You're viewing part of a thread.
You're talking about blame assignment, but I am instead referring to the fact that in both the Nintendo and the automotive example that somebody got smacked because they weren't careful enough.
Somebody got smacked because they were told that this was a safe area to be in. Then they get hit, and are blamed for not being careful enough in the area they were told was safe to be in.
Like I said above, everyone coming through here is so obsessed with talking about blame and fault. That's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm saying that if Ryujinx wanted to avoid this outcome, they should have done things differently.
See, no mention of blame at all. How else do I need to spell things out for the extremely autistic and pedantic crowd here?
if Ryujinx wanted to avoid this outcome, they should have done things differently
How do you not read this as blame? Or, is this not the same as "they had it coming, wouldn't have happened if they'd been dressed in armour or hadn't gone down that street alone" which is often known as victim blaming.
Oh, there's a wiki article on that. It has a section on the thing you're arguing about, with cars and pedestrians Neat. Maybe this is why people are talking about it.
I'm fully ready to get torn apart for this. I get victim blaming is wrong. But sometimes you can make better choices based on available information, regardless of whether it's your fault if something happens.
If there's a street called Drag Race Avenue where every person that lives on it drag races up and down it all day and every week there's a news story of someone getting hit using the crossing on Drag Race Avenue, maybe you shouldn't use the crossing on that street. Sure, it won't be your fault if you get hit, but how much comfort will that be when you're injured or dead?
It's possible to make choices that are objectively morally/legally/ethically right that are still stupid choices. Unfortunately we don't live in a world where as long as you do the right thing, so will everyone else and nothing bad will ever happen to you.
Hazards are a part of life. In many if not all workplaces there are hazards. Due to this there are hazard controls, along with a widely accepted list of most effective to least effective ways to deal with a hazard. First is to get rid of it entirely (stop people drag racing on that street) but if that's not possible, the next 2 are replace the hazard then isolate the hazard. In other words, if something exists that you can't stop from existing, your best course of action is to stay away from it / out of its way if possible.
These controls aren't about victim blaming, they're about making hazards as safe as possible. It's not illegal to carry a box that's too heavy for you, but you still may be injured by doing so. There's a reason workplaces have 100s of policies that aren't illegal but they decided you can't do there. Because there are many things that exist that you can do that are entirely legal but could still harm you.
Emulators might not be illegal, but Nintendo is a hazard to them that can't be eliminated.
I guess it depends on whether you care more about being right, or more about being safe.
These people could make the choice to be safer if they wanted to. They could be more anonymous if they wanted to. They could stay out of Nintendo's way. But if being right that they're not doing anything wrong is more important so be it. Maybe they consider it worth being shut down in order to draw attention to the issue. That's up to them.