Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I had never even heard the term "Lost Cause" until this thread. Oklahoma isn't really "The South", and it wasn't until my sister moved to Georgia that I had ever heard the term "War of Northern Aggression". I have zero attachment to the south. And I was taught exactly what every other American was taught about the Civil War in our public schools. I didn't even pay attention to politics until I was almost 30 years old.
I came to this forum as a socialist, who had worked for years for a union company which voted overwhelmingly for democrats.
The reason I turned away from socialism is ironically what socialists claim they are fighting for, morality.
The left is full of druggies, degenerates, freaks, narcissists, and hedonists, who are obsessed with money and materialism, but who imagine themselves morally superior.
I am a conservative insofar as I am a moralist. I would much rather live in a country of poverty, surrounded by good people. Than to live in a rich country surrounded by degenerates.
Everything that I advocate for is through but one lens, to make people better people. I could care less about making them comfortable, or rich. I have no interest in catering to men's desires, but in saving their souls.
I would much rather we all lived like the Amish than like Hollywood. But which direction are we headed in?
I do not believe we can be saved. And I hate capitalism just as much as I hate socialism. Both have corrupted the entire world, and for what?
The world gets richer every day, and yet the people get worse every day. I hate everything.
"What's the use of a fine house if you haven't got a tolerable planet to put it on?" - Henry David Thoreau
It won't let me rep you again and I just wanted to let you know that I have liked your posts in this thread ... even when I have thought your opposer(s) got you ... your responses have been spot on ...
I didn't pay attention to the political goings on until age 46. Somewhat drug into it by friends of mine at age 41, but all in all, not really until joining this forum and I joined it for their (then philosophy; religious) R & S forum. So much more was happening in the P & C forum, it kind of grew on me.
I'm not of a particular party, just as I am not of a particular church, I am very much independent, though people will call me one party or the other, because I adhere to (humanitarian) some of that which is held by all parties involved.
Quote:
I would much rather we all lived like the Amish
In my adolescent youth I would fantasized about a life like theirs, who knew, people like that even existed ... not me, I hadn't a clue.
tmi, I know as you didn't ask ... but I've responded none-the-less ...
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 02-17-2019 at 08:49 PM..
I thought of something. This thread has seen constant deflections. Some people might purposely spew lies and stupidity (such as the Lost Cause) because they want attention. I suspect said persons know that what they're saying is junk. I think some people stubbornly hold on to fallacies out of anger.
In the end (as of this writing this morning) admittedly I don't really know what to make of it all either.
It seems to me that some folks want to continue to be proud of a 'Southern heritage' that doesn't include the ideas or experiences of the South's Black citizens, now now & not back then.
That the "Southern culture of honor" fails to consider the honor of its Black citizens, both then & now, is particularly unreflective.
Admittedly, personally I am sometimes angered when I consider such. I try to 'let it go' but sometimes find it challenging to do so, particularly when the scars haven't faded as much as one would hope after all these years. It would be better to 'forgive & forget' but me personally I find it challenging to do so when the 'issue' is one in which some folks continue to be so fervently proud. & so it goes.
Here are the thoughts of one great & courageous American:
Quote:
Robert E. Lee
Each year on the 19th of January there is renewed effort to canonize Robert E. Lee, the greatest confederate general. His personal comeliness, his aristocratic birth and his military prowess all call for the verdict of greatness and genius. But one thing–one terrible fact–militates against this and that is the inescapable truth that Robert E. Lee led a bloody war to perpetuate slavery. Copperheads like the New York Times may magisterially declare: “of course, he never fought for slavery.” Well, for what did he fight? State rights? Nonsense. The South cared only for State Rights as a weapon to defend slavery. If nationalism had been a stronger defense of the slave system than particularism, the South would have been as nationalistic in 1861 as it had been in 1812.
No. People do not go to war for abstract theories of government. They fight for property and privilege and that was what Virginia fought for in the Civil War. And Lee followed Virginia. He followed Virginia not because he particularly loved slavery (although he certainly did not hate it), but because he did not have the moral courage to stand against his family and his clan. Lee hesitated and hung his head in shame because he was asked to lead armies against human progress and Christian decency and did not dare refuse. He surrendered not to Grant, but to Negro Emancipation.
