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 -
The Democratic Party is working hard to give MAGA the mid-terms despite everything.
Apparently, the resolution failed by two votes. However, my understanding is that this would have been largely symbolic, as a bill would require both the House and the Senate to vote in its favor, and actually require 2/3 majorities to override the presidential veto which can be taken as granted.
Strategically speaking, preventing Trump from continuing his war seems like a classic case of interrupting your opponent while he is making a mistake. It seems clear that MAGA is searching for an off-ramp whose taking they can sell as a win. But the next best thing to a win is a scapegoat. If Congress stops Trump from bombing Iran, Trump will surely claim that his strategy was going great and Iran was just about to surrender unconditionally when he was stabbed in the back by the radical leftists. Half the country will end up believing that sure, Trump's war raised the gas prices for a while but it was the Democrats who made sure it was all for nothing.
From the perspective of the Democrats, MAGA should obviously be a much larger threat to the US than even a nuclear armed Iran. Who knows how many lives a pandemic managed by RFK Jr would claim, or what blunders Trump might commit while conducting (or failing to conduct) a war over vital interests of the US through social media? By contrast, the damage Iran is likely to do seems limited, even if they take tolls for passage that would not a much of a threat to the US, plenty of countries with questionable regimes have nukes.
Obviously the Democrats would not want Trump to earn a triumph for his war, but I doubt that there is much chance of that. The most powerful person in Iran had his father and his wife killed by US strikes and also adheres to the same religion as Hamas does. I seriously doubt that he will be willing to make large concessions to the US.
Is there not value in the Democrats showing that they hold distinct values to the republicans? At least online, it is not uncommon to hear that the two are no different and equally bad for your country. Voting to end the war shows a clear dividing line between the two parties, on an issue important to the voters.
Next time someone says that the dems are just as much puppeted by the Israelis as the GOP and would have done the exact same thing if given the reigns, this vote will be a point of evidence that no, this is in fact not the case. They are clearly against wars in the middle east. And if the bill had passed and led to the war ending, they could have then taken credit for saving a situation of chaos created by Trump.
As a non-American, I am probably missing something. But the decision seems pretty sound to me.
It's what they want to signal, but it's pretty naive to believe it. I'm sure most of them are overjoyed with Trump attacking Iran now; it's something that might have needed to do in the future, that would almost certainly have a political cost no matter who does it and why, and their current impotence makes it so they can virtue signal as loud as they can since they cannot be blamed for not doing enough to stop it (since they can't anyway).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This isn't a bad move since the Dems knew they obviously wouldn't be able to succeed. It just shows they're trying (in a fake way) to stop it so they can use this as an attack ad later. Even if the Dems controlled both houses they still probably wouldn't be able to stop Trump doing most of what he wants since the Legislative branch has basically ceded almost all control over military + diplomacy to the Executive, and it would take a filibuster-proof majority to unwind that.
More options
Context Copy link
This again? Maybe you haven’t been following the news? The blockade is working, oil tanker traffic in the strait is up, Iran might be coming to the table. Oil tankers are coming to the US to refuel. Trump is hosting talks between Israel and Lebanon. America announced a new partnership with Indonesia which will give America control over the strait of Malacca. We now control Venezuela, Panama, Hormuz, Taiwan, Malacca. America controls not a majority of the important sources of global energy, and the chokepoints through which that energy is traded.
Maybe Trump and Hegseth had a plan after all?
The idea was that, even though America destroyed Iran’s military and military-industrial base, Iran was winning because they controlled the Strait of Hormuz. Not anymore! We took that back in an afternoon. We always could have. Because America has total dominance over Iran, because we won. The delay was not some kind of epic American failure but the natural ebb and flow when negotiating terms, working out deals, testing military alliances and technologies etc. (America is not happy that Europe denied us use of our bases — and refused to condemn Iranian terrorism.)
However I do see that the Iranian Consulate in Hyderabad got 116K likes on a tweet saying America can’t block Iran when Iran blocked us first. And I have to admit that one of the Iranian LEGO AI Trump-Hegseth “Epstein Fury” rap videos is pretty catchy and has been stuck in my head all week. Call it a tie?
