3 ms·

“Too many” sounds like a valid answer for any question about the number of mass shooters. Remove “trans” from the question and it’s still a valid answer. Substi

“Too many” sounds like a valid answer for any question about the number of mass shooters. Remove “trans” from the question and it’s still a valid answer. Substitute in any other demographic, and it’s still a valid answer (assuming someone from that demographic has been a shooter). Even one mass shooting is too many. It sounds like more of a loaded question than a problematic answer.

kashunstva 1y ago
> It sounds like more of a loaded question than a problematic answer. I honestly don’t know what the actual factual answer to the question is. 1? 2? But the question warranted an answer, even if it was “I don’t know.” Given that the answer to many questions about mass shooting, specific or otherwise, is “too many,” the answer he gave offered no factual data. Maybe he was prepared to offer something more fact-based and nuanced. But to me the answer he gave comes off as dismissive, lacking in additional data, and possibly ideologically-motivated. I imagine the question was posed because many in the community adjacent to Kirk are looking for an excuse to see trans people further isolated and stripped of their rights. Forcing the debate - if we can call it that - into the world of facts doesn’t seem problematic to me.
npteljes 1y ago
It's not a loaded question in itself, as much as a direct question to counter the anti-lgbtq propaganda that is being pushed. This question didn't start a narrative, it is asked to point out that an existing narrative is intentionally misleading. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/transgender-mass-shootings/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/transgender-mass-shootings... >Even one mass shooting is too many. This is a misrepresentation of the exchange. "Do you know how many are trans" "Too many" doesn't imply that there would be fewer mass shooting, it implies that the situation would be better if the same amount of mass shootings were happening, but the identities of the shooters would be different.
- lostmsu 1y ago
  It doesn't imply either. You are being too uncharitable with your interpretation.
  - npteljes 1y ago
    It's not an uncharitable interpretation, but a literal one. Even then, I can see a world where we could let it go, because people sometimes just misspeak, public setting or not. But in this current case, the speaker's political background fits the interpretation perfectly, so I don't think that we need to explain it away.
    - lostmsu 1y ago
      It is most certainly not the literal interpretation.
      - npteljes 1y ago
        I agree, I misspoke. It's not the literal interpretation, it's the interpretation of what was being said, in the context of the speaker.
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    If you've every watched any of those person's footage, you'd know that there is no room for charitable interpretation. Put another way, if he was a HN member he was definitely be banned.
    - lostmsu 1y ago
      > If you've every watched any of those person's footage Yes, that's exactly your problem. You built an image in your mind, and you interpret according to that image. If you built your image the same way you interpret this reply, well... > was definitely be banned HN banhammer has its own biases.
      - npteljes 1y ago
LordDragonfang 1y ago
It might be a valid answer if he had not previously explicitly said that several deaths is not too many, the opposite of what you're implying he meant. > "I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."

kashunstva 1y ago

> It sounds like more of a loaded question than a problematic answer. I honestly don’t know what the actual factual answer to the question is. 1? 2? But the question warranted an answer, even if it was “I don’t know.” Given that the answer to many questions about mass shooting, specific or otherwise, is “too many,” the answer he gave offered no factual data. Maybe he was prepared to offer something more fact-based and nuanced. But to me the answer he gave comes off as dismissive, lacking in additional data, and possibly ideologically-motivated. I imagine the question was posed because many in the community adjacent to Kirk are looking for an excuse to see trans people further isolated and stripped of their rights. Forcing the debate - if we can call it that - into the world of facts doesn’t seem problematic to me.

npteljes 1y ago

It's not a loaded question in itself, as much as a direct question to counter the anti-lgbtq propaganda that is being pushed. This question didn't start a narrative, it is asked to point out that an existing narrative is intentionally misleading. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/transgender-mass-shootings/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/transgender-mass-shootings... >Even one mass shooting is too many. This is a misrepresentation of the exchange. "Do you know how many are trans" "Too many" doesn't imply that there would be fewer mass shooting, it implies that the situation would be better if the same amount of mass shootings were happening, but the identities of the shooters would be different.

lostmsu 1y ago
It doesn't imply either. You are being too uncharitable with your interpretation.
- npteljes 1y ago
  It's not an uncharitable interpretation, but a literal one. Even then, I can see a world where we could let it go, because people sometimes just misspeak, public setting or not. But in this current case, the speaker's political background fits the interpretation perfectly, so I don't think that we need to explain it away.
  - lostmsu 1y ago
    It is most certainly not the literal interpretation.
    - npteljes 1y ago
      I agree, I misspoke. It's not the literal interpretation, it's the interpretation of what was being said, in the context of the speaker.
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  If you've every watched any of those person's footage, you'd know that there is no room for charitable interpretation. Put another way, if he was a HN member he was definitely be banned.
  - lostmsu 1y ago
    > If you've every watched any of those person's footage Yes, that's exactly your problem. You built an image in your mind, and you interpret according to that image. If you built your image the same way you interpret this reply, well... > was definitely be banned HN banhammer has its own biases.
    - npteljes 1y ago

LordDragonfang 1y ago

It might be a valid answer if he had not previously explicitly said that several deaths is not too many, the opposite of what you're implying he meant. > "I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."