![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 31 to 55 of 88. Go back in thread:
Posted by Happyflower on April 21, 2007, at 10:02:11
In reply to Whoops. We crossposted. :) » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on April 21, 2007, at 9:50:57
I feel we can't have a rule about everything that is concidered uncivil, the list would be so long nobody would have time to read it.
Joking about animal abuse or any abuse for that matter should in my view be a "given" in a mental health site. If it is against the law to engage in these behaviors, that might be a big tip off what is or not civil to joke about. These loop holes can cause an issue to esculate because poster are left to deal with it alone without any suport from a deputy.
I realize that if there has to be an exact rule before it is enforced, it gives deputies a huge loop hole not to respond. I believe there has been many "please be civil " warnings given to posters, where the rules of civility are IMPLIED, but not exactly stated as an EXACT rule, concerning an exact subject.
Posted by Happyflower on April 21, 2007, at 10:14:46
In reply to Re: I don't know that any have been reviewed » Happyflower, posted by gardenergirl on April 21, 2007, at 9:35:37
> > So are you saying that a thread HAS to be reported by someone in order for a deputy or Dr. Bob to do anything about it?
>
> That's not at all what I'm saying. I was talking about a specific thread. I said that I don't know that anyone has reviewed the thread for civility, and I pointed out that no action now does not necessarily equal no action laterIf deputies have responed on that thread is it wrong to assume they have reviewed it?
. If you extrapolate to the general based on one specific data point, you run a higher risk of forming an incorrect heuristic.
This is why I asked you about it, to clarify what you meant.
> > I thought that was just only PART of the system. I believe most deputies have read the posts without it being reported, and nothing happened.
>
> On what do you base this belief? You haven't asked me if I've read them, though I'm just one deputy. Have you asked any of the others? I don't know if any of the other deputies have or have not read the thread. Even if any have, none of us ever *have to* act on something. We can always choose to defer the matter to the other deputies and/or Dr. Bob for whatever reason. And we have done so in other situations for a variety of reasons. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#have-toOkay this tells me a lot. I think the "don't have to" causes a lot esculation in problems because we count on deputies to act on it, if they can choose not to act on it, we don't know the reasons, what if it is because they like the poster, and don't want to hurt them with an action. What if they don't like the poster, and they really want to "stick it to them" because they personally don't like the poster. This "don't have to respond" leaves the actions of deputies open to their subjective views and not based on objective basis. There is especially true when they hold a duel role here.
>
> > So based on this, since you are the enforcers of babble , that it IS accepted here, because lack of any action seems to prove that to me.
>
> I come to a different conclusion, though my thought process is based on a different data set. Remember, you can't prove a negative. You can always assume one, but that increases your chances for error.
>
> Namaste
>
> gg
>
>
Posted by kninelover on April 21, 2007, at 10:33:21
In reply to Re: I don't know that any have been reviewed » gardenergirl, posted by Happyflower on April 21, 2007, at 10:14:46
a deputy can ignor an uncivil post...("does not have to act on.."
a deputy can block who she/he wants to?
how can we tell when a deputy is being a deputy?
Posted by Dinah on April 21, 2007, at 10:40:58
In reply to confused... » Happyflower, posted by kninelover on April 21, 2007, at 10:33:21
Posted by Happyflower on April 21, 2007, at 10:44:34
In reply to you never did answer....incest trigger » Happyflower, posted by karen_kay on April 21, 2007, at 10:00:07
> are you doing ok dear?
I am okay, just trying to explain things. I am sad you are not as well. This isn't an issue about you, it is more of an issue of what is allowed on this site.
if someone were to post a joke about sexual abuse (incest whatever you want to call it) and i felt unable to read it, i just wouldn't.I understand what you mean, but you are strong person, what about the ones who are not able to resist. Not everyone here is sound mentally to handle the fallout of being triggered reading something that even with a trigger warning, they still might read it. So it come down to what SHOULD be allowed on a mental health site. I think a mental health site should be extra sensitive to abuse issues, joking about those issues can cause a lot of anguish for some. A trigger warning isn't enough I believe.
Some might not even know they will be triggered by a certain subject but are. So isn't it best not to allow jokes about sensitive issues of abuse?
, is babbleland to become vanillaland now?
As a matter of fact, I think babblelands should be more vanilla like.
> i should be allowed to post just as much as anyone else. at least i think. and i shouldn't feel bad about what i post. blocked, if it's deemed uncivil? sure enough! but, i have enough anxiety to run all the cars in america on and this sure isn't helping it.Well as the rules stand, you can post just about anything. But in doing so, you also have to take the responsiblity that goes along with it.
This is why I avoid sensitive jokes no matter who I talk to online or offline, because the potential for hurt and being offensive is high.
Some topics are risker than others. It is a choice we make, especially if there is not rules against certain topics, but we are still responsible for what we say. Is it worth it to take a that risk that might have a higher potential to hurt others?
