I must admit that she almost convinced me by saying that, but my love for QPs is too strong. Anyway, read her thread. It's pretty enlightening.
One of the reasons why I think QPs are useful is that they create a new thread. That means you can take the conversation in a different direction without derailing the original one.
I usually use a QP when I want to point out an idea inspired by the original thread, or that it reminded me of, but not strictly related to it.
Another use case is the one in this thread: recommending that you read the other one and letting you know why I think it's interesting instead of just throwing it onto your TL.
My point is that QPs are not responsible for the use shit people make of them. The problem is shit people, and you deal with them by muting and blocking, not by banning a useful communication tool. (By the way, lately I found blocking to be a better alternative with the ex-Twitter crowd: muting is for people I don't want to read; blocking is for people I don't want to be reading _me_.)
Why must we be forced to choose between living like digital Amish and spoiled teenage girls? Can't we just act as rational adults and not think of stabbing someone when we're handed a knife?
If I can do that, being the piece of shit that I am, then you can, too.
In the end, the oposition to QPs is based on two contradictory ideas: one is that Fediverse users are _not_ like Twitter users. (Remember the famous line, «Twitter without the nazis»?) We are caring and kind, and we wouldn't hurt a fly, while they are “awful, awful people.”
The other is that we have seen QPs on Twitter being used for evil, so we must ban them here too, as we (the best of the breed, free from any imperfection since birth) would use them in the same way because reasons.
