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
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.

>>johnny+IF3
> 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.

>>lostms+pV3
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?

>>nptelj+pI4
You don't. You don't bias interpretation like that at all.

>>lostms+2K5
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").

>>nptelj+oh8
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".

>>lostms+Io8
I 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?