Posted by kninelover on April 21, 2007, at 10:49:27
In reply to Re: confused... » kninelover, posted by Dinah on April 21, 2007, at 10:40:58
sorry d ,
i was looking for an answer in a written post , not a link :)
Posted by notfred on April 21, 2007, at 11:42:41
In reply to Re: confused... » Dinah, posted by kninelover on April 21, 2007, at 10:49:27
> sorry d ,
> i was looking for an answer in a written post , not a link :)Scroll down a bit and each of your questions were answered.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 21, 2007, at 11:52:16
In reply to Re: I don't know that any have been reviewed » gardenergirl, posted by Happyflower on April 21, 2007, at 10:14:46
> If deputies have responed on that thread is it wrong to assume they have reviewed it?It would not necessarily be accurate to assume that. I don't always read entire threads before I respond to a specific post, whether as a deputy or as a poster. I know of instances when other deputies have not read entire threads before responding to a specific post. I can understand how one might assume we have, but I know in my case, for a variety of reasons I might not.
>>
> Okay this tells me a lot. I think the "don't have to" causes a lot esculation in problems because we count on deputies to act on it, if they can choose not to act on it, we don't know the reasons, what if it is because they like the poster, and don't want to hurt them with an action. What if they don't like the poster, and they really want to "stick it to them" because they personally don't like the poster. This "don't have to respond" leaves the actions of deputies open to their subjective views and not based on objective basis. There is especially true when they hold a duel role here.That has always been in place. Clearly it leaves making assumptions about deputy behavior open to subjective beliefs. And if one is primed for whatever reason to assume negative motives, one will be more likely to see them, and vice versa.
Counting on a deputy for support requires, in part, trusting the deputy to perform their role with integrity and ethics. Given this community and the current operating conditions, I can see how it might be quite difficult, maybe even impossible in some cases, to grant that trust.
Posted by Declan on April 21, 2007, at 19:29:41
In reply to dear, » Happyflower, posted by karen_kay on April 21, 2007, at 7:36:03
"Don't Worry. He Won't Get Far On Foot" is by a US quadraplegic comedian.
Some people wouldn't have found it funny.
I did.
Posted by zazenducke on April 21, 2007, at 19:38:04
In reply to Different Strokes for Different Folks, posted by Declan on April 21, 2007, at 19:29:41
Posted by Racer on April 21, 2007, at 20:04:08
In reply to Re: I don't know that any have been reviewed » gardenergirl, posted by Happyflower on April 21, 2007, at 8:24:10
>
> I thought that was just only PART of the system. I believe most deputies have read the posts without it being reported, and nothing happened.For the record, I haven't had time to read the boards lately, and have only read those posts which have been reported as possibly uncivil. If a post has not been reported, it's safe to say I probably haven't read it. I am one deputy out of five, and as such I can safely say that at least 20% of deputies have not read whatever posts you're discussing here.
I'm sorry you're offended by something, Happyflower, but I feel a bit blindsided right now. I can't promise I would have taken any administrative action on the posts in question, since I don't know what's in them, but I can say that I would have looked at them, and at least discussed them with the other deputies.
Racer, posting as Racer
Posted by greywolf on April 21, 2007, at 20:08:12
In reply to Re: I don't know that any have been reviewed, posted by Racer on April 21, 2007, at 20:04:08
I'd comment, but I don't have a dog in this fight.
Posted by zazenducke on April 21, 2007, at 20:47:50
In reply to Re: I don't know that any have been reviewed, posted by greywolf on April 21, 2007, at 20:08:12
I am often tempted myself
I would not want anyone on this thread to feel unsupported. I'm sure you wouldn't either. Really.
> I'd comment, but I don't have a dog in this fight.
>
>
Posted by verne on April 21, 2007, at 21:02:41
In reply to Re: I don't know that any have been reviewed, posted by Racer on April 21, 2007, at 20:04:08
If you don't have a "dog in the fight" why enter the fray with the quip, that you don't have a "dog in the fight"?
Verne
Posted by fayeroe on April 21, 2007, at 22:22:43
In reply to I feel animal cruelity jokes shouldn't be allowed, posted by Happyflower on April 20, 2007, at 13:15:03
Happyflower, I am coming to this late but I want you to know that I've just read this entire thread and I understand completely what you are asking for here.
I am very active in animal rights and, in fact, testified for two hours recently in a dogfighting case.
I'm sorry that this turned into whatever it turned into. it sure ain't purty........pat
Posted by Happyflower on April 21, 2007, at 22:26:10
In reply to Re: I feel animal cruelity jokes shouldn't be allowed » Happyflower, posted by fayeroe on April 21, 2007, at 22:22:43
Thanks fayeroe,
I am surprised you got through all of the mud! ;-)
Posted by Happyflower on April 22, 2007, at 14:48:50
In reply to Re: ((((((Happyflower)))))) » LlurpsieNoodle, posted by Happyflower on April 21, 2007, at 9:19:16
Jackson, he is alive as far as I know.
