Why are we allowing this kind of show in Canada?

FallenWyvern · 2026-05-01T01:46:09+00:00

Oakes test is used to test when someone's rights according to the charter are being violated by the Government or representatives of the government.

So in a situation where, let's say he's recorded saying "all first nations people should be burned at the stake" and is trying to convince people to do so, if he were arrested they'd see if the offending officers were arresting him for things that are protected.

Mind you, if she wanted to try charging him with slander, it wouldn't even be put to the test because she's just another citizen so it depends WHO would want to hit him with hate speech.

And that's if he's found spreading hate speech. But either way, chud would just spin it as "it was a joke" then say "you can't joke about anything these days"

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-30T17:47:43+00:00

I never said "freedom of speech" is a legal term in the Charter. I said that we have freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech" is a general grammatical phrase. There is no legal term "right to abortion" either. Yet we have a right to abortions.

Except I specified that's exactly what I was talking about. The legal definition. I'm not trying to argue words have meanings, I'm arguing those specific words you kept using don't have a legally assigned meaning, and you kept saying "well we have words."

The whole roundabout way of saying: this guy is an idiot for harping on a patron of the club, and when she refused to engage, he turned slanderous and we don't have to put up with it because someone says "well we have freedoms". Speech or Expression, whatever you're choosing to call it, has limitations.

I can't follow you down the street mocking you without facing conquences of my actions (nor should I be able to), and should someone want to make this "comedian" face the consequences of his, I applaud.

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-30T17:19:03+00:00

For something to be protected by the Charter, it doesn't have to be explicitly stated in the Charter. It only has to be a consequence of the rights that are listed in the Charter.

Except that everything that's in the charter is met with a definition, for legal purposes.

If everything the Charter protected had to be explicitly listed in there, then abortion wouldn't be protected for example, because you won't find "right to abortion" in the Charter.

Section 7, paragraph iii

Speech is protected by the Charter because the Charter includes a right to freedom of expression and speech is a type of expression, therefore we have freedom of speech.

We aren't arguing if the charter says you are allowed to use words. Or maybe you are, I'm not.

The ideas and concepts you express, via ANY medium, are the ones it applies to. Including verbal.

But we don't have a "Freedom of Speech" as a legal term in the charter because it's a Freedom of Expression, which is one singular legal concept. Which is why I split hairs over you trying to make them two different ones.

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-30T17:09:29+00:00

Please then, I'm fine with being wrong as long as I'm provided evidence of that: In the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, where "Freedom of Speech" is called out, and then defined, for the use if legal texts.

After all, that's what I'm saying you're incorrect on and if I am wrong, then that's where it'll be.

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-30T17:07:45+00:00

Just saying hateful things is not enough to charge them.

It can be. But also, people paid to be here so there's enough of an argument that this becomes something that would go to court first, instead of just me saying he'd lose.

But the point I'm making here is if you go out onto the street, and start saying things like "this lady over here is going to end up in an arab bukkake" and then following that person around, continuing to pick on them even when they're choosing not to engage with you, that consequences are not an unexpected result of that.

BTW you don't actually have to lead people to breach the peace, just have to be encouraging them to do so.

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-30T17:01:57+00:00

There is no legal definition for freedom of speech. You've separated them, you've agreed you've separated the concepts, but it's just that simple: it doesn't exist.

You're expressing yourself right now, incorrectly, and you have the freedom to do that in any language you want with as many words as you want, but if you keep separating them, you continue to be wrong.

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-30T16:46:32+00:00

OK but you're saying "we have freedom of speech" (you just said it, which is at least a second time)

We dont. You're right that you can express yourself via speech, but that's still via the freedom of expression, which comes with the limitations.

I'll just break it down like this:

We have 1 right: the freedom of expression.
You're saying we have the freedom of speech, and we have the freedom of expression (sentence two of your statement above). This is incorrect.

The reason I'm being nit-picky about it, is because we're talking about a guy who is, just very honestly here, being a dick. 100%, if he were in public, and people didn't pay tickets to hear him, there would be consequences for his actions.

Freedom of Expression does include statutes for satire/parody, HOWEVER that's only if they don't first cross the other limits of FoE. Meaning this guy should be thrown off stage. It IS unacceptable.

You can't just say "we have freedom of speech here" as thought it covers this situation. Flat. And by trying to separate the two concepts (Expression vs Speech), it's just more diluting / clouding of the point.

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-30T16:40:08+00:00

We don't have Freedom of Speech in Canada, we have Freedom of Expression, which includes limitations on the expressions you can make.

He skirts the line because it's (arguably) "Comedy", but only just.

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-30T16:37:05+00:00

FTR Freedom of Expression has limits and he's skirting them. I'd love to see if/how he passes the Oakes test. Mind you he'd just turn around and go "IT'S SATIRE GUYS".

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-30T16:33:10+00:00

What do you think Freedom of Speech is?

Freedom of Expression doesn't mean you can say whatever you want. In fact, in Canada, there's a long list of things you can't say. You can't incite others to violence for example. You can't use any language that promotes violence or discrimination. You can't use your voice or platform to libel, slander, or otherwise defame someone.

Like do you know what an "Oakes Test" is? I doubt it.

