![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 12 to 36 of 125. Go back in thread:
Posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 22:17:04
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » zeugma, posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 22:03:24
> >>Politics is an inherently nasty subject
>
> I couldn't disagree more. I don't see *any* subject as inherently nasty.
>
> I choose *not* to be nasty, if I can possibly, humanly help it. And I believe mostly,I can.>>War is not nasty?
Do you really believe that?
-z
>
>
Posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 22:36:59
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » 10derHeart, posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 22:12:47
to clarify (unwelcome or not- ) *you* are not nasty- but politics- well, I will not detail scandals about leaks, hypocrisies, and lies, and statements by numerous retired generals, because they *are* quite nasty-I suppose the CIA is nasty, to prosecute the Federal government for its leak of an agent's identity- I suppose it's nasty to wonder why Saddam is in custody when we all thought Osama was behind 9/11- it is rude to ponder these questions-
-z
Posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 22:36:59
In reply to Re: not about support and education, posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 21:59:00
i can't read the last three posts because there is an 'error can't find post xxx' then the number of the post.
i think people are conflating civility (as it appears in the dictionary) with civility (as it appears in the FAQ). Similar mistake than conflating intelligence (as it appears in the dictionary) with intelligence (as measured by Weschler etc).
you need to tease them apart...
i don't have a problem with civility (as it appears in the dictionary)
i do have a problem with civility (and blockings as appear in the faq and also as appears on the boards more generally seeing as the FAQ's aren't up to date and all)btw you aren't allowed to say you are 'opposed' to anything that someone else might support (thought you might want to know that seeing as i have been blocked / warned can't remember which for being opposed to the american ideal before...)
context
contextget past the words... what was declan talking about? i took him to be drawing our attention to policy.
it is illogical to get upset when someone critiques your favourite book.
that is to say it is not appropriate.
why?
because they are talking about a book.it is illogical to get upset when someone critiques your favourite political party / politician / policy / ideal.
that is to say it is not appropriate.
why?
because they are talking about a political party / politician / policy / ideal.THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU>
and i think dr bob can hear the difference even though he seems to be teaching people on the boards that there is no difference
(people might generalise this back to real life and will that harm them or help them in their real world interactions do you think?)
he seems to be teaching people that there is no difference.
but there is a difference.
yeah stick your head in the sand dr bob...
go ahead.
the people getting blocked over here...
they don't accuse attack judge posters on these boards.
you are catering to peoples feelings too much...
you said before you didn't think it was a good idea to do that (re angelgirl)
so why are ya doing it over here?????
depends who complains eh?
Posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 22:37:34
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » special_k, posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 21:39:20
>I didn't take it as meaning the policy, because, as you say, policies can't feel, post, etc. People make policies and people make up the groups a poster might describe as, for one example, "the left/centre."
> I took it as meaning that the *people* who make up what Declan considers the "left/centre"you took it that way because you are trying to justify his block...
or you took it that way because you can't see the difference?> would I move this potential dialog forward by inquiring of them at the outset why they were "so clueless?"
he gave an example of what led him to that conclusion. come on... be charitable... look at the example. can't you see he was trying to draw your attention to that?
IMHO I wouldn't bother being charitable to dr bob because he really isn't charitable to us.
try reading declans post charitably.
if you want to teach people to be charitable (which is likely to have them feel a lot happier than if they go around seeing people as hurting and accusing and attacking and judging them all the time) then... read charitably.
> I can't imagine it. But I think you're saying we ought to be able to speak thay way here?read charitably...
not what do you think?> Or am I missing your point? Perhaps I can't divorce a policy from the policymakers, or policy-supporters, at least in this context, and you definitely can? Is that it, maybe?
can't you?
you didn't make the policy did you now?
how is it attacking, accusing, judging you?
would you feel hurt and accused if i said i critiqued your favourite book? should i get blocked because you can't get the distinction?> Wouldn't it just be so much easier to refrain from labeling?
i made a similar point over on relationships...
> To say you don't agree, strongly oppose...whatever....that policy or stance or view, and then tell the board what you think xxx group *should* or *could* do *instead?*
sure. thats how i see it going. i get warned / blocked for expressing opposition. declan gets blocked for attempting to draw peoples attention to something that is problematic (need to see the problem to get motivated to improve the situation)
>
Posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 22:39:26
In reply to Re:, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 22:26:51
war is nasty
but people who go to war aren't nasty...
the latter isn't ruled out by the former...
Posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 22:44:26
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » 10derHeart, posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 22:12:47
No, I don't.
But do I have to be *nasty* in the *way* I discuss disturbing things - like war - with others?
That's what I meant. That it's never a given (inherent) that we are somehow forced to abandon civility in order to talk about certain things. Sorry if I was unclear. It's not about the message, it's the method. The attitude of the messenger can make or break any communication from minute-one, IMO.
It's not that I'm moved to 'kill' the messenger because of the message, but that I can't even begin to try to see or hear the message for all the sand in my eyes and ears.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 14, 2006, at 22:50:45
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » special_k, posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 21:39:20
I'm with 10derheart on this one, and I formed this interpretation upon intial reading of Declan's post, before Dr. Bob blocked him.
The terms "liberal left", "left/center", "Christian right", "moderate right", etc. are used to identify groups of people who hold similar political ideology--groups of people. As a member of the "liberal left" and the US Democratic party, I would and do feel put down by being called "clueless".
I didn't participate in writing the party platform, and I'm not a Democratic strategist. But I identify myself with this group. I believe that concerns about the strength of the Democratic party and/or "left/center" opposition can be addressed without labelling the group as "clueless".
sigh
gg
Posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 22:51:52
In reply to Re: messages and methods » zeugma, posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 22:44:26
> But do I have to be *nasty* in the *way* I discuss disturbing things - like war - with others?> That's what I meant. That it's never a given (inherent) that we are somehow forced to abandon civility in order to talk about certain things.
so people who break the civility rules are *nasty* in the *way* they discuss things...
that is what is meant by 'abandoning civility'?
you really think the civility rules latch on to that?
you really think Declan's comment was *nasty*?i'm not asking you to say whether you agree or not
(that might be nasty)
i'm asking you to think about the implications of what you have said for people who get blockedi think you don't want to say that at all...
i think you might want to distinguish between
1) civility (dictionary definition)
2) civility (bob's definition)you might just want to...
after all...
Posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 22:53:25
In reply to I interpreted it the same way » 10derHeart, posted by gardenergirl on April 14, 2006, at 22:50:45
> I'm with 10derheart on this one, and I formed this interpretation upon intial reading of Declan's post, before Dr. Bob blocked him.
>
> The terms "liberal left", "left/center", "Christian right", "moderate right", etc. are used to identify groups of people who hold similar political ideology--groups of people. As a member of the "liberal left" and the US Democratic party, I would and do feel put down by being called "clueless".
>
> I didn't participate in writing the party platform, and I'm not a Democratic strategist. But I identify myself with this group. I believe that concerns about the strength of the Democratic party and/or "left/center" opposition can be addressed without labelling the group as "clueless".OMG.
i'm tempted to say 'only in america...'
(hence the trouble declan, damos, and myself are having...)
but z is in america too...
interesting...
Posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:01:36
In reply to Re:, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 22:26:51
dennett talks about how sometimes people enlarge their boundaries...
so someone who is really into cars might take it as a personal insult if someone were to say they have a crappy car.
i guess similarly someone who is really into politics might take it as a personal insult if someone were to say their favourite party had a crappy policy.
but...
there is something a little silly...
IMHO.
people 'might' be offended for all sorts of reasons.
owning ones own response as ones own response
looking upon others charitably...doesn't apply here huh.
this is crazymaking.
i've talked about cultural bias before...
people getting blocked on politics are getting blocked because they *might* offend americans who seem to have this unfortunate tendancy of taking politics personally.
i don't take politics personally.
nope.
i used to have a crappy bike.
i did.
i didn't take that personally either.i am not my bike. i am so much more than my bike.
and i am not my favourite parties ideology or policy either. i am so much more than my favourite parties ideology or policy.of course if i wasn't...
if i really thought there was nothing more to my political beliefs than those represented by the current state of my favourite political parties... then i might take things overly personally.there is a cultural bias...
you want everyone in the world to learn to take politics personally too?and of course in all this...
innocent people die
tick
tick
tickunbelievable.
Posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 23:09:13
In reply to Re: messages and methods » zeugma, posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 22:44:26
> No, I don't.
>
> But do I have to be *nasty* in the *way* I discuss disturbing things - like war - with others?
>
>
It's not about the message, it's the method. The attitude of the messenger can make or break any communication from minute-one, IMO. >>true, true. that is why we have diplomats.
