> They are demanding people have perfectly formed thoughts crafted in a way to give them just the information they wanted with no consideration for the process

> They are demanding people have perfectly formed thoughts crafted in a way to give them just the information they wanted with no consideration for the process of thinking or consideration for the person speaking. No, this is not what the author asks for. There's nothing in their article that says that people need to have "perfectly formed thoughts" or "only give them the information they asked for". > It is selfish and impossible. You fundamentally did not understand the point that they made (quite clearly). The thing that they are actually advocating for turns out to be neither. > Communication is mind control. The point isn't the words, it is literally trying to get a person to do something. Author also does not say that they think Crocker's Rules should be applied in all cases or that convincing someone of something is unnecessary. > A second aspect here is that while communicating we are developing our thoughts. We need time to tease out our real intentions and filler conversation helps that. Author is not (specifically) talking about filler conversation. And on top of that it's really clear that they're primarily talking about digital communication - where filler conversation is unnecessary, unlike verbal communication. > The writer asks for it, so I will be blunt. Before being blunt, try being correct. And responding to the points that the author actually made instead of constructing a whole field of strawmen.