Well how do u define hate speach? Is misgendering someone hate speach or free speach? Is burning a flag hate speach or free speach? Is calling for the death of elon musk hate speach or free speach?
Its impossible to define hate and free speach in a way everyone agrees with ans thus impossible to have both symultaniously for everyone.
The fediverse is beautiful cos u can choose an instance that defines both in a manner u choose fit or even spin up ur own server and do it however u want.
Misgendering on purpose, hate speech. “On purpose” might be a fuzzy term, but patterns of behaviour will usually make it obvious.
Burning a flag, free speech.
Calling for death of Elon Musk, hate speech. Calling him out on his bullshit, free speech.
So ur definition of hate speach can include something that is purly a subjective experience of being offended? The subjective is by definition whatever one claims it to be. Thus i could claim that subjectively u speaking at all is hate speach? Ohh and dont try claiming its not subjective cos i dont give a fuck if u misgender me (my existance is a counter example of any possible proof).
And here we are disagreeing about what is free/hate speach thus both symultaniously is impossible.
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.
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.
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.
U missing my point entirely. How can a subjective experience of offence be hatespeach?
The method for evaluation is irrelevant. My argument is that a subjective experience can be anything by anyone.
My argument is not that its impossible to determine but thats since we disagree its impossible to reconcile hate speach and free speach for everyone our definitions of the 2 are different. Thus this answers ops question with a firm no its impossible. This conversion itself is proof. We are the counter example thus the alternative cannot be true. Proof by contradiction.
This is not how proof by contradiction works. And I’m not versed enough in the subject of proofs to explain how.
Im trying to prove its impossible. I assumed that u can reconcile free/hate speach. We are arguing about what is hate speach thus proving we cant reconcile the concepts therefore the assumption cannot be true therefore it must be impossible.
“A proof by contradiction is a method of proving a statement by assuming the opposite statement is true, and then showing that this assumption leads to a logical contradiction.” - dr gpt
It’s not the subjective experience of the offended what makes it hate speech, but the perceived intention of the offender.
hate speech
noun [ U ]
public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation (= the fact of being gay, etc.):
Cambridge dictionary
So its about the expression of hate by the speach itself not the intention or perception of either party.
This raises the question what is hate?
hate
verb [ I or T ]
to dislike someone or something very much:
Cambridge dictionary
Misgendering someone is not an “expression of dislike towards someone or something very much” as it is passing no judgement (well unless ur a sexist who sees sex/gender as a value judgement). Its not encouraging violence and its not doing any of this based on race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.
You haven’t answered any of my questions friend.
None of ur questions are relevent to disproving my clear and concise logical argument. You have failed to address my argument the first time and i simply assumed i didnt explain it clearly enough hence why i ignored the questions that didnt relate to the argument itself and chose to explain my argument more clearly in what i though where simpler terms.
Well how do u define hate speach? Is misgendering someone hate speach or free speach? Is burning a flag hate speach or free speach? Is calling for the death of elon musk hate speach or free speach?
Its impossible to define hate and free speach in a way everyone agrees with ans thus impossible to have both symultaniously for everyone.
The fediverse is beautiful cos u can choose an instance that defines both in a manner u choose fit or even spin up ur own server and do it however u want.
Misgendering on purpose, hate speech. “On purpose” might be a fuzzy term, but patterns of behaviour will usually make it obvious. Burning a flag, free speech. Calling for death of Elon Musk, hate speech. Calling him out on his bullshit, free speech.
Not actually that hard.
So ur definition of hate speach can include something that is purly a subjective experience of being offended? The subjective is by definition whatever one claims it to be. Thus i could claim that subjectively u speaking at all is hate speach? Ohh and dont try claiming its not subjective cos i dont give a fuck if u misgender me (my existance is a counter example of any possible proof).
And here we are disagreeing about what is free/hate speach thus both symultaniously is impossible.
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.
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.
U missing my point entirely. How can a subjective experience of offence be hatespeach?
The method for evaluation is irrelevant. My argument is that a subjective experience can be anything by anyone.
My argument is not that its impossible to determine but thats since we disagree its impossible to reconcile hate speach and free speach for everyone our definitions of the 2 are different. Thus this answers ops question with a firm no its impossible. This conversion itself is proof. We are the counter example thus the alternative cannot be true. Proof by contradiction.
This is not how proof by contradiction works. And I’m not versed enough in the subject of proofs to explain how.
It’s not the subjective experience of the offended what makes it hate speech, but the perceived intention of the offender.
You haven’t answered any of my questions friend.
Im trying to prove its impossible. I assumed that u can reconcile free/hate speach. We are arguing about what is hate speach thus proving we cant reconcile the concepts therefore the assumption cannot be true therefore it must be impossible.
“A proof by contradiction is a method of proving a statement by assuming the opposite statement is true, and then showing that this assumption leads to a logical contradiction.” - dr gpt
hate speech noun [ U ]
public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation (= the fact of being gay, etc.):
So its about the expression of hate by the speach itself not the intention or perception of either party.
This raises the question what is hate?
hate
verb [ I or T ]
to dislike someone or something very much:
Misgendering someone is not an “expression of dislike towards someone or something very much” as it is passing no judgement (well unless ur a sexist who sees sex/gender as a value judgement). Its not encouraging violence and its not doing any of this based on race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.
None of ur questions are relevent to disproving my clear and concise logical argument. You have failed to address my argument the first time and i simply assumed i didnt explain it clearly enough hence why i ignored the questions that didnt relate to the argument itself and chose to explain my argument more clearly in what i though where simpler terms.