Casual Conversation
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
I don't know but the most compelling evidence in my mind is the personal stories from Macaulay Culkin. Culkin was about as broken as Michael Jackson for similar reasons and I think they had a legitimate bond because of that. I tend to believe Culkin when he says that Jackson's odd behaviors were not a result of ill intent and that Jackson didn't hurt children.
The public will never know for sure.
He was a very broken person, in many ways. That doesn't prove or disprove that he did anything illegal or immoral.
Some of the ways he acted? They seem questionable to most folks, myself included. But through the lens of his emotional and psychological issues? They could have appeared harmful but actually been harmless.
For example: Is it weird for an adult celebrity to have pajama parties with kids? Yes. Is it harmful if it was, in fact, only a pajama party? Probably not.
Michael Jackson is a complex figure with huge cultural import. That doesn't change the fact that he may have been a problematic individual.
In some ways, he may have been less harmful than other historic figures. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't question the possible bad things he did.
One thing I keep hearing as a bad thing is that multiple kids have attested to being invited to sleeping in his bedroom.
I just want to point out that his bedroom was the size of a normal middle class house.
I'm not weighing in one way or another, I just want to hilight that this anecdote on its own doesn't indicate anything beyond a sleepover.
But yeah, the heart of the matter is that we don't know, and never will know.
I don't know what he did and cannot claim to, but I'll say that if his accusers are right, they have a funny way of showing it.
What's this about?
I assume the accusations of sexual crimes against children.
https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/michael-jackson-leaving-neverland-sexual-abuse-allegations.html
The two cases when he was tried in court for allegedly abusing minors.
I don't really know if he did it or not. So much conflicting information that I'm not sure we'll ever know. There was definitely some confirmed questionable behavior on his part.
I feel like we'll never know