Nope.

Quote [1]:

While I’m being politically incorrect, let me describe to you the mind of a teenage boy. Our frontal lobes aren’t complete. We don’t imagine the future. Our bodies want sex more than we want to stay alive. Literally. Lonely boys tend to be suicidal when the odds of future female companionship are low.

So if you are wondering how men become cold-blooded killers, it isn’t religion that is doing it. If you put me in that situation, I can say with confidence I would sign up for suicide bomb duty. And I’m not even a believer. Men like hugging better than they like killing. But if you take away my access to hugging, I will probably start killing, just to feel something. I’m designed that way. I’m a normal boy. And I make no apology for it.

There's a lot to unpack here, starting with equating female companionship to sex, and ending with the dichotomy between having sex and murdering people.

I started looking for a source of his hypnosis quote, and stumbled into [2].

Umm. Not going to quote it.

[3] is a higher level overview of Scott Adams' hypnotism. It didn't make me any happier.

Ugh. I used to like Dilbert in the 90s as a kid. Wish I knew about Scott Adams now as much as I knew then.

That's to say, wish he wasn't such a horrible person.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20160116140056/http://blog.dilbe...

[2] https://www.tumblr.com/manlethotline/616428804059086848/hey-...

[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelschein/2018/06/20/dilber...

To clarify, this is an example of RFK's lunacy, not the user's opinion to be voted on.

Since when is government censorship of social media posts[1] not "directly tech-adjacent"?

I adore the mental gymnastics here.

[1] The post with Mark Kelly being discussed: https://www.instagram.com/reels/DRMxZAnlUF9/

Thanks for adding context. No thanks for the “mental gymnastics” snark.

Factual reporting from a reputable news source.

That's "the kind of content" you're talking about.

I hope that it does belong on this website, because otherwise, it'd be little more than trashy blogspam.

Cheers.

My understanding is that they consider this part nihilistic, though it sounds more like apathy, jadedness, and learned helplessness with a dash of catastrophizing (and a hefty amount of privilege) to me.

For the record, I was born in the USSR, and grew up in Ukraine in the 1990s. I can assure you that the US is neither a failed nor an impotent state by a long shot.

Not yet, at least.

And as a Ukrainian, I can also assure you that giving up this easily, and this early is straight up silly.

I should resist more by saying, wow guys, this fascist action described in this BBC article sure shows how immoral Hegseth is! I should believe in the power of someone arresting the Secretary of War for his crimes, and I should list all the notable examples of party members being ostracized for loyalty from the current administration to emphasize how silly any viewpoint saying otherwise is! It would be grossly apathetic to comment that loyalty is clearly the most valued “virtue” any member of the current US leadership can exhibit, and I am just so privileged to say how it seems bad the most powerful military of all time is doing nothing to stop itself from being utilized however that glorious leadership desires!

Thanks so much for educating me!

Clear to whom? You are clearly referring to the BBC article (that's the content); characterizing it as "pervaded with doublespeak" is a hot new take; particularly given that BBC isn't an American entity to begin with.

Please point out what exactly in the article you consider to be an instance of "doublespeak".

> And what is there to say about it? The comment section seems to pretty clearly align on "there is both no legal authority for this move and the action being punished is clearly not illegal"

Well that's exactly the thing you say. You said it.

It's not a controversial thing for reasonable people, so we're all in agreement. It's a good thing.

Now, if you are arguing against the "kind of content" on which "the comment section seems to clearly align", that's a point on which I disagree with you.

Since we're not in alignment on this, this validates the belonging of this content here by your own metric.

Are we good now?

> yet we will all get to watch this slowly unravel however Trump wants, will we not?

Oh, great point! We could talk about how that outcome could be avoided, or what could be done in general.

We could, for example, wonder out loud whether it's worth mentioning such acts of administration at all. I think it'd be a very counterproductive response.

What do you think?

How about the part where the Pentagon, staffed by a Fox News anchor, fresh off firing the top legal heads, are now accusing a decorated American of sedition for reciting the law?

> Since we're not in alignment on this

We seem perfectly aligned.

> We could talk about how that outcome could be avoided, or what could be done in general

We could also run on a hamster wheel. Both would be equally impactful.

So, there's no doublespeak in the article. There's doublespeak in what the article is reporting on.

I agree that the event the article is discussing is not what any of us wants to see. It is very unpleasant.

The article isn't; do you have a difficulty distinguishing the two?

> We could also run on a hamster wheel. Both would be equally impactful.

If nothing is worth doing, then that surely applies to your comment that started this thread.

> We seem perfectly aligned.

Do we, now?

Right, so the interesting thing that can be discussed and inspire our curiosity that is contained in the article is supposed to be what exactly?

> The article isn't; do you have a difficulty distinguishing the two?

You are leaning on this single observation so overtly it makes me wonder if you understand what the point of an article is - are you here to discuss the author's prose or the subject the writing describes?

> > We seem perfectly aligned.

> Do we, now?

I suppose I have to agree with you now. You seem to think this type of article will foster interesting discussion; I think it's only likely to flair emotions and surface a few people who have fallen for the propaganda. Certainly, I don't think anyone will have a new and interesting observation on the topic or any adjacent ones. The content of the thread would support my stance, and the fact your only participation in it is posting meta-defense of the article staying up rather than discussing the article perfectly aligns with my point: clown politics where might makes right are inherently boring to discuss, displeasing to think about, and when they are as insignificant and absurd as this action they will bring no insights to either the reader or the commenter.

Go figure.

The point the author made in the article is that the reconstructors are well aware of this, and are, in a way, trolling the masses to raise awareness and attract attention to the classical art and museums.

Keeping history alive generally isn't a profitable enterprise.

LPT: on Android, pressing and holding a punctuation key on the on-screen keyboard reveals additional variations of it — like the em-dash, for example.

This is the №1 feature I expect everyone to know about (and explore!), but, alas, it doesn't appear to be the case even on Hackernews¹.

On Windows, pressing Win+. pops up an on-screen character keyboard with all the symbols one may need (including math symbols and emojis).

MacOS has a similar functionality IIRC.

And let's not forget that software like MS Word automatically correct dashes to em-dashes when appropriate — and some people may simply prefer typing text in a word processor and copy-pasting from it.

Anyway...

_____

¹ For example, holding "1" yields the superscript version, enabling one to format footnotes properly with less effort than using references in brackets², yet few people choose to do that.

² E.g. [2]

In addition to ones at state level, yes.