I love you got three angy downvotes for explaining this.

I’m sad there isn’t an appropriate gif of an “angry tankie” shaking his fist.

I love how it occurs so naturally that by the time I come into a post that talks about Russia and Ukraine, half the posts are already limited and I can’t expand threads because people replying are ones I’ve already blocked in other posts for being absolutely developmentally challenged.

I would also say that Halloween is the last remaining holiday that encourages and expects self-expression and artistic abilities. Making costumes, coming up with unique prop ideas, carving pumpkins, etc.

Also, the act of trick or treating and joining halloween parties encourages socialization far, far more than other holidays which seem to just expect you to have dinner with people you don’t necessarily want to be around. The act of sending kids to knock on neighbor’s doors does more for our communities and our shared future than all the inflatable santa’s in the world.

Yah the more I use AI the more I can detect the absolute bullshit people on both sides spew.

It’s the most amazingly complicated averaging machine we’ve ever invented. It will take the most interesting source materials, the most unique ideas of other people, the most creative materials, and it will find a way to find the safest, most average common qualities between those things. This isn’t a model problem or input problem, it’s fundamental to how generative AI works.

It helps with searching for things online, it helps create guide plans for taking on new tasks like learning some new skill. It’s far better at teaching how to do something like coding than it is left to just code on its own and you copy and paste. It can certainly do that, but you spend so much time correcting it and fixing it that you do far better learning the code yourself and how it works.

Same with art, the people who are using it to best effect are themselves already artists and they use AI to thumbnail compositions or rough layouts, color tests and such, and then just do the work themselves but faster because they already know roughly what direction they’re going.

But using it to write your scripts, to copy/paste code, to generate works of art… it’s literally just giving you other people’s ideas mashed together and unseasoned.

Plus, if you want to talk about disparities in the legal system, woman already, on average, get less time than men for the same crimes.

I am sure you don’t even see how unhinged and revealing this line is on a topic like this.

But I hope you figure out why you’re so miserable feeling that laws attempting to help people suffering imbalanced levels of violence make you have to play this game. I highly recommend learning the emotion/rumination cycle and how it impacts your health. You and a lot of lonely guys in this godforsaken post. I feel bad for women and men alike every time I subject myself to a moronic conversation like this.

My days of talking it out with incel-adjacent, self-insecure men who haven’t learned how to stop ruminating are kind of past me. I’ve done my time, I’ve helped my share of young dipshits become men who don’t feel insecure and persecuted knowing there are special considerations being made for anyone who isn’t them. I hope you meet someone and feel better about yourself.

Your offer of a better solution

I am not offering anything, I am explaining the reasoning for this law and laws like it, which a lot of people in this post seem to be having a hard time with.

is to charge the act of killing someone because of who they are or what they believe should be a hate crime.

I read this like, five times and and I don’t know what you’re saying.

If more men commit hate crimes against women than women committing hate crimes against men, then there will be more men charged with hate crimes than women.

And? This is indeed how cause and effect work. Unfortunately temporal anomalies haven’t been discovered that can change how things lead to other things.

People can easily trace out your profile.

I’m no longer convinced that universal privacy is necessarily a good thing when there are so many people deliberately working to sabotage nations, subvert social issues and create havoc and chaos for political purposes, as advance tactics for military invasions, and as ways to further the goals of corporations.

I think we should have privacy in our own spaces and an ability to not be hassled by others for being an individual with a real need to share information, but I cannot square that against the massive harm being done by people who are trying to make $10 a month creating arguments to make people hate each other in a country they will never have stake in.

I don’t have a better alternative or solution, but I know that it’s not so simple as anonymity is a universe good in the world. And it exists on a spectrum. I am far more concerned about a kid trying to get help understanding sexual health in private than some troglodyte on reddit who has 72 different accounts to argue with feminists to create the impression that he has a huge community behind him.

I am seeing an absolute ocean of butthurt men in this post, and not a single alternative, solution or idea for making a more just and fair world in the face of an imbalanced problem. Everyone treats this like some kind of logic puzzle. “Well we don’t do X when Y is a problem, why should we we treat THIS any different?” as if the world is based on some kind of symmetrical, blind logic system and all things are equal.

I used to moderate a large gender-related subreddit, it was a nightmare. If you ever want to lose all faith in humanity, have a behind-the-scenes glimpse at the really bad shit that gets removed right away.

The law isn’t symmetrical. Everything we do in every facet of society is responsive and proportional.

When there is an asymmetrical problem, we divert resources to addressing that problem in some attempt at making things more equal. It’s just that simple. I haven’t seen anyone offer a better solution or a reason for this attempt to make some small level of proportional response being a problem. Hate crime laws vary from region to region and by specific circumstances. Some parts of those laws address how crimes can be prosecuted, some how those crimes can be charged or punished. It’s besides the point. The point is, it’s laws addressing an imbalance.

