zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
Am I wrong in thinking this guy isn't/wasn't a very influential person, outside of Twitter and the people that stay on there 24/7? If so, why even target the poor guy? What change was the person who shot him hoping to elicit? Either way, I hope he makes it, even though it looks like it was a fatal blow

>>vik0+66
At the moment he was shot, he was answering for questions about transgender shootings. If the timing was calculated, it could be a political message or very strong personal hatred in this context.

>>nicce+Vu
And his answer was bigoted. I'm paraphrasing, but I believe someone asked "do you know how many mass shooters are trans?" and he said "too many."

Didn't like the guy, but he was just a guy expressing a horrible opinion. Violence was not the answer.

>>qingch+wj1
“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.

>>al_bor+co1
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...

>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.

>>nptelj+1J1
It doesn't imply either. You are being too uncharitable with your interpretation.

>>lostms+Z52
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.