Well, being a member at Augusta isn’t cheap, Andy Jassy gotta pay those billionaire club dues somehow . . .

I’d give anything to be in that room just so I could jiggle the body somehow and then watch them all pray for real: "Oh god, please let him stay dead, oh real Jesus please don’t wake him up now, we were only joking! Holy fuck, he could testify! Take him back! Take him back!"

No, I hadn’t seen those before now, thanks for the recommendation. The one you linked was great; I’ll have to look at the rest of them. I haven’t seen a physically bound copy of the Chicago Manual of Style since the 80s, but even so the Errorist caused me to physically cringe a couple times, lol.

Maybe I should get another copy. I write as I think and then try to clean it up afterward, which means that in reality I only have enough grammar to be able to look back and see what is still wrong after I’ve already posted something. I could use the polish!

I see what you did there, lol.

I’ve been accused multiple times of “being AI” on Lemmy alone, and it always amazes me. Usually, as far as I can tell, it’s just for being long winded and having complex sentence structure. Every time, I look back at the post they are accusing of having come out of an LLM, with all its grammatical imperfections and missed punctuation, lacking all of the polish and shine and smooth-to-the-point-of-fawning language LLMs produce, and think what are these people reading???

But strangely they never accuse me of being an old fart or call me a boomer, which would actually be true.

As someone who writes lengthy posts with dashes (see my post history) the text in OP’s screenshot is probably not out of an LLM.

There are zero em dashes, three compressed double-dashes, and four single dashes all used in the same casual way to break the flow of text, along with some ellipses and numerous grammatical inconsistencies/informalities which indicate that’s just how they write.

But they’re all different. Just so you know,

This is an em dash (note its length): —
This is an en dash (slightly shorter, but still longer than a regular dash, and has specific uses): –
This is a regular dash, the one on your keyboard: -

And different from them all, the compressed double dash. That’s what’s in OP’s screenshot, and they’re what you get on Lemmy and Reddit when you type two dashes together with no spaces between, and it passes for the em dash in human writing.

This is a compressed double-dash: –

Here on Lemmy, it looks exactly the same as an en dash, and that’s the tell: no one really uses en dashes outside specific circumstances like a parenthetical range of numbers, and why would they? En dashes are a pain in the ass. I don’t even know the keyboard shortcut for them.

But regardless of whatever else it may look like, a compressed double dash (–) is always shorter than a real em dash (—).

You can always look at the source of a comment (the little paper icon under it) to know which has been used. The only real em dashes in my online writing ever come from material copied from a source that uses them, because I don’t, at least not online.

Also, LLMs will generally employ em dashes in the old style (think books published on paper during the 19th and 20th centuries) where there is no space between the em dash and the letter it follows, like this— but I find that irritating, because visually it breaks a sentence like someone vocally stopping themselves mid-phrase. So I never do it myself, and most human writers do not anymore (though there are some) and generally it hasn’t been the style for at least twenty, thirty years now though you’ll see it in older publications like The New Yorker where their style guide hasn’t changed since the 1930s.

Rather, a human writer will generally employ an em dash — or a compressed double dash – with spaces before and after, or at least after. Like I just did. Look at the source, see it for yourself.

As someone who has written with em dashes for well over forty years I want them back, goddammit.

deleted by creator

No tinfoil needed, because what we put out into the world in terms of behavior and choices and the way we interact with others comes back to us, and everything you said simply matches what they regularly put out. They both thrive on chaos, and he especially goes out of his way to blow up whatever just quietly works, using kindness and the goodwill of others as an opening through which to exploit and destroy, so whatever comes back to them both – especially in terms of their ongoing antisocial and criminal behaviors and associations – is not going to be sane, stable, or predictable. What you wrote is prescient, not crazy.

are both acting like they are being actively blackmailed.

