![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 8 of 8. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Jost on October 29, 2006, at 21:59:56
I find myself really perplexed by one thing, which is the politics board.
In my mind, politics is a kind of rough and tumble thing-- not necessarily uncivil but often arousing passions, and invoking clashes of beliefs-- not things often easily resolved.
I wonder if it doesn't make sense to have somewhat different civility standards for one or two boards-- a kind of not enter at your own risk, but at least at somewhat greater risk.
It's not that people shouldn't be expected to be civil to one another-- that remains important-- or should be allowed to cast any aspersion on anyone else, but that there should be somewhat more leeway for intensity-- and even the casting of some doubt on the rightness of certain things, in general.
When it comes to issues of war, human rights, etc-- it seems that there;s also a moral imperative to stating one's view not simply as a feeling that one has, or a sense that it would be better for one if such things weren't happening.
Politics seems by nature to be a system of beliefs about what policies are right, for everyone, not for oneself, or in it effects on oneself. Politics is about what's right for a culture or society.
If I say that Person X (Political or Government Official X) has condoned, or even promulgated an abuse-- and the Person has-- it seems that I shouldn't be blocked for it.
I'm sure this has been considered before, but since a number of blocks are from that board, I wonder whether it's worth having-- unless it's subject to a different standard of civility than boards where individual feelings and experience are more key.
Because the blocks from that board are too frequent--particularly given the minimal number of posts--it seems as if that board, by its existence, is almost a soft entrapment for those who are really interested in politics-- and who are, probably, more committed to their viewpoints and more accommodated to the types of debate that are often seen about political issues (not on the mainstream media-- but say in the House of Commons).
Jost
Posted by fayeroe on October 30, 2006, at 18:55:54
In reply to re: boards, posted by Jost on October 29, 2006, at 21:59:56
good post. i thought that the board would be a place where politics could be discussed and "chewed" over, while exchanging ideas and personal choices. obviously, we were expecting something entirely different from what is happening......pat
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 31, 2006, at 0:27:56
In reply to re: boards, posted by Jost on October 29, 2006, at 21:59:56
> I find myself really perplexed by one thing, which is the politics board.
You're not the first! Thanks for giving this some thought.
> Because the blocks from that board are too frequent ... it seems as if that board, by its existence, is almost a soft entrapment for those who are really interested in politics-- and who are, probably, more committed to their viewpoints and more accommodated to the types of debate that are often seen about political issues
I do think one issue is people being used to discussing politics in other ways. But I'd think those blocks would help them see it's different there...
> Politics seems by nature to be a system of beliefs about what policies are right, for everyone, not for oneself, or in it effects on oneself. Politics is about what's right for a culture or society.
What's right for a group may not be right for everyone in it. I'd like to avoid people feeling others are telling them what's right for them.
> If I say that Person X (Political or Government Official X) has condoned, or even promulgated an abuse-- and the Person has-- it seems that I shouldn't be blocked for it.
And IMO it's one thing to say what one thinks is right and another to say what one thinks is wrong. I'd rather people stuck to the former.
I think what makes Politics hard is that there are winners and losers. If I felt better on Prozac and you felt better on Zoloft, that wouldn't be a problem. But if only one of them could be elected, it would.
And Administration is hard because it's this community's own Politics.
Bob
Posted by Jost on October 31, 2006, at 10:50:10
In reply to Re: what's right vs what's wrong, posted by Dr. Bob on October 31, 2006, at 0:27:56
Politics get heated because it is a win/'lose proposition and the "loser" will be constrained by the world view of the "winner"-- true.
I really don't have any great desire to argue in favor of any proposition per se about how to run this place-- maybe if I were to devote a lot more time to thinking about it and reading the archives, and trying to understand how things really do work-- I would.
Somehow it seems much more than good enough. Would it be better if politics were more free-wheeling? or is it better to have a board that tests people's ability to be civil more than other boards-- with the same standards? Dunno.
I'm not a political theorist. or at all sure on any level.
I'm pretty much intense about politics-- and it can really hurt others here-- so I'm not against restrictions there-- although I'm sure Ive said things that could have fallen short of pure civility.
oh well. It' s a conundrum because politics is so much about what you don't like-- ie being against things is almost more definitive of our political life now than being for things-- IRL anyway.
It can be a safety valve-- people who are angry can say something uncivil without taking someone on personally-- perhaps?
I just dont' like to see people like Alex and Declan blocked-- especially for a long time.
Incidentally, did you recalculate Alex's block using your new mathematical system? Could that possibly reduce the length-- cause the recent blocks have seemed signigicantly shorter than otherwise?
Maybe I'll check that.
