![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 62 to 86 of 275. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on June 1, 2006, at 6:59:33
In reply to Re: I-statements » Tabitha, posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 4:30:39
Sigh. In the "I" statement context, I think Dr. Bob is correct. Tabitha is right, as I see it.
My objection wasn't in that area.
Incidentally, similar rules are observed on the Faith board about statements putting forth one faith as being a superior path. So that, for example, I don't think it would be acceptable under board guidelines to assert that the world would be better if everyone were Christian. Or that the world would be better if there was no liberal movement or no conservative movement.
Were she to have said "I sometimes wonder what the world would be like without religion." she would have been imagining what the world would be like without religion, and probably wouldn't have been flagged. But that's not what she said.
It's not just semantics.
But I grow weary.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 9:10:06
In reply to Re: I-statements » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 1, 2006, at 6:59:33
> Sigh. In the "I" statement context, I think Dr. Bob is correct. Tabitha is right, as I see it.
To use your arguments, you have just called me wrong. All by inference. If they're right, and I'm different........
Do you not see the circularity in that? There are simple declaratory I-statements that use comparators, which do nothing more than reveal an individual's preference.
She said what she thought was better, between two selections. Others may list their own preferences, without prejudice.
We just had a thread on Social about Starbucks treats. There was some disagreement there, about what was favoured. Should all get blocks, for daring to speak of what they liked, once someone else had spoken?
> My objection wasn't in that area.
>
> Incidentally, similar rules are observed on the Faith board about statements putting forth one faith as being a superior path. So that, for example, I don't think it would be acceptable under board guidelines to assert that the world would be better if everyone were Christian. Or that the world would be better if there was no liberal movement or no conservative movement.Then, my conclusion would be that the Faith board needs fixing, too. It uses an unsupportable argument.
> Were she to have said "I sometimes wonder what the world would be like without religion." she would have been imagining what the world would be like without religion, and probably wouldn't have been flagged. But that's not what she said.
>
> It's not just semantics.
>
> But I grow weary.Correct. It is not just semantics. She merely combined two thoughts in one simple sentence. And unless you can show me where either one was uncivil, literally, then this is the civility issue writ large.
This is precisely why I grow angry (historically).
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 9:38:23
In reply to Re: I-statements » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 9:10:06
> This is precisely why I grow angry (historically).
>
> LarNot at you, Dinah.
Angry and frustrated at this. There need be no audience for her statement. There is no target.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 10:45:19
In reply to Re: Clarification, posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 9:38:23
I've learned enough to know that I cannot possibly explain what I believe about this dichotomy with respect to civility, and remain civil according to the standards of the site. I can't even speak its name.
Until this is cleared up, until a good clear concise rule is drafted, good people will continue to be hurt. "I know it when I see it" is hopelessly inadequate, because I just as much know when he is wrong. Feelings, although often correlated with civility, are not perfectly correlated with it.
Why don't we bring in a civility expert? Get a consultant's report?
I fail to see what is different about what she (Estella) said, and what I said about butter tarts or blocks. Can somebody explain that to me?
Lar
Posted by gardenergirl on June 1, 2006, at 10:55:39
In reply to Re: I-statements » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 9:10:06
What would be the harm in saying, "I prefer buttertarts with raisins" instead of saying, "Butter tarts are 'better' with raisins"? The former is inarguable. it's your preference, based on whatever criteria and evaluations of criteria you choose. No one can take that away from you. However, the latter is arguable and does include a judgment about what is "best" for butter tarts.
Similarly, star-bellied sneetches are not necessarily the best on the beaches, and saying so could offend plain-bellied sneetches. However, my preference for plain-bellied sneetches is my own, and is what's right for me. Stating that I prefer plain-bellied sneetches does not include the notions that they are "the best on the beaches", are "what's best for the sneetches", or that anyone else should think so, too.
The messages are different. Yes, rephrasing into an appropriate thought-owning "I" statement can change the original message. But isn't the original message as it reads, (i.e. plain-bellied sneetches are "best" of the sneetches) truly not civil given that there are non plain-bellied sneetches, too? Whereas the message of what I personally prefer regarding the belly appearance of sneetches is a single data point of what might be "best" and does not contain the message that what I prefer is globally "best".