Today we can best perpetuate his memory and his nobler traits not by falsifying his moral debacle, but by explaining it to the young white south. What Lee did in 1861, other Lees are doing in 1928. They lack the moral courage to stand up for justice to the Negro because of the overwhelming public opinion of their social environment. Their fathers in the past have condoned lynching and mob violence, just as today they acquiesce in the disfranchisement of educated and worthy black citizens, provide wretchedly inadequate public schools for Negro children and endorse a public treatment of sickness, poverty and crime which disgraces civilization.
It is the punishment of the South that its Robert Lees and Jefferson Davises will always be tall, handsome and well-born. That their courage will be physical and not moral. That their leadership will be weak compliance with public opinion and never costly and unswerving revolt for justice and right. it is ridiculous to seek to excuse Robert Lee as the most formidable agency this nation ever raised to make 4 million human beings goods instead of men. Either he knew what slavery meant when he helped maim and murder thousands in its defense, or he did not. If he did not he was a fool. If he did, Robert Lee was a traitor and a rebel–not indeed to his country, but to humanity and humanity’s God.
To put the situation in greater context. Robert E. Lee was stationed in Texas when South Carolina seceded from the Union. After Fort Sumter, Lincoln called for "75,000 volunteers". Which weren't really volunteers in the practical sense, he requested each state send a specific number of soldiers for the purpose of invading the southern states and putting an end to secession.
Virginia did not want to secede from the union, and it worked hard to bring a peaceful end to the secession crisis. But once Lincoln made it clear that he preferred war to negotiation, it forced every state in the union to take a side.
Virginia was going to be dragged into the war one way or another. If Virginia stayed in the union it would have been required to send troops, pay money, and be a staging point for the invasion of the Confederacy.
While most people like to portray the Civil War as a kind of "good vs evil", and that Robert E. Lee chose the side of evil. In reality, the Northern intent of subjugating people by force was hardly noble. If the south was evil, the north was evil. At best we are only debating who was more evil.
Lincoln had no intention of abolishing slavery. The issue wasn't even raised for the first two years of fighting. Lincoln did so reluctantly out of political necessity. As he hated black people, thought they were inferior, and wanted them to leave the country.
Slavery continued throughout the Civil War in the "border states" of Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri. Including Lincoln's enforcement of the Fugitive-slave act in those states. To understand why, you should read this letter by Lincoln.
Five days after Fort Sumter, with war an inevitability, Virginia made the choice to defend her southern brethren from Northern aggression. And Robert E. Lee, a native Virginian, defended his home.
Robert E. Lee was probably the most-honorable man who fought in the Civil War, both sides. The attempts to slander Robert E. Lee will never succeed except among the ignorant.
"It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.
He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government."
Last edited by Redshadowz; 02-18-2019 at 06:05 AM..
In the end (as of this writing this morning) admittedly I don't really know what to make of it all either.
It seems to me that some folks want to continue to be proud of a 'Southern heritage' that doesn't include the ideas or experiences of the South's Black citizens, now now & not back then.
That the "Southern culture of honor" fails to consider the honor of its Black citizens, both then & now, is particularly unreflective.
Admittedly, personally I am sometimes angered when I consider such. I try to 'let it go' but sometimes find it challenging to do so, particularly when the scars haven't faded as much as one would hope after all these years. It would be better to 'forgive & forget' but me personally I find it challenging to do so when the 'issue' is one in which some folks continue to be so fervently proud. & so it goes.
Here are the thoughts of one great & courageous American:
I seriously heart me some WEB DuBois. My husband thinks I'm nuts cause I pine for him and Frederick Douglass because IMO they are the greatest social thinkers and activists this nation ever produced. WEB was extremely intellectual, which (may sound crazy and my husband thinks it's crazy I say this) but it is very sexy to me for a man to be as "thinking" as he was. I adore him and he was and is right about Robert E. Lee. I'd share another of my favorite quotes of his, taken from his last interview, but it would probably offend some people, so I won't.
"It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.
He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government."
FYI - not sure why you are bringing up Lincoln. As I noted earlier in the thread, it is (silly) white confederate sympathizers who seem to always believe that black people in particular have some sort of savior-esque view of Lincoln when most of us do not.
