
Why Men Love War (1984) - exolymph
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a28718/why-men-love-war/
======
fapjacks
I was in the infantry for over a decade. I joined before 9/11, but I did
reenlist some years afterward, and I deployed a bunch, and fought many times.
The thing about the article is that he says right there in the first couple
paragraphs... Nobody that hasn't been there will understand the core message
here. Worse, it's not socially palatable to embrace your innate human
violence, despite it being such an intrinsic biological function of survival.
And so even if some people might understand _something_ of what this guy is
talking about, they'd never admit it openly, and generally the most
appropriate response our culture expects is some kind of pearl-clutching. So
that's what people do. Even if they're genuinely curious and want to
understand. Even if they _do_ understand this universal truth to some degree.
The one thing I discovered that surprised me the most when I joined was how
_normal_ everybody was. Soldiers are people, too. Sure, there are psychos and
shitheads and scumbags, just like any community. But we were all born on
planet Earth.

What I mean to say is this: Violence is built into every human being. Or as
one of my favorite quotes of Captain Picard goes, "The seed of violence is
within each of us". When I joined the army, I realized the most dangerous
thing that could happen is for regular people to think that they're not
capable of the things they read in the news.

~~~
agumonkey
About violence: I often feel that there's an "art" or a skill to master
violence. As you say it's incarnation of survival; but emotionally and
socially too. As a guy who naturally submits peacefully even if I feel
aggressed. At some point I had enough and started to be able to embody my
internal violent reaction. Not as an act but as a communication device. You're
pushing me, you're about to get pushed, you can read it on my face, my tone,
my posture / body language. If you didn't mean it then fine, let's keep it at
that, apologies are welcome. That's something that most people can't really
learn and get stepped on by others. (the recent woman movement displayed part
of that, they stood silent, now they stopped doing so).

Society tries to tame violence, all good, but by supressing it we're not
really improving things, we need people to master it in a way.

ps: a few years back some guy wrote a piece about why he loved war; title
being counter intuitive, you'd expect a violent idiot but it was not. His
point is that war is mentally easier than society, where every body lies, and
confusion is normal. In war he said things become binary, friend or ennemy,
inaction = death, decision = life. I found it very interesting.

~~~
hutzlibu
"In war he said things become binary, friend or ennemy, inaction = death,
decision = life. "

Well ... not in every war. Also mentioned in the article, when you face
guerilla and not a clearly marked enemy, things get messy. Btw. the most
effective war tactics are to create confusion in the enemy, that they don't
know anymore where they are and where their friends are and how many enemys
etc.

Also people struggled a lot when they fough in a war they don't believe in.
But even then, you are right, things are simple when you are with your
comrades and under fire.

------
DanielBMarkham
This article resonated with me. I was a Marine (no combat), didn't like it,
but knew and respected the hell out of people who made a career out of it.

I learned several lessons in the service, many of which people don't want to
talk about.

It takes only a few armed and motivated men to dominate hundreds, perhaps
thousands of people. So disarmament and pacifism is not a workable strategy
until the day we start programming people as if they were machines. Somebody
has to have the job of being the most violent person in the room.

Everybody is violent. We are violent as a species. I think this is the thing
that bothers so many people. They'd rather just turn away, pretend it's only
others, and so forth. There is a ton of disgust and denial about who we are.
We confuse who we aspire to be with our actual state. There may be Ghandis and
Jesuses in our midst, but they are an extremely small percentage of the
population. We are monkeys that kill things.

War is bad because of what is does to all participants, not just because it
involves hurting and killing others. War slowly erodes our civilization,
making more and more extreme things "normal". It doesn't matter who wins, who
loses, or what the cause is. War harms everybody -- perhaps especially the
ones who win, who view war as a logical remedy for whatever the next problem
that they have. Those who have served avoid war not out of kindness for
others, but because of the terrible destruction it will bring on our own
society every time it is used.

(This, by the way, is another argument for the citizen soldier. Making war a
separate profession that most people never experience just makes the self
destruction that war does to civilization even worse, by isolating it and
keeping it hidden. It also causes all sorts of misunderstandings and
prejudices. The volunteer armed forces was a hack in the middle of Vietnam. It
worked for a while, but it is having horrible long-term effects. Very bad
stuff.)

