- 0 Posts
- 39 Comments
Genuinely as hard as “bring back the NGage.” Nobody wants to buy a smartphone that’s also a console platform. There’s no three-year contract required, and AT&T doesn’t get to micromanage the dashboard, but it’s still two wildly different commitments for no sufficient benefit. It means being stuck with a wonky smartphone on a longer console lifecycle and overpaying for a console with all the limitations of a smartphone.
By contrast - this is a controller with a screen in it. That’s all. Why wouldn’t they sell that? What’s the downside, for them? You buy another accessory priced well beyond its material costs, you provide all the electricity and electronics necessary for it to do anything, and they don’t care if you ever play games on it. It’s not lashed to the success of yet another online store. It’s not even a vehicle for recurring subscription fees. It’s a dongle for another toy. They have no incentive to force it to catch on. If it doesn’t sell - they’ll just stop.
Honestly, dumb as this sounds, they can’t lose. It’s not a platform. There’s no infrastructure. It doesn’t even do cloud streaming, for some reason; it is 100.0% dependent on your hardware and your network. If Sony went bankrupt tomorrow, this gizmo would still work. If the hardware’s sold at a comfortable profit and they’re not gambling anything on its success, why wouldn’t they launch this ridiculous object? They don’t care if you don’t buy it.
It’s not a handheld. It’s an accessory.
IIRC the original Xbox has even worse emulation, to this day, despite being infamously close to a stock PC.
What makes RDR’s emulation struggles noteworthy is that it’s a highly desirable game that still took ages to unfuck. Most nightmare cases for emulators seem to be random D-list titles. Pinball Fantasies on Game Boy had incomprehensible crashes, early and reliably, for no discernible reason. True Crime New York on Gamecube was a white whale for Dolphin despite being absolute garbage.
RDR was a huge deal for its own sake - and it ran bad, looked worse, and stayed that way for a while. Back in the day it was common for emulators to only work properly for big-name games. NESticle and SNES9X absolutely cheated to run major titles. Early N64 development was nothing but. So having this killer app refuse to work, year after year, was a lingering presence in people’s minds.
Finally getting it working, only to have a nearly painless alternative drop, is pretty goddang funny.
There are plainly websites where Simpsons porn is openly available. If it was as illegal as actual images of child abuse, I cannot imagine where you think they’re hosted. Secret wizards on the backside of the moon would still get raided by the FBI. In practice, that law’s inclusion of drawings is unenforceable nonsense, because - as I keep telling the idiot who I assure you I am still bickering with - drawings are not children.
Child rape is different from drawings.
Child rape is worse than drawings.
Any argument to the contrary, on any basis, no matter how dry, is kinda fucked up. Saying so, to him or to you, doesn’t mean I’ve engaged in some campaign to silence him, or prevent others from considering his position. It means I’ve judged his words on their merit and I expect he’s just an idiot.
I am not joking when I say this person has contradicted their own hair-splitting within one sentence. They will outright sneer as if I have imagined all claims of equivalence… in the same comment as insisting two wildly different problems are by-definition the same thing. Dude legitimately failed at argumentum ad nuh-uh. And I spotted this trajectory from the outset. Unless you feel I’ve tricked him into adopting this position, it was always right there in his mind, and that was in evidence.
At this point I’m legitimately worried about that guy failing Piaget metrics. Whatever diplomacy you want me to extend to people by default, it has been spent.
I don’t believe you’re physically capable of self-consistently stating what you think your point is. You’re somehow not equating these things you just said are defined as the same thing. You’re sneering as if noticing that definition - which you block-quoted - is some kind of delusion.
All while projecting emotion in a way that’s almost as ironic as your constant parroting of the phrase “reading comprehension.”
Is it difficult to use the internet without object permanence?
No possible definition of child sexual abuse can include drawings, no matter who writes it. That’s not what those words mean.
Drawings… aren’t children. It is literally that simple.
And if you think any of this is identically illegal to actual photos of child abuse - one, there’s a whole network of shamelessly public US-hosted sites for you to turn in and be a national hero, and two, you might be wholly incapable of remembering what you’re arguing. Whether you think these things are equivalent oscillates between letters.
What you’re asking for is what I’m very obviously doing, here. Again: “shutting someone out” does not mean the talking stops. I am almost pathologically inclined to continue bickering with someone, for the sake of a potential audience.
