Well I'll say this for it: You probably won't get anything else instead if you do a google search.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Pengling

Quoting: TcheyLike, Close = "fermer" when it should be "proche", or the opposite. Or, Character being "Caractère" when it should be "Personnage". Or some shortcuts like, End for Endurance, becomes "Fin".

Obligatory link [External Link] about the pitfalls of bad localisations. :tongue:

I once did a translation about a space ship simulator - in this context space is translated as ruimte (space as in universe). The client copied and pasted the word ruimte to a message popping up every 3 seconds, instructing the user to press SPACE (as in space bar) to jump, without consulting me beforehand. The result was that the user was instructed to press the universe every so many seconds.

Heh. Thinking of big mistakes, that linked website is designed in such a way that if I hit the "+" button enough to make the print pleasantly comfortable to my eyes, the column with the actual text disappears, swallowed by the sidebars. :grin:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain ManYour frequent use of the straw man fallacy makes this debate rather tiresome.

Hey, back at ya. You're the one claiming the limitations I would favour on free speech would be "arbitrary" when the only description I had given was that they would involve balancing speech rights with other rights.

Quoting: Mountain ManAt no point did I say or imply "When I was mean on the internet, people were mean to me on the internet! Make them stop!!!" Frankly, I have no desire to "make them stop". As a Christian, I often find myself the unprovoked target of some of the most hateful utterances you can imagine, but I don't demand that people be censored or punished for it as I believe they have every right to make fools of themselves. To use a famous quote, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. This is called tolerance, something that liberals vocally espouse but rarely practice.

Liberals tolerate everything except intolerance. That's the point. It's much the way genuine advocates of freedom don't allow the free behaviour of enslaving people.
But OK, if you say you're not trying to make them stop, then I misunderstood. You seemed to be citing certain speech behaviour of liberals as examples of the kind of limitations on speech you oppose, and which therefore should not be allowed to happen. This is a very common pattern; my mistake.

Quoting: Mountain ManAs for the rest of your post, you make my point for me. I can dispassionately state an objective fact without further comment, but then you come along and imagine all sorts of sinister motives behind it that do not exist in actuality

Sure sounds like they do.

Quoting: Mountain Man, and then you demand, unjustly, that I be punished for it.

Being prevented from doing something is not a punishment.

Quoting: Mountain ManFor example, if I point out that certain behaviors are a sin, you claim, falsely, that it can only be because I wish to make people miserable. On the contrary, I believe it's the truth, and that it's only by knowing and accepting the truth that someone can experience the indescribable joy of being freed from sin.

Gee, are you really fooling yourself so hard that you don't realize that's nonsense? On many levels.

So on the impact level: No, gays never experience indescribable joy from this kind of bullshit. Studies make it clear that instead they get really badly fucked up, many commit suicide, others suffer from depression and anxiety all their lives, still others live in fear. They also never, ever stop being gay because of this kind of talk. And this is very well known. The only way for you to hide your head in the sand deep enough to avoid knowing it is if somewhere deep down you already do know it well enough to avoid ever finding out for sure, so you will be able to keep telling yourself you're not harming anyone. But you are harming them; trying to make people reject what they are (if you believe in a creator God, what God made them) harms them, and the more they believe you and try to do what you want, the more harm they suffer. This is amazingly well documented, you're just flat out factually wrong to a massive degree.

This is hardly surprising because much like strictures on what food you can eat, it has no ethical support. Nobody has ever been able to say what might be ethically wrong with homosexual acts, as opposed to just saying "but Big Daddy says no!" There are some things the Bible considers sinful, which are also ethically wrong; I can believe that for those, ceasing to do it and repenting might indeed be a positive experience--and indeed, can be so for irreligious people as well. But nobody's going to get a lovely cleansed feeling from ceasing to eat shellfish, unless maybe they're allergic. That's because it has no ethical content--like homosexuality or heterosexuality.

On the level of truth: It's true that the Bible says some stuff about certain homosexual acts being a sin. That's a fact, just as you previously said. But now you're saying such acts actually are a sin. That's not a truth or a fact, it's just a religious opinion. Someone else could have some other religion that didn't say that. Someone else again could be an Atheist who thinks the whole thing is a bunch of superstitious nonsense (that would be me).

