Posted by Dr. Bob on October 24, 2003, at 23:56:45
In reply to Re: civil alternatives » Dr. Bob, posted by tealady on October 24, 2003, at 2:46:30
> > My concern would be that the above might lead X to feel accused.
>
> Accused of what? The truth?> It might matter to some people, getting at the truth. The truth can be unpleasant, but unpleasant is not inherently uncivil.
Not inherently, but possibly. Which is why it can be an accusation.
> > > could you please suggest something that you would accept?
> >
> > 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.Those are two different situations. After something's been posted, if the issue is how civil I think it is, the poster's intent is not (much) an issue. Before it's posted, if the issue is how the poster should say it, their intent is very much an issue.
> 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.
It's fine to talk about how (or even whether) to respond to apparent suicide attempts. BTW, how to respond to posters who are suicidal is now in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#suicidal
> 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.
Sorry, sometimes it's hard to know exactly where to draw the line. The passive voice form of an I statement isn't an I statement.
> It was a hypothetical... It may resemble someone's reality, but that doesn't mean they're being accused of anything.
That might not have been the intent, but the more it resembles their reality, the more likely it is to lead them to feel accused.
> People have to be able to talk about the event if it affects feelings of safety.
>
> LarIt's fine to talk about events. But if people are going to do it here, I'd like them to do it in a civil way.
----
> if for example, Dinah were to start emailing me ... and threatening me, and saying nasty horrible things.. I wouldn't actually be able to warn anyone here about on the board??
>
> Nikki xIf your intent is to warn people, what about posting that you were shocked by an email she sent you and you think others should think twice before emailing her? And maybe that they could email you if they wanted more details?
----
> I think it is very important weare able to discuss why we don't feel comfortable or object to (or dislike in any way) another person's post. Personally if anything I posted led anyone to feel uncomfortable, the MOST important thing to me would be for anyone to be able to say ..hey, that's wrong/hurt/ etc. It just is not working without questions being able to be raised.
It's fine for people to post here about how uncomfortable they feel. It can be therapeutic to vent more freely, too, but for that, this isn't necessarily the place. If someone wants me to do something, it may be better to email me than to post here.
It's also fine to ask others for feedback. And for others to provide it -- as long as it's constructive.
> I also think we need to be free to support anyone who we feel is being "attacked" by being able to state that is we also find it could be offensive.
I think it's great to support others. But not by counterattacking.
> maybe sometimes that is what is needed to help determine a clear intent.
If it's not clear what someone's intent is, it's fine to ask...
> I'm finding the implied intent is far more powerful a put down than the words, which seem to fit in the "civil" definition.
>
> tealadyThe thing is, it can be hard to be sure what's implied. It's like intent...
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:266922
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031008/msgs/272987.html