Thank you for this comment. It clearly captures a nagging feeling I have wrt to the general idea floated frequently in tech circles that somehow, the emotional "baggage" of a conversation is an impediment to be suspended by agreement rather than a valid channel of the conversation. It also frequently feels like special pleading: "Please limit the conversation to the aspects with which I'm comfortable," which is deeply ironic when one is asking to exclude other's comfort.
I can imagine certain people in certain conversations usefully applying Crocker's rule, but I suspect that, in practice, it's more frequently a bludgeon used as another commenter in this thread did: as a ground rule to which all (should) implicitly consent in order to value some tokenized version of "free speech".
I can imagine certain people in certain conversations usefully applying Crocker's rule, but I suspect that, in practice, it's more frequently a bludgeon used as another commenter in this thread did: as a ground rule to which all (should) implicitly consent in order to value some tokenized version of "free speech".