>
> It's not that I'm moved to 'kill' the messenger because of the message, but that I can't even begin to try to see or hear the message for all the sand in my eyes and ears.>>some of us Babble alumni should join the diplomatic corps. but one should not always trust a diplomat either.
of course, good diplomats are aware that they have an intrinsic credibility problem. it's a dirty trade.
-z
Posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 23:09:27
In reply to Re: messages and methods, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 22:51:52
I apologize to anyone who now feels I have called you nasty if you violate the civility rules.
That was not my intention and I don't think that.
I picked up on the adjective z. used to describe war and just recycled it poorly. I just thought..I just thought I was being told that if an issue is generally disturbing - war in this case - that here (and IRL, too?) we should suspend the civility rules and speak about those kinds of things, well, any way we want? I was trying to explain how I don't agree with that.
Sorry. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm sorry you even had to ask me that, but you were right to do it.
While I'm posting here, I'm always operating under Dr. Bob's definitions. I'm pretty much okay with his brand of civility...but you probably know that just as I know you are not okay with a lot of it.
I'm sorry.
Posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:15:13
In reply to Re:, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:01:36
and i'll get blocked for something no doubt...
and the message will get lost...
but there is a distinction
(there are many distinctions)
there is an important distinction
(there are many important distinctions)
of course you *can* take whatever you like personally... and the boards *can* (and do on politics especially) seem to warn / block on the assumption that people are *entitled* to take things personally. and of course you are entitled. you can go around taking things personally if you like. i think you will suffer more because of it but it is your perogative i guess.
i wonder if people can hear the distinction but they ignore it because they know the rules ignore it.
i think there is danger in considering there to be 'civility rules' on the boards.
there is a danger because people lose the distinction between what civility means in the dictionary (and of course that sense of civility is a terrific idea) and bob's notion of civility / what he judges to merit a PBC / PBS / blocking.
and the latter... well... that is dr bob's idiosyncratic notion. experts disagree. they don't think the latter is the best way to achieve the former.
that is up for debate.
but IMHO what is happening... is that people are seeing the rules as arbitrary again... seeing it as burying ones head in the sand because it fails to capture a distinction that is there between
hurting / accusing / attacking / judging another poster
and critiquing something that posters may have come to care about.
the trouble with the latter is that people may well have come to care about a lot of things.
so...how do you decide what things you are going to block for and what things you aren't?
depends who complains?
maybe this place is more similar to psychcentral's way of doing things than i had supposed...
and IMHO it is only going to get worse.
it is.
Posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 23:19:04
In reply to sorry » special_k, posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 23:09:27
I picked up on the adjective z. used. I just thought..I just thought I was being told that if an issue is generally disturbing - war in this case - that here (and IRL, too?) we should suspend the civility rules and speak about those kinds of things, well, any way we want? I was trying to explain how I don't agree with that.>>
i feel unutterably sad.
kindness. you are a kind person.
-z
Posted by gardenergirl on April 14, 2006, at 23:26:44
In reply to Re:, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:01:36
> dennett talks about how sometimes people enlarge their boundaries...
>
> so someone who is really into cars might take it as a personal insult if someone were to say they have a crappy car.Good golly, yes! I love my car, and I'm not "into cars". But if someone called my car "crappy", why wouldn't I feel insulted? And why would someone feel the need to call my car crappy? Why not just talk about how great your car is, or how great some other car is? Or why not point out that Consumer Reports says my car has a problem with XXX? Why label it???????
>
> i guess similarly someone who is really into politics might take it as a personal insult if someone were to say their favourite party had a crappy policy.Again, why label it??? Why not say you disagree with this policy. You believe that this other policy is a good one. Why label it as crappy or clueless?
And truly, how can a policy be clueless? It's not that I feel my party and it's policies were put down. It's the group. People. People make up the "left". Not policies. At least the way I've always heard the term used. Of course with no noun after the adjective, I suppose it is a little tricky to tell exactly what object is "left/center".
> owning ones own response as ones own response
> looking upon others charitably...
>
> doesn't apply here huh.How is calling anyone or anything clueless charitable?
>I need to stop here. I'm feeling riled up, and I don't want to engage further while in this state. I certainly don't want to cross the civility line (as in Bob's definition since I'm posting on his site) out of heightened emotions.
