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 -
What is the Zionist model of antisemitism*?
Matt Yglesias posted what turned out to be a surprisingly hot take that the downturn in public opinion of Israel is a result of Israeli actions, and that the best way for Israel to fix its public relations problem is to change its actions vis-a-vis the Palestinian issue and foreign policy.
I was surprised at the pushback. This seems straightforwardly true. There was a great chart I saw a few days ago, which I am unfortunately unable to find, which showed that public opinion of Israel has been approximately this low before. It was in 1982 with the invasion of Lebanon and the notoriously brutal siege of Beirut.
Most of the alternative theories fell into two camps.
It’s hard to tell how religious the people in 2. are, but my general impression is, “quite a bit”. Many of them seem to speak of antisemitism as if it were a spiritual fault, another manifestation of the platonic ideal of pure evil. Seen as a spiritual problem, the correct response is to become even more aggressively Jewish. This has the rather large problem of being counterproductive when, e.g. smashing idols goes wrong.
*By “antisemitism” in this post I almost exclusively mean “antizionism”. I use the term to maintain consistency with the pro-Israel literature I am engaging with, not as an endorsement that antizionism = antisemitism.
> Pass an anti-terrorism law that de facto applies only to one ethnicity, which you're already being accused of apartheid-ing, which calls for "death by hanging, carried out in no more than 90 days" as the default sentence.
> "there is literally nothing we can do, the fake news is just going to twist our ethnic death penalty laws to make us seem like monsters"
> "this is why we need to control tiktok"
Damn, can't help but notice this seems absolutely bananas
If it was after the US Civil War and they passed a law which says you go to the gallows if you're still keeping a slave, that would only apply to one ethnicity, but it seems like it would be an appropriate measure anyway. It would be silly to object to that on the grounds that it wouldn't convict any black people so it's ethnically based.
That's a fair point, to counter though, this law isn't "terrorists get the death penalty" it's "people who intentionally cause the death of a person with the aim of denying the existence of the State of Israel" as judged by a military tribunal, with absolutely 0 appeals allowed after sentencing.
So in your situation it's more like a law that only applies to slave owners who also don't like Abraham Lincoln/the union, i.e. any northern slave owner caught with slaves wouldn't get the death penalty.
Also the law absolutely violates their due process and other legal rights.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sort of related: I recently read an article called "On Collective Jewish Guilt".
I understand that anti-Zionism is not intrinsically reducible to antisemitism, and that, in theory, one could oppose the existence of Israel while harbouring no ill will towards Jews and wanting them to be safe. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion that, in many cases, anti-Zionism is the motte and antisemitism is the bailey. This article argues that you can tell a lot of anti-Zionists don't really mean what they say based on how they react to antisemitic terror attacks and hate crimes that take place outside of Israel (e.g. the recent Hanukkah mass shooting on Bondi Beach). After all, if anti-Zionists were really only opposed to the state of Israel, you would logically expect them to be the first to condemn attacks on the Jewish diaspora, and in the loudest possible terms: after all, if they believe that a dedicated Jewish state is not necessary to ensure the safety of Jews, they should be the ones most opposed to attacks on Jews outside of Israel. That is, to put it charitably, not what would we see. Every time there has been an antisemitic terror attack or hate crime in the last two and a half years, I have seen one or more of the following:
I am sure there is someone out there who is opposed to the existence of Israel on philosophical grounds but legitimately harbours no animosity towards Jews on an interpersonal level and sincerely wishes them no harm. (This is the person Freddie deBoer claims to be; I don't believe him.) But in my experience, nine times out of ten a Gentile who calls himself anti-Zionist will eventually be revealed to be antisemitic, and I'm sick of trying to pretend otherwise.
"So I know the group our people are targeting for harassment and abuse now is the same group our people have been targeting for harassment and abuse for centuries. And I know that our justifications for harassing and abusing them (they murder children, they control the banks, they control the media, they're sexual degenerates) are literally word-for-word the same as the justifications we used for centuries before now. But our harassment and abuse is totally justified now because of anti-colonialism, guys."
This strikes me as very likely in some cases
I don't see how any of this is logical at all actually.
I have no problem with Jews, I admire their culture. Frankly, any culture that prizes educational attainment and hard work is desperately needed given how hard the West is abandoning these values.
I think the state of Israel, while in a very shitty neighborhood, is going absolutely ham to a degree that is impossible to support ethically. There are many examples of the various attrocities they have recently inflicted on Palestinians (rape, violence, blah blah blah). Also fun stuff like death penalty laws that only apply to Palestinians. Or the entire concept of West Bank settlements and the Swiss cheesing of that area. Or how gaza is levelled and the ~2mil ppl there are now pressed into less than 50% of the pre 2023 land area. It goes on...
