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 -
My thesis on recent world events is that there is one simple explanation for everything Trump is doing. Namely, as a classic textbook narcissist, having also risen during the uniquely self centered context of the ‘80s and ‘90s business and television culture of the US, and having been propelled to the highest echelons a narcissist could taste, he’s beginning to sense his own physical and political mortality, certainly moreso than in his first term, and knowing that people will try to tarnish his name once he is out of power, he thus wants one and only one thing. For his name to appear prominently in the history books.
This is very simple and obvious in retrospect, but it ties everything together. Renaming major geographical features. Demolishing and rebuilding part of the White House. His fixation on the Nobel peace prize. (Note the letter he wrote today to Norway, linking Greenland to not getting the peace prize). Finally, major territorial expansion. Wait, that wasn’t the final one. Undoing the world order that was in place since the world wars. Now that would do it.
He’s seen himself as a world order undoer for quite some time now, perhaps since the beginning of his rise to power. But this, this is his greatest taste of the raw history changing might that has yet been possible. Either get Greenland and change the US map forever. Or be the sole reason for the undoing of NATO. History will never be able to ignore him.
What I don’t know is whether he cares much about whether the historical changes that he will oversee and be forever tied to his name in this ultimate egoic consummation will end up being good for the United States or not. There are obvious downsides to destroying a world order which has been meticulously crafted to put you yourself at the top. But riding the coattails of that world historical success was not fit for a man who’s ego needed to be propelled to similar—no, greater!—historical status.
Narcissism often flares out into the absurd. And we seem well along that track. But just how far it will attempt to go, in this, one of world history’s most consequential cases, remains to be seen. Trump is now a great man of history and we can only wait to see what of our era will survive his grandeur.
Edit: of course, file this for an early contender for the most obvious insight of the year award. I just think it’s a more congruent explanation for the whole set of second term Trump events that we’ve seen than a lot of other explanations I see floating around for recent events.
They call him a narcissist because they can't stand calling him a Great Man of history, because he obviously is. They're going to call this decade the Trump Era of politics and the beginning of populism dominating the west for decades to come. He's not a boomer selling the house instead of giving it to his kids because he wants to go on cruises: he's a megalomaniac, like Napoleon. He is a man who believes he has a destiny to reshape the world in his image...
...and, based on how history has turned out, is he wrong to believe so? He was radicalized by the bullet shot through his ear. Nothing convinces you more of Providence then surviving death. God himself acts through him, as he did Pharoah: hardening his heart and accomplishing what is necessary for the proper course of history to reassert itself. In short, God is punishing you, and Donald Trump is his scourge. Reflect on your many sins you must have committed for such a sentence to be passed upon you, and repent.
More options
Context Copy link
This has to be one of the more stupid things he's done, as any fule kno, the Nobel Prize is Swedish, not Norwegian...
EDIT: Looks like I'm the fule here... I didn't know the Nobel Peace Prize was Norwegian, as all the real ones are done by Sweden... This is good knowledge to have though and yet more reason why the so called Peace Prize should just be discontinued.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize
Point taken
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Umm…per Wiki the peace prize it is handed out by a Norwegian committee appointed by the Norwegian parliament.
Hm...
Sweden and Norway were united in the 1800s after Sweden took it from the Danes during the Napoleonic wars. Norway was far poorer and far less developed than Sweden and Sweden effectively had to give affirmative action to Norwegians as well as subsidize Norway. When something important and official happened in Sweden Norway had to get a cut. If big prizes were handed out in Stockholm some prize needed to be handed out in Norway.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is it really 'narcissism' when you are actually that good?
Okay, that's a joke. I mean, he is THAT GOOD, if the talent in question is making everything about himself.
But that also gives him a weak form of Skin in the Game, where he actually DOES want 'good' things to happen since that is precisely what will enable the best legacy for him. It helps that he's seemingly got no real malice as part of his self-aggrandizement (maybe a little, he sure does seem to despise Obama), and generally prefers cooperative outcomes for all involved parties.
If we achieve a lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine, and he insists that the Peace agreement be called "Treaty on Russian–Ukrainian Mutual Peace", do I care that much?
No, not really.
My overarching concern has been that his 'movement' is so tied up in his ego it isn't clear if it CAN move on to anyone else once he's out of office, and that will be a major problem if there's no clear successor.
And Biden, and Clinton, and Comey, and CBS... He spent Christmas ranting about the Democrats!
He put tariffs on the entire rest of the world based the ratio of imports vs exports. And is currently threatening to annex Greenland from our allies and is using tariffs to force them to negotiate.
