[lostmsu]

It doesn't imply either. You are being too uncharitable with your interpretation.

[npteljes]

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.

[lostmsu]

It is most certainly not the literal interpretation.

[npteljes]

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.

[johnnyanmac]

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.

[lostmsu]

> 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.

[npteljes]

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?

[lostmsu]

You don't. You don't bias interpretation like that at all.

[npteljes]

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").

[lostmsu]

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".