Casual Conversation

3012 readers

395 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

orangeNgreen@lemmy.world

neidu2@feddit.nl

BoozeOrWater@lemm.ee

-10

What's up with many white people in the US self-hating/having internalized white guilt? (lemmy.selfhostcat.com)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) by ocean@lemmy.selfhostcat.com to c/casualconversation@lemm.ee

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I understand America's history of poor treatment of minorities but what has caused many liberal white people to casually talk as if they aren't white.

Some examples:

A friend has an eastern European neighbor move in. He says he's glad they are that instead of American white.
Feeling they are individually responsible for what their ancestors and/or rich and politically affluent white people did in the past.
Acting as if white people anything is bad.
Making jokes at their own expense but won't dare say the same thing to another ethnicity.

I don't mean this post as a worm-brained right wing or political discussion, but just seeking to understand this odd internalized behavior I've seen recently.

Rule 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.

I really don't mean this to be about politics but about how people act!

Edit Thanks for the report @lolola@lemmy.blahaj.zone I tried not to frame this in a controversial manner.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] myreel@lemm.ee 5 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

I have this theory that if a certain amount of people start to behave a certain way like being overly racist, over time a new group will emerge that will start to behave the opposite way like overly guilty conscience and trying to prove themselves opposite. So far it has been true for every movement, when violent islamic attacks became common in Europe, quickly a group of people who were very racist to Muslims emerged. When liberals in US went hard left, conservatives went hard right. I think your question can be easily answered by this exact phenomena.

[–] ocean@lemmy.selfhostcat.com 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks :) That makes a lot of sense. So this may be explained by trying to actualize and virtue signal (not used in a derogatory manner) what they are not.

[–] myreel@lemm.ee 2 points 20 hours ago

Possibly, they are simply stating very obviously that they're not racists but the opposites.