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 -
I've been away a few days, so forgive me if I do not dive into each of your responses (sigh) as thoroughly as you would like.
I suppose. (I am pretty sure I have never accused you of lying.)
I don't think everyone on "your side" is plotting defection and civil war. I think very few are, actually. I never claimed everyone who feels they are being oppressed is an accelerationist or a would-be secessionist.
I don't think I leaped to that. I think there are many degrees between "complaining" and "being sent to gulags" and I don't know why you are accusing me of presenting only such stark choices.
Find a way to do it without being antagonistic, and the other conditions are not a problem.
Yes, I've noticed.
For the record, my personal feeling is that your "you are not oppressed" comment is one of my favorite replies I've ever received here. I disagreed strongly with your position then, and continue to do so now, but that isn't the point: you grasped the fundamental nature of the argument and responded directly and concretely. Honest, thoughtful disagreement is something I treasure because it sharpens my own thinking, and that post is one of the better disagreements I've had here. I try not to bring it up, and I don't usually get involved when others bring it up because I realize you don't enjoy rehashing it, but I smile whenever I re-read the exchange. It seems to me that if your argument there was correct, then it was deeply necessary; if it was wrong, well, we each are often wrong, and the way you would be wrong is one of the better wrongs one can be.
There's a deeper discussion available, but maybe I'll get to it in a top-level comment. Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you, sir.
Merry Christmas. For what it's worth, I hope you are wrong, but I am not closed to the possibility that I am. That you hold the views you do while being fundamentally decent is one of the reasons I feel so strongly - the idea that you and I will inevitably wind up on opposite sides of a civil war is pretty horrific to me. There are other people here who like to fedpost, play Internet Tough Guy, and trot out their edgiest takes, and are really only here to inject venom into the discussion and express their hate for their outgroup, and they would be no loss to anyone, any community, or any civilization. Perhaps some of what @gattsuru objects to is my contempt for those people bleeding through in my responses elsewhere. But it is not a general contempt for "your tribe." I have friends, I know many good people (as our favorite Orange Man says), on both sides. It... bothers me, that what I hear from both sides is increasingly "How can you possibly associate with them?"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I understand (and hope!) that everyone's got better things to do with their holiday season.
Do you know why I've been linking to the wikipedia page for gish gallop? Or why I keep using variations on the phrase "mostly isn't happening"?
I'm not sure you have accused me of lying! I'm trying to dig at whether you're accusing me of "specious arguments, half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies", or what subcombination thereof. Maybe we're both just really confused about what 'metaphorically' going against the wall in the context of firings and speech restrictions might be!
But it's kinda hard to tell, since we never seem to get to the actual claims.
And I've not accused of that, nor particularly care whether you do or not.
You literally responded to:
with
What space are you trying to subdivide that's below a few thousand dollars in fines and the results of FCFromSSC's name being attached to his real identity on twitter, that anyone should care about? Leave alone the obnoxious questions like whether FCFromSSC ever said anything comparable to "imminent danger of being sent to a gulag" (even in his historical post on Russian terror!), he's the very central case of the sort of person you're disagreeing with. What are these many degrees that we're supposed to be shimming into place?
EDIT: and to be clear, that's not a "oh no, you've used hyperbole, the banned superweapon". What the hell is any serious response supposed to be? You clearly don't find anyone's examples persuasive, even when going down the list of things that you supply, so what are you asking for?
What, exactly, are you trying to persuade me of?
That conservatives, as a political class, are now an oppressed group in the US? Oppressed in the sense that all the apparatus of the state is working against them, they are systematically deprived of their rights, and that they are institutionally (as our woke friends say) oppressed?
