![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 18 of 18. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 31, 2002, at 11:05:19
[Posted by christophrejmc on March 31, 2002, at 1:51:23
In reply to http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020325/msgs/21190.html]
> How are we supposed to know what will offend others? A four-letter word? Please.
>
> "The word to kill ain't dirty, but you use a word for loving and you end up doin' time."
> (The Great Society. _Father Bruce_.)
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 31, 2002, at 11:06:54
In reply to Re: please be civil « christophrejmc, posted by Dr. Bob on March 31, 2002, at 11:05:19
[Posted by trouble on March 31, 2002, at 5:05:19]
> Thank you Christopherme, I haven't stated my own opinion on profanity yet b/c I don't know what it is, can't decide.
>
> I despise any oppression based on class, and growing up where I did everyone swore (even nuns)as a way of greeting, colorful individualism, signifyin and just plain opening our hearts which we were too worldly to bare w/out hiding behind the naughty bits.
> Not very caucasion of us. I'm not saying minorities everywhere love to swear, just in my own experience only caucasion and caucasion-wanna-bees have had the hissy fits, family meetings, and parent-teacher conferences over plain old lumpen-prole hillbilly cussin' the rest of us motherhumpin Roman Catholics took such hooligan personal pride in.
>
> It's working my jones, too, but I don't want to get blocked so I'm trying to be good and contort, tho I would never ask anyone to contort for me, I think it's wrong. But I'm probably just alot more evolved than them. For now.
>
> There's always Plenty of room at the top.
> Come on Up!
>
> I disagree w/ the view that we must try to keep our misunderstandings to a minimum, to me that's nonsense. Misunderstandings are inevitable, the idea is to work through misunderstandings, that's how people grow, that's where intimacy begins, by doing that kind of work, together.
> Here's what I say: No bloodletting, no abuse. Don't hurt people. Don't stir up division, let's help each other get real big here, together. Big, large-minded, generous.
>
> My ambivalence, (and I do have some) stems from the knowledge that words are powerful, words truly can hurt and traumatize. I could be traumatized, absolutely, if I heard someone of known rectitude spew profanity. But why should I or anyone else be held to that standard? It's exclusionary. My language here composes *me*, and to exlude my idioms is to effectively exclude *me*.
>
> IMO there can be no Civility w/out Inclusivity.
>
> Inclusive: (WEBSTERS)
>
> a. comprehending stated limits or extremes (from Monday to Friday, inclusive)
> b. covering or intending to cover all items, costs and services.
>
> Swearing is really very beautiful to the initiated, and if you don't want to hear it you don't have to go there. By now I'd think everyone who lives here knows I'm a slut, so why is this an issue at all? Why the heck doesn't ole Listerine Lips stay away from Misses Trenchmouth? He knows I'm only going to give him cooties.
>
> Is this one of those Polarity Junkie thingies that Zo talked about before she left? It certainly has the markings of it. Just b/c an item *might* draw the sobsisters in for battle does that mean it has to be eliminated? Look what that did for prohibition. Women's Christian Temperence Union, I'm sorry I just don't see anything wrong w/ falling down drunk on a Saturday night, and starting all over on Sunday morning, why would that exclude me from anything a teetotaler is entitled to? But it did, and it does, and it shouldn't, and it's wrong. Why is everybody always picking on me?
>
> Anyways. The current civility policy is, my opinion, divisive, it is creating disunity and dissension. If there is any other cure for this other than a policy of Inclusion I'd like very much to see it.
>
> Thanks for your ear, as always,
>
> cornpone
> hiccup
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 31, 2002, at 19:22:13
In reply to down to earth streetwise opines « trouble, posted by Dr. Bob on March 31, 2002, at 11:06:54
> How are we supposed to know what will offend others? A four-letter word? Please.
>
> "The word to kill ain't dirty, but you use a word for loving and you end up doin' time."
>
> christophrejmcI know, it's hard to predict, but at least try. And it was neither a four-letter word nor one for loving.
----
> growing up where I did everyone swore (even nuns)as a way of greeting, colorful individualism, signifyin and just plain opening our hearts
There are other ways to greet, be colorful, signify, and open your heart. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place. Your freedom of speech is limited here.
> Not very caucasion of us. I'm not saying minorities everywhere love to swear, just in my own experience only caucasion and caucasion-wanna-bees have had the hissy fits, family meetings, and parent-teacher conferences over plain old lumpen-prole hillbilly cussin' the rest of us motherhumpin Roman Catholics took such hooligan personal pride in.