Yes, and imagine how much, and by how many. Think about all the parties they went to twenty-thirty years ago; all the illegal, immoral, and repugnant shit they did when none of it seemed to matter. Imagine them being quizzed by their attorneys, "Are you sure you’ve told me everything?" and having to say no because even if they do remember some of what they did, they did far too much over too long a period of time to remember any of the specifics now. Picture the moment they realize that Epstein’s penchant for having secret cameras everywhere (including tissue boxes, apparently) in addition to the cameras of paparazzi as well as the straight media means they literally have NO idea what old evils will surface next, or from where or when, or with what proof.

In that context, an individual blackmailer that comes forward with a specific demand is almost a mercy, lol.

I think you’re probably more right than you know when you surmise that their evil is coming back to them in ways and from directions they never imagined, and cannot now control. But it’s not like they are people that spared the children and family members of others, or value that kind of morality in the people they associate with, so they shouldn’t be too offended when that’s how their own actions return to them.

Their loss, our gain.

Yes! I saw that after I posted, it’s short and well worth the watch. I think he put his finger directly on it by dissecting the actual language of her statement: it is crafted to be specific to the elements of a successful defamation case. In other words, the way he sees it, it’s a very carefully worded warning to whoever is about to release some immensely damning story on her. Excellent recommendation.

For myself, what I noticed when Voidzilla dissected her speech was her repetitive mention of photos, pictures, images, meaning that if she’s trying to get ahead of something by shooting a “you know who you are” legal warning across the bow of someone about to publish, then whatever they have it’s pretty bad, and it includes photographic evidence, just going by the content and direction of her own statement.

But I saw something else as well that you might find interesting: a brief appearance by Rep. Ro Khanna on MS NOW where, after the host shows a bunch of happy group pictures of Melania not being friends with Epstein and Maxwell, he discusses one of the bizarre statements she made – “Epstein did not act alone,” which is in direct contradiction to the government line that it’s all a “hoax” and nothing to investigate – with Rep. Khanna.

Rep. Khanna’s position is simply that Melania could not have said that unless she has relevant information, and if she has relevant information, she should testify under oath before the committee. If the standard for appearance that was applied to Hillary Clinton – “I don’t know him” – is the bar for requiring someone to testify under oath in regard to their relationship with Epstein, then Melania by all means should also be among those who do. I agree.

I did not know this when I posted the above, but apparently the press conference itself was both unexpected and highly unusual, or as Heather Cox Richardson put it more than once this evening, “bizarre.”

Apparently Melania walked out of the White House, stood behind the presidential seal – in itself a huge breach of White House protocol and tradition, not that they care – and spoke for several minutes in the place of the president, who was possibly unaware that she was even doing this, and made her statement direct to camera before walking back in without another word to any of the reporters assembled for it.

Meanwhile, no one has any real idea why she did this, nor why today, nor what denying the mountains of proof of her interactions with both Epstein and Maxwell was meant to accomplish. From the NYT: (archive link)

In remarks that lasted just under six minutes, she said she wanted to clear “my good name.” She addressed rumors about the origin story of how she met her husband, the president of the United States. And she called on Congress to give a hearing to victims of Mr. Epstein’s crimes. “The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today,” Mrs. Trump said. She talked about “numerous fake images and statements about Epstein and me” that “have been percolating on social media for years now.”

It was not clear why she chose to speak out now, or to what reports she was referring.

A spokesperson for Mrs. Trump said the president knew that the first lady planned to make a statement, but later said it was not clear if Mr. Trump was aware of the topic of her remarks. In a phone call with an MS Now reporter, Mr. Trump said he had no prior knowledge of what she had planned to say.

The White House did not respond to questions about what the president knew on the matter and when.

Another pundit, George Conway, believes it is possible that she did it because she knows something that is about to come out, but no one has any real idea. Even the NYT is flummoxed, ending their article with,

And then she turned on her stiletto heels and stalked out as the dazed reporters started shouting after her: “Why now!? Why now!?”

No one knows. So if anyone can bring a cloud of confusion to a duststorm of conflicting reports and call it a job done, that’s apparently what she has accomplished today.

