![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 3 to 27 of 33. Go back in thread:
Posted by Zo on April 22, 2002, at 21:40:03
In reply to On Being Blocked, and Walking On Eggs, posted by Zo on April 22, 2002, at 19:55:01
"I think this is what is so terribly sick-making"
was supposed to read "WAS sick-making". . reference to childhood, not the present.Thx,
Zo
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2002, at 2:23:16
In reply to On Being Blocked, and Walking On Eggs, posted by Zo on April 22, 2002, at 19:55:01
> Sooooo. I'd like to know the rules.
>
> If I have been blocked for one week, will the next PBC result in a two-week block?In general, yes. But if a long time goes by, maybe not. Sorry if that's kind of vague. But at least I did as suggested and added a section to the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> I am given to understand that to get a PBC, and therefore earn a block, is wholly random! It's whatever catches the eye of the admin! So it means nothing about you!
I'm not sure I agree with that. It's not like I flip a coin each time. I do try to use some judgment and to be as consistent as I can.
> Isn't there a better way to structure things? EVERYONE fears being themselves. If people make a misstep in that direction, does it really teach anybody anything to "disappear" them from the community?
>
> It seems perilously close to Patriarchal Thinking: You screw up, I punish you. End of story.
>
> And that makes me verrrry nervous. I didn't raise my kids that way--I raised them in the context that there is always a solution, and it is arrived at by mutuality, by communication, by inclusiveness, not exclusion.If there's a better way, let me know...
It's not just about the person who gets blocked. It's also about keeping it a safe, welcoming community for others.
I'm all for inclusiveness. But it has its limits. And the more sensitive people are (the thinner their shells), the more restrictive the limits may need to be...
> If a rule and/or the manner in which it is applied results e in even the tiniest increase in the climate of fear---fear as opposed to safety, fear as opposed to belonging and acceptance--then that rule and those methods need reexamination.
It never hurts to reexamine, but what if one person, out of fear, restrains himself or herself and as a result another person feels -- or a number of other people feel -- safer?
Bob
Posted by trouble on April 23, 2002, at 6:56:28
In reply to Re: On Being Blocked, and Walking On Eggs, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2002, at 2:23:16
>
> It never hurts to reexamine, but what if one person, out of fear, restrains himself or herself and as a result another person feels -- or a number of other people feel -- safer?
>
> BobDr. Bob,
steppin lightly, thinner shells, people jumping at their own shadows, we need to indulge this for people's own good? I don't get that. Sounds more like colluding w/ arrested development, and enabling passive aggressive behaviors.
grow up.
That's what I would say sometimes except I know better now and am just puttin it out there in theory.
thanks
trouble
Posted by beardedlady on April 23, 2002, at 7:04:23
In reply to Re: On Being Blocked, and Walking On Eggs, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2002, at 2:23:16
> I'm all for inclusiveness. But it has its limits. And the more sensitive people are (the thinner their shells), the more restrictive the limits may need to be...
But that's not the way the world is supposed to work, Dr. Bob. The folks who have the thinner shells are not the ones that should get to determine whether our behavior is civil! (Neither should those of us who are tough.) Determining what might send a weak ego into a tizzy should not be our main concern here. It's an impossible task, besides! Communicating ideas that may make others stronger should be.
The civility policy here is somewhat akin to political correctness, but the problem with pc is that it's NOT CORRECT! It is wrong to call a person who is blind "visually challenged." Visually challenged folks have needs that are very different from the needs of the blind.
Exhibiting civil behavior, then, should not mean we must say nice, kind, sweet things that everyone can tolerate. Debate is often intolerable for those who have trouble defending their own skin.
> It never hurts to reexamine, but what if one person, out of fear, restrains himself or herself and as a result another person feels -- or a number of other people feel -- safer?
But what if tens of people, out of fear of being blocked, restrain themselves, and as a result, all but three or four of the people on the board feel unsupported?
The reexamination that needs to take place is, as I said before, with intent. You said you can't determine that, but I don't buy it.