Of course, the Palestinians, and the Arab Muslim world at large, are terrible neighbors and have inflicted lots of attrocities back on Isreal. I dislike them as well.
So in sum, I dislike everyone in that area, and I hope they resolve their problems (they never will). If I meet a Jew in real life, I'll shake their hand and hope I can get invited to Shabbat because I'm a slut for Challah.
But I also think the state of Israel is being run by essentially cartoon villains and I absolutely do not support them.
I don't understand why I have to yell loudly about not liking violence against Jews forever to demonstrate that I'm "one of the good ones". I don't like violence against Jews, people shouldn't be violent ahainst them. I dislike violence against most people.
My point (made more eloquently in the linked article; I'm drunkenly paraphrasing) is that there are a lot of people who would never dream of suggesting that a hate crime targeting e.g. black people might be justified because of how a group of black people behaved in a different country. But when a hate crime targets Jews minding their own business in a country other than Israel, these same people will outright state that such violence is "only to be expected" in light of the actions of Israel (even if the targeted Jews don't hold Israeli citizenship, have never set foot in the country and have personally expressed discomfort with IDF military tactics)
A person who is opposed to the existence of Israel on philosophical grounds but who harbours no ill will towards Jews would presumably condemn anti-Semitic violence outside of Israel just as loudly as they condemn anti-black hate crimes, gay bashing etc. The fact that they tend not to do this, but rather will excuse or justify the violence in question, rather suggests that their motivating impulse is something other than a philosophical opposition to the existence of the Jewish state.
Ohhhh I understand, thank you
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Modern leftist anti-semitism is not historical antisemitism. It’s an offshoot of DEI, blacklivesmatter, woke, anti white beliefs that have grown on the left. Jews are compared to normal whites even richer and more successful. And of course they mostly have white skin. Same with anti-Zionism on the left it’s fundamentally the same as anti-colonialism leftism. Unfortunately the Jews largely backed those beliefs for decades while not realizing that eventually Ashkenazi Jews have extremely high IQ on average and win more than anyone else is modern neoliberalism and this anti-whitism logic would eventually turn on them.
And yes Israel was colonialism or probably even closer to apartheid than colonialism in N America. Except they did it historically in the 20th century. N America for the most part displaced few people as it was sparsely populated similar to Argentina. Modern Ashkenazis are as much Italians as they are genetically related to the historical people of Israel. Their richer, smarter, and better at military than the people who lived in Palestine and conquered Israel in the 20th century.
I’ve got no problem with Israel except when they act against my interests. The ADL was one of the biggest promoters of anti-whitism which has now turned on their own people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I tend to lean towards model 1, except I don't really think it was a coordinated campaign, just social incentives. Due to geopolitics of the cold war, Israel became a symbol of the west. And if there is anything the left truly loves, it's destroying symbols and hating on the west. And if you want to try and unite the working class globally, you better pick an international issue that everyone is familiar with.
The irony is that Israel is less and less representative of western culture as time goes on, given that their religious lunatics are growing rapidly as a percentage of the population. Once they pass 50%, things are gonna get very hairy over there. You think Netanyahu is bad, wait until the all ministerial positions are occupied by the Haredim.
In the meantime, we all get to deal with the absurdity of listening to "leftists" go on and on about Israel despite the fact is has nothing to do with envisioned proletariat uprisings, and that far worse atrocities are being committed in almost all non-western corners of the globe as we speak.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, I suppose I fall into this camp.
When I look at Israel's actions during the relevant time periods where support for the state has gone down, I simply think they couldn't have done anything different, or at least substantially different. Because of the way Hamas and Hezbollah operate, every square foot of an area they occupy ends up being a legitimate military target. This is, of course, famously schools, hospitals, mosques, etc. If you want to disable Hamas soldier and rockets, you basically have no choice but to bomb targets in those categories. This will then create the "wall of dead children" as you put it. IMO responsible reporting would ignore said dead children, or, if they did report, emphasize strenuously that the children were killed by Hamas's actions.
That said this isn't unique to Israel. The same tactics are deployed by American press against America all the time. The press, as a rule, does not like competency and patriotism, and the mix of competency with patriotism is particularly offensive to them. Well, Israel is both so they will be hated by the press.
Does antisemitism help drop Israel below the floor that the press can drive America to? Yes. But the press's vitriol for a winner is even more important.
How about not occupying more and more territory. How about not sponsoring jihadists in neighbouring countries. How about not turning millions of people into refugees.
