this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
33 points (77.0% liked)

Casual Conversation

3352 readers
323 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 never really understood, but now that that house bill passed that may end up blocking AI regulation from individual States. I get it. I don't like knowing that even if everyone in my state wanted to stop companies from using AI for hiring decisions, we couldn't.

Texans, I feel you.

Edit: I'm learning a lot about Texas in this thread. Thanks for all the context folks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 62 points 1 week ago (9 children)

ha its not the implementation of a fascist police state, its 'ai' that did it for ya?!

oook

[–] pebbles@sh.itjust.works -5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

That scares the hell out of me too.

I just happened to read about the bill and had a thought and posted it.

~~I guess I'll work on considering you and being more of a perfectionist. Lemmy needs that. There's too much content as there is. /s~~

Edit: okay I get I was poking back pretty hard. Definitely a bit of a lash out. Sorry.

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

People on the internet are prone to criticize, it's okay to have gained an appreciation for the idea of states rights vs federalism from a slightly lower impact or more niche issue rather than one of the huge ones.

Its always a tradeoff both ways. The more rights the states have independent from the federal government, the harder it can be to get everyone on the same page about doing good things, but it's also a lot easier to independently build good things when the trend nationally is garbage.

The question is what compromise feels right to you, and personally I can respect and empathize with a number of positions on the topic. There's a reason the framers (fallible as they were) debated this architectural question so much- it really changes the shape of what exactly the federal government is.

[–] pebbles@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I really appreciate your tone. A lot of folks are (reasonably) offended with the framing.

I'm curious how those debates went. I see the utility of the union, but we've definitely also seen the tyranny of it. You definitely wouldn't get the states to become the union if they were all split right now.

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Thank you, I'm really glad ☺️

And to be entirely honest, from my not-so-informed perspective it kinda feels like the north winning the civil war really entrenched a stronger version of federalism than we might have had otherwise, had the civil war just not been a thing. But it almost feels like that reforged USAs national and political identity around more centralization, with those wishing to splinter off having been quashed by those who wished for unification.

No idea if that's at all accurate, but it feels like the way federalism has been portrayed to me as an early debate in US history is weaker than the version we see post-civil-war. Certainly weaker than the version we have today but I don't think anyone would debate that lol.

Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud, I hope you have a lovely day :)

load more comments (5 replies)