I got a PBC for telling someone I believed he was the color of my beard. (I'm not going to repeat the exact words for fear of being blocked, so it'll be a little harder to make my point. And that's also detrimental to communicating on the board.) That person called women "bitches" and "hos," using the persona of a rapper as an excuse to denegrate women and, I believe, black people. When I complained to you about this, he accused me of "holding the black man down." My response to him said, in an ironic way, that we have no idea what color a person is on this board. (BTW, Dr. Bob, you have no idea what color my beard is!)
How did that undermine the safety of posters? How did it create an uncivil environment? How did it create an atmosphere of fear? My "intention" was obvious. I was called a racist, and I responded in a way that was neither uncivil nor unsupportive. It's not my responsibility to be supportive of him in that circumstance.
My intent was to say, "You can't get away with abusive language here, even if you act the stereotype of rapper." Why didn't I say it that way? Because that's the way you or someone else would have said it. That's not me.
We are individuals here. And we have individual ways of handling things. While different from the way you might do it, they are not necessarily uncivil for that reason.
I did not come to this thread to argue the fairness of my PBC. I used it as a continuation of Zo's argument. But I'm a civil person, and I did nothing at all to hurt another person. So while I'm here, I'd like to ask that my PBC be revoked!
Otherwise, I hope you will consider what I said about intent and about the purpose of the board. This simply can't be a place where the thin few skinned get special protection to the detriment of the rest of the board. That's what SPF 30 is for.
beardy : )
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2002, at 8:20:35
In reply to Re: On Being Blocked, and Walking On Eggs » Dr. Bob, posted by trouble on April 23, 2002, at 6:56:28
> grow up.
Please don't put others down. Last time it was 2 weeks, so this time it's 4 weeks.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2002, at 8:37:36
In reply to But Dr. Bob: » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on April 23, 2002, at 7:04:23
> > I'm all for inclusiveness. But it has its limits. And the more sensitive people are (the thinner their shells), the more restrictive the limits may need to be...
>
> But that's not the way the world is supposed to work, Dr. Bob.So tell me, how is the world supposed to work?
> > It never hurts to reexamine, but what if one person, out of fear, restrains himself or herself and as a result another person feels -- or a number of other people feel -- safer?
>
> But what if tens of people, out of fear of being blocked, restrain themselves, and as a result, all but three or four of the people on the board feel unsupported?Then only 3 or 4 people would stay?
> I got a PBC for telling someone I believed he was the color of my beard... My response to him said, in an ironic way, that we have no idea what color a person is on this board.
The difference is, the first is jumping to a specific conclusion, whereas the second is a general truth.
> How did that undermine the safety of posters? How did it create an uncivil environment? ... My "intention" was obvious. I was called a racist, and I responded in a way that was neither uncivil nor unsupportive. It's not my responsibility to be supportive of him in that circumstance.
The environment tends to be uncivil when people jump to conclusions about each other. Whatever your intention was, your response was uncivil. IMO. It may not have been your responsibility to be supportive, but it *was* your responsibility to avoid being unsupportive, in other words, you could have just restrained yourself.
> We are individuals here. And we have individual ways of handling things. While different from the way you might do it, they are not necessarily uncivil for that reason.
Only certain ways of handling things are appropriate here.
> Otherwise, I hope you will consider what I said about intent and about the purpose of the board. This simply can't be a place where the thin few skinned get special protection to the detriment of the rest of the board. That's what SPF 30 is for.
So maybe my role is to be SPF 30?
Bob
Posted by beardedlady on April 23, 2002, at 8:57:49
In reply to Re: the way the world is supposed to work, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2002, at 8:37:36
> > But what if tens of people, out of fear of being blocked, restrain themselves, and as a result, all but three or four of the people on the board feel unsupported?
>
> Then only 3 or 4 people would stay?Gee, Dr. Bob. I didn't think I said anything uncivil, rude, or disrespectful to you. Yet your response to me was sarcastic.
