Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: just what it is that constitutes incivility

Posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2006, at 12:26:57

In reply to Please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on May 2, 2006, at 11:46:45

> > > she accused me of felony criminal conduct, and other uncivil things. ... She called me a criminal
> >
> > > her uncivil comments
> >
> > Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
>
> A number of intelligent and experienced posters have asked you to clarify just what it is that constituted the incivility in *my* use of language that *you* use all the time.
>
> all of the time, virtually, you fail in your duty to guide us.

What I considered uncivil was that she could have felt accused. Of being accusatory and of being uncivil.

Guidance is always available. For example, in this case, I think one alternative way of expressing yourself could have been:

> > While I was blocked, she posted something, and I felt accused of felony criminal conduct, and other uncivil things. That post sat there for nearly two weeks, until my block ended. It just sat there. When I replied to that post, I worded my rebuttal in such a way as to be blocked again. She posted something else, I felt accused again, and I questioned her ethics, posting that while she knew I was blocked. I got blocked again. She got nothing, again, even though I retained her comments by quoting them in my own post, and directly speaking of them.

> Do you not understand the meaning of the word politic? It is the taking of sides, sir, amongst other older meanings. Arguments pro *and* con.
>
> Political debate involves two things. Advancing your own position, while weakening that of the others. Metaphorical teeter-totters of argument. Let us consider civility as teeter, and incivility as totter. You are saying we've lost half our field of debate, and must make do with only teeters.

That's one way to look at it. Think of it as "totter control".

> I post something with a pointed message. Provocative of further discourse, I would like to imagine it to be. And, upon reading my words, you ponder a moment, and you discover a non-zero probability that I might have had an uncivil meaning in mind. You then substitute the obvious meaning I intended with your own imagined meaning, and subsequently block me for that. You're not blocking what I said. You're blocking what you imagined. That is how it feels to me, that I have been blocked because you imagined a slight to another that was not intended. The only thing I learn from such blocks is that you have a sucky imagination.

The issue isn't the meaning you have in mind, it's how other people could be affected by your post. Have you learned that when messages are more pointed, my imagination is more sucky?

> How is it that one year after I was blocked for a rule that doesn't exist, the FAQ is still not updated?

Sorry, what rule is that? I know the FAQ needs revising...

> Bobjectivity. I know it when I see it. And it makes me angry.

It's OK to be angry. Just try to be civil at the same time. Thanks,

Bob


Share
Tweet  

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:Dr. Bob thread:614568
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060412/msgs/639613.html