Regards,
gg
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 11:38:09
In reply to Re: I-statements » Larry Hoover, posted by gardenergirl on June 1, 2006, at 10:55:39
> What would be the harm in saying, "I prefer buttertarts with raisins" instead of saying, "Butter tarts are 'better' with raisins"? The former is inarguable. it's your preference, based on whatever criteria and evaluations of criteria you choose. No one can take that away from you. However, the latter is arguable and does include a judgment about what is "best" for butter tarts.
Although you have laid out the issue clearly, I retain my own disagreement with the your premise and your conclusion.
> Similarly, star-bellied sneetches are not necessarily the best on the beaches, and saying so could offend plain-bellied sneetches. However, my preference for plain-bellied sneetches is my own, and is what's right for me. Stating that I prefer plain-bellied sneetches does not include the notions that they are "the best on the beaches", are "what's best for the sneetches", or that anyone else should think so, too.
>
> The messages are different. Yes, rephrasing into an appropriate thought-owning "I" statement can change the original message. But isn't the original message as it reads, (i.e. plain-bellied sneetches are "best" of the sneetches) truly not civil given that there are non plain-bellied sneetches, too? Whereas the message of what I personally prefer regarding the belly appearance of sneetches is a single data point of what might be "best" and does not contain the message that what I prefer is globally "best".
>
> Regards,
> ggThe one is plainer than the other. As you say, what would be the harm? But that does not demonstrate the contrasting case, that there is harm.
Non-plain-bellied sneetches who feel judged are catching something that was not thrown. It's a projection. The feeling is not inherent in the words. A ranked or ordinal personal preference is a preference yet.
A religious soul might feel sympathy, empathy, disdain.....any number of things. No matter what that is, though, it arose from within.
Feeling is not perfectly correlated with civility. Having one does not demonstrate either the presence or the absence of the other.
If I, even gently, point out a mistake someone has made, is that uncivil? [Let's assume the correction was in the public interest.] I can almost guarantee you that some negative feelings arise, but.....I didn't put those feelings there. It's something each of us must work through, to publicly address making a public mistake.
I suggest to you that something analogous is at play here, too.
Lar
Posted by curtm on June 1, 2006, at 12:20:24
In reply to Re: I-statements » Larry Hoover, posted by gardenergirl on June 1, 2006, at 10:55:39
The following is a list of statements that I find offensive. I apologize to the authors for putting you on the spot. I hope you all don't get blocked for expressing your opinion.
> Regarding the end of times...the end is already here, just look at the world around you...for many it is the end everyday...eventually it will come for all.
> If we each let Him guide us through each day, asking Him to make our life, our day, count for Him, it'll be a life far better lived than one spent speculating on this sign, that sign, and what it all means...
> The miracle of planned existance is becoming more appreciated, as science reaches farther out into space. We cling to prophecy and watch as it is fulfilled, though mysterious, as others have wondered through the ages if the end was to be in their day.
> God is faithful though. ... He is the only thing in this world that is stable.
There are many, many more...
************
Word of the day (not directed at any authors above):
hypocrite (n): a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold.
Posted by Tabitha on June 1, 2006, at 12:40:04
In reply to Re: I-statements » Larry Hoover, posted by gardenergirl on June 1, 2006, at 10:55:39
Kudos for working "The Sneetches" into the discussion.
Posted by llrrrpp on June 1, 2006, at 14:20:14
In reply to Offensive statements, posted by curtm on June 1, 2006, at 12:20:24
The thing is, that the Christian notion of God as some universal thing that affects ME, whether I believe in him or not-- THIS is so intrusive on my own personal beliefs. By simply saying that I have no God, no God watches over me etc etc I will offend any true believer in the Judeo-Christian concept of God. We simultaneously offend one another, simply by saying something about our own personal beliefs. Whether or not we phrase it in "I" language or not. It's a lose-lose situation.
Bob, I'm concerned that certain religions may be given preference in terms of what is deemed "civil" on the faith board. To call someone who questions the universality of god uncivil is to offend his or her faith, which is also uncivil.
Not that estella questioned the universality of God. I'm not sure exactly what's going on. I can't wrap my mind around it. too many parameters to consider simultaneously.
I just wonder whether it's possible to concede a truce, when two people's beliefs are equally believed, and equally civil, and equally uncivil. Why does there have to be a loser?
Posted by Gabbi~G on June 1, 2006, at 14:25:24
In reply to Re: I-statements » gardenergirl, posted by Tabitha on June 1, 2006, at 12:40:04
What sickens me about this is the seeming lack of humanity.
It was so clear that Estella was trying to follow Bob's rules, I could feel the gears working.. "okay...bob doesn't want thinks to be judged negatively, but says I should focus on what I like.. maybe this will be okay"
She'd been so open about the hurt she'd felt from previous blocks.
It reminds me of a little kid trying to avoid a smack from an abusive parent.
Okay.. so it could have been phrased so that there was no judgement, whatever. I know that there have been similar "judgements" made without sanction. Whether or not I think there is actually harm in *gasp* the occasional judgement doesn't really matter. Generally one can read a judgement into someone's statement if it exists anyway, some people just find the loopholes more easily.
For some people this is really hard to get, it doesn't matter how intelligent one is.
What is this actually accomplishing?
Posted by Gabbi~G on June 1, 2006, at 15:07:17
In reply to Re: I-statements, posted by Gabbi~G on June 1, 2006, at 14:25:24
The implication here that someone's statement is flawed and it would be better all around if things were phrased using specific techniques, is a judgement.
And it's no different than Estella's.
Posted by curtm on June 1, 2006, at 15:52:10
In reply to B.T.W, posted by Gabbi~G on June 1, 2006, at 15:07:17
> "Keeping in mind that the idea here is to respect the views of others and to be sensitive to their feelings, "
> "... please try to accept what I decide and to trust that I'm doing my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole"
I don't see much respect, sensitivity or fairness for the views and feelings posted here. Are you saying that those views and feelings are not good for this community as a whole? That's what I read into it.
This community has been speaking! I don't think you are listening. What the - are we doing here then trying to voice our opinions on this issue? I don't see any real administrative participation on your part. You have not said one thing that makes it clear IMO and I think you need to do that for us IMO. I think you have a duty to unblock her if you can't do that.
I don't think you are a bad person. Sometimes I think I am, but I don't think you are.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 17:06:27
In reply to Re: I-statements, posted by Gabbi~G on June 1, 2006, at 14:25:24
> It reminds me of a little kid trying to avoid a smack from an abusive parent.
Me too.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 17:07:23
In reply to B.T.W, posted by Gabbi~G on June 1, 2006, at 15:07:17
> The implication here that someone's statement is flawed and it would be better all around if things were phrased using specific techniques, is a judgement.
>
> And it's no different than Estella's.As I have been arguing. Thank you for being more concise and better said.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on June 1, 2006, at 17:13:57
In reply to Re: B.T.W » Gabbi~G, posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 17:07:23
I believe Dr. Bob has often mentioned the tension between support and administration.
Which is why I like to be able to rely on Admin to do admin functions.
But at any rate, since he's already aware of the tension, I don't think the argument that administrative actions are uncivil under the civility standards will influence him overly much.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 17:19:28
In reply to Re: Offensive statements, posted by llrrrpp on June 1, 2006, at 14:20:14
> The thing is, that the Christian notion of God as some universal thing that affects ME, whether I believe in him or not-- THIS is so intrusive on my own personal beliefs.
If that is what has happened to Estella, in fact, I cannot begin to express how startled, horrified, and offended I feel. I am rendered near speechless by it.
I did not sign a Christianity agreement when I came here. Christianity demands tolerance from its adherents, to those who do not know the Lord Saviour Jesus Christ. Luke understood.
Luke 23: 34
Matthew heard it for himself.
Matthew 18: 22
Matthew 6: 14-15
Father, forgive me.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on June 1, 2006, at 17:22:21
In reply to Re: I-statements, posted by Gabbi~G on June 1, 2006, at 14:25:24
This was my point. That the standards did not appear to my eyes to be evenly applied, and that it was therefore unfair to Estella to block her for statements that to me seem more or less equivilant to unsanctioned statements, since she could reasonably assume that such statements were ok based on past practice.