> So tell me, how is the world supposed to work?Never mind, Dr. Bob. I quit. I have a bologna sandwich to eat.
bluebeardy : )>
Posted by Lini on April 23, 2002, at 9:51:40
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks » trouble, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2002, at 8:20:35
Guess I missed you trouble, looks like you've been blocked again!Man!
Posted by LiLi80 on April 23, 2002, at 9:53:32
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks » trouble, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2002, at 8:20:35
you keep getting blocked, i know you have powerful well meaning thoughts, but you have to respect the rules. I hate when you are blocked. Please be nice.
lili
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2002, at 10:15:11
In reply to Please be civil. » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on April 23, 2002, at 8:57:49
> > > But what if tens of people, out of fear of being blocked, restrain themselves, and as a result, all but three or four of the people on the board feel unsupported?
> >
> > Then only 3 or 4 people would stay?
>
> Gee, Dr. Bob. I didn't think I said anything uncivil, rude, or disrespectful to you. Yet your response to me was sarcastic.Sorry, I was being serious, I think that's what would happen...
Bob
Posted by DinahM on April 23, 2002, at 10:30:03
In reply to Re: On Being Blocked, and Walking On Eggs » Dr. Bob, posted by trouble on April 23, 2002, at 6:56:28
> Dr. Bob,
>
> steppin lightly, thinner shells, people jumping at their own shadows, we need to indulge this for people's own good? I don't get that. Sounds more like colluding w/ arrested development, and enabling passive aggressive behaviors.
>
> grow up.
>
I'm going to respond to this because I am a flippin' idiot. And because I have very little left to lose. And of all the posts on this thread I'm responding to your post, trouble, because I like you. And because I know I like you, I know this response isn't affected by personal feelings. It's just a reflection on the topic.I'm a person with a paper thin shell, I guess. And speaking for myself only, I've got to admit: It ain't gonna happen. I'm not going to grow up. All my life I've been told to toughen up. "Don't cry when they tease you Dinah. Don't let them know they get to you. No one else cries Dinah. That's why they choose you. Just laugh it off Dinah. Everyone else just laughs it off. Why can't you?" And God himself knows I tried, although I don't suppose anyone else does. Because no matter how hard I tried, I cried. I guess I have no sense of humor. I hate practical jokes and "caught on video." I don't understand how embarassing someone can be funny. And I strongly suspect it's genetic, because I see the same thing in my son. I worry for him, because it makes life pretty hard.
Anyway, I'm not going to speak for any other thinned skinned person but myself. But I know that I make things difficult for others. And I know that I put a damper on things sometimes. My traditional response has been to withdraw from society and have only the most superficial interactions with others. I was led to believe that was wrong. But in my heart I know it's right. Not only because I don't want to make others uncomfortable, but also because it hurts to know that I make others uncomfortable. It's a lot easier to just avoid that hurt. And it has the advantage of allowing others not to feel that they need to walk on eggshells. (And yes, you are walking on eggshells. Whole eggs do have eggshells. They just are whole eggshells which still contain an egg.) But this particular eggshell was broken long ago. Not fit for display. Remove to the back of the store.
Posted by DinahM on April 23, 2002, at 10:37:25
In reply to Re: On Being Blocked, and Walking On Eggs, posted by DinahM on April 23, 2002, at 10:30:03
Sorry. I didn't realize what thread I was on. I thought I was on another one altogether. So my response was sort of off topic. My mistake. I'm sorry. No offense meant. Really. Please believe me. I only attack myself.
Posted by DinahM on April 23, 2002, at 10:43:04
In reply to Oops., posted by DinahM on April 23, 2002, at 10:37:25
I meant it to be on the eggshell thread and now I'm afraid it will be misunderstood. I was confused by the post titles into thinking it was the eggshell thread.
Please don't misunderstand. The post was about me. Not about anyone else. Just me.
