Maetani

joined 1 year ago
[–] Maetani@jlai.lu 13 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)
[–] Maetani@jlai.lu 0 points 1 month ago

But that is my exact point, the only thing op is saying is that hate speech (along other edge cases) is protected by free speech. Which is true and doesn't mean op agrees with it.

It could be interpreted as "you can't touch me, I am protected by free speech", or "remember that some seemingly innocent laws also protect some very douchy behaviors". Which one YOU decide to interpret it is on you.

Either way, there is an interesting conversation to be had around the law, who is it there to protect, why, and what the limits should be. But instead that comment decided to say that "it doesn't force the rest to agree with you" and claim that it makes op a racist. Just an irrelevant "feel good" argument and an ad hominem attack to shut down a conversation on a more than ever important subject.

[–] Maetani@jlai.lu 1 points 1 month ago (6 children)

What you interpret as me changing sides is just me agreeing with the relevant arguments you make.

You are the only one assuming my thoughts here. All I am saying since the beginning is that your argument doesn't contradict op's meme. It is not a false statement, I never said as such, it simply doesn't contradict it, and using it to imply that op is racist is the issue at hand.

Freedom of speech does protect hate speech, that's an issue with it, and it merits to be discussed. Every right comes with drawbacks, and closing the discution in favor of circlejerking is never a good idea.

On that note I'm getting tired of this discussion too, so I'll stop there. Once again, I do not have a grudge against you or your ideas, I just hate seeing falacious arguments beeing aplauded all the time, but I guess that's unavoidable on social medias, no matter which. Have a nice day, and ty for this conversation.

[–] Maetani@jlai.lu 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)

I have not backtracked on anything... My very first comment explicitly says that "It protects you against SOME consequences (then I proceed to list some as an example)", which obviously implies that some others aren't protected by it... I also never mentionned who would be enforcing it...

I didn't care which consequences you thought about, and still don't. It's not what my comments are about. My issue with your comment is you saying that freedom of speech doesn't protect hate speech because it doesn't give you freedom from ALL consequences. But freedom of speech gives the same protection to hate speech as any other form of speech.

I would have the same to say if that comment was : " -Freedom of speech includes talking about minorities oppression -Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences you woke bastard " Or any other topic.

I think I would agree with you on a lot of ideas, but using fallacious arguments is never helpfull.

[–] Maetani@jlai.lu 1 points 1 month ago (10 children)

In a way... I admit that ALL types of free speech when used can have SOME consequences.

The issue I have with your original statement is that you put all consequences in the same basket... With that logic you can say that freedom to vote does not mean freedom from consequences, therefore you can't complain that I try to indimidate anyone if front of the booth

[–] Maetani@jlai.lu -4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (12 children)

Yes, there are, some fairly harmless, some much more impactfull. Getting a dislike from a comment is a consequence, although very benign. Getting boycotted or banned from a platform is another consequence, which could be quite devastating.

[–] Maetani@jlai.lu -5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (27 children)

It does mean freedom from a lot of consequences though, like getting harassed, beaten or incarcerated, or anything else beeing covered by law. In that sense, it does cover hate speech, in all its forms, that doesn't make op racist in any way...

[–] Maetani@jlai.lu 0 points 2 months ago

I don't see what you find cringy or entitled from this open letter, they explain the problems they encounter while working on mods and explain how Larian can help with that. This is the best way to handle such a request as a group.

And no, they aren't entitled to their demands, but that doesn't mean that those demands aren't admissible. While they do not own the game itself, they do contribute to it's success and the studio will benefit from helping them.

Also, it seems like you view modding as just some small tweaks for the fun of it (which might be the case for bg3, but from the letter it doesn't seem so), but some game mods can become fairly huge, both in work size and popularity. While I don't know much about the bg3 scene, I remember quite a few minecraft modders who received death threats because they "took too long" to update their mods to the latest version. There's a real pressure behind that work, you can't just brush it off because "they don't own the game"

[–] Maetani@jlai.lu 9 points 2 months ago (5 children)

I don't know about the specific situation you are talking about, but this sounds like a perfectly fine request. Needing to spent time debugging your mod at random because an unexpected patch just dropped and players suddenly can't use it anymore doesn't sound fun. Especially considering how little extra work it would take the studio to document their fix to the mod community a bit early.

[–] Maetani@jlai.lu 6 points 2 months ago

That was an interesting read. I guess tyre fragments (and industrial pellets) are just way bigger than the other big offenders, which would explain why they represent such a huge portion of the total mass, and why they are filtered out "easily". Overall it seems to me that we really need to categorize the different microplastics better, as the current definition (anything plastic 5mm and under) seems a bit too large, and with all the mix ups, you can always blame something else.

view more: next ›