Basically, Trump is rearranging the whole global order on America’s terms. Of course Democrats would want to be stop that. It would be good for them if they could. The idea that it would be bad for them is some kind of reverse jiu-jitsu that requires the war actually be going so badly for Trump that they would be saving him. I don’t know that it adds anything at this point for me to say that l obviously, if you believe that, I disagree. But just as obviously Trump launched a war that is deeply divisive with his base and relatively unpopular domestically and even at this great point of vulnerability Democrats can’t stop him. So I don’t think it’s a convincing use of power for the Dems. Their best hope is that the negotiations with Iran drag out for months and the blockades last a while and oil stays closer to $5 a gallon. Which is always possible. But it’s probably a bad idea for them to rest on their laurels and hope that Trump’s sign of timing suddenly fails him right before the midterms.
You mean Khomeini Jr.? The puppet? They literally inaugurated a cardboard cutout because he couldn’t be seen in public.
These 2 statements are contradictory.
No serious analyst claimed Iran controlled Hormuz directly, as if they had an armada guarding it or something. The point was always that they could block it through threats and asymmetric action, which they clearly did, and the US has thus far been unable to rectify.
At any day Iran might come to the negotiating table, but this war has been full of fits and starts and so I wouldn't trust any "public statements" from either side until they've been put into practice for several days at the very least.
The only thing Trump has done has been to unite the world against the US. He's shown the world the US military is strong tactically, but is still woefully deficient in terms of long-term strategy due to a number of factors -- exceptionally low pain tolerance, overstretch, insufficient missile stocks for long campaigns, political winds shifting, etc.
The blockade is against traffic to Iranian ports and (more recently) against sanctioned tankers. Not against unsanctioned tankers using the strait to visit non-Iranian ports.
OK sure.
What are you even saying here? You agree, you disagree, you want to argue but don't have an argument, you just want to express snarky disdain, you understand and acknowledge the point? This is why we have a rule against low-effort posting. It's annoying and contributes nothing.
I simply agree with him. No snark intended.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We are blockading Iran and allowing other traffic through the strait.
Well I don’t know what this qualification “no serious analyst claimed” means but I know that this was widely discussed and claimed in many places, including here. If anything it sounds like you’re trying to carve yourself an exception: but the problem is Iran never controlled the straits and never could, because of the American military operation.
You should go look at today’s news. Actually, before you do, would you give me a confidence rating that your analysis will hold up? What do you think the odds are that the US will reopen the Straits of Hormuz?
Venezuela is in America’s orbit now, Indonesia is in America’s orbit now, Iran is at the negotiating table, Japan is re-arming, we control Panama, we control Taiwan — wait I’m just repeating myself. America is more isolated than ever as its power over global sea lanes and energy supply rises — sure yeah let’s go with that.
I have not seen anyone claim this, including on this site. I've been paying attention to the conversation pretty well though obviously I might have missed something. Please provide a source for this. Specifically I'm looking for evidence that people thought Iran "controlled" the straits beyond simple area-of-denial.
There have been a lot of claims people in the war, especially Trump, have made that subsequently failed to hold up. On April 11th he claimed unequivocally that the US had destroyed the entire Iranian military, and that the strait would soon be open. There was also the "ceasefire" where Iran was supposed to open the strait, but they just didn't. I wouldn't trust any "breaking news" until it's been in effect for several days and verified by at least a few independent sources.
I can't speak to the likelihood of the straits opening through diplomacy since that could change at any time.
In terms of a military campaign wherein the US navy tries to open the strait in the face of Iranian opposition, I'd say it's relatively unlikely by the end of April, but maybe a 50-50 by the end of May and then slightly higher by the end of June. By "open" I mean any single day in the IMF portwatch showing >= 60 ships passing, which would be on the lower end of pre-war traffic.
Now please give me your confidence rating.
A country "being in America's orbit" doesn't mean much beyond rhetoric. Indonesia signed some minor cooperation agreement with the US but it's hardly a steadfast American ally now. It's a similar story with Venezuela -- they're a bit more pliable to US demands but they're hardly some US asset now.
These are paltry gains compared to the huge rupture of trust between the US and the rest of NATO. America actually could really use the rest of NATO's help now in patrolling the straits, but Trump failed to get European buy-in for his Iran adventure before the war, so that + threats of invading Greenland have given the Europeans no motivation to pull America's chestnuts out of the fire.
So you're looking for someone who says "control" and means "control", which is not any of the people saying "control" and meaning "area denial"?
Bit of a tough ask, because you can always say that words mean whatever you want them to, but:
BBC, tanker representative
Lloyd's List, but I guess you could argue they didn't control the Strait, merely the traffic through it, and that those are two very different things.