I think the analogy that stuck with me most about this was that war may be the
male version of motherhood, that is, the closest we come to being true to our
biological selves. Somehow this feels right, although that's just intuition on
my part.

Note: I am as non-violent as a person can get. I'm not trying to say that any
of this is _okay_ , simply that it appears to exist, whether it's okay or not.

~~~
tomxor
> Everybody is violent. We are violent as a species. I think this is the thing
> that bothers so many people. They'd rather just turn away, pretend it's only
> others, and so forth. There is a ton of disgust and denial about who we are.
> We confuse who we aspire to be with our actual state. There may be Ghandis
> and Jesuses in our midst, but they are an extremely small percentage of the
> population. We are monkeys that kill things.

I agree with the sentiment of your post about the denialism in the modern
world, but I slightly disagree that people are one or the other in extreme
proportions, I feel like a good analogy is to view those potentials more as
phenotypes that can be expressed to varying degrees along side each other
(simultaneously), and a phenotype can change from one moment to the next
depending on the environment. In other words - I think we are both Gandhi and
the violent monkey and many other things.

I say this not from philosophical or psychological musings, I say this simply
because with the slightest introspection I feel the potential for it all in me
simultaneously - there's the part of me that arrogantly "knows" he can be the
most bad ass muthafucka alive if needed, and part of me who has a more
rationally minded world view and looks down upon mindless and pointless
violence, and a great many things in between.

> I think the analogy that stuck with me most about this was that war may be
> the male version of motherhood, that is, the closest we come to being true
> to our biological selves.

Absolutely, I don't think I need to argue this one for any man, but perhaps I
can just resonate this: i'm not a very social person, I didn't learn these
traits, but I definitely feel the propensity for violence given the right
conditions, be it something admirable i.e "protective", or not i.e "vengful".

As usual understanding these things rather than rejecting them out of some
miss-placed shame of humanity is the correct way to move forward, accept who
we are and understand why. Understanding them should gives us the power to
either follow or reject the emotion that drives them to be expressed, rather
than being led by them blindly like an animal.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Thank you for that clarification. I agree. We have all of that inside of us. I
meant _in comparison to what we wish we were, we are monkeys that kill
things_. My point was made poorly. Nice catch.

------
ISL
This is a compelling long read. If the subject is of interest, the movie
Restrepo and this talk from Sebastian Junger [1] may be of interest, too.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn0zEBhvwXY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn0zEBhvwXY)

~~~
mariodiana
The book, "War," from Sebastian Junger is well worth a read. I read it before
seeing "Restrepo" (which I also recommend). On Goodreads, I wrote this about
Junger's book and his take on men and war after finishing it:

"[T]he experience of warfare seems to strike a chord deep within the psyche of
the men in combat. The bonding among men, the heroism, the swinging extremes
of victory won only by the palpable threat of mortal danger, the adrenaline
rush and flood of endorphins during and after battle seem to be almost
overwhelming to the human animal, eclipsing any larger moral considerations or
even the rest of what we might call everyday life. To the men in the thick of
the fight, it's an unrepeatable experience that they find themselves strangely
missing years afterwards. What they miss doesn't minimize the horror of what
they've experienced, and that's what they find so strange. In some respects
once the shooting starts, the soldiers have all the justification they need to
continue indefinitely. The immediacy of the experience provides satisfaction
enough and requires no further rationale. In some ways it creates a microcosm
of life and packs more than a lifetime's worth of living into its fleeting
moments. How can life afterwards compare?"

~~~
Nzen
This reminds me of the comments [0] on skydiving and depression from last
month.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16840955](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16840955)

> I heard a interview with a vet and climber once who described the appeal of
> alpinism as "all of the good parts of combat, without the shooting or any
> conscious thing trying to cause me harm".

~~~
ryanmarsh
He was doing his best to self medicate. That’s him trying to convince himself
the medicine is good.

Nothing comes close to combat. Nothing. There’s such an ocean between the
sickening frantic chaotic competition with Death and “oh shit if this rock
slips I’m going to end up a paragraph on page two of the morning paper”.

Plenty of us combat vets climb, and for the same reasons. Don’t be confused.
Climbing can kill you like cigarettes, combat is like smoking crack while
trying to land a jet on a carrier deck at night in a storm.

