly see the truth, or that I am being told a lie that would advantage the people telling it to me.

I'm told it's an utter failure of empathy on my part, but I think I'll choose the side that says that empathy isn't impossible for me.

And at some point, I have to ask which is more likely: that I cannot possibly see the truth, or that I am being told a lie that would advantage the people telling it to me.

Bruh, you just described the last five years perfectly.

No, it's not unreasonable to ask people to use content warnings. Ousting people for having sensitivities is what purity spiralers do. I'm particularly thinking of this effect in """right""" wing communities where there will be extremely vocal people who insist on spamming NIGGER at every opportunity, despite the fact that this type of user doesn't make original content, doesn't contribute to the codebase, doesn't effortpost, and refuses to be nice to people who do. They end up chasing off everyone else and cutting off the fresh flow of content. Any online community is 100% better off without these types of people. It's perfectly reasonable to ask people to spoiler-ize sensitive content. Not everyone wants to see gore, porn, or whatever, and that's OK.

Sure, SJWs say something that sounds similar, but SJW types practice their own forms of purity spiraling. If you don't post a black square, you can't be in the group. If you don't allow me to inject my political views into every topic, we can't be friends.

No, it's not unreasonable to ask people to use content warnings.

Since "ask" here is a euphemism for "demand", it certainly is. It allows the most "sensitive" person to control the content of the conversation.

Ousting people for having sensitivities is what purity spiralers do.

Ousting people for being insensitive is what purity spiralers do. There's no need to oust anyone for having sensitivities; if you merely refuse to accommodate them, they'll remove themselves.

There's no need to oust anyone for having sensitivities; if you merely refuse to accommodate them, they'll remove themselves.

Or they'll deal with it, and grow as a person. Which is the optimal outcome.

Content warnings by definition don't control content. You may assume that whoever demands content warnings will also demand you to not include certain kinds of content at all, but that assumption does not hold everywhere.

The rules of this very community make a lot more demands. You can't just go "cw: low effort, personal attacks: fuck off [slur]" that would be in bounds of the content warning model.

Content warnings by definition don't control content.

Contexualization alters the perception of content. It puts the idea into the readers head that whatever is warned about is important enough to mention and also bad enough to merit prior notice.

It also makes it a real pain in the ass to write about certain subjects, because you need the warning. "Beware trivial inconveniences" and all that. And it makes anything near that subject a land mine because you can be dinged for not warning.

Contexualization alters the perception of content.

This particular contextualization is less intrusive on the body of content than many other kinds of contextualization employed here among other places, then.

Since "ask" here is a euphemism for "demand", it certainly is. It allows the most "sensitive" person to control the content of the conversation.

This is exactly what happened with "trigger warnings".

The scientific evidence for their value has been undermined but they still served the role of enshrining the ability of any "victim" or crybully to control everyone's speech.

In spherical cow-land you can imagine these content warnings not spilling over into actual discouragement and suppression (like say...MPA age ratings).

In reality the impulse to censorship seems strong, the slippery slope is real so best to nip it in the bud.

Okay, but what if you don’t want them to leave?

Take the slur-spammer example. I don’t care if he’s within his natural rights—I would rather talk to a person with “common decency” rather than talk around a flood of slurs. The community can demand that he stop in the interests of the larger group.

Ousting for being insensitive is what purity spiralers do, and it’s also what functional communities do. It’s setting the boundary at the right place (and enforcing it fairly) that is contentious.

Okay, but what if you don’t want them to leave?

Choose. You can either accommodate them to the detriment of everyone else, or fail to accommodate them and they leave. There is often an implicit and sometimes explicit assumption that such accommodation is a moral requirement; I say it is not.

I would rather talk to a person with “common decency” rather than talk around a flood of slurs.

I would rather talk to someone with a potty mouth than someone who is going to "correct" my speech every three words, or demand some authority do the same. Yes, there is some theoretical medium, but in practice attempting to accommodate the "sensitive" ends up in a spiral... which is why we're no longer on Reddit.

Yes, there is some theoretical medium, but in practice attempting to accommodate the "sensitive" ends up in a spiral... which is why we're no longer on Reddit.

It is a very "don't negotiate with terrorists" situation. Once you show that you're willing to fold once, you'll be inundated with requests, and every one will cite your previous accommodation as precedent.

Unlike terrorism, there is no cost to you when they try and you refuse/ignore.

Except the cost of a twitter hate campaign, possibly losing your account, hosting, network connectivity, payment processing, or whatever else it is you need to communicate.

More comments

With all due respect, that sounds like a shithole.

It is perfectly reasonable to make following certain rules a condition of participation. Rules on speech norms are fair game. Like all rules, they ought to be enforced transparently and fairly, which is the real reason we’re off reddit. And the mods are still banning spammers and trolls, “correcting” their transgressions most dramatically. As they should be.

