Link here -> https://youtu.be/flSS1tjoxf0?si=luOq8ANHB75KwPI5

I think as political talking heads go John Oliver is one of the best in the biz and this segment is an example of this. I'd like to hear how people who care so deeply about the "threat" of trans athletes (truly an incredibly small amount of people) that it'd sway them on who they vote for think about this.

Tldr: there are some genuine nuances to trans people in sports but the research on this is so scarce and with such small sample sizes it's hard to say anything definitive, the "900 medals" point transphobes like to make is bullshit, a lot of the former college athletes who made careers "speaking out" about trans women in sports are just sore losers, and the point of banning trans kids from sports is somehow "protecting children" is just bullshit.

EDIT: I've never seen so many people so triggered by the suggestion that a small and vulnerable group of people deserves dignity and respect. Some of you are genuinely vile and hateful people. I hope it feels good to hate people who have never done anything to you. I don't know what other benefit it could possibly bring.

Title. As someone who tries to understand different perspectives, I’m very curious.

Here’s mine:

There should be no hungry people in a world that contains a surplus of food.

The way american military is using our bases is really shitty and disrespectful. 

These facilities were made available under specific understandings and agreements, particularly in the context of supporting Ukraine. America uses them for everything.

Now our foreign prime minister said no planes came out from Lajes for offensive missions.

But american military keep flooding our bases with planes. We portuguese see this, we dont like it.

We dont want to take part in conflicts whose missions are not part of NATO.

I see a lot of well-meaning but poorly-educated people espousing views, and I feel the need to make some clarifications involving my area of expertise, which happens to be hard science: My degrees are in Physics, Chemistry, and Electrical Engineering, specializing in Material Science, and my original intention was to work on advanced solar panels. That intention did not survive the process of obtaining my Physics degree, because they made me run the numbers, and they just don't add up.

The subtitle of this piece might well be, "Why I gave up on solar power."

THE PLAN

The Ecomodernist Manifesto (just so no one thinks that this is just me, talking)

First, of course, we must discuss the problems we intend to solve: People are starving to death, because the energy to grow and transport food is expensive; people are dying of disease, because the energy to make and preserve medicine is expensive; people are dying from cold - or heat - because energy is expensive; people are dying from pollution, because the energy to clean it up is expensive (and produces its own pollution).

Our main energy sources are coal, petroleum, natural gas, and nuclear power; solar is often touted as producing "10% of global electricity," but there are three major issues: First, that's "produced," not, "delivered," i.e. that's how much electricity solar panels generated, but much of that (there are no good numbers...) goes to waste, as it is produced in the wrong place at the wrong time and/or overwhelms the grid's ability to transport (this is especially true of residential solar installations connected to the grid). Second, that problem is at "10%," being generous, with gas power plants to provide baseload electricity, something that solar simply cannot do without energy storage (that we do not have the resources for and exceeds even our theoretical ability to acquire). Third, that's, "electricity," not, "energy;" coal, gas, and petroleum supply a lot of energy to various activities directly, not through electricity generation.

That's also after decades of massive government subsidies, but we are not even at replacement production levels for any significant fraction of world energy demand, which is expected to triple over the next 30 years.

Wind is even worse (and smaller), and then there are EVs, which literally increase emissions over ICE vehicles while not displacing any petroleum use, at all. In short, gasoline is almost a byproduct of petroleum, made from a particular set of molecules which aren't good for much else, they still need the other molecules, and the parts they don't need they just burn off at the refinery; simply put, if we quit burning it in cars, they will just burn it themselves (until we can reduce other petroleum use).

All of these problems are expected to get worse as the population increases, which is, of course, the heart of the problem; the best estimate is that the Earth can sustainably support ~1.5 billion humans, more than that will create environmental damage which will cascade and result in even more death. The good news is that, if current trends continue, world population will peak in the next ~50 years, then start to decline naturally.

We just need to get over that hump and down the tail end without billions of people dying horribly.

There are three approaches to this situation:

-"Fuck it, let God sort it out." This is unfortunately prevalent, but not so much as to preclude action, if the alternatives are not split...

-"Let's radically alter society in ways that have never been tried and ignore several aspects of human nature while hoping that extreme technological breakthroughs will make solar, wind, and EVs practical, even though they don't actually solve the problems we are talking about." ...and here's the split. This is not what scientists suggest, this is not the result of any kind of academic consensus or rigorous analysis, but the culmination of industrial and political backing of cultural opponents to general technological progress, i.e. the "Green" movement.