More options
Context Copy link
I got a chuckle out of this (it took me a second).
I think this is a huge potential issue, and I will note that it's an issue regardless of whether or not Trump is a good person or a bad person or an evil and vile person or a sort of mediocre person. Strong personalities are not a substitute for strong institutions.
I think it is dangerously tempting for the right to overestimate their victories given that a few strong personalities have swung to their side. Don't get me wrong, it is always good to have great men on your side. But even the best kings pass away.
Yeah. It seems unprecedented in modern history, especially modern American history for a leader to have a sufficiently large cult of personality that when they leave it would be all but impossible for the next candidate to inherit their predecessor's supports without their explicit blessing.
I guess... North Korea? They solve it by straightforward passing to the next of kin, along with a massive propaganda campaign to deify each successive leader, right?
Actually... I have never questioned it but who is in charge of NK's institution that upholds the Juche ideology and propagandizes the masses? In theory THAT is who is ensuring peaceful transition of power.
Edit: Oh my. Currently its his sister. I guess that tracks.
According to this one (1) singular report I got in my feed, there's speculation that his daughter, Kim Ju Ae, is being positioned as his successor because she "walked in front of Kim Jung Un on camera."
More options
Context Copy link
I question the degree to which Trump has the ability to bequeath his support to a chosen successor. He's had mixed success as an endorser of candidates. Especially if he is himself diminished in any way.
Yeah, hence why an institution that can try to build up the next candidate to receive the blessing seems like a necessary component.
Trump himself is popular amongst people who voted for him, I expect that to remain true.
Nominally this would be a job for the Republican Party apparatus but lol.
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
It's not exactly new or surprising that a head-of-state would have a big ego and ambition to leave a legacy. One might even say that's the norm. The constitution was explicitly designed with this in mind, with the hope that each separate branch of government would, by trying to seize more power for itself, keep the others in check.
What is new is how... useless Congress has become. In theory they have immense power. They could remove the president from office, fully control government spending, and even rewrite the constitution as they please. But in practice they just can't seem to agree on anything. They can barely even pass routine budgets to keep federal services running.
At the same time, social media has given the President more power than ever with his "bully pulpit." We can now directly watch all of Trump's speeches at the click of a button, or read his thoughts in short tweet form. And Trump is very effective at that kind of short-form communication. The rest of government is too fractured and, frankly, boring, to grab people's attention the way Trump can. It'll be interesting to see if this continues- somehow I can't imagine people tuning in to watch Vance or Shapiro with the same sort of horrified excitement they give to Trump. But we'll see- I suppose any speech becomes more interesting when it's backed up by immense power.
Regarding NATO, it's sort of a similar argument. Europe has, in theory, a lot of military power, but it's difficult to really use it when it's fractured between 31 different non-US members. What I would like to see is for continental Europe to form a new "Core NATO" with a centralized European Army, focused entirely on defending Europe. The US could either leave NATO or minimize its involvement there, and instead focus on AUKUS, potentially expanding it to include Canada, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan. This would be a smaller, but more tightly knit alliance, aimed at being able to project force all over the world, but especially at sea and even more especially in East Asia. Since this alliance is smaller and more closely aligned, it would have a lot more cohesion and flexibility to forcefully defend its (narrowly defined) strategic interests- peace in the middle east, counter-terrorism, and containing China and Russia.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, but... how is that news? Trump having a massive ego is something everyone who took one look at the guy can tell. What's more I don't know if it can be any other way for someone in his position. Years ago I was watching one of Ethan van Sciver's streams (an ex-DC Comics guy for the unfamiliar), and he got into some drama with some indie guy from Brazil. The Brazilian guy posted something on Twitter to the effect of that he's making the best comic book in the history of the world, and when the stream audience saw that, superchats started rolling in taking the piss out of the guy. Funnily enough van Sciver came to his defense, he said "You guys don't get it, he's doing it right. You need to have a massive ego in this field, because if you don't, the amount of negative feedback you get will make you crumble". If this is true for comic book artists, I really don't see how it can be any other way for politicians.
You could try to argue that his particular brand of narcissism is particularly destructive for a world leader, but is it really that unique? Was Angela Merkel bringing over ~1.5 million Syrians and Afghans, and brushing off all concerns with a mere "we'll manage it" all that different?
Agreed. I'm a big fan of Trump, but obviously the guy has some issues with grandiosity (probably he would admit as much).
