Author
|
Topic: Augmented reality game to save the world (Read 13493 times)
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3873
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Deus, what is that… thing you wrote, there?
You're seriously equivocating between Iraqi MWDs and Russian press freedom problems on the one hand, and on the other hand between… wait, where is it illegal to debate the Armenian Genocide? Turkey?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3873
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
You're seriously equivocating between Iraqi MWDs and Russian press freedom problems on the one hand,
I am connecting these three dots: 2003: "Saddam Hussein is a horrible dictator that oppresses his people, he will blow up the world!"Result: Disastrous Intervention. 2011: "Muammar Gaddafi is a horrible dictator that oppresses his people, he will blow up the world!"Result: Disastrous Intervention. Now: "Vladimir Putin is a horrible dictator that oppresses his people, he will blow up the world!"Result: Pending.
Those three are massively dissimilar. 2003 was a disastrous intervention founded on lies, no argument there. In 2011, there was an active civil war already going on without Western intervention, and the tendency at that time was that Gaddafi would win and was already killing a large number of people. We blew up part of his armed forces so he couldn't do that any more; the civil war continued for some time and resulted in a mess, but it's not a worse mess than would have resulted with no intervention. And In the present case, the proposal is to make a VR video game.
I can squint and see a connection between the first two; the third is… dissimilar.
(The Bashar Al Assad intervention's result is also pending as of this writing.)
I'm pretty sure that Putin's intervention to save Assad from the fate of Libya will end up working, yes.
wait, where is it illegal to debate the Armenian Genocide? Turkey?
France.Did you seriously not know France illegalized denial of various genocides? It comes with the penalty of up to a 5 year prison sentence, IIRC.
That article doesn't exactly support the precise example you presented. It says, "While the new motion is yet to be passed by France’s Senate, backers of the amendment hope for it to be implemented by the end of the year" (that being 2016). It is not clear that this effort succeeded; I have not been able to find evidence of it. However, if you were to change that to 'deny that the Holocaust occurred', yes it would be illegal. Your initial claim that it is illegal to "debate the exact number of armenians killed" is blatantly false, even if you change 'Armenians' to 'Jews'.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
None of this is illegal here.
That does not seem totally true. Every country has weird laws that "regulate" freedom of speech. In western Europe they often fall under the guise of protecting ordinary people's egos or preventing dangerous propaganda from being spread. In other countries speech is limited to prevent a deity from being offended (Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind) or to prevent undermining of the country by mysterious foreign powers (America in the era of McCarthyism and now again and Russia in just about anytime in about the last century).
But in any case the result is the state can punish word crimes. And they can slowly introduce expansions of word crimes' definitions and punishments and use older precedents of such laws to help justify the creation of new ones.
Has anyone here proposed to go to war? Spreading human rights propaganda can hardly be considered an act of war, and since this is a game and not a country, you would, in any case, be going to war against a game then.
I was specifically responding to your statement that journalists who were critical of Putin were being disappeared. My response is that that could be true. But it also sounds a lot like military propaganda we often see coming out of America and directed at its enemies and competitors. It is difficult to determine which is the case since presumably the assassin does not advertise what they have done.
In contrast, speech laws are readily visible and advertised by their enforcers. They have to be to function as laws. Thus, judging the "freedom level" of a nation by its speech laws seems way more practical and gets us out of conspiracy theory territory (assuming that is desired).
In 2011, there was an active civil war already going on without Western intervention, and the tendency at that time was that Gaddafi would win and was already killing a large number of people. We blew up part of his armed forces so he couldn't do that any more; the civil war continued for some time and resulted in a mess, but it's not a worse mess than would have resulted with no intervention.
It is possible the intervention in Libya saved lives. It is also possible the intervention in Iraq saved lives. But are these things likely? Was one a good intervention and the other bad?
I can squint and see a connection between the first two; the third is… dissimilar.
The connection being between conspiracy theories as to a country's secret crimes (murdering journalists, weapons of mass destruction) and deteriorating relations between that country and America. I am not absolutely against conspiracy theories being used to support a point since they sometimes turn out to be true later on (as was the case with Iraqi weapons of mass destruction) but that does expand the conversation quite a bit in a lot of ways. (Like whether or not Russia was the only country that would have benefited from those journalists being assassinated.)
That article doesn't exactly support the precise example you presented. It says, "While the new motion is yet to be passed by France’s Senate, backers of the amendment hope for it to be implemented by the end of the year" (that being 2016). It is not clear that this effort succeeded; I have not been able to find evidence of it. However, if you were to change that to 'deny that the Holocaust occurred', yes it would be illegal. Your initial claim that it is illegal to "debate the exact number of armenians killed" is blatantly false, even if you change 'Armenians' to 'Jews'.
Huh, I thought I remembered them having a list of several genocides that were taboo including a number of African ones. I suppose I must have conflated proposals for further expansion of the law with what was already enforced. Still the point is the same, every country enforces speech crime laws.
