![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 104 to 128 of 142. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:02
In reply to Lou's response-phalzlyt/valdey » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on December 14, 2013, at 11:10:57
Lou, I have enough respect for you to believe you can abide by site guidelines that apply to everyone.
I believe you can refrain from accusing Babblers of antisemitic acts. I believe you can refrain from telling former deputies that they may be killed by Muslims. I believe you can refrain from saying that Muslims might kill former deputies. I will always believe that statement was uncivil to them and to us. I believe you can post with more compassion for mothers whose children are on psychiatric drugs and for patients taking psychiatric drugs.
I give you the honor of believing you can and should be treated like anyone else.
You can complain to Dr. Bob if you also believe you should be treated the same as everyone else.
But if you believe that you should get special treatment because of who you are, then....
Don't you see that my responses were to Dr. Bob about his policies far more than they were about you? It just so happens that those policies were about only you. Don't you see that the majority of my anger is with Dr. Bob, and at least some of it is for the insult to you?
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:02
In reply to Lou's response-phalzlyt/valdey » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on December 14, 2013, at 11:10:57
I was furious with you for saying that deputies might be killed by Muslims for passing to Dr. Bob rulings that we were unsure how he would have us treat. We were deputies for Dr. Bob, and it was our *responsibility* to moderate as he would moderate. We tried endlessly to get him to clarify the board policies. You had a very long thread with him about one or two statements, so I'm sure you'll understand that he did not give us clear guidance about that statement and statements like it. I knew myself to be innocent of your charges that you were now coupling with the threat of kidnapping and death.
But my fury with you would have abated had you refrained from making further uncivil remarks about me personally or about former deputies in general. I don't hold grudges. I think holding grudges might be against Jewish tenets, per my understanding from my extensive readings of Rabbi Harold Kushner and Rabbi Karyn Kedar, who were responsible for my strong attraction to Judaism, on top of my lifetime pro-Semitic outlook learned from my Mormon youth.
My fury is now against Dr. Bob. And if you refrain from being rude to me, it will remain that way. It is not a past action on his part.
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:03
In reply to Lou's response-phalzlyt/valdey » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on December 14, 2013, at 11:10:57
If you wish to increase the respect of Babblers, might I suggest that you post in such a way as to not be accusatory, and to instead be supportive? That would do far more than I ever could say, or could ever not say.
It's not only civil, it's smart policy.
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:04
In reply to Re: Lou's response-phalzlyt/valdey » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 11:34:30
What would you say, were you Jewish, to a poster who posted in a list of ten items of the worst reasons for a church "A church not centered in Christ".
I've heard that statement often enough, and always in context of Christian churches that were focused on money or prestige or whatever, to think it possible that it was meant in that context and not meant as a put-down of non-Christian religions, but I also recognize that it could be read as pertaining to non-Christian religions as well.
I think I'd say something like
"I understand the spirit of your list, and agree with many of the items. But the item about a church not being centered in Christ makes me, as Jew, feel like you are not respecting my faith. If you meant that Christian churches should center their churches around Christ, then could you clarify that? Or possibly substitute the word "God" or "Higher Power" so that the statement could be helpful to more of us?"
Any other ideas?
It seems like responding with one's personal feelings, when it is not likely that a put down was intended (more likely a narrow focus), is the best way to address the issue without accusation or bad feelings.
Were the original poster to respond negatively towards other religions, then notifications and accusations would be appropriate.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:05
In reply to Psychology Posters - other ideas?, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 11:51:33
> What would you say, were you Jewish, to a poster who posted in a list of ten items of the worst reasons for a church "A church not centered in Christ".
>
> I've heard that statement often enough, and always in context of Christian churches that were focused on money or prestige or whatever, to think it possible that it was meant in that context and not meant as a put-down of non-Christian religions, but I also recognize that it could be read as pertaining to non-Christian religions as well.
>
> I think I'd say something like
>
> "I understand the spirit of your list, and agree with many of the items. But the item about a church not being centered in Christ makes me, as Jew, feel like you are not respecting my faith. If you meant that Christian churches should center their churches around Christ, then could you clarify that? Or possibly substitute the word "God" or "Higher Power" so that the statement could be helpful to more of us?"
>
> Any other ideas?
>
> It seems like responding with one's personal feelings, when it is not likely that a put down was intended (more likely a narrow focus), is the best way to address the issue without accusation or bad feelings.
