Posted by Solstice on December 20, 2010, at 7:47:31
In reply to Re: can you supply links to the things you refer to?, posted by muffled on December 20, 2010, at 1:23:48
> > Yeah I meant to do that, my bad. Here's the entire thread:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20100403/msgs/967761.html
> >
> >
>
> "One of those view points I know have to assess as a believer is psychiatry. Before I knew Christ, I either accepted everything my shrinks told me, or I rejected it all b/c of some sort of Thomas Szasz+Goffman+Foucault-inspired "anti-psychiatry" hogwash."
>
> This is the offending paragraph...
> I still absolutely do not get the problem here? He was just expressing his opposing WITHIN HIMSELF views.
> "I" either accepted vs "I" rejected-and he explained the why of the rejection.
> Again....WHERE is this negative to anyone in any strong way worthy of intervention????
> He was talking bout he felt about stuff.
> If nayone wanted to counter it, judging by his response to Bob, chances are he(CE) would have handled it with grace.No argument from me, Muff. I perceived CE's post just like you did.
> I think stuff like this is SO trivial and so triggering here. because yeah, it IS frightening, its un-undertandable.
> IMHO, nothing should have been said at all about it unless someone had a prob, and then they could have addressed it.You make a very insightful and legitimate point. Again - no argument from me.
> Then perhaps a thoughtful and enlightening communication could have occured.(and if it went bad, THEN consider stepping in....but it wasn't even a PROBLEM as far as I can tell...)Another very insightful point, Muff.
> As it stands now.....manoman, what CAN we say???I think you can say pretty much anything - as long as in your saying it, you are civil toward other people and groups of people. Let's look for a minute at your posts, Muff. Every once in a while you cut Bob a (tiny) little slack :-), but for the most part - in your exquisitely endearing Muff-sort of way, you give Bobb a lot of grief! Whether you realize it or not - you have managed to express some pretty heavy criticisms, but you've done it without calling (or implying) Bob a jerk, an idiot, you-get-my-point. You talk about it being triggering here - without calling Bob an insuferable abuser. You talk about feeling unsafe here, without accusing Bob of trying to harm you. You talk about it being restrictive, and confusing - and about Bob being impossible for you to understand - and you do all of that without characterizing him in an uncivil way. Do you see that? How did you figure it out? Whether you realize it or not, though - you really do say a lot. How you feel about the current stateof the site is crystal clear - and also very civil. Now if you had a part that elbowed its way to the front and blurted out a string of incivilities - then you might find yourself being asked to rephrase. But it is very clear to me that Muffled is allowed to express her colossal dismay and upset at the mysterios and frustrating workings of Bob - very freely - as long as it's civil. He hasn't gotten in your way, Muff. As long as you keep doing it like you're doing it - I don't believe he will get in your way.
> I tend to figger people got good intentions unless proven otherwise.
> Give people a chance to rise above, then maybe they will.I admire that. A lot.
> But you keep batting them down, often inexplicably....well what chance do they have? They just gonna not say as much or go away.And Muff - here's where we run into the impact of your life experience. Bob is not batting them down. If you really look closely at it, I think you'll see that he's not telling them they can't express their opinion. He's not telling them that they can't express controversial opinions either. But he is demanding that when we express an opinion - or react to someone else's misbehavior - that we do it in a way that sometimes feels like walking a tightrope - in that it has to be very, very civil. I think the interesting thing about it is that when we have to work really hard at crafting it in a civil way, sometimes the side effect is that we end up 'feeling' more civil toward the people or group of people involved, ya know?
> And I know Bob doesn't care if people go away, he has stated that repeately.hmmmm.. I don't remember him saying he doesn't care if people go away. In fact, his rephrase requests, PBC's, blocks - all pretty much include his statement that he hopes they don't go away. I think what he's said is that he realizes that some people will go away as a result of civility guidelline enforcement. That's not the same as him not caring if people go away.
> But at what result.....a rather stagnant babble....
I dunno. That can be a matter of perception. I do think that a lot of Babble energy is eaten up by the legitimate outrage the community feels about unreasonably long blocks. And I think it is imperative that Bob address it. I also think things evolve. The community used to be much smaller and more intimate - and back in the day there was more of a feeling of privacy (even if there was no reason to feel that way). With the development of crisis issues like facebook/twitter and the upheaval it caused, there was marked shifts in the feeling members had about this place - especially the (perhaps unjustified) feeling of privacy here. So I don't know that it's stagnant - as much as it's first of all currently preooccupied with resolving the blocking issue, and secondly it's undergone an evolution of self-belief in that Babble used to see itself as small and relatively private, but now sees itself as accessible to huge numbers of people and very much NOT private.Just my tho'ts on the matter...
Solstice
poster:Solstice
thread:973963
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/974099.html