That FCfromSSC cannot share his candid opinions on Twitter without fear of losing his job is, I agree, a kind of oppression, but it's not exclusive to conservatives. What I am not convinced of is that this is state-level or institutional oppression, that we are on a slippery slope towards anti-Red totalitarianism. Your legal examples, of disparate applications of the law against, for example, conservatives using guns for self-defense, or engaged in protests, vs. when liberals protest or use guns, I am very suspicious of as illustrative examples. I certainly believe individual legislators and DAs are biased in how they apply the law, but I am unconvinced (though I could be convinced) that this is a system-level phenomenon, or that if I had access to your legal search tools and the willingness to spend the time, that I could not construct a competing narrative of, say, white oppression against black people, or liberals being oppressed wherever conservatives control the local government.
My confusion, in our exchanges, stems from the fact that you seem to be accusing me of... something. Lying. Stupidity. Willful obliviousness. Sticking my fingers in my ears and saying "lalalala." I'm not sure. But I, in turn, am not sure what you think I think, only that you think I'm wrong and you're still pissed at me for that "You are not oppressed" post.
For this specific thread, and speaking in the specific context of higher education:
I can provide the various examples and practices and links if you want, but you haven't actually asked, and I'm not in the mood to do a big effortpost if it's not even a point of meaningful disagreement or if you're just going to shrug and say some variant of 'sucks to be them' or 'well, not literally every one got instantly shut down, so progressive groups must not have the capacity everywhere even if it happens repeatedly'.
More generally, I think -- to be charitable! -- you are either underestimating the effort or effect of progressive efforts to remove as much administrative power and all four of the boxes of liberty from conservative hands, or to remove the real-world impact of any use of these systems when not possible, and to the extent that these efforts have used government power or threat of government power to apply themselves merely because they don't have direct civil or criminal statutes.
Not every part of this has a direct impact today (although that's not always the case: the pronounced effort to shut down public speech does hit a lot of randos and normies, two-in-five workers deal with DEI, colleges are increasingly requiring pledges to as part of certificates or degrees most jobs now require, HR yadayah; again, I'm not doing a deep dive if this isn't the point of disagreement). Whether intentionally or not, whether the goal or not, these efforts are bad not because "laws I don't like sometimes get passed" -- in no few cases, I personally like the policy goals -- but because they drastically reduce if not outright crush disagreements in a wide variety of spaces. Worse, numerous people in the progressive movement have been quite willing to throw under the bus very people they claim to be acting for, in order to push these efforts.
I mean, I'm open to being persuaded in turn. I'd like the alternate position to be correct, where I'm just being paranoid and this stuff is all the totally-normal everyday behavior every political alignment just has to deal with, absolutely normal and absolutely possible to handle with normal persuasion. I would like an answer to increasing efforts by progressives to censor their opponents to have some possible response rather than merely to ask them not to do it, and :surprised pikachu: when that just results in it happening harder.
So I guess one answer is that I'm trying to persuade you to try and persuade me.
I am accusing you of calling my posts a "gish-gallop", and then never engaging with a single claim that you think was not a reasonable example. I'm accusing you of requesting "specific examples" and not having much to say when multiple overt examples are demonstrated. I'm accusing you of strawmanning aggressively, even and especially when responding to people who bring moderate takes.
But I can deal with all of these problems, if there's something to have as a conversation, here. Is there?
I think you often weakman my arguments like this.
I agree with this.
I'd be more equivocal about agreeing with this. There are certainly a lot of liberal institutions dedicated to deplatforming conservatives, but I don't think they have as much power as you seem to, nor do I think it's a grand Soros-like conspiracy aided and abetted by President Biden and whoever else you think is part of this "enemy action." This reminds me a bit of the radical feminists' construction of The Patriarchy. Do I agree with them that society has a patriarchal bent that often gives women the shitty end of the stick, and that there are some very dedicated misogynists who'd like to make society even more capital-P Patriarchal? Yes. Do I actually believe in a Patriarchy, acting in any kind of concerted or directed way, according to any group's design? Or that society is actually ordered as a capital-P Patriarchy? No.
