7 ms·

Well if he woke up on a random day and tweeted about it, it’d be totally fine. SF is an unsafe place and we should talk about it. But he started his train of p

Well if he woke up on a random day and tweeted about it, it’d be totally fine. SF is an unsafe place and we should talk about it. But he started his train of posts in relation to this specific incident. He tapped emotions by saying things like “Bob was someone’s father” and the city was complacent etc. So when it turns out that the city was doing something and it wasn’t a crime committed by a homeless person, I feel the responsible/neutral thing would have been to inform his followers about the truth. He can still tweet about SF crime rates. But don’t you think someone who hasn’t been following the news but has been following only his tweets will be left with an incorrect impression of the city and the incident?

HopenHeyHi 4y ago
> He tapped emotions As he had emotions. > But don’t you think someone who hasn’t been following the news but has been following only his tweets will be left with an incorrect impression of the city and the incident? A hypothetical somebody who is very impressionable to begin with perhaps. Nat isn't news or the source of truth. If you take the Twitter bit out of it and Nat/Bob were your neighbors these are very normal human reactions and conversations. Crime is on his mind and somebody he knew got stabbed to death. I agree that if/when he breaches the subject again he should point out that this stabbing wasn't accidental, sure, of course. I hope he does. I sense that people who disagree with his politics/conclusions hope he doesn't. That is lame. It is all too convenient and normalized these days to think of people you disagree with as slimy hypocrites with hidden agendas playing Machiavellian games. Heck, you know what, tweet at him, like a human, without the gotcha, and find out instead of assuming. I can promise you this: if it turns out you are right about this then I will say that I was wrong. :)

HopenHeyHi 4y ago

> He tapped emotions As he had emotions. > But don’t you think someone who hasn’t been following the news but has been following only his tweets will be left with an incorrect impression of the city and the incident? A hypothetical somebody who is very impressionable to begin with perhaps. Nat isn't news or the source of truth. If you take the Twitter bit out of it and Nat/Bob were your neighbors these are very normal human reactions and conversations. Crime is on his mind and somebody he knew got stabbed to death. I agree that if/when he breaches the subject again he should point out that this stabbing wasn't accidental, sure, of course. I hope he does. I sense that people who disagree with his politics/conclusions hope he doesn't. That is lame. It is all too convenient and normalized these days to think of people you disagree with as slimy hypocrites with hidden agendas playing Machiavellian games. Heck, you know what, tweet at him, like a human, without the gotcha, and find out instead of assuming. I can promise you this: if it turns out you are right about this then I will say that I was wrong. :)