I haven’t seen a valid argument in this entire post, just a lot of people who think that the law should apply evenly in all situations.

But nothing works that way. Everything we do in all facets of society are responsive and proportional.

I’m not seeing how anyone is being harmed by making it easier to prosecute men who commit violence against women when it’s a massively disproportionate problem. I’m not seeing a better alternative, I’m not seeing anything but a lot of guys in this post who are obviously hurt by this but can’t explain why. Maybe add value to the argument by making an argument and explaining why it bothers you.

You’re viewing law and order as symmetrical, it’s not like that. Nothing is like that, broadly as a global civilization we respond to imbalanced factors in order to preserve balance the best we can.

If an neighborhood is using more power than other neighborhoods, the power grid will be adjusted to compensate.

If you drink more juice than milk and you don’t want to run out of juice, you adjust your buying habits to buy more juice.

While some people probably have killed white people for their race, the problem here isn’t symmetrical, more white people have killed people of color for their race in most places than the reverse because of a complex historical context. The law, and all of society broadly, implements laws or other systems to balance imbalances. Hate crimes have been typically perpetuated by one group versus another. Gender-related crimes VASTLY dominate in one direction than the other, and I’m still not hearing a better solution for this fact from the standpoint of law and order.

Does this idea make you feel bad? Seriously, I’m wondering why this is being challenged without an offer of a better idea or solution.

Because the real world isn’t symmetrical, there are millions of factors that impact trends, attitudes, cultures and so on. If you don’t respond to issues appropriate to that scaling you will have spikes in problems. This is very basic, this isn’t even sociology, it’s just how everything works. If you don’t enforce building codes in an area where more buildings are being made cheap, that area will have too many buildings that fall over, whereas areas where the building codes are being adhered to don’t need the extra resources diverted to keeping a non-existent problem in check.

If you drink more milk than juice, you should buy more milk.

I am struggling to understand how this is a hard concept to grasp. Do you have an emotional or personal connection to this topic that is making it hard to see practicality in how our entire society is built?

How are sites like lemmy or reddit or even social media less anonymous if you simply don’t publish your personal information? Granted anonymity is not and has never been a guaranteed “thing” but I’ve seen this sentiment echoed a couple times in this post and it’s confusing.

Is this in reference to how 4chan handled usernames or lack thereof?

Not sure why people assume I’m against it for asking questions.

Scroll through comments. There are a lot of people in here “just asking questions” but are really participating in bad-faith because they feel the law should be “symmetrical” or that this is some kind of logic puzzle. The article does outline the story and explains it, but again, this is just a response to a disproportionate level of a specific kind of crime. It’s not about the punishment per-say, it’s about how it’s handled by the legal system.

Meaning that murderers of women had not been getting life before?

It doesn’t actually matter. This isn’t about how much “time” people are getting in prison, this is about defining a type of crime so that it can be prosecuted differently. Read up about why hate crimes exist or really any kind of law targeting a specific crime in specific circumstances. Prosecution and actual punishment are wildly different things. The law responds to what people are doing, it’s all it can do.

And it’s a real world problem not a logic quiz.

Seriously.

I am massively disappointed with the number of dumb chuds on this site who are looking at this like a goddamn fucking logic trick and feeling some kind of personal offense to the fact that some men, somewhere, are committing a disproportional level of a specific kind of crime.

Why shouldn’t the legal definition be symmetrical?

Because the legal system isn’t symmetrical, that’s not a thing, that’s not how anything outside of fucking physics work. The system responds to what people are doing in the material world. If bank robberies start going up, they are going to adjust the law to make it more efficient to process and punish bank robbers.

deleted by creator

This is typically how the legal system responds to increases in specific kinds of crimes, they adjust the system to more efficiently prosecute that crime.

If you have a better idea for how to combat disproportionate crime statistics without targeting that specific kind of crime, from a legal standpoint, I’m sure the world would love to hear it.

This is about how crimes are prosecuted, since there is a disproportionate level of violence against a class of people, they are adjusting the law to make it easier to process and prosecute those crimes and ensure they see court. This isn’t about making the punishment worse. If you read the article you will learn something.

If you have a better idea from a legal standpoint how to address a disproportionate crime statistic against a specific group of people, I’m sure the world would love to hear it.

I appreciate you making the effort here to try to speak reason to a lot of really, really triggered men. It’s kind of absurd how even on what you would think is a largely progressive/leftist site like Lemmy, the moment a story about disproportionate issues between genders comes up, suddenly every other guy sprouts the biggest, bushiest beard from their necks and starts talking about why there aren’t enough state-mandated programs to help short, angry men get girlfriends or whatever.