Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 22, 2005, at 17:45:25
In reply to Re: Dr Bob: question about being blocked or PBC'd? » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 16:46:31
>
> > I find statement offensive actually.
>
> Or: 'I respond to the statement by taking offence'.Please don't. I have no desire to speak like you would. I meant what I said, and I thought it through. Taking it upon yourself to reword my thought is putting yourself in the position of educating me, I'll choose who teaches me, thanks. Aside from that, there is no meaningful difference.
If I'd said "It would be impossible for me not to be offended" then there would be a difference.>
> >If it's acknowledged that people can be "allowed" ; 0 to feel hurt or offended by put downs and insults, then less obvious things can be hurtful too.
>
> Everybody responds to accusations and insults and putdowns by feeling hurt or offended or whatever.
>
> Whereas with the 'less obvious things' people diverge on how they respond.
>
> >It's ludicrous to me to have only one half of that particular belief system in effect.
>
> ???
> One side is that if someone posts something accusing or attacking you then you can expect that they will be warned / blocked.
>
> If you post something accusing or attacking then you can expect to be warned / blocked.
>
> If someone posts something that doesn't accuse or attack you - but you respond by feeling hurt or accused then they won't get blocked.
First of all not *everyone* reacts to accusations and put downs by being hurt, not at all. What I see, is you judging what is hurtful, by what has been deemed "uncivil" that is where I'm confused. If according to you, people are permitted to be hurt by being attacked, then they can be hurt by other things, what is considred an attack is personal, not to be decided by you, or Dr. Bob's civility rules.Now, if you are embracing the popular theory that one can *choose* how to respond, then the philosophy dictates that one can choose not to feel hurt by anything. At any rate, it's a theory, undoubtedly one that will be replaced by something else in 10 years.
> But on the upside... If you post something that doesn't accuse or attack someone else - but they respond by feeling hurt or accused then you won't get blocked.
>
> Sounds fair enough to me...It sounds "fair enough" to you because you don't feel hurt or attacked by the particular behaviour. Some people find having their posts scrutinized a form of attack, and they are entitled to that, they are also entitled to ask Dr. Bob to review the civility rules, and are no less "owning their emotions" than someone who feels hurt by being called names.
>People agree in feeling hurt and accused if someone posts something attacking - all people would respond in the same way.
That's absolutely untrue..
I often get a good laugh out of being attacked.
Much *civil* behaviour can drive make me hot under the collar like nothing else, passive aggression is perfectly civil, much sarcasm also gets under the radar.But with respect to some behaviour different people feel differently about it.
>
> It is interesting to me that the people who don't mind it try to see what Lou is trying to do with his behaviour... The people who do mind it seem more interested in arguing that the behaviour *in itself* is offensive.
>
> But the trouble is that if the behaviour in itself is offensive then there must be something wrong with the responses of the people who are not offended...
>
> Is this making any sense at all??????Who decides this for you? I'm not offended by swearing.. what's wrong with me?
In that regard what are legitimate responses according to you would change from generation to generation and culture to culture.
>> Gabbi - I hope that made a bit of sense.I wasn't asking for it to be clarified. As I've said a few times to you, I'm more than familiar with the theory, and I understand it, I simply disagree with it, and not because I'm slooow.
poster:Gabbi-x-2
thread:500533
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/501308.html