![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 58. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by teejay on January 28, 2006, at 22:04:42
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks » Declan, posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2006, at 1:08:41
Sorry doctor Bob but I think this board is a complete and utter waste of time.
Politics is a powerful subject and something which evokes VERY strong feelings in people and to ban 2 posters simply for expressing their feelings in a way which to be fair is far less hostile than these politicians face every single day is just ridiculous.
Both posters used the word incompetent (interestingly one was banned for using it, the other not)......now lets examine an example for a moment and see how that statement stacks up?
Bush has stated his objective to take democracy to the middle east.......the palestinians voted this week in what was probably the fairest (we wont go into the controversy surrounding the way Bush got into power!!!), most transparent and most supported elections anywhere in the WORLD in recent times yet what does he do? Thats right, cos he doesnt like the fact the people gave a huge vote of no confidence in the way the west has treated them over the past few decades by voting in a party with terrorist links, he practically dismisses the whole result. What do you think the result of further alienating the palestinian people will be (not to mention the withdrawal of aid)? Do you think it will save lives or cost them? Do you think it will brink peace, or drive it further away?
The acts of a competent man? Well I believe your constitution allows me at the very least to ask the question!
TJ
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 29, 2006, at 9:29:29
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by teejay on January 28, 2006, at 18:53:21
> Sorry doctor Bob but I think this board is a complete and utter waste of time.
I'm sorry you feel the time you spend there is wasted.
> Politics is a powerful subject and something which evokes VERY strong feelings in people and to ban 2 posters simply for expressing their feelings in a way which to be fair is far less hostile than these politicians face every single day is just ridiculous.
I understand that politics evokes strong feelings, and that it can be therapeutic to express them. But this isn't necessarily the place. Not because Bush might be reading, which is unlikely, but because people who support Bush (or whomever) *are* reading.
Also, I think posts that aren't respectful and sensitive can be like negative campaigning:
> On the whole, negative campaigning is seen in a negative light. It does not focus on substantive issues or policies and rather tends to focus on personality. A demonstrated effect of negative campaigning is that while it motivates the base of support it tends to alienate centrist and undecided voters from the political process reducing voter turnout and radicalizing politics.
>
> If negative ads are not well crafted they can produce a backlash as voters dislike any sense of bullying.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_campaigning
> What do you think the result of further alienating the palestinian people will be (not to mention the withdrawal of aid)? Do you think it will save lives or cost them? Do you think it will brink peace, or drive it further away?
Those are good questions. IMO, it's possible to discuss the possible disadvantages of a policy with respect and sensitivity. It's also an option, of course, to propose an alternative and to discuss its possible advantages...
Bob
Posted by Jakeman on January 29, 2006, at 20:02:18
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by teejay on January 28, 2006, at 18:53:21
> Sorry doctor Bob but I think this board is a complete and utter waste of time.
>I think the board should be removed. There are too many misunderstandings about what is deemed uncivil. We are losing too many good people.
~Jake
Posted by tealady on January 31, 2006, at 3:40:50
In reply to Re: Politics is a powerful subject, posted by Dr. Bob on January 29, 2006, at 9:29:29
> > Politics is a powerful subject and something which evokes VERY strong feelings in people and to ban 2 posters simply for expressing their feelings in a way which to be fair is far less hostile than these politicians face every single day is just ridiculous.
>
> I understand that politics evokes strong feelings, and that it can be therapeutic to express them. But this isn't necessarily the place. Not because Bush might be reading, which is unlikely, but because people who support Bush (or whomever) *are* reading.
>
OK Dr.BOB, do I understand this correctly? ..as it's a different concept of a political discussion to me...
How about a posting guide at the top of the board ...
"This board is NOT a place to express your strong political feelings, "because people who support Bush (or whomever) *are* reading".
If you do not agree with them, "this may make them feel uncomfortable".
You must be " respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings" The aim of this board is to make all readers feel good about themselves.
Of course if you do have strong evidence/facts and arguments and present them in a calm matter of fact manner it will be all the more reason to make "people who support Bush (or whomever) *are* reading"..
