Posted by fayeroe on July 26, 2010, at 11:11:23
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2010, at 0:47:06
> > > Not many posters try to help other posters stay civil
> >
> > That might be because most posters do not think A) that a person has actually been uncivil, or B) that the definition of civility in use at Psychobabble is philosophically empty.
> >
> > chujoe
>
> Sure, a poster could think A or B. But because of that they would let their friend be blocked?
>
> --
>
> > "civility" at Psychobabble is enforced by a form of coercion that cloaks itself in the language of personal responsibility while denying the possibility of responsibility by enforcing what is really a language code, not an ethics. This system is, also, inherently arbitrary. Finally, limiting discussion of controversial issues to "I statements" that describe one's feelings rather than on'e knowledge (knowledge being infinitely and superficially relative) means that argument in any real sense is impossible.
> >
> > chujoe
>
> I think language is important, and I see people as personally responsible for the language they choose to use. If you'd like to propose an alternative view of civility that you wouldn't consider arbitrary, and a system of enforcement that you wouldn't consider coercive, I'd be interested. It's fine to share many types of knowledge. The goal here is support and education, not argument.
>
> --
>
> > it became a place where you could not express a thought if it was the slightest bit negative
>
> > Criticizing someone's choices doesn't work.
>
> Exactly. :-)
>
> > We could not talk about ideas after that.
> >
> > Suddenly we felt that we were expected to be of one mind.
> >
> > fayeroe
>
> In fact, the assumption is that everyone won't be of one mind, and the expectation is that you respect those of other minds. Instead of being negative about ideas you want to criticize, just be positive about alternative ideas you support. And see if you get blocked. :-)
>
> The desire to be negative reminds me of the Faceful of Cat Effect.
>
> Bob1. I did not say that I wanted to be negative about anyone's comments or ideas and I am offended that you think I wanted that. I do not have a desire to be negative.
2.I am offended when you read a post and take out what you want to and then admonish a poster for that one sentence. I feel offended when anyone's statement is taken out of context and used against them.
3. I am so very sorry that I said what I said about that poster. I hope her feelings weren't hurt.
4. Bob, I really hope your feelings weren't hurt.
5. I want to speak to the idea that the posters have to help someone keep from being blocked. I am responsible for what I say here. Poster A is responsible for what she says. I hardly ever see poster A post and I have no idea who she is. I do not like being told that she will get blocked/PBC if I don't help her. Not jumping in doesn't mean (as you say repeatedly) that I don't care if she is blocked. I am offended by your statement. I wish you would quit using it because it feels like manipulation to me.
Nothing came up after your post earlier and I answered it and it says something about "answering post" in the subject line.
"Instead of being negative about ideas you want to criticize, "just be positive about alternative ideas you support." And see if you get blocked. :-)"
The discussion is about torture.
""just be positive about alternative ideas you support."
Can you show us what you would say?
poster:fayeroe
thread:951844
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100714/msgs/955975.html