------
aphextron
This is the single thing that freaked me out the most about our military and
made me realize it wasn't the place for me when I joined at 17. Being a high
school kid and meeting people who will look you straight in the eye and laugh
as they talk about murdering someone, or watching their comrade's head
explode. And not hypothetically, but in real, gruesome detail. I guess there's
a need for that kind of person to exist to do our dirty work. But they are
broken human beings and it is an absolute tragedy.

~~~
rootusrootus
That feels like a fairly unique experience. I was in the military and I don't
recall ever meeting anyone with that sort of attitude towards killing or
death. On the contrary, most everyone I knew was rather opposed to fighting
and saw what we were signed up for as a necessity that we did out of duty to
our country, not because we _liked_ it.

~~~
ryanx435
Are you serious?

The Marines literally make you say "kill" during combat training.

The phrase for firing a machine gun is "die mother fucker die mother fucker
die mother fucker release" (release the trigger to prevent over heating of the
barrel)

Every time we went on a platoon run the diddies are about murdering our
enemies.

I honestly don't believe you were in the military, or you seem to have
forgotten what it was really like. Or maybe you were in the air Force, but
definitely not the Marine corps.

Source: I got out after 2 deployments in the Marine corps as a Sergeant.

~~~
EliRivers
The U.S. Marines (and to a lesser extent other US infantry forces) are well-
known for this sort of thing; for heavy mental preparation and priming to
kill. It's standard in many other US forces, and non-US forces, to _not_
experience this in training. As such, it's very possible to be in the US
military without being trained to chant about killing people and so forth.

What's more interesting is that this is not always known to people inside the
group; that they believe it to be the standard (people from other military
occupations are likewise often surprised when they witness a group of people
team-chanting about killing people, having believed their own approach to be
standard, and in my experience some European military find it a little
disturbing, as they tend to be even further removed from this approach).
Everyone takes their own experience and generalises it across the board; the
US marines are an extremum in the field of mentally preparing (or
indoctrinating) people to kill.

Horses for courses; it only becomes a problem in the field when you put people
heavily indoctrinated in killing into a deployment where _not_ shooting people
is really what's needed, and vice-versa. Unfortunately, that's where it has
fallen down over the last decade or so.

------
forkLding
Guy sounds like an asshole, I'm pretty sure theres plenty Vietnamese during
the Vietnam War who didn't love the "war".

War sounds sexy from afar because theres relief to soldiers with guns who can
later on just leave that life and rest with their actual kids while Vietnamese
civilians wander around trying to survive and not die from bombings, shootings
or to be played around by soldiers from any side. One can ask any Syrian
refugee about how much they love the Syrian Civil War to understand this.

My consensus is basically if you have some kind of power or can be relieved
later on, war is a great experience. If its your actual life, then you dread
walking outside to gather supplies and food to survive. War is only fun when
you actually have some decent control over it.

~~~
microcolonel
I think unfortunately no distinction has been drawn between combat and war.
War sucks, but apparently combat is very compelling.

------
wufufufu
I find it ironic that he talks about the power of love after ditching the
Vietnamese girl he was going to have a future with "the way all men betrayed
the women who helped them through the war".

~~~
sillysaurus3
Smearing someone's reputation is probably ok, but only with substantive
sources. Otherwise it's far too easy to just throw out a half-truth.

~~~
wufufufu
Read the last 7-8 paragraphs. The talk about "the power of love" cheapens what
is otherwise a resonating piece. No where else does love (apart from "loving"
war) come into play.

------
arca_vorago
It provides a sense of purpose, it builds comraderie, and actual combat is
more addictive than any drug.

There ya go, the basics in easily digestible civilian form.

~~~
agumonkey
I often wonder if economic competition is not a re-emergence of that need into
a non physical manner. Kinda like sport. You try to kill your opponent but
symbolically (team or alone).

~~~
fapjacks
It absolutely is, and it's at the core of everything else we do -- even if it
doesn't seem that way on the surface -- because violence is a core component
of what it means to be human. Not only human, but an animal from mother
nature. Violence is just nature asserting itself. Anyone that thinks they can
beat mother nature is fooling themselves.

