You're saying this like it is an accurate portrayal of the entire modern positive sentiment towards guns. The honest truth of it is a lot of people just really do not like the government.
I am aware and that is what I am pointing out, but he's said this multiple times in a way that insinuates everyone who owns a gun is doing it for racist reasons.
"Some cows are green" is not an insinuation that "all cows are green."
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
I guess I should add, if you can't find a way to respond to a comment without violating the guidelines, it's better to downvote, or flag if it's called for, and move on. I've discarded quite a number of half-written responses (and hastily deleted a few freshly-posted comments) on that basis.
I didn't violate the guidelines. It seems clear what their intent was and I added information to the conversation. I could still be wrong. To me, if he was trying to usefully inform other readers he would have commented on why his/her perceived historical connotations are meaningful.
> I could still be wrong. To me, if he was trying to usefully inform other readers he would have commented on why his/her perceived historical connotations are meaningful.
Aha. See, if you had phrased that as a question, there could be room for curious conversation. Instead, you took the least generous interpretation and ran with that.
There's far less generous interpretations available. I could have transparently accused him of race baiting.
If I did something similar, like ran around pointing out that children can actually consent do actually have a working theory of the world in a thread about CP you'd probably question whether or not I have a load of CP on my computer. There is something as too much benefit of the doubt.
