I imagine it's about prevention rather than discipline in their eyes. I'm not defending the idea (who cares if we see chun li naked? There is much worse on the internet) but I don't think blacklisting the player would assuage their fears of it happening in the future.
This is true, and that why I wanna do it. It's like when musk started censoring his "free speech" platform. It makes them look worse.
Sure, and people spend tons of money and time on gacha mobile games. Doesn't mean that they haven't been scammed.
Any ideas for a spot?
I am more so arguing that in the pursuit of not tolerating the intolerant, we just end up becoming intolerant ourselves. That's what Rawls argues.
But more specifically, defining and understanding what constitutes intolerance is a non-trivial challenge that is often ignored. Oftentimes, a person or view is labelled as intolerant when it does not see itself that way. Oftentimes, the reality is more nuanced.
For example, France's ban on wearing religious symbols within schools can be seen as intolerant. That's how I see it, at least. But others could argue that because the religions themselves are intolerant, this is completely permissible. The followers of these religions might not see themselves as intolerant. And this can keep going back and forth with each side calling the other intolerant.
If the paradox of tolerance is followed, everyone has free reign to condemn and suppress whomever they deem intolerant, just leading to more intolerance. Because there isn't a way to prove that something or someone is objectively intolerant, it just leads to name calling.
You can see this kind of discourse online all the time. You go to a left leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists. You go to a right leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists as well. I'm not trying to "both sides" this, I'm trying to demonstrate that the paradox of tolerance isn't actually helpful when it comes to decreasing intolerance.
Says who? It's okay to agree or disagree with the dude, but citing him as if it's a source or evidence of something is just plain wrong. And that's how the paradox of tolerance is usually brought up.
Having played co-op on launch week, I didn't really see many problems. There was a glitch here or there in act 3, but much less than anyone could expect from a game of this size. I never had to reload any saves, and the game never crashed. The only obvious glitches were certain events happening out of order or not happening when they were supposed to. Apart from that, certain class abilities and features didn't always work correctly, but every cRPG ever released has had those, and has them to this day.
The paradox of tolerance is some philosopher's idea, not some sort of axiom. We really need to stop quoting it. It's not even the only idea of its kind. There are several philosophers with more nuanced takes.
What we really need to do is start writing down all the Lemmy instances. It's one thing to tell off reddit, it's another thing to get people off of reddit.