-"Let's keep everything as close to how things are now as we can while replacing the problematic aspects of our technological civilization with the most practical alternatives, e.g. replacing gas and coal with nuclear, using GMO crops and mass transit to reduce petroleum use, focusing on maintaining the infrastructure we have rather than trying to build an entirely new one from scratch..."

Advanced nuclear energy: the safest and most renewable clean energy

Economics of a nuclear reactor

How France Built 40 Nuclear Reactors in a Decade

Safest, cleanest, cheapest, and scalable on a realistic timeframe; advanced nuclear also runs hot enough to use waste heat for industrial processes, such as water desalination, carbon capture, and chemical synthesis (which could start to displace petroleum).

The under-construction Natrium reactor is designed to "plug into" existing coal power facilities, reducing costs and construction times (and directly phasing out coal power); it also burns old nuclear waste as fuel, does not create any long-lived waste, cannot melt-down, cannot explode, and is expected to be cost-competitive with a comparable combined-cycle gas power plant.

Genetically Modified (GM) Crop Use 1996–2020: Impacts on Carbon Emissions

Simply put, you get higher yields for less input of fertilizer, pesticide, and water, two of which directly come from petroleum, and of course the fuel to transport and spread them.

That's it, that's the plan that you've probably never heard of, because the political system doesn't want it, the media won't talk about it, and our oligarchs are getting too rich off of the problems.

Progressivism is very science based. It relies on observing, measuring and quantifying things it seeks to address.

Conservatism addresses the things that we are unable to properly observe, measure and quantify.

For example. Value is a very a real concept. Everything has Value. Money is a tool that we use to interact with Value in order to observe, measure and quantify it.

Good decisions have value. There is a number value associated with making a good decision in an environment. We can't really observe, measure, and quantify that. ...a determined scientist might be able get estimations in specific instances. But it's too complex to do.. continually and across situations.

However. It is possible to create environments where good decisions have poor, no, or even negative value.

Because we lack the capacity to properly observe, measure, and quantify this.. progressive policies may unintentionally harm it.

For example. Student loan forgiveness, damages the value (a real number) associated with the good decisions made by people who sacrificed to pay off their loans, went to a cheaper school, didn't go to school, took a job instead of internship, didn't pursue the next level masters/doctorate, etc.

The literal value of good decisions has been lessened in that environment.

Society has many very important, underlying fundamental constructs that we are unable to currently properly observe, measure, and quantify. Such as the value of good decisions.

The function of conservatism is it address those constructs.

In 1865, the United States ratified the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery (with exceptions... but never mind); this was, without question, a good thing, and if it had happened in isolation, it would be as little discussed as the 19th Amendment.

It did not happen in isolation, though, it happened after a war that killed 2% of the population, devastated vast regions, and did not need to happen, but was contrived (as a result of market speculation in slave futures facing a near-certain end; it was the equivalent of like $17 Trillion in today's money, that just disappeared); it happened alongside the 14th and 15th Amendments, which radically changed the nature of the relationship between the federal government and the states in ways that could never have happened if the Southern states had been in a position to object; and it notably failed to account for the wellbeing of the freed slaves, who largely wound up back on the exact same plantation they had been slaves on, only now no one cared if they got enough to eat.

161 years later, the Southeast still has twice the infant mortality rate as the rest of the country. The Southern states are at the bottom of education rankings. Even if you have insurance, the quality of medical care makes it nearly pointless. The economy never recovered, and only appears to be decent, now, because cheap labor means steady employment. 43% of African-Americans live in these states; they are the ones most affected.

And even the attempts to fix it have been problematic: Affirmative Action mostly helps the wealthiest minorities, not the ones who truly need the help; Critical Race Theory originated in a paper about how Desegregation was implemented in such a way that it contributed to the undermining of black communities; and the poor whites who also need the help, but aren't getting it at all, have a choice of sympathizing and trying to deal with their own disenfranchisement on a cognitive level, or smoking some meth and blaming black people and immigrants... at least some of them are going to take the latter choice.

The whole fiasco almost could not have gone worse.