Posted by sunnydays on April 22, 2007, at 22:10:32
In reply to Re: you never did answer....incest trigger » karen_kay, posted by Happyflower on April 21, 2007, at 10:44:34
It's always an option to start your own site with your own rules. I see nothing wrong with the jokes that were posted, personally. I have suffered quite a lot of abuse, and I seriously think that a trigger warning should be enough. We cannot protect everyone in the world from everything. Sometimes people have to take hold of their own responsibility to protect themselves. Whether this is a mental health site or not, mentally ill people are not incapable of taking action to protect themselves, in the large majority of cases, especially if all they have to do is not read a post. This site works well for a lot of people. Social is a board for more joking around and stuff. I wouldn't expect jokes about abuse on the psychology board, but on the social board I see it much more as an anything goes situation. Again, you can start your own site if you don't like the rules here. I for one am perfectly satisfied with the rules here. I am not fragile, even though I have been abused, and I do not need babysitting, even when I have been at my worst and suicidal, I could still have handled anything that was posted here.
sunnydays
Posted by fayeroe on April 22, 2007, at 23:06:29
In reply to Re: you never did answer...abuse trigger » Happyflower, posted by sunnydays on April 22, 2007, at 22:10:32
that's all well and good, but i did not think that KK would post something like she did. i saw one little part and quickly closed it. i just finished with a huge animal abuse case and i don't want to read jokes about it here.
and i don't intend to start my own website.
Posted by one woman cine on April 23, 2007, at 7:12:28
In reply to I feel animal cruelity jokes shouldn't be allowed, posted by Happyflower on April 20, 2007, at 13:15:03
knowing winks and allusions to sex with ones' therapist? Trumpet jokes and the like?
Everyone has different comfort levels and feels various things are inappropriate. It would be wonderful if folks could just respect others people's comfort zone.
Unfortunately, that doesn't happen 100% of the time.
Posted by karen_kay on April 25, 2007, at 20:35:26
In reply to Re: dear, rape triggers » karen_kay, posted by Happyflower on April 21, 2007, at 8:41:21
after rereading your post, there are some things i'd be more than willing to respond to. i'm not exactly sure how long your block lasts, but when you get back, if you're up to it, i'd be willing to cuss and discuss this issue again (if you are dear).
i've jsut found that the best form of healing is laughter. and, if you archive some of my old (old old) posts on the psych (is that the one about therapy?) board, you coudl get a more accurate portrayal of my childhood, thigns i've been through, ect. and you bet your cute little bottom i'm the first to joke about my mother, father, my dense sister (god love her).
i find it's much better to laugh about the thigns i've been through than to cry about them. i hope you are stil reading dear. and again, if you were hurt reading my jokes, i am sorry. but, i don't hesitate to stand behind something i post (unless it's jsut completely stupid, without a trigger warning or a drunken post).
once more, i'm sorry you were hurting. and if you still are, again i'm sorry.
Posted by one woman cine on April 26, 2007, at 8:53:37
In reply to let sleeping dogs lie? (or lay?) » Happyflower, posted by karen_kay on April 25, 2007, at 20:35:26
a previous quote from HF about jokes in 2005 - kk -
"I was only joking, but since that isn't excepted anymore,and some people are getting offended, well I will leave the boards so the more respectable people who are so perfect can preach to someone else. I am done here.
I will keep my babble mail open for a few days if any one of my babble friends want to keep in touch, I will give you my regular email, but I am done on the boards. So long, it was fun while it lasted and I appreciate all the SUPPORT I received, but wow, can't anyone take a joke anymore? Good bye, I will have my fun elsewhere."http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20051118/msgs/582538.html
Kinda interesting, no?
I think the whole joke thing is in the eye of the beholder - I have had issues with the therapist sex jokes, but they haven't been banned yet - there's only triggers - which is fine by me - & I don't expect any validation from anyone as to what's wrong for me or what's right.
If it has a trigger, that should suffice as warning enough, kk.
Posted by Gabbi-2 on April 26, 2007, at 13:35:21
In reply to let sleeping dogs lie? (or lay?) » Happyflower, posted by karen_kay on April 25, 2007, at 20:35:26
I'm going to block myself after I say this, because I'm getting way too bothered by what's being posted..but
HOW IN THE HELL can someone who sends a babblemail saying "you should be chopped up and put into a stirfry" compare themselves to Martin Luther King?
Posted by zazenducke on April 26, 2007, at 13:47:56
In reply to Re: let sleeping dogs lie? (or lay?) *trigger* » karen_kay, posted by Gabbi-2 on April 26, 2007, at 13:35:21
maybe it was a play on her name if it was like bok choy or tofu or bamboo shoots or something that would go into a stirfry? then stirfry would be lighthearted not threatening wouldn't it?
someone posted something to Happyflower on another board about "herbicide" and I think that was supposed to be a joke although it was a little disconcerting to read.
many are they who go clubbing to the clubs of sensitivity
Posted by one woman cine on April 26, 2007, at 13:54:09
In reply to sensitivity clubs *trigger* » Gabbi-2, posted by zazenducke on April 26, 2007, at 13:47:56
I definitely didn't read that as a joke when it was said way back when - not at all....no way, no how -
I'm still amazed.
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.