15
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
15 points (100.0% liked)
Casual Conversation
3281 readers
64 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
It seems to me that amzd compared speciesism to racism, specifically to condemn speciesism, and by extention factory farms. Not to condone racism.
This is a direct quote from them that this is based on.
I'm not here to debate the validity of cherry-picked portions of their statement. Feel free to respond to me in that thread on that topic. Then you might understand my rant about pointless bans here. I was fully willing to engage in a good faith debate on this topic in the place where it was happening.
I'm here venting and now justifying my vent to you. You were claiming I was uncivil, and I'm asking you to point at my uncivil statements.
As a sign of good faith, I'll point out that the debate on veganism wasn't being fairly input to the thread. The reason I gave half assed responses was that they were attacking people unjustly to begin with.
Veganism is a complex topic ranging from food scarcity to eating habits. I'm an advocate for veganism and participate in 3 vegan days a week. Both me and my wife come from heavy meat cultures and do not find it so simple a habit to beat.
But even when I pointed out they didn't know my stance on veganism, they were still assholes at a personal level.
So please go continue the conversation on veganism with the rest of the circlejerk where I am banned.
I would prefer the focus of this post be about how unrelated moderation is stifling this site to death.
Sounds reasonable. The discussion already happened once, there is probably no need to have the same argument here.
I think you are confusing me with someone else.
Maybe in hindsight I should've shared a link instead of a screenshot, but I checked the conversation again and I haven't seen a reply that changes the matter imo.
All I did was posting screenshots asking if this was the conversation you were talking about and pointing out how I think one of the things you said was inaccurate. Since you were bringing this claim here, I figured that that was okay to adress it here.
It seems to me that amzd compared speciesism to racism, specifically to condemn speciesism, and by extention factory farms. Not to condone racism.
This is a direct quote from them that this is based on.
++++++++++
Here is your comment I responded to. The claim you were challenging was me saying I was not uncivil because I attacked racist ideology, not individuals.
++++++++++
++++++++++
Here is the start of this specific comment chain that you are debating my response to.
But now that I've hammered down to the point of the matter, you want to posture that I've lost the comment chain.
The claim I was challenging was that it was racist in the first place. That's all I was doing in this thread.
And that kind of discussion would go in the relevant thread, in the sub I'm banned in.
I'm not here to debate the validity of cherry-picked statements from the dude who says human races are like different species.