this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
13 points (100.0% liked)
Casual Conversation
1956 readers
165 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 1/22/25)
- 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 helped a friend's child going to school in Canada to write a presentation on Canada's 2008 apology for the residential schools scandal. Said child observed that all of the available topics were positive things only and she was utterly frustrated by this.
So I showed her how to turn the residential schools thing into something that shoves Canadians' faces in their history. The introduction mentions the apology and the important step forward that it represents, but also says it's pointless to talk about the apology without knowing what Canada is apologizing for.
She then (with some guidance) wrote a harsh and merciless summary of the residential schools, highlighting in the history section the terrible motivations for them, the cruelty of them, and, above all, how LONG they lasted. Then she turned her words to the complicity of the Canadian government in them. Finally she painted a dreadful picture of the aftermath of the residential schools and how they continued to cause harm for decades after the last one was finally closed with other impacts that last to this very day.
Then, in her conclusion, she stated factually that the PM apologized on behalf of Canada in 2008. She closed off then with, "with Canada apologizing, everything's good now" delivered in the degree of sarcasm that only a 17-year old girl with a grievance of her own about Canadian racism could provide.
Her teacher was furious, and about half the class shared the teacher's reaction. The other half cheered her. (I'll let your imagination figure out where the dividing line was between anger and cheering...)
I've never been so proud of a child that I know in my entire life.
That's so awesome. I hope the kid's teacher gives them a decent grade even if they didn't like the argument.
Fabulous. Has she considered posting it somewhere? I'd read it. Sounds very educational.
She might. Or she might decide she doesn't need a bunch of right-wing assholes coming down on her head. I'm not sure which she'll choose.