This was surprisingly hard to explain to people; many people would read the careful explanation and hear, “Crocker’s Rules mean you can say offensive things to other people.”
Perhaps because it resembles the “2” part of a common verbal bully’s 1-2 punch, the one that first insults you
and then when you react, slurs you for allegedly not being able to handle the truth. I’m specifically thinking of the part of Crocker’s Rule that goes “If you’re offended, it’s your fault”.
Yes, I see that one is “me” and the other is “you”. But the translation to “you” is so natural that even that writeup of Crocker’s Rule slips into it.
I also think Crocker’s Rules is an ivory-tower sort of position that starts with assumptions that just doesn’t reflect the real world. Perhaps in Lee Crocker’s experience, all debating opponents are at the worst mere curmudgeons who wrap truths in unpleasant rhetoric, but I doubt that’s true even for him. It’s certainly not my experience.
In my experience, the majority of people who this rule seems applicable to use petty and truthless rhetoric to defend minor points of lifestyle or ideology. Usually the arguing parties have already understood each other as much as they care to and are shouting their talking-points and postures past each other. It’s true that usually one or both sides could stand to listen and learn, but for the people that applies to, invariably that’s just what they don’t want.
I won’t belabor the point, but Crocker’s apparent assumption about the nature of contentious rhetoric is grossly wrong in the real world.
This was surprisingly hard to explain to people; many people would read the careful explanation and hear, “Crocker’s Rules mean you can say offensive things to other people.”
Perhaps because it resembles the “2” part of a common verbal bully’s 1-2 punch, the one that first insults you and then when you react, slurs you for allegedly not being able to handle the truth. I’m specifically thinking of the part of Crocker’s Rule that goes “If you’re offended, it’s your fault”.
Yes, I see that one is “me” and the other is “you”. But the translation to “you” is so natural that even that writeup of Crocker’s Rule slips into it.
I also think Crocker’s Rules is an ivory-tower sort of position that starts with assumptions that just doesn’t reflect the real world. Perhaps in Lee Crocker’s experience, all debating opponents are at the worst mere curmudgeons who wrap truths in unpleasant rhetoric, but I doubt that’s true even for him. It’s certainly not my experience.
In my experience, the majority of people who this rule seems applicable to use petty and truthless rhetoric to defend minor points of lifestyle or ideology. Usually the arguing parties have already understood each other as much as they care to and are shouting their talking-points and postures past each other. It’s true that usually one or both sides could stand to listen and learn, but for the people that applies to, invariably that’s just what they don’t want.
I won’t belabor the point, but Crocker’s apparent assumption about the nature of contentious rhetoric is grossly wrong in the real world.