And to be uncharitable? Never mind, I probably don't want to know.
Seriously, yes, it is possible that I am underestimating this. I have said that the last couple of years have pushed me - slightly - closer to your way of thinking. But I still think you, and especially FCfromSSC, the_nybbler, et al, are catastrophizing, and also suffering from presentism.
I honestly do not know. What was Scott's post about seeing evidence of ancient Atlantean highways at the bottom of the ocean, and how if you are dedicated to finding a pattern, you will find it? That is sort of what I think you are doing, and which I perhaps inelegantly referred to as a gish-gallop. You have a hundred examples of "conservatives being oppressed" you can link to on demand, and I probably don't disagree with most of those, individually, being bad. I don't "engage" with them because any one, by itself, I am probably not claiming didn't happen or wasn't an abuse of power or an example of leftist censoriousness. What I am disputing is that they add up to what you claim they do. As I said above, if I had your skills and dedication, don't you think I could drag up an equally long list of "evidence" that The Patriarchy exists, or that white supremacy is the single greatest threat to POC in society, or that trans people are the most oppressed demographic in history?
I realize that this is not an entirely satisfactory answer ("I could rebut you if I cared enough to spend the time on it") but I hope it explains why I can nod along to almost all of your examples and still not be convinced by your core argument. What would convince me of your core argument? I am not sure, but probably some sort of tipping point, some sort of event (or series of events) beyond the pale of normal politics and culture war. I understand you and FCfromSSC think those events have already occurred (e.g., the Floyd riots, Kenosha). Maybe if you lay out why you think we have already reached a tipping point, why you think there is no possibility of the pendulum swinging the other way, or even moderating, I'll be persuaded, but not by examples 1 through 50 of Wokes Gone Wild.
First, I'll point to Too Many People Dare Call It Conspiracy: it's not a particularly strong claim to start with, and it's even weaker when I'm saying a lot of this is publicly coordinated or recognizing that it may well have been independently developed in parallel across the country.
((Also, I've literally mentioned Soros once in the entire existence of this site, and only in a quote of another poster here, and only to say it's not a great joke.))
What level of power do you think I'm claiming this broader movement has, that isn't present or supported by evidence? I gave a list of concrete facts; if you want me to show the links demonstrating them, I can.
Don't remember that one. Contra fideism was about pyramids, and so were Pyramid and Garden. Building Intuitions on non-Empirical Arguments was about the Sphinx. And none of them seem particularly on-point.
But I've asked, repeatedly, for people to try to find counterexamples. Ymeskhout especially for gun-related enforcement specifically, but ChrisPrattAlphaRptr and others on the broader problem. I've repeatedly asked you. I've looked myself! I've even noted, in this thread, some times I've genuinely been wrong!
And yet the model remains the best prediction I've gotten. The closest I've gotten in terms of serious engagement has been Ymeskhout, and that was to find out that the more serious statistical analysis may not exist or even be possible to gather data for.
... at the risk of echoing what Dangerous-Salt-7543, this seems like the sort of description where either you'll have gotten used to the new "beyond the pale" (December 2020! Did you have 'riots invading Congress' or 'movement to pull a major party candidate from the ballot wins at a state supreme court' on your card back then?).
Or, well... setting the standard you won't declare so high that "Obviously if I'm wrong, you'll never be able to collect, but anyway."
Bluntly, "Wokes Gone Wild" is neither a fair nor complete description of the claims I've made: the point of my posts are always more than just some rando on the outgroup trying something.
We're in this thread because Trace thinks that "Republicans are rapidly losing the capacity to run public institutions at all levels other than electoral, and this trend cannot realistically reverse within a generation." I disagree with him on the cause(s) (and that 2rafa actually engaged with that matter), and there are even some hypothetical ways I can see this trend reversing.