But it's actually less even than a religious opinion, in the sense that it's mainly a cultural prejudice that leans on scripture for support. Again, the passages making reference to homosexuality in the Bible are very sparse and small. There are hundreds of admonitions that have similar weight; the majority of them are not considered sins today by conservatives (or anyone else). Worrying about that specific thing being a sin, while tacitly considering most of the other things obsolete, is not a religious position, it's just a cultural position. Which would be fine if it was benign, but it isn't, it causes a lot of harm to a lot of people.

As to your intent in saying these harmful things . . . What does it say about you if you refuse to believe you're doing harm, or stop doing it, even though the evidence is stark and massive? I have to think at some level it must be really important to you to do that harm. You may tell yourself whatever you please, but I don't think people insist on continuing to do damage out of benevolence.

Quoting: Mountain ManYou call yourself a "radical leftist", but I think "rancid leftist" is more appropriate.

Don't give much of a damn what you think.
You know, on the internet we're just jawing. But I have a gay kid. If we lived in the same area, and I caught you talking this shit to my kid, we wouldn't just be having words.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: Purple Library GuyYou can claim that believing other rights exist and/or should exist is arbitrary, but I don't see what makes other rights arbitrary but speech rights not arbitrary.
Anyway, everyone is opposed to unlimited freedom of speech. Including you. Do you push for the repeal of libel laws? Do you back permitting death threats and open calls for assassinations? I'm thinking no. So, we both back limits on freedom of speech. You just apparently find constraints on racism and gay-bashing, by private rather than governmental entities, to be where you draw a line, where that's not particularly something I have a problem with.

I find that liberals define terms like "racism" and "gay bashing" broadly to the point of absurdity such that statements that are neither of those things are often targeted for censorship, and that's the problem. For example, if I were to point out that according to FBI statistics, blacks in the US commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes compared to whites, I bet you would call it racist and demand it be censored even though it's nothing more than a plain statement of fact. Or if I were to point out that according to the Bible, being actively homosexual is a sin, you would decry it as gay bashing even though it is, again, a plain statement of fact. In both instances, I should be allowed the freedom to say them without fear of reprisal, but liberals would demand that I be punished in some fashion, either by having my comments removed, my posting privileges revoked, or, most probably, both. Some of the more extreme brand of liberals might even try and to "dox" me and get me fired from my job.

It comes down to this: I believe that one's fundamental rights should be protected only to the point that they do not infringe on someone else's fundamental rights. So what are these fundamental rights? I believe the Declaration of Independence has as good a definition as any: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice that "not getting your nose out of joint because someone said something that offends you" is not on the list.

One problem here is that some of this stuff stops people from pursuing happiness so hard that they end up committing suicide, which kind of takes care of the "life" part as well.
Really, I have problems taking this objection very seriously. What you're complaining is "When I was mean on the internet, people were mean to me on the internet! Make them stop!!!"

What is this truth of yours in the service of?

So, you want the right to point out that the Bible calls being actively homosexual a sin. Why, exactly? Well, so that you can get on gays' case and make their lives miserable. I can't think of any other reason. You're not making this observation as a quaint historical footnote. You're not raising the question to compare it to other Biblical sins that you completely ignore, like strictures on eating shellfish, getting tattoos, leaving your tent while menstruating, or wearing cloth with mixed fibres (OMG, poly-cotton blend! Stone 'im!), let alone usury which, compared to one or two throw-away lines for homosexuality, has whole friggin' stories and major exhortations about how horrible it is but which so-called "biblical literalists" actively encourage. No, you're raising it because you want people to feel that homosexuality is bad in the real world, you want other people to also be against them, and you want the homosexuals themselves to feel like shit.