Also relevant to the topic, it is worth asking if the specific flavor of these laws is designed to reflect the values and morals of the populace, not the government. That is, while a government may use speech laws for its own ends, the rationale for them is carefully chosen to be as palatable to the populace as possible. So does Putin and his government want to oppress homosexuals or is attempting to suppress homosexuality desirably to the majority of Russians and their government is just using this as a guise to further limit their speech?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
I was specifically responding to your statement that journalists who were critical of Putin were being disappeared. My response is that that could be true.
Yeah. People just coincidently disappear when they are critical of Putin. Or, maybe you think the US is killing them to make it look like Putin is doing it?
In contrast, speech laws are readily visible and advertised by their enforcers. They have to be to function as laws. Thus, judging the "freedom level" of a nation by its speech laws seems way more practical and gets us out of conspiracy theory territory (assuming that is desired).
You cannot necessarily get an objective evaluation of freedom of speech from speech laws either since laws might not be enforced to the same degree in different countries. In Brazil, for example, they have had laws against drunk driving for a long time, but people continue to drive while under the influence of alcohol since the police haven't been able to enforce the law.
This is what I think many Americans have a very poor understanding of. The solution to all your problems isn't just less government. Many of the countries in the world with weak governments are completely chaotic, with tons of garbage everywhere.
So does Putin and his government want to oppress homosexuals or is attempting to suppress homosexuality desirably to the majority of Russians and their government is just using this as a guise to further limit their speech?
Human rights propaganda doesn't necessarily need to be against Putin. It can also be intended for changing the mindset of the Russian population, for example, in regard to homosexuality.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 19, 2018, 10:23:20 am by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
Here is an example of how a human rights propaganda sheet could look:
And here from google translater:
Could also make similar sheets for China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and other dictatorships.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 19, 2018, 12:46:22 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
PRH
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 209
|
Yeah. People just coincidently disappear when they are critical of Putin. Or, maybe you think the US is killing them to make it look like Putin is doing it?
The way you're wording it, it may seem like the moment a person says something critical of Putin, they're going to get assassinated. This is simply not true. It's not yet Stalinist USSR or North Korea here yet, nobody's going to do anything to you for telling a joke about Putin. However, there are indeed serious problems with freedom of speech in Russia. With homosexuals, it is actually illegal now to "promote" homosexuality among minors, although what constitutes such "promotion" is up to debate. Some organizations (like Deti-404, or 404 Children in English, whose objective is specifically to help LGBT teenagers) have already had trouble with the law because of that, but they survive nonetheless. And also on the topic of homosexuality, I don't think it's specifically Putin who promotes homophobia in Russia. The Russian society is already homophobic as it is, Putin simply exploits this homophobia to grow his power base. After all, people will readily hand you more power when there is a scapegoat that they're seriously afraid of.
With the mass media specifically, the vast majority of TV channels are pro-Putin, while on the Internet the opinions are more diverse. You can find pretty much the entire political spectrum on the forums and the social media, and there are some media outlets on the Russian segment of the Internet that are anti-Putin. Some of them are blocked in Russia by the Roskomnadzor (the main Internet censorship organization in Russia), some are not.
None of this is to say that there is no risk that one could be imprisoned or killed in Russia for voicing a dissenting opinion. There are anecdotes that say that some people were jailed for making a repost on the social media. What the odds are for getting imprisoned (let alone killed) for political reasons in Russia, I cannot say.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRH
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 209
|
Well, in any case there are two ways to go when a new technology emerges - try to suppress it or try to adapt to it. Trying to suppress a technology rarely works out well.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
It's a package thing. If you think that homosexuals and people with dissenting opinions should have the same rights as you, then you are also more likely to think that the government shouldn't be surveilling them. And if the government doesn't have any good reason to engage in massive surveillance, then you are also less likely to be surveilled yourself.
That does not follow, since there is always some group in society people will see as criminals and potentially want surveilled. Rapists, murderers, thieves, drug traffickers, gun traffickers, people traffickers, killer robot engineers. Unless you advocate for total anarchy where there are no crimes and no criminals, there will always be many cases where surveillance of some people by authorities can be justified to the populace.
If you think people from other countries should have the same rights as you, you are probably less likely to think it is a good idea to make killer robots to murder people from other countries. If all countries believe in human rights, it is much less likely that we will develop super advanced killer robots and lose control of them.
Unless you feel that someone labeled a "dictator" by your media and the ultimate evil of the present moment is a threat to your society and you need new and better weapons to protect yourself from said dictator. New and better weapons like, say, killer robots.
Dictatorships simply aren't responsible enough to have such powerful weapons. It is like giving the Tsar bomba to a 5 year old kid. Who knows what the kid will do with it...
Yeah, because they might detonate the Tsar Bomba once over a deserted region and then scrap the project soon after? Because that is what the "dictatorship" that actually had a Tsar Bomba actually did with it. How irresponsible of them.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
