![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 85 to 109 of 272. Go back in thread:
Posted by Susan47 on January 18, 2006, at 19:59:17
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Dinah, posted by Toph on January 18, 2006, at 10:16:57
>
> I hope I'm not going off on too great a tangent here Dinah, your argument as ever is logical and pursuasive. But you seem to be talking about a scenario where posters break civility rules who have the capacity to constrain themselves. I have always wondered about the inherently unsupportive nature of punishing posters whose emotional problems impair their ability to remain civil in the moment. Isn't it fair to assume that by not making differential analyses of the emotional state of the offenders, people who benefit greatly from this mental health environment are sent away?
>
Toph I think I've said it before and if so, then I'm saying it again and I hope you're not offended, but damn it, I love you.
Posted by Susan47 on January 18, 2006, at 20:00:48
In reply to A Mouse Goes over the Wall, posted by verne on January 18, 2006, at 11:26:08
> I agree Toph, I'd be in a locked ward without windows if therapy worked the way this site does.
>
Verne, sometimes therapy does work the way this site does. Yup, yessir, "therapy" is not always good for us when we're turned away, faces slapped to the wall, hands cuffed, legs spread.
Posted by Susan47 on January 18, 2006, at 20:03:55
In reply to Re: A Mouse Goes over the Wall » verne, posted by wildcard on January 18, 2006, at 11:31:53
> This was my entire point from the beginning but ya'll word it much better. Re: Larry's block~ 6 weeks is BS. Re: Muffled and the word f*rt~BS for even a week but yes, a week is USUALLY enough time for the majority of posters here and these blocks cause more harm than good. IMO..now I'm saying bye. ;-)
I agree, and unfortunately as well, it seems to me very much like the blocks are a reinforcement of DB's power. Which is considerable, if you give it to him. Which we have. We have. And he uses it, oh yes, in the name of civility .. or that's what a person would think, who didn't understand. I'm sure there are good reasons, at the time, why someone thinks a block is a good idea .. something besides the thrill of the hunt, the power that's given to them when they can say, no, I disagree with what you've said, and I'm going to prove how bad you are for everyone, now, by blocking you. It's completely subjective. Unless it's put before a committee. Is it?
Posted by Susan47 on January 18, 2006, at 20:08:35
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Toph, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 18:28:42
> This isn't therapy. We aren't trained professionals. If someone is so ill that they can't control their reactions, is this necessarily the best place for them to be? Wouldn't it be better for them to be in therapy or in medication consultations with trained professionals?
>
Sorry to take out the rest of your post but I want to just answer this tiny little bit I think I understand ... why is it a choice we have a right to take away from anyone? If someone, an adult with, presumably, voting rights, and even inmates have those, then who are we or DB or anyone else to say they can't do that? Certain civlity rules make sense, such as turning overriding civilty censors (?) .. and I think most people would agree that's fine. And child pornography would best be left out, and violence, and explicit sex ... but we don't leave ANY of that stuff out of here, not really, because some of us,many of us, ALL of us have or had that stuff going on IRL at one time or another, it's just that we're not writing in order to TITILLATE anyone into thinking or doing or being a certain way, we're writing in order to help each other be more effective, happy citizens who bring positivity into the world, even just by making a sincere, heartfelt connection ...
blah blah blah. You get the picture, I've babbled enough .. who are we to judge, though, what's good for someone in pain?????
Posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 20:15:58
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Dinah, posted by Susan47 on January 18, 2006, at 20:08:35
I guess I'm assuming that anyone so ill as to be totally unable to control their actions needs real life help.
I suppose there could be disagreement on that point.
Posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 20:26:29
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Susan47, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 20:15:58
I thought seriously about just not responding, but I didn't want to be rude.
I'm not sure I feel up to logical inquiry tonight. It's been a long long day.
It may all be a question of misunderstanding anyway. I might not have properly understood what Toph was trying to say.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2006, at 22:25:57
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Dinah, posted by Susan47 on January 18, 2006, at 20:08:35
> Certain civlity rules make sense
OK, so it's just the details that there's disagreement on. :-)
> who are we to judge, though, what's good for someone in pain?????
Civility is more likely to be good for them than incivility?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 22:35:52
In reply to Re: Posting with civility, posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2006, at 22:25:57
> Civility is more likely to be good for them than incivility?
>
> BobI don't think we thank you often enough for making this a pleasant site to visit.
