A Case for an abridged Crocker's Rule in the 21st Century

First off I would like to state that this is a method I used to have an honest conversation with those I choose to debate with. In this short article there will be bias, as I am human I accept that I see things through the lens of my own experiences and will place that into anything I create. They are my opinions and may not work for you. I also accept that your opinion is yours and you are welcome to oppose it without fear of hurting my feels.

When I think about modern debate I look at it from the approach of two sides; facts and emotions. While both seem to have their driving force it made me wonder if either had merit in today's society. On one hand I understand how emotional arguments can be so moving that it attracts people with a less analytic mind to rally in its cause. In contrast, analytic debate using form, rules, and structure often passes over the heads of the more emotionally driven and has little impact towards a amicable conclusion or even a basic understanding of opposing viewpoints. So is there a happy medium? My answer sadly is no but there may be a more honest approach to handle the hurt feelings that come from debate. Crocker's rule.

Crocker's rule is fairly simple to explain, it is the basic rule that I alone am responsible for my feelings and have principal over the operation of my own mind. I think that this rule is more often applied on the rational facts side of debate far more often than it is thought of on the feeling side of an argument. For example, the person applying Crocker's rule, by accepting responsibility for their emotional reaction, allows the other party to streamline their message for maximum understanding without having to be nice. In a perfect world two debaters would accept that the free passage of ideas is without consequence of hurt feelings however, in reality emotions are a basic function of humanity and therefore always in play. So how do I mitigate the feels and maximize the free exchange of ideas while simplifying Crocker's rule?

I want to say it's simple, but I know it takes effort for me to objectively listen to a screeching SJW without wanting to silence them with a large foot to the face. I generally (if time allows before a debate) afford my opponent the opportunity to say their piece in any means they deem necessary (short of physical violence) without me taking it personally. In turn, I express my views with unabashed directness and in simple terms without intentionally insulting them. In essence its a give and take method of applying Crocker's rule without having to police my own thoughts or give up ground on my position. I assume responsibility for my reactions and expect that they do the same.

This is not really a new tactic for debate. I am not original in its use. I just find that it is a best practice for me and for the most part with a willing participant it makes for good conversation. The few times it has failed I ended the conversation as promptly as practical and took my views elsewhere. The greatest thing I can do for myself is not be beholden to a person who will shout and scream to get their point across, I have the power to say, “I'm done”.

#Minds #Logic #Debate