>
> Were the original poster to respond negatively towards other religions, then notifications and accusations would be appropriate.Friends,
It is written above that there could be a post that has a list of ten items of the worst reasons for a church, " A church not centered in Christ".
Be advised that there is a post that I am objecting to here that puts down and insults Judaism and Islam and Hinduism and all other religions that do not have their agenda centered in Christ, and I would say those that are members of them, that is not the same as the one Dinah hypothetically presents to you here.
The post that is in question has the top ten worst reasons {for organized religion}, not for a church, which is different from what is proposed here for your discussion.
What a subset of readers could think is that the statement divides humanity that are in organized religions into two groups and only those religions that have their agenda centered in Christ are exempt from being in the list of organized religions that their agenda is the worst.
Be advised that I think that Dinah's hypothetical post does not belong in this discussion, but in a separate thread of her own unless the word {church} is understood by responders. This is all because, {church} does not mean only Christian groups. The word {church} can be found in Hebrew scripture and it means to be a group of {called out} people by the God that the Jews give service and worship to. The Hebrew word that {church} comes from is knesiyah. It means the community, or a gathering of the community, and is translated as {church} in the Hebrew scripture.
The Greek word for the Hebrew is taken from the word {Eklisia} or spelled in different ways. The word, Eklisia, in Greek means {belonging to the Lord} which came from the word {kurios} in Greek.
All of those words have even further back words from different extinct languages that I have not the time here to discuss.
The point here is that {church} does not always mean only Christian groups and if the understanding of that is known then that could go a long way to help in anyone's response to Dinah here.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:05
In reply to Lou's response-ecclesia » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on December 14, 2013, at 12:30:00
Why didn't originally just post that you felt hurt, rather than bring that post up for years and years and years in an accusatory way asking for sanction? Not to mention accusing deputies for years and years, even after they were former deputies for years and had no way of doing anything for years, of being anti-semitic in not sanctioning the post.
Did you read where I explained that we continually asked for and did not get guidance as to Dr. Bob's wishes with regard to the faith board? Why continue to accuse us?
Was I wrong about the attitudes towards holding grudges in Judaism?
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:07
In reply to Re: Lou's response-ecclesia » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 12:34:51
I'm willing to let go of the fact that you have accused us for years and years and years of anti-semetism and said that Muslims might kill us for not sanctioning that post.
All I'm asking you to do is to refrain from accusations against me, and against former deputies, in the future. I'm not even asking you to let it go, or to have a generous spirit and not hold grudges. I'm just asking you to refrain from actions that Dr. Bob would not have allowed from anyone else.
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response-ecclesia » Dinah, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 12:38:19
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response-ecclesia » Dinah, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 12:38:19
I would accept "Administration" even, in place of Dr. Bob and deputies and former deputies. The only current deputy, so far as I know, hasn't been involved on Babble for some time, so you couldn't be referring to her. And the former deputies understand the situation with Dr. Bob and the faith board, so it wouldn't occur to us that you meant us.
So if you use the term "Administration" even if you in your heart mean "former deputies" and "deputies" when you are making accusations, I will let my anger with your previous accusations go and treat you with all the respect I'd show someone who hadn't accused me for years. So I'm not asking you to let it go yourself and have a generous spirit, I'm not even asking you to refrain from accusing us in your own mind. I am merely asking you not to separately state us in your accusations.
Of course, I might still be momentarily angry should you, in my opinion, be uncivil to others. But, again, I don't hold grudges for past actions.
Dr. Bob's actions are ongoing.
Posted by Phillipa on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:09
In reply to Clarification, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 11:03:15
That is the way I also interpreted the post. That you do have friends but Lou doesn't so he needs protection. Interesting as I used to email with Lou. And he sounds so different when he asks for a favor? Phillipa
Posted by Willful on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:10
In reply to Re: Clarification » Dinah, posted by Phillipa on December 14, 2013, at 18:50:43
I'm wondering what makes us think we know whether Lou has friends. Does Bob have some relationship with Lou outside of the one that appears here on psychobabble, that gives him greater information about whether Lou has friends, and whether, in fact, Lou needs more protection?
I don't see that someone needs more protection simply because they've been allowed to say untrue and distressing things to /about us here. Maybe by virtue of that, Lou has few friends-- although I seem to have read posts on the Med board that are supportive of him -- so I"m not even sure that is true.
