\n\n"}This has occurred to me independently several times, so I figure I might as well write it down.
\nAnytime there is a social rule, some people will try to find ways to exploit it \u2013 to do bad things in ways that are technically rule-compliant, or to wield the rules against the innocent by taking advantage of subtle flaws in the rule\u2019s formulation.
\nThe solution to this is not to make even better rules. \u00a0Yes, certain rules are especially\u00a0bad and ought to be replaced by less exploitable ones. \u00a0But any rule you bind yourself to will be exploited.
\nWhat you always need, in addition to good rules, is a fail-safe button. \u00a0You need to give yourself the right to say\u00a0\u201chey, this looks like manipulative bullshit\u201d or\u00a0\u201cthat person sure is an asshole\u201d \u2013 specifically, the right to do this\u00a0\u201cextra-legally,\u201d without caring about the rules. \u00a0You need a\u00a0\u201cno, that\u2019s just wrong, even though some similar things are right\u201d option.
\nOf course, this option can itself be abused, particularly if it is used freely and unthinkingly. \u00a0If the rules hold only until the moment you don\u2019t like their consequences, then the rules don\u2019t really hold at all.
\nBut if someone does that, you can take the same option yourself:\u00a0\u201cyeah, I said you should have this option, but using it like that\u00a0is wrong.\u201d \u00a0Because the option does not have specific rules (by construction), no one can use rules lawyering to take it away from you. \u00a0If someone uses\u00a0\u201ccalling bullshit\u201d for bad ends, you can just call bullshit on them.
\nThis is not without downsides. \u00a0It means nothing is certain. \u00a0If you declare your right to press the failsafe button, no one can simply rely on you to follow the rules; they have to judge your character to know whether to trust you in any given case. \u00a0But there isn\u2019t any real\u00a0alternative to this. \u00a0Rules don\u2019t save you from having to assess other people\u2019s character; even if you know they will follow the letter\u00a0of the law, you have to decide whether they will follow the spirit\u00a0of it.
\nIf everyone grokked everyone else perfectly, rules would not be necessary. \u00a0Rules help you coexist with strangers, with people you don\u2019t know will grok you. \u00a0But don\u2019t be afraid to insist that coexisting with you is more\u00a0than just a matter of following the rules; that the latter are just a means for furthering the former. \u00a0Don\u2019t be afraid to remind people that they are interacting with you, not with the rules, and that your judgments are ultimately your own, for them to take or leave.
\n