• AsakuraMao@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.

      • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        7 hours ago

        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.

        • AsakuraMao@moist.catsweat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          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?

          • jeeva@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            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.