Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list)

[Rustom Mody]

On Monday, March 31, 2014 12:23:55 PM UTC+5:30, Ben Finney wrote:
> Mark, you are demonstrating a habit of making sweeping pronouncements
> and assertions; and then, when those statements are challenged, you
> act as though you never said them.

> Here's a characteristic example:

> Mark H Harris writes:

> > On 3/30/14 10:22 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > > Mark H Harris  writes:
> > >> I didn't really start using unicode until about 5 years ago; python
> > >> has only really used it since python3. right?
> > > No. Python 2.2 introduced Unicode.
> > I didn't ask when it was introduced, I asked when it became useful?

> That's clearly not what you asked, in the material you quoted above; and
> Steven's answer to your actual false assertion is entirely appropriate.

> There are many other examples in this thread, but I'm not seeking to
> catalogue them; merely to show an example of what I'm observing.

> I hope you can see that this behaviour quickly leads many people to
> quite reasonably disregard your assertions in general, and even to
> ignore you altogether. Do you think you can tone down the rhetoric and
> perhaps stand by the statements you actually make?

I wonder...
Is there some Unicode-corollary to Godwin's law? Something like:

"Whenever people discuss unicode long enough they start talking rubbish."

Not very surprising given that unicode is related to human languages
and human languages willy-nilly are connected to politics.

It would be neat if we could stick to the 'uni(versal)' (aka math, music etc) 
aspect of unicode more and the 'needs localization' aspect less.