How about the Linux desktop though? How does it run?

Well, it's a little quirky.

So much for the theory that "Steam Deck Approved" is synonymous with "Linux Approved".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

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.

Your frequent use of the straw man fallacy makes this debate rather tiresome. At 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.

As 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, and then you demand, unjustly, that I be punished for it. For 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.

You call yourself a "radical leftist", but I think "rancid leftist" is more appropriate.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

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.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

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.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

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.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

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:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quietly is better than not at all! Let's just hope they keep it updated.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The primary criticism I've read is that it's a short, linear, "Press X to make something cool happen" game. Given the title of the game, I was hoping for a free roam experience rather than one that prevents you from straying off the golden path.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

What an interesting development. I can see why Linux/SteamOS would be attractive to developers of handheld gaming devices because, first of all, Windows is not at all well suited for low-powered, portable hardware, and second, Linux/SteamOS is free, so no "corporate tax" to ship a device with a pre-installed operating system. And with Proton, Windows gamers will not have to give up a large chunk of their Steam library, and what games they do have to give up will be considered an acceptable trade-off because handheld gaming is almost thought of as a different genre, and people naturally do not expect to be able to play every game they can play on their desktop.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I honestly don't have a problem with using Proton to play games that are targeted for Windows since it generally works flawlessly (and in some cases, playing through Proton offers better performance than playing a native Linux version, as counter intuitive as that might seem). What gives me pause is when developers treat Proton as an unsupported extra, where they're happy to take our money but then tell us we're on our own if we encounter any problems.

View this comment - View article - View full comments