4 ms·
It doesn't imply either. You are being too uncharitable with your interpretation.
by lostmsu 1y ago
It doesn't imply either. You are being too uncharitable with your interpretation.
- npteljes 1y agoIt'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.
- johnnyanmac 1y agoIf 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 agoThey 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 agoYou don't. You don't bias interpretation like that at all.
- npteljes 1y agoWith 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 agoDon'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".
- npteljes 1y agoI don't. What would be the alternative, believe the face value outright? That's not just a bad approach to politics, where everything is about controlling narratives, but a bad life advice in general. Or do I misunderstand what you mean?