Note: I am aware there are problems with archive.world, but it has the content. If you have a better alternative, feel free to post it.

Meta today began removing ads from attorneys who were seeking clients that claim to have been harmed by social media

. . . Thereby proving the absolute ease and facility with which content can be rapidly identified and removed when that content removal serves the corporation, and thereby actively helping to prove the plaintiffs’ cases for them.

Now that’s meta.

Given that the survivors at every turn are asking for privacy, for protection, and that their own names be redacted from the process, this is, in my own opinion, nothing short of a brutally insane twisting of the judicial process to force the victims to carry the weight of it all.

Also, Mrs. Trump’s statement becomes even more farcical for anyone aware of the Congressional Record of which she speaks.

“Each and every woman should have her day to tell her story in public if she wishes, and then her testimony should be permanently entered into the congressional record,” she said.

Yeah, no. As any historian will tell you, if you want truth, the Congressional Record is not the first place you go look for it. From Wikipedia,

By custom and the rules of each house, members also frequently “revise and extend” their remarks made on the floor before the debates are published in the Congressional Record.

What this means in practice is that there is a certain amount of time during which any member can edit and even remove whatever they want from the official record of what they said, among other allowed changes. Thus it is not nearly so much a record of what was actually said, as it is a record of what a member would have liked to say.

Add to this the fact that the other Epstein-related depositions have been conducted privately and under very different rules via subpoenas issued by the House Oversight Committee, and any survivor would be unwise, at best, to engage in any part of this charade: they would have no protection whatsoever not only from the public, but from the very members of the Committee they would be testifying in front of, or whatever body of Congress actually conducts this circus.

To put it bluntly, for every Ro Khanna or Thomas Massie who genuinely wants to see the truth come out, there are a hundred Gym Jordans and James Comers and Lindsey Grahams who desperately want the survivors to shut the fuck up, and will do whatever immoral, illegal act they have to do to make sure that happens.

If Melania Trump had set out to victimize the survivors further, she literally could not have done a better job than this.

The stupidity comes from trying to threaten a religious figurehead of a church of 1 billion people with assassination in our media enstrangled world when the president can’t even handle the bad polling from gas prices going up.

I have no doubt some of his inner circle would gladly murder the pope to make a point, but their evil is also grossly incompetent.

This, exactly. I’m not even a believer, but I know the history very well, and I’d readily bet on a group that has lasted in its current form for roughly a thousand years (see note below) and has something like 1.3 billion adherents, over a diaper-wearing kiddie-raping bully that hasn’t even made 80 and is firing his own cabinet members during the most stupid war he could ever have started while he systematically works to destroy his own country. They believe in an unconquerable god and heavenly king; Trump believes he is god and wants to be a king. In a war of ideas with a roomful of religious historians (aka Jesuits) Trump’s bullies are not winning jack shit.

Whoever mentioned Avignon meant it as a threat, but for anyone who knows history – and these cardinals certainly do – in 2000 years of Christianity, for the Catholics Avignon was a blip in time that the Church overcame and was made stronger by. Knowing some historically-minded Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox, too!) and how into the history they really, really are, the mention of Avignon is not nearly as much of a threat to the Pope as it is a reminder of the supremacy of the church throughout the ages, and how challengers come and go but the Church remains.

The cardinals really do think like this; this is not an exaggeration. That DoD fool only thought he was lecturing the cardinal, lol. I’ve been personally witness to sincere, hours-long religious arguments over historical concepts like apostolic succession (though not with cardinals, lol), and compared to that Avignon wasn’t even a hiccup. I’d put money on all those cardinals catching each other’s eyes and smirking when the Americans weren’t looking, because every cardinal in that room was thinking about papal history in the long term: in that context, the DoD rep was simply making an ass of himself.

Let’s see Polymarket take this one up. Pope v. Trump: who wins? It’s a no-brainer. I’ll take the guy in the white dress.

Note: I’m going with the Great Schism of 1054; others might calculate it differently

Too old and useless to go full Alexander VI, but yeah.

