Random Gaming Thoughts

[Erik_Twice]

I saw someone refer to Metal Slug 2 as "Slowdown Slug" and I don't think I can deny it pretty much is

[MrPopo]

But if you guys are asserting that freedom of speech requires that there are no consequences to your actions then freedom of speech never has existed and never will exist.

Nobody is arguing that. I've been very explicit about what "consequences" I mean: Violence, firings, public humilliations and so on.

But that's my point, there is ALWAYS the threat of violence for ANYTHING you say if you say it to the wrong person (which could simply be someone who's having the worst day of his life).

[nullPointer]

But if you guys are asserting that freedom of speech requires that there are no consequences to your actions then freedom of speech never has existed and never will exist.

Nobody is arguing that. I've been very explicit about what "consequences" I mean: Violence, firings, public humilliations and so on.

I'm not sure it's been stated explicitly, but Freedom of Speech generally only goes so far as to cover the freedom to say what you want without fear of reprisal from the government, but that's really as far as it goes. This sets the concept apart from countries which enforce Sharia Law as a matter of government policy, countries which exercise forms of government censorship and so forth. It does not, and in fact cannot, serve as an umbrella from reprisal taken at the level of the individual, it can only define the bounds of "acceptable reprisal".

So I can say some loony, inflammatory, statements in public and feel safe that government troops won't be kicking down my door to haul me off to the "re-education camps," but I can't inherently assume that some equally loony minded individual won't take umbrage to my remarks and punch me in the face. Now at that point, the government can step in to prosecute the other individual since my physical well being is protected from assault under government law, but I'm still safe from government reprisal on the basis of my remarks. My freedom of speech wasn't violated. If the other individual had gone home and written an equally inflammatory blog in reaction to my remarks, then that is acceptable reprisal on the basis of his freedom of speech. Unfortunately all manner of government protection isn't going to help my nose at this point. Maybe I should have exercised some common sense and not spouted off at the mouth in the first place. Freedom of speech, just like any freedom, is a responsibility, and should ideally be treated as such. <Insert Spiderman quote>

Random gaming thought: The larger the character sprite, the looser the controls feel, although that feeling is at least partly based on illusion.

[BogusMeatFactory]

Random gaming thought: The larger the character sprite, the looser the controls feel, although that feeling is at least partly based on illusion.

I think also, with those larger sprites, there is a tendency to get the hit boxes wrong and things get a bit wonky as to where you are standing.

[Erik_Twice]

But that's my point, there is ALWAYS the threat of violence for ANYTHING you say if you say it to the wrong person (which could simply be someone who's having the worst day of his life).

I can't inherently assume that some equally loony minded individual won't take umbrage to my remarks and punch me in the face.

You can't assume your family won't be murdered, either. What's the point?

The fact that someone might not respect human rights, does not mean human rights do not exist, cannot exist or that human rights are pointless.

Freedom of Speech generally only goes so far as to cover the freedom to say what you want without fear of reprisal from the government, but that's really as far as it goes.

That's an American meme. Freedom of speech is a human right and is not bounded by any sort of jurisdiction.

[nullPointer]

But that's my point, there is ALWAYS the threat of violence for ANYTHING you say if you say it to the wrong person (which could simply be someone who's having the worst day of his life).

I can't inherently assume that some equally loony minded individual won't take umbrage to my remarks and punch me in the face.

You can't assume your family won't be murdered, either. What's the point?
The fact that someone might not respect human rights, does not mean human rights do not exist, cannot exist or that human rights are pointless.

Over the course of history hundreds of thousands of people have in fact been murdered on the basis of what they said both under politically oppressive regimes (Jesus Christ, Gandhi, etc.) and regimes in which political freedom of speech ostensibly exists (MLK, Malcolm X, Harvey Milk, etc.). We call them martyrs. It still doesn't mean that they weren't free to say what they said. In point of fact the quoted individuals were likely well aware of how their words might be received by an opposing audience in the interest of speaking out in favor of human rights, but it didn't stop them.

Freedom of Speech generally only goes so far as to cover the freedom to say what you want without fear of reprisal from the government, but that's really as far as it goes.

That's an American meme. Freedom of speech is a human right and is not bounded by any sort of jurisdiction.

That's certainly a Utopian view point and all, and more power to you for adhering to it, but the fact is that Freedom of Speech is usually couched in terms of being a political freedom (1, 2, 3). Political Freedom of Speech has existed in one form or another since the times of Athens and later the Roman Empire. So while Americans are often spouting off about First Amendment rights and so forth, to say that Political Freedom of Speech is an "American meme" is not only a bit heavy handed, but also not really accurate in the slightest. Natural Freedom of Speech does exist insofar as anyone can say whatever they want whenever they want where ever they are, but as soon as Natural Freedom of Speech becomes codified as, "You must be able to say whatever, whenever, where ever and be free from any sort of consequence" it becomes Political Freedom of Speech in it assumes enforcement of some kind. I suppose it could be interpreted as, "I'll say whatever I want, and rely on the good nature of others to not punch me," which would forego a political interpretation, but once again we're talking about theoretical Utopia there. It's a great thing to strive for but probably not something we're capable of as humans (at least if the whole of our human history is anything to go by).

Adventures of Batman and Robin on the SNES is still the best Batman game.

[MrPopo]

Let's take a step back. Erik_Twice, how would you implement a system that allows you to say whatever you want without fear of reprisal from anyone? And let's narrow it down to just not having to worry about physical violence (we can extend the protection later once we have a solid foundation).

[Erik_Twice]

Over the course of history hundreds of thousands of people have in fact been murdered on the basis of what they said

It still doesn't mean that they weren't free to say what they said.

They were so free they got killed for it. Sure, and jail is just a room

Let's take a step back. Erik_Twice, how would you implement a system that allows you to say whatever you want without fear of reprisal from anyone?

No, no, let me ask you instead

Do you believe you have any kind of right right now? The right to vote, for example?

(Also just "Erik". We've known each other for long enough for that)

[MrPopo]

If you're going that route then what is a right? Can a right be taken away? Does everyone get a right?

[Erik_Twice]

If you're going that route then what is a right? Can a right be taken away? Does everyone get a right?

That's what I'm asking you.