Take care everyone.
gg
Posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:27:16
In reply to sorry » special_k, posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 23:09:27
(((((10)))))))
are you doing okay?
i hope you are doing ok.
((((((10))))))))
i respect you
and i know you are doing your best - ok?> I apologize to anyone who now feels I have called you nasty if you violate the civility rules.
> That was not my intention and I don't think that.
i wasn't trying to trap you with verbal tricks...
it was just a vivid way for me to draw out the dictionary civility vs dr bob civility distinction.because according to dictionary civility... that may well be an analytic truth.
but according to dr bob's definition...
it is far from analytic (and false in most instances)and i did it in a way where you were kind of forced to see the distinction... or be labelled uncivil (in bob's sense and maybe in the dictionary sense as well)...
maybe there was some verbal trick in that.
sigh.i know you weren't saying those things.
and i'm not taking it personally.
it was just a vivid way for me to draw out the dr bob's civility vs dictionary def civility distinction.
maybe it was a verbal trick...
but i didn't mean for it to be.> I just thought..I just thought I was being told that if an issue is generally disturbing - war in this case - that here (and IRL, too?) we should suspend the civility rules and speak about those kinds of things, well, any way we want? I was trying to explain how I don't agree with that.
i don't think anybody is advocating that the civililty rules should be abandoned. i think the notion is that the civility rules should acknowledge the critiquing a person on these boards vs critiquing a policy / ideology / political party distinction. not saying it should be a free for all for people to go off with the name calling... but saying more leniency should be shown. IMO we should be allowed to critique a policy. IMO i should be allowed to say 'i am opposed to the american ideal' then talk about what i take the american ideal to be then go on to show why i think those things are not things i want to support. i should be allowed to do this. it would save a lot of blockings on politics. and people would either learn not to take things so personally... or they would not post there. but if they can't handle people doing that... i don't know how they handle IRL with tv and newspapers and the things the politicians say...
don't get me wrong - i think the standard / quality of debate should be higher.
no name calling or mudslinging
but you should be allowed to critique
and express opposition.
Posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 23:27:21
In reply to Re:, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:15:13
maybe this place is more similar to psychcentral's way of doing things than i had supposed...
and IMHO it is only going to get worse.
it is.>>
well, maybe. but then why stay up all night arguing this (12:21 am EST).
it's for a moment of kindness. which life does not supply in abundance.
i responded to you on Writing, by the way, though i cannot do the subjects justice.
-z
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 14, 2006, at 23:31:14
In reply to Re:, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:15:13
I'm confused. It wasn't all that long ago that you were emphatic, and made some very strong remarks toward posters (including me) who questioned you on those same subjects. You wouldn't consider another viewpoint to have merit when you were insistant that the board was completely fair, and said that the posters who were blocked were angry about being blocked, and looking to find unfairness in order to justify the anger. They needed to find a perpetrator and chose Dr. Bob. "Why can't everyone just be civil?"
You asked dissenters to be quiet. Did you really think that they didn't also think about this carefully?
Is it because it's happened to you, you've been hurt that you see the possibility for questionable blocks. Or does this drama triangle still apply to the other people who've been blocked.
It's an extreme change. And I really don't understand.
Posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:36:43
In reply to Re: » special_k, posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 23:27:21
> well, maybe. but then why stay up all night arguing this (12:21 am EST).oh. its about lunchtime for me...
i'm kinda attached to this place...
kinda disillusioned...
but kinda attached.
kinda interested to see how this pans out...
how long i will get blocked for...
i don't think i've done anything wrong.
but i probably have breeched some dr bob rule or other.
i mean... people are upset...
surely thats because of me
so i should get blocked.
and someone who has been stiring vs a moderator and potential moderator
surely i'll get blocked.
thats what i meant about the psych central way of doing things.
politics changed after certain people complained...
and don't get me wrong...
there must be a middle way
there must be a middle waybut IMHO that is where one week blockings should come into play.
while we figure out the rules for the politics board as a group.
a group of posters.
i mean... dr bob doesn't post there so why can't we decide (or at least try to) amongst ourselves?
but i'm thinking he wants less debate on the boards and more amongst teh 'choosen few' those who are handpicked because they have internalised his idiosyncratic way of doing things.
because...
they are most likely to preserve the status quo
and rationalise his decisions for the benefit of others
because then it is 'our' decision instead of 'my' decisionwhatever...
i'm kinda interested in how things will go...
but IMHO...
oh it doesn't really matter
my HO isn't worth jack diddly squat
and i figure i'm about to get blocked for something or other about now anyways...
Posted by verne on April 15, 2006, at 1:34:40
In reply to Re:, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:36:43
Let's examine Declan's comment: "How come the left/centre (whatever) is so clueless?"
There's no "policy", there's no big huge left/centre "Being". What we really have is a bunch of real people who are left, center, or left-center of whatever. Real people with or without a "clue". Yet, in the end, don't we all have some sort of clue?
When we load a post, let's agree not to use judgmental terms that could hurt and accuse others. The goal should never be to win an argument or win a point - especially toward someone we aspire to help and support.
And please, lets use LOVING in place of the king james "charitable" - i think that's what the author was going for. LOVE
Why use, "Charity", an archaic version of "love" from a medieval text? Let's just call it LOVE.
I'm compkletely blizted, be charitable. Just love.
If we love one another, we never find each other clueless. We discover each other every day and love each other to pieces.
Verne
Posted by verne on April 15, 2006, at 1:58:47
In reply to Hue and Cry, A Carriage Rustles Past, posted by verne on April 15, 2006, at 1:34:40
Please don't get hung up on the word, "clueless". We don't need to nitpick it. (It was a good movie, we all agree)
Focus on what is meant, when we say someone or a group of people is "clueless". The word says that the other (objective) is not only without knowledge but doesn't even have a CLUE. It is PERSONAL.
And, please, Declan, don't take this personally. I don't agree with any sort of block beyond a week, and hope you are coping well.
Posted by 10derHeart on April 15, 2006, at 8:06:50
In reply to Hue and Cry, A Carriage Rustles Past, posted by verne on April 15, 2006, at 1:34:40
>>If we love one another, we never find each other clueless. We discover each other every day and love each other to pieces.
ah Verne...you are one of my heros here. I hope you feel very good about yourself for writing this. You should. God bless you, Verne. Be careful. Stay safe. ((verne))
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 8:10:20
In reply to Supplemental, posted by verne on April 15, 2006, at 1:58:47
For me at least.
First is whether the post can be considered something that was putting down people of left/centrist (though centrist is usually defined differently by different people I've found) persuasion. I seriously doubt that given the posting history of this poster. I wondered whether the post was acceptable under board rules, but for completely different reasons.
Second, is whether politics can and should be discussed with civility and caritas on this site, in the world at large, and in diplomatic circles. And to that issue I am greatly disillusioned. I see no reason why politics shouldn't be discussed with the same civility (by any definition) and caritas as any other topic. I agree with 10der that there are two separate issues, the topic and the method of discussion. And I feel saddened and disheartened and alienated when people assume that feeling passionately about a subject somehow equates with how they express that their feelings about that subject.
I wish Dr. Bob would simply outlaw politics as a topic, as is done on other boards. I value his position that all topics are ok topics as long as they are discussed civilly. But the topic has the potential to change one's feelings about other posters. And that doesn't seem conducive to the overall mission of this site.
Not that I think outlawing it would have any positive effect. People would just then argue over Please Do Not Discuss Politics, and the importance of politics to mental health, and draconian censorship, and those arguments may not show a lot of civility either.
It's a lose-lose proposition.
And that saddens me. And it makes me realize how little I understand people. And probably never will.
Again, I really recommend "Choosing Civility".
I think I'll write a song about spittin' in the wind.
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 8:12:31
In reply to Hue and Cry, A Carriage Rustles Past, posted by verne on April 15, 2006, at 1:34:40
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 8:22:37
In reply to Re: sorry, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:27:16
In general I prefer to refer to site guidelines, because that seems more civil. But to be truthful in this instance, I don't see much difference between Dr. Bob's and common definitions.
I am also feeling rather offended by the implication that the participants in a discussion would influence Dr. Bob's decision of who to block. I assure you that he doesn't punish those who are in disagreement with his deputies. (Even if his deputies fiercely argue that a post directed at them was not in accordance with civility guidelines, if he thinks it was.)
There's one significant difference between here and PsychCentral. We aren't moderators. We're deputies. We carry out Dr. Bob's instructions and do our best to step in and do what Dr. Bob would do when it's clear to us, and when he isn't around at the moment. We don't make policy. We interpret policy only in the most basic sense, not in the judicial sense as in the balance of powers. Dr. Bob can and does reverse us. We're in the same position as anyone else if we object to a decision or policy.
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.