They don’t even know what a server is.

Exactly.

Had the same Problem and needed to use the htcp client to make it go away.

I think Wikipedia itself says that it is just an entry into topics. To confirm the things that are written there you check sources.

It’s for nerds that hate themselves.

Because people do everything to silence the pain in themselves, even if that means inflicting pain onto other people.

https://robobunny.com/projects/asciiquarium/html/

Any wisdoms to share?

Ok?

Yeah! IDLES and Viagra boys are saving me the last few months.

IDLES - CAR CRASH

This version is just superior.

That sounds pretty gay to be honest.

There’s a “block” button somewhere in Lemmy’s interface, under my profile. Just use it and go back swallowing.

I disagree with you so you should stop posting your opinions altogether.

Yeah, the only ranking in that regard should be “is” and “is not”. Everything else seems like a distinction without a difference.

But that is just monero isn’t it? When I say alternative I mean feature parity.

Any reliable alternatives you know of?

The angry beavers / die Biber Brüder

This 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.