Posted by judy1 on April 23, 2002, at 11:50:55
In reply to Re: On Being Blocked, and Walking On Eggs, posted by DinahM on April 23, 2002, at 10:30:03
Don't feel guilty Dinah, I probably have a thinner shell then you when I'm depressed, my own shrink has told me he felt he was walking on eggshells. And I for one am extremely grateful that Dr. Bob looks out for people like us, and I don't feel like he goes overboard at all. About a year or 2 ago (sorry Mark) I got bent out of shape on Admin with Mark. I don't remember the topic but I DO remember Mark explaining that he was use to group therapy where people were more confrontational and then he went on to apologize and realized his tone and now he's a temp Dr. Bob! So, not once did Dr. B interfere, and we worked it out and I understood him, and he me and all is well (sorry too lazy to look up thread). But if one person can learn to temper their remarks and still get their point across, why can't everybody? Take care, Judy
Posted by Zo on April 23, 2002, at 14:43:02
In reply to Re: On Being Blocked (and sorry Mark :-) » DinahM, posted by judy1 on April 23, 2002, at 11:50:55
And are we all going to become as diplomatic as Mark?
How likely is that?Is there no way to respect the individual within the context of who they are? As to whether their post is supportive or not?
And Dr. Bob brings up the larger and more important question--is there no way to achieve his goal without using Fear?
No ideas yet--tho I did think, since he's creating all these pages, maybe there could be one for blocked people so that they are not BANISHED from the community--where they could say whatever they wanted and LEARN how that works? Password protected? I don't know. . .
I just don't think the mental health of the whole is served by having it all in Bob's head--granted, maybe that's easier. But it would be lovely to know what to expect.*
How about an active list of blocked people? With their email if they wish? Something like that?
*In fact, it could be argued that this is crucial, to keep the
admin-babbler relationship clean.Zo
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2002, at 15:06:08
In reply to Dr. Bob. Could you move this post?, posted by DinahM on April 23, 2002, at 10:43:04
> I meant it to be on the eggshell thread and now I'm afraid it will be misunderstood.
1. I think it'll be fine, and here's a link to the other thread in case anyone's confused:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020308/msgs/4228.html
2. Besides, there isn't an easy way to move just a post or two. :-)
Bob
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 23, 2002, at 15:07:55
In reply to But how is it taught? How do people learn?, posted by Zo on April 23, 2002, at 14:43:02
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 23, 2002, at 17:29:18
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks » trouble, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2002, at 8:20:35
Dr. Bob:
This wasn't directed at a specific person. I thought that was a criteria.
I'm getting more and more confused...
- kk
Posted by Ron Hill on April 23, 2002, at 20:46:32
In reply to Please be civil. » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on April 23, 2002, at 8:57:49
Beardy,
I've read your posts on this thread and I believe you have made valid points. I tried to find the actual posts from the "rapper" and you to refresh my memory of what exactly were stated. I did not find them. (I wish the search engine worked on the recent archives as well as the archives older than 02/21/02). Do you know the location of said posts?
Since I have not reread the post exchange lately, I am working from memory. And if I remember correctly, my read of the situation at the time was that Dr. Bob hesitated to PBC (please be civil) the initial "rapper" post because he did not want to deny any "freedom of speech rights" since it was "literary prose" and not directed at any one person in particular. My read may or may not be correct. Dr Bob is plenty capable of speaking for himself. Maybe Dr. Bob was merely away from the board during the initial phase of the thread development. Rumor has it that he does have a day job.
I personally found the initial post of the "rapper" to be very offensive and if I were doing the Admin it would have got an IMMEDIATE PBC message. The "rapper" did eventually get a PBC, and I had the impression at the time that you just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and, as a result, Dr. Bob nuked you as well.
Having said all that, I am very thankful that I am not responsible for the Admin duties. This must really be a burden for Dr. Bob. That's why I almost never involve myself in these types of threads that complain about Dr. Bob's judgment when he is playing a PBC or Blocking card. He is human and he is going to make mistakes periodically! Especially, given the short amount of time he has to devote to any given post.
