On: Crocker's rules

[empath75]

You didn't actually read it. Only the listener can declare they're operating on Crocker's rules. You can't just unilaterally declare that nobody can be offended by anything you say.

[icebraining → empath75]

I think in the GP's post, "you" = "the listener", not the other member of the conversation.

[jamesrom → icebraining]

Yes, exactly.

[jamesrom → empath75]

I did read it. Would it be better if I rephrased it:

Crocker's rules state one's self cannot be upset to enable free speech.

[Pitarou → empath75]

I think you're misinterpreting the comment.

[grzm → Pitarou]

If you think gp is misinterpreting, perhaps attempt to rephrase it so they might better understand?

[schoen → grzm]

"Invoking Crocker's rules means choosing to state that you cannot be upset because you want to enable free speech."

[fatbird → Pitarou]

Crocker's rules states that one commits oneself to not being offended. It does not say what one can or cannot do; it's not a rule that binds, it's a disposition one adopts (contrary to how the GP clearly views it).