k_aegis@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> Eliezer writes:
> > I've always construed the intent of Crocker's Rules as a >personal declaration of personal responsibility for personal >reactions. I don't say: "I can say anything I want to anyone, and >if they take offense, it's their fault." I say: "Anyone can say >anything they want to me, and if I take offense, it's my fault."
>
> Thinking about Crocker's Rules, I conclude that they only work when two parties explicitly agree to abide by them.
*No*. That is exactly *not* the point. *Anyone* can be as rude as they like to me, whether or not they abide by Crocker's Rules themselves. No reciprocity is implied. I am not giving other people the "privilege" of being rude to me, either because I'm such a saintly doormat, or because I expect the same privilege in return. I'm making it easier for others to communicate with me, because I believe I have mastered the mental discipline that enables them to do so; the set of beliefs and reactions that enables me to regard straightforwardness - or rudeness, where it's honest rudeness - as communication rather than disrespect.
Again, this is exactly not the point.
> According to cultural historians, 'manners' originated precisely to minimize threats of violence.
I've heard that theory. I don't believe it's entirely true, or even that it's mostly true in a majority of cases. Your own conception of rudeness as privilege, and the historical development of politeness as being due to superiors and equals but not to inferiors, would seem to contradict the point.
Besides which - nobody has to be polite to me, because I've made the unilateral commitment not to be violent to them. Again, Crocker's Rules are a mental discipline, not an agreement.
--
sentience@pobox.com Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
http://pobox.com/~sentience/tmol-faq/meaningoflife.html
Running on BeOS Typing in Dvorak Programming with Patterns
Voting for Libertarians Heading for Singularity There Is A Better Way