Literal example. They weren't saying "we should kill homeless people", but more along the lines of "the most effective way of dealing with the homeless, of course, would be to kill them, but that's not politically acceptable..."
At the time I had seen it, which was hours after the topic was posted, it wasn't voted down.
> Literal example. They weren't saying "we should kill homeless people", but (...)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and given that it only took a reply to water down the initial bombastic claim, unless you support your claims with concrete proof I'll have to write off your claim as hyperbolic misrepresentations.
It's not watered down. It's a person nonchalantly talking about killing homeless people as a viable solution to homelessness. The way you've edited my reply completely misrepresents what I said, to make it look like I've somehow changed the meaning. I followed up to give more specific language, not to change the meaning.
This kind of comment isn't out of the ordinary on this site, so I'm not going to spend a few hours tracking down the specific post to prove it. Just wait for a similar topic, and you'll see similar posts.
> It's a person nonchalantly talking about killing homeless people as a viable solution to homelessness.
Do you have a link or not? You're running in circles about he-said-she-said, but the only concrete info you shown so far boils down to your own personal extraordinary words you're trying to pin on some random person.
I mean, how can anyone tell whether you're making everything up or not?
I'd guess such a comment to be made satirically (in the vein of 'a modest proposal'), especially given the context you added, but I could see why this would be disturbing.
Yes, if you want to say something reprehensible it’s fine as long as you say it in a long-winded and impartial-sounding fashion involving lots of “logic” and “objectivity” à la Slate Star Codex.
