NOS 🅰️ ®️ ✝️ U @admitsWrongIfProven@qoto.org

@Nike_Leonhard Interessanterweise hatte genau diesen Gedanken noch jemand:
https://www.goblinscomic.com/comic/tf2025h

@Alice Do you look as pissed off as the person in the ad when you use it?

@daswarkeinhuhn *steckt allen Jubel in deine Tasche*

Bitte bitte nicht mich fröhlich machen, das ist undeutsch!

@CorvidCrone Now i feel a bit guilty about my childhood thought of "retract dog!". (it was from observation, not practice, when small dog owners pressed the button on the leash and the dog went backwards)

@interfluidity I was mainly wondering if there are capitalists (by conviction and wealth) that are actually intellectual.

And if there are not, and the intellectuals all go on strike, would it be any different from nobody listening to intellectuals in the first place?

@interfluidity "capital" as in large scale or as in bourgeoisie?

@Alice Haha, after reading some toots about mansplaining i was confused for a moment. Then i read again and you are *maintaining* your rituals. That makes more sense, i thought you had like a fake mustache to mansplain to the devil. The poor horned woman!

@AppleFangirl I think you mixed up your imports - you need marie calendar, not work calendar - much tastier!

@the_etrain Never say der (the, masculine form)!

@VeroniqueB99 I guess because the antisemitism perpretrated by Netanjahu works, far in excess of hurting jewish people?

@interfluidity If the US (and the EU which resides in the US'es rectum) anger the glorious chinese leadership enough, the problem could solve itself another way: without rare earths, the point about what infrastructure to build would be moot. It's back to horse carriages :-)

@aud It's like in character creation... can be an ELF, but you get to choose ^^

@burritozen I am pleased to see where this poll is going.

@OpenComputeDesign I think both "evil" and "can" are ambiuguous here.

"evil" is a concept that hardly exists in reality. The comic book villain that hurts others without any reason does not exist, there's always something leading up to harm - best we can do is distinguish if someone tries to reflect and keep to some ethical framework. But what if someone is convinced that some group is a threat or some harmful action was not actually harmful?
I think the word is not actually that helpful for detailed analysis.

"can" can mean someone/thing is unable to generally perform a task or that someone could, but for some reason chooses not to develop the practical expertise.
Other animals cannot understand ethics the way humans can. But some specific human could be theoretically able, but not have learned to do this. Then the inability would not be hard coded, but a deficit in learning.
Also, specifically here, i would guess people mean to say "i do not think that you specifically would act against an ethical framework i think you have and agree with", so completely different meaning. (i would agree, to the best of my knowledge).

Language is hard.

@VeroniqueB99 Oh, that's where you know someone is refined: hinting at the lemonparty!

@MargaXeyat Wow, das ist echt nochmal extra mies. @PippiPunkstrumpf