Lincoln, like Lee followed white supremacy ideology. He was no better on issues of race superiority/inferiority than Lee was. Frederick Douglass, the historical man I love the most of any others, was well aware that Lincoln was a white supremacist and that nearly all white people were back then - even a majority of white anti-slavery activists. Fred, as I call him, ran in some radical black circles and black people have always known and always shared and always reminded our activists in this nation that white people are not looking out for our best interests and most want to control our thoughts, movements, decisions, etc from a political perspective (which is why you have all these negative threads castigating black voters today even on this forum). Douglass also spoke of the condescending paternalism of whites in general, including white liberals. You don't want me to pull up some offensive quotes of his too. Both he and WEB DuBois and every other serious black intellectual and activist in this nation recognized what white supremacy was and how it is a sickness in white America. That doesn't mean though that people who had a bit more morals on the human experience couldn't be perusaded to work for the benefit of our/their cause when pressed and backed against the wall with morality. Frederick Douglass in particular was very good at using Christianity against white Christians like Lincoln. He'd shame them something fierce because he knew the Bible and they were hard pressed to refute him - the northern racist liberals in particular if they claimed to be a Christian, so they'd be pressured to actually be "Christian" and IMO Lincoln was so persuaded by him and his cohort on making the war about slavery versus "the union."
IMO Lincoln does have a moral superiority over Lee. Both were adherents of white supremacy ideology and both claimed to be Christians, but only Lincoln allowed himself to be persuaded to "do" something Christian for the benefit of millions of black Americans. And he only did it because of the pressure of the free black population and their spokesperson of note - Frederick Douglass.
ETA: the black references what I stated above in that Douglass and all black people of any sense know that Lincoln was not some savior. It is funny to me that you'd think that any black people believe this in 2019 who know a little bit about the war. It seems white people believe this stuff more than blacks. It is also interesting to me that so many white people think that blacks today are too stupid to know about these sorts of things - that black people have ourselves and our activism to applaud for our "freedom" not white people. Again, you'd probably be offended by some of the words of Douglass. I know you would be by WEB DuBois. He was much harsher than Douglass (which is one of the reasons I love him so much).
I seriously heart me some WEB DuBois. My husband thinks I'm nuts cause I pine for him and Frederick Douglass because IMO they are the greatest social thinkers and activists this nation ever produced. WEB was extremely intellectual, which (may sound crazy and my husband thinks it's crazy I say this) but it is very sexy to me for a man to be as "thinking" as he was. I adore him and he was and is right about Robert E. Lee. I'd share another of my favorite quotes of his, taken from his last interview, but it would probably offend some people, so I won't.
Can totally relate here ^.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
FYI - not sure why you are bringing up Lincoln. As I noted earlier in the thread, it is (silly) white confederate sympathizers who seem to always believe that black people in particular have some sort of savior-esque view of Lincoln when most of us do not.
Lincoln, like Lee followed white supremacy ideology. He was no better on issues of race superiority/inferiority than Lee was. Frederick Douglass, the historical man I love the most of any others, was well aware that Lincoln was a white supremacist and that nearly all white people were back then - even a majority of white anti-slavery activists. Fred, as I call him, ran in some radical black circles and black people have always known and always shared and always reminded our activists in this nation that white people are not looking out for our best interests and most want to control our thoughts, movements, decisions, etc from a political perspective (which is why you have all these negative threads castigating black voters today even on this forum). Douglass also spoke of the condescending paternalism of whites in general, including white liberals. You don't want me to pull up some offensive quotes of his too. Both he and WEB DuBois and every other serious black intellectual and activist in this nation recognized what white supremacy was and how it is a sickness in white America. That doesn't mean though that people who had a bit more morals on the human experience couldn't be perusaded to work for the benefit of our/their cause when pressed and backed against the wall with morality. Frederick Douglass in particular was very good at using Christianity against white Christians like Lincoln. He'd shame them something fierce because he knew the Bible and they were hard pressed to refute him - the northern racist liberals in particular if they claimed to be a Christian, so they'd be pressured to actually be "Christian" and IMO Lincoln was so persuaded by him and his cohort on making the war about slavery versus "the union."
IMO Lincoln does have a moral superiority over Lee. Both were adherents of white supremacy ideology and both claimed to be Christians, but only Lincoln allowed himself to be persuaded to "do" something Christian for the benefit of millions of black Americans. And he only did it because of the pressure of the free black population and their spokesperson of note - Frederick Douglass.
