Another thing I noticed is that the character is named Dilberg. That's awfully close to Dilbert, and combined with the office setting it feels like it has to be a reference.

I'm not sure if it's supposed to be satire (because the Dilbert guy is a twat), an homage (because the author is a twat who likes another twat), or just a coincidence.

It's another point where the comic seems more confusing than communicative.

Das Update ist ja mal so an der Kritik vorbei. Das Problem ist nicht die Formulierung! Das Problem ist, dass man eine Regel geschaffen hat, die man jederzeit zücken kann, wenn einem Kritik nicht passt. 'clear evidence' ist einfach eine weitere Floskel, die man aus der Situation heraus definieren kann. Mein Vorschlag wäre ein Addendum am Ende des Regelabschnitts, keine feste Regel. Irgendwas in der Art:

ADDENDUM: Please remember that admins are humans and users too. Rules 1, 3, 5, and 11 also apply to criticism of instances and admins. Criticism and disagreement are welcome, but they should be based on reasonable evidence and expressed respectfully. Nazi comparisons and comparisons to other extremist groups are are almost always disrespectful and inappropriate.

Lässt dem Admin-Team die Freiheit eine der genannten Regeln anzuwenden, führt aber zu keiner grundsätzlichen Sonderstellung von Admins im Regelwerk

I think it is just some overzealous name redaction.

The arm of the cactus in the first frame is also pointing forwards or towards the position of the second frame. In the second frame the arm is pointing away from the camera.

Somebody rearranged the whole cupboard between the frames.

"Importance: High"

Are you confusing BlackRock and Blackstone? The core business of BlackRock is selling ETFs and other funds containing shares and bonds. Blackstone, on the other hand, is directly involved in the real estate and private equity markets.

Both are problematic, but it’s important to address the issue accurately

Mhm will nur verpixelt gezeigt werden, zusammen mit nahezu allen Informationen, um ihn zu identifizieren. Bei der Informationsmenge im Artikel wäre das doch kein doxing mehr.

Ist der Dude einfach der nächste rechte Lappen, der wieder nur so tut als hätte er ernsthaft Angst um sein Leben?

Gab es diesen Angriff überhaupt. Gerade in dem Milleu ist das ja schon vorgekommen.

Oder ist das tatsächlich eine stabile Recherearbeit der Journalisten, ob nun motiviert durch antifaschistischer Überzeugung oder weil sie das "Nur Verpixelt"-Mimimi angepisst hat?

Ich hasse diese gesamte Story so sehr. Überall ist er der Dude der Habeck Schwachkopf genannt hat und nun vor Gericht steht.

Das er nicht vor Gericht steht, weil er Habeck Schwachkopf genannt hat, sondern sich die Ermittler aufgrund der Anzeige sein Profil genauer angeschaut haben und der Meinung sind verfassungsfeindliche Symbole gefunden zu haben, steht immer nur irgendwo im Fließtext. Er ist einfachbder traurige Versuch einen Pimmel-Andy-Skandal mit Opfer im rechten Spektrum zu etablieren.

Erschreckend finde ich das Jornalistys dem so hinterherlaufen. In jeden anderen Artikel würde der Titel lauten "Mann muss sich vor Gericht wegen verfassungsfeindlichen Symbolen verantworten" mit einem kleinen Verweis, wie er ins Visier der Ermittler geraten ist.

A little reminder that Sun Tzu "The Art of War" is not some grand masterpiece in strategic thinking. It is a guide aimed at nobelmen that were so far removed from reality, that they needed to be told things like "You can't just order a win in a real competition" or "If you don't give your soldiers food, they become weak and die"

The reason, why his literature created such a cultural ripple, is that telling them these absolute basic things, massively improved there performance on the battlefield. Not because it made them a grand strategic thinker, but because they no longer acted like spoiled toddlers throwing toys around.

Saying someone is a Sun Tzu-level strategic thinker, means they have an absolute basic grasp on reality and nothing really more.

So either 4D Chess is much more simple than regular chess, or this knob doesn't know the things he's referencing.

Iirc He wasn't lost. Somebody told the authorities, that the guy was missing and that he wanted to go on a hike. So they called him to see if he really was lost. He didn't answer the call, so they presumed he was injured or lost his phone. With this information they declared him lost and started a search.

There is a fine line between valid criticism of gender roles & sexism.

An example of the former would be, "Men are dangerous for women". Of course not all men are dangerous, but it describes the experience of many women & how they have to navigate the world, to not be assaulted.

This one describes the dynamic of a relationship between individuals & assigns a thought pattern to one of those individuals, based on their gender.

Maybe I missed some nuances here & I would be glad to be enlightened, but this looks like plain sexism.

Yes even Putin. Putin deserves to be put in front of a court of law & sentenced to live in a high-security low-luxury prison. Death sentences or perpetual fear of life are always undeserved & as a punishment, incompatible with a modern society.