this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
65 points (93.3% liked)
Casual Conversation
2983 readers
235 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
In overwhelming majority of practical cases you can’t look under every nook and cranny. You must use the gut feeling in some way or another.
For example you can only tell if someone is sane and a good fit for you in relationship after like a year of living together yes? But you don’t get to have some kind of trial year or something you must use your gut feeling to tell if someone seems okay.
It’s very important thing in society as else nothing could ever be done in a reasonable amount of time. It fails sometimes though but that doesn’t mean it should be rejected as we literally cannot function without approximations and first glance judgments
It must suck to be at the anomaly end of this social heuristics and I sympathise but otherwise social algorithm would be of exponential complexity. Way too much for a limited lifespan of 80 years and even shorter kids making and dating window.
We cannot replace the heuristics but we can strive to make them better by education and knowledge.
In a typical trial of some kind, if I didn't have proof or couldn't get it, I would refuse to act in a way that had negative ramifications for everyone, not just use intuition as a tiebreaker. The last time I was consulted over a conflict, one person said another person scammed them via an art scam and the second person denied it. Knowing that, somehow, the first person did indeed lose what she said she lost, whether or not at the hands of a scam, I was more than glad to refill what they had lost out of my own pocket, especially as an alternative to interpreting what actually went on between them.
I think that is also a decision. In your ruling you punished yourself out of three options. That was viable then because the amount of money was small but if the money in question was millions of dollars it wouldn’t be feasible for the judge to pay out of pocket.
If it was millions of dollars, I would take no action whatsoever. It would still be preferable over purely intuitive decision-making.