LadyAutumn

Hahaha it's my fav 😂 my partner just thinks I'm dorky about it lmao

I wound up on arch :) I used mint for a while, and used to use Ubuntu and Mint a lot when I was in high school. But there were a lot of features of each I didn't want and wanted an option to opt out of. Arch had a learning curve to it, just becoming accustomed to working with rolling release software.

And like I play games and run media servers and a lot else off of this one desktop. I really don't feel limited by it at all, except in cases like fortnite not allowing people to play on Linux even though it's completely possible to do so.

Daily run it for the last 5 months. Switched cause I was tired of windows. Have thus far not been unable to do even a single thing. Games run better in proton than on windows native for me.

No, I'm saying make it so that you go to prison for taking pictures of someone and making pornography of them without their consent. Pretty straightforward. If you're found doing it, off to rot in prison with you.

How can you describe your friends, family, co-workers, peers, making and sharing pornography of you, and say that it comes down to hurt feelings??? It's taking someone's personhood, their likeness, their autonomy, their privacy, and reducing them down to a sexual act for which they provide no knowledge or consent. And you think this stays private?? Are you kidding me?? Men have literally been caught making snapchat groups dedicated to sharing their partner's nudes without their consent. You either have no idea what you're talking about or you are intentionally downplaying the seriousness of what this is. Like I said in my original comment, people contemplate and attempt suicide when pornographic content is made and shared of them without their knowledge and consent. This is an incredibly serious discussion.

It is people like you, yes you specifically, that provide the framework by which the sexual abuse of women is justified.

They're making pornography of women who are not consenting to it when that is an extremely invasive thing to do that has massive social consequences for women and girls. This could (and almost certainly will) be used on kids too right, this can literally be a tool for the production of child pornography.

Even with regards to adults, do you think this will be used exclusively on public figures? Do you think people aren't taking pictures of their classmates, of their co-workers, of women and girls they personally know and having this done to pictures of them? It's fucking disgusting, and horrifying. Have you ever heard of the correlation between revenge porn and suicide? People literally end their lives when pornographic material of them is made and spread without their knowledge and consent. It's terrifyingly invasive and exploitative. It absolutely can and must be illegal to do this.

I love that on my arch setup, I update every single day, usually more than once, and doing so almost never requires me to powercycle my computer.

So morality of crime is defined by the success of the victim?

Close, the morality of a crime is defined by the impact that committing the crime has on the lives and rights of others. Killing someone is a vile crime. You've taken away someone's inaliable right to life. Stealing from the poor is a vile crime. You have taken the means of survival from someone who struggles to survive. Stalking is a vile crime. You've interceded on someone's inaliable right to privacy and safety.

How does downloading a cracked video game or a TV show impact others? Who is being victimized, and how are they being victimized? Say, for instance, that today I download a game for free. What tangible impact does this have on others?

So if our 'victim' is a multi billion dollar corporation that is one of the fastest growing game companies in the world and is quickly approaching income levels rivaling some small nations, the tangible impact that me downloading their game for free has is literally none. There is no impact. They will never even know that I did it, and I do not consider the "right to commerce" as a fundamental human right. I do not think that me taking potential profits from billionaire investors is in any way interceding on their human rights and also do not believe that the action causes any harm to them.

So if you become incredibly successful for what you created there becomes a point where it's moral for you to lose all rights and control over your art?

Corporations are not people. The designers artists and programmers at Nintendo do not direcy profit from game sales. They are paid a salary by their company. Again, it's relative. There is no such thing as a moral absolute, we have to consider the context in which actions happen and the effects those actions cause. Stealing from the poor is vile. Stealing from Walmart isn't.

So then the moral of the lesson is that art is worthless and creating new things serves no useful purpose?

I do not consider the primary purpose of art to be profit for shareholders, if that's what you consider "useful purpose". Art is useful in that it communicates human emotions and experiences. It's useful in that it delights us, it inspires us, and we take great enjoyment in it. Even if all art was free, this would still be true. Free games are fun. Free books are worth reading. Free music is worth listening to. Paintings don't lose value because I can see them without paying. Your view of art and your view of capital are so intertwined that you are ignorant of the reality that art is not capital.

Almost like the game companies learned that same lesson from people like you and just started making shittier games to accomodate their shittier fans.

Every single corporation on Earth will cut as many corners as possible to generate the maximum possible revenue for the minimal possible cost. Shitty games still sell exceedingly well. They have a profit incentive to invest as little money into their games as possible. Games as products are less enjoyable than games as art. We love games whose creators felt passion in creating them. We love games whose designers believed in what they were making, and felt connected to their product. Faceless corporations lose this entirely. Games are how Nintendo makes money. Therefore, even if no one wants to make this game, it must be made. For Nintendo must turn profit. This is part of the reason some games are amazing experiences and others are clear, transparent cash grabs.

I'm anti capitalist and explicitly anti commerce, especially with regards to large corporations, so. Whether it's for piracy or not doesn't matter. When I buy a game, I should have a legal right to do whatever I want with the data comprising that game. Including creating software to play it on other devices. It, therefore, should absolutely be legal to create and use emulators. Whether a particular end user is using it on legitimately purchased copies is beyond the scope of control of the creator of the emulator. This was already settled in courts in the 90s.

Piracy is also moral. It's always moral to pirate content created and/or distributed my international corporations with income in the billions.

The very beginning. The emulator scene has existed since the 80s. The emulator scene has fought against Nintendo since literally the NES. And they have frequently won.

Painting nails different colors has always been a thing lol