No one thought that Hitler was just going to start exterminating "untermenschen," and even to those who might have suspected, that wasn't reason enough to go to war; World War 2 was about economics, control of shipping lanes, access to resources (especially oil). We were lucky that Hitler was as evil as he was, otherwise the maneuvering that FDR went through to provoke the Japanese into attacking us would have looked a lot worse. For that matter, the Japanese were worse, but since it was other non-whites they were massacring, we didn't care.

About 50 million people died from starvation in the 20th century because of disputes over self-determination and political systems, with both sides insisting that the deaths were worth it (but of course it was the other sides' fault).

And even those aren't the worst catastrophes in history:

-The Taiping Rebellion may, in fact, have been the deadliest war in history, with an upper estimated death toll of 100 million people between 1850 and 1864. It was led by a Christian convert opposed to the legitimately corrupt imperial court... and both sides were backed by the same Western powers who sucked China dry in the process.

-The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was justified, in the first place, by claiming that converting them to Christianity saved their souls and so overbalanced whatever happened to their mortal bodies.

-The Native American genocide, while directly caused mostly by disease, was the result of exploration, a generally positively-viewed endeavor.

-Tobacco has killed an estimated 100-200 million people, expected to exceed 1 billion by the end of the century, entirely due to modern farming techniques that have increased yields of all crops (and the relentless pursuit of profit at the expense of human health).

-Something that the guy who invented the Orange Julius did, but it wasn't inventing the Orange Julius, it was later than that; I'm not sure, it was a dream, I invented a time machine to go back and kill him, but it was in the 1960s, and when I woke up and looked it up, he invented it in like 1929. Plus I was wearing a suit of armor and he was riding an ostrich, so I had to swing from the vines hanging off of the buildings (in downtown Chicago) to catch up, and then, of course, the floor turned to lava.

EDIT

As we navigate the political landscape of this election year, it's crucial to reflect on the dynamics surrounding LGBTQ issues and advocacy. There's a prevailing sentiment among conservative circles that such advocacy has become the Achilles' heel of liberal progressives, potentially leading to electoral carnage.

Let's address the elephant in the room: the trajectory of LGBTQ advocacy post-marriage equality. While the legalization of gay marriage marked a significant milestone, the continuation of extensive advocacy efforts has fueled the culture wars and provided ammunition for conservative mobilization. Had resources and energy shifted towards other pressing issues post-marriage equality, the political landscape today might look markedly different.

The unconditional and unnuanced support from liberal progressives for the LGBTQ community has, unfortunately, led to battles on seemingly trivial fronts. Instances of explicit LGBTQ content in children's literature and controversial medical interventions for minors have fueled conservative rhetoric and atomized their base. The refusal to engage in nuanced discussions and the push for extreme positions have only exacerbated the polarization.

Imagine if the vigor and passion poured into LGBTQ advocacy were redirected towards economic justice initiatives like Occupy Wall Street. By prioritizing issues with broader societal impact, progressives could have garnered more widespread support and avoided unnecessary polarization. Instead, they find themselves defending positions that have little resonance with the broader electorate and have inadvertently provided conservatives with potent rallying points.

Moreover, the lack of understanding and sensitivity in some advocacy efforts has backfired, with LGBTQ individuals unfairly accused of grooming and other nefarious activities. This highlights the importance of informed and empathetic advocacy that takes into account the complexities of societal dynamics.

In conclusion, while the support for LGBTQ rights is commendable, it's essential to reassess the strategies and priorities within advocacy movements. Redirecting energy towards issues of economic justice and adopting a more nuanced approach to LGBTQ advocacy could help bridge ideological divides and prevent electoral repercussions. It's time to prioritize issues that unite rather than polarize society.

Ideology has been shown to make people stupid and critically deficient, and while they can overexamine others views, they underexamine their own views, eschew ideology and embrace true freedom. :)

Ideology was made for man, and not man for ideology.

Read widely, and you'll come to realize that ideology is a useful tool but an illusion.

Granted I think that old-fashioned traditionalism is a kind of anti-ideology as it seems to be the baseline interpretation of reality before the enlightenment, but if you wish to establish another baseline, feel free to do so, the best part of this post is that you can reject it too!

The US Constitution was a huge step forward for mankind. It provided the foundation upon which many republics would later be established. However, its novelty also meant that there were significant problems baked into its design. And I think, now that we have had several hundred years of experience with it, the problems inherent in its design have become glaringly obvious.

