![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 30. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by kid_A on March 4, 2002, at 13:24:32
This post isn't really meant to result in any action or banning or whathaveyou... I'm very curious to know what people think of the bounds of the topics for the Social board.I don't have to name names, but it has lately to some extent been used for the purposes of religious recruitment, a sales pitch in a way...
This goes beyond the talk of religion, which I think is appropriate, for example someone had mentioned how reading the bible helped his or her depression...
What we have gotten a large dosage of lately are persons claiming to be religious prophets speaking of things that have no reference outside of the message being posted and at times clearly showing a lack of knowledge on just basic facts...
Instead of a discussion, you get questions answered with questions, you get respones that don't even really make much sense, as someone else pointed out, its really just a waste of time to post responses unless you are simply asking for the original poster to elucidate or continue their diatribe as it were...
The real answer to all my rambling post is that you just ignore that person and eventually they go away... I think that sort of tactic works best.
However, I am curious to know how people would feel if someone were pitching something a little less abstract, like say Christianity outright, or even Satanism... Is it right in any case to be a fisher of men (and women, the bible is so mysogyinstic its silly)...?
just wondering what people think.
Posted by Mark H. on March 4, 2002, at 19:52:56
In reply to How social is Psycho Babble Social?, posted by kid_A on March 4, 2002, at 13:24:32
This issue has been discussed frequently since the board began, and your conclusion is right on target: simply ignore those posts and posters that stir you up in a way that you don't feel is useful to you. If you find someone consistently off-putting, don't even *read* their posts. But most importantly, DO NOT RESPOND!
With so many wonderful people participating, and so many interesting, intelligent and heart-felt threads to contribute to, why waste your time with the occasional problem? Just move on. Someone else really needs what you have to share.
With warm regards,
Mark H.
Posted by Mair on March 4, 2002, at 20:56:20
In reply to How social is Psycho Babble Social?, posted by kid_A on March 4, 2002, at 13:24:32
I agree with Mark. I also sometimes share your frustration and can't understand why posters argue with the starters of the thread over matters of belief or ask questions that seem to bring into question those beliefs. It just seems to perpetuate things. imho
Mair
PS Maybe I just don't have patience for all the things I should.
Posted by Cam W. on March 5, 2002, at 2:00:35
In reply to How social is Psycho Babble Social?, posted by kid_A on March 4, 2002, at 13:24:32
Kid_A - Like the others have said. I have had to stop reading of posts and threads because of the content. More and more I have stopped reading threads altogether if many of the posts are by people who have irked me in the past.
You can't debate faith, nor can you (or should you) bother trying to use logic in such a debate. You can't get in when the door is barred. All you can do is shrug your shoulders take a deep breathe, filling your lungs with air; then slowly and fully empty you lungs of all the air you can (may repeat last 2 steps if totally flumoxed); bow your head and shake it side to side slowly; turn and walk away, posting your observations to a somewhat more receptive crowd.
If you don't do the above it may affect your sleep and concentration, as well as unnecessarily raising your blood pressure. In the end, it just ain't worth it.
Hang in there kid - Cam
Posted by trouble on March 5, 2002, at 3:47:50
In reply to Re: How social is Psycho Babble Social? » kid_A, posted by Cam W. on March 5, 2002, at 2:00:35
Hey,
It is enormously cool to be ruminating over something all day then come home and see my worries given shape and coherence by someone out there who is evidently plugged into the very same circuit. It's very bonding and it happens alot.
I'm usually easy-going, shoeless, amoral, shrug off the nonsense, each to his own, but lately I've been getting very upset about how people are treated on the board by other members and I have to get a grip on my feelings.