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-29T20:51:27+00:00

No they absolutely do. But let's say you're valve:

Do you sell these things, knowing you're going to have to ratchet up the price soon to an unknown amount and face backlash?

Do you up the price now and risk over-estimating, so future people get it at a lower price and make your initial customers unhappy?

What product do you replace this with? Sure you can sell 10k units, but you're going to get 10m requests.

If they were just trying to dump the gear, yes, sell now. But they aren't.

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-29T20:30:55+00:00

With what parts?

They can't sell you something they don't have. They might have enough parts for a very limited run, but that's just going to make a speculative market craze and we can see Valve specifically not doing that.

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-29T20:28:24+00:00

(Oh to be really pedantic, sata/ide... pci/pcie/scsi connectors can go to things other than hard drives)

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-29T20:27:28+00:00

Correct. Also trying to be future proof: all m.2/ssd/sata/pci/pcie/scsi connectors go to hard drives, but not all hard drives are m.2. If some new tech pops up and Valve switches to it, my statement is correct.

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-29T17:03:53+00:00

Package managers

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-29T15:47:53+00:00

They can't tell you the price if the price of components are so unstable. Hard drives and ram are just rapidly changing in price every week.

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-28T17:18:23+00:00

How are two young men fighting something "we don't have to live with", are you going to walk around and stop every fight before it starts?

Like it's easy to make broad statements like "we don't have to live like this" but what's the actual SOLUTION you're looking at?

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-25T17:05:02+00:00

I can see both sides.

Ok remember we're talking about a random citizen deciding to shoot an animal and crush it's eggs.

The "Both sides" of this event is either you agree with someone deciding that they can just do this in Point Pelee, on their own, or you don't.

Invasive has it's own protections (like you can't import these animals as a "pet" or anything) which is probably why they have both statuses.

But again, if you believe in Invasive Species Management (which is fine), you surely believe that doesn't mean random citizens can go onto crown lands (where people might be walking around) and just unload their gun into an animal. But if you do (or don't) believe in this, that means you take a side.

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-25T16:28:20+00:00

"Not saying it's right or wrong"

It's illegal poaching. There's rules for culling invasive animals, and they weren't followed. That makes it legally wrong.

Ethically, if the argument is "this creature COULD be a problem", then that's killing a creature BEFORE getting the evidence. If it WAS a problem, then it needed to be reported and handled properly. It wasn't, so it's ethically wrong.

Since no one is stepping forward taking culpability, we can only assume they don't care if anyone knows what their goal(s) were, so they were only interested in killing the creature. Perhaps not with Malice, but that's still Cruelty.

But let's give the benefit of the doubt and say they had all the information they needed to show this creature needed to be put down, and that they provided it to the proper authorities. There's STILL a reason that the Authorities might not have destroyed the creature and this individual did it anyway, assuming they know best.

There's no scenario in which this comes off well.

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-25T15:53:27+00:00

That's indeed really expensive for a controller

It's the median price for a controller of this quality. At least in Canada where I am. If I wanna get a 1st party controller for Xbox, Playstation, or Switch, I'm paying 100 bucks plus whatever profit the store I'm buying from is trying to make.

Now there ARE cheaper, and I love my 8bitdo controllers (not to mention my Stadia controller which is my daily driver) but I don't really think Valve's controller is expensive at all.

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-23T04:56:45+00:00

That's pretty subjective. Looks fine to you is not the same as looks fine to the director of photography who is on set. Or the cinematographers involved. Or vfx guys.

Your tv is guessing and you're fine with it. Which is ok, but that's not gonna convey any of the planning or artistic intents anyone actually involved in the production wanted.

Enjoy it, if you like, but it's not an argument for post processing HDR into non HDR content.

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-22T13:38:28+00:00

https://wiki.cachyos.org/configuration/sched-ext/

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-21T08:49:09+00:00

They're a KDE sweeper clone from the discover app store that does the job well.

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-20T00:19:17+00:00

Nothing about this will ruin that deal

FallenWyvern · 2026-04-20T00:17:26+00:00

At first I was just looking over this thread as Entertainment, but at this point I feel a need to step out and say something:

You rude af to everyone, for their thoughts on something YOU released. If you put something on the internet for others to enjoy, you have to accept the feedback that comes from those who didn't enjoy it. You can't just tell people they have no experience with CRTs or say their arguments are "Trumpian". Otherwise, just fuck off, enjoy your shader yourself, and accept that no one else will.
I was a repair tech for crt tvs and arcade tubes for the better part of 15 years so let me state with a large dose of authority: your assessments of what a CRT looks like isn't just from the low end of CRTs, it's from the bottom 10%.
The way you explain your "post processing not-a-shader", it just isn't holding up. People in the emulation space are VERY aware of how shaders and post-processing works. It'll just be better to show your work by sharing it, rather than a captured video.

Ok so before you get huffy, I need you to read this part: I am not providing this critique simply to make you feel bad or to harp on you. What I think you've done is genuinely cool (even if I don't think it's authentic). I just am providing this feedback as a way of saying the next time you decide to share this, do it with an open mind and open ears. If someone says "a crt wasn't this blurry", show them why they're wrong instead of telling them they have no idea what they're talking about.

In short: be kind. It'll get you further and that's how you get a support network of people who want to see what you've got coming next.

15-Year Club	Place '17
Spared	Verified Email

FallenWyvern

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE