this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
61 points (90.7% liked)
Casual Conversation
1956 readers
171 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 1/22/25)
- 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Also with due respect, your opinion is wrong. I work with badly abused people, and those that CAN escape from toxicity at the earliest have it "best". Some could never escape. There are 12yr old who have a forced maturity that you often don't even find in 40+ olds. Which is not really a good thing.
Please, i don't wanna sound condescending or so, but widen your horizon in that regard please.
My "opinion" is not wrong. It is scientific fact. Adolescent development is an area of my professional study.
Are there abused children in the world? Yes. Are their brains well-enough developed to make any lifelong decisions? No. That doesn't mean that they don't deserve help. It does mean that they are not mature enough to understand the ramifications of a no-contact decision.
I don't wanna sound condescending, but please base your own opinions in fact.
Facts? So heavily abused children should stay with their abusers forever because their "brain is not well-enough to make any lifelong decisions hence they are not... "? This is the most absurd thing I've heard in a while. Not saying their brain isn't perfectly well adjusted. No shit sherlock, that's old news. Just the conclusion is... Very questionable. The ramifications of a no-contact-decision is the faint possibility of starting a therapy and get slightly better.
Anyone abused in whatever way, no matter how mature their brain is, should leave the abusive environment (at the very least. And get help at the acceptable best) . Isn't that like the most basic survival-tactic? Avoid any kind of harm at all costs however possible.
And now we know that you can’t (or won’t) read. That’s ok. But I do think that we’ve exhausted the possibilities of this conversation.
We sure did. But please, do continue your "studies", you never know when it might come in handy.
Yeah I’m glad I wasn’t the only one to pick up their attempt to appeal to their own non-existent qualifications. Their field “was and is linguistics” (and a technical advisor, scuba certified hiker, former school teacher, former journalist and presumably navy seal). Who was apparently born in the 70s and alive during the Cold War era. They also don’t believe in mobile phones being addictive.
If the fact that they thought “young brains aren’t finished developing” was a profound point isn’t enough to discourage anyone taking them seriously; all of that should be. Block and ignore them. Not worth wasting the brain cells over.
Their point was that the kid's brain isn't well enough adjusted to understand the ramifications of a permanent non-contact-decision. While part 1 isn't wrong, part 2 is so horribly off, even to the point of someone seemingly fearing their toy might be leaving. Not saying pedo, but either that, silly conclusion or a total lack of empathy.
And nah, i rarely block nor ignore. Most people fight for their point to the death, even if they already know it's bonkers. Even "science"-people who totally shouldn't, as it's never a personal fight in science. And trying to indicate some kind of authority on the topic is fine too. I did it myself. Those who really have, know the difference of stating and posing it.
Trying to indicate authority on a subject is fine if it’s relevant to the discussion which I would argue their isn’t. The rest I agree with and find commendable. I haven’t blocked them either but it’s my go to suggestion for others dealing with posters like this.