Ok, so let’s say you’re a performer and from time to time people yell something at you while you’re on stage. Given the context, let’s divide all comments into two categories.

1. Commentary on your performance. These could be statements like “wwooooooo!”, “you suck!”, “I love you!”, “get off the stage!” or “play free bird”.

2. Other bullshit. This includes any comments not about your music or the performance currently in progress. Basically anything off topic or not covered by category 1.

If someone yelled “do you support genocide?”, what category would you put that in?

Now once you’ve answered that question, I want you to remember that your answer doesn’t actually matter at all either way. Because in the end, a performer on stage is never obligated to respond to anything yelled at them from the floor.

But you’re right I guess, “political issue” was the wrong way to frame it. I should have said “other bullshit” (as laid out above).

It was both. It was a rhetorical question, which are technically questions while being functionally statements.

It’s worth noting though, arguing this semantic point doesn’t change anything or win any argument, it’s just pedantic.

No actually, I don’t like Thom Yorke. My problem was with a dumb comment trying to sound logical by throwing fancy words around.

If you want to use Occam’s razor in this situation, (a pretty inappropriate situation, because who can truly know what others are thinking or feeling) then I’ll show you how that works…

Occam’s razor: He walked off because he was in a bad mood and didn’t really feel like playing that show in the first place. The crowd comment seemed like a good enough excuse to walk off. That is probably the simplest solution.

I shower in the morning, just after I take my ADHD meds. My shower thoughts are… meandering. Occasionally insightful, but usually just weird rabbit holes where I ponder links between distantly removed topics.

Occam’s razor doesn’t really apply here… You can’t use that to just assert that he supports Israel. Besides, he later did say that he doesn’t support Israel.

Honestly, I can understand the response. He’s in the middle of a set and someone starts yelling about some political issue… Fuck that, he’s here to play a concert. And you know what, I wouldn’t want to be backed into making any political statement out of the blue, while on stage.

Can someone explain what this headline was supposed to say? The grammar is… Confusing.

Just from the summary,

Climate scientists…

…they had been told they were not qualified to take part in this broad discussion of the climate crisis

So if climate scientists aren’t qualified to take part in this discussion, just who the fuck is?! That’s a pretty stupid position for anyone.

If this were Florida, the mother could just say she was “standing her ground”.

Well that’s the most viscerally horrifying headline I’ve read in… ever I guess.

I want to take away everyone’s arms. This country would be safer without guns.

Well… It’s not being engineered with a driver in mind. I don’t think they can just slap a seat in there later; having vs not having a driver is a major design consideration. This vehicle has no driver, period. If the fsd doesn’t work, he has no vehicle.

So the question isn’t “Will they put a driver in this car?”

The question is “Will they get this cat on the road?”

Knock yourself out, pray as hard as you want.

Cops are always hiding behind the same lame shield, “the officer fired in self defence”, “the suspect appeared to have a weapon”, “the officer fired when there was a credible threat to his life”…

It’s all fucking bullshit. The officer fired because he was a big fucking pussy who was too afraid of black people to do his job, and instead killed an innocent he was supposed to protect.

In war you have rules of engagement, generally it tends to include something like “don’t fire unless you’re fired upon”, as you don’t want to accidentally start a war. That seems like a sensible code to me, and I think it’s pretty crazy that we would say that to soldiers, but not police. A fighter pilot can track another aircraft, knowing full will that it is armed, and if they are not cleared to engage, they still manage to stand down every time. Perhaps police just need clearer rules. Don’t fire unless fired upon, or else it’s murder. That would be clear. Since apparently you can’t take the racist out of the cop, then we can at least take the decision making out of his hands.

Firing because you see someone who might be armed… That’s just deportable, it’s criminally incompetent. I don’t care if you’re afraid for your life, if you were afraid for your life because you thought you saw a gun, quit the force. Today.

What driver?

That sure is a divisive opinion…

I truly believe that social media, and I mean all social media should be banned. People should not be allowed to spew their bullshit. We as a people are really not ready for this. Maybe China is right with their “social score” system. Maybe stuff like the bilderberg group is really needed. We seem to need guidance. We, the normal civvies, seemingly are too hell bend on watching it all burn. And are too stupid to stop it. People like trump, inciting hate, spraying unlimited bullshit, should be thrown in jail. That’s not politics. That’s rage baiting.

Haha, that sounds like something I would say. I wonder if it’s an IT guy thing to say “fuck it, this is broken, no more doing this for anyone anymore” " and by the way, how did you even break this?".

But yeah, this is probably an overreach. If you banned all social media, you’d have to ban all forms of Internet mass communication, forums and message boards, comments sections, all the way down to group emails…

Also, practically, you’ll never get any law that limits speech that much passed in the US, is just not going to happen.

I wish I knew what would work to start addressing this problem…

your chances of doing well in education decline dramatically with greater social problems.

And that’s because we don’t spend enough on education… If the schools could provide sufficient support for all their students, then it wouldn’t just be the ones with means who succeed.

The suggestion that spending more on schools won’t fix a whole lot of problems, that’s just ridiculous. It’s pretty obvious, but it’s also demonstrably untrue. For instance, it’s well documented that smaller classrooms result in better outcomes for students. If schools could afford more teachers, they could have smaller classrooms. Similarly, better and newer materials result in better outcomes. And like in any field, paying higher salaries can attract a higher caliber of employee, so higher pay for teachers would also mean better teachers. As it is, public school teachers need a master’s degree and you can’t really expect teachers to spend more time in college racking up debt when they can only hope to pay it off after 30 years of teaching, you know unless they made more money.

You know there’s a simple and humane way to do it.

Heroine executions.

I realize now the spelling error I made, but I’m keeping it this way.

Oh, we haven’t been in any wars in the last 70 years. There were some “police actions” and we’ve deployed “peacekeeping” forces…

Right?

Seriously though, we need to do away with the “Authorization for Use of Military Force”. If Congress doesn’t have the consensus to declare war, then we shouldn’t be fighting.

I don’t think anyone’s said it better than that.