The way I approach the board is by writing a post, then strolling up and down the line looking at new threads, seeing if I can inject myself into a particular conversation w/out disrupting the continuity. Then an hour later I go back to my original post and it if it's morphed into a thread I get all excited, it's like company's come to visit, and I start opening them one by one, see how they build and expand on each other and it's totally great. But when all of a sudden the next post happens to be an an arm-waving diatribe, a total disregard of what's come before or promulgation of religious views it's like ice water in the face. This may sound hysterical but when that happens it reminds me of a rapist's mentality, he had no idea she wasn't enjoying herself, after all she was there, wasn't she.
This IS social behavior, and mental cases or not I doubt any of us would act this way if we were gathered together in some turn of the century bordello w/red velveteen walls and scarves draped over lampshades, ragtime pianoman tickling the ivories beneath a gem-encrusted chandelier and plump ladies in ermine escorting gentlemen robber barons from room to room, talking of Michaelangelo--ooops, wrong fantasy; but you know what I mean, why not see PSB as a great big coffeehouse where I drop by one table for medication advice, another for spiritual fostering, another to compare record collections and if I have nothing to add to the conversation and I'm really itching to type, I'll just go home and start a new post.
That's the seed of my frustration, why would someone want to destroy the momentum of a thread w/ some tangential rap when the whole board is an open forum for anyone to instigate their own discrete subject? Instigate being the operative word, as when Black deliberatedly misunderstands White, makes accusations of bad faith and incivility and what do you know 3 posts later there's Black back again, this time as the voice of reason, the hero and peacemaker, can't we all just get along get this thread back on friendly grounds?
I know that's to be expected in a community such as this, there will be more blatant acting out and inappropriate center-staging than what you see in the larger community, but we also have more tools than the unafflicted, given our centuries of combined psychotherapy, so we should be able to identify and ameliorate these problems as they come up.
Which y'all seem to be doing quite handily, pardon my butting in!!Madame trouble
Posted by jazzdog on March 5, 2002, at 20:42:29
In reply to Eagle-eyed Kid_A on target again, posted by trouble on March 5, 2002, at 3:47:50
There is such a thing as religious mania - I know, because I once spent four months as the very manic avatar of the Goddess. Let's face it, all of us are a bit unbalanced, or we wouldn't be on this board. I guess some of us are less balanced than others at any given time.
Jane
Posted by Zo on March 5, 2002, at 23:34:33
In reply to How social is Psycho Babble Social?, posted by kid_A on March 4, 2002, at 13:24:32
Actually that's a real interesting question. . .There's a thread named "Happiness?"going on right now on Social that I swear, looks like somebody's out to convert someone, to least lead them to Jesus, offlist. I wrote to D.B. and I'll pose it to you--how the hell does one grab that porcupine? The missionary no doubt feels he has heaven to offer---and to me, it's preying upon the desperation of others. And, in the name of all that is Christian, I *loathe* those tricky little tactics. What do you think?
Zo
Posted by trouble on March 6, 2002, at 4:10:27
In reply to Re: How social is Psycho Babble Social? » kid_A, posted by Zo on March 5, 2002, at 23:34:33
Wow, the Jazzdog and Zo posts are thought-provoking, especially since one comes right after another and they both make so much sense.
I agree w/ Jazzdog's generous position, there's probably a lost seeker inside all of us, I personally have been a Jesus Person, hairy Feminist, and Punk Rocker, devoting many years to each permutation, and totally lived the life.
That need to belong to something larger than yourself leaves us vulnerable to exploitation, as Zo points out. My main problem has always been w/ the promulgation of one's ideology, I never understood why that would make me a better christian. We had to go out and witness every week and knock on doors and stuff, and I was never comfortable w/ that. But my pastor and congregation were compassionate people, they helped others that no one else gave a shit about, but the help included religious indoctrination, and these people could have cared less. But they faked it, of course, and that seemed to satisfy the leaders. It seemed all wrong to me. I would never trade the years I spent in the church, it was a community during a time I had none, and I learned the Bible backwards and forwards, and that will always stay w/me.