But even if it were-- who knows if Lou feels the need of friends-- he certainly doesn't appear to from his actions here-- or of protection-- or of any greater compassion than any of us.
Who among us claims to be able to "know" what Lou needs-- a claim that I think is either a baseless stereotype or an overestimation of the claimers insight into what other people really want and need.
Willful
I
Posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:11
In reply to Psychology Posters - other ideas?, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 11:51:33
> Any other ideas?
Accept the world.
Nurture patience and tolerance. (I continue to work on this).
Most people have opinions for which they are emotionally invested. Forgive them.
Some people come to embrace a religion with great zeal and subscribe to a belief that theirs represents the one and only Truth.
Lou Pilder - I recommend that you study Islam more closely, especially the definition of infidel and how they are to be treated.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:11
In reply to Re: Clarification, posted by Willful on December 14, 2013, at 23:20:47
> I'm wondering what makes us think we know whether Lou has friends. Does Bob have some relationship with Lou outside of the one that appears here on psychobabble, that gives him greater information about whether Lou has friends, and whether, in fact, Lou needs more protection?
>
> I don't see that someone needs more protection simply because they've been allowed to say untrue and distressing things to /about us here. Maybe by virtue of that, Lou has few friends-- although I seem to have read posts on the Med board that are supportive of him -- so I"m not even sure that is true.
>
> But even if it were-- who knows if Lou feels the need of friends-- he certainly doesn't appear to from his actions here-- or of protection-- or of any greater compassion than any of us.
>
> Who among us claims to be able to "know" what Lou needs-- a claim that I think is either a baseless stereotype or an overestimation of the claimers insight into what other people really want and need.
>
> Willful
>
> IFriends,
It is written here,[...a baseless stereotype...].
This is a welcome statement to me here if what the poster intends is what psychologists define as {denial} tactics and {repression}.
And readers, you may not understand the dynamics of all of this in relation to that there are years of antisemitic statements being allowed to stand and also statements that not only put down Jews, but Islamic people, Hindu people and all other religions, and I guess those people that belong to those religions, that do not have their agenda centered in Christ as well.
I intend to bring out and show here how there is orchestration by the fact that the administration can control the content here by either sanctioning or not statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings or even statements that could project hatred toward Jews if allowed to be considered by a subset of readers as supportive here. And by the fact that there are years of outstanding notifications from me, that fact could show how antisemitism can be fostered in a community by a subset of readers interpreting the anti-Semitic statements that stand, as that they will be good for this community as a whole to remain standing as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community because Mr Hsung states that he does what will be good for this community as a whole. The anti-Semitic statements allowed to stand can indeed stereotype Jews, and the fact that they are allowed to stand over my years of objections points to a more difficult job for me to stop this site from being allowed to promote hatred in any form. My friends, the notifications go to the deputies, there can be discussion among them, the deputies have training from Mr . Hsiung, And it doesn't matter to me why the notifications are outstanding. The deputies have the authority to sanction posts or not. They do not have to, but I do not see any edict from Mr. Hsiung that says that they can't if they want to.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:12
In reply to Loui' response-beyclezpstaireeotype » Willful, posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2013, at 10:31:51
> > I'm wondering what makes us think we know whether Lou has friends. Does Bob have some relationship with Lou outside of the one that appears here on psychobabble, that gives him greater information about whether Lou has friends, and whether, in fact, Lou needs more protection?
> >
> > I don't see that someone needs more protection simply because they've been allowed to say untrue and distressing things to /about us here. Maybe by virtue of that, Lou has few friends-- although I seem to have read posts on the Med board that are supportive of him -- so I"m not even sure that is true.
> >
> > But even if it were-- who knows if Lou feels the need of friends-- he certainly doesn't appear to from his actions here-- or of protection-- or of any greater compassion than any of us.
> >
> > Who among us claims to be able to "know" what Lou needs-- a claim that I think is either a baseless stereotype or an overestimation of the claimers insight into what other people really want and need.
> >
> > Willful
> >
> > I
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...a baseless stereotype...].
> This is a welcome statement to me here if what the poster intends is what psychologists define as {denial} tactics and {repression}.
> And readers, you may not understand the dynamics of all of this in relation to that there are years of antisemitic statements being allowed to stand and also statements that not only put down Jews, but Islamic people, Hindu people and all other religions, and I guess those people that belong to those religions, that do not have their agenda centered in Christ as well.
