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

321–330 of 335 posts

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

#321

Post by comboy »

tasuki wrote: post #313
comboy wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yoursel…

Alright, my original comment was wrong (as was the parent). I still stand by my opinion that it is not practical though.

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

#322

Post by andrewflnr »

throw10920 wrote: post #310
andrewflnr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, skip the fluff about my having a good weekend if you need me to fix something, but a lot of those uncertainty markers aren't fluff, they're essential to honest, accurate communication. Similarly, many times when you say a variation on "I know you're the expert on the codebase" or whatever, that's because it's true and important . Something I think is a problem, which this article wants me to phrase as a short,…

> a lot of those uncertainty markers aren't fluff, they're essential to honest, accurate communication. > Similarly, many times when you say a variation on "I know you're the expert on the codebase" or whatever, that's because it's true and important. Something I think is a problem, which this article wants me to phrase as a short, plain declaration, might actually just be a misunderstanding on my part. This is not w…

Look at the actual examples they give of what you should say. Everything but the bald assertion is stripped away.

If you're saying the actual proper behavior is a middle ground: I agree! But that's not what the article is saying. (At least, not clearly, which would be its own irony.)

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

#323

Post by throw10920 »

dpark wrote: post #311
throw10920 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 someon…

For the future HN reader:

> If I described someone as always smiling...

Even if we pretend, for the sake of argument, that "always" doesn't mean "always", and that they didn't mean it like that in the first place and then changed the goalposts when they were called out on it, they're still making an insane claim - either out of malice, or clinical insanity (e.g. you think that you can read others' minds).

> I have responded thoroughly to your weird nitpicking

They very clearly have not. They still haven't admitted to either insanity or malice in their statement

>>> Also the undertone of this topic is always “I want you to be blunt to the point of rudeness (so I can be too).”

Note also the repeated attempts to distract from this wild claim with fallacies, misdirection, and emotional manipulation:

> 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.

...and then, of course, the root of the whole argument was their failure to read and understand either Crocker's Rules or the author's point:

>> This is the key to this whole topic. It doesn’t matter what should be. It matters what is. Humans are emotional in nature and ignoring that is not effective.

...which is, of course, factually an incorrect understanding or response to either the author or Crocker.

> I responded directly to your claim that I mischaracterized the author's point by showing how they misunderstand Crocker's rules.

And yet again we see that they're incapable of using logic, and are just operating emotionally, because...

> You even quoted it but you apparently didn't read it.

Failure of reading comprehension strikes again - I already responded to this point, and they completely missed it:

> You failed to correctly characterize (or argue against) either the author's points or Crocker's Rules, so this isn't really relevant.

This is factually true. Their comment "This is the key to this whole topic. It doesn’t matter what should be. It matters what is. Humans are emotional in nature and ignoring that is not effective." is wrong and irrelevant regardless of whether they're responding to the author or Crocker.

It does not matter whether the author got Crocker right or not. The objective truth is that this user's arguments are irrelevant to both.

We've already gone over each of these points at least once above, so if we keep looping, this is probably a bot, and I'll just stop responding after another marker for future readers.

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

#324

Post by throw10920 »

andrewflnr wrote: post #322
throw10920 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a lot of those uncertainty markers aren't fluff, they're essential to honest, accurate communication. > Similarly, many times when you say a variation on "I know you're the expert on the codebase" or whatever, that's because it's true and important. Something I think is a problem, which this article wants me to phrase as a short, plain declaration, might actually just be a misunderstanding on my part. This is not w…

Look at the actual examples they give of what you should say. Everything but the bald assertion is stripped away. If you're saying the actual proper behavior is a middle ground: I agree! But that's not what the article is saying. (At least, not clearly, which would be its own irony.)

> Look at the actual examples they give of what you should say. Everything but the bald assertion is stripped away.

Right, I think the examples aren't the best. But, around the examples, look at what the author is advocating for:

> to skip social cushioning

> "your feelings about how I might receive this..."

> bears responsibility for their own emotional reaction to its content

> When you spend the first third of your message establishing that you are a nice person who means well

...etc. They're pretty clearly emphasizing the emotional content of messages, rather than informational content.

Then they explicitly say that the intent is to provide relevant information:

> You can document contributing factors if they are actually actionable, meaning if there is something structural that needs to change, name it specifically and attach a proposed fix to it.