Bottom line IMHO: Dr. Bob may have made an error in judgment by not stopping the "rapper" posts right from the get-go. And I don't think he should have nuked you in the exchange. But let's cut him some slack; he's human, he's not a machine.
Now for the question I absolutely must know the answer to. You posted (in part):
Please be civil. » Dr. Bob
Posted by beardedlady on April 23, 2002, at 8:57:49> Never mind, Dr. Bob. I quit. I have a bologna sandwich to eat.
Do you regularly eat bologna sandwiches at 8:57 am Central Time (i.e. 9:57 am ET)? Would that be brunch?
-- Ron
Posted by Cecilia on April 23, 2002, at 23:28:10
In reply to Re: On Being Blocked, and Walking On Eggs, posted by DinahM on April 23, 2002, at 10:30:03
Dinah, as another thin skinned person, I agree, it`s probably genetic, not something we can control by will. And I appreciate Dr. Bob`s efforts to protect us, most of us have had enough hurt in our lives already. Cecilia
Posted by Zo on April 24, 2002, at 0:22:11
In reply to On Being Blocked, and Walking On Eggs, posted by Zo on April 22, 2002, at 19:55:01
Okay, here's the deal. How and why I think the present politics of the board genuinely s**k.
(Not to mention these f***** asterisks.)
Dr. Bob is stuck with the role of Parent, the Dysfunctional Parent (sorry Bob, nothing personal.) It's his place, we are allowed to be here only so long as he is pleased, as long as we follow his rules, which are never made clear, we never know when we might get kicked, it's his way or the highway, etc etc etc.
And, in order to be here and stay, we take on the role of Child. Bad child, Good child, Wrong child, Angry chlld, Passive child, Grown Up child, Cooperative child - but forever, if you look at how it really works, without power. Never sure how far to go, in any direction. What will please the Gods. Dependent.
I'm not saying some people don't just shrug this off--they do.
But I AM saying, This is a hell of a dynamic to present to Mental Health patients! To a population already *outrageously* infantilized, marginalized, rejected, unsupported--and never, ever heard.
A large part of the gift we give each other, here, is to be taken seriously. To be given the benefit of the doubt. The gift of Trust.
For example, I trust JohnX's (hi, JX!) incredible intelligence; it is a given, here, that one can have mood swings and also be smarter than a lot of pdocs .
I don't know anywhere else, offhand, where this kind of illness and this level of trust coexist . Not for people like us.
Nonetheless ---it would be wonderful, really much more supportive of Mental Health, if the board could be restructured. . .. to be less Me Big-You Little. . .and a lot more We.
Zo
Posted by beardedlady on April 24, 2002, at 5:24:32
In reply to Re: Civil Court » beardedlady, posted by Ron Hill on April 23, 2002, at 20:46:32
I don't think I can have this discussion about the PBC posts because it upsets me, and I promised myself I wouldn't be upset by what happens in virtual life; it's just not worth it.
I have to eat something in the morning with my B vitamins, and I'm not a fan of breakfast. Since I'm on Weight Watchers (lost 8 pounds, yippie!), I don't want to be a hog in the a.m., so I have a fat-free bologna sandwich on diet bread with lots of mustard and half of a banana or an apple--some days. On others, I have a nice, healthy bowl of Kashi Good Friends, skim milk, and half a box of raisins.
For lunch, I have....
Anyway, I know it's unusual to have a bologna sandwich for breakfast. But I often have these very serious mustard cravings. (I was going to say something sarcastic right here, but I'll stop now.) Anyway, what might I have a deficiency in that would cause mustard cravings? (Don't YOU be sarcastic, 'kay?)
beardy : (>
Posted by beardedlady on April 24, 2002, at 8:45:37
In reply to Re: response to me was sarcastic, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2002, at 10:15:11
I said:
> > But what if tens of people, out of fear of being blocked, restrain themselves, and as a result, all but three or four of the people on the board feel unsupported?You said:
> > > Then only 3 or 4 people would stay?I said:
> > Gee, Dr. Bob. I didn't think I said anything uncivil, rude, or disrespectful to you. Yet your response to me was sarcastic.You said:
> Sorry, I was being serious, I think that's what would happen...Unless it's something you desire--that only three or four people would stay on the PSB board--your remark, though certainly serious, is still sarcastic. Its seriousness doesn't negate its sarcastic-ness.
