7 ms·

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

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 offensive ipso facto for the person making the declaration. All taboos were open to good faith arguments and attempts at rigorous intellectual inquiry. This article is focused too much on communication style and not enough on the subject of communication. The latter was the crux of it. Crocker’s Rules were about being able to rigorously discuss topics that society has deemed to be beyond discussion without taking offense at the fact it is being discussed. I was present when Crocker’s Rules were “invented”. I see a couple other handles here that may have been as well.

Barbing 8mo ago
Anyone have a preferred resource? I do appreciate the OP as it stands!
eucyclos 8mo ago
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?
- jojomodding 8mo ago
  Is the critique any more substantial than "the vibes are off?"
  - hx8 8mo ago
    The critique is "Taboos probably have a use." I think it's a good faith point. It's not as strong of a critique as "Taboos have purpose {x}" [Maintain ethical standards, promote public safety] or to say "Taboos probably have a use because {y}" [They are in almost every society, some rules should be rules but not laws].
    - LorenPechtel 8mo ago
      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 answer? (And, yes, it happens. Bump into an unknown sibling, there's a substantial chance you'll fall for them.)
      - kajaktum 8mo ago
        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.
        eucyclos 8mo ago
        I'd agree- I think the analysis I was referring to believed that analyzing a taboo makes it no longer useful as a shortcut. Guess that didn't come across enough for anyone to offer a refutation.
        LorenPechtel 8mo ago
        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.
- plasticchris 8mo ago
  It probably depends on the measure used to define peak, but the removal of arbitrary limits on honest intellectual inquiry has huge benefits, eg the enlightenment, science, etc.
  - eucyclos 8mo ago
    Did the enlightenment not have a taboo around questioning e.g. the fundamental equality of all human beings?
    - simonra 8mo ago
      My impression was that that taboo first got a firm foothold a couple of hundred years later, after the second world war showed what industrialised genocide looks like. How could the fundamental equality of all humans otherwise have been accepted as true and taboo to talk about at the same time as women being denied suffrage until the early 19-hundreds, or eugenics being openly discussed well into the 1930ies?
      - eucyclos 8mo ago
        Precisely by being protected from this kind of rigorous practical analysis!
- dxdm 8mo ago
  If I understand you correctly, you are saying that taboos should not be examined from within the space where they hold effect, because doing so calls into question the whole concept of a taboo and robs all taboos of their usefulness, and that would summon evidence for, or even cause cultural decline? That sounds suspiciously like something a taboo would say that has something to fear from being looked at. ;) I think this chain of reasoning is made of links that do not self-evidently follow. From my lay perspective, taboos seem more complex, resilient and variable to require a perfectly dogmatic approach to hold up. If they were this easy to bring down, they'd all be gone. I'm also not sure what a "culture without taboos" is, or one has ever existed. Also, what is meant by "peak"? Is there an optimal amount or set of taboos? How do cultures with taboo-ical differences (and their peaks) compare to each other across space and time? I think it is good and healthy to approach taboos with curiosity, whether it is to interrogate them or to appreciate them more.
  - eucyclos 8mo ago
    Not should, can't. The assertion I'm referring to is that once something can be rationally discussed it's no longer a taboo, and once a culture has no taboos it has no real vitality or potential for growth left. Nothing there about causing cultural decline, just evidence of it, and thereby limits on the kind of culture that can host the attitude you describe.
    - dxdm 8mo ago