( ie whichever people may have supported this party/person/policy)
to feel uncomfortable.. so sound rational arguments are not an acceptable excuse for posting anything that "may make them feel uncomfortable".
....DR BOB Can you see why some people think a politics board cannot be a great concept with the above aim .. maybe even incompatible with the concept of providing a cozy place for people to feel good about themselves in.??....back to these guidelines for the top of the board
If you can find a way to disagree respectfully and sensitively about an idea or policy you may post it in a style that will make people feel cozy and reassured, good about themselves, preferably with some positive alternative suggestions.
Attacking a person is out.
(It's a bit like footy really.....'play the ball not the man'.... umm, except for codes like Rugby Leagye where you tackle the person...)
Attacking a person can be merely expressing dislike of a person, even if you feel strongly and have much evidence that their policies have caused unquestionable destruction, injury, mass murder, or destruction even everlasting destruction of another countries environment making it impossible for them for live off their land?
I assume this rule will also apply to non US citizens as well..like Saddam, Hitler? Nothing negative can ever be uttered about a politician?
Can you can express dislike of their policies or implementation of them?... or does this come under the the "'not making people feel good about themselves.. if they may have supported the person?" ..
e.g. If you want to discuss Hitler, you may only mention the positive, cozy policies that you think of , any mention of concentration camps or such has a strong likelihood of many readers feel uncomfortable or upset.
> >"Also, I think posts that aren't respectful and sensitive can be like negative campaigning:
>> On the whole, negative campaigning is seen in a negative light. It does not focus on substantive issues or policies and rather tends to focus >>on personality. "
As it says here.. negative campaigning focuses on a attacking a PERSONALITY...not a POLICY.
However in when discussing US politics the US the president does determine the policy to a large extent, so it is impossible to separate.
Rather like discussing Iraq politics , a few years ago, without Saddam.
Very difficult to say anything negative about the policies or their implementation with only positive feel-good statements about the person.
I suggest at least renaming the board to
"Cosy Compliments of US politics" board
with above posting guidelines below.. either that or delete the board.. which makes a lot more sense.
Of course that does depend on your actual motives for the board I guess. I do suggest that politics is not a topic that leads to cozy feel-good feelings on all sides, if that is the aim of board discussion.I sincerely wish posters some posters could just stay away. If it helps.. you're not going to influence anyone who counts.
Bush, I agree with Dr Bob on this one, is unlikely to read this politics board :-)
BTW Dr.Bob.. ..I'd really like you to write some new guidelines and chair question time in the Oz parliament.To sum up I agree "Politics is a powerful subject and something which evokes VERY strong feelings in people " ..and IMO is not a topic that can be discussed on ANY board without provoking some feelings which will differ, which means if a something makes a few feel good.. it makes others feel the opposite... even if they aren't vocal about it.
Confused,
Jan
Posted by teejay on January 31, 2006, at 7:58:45
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by Jakeman on January 29, 2006, at 20:02:18
"I think the board should be removed. There are too many misunderstandings about what is deemed uncivil. We are losing too many good people."
PRECISELY jakeman! You put it far more succinctly than I.
I think Dr Bob is really expecting far too much of people to discuss politics like a bunch of pansies.......after all, if the politicians can't manage to discuss things without getting heated, then why should us proles be expected to behave differently?
I can understand his harsh implementation of the rules on the majority of the boards as there are sensitive people here who to a degree need a "soft" environment to talk in, but IMO if they venture into the wolves den that is politics then they should be strong enough to deal with things when they get a bit heated, provided of course things are kept civil and personal abuse doesnt set in.
Posted by AuntieMel on January 31, 2006, at 14:00:43
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks » Jakeman, posted by teejay on January 31, 2006, at 7:58:45
"provided of course things are kept civil and personal abuse doesnt set in."
Isn't that the key? Just carry it one more step and anything you would consider uncivil if you said it *to* a person (name calling, whatever) would also be considered uncivil if you say it *about* someone.
Difficult? Sure, but I think it can make for better discussions if we keep our cool and stick to issues and policies.
Posted by 10derHeart on January 31, 2006, at 15:34:45
In reply to Re: Civil politics, posted by AuntieMel on January 31, 2006, at 14:00:43
Posted by Jakeman on January 31, 2006, at 20:01:16
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks » Jakeman, posted by teejay on January 31, 2006, at 7:58:45
> "I think the board should be removed. There are too many misunderstandings about what is deemed uncivil. We are losing too many good people."
>
> PRECISELY jakeman! You put it far more succinctly than I.
>
> I think Dr Bob is really expecting far too much of people to discuss politics like a bunch of pansies.......after all, if the politicians can't manage to discuss things without getting heated, then why should us proles be expected to behave differently?
>
> I can understand his harsh implementation of the rules on the majority of the boards as there are sensitive people here who to a degree need a "soft" environment to talk in, but IMO if they venture into the wolves den that is politics then they should be strong enough to deal with things when they get a bit heated, provided of course things are kept civil and personal abuse doesnt set in.I agree. I could post quotes by Mark Twain or Martin Luther King but because they may offend somebody I'll stay quiet.
warm regards ~Jake
Posted by teejay on January 31, 2006, at 20:03:56
In reply to Re: Civil politics, posted by AuntieMel on January 31, 2006, at 14:00:43
But therein lies the rub auntie......neither posters as i'm aware actually resorted to name calling, they both simply said GB was incompetent.
Now thats an opinion, and as far as I'm aware the US constitution allows them to air that view and given this site is american in origin and run by an american, I see it as hypocritical for the powers that be to set different bounds on this site to those laid down by their own constitution.
My only grump perhaps is that to say someone is incompetent they should really state WHY they feel that way so it becomes a rational argument rather than just a throwaway remark. In other words, a throwaway remark could be consider uncivil but if qualified then would become a fair and rational argument.
As i've said though, given the often heated nature of politics, and the strict enforcement of some very strict rules regarding civility on this site, I think a politics board is seriously ill advised.
IMO anyway.
TJ
Posted by thuso on January 31, 2006, at 21:14:36
In reply to Re: Politics is a powerful subject, posted by Dr. Bob on January 29, 2006, at 9:29:29
I think Bush said it best tonight in his "State of the Union" address.
"In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of good will and respect for one another - and I will do my part."
Let's follow his example and show it can be done even on our own politics board.
:-)
Posted by teejay on January 31, 2006, at 21:15:24
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by Jakeman on January 31, 2006, at 20:01:16
I agree. I could post quotes by Mark Twain or Martin Luther King but because they may offend somebody I'll stay quiet.
You should be taking sommat for that paranoia ;-)))))
Regards
TJ
Posted by Jakeman on January 31, 2006, at 21:50:18
In reply to Quote from Bush's State of the Union address..., posted by thuso on January 31, 2006, at 21:14:36
> I think Bush said it best tonight in his "State of the Union" address.
>
> "In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of good will and respect for one another - and I will do my part."
>
> Let's follow his example and show it can be done even on our own politics board.
>
> :-)I go along with his statement and agree with it completely. I think his actions though are much different than what he says in his speeches. In my opinion and observations, Bush lies a lot. I can provide proof but I'll not go there now. In my opinion he is not fit to be president because he has committed crimes and has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution.
warm regards ~Jake
Posted by thuso on January 31, 2006, at 22:03:36
In reply to Re: Quote from Bush's State of the Union address..., posted by Jakeman on January 31, 2006, at 21:50:18
> I go along with his statement and agree with it completely. I think his actions though are much different than what he says in his speeches. In my opinion and observations, Bush lies a lot. I can provide proof but I'll not go there now. In my opinion he is not fit to be president because he has committed crimes and has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution.
>
> warm regards ~JakeI did not put that quote here to start any political debate on whether or not Bush lies. I quoted it because it is exactly what this whole thread has been about. If I wanted to make this political...I would have taken it to the political board. I didn't ask for yours or anyones opinion on Bush, nor did I want to hear it. I am a very strong supporter of Bush and didn't want to make anything political because I don't want my feelings for you or anyone else to be skewed based on our differing opinions. If you want to talk politics...please do it on the politics board. Otherwise, on this board I am happy to discuss with you whether or not political conversation can ever be civil (I think it can).