> I intend to bring out and show here how there is orchestration by the fact that the administration can control the content here by either sanctioning or not statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings or even statements that could project hatred toward Jews if allowed to be considered by a subset of readers as supportive here. And by the fact that there are years of outstanding notifications from me, that fact could show how antisemitism can be fostered in a community by a subset of readers interpreting the anti-Semitic statements that stand, as that they will be good for this community as a whole to remain standing as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community because Mr Hsung states that he does what will be good for this community as a whole. The anti-Semitic statements allowed to stand can indeed stereotype Jews, and the fact that they are allowed to stand over my years of objections points to a more difficult job for me to stop this site from being allowed to promote hatred in any form. My friends, the notifications go to the deputies, there can be discussion among them, the deputies have training from Mr . Hsiung, And it doesn't matter to me why the notifications are outstanding. The deputies have the authority to sanction posts or not. They do not have to, but I do not see any edict from Mr. Hsiung that says that they can't if they want to.
> LouFriends,
There are numerous psychological tactics being used here that may be unbeknownst to you. They are plainly visible to me and could be brought out to some degree by Willful here as a start. Another psychological aspect is what is known as {projection} which I intend to expose here as we go along. The important thing here is that anti-Semitic statements are allowed to stand that I have shown could cause hatred toward the Jews to be promoted here. This hatred could be transferred to others and M.r Hsiung does not disagree with me in that respect. The hatred could manifest itself into cyberhate that could go into schools to be taken as supportive by a subset of readers and Jewish children and Islamic children and other children that could be depicted as those that belong to a religion that is not centered in Christ to be in some way considered to be in the worst by reading what is allowed to stand here.
I can stop the fire of hate from spreading by getting Mr Hsiung to post to threads where anti-Semitic statements and other statements that put down those of other faiths are notated as not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and are not in accordance with Mr. Hsiung's drafted rules to not post what could put down those of other faiths. I consider those that are in concert with Mr. Hsiung to allow those statements in question to have no immunity regardless of even if Mr. Hsiung held them back from posting their objections, and I do not know if that is what Dinah is wanting to mean here, for if that is true, then they could have resigned at that time.
Here is one way that antisemitism can be advanced, fostered and promoted by Mr. Hsiung by examining these two posts.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/424336.html
Posted by baseball55 on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:13
In reply to Lou's response-the psycholy that is plainly visibl, posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2013, at 14:44:50
Why is this on the psychology board? Can't we move this to administration. The psychology board has always been a refuge for me and not an arena of conflict. Please move this
Posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 22:46:52
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 19:01:14
Repost:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1056278.html
--------------------------------------------
Re: Distress
> > > Does your seeing it motivate you to do something to help the situation...
> > Yes. Whether or not I help the situation is a matter of perspective.
> That is a shame.
What is a shame?
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 22:47:29
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media? » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 21:28:06
> Re: Distress
>
> > > > Does your seeing it motivate you to do something to help the situation...
>
> > > Yes. Whether or not I help the situation is a matter of perspective.
>
> > That is a shame.
>
> What is a shame?perhaps i misunderstood.
i was saying that it was a shame that one couldn't be sure that the world was better off for your having made that intervention on it.
(of course i do appreciate that there are immense difficulties with respect to situations-under-descriptions / situations-from-perspectives etc etc etc. yet another way to get paralyzed...)
Posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 22:51:04
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 22:47:29
> i was saying that it was a shame that one couldn't be sure that the world was better off for your having made that intervention on it.
I still don't understand what you are trying to convey. Is it a shame that people are not capable of recognizing my help or that I am incapable of making helpful interventions?
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 23:24:11
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media? » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 22:51:04
> > i was saying that it was a shame that one couldn't be sure that the world was better off for your having made that intervention on it.