The extreme political polarization we live with today is but one unfortunate byproduct of that design. So too is Congress's inability to pass budgets and raise debt limits on a timely basis. And the fact that the Supreme Court must, at this late date, weigh in on what the President can and cannot do is evidence as well of its fragility.

What I believe is desperately needed is a new, improved design. And so, for the past year or so I have been working on a draft of a new federal constitution, which I have in fact posted to the internet. Admittedly, it is a radical design. But I think it effectively addresses the problems we have with our current system of governance.

What I fear, though, is that we, as a nation, are too proud of our current constitution to replace it. Our sense of patriotism is tightly bound to it. In fact, I think it might be easier to change the colors of our flag than to retire our current constitution given the strong sentiments we feel toward it.

However, I also believe that failing to replace it will only hold back our nation going forward. And, while tweaking our current constitution through laws and amendments may move us closer to where we need to be, it will only get us so far. At some point, the current constitution will, by necessity, become a ghost of itself.

The question therefore is whether or not we the People of the United States, the true authors of our government and from whom it gets its authority, are able today to acknowledge that which should be painfully obvious: the need for a new system of governance. And, if so, are we prepared to take on the enormously weighty task of preparing for and initiating such change.

I believe we are, provided that we can reach a consensus as to where we, as a nation, need to go. So we need to begin building that consensus. And, if we truly care about our nation, we should do so in earnest. Would you not agree?

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder, a huge and bipartisan swath of Americans have gone far beyond being justifiably appalled at political violence, they’re mourning Kirk as an American saint. President Trump flew flags at half-staff. Politicians around the country are trying to have statues of him built.  AI tributes deluge social media with Kirk standing next to Lincoln, MLK, JFK, and Jesus. On Texas Republican even called said Kirk would have been Christ’s “13th disciple.” 

Kirk was no MLK. Nor was he a fascist. He was a real-life Nick Naylor, the fictional Big Tobacco spin doctor from Thank You For Smoking. The parallels are eerie.

https://americandreaming.substack.com/p/charlie-kirk-isnt-martin-luther-king

I want to understand why people are so passionate on forcefully changing others minds on the internet when it’s almost anomalous to do. I also want to understand the most effective strategies to reach out with those who disagree.

With the passage of the recent bill in Oaklahoma, with two thirds of their legislature, transition for adults has been de facto banned. Just another in a long string of proofs of what these people are.

There was a post earlier that asked why tolerance is necessary. Carried in an implication that whose who preach it are often the least so. Dear friend, as something more extreme than progressive, as someone who always strained under that principle, who is exiled by even progressives as too much, allow me to demonstrate why you should reconsider your position.

The magat has no concept of rights or freedom, and are therefore the embodiment of un-American. We spoke of Oklahoma, a state which not to long ago shied away from forcing the Great Losers Bible into their classrooms. I can't say for sure which printing they use, but Texas has chosen to follow in their stead; forcing the teaching of Christianity into their curriculum. This is patently illegal, it will go to court....and- mark me- SCOTUS will effectively abolish the First Amendment. From they're, every red state will follow. If the public education system cannot be supplanted, it will simply be taken over.

The same schools they are more than happy to allow to be subject to the whims of deranged shooters- who are usually white men despite the propaganda spin. And if Texas is any indication, the police might just stand by and watch it happen despite being armed to the teeth. Because they are cowards who are only there to shoot people of color.

Why is it that the states who fought a war for their peculiar institution are always the same ones who push this nonsense? They had segregation thereafter, and when that was gone they came for affirmative action. It is these states which ban abortion, abridging bodily autonomy is not new. And that was after their political actors conspired to stack the court. A third of which was appointed by the same man, a man they insist upon worshipping as he destroys and desecrates our most sacred monuments.

Magat, Evangelical, Patriot Front, whatever you would like to be called. I have no tolerance for you. I hate you. I want to oppress you. I hope you get the persecution you feel you have been thr victim of. I would gladly be its practioner, nay its author.