...and then separate that from emotions:

> But confessing your emotional state and your reasoning process and your extenuating circumstances is not documentation, it is self-absolution

Yes, I agree that the author probably should have been a bit more clear, because people can get upset when it comes to workplace politics/communication, and clarity never hurts. But I'm pretty sure that the intent is what you'd want it to be.

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

#325

Post by LorenPechtel »

kajaktum wrote: post #285
LorenPechtel wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I see is taboos assume the act is always wrong, and preclude consideration for edge cases where it might be the lesser wrong. Consider the incest taboo--yeah, there are very good reasons for this. Should you enter a sexual relationship with a relative? I think society is better off prohibiting this. But what about "What, my wife is actually my sister????" Is forcing them to divorce actually the best answe…

The only thing wrong with incest is the child. We put a lot of focus on this but not other kinds of ‘bad’ genes like hereditary diseases. To me taboos is just society taking shortcuts. This is fine, but lets admit that we are taking shortcuts.

In reality there's often issues of manipulation into "consent".

And if the relationship goes bad you lose a family member, not just a lover.

Is it always wrong? To me, unquestionably no (consider my example.) Is it risky? Yes.

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

#326

Post by bigstrat2003 »

jiggawatts wrote: post #91
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…

I subscribe to the thesis of Death of the Author , that just because someone came up with something, it doesn't necessarily given them a permanent special privilege in its interpretation. Everybody can understand the work as they prefer, and if anything, the work takes on a life of its own in greater society and evolves together with it. (Hence the limits on the duration of copyright.) This is why many common idioms…

> The meaning has changed over time. Also: "I could care less", etc.

That meaning has not changed. Anyone who says "I could care less" to indicate maximal lack of caring is using the language incorrectly.

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

#327

Post by bigstrat2003 »

lproven wrote: post #144
normie3000 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I could care less" Do people really say this? Is it exclusive? I've only heard the inverse: "I couldn't care less". Edit: genuine question. Please explain downvotes!

> Do people really say this? Is it exclusive? I've only heard the inverse: "I couldn't care less". "I could" is American. "I couldn't" is British. As AmEn is now more widespread, the former is widespread, but as a native speaker of BrEn I absolutely detest it and never ever use it.

No, people who properly speak American English say "I couldn't care less" as well. It's just that there are a lot of people who don't speak the language correctly, and no social will to try to get them to learn to speak it correctly.

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

#328

Post by mx7zysuj4xew »

rkomorn wrote: post #319
mx7zysuj4xew wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

There's a difference between constructive directness and immature ad hominem remarks. Kinda illustrates the problem with the authors take. Not everyone can handle it like an adult

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

#329

Post by lproven »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #284
lproven wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Out of curiosity, are you a reader? Very much so. I started reading adult novels at 7 years old, and by the time I was 12 or so, I could if I was hurrying read 5 or 6 novels a day. I read the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy for the first time in 5 days at that age. I've reread it again another 4 times or so. My personal library is somewhere in the region of 5,000 to 7,500 of my favourite books. I estimate that I h…

> Do you think I object to excessive verbiage because I struggle through it? That was the heart of my question, yes. The only way I could fathom it was to think that maybe some people just found reading generally difficult. The hypothesis being that those few extra words hurt, because reading in general was high effort. It seems I was very far off the mark, at least in your case. For what it's worth, I've enjoyed sev…

> Now I wonder if it is sometimes the opposite problem: A skilled writer losing patience when someone less skilled is at the wheel. Others in his thread explored that theory, and it seems they may be onto something.

Could be.

The KISS principle applies in communication as in the rest of life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle

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

#330

Post by lproven »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #327
lproven wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do people really say this? Is it exclusive? I've only heard the inverse: "I couldn't care less". "I could" is American. "I couldn't" is British. As AmEn is now more widespread, the former is widespread, but as a native speaker of BrEn I absolutely detest it and never ever use it.

No, people who properly speak American English say "I couldn't care less" as well. It's just that there are a lot of people who don't speak the language correctly, and no social will to try to get them to learn to speak it correctly.

Um.

ISTM that you're saying "this is a common mistake but some people don't make it."

Is that fair?

If so: no argument, but the error is now more common than the correct form, in my experience.

A BrEn example: a mistake has propagated and is now common...

"could have" [is shortened to] "could've" [is misheard as] "could of"... and the mistake gets repeated by people who don't know any better.

Post reply on HN