> I still don't understand what you are trying to convey. Is it a shame that people are not capable of recognizing my help or that I am incapable of making helpful interventions?
ah. neither of those. i think i mis-understood you.
i was thinking on why some people on some occasions hurt others in the name of protecting someone else.
i went off on my own tangent and wasn't really connecting with what you were saying. sorry 'bout that.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 16, 2013, at 0:10:32
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 23:24:11
it is hard...
i have recently come around to the view that failing to punish defectors is itself a form of defection. because of tragedy of commons type situations.
only...
perhaps now i'm coming to see that this may not be so.
i went to a talk on trust. part of it was about what was required for trust. to be competent. to recognise that another depended on us to act on that competence. to then act from the basis of recognising another depended on us to act on that competence. roughly... that was sort of what i took from the idea.
one can fail to be trusworthy because one isn't competent. this isn't necessarily bad. i am an incompetent murderer. my incompetence doesn't make me morally reprehensible or anything like that. but you shouldn't trust me to be competent in that sphere. and i shouldn't signal that i am competent in that sphere.
so competence.
recognition of dependence. sometimes we drop the ball because we didn't realise that others were relying or counting on us. i think i do this often. i think the idea is that here also it isn't about being morally reprehensible. it is another kind of incompetence. it isn't about morality, though.
anyway... point being... maybe we don't need to punish defectors. defectors... perhaps their defection is better explained by the above (and perhaps more kinds of) incompetence. and fixing up the incopmetencies would be something like 'giving them the skills' to contribute to society appropriately. people... well... it does take time to learn who the reliable signallers etc are. that is why it takes a year or so to settle in to a new environment. and why moving all the time is so hard... because unless you are connected people will typically assume you aren't particularly trustworthy. or at least... other people typically improve their opinion of me in time. or perhaps i find a better niche for myself with time or... whatever.
tangent?
there was stuff about signalling, too. and how some people are reliable (trusworthy ha!) signallers of competence and promises while others are... perhaps not.
anyway. i felt more at peace about my having dropped the ball rather with respect to my thesis... mostly because of the later. perhaps a bit because of the former. i see that half the battle with people is getting reliable signals out of them... perhaps because people fail to recognise the function of signalling... due to inability, yeah. not a moral failing...
it was a nice talk, yeah.
anyway... it has me thinking on incompetence (not as a moral failing - just in terms of what one actually can and cannot do) and recognition of the needs of others (not as a moral failing - just in terms of what one can perceive with respect to that).
and thinking about me
(memememememe)
was all.
no judgement (especially moral!) on you...
Posted by alexandra_k on December 16, 2013, at 0:58:27
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by alexandra_k on December 16, 2013, at 0:10:32
(this is some version of me being traumatised by conference. still processing... decompressing...)
Posted by SLS on December 16, 2013, at 6:40:40
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by alexandra_k on December 16, 2013, at 0:58:27
> (this is some version of me being traumatised by conference. still processing... decompressing...)
I am still processing and decompressing from reading your posts. :-) They certainly provoke thought!
- Scott
Posted by Moishe Pipik on December 16, 2013, at 9:13:56
In reply to Psychology Posters - other ideas?, posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:04
I have one: It seems entirely logical and appropriate for an admin to move the posts containing references to anti-semitism, etc. to the faith board where they belong.
Posted by Phillipa on December 16, 2013, at 20:12:09
In reply to Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas?, posted by Moishe Pipik on December 16, 2013, at 9:13:56
I agree and add that any post with reference to anti-semeticism posted on any board be redirected to Faith. Should have happened before. That board is not being used from what I've seen. Phillipa
Posted by SLS on December 16, 2013, at 21:53:35
In reply to Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas? » Moishe Pipik, posted by Phillipa on December 16, 2013, at 20:12:09
> I agree and add that any post with reference to anti-semeticism posted on any board be redirected to Faith. Should have happened before. That board is not being used from what I've seen. Phillipa
Antisemitism is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of hate. It has no more place on the Faith board as does discussions of racism and apartheid.
The Faith forum is moderated differently than the other boards. It helps to review the preamble at the top of the Faith board to understand its personality and how it works.
Of course, the judging of the appropriateness of posts on the Faith board is the role of administration, and therefore belong on the Administration board."Since the idea here is support, please don't pressure others to adopt your beliefs or put them down for having theirs. Sorry, but this may mean not posting some aspects of some beliefs."
Lou Pilder has some legitimate questions based upon the verbiage in the quote cited above. However, I thought they had been ruled upon a long time ago. If Dr. Bob is willing to revisit issues regarding statements of exclusivity to be found in the writings and philosophies of some religions, it might be more constructive to comment on the philosophy of the Faith board and its operation.
"Nobody is right if everybody is wrong" - Stephen Stills
I often refer to this lyric when I feel the need to exercise tolerance. It allows me to focus on the positive aspects of a religion so that I may profit from them and incorporate them into my belief system.
- Scott
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.