3 ms·

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 narra

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
      They said they watched him speak. The image they built must be made of that footage then, no? How much closer do you want people to get to the source?
      - lostmsu 1y ago
        You don't. You don't bias interpretation like that at all.
        npteljes 1y ago
        With politics, if you after the truth, you have to consider context. Coded / indirect speech is common, and it's also common to say an acceptable thing, while meaning an entirely different thing, aka dogwhistling (like "family values").
        lostmsu 1y ago
        Don't you think this approach might be the reason for the extreme polarization of the politics in US? If one side demonizes the other based on "considering context".

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
    They said they watched him speak. The image they built must be made of that footage then, no? How much closer do you want people to get to the source?
    - lostmsu 1y ago
      You don't. You don't bias interpretation like that at all.
      - npteljes 1y ago
        With politics, if you after the truth, you have to consider context. Coded / indirect speech is common, and it's also common to say an acceptable thing, while meaning an entirely different thing, aka dogwhistling (like "family values").
        lostmsu 1y ago
        Don't you think this approach might be the reason for the extreme polarization of the politics in US? If one side demonizes the other based on "considering context".