Compare Northern Ireland with Israel and the difference is massive. Northern Ireland is safe while Israel is still at war.
Antisemitism has one cause, jewish behviour. Jewish behaviour is caused by an exceptionally ethnocentric religion with a mindset that makes it difficult to co-exist with any other group. Jews stick together by being in constant conflict with the rest of the world.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you are going to have a specific model of antisemitism, then ideally you should have a model that explains historic instances of it rather than just a single contemporary instance. That it's a result of a downturn in public opinion of Israel as a result of Israel's actions fails to explain pre-1948 antisemitism for reasons I hope are obvious.
I can't speak for the US, but in the UK, neither Yglesias or the proposed alternative theories are a good model. the current wave of antisemitism is basically a coalition between the far-left and Islamists. The older part of the far-left have been playing at this for years, they are not new, and thus there is no rise to explain. The growth of Islamists tracks demographic changes, these types always hated Jews, there's only recently enough of them to be a relevant voting bloc. And the third group of young far-left people (somewhat disproportionately female) can't be explained without explaining why they are both going far-left and anti-Israel. From what I can tell there is nothing so uniquely capitalist about Israel that hatred of Israel is enough to make you go communist too, so the connection is better explained going the other way, perhaps by path dependency regarding still being led by the old far-left... So probably the cold, dead hand of the Soviet Union's reaction to Israel crushing a bunch of Soviet-armed Arabs in 1967 continuing to ripple through history.
I agree. Before the existence of Israel, Jews were collectively accused of spreading communism; spreading capitalism; spreading the bubonic plague; killing Christian babies to make matzo; oppressing people on behalf of the Czar; undermining support for the Czar; and probably a whole bunch of other things.
The basic rule is that whenever something is considered bad, it won't be long before the Jews are accused of it.
And even worse: things which were once considered bad when Jews did them may later come to be considered good, but new infractions will be discovered or invented to pin on Jews so that their perceived moral value among gentiles never improves.
For many centuries, Christians were forbidden to lend money, so if a Christian wanted to borrow money, he had to borrow from a Jewish moneylender (cue centuries of stereotypes about greedy Jews). Over time, Christian countries liberalised and secularised, and now there are just as many gentile moneylenders as Jewish ones, if not more so. But has this resulted in a rehabilitation of Jews in the gentile imagination, or an acknowledgement that it was wrong to stereotype Jews as greedy when in many cases they were completely shut out of many lines of work other than finance? Has it fuck. Gentiles are allowed to engage in the behaviours that resulted in the "greedy Jew" stereotype without incurring any of the associated negative status.
It's such transparently rigged, unfair bullshit.
More options
Context Copy link
Forgetting that Marx was jewish and that the Russian revolution was at least as jewish as it was Russian. Jews are an ethnocentric outsider group that is loyal to itself. It isn't odd that they are accused of not being loyal to the society as a whole.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Both can be true. That people will deem Israel guilty no matter the facts and that Israel is doing its best to not win the hearts and minds of the western populace.
More options
Context Copy link
Like any other form of bias, it both affects how people interpret events and is affected by events themselves. Compare to political partisanship: the public's interpretation of political scandals (of varying levels of real or fake) is obviously enormously affected by both their personal political views and the political views of the media sources and social circles they trust. You can probably think of plenty of cases where very similar actions have been interpreted differently by partisans and biased organizations depending on which party they're associated with. At the same time it's not completely detached from reality, not everyone is maximally partisan so there really are actions you can take to make your political party more or less popular.
That doesn't mean being generically "likable" is the best strategy either, you can also do things like decrease the influence of your political enemies or do things that have a real-world impact that people like even if they don't like the policy in abstract. If Trump successfully changed the political leanings of mainstream media institutions, or Israel successfully helped the Iranian protestors take over the government, then that would help their popularity more than it pissed people off so long as it didn't require doing anything really unpopular like mass-arresting journalists or using nuclear weapons. Conversely if Israel made all palestinians citizens that would make the population of Israel a lot more anti-jewish despite it being "likable". Anti-white bias has had a recent surge in influence via the growth of the social-justice movement despite sustaining itself on stuff like "police are allowed to defend themselves and sometimes make mistakes" and "the 1955 lynching of Emmett Till", sometimes an influential ideology really does hate you enough that you'll make more progress by trying to fight that ideology than by playing nice. Anti-Israel bias isn't as detached from their recent actions, at least not in the west, but it's a reminder that determining the net impact of an action long-term is more complicated than checking popularity polls.
More options
Context Copy link
The inevitable fate of basically every term is to be distorted both as an attack and distorted as a defense. The strategy of both Israel and the actual antisemites has been the same here, to link Israel and the general Jewish population as inherently linked.