But that didn't hold a candle to the cult-like properties I found in academic feminism. It's unbelievable, the totality, sexism everywhere, every stimuli, internal and external filtered through identity politics, men ejected from classrooms, auditoriums and support groups, for no reason, just b/c of their sex. I saw young, smart and questing women destroyed by academic feminism, to the point of blowing their brains out, it's such a bleak and paralyzing worldview, it promotes "separatism", adherents are supposed to consider themselves elites, superior to the parent culture...very Jim Jones in my opinion. I tremble w/rage just thinking about it.
Punk is the most enduring of these three identities, it never pretended to be something other than what it was so I never went through the dissapointment and subsequent de-programming. I did then, and still do push my punk views on people, but as a joke or a test, not b/c I think it's imperative that I convert them.
Anyways, just late night reminiscences about those lost and searching times. Anybody else care to fess up?
trouble
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2002, at 18:46:13
In reply to Re: How social is Psycho Babble Social?, posted by trouble on March 6, 2002, at 4:10:27
> I am curious to know how people would feel if someone were pitching something a little less abstract, like say Christianity outright, or even Satanism... Is it right in any case to be a fisher of men (and women, the bible is so mysogyinstic its silly)...?
>
> kid_AThis has come up before, and there was a lot of discussion, and I kind of came up with some guidelines:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010718/msgs/1826.html
The main thing was (1) not to put down others or their beliefs and (2) not to pressure others.
----
> That's the seed of my frustration, why would someone want to destroy the momentum of a thread w/ some tangential rap when the whole board is an open forum for anyone to instigate their own discrete subject? Instigate being the operative word, as when Black deliberatedly misunderstands White, makes accusations of bad faith and incivility and what do you know 3 posts later there's Black back again, this time as the voice of reason, the hero and peacemaker, can't we all just get along get this thread back on friendly grounds?
>
> Madame troublePeople have all kinds of motivations. And just because someone doesn't understand at first and then is the voice of reason doesn't mean their initial misunderstanding was deliberate...
Bob
Posted by sar on March 6, 2002, at 20:24:09
In reply to Re: How social is Psycho Babble Social?, posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2002, at 18:46:13
people were angry with me about 6 months ago for some of my posts. *very* angry. i didn't mean to upset people, but my argument is that this is a *psychological* site and the social board is to discuss social psychology!
unless the poster is being cruel or hurting others, i do not think he/she should be banned. where would it stop? i don't like religious propaganda any more than the next agnostic, but i *hate* censorship.
let me put myself on a branch here and say that people could have argued for me to be banned over several things. but i have never been rude to anyone.
i am a large believer in freedom of expression and the purpose the the PSB board.
Posted by Kid_A on March 7, 2002, at 14:01:12
In reply to Re: How social is Psycho Babble Social?, posted by sar on March 6, 2002, at 20:24:09
Im on a similar wavelength as sar in that, personally Id rather have to swerve the curveball posts then to commit to some form of censorship.However, blocking posters really isn't a form of censorship so much as it is just plain administration. The board(s), and Id like to point out I'm glad they do exist, are run by the Doc... so you really have to play by his rules.
I don't really agree with deleting posts when threads get out of hand, its frustrating when you've been denied your rebuttle, especially when the argument is so heated... but again, what can you do?
the Psycho- boards are a community, a space, just like a bar or a restaraunt or any group environment, it just exists electronicly... The proprietors can control the environment to an extent, but the bigger the gathering, the more difficult it is to do this.
Since I've found this board I've met a lot of great people and have gotten a lot of good information and shared a lot of stories. In effect, I sort of think of it as a Home...
And thats why the censorship, when it happens irks me, but again, so do the posts that seem out of bounds, or the ones that are solely intent on stirring things up...
In the end I think we all survive, and we'll get over all the little wrinkles in our commune, I'd just like to thank all the people I've met, you know who you are.
Kid A.
"what a clean city, i'm kinda sleepy."ps. sorry if there are any SP3lL!Ng miztakes, YOU know who you are...
Posted by Mitchell on March 7, 2002, at 19:05:27
In reply to Re: How social is Psycho Babble Social?, posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2002, at 18:46:13
Sometimes when I read this board I have difficulty accounting for what appear to me to be contradictions. But for me, it is often more practical to let it go. I haven't the energy to vanquish every proslytizer in world. When I hear strong opposition to religious expression, I am reminded that sometimes valuable, profound and vital communication is also rebutted by individuals who are simply uncomfortable with the information for no specific reason.
It is easier for me to share insight from my perspective than it is to discredit someone else's faith-based construct.
> This has come up before, and there was a lot of discussion, and I kind of came up with some guidelines:> The main thing was (1) not to put down others or their beliefs and (2) not to pressure others.
-----
> i have never been rude to anyone.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20010915/msgs/11420.html
> that's just cowardly and confusing.
> cut the bullshit out and say who you are.
Posted by Mair on March 7, 2002, at 22:44:02
In reply to Re: How social is Psycho Babble Social?, posted by Mitchell on March 7, 2002, at 19:05:27
Sorry Mitchell, but I don't quite see the relevance of Sar's old post to your point. I don't see her old post as blasting someone's beliefs, but rather as questioning the hidden agenda or identity of posters. I think there have been people on this board who have posted under multiple names during the same time period, ocassionally even answering their own posts. It's hard to prove, but an issue worth raising from time to time, because I think the practice of doing this is about as low as you can get.
What, pray tell, is eating at you so much that it would motivate you to find an archived 5 month old post to suggest the sorts of very minor human contradictions that define all of us?
Mair
Posted by Mitchell on March 8, 2002, at 8:39:57
In reply to Re: How social is Psycho Babble Social? » Mitchell, posted by Mair on March 7, 2002, at 22:44:02
> Sorry Mitchell, but I don't quite see the relevance of Sar's old post to your point. I don't see her old post as blasting someone's beliefs, but rather as questioning the hidden agenda or identity of posters. I think there have been people on this board who have posted under multiple names during the same time period, ocassionally even answering their own posts. It's hard to prove, but an issue worth raising from time to time, because I think the practice of doing this is about as low as you can get.
>
> What, pray tell, is eating at you so much that it would motivate you to find an archived 5 month old post to suggest the sorts of very minor human contradictions that define all of us?
>
> MairMair,
Mair,
What basis do you have to assume something is eating at me? Is it possible that I posted with complete integrity, but you, for whatever reason, don't grasp or don't want to acknowledge my point of view?
Nothing is eating at me. Somebody mentioned their posts from six months ago. The person said their posts in that period had met angry reactions. She said she had never been rude. I noticed a post from six months ago in which she said someone is cowardly if they did not meet her requirements for identifying themself. The post appeared to pressure the person to identify themself. The post to which she was responding was decidedly non-political, contrary to her allegations that someone was innappopriatelty using an annonymous handle to post political messages. The post cited cultural and medical problems behind what was otherwise beeing treated as an emerging political problem. The intriguing post circulated on the web that week, and was also posted here. Whoever posted it might have had a good reason to post annonymously; it was fair and profound analysis, and IMHO, it did not deserve to be censored. I found no need to know the authors identity - the message spoke for itself. I did not understand why anyone would pressure or call cowardly an author who chose to protect their identity during a dangerous period. IMO, this is can be grouped along with negative reactions to religious posts. Let it be.
Posted by sar on March 8, 2002, at 10:27:38
In reply to Re: How social is Psycho Babble Social?, posted by Mitchell on March 7, 2002, at 19:05:27
> Sometimes when I read this board I have difficulty accounting for what appear to me to be contradictions. But for me, it is often more practical to let it go. I haven't the energy to vanquish every proslytizer in world. When I hear strong opposition to religious expression, I am reminded that sometimes valuable, profound and vital communication is also rebutted by individuals who are simply uncomfortable with the information for no specific reason. > > i have never been rude to anyone.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20010915/msgs/11420.html
> > that's just cowardly and confusing.