This is accommodating the the “sensitives,” and it’s also benefiting the community.

The choice is a shithole with offensive speech or a shithole run for the benefit of the sensitive. The center is unstable. Which may be why this group keeps having to move.

Standpoint theory is a ridiculous concept. It's a circular argument wherein anyone who claims that they're part of an oppressed group can state that everyone should accept their claims because they have knowledge that no one does. The entire house of cards is fundamentally based on the following horror: "I'm oppressed and you're privileged, thus I have a superior knowledge and you have no such standing. How can I be sure that I suffer the oppression which confers upon me this epistemic advantage in the first place? Because I'm oppressed and you're privileged". If I didn't know better, I'd say that the people who use this have no sense of logic. Unfortunately, knowing what I know it reads to me like activism in its most shameless and unprincipled form.

I feel very much the same way with psychological pain points. Claiming offence over something trivial when none was intended, then demanding that everyone you meet must immediately adapt themselves to kowtow to your sensibilities, is a dysfunctional way of approaching social interaction. It's even worse when you're asking people to rework their approaches to fundamental things that are based in reality like gender binaries - an approach that works with all but a tiny percentage of the population, I might add. It smacks of sociopathy. It's a way to assert power over people and get them to assent to things that are prima facie ridiculous for the sake of your comfort. Supposedly, acknowledging any worldview other than the one you want will make you feel unsafe and like you don't have the right to exist, and so anyone who speaks to you must repeatedly spit in the face of their own sense of reality for the sake of prioritising your comfort before their own.

The funny thing is that I check off many boxes in the Intersectional Stack (a model which is based on flawed premises most or all of which I reject), so progressives usually can't use the "You're just privileged and don't have empathy" shit against me since that would contradict the framework which they operate off.

but I've always had the feeling that if there's any big psychological pain point I have (for example, I am really squeamish about injuries or gore) it is my own responsibility to deal with it rather than want other people to change to accommodate me.

TBH I'm not even against the claim that we should accommodate people somewhat.

What I do utterly reject is this weird mix of anti-collectivist collectivism where we demand that people cater to our every whim in the name of social harmony and, instead of recognizing that society is a give and take and that you don't get to unilaterally control your own identity let alone how people refer to you, we ground these demands in first ludicrous claims of human rights and then exaggerated claims of risk of death and danger.

It's created a perfect machine for teaching narcissism:

  1. Tell people they have the right to control other people's speech even when they are not there, leading to endless rumination on how others see them.

  2. Tell them that refusal to do so is either malicious or poses a threat to their safety or dignity as humans.

  3. Enjoy the resulting narcissistic rage when someone, anywhere doesn't play along.

IIRC trans people are actually at risk of comorbidities like narcissism, so this isn't totally surprising. What's interesting is that it has now become a self-perpetuating ideology even for those who do not have those personality disorders so this problem can spread far past the .5% of the populace with these issues (as with the general issue of being "trans" itself)

It seems like this misgendering thing is a confluence of liberal/progressive flaws- the inability to distinguish when a risk is trivial or easily mitigated by the one bearing it, unwillingness to acknowledge any individual responsibility, and complete centering of the individual will. It has predictable results.

It seems like this misgendering thing is a confluence of liberal/progressive flaws-

Cataloging a list of your outgroup's flaws which basically consists of maximally uncharitable takes like "unwillingness to acknowledge any individual responsibility" is still against the rules here.

The counter of course will be that using pronouns is also trivial or easily mitigated, but I think that fails to appreciate that that tiny annoyance will be multiplied by being replicated across the entire population of people who interact with that individual (and so from a utilitarian perspective, cause much more annoyance than one person being misgendered) and be further multiplied by however many people with special pronouns there are -- of which there will be even more if the practice is normalised (adding a sort of additional negative incentive).

Not to mention many people struggle with names alone, asking them to shoulder the burden of remembering an additional set of unique appellations for potentially every person they meet is just setting those people up for more awkwardness.

Sure is convenient that your outgroup is not only stupid, but also negligent and selfish.

Show some charity.

And of course the idea that we must all cater to "victims" and "oppressed people" even if the demands and implications are absurd. This element is particularly important here cause, otherwise, the individual will of people who don't want to bother to do this stuff (or even the collective will of the groups that don't want to lose privileges like women with women-only spaces) would have nipped this in the bud.

This was one thing with stable "victim" groups. Now that we have utterly synthetic victim groups that anyone can claim at anytime...

TBH I'm not even against the claim that we should accommodate people somewhat.

Oh, of course. I (try to) ask for much less than I am willing to extend to others. It occurs to me for what may possibly be a similar idea to what I was objecting to here: the idea that I don't know what's going on inside them, so I'd better be considerate in the worst (reasonable) case.

Pan metron ariston, after all.

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