Springheel

The tracker may not have been closed, but I'm pretty sure grayman did implement a lowering of AI acuity during conversations (or rather, they ignore alerts of level 1 or 2).

I'm pretty sure we already do this.

Now THIS, on the other hand, does blatantly break the forum rules.

I'm pretty sure I went through the chest prefabs and changed them so only the lids are frobbable some years ago. The lid is the thing that is moving, after all...there's no reason for the entire chest to highlight and it's much easier to grab things when it is not competing for the frob trace. Having everything be picked up immediately on opening a chest wouldn't work for us, even if it was desirable, since chests often have multiple movable junk objects in them, and the player can only pick up one at a time.

That was certainly the case at one point, in order to allow frobbing of things on top of ledges or objects that would otherwise be difficult to target.

Having the outline appear behind objects is one of the things being tested, so if people don't like it, they should chime in.

Someone's first post that has a link to an external site, and references nothing that is actually connected to this forum? I'm guessing spam.

If that work had been done, and if it did show that certain types of hate speech can cause violence, then we would at least have something to discuss. But that work hasn't been done, and there are too many examples of "hate speech" that have no rational connection to violence whatsoever (even examples posted in this very thread) to make me think that is a likely conclusion. But, even if it were, it still wouldn't immediately follow that hate speech should be banned. We already know that religions can cause violence (at least according to the people committing it in the name of that religion) but because it is only a small percentage of the population committing that violence, we don't ban religions or religious texts. When Democrats demonize Republicans and then someone shoots a bunch of Republicans at a baseball game, we don't ban harsh political criticism. Nathaniel White said Robocop had inspired him to kill one of his victims. We don't ban violent movies. There was plenty of violence at the BLM protests last summer, but no one dreamed of banning the anti-police rhetoric, even after two police officers were murdered in their car. I could go on.

It's odd to me that you would, in an attempt to justify hate speech laws, compare them to a law which we now recognize to have been unjust and without valid justification. Laws against homosexuality are exactly the kind of laws states should not be allowed to make...ones where the state cannot justify making the behaviour illegal beyond vague statements about protecting society from "offensive" behaviour. In that way, they are precisely like hate speech laws. And while hate speech laws may eventually be recognized as obsolete and be repealed in the same way homosexuality was decriminalized, that's not an argument in their favour. If a law can't be justified, it shouldn't exist. Period.

Another irony...while hate speech advocates list Nazis as one of their primary enemies, and point to Nazi Germany as what can happen if hate speech is allowed, the Nazi party was actually one of the most enthusiastic supporters of banning "problematic" speech...as all power-hungry proto-dictatorships are. This is exactly why preventing violence is not a sufficient argument for banning "hate speech". If you can't see the problem with making laws that require "good faith human analysis", where two reasonable people can't even agree on what is or is not against the law, I don't know what else to say. If we could rely on good faith, we wouldn't need laws at all.

Oh please. You're going to try and argue that the Quran and Bible get a pass because they aren't "current"?? They're among the most widely read books in the world. "The Holy Bible is the most read book in the world. In the past 50 years, the Bible has sold over 3.9 billion copies. " Coming in at #3 in the world, "The Quran is believed to be the words straight from God, Allah. It is the book that the Muslims use as a guide full of religious texts of how they should live their lives. ... The Quran is the most read book in the world by the Islamic community. " https://capitalizemytitle.com/what-are-the-most-read-books-in-the-world-of-all-time/

Ok, great. We're generally in agreement on that point. Books like the Quran and the Bible can tell their followers to do violent things, and some of their followers DO violent things, but we don't try to make the books illegal. Instead, we condemn the violence and we try to use reason to counter the violent messages. Why is that approach not also sufficient for "hate speech"?

And? This isn't a courtroom, it's a conversation. When someone's argument suggests a conclusion, a suggestive question is a good way to find out whether the person has considered and supports that conclusion.

It's ironic that this is the same argument used by those who blame Islam for terrorist attacks like 9/11. "His religion told him that what he was doing was right. The Quran's command to "make war on the unbelievers" was not the sole reason, but it contributed and may have given the final impulse he needed." I guess, by extension, you would be supportive of making that religion illegal? A dictionary definition doesn't answer the original question, which was "What does it protect against that isn't already covered by other laws?"

It's apparently not easy at all. I've been trying to get a straight answer to "what hate speech is" for two pages now. Until we establish a clear definition of what hate speech laws are supposed to do, we can't begin to have a discussion about whether they are successful or not. But for some reason, hate speech proponents seem determined to avoid answering the question. That is absolutely NOT the way you establish laws in a just society. You don't just let the state make laws without explanation and hope they eventually work out...what could be more fascist than that? If the state doesn't have a good justification for making something illegal, then it should not be illegal.