josemanuel @josemanuel@qoto.org

@uriondo Hay instancias, como qoto, que tienen el RT con cita, lo mismo que prácticamente todas las demás plataformas (Pleroma, Akkoma, Misskey, Foundkey, Friendica, etc.). En realidad, Mastodon está muy limitada técnicamente en todos los aspectos, no sólo en ése.

@skoji それは「沼」の意味次第だろう：

https://jisho.org/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&keyword=%E6%B2%BC

2と3のどちらですか。

@sampo Cool. Just checking.

@sampo Have you noticed that your life is a bit of a rollercoaster?

@sampo I thought you were talking about the compression library. I guess that explains everything.

@sampo What are you talking about?

@vaartis I thought it was just your personal instance, to be honest.

Feel free to do so.

@derickflorian Exactly.

@derickflorian But, answering your question directly, can we really say that we have free speech if we never have to face it against its opposite, in this case censorship? And who would censor good things? Nobody, right? That's why the litmus test for free speech is whether we accept hate speech or not. In a way, haters and edgelords are the canary in our freedom mine.

@derickflorian In this particular case, I think it's something like when a small dog barks at a bigger dog. The former tries to hide its fear of the latter that way. What the small dog fails to grasp is that usually bigger dogs don't give a damn about smaller dogs, so it could have saved its bravado for a better cause. From an outsider's standpoint it just looks ridiculous.

@spiritsplice@pieville.net You're forgetting that fraud is, first and foremost, an action. The lying may be protected, but the action they're trying to hide behind the lie is probably not.

The problem is not in the words, but in the actions. If lying was a bad thing in itself, fairy tales would be a crime.

@coolboymew What? Tolerance? If so, that's the point. Tolerance is tested not against like-minded people, but against those who are intolerant of what you say.

The most important thing to keep in mind, in my opinion, is that words are just words (air in the air, ink on a page, pixels on a screen, even smoke from a flag...) and violence is a very specific kind of action. That's why one is protected (well, depending on your country and its laws, of course) and the other is not. A lot of people these days don't get that.

I believe in people being essentially good because I believe in this divide between actions and words. Just as there are people who claim to be wonderful human beings and stand for all that is good and great, and then their actions uncover them as huge pieces of shit, maybe those who, for instance, openly claim here to be racists would help a black person if they needed their help. I don't know. I hope so anyway.

I'm a free speech absolutist because, as far as speech goes, I hate everybody, but, as far as actions go, I've always tried to be a good person and help everyone.

People who claim that there must be «no tolerance for the intolerant» usually ignore this divide between actions and words, probably because, in their own minds, it does not exist.

In any case, if everyone was tolerant, or if we only tolerated those who were also tolerant, how could tolerance be a virtue? Being good only to those who are good to you does not make you a good person. Virtue has value only when it's faced against its opposite.

Some New Wavers are like those people that, even after starting a new relationship, are still obsessed with their exes. Dude, if you care that much about Twitter, just go back. Nobody's holding you hostage here.

@vestal It's ok. Your secret is safe with me.

@kaip Of course, Captain Obvious, but my point was that, when @climagic shows us one-liners, the idea is to make them as universal and portable across distros and operating systems as possible. If you use a systemd-ism, that defeats the purpose.