[alterom]

>It's pretty clear the "kind of content" I'm referring to is the doublespeak that pervades American politics

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?

[nawgz]

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

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.

[alterom]

> 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?

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?

[nawgz]

> There's doublespeak in what the article is reporting on.

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.