I do think it's silly to push for Greenland but so far, I'd rather have that than have someone who supports things like hiring unqualified air traffic controllers in order to promote a woke racial agenda.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think the framing of “Greenland or NATO” is interesting.
It seem plausible, if not probable, that the administration wants to end NATO. Or at least wouldn’t be sad to see nato go. It’s certainly a high risk gambit, but I don’t think I’m totally against ending nato.
I’ve long felt our European allies have been pretty terrible friends for my entire life. Their biggest sin was getting involved in internal USA party politics. It’s clear that they have a common vision with establishment Democrats and are actively hostile to the political goals of MAGA. They’ve been interfering with our elections since at least 2020. If Harris had won, I have no doubt that the EU would have done everything it can to destroy Elon Musk and X.
I think the Trump administration has recognized that we’re in a multi-polar world. The plan is to retrench to the Americas. I don’t see how nato fits into that. Especially if we have Greenland.
Edit:
Two threads below this:
I don’t know how we can work with an “ally” that does this. This is just one drop in an ocean of shit that comes from our “friends” in Europe and the anglosphere. Even if you believe (the likely true) theory that European countries are just branch offices of US deep state, I don’t see why we should allow them to share resources.
This is a much more salient problem for me than Russia and China.
The only reason anyone in Europe has ever done this is because America spent the entire post-war period enforcing it on Europe.
You invented all these shenangians and in a few years, once the Republicans lose, you'll jump straight back into it.
The benefit to the increasing divide between the USA and Europe is that soon Europe will be able to publicly partner far more with China, who has never cared how racist their business partners are, so long as they are stable. No Chinese ever called me Whitey.
We are in agreement.
More options
Context Copy link
They definitely do, but they do it in Mandarin, which they are certain you will never understand.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have two problems with this line of thinking:
A president wishing to protect their legacy is not a novel insight. Anyone who makes it to the position wants to do that. Being an old man in a second term may magnify this need but most actions taken by most presidents should be assumed to be with the goal in mind.
Trump isn't really a narcissist. I've grown increasingly uncomfortable with the (thankfully mostly private) way medical and psychological professionals will throw the diagnosis around. He can't really meet the "formal" criteria because of things like "yes he is actually one of the most important people in the world" and a hopelessly obscured life history.
In terms of informal criteria, Trump has been the victim of so many bad faith attacks, lies, insults, slanders, and true criticisms that if he was at all vulnerable to narcissistic injury he would have gone away or broken down long ago.
Narcissism is superficially described by arrogance but is better described by insecurity. The first hand accounts of Trump I know do describe an amount of insecurity, but certainly not to an excess.
His ability to function makes an NPD diagnosis unlikely, furthermore his ability to attack and frustrate his opponents indicates a sufficient theory of mind to make NPD unlikely.
As a additional matter:
People who know Trump very well will state that while he may be conceited, he legitimately is interested in doing what is best for the American people, especially if it improves his legacy. He just does it in a chaotic way because he is not a politician and does not have an expert level intellectual background in the things he is working on.
Trump has broken down. He has a public meltdown like three times a week. I don't know how you can look at his behavior and conclude that this is a guy who has his shit together. The man just wrote a
public* angry letter to the PM of Norway because he's mad about the Nobel prize committee (which doesn't work for the Norwegian government) and Greenland (which is part of a different country).I really don't see any evidence for this. If people close to him are saying that, it's probably because it's in their interest to present Trump as well-intentioned rather than vindictive and corrupt. Trump has consistently prioritized his own interests, power, and obsessions over the interests of America. The Greenland Crisis is just the latest example of this.
The best argument one could make to sustain the idea that Trump is acting in good faith is that he's just a moron. And in fairness, there's good reason to think that (though being a moron doesn't preclude corrupt intent). He doesn't just lack an expert-level intellectual background in the things he is working - something he has in common with the vast majority of presidents - he lacks basic intellectual curiosity and common sense (see, e.g. his preposterous understanding of trade deficits) and has a zero-sum understanding of the world.
*correction: He sent a completely unhinged private letter which only an idiot would not expect to be shared immediately
I implore you to try and model him as a real person as opposed to a stereotyped figure of hatred. He has human moments, motivations.
He is famous for actively soliciting feedback and information from EVERYBODY even when it's ill advised and he shouldn't listen, this gets painted as "whoever talked to him last" in the media but their is tremendous value to that.
I know several people who have run into him in his golf clubs and he usually asks what they think about it, actually listens, and appears to provide some consideration if they have something meaningful to say.