> > cut the bullshit out and say who you are.wow! that's cool...i didn't think it was rude though...though i did think it was cowardly for someone to be using aliases, if that's what they were indeed doing. i thought it damaged the integrity of the board.
always,
sar
Posted by kid_A on March 8, 2002, at 10:27:50
In reply to Re: How social is Psycho Babble Social?, posted by Mitchell on March 8, 2002, at 8:39:57
>I found no need to know the authors identity - the message spoke for itself. I did not understand why anyone would pressure or call cowardly an author who chose to protect their identity during a dangerous period. IMO, this is can be grouped along with negative reactions to religious posts. Let it be.
Mitchell,
I don't quite get it. How much more anonymous can you be. Who is sar? Who is kid_A? who is Mair? Who is Mitchell? We all post under various amounts of anonymity, some people just put their full name, some people, like myself use pseudonyms to identify themselves.Something is wrong if someone feels the need to post under a different name, especially if it concerns something medical. Of all the places where a judgement would not be levied it is on a board such as this...
And tell me, what is wrong with a negative reaction to pushy religious pressuring?
Posted by sar on March 8, 2002, at 10:36:02
In reply to Re: How social is Psycho Babble Social?, posted by Mitchell on March 8, 2002, at 8:39:57
Mitchell,
can we be specific here? i feel as if we are dancing around something. i think the only time people got really angry with me is when i posted after the September 11th attacks. i could not grasp the seriousness or graveness of the situation, and i posted on this board in particular because i felt as if it *was* weird that i felt nothing, that it was a psycho-social issue that needed to be addressed.
but as i remember, dr. bob sent me no warnings on civility, and i made reparations with all or most of the posters i had offended (who bothered to post on the thread, anyway).
sidenote: on a whim, i picked up a recent issue of People magazine which featured 30+ mothers who gave birth to babies whose fathers had died in the terrorist attacks. i drank wine and cried. i know this doesn't belong on the admin board, but i think it belongs in this message.
> > Sorry Mitchell, but I don't quite see the relevance of Sar's old post to your point. I don't see her old post as blasting someone's beliefs, but rather as questioning the hidden agenda or identity of posters. I think there have been people on this board who have posted under multiple names during the same time period, ocassionally even answering their own posts. It's hard to prove, but an issue worth raising from time to time, because I think the practice of doing this is about as low as you can get.
> >
> > What, pray tell, is eating at you so much that it would motivate you to find an archived 5 month old post to suggest the sorts of very minor human contradictions that define all of us?
> >
> > Mair
>
> Mair,
>
> Mair,
>
> What basis do you have to assume something is eating at me? Is it possible that I posted with complete integrity, but you, for whatever reason, don't grasp or don't want to acknowledge my point of view?
>
> Nothing is eating at me. Somebody mentioned their posts from six months ago. The person said their posts in that period had met angry reactions. She said she had never been rude. I noticed a post from six months ago in which she said someone is cowardly if they did not meet her requirements for identifying themself. The post appeared to pressure the person to identify themself. The post to which she was responding was decidedly non-political, contrary to her allegations that someone was innappopriatelty using an annonymous handle to post political messages. The post cited cultural and medical problems behind what was otherwise beeing treated as an emerging political problem. The intriguing post circulated on the web that week, and was also posted here. Whoever posted it might have had a good reason to post annonymously; it was fair and profound analysis, and IMHO, it did not deserve to be censored. I found no need to know the authors identity - the message spoke for itself. I did not understand why anyone would pressure or call cowardly an author who chose to protect their identity during a dangerous period. IMO, this is can be grouped along with negative reactions to religious posts. Let it be.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 8, 2002, at 19:01:11
In reply to Re: How social is Psycho Babble Social? Mitchell, posted by sar on March 8, 2002, at 10:36:02
> can we be specific here?