Also, unless the meeting is on your own turf, how do you diplomatically refuse to sit on a couch that was there with JD before you got there? I don’t think pope training covers this.

Especially in the Oval Office: chances are non-zero that any seat you might take in the room has had either diaper breach, Crown Prince Couchfucker after hours, or both.

A guy who has to dress in white for the job has to think about these things, because if he sits on the wrong couch in the white robe, when he stands up again now it’s HIS story. So in the end it’s gotta be either “I’ll just stand, thanks,” or like you said, not go at all.

I posted this in the other sub and forgot to do it here, my apologies. Anyway, the actual letter sent yesterday by Ro Khanna and Nancy Mace to Chairman Comer explains the actual legal position and precedent, and the DoJ refusal to have Bondi appear has no legal substance at all. It’s an easy read, so I included the text along with the source. See it for yourself.

Note especially the assertion made in paragraph 5, “As you know, Congress’s oversight authority does not end when an official leaves office. In fact, just last year the Committee issued subpoenas to six former Attorneys General, spanning multiple administrations of both political parties.”

Even a President and an ex-Secretary of State/Senator had to appear in response to the same kind of subpoena from the same committee: there is no legal room for Pam Bondi to refuse. Whether there is poitical will to hold her feet to the fire is another matter, and with Republicans crossing the aisle for this, there just might be. Time will tell.

Source

Congress of the United States
Washington, DC 20515

April 7, 2026

The Honorable James Comer
Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Comer,

We urge you to make clear former Attorney General Pam Bondi remains obligated to comply with the Oversight Committee’s subpoena and appear for her scheduled deposition on April 14, 2026.

We moved to subpoena Pam Bondi, and the Committee voted to approve this motion on a bipartisan basis, because the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) still has not complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act (Public Law No: 119-38), and because serious questions remain regarding the DOJ’s non-compliance and their handling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his associates while she was Attorney General.

The removal of Pam Bondi as Attorney General does not diminish the Committee’s legitimate oversight interests in seeking her sworn testimony or the need for accountability and information about files withheld from the public by the DOJ. On the contrary, it makes her sworn testimony even more important, especially with respect to actions she took as Attorney General, matters already under investigation, and decisions made under her leadership.

When Pam Bondi appeared last month for a briefing, you reiterated you would continue to pursue her sworn testimony and would discuss holding her in contempt of Congress if she failed to comply. She also stated that she would follow the law with respect to her subpoena, which clearly requires her to appear before the Oversight Committee.

As you know, Congress’s oversight authority does not end when an official leaves office. In fact, just last year the Committee issued subpoenas to six former Attorneys General, spanning multiple administrations of both political parties. The American people deserve answers about whether Congress was misled and whether information is being withheld by the DOJ.

We ask you to publicly reaffirm that Pam Bondi must appear on April 14 for a sworn deposition as ordered or face appropriate enforcement if she refuses to comply.

Sincerely,

Ro Khanna
Member of Congress
U.S. House of Representatives

Nancy Mace
Member of Congress
U.S. House of Representatives

The actual letter sent yesterday by Ro Khanna and Nancy Mace to Chairman Comer explains that the DoJ refusal to have Bondi appear has no legal substance at all. It’s an easy read, so I included the text along with the source. See it for yourself.

Note especially the assertion made in paragraph 5, “As you know, Congress’s oversight authority does not end when an official leaves office. In fact, just last year the Committee issued subpoenas to six former Attorneys General, spanning multiple administrations of both political parties.”

Source

Congress of the United States Washington, DC 20515

April 7, 2026

The Honorable James Comer
Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Comer,

We urge you to make clear former Attorney General Pam Bondi remains obligated to comply with the Oversight Committee’s subpoena and appear for her scheduled deposition on April 14, 2026.

We moved to subpoena Pam Bondi, and the Committee voted to approve this motion on a bipartisan basis, because the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) still has not complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act (Public Law No: 119-38), and because serious questions remain regarding the DOJ’s non-compliance and their handling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his associates while she was Attorney General.

