Ok, but please don't fulminate or post in the flamewar style. We're trying for the opposite here, and you can make your substantive points without any of that.
I don't agree with the commentator, but I think with extreme pieces like this any and all interpretations are on the table. Challenging and disruptive things aren't always handled eloquently or reasonably, otherwise they wouldn't be challenging and disruptive.
Consider reactions you'd rather not see here as extensions of regrettable behaviors in the performance of the piece. In other words, did 'Rhythm 0' ever really end, or are we all in it?
This is a terrible place to talk about art. We probably should avoid it entirely because the flamewars are inevitable.
The idea is to discuss provocative things without getting provoked to sputtering grumpitude and if you can't help getting provoked to sputtering grumpitude, don't write it on HN. It's imperfect and limiting in a number of ways but it's not a particularly onerous or unreasonable constraint.
I don't think it is, nor do I think it makes any sense to deny forum users either agency or responsibility - you can choose not to sputter and if you do choose to sputter, it's not the fault of a wikipedia article.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html