zlacker

“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+(OP)
> 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.

>>al_bor+(OP)
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+Pk
It doesn't imply either. You are being too uncharitable with your interpretation.

>>lostms+NH
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.

>>lostms+NH
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+wh2
> 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.

>>nptelj+011
It is most certainly not the literal interpretation.

>>lostms+043
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.

>>lostms+dx2
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?

>>al_bor+(OP)
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."

>>nptelj+dk3
You don't. You don't bias interpretation like that at all.

>>lostms+Ql4
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+cT6
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+w07
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?