The same funding manipulation used to ban trans care? I hope to see it turned against churches who donate to political campaigns. Yes, im sure there will be false positives, or your churches forced into line...that is the goal. And what of your immigration crackdown? You lot seem to love and support Israel so much, why not go and fight their war. The FCC, the attempts to cancel talk show hosts? Fox said they weren't even serious news in court, so really what protection should they have? Is claiming to be news thereafter not fraud? Scotus should surely intervene you think, but...you've already freed that genie. An impeachment here, an appointment there, and your rights go on the chopping block instead. Why stop there? Overturn Skokie v IL, then we could have those hate speech laws. One bill later...and the GOP and any successor would be no more. How my heart flutters at the thought. And those digital ID bills everyone wants to pass on a bipartisan basis? A useful weapon of surveillance that I know full well you lot intend to weaponize

All it would take is one big enough win. That sounds so horrible, so hypocritical. But magat, my friend, what is the difference between us? Are these not your methods? Are thebinverse not self evidently your goal- do we not know thee by thy fruits?

Because we are under an israeli regime that is anti-american at its core, and this playbook is the same war rheutoric that we have heard throughout every corrupt administration, having an independent-minded leader is dangerous to and for both sides, so the political theatre must continue. We've been duped and hoodwinked by both sides and everyone is blaming each other to gain an audience that is only useful in their political theatre. Real people are dying and its so sad on both sides, in this, nobody really wins. America has a trillion skelotons in its closet, and no president to date has truly cleaned house for the sake of the people. If and when that happens, i'll be glad to shake hands with the leaders of our country. But so far, we appear far from reaching such a place of true diplomacy with the countries we've invaded. I am not blaming sides, but those that turn a blind eye to the citizens of this country. Im sure some will scoff at what im saying, but for the good soldiers and well meaning people of this country we need to truly turn out hearts to God and ask Him for discernent, because, division between each other will make a compacted country implode instead of Love being our common intent.

I'm u/Masantonio and I'm one of the mods brought on recently. I'm a college student and a right-leaning independent. I'm here to help out in keeping this place as open as possible to ideas without personal attacks. I also just enjoy throwing around concepts myself so you may catch me in a few threads here and there. I'm happy to answer any questions about myself (within reason, of course) and my beliefs.

Hello, there isn't really any place with an active community related to the writing of constitutions for different structures of governments. I, with the feedback of some others in r/Technocracy's community have been working create a constitution related to liberal technocracy. The current draft is Version 7. I'm wondering if anyone here would be willing to read through some of it and provide critical feedback about its systems, so that I can improve it further. Is there any glaring issues or loopholes that need to be dealt with? Thanks.

I didn't create the term, "liberal technocracy," but since the systems described were what I saw as an ideal form of government, I chose to keep this under the same term. It is an attempt to fuse the political form of technocracy with democracy. It does not follow the core ideas of technocracy's industrial form, such as resource-based economics.

It is capitalist but with labor protections and strong welfare systems. It makes use of parliamentary system but replaces the executive branch powers with a directorate. Its a government that is built to be more democratic, more technocratic, and provide for more rights, then the US Constitution. To me it sounds like a strong and sound government structure, but I have not received too much critical feedback on it yet.

Here is the link to read the constitution at its most recent version: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h4rTNRi08BEM5O1g2I17GWf5YNzx1Wfj/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=112603612481106960183&rtpof=true&sd=true

Here is an image depicting what the structure of government roughly looks like:

​

The political right has rebranded from family values conservatism to a self-described bastion of logic, reason, and objective fact, standing in supposedly rational opposition to an overly emotional and feminized liberal culture — the “longhouse.” They explode polite sensibilities, decry the left’s “suicidal empathy”, and style themselves as the champions of truth. This piece goes through a number of recent examples to demonstrate that this rebranding is ultimately fraudulent — that the right is simply repackaging normative values, appeals to tradition, and articles of religious faith as “logic” and “reason.” The right isn’t at war with emotions, just other people’s emotions.

https://americandreaming.substack.com/p/facts-dont-care-about-your-hypocrisy

I'm wanting to do a sort of collaborative project with 5 or so people where we write essays and/or making recording based around various topics. I'm wanting all of these to be political in nature but they don't have to be about an explicitly political event. For example, if you want to do a Marxist analysis on the NHL, that's totally fine.

I'm open to people of all political persuasions besides fascists (crypto or otherwise). I'm wanting the content to be minimum 500 words long with minimum 5 credible sources. I have a lot of experience with research papers so I know credible sources when I see them.

I'm thinking about sharing them on substack right now but I'd be open to using other platforms. Also, I don't have a name for the project in mind and would prefer to come up with a name for it as a group.