He is a person doing a hard job without the background that is usually required to do well.
Does he have character flaws? Everyone who is president does. Some people are worse than others, but:
Don't lose track of the fact that he is a real person and some not some poorly written Saturday morning cartoon.
More options
Context Copy link
It was not a public letter, unless there was another letter I was unfamiliar with.
I'll let you argue the point with other people who have a stronger opinion on what textbook narcissism is.
Personally, I don't really think it matters (except possibly for his personal well-being) - his behavior is either good or bad, helpful or unhelpful, honorable or dishonorable, etc. Whether or not he meets some diagnostic criteria is of secondary importance. I don't, for the record, tend to agree with a lot of the way he's handled the Greenland affair.
But I also think most people forget Ellsberg's warning to Kissinger:
But of course there's a caution there not only for the outsider (us, or most of us I reckon), but also for the insider:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He's legitimately interested in what's doing what is best for the American people insofar as he and his also make a buck.
He's got a mafioso approach towards politics and economics. "What's in it for me?" "Are you loyal above all else?" He automatically respects other leaders with the same instincts. That's why he's got an authoritarian streak, but he's not actually a tyrant. He can be extremely forgiving, if one bends the knee to his satisfaction.
Politicians as a class of human beings are pretty obviously suffering from high rates of narcissism, even if you think a lot of it is subclinical.
Trump and his obsession with e.g. the Nobel Prize, throwing his name/image on all kinds of governmental things, or election results (he always wins by a landslide in his head) make it pretty clearly clinical. He's a standout among politicians for narcissism. A true generational talent.
Arrogance isn't narcissism, and the former is likely in part required to be a politician. The latter requires actually understanding the motivations of someone which in most cases is going to require a personal relationship or types of interactions that are incompatible with politics.
You'll note that most people who believe Trump is a narcissist already do not like Trump, and most people who like him don't believe he's a narcissist.
Analysis of this is hopelessly mired by political inclinations and fundamentally low quality news coverage.
It's pretty obvious what Trump is doing with Greenland for instance but you'd never guess that from social media and most mainstream media coverage.
At this point, I just use statements of "Trump is a narcissist" or "Trump doesn't understand basic economics" as revelatory of someone who simply isn't fit to be a political actor. Intelligent criticisms of Trump exist; "muh corruption" [which is what happens when social privilege runs into an institution that refuses to respect it] is not one of those.
People saying "not a politician" usually have a better understanding of it, but I think the best understanding is that Trump actually bothers to include the nation in the political process, and the nation is not used to that nor are they ready for it, so they don't react well.
This also extends to people in other nations reacting to Trump, which hamstrings their response: they reflexively vote for conservatives who promise maximum hostility, but aren't capable of evaluating their own economic or strategic position [or that of their immediate neighbors]. This is also D criticism of Trump in a nutshell, for just as negotiations are proposed publicly, they also fail just as publicly (re: China's current strategic retaliation).
The fact Trump is calling the public of those nations directly out on international media, rather than their king(s) in private, is itself enough of a culture shock to send them searching psychology textbooks for answers. But again, it's their worldview that is wrong: European countries are American provinces and have been ever since their invasion force hit the Continent the morning of June 6, 1944.
Usually the public is included in the political process by the legislature, but that hasn't been meaningful for a long time thanks to 51/49 effects which provoke a tendency to never do anything lest that hurt voter turnout (thus the need to hold policy goals hostage- abortion rights, same sex marriage rights, gun rights, industry rights [as a tax or penalty of $0 for disobeying the bureaucracy comes right back if the relevant actors don't vote for politicians that promise it stays gone], etc.). This is arguably just as relevant for D as it is for R.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I essentially agree with you, but I doubt it has much to do with his own mortality, he has simply always been this way. He has always emblazoned his name in giant gold letters on skyscrapers, it's just kind of who he is. I think now that we are halfway through his final term it is obvious that he won't be able to remake American society wholesale and his enemies will always hate him, there is no changing either of those things. So like you said, I think he seeks to emblazon his name on world history. If the USA acquired Greenland his name would certainly be indelibly written into the history books, I don't think there is much of grand strategy angle to it. Most of this stuff seems relatively harmless, and frankly it's potentially a good thing for a US President to have a strong drive to be considered great.
This not his “final term”. Somehow he will be in power in 2028. Either directly through a dictatorship or more likely his puppet will be in the white house. Whether it’s President Vance or President Donnie Jr the real power is still going to be Donnie Sr.
