Binary Large Octopus @bloc@qoto.org

@nikomer75
Sadly this applies to almost any topic.

@estebanmoro
I think one advantage of #mastodon over other types of #fediverse instances such as matrix or nextcloud is that mastodon server have a kind of profile (agenda, common interest of users) that gives people a criterion to choose a certain instance other than user count. I suppose this will help keep some kind of balance.

@angelobottone
While I can see your point, I still consider the needs of the living, especially in an urgent and potentially life-saving case like organ donation, to be more important than some rather metaphysical needs of the dead.
It's true we don't force the living to donate organs even if it could save lifes, as this would mean a serious decrease of life quality. This does not hold true for the dead, I wouldn't even speak about "forcing" in this context.
I also value the respect for the dead as everyone else, however to me the body's physical integrity is not necessarily a requirement for this respect. We can still mourn for a person and celebrate his or her life without the need of a intact body as physical representation.
TL;DR I see this from a point where a dead body has nothing to loose anymore, therefore the need for a life-saving donation should come first.

On a side note, I highly appreciate the discussion.

@Spicey_Spiney
Unfortunately, I have no WhatApp contact to offer (yes, I'm one of those guys). However, matrix might be an option, see my profile.

@taz
As far as I can tell from my experience (which might be pretty limited), that seems kinda unicorn-ish to me :D

@taz
To me this is less of a "religious" as more of a purely technical question: When using the same mailbox on more than one device at the same time (which would be pretty much standard today), POP is simply not an option any more. Not to mention features like folders, server-side search and may others which come into play with larger mailboxes.

@darrylxxx
This is true in both ways: Coming from an #opensource background, there's lots of developers providing their work for free without making you the product in any way. The other way around, most companies still rip you off your most personal data while having you already (expendively) paying for their products.
@pluralistic

@angelobottone
The legal norms is just whats at discussion here. Cultural norms seem to be a pretty bad advisor in terms of life and death, as even within a single country there are almost infinitely many different of them.
Funerals and belongings are of direct value to the relatives of a dead, spiritually and materially, respectively. Organs provide for none of these to anyone not in direct need of one.
Overall, holding to an opt-in to organ donation for some nebulous reasons we can apparently not even lay out concretely while on the other hand lifes are at stake seems pretty selfish to me. This is just my personal point of view.

@cyrilpedia
So much for keeping sports and politics separate, as always demanded by FIFA

@angelobottone
This is a position I've never understood. I agree that the decision to donate whatever needs to be made freely as whatever you donate is being sacrified by yourself in favor to others. But this holds true as long as a persons alive since 1) you don't really sacrifice anything when your dead as you certainly have no use of any organs in this state and 2) consent isn't possible anymore.
As long as your relatives don't plan to put your organs on shelf, they probably don't need it either, so I can't see no valid reason for an op-in system in this case which would hurt society in the long run.

@juddlegum
This might be an unpopular opinion, but as a non-US citizen I think I can say that from the outside, the "right to carry a gun" itself looks like a pretty bad idea.

@WizardOfOz
This. The meaning and usefulness of religion and church could be discussed endlessly, bit this is not the time and place. As OP originally intended, lets think about those who lost their lives, their relatives and friends and those who made it to escape this senseless tragedy. I'm sure we all can agree to the need of ending this kind of hate and that this is a task for society as a whole, white sensible education brought whichever way.
@jambox@union.place @TheStormcrow @georgetakei

@obi
I agree on the label "hate speech" being problematic in itself. Whatever it is, personally I wouldn't count "kids should go to church, not drag shows" to. It's those peoples right to speak there opinion, as well as its mine to think of them as dumb fucks. As you already implied, the important part is for us to oppose to this.
My personal red line, however, would be crossed with shit like calls for violence.
@curiousgawker

@obi
I don't even see a real disagreement here, rather a larger grey than a simple black and white.
Where I definitely agree though is that disagreement is fine, I think it's the fuel of a productive discussion. This is what I came here for, especially when being carried out in such a respectful and civilized way. Not very Internet-like :D
@curiousgawker

@obi
Personally I would have trouble seeing a *direct* connection between the shooting and said tweet, however I would vote for speech like that giving way to an athmosphere in which shit like that can happen. I would still call this hate speech, as apparently the sentence solely aim to discredit a whole group of people while providing nothing to a constructive discussion whatsoever.
I agree that there are very thin lines between hate speech, hurting people and making legitimate points to advance valuable discussions. In Germany, a topic of extreme sensibility is National Socialism. It's rather easy to hurt any parties feeling with disrespectful speech, glorification could even land you in jail. However, since this is an important (and painful) part of national history, discussion is necessary ans declaring this a taboo topic would be of no use.
As I see it, hate speech and sensorship is a delicate topic, but there need to be red lines which must not be crossed. In this context, I this #qoto has a good general approach to this.

@curiousgawker

@obi
Certainly not. What I'm personally talking about is concrete action (of hate speech in this example). Simply by voting for Trump I would maybe assume stupid "protest-voting", right-wing attitude or going for personal advantage, but that would be due to knowing about personal circumstances.
@curiousgawker

@obi
I'd however argue that the point of discrimination is that someone is held accountable for some action or general pattern of behaviour attributed to a certain group of people which is defined by an attribute the individual has no direct control over. In contrast holding someone accountable (or calling a motherfucker) for hate speech aims directly at the action of the individual. Therefore this would on my personal account not count as discrimination.
@curiousgawker

@obi
Maybe a valid point, although this group is categorized by a feature that those people chose themself (and a disgusting one by that matter), not something they were born into like race or sexual orientation like usual with hate speech. Feels like there is an somewhat important difference.

Not sure if you necessarily need to hate someone to call him a motherfucker btw...
@curiousgawker

@Romaq
+1 for #fedilab