Casual Conversation @lemm.eeEnglish · 3 days ago

Can you be a contrarian to your own views?

Universal Monk@lemmy.kya.moe to

Casual Conversation @lemm.eeEnglish · 3 days ago

I have two cars, but I actually hate cars.

I chose to have a house in the mountains, but I hate snow.

I work out hard and have abs that I show off, but people who show off their abs annoy me.

I’m a writer and make income doing it in addition to my retirement pension, but writers annoy me and I never tell my friends that I’m a writer.

I also paint and have had my stuff in some galleries, but artists annoy me and I never tell any of my friends that I paint.

I’ve chosen all those things. Not by necessity, but just choice. Can you be a contrarian to your own views or does that definition have to involve opposing someone else’s views just to troll?

Chat

Universal Monk@lemmy.kya.moeOP
link
fedilink
English
arrow-up
1·
2 days ago
Hmmm, interesting. Well this is a casual conversation community, so I’m interested in what you have to say. Care to explain why you think that this post isn’t actually about what it claims to be?

Casual Conversation @lemm.ee

casualconversation@lemm.ee

Create a post

You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !casualconversation@lemm.ee

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

Visibility: Public

This community can be federated to other instances and be posted/commented in by their users.

140 users / day
1.35K users / week
3.71K users / month
7.33K users / 6 months
1 local subscriber
1.96K subscribers
566 Posts
11.4K Comments
Modlog