I’ve also declared them, and even though it’s been three years, I think it’s important enough to warrant posting here. Crocker’s Rules are hard—you have to really sit down and think about it, run the simulations, and try to figure out the worst, most offensive things to you personally, and why they truly bother you. It helps to have a small identity.
But one of the worst things about Crocker’s Rules is using them in polite society. You’d think it would be an advantage; in fact, I’ve found that it creeps people out. When nothing that is said bothers a person, others subconciously seem to think that there’s something wrong. I’ve started emulating low levels of emotional response in these situations because it seems to make people more comfortable.
But one of the worst things about Crocker’s Rules is using them in polite society. You’d think it would be an advantage; in fact, I’ve found that it creeps people out. When nothing that is said bothers a person, others subconciously seem to think that there’s something wrong.
I believe you and am curious. Can you give a couple of examples? The meaning of not signalling offense differs depending on what you are not bothered by so I’m not sure which of the possible social scenarios you are referring to.
(I’d also reverse the claim adding that one of the worst things about polite society is how you are obliged to do things like be offended at socially prescribed times or face consequences.)
You’ve put your finger on part of it: not being offended at the ‘politically correct’ times can be an issue. But I think a greater issue is general lack of emotional response; a lot of people, drama queens in particular, are used to seeing responses and emotional swings in people. If nothing seems to upset you, you start to look abnormal.
I’ve found that an effective way to counter it is to be much more happy and energetic than average. Lack of emotional response to prodding creeps people out, but if you just look like a naturally happy and energetic person, it gets written off as “he’s (currently) too happy to be affected”.
I think it would help.
I declare Crocker’s Rules.
I’ve also declared them, and even though it’s been three years, I think it’s important enough to warrant posting here. Crocker’s Rules are hard—you have to really sit down and think about it, run the simulations, and try to figure out the worst, most offensive things to you personally, and why they truly bother you. It helps to have a small identity.
But one of the worst things about Crocker’s Rules is using them in polite society. You’d think it would be an advantage; in fact, I’ve found that it creeps people out. When nothing that is said bothers a person, others subconciously seem to think that there’s something wrong. I’ve started emulating low levels of emotional response in these situations because it seems to make people more comfortable.
I believe you and am curious. Can you give a couple of examples? The meaning of not signalling offense differs depending on what you are not bothered by so I’m not sure which of the possible social scenarios you are referring to.
(I’d also reverse the claim adding that one of the worst things about polite society is how you are obliged to do things like be offended at socially prescribed times or face consequences.)
You’ve put your finger on part of it: not being offended at the ‘politically correct’ times can be an issue. But I think a greater issue is general lack of emotional response; a lot of people, drama queens in particular, are used to seeing responses and emotional swings in people. If nothing seems to upset you, you start to look abnormal.
I’ve found that an effective way to counter it is to be much more happy and energetic than average. Lack of emotional response to prodding creeps people out, but if you just look like a naturally happy and energetic person, it gets written off as “he’s (currently) too happy to be affected”.