this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
95 points (84.2% liked)
Casual Conversation
2035 readers
125 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
- !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca
- !askmenover30@lemm.ee
- !dads@feddit.uk
- !letstalkaboutgames@feddit.uk
- !movies@lemm.ee
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
Try one of their lines and I'll refute it in 2 sentences..
None of what you said is a good argument for censorship in my opinion.
You'll disagree with it. You won't refute it. You'll walk away feeling better and convinced that you "won" but in reality you'll have just marked yourself as an "enemy" to be ignored. (The human brain is very adept at compartmentalizing things.)
Actual refutation of a toxic idea whose seed has been planted requires detailed deconstruction and reconstruction. It is time-consuming, it is exhausting, and it is unreliable to boot. (C.f. above that compartmentalizing of things.) There is a reason why governments and centuries come and go but culture remains recognizable over the millennia. Once minds are set, they're ludicrously difficult to unset.
I'm going to guess, however, that you will not take this to heart. Ironically for the same reason that your "refutation" (actually mere disagreement) won't take.
Refutation does not equal correction in this circumstance. Simply discrediting their rhetoric in a discussion does not necessarily reverse the effect it has on the less critical-minded. They can overwhelm via a strategy of "lie early, lie often".