Anyuser was serious, too. One obviously doesn't single out the other.
I asked you, "But what if tens of people, out of fear of being blocked, restrain themselves, and as a result, all but three or four of the people on the board feel unsupported." I'm not talking about an all-out hurt fest. I'm talking about simple things, like giving someone who asks for it advice that may not be what he or she wants to hear. I'm talking about saying something honest and having it be mistaken for sarcasm. I'm talking about saying something funny and having you think it was an attack on someone else.
And here's the point--again: in order for something to be sarcasm, it has to be intended to hurt. I believe intention should have some weight in determining whether you issue blocks or PBCs. You told me once that it was not possible to determine intent.
Then how can you determine that someone intended to hurt?
beardy : )>
Posted by Ron Hill on April 24, 2002, at 12:54:10
In reply to Bologna, et.al. » Ron Hill, posted by beardedlady on April 24, 2002, at 5:24:32
I have a lot of respect for you, Beardy. You are a good person. I think you are correct; it's time to let this one go. You have already stated you case. Time to move on. There are bigger fish to fry (or in your case, more bologna to eat).
-- Ron
P.S. Congratulation on the WW success. Eight down and xx to go. I gained 30 lbs on Paxil and Depakote and the excess weight did not leave when the meds left. Funny how that works. I was never overweight prior to meds. Currently, I walk 5 miles a day in under an hour with our dog (Chocco). However, now that I am well, I want to begin training again with cycling, swimming and weightlifting. I always worked out prior to taking meds and it's time to take back some lost ground.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 24, 2002, at 20:52:08
In reply to sarcasm and intention » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on April 24, 2002, at 8:45:37
> Dr. Bob is stuck with the role of Parent, the Dysfunctional Parent...
Could I be Functional Parent instead? Please? :-)
> And, in order to be here and stay, we take on the role of Child. Bad child, Good child, Wrong child, Angry chlld, Passive child, Grown Up child, Cooperative child - but forever, if you look at how it really works, without power.
Grown Up Child and Cooperative Child sound good! Maybe think of it as division of power? I have the power to structure the site. You have the power to give support.
> it would be wonderful, really much more supportive of Mental Health, if the board could be restructured. . .. to be less Me Big-You Little. . .and a lot more We.
>
> ZoThe idea here has always been that together, We can use our powers to do some good. But there doesn't have to be any Me at all:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020308/msgs/3483.html
--------
> > > > > But what if tens of people, out of fear of being blocked, restrain themselves, and as a result, all but three or four of the people on the board feel unsupported?
> > > >
> > > > Then only 3 or 4 people would stay?> Unless it's something you desire--that only three or four people would stay on the PSB board--your remark, though certainly serious, is still sarcastic. Its seriousness doesn't negate its sarcastic-ness.
Of course it's not something I desire. But I do think that if a lot of people were really inhibited, not many people would stay.
But a lot of people do stay. Therefore...
> I'm not talking about an all-out hurt fest. I'm talking about simple things, like giving someone who asks for it advice that may not be what he or she wants to hear. I'm talking about saying something honest and having it be mistaken for sarcasm. I'm talking about saying something funny and having you think it was an attack on someone else.
It's not always simple. Giving someone advice they don't want to hear may be unsupportive or even a from of pressure. Humor (and irony) may be misinterpreted, maybe especially online, and of course people don't always agree on what's funny.
> I believe intention should have some weight in determining whether you issue blocks or PBCs.
>
> beardy : )>*Some* weight, OK, deal. :-)
Bob
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.