Israel links them as a defense to criticism of their actions. The antisemites link them as a way to smear general Jews. But they both do agree, the two are linked.
The Israel strategy actually worked for a short time, just like the woke strategy did. The general US population was generally supportive of Israel! Just like they were generally supportive of some DEI policies. But now views have effectively reversed in the US and antisemitism is growing. The "your criticisms are bigoted" defense only seems to work for a short period, eventually they start speaking up again and some even turn more bigoted in response, especially since the defense is also "the two are linked". Israel after all has told people who have problems with their behavior, that they must also have problems with Jews in general.
Let's go over the two theories you put as well
Then one must ask why is this anti Israel misinformation so much more potent now? It's not as if antisemitic propaganda is a new phenomenon, what has changed to make it more effective? I've shared one of my theories above.
You also gotta appreciate the irony here of "we need more control over information" given the common antisemitic trope of Jews wanting control over information.
So again, why is antisemitism apparently increasing then? It's the same exact question that leftists fail to answer when companies raise their prices due to "greed". If it's such an intrinsic thing, what is the difference between now and then?.
Meanwhile "Israeli actions actually do impact how people view Israel" is a pretty strong explanation for why people change their views. Maybe stuff like letting soldiers who sexually assaulted and abused a prisoner on video get off scot free might actually make people dislike you. Maybe some people who would otherwise support you don't like it when there's video of your soldiers shooting a young boy, standing around not rendering aid, and seemingly framing him by placing a rock near to say he was throwing it.
Woke.
More options
Context Copy link
You've got two classes here: Anti-semites and Israelis, and you note that both of them want to link Israel to the general jewish population.
The general jewish population is also a class, no? What do they want with regard to the connection of Israel and themselves?
Do you, personally, believe that Israel has a right to exist as "a Jewish and Democratic state"?
Do you, personally, believe that a state can in practical terms be both "Jewish" and "Democratic" in the commonly-understood definitions of those terms? That is, assuming the general positive-valence progressive understanding of "Democracy" as a social system, do you think "Democracy" is broadly compatible with an explicit ethno-state?
What are the bounds of discourse? It's pretty clear how much criticism of Israel is acceptable to Israel (little to none) and how much is acceptable to antisemites (almost all to all). I think it's pretty clear that the general jewish population likewise has something like coherent bounds on the amount of criticism of Israel they consider acceptable; are those bounds closer to the Israeli limits or the antisemite limits?
You appear to want to limit this discussion to Israel and the Antisemites, since both of these are your outgroup. But the general jewish population is a cohesive social cluster, and one that is not, to put it delicately, a complete stranger to the organization and exercise of political power. My observation is that the general jewish population is strongly supportive of Israel as a state, as they have been for decades. Criticism of specific actions of Israel or its agents does not change this fact.
I used to be very strongly pro-Israel. I went very strongly anti-Israel when I went blue. Now I am committed to, as best as I am able, no longer having an opinion on the matter either way. If your strategy is otherwise, I wish you the best with dodging the antisemite label yourself, but do not expect your dodging to work. I do not think you or your coalition generally will be able to carve out a stable middle-ground where "antisemite" retains its negative valence and yet effective, consequential criticism builds toward an effective social consensus. I think a major reason this will not happen is because the general Jewish population does not want it to happen, and will organize against you to keep it from happening. When they start calling you a Nazi, know that to at least a minor extent, you have my sympathies, and my hope that the experience is educational for you.
I wouldn't say the general Jewish population is as easy of a class to read here. Lots of individual Jews will have different opinions with different nuances. It might statistically skew one way or the other, but there will be important variance from one to another.
Israel is easy because it's specifically the actions and rhetoric of the current Israeli government. Antisemites is an easy class simply due to the category itself (when properly applied) inherently being people who would want the Jews to look bad and be hated.
I think it can be democratic and made up primarily of Jews, but I agree that explicit ethno-state and democracy struggle to be compatible with one another. Especially one based at least somewhat around religion. It's unlikely, but what if a significant portion of the citizens turned Buddhist or something? Seems to me they still should have a voice.
I disagree, even with the people who "support Israel as a state" lies a ton of different nuance. Supporting the concept of Israel as a safe space for the Jewish people doesn't necessarily mean they support all of the expansionism or genocidal policies of the current Israeli government. Heck, one of the most rabidly anti Israeli left wingers I know is an ethnic Jew himself. That's not very common, but this is the sort of thing I mean by not wanting to treat Jews as a "cohesive class". There's lots of different parts to the topic and different people will have various nuanced views on each. And people can change their minds too so I'm not gonna write everyone off from their ethnicity. Hell even within Israel, some of the literal soldiers committing abuses have come to regret it. Now there comes a point where forgiveness isn't enough, and abusing/murdering innocents is far past that line but it is a display of how people do change their views.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't understand these questions and you seem reasonable and have good takes.
