zlacker

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+(OP)
> 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+Hf
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+H21
You don't. You don't bias interpretation like that at all.

>>lostms+k42
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+GB4
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+0J4
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?