• wucking_feardo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Not imposible if you’re wrong. Which you are.

    What about demeaning others is subjective? Do you fear that victimhood will be wielded as a weapon? I believe a good percentage of cases of hate speech are very obvious, and the rest should be handled by good old societal norms and shaming.

    Do you feel bad when others correct you?

    • Didnt u rwad what i wrote?

      U don’t have a right not to be offended that is simply the cost of free expression. Its only demeaning if u let it be demeaning i dont give a fuck if u misgender me therefore i have a different subjective experience of the same act therfore it is subjective (i am a counter example to any possible proof, as i said).

      The subjective is what u decide it is therefore i can subjectively claim u opening ur mouth is demeaning and thus u should be silenced.

      What is wrong with this logic other than u dont like it? U havnt corrected me cos u havnt addressed my argument or points all uve done is make the assertion that missgendering is demeaning for ur subjective opinion.

      • wucking_feardo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 minutes ago

        I’ll grant that there’s no acceptable way to programmatically evaluate some text and infer from the text alone if it’s hate speech.

        That’s why I stick to a manual process to evaluate. For example, if enough people report you for misgendering others, and you do not adjust your behaviour it eventuallt becomes hate speech. But a human has to go and analyze this, it is difficult, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.

        But your argument is that it’s impossible, and I just illustrated that it isn’t impossible. I do agree that it’s hard. But that’s just life for you. Nuance takes time and effort, as most worthwhile things do.