These rules are abusive.
They are problemizing behaviors that are ordinary, authentic, and helpful.
They are problemizing behaviors that are ordinary, authentic, and helpful.
For example:
>No feigning surprise
>Dan: What’s the command line?
>Carol: Wait, you’ve never used the command line?
I'll grant that someone may actually be surprised, so maybe it's "ordinary" and "authentic", but how is Carol's response helpful?
"Of course I've used the command line, I meant this <insert favorite replacement for Bash>"
It's true that there's an outside chance that Carol's comment would be helpful given unlikely circumstances, but it's more likely that Carol's feigned surprise will make Dan feel stupid for not knowing.
People don't need to say the first thing that pops into their mind just because it's their genuine reaction. When I hear people say things that sound stupid, I don't say, "Wow, I think you're stupid," even though there's an outside chance that the person I'm speaking to takes odd pleasure in people thinking they're stupid.[0]
If my first thought is insulting or rude, I can think for a few more milliseconds and think of a response that achieves my goal while reducing the risk of insulting the person I'm speaking to.
Letting someone know that they impacted you by breaking a social rule and accepting that feedback gracefully when you’re the one who messed up are important ways to learn generously.
One thing that often surprises people about the social rules is that we expect people to break them from time to time.
1. is explicitly given the caveat "when not immediately helpful". 2. is rude, regardless of whether it is helpful. if you want to help, join in and actually help. 3. is difficult to imagine ever being helpful, and when feigned is obviously not ordinary, but an obnoxious affectation. 4. has nothing whatsoever to do with being helpful.
I'll leave determining what is ordinary or authentic to others, but suffice to say I don't think either of those things is consistent case to case.