Not that the standards should be changed so much as the Politics board should be closely scrutinized for equality in sanctions.
My point to Dr. Bob was about consistency.
Someone, I believe Zazenduck, mentioned that deputies were afraid to act on Politics board. In my case, I'm reluctant to act because I know fewer sanctions are administered by Dr. Bob than would be administered by me, and I don't think the reverse should ever be true.
In theory at least.
And in case anyone thinks it's because I'm a Bush supporter, it's not, and I'm actually not. I support civility itself.
Posted by Dinah on June 1, 2006, at 17:30:44
In reply to Re: I-statements, posted by Gabbi~G on June 1, 2006, at 14:25:24
I think intent should be considered a lot more than Dr. Bob thinks it should. Sometimes intent is clear in that someone doesn't intend to break the civility rules and is trying to comply, and I think every chance ought to be given to that person to comply. Even if it takes a few tries. And even if Dr. Bob needs to assign someone to help the person comply because he doesn't have time.
I also, personally, would give provocation more wait as a mitigating factor. Which has nothing to do with Estella's case, but is just a general sanction theory of mine.
On the other hand, sometimes intent is explicitly (never mind implicitly) stated, and Dr. Bob appears not to notice.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 17:30:59
In reply to Re: I-statements » Gabbi~G, posted by Dinah on June 1, 2006, at 17:22:21
Here's an I-statement for you.
I am in unending awe at the work you do, to try and manage this place, with all of us in it. I could not do your job, for love or money, and you do it out of the goodness of your heart.
What a blessing it is, to know your heart, and to see it in action. I am blessed by you.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on June 1, 2006, at 17:31:26
In reply to Oh, and..., posted by Dinah on June 1, 2006, at 17:30:44
oops. should be weight.
been a long and tough day.
Posted by Dinah on June 1, 2006, at 17:34:08
In reply to Re: I-statements » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 17:30:59
(((Lar)))
Thanks for not taking my stomping off this morning personally. It really wasn't personal or anything to do with you.
By the way, that's how I think about Dr. Bob. :) Deputies can always hand the ball to Bob, but he always has to run with it.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 18:10:30
In reply to Oh, and..., posted by Dinah on June 1, 2006, at 17:30:44
> I think intent should be considered a lot more than Dr. Bob thinks it should. Sometimes intent is clear in that someone doesn't intend to break the civility rules and is trying to comply, and I think every chance ought to be given to that person to comply. Even if it takes a few tries. And even if Dr. Bob needs to assign someone to help the person comply because he doesn't have time.
So long as effort is being expended, indeed. Trying counts.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 18:27:08
In reply to Re: Offensive statements, posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 17:19:28
Was Estella's block based on an interpretation of Christianity?
Indirectly, via "religion"?
Lar
Posted by Gabbi~G on June 1, 2006, at 18:39:57
In reply to Re: B.T.W, posted by Dinah on June 1, 2006, at 17:13:57
> But at any rate, since he's already aware of the tension, I don't think the argument that administrative actions are uncivil under the civility standards will influence him overly much.Well, the post wasn't directed to Dr.Bob.
I was referring to the posts inferring how what Estella said could have been phrased better.
My point wasn't that it could not have been said differently or that I disagree with the spirit of the civility guidelines (I definitely don't disagree) simply that I didn't see it as any different than Estella having said what she thinks could make things better.
I think just about any statement that Bob chooses to sanction could be scrutinized to justify his actions, but as SDB said, I also feel it becomes pretty far removed from reality.
And, *all* posts should be so scrutinized if it's going to happen.In this case, as you also said, I think the intent to follow the guidelines should be given more consideration,
Posted by Deneb on June 1, 2006, at 19:30:26
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by teejay on May 21, 2006, at 18:34:13
I just read what lead to Estella's block and I think I'm going to have to agree that Dr. Bob may have a prejudice against certain topics.
I have to understand the rules better.
Is it civil to say, "I believe the world would be a better place without fast food?"
Would that be offending the people who like fast food?
Deneb*
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.