The golden rule fails as soon as you introduce someone of one culture to another.

Example: my friends and I have a massively western-masculine internal culture. At parties people would ask if we were "ok" because a minute earlier we'd have been shouting at each other how smooth brained and stupid each other was. Of course we'd be fine, that's how we talk to each other. We'd get frustrated if someone tried to talk through implication - one time I asked my friend to put his seatbelt on and he said "wtf just tell me to put my fucking seat belt on don't be all soft about it."

But if we turned that culture on someone else we'd be the most horrible of bullies. Not everyone wants to be "talked to straight" like that, and that's fine.

I'd get mad if someone let me walk around with a booger on my face. "do unto me" is to say to me "lol saving that for later?", But to someone else a much more polite method is probably desirable.

"Do unto me" might mean literally not talking to or approaching someone. It might mean feeling spurned or like someone thinks you're disgusting if a hug or handshake is avoided.

Do unto me is far too simple a rule. We need more communication involved.

> my friends and I have a massively western-masculine internal culture.

Sounds to me like you just have "teenage boy" culture.

Sure, you can call it that, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it, I was just talking to my gf about how despite its toxicity, it was a pretty viable social training ground. My theory is that it allowed all of us grown up in it to much better handle awkward, uncomfortable, or dangerous social situations, by giving us the tools to defuse most situations. Meanwhile she was bringing up tools for defusing situations because she heard it from a twitch streamer. I'm not saying one way is better than the other, I'm just saying, it was how we learned, and led to us very rarely feeling uncomfortable in any social situation.

You're taking it very literal here, from my perspective it doesn't mean "literally treat others according to your preferences", it means "treat others with the same kind of consideration you'd offer yourself". It's like: wouldn't you want people to treat as best they can you in a way that aligns with your needs and values? So treat them in a way that aligns with their needs and values. I think it also implies that people would have respect and care for themselves, but that's not always the case in reality.

It's really like the semantics of "walk this way".

If it was universal the Mongols wouldn't have changed the carbon footprint of the planet by slaughtering so many millions of people.

The one constant as you move through human history objectively is that might makes right... the best you can hope for is a philosopher king who is willing to put his iron gauntlet in a velvet glove and then use that hand to guide society into a better place... and apply pressure when necessary, as opposed to crushing.