So let's do something useful. How do we train a rationalist to safely outstare a basilisk and turn Medusa to stone?
In general, if you want to outstare a basilisk, you need to reason about it from a distance first - gather abstract information about severity, defenses and prerequisites first, before reading it, then perform an explicit risk-benefit calculation to decide whether to read it or not. And if people who've encountered it say that you shouldn't read it, then accept that. There is no such thing as a reliable, fully general defense. There exist classes of information, such as communication from malignant superintelligences able to fully simulate the receiver, for which defense is believed to be impossible, even in principle, and refusing to read or listen is the best answer.
Note that someone who believes an information hazard is genuinely dangerous will refuse to provide details about its contents, and this can severely bias discussions about whether it's dangerous or not. Don't analyze debates about information hazards the way you'd analyze normal debates. If one side says it's safe, and gives reasons, and the other side says it's dangerous but refuses to give their reasons, then you should assume it's dangerous. (You can still judge the is-dangerous side based on their qualifications and on how accurate they are when speaking on other subjects, though.)
The following is thinking further on the issue, not necessarily disagreement with your points:
Your comment is close to advocating compartmentalisation for mental health: the deliberate choice to have a known bad map. Compartmentalisation is an intellectual sin, because reality is all of a piece.
We can't go to absolutes. Historically, "someone warned me off this information" has been badly counterproductive. Lying to oneself about the world is bad; a society lying to itself about the world has historically been disastrous.
How much science has expl...
My various interweb browsings stumbled me upon a potential Cockatrice in written, philisophical form. I've thus far read through the first chapter, and it is less anti-rational than most philosophical writings.
I'm reading through it right now, and will provide my feedback when I'm done, likely as a front-page post.
Personally, I'm a Fatalist, with some sort of Weird Soldier Ethic, who plans to go out the same way that Hunter did (if the cops don't get me first), but I've got a bunch of nonsense to Write first. I figure that'll make me somewhat immune. That aside, I doubt it's a real cockatrice - or we would've heard about it before.
It is a strong exercise in Nihilism. So, with those cautions given, I offer it to you: an extensive suicide letter.
Tip of the hat to this guy.