this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
17 points (100.0% liked)
Casual Conversation
2983 readers
212 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
You want a direct answer? Fine, you asked for it.
You're the problem with Lemmy. You and other wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth political zealots.
If you introduce me to a carbon copy of myself - one that agrees with every single opinion that I have - but he had even a fraction of the zeal and obsession that I see here I would be running for the hills.
It's off-putting and downright terrifying to see evidence that people capable of such obsession exist outside of asylums.
You didn't address anything I said. Ironically, you just had a foaming at the mouth meltdown because somebody is of a different political orientation than you.
My post had 2 political topics:
How much I hate the conservative endorsement of political violence against their fellow citizens.
I endorsed the moderation of the conservative instance on Lemmy as the best I've seen on this site.
You didn't address either of these points.
Holy shit. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Want people to like Lemmy? Turn down the rhetoric.
Want to scare people off? Stay at eleven.
Your call. I'm out.
Take your own advice before dishing it out. You can't even respond to me without having a meltdown.
I clearly laid out my points for you to engage, and you knew you couldn't handle it, so you ran away. Seems like I was spot on when I said you couldn't engage in earnest.