在网络论战中，我们有时会陷入情绪化的“rant”模式，或对他人进行不准确的心理分析。作者提出，在这种情况下，承认自己的不当言论并道歉，如“我承认我现在不够坦诚，也许我错了，对此我很抱歉”，是一种更佳的处理方式。这种坦诚不仅有助于维护健康的线上讨论环境，减少对他人情感和认知空间的侵犯，还能在缺乏信任基础时建立积极的互动。作者认为，即使没有明确的社会规范，这种做法也很有价值，并建议将不加注意的“rant”和不友善的心理分析视为“粗鲁”行为，应承担相应的后果。

🚦 在线争论中，有时会不自觉地陷入情绪化或不准确的分析模式。作者指出，当意识到自己可能陷入“rant”模式、未能通过“Intellectual Turing Test”或进行不准确的心理分析时，应审慎处理。

💡 面对不当言论，作者提出两种处理方式：一是“just don't do those things”（避免这些行为）；二是“do those things, but carefully”（谨慎地进行）。在时间和精力有限的情况下，作者认为，即使是不那么谨慎的言论，也比完全不发表观点要好，前提是附带坦诚的免责声明。

🤝 附带“我承认我现在不够坦诚，也许我错了，对此我很抱歉”等声明非常重要。这不仅是因为认识到自己可能出错是一种良好的认知习惯，更是因为不加注意的攻击性言论会损害线上讨论的健康生态，而道歉则能减轻这种负面影响，尤其是在与不熟悉的人交流时。

⚖️ “粗鲁”是一个有用的概念，它界定了某些行为（如不加注意的rant、不友善的心理分析）在特定情境下是不被鼓励的，即使它们有时有其存在的理由。作者建议，如果采取了这些行为，应承担相应的声誉风险，并考虑长期后果，以此来设定更好的激励机制。

✨ 作者认为，即便没有明确的社会规范，在不当言论前加上简短的免责声明也是一种值得提倡的做法。她建议将不加注意的rant和不友善的心理分析视为“粗鲁”行为，并认为在这些行为发生时，与其不采取任何行动，不如谨慎地进行并承担责任。

Published on October 1, 2025 9:20 PM GMT

There's a bit of an implicit norm that has accumulated over the past few years, but inconsistently, and AFAICT no one has publicly argued for it. 

Sometimes, when arguing online, you will notice yourself going into a mode that is more like a rant than like careful arguing. Or, you know is not really passing your interlocutor's Intellectual Turing Test. Or, you know is psychologizing someone, and there's decent odds you're wrong (perhaps only in a subtle way that isn't core to your point but is going to feel violating to the person you're psychologizing).

Sometimes, the correct action is "just don't do those things."

Sometimes, IMO, the correct action is "do those things, but carefully."

Sometimes, IMO, the theoretically ideal correct action all-else-equal is "do those things carefully", but you're busy and it's realistically a choice between "do them uncarefully" or "don't do it at all", and it's actually better to do it uncarefully than not-at-all.

In such case, I think it's noticeably better to include a short disclaimer like "I recognize I am being uncharitable right now, and maybe am wrong about this, and am sorry."

The "I may be wrong" and "I'm sorry" parts are both pretty useful (especially if you don't have established trust with the interlocutor)

The first, because it's true (it's generally a good epistemic move to have at least two real hypotheses, and if you don't, IMO you should regard your conclusion as sus). The second, because uncareful rants and uncareful psychologizing and uncharitable paraphrases do have a decent chance of damaging the epistemic commons (not merely hurting people's feelings). 

"Rudeness" is a useful concept. It's a way of agreeing "here are some actions that people will realistically do sometimes, sometimes for good reasons, but, it would be bad if people did them willy-nilly." It sets incentives better IMO if the expectation is "if you do the rude thing, you do take some reputational hit, and if you do it too much without somehow making up for it, longterm consequences will accumulate."

(Title of this post should probably actually be something like: "</costlyButOwnedRantThatIAcceptResponsibilityFor>", to bake the responsibility more into the meme. But, that title sucks and I haven't thought of a better one.

I think it's a reasonable counterargument to some previous-debates-about-norms, that "adding friction to people thinking out loud is often way, way, worse than you might naively expect." But, I think adding a quick disclaimer is just not that hard. 

I think this is a useful thing to do even if there's not a coordinated social norm about it. But, I do separately think it'd be good if it were considered "extra rude" to do uncareful rants, and uncharitable psychologizing, without briefly noting them as such.

See: Generalized Hangriness: A Standard Rationalist Stance Toward Emotions.

Discuss