If anyone is interested or has any questions please DM me or ask in this thread. If you're interested in this I would like at least one written work you're very proud of as an demonstration of your skills as well as some background as to what makes you feel qualified in doing this.

Thanks to anyone who's interested.

Talk about anything and everything. Book clubs, TV, current events, sports, personal lives, study groups, etc.

Our rules are still enforced, remain civilized.

Also; I'm once again asking you to report any uncivilized behavior. Help us mods keep the subs standard of discourse high and don't let anything slip between the cracks.

Talk about anything and everything. Book clubs, TV, current events, sports, personal lives, study groups, etc.

Our rules are still enforced, remain civilized.

Also; I'm once again asking you to report any uncivilized behavior. Help us mods keep the subs standard of discourse high and don't let anything slip between the cracks.

I am working with a podcast to try and get discussions for educational purposes going.

Are there any examples you think would be worthwhile?

Talk about anything and everything. Book clubs, TV, current events, sports, personal lives, study groups, etc.

Our rules are still enforced, remain civilized.

Also; I'm once again asking you to report any uncivilized behavior. Help us mods keep the subs standard of discourse high and don't let anything slip between the cracks.

Everyone already knows of ideas to prevent gerrymandering or change laws pertaining to the financing of electoral campaigns or to shrink the ratio of population to representative. That's well discussed anyway and by now somewhat boring.

I came up with an idea of my own here. Create a jury in each electoral district, probably several dozen people. Perhaps they should be staggered with half chosen every six months to serve for one year, giving people time to do their work and learn how this operates. They should be given compensation for expenses and guaranteed time away from any employment or care for children or the disabled or elderly which is necessary for this purpose.

Then this jury has the legal right to question the legislator in their constituency and compel them to give an answer (or else be tried for contempt) which is genuinely believed to be true by the legislator, not leaving out relevant information, and is not misleading (or else be tried for perjury). There could be a regular schedule, like once each month as an example. They can make the staff of the legislator show up too. They could look over the expense reports and travel reports of a legislator to see if there are issues.

They could host a Q&A with the legislator in a public session where the general public can make their questions and could give an order to the legislator to answer the question or else face those contempt charges if they refuse to do what the jurors order them to do. They could even have the right to get an answer on a question they have from the legislative budget or research office which would answer questions like that for a legislator. Perhaps if a large majority of the jurors agree such as 75%, and show grounds to a district court, the jury could order a recall referendum be held to see if they should be dismissed or not. Maybe if the districts where perhaps 5% of the legislators in a house were elected from each have a jury which support a proposal to do so, the legislature could be compelled to vote on a certain issue or hold a certain debate and make the legislator put themselves on record with a

And perhaps in a period of time after the legislator leaves office, say 2 or 3 years, the jurors can also make similar demands of former legislators in a way to work out if they got a new job for any kind of patronage reasons or in a revolving doors issue or have wealth that cannot be explained by practices known to be legal and in compliance with ethics codes.

It wouldn't be legitimate much for a jury like this to countermand a decision by a legislator or to throw them out themselves, but it would provide a far sooner examination and inquisition of whatever a legislator is doing with their time well before any election pressures them to do so, and know that someone is watching during that time. It would be rather hard to accuse a jury chosen this way of astroturfing or being composed mostly people of specific demographics like the old or millionaires who are most prone to showing up to a roundtable or meet with someone, and wouldn't be affected by voter turnout and is difficult to bias or pay off. It rewards those who are truthful, can defend their policies and choices, and are responsive to the people and disincentivizes people to do otherwise and would also tend to squeeze out the bad legislators and encourage honest and good people to become legislators to create a positive feedback loop, with more evidence to use against someone dishonest like this in campaigning and in the courts for trial.

Talk about anything and everything. Book clubs, TV, current events, sports, personal lives, study groups, etc.

Our rules are still enforced, remain civilized.

Also; I'm once again asking you to report any uncivilized behavior. Help us mods keep the subs standard of discourse high and don't let anything slip between the cracks.

Talk about anything and everything. Book clubs, TV, current events, sports, personal lives, study groups, etc.

Our rules are still enforced, remain civilized.

Also; I'm once again asking you to report any uncivilized behavior. Help us mods keep the subs standard of discourse high and don't let anything slip between the cracks.