ETA: the black references what I stated above in that Douglass and all black people of any sense know that Lincoln was not some savior. It is funny to me that you'd think that any black people believe this in 2019 who know a little bit about the war. It seems white people believe this stuff more than blacks. It is also interesting to me that so many white people think that blacks today are too stupid to know about these sorts of things - that black people have ourselves and our activism to applaud for our "freedom" not white people. Again, you'd probably be offended by some of the words of Douglass. I know you would be by WEB DuBois. He was much harsher than Douglass (which is one of the reasons I love him so much).
Here too^!!
Re: underlined: Part of the reason why Mr. DuBois may be perceived as harsher than Mr. Douglas is likely because of the different timespans they lived & experienced. Both were extremely influential & extremely intelligent as well as being extremely articulate in expression. Mr. DuBois was in his 20s when Mr. Douglass died. They wrote about different timeframes & experiences. Mr. DuBois experienced & wrote about the Reconstruction period. Both had reasons to be extremely disappointed with the various failures of the United States of America's promises to its people.
It would be incredibly shortsighted to believe that Black people have reason to place their trust (either as individuals or as a community) &/or faith in being fairly & reasonably treated. By what criteria would this belief &/or faith in the trustworthiness of the USA be based?
Certainly not by any historical reckoning.
Just as delusional to believe the Confederate States of America was some kindof Libertarian paradise.
It's funny (ironic not haha) how the most Libertarian of 'saviors' proudly proclaim they would have opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Why would it be surprising that they continue to defend the CSA?
Re: underlined: Part of the reason why Mr. DuBois may be perceived as harsher than Mr. Douglas is likely because of the different timespans they lived & experienced. Both were extremely influential & extremely intelligent as well as being extremely articulate in expression. Mr. DuBois was in his 20s when Mr. Douglass died. They wrote about different timeframes & experiences. Mr. DuBois experienced & wrote about the Reconstruction period. Both had reasons to be extremely disappointed with the various failures of the United States of America's promises to its people.
It would be incredibly shortsighted to believe that Black people have reason to place their trust (either as individuals or as a community) &/or faith in being fairly & reasonably treated. By what criteria would this belief &/or faith in the trustworthiness of the USA be based?
Certainly not by any historical reckoning.
Just as delusional to believe the Confederate States of America was some kindof Libertarian paradise.
It's funny (ironic not haha) how the most Libertarian of 'saviors' proudly proclaim they would have opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Why would it be surprising that they continue to defend the CSA?
As long as people do not mind being property of the u.s. government, it's all good.
IMO Lincoln does have a moral superiority over Lee. Both were adherents of white supremacy ideology and both claimed to be Christians, but only Lincoln allowed himself to be persuaded to "do" something Christian for the benefit of millions of black Americans. And he only did it because of the pressure of the free black population and their spokesperson of note - Frederick Douglass.
I disagree completely. Everything Lincoln ever did was for political purposes.
Do you know why Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation? What did it actually do? Do you know why Lincoln pushed for the 13th amendment? Or why he wanted to give blacks a right to vote? Do you know why Lincoln chose Andrew Johnson as his Vice President in the 1864 election? What was Andrew Johnson's position on slavery, the planter class, and post-war reconstruction? What was the difference between Johnson's "presidential reconstruction" and "radical reconstruction"?
I think you are giving Lincoln far too much credit. He never took a position which wasn't politically-advantageous to himself and his party. He never risked anything, nor would he have lifted a finger to help a single black person if he and his party didn't benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
Lincoln, like Lee followed white supremacy ideology. He was no better on issues of race superiority/inferiority than Lee was. Frederick Douglass, the historical man I love the most of any others, was well aware that Lincoln was a white supremacist and that nearly all white people were back then - even a majority of white anti-slavery activists. Fred, as I call him, ran in some radical black circles and black people have always known and always shared and always reminded our activists in this nation that white people are not looking out for our best interests and most want to control our thoughts, movements, decisions, etc from a political perspective. Douglass also spoke of the condescending paternalism of whites in general, including white liberals. You don't want me to pull up some offensive quotes of his too. Both he and WEB DuBois and every other serious black intellectual and activist in this nation recognized what white supremacy was and how it is a sickness in white America.
I completely agree with everything you said here. But if you think only white people want to control what people are allowed to say and think, you haven't looked in the mirror.
The irony is, my entire position on separation/secession is derived in large part from what you just described.
