This reminds me of this masterpiece https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpXy041BIlA

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Except you are free from some consequences, that's exactly why there are laws in place, to delimit what you can do without retaliation, and what you cannot.

The freedom of speech includes retaliayion from the government, but is not limited to it.

These other laws you mention are there to limit the scope of freedom of speech, because it would otherwise explicitly allow it...

What the fuck do you think it means then? Because otherwise everyone, everywhere has the freedom to do everything, but for some of them you don't have freedom from consequences...

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...

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"

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.

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.

While there's no doubt tires are bad for the environment, a quarter of all microplastics seems a lot, especially since plastic is everywhere. Gladly there's a source for that claim, a link to tireindustryproject's FAQ... Claiming that this number is a gross overestimation. What the fuck is this article? Is it supposed to be satire or something?

In a fair fight sure, but this sneaky fucker can read inputs like those cheaty fighting games bots

I know right. Imagine the horror: you are about to eat a tasty platic bag, but you realize it's actually a jellyfish

Je répond à un commentaire qui essaye d'expliquer que "tous les hommes" ne signifie pas "l'intégralité des hommes", et s'en sert pour justifier que tous les hommes sont des violeurs.

Le commentaire que tu me cite explique que lorsqu'on parle de "tous les hommes" on parle bien de l'intégralité d'entre eux, et précise bien que cela ne signifie pas "tous violeurs". Ce qui va, tout comme moi, à l'encontre du premier commentaire.

Ensuite tu me donne une image dont la première bulle dit "L'écrasante majorité des violeurs sont des hommes", ce qui est exactement la tournure de phrase que je suggère d'utiliser dans mon premier commentaire au travers de mon allégorie. Encore une fois, je ne sais pas pourquoi tu as décidé que je devais absolument avoir une opinion contraire à la tienne...

Je ne sais d'ailleurs pas trop ce que ce récapitulatif du fil vient faire là, suis-je sensé m'y reconnaitre? Ou s'agit it d'une simple touche d'humour placée là sans raison? Je suis confus.

Tu m'attribue des opinions qui ne sont pas les miennes, que ce soit en utilisant des réponses à côté de mes propos ou en spéculant sur ma personne via mon historique de commentaire. Il est difficile de ne pas y voir quelque chose un tant soit peu personel...

Effectivement je suis un utilisateur occasionel, je me sert principalement de lemmy comme fil d'actualité, et je vais de temps en temps lire les commentaires quand certains posts piquent ma curiosité. J'ai effectivement choisi de venir m'exprimer pour une fois, mais promis la prochaine fois je ferais attention à ce que ce soit sur un sujet plus important comme la technologie, l'environnement, ou l'actualité internationale (ou moins important peut être, je ne sais pas ce que tu me reproche en fait...)

Je ne vois pas pourquoi mon commentaire de fais tant réagir par ailleurs. Je n'ai jamais exprimé un avis contraire au tient. Je suis juste tombé au fil de ma lecture sur un commentaire qui tente une analyse semantique non seulement factuellement fausse (et qui n'arrivera au mieux qu'a prêcher un convaincu) mais que je trouve en plus défavorable au propos général, puisque cette généralisation ne met aucunement en avant les éléments importants.

"Tous les hommes violent" veut dire exactement la même chose que "chaque homme viloe", ça ne donne d'ailleurs aucune indication sur la proportion de violeurs qui sont des hommes... Si je te dis que j'ai mangé toutes les carottes, ça signifie bien qu'il n'en reste pas une seule, et tu n'as pas la moindre idée du nombre de patates que j'ai mangé.

If I had a vehicule so fast it could literally kill me, I would never drive it around other people knowing my life was potentially in the hands of some inexperienced driver who has not the slightest concern or knowledge regarding traffic laws.

I could find plenty other analogies, but you get the point... So many mundane everyday activities are life threatening in a way, you can't blame people for living...

Asking the waiter for problematic ingredients and insisting on how severe your allergy is more than enough caution taken. The fault is entirely on the restaurant. If a blind person was run over after a nearby pedestrian ensured them that it was safe to cross the street, would you blame the blind person for leaving their house alone?

Us by Jordan Peele. It's a great movie, but that ending scene is terrible. They don't need to insist so much to make sure that the dumb viewer gets it... It's heavily hinted during the last few scenes, and letting the viewer wondering alongside the terrified son who his mother really his, and who we'd like her to be, would be so much more impactfull.

Also Rec by Jaume Balaguerò and Paco Plaza for similar reasons. The movie spends it's entirerity building this unseen menace, and establishing a terrifying ambiance, and then for some reasons right at the end, just before they let us alone with our thoughts after the movie, decides they should undo it all and give us the "oh actually it's just this guy who summoned this demon" ending.