4 ms·

Would be great to see some meaningful example where these principles clearly improved the conversation, be it in terms of time, conclusion, compromise or what h

Would be great to see some meaningful example where these principles clearly improved the conversation, be it in terms of time, conclusion, compromise or what have you. I've got this feeling that it's one of these things that cause a threaded discussion to be misinterpreted by outsiders in terms of predictability.

tunesmith 10y ago
I guess I often do it internally. If someone is acting derisive towards me but still has some amount of content in their objection, I (sometimes) internally pretend that they have said only the content, minus the derisive crap, and then I respond to that. I've also noticed that sometimes when I do that, the person I'm engaging with responds more respectfully. Other times I hit back because sometimes people are jerks. I dunno. Jury's still out for me on whether I should ignore derision all the time.
- mannykannot 10y ago
  The introduction of derision into a discussion is often a sign of weakness.
jandrewrogers 10y ago
It is important to understand the milieu in which Crocker's Rules originated. The old Extropians mailing list was, by design, a place where even highly controversial and socially taboo subjects could be discussed and argued from positions that average people might find abhorrent if the position was carefully constructed, interesting, and grounded in rational or scientific observation. Many people found it emotionally challenging to engage on that list due to the volume of uncomfortable ideas they were exposed to. Even on that list, many topics were difficult to discuss because it triggered too many people regardless of the merits of the topic. Declaring "Crocker's Rules" was an explicit statement that you refused to be triggered and that every possible subject matter was on the table for reasoned discourse without devolving into an emotional response. The flip side of this is being open to accepting better ideas that you are not predisposed to accepting. As an aside, Lee Daniel Crocker gets credit personally for successfully challenging some long-seated political beliefs I held, by virtue of compelling argumentation.
- afarrell 10y ago
  > that you refused to be triggered Was it a refusal to be triggered, or a decision to steel yourself for possibly being triggered and commitment summoning the wherewithal to handle that gracefully?
  - jandrewrogers 10y ago
    A little bit of both. It is a commitment to efficiently and dispassionately evaluating the facts at hand on their own merits, but it also is the practiced discipline of disregarding your emotional reaction and recognizing that your emotional reaction to offensive ideas are not grounded in reason. It follows from the idea that how something makes you feel has little relation to its veracity or rationality. If the goal of discussion is primarily about the veracity and rationality of an argument then taking offense contributes nothing toward that goal and tends to suppress otherwise reasonable perspectives via social convention. Crocker's Rules can be looked at as an intentional refusal to have any sacred cows, consciously or subconsciously, and making an effort to respond to every discussion as if one actually does have no sacred cows.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    It's basically a rephrasing of Jon Postel's dictum. "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send."
    - prodigal_erik 10y ago
      It invites others to stop being conservative in what they send to you.
      - CamperBob2 10y ago
        Yep, that's an unfortunate side effect in both cases. It can encourage sloppy coding and sloppy rhetoric.
        10y ago

tunesmith 10y ago

I guess I often do it internally. If someone is acting derisive towards me but still has some amount of content in their objection, I (sometimes) internally pretend that they have said only the content, minus the derisive crap, and then I respond to that. I've also noticed that sometimes when I do that, the person I'm engaging with responds more respectfully. Other times I hit back because sometimes people are jerks. I dunno. Jury's still out for me on whether I should ignore derision all the time.

mannykannot 10y ago
The introduction of derision into a discussion is often a sign of weakness.

jandrewrogers 10y ago

It is important to understand the milieu in which Crocker's Rules originated. The old Extropians mailing list was, by design, a place where even highly controversial and socially taboo subjects could be discussed and argued from positions that average people might find abhorrent if the position was carefully constructed, interesting, and grounded in rational or scientific observation. Many people found it emotionally challenging to engage on that list due to the volume of uncomfortable ideas they were exposed to. Even on that list, many topics were difficult to discuss because it triggered too many people regardless of the merits of the topic. Declaring "Crocker's Rules" was an explicit statement that you refused to be triggered and that every possible subject matter was on the table for reasoned discourse without devolving into an emotional response. The flip side of this is being open to accepting better ideas that you are not predisposed to accepting. As an aside, Lee Daniel Crocker gets credit personally for successfully challenging some long-seated political beliefs I held, by virtue of compelling argumentation.

afarrell 10y ago
> that you refused to be triggered Was it a refusal to be triggered, or a decision to steel yourself for possibly being triggered and commitment summoning the wherewithal to handle that gracefully?
- jandrewrogers 10y ago
  A little bit of both. It is a commitment to efficiently and dispassionately evaluating the facts at hand on their own merits, but it also is the practiced discipline of disregarding your emotional reaction and recognizing that your emotional reaction to offensive ideas are not grounded in reason. It follows from the idea that how something makes you feel has little relation to its veracity or rationality. If the goal of discussion is primarily about the veracity and rationality of an argument then taking offense contributes nothing toward that goal and tends to suppress otherwise reasonable perspectives via social convention. Crocker's Rules can be looked at as an intentional refusal to have any sacred cows, consciously or subconsciously, and making an effort to respond to every discussion as if one actually does have no sacred cows.
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  It's basically a rephrasing of Jon Postel's dictum. "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send."
  - prodigal_erik 10y ago
    It invites others to stop being conservative in what they send to you.
    - CamperBob2 10y ago
      Yep, that's an unfortunate side effect in both cases. It can encourage sloppy coding and sloppy rhetoric.
      - 10y ago