------
danieltillett
Humans appear to have a separate thought module when it comes to war - my
guess is it is probably biological and has undergone a great deal of selection
over the millions of years since the first proto-wars were fought successfully
by our ancestors against our non-ancestors.

It is quite useful to keep this is mind when trying to organise social unitary
to tackle important issues and why calls for a "war on x" fail unless the x is
real war target.

------
pryce
This writer circles poignant issues but I don't feel like he has enough
insight to shed any real illumination on them.

I'm actually pretty alarmed that he seems to think society no longer
glamourises war and in almost the same breath describes how our cultural
depictions are transmuted from showing outright psychopathy to evoking glamour
(Wagner being played for the US invasion of Granada in 1983, 4 years after
Apocalypse Now hit cinemas).

~~~
baruchthescribe
He fought in Vietnam. He has more than enough insight by definition.

~~~
pryce
Insight and personal experience are not synonyms: as an example, poor coders
may possess a great deal of experience, but little insight.

This author certainly has thought about this a great deal - I love how he
intentionally weaves a kind of incoherence into his own writing while showing
why attempting to 'telling it straight' could never communicate what it was
like on the ground. I absolutely love Tim O'Brien's writing for this.

But deciding 'he fought in Vietnam, therefore his analysis of what War means
for Men In General are beyond critique' seems a warped view to have; is this
any different from the kind of childish thought-terminating cliches that we
see when people defer to the 'Founding Fathers'? the idea that the matter at
hand is to be settled by nominating a Person Who Is Always Right?

I think it would more more of an insult to him to declare his experiences
immune from criticism than it would be to engage with them and try to figure
out what does or doesn't stick.

And for me the incoherence of claiming that the romantic notion of war died
with Verdun and Passchendaele and then demonstrating that this is an outright
lie with the Grenada story might even amount to a neat trick if it was done
deftly. And deftly would mean not later glamourising it himself towards the
end of the same article as the great and eternal Crucible of Manhood.

------
reese_john
Theodore Roosevelt, an admitted war enthusiast, once said: "A just war is in
the long run far better for a man's soul than the most prosperous peace."

~~~
wallace_f
Do you have any insight or references I could read that would help me
understand why someone would feel this way?

~~~
pryce
Consider Chris Hedges' "War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning" (2002), which
examines the way that War creates (or perhaps comprises) a culture of its own,
and acts as a transformative experience that has little if any civilian
analogue.

The work is flawed, and I believe one passage had a disputed claim of
plagiarism, but this work still explores these issues better than I have seen
elsewhere.

------
booleandilemma
_It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it._

— Robert E. Lee

------
brad0
I liked reading about the two forces at play here. The ideal self vs the
reality of who you really are. Extreme moments such as war can cause you to
learn so much more about your darker aspects.

Great read.

------
Nimitz14
That was fantastic. It is rare for someone to speak so publicly about such
feelings. I felt that it was coming from the heart. A real connection. I
immediately checked whether he might have written anything else but was
disappointed to find nothing.

For others looking for more I very strongly recommend Dispatches by Michael
Herr. That book is probably the most beautiful of the 20th century.

------
jeandejean
That's a very personal testimony based on the own author experience, not an
overall study on all army veterans. I doubt all veterans are "playing by the
rules" by saying publicly how horrible the war is but secretly recalling the
great moments. If we go that way, are all PTSD victims phonies part of the
show? They're all part of making this narrative credible? Be serious one
minute... What this guy enjoyed was the brotherhood and exceptional means
mobilized for the purpose of the war, not the killing itself.

------
supergirl
it is more like why men with tanks love war against people with sticks. if
this guy got horribly injured he would still love war? if his city back home
was bombed into the ground he would still look back with joy at his
shenanigans in vietnamese whorehouses?

~~~
theredking
In way yes, it is not really about winning it is about being truly at the edge
of your abilities mentally and physically though I understand your sentiment
there is something innately human about war, about being on your limits,
facing death and standing tall surely it is not beautiful and we can argue the
ethics and motivations but it is a part of what makes us human.