I've been lurking at a site quite unrelated to mental health, and the stuff there is unbelievable to me. Hatred and racism and sarcasm and the most ignoble aspects of mankind *everywhere*, even on the most noncontroversial of "boards" - all being met with rank incivility, which while it may be understandable hardly adds pleasure to my visits.
I sometimes think I'm very naive.
Posted by JenStar on January 18, 2006, at 23:18:06
In reply to Re: Posting with civility » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 22:35:52
I second what Dinah said! I also participate in other non-health forums, and some of the people there are MEAN. And so are the moderators, at times -- sarcastic, rude to the newcomers, dismissive, and snobby. Things are not policed, regulated or dealt with kindly. There's a lot of attitude all around.
I mean, I complain here sometimes, it's true. But in general, I REALLY appreciate the safe feeling I get at babble, and the fact that people here DO care about civility, and believe it makes the site better. I believe it does.
JenStar
Posted by JenStar on January 18, 2006, at 23:22:31
In reply to A Mouse Goes over the Wall, posted by verne on January 18, 2006, at 11:26:08
or maybe someone thought,
"I'd like to make a place where people can come to talk honestly and safely about mental health concerns. Because it is a forum where people are sensitive and want to feel safe, we need to have some kind of rules about what is allowed to be posted, and what is not. We're going to do the best job we can at making rules that are sensible and fair and help reinforce the stated goals of the site. Although we're not going to be perfect at this, we're going to be consistent about it. We'll make changes over time; sometimes the changes will happen slowly, but it's a priority here that people treat each other with respect."
I like to think that THIS is the operating philosophy! In my opinion, I believe it's closer than the one you posited. At least I HOPE it is!
JenStar
Posted by JenStar on January 18, 2006, at 23:31:09
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Dinah, posted by Toph on January 18, 2006, at 10:16:57
I disagree that people do not have the capability of controlling their responses, especially over the internet, where there is the ability to step back, rephrase, retype. Whether people WANT to control themselves or put the necessary effort into it is another issue, though.
If people do not have the ability to control their responses, then it's possible that they do not belong in internet chat groups and forums that rely on a basic level of self-restraint and self-editing in order to function at a successful group level.
This isn't therapy here, not formal therapy anyway. And as a private site, it can be set up to follow the rules of the administrator(s). In individual therapy, there are still "rules" of a type -- I'm sure that gross incivility or physical attacks could end therapy immediately, as could other transgressions on the part of the client. Even if the client could NOT control him/herself, that does not mean that he/she "deserves" therapy or is "owed" therapy in some sense.
If we want to participate in this site, we have to abide by the rules, like them or not. If we will not or cannot abide by the rules, we will be excluded eventually -- that's just the way this site (and life, too, right?) works... (in my opinion, anyway!)
I'm not saying that I agree with all the decisions made here - I don't. BUT, even so, I understand why the decisions were made.
JenStar
Posted by JenStar on January 18, 2006, at 23:33:32
In reply to A Mouse Goes over the Wall, posted by verne on January 18, 2006, at 11:26:08
But...do you really, truly think this is the philosophy of Dr. Bob? Do you REALLY think that is how he wants the site to operate -- as a trap to catch people up and punish them? I just don't see that! I'm not trying to be sarcastic or "smart" with you. I really want to know if that's how you feel about this site...
JenStar
Posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 0:07:29
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Toph, posted by JenStar on January 18, 2006, at 23:31:09
but punishment.
I have no problems with civility or even love and charity. The issue for me is punishment.
To say, "If we want to participate in this site, we have to abide by the rules, like them or not. If we will not or cannot abide by the rules, we will be excluded eventually -- that's just the way this site" reminds me of another time.
And to follow it up with, "that's just the way of this site" ends all discussion. We are to understand and accept that it's the "way of the site". We can't question the way you all do things?
Once again, what I was getting at is the punishment - and it is punishment - that isn't necessary to maintain civility or even the smooth operation of the site.
Years ago, others, even governments, had the idea that others should be "excluded" for a rule they could never live up to. Do you want to embrace this kind of thinking?
I bring up punishment, and nearly all the responses - including Dr Bob's - sidestep it and bring up "civility". I don't think he's cryptic or coy, just dumb.
I never said civility was a bad thing.
Verne
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 19, 2006, at 2:26:31
In reply to but do you really think that? » verne, posted by JenStar on January 18, 2006, at 23:33:32
> But...do you really, truly think this is the philosophy of Dr. Bob? Do you REALLY think that is how he wants the site to operate -- as a trap to catch people up and punish them? I just don't see that! I'm not trying to be sarcastic or "smart" with you. I really want to know if that's how you feel about this site...