Several years ago I was watching a video about Thomas Jefferson. They were discussing Jefferson's pessimism about race in America. Jefferson didn't believe race in America could ever be solved. That race would keep us perpetually divided, and produce convulsions which will never end until the races ceased to exist.
Many hated Jefferson's pessimism, but look at us today, 150 years after slavery, and 50 years after the Civil Rights era. All we do every single day is fight about racism. And it seems to be getting worse instead of better.
Why do we stay together? And why do you want to be "integrated" with me?
As long as people do not mind being property of the u.s. government, it's all good.
People are not property. period. full stop.
Apparently you've been brainwashed into believing people are property? How does that fit into your bogus "culture of honor" schtick?
Quote:
On Slavery and Libertarianism
Walter BLOCK
Abstract
Abstract. There is all the world of difference between voluntary and coercive slavery. The physical invasions might be identical in the two cases, but the ethical analysis of each is diametrically the opposite. The only problem with real world slavery was that it was compulsory; the slave did not agree to take on this role. Otherwise, slavery was not only “not so bad” it was a positive good, for both the slave and the slave-master, at least in the ex-ante sense, as is the case with all economic behavior.
To put the situation in greater context. Robert E. Lee was stationed in Texas when South Carolina seceded from the Union. After Fort Sumter, Lincoln called for "75,000 volunteers". Which weren't really volunteers in the practical sense, he requested each state send a specific number of soldiers for the purpose of invading the southern states and putting an end to secession.
Virginia did not want to secede from the union, and it worked hard to bring a peaceful end to the secession crisis. But once Lincoln made it clear that he preferred war to negotiation, it forced every state in the union to take a side.
Virginia was going to be dragged into the war one way or another. If Virginia stayed in the union it would have been required to send troops, pay money, and be a staging point for the invasion of the Confederacy.
While most people like to portray the Civil War as a kind of "good vs evil", and that Robert E. Lee chose the side of evil. In reality, the Northern intent of subjugating people by force was hardly noble. If the south was evil, the north was evil. At best we are only debating who was more evil.
Lincoln had no intention of abolishing slavery. The issue wasn't even raised for the first two years of fighting. Lincoln did so reluctantly out of political necessity. As he hated black people, thought they were inferior, and wanted them to leave the country.
Slavery continued throughout the Civil War in the "border states" of Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri. Including Lincoln's enforcement of the Fugitive-slave act in those states. To understand why, you should read this letter by Lincoln.
Five days after Fort Sumter, with war an inevitability, Virginia made the choice to defend her southern brethren from Northern aggression. And Robert E. Lee, a native Virginian, defended his home.
Robert E. Lee was probably the most-honorable man who fought in the Civil War, both sides. The attempts to slander Robert E. Lee will never succeed except among the ignorant.
"It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.
He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government."
How did Virginia (et al) "work hard to bring a peaceful end to the secession crisis"?
You claim you want "to put the situation in greater context" yet refuse to look at the historical record which sheds light on the context.
The Congressional Record of the 36th Congress shows proposals of the many Constitutional Amendments (President Buchanon was the 1st to propose) all designed to avert military conflict.
'US Constitution & Secession' is a recent book by Dwight Pitcaithley. His book focuses on analyzing these amendments. Basically he breaks down 350 different topics in the proposed 67 amendments. Slavery expanded in the territories is the largest topic cited. The Slave State position was that Government should protect slavery because slaves are property. 90% of the amendments proposed were about protecting slavery. 2 out of the 350 discussed tariffs. 5 were logical exit strategies for secession. One described having 4 Presidents, 1 each for North, South, East & West.
Other significant issues discussed:
Return of fugitives slaves
Protecting slavery in the District of Columbia
Slaves were taken from owners when they went to certain states (Virginia sues NY over this)
Dred Scott decision
Secession issues & reorganizing federal government
Jefferson Davis proposed nationalizing slavery (slaves as protected property)
The Corwin amendment was approved by Senate (& previously approved by the House); on Inauguration Day it was ratified by 5 states.
The Slave States seceded to protect slavery & the notion of white supremacy.
Southern states were railing against the Northern states, its people, abolitionists, & eventually Lincoln.
In his analysis of the proposed Amendments: the slave States were willing to trade State authority to protect slavery for Federal authority to protect slavery. (In other words, it was about property rights & NOT States' rights)
Historical distortion, evasion, denials, & the damaging revisionism has not served US well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
