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.

What?! Are you serious?

Pretty much everything I said was wrong? How do you figure that?

Here’s my primary claim: “This article is debunking the idea that there are probiotic benefits to eating dirt, which isn’t what we’re talking about at all”

My claim was that the page you linked is clearly talking about digestive health, not the immune system.

Let’s look at the first sentence in the header

Will eating dirt improve gut health?

I’d say that’s pretty clear. But wait, that’s not the whole header, what does the rest of it say?

According to the Hygiene Hypothesis, ingesting dirt will strengthen our immune system right?

So it’s worse than I thought, immediately, right off the bat, this page is already jumbling the concepts of digestive health and immune system. Just odd.

Look, I’m perfectly willing to concede that there are no real digestive benefits to eating dirt. But then I never made that claim. I have no idea what your motivation is, but you should stop spreading misinformation.

Don’t infections lead to producing antibodies?

This article is debunking the idea that there are probiotic benefits to eating dirt, which isn’t what we’re talking about at all. We don’t care about the beneficial bacteria, they don’t build your immune system, they’re irrelevant. It states right at the beginning that there are harmful pathogens in dirt, which is exactly the point. Those harmful pathogens are literally the only thing that can build the immune system.

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

Yeah, that’s a temporary condition, lol.

Do it

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.

So to sum up the article, most meteorites (the ones that actually hit earth) are the result of just a few (perhaps three) large asteroid collisions some time in the past.

Most asteroids seem to be in relatively stable orbits which is basically necessary for them to still be orbiting. So it follows that it would take something altering that orbit for them to end up in an earth intercept course. Ejecta from a collision makes sense.

I guess the truly surprising part is that most of the samples we have are such good matches that we can conclude they belonged to the same individual asteroids.

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

How’s the insulation on that “home”?

I kid, there’s no way in hell those are adequately insulated or waterproofed.

Enjoy your corroded tin can.

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 removed 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.