>
> JenStarWould it matter if it wasn't? That's a real question.
I mean, if I had a ditch in my backyard that was covered with bramble, and leaves, and people kept falling into it and getting hurt, would it make a difference if I said "Well, that wasn't my intention, I just like how it looks and I'll keep it that way"
Posted by alexandra_k on January 19, 2006, at 3:32:17
In reply to It Has Never Been About Civility, posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 0:07:29
Hey Verne.
I think I get what you mean. I have a problem with rules that I perceive as arbitrary. I got into a lot of trouble at high school for infractions such as refusing to pull up my socks and tuck in my shirt and smoking (discretely) behind the shops when teachers would purposely hide behind rubbish skips etc to jump out and snap me. I didn't see what pulled up socked and tucked in shirts had to do with education. And I didn't see how it was their f*cking business if I was smoking, especially since I was 16 (legal age for that when I was a kid) and when I purposely went out of my way to be discrete so the other students didn't see me.
I got suspended from school a fair few times. For those kinds of infractions. So... The 'punishment' delivered for breaking their arbitrary f*cking rules was that I was excluded from being able to attend which DID interfere with my education. I organised a number of student protests :-) We weren't allowed to wear yellow doc martin laces in our shoes - but we got that rule changed. We weren't allowed to wear brown shoes (they were cooler than black at the time) - and we got that rule changed too.
I think...
There are times when civil disobedience is justified. By 'civil disobedience' I'm talking breaking the laws / rules in order to bring about a change in the rules. I think a lot of protest activities fit into this (tying yourself to a tree to prevent logging; hampering boat movements to prevent whaling; saying 'i won't stand up' in protest of race laws etc.
One of my office mates wrote a paper on civil disobedience (in the above mentioned sense) and he considered WHEN civil disobedience is justified and WHAT civil disobedience activities may be justified in what circumstances. One of the requirements... Was that more peaceful / lawful options are unavailable.
Here... We can talk about the rules and the consequences (or punishers if you like) for breaking the rules. We are able to discuss that.
At some other sites... Not so. If you question the rules; suggest alternatives; if you inquire about the rules and the rationalisations for them then your posts will be deleted from the forums and you can be blocked. I was blocked off another forum for posting about the rules after being requested not to. I considered that I was justified as it was a case of legitimate civil disobedience. I was blocked for 4 weeks as a consequence or punisher. I've had a while to reflect on my actions. I knew I would probably be blocked. My office mate thought that if you broke a law in protest then you had to accept the consequence (punishment) for doing so. If you trespass to protest then protest might be a case of justified civil disobedience but your country is also justified in prosecuting you for your civil disobedience. Because the laws of the country protect you (there are laws against other people stealing your property and killing you and your family members etc) and thus you have an obligation to your country to obey its laws. Sometimes there is conflict (and you are also justified in breaking the laws) - but one must also accept the consequences for doing so.That is not to say that one can't campaign and / or speak out against the laws. But it is to say that until they are changed... One is bound by them. We can speak out here. It might feel like bashing our heads against a brick wall sometimes. But I think... If people can suggest an alternative system... And can provide reasons for why the alternative system would be better / fairer etc then that does have some impact. When people just rail against perceived unfairness then it is hard to know precisely what people want regarding the precise changes that people are advocating for.
Blockings aren't forever. They max out at one year. Nobody is excluded forever (to the best of my knowledge). No matter what you have done you are welcomed back after one year. One year is a long time. But then some people do post some doozys... And some people don't seem to learn... Delivering a punisher leads to a decrease in problematic behaviours. From that individual and across the board. That has been shown empirically (though it is true by definition of 'punisher').
You are pretty good at figuring out the reasons for the PBC's / blockings at times. You helped me out a lot with my block over on politics a while back. I know blocks used to mortify me. I was really very upset. They took me back... Took me back to my childhood when my mother used to shut me in my room for days... Weeks... And I was only allowed out for school, bathroom, and dinner. Isolation. Especially on weekends and public / school holidays and the like. I really do have sympathy with how hard blocks can be.
But something is changing for me. I still take them seriously, don't get me wrong, but I'm not mortified by them anymore. I can still email people. I can still post at other message boards. I can still go outside and go for a walk and look at the sun :-) I can still read the posts on these boards :-)
I don't know.