I think there's quite a possibility of the pendulum swinging the other way! But I didn't join the ratsphere because '10% chance of avoiding a horrifying result (possibly for a /different/ Red Tribe-flavoured horrifying result), I sure love my high-stakes gambling!' What I'm worried about is that I'm not seeing any evidence of or cause of de-escalation for either side.
Positions held by large portions of the Republican electorate (and even a not-trivial number of progressives!) are, as matters of law and regulation, potential sources of serious liability for employers, even if discussed off-campus and after-hours. Courts and executive branches have routinely defied the clear text and obvious intent of the law to get their way and/or fuck over their political enemies; lower courts and state-wide politicians and the sitting President of the United States have taken to simply thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court. Federal investigators simply ignore due process protections for serious actions and happily bring down the hammer on even sympathetic cases for the Red Tribe, while lobbing softballs at life-threatening violations from the Blue and simply ignoring 'lesser' ones. Major Red Tribe political organizations have state attorney generals who campaign on destroying them and then tried it in court.
I can even provide Blue Tribe versions of (some of) these claims. People have, for you. But in addition to a lot of them being weaker, they don't really solve the 'we're no longer trying to persuade each other, or even prevent the other side from winning, but prevent the opposing side from playing the game' problem.
Do you need more categorical claims, or do I need explain why these feed back into themselves?
Am I not allowed to use an example that you personally have not used? This is another thing you do a lot - I'll use a common public figure or trope and you object "I never mentioned George Soros." No, you didn't, but Soros-like social manipulation seems to be the sort of thing you are alleging.
A level of power that goes beyond cyclical swings in public mood and political temperature. That is, capable of doing what nybbler claims (no Republican President will ever be elected again) or of always getting their way regardless of who is in the White House and Congress. A level of power that is, figuratively speaking, going to stomp on your face forever.
I admit the Colorado Supreme Court has inched me slightly further in your direction. Not so much the decision itself (which I find troubling, but not being a lawyer I cannot say whether their legal arguments are really that absurd) but the fact that basically all the Democrats I know think it's just great, for no other reason than "Removing Trump from the ballot, hell yeah."
Look dude, this is the new "You are not oppressed," something you feel like you have to bring up every time you argue with me? I did not then and still do not understand why Dangerous-Salt went off on me or what my sin was. No, I do not think the standard has to be literally apocalypticaly high.
I begin to see one of our problems, at least. You tend to take me very literally when I'm using a flippant turn of phrase, while on the other hand when I am being very precise, you ignore it. Maybe the fault is mine for being poor at expressing myself, though somehow I don't think you literally thought I meant all your examples are just crazy college kids on campus. (That, by the way, was another flippant turn of phrase, not literal.)
I suppose the only way forward is to break apart this:
Broadly speaking, I see your point. In the fine details, I would nitpick each of those statements (to take one example, saying you think transwomen are men or homosexuality is a sin is certainly a cancellable/fireable offense in a troubling number of cases, but how true is "as matters of law and regulation" really? As opposed to almost every university and corporation being quislings cowed by HR Karens? Which I think is very bad! But not quite the same as "a matter of law"). To take another, courts and executive branches have been "routinely defying the clear text and obvious intent of the law" (at least according to their opponents) since before the ink on the Constitution was dry. Any specific examples you give, I might or might not agree with, but it would take more than a list of (actual legal cases, not "Wokes Gone Wild" or crazy college kids on campuses, mea culpa mea culpa mea maximum culpa for ever being flippant and cheeky) to convince me that this is categorically different today than 10, 50, 100, or 250 years ago.
I suspect we'll be stuck going back and forth on those. Until I fatigue and then you'll cite Dangerous-Salt again for my "failure to engage."
No, I'm just being extremely clear because I don't want to fuck around and guess at what level of precision you want to use today.
And that's why I separately discussed the figurative meaning (complete with SSC link!) first. Which you didn't engage with.
