Louis Ingenthron @LouisIngenthron@social.cleverlibre.org

@chancerydaily I can't stand those folks that care more about feeling right than actually being right.

@chancerydaily From context clues, I'm guessing "arrogant and aggressive"?

If so, I attribute that to the "Dr. House paradigm." Arrogance, while normally a negative attribute, becomes a positive attribute when it is met or exceeded by one's competence (i.e. delivers results).

Although, I've also noticed that only men seem to be afforded this social exception...

@raynetoday "can be changed" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that toot.

@markmccaughrean Could be an effect of motion blur. A short shutter speed can capture detail we're incapable of comprehending in real time with the naked eye.

@OmbertoAldobrandeschi Try reading again, because you clearly lost the thread.

@raynetoday To the best of my knowledge, the handle is as unique as the ID. That's why you can use the handle in URLS.

If there are two accounts with the handle JohnSmith, and you go to twitter dot com slash johnsmith, which profile would it pull up? If you at them, which one would it mention?

The system is designed around that value being unique, which appears to be obvious from the exposed functionality.

@mmasnick I've noticed that happening more when I switch from browsing on the app back to the website (because the app is still open on my phone in the background).

@chancerydaily @kbiglione Throw it behind a content warning for folks who are tired of hearing about it and please, post on! I'd love to get news on the schadenfreude of Musk's hubris without having to pay him for the privilege.

@OmbertoAldobrandeschi No, it's not. In America, the executive branch oversees the Department of Justice which is responsible for investigating and prosecuting federal crimes.

@OmbertoAldobrandeschi If there were laws allowing the government to suppress what it deemed "lies and hate speech", Trump could have used them to suppress election information and steal re-election.

@vy If I can't persuade you on principled grounds, maybe I can try perspective.

If you choose to give the state the power to punish speech that one group feels threatened by, you're giving your opponents the power to censor you.

When someone like Donald Trump is in power, who do you think laws criminalizing hate speech will be used against? White supremacists, or BLM protesters?

There's a reason we don't allow subjective speech restrictions in this country.
From SCOTUS's Per Curiam opinion in Brandenburg v Ohio:
"Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

@vy If that's your understanding of what I wrote, you need to work on your reading comprehension.

@vy "Where does it say in the Constitution people have a right to be free of a hostile environment at work? Can't they just change jobs?"

14th amendment. While individuals are free to hold and express bigoted ideals all they want on their own time and property, when such actions deny protected classes access to basic society, (i.e. whites-only towns, racist hiring/housing practices, hostile work environments, etc.), then civil rights are balanced against speech rights in favor of equal protection.

"What if the cross burning is in front of my house or in public?"
If it's on your property, you're free to deny them access and (in most states) remove them by force.
If it's on public property, the local government is free to restrict such speech based on neutral time and place restrictions (like permitting for parades).
If it's on the protester's private property, they're free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

"What if the radio attacks on me or people like me *causes* violent attacks or just gives me well founded fear of an attack?"
Then the people perpetrating the violence are the ones at fault, not the person talking on the radio.
Unless the person on the radio meets the very narrow Brandenburg v. Ohio standard for criminal incitement.
As for your fear of being attacked, that's simply not a standard upon which legal action can be enacted, because it's inherently subjective.

"Should the owners/workers and patrons of Comet Pizza have just moved?"
No, they have a right to be free from violence. But they don't have a right to be free from criticism, no matter how outlandish or stupid that criticism is.