Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me

lr0.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 335 posts

Re: I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me

#311

Post by dpark »

throw10920 wrote: post #309
dpark wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Factually incorrect. Factually you ascribed false motives to me because you're offended at the idea that I proposed. You are upset because I said that this is topic is generally broached by people who wish they could be blunt and rude, so you're mischaracterizing both my words and intent. > You are engaging in a blatantly bad-faith and indefensible mindset on a mass scale. You could just disagree and say I'm wrong…

> Factually you ascribed false motives to me To be fair, while the motives for falsely claiming that you can read thousands of peoples' minds are pretty limited, there are other motives than just because you're offended. Do you think that you're a psychic, instead? > because you're offended at the idea that I proposed. You are upset because I said that this is topic is generally broached by people who wish they could…

If I described someone as always smiling, would you suppose this is an assertion that they literally never make a non-smiling facial expression? If I said "The phone calls I receive are always SPAM", would this mean I've literally never received a non-spam call? Do you truly not understand the phrasing here or are you just pretending not to?

> If you make an irrelevant response because you're not responding to someone's points

I have responded thoroughly to your weird nitpicking and I responded directly to your claim that I mischaracterized the author's point by showing how they misunderstand Crocker's rules. You even quoted it but you apparently didn't read it.

You're very self righteous in your indignation, so much so that you would rather repeat the same thing over and over rather than actually converse.

Re: I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me

#312

Post by ccppurcell »

This is a false dichotomy between spending the first third of your message on niceties and being maximally blunt. I don't agree that you do not owe other people a modicum of consideration about their emotional state.

I advocate a middle ground and also empathy and curiosity. I think you can keep in mind that you might be wrong and treat people with respect without wasting their time. Something like "please check these lines/this function/whatever again. I think it will have such and such an effect. I did this test, here's the output". Seems fine to me.

Re: I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me

#313

Post by tasuki »

comboy wrote: post #247
tasuki wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, abiding by Crocker's rules isn't that you don't take into account other people's feelings. It's that other people don't have to take into account your feelings .

Applying them to only one side of the conversation doesn't seem practical.

It perfectly is.

From https://www.lesswrong.com/w/crockers-rules:

> Note that Crocker's Rules does not mean one is authorized to insult people; it means that other people don't have to worry about whether they are insulting you. Crocker's Rules are a discipline, not a privilege. Furthermore, taking advantage of Crocker's Rules does not imply reciprocity. How could it? Crocker's Rules are something you do for yourself, to maximize information received - not something you grit your teeth over and do as a favor.

Re: I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me

#314

Post by mikkupikku »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #279
mikkupikku wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try to start up a conversation about the relative merits of marrying your siblings and I bet everybody else in the room will suddenly get very uncomfortable. They'll be thinking "Of all possible things we could talk about, why this??" You're right that taboos also concern actions, not just discussion, but in this case it's probably both.

I see a problem here with your example: "everyone else". If you're going to have a sensitive discussion it should involve the minimum number of people.

That it's a sensitive topic is the point, no?

Re: I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me

#315

Post by snmx999 »

There is also a middle ground. You don’t have to prepend your message with several sentences of fluff, but asking a question instead of stating your message can be much better receives. Just stating facts may sound like an accusation and especially if your analysis is not correct it makes your message poorly received.

Re: I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me

#316

Post by dxdm »

eucyclos wrote: post #295
dxdm wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> once something can be rationally discussed it's no longer a taboo This appears to be an entirely impractical definition, to the point that it would not allow a taboo to ever exist in a group of people capable of any sort of rational discussion. Any two moderately curious and independently-minded people could simply destroy any taboo by talking about it. They could even do it on purpose, using this fatal weakness. T…

Would you also say that no Overton window could ever exist in a group of people capable of any sort of rational discussion?

I would not. But I don't see how that's relevant here.

I'm also not going to guess what point you're trying to make. I'd ask you to explain how exactly you think Overton windows relate to our argument about taboos, because, despite a superficial similarity, taboos and Overton windows deal with different things and are very much not the same; but I'm not interested in this style of discussion, sorry. Have a nice day!

Re: I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me

#317

Post by tliltocatl »

eucyclos wrote: post #90
jandrewrogers wrote: post #75

This post is a poor exposition of Crocker’s Rules. Crocker’s Rules were a reaction to the avoidance of direct discussion of topics where some people treat the mere act of discussion in any capacity as offensive. Sacred cows and taboos for which there are social consequences even when asking honest questions. Crocker’s Rules, practically speaking, were a declaration that no good faith discussion was intrinsically offe…

This sounds like a refutation of the concept of taboos as a useful category, by the definition I use a taboo is something that may not be discussed openly. There's a theory that a culture without taboos is past it's peak in some important way- does crocker have any response to that criticism?

> There's a theory that a culture without taboos is past it's peak in some important way

That sound like yet another assertion that some people are so fond of and that I personally find totally baseless and irrelevant. You are simply proclaiming that a thing you like is good because it is good. So what? I don't like it and I want it gone. And I don't care that you think it is good unless you can come with some argument I can understand from my own set of values.

Re: I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me

#318

Post by rkomorn »

kajaktum wrote: post #287
rkomorn wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the subject is the code/system/product/organisation, which has no feelings and hence can't be offended This is like saying that telling someone their artwork sucks is not offensive because "the artwork has no feelings."

Then they are not creating arts, they are looking for affirmation. Lots of people do that, me included. That is fine to admit.

This is a weird "no true Scotsman" take.

Re: I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me

#319

Post by rkomorn »

mx7zysuj4xew wrote: post #276
rkomorn wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the subject is the code/system/product/organisation, which has no feelings and hence can't be offended This is like saying that telling someone their artwork sucks is not offensive because "the artwork has no feelings."

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me

#320

Post by Ylpertnodi »

r0p3 wrote: post #255

I read this passage on the blog's diary page and I found it beautiful and poignant. https://lr0.org/diary/ > Last week I had an argument with my Mother of which I was righteous and she was in error. In the end, I managed to convince her of my points. She accepted them. But then she said, “Okay, what about mercy?”. She told me then about a man from town who once had a serious argument with his distant brother. Time pa…

Big difference between being 'right', and 'correct'.
Post reply on HN