this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2025
74 points (96.2% liked)
Casual Conversation
2374 readers
122 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ah yes "who cares about your science, this is what I feel like", as if subjective experiences have never fooled anyone?
The plural or anecdote isn't evidence.
It's not "without evidence" and I didn't attribute it to you. Don't you think I take care to take breaks from my meds to see that I don't have a) a physical dependency b) a psychological need (addiction)? It's not always possible, as sleeping is then slightly harder, but I try to test that out with at least a few week break every year, because it's healthy.
You do realise the nature of addiction is such that when you actually suffer from it, you'll make yourself believe you don't?
It reminds me of those people who adamantly demand that caffeine has zero effect on them (as they drink it frequently and still sleep and don't notice effects from it.) While everyone around them is annoyed to fuck by their constant jittering and foot tapping.
I'm not saying you have a problem. But alcohol does reduce your quality of sleep. Your "but I don't feel that way" won't discredit all the science which shows it does. Sorry. I'm not telling what to do or judging you in any way ffs.