Now, that’s a fine hair to be splitting.

Empire fucking booked it to steam and has been playing it for the past 10 hours, for sure.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Is the leftist in the picture?