23
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
23 points (96.0% liked)
[Migrated, see pinned post] Casual Conversation
3391 readers
6 users here now
We moved to !casualconversation@piefed.social please look for https://lemm.ee/post/66060114 in your instance search bar
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
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible.
- Avoid controversial topics (e.g. politics or societal debates).
- Stay calm: Don’t post angry or to vent or complain. We are a place where everyone can forget about their everyday or not so everyday worries for a moment. Venting, complaining, or posting from a place of anger or resentment doesn't fit the atmosphere we try to foster at all. Feel free to post those on !goodoffmychest@lemmy.world
- Keep it clean and SFW
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
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
The issue that arises in these conversations are the semantics. Never have I seen someone mention "manipulators" but then define them in a way that not only includes all the intended people and excludes all of the unintended people but also could be lived up to in a consistent way. Many will point fingers and say "that person is manipulative" and will get upset when I ask "how would you define that", because I work on these kinds of issues, and these kinds of progressions would be vital. The same people, I have noticed, are never content by saying something like "that person is deceptive", because then they can foresee that it will progress into a conversation about how not all "manipulation" entails "deception" and not all "deception" entails "manipulation".
In short, the first issue lies in determining what the boundaries of "manipulation" are.
If you look through any book of law, "manipulation" is a word that is very, very seldomly used, if at all.
Suppose, though, you found core ideas that can be appealed to. Do you try to stop the issue or do you leave it up to the target of these people to fare for themselves? If you can find traces of the "perpetrator" doing something that crosses questionable boundaries as a side effect of itself, definitely the former. This kind of thing can only be settled by elaborating on boundaries. Before I stepped down from some of my positions, I often added these elaborations to whatever modus operandi of management was being used. Fine lines should be applied as much as possible.
As for what society is programmed to do, I like to think people are seekers of enlightenment, although my experiences overwhelmingly suggest the exact opposite occurs from people. The severity and amount of clique-based decision-making comes across as almost monstrous, as anyone who has read the logs of an administrator can tell you. Ironically, being roundabout, often in a way that evokes the image of the people we are referring to, can serve as a demonstrator of the wrongfulness of this way of doing things.