this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2025
246 points (95.9% liked)

Casual Conversation

2374 readers
216 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)

  1. Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
 

I've always hated how alcohol commercials play up like a cool beer is the best thing in the world, or a glass of whiskey is what will put hair on your chest. It's a disgusting narrative that ruins people's lives.

On social media, there's a huge variety of it. People posting how they were sober on NYE. Folks sharing before/after as they've gone cold turkey. I see people share tips of what type of mocktails to get at bars, and alternatives to having a fun night over getting drunk.

I appreciate that.

And this is not bashing alcohol. Moderation in everything.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

They did it to themselves with the voodoo bullshit trying to be pretend doctprs but it doesn't mean their services are useless. Medical Community used their stupid PR to drive them from the discourse. Remember that doctors are not our friends, just another merchant that might do you right.

Many people are satisfied with their chiropractor services and that in of it self is value even if some quack thinks it's placebo.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Many people are satisfied with their chiropractor services

That seems awfully self-selecting, doesn't it? Someone that is dissatisfied is not likely to remain a customer

Medical Community used their stupid PR to drive them from the discourse

Why are you blaming this on actual medical practitioners immediately after saying "They did it to themselves with the voodoo bullshit trying to be pretend doctors". Of course actual doctors aren't interested in what people who are lying about being doctors have to say

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The customer decides, not the quack;)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That seems awfully self-selecting, doesn't it? Someone that is dissatisfied is not likely to remain a customer

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I don't see what point you're trying to make. Yes, the customer decides what they're happy with. I didn't say otherwise

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

The chiropractic field drove themselves from the scientific discourse by refusing to participate in peer-reviewed double-blind studies. I'm very good friends with a chiropractor and know others through them. If I had a nickel for every "science can't study what we do" I'd be a rich man. We just don't talk about it because it's not productive to friendship lol

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Doctors are not just merchants. I've had indifferent ones and ones that really gave a damn. Many of them go into the field and stick with it to help people. Many do not, but it's not accurate to paint the bunch with one brush.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Doctors are not just merchants

Not sure how it works in other countries but in US they are just merchants.... You are only getting a proper care if they care. They have responsibility to merely do what their corpo employer tells them to. Which ain't much.