this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
39 points (86.8% liked)
Casual Conversation
2002 readers
218 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
- !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
I thought kid gloves were for dealing with kids but actually they’re made from the skin of kids.
Also of note, I thought the kids were children.
As in there was a literal she who literally said that? Otherwise I can’t understand this.
There is, indirectly.
"That's what she said," is a descendant of a line that began with "said the actress to the bishop". And that is, according to folklore, a real event in which a named actress (I forget her name) asked a real bishop (again, don't know the name anymore) about his "prick" to which the bishop responded that it was "throbbing". (And according to that same folklore the butler, having overheard that upon entering the room, dropped his tray.)
The backstory being that the bishop had been gardening and injured his thumb on a rose. She was asking about the injury.
But that is supposedly the beginning of the expression "said the actress to the bishop" which is the phrase used in writing for "that's what she said" as far back as the old Charteris "The Saint" novels at least.
I mean in the context of a serious setting where it’s not being used as a joke.
No, that's just people who don't know what words mean and recited something they didn't understand in an incorrect context.
Rather like people who say things like "for all intensive purposes" or "hunger pains" or "I could care less" or such.