Financial Times, and if they continue to control it, well, that must mean they already had control.
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
If the Democratic party in fact succeeded in using the legislature to stop the war, then I'm sure they would have been scapegoated. Which indeed would have made it a bad political maneuver. However, since they didn't, and they couldn't because they lacked the votes in both chambers of congress, it made it a great political maneuver. They managed to publicly disavow the war while forcing their opponents own it and its consequences in their entirety.
More options
Context Copy link
Then we will choose next more powerful person in Iran once the ceasefire is over.
More options
Context Copy link
Alternative idea, forcing this vote makes Republican representatives have to tie themselves to the war at a time where gas prices are over 4 dollars, there's an upcoming 8% surcharge on shipping, and airlines are increasing their prices with some even slowly shutting down routes. One of the major reasons why Trump won is because of the COVID era inflation crisis. You could see tons of those "Trump low prices, Kamala high prices" signs around and voters consistently put economics as one of their biggest concerns. Now Republican representatives are having to say "yes, this war is worth fucking up your wallets". There's not much room for them to win even if things resolve tomorrow cause foreign policy is not a major focus of most voters and a lot to lose.
Not disagreeing with your lived experience, but locally gas has dropped $0.40 in the last two weeks. Still up from pre-Iran debacle but closer to the summer-increase margin.
Mostly I'm pointing this out to say: this market's crazy and whether this affects voters this fall will be decided, mostly, in the last few days before the midterm.
Only if early voting gets banned, which I think isn't on the table.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The irony is that this is what the "reduce dependency on fossil fuels/get rid of oil" crowd want, and we see now what it means in action. Not a tidy "everything now runs on wind and solar power" but "you can't get goods in, you can't get a flight to where you want to go" and advice like that from my government to do chores at night when running electrically powered items like washing machines, and walking to work instead of driving.
In the US, we didn't so much reduce dependence on fossil fuels as we did reduce (but not eliminate) dependence on Middle Eastern fossil fuels. That's why gas is only $4.15 near me in New Jersey, and there's no serious worry about domestic supplies.
If Europe had actually reduced dependence on fossil fuels, they wouldn't be being hit so hard. But they didn't, not nearly to the extent they often claim to have.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The funny thing is that the economy was generally doing well pre-war. Dow was over 50k as someone pointed out, employment was good. Tariffs were paid for by Americans but weren't as big a drag as expected either, although core goods inflation would have been negative without them? He really could have done nothing, toned down ICE's retardation, and coasted.
DJIA is up since the start of the war especially now that the blockade is in place. The economy is doing fine so far and has priced the war in. The only lingering consequence is the high price of gas (which has not quite hit 2022 highs and is nowhere close to 2008 highs).
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know if he could have coasted.
Wasn't it Israel which launched the first strikes without asking America for permission? Refusing to help an ally is a political risk, and if Israel managed to start winning heavily enough the strait might have been blockaded anyway.
Per NYT, Israel told the US that they had intel about a meeting between Khameini and other IRGC leaders in a few days time and pitched it as the best time to strike. If the US had declined to get involved, Israel probably would not have gone ahead.
That's my understanding as well. The strikes were coming, one way or another, but Israel saw a hell of a great chance if they started things off early.
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
The dominant strategy for almost any politician, or really any social movement, is to criticize a lot but do nothing so as to avoid accountability. Even if the US gets its strategic goals, which is not a given, all the average American feels is the immediate economic disruption so it'll feel like a loss. Especially if that hypothetical American consumes news hostile to Trump. Actually stopping or hindering Trump gives the republicans a dolchstosslegende they can use to marginally gain back some voters. In terms of pure politics, and even if your goal is maximum blue tribe policies, not interfering with the Iran war is dominant strategy for now.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm getting tired of this whole concept. I understand that a lot of people think the Trump administration, and apparently the US military at large, are all fools who can't think more than a few days ahead. But Trump had an offramp if that's all he wanted, it was called accepting Iran's demands during the negotiations. Instead, the US held firm to their nuclear disarmament requirements. This is a clear signal to me that the administration does in fact have goals in this conflict beyond improving their poll numbers. In other words, it's pretty clear to me that MAGA is not searching for an off-ramp, and I would love hear what evidence you have for holding the opposite position.
Vance apparently asked for a 20 year halt on enrichment (and handing over the remaining uranium). Now they're thinking about releasing $20b of frozen assets in exchange. It's hard to see how this isn't just the JCPOA but worse in most aspects.