This ding-dong’s false equivalence is equally obvious. They’ve contradicted their contrary insistence within the same sentence as some of those insistences. Most recently they’ve blamed it on the laws where this study took place. Last I checked… Stanford is in California. American laws do not say diddly fuck about drawings of Bart Simpson’s dick. There’s public-facing sites where you could find one in a heartbeat. The FBI is not out a-hunting them. Their legal troubles will mostly come from the Walt Disney Corporation.
Not that any country’s laws could possibly make child… sexual abuse… materials… somehow include computer renderings of fictional characters.
If we want a polite and civil discourse, everyone needs to make an effort.
Why is that the highest goal?
The creeping demand for “civility” above all else is a detriment to conversational honesty. That doesn’t mean anything-goes. Screaming escalations and blatant trolling are not the same thing as identifying bullshit and saying ‘that’s bullshit.’ Saying so is not polite or civil, but surely it’s important. Rules saying otherwise have been a gift to bullshitters. Moderation never comes down hard and fast enough on their fallacies, abuse, and manipulation, compared to how mods pounce on direct call-outs. Even in language and tone that would scarcely raise eyebrows face-to-face. As if ‘do you still beat your wife’ is ambiguous, but ‘hey, get bent’ is inexcusable.
Long ago and far away, the point of reference was a cocktail party.
Most forums are not debate clubs, or kindergartens, or any other equivalent scenario where a quiet ‘what are you fucking talking about’ would get someone ejected. They’re indoor-voice banter. Constructive, ideally, and sober enough to side with well-spoken rationale over ingroup posturing… but somewhere that ‘here’s why you’re wrong, jackass’ will be judged on ‘why’ more than on ‘jackass.’
And sometimes the person you’re talking to is obviously drunk or stupid or both, but you can keep calmly telling them how they’re wrong about everything that comes out of their mouth. Debate is not what’s happening. Civility won’t help. But you can keep it reasonable, and frankly, that’s better.
No possible definition of child sexual abuse can include drawings.
Tell me otherwise in the same breath as insisting you’re not making that false equivalence. Apparently my patience is limitless when the lie is that fucking obvious.
edit: Hang on, the obvious lie disguised a stupid lie. What country do you think Stanford is in? Drawing Bart Simpson’s dick is not illegal in America. You could do it right now, in MS Paint, and e-mail it to the FBI, and they’d just formally tell you to go fuck yourself. Which would obviously not be the case with ACTUAL “child sexual abuse materials,” being evidence of abusing a flesh-and-blood child.
The guy here saying CSAM and drawings are the same keeps insisting he’s not saying that and then immediately saying it again. I’m still here calling him a stupid bastard. As often as he needs to hear it. Again: if you’re worried about the thread stopping, I am not your concern. But I’m not about to give dolts like that some undue fair shake, after the fifth time they sneer “reading comprehension!” in response to rubbing their nose in the inescapable meaning of the words they keep saying.
Sometimes you get assholes no matter what you say.
That’s not why I value blunt honesty, in some contexts, but it’s a counter to the most common criticism of blunt honesty. Bending over backwards to appease unreasonable people is worse to do and worse to read than someone barging in to accurately and lucidly call bullshit.
We’re not JUST talking about exclusion from a social network.
Do you speak English?
The subject matter is the part that’s a felony - so the glib inclusion of the part you just don’t like is dangerous misinformation.
I am calling out how this study falsely equates child rape and gross drawings, and your neverending hot take is ‘well I don’t care for either.’ There’s not enough ‘who asked’ in the world. One of these things is tacitly legal and has sites listed on Google. One of these things means you die in prison, anywhere in the world.
And here you are, still calling both of them “child porn.” In the same post insisting you’re not equating them. Thanks for keeping this simple, I guess.
You’ve absolutely treated them the same.
You see no problem with this study explicitly about CSAM casually lumping in… drawings.
The only reason you said shit to me in the first place was to smugly assert that they belong together. You declared confidently that the entire world was on your side, which does raise questions of who exactly is hosting and using these servers full of drawings you don’t like.
But the issue is the false equivalence.
The only issue is the false equivalence.
Sounding the alarm about child rape shouldn’t fucking include drawings for the same reason reports of a murder epidemic at the local park shouldn’t throw in “and also someone pissed in the pond.” Bit of a difference there! Kind of important! Negative one and negative one billion are both negative, but they’re plainly not as negative, are they? They don’t belong in the same sentence without a very narrow context. Glibly chastising someone, for pointing out that gulf, is the polar opposite of helpful, to anyone.