And then, on the other hand : "No, I do not think the standard has to be literally apocalypticaly high." (Is that literally-literally? Because I'm highlighting merely "Obviously if I'm wrong, you'll never be able to collect," which doesn't require an apocalypse in either the Promethea sense nor the nuclear war one.)
And fair, there's a sliver between this figurative face-stomping and the apocalypse, or even sufficiently aggressive online censorship that you or I'd never show up under these nyms again. Not the same sliver as that which merely excludes “laws I don’t like get passed”, for some reason. Yet if I point to the Tale of Defense Distributed, again, would the current situation be a further update to you? Or would it merely be one in a "list of (actual legal cases)".
If you're not going to engage with it, while trying to draw lines around what level of injustice is sufficient? Yes! But less flippantly, I'm using it as an example because it's your own words, and I don't want to be accused of weakmanning you, and I want to contrast the positions you've stated in the past with the ones we're trying to discuss now, to see if this is a change or a difference in focus or a misinterpretation on my end.
... I would very much appreciate an example of me ignoring a precise claim from you, or for that matter a precise claim from you in this context.
No, I think the bigger problem is that you're ducking to flippancy when I keep requesting specific examples, either of your position or your disagreement with mine. There's a good many interpretations of "Wokes Gone Wild" that includes the EEOC and federal courts -- but in turn they make it increasingly hard to come up with examples you'd care about that could exist before such time that they wouldn't matter.
Wheeeeeeeeeeeee, good thing I've not talked at length about this matter in the past, including in this thread.
Do I really need to point to and litigate the Alabama Association of Realtor case history, and if I did would that mean anything more than a point on a list of actual legal cases? Gustafson? Would it say anything, or would we just need to talk about how some political opponent described something poorly in the last two hundred years and fifty years (uh, I'd hope that's figurative? Or are we back to literal-Civil-War fitting that sliver between figurative face-stomping and literal apocalypse?)
And if I point to things that have been categorically different like the growth of social media or the administration state, would they mean anything?
Fine, if you're sick of it, I'm not exactly having a good time, either. Have a nice rest of your holidays, and enjoy your new year.
Honestly, I wold prefer to, but I was already starting to write responses to your latest shots above. On the one hand, I do not want to be accused of "failure to engage." And to be fair, if it is any comfort to you, you have identified some areas of miscommunication where I will strive to be more precise in the future, if for no other reason than because I need to keep in mind any one-liner I type ever will at some point reappear in one of @gattsuru's "citing evidence for why this thing you said two years ago proves you don't actually mean what you say now" link roundups. But after all this back and forth, I see some of the contours of our disagreement, but I still do not see where you think I am being dishonest or "ignoring" things (as opposed to - quite possibly! - just being wrong in my assumptions), nor do I really understand what you want (other than, I guess, "Stop arguing and just admit I'm right and you're wrong").
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've quoted the following passage repeatedly, and argued that I find it directly relevant to the current situation in America.
The above might be where the "Gulags" point comes from; I disagree with that usage, since I think the point generalizes well beyond literal gulags, but if this is the source, the interpretation seems at least somewhat understandable.
Reading this particular quote at a young age was a notably formative experience for me, and I think the idea it expresses is directly and immediately relevant to the current political situation in America, and to most places generally.
The lesson I draw from it isn't "camps are a legitimate threat"; I learn that lesson from the last two hundred years of human history. Rather, the lesson is that if you want to fight tyranny, the correct time to fight is when you see the tyranny coming, not when it has already arrived. This generalizes to all sorts of tyranny and oppression, not merely camps.
The other end of it, though, is that there's no objective definition of "oppression". Obviously camps and gas chambers and mass graves qualify, but does being forced to wear an armband count? Does krystalnacht? Or take it from the other end: does mandatory schooling and income taxes count? One could claim that Jim Crow didn't involve camps or gas chambers, so it wasn't oppressive. One can claim that taxation is theft and public schools are slave camps, so we each have a moral imperative to burn society down. Obviously, both allowing actual tyranny and destroying the peace over the normal friction of society must be avoided, and equally obviously, there's no objective way to tell which is which. it all comes down to a judgement call, based on limited information, with severe consequences resulting from a bad call and possibly even from a good one.