Posted by thuso on January 31, 2006, at 22:23:48
In reply to Re: Quote from Bush's State of the Union address..., posted by Jakeman on January 31, 2006, at 21:50:18
And just so you understand why I don't want to bring politics into this, it's beacause I am a very conservative Republican who has only lived in very liberal cities. All I hear day in and day out is negative things about what I stand for and believe. I am extremely touchy and sensitive about people being negative towards leaders I support. And now that I live in DC, politics and political bickering is all I hear non-stop. It is the last thing I want to talk about on here. The internet is my portal outside of politically-centered DC.
I have no problem talking about civility as it relates to political discussion, but I stay far away from the politics board for a reason. So, I hope you'll be willing to respect my request...at least on the Admin board.
Posted by Jakeman on January 31, 2006, at 22:31:34
In reply to Re: Quote from Bush's State of the Union address.. » Jakeman, posted by thuso on January 31, 2006, at 22:23:48
Sorry thuso, I was just stating my opinion. I guess this discussion should have moved back to tthe politics board.
warm regards ~Jake
Posted by AuntieMel on February 1, 2006, at 8:46:53
In reply to Re: Civil politics » AuntieMel, posted by teejay on January 31, 2006, at 20:03:56
"My only grump perhaps is that to say someone is incompetent they should really state WHY they feel that way so it becomes a rational argument rather than just a throwaway remark."
But that's my point, too. If I said to you that *you* were incompetent it would be uncivil, right?
But if I were to say that I disagree with something you are doing or saying (like I am doing right now) and tell you *why* I disagree then we are having an intelligent debate.
Using the same rules when talking *about* someone can foster the same type debate with no one getting hurt.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 1, 2006, at 8:48:53
In reply to Re: Civil politics » AuntieMel, posted by teejay on January 31, 2006, at 20:03:56
We might even <grin> change our minds about something.....
Posted by zeugma on February 2, 2006, at 17:36:48
In reply to Re: One more thing.... » teejay, posted by AuntieMel on February 1, 2006, at 8:48:53
> We might even <grin> change our minds about something.....
Yes, I'd like to change your mind about something.Bush talked eloquently about how we are 'addicted ' to Middle Eastern oil and how we need to get our cars running on corn derivatives and such.
Meanwhile, 'the Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.
A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.
The budget for the laboratory... was cut by more than 15 percent... requiring the layoff of about 40 staff members out of a total of 930...The cut is for the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1." (N.Y. Times, 2/2/06).Auntie Mel, would you like more civil discourse on Bush's grand speech and commitment to the American people? I would be more than happy to oblige you. Perhaps the W.Va. governor shutting down the mines after some inconvenient explosions, a month after Bush's official delagated to mine safety walked out of a meeting, to the shock of the meeting's organizers? Oh, there is much more I could tell you.
-z
Posted by zeugma on February 2, 2006, at 18:06:39
In reply to Re: One more thing.... » AuntieMel, posted by zeugma on February 2, 2006, at 17:36:48
for the sake of those who wouldn't want me to say anything that might hurt a tender-hearted person's feelings:
UNBELIEVABLY, President Bush’s head of the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration walked out of a congressional hearing on mine safety this week. Acting MSHA chief David Dye and aides simply got up and left, even though senators had more questions for them. Their [uncivil word deleted] is particularly pointed when West Virginians are still grieving the loss of 14 miners in the last three weeks.
-The Charleston Gazette, Jan. 27, 2006.
Note how respectful I am not to provide a link to the material.
So much better to delete words, or put asterisks through them, even if they passed muster in a 'family newspaper.' Perhaps the natives of Charleston, W.Va., got carried away by an excess of local sentiment for miners blown unnecessarily to bits, and neglected the current guidelines on civil discourse as defined by a mental health professional-run board. I am happy that here we do not let our local concerns outweigh a commendable desire to blow potentially uncivil words to bits.
