Posted by gardenergirl on March 13, 2006, at 7:51:34
In reply to Re: * » Dinah, posted by agent858 on March 13, 2006, at 0:14:20
> >
> Ah. So my blocking was consistent with the 'rules of this site'?
>
> You can't critique a political ideology.I've said this before, although I don't think you agreed with me. But I interpreted the "people with nukes" versus a country which has nukes as the problematic part of the post. It's really a broad concept when it comes to civility. Anytime you characterize *people*, you are on a slippery slope, because people have reactions and feelings--whether you think they should toughen up or not.
Policies are not the same as people. Behaviors are not the same as people.
I know that this has not been consistent across the board, and inconsistency is crazy-making. But in the case of your block, I do think it's fairly clear what part was problematic. At least it is to me.
Critiquing a book and critiquing a therapy style are critiquing an object or a behavior. I saw nothing in those posts which suggested the person or person's reading or writing the book, or performing the therapy or utilizing the therapy as being linked to your critique. You didn't say "people who do X therapy". Because if you did, and if I either had that kind of therapy or used that with my clients, then I might be offended. If you stick to the therapy itself, it's a theoretical discussion, which leaves the people out of it.
When I'm looking at posts to decide if they are civil or not, one of the main questions I ask myself is whether the post is talking about people or about ideas. Posts about people or other posters get further scrutiny by me, at least.
I wish it was more consistent. But I also think that understanding individual events can add to the overall understanding.
I'm also sorry you felt hurt by this. I know that's never my intention with PBC's and blocks. It doesn't appear to be Dr. Bob's either.
gg
poster:gardenergirl
thread:617457
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/619750.html