Please don't jump to conclusions regarding others, post anything they could take as accusatory, or put them down. And please don't use language that might offend them.
This is not the place for hooliganism.
> I disagree w/ the view that we must try to keep our misunderstandings to a minimum, to me that's nonsense. Misunderstandings are inevitable, the idea is to work through misunderstandings, that's how people grow, that's where intimacy begins, by doing that kind of work, together.
Misunderstandings are inevitable, but we should still try to keep them to a minimum.
> why should I or anyone else be held to that standard? It's exclusionary. My language here composes *me*, and to exlude my idioms is to effectively exclude *me*.
It's exclusionary, but I think it helps this site achieve its goals. Which it's not going to be able to do for everyone.
> Swearing is really very beautiful to the initiated, and if you don't want to hear it you don't have to go there.
>
> troubleWell, that wouldn't be a very inclusive approach, either...
Bob
Posted by christophrejmc on March 31, 2002, at 22:24:28
In reply to Re: blocked for week » trouble, posted by Dr. Bob on March 31, 2002, at 19:22:13
> it was neither a four-letter word nor one for loving.
I know... I was making a point that Lenny Bruce once made: the only thing offensive about these words is that people are offended by them.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 31, 2002, at 22:40:12
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Dr. Bob, posted by christophrejmc on March 31, 2002, at 22:24:28
> I was making a point that Lenny Bruce once made: the only thing offensive about these words is that people are offended by them.
The only thing? That's not enough?
Bob
Posted by christophrejmc on April 1, 2002, at 22:46:00
In reply to Re: offensiveness, posted by Dr. Bob on March 31, 2002, at 22:40:12
I take offense to "Psycho-Babble." Do you mean to imply that we are babbling psychopaths? It seems so... else you would've typed it as "Psychobabble."
Posted by IsoM on April 2, 2002, at 1:39:16
In reply to Psycho-Babble » Dr. Bob, posted by christophrejmc on April 1, 2002, at 22:46:00
Regarding the name Dr. Bob chose:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#name
Posted by christophrejmc on April 2, 2002, at 18:04:24
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble » christophrejmc, posted by IsoM on April 2, 2002, at 1:39:16
> Regarding the name Dr. Bob chose:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#name
"A fanciful name. I mean no disrespect to anyone who participates. I also don't intend to overdo the caveat emptor business -- just because you see something on the Internet doesn't mean it's *not* true, either."This would be fine if it was "Psychobabble" (talk/writing using inaccurate or irrelevant pseudopsychiatric jargon) -- but not for "Psycho-Babble."
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 2, 2002, at 19:21:18
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble » IsoM, posted by christophrejmc on April 2, 2002, at 18:04:24
oh, for heaven's sake.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 2, 2002, at 20:00:12
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble » IsoM, posted by christophrejmc on April 2, 2002, at 18:04:24
> This would be fine if it was "Psychobabble" -- but not for "Psycho-Babble."
Hmm. Maybe I should've consulted a dictionary first! I guess I meant the former. But I've never liked the way people run words together in domain names...
Bob
Posted by Mitchell on April 3, 2002, at 18:37:22
In reply to Re: offensiveness, posted by Dr. Bob on March 31, 2002, at 22:40:12
> > I was making a point that Lenny Bruce once made: the only thing offensive about these words is that people are offended by them.
>
> The only thing? That's not enough?
>
> BobC'mon, doc, you must have taken at least one critical thinking class on your way to med school. And I would guess that you explored attribution issues in psychology classes.
Once upon a time, certain folks in the south took offense at black folks who sat at the front of the bus. Does that make Rosa Parks offensive? I am offended by the policies of the United States toward Palestine; does that make U.S. policy offensive? I am hurt that you would even suggest one person's feeling of offense makes the other person's behavior offensive. Since I am hurt by your opinion, then your opinion is hurtful, no? ;-)
Posted by lou pilder on April 3, 2002, at 20:36:48
In reply to Re: offensiveness, posted by Mitchell on April 3, 2002, at 18:37:22
Friends;
Patric Henry said in 1775, "--- in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate."
Now I believe that anything that is said on this board is of the utmost magnitude. The people here are desparate for freedom from their afflictions. They are desparate for freedom from their drugs that they are addicted to. They are desparate for someone to listen to them and be freed from their isolation.. They are desparate to save their lives. What could be more in magnitude than that?
Now I believe that all people here have afflictions. Some of these afflictions cause them to use sware words. They use them not to offend anyone , but they use them because their affliction is the cause of their swareing.
