i mean, by the grammatical rules, it's still a valid reply to the comment.

[modifier][noun][verb][modifier][noun].

gödel reminds us: "syntax all on its own cannot determine semantics".

the point is to evidence grammaticalness despite apparent meaningfulness, and the commenter may just be seeking to simulate the point with a logically consistent application of the rules at play. "incomplete" with respect to [mimicking] or [reproducing] an [socio-historical cultural] artifact, but not inconclusive in evidencing the point (remixing to produce variations on the theme; i.e., there are evidences of +20-word recursive sentences, if not larger).

nothing about the buffalo sentence entails the social rule "when someone else posts the buffalo sentence, it must match the aforementioned sentence verbatim". permutations on the point are totally fair game.

bullied bullies bully bullied bullies bullying bullied bullies

1. metacognitive myopia explained why people didn't/couldn't update their beliefs about the existence of "weapons of mass destruction etc".
2. dogwhistling the threat of sexual revolution "comrade kamala" (i.e., he's implying hypocrisy when he doesn't understand what lenin's use of the term "prostitute" meant).
3. playing the fool until you can't (i.e., making his base feel insightful and "seen" as playfully serious, homophilically/mimetically charismatic; e.g., his base feels like their inference-making is being promoted based on linguistic sympathy through the aura of charisma).
4. from (3) somewhere in his administration they're letting the would-be "fool" base do the grunt-work and creating cover; see "Optimal Team Formation Under Asymmetric Information".

elizabeth warren lampoons trump and vance

have books become too heavy for men?

since 2008 (the artilect wars) or the third "a.i." winter?

algorithms of oppression. noble.

as a black person i'm worried that donald trump's batting average isn't showing the potential it should be this season. he should spend more time in the cages.

the quantum level of description is a luxury:

Conscious intentional communication, which we perhaps too hastily attribute to human beings as a mark of distinction, becomes a limited domain, the only domain where the distinction between desirable and ‘spurious’ uncertainty pertains. We may have to concede that the centrality of human communication, understood as a semantic and culturally saturated information system is, at least in principle, neither the first system in which information processes occur, nor necessarily the most efficient.

what i'm trying to understand is the bridge between the quite damning works like Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Myth by John Kelly, R. Scha elsewhere, G. Ryle at advent of the Cognitive Revolution, deriving many of the same points as L. Wittgenstein, and then there's PMS Hacker, a daunting read, indeed, that bridge between these counter-"a.i." authors, and the easy think substance that seems to re-emerge every other decade? how is it that there are so many resolutely powerful indictments, and they are all being lost to what seems like a digital dark age? is it that the kool-aid is too good, that the sauce is too powerful, that the propaganda is too well funded? or is this all merely par for the course in the development of a planet that becomes conscious of all its "hyperobjects"?

the south thought it perfected slavery since antiquity. it's supposed that "honor" can be restored or "retvrned" in the 21st century through refounding the colosseums

qutebrowser ftw