Or just let it go, maybe? In the interest of civic harmony and welfare? :-)
Bob
Posted by Mitchell on March 8, 2002, at 19:12:23
In reply to Re: How social is Psycho Babble Social? » Mitchell, posted by kid_A on March 8, 2002, at 10:27:50
> And tell me, what is wrong with a negative reaction to pushy religious pressuring?
Is that a question or a demand? If it is a question, I find it too vague for me to be able to compose a succint reply. As a question, it implies that I would know about something being wrong. Did I profess a knowledge of right and wrong in this matter? If I had a standard against which to compare or contrast responses to "pushy religous pressuring" and a reliable definition of what is described as "pushy ... pressuring", I might be able to compose a statement about my perspective of the scenario you describe. In general the policy here appears to be that pressuring others is discouraged.
It is difficult for me to understand a paragraph that includes both the phrase
> "Of all the places where a judgement would not be levied it is on a board such as this..."
and
> "Something is wrong if someone feels the need ..."
Posted by Mitchell on March 8, 2002, at 20:04:18
In reply to Re: How social is Psycho Babble Social?, posted by Dr. Bob on March 8, 2002, at 19:01:11
> Or just let it go, maybe? In the interest of civic harmony and welfare? :-)
>
> Bob
That would be interesting. For the moment, I'll withhold the reasoned and measured reply that I had composed before this plea appeared. My other reply was already posted before this request showed up on my screen.The scorecard will show that it has at times been acceptable to suggest that a person is cowardly, especially when censuring the statement might thwart an opportunity for civic harmony and wellbeing. :-)
Posted by kid_A on March 8, 2002, at 21:10:25
In reply to Re: How social is Psycho Babble Social? » kid_A, posted by Mitchell on March 8, 2002, at 19:12:23
> Is that a question or a demand? If it is a question, I find it too vague for me to be able to compose a succint reply.
This is the part of the thread where I am supposed to defend myself by composing some erudite response to what is indented to be some similar construct thereof...
The genesis of this thread was based around the idea of religious pressuring so I find it difficult to believe that you could have missed it... Perhaps, who cares...
And as for my text that you find contradictory, I don't quite get your gist, the posters here are afforded all the anonymity they desire, yet some feel that they need double anonymity, to either answer their own posts, or hide some secret shame... And that, I feel is unnecessary.
I don't want to bicker back and forth, so that's all that I'll say on the matter.
Posted by Mair on March 8, 2002, at 21:31:17
In reply to Re: How social is Psycho Babble Social?, posted by Mitchell on March 8, 2002, at 8:39:57
>
>
> "What basis do you have to assume something is eating at me?"Maybe presumptuous on my part, but I think it's all in the tone.
Posted by Mitchell on March 8, 2002, at 21:46:52
In reply to Re: How social is Psycho Babble Social? » Mitchell, posted by kid_A on March 8, 2002, at 21:10:25
> to either answer their own posts, or hide some secret shame...I see no evidence that anyone posts here under any name for those reasons.
Posted by Mitchell on March 8, 2002, at 21:50:59
In reply to Re: How social is Psycho Babble Social? » Mitchell, posted by Mair on March 8, 2002, at 21:31:17
> ... I think it's all in the tone.Or not.
Posted by sar on March 8, 2002, at 22:41:40
In reply to Re: How social is Psycho Babble Social? » Mair, posted by Mitchell on March 8, 2002, at 21:50:59
i'm all for the doctor's suggestion of civility and harmony.
however, mitchell, i find your posts so pretentious, convoluted, and argumentative that i wonder why you are involved with this board--so many arguments involving you!
my solution is to avoid your posts, and you are most welcome to avoid mine.
we will not be communicating any further.
always,
sar
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.