I think you're missing the point. This is a way for people to claim that they won't be offended (and won't start a flame war--remember those?) and thereby invite others to speak plainly. The belief is that this leads to a more efficient communication than people not speaking plainly for fear of offending you.
There's nothing in it about ignoring other people's emotions, not expressing your own emotions, not being empathetic, emotions not being information (the post literally says the opposite of this), or pretending to be emotionless like so many Spocks. I think all of these are things that you're reading into what's actually there.
> one should offer to be receptive to empathetic discussion about a difficult topic.
An important part of that is letting the other person know you aren't going to jump on them for something they say. This is what Crocker's rules are about.
> signaling that one is upset
I think you're missing the point. This is a way for people to claim that they won't be offended (and won't start a flame war--remember those?) and thereby invite others to speak plainly. The belief is that this leads to a more efficient communication than people not speaking plainly for fear of offending you.
There's nothing in it about ignoring other people's emotions, not expressing your own emotions, not being empathetic, emotions not being information (the post literally says the opposite of this), or pretending to be emotionless like so many Spocks. I think all of these are things that you're reading into what's actually there.
> one should offer to be receptive to empathetic discussion about a difficult topic.
An important part of that is letting the other person know you aren't going to jump on them for something they say. This is what Crocker's rules are about.