- 1 Post
- 19 Comments
21·3 months agoExactly.
3·4 months agoThis statement could be used about literally any topic that certain groups of people find objectionable. The US is currently providing a very clear example of what happens when you use that argument.
Maybe but in what way my statement could be used has nothing todo with the conversation we are having.
I used it specifically in the context of torture.
Seeing as he was an active participant in it, this is the core of my questioning. Why is it considered ‘something others did to him’, and not ‘something he did to himself’? He could have left at any time, but he chose to stay and remain in the activity.
Quoting the article:
On August 18, 46-year-old Raphaël Graven, better known as Jean Pormanove, died in his sleep while live on Kick. In the days and even months prior, he had reportedly endured extreme violence, sleep deprivation, and forced ingestion of toxic products at the hands of two fellow streamers known as Naruto and Safine.
Because letting someone do something to you is still another person doing something to you.
As long as we don’t know why he stayed we can’t be sure if it was because of trauma or greed.
Harm was not the direct goal of this stream either. The goal was to see how long they could stay awake. Heck, take boxing. Boxers still die every year, and that’s a much more obvious example of harm being the direct goal of the activity. Nobody is seriously suggesting that boxing should be criminalised, or that participants should be prosecuted.
That’s the stated goal but from context/article it is reasonable to assume that fucking with the guy was a goal too.
Well I don’t think saying because one fucked up thing exists that makes it okay that we tolerate other fucked up things is a good point. There is certainly a discussion to be had about the morality of boxing. In my opinion at least.
I agree that everybody involved is in some way indirectly responsible. However I’m unclear that it’s actually illegal. Morally reprehensible, but morality is a very subjective opinion and one I’m very hesitant to let platforms start deciding on my behalf.
Well I think there are some things we can all agree on are not okay. Torture for example.
No need to be a condescending jerk.
I was serious. Sorry, didn’t meant to come of this way.
Why are they responsible for a grown adult making his own choices? What about an audience who directly funded the activity? Are they not even more directly responsible for the event that occurred?
They aren’t but they are responsible in the sense that they shouldn’t give that shit a platform.
Yes the audience is responsible too.
Given it was a voluntary participation, how is this different from any other activity that involves potential self-harm? If a bunch of people freeclimb a deadly mountain with a 20% chance of death and stream it, and one of them dies, is that illegal? Assuming not, what’s the difference here?
The question falls apart with the word self-harm. Other people did that to him.
And freeclimb metaphor doesn’t work as well as harm is not the goal of free climbing. The goal is to reach the top. Dying is a risk you take. Besides if you would stream free climbing and egg the other person on to do stupid shit or make it more difficult to climb for the other person, and that person dies because of that, you would be partly responsible for that death.
His choice to participate in an activity that killed him.
Yes he is responsible for that.
But I think this is not a this-one-person-is-responsible-situation. Everybody in the chain of events that lead to this mans death is responsible in some way. Everybody who knew and did nothing.
There is a gradient of responsibility, of course. The person just watching isn’t as responsible as the person who is acting, but everybody is guilty to some degree. And to that degree people should be punished.
Okay, you asked why others are held responsible and not the dead guy and what is the logic behind it.
I don’t get what’s not to get about that.
The platform didn’t put a stop to torture on their platform. They are responsible for that.
The others streamers tortured a guy to death. They are responsible for that.
What exactly do you think the the dead guy is responsible for?
Other parties are being held responsible for what?
I’m living in a universe where some of the most dense stuff are user on this Plattform.
I’m not proposing to reason with them.
Because talking is legal.
You shouldn’t bombard those people with emails or phone calls or order pizza without toppings/cheese. Don’t harass them and make their life miserable, don’t ruin something they enjoy. Don’t use OSINT to find more about them and certainly don’t ask “where is your god now?” when they break down crying. Don’t clog their systems with trashdata. Just don’t raid them.
Talk with them in a civilized manner. Look at human history and you will see that every conflict can be settled if you are just willing to use words and nothing else.
Some humans are not as smart as LLMs, I give them that.
Why is this down voted?
It is good to know that proton does this.
Nope he is a fucking idiot.
Nice rant but this was about him throwing it into the environment while saying the government should ban those vapes so he stops throwing them in the woods.
I understand that you didn’t get it with first reading because it is completely nuts so the brain goes to something more reasonable.
But I agree with the gist of what you are saying.
Because most people reason like children and act like children.
Had one dude buy a bunch of those none refillable vapes. Ran around with 3 of them and talked about that the government should ban them because people like himself throw them in the woods when done. That is a real person.
Warfighting mit nem Schießgewehr.
You have to write it down once in a while, then it works.
51·6 months agoWhat the fuck is your problem? :D
Never to late to change.
BTW Lemmy doesn’t encrypt DM as far as I know.
I think you can reap the benefits from just using a VPN and set the country to Belgium?
They don’t even know what a server is.