this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2025
263 points (96.1% liked)
Casual Conversation
3139 readers
149 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES (updated 01/22/25)
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
- Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
- Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I've been thinking like that for a long time but recently I've been thinking about it in terms of internalized opposition. One of the most pernicious elements of the fight against stupid and bad ideologies is when their framings gain dominance even in the minds of their opponents.
At some point, someone said 'black people are blah, white people are bleh,' and the person next to them probably said 'What do you mean black people?' because the concept was new but the ideology of race turned into such a common one that people who were oppressed by it were forced to consider what the powerful thought about it, like an atheist prisoner being forced to think about how to convince a Christian jailer to be less awful to them. They internalized it. And now even people who are 'anti-racist' often treat 'blackness' and 'whiteness' as if they were real, and not just conceptually different in the same way you can live in a different country without moving because the lines on a map change. Even as they battle the concept, they try to do it from within the system, prisoners demanding to be free without acknowledging the world outside the prison walls.