Your and his age are gonna be major variables here. Conversations and relationships work very differently at different life stages.
You sound like you're maybe a teenager? Try asking interesting questions that require some thought to answer, but still leave room for your friend to give an easy thoughtless answer if they want to. Where do you think we'll be in X years? What's something you thought you wanted but as you've gotten okay have realised you actually don't? What do you think we do now thar future generations will think is crazy? Listen to his answers and ask followup questions.
Personally, I've always been most impressed by directness, honesty, intelligence and courage.
Yeah, the point that the musicians seem to be making, from the very brief quotes he shares (I haven't been following this independently), is about the efficacy of music boycotts as a tool for political change. You can object to a nation's political actions and still think that performing music for your fans in that country will make things better.
The author just insists that Israeli government genocide is bad and that the ordinary citizens are complicit. I think the implicit logic must be: bad people should be punished, depriving them of music punishes them. While it might satisfy a craving to hurt the bad guys, I think it's much harder to claim that this would help stop the genocide.
I think the musicians have a stronger case that actually performing would be more likely to change people's minds and improve the situation. Plus the broader benefits of keeping music and art apolitical, rather than trying to make everything in life a tool for political manipulation. I'd have actually been really interested to hear some substantive arguments about those points, but was disappointed to discover that, as you say, it was just a hit piece.
Wow, what a terrible article. The author doesn't engage with any of the substantive points Radiohead and Nick Cave are making, he just disparages them and insists on his obvious moral superiority. It's dressed up in some, admittedly, very nice writing, but this is just childish name calling.
Still, interesting read. Thanks for sharing.
Sounds amazing. Could you provide a link or at least enough names that I can google it?
Nah, that's great because you can so easily escalate to heavy talk. Disagree with the political opinion. Insist car culture is just pointless fashion fads. Dive into the morality of reality TV.
Either they disengage and you're free, or you get to have an actual meaningful debate instead of echoing hollow platitudes.
The actual results are in the text. 56% personifiers among autists vs 33% among not autists, p<0.05. Self report is p=0.06.
Scientific papers are often titled "What it's actually about: something witty." This one is about object personification and so after the colon they personify the paper itself by giving it an emotion.
- the whole point of statistics is to extract subtle signals from noise, if you're getting wildly different results, the problem is you're under-powered.
Thanks for taking the time to post these links, just letting you know you're efforts have benefited at least one person who's gonna enjoy reading this.
That sounds awful, I'm sorry you have to go through that. They have those extra leg room exit row seats, but they seem to allocate them at random instead of to tall people.
You say you stand up right away because you've been jammed into your seat for hours, so I'm wondering why you didn't stand up during the flight. Then you wouldn't be jammed in for hours...
Why not stand up during the flight?
Why didn't you just stand up during the flight?
Lol, ironic in thread about tolerance
Pretty sure both groups are doing that to each other...
If it were easy, there wouldn't be this much disagreement.
Phew, lucky that there's no disagreement in this society about what right and wrong is and what should and shouldn't be tolerated. Otherwise we might devolve into two antagonistic political factions mutually condemning each other.
Okay, how do you assess that harm has occurred?
I claim that your post just harmed me. You should be excluded from the social contact.
You violated the rules my god laid down. Harmful to me and all my fellow believers. You're out.
Your flagrant homosexuality is harming my children. Excluded.
Your campaign to take away my guns is harming me and all my descendants. I was just minding my own business until you came along with your intolerant gun removal policies. Excluded! Burn him.
This only solves the dilemma in a trivial way, if harm is transparent and uncontentious. It doesn't address the real dilemma, which is widespread disagreement about what should and shouldn't be tolerated.
The perfect colinearity of most of the lines is very suspicious too.
Allow me to introduce: Firefox vim keybindings extensions. So many more shortcuts if you don't need to worry about typing characters in normal mode.
A friend of mine just used it to write a script for an Amazing Race application video. It was quite good.
How the heck did it access enough source material to be able to imitate something that specific and do it well? Are we humans that predictable?