Jost
Posted by Jost on October 31, 2006, at 11:05:37
In reply to Re: what's right vs what's wrong, posted by Jost on October 31, 2006, at 10:50:10
Well, I dont' know if we're doing this ex post facto, but according to my calculations (and I"m no mathematician), Alex's block could be shortened as follows.
last block: 4 weeks
time since block 18
uncivil toward group or individual: yes
if you divide 10 into 18, you get 1.8. Rounding up, you get 2. 4-2=2. 2 x 3 = 6.That's six weeks. (I'm a bit rushed but that seems right. You can imagine me on the LSATs-- yeah I was the last one there.....)
Still too long, but a little better.
Let me add, although I don't expect it's a distinction that makes a difference-- Alex was presenting the views of Kendall-Smith., not her own. ie Kendall-Smith's argument was xxx-- xxx being uncivil. Throughout the discussion, she wasn't giving her own opinion-- arguably-- but presenting his (or the inferences she thought one could draw from his, that could be used to further explain it)-- not her own.
So Alex wasn't saying xxx-- she was presenting the worldview of many people, personified by Kendall-Smith, outside the US about what the US is doing is Iraq.
Since factuality doesn't cut against incivility, presumably neither does authorship. I'd like to make that distinction-- so that it's clear that she was more or less taking a debating position, rather than making personal statements. A small point perhaps but one worth noting. For the record.
So is there any way that her block could be shortened at least to six weeks, administratively?
Jost
Posted by Dinah on October 31, 2006, at 13:12:35
In reply to Re: what's right vs what's wrong, posted by Jost on October 31, 2006, at 10:50:10
Speaking personally, I think part of the problem is that Babble isn't split evenly in terms of political leanings. At the time of the last presidential election, things got rather uncomfortable for me, not because people were fighting, but rather because people weren't fighting. They were all pretty much in agreement, very heated, and it was not a welcoming environment for those of us with minority political viewpoints. I don't particularly want to talk politics here, or convince others of my positions. But I don't want to feel like others would think me a horrible person or a pariah either, because I don't have the same political views.
My major overriding political viewpoint is that decent people can come to different conclusions about the same topic. And that therefore respect is a vital component of political discussions. I guess this is in part because I split ideologically along different lines on different topics so I have respect for both dominant political positions. And in part because I had a father who loved talking politics and hated agreement, so on occasion would pretty much take whichever position was open on any given topic, and give a reasonably decent argument for it.
I like Dr. Bob's view of the Politics board. I tend to think he should just outlaw Politics or Religion as topics, but Dr. Bob is against banning topics. And since I respect that viewpoint, I think he's doing the best he can under the circumstances.
Posted by Dinah on October 31, 2006, at 13:18:14
In reply to Re: what's right vs what's wrong » Jost, posted by Dinah on October 31, 2006, at 13:12:35
Hmmm... Perhaps that could have used a few more I statement substitutions.
I didn't feel welcome here at the time of the last presidential election, because I feared people would think badly of me if they realized that while I consider myself a passionate moderate, and I am liberal by local standards, I'm conservative by Babble standards (at least among the more politically vocal Babblers). It was upsetting to me to see what posters were saying about conservatives and conservative ideals, some of which I heartily endorse.
Posted by Jost on November 1, 2006, at 23:02:04
In reply to Re: what's right vs what's wrong » Jost, posted by Dinah on October 31, 2006, at 13:12:35
I agree with the principal, but it's often a struggle to be open-minded when some issues are at stake. I certainly can see that.
I'm not sure why, but seeing people negatively because they disagree seems awfully widespread. It's not a good thing,but for me it's mitigated by knowing people rather than seeing them as instances of a political viewpoint.
On the two message boards where I've been active (they were overlapping, special interest ones--) my political views were distinctly minority-- I'd say there was one person who was a middle-of-the-road, centrist guy, but everyone else was on the far other edge. Since I'm on the fairly far edge of my end== it was frustrating, and sometimes unsettling.
Sometimes almost amusing, but mostly interesting. It got very heated in 2004 there too--. And I made my arguments. I do think it raised eyebrows, and possibly caused some temporary dislike-- but there were pecularities there about what side of other internecine disputes I "really" was on-- it was a little crazy actually. The idea that I was a 'spy" for the "other side" (ie the rival message board-- it was very hard to be active on both-- but that was more a question of personal politics) was more of a problem-- but the politics probably didn't help--
People got over it. somehow. And I got over it-- too. Which I kind of liked. I guess they tolerated my folly-- or New Yorkicity-- or eccentricity.
But I do still think that politics are so much about what you don't want or want to change.
I respect Bob's decisions on the politics board, and certainly wouldn't want it to cause hurt feelings or estrangment or feelings of not belonging. Which it obviously can-- I don't know-- I think it's that I just feel the practical concerns about losing valuable people and also some concern about hurting vulnerable people or those who like a good argument. It's probably good for me-- since I'm a firebrand of the revolution personally-- and I'd probably get carried away as soon as anyone.
I do feel confused about where the line is at times-- ie how stringently it needs to be observed.
Jost
This is the end of the 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.