The removal of Pam Bondi as Attorney General does not diminish the Committee’s legitimate oversight interests in seeking her sworn testimony or the need for accountability and information about files withheld from the public by the DOJ. On the contrary, it makes her sworn testimony even more important, especially with respect to actions she took as Attorney General, matters already under investigation, and decisions made under her leadership.

When Pam Bondi appeared last month for a briefing, you reiterated you would continue to pursue her sworn testimony and would discuss holding her in contempt of Congress if she failed to comply. She also stated that she would follow the law with respect to her subpoena, which clearly requires her to appear before the Oversight Committee.

As you know, Congress’s oversight authority does not end when an official leaves office. In fact, just last year the Committee issued subpoenas to six former Attorneys General, spanning multiple administrations of both political parties. The American people deserve answers about whether Congress was misled and whether information is being withheld by the DOJ.

We ask you to publicly reaffirm that Pam Bondi must appear on April 14 for a sworn deposition as ordered or face appropriate enforcement if she refuses to comply.

Sincerely,

Ro Khanna
Member of Congress
U.S. House of Representatives

Nancy Mace
Member of Congress
U.S. House of Representatives

You should be. Platner’s not tested. He could be fantastic, or . . . not.

But as far as Fetterman and Sinema, what you said is true on the national stage, maybe. Fetterman was a mayor and a lieutenant governor before getting his Senate seat, and Sinema was in both her state House and Senate before going to DC, so they were both already very well versed in saying whatever they needed to say to get where they wanted to go. And Fetterman, especially, came to DC with a number of warnings behind him.

What has me hopeful (not certain, just hopeful) for Platner is that unlike those two, this is Platner’s first foray into politics: he really is just an oyster farmer. That, and between Janet Mills and Susan Collins, Platner’s opposition is SO horrendously bad as to be laughable. So even if Platner himself didn’t have my full confidence, the others are making up for that in spades.

But don’t get me wrong, unlike the trolls I’m not trying to change anyone’s vote. I responded to that other guy because watching him gather up his skirts and squeal about a single, now-covered skull-and-bones tat while he ignores all the real Nazis made me laugh. If you’re in Maine, vote your conscience, whatever it is. I wouldn’t presume to change it. But for myself, if I were a Mainer, I’d much rather take a new, not-yet-corrupt candidate over any of the current offerings.

I don’t want to dox myself but it’s actually far, FAR worse in my state: if you knew the name of the corrupt motherfucker who is my senator, you’d be like, “Oh, okay, I see your point, lol.”

Oh, the horror. Oh, the tragedy.

Thing is, Graham Platner doesn’t ACT like a Nazi. He acts like a man who cares about his community, his state, and his country, which he actually served as a soldier, and during which service he obtained said tattoo.

Our president, on the other hand, IS an actual fucking Nazi – whose own military service, which he called his “own personal Vietnam,” consisted of a bout of syphilis – and who has installed an actual fascist government, and you’re trembling in your Mary Janes over one ex-soldier-turned-fisherman’s ink, lol.

I note you have not a single word to say about Hegseth’s actual Nazi tattoos, (archive link) much less the administration in place that is fascist by definition.

Nope, you’re going against the one guy that actually cares about his neighbors and his state, trotting out squeals of disapproval over a single (very common) tattoo like it’s 1955 and you’re his grandmother afraid he’s going to hell for it, lol.

Let me go cry in terror and moral outrage now because I saw a grown man’s ink, lol. Oh, wait . . . that’s not my position, that’s yours.

Note: Out of many articles available on the far-right associations of Hegseth’s tattoos, I specifically chose Der Spiegel because they know Nazis better than anyone else. It translates easily. Here’s the upshot: “It is unlikely that Pete Hegseth would not be aware of all this: “Crusader symbolism” today primarily represents right-wing radical or even right-wing extremist sentiment.” Have fun.

It’s a baby shower. Wanda’s meatstorm already came.