> signaling that one is upset
I think you're missing the point. This is a way for people to claim that they won't be offended (and won't start a flame war--remember those?) and thereby invite others to speak plainly. The belief is that this leads to a more efficient communication than people not speaking plainly for fear of offending you.
There's nothing in it about ignoring other people's emotions, not expressing your own emotions, not being empathetic, emotions not being information (the post literally says the opposite of this), or pretending to be emotionless like so many Spocks. I think all of these are things that you're reading into what's actually there.
> one should offer to be receptive to empathetic discussion about a difficult topic.
An important part of that is letting the other person know you aren't going to jump on them for something they say. This is what Crocker's rules are about.
In fact, it's just the opposite - you are agreeing to be more accepting of their thoughts, including the emotional content (even the inflammatory parts) of their message.
I believe that the intention is that the emotions that are discarded are your own, at least to the extent that you try to fairly understand the other person's viewpoint by suppressing your own biases and emotional response to what they're saying.
In a private conversation, invoking Crocker's rules, still, I think is not the best option. I think the best option is to have a conversation where emotional processing is intentional and guided. Having someone else guide you through processing your own emotional responses requires a lot more trust and labor than Crocker's rules do, but I think it's immensely more valuable. Even when evaluating technical problems, feelings and intuition are so helpful. A lot of code review, for example, relies on gut feeling and emotions about code. Strange but true in my experience.
My core misgiving is that I think Crocker's rules are motivated by this assumption that a lack of empathy leads to a broader, more constructive conversation. I just don't think that's true in my own experience but there is a streak of anti-emotion dogma in rationally oriented communities. I think it's an often unspoken but problematic bias.
This is certainly true.
I feel you're responding more to this perceived anti-emotional bias than to the actual content of Crocker's rules.
The first does not preclude the second. You still know what you wanted to say, and can examine that to your heart's content.
> It invites people to be more careless with their empathy. And that, I think, encourages the neglect of an important mode of communication.
Keep in mind the norm is not Crocker's rules. I'm not sure worrying that we are missing out on the norm when we occasionally opt for different rules of communication explicitly is something we need to be worried about.
> In a private conversation, invoking Crocker's rules, still, I think is not the best option. I think the best option is to have a conversation where emotional processing is intentional and guided.
Crocker's rules do not prevent emotional processing. We are not machines, capable of completely detaching all emotional interpretation. We can at best suppress our reactions, and not fault the other party for bringing up the argument.
> Even when evaluating technical problems, feelings and intuition are so helpful.
Yes, but they can also cloud rational discussion of why. Crocker's rules can help here as well, by helping you explore possible reasons for your intuition without that intuition getting in the way. Intuituin is good, but is necessarily less useful than the data that has formed that intuition in your mind. If you can access that data and how it formed your intuition, that's useful (but may not always be possible). Intuition is like a rule-of-thumb. Quick and useful when applied correctly, but detrimental when applied incorrectly.
> My core misgiving is that I think Crocker's rules are motivated by this assumption that a lack of empathy leads to a broader, more constructive conversation.
Lack of empathy may allow you to consider viewpoints you would have dismissed out of hand, and under careful observation you may find some of those viewpoints are not quite what you assumed they were. It's a way to get past your gut reactions and intuitions just in case you find they were misfiring. Nobody is proposing you don't then reconsider what was discussed with all your emotional faculties to determine if there are additional constraints that still discourage the arguments proposed. Crocker's rules are not a way to make a decision, but a tool for widening perspective and information.
As a simple example of Crocker's rules and where it might find use in a less extreme way, imagine a discussion regarding how to deal with social welfare in an extremely fiscally conservative group. Crocker's rules might by useful in bringing in the subject of a basic income without the emotional baggage of people's preconceptions on the idea, and allow them to examine it with a more rational eye. Conversely, the idea of eliminating corporate taxes might be usefully examined in a very fiscally liberal group under Crocker's rules. Depending on the dispositions of the groups involved, I could easily see both of those devolving into base political arguments before useful discourse could be reached.
I agree that if all communication was done under Crocker's rules, we might lose something important. I just don't think anyone has actually proposed that.
I can imagine certain people in certain conversations usefully applying Crocker's rule, but I suspect that, in practice, it's more frequently a bludgeon used as another commenter in this thread did: as a ground rule to which all (should) implicitly consent in order to value some tokenized version of "free speech".
I see this sort of thought come up a lot, but what situation requires rudeness to be more concise? For example, you could take Torvald's emails, cut out the rudeness, and they'd be much shorter and to the point.
The idea that rude == direct doesn't really hold up in my experience.
That's important information.
From Torvalds:
The fact is, people need to know what my position on things are. And I can't just say "please don't do that", because people won't listen. I say "On the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle," and I mean it.
And I definitely am not willing to string people along, either. I've had that happen too—not telling people clearly enough that I don't like their approach, they go on to re-architect something, and get really upset when I am then not willing to take their work.
- this looks bad
- this looks extremely bad
- this is dangerous, I imagine you can exploit this
- You can easily exploit this code with attached example
A free scale if you need to convey degree of good/badness for attached code. CC0 license.
This is a bit snarky, but I do think that a bit of effort can be made to describe code as being bad without declaring that the author's mother should have aborted them.
So, I'd argue that while the premise that some direct and blunt statements can be rude, that doesn't mean that any rudeness (esp. insults) is a better argument.
When intelligent people have great conversations, they are not the kind where people's emotions are disregarded. That does not make them less efficient, in fact, considering that humans have a great deal of circuitry for empathy, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to claim the opposite: That an environment where a high level of emotional communication is processed in a constructive way is the most efficient way to convey information.
I don't think this post holds up to scrutiny:
> The underlying assumption is that rudeness is sometimes necessary for effective conveyance of information, if only to signal a lack of patience or tolerance
In other words, some emotions are perfectly acceptable! It's ok to be rude, because, I guess, somehow rudeness is an emotion conducive to rational communication? Ok. Granted. Why is signaling that one is upset not also a constructive emotion? It's not entirely spelled out but it's easy to infer that what is really at issue here is the expectation of empathy and good faith. The implication being that empathy is an obstacle to rational discussion.
That's what disregarding "emotional feelings" means.
To put it lightly, I emphatically disagree.
Edit: To make it clear, here is an alternative rule I think would be more productive. Crocker's rules gets you some types of conversations with some types of people you otherwise wouldn't get. Instead, I think one should offer to be receptive to empathetic discussion about a difficult topic. I think this gets you other kinds of conversations with other kinds of people and I think they are more useful.