What if my answers are:
yes, kind of. I don't really think any state has a "right" to exist all that much. However I think states that are able to enforce their existence on planet earth should probably exist, and I'm generally against people trying to make other states not exist, even if they perhaps could pull it off.
absolutely. I think Isreal can be run by Jews and have leaders elected by popular vote. You could also absolutely have an ethnostate that has a democracy. I don't think "universal suffrage" is required for democracy, although it is preferable.
These questions seem so basic I feel like I'm missing something.
I'm not FCfromSSC, but a common belief, I'd argue a defining belief, of modern progressivism, and even most of the center left, is that democracy is invalid when people either vote for specific positions or vote for leaders who espouse specific positions.* Witness how, and this it not just in the US, the terms 'democratic' and 'populist' are very much separate terms with 'populism' being argued to be anti-democratic since its policy go against what is considered valid in a democracy by the mainstream progressive left. You can even see this outside of the US: if you read El País (rough Spanish equivalent to the NYT) they describe pretty much every figure on the right as an 'Ultra' and talk about how they are all dangerous to democracy.
Almost all left wingers, especially those described as 'woke', consider ethno-nationalism to be illiberal enough that it's just not a valid/democratic platform to have. This is both openly stated by most left wingers, and it is even the law in many European countries that explicit arguments for an ethnostate are hate speech. If you apply woke standards to Israel, the entire project is considered illegitimate because the nation is literally founded on the "undemocratic" principle of ethnonationalism. Some center left figures ideologically argue that Israel deserves a carveout or the above viewpoint shouldn't be applied everywhere, but the straightforward application of 'wokism', or even the center left viewpoint on ethnonationalism, is that the political system of Israel is founded on undemocratic principles and is thus illegitimate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And those “left center” or whatever you want to call them group of bloggers have been posting for days that Dems need to drop Israel because Israel is not doing enough for Democrats. Some reason this reminds me of the quote “fairness feels like oppression when your use to privilege”. Jews and Israel have been in voting and dollars backing Dems at about an 85% rate for decades. They still found support on the right because of Evangelicals end time stuff and I think a general feeling on the right that Jews in the ME are better friends than Muslims.
I think we are at a point where Jews/Israel are going to have to decide which party they back and won’t be able to play both sides anymore. I am tired of Jews running an ethnostate and opposing the West from shutting down immigration. At this point I think the Jews have no choice but to go hard right. The current forces on the left in the west love brown and unsuccessful people. The Jews are too rich and white to have a seat with the Dems.
I am disappointed Trump hasn’t struck a harder bargain with Israel. I can love the Jews if their money and political power goes all in on white nationalism. Anyway Yglesias an Noah Smith etc are saying the Jews need to do more for Dems if the want backing for Israel and I’ve been saying the opposite that we need more support from them if they want support from MAGA.
I think Yglesias just realizes Israel/Jews are unpopular with the left and pushing them out of the Democrats has political benefits but he’s acting it’s like the Jews left the Dems instead of the Dems turning against Jews first.
If we went back in time the only way Israel could fix their political problems would be backing tough border enforcement in Europe and the rest of the west. The US and Europe being filled with third worlders always meant the left would eventually become anti-Israel. And then the right wouldn’t despise Israel for backing immigration.
More options
Context Copy link
Matt is just saying a tone-policed version of "Do better." to Israel. Of course Israel wouldn't want to hear that! And alternative theory 1 is just "How can Israel get what it wants?"
Mentioning such obvious facts like "actions are related to public opinion" does you no good. Saying "Actions determine public opinion" is a normative statement ("Do better.") disguised as a factual one.
Zionist model of antisemitism is the same as the basic model of all -isms: due to various antisemitic biases, people hold Israel to high and unfair standards.
More options
Context Copy link
What Yglesias stated -- that "that global perceptions of Israel are totally unrelated to Israeli conduct" is false -- is almost vacuously true. The implication -- as you said "the best way for Israel to fix its public relations problem is to change its actions vis-a-vis the Palestinian issue and foreign policy" is false. We're in a situation where Israel is blamed everything it does regardless of reason or justification and many things it hasn't done (in particular, "genocide"). It's opponents are not held responsible for anything they do. Israel changing their actions -- aside from taking actions which would result in them ceasing to exist -- would not fix its public relations problem.
I'm in camp 1.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link