~~~
supergirl
I'm not saying it's about winning, I'm saying he will find it too painful to
remember "being on his limits, facing death, etc." if he was in a real war
where his side also suffered losses or he was injured, captured, etc. those
painful memories would dominate his view

~~~
jacquesm
No need to look for the winners, just go ask the injured. Plenty of vets in
the US came to their senses after getting injured chasing some foreign
adventure under the guise of defense.

------
kingkawn
The unraveling of all prohibition carries primal joy

------
mcfood
That was a pretty narrow viewpoint. It seemed to lack any consideration of
Vietnam as a country or the Vietnamese people affected by his love of war. Do
those fighting for their countries and lives share that love?

So I guess my takeaway of his point is: War is some special experience that
Western Men have (and not women, Vietnamese, or anyone else), where they get
to fulfil some kind of murderous power fantasy over people who don't matter?

Maybe this is the sort of story he has to tell himself to ignore the woman he
betrayed, the desecrated bodies he laughed at, the utter disregard he held for
everything outside himself and his band of brothers.

~~~
ryanmarsh
_War is some special experience that Western Men have ... where they get to
fulfil some kind of murderous power fantasy over people who don 't matter?_

No. Nothing about that is western. That’s just history.

War is the most human you’ll ever be. I don’t know how to explain it to
someone who doesn’t want to believe their own potential for malevolence. It’s
like eating from the forbidden tree in the garden. You’re eyes become open to
the savage visceral reality that we’re nothing more than primates that talk.

~~~
placebo
True. Nothing about violence is specifically western.

Also true that the reality is that humans have evolved from more primitive
animals that are totally driven by survival instincts and thus will usually
act that way too (though mostly disguised in more subtle forms than war).

What you're missing though (or perhaps deliberately ignoring) is the potential
of humans to rise above being marionettes of their animal instinct. Acting by
instinct has its upsides sometimes. It certainly brings raw animal
gratification but rationalising that we're "nothing more than primates that
talk" is just an excuse to enjoy the animal gratification while ignoring the
consequences (which beyond hurting other sentient beings also blocks one's way
to real freedom, which is the real tragedy).

------
Ritsuko_akagi
sounds like cocaine

------
tim333
It's interesting to read this first hand account after having read some more
science focused stuff.

>The power of war, like the power of love, springs from man's heart.

Both actually almost certainly arise from evolution. Love helps reproduce the
species, wiping out the adjacent tribe and grabbing their resources helps also
and if you are too nice they may wipe you instead. See 'Demonic Males' and the
like for how chimps and early man did much the same kind of thing with of the
order of a third of males dying in war like activities
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_Males](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_Males)

Now we're getting quite good at not having wars (see Pinkers stuff or
[https://medium.com/future-crunch/the-decline-of-
war-8760f9a5...](https://medium.com/future-crunch/the-decline-of-
war-8760f9a5b5ce)) through things like the UN, EU democracy and so on but the
warlike instincts remain and come out in football, political battles, video
games and the movies. Also I've found things like high altitude mountaineering
have some war like aspects - bunch of mostly blokes fighting the mountain with
some risk of death - and are quite fun.

~~~
MrBuddyCasino
Pinkers theory about how we have become more peaceful are apparently not
backed by sufficient statistical evidence. I always take NNT’s statements with
a grain of salt, but the pure stats/math stuff seems solid.

~~~
tim333
Taleb seems to be criticising stuff Pinker didn't really say. Pinker's
arguments are mostly look at this graph / dataset, haven't the numbers gone
down, maybe this is why and he isn't really trying to do sophisticated
statistical analysis generally. Taleb then attacks and says he hasn't done
sophisticated statistical analysis but that's not really Pinker's point.

~~~
MrBuddyCasino
But isn't Taleb's core criticism precisely the lack of rigorous statistics
backing Pinker's claims? I mean you can't just write a book with claims in it
backed by pretty graphs and data and then go "sorry, was never meant to be
hard science lol". Because then we're in bullshitting territory, unless I
missed your point?

~~~
tim333
You're dealing with the sweep of human history over centuries and there isn't
really a clear data set to do stats on. So given that I think Pinker's
approach is about as good as you can do. But none of it is 100% conclusive -
it's more a bunch of fuzzy data pointing the same way.

You can get his argument in about 10 mins in his talks - here's one
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjT4HlNJNgI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjT4HlNJNgI)
The book is much the same argument but with more data.

Taleb has an argument that purely doing stats on war deaths we could be in a
quiet patch before carnage as usual. The arguments against this are
qualitative stuff like the spread of democracy, the internet, cellphones, the
global economy etc which Pinker deals with and Taleb kind of ignores.

As an aside [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/feb/25/skin-in-the-
ga...](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/feb/25/skin-in-the-game-by-
nassim-nicholas-taleb-digested-read) is quite funny on taleb/pinker if you
like that kind of thing