That link is paywalled, but assuming it's correct, releasing frozen assets is not the same as giving them money. And giving them money in exchange for uranium is not the same as giving them money in exchange for the promise not to enrich uranium. So, not exactly JCPOA. Regardless, speculation on leaked details of the negotiation is basically just self-gratification. I'm certainly holding my judgment at least until we see terms in an official agreement.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Their first plan was to overthrow the government by killing a handful of people in an undeclared war during negotiations. They ended up killing 160 school girls and the theory of the mass spontaneous pro American popular uprising failed spectacularly. Then the strategy morphed into a mass bombing campaign in which a vast amount of munition was wasted. This ended with the largest loss of aircraft in a single day since the Vietnam war and the US missile stockpiles being too depleted to continue. Then there was lots of hype around a land invasion that wasn't feasible and they had to give up on.
Their last face saving measure is that the country that has been three weeks from having nukes for 30 years doesn't have nukes. Never mind that they obliterated and annihilate their nuclear program last year according to themselves.
They are desperately seeking an off ramp and trying to get something they can show as a win.
This is the part that kills me about this.
Iran purposely slaughters 30k protestors: I sleep.
America has outdated targeting data on one bomb out of 30k: Real shit.
It just seems fundamentally unserious. It's impossible for me to take criticism from someone espousing this position as anything other than bad faith. You would need a thousand words of throat-clearing denunciations of the Iranian regime to counter the obvious who/whom.
The same people who sold us the atrocity propaganda before every other war want to sell this fanciful number. I highly doubt they gave us an honest number in this case.
Also, Trump openly admitted that they were armed and financed by the US. If one accepts money and weapons from the enemy to attack the state I have no problem with them being pwnd when their revolution fails
Again and again you've read a headline and not managed to make it to the details.
Trump admitted to sending arms to the Iranian protestors, but those arms never made it to Iran. They were given to the Kurds to pass on, but the Kurds kept them for themselves. Trump says this in the same interview where he admits to sending the arms. He also, as should be blindingly obvious, sent them after the revolution was already underway.
It is completely unacceptable for you to keep spouting such low-effort nonsense. That's not how we do things here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Others have discussed your fixation on the school strike, but as far as I can tell your entire understanding of the conflict comes from propaganda headlines.
That was never a stated goal. You should know that.
There was already a mass spontaneous uprising, and there still is an Iranian dissident movement. If you're actually curious there are plenty of interviews available with Iranian activists who will explain this for you.
No, that was the strategy from the beginning. You can't 'morph' into a bombing campaign, you need to have the bombs and their launch systems already in the region - but besides that, they started bombing on day 1, hour 1, so this is an insane claim.
Sorry, says who? The accuracy of US munitions has been incredible, and 99% struck their intended military targets. 'Wasted' here only makes sense from a strategic perspective of 'we shouldn't be striking Iranian targets to begin with' - in other words, your reasoning is circular. The war is bad because we're wasting munitions, and the munitions are wasted because the war is bad.
Another emotional headline. It's also false. The September 2012 Taliban raid on Camp Bastion destroyed nine aircraft. But you saw the headline somewhere and decided to uncritically repeat it.
This may be an even more ridiculous claim. The number of missiles in US stockpiles is quite literally Top Secret. But I guess you've concluded from all your military expertise that the real reason for the cease-fire was that the US has no weapons left?
I gave an argument against this in my initial response, and you did not address it. Instead, as I've demonstrated, you threw out a bunch of wrong-headed and often simply false claims to back up your emotional reasoning that the war is bad. Maybe you can do better with your next response?
It does have the echo of the totally-not-pro-Russians of yesteryear who were very adamant that the west was giving too much aid to Ukraine, and very evasive about what an 'appropriate' amount of aid was.
More options
Context Copy link
No, it is built on a decades long pattern of wars that have cost trillions, killed millions of people and flooded Europe with migrants. This is just another example of the US trying to wreck a country in the middle east to divide and conquer and the world paying the price.
Regime change was widely talked about in the initial stage of the war. That failed. They were going to save the women through a collapse of the state. The former dictator's son was paraded around because they wanted to topple the government.
Trump has openly admitted that they were funded and armed by the US.
Patriot missiles failing on launch and 8 patriots being fired at a single target isn't impressive. A substantial portion of the US airforce munitions were wasted on a war to replace an Ayatollah with his son.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-04/us-deploys-bulk-of-stealthy-long-range-missile-for-iran-war
A quarter of all tomahawks were fired. They couldn't have gone that much longer without making the US too weak.