It seems to me that this discussion, the whole tangled network of conversations going back years now, is about how to make that judgement call. I've found the discussion deeply fascinating, and find considerable satisfaction in revisiting the previous points made in light of new evidence over the years. It saddens me when this conversation grows acrimonious, and it saddens me more when things I've written are the cause of that.
To me, the nature of the disagreement seems obvious. The tribes have different values, so they assess wrongs and the redress required for those wrongs differently. That variance means there's a fundamental disconnect in the moral calculus required to maintain peace and prosperity. Each tribe is willing to accept things the other tribe considers abhorrent or unjust, and each tribe is willing to condemn things the other tribe considers necessary. The examples are too numerous to require enumeration: COVID policy, Trump, insurrection, BLM riots, MeToo, Trans acceptance, gay rights, abortion, gun control, the entire culture war, in short: None of these problems are unresolvable if your society enjoys homogenous values, none of them are resolvable if it does not. In the same way that small vibrations can wear away steel, even small disagreements auger out our social structures and conflict resolution mechanisms.
On the other hand, society does have some forces pushing for reconciliation and togetherness. As I understand it, @Amadan's position is that the former forces are outweighed by the latter, where mine is that the latter are outweighed by the former. My question to you would be, why expect this to be a disagreement that can be resolved by evidence? Predictions seem more useful, and this seems to be a good time for them.
Yeah, I've been trying to avoid highlighting Joe Huffman's Jews in the Attic Test, since it's a little Godwinny in its name, and I have to keep emphasizing I don't think concentration camps are a near-term concern, but there's a reason he was highlighting it for LGBT causes in the late-90s and early-00s, and it wasn't because he believed that they'd be thrown into ovens anytime soon. Some of the (unfortunately, no-longer online) debates related to some of those matters were pretty persuasive to me even as someone who was skeptical of his redline around biometrics back then.
Part of my goal is to narrow down whether that is the point of disagreement. The one you hypothesize is not an unreasonable guess as a higher-level hinge, but it's hard to match with continued emphasis on disagreement about what's happening now.
Someone could also just reject this philosophy of preemptive resistance entirely, either out of moral disagreement, or by believing that any tactical benefits would be overwhelmed by the negative publicity. Those possibilities are part of why I keep highlighting the "Obviously if I'm wrong, you'll never be able to collect, but anyway" post. One of the solutions for your dilemma of distinguishing between acceptable levels of oppression is simply to set a threshold at so high a bar you never expect to see it in real life: it's possible to completely agree on the ground facts and expected social forces, and still fall here. That's why I tried and failed the Wittgenstein knockoff.
But even movement of forces is the disagreement, these estimations on these forces and their effects are observations of the world. There's nothing magical about predictions, and I dunno how useful they'll be, without an agreement on what we'd need to expect. Someone should be -- if not as persuaded -- still reconsider their positions when they find something unexpected in history or present-day news.
More deeply, I've highlighted some predictions I've made in the past, including where I thought I was wrong. And there's not been much engagement with that, or with either when they were first posted, either; I can't tell whether that's because those specific claims wouldn't matter even if true, or because no small-scale examples could be, or because anything without statistics is Chinese Cardiology.
Or see: "(hypothetical, hypothetical, vaguely related anecdote)".
((And then there's the problem of who and how you evaluate predictions. This would have been really prescient in January 2021, but it wasn't like we had a spat of politically-motivated homicides between Sept 2020 and Jan 2021; in mid-2022 one could claim it was just the racial nationalists modulo things like that cop city snafu; in a year I'm... not optimistic that it will be so easily debatable. Do the church arsons count? Do they have to be in the United States?))
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link