Similarly with blacks. You don't want to raise that statistic to point out that the poor in general commit more violent crimes and therefore the high black violent crime rate is just one more thing that shows they remain on average an economic underclass, as if the statistics on wealth and income levels weren't enough. Nor do you want to talk about the higher likelihood of blacks vs. whites getting arrested for committing the same act, and of getting charged if arrested, and of getting convicted if charged, thus skewing the statistics further. No, you want to use that carefully cherry-picked statistic to imply without quite having to say it that there is something inherently wrong with blacks qua blacks that makes them more violent. And that therefore, it is probably good to, say, let cops have pretty free rein in killing them, or to block them from voting, or to racially profile them in your store, or whatever. In short, the purpose for which you raise that (true, as far as it goes) statistic is to victimize blacks and to propose false inferences from the true statistic.

So yeah, I don't care if such misleading, victimizing bullshit has real quotations in it, and I don't really care if curtailing such evil behaviour (and yes, I said evil, I meant evil) requires limitations on an absolute freedom of speech which never existed anyway. Not that you've even pointed to any such limitations existing--you're saying it's terrible and an outrage that people say angry things in response to you, which is to say, you want to limit their free speech in their responses to you. At this point I believe a conservative would say "Suck it up, snowflake."

As to doxxing, technically that's an exercise of free speech--one which I oppose and am quite willing to regulate by law, but which, according to what you've been claiming, in theory you should support. And it's an act that conservatives do a lot.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: namiko

Quoting: Mountain ManIn other words, you are opposed to freedom of speech because you wish to place arbitrary limits on what others are allowed to say.

Think the hypocrisy is a good point, though. There are people saying that you enable freedom through limitations on many different sides, but that's not really the case, it's all authoritarian in nature and overreaching.

Well, obviously, disallowing murder protects my freedom to live (and all other ones, as I couldn't use any when being dead). Enabling freedom through limitations is very, very broadly agreed upon. So the question usually is not if we want to limit peoples' freedom to protect other peoples' freedom, but just to what extend.

The crime of murder exists because killing someone without just cause deprives them of their fundamental right to life. I really don't see how this is analogous to speech.

Suppose you joined a religion that required you to wear pink pajamas with purple polka dots in public, and suppose I made a disparaging remark about your attire that you found offensive. What fundamental right have I violated? The right not to be offended? Please, if that was a fundamental right then humanity may as well cease to exist because no matter what the circumstance, you are guaranteed to find someone in the world who is offended by it.

Offensive speech is protected speech by definition, because inoffensive speech doesn't need protection.

See, this is the kind of reason laws are complicated--because they always have a bunch of careful wording so as to avoid exactly the kind of trivial problem you're referring to. So you can pretend that hate speech laws lead to this kind of problem, just as you can pretend they are arbitrary, but they don't and they aren't, because they're carefully worded and generally err on the side of caution. So for instance, Canada has hate speech laws, but the only people who have ever been prosecuted under them are far-out neo-Nazis with extensive public records of holocaust denial and Jew-bashing. Libel remains way more common and a lower bar when it comes to going after people for unacceptable speech.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: namikoThat's where most people differ, true. I'd prefer to maximize freedom and limit restrictions and government to a smaller, less bureaucratic state,

Mind you, none of this is actually about government. What's under discussion here is, again, the actions of a private corporation--as it has been in most similar controversies. I've never heard of a situation where it was a government social media portal which was regulating speech. Nor are the actions of these corporations generally triggered by the existence of laws--if anything, they usually respond to upset customers, actual people.

I'm perfectly willing to agree that corporations have too much power, and in specific too much power over our discourse and over what we see, read and so on. But conservatives seem to insist, whenever they have problems with the actions of a corporation, on pretending that the problem somehow is the heavy hand of government.

There is no government in this story. And the only way to get the kind of unfettered speech conservatives say they desire in this situation, would be precisely by bringing the government in, having government pass laws and regulations enforcing lack of speech limits on corporate speech platforms. And again, I have no problem with the basic idea of government regulating the actions of corporations, although I might not favour the same kinds of interventions conservatives do. But we should be clear here that the problem is not the actions of a large, bureaucratic state. Rather it is the absence of a large, bureaucratic, democratic state, one which could actively defend our freedoms against the encroachment of unaccountable private power.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: namiko

Quoting: Purple Library Guy... it's generally obvious the modern conservative conception of free speech involves nobody else being able to have it.

