= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on Open Thread, October 20 - 26, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (211)
Well, "this" is broad, but I expect that failing to notice enmity, and relatedly being unaware of consequent social attacks, is a pretty common experience, especially in "polite" social contexts (that is, ones in which overt expressions of conflict violate social norms).
"Crocker's Rules" are an attempt to subvert this; you might find it useful to declare that you operate under them... though I would expect not... in cases like you describe I expect that the downvoter(s) will not wish to be identified.
I wish you luck in deciphering the reason(s).
As someone with no particular aptitude in general niceties, I always welcome Crocker's rules, and mistakenly assume that others do, too.
My best (but still low-confidence) guess, based on the timing and on being overly critical in a comment is that this may have been taken as overly harsh.
For what it is worth, I really liked your comment. Though I guess I'd be pissed (for a minute) if someone said it to me. I didn't read the whole discussion, but she seemed pretty passioniate about her views. When I get that way, nothing makes me angrier than someone (rightly) pointing out that I'm "too passioniate" to discuss this clearly.