I'm sorry to ramble...
Posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 4:07:54
In reply to Re: It Has Never Been About Civility » verne, posted by alexandra_k on January 19, 2006, at 3:32:17
Hi Alexandra,
How about you admit, "you don't know", and you do ramble? Imagine how free you will be!
love verne
Posted by crazy teresa on January 19, 2006, at 6:59:49
In reply to Re: It Has Never Been About Civility » alexandra_k, posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 4:07:54
Posted by Susan47 on January 19, 2006, at 8:40:10
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Susan47, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 20:15:58
> I guess I'm assuming that anyone so ill as to be totally unable to control their actions needs real life help.
>
> I suppose there could be disagreement on that point.
Anybody who is always in control of their actions is pretty much, in my book, almost perfect.
Posted by Susan47 on January 19, 2006, at 9:07:35
In reply to Re: Posting with civility, posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2006, at 22:25:57
> > Certain civlity rules make sense
>
> OK, so it's just the details that there's disagreement on. :-)
>
> > who are we to judge, though, what's good for someone in pain?????
>
> Civility is more likely to be good for them than incivility?
>
> BobIn general civility is good for all of us, so I'd have to agree with you. But when someone is in pain, sometimes the occasional slip, IMO, doesn't deserve a block but is gained in any case. Sometimes a warning would be more appropriate.. but once you're blocked, you're blocked and there's nothing you can say or do to change that. It's like being incarcerated without the last call to your lawyer. It's not very civil.
Posted by wildcard11 on January 19, 2006, at 10:59:37
In reply to Re: It Has Never Been About Civility » alexandra_k, posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 4:07:54
Posted by JenStar on January 19, 2006, at 11:03:00
In reply to Re: but do you really think that? » JenStar, posted by Gabbix2 on January 19, 2006, at 2:26:31
I admit your question is interesting, but first I'd really like to see how Verne feels about what I wrote (or how you feel, for that matter!) Do you think Dr. Bob really INTENDS thi site to be a sticky trap to catch people? I don't think so, and I'm interested in hearing what other people thing.
JenStar
Posted by JenStar on January 19, 2006, at 11:05:36
In reply to It Has Never Been About Civility, posted by verne on January 19, 2006, at 0:07:29
hi Verne,
Again, I'm not trying to be "smart" here; I'm just curious. What do you think would be a better solution - no blocks at all, ever, for anything? Or a committe to vote on blocks? Do you think that the tone and feeling of the site would change if there were no blocks, and people were allowed to post whatever they felt?thanks,
JenStar
Posted by Toph on January 19, 2006, at 11:31:17
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Toph, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 18:28:42
I mentioned having a tolerant therapist to demonstrate patience and support as beneficial not to suggest the Psycho-Babble is therapy, for clearly it is not. It can, of course, be therapeutic, at least I feel PB has been for me at times. I guess I was just saying that it bothers me when it is harmful like others have suggested and all who have been here long enough witness from time to time. It is just plain ironic that a place purporting to be supportive is punitive to people who have emotional problems. Maybe it is unavoidable, but let's not deny that people are harmed here emotionally. I struggle with the justification that it is for their own good. I fear that Psyco-Babble is not a place where a healthy mix of people with emotional/psychiatic problems can congregate, but rather one that systematically excludes those who cannot adapt to rigid civility rules in favor of a more "stable/conforming/less pathologic" cohort. Maybe its just the social worker in me who has had to put up with a lot of abuse from clients in my work. I couldn't help them all, but having thick skin has allowed me to help some who took a while to trust someone who claimed to be there for them. Most of the time they had been let down by someone making such a claim in the past.
Posted by Toph on January 19, 2006, at 11:34:37
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Toph, posted by Susan47 on January 18, 2006, at 19:59:17
Posted by Toph on January 19, 2006, at 11:47:45
In reply to Re: Posting with love » Toph, posted by JenStar on January 18, 2006, at 23:31:09
> I disagree that people do not have the capability of controlling their responses, especially over the internet, where there is the ability to step back, rephrase, retype. Whether people WANT to control themselves or put the necessary effort into it is another issue, though.
>
Maybe I should define the problem this way, clearly some of the difficulties some have had on this site comes from their expressions of thought and emotion that are manifestations of their psychiatric problems, wouldn't you agree? I think it ironic that these people are then punished on a mental health support forum. It is ironic, isn't it Jen?
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.