~~~
MrBuddyCasino
Yeah that Guardian article nails it. Taleb can't do nuance - its all black and
white. I believe this is both his strength and his greatest weakness.

------
Mononokay
> But I believe that most men who have been to war would have to admit, if
> they are honest, that somewhere inside themselves they loved it too, loved
> it as much as anything that has happened to them before or since.

This sounds conspicuously like the conservative version of the people who say
"All men secretly desire to rape women."

~~~
reificator
Or less controversially: "Everybody pees in the shower".

No, sorry. I know you want to feel justified for doing so. But no.

~~~
mcphage
Well, shit. I started doing that ‘cause I heard everyone else was, too...

~~~
themaninthedark
I started because it saves time, urine is sterile when expelled and I am using
soap to wash the rest of me which should clean everything after up. Makes
sense to do it then, rather than use an extra couple gallons to flush 500ml of
liquid to what is ultimately the same place.

I also regularly clean the shower.

~~~
cobbzilla
Oh jeez, the whole "is urine sterile" debate.

Enter on one side, the purists: "sterile means absolutely, positively no
germs"

Enter on the other side, the realists: "if I pull open my festering sore, and
you piss on it, will I get your illness?"

The purists say, "well maybe, the probability is not zero, you can't say that
is sterile"

The realists say, "Run the experiment it 1000 times, and if no one gets
infected, what do you call that? What do you call it if 1 out of 1000 gets
infected?"

What do _you_ say?

~~~
1000units
And the romantics, "Does this have more germs than the saliva I gladly drink
out of my lover's mouth?"

------
ryanx435
Fucking dickwads in this thread who can't understand that violence has solved
more problems in human history than any other solution.

Its like, "oh, I live in a peaceful society, therefore all other societies in
the history of humanity should have known better" when they don't realize that
america is very violent, has always been violent, and has more capacity for
violence than any other society in the history of the planet. Don't you
realize that your "peace" is literally maintained by the us' overwhelming
threat of force?

Goddamn it's threads like this that really makes the ignorance of the hacker
news community stand out to me in all aspects outside of tech.

Source: been commenting here since 2008 and also deployed twice and got out as
a sergeant in the US Marine Corps and have literally made the decision on who
lived/died on the battle space.

~~~
dba7dba
I think a lot of young folks (many in HN) know history from what they
watch/read/hear in daily news, which is a terrible source. So that may be why.

Major nations of modern era (since end of WW2) have not gone to total wars
simply because of the availability of nukes. Not because people suddenly
became enlightened and refused to fight a war.

~~~
erikpukinskis
Do you think telecommunications networks have had a smaller effect than the
nuclear threat? Those networks have grown exponentially since the wars.

~~~
dba7dba
US did not use all of its arsenals (including nukes) against Chinese troops in
the Korean War, despite serious setbacks.

I think this was due to Russia also having the nukes. Or maybe US govt thought
it should never use nukes ever again after seeing the horrible effect after
using them in Japan.

Either way, before telecomm network connected populace of different nations as
closely as it has, US faced certain instances where some generals requested
using nukes but ultimately didn't happen. Most likely because the other side
(Soviets) also had them...

------
bazeblackwood
Not that this isn't an interesting read (albeit mostly a lengthy
rationalization of shared trauma) but they really need some better editors
over at Esquire — spelling, spacing and grammatical errors everywhere.

Edit: there appears also in the text, frequently, the world "tile" as an
adjective. "tile night" "tile blackness" "tile war". Methinks someone needs a
better find + replace regex.

~~~
noonespecial
Loos like a poor OCR of a previous text. All they really needed was a
proofreader. Why they didn't even bother is the real question.

~~~
robotresearcher
I can’t tell if that was funny on purpose or not.