-z
Posted by zeugma on February 2, 2006, at 18:27:16
In reply to Re: Quote from Bush's State of the Union address.. » Jakeman, posted by thuso on January 31, 2006, at 22:23:48
> And just so you understand why I don't want to bring politics into this, it's beacause I am a very conservative Republican who has only lived in very liberal cities. All I hear day in and day out is negative things about what I stand for and believe. I am extremely touchy and sensitive about people being negative towards leaders I support. And now that I live in DC, politics and political bickering is all I hear non-stop. It is the last thing I want to talk about on here. The internet is my portal outside of politically-centered DC. >>
I understand completely, thuso.
And I will share with you that not only am I convinced that Mr.Bush does not read these boards, I am also convinced (well, almost) that the mysterious scope of NSA snooping without a warrant does not extend to this quadrant of the Internet. So, I agree: this is a place for us all to relax and not worry about what Mr. Bush assures us is strictly limited and constitutional surveillance. He hates snoopers almost as much as I do, as evidenced by his less than cooperative attitudes towards probes into Federal Katrina responses and Abramoff-related investigations, not to mention recent reports that many White House e-mails relevant to the Libby investigation have somehow vanished, leaving a hole in the national archives (be it known that I am not an archivist and that I do not think it wise to hold officials too closely to account). And no offense to any snoopers who may have wandered here by mistake, of course. I was only making an 'I'-statement when I said I disliked you.
-z
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 2, 2006, at 22:10:05
In reply to a place to unwind » thuso, posted by zeugma on February 2, 2006, at 18:27:16
> And I will share with you that not only am I convinced that Mr.Bush does not read these boards, I am also convinced (well, almost) that the mysterious scope of NSA snooping without a warrant does not extend to this quadrant of the Internet...
Sorry to interrupt, but I'd like to redirect follow-ups regarding snooping to Psycho-Babble Politics. Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20051121/msgs/605673.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 2, 2006, at 22:14:14
In reply to Re: Quote from Bush's State of the Union address..., posted by Jakeman on January 31, 2006, at 21:50:18
> In my opinion and observations, Bush lies a lot.
Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings. Sorry, but I'm going to block you from posting for a week again.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 7:23:38
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Jakeman, posted by Dr. Bob on February 2, 2006, at 22:14:14
Bob, banning people for such remarks makes it look as though you are deliberately trying to trash your own board.
How can you possibly ban jakeman for expressing an opinion.......he even clearly stated it was his own opinion and observation!
Your own constitution enshrines his right to express it!
What do you intend doing Dr Bob, banning everyone who has the opinion that a politician tells lies, or allow them to think it, but not say it? Thats hardly democratic or politically correct is it?
I stick to my original statement that a political board is simply not compatible with the rules you lay down for the other boards (which I broadly agree with). IMO, either a different set of rules needs to be put in place for the politics board, or it should be removed altogether (my preferred option).
TJ
Posted by Dinah on February 3, 2006, at 11:05:26
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 7:23:38
The babble history of the Faith board and the Politics board (the two richest sources of blocks) is similar. The topics of religion and politics were causing discord on the other boards, so Dr. Bob created a separate board where those discussions could be redirected.
I think the mistake comes when people mistake the purpose of those boards for something they just aren't. Which is not to say that Dr. Bob wouldn't love to see them thriving communities. But limited in scope.
Faith is meant to discuss faith, but not really religion. Except in an educational nonreligious way. In other words, statements of conviction that one's own religion is the "right" one, and the only way to God or heaven have to be scrupulously avoided. Because they are implied statements that other religions are the "wrong" ones and that you can't get to God or heaven through them.
Politics is meant to discuss ideas and concepts, but not really politics or political personalities. Except in general and nonjudgemental ways. So that you state what you believe and why, but not really how horrible or stupid or whatever those (including public figures, and by implication those that believe the same things as said public figures) who believe other things are.
Which, admittedly, lead to limited purpose boards. But when you remember the original purpose of the boards, it makes better sense. Since the logical alternative, and one chosen by other sites, is to ban the discussion of faith or politics.
And whatever one might say about Dr. Bob, I've always admired his willingness not to ban *any* topic, no matter how R rated, controversial, or in any other way difficult, so long as the site guidelines are followed in the discussion.
Posted by muffled on February 3, 2006, at 13:34:41
In reply to Politics board, posted by Dinah on February 3, 2006, at 11:05:26
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.