I had a student that swore in school and the Principal was moving to expell him. Because of his swaring, it was discovered that he had Tourett's syndrome. His swaring enabled him to get treatment for his affliction and he was not expelled.
Now I believe that there are people here with greater afflictions than that and I know that their swareing is not any attempt to offend others, but part of their afffliction. I find no fault with them.
Now in defense of Dr. Bob, he has to be the exempler and point out what is civil on this board,just as I , when I was a teacher, had to be the exempler and admonish those that broke the school rules. But just as the student with Tourett's should not have been expelled, I believe that our swarers should not be expelled either. When the student swore in class, I just remined the other students that he could not controll his swareing and we all accepted his swareing as a ramafication of his affliction.
In the case at hand here, my solution would be to allow the swarer to continue to post, but that the language is not endorsed by the administration and "parental descretion is advised."
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 4, 2002, at 0:47:30
In reply to Lou's answer to the offensive language, posted by lou pilder on April 3, 2002, at 20:36:48
> Once upon a time, certain folks in the south took offense at black folks who sat at the front of the bus. Does that make Rosa Parks offensive? I am offended by the policies of the United States toward Palestine; does that make U.S. policy offensive? I am hurt that you would even suggest one person's feeling of offense makes the other person's behavior offensive. Since I am hurt by your opinion, then your opinion is hurtful, no? ;-)
Offensiveness is subjective, yes.
----
> I had a student that swore in school and the Principal was moving to expell him. Because of his swaring, it was discovered that he had Tourett's syndrome. His swaring enabled him to get treatment for his affliction and he was not expelled.
If people here can "repress" uncivil behavior, whether by getting treatment or in some other way, then they aren't "expelled", either.
> In the case at hand here, my solution would be to allow the swarer to continue to post, but that the language is not endorsed by the administration and "parental descretion is advised."
Hmm, as long as the potentially offensive language were in the body of the post, as opposed to the subject line, I guess that would work. And it should be doable, just tacking on a warning...
IMO, the underlying issue is that "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few":
http://www.starfleet.4mg.com/episodes/movies/2.htm
Your school had an obligation to that student, but this board has no obligation to uncivil posters.
Bob
Posted by Zo on April 4, 2002, at 21:34:06
In reply to Lou's answer to the offensive language, posted by lou pilder on April 3, 2002, at 20:36:48
I use them intentionally. Or rather, I don't avoid them intentionally. Except in the interest of being civil--and even then, the definition of civil, depends, as we know, upon the context.
It isn't necessarily an affliciton to use "swear words." I am of the opinion that this is one of those sweeping generalizations that raise the little hairs on the back of my neck. . .but from you, only a tiny bit.
;o) [that's a wink]
Zo
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2002, at 21:47:21
In reply to But Lou, dear, posted by Zo on April 4, 2002, at 21:34:06
Zo;
"Some of these afflictions cause them to use sware words"
I have known those that could not controll their swareing. I used a student as an example. He was a 7th grader and had Tourett's syndrome. I brlieve that other afflictions could cause te same thing and that we shold not be penalised for swaring here. Of course, there are those that sware intentionally. But on this board, I believe that swaring could be part of our condition and not be penalised by ostrcism. Perhaps a $0.25 fine for each sware word to be reinstated would be a fair solution?
Lou
Posted by Zo on April 4, 2002, at 22:42:31
In reply to Re: But Lou, dear » Zo, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2002, at 21:47:21
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 5, 2002, at 8:05:21
In reply to Who gets to keep the money? ;-) (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by Zo on April 4, 2002, at 22:42:31
Zo;
The money could go into a fund to be used that would benifit all of the posters on PB. Now I do not have a good idea of what that would be, but perhaps you could suggest something.
Lou
Posted by Jonathan on April 5, 2002, at 16:55:21
In reply to Re: offensiveness, posted by Dr. Bob on April 4, 2002, at 0:47:30
> IMO, the underlying issue is that "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few":
> http://www.starfleet.4mg.com/episodes/movies/2.htm
I agree with this sentiment, as (I hope) this post on the druggies' board made clear - http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020402/msgs/101980.html
However, in the sequel "The Search for Spock" - http://www.starfleet.4mg.com/episodes/movies/3.htm - the entire crew of the USS Enterprise face a Court Martial in order to rescue Mr Spock (the Starfleet equivalent of all of us submitting posts with *that word* in the subject line, thus challenging you to block us all or reprieve Trouble).
Most illogical, Dr Bob (raises one eyebrow in a civil, Vulcan gesture signifying perplexity)
Live long and prosper \\//
Jonathan.
This is the end of the 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.