This is unfortunately hilarious to me, because my hyper-political family member regularly posts the phrase "Costing trillions, killing millions" on Facebook, often as part of particularly unhinged rants, and it's therefore rather difficult for me to take seriously just due to overexposure.
Contrary to your stance, however, she sees Europe being flooded with migrants as a good thing, because they're so much more virtuous and intelligent and hard-working than the average European national (and, of course, even the worst European native is far superior to any white American!)
More options
Context Copy link
Based on this what would you estimate the odds are that a deal is negotiated and Iran cedes its enriched uranium supply?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm sad you mentioned the school girls because people are going to fixate on that and not this, which is a much stronger point
The strikes last year targeted a specific nuclear enrichment base built underground in the mountains that was supposed to be impenetrable to attack. The strikes this year are attacking, among other things, the nuclear enrichment as a whole. They are basically two separate events and the latter does not imply that the former was all propaganda and a lie.
https://rollcall.com/factbase/trump/transcript/donald-trump-remarks-prime-time-address-iran-air-strikes-june-21-2025/
"Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror."
"Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are the "160 school girls" supposed to be special in some way?
The fundamental problem that the Iranian regime faces is that even if we take their claims at face value, who are we to care?
They can throw all the shade they like but they still need to convince Rubio, Vance, Et Al. that there is an advantage to the US to be had in not dismissing them out of hand.
Has the number even been verified to any deep degree? I personally don't doubt that a school was hit but it feels like a pretty significant highroll unless they happened to hit an assembly or something.
Not that I am aware of, and even if it were verified I don't think I would care. Much like @Iconochasm above, I find the complaint fundamentally unserious. The Iranian Regime purposefully kills thousands of it's own people and habitually threatens to attack it's neighbors and everybody just accepts this as normal, but the US accidentally kills 160 due to outdated information and suddenly "A decent portion of the world's population is horrified by America's actions and psychopathic killing."?
I don't buy it, and I wouldn't expect Trump, Rubio, Vance, Et Al. to either.
I'd go a step further. They shouldn't buy it, and being indifferent to exactly that sort of bad faith manipulation is Trump's entire brand and greatest selling point. Which in turn is exactly why so many people find him aesthetically horrifying.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What, are you suggesting that Iran, leader of the axis of resistance that routinely hides military assets in restricted sites, might... lie for propaganda purposes?
Or exaggerate a real but smaller number of casualties? Or obfuscate if there was a valid military objective moved inside the school during the pre-war dispersals? Or benignly omit any past history or context of the infrastructure that might lead non-psychopaths to believe something nefarious?
Surely not. If you can't believe the government that months prior was killing thousands to over ten thousand citizens in the streets, who can you trust?
More options
Context Copy link
Who cares about exact numbers. One is too much for some, a thousand is just a shrug for the others.
The exact number determines how many martyrs you can justify, right? 160 would mean that up to 2 freedom fighters could securely murder-suicide themselves, but a third would only get about 22% of what he's owed in the afterlife.
On the other hand it is thocratic Muslim country so the number of virgins between them may be less than the body count. In Iran marriage under 13 is allowed in some circumstances.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A decent portion of the world's population is horrified by America's actions and psychopathic killing.
The big problem for the US is that the US is up to its eyeballs in debt and the US has an oil intensive economy. Since Trump decided to focus on starting wars in the middle east instead of America first there is now an energy crisis that can only be solved by Trump TACO-ing.
To quote our Vice President, I don’t really care.
More options
Context Copy link
A decent portion of the world thinks that the meat comes from the back of Costco and have no understanding of the amount of violence and stuff that modern society is built upon as a brief island in the chain. Without even getting into the old 'if X regime found themselves in the position of dominance occasional civilian casualties would be a tiny fraction of what they'd immediately, enthusiastically get up to'
More options
Context Copy link
A decent portion of the world's population apparently also would have demanded the Allies sue for peace during WWII as soon as the first civilians were killed during D-Day, or the first reports of a soviet atrocity, or the first news that the Japanese on the mainland were struggling with food insecurity.
Look, every single civilian death is a goddamn tragedy, and the US military can and should do better, particularly in the opening salvos of a campaign against a long-hostile regime. But unlike the Iranian regime, the US appears to be trying to only target military and military-use infrastructure, and I refuse to accept special pleading as valid in this case.
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