      > 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. Taboos, as in: the actual attitudes and behaviors of people, do not simply disappear the moment they are named or even questioned. I think we have to allow for taboos to be more nuanced, or we will struggle to describe the actual, interesting phenomenon, let alone do anything useful with it. > once a culture has no taboos it has no real vitality or potential for growth left That's an extraordinary claim on multiple levels, even when allowing for different ideas of what taboos are and how they work. I already mentioned some questions this raises, which makes it surprising to find the naked claim simply restated, in an even stronger form. It's the kind of sentence that can sound really deep and powerful in passing, but when you look at it, is really only a huge, gaping question mark in a fancy dress.
- rendaw 8mo ago
  I've heard of taboos forbidding discussion in religious contexts, for religious (superstitious) reasons, but what definition of taboo are you using that it doesn't just mean "forbidden"? There's a taboo to marrying your blood sibling, but discussing such marriages is fine. If a culture generally allowed marrying such a sibling I think it'd be past its peak, maybe. But I don't see how discussing it would contribute to that.
  - mikkupikku 8mo ago
    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.
    - naasking 8mo ago
      > They'll be thinking "Of all possible things we could talk about, why this??" Sure, but the point is that they should just say that, and the person who raised the issue must then explain why it's worth their time. Maybe there's an important point they're trying to make, maybe not.
    - LorenPechtel 8mo ago
      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.
      - mikkupikku 8mo ago
        That it's a sensitive topic is the point, no?
- aaron695 8mo ago
  [dead]
- tliltocatl 8mo ago
  > 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.
jiggawatts 8mo ago
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 are now used in their opposite meaning, and we all understand, and it's fine. As a random example, "It's all downhill from here" can mean either "it gets easier" or "it gets worse". The meaning has changed over time. Also: "I could care less", etc... > This article is focused too much on communication style and not enough on the subject of communication. The latter was the crux of it. Crocker’s Rules were about being able to rigorously discuss topics that society has deemed to be beyond discussion without taking offense at the fact it is being discussed. That's a distinction that's not as clear cut as you think. The problem in the workplace setting is that the subject is the code/system/product/organisation, which has no feelings and hence can't be offended, but many people feel compelled to use an overly verbose style in order to avoid offending the humans charged with the care of the unfeeling object. There is a certain freedom in treating things as things and calling out their objective properties as is, instead of dancing around the facts. This is the very same thing as talking plainly and directly about taboo or sensitive subjects. Just do it! It's fine!
- normie3000 8mo ago
  > "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!
  - tkgally 8mo ago
    They don’t explain the downvotes, but here are some discussions of the expression: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/could-couldnt-care-less https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/could-couldnt-care-l... https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/I-COULDN-T-care-less-or-I-COULD-care-less https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/I-COULDN-T-care-... https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/pardon-the-expression/i-couldnt-care-less-vs-i-could-care-less/ https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/pardon-the-expression/i-...
willrshansen 8mo ago
With nothing off the table, that includes bans on Crocker's Rules, right?
- dpark 8mo ago
  Crocker's rules are permission for others to be blunt, not an obligation. The fact that a person claims to operate under Crocker's rules doesn't mean anyone else is obliged to care. (Something the article's author appears to have missed.)