You don’t need to sit on the Iron Throne to wield the Iron Throne. My personal preference is just elect Donnie Jr. but Jr stays in the background.
Yes he will — and for the first 19.5 days of 2029 too!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not MAGA, but if I were, I'd think it was probably time to use the 25th Amendment to get President Vance.
Obviously, that's not gonna happen.
(I also thought the GOP should have been fine removing Trump last time to get President Pence. And the same for Biden and Kamala. No one listens to my great ideas.)
You had this correct when you said you are not MAGA (whatever that means).
We are talking about more terms not the final term.
More options
Context Copy link
Post lobotomy Jill Biden will have more ability than Kamala Harris on her best day. Harris is not cut of leadership clot.
More options
Context Copy link
There are two core problems:
Basically, getting rid of Trump would be an act of selfless, patriotic self-sacrifice that the modern GOP is incapable of.
You could say the same thing about the democrats and Biden.
Not really. While it was undoubtedly an act of grotesque malfeasance and selfishness to hide Biden's state, even if we grant the most pessimistic assessments of Biden, he wasn't nearly as far gone nor as overtly harmful to the nation. One could quite reasonably conclude that Joe Biden's cabinet plus four hours a day of Joe Biden was a reasonable choice compared to the alternatives.
By contrast, with Mad King Donald and his cabinet of villains and Marco Rubio, almost any plausible alternative would be better (though JD Vance might be one of the only steps down).
The Dems just got done puppeting a diaper-shitting corpse through the presidency while nobody bought it and people laughed at them, until the old fart finally started dissociating and dribbling so badly in public that he had to be forced out of his own reelection campaign in disgrace.
I know Dumbo Drumpf is Mega Hitler because he wants Mexicans to live in Mexico, etc. etc. etc. and that finding new ways to say it after all this time has to be really hard, but maybe find a way to do it that doesn't so directly contrast with the opposition's most ludicrous failure in modern history.
You and @Skibboleth (who are so similar in posting styles that it's not surprising I often confuse your usernames and forget who's the low-effort sneering rightie and who's the low-effort sneering leftie- like seriously, even your mod logs are almost identical):
Shall we just resort to "libtard" and "republithug" now? How about "Magtard" and "shitlib"? Go ahead, bring out all your best disses that really killed it on Twitter in 2016.
No, actually, don't. Go elsewhere for pistols at dawn, or get a room, or whatever, but knock this crap off. Neither of you will be a loss if I just say "Pox on the both of you."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm genuinely curious, in what way do you think JD Vance would be a step down? I'm assuming you are somewhat inclined towards preserving elements of the status quo given your posts. Do you believe Vance would be more destructive? More impulsive? What is the main concern?
I ask because I've seen this sort of addendum tacked on to a lot of statements about Trump across the internet, but I've yet to hear what specifically is so much worse about Vance.
The bear case for JD Vance is that he becomes the front man for a movement that much more smartly pursues authoritarianism and consolidates power while creating the cyberpunk hellscape William Gibson warned us about (but lamer). Combine this with Vance's apparent desire to destabilize global security for... unclear reasons and I think the implications for both the United States and the world are potentially significantly worse than many possible Trump adminstrations.
The bull case for JD Vance is that he's too weak to actually marshal any political support on his own and gets immediately sidelined. The tech right embarrassed itself right out the gate, and brings very little actual popular support to the table.
More options
Context Copy link
Personally, being of the Luddite persuasion, the element of the MAGA tent which I most dislike is the Thiel/Musk tech right clique, of which Vance appears to be an agent. I'd much rather be governed by woke moral busybodies or Trumpist kleptocrats than by gay space fascists. Ideally I would like none of these clowns to govern the USA, but that appears to be too much to ask for. (I don't live in the US myself, but I'm afraid my own position is not much better.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Biden was indisputably further gone. You may have preferred his admin's governance, but he wasn't capable of putting complete sentences together.
I don't think Trump's sentences are any more coherent than Biden's were, he's just more forceful about them and comes across as less physically fragile.
Trump's rambles and and sometimes jumps erratically between different trains of thought but whichever token he's outputting at position n usually bears at least some relation to token_n-3. Biden during the 2024 debates was much worse.
For what it's worth I think peak Biden was probably smarter than peak Trump.
More options
Context Copy link
The two flavors of senility: fading into the background, and using anger to cover up not really understanding what's going on. Avoid saying anything coherent so nobody can tell that you couldn't hear what anyone said, or insist angrily that you are correct and force everyone around you to accommodate because it's awkward to tell grandpa he's 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
More options
Context Copy link