Saying ‘so what, they’re both bad’ is false equivalence. It’s dangerous nonsense that enables far-reaching abuse of power. What you’re doing is the textbook basis for unjustifiable surveillance laws, censorship, and general moral policing. If your kneejerk reaction when someone belabors the difference between “we have to stop this proliferation of child rape!” and “we have to stop this proliferation of drawings we don’t like!” is to insist you don’t like either and you’d expect them to be treated the same - you are the problem.
I mean, not as much of a problem as child rape, but nonetheless, shut up already.
CSAM includes depictions here.
Literally impossible.
Child rape cannot include drawings. You can’t sexually assault a fictional character. Not “you musn’t.” You can’t.
If you think the problem with child rape amounts to ‘ew, gross,’ fuck you. Your moral scale is broken, if there’s not a vast gulf between those two bad things.
Someone arguing child rape is only as bad as drawing Bart Simpson naked is some kind of fucked up.
As other subthreads should thoroughly demonstrate - I don’t have to respect someone, to call them out. A position you recently endorsed. The end of polite and civil discussion between equals doesn’t mean the yelling has stopped.
The irony of you repeatedly sneering “reading comprehension” is delightful.
Yes, idiot, people can see my perfectly consistent point. Good job. I once told you to stop lumping together drawings with CSAM, and now, I’m still telling you stop lumping together drawings with CSAM.
CSAM is a product of rape. Child rape is part of the subject matter. That is the “child abuse” that’s in the goddamn headline.
Except the dolts at Stanford lumped in drawings.
And you aggressively do not see the problem with treating those things the same way.
Even though one is a drawing, and the other is rape. You are… equating… those two things. You are treating them identically and interchangeably.
And you need to stop.
Telling someone why they’re a stupid bastard for the sake of other people is not exactly a contradiction. You know what doesn’t do observers any good? “Debating” complete garbage, in a way that lends it respect and legitimacy. Sometimes you just need to call bullshit.
Some bullshit is so blatant that it’s a black mark against the bullshitter.
Some confused arguments reveal confused people. Some terrible arguments reveal terrible people. For example: I don’t give two fucks what Nazis think. Life’s too short to wonder which subjects they’re not facile bastards about.
If someone’s motivation for making certain JPEGs hyper-illegal is “they’re icky” - they’ve lost benefit of the doubt. Because of their decisions, I no longer grant them that courtesy.
Demanding pointless censorship earns my dislike.
Equating art with violence earns my distrust.
The study from Stanford conflates pencil drawings of imaginary characters with actual evidence of child rape.
Half the goddamn point of saying CSAM instead of CP is to make that difference blindingly obvious. Somehow, they still missed it. Somehow they are talking about sexual abuse as if it’s something that can happen to pixels.
What does that even mean?
There’s nothing to “cover.” They’re talking about illustrations of bad things, alongside actual photographic evidence of actual bad things actually happening. Nothing can excuse that.
No shit they are also discussing actual CSAM alongside… drawings. That is the problem. That’s what they did wrong.
4.1 Illustrated and Computer-Generated CSAM
Stopped reading.
Child abuse laws “exclude anime” for the same reason animal cruelty laws “exclude lettuce.” Drawings are not children.
Drawings are not real.
Half the goddamn point of saying CSAM instead of CP is to make clear that Bart Simpson doesn’t count. Bart Simpson is not real. It is fundamentally impossible to violate Bart Simpson’s rights, because he doesn’t fucking exist. There is nothing to protect him from. He cannot be harmed. He is imaginary.
This cannot be a controversial statement. Anyone who can’t distinguish fiction from real life has brain problems.
You can’t rape someone in MS Paint. Songs about murder don’t leave a body. If you write about robbing Fort Knox, the gold is still there. We’re not about to arrest Mads Mikkelsen for eating people. It did not happen. It was not real.
If you still want to get mad at people for jerking off to the wrong fantasies, that is an entirely different problem from photographs of child rape.
Don’t recall mentioning price as an obstacle.
The fact people are buying expensive-ass phones is an obstacle to any console trying to be a cell phone or vice-versa. Phones already play modern-ass video games. Any new iPhone is surely more capable than a Switch. Who’s going to be swayed into buying some custom Sony bullshit just to access an entirely separate wallet vacuum?
If Sony was going to release a handheld, it’d just be an under-powered PS5 variant, as a Nintendo Switch knockoff. AMD would be happy to provide appropriate chips.