Barbing 8mo ago

Anyone have a preferred resource? I do appreciate the OP as it stands!

eucyclos 8mo ago

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?

jojomodding 8mo ago
Is the critique any more substantial than "the vibes are off?"
- hx8 8mo ago
  The critique is "Taboos probably have a use." I think it's a good faith point. It's not as strong of a critique as "Taboos have purpose {x}" [Maintain ethical standards, promote public safety] or to say "Taboos probably have a use because {y}" [They are in almost every society, some rules should be rules but not laws].
  - LorenPechtel 8mo ago
    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 answer? (And, yes, it happens. Bump into an unknown sibling, there's a substantial chance you'll fall for them.)
    - kajaktum 8mo ago
      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.
      - eucyclos 8mo ago
        I'd agree- I think the analysis I was referring to believed that analyzing a taboo makes it no longer useful as a shortcut. Guess that didn't come across enough for anyone to offer a refutation.
      - LorenPechtel 8mo ago
        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.
plasticchris 8mo ago
It probably depends on the measure used to define peak, but the removal of arbitrary limits on honest intellectual inquiry has huge benefits, eg the enlightenment, science, etc.
- eucyclos 8mo ago
  Did the enlightenment not have a taboo around questioning e.g. the fundamental equality of all human beings?
  - simonra 8mo ago
    My impression was that that taboo first got a firm foothold a couple of hundred years later, after the second world war showed what industrialised genocide looks like. How could the fundamental equality of all humans otherwise have been accepted as true and taboo to talk about at the same time as women being denied suffrage until the early 19-hundreds, or eugenics being openly discussed well into the 1930ies?
    - eucyclos 8mo ago
      Precisely by being protected from this kind of rigorous practical analysis!
dxdm 8mo ago
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that taboos should not be examined from within the space where they hold effect, because doing so calls into question the whole concept of a taboo and robs all taboos of their usefulness, and that would summon evidence for, or even cause cultural decline? That sounds suspiciously like something a taboo would say that has something to fear from being looked at. ;) I think this chain of reasoning is made of links that do not self-evidently follow. From my lay perspective, taboos seem more complex, resilient and variable to require a perfectly dogmatic approach to hold up. If they were this easy to bring down, they'd all be gone. I'm also not sure what a "culture without taboos" is, or one has ever existed. Also, what is meant by "peak"? Is there an optimal amount or set of taboos? How do cultures with taboo-ical differences (and their peaks) compare to each other across space and time? I think it is good and healthy to approach taboos with curiosity, whether it is to interrogate them or to appreciate them more.
- eucyclos 8mo ago
  Not should, can't. The assertion I'm referring to is that once something can be rationally discussed it's no longer a taboo, and once a culture has no taboos it has no real vitality or potential for growth left. Nothing there about causing cultural decline, just evidence of it, and thereby limits on the kind of culture that can host the attitude you describe.
  - dxdm 8mo ago
    > 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. Taboos, as in: the actual attitudes and behaviors of people, do not simply disappear the moment they are named or even questioned. I think we have to allow for taboos to be more nuanced, or we will struggle to describe the actual, interesting phenomenon, let alone do anything useful with it. > once a culture has no taboos it has no real vitality or potential for growth left That's an extraordinary claim on multiple levels, even when allowing for different ideas of what taboos are and how they work. I already mentioned some questions this raises, which makes it surprising to find the naked claim simply restated, in an even stronger form. It's the kind of sentence that can sound really deep and powerful in passing, but when you look at it, is really only a huge, gaping question mark in a fancy dress.
rendaw 8mo ago
I've heard of taboos forbidding discussion in religious contexts, for religious (superstitious) reasons, but what definition of taboo are you using that it doesn't just mean "forbidden"? There's a taboo to marrying your blood sibling, but discussing such marriages is fine. If a culture generally allowed marrying such a sibling I think it'd be past its peak, maybe. But I don't see how discussing it would contribute to that.
- mikkupikku 8mo ago
  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.
  - naasking 8mo ago
    > They'll be thinking "Of all possible things we could talk about, why this??" Sure, but the point is that they should just say that, and the person who raised the issue must then explain why it's worth their time. Maybe there's an important point they're trying to make, maybe not.
  - LorenPechtel 8mo ago
    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.
    - mikkupikku 8mo ago
      That it's a sensitive topic is the point, no?
aaron695 8mo ago
[dead]
tliltocatl 8mo ago
> 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.

jiggawatts 8mo ago

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 are now used in their opposite meaning, and we all understand, and it's fine. As a random example, "It's all downhill from here" can mean either "it gets easier" or "it gets worse". The meaning has changed over time. Also: "I could care less", etc... > This article is focused too much on communication style and not enough on the subject of communication. The latter was the crux of it. Crocker’s Rules were about being able to rigorously discuss topics that society has deemed to be beyond discussion without taking offense at the fact it is being discussed. That's a distinction that's not as clear cut as you think. The problem in the workplace setting is that the subject is the code/system/product/organisation, which has no feelings and hence can't be offended, but many people feel compelled to use an overly verbose style in order to avoid offending the humans charged with the care of the unfeeling object. There is a certain freedom in treating things as things and calling out their objective properties as is, instead of dancing around the facts. This is the very same thing as talking plainly and directly about taboo or sensitive subjects. Just do it! It's fine!

normie3000 8mo ago
> "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!
- tkgally 8mo ago
  They don’t explain the downvotes, but here are some discussions of the expression: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/could-couldnt-care-less https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/could-couldnt-care-l... https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/I-COULDN-T-care-less-or-I-COULD-care-less https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/I-COULDN-T-care-... https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/pardon-the-expression/i-couldnt-care-less-vs-i-could-care-less/ https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/pardon-the-expression/i-...

willrshansen 8mo ago

With nothing off the table, that includes bans on Crocker's Rules, right?

dpark 8mo ago
Crocker's rules are permission for others to be blunt, not an obligation. The fact that a person claims to operate under Crocker's rules doesn't mean anyone else is obliged to care. (Something the article's author appears to have missed.)