Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Vaniver comments on Politics is the Mind-Killer - Less Wrong

71 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 18 February 2007 09:23PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (228)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vaniver 26 January 2012 03:11:08AM 0 points [-]

That being said, I believe it does state specifically, somewhere in the FAQ, that a poster has to declare Crocker's Rule over their discussion before it's okay to state things rudely. And even then, unnecessary, uncalled-for rudeness is not okay.

Strictly speaking, once someone has declared Crocker's Rules all rudeness is called for.

Comment author: Prismattic 26 January 2012 03:28:25AM 4 points [-]

Strictly speaking, once someone has declared Crocker's Rules all rudeness is called for.

It's accepted. That doesn't mean it's called for.

Comment author: Bugmaster 26 January 2012 03:48:23AM 2 points [-]

Under Crocker's Rules, rudeness is ignored, and is thus a waste of bandwidth. Therefore, if one posts a comment consisting of nothing but rudeness, one might as well not post at all.

Comment author: wedrifid 26 January 2012 06:40:18AM *  2 points [-]

Under Crocker's Rules, rudeness is ignored, and is thus a waste of bandwidth. Therefore, if one posts a comment consisting of nothing but rudeness, one might as well not post at all.

Where by "consisting of nothing but rudeness" you also mean "consisting of rudeness that itself does not also represent information"?

Comment author: Bugmaster 26 January 2012 11:38:50PM 1 point [-]

Sort of, except that I'd amend "information" to "useful information", because, mathematically speaking, rudeness does represent information (in that it takes up bytes on the network). But when an ideally Crockered (if that's a word) reader encounters rudeness, he ignores it, thus reducing its informational content to zero.

For example, when one reads something like, "only a total moron like yourself would commit the obvious ad hoc fallacy in line 5 of your argument, and also, you smell", he interprets it as "...ad hoc fallacy in line 5...", and is able to respond accordingly (or update his beliefs, as needed).