Great lengths are gone to, to avoid responding to direct questions. If you can accuse the other person of being in a bad group (bot, capitalist, not actually left, from an instance I don’t like, etc) then you can avoid reflecting on your own philosophies and the flaws that exist in it. Cognitive dissonance avoided and upvotes gained, pretty compelling for our brains.

That your girlfriend?

What was breathless about the article? Seemed pretty matter of fact in its presentation.

You call the other person a name

You don’t respond to anything they say directly

You do it twice in the same thread

You call something context without providing context

I get why people throw that stat around but I don’t think it’s a fair way to view the sport. You can go in and only focus on those minutes but if you’re choosing to watch closely there’s lots in the middle bits too. It’s probably better to think of that stat as time of action. During that time there’s a chance to analyze how the teams are setting up, what movement and audibles are they making, consider strategy and future actions, etc.

I think probably most of our activities have an ebb and flow and highlighting only one aspect of it would certainly empower someone to try to ridicule or treat it as a waste of time.

Just trying to offer a different perspective because I do think the risk of concussion is worth highlighting but your ignorance is on display which can take away from the argument I think your trying to make.