Posted by Larry Hoover on October 23, 2003, at 17:43:49
In reply to Re: civil alternatives, posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2003, at 10:01:33
> > Let us consider an hypothetical posting reading, in its entirety, "I am uncomfortable communicating with X, because I received a private email from X which contained profanity and a threat against my wellbeing."
> >
> > Is that uncivil? If it is, could you please suggest something that you would accept?
>
> My concern would be that the above might lead X to feel accused.Accused of what? The truth?
> What would be the point of bringing it up?
I'm amazed to hear you wonder about intent. Your determinations of civility/uncivility seem to not (much) consider intent at all.
This whole thread seems to have arisen from the ashes of a faked suicide. It will be a long time before I get over that. What if the next time it isn't a fake, but I don't respond because I don't want to get hurt again? We've got to be able to talk about it. It's a matter of fact for us all.
> > > > Would posting a copy of the hypothetical email (edited to block unacceptable language) itself be seen as uncivil?
> > >
> > > Would it be with the permission of the author of the email?
> >
> > It might arise that there was a debate that was of the form "Did not" "Did so", and the email itself might be the only evidence available.
>
> So the goal would be to resolve the debate?It might matter to some people, getting at the truth. The truth can be unpleasant, but unpleasant is not inherently uncivil.
> 1. What would be the point? How would that be beneficial?How does intent come into it? You don't criticize a guy for asking if we're men or sheep, but I get asked to rephrase when I use the passive voice form of an I statement about being offended by the original comment. I am totally confused.
> 2. Would it need to happen here?
Yes, if it involves participants on these boards. We share a common environment.
> If we can clarify what the point of a post would be, then I think it would be easier to discuss possible alternatives...I'm apparently beating my head against the wall.
> > > > No one was mentioned by name. How could anyone feel accused?
> > >
> > > If no one's mentioned by name, then lots of people may feel accused...It was a hypothetical. Like at the start of a cop show, "Any resemblance between this scenario and a real life situation is a coincidence" or whatever. It may resemble someone's reality, but that doesn't mean they're being accused of anything. People have to be able to talk about the event if it affects feelings of safety. I think the 9 week ban of Gabbix2 was totally inappropriate, given the circumstances. You, yourself, more than once in this thread, raise the issue of intent. You didn't give Gabbix2 any consideration of intent, or so it seems.
> > I think that's a straw man argument, Dr. Bob. The statements that you focussed on were contextually self-limiting.
>
> If the context limits it to someone in particular, wouldn't it be easy for that poster to feel accused?Again, accused of what? The truth? There are ways to say things descriptively, and ways to say them judgmentally. I agree that the latter should be minimized, but descriptive content doesn't inherently carry emotional weight.
> > Anyway, so is the issue the use of words like "lying"? Just that plain and simple?
>
> That's at least a part of it, but I'd hardly call this plain and simple!
>
> BobIt's clear it's not plain and simple. Forgive me, Bob, but I had to try one last time to understand. This is it, though.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:266922
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031008/msgs/272423.html