I don't care what you choose to say or where you choose to do so, you should be allowed to say it without any arbitrary limitations. So long as that speech doesn't cause physical harm to someone else, it should be permitted.

There are two possibilities here: Either you are decidedly out of the mainstream of modern (and, really, historical) conservatism, or I don't believe you.
Who burns books? Why, that would be conservatives. Who gets people sacked from universities for saying positive things about Palestinian rights? Why, that would be conservatives. Who is obsessed with purging curricula of anything that happened in history that might make white people uncomfortable? Why, that would be conservatives.

Conservatism is all about social control and enforced homogeneity. Historically, free speech was never a major concern of conservatives; to the contrary, they prefer to regulate speech strongly when they are in charge, to purge expression which deviates from the accepted norm. Threatened by new norms which explicitly accept diversity and aim at reduced social control, in part by rejecting bullying as a way of enforcing social norms, conservatives have discovered freedom of speech as a weapon to re-enable bullying so they can try to re-establish control. But they don't mean it. It's just a weapon that is useful because it's an idea broadly accepted by liberals, so it's harder for them to argue against it.

If you do believe it that's fine, but you're naive about your own side.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: Purple Library Guy...it's generally obvious the modern conservative conception of free speech involves nobody else being able to have it.

The irony here is that this comment comes after two lengthy rants about what you think conservatives shouldn't be allowed to say. :tongue:

It's not ironic at all. Conservatives make a huge kafuffle about free speech being their total main thing and how absolute it should be. I believe in balancing speech rights with other rights in a sane way, with those other rights including positive economic and social rights like say to adequate shelter or education. When someone who professes to believe in balancing different rights tries to balance different rights, that's just consistent.

When someone who professes to believe in absolute free speech in practice routinely muzzles it, that's ironic. And the thing is, conservatives don't even pretend to support many other rights--private property for rich people, maybe, or the right to shoot people--so if they don't even genuinely support the one right they pretend to be massively passionate about, do they actually stand for anything positive at all?

In other words, you are opposed to freedom of speech because you wish to place arbitrary limits on what others are allowed to say.

You can claim that believing other rights exist and/or should exist is arbitrary, but I don't see what makes other rights arbitrary but speech rights not arbitrary.
Anyway, everyone is opposed to unlimited freedom of speech. Including you. Do you push for the repeal of libel laws? Do you back permitting death threats and open calls for assassinations? I'm thinking no. So, we both back limits on freedom of speech. You just apparently find constraints on racism and gay-bashing, by private rather than governmental entities, to be where you draw a line, where that's not particularly something I have a problem with.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: Purple Library Guy...it's generally obvious the modern conservative conception of free speech involves nobody else being able to have it.

The irony here is that this comment comes after two lengthy rants about what you think conservatives shouldn't be allowed to say. :tongue:

It's not ironic at all. Conservatives make a huge kafuffle about free speech being their total main thing and how absolute it should be. I believe in balancing speech rights with other rights in a sane way, with those other rights including positive economic and social rights like say to adequate shelter or education. When someone who professes to believe in balancing different rights tries to balance different rights, that's just consistent.

When someone who professes to believe in absolute free speech in practice routinely muzzles it, that's ironic. And the thing is, conservatives don't even pretend to support many other rights--private property for rich people, maybe, or the right to shoot people--so if they don't even genuinely support the one right they pretend to be massively passionate about, do they actually stand for anything positive at all?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: WorMzySurprising to see such a big increase for Arch (and Manjaro) percentages while SteamOS remains almost static. I wonder if Valve have changed how SteamOS identifies itself, or if more people are making the jump to Arch-based distros for some reason.

I too was wondering why such a tiny increase in SteamOS. Especially since I remember last time there was an article like this, I swear SteamOS was at about 5%, meaning the current amount is a 50% increase since then, so did both the articles and the increase skip a month? Weird. It's not like they had a one month hiatus on delivering Steam Decks.

But, that's sampling for you I guess. In the old days when polls used fairly genuinely randomized samples, they used to say they were accurate within X%, 19 times out of 20. But there's always that 20th time when stuff gets out of whack cuz your random sample is randomly off.

View this comment - View article - View full comments