![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 13 to 37 of 89. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on January 14, 2003, at 10:07:11
In reply to Re: anti-Semitism » Dr. Bob, posted by OddipusRex on January 14, 2003, at 9:51:36
I think that's the whole idea behind "Please be civil"'s or blocks too. That they are addressed to particular actions, not to people per se.
I actually feel a bit uncomfortable discussing fuzzymind without his being part of the conversation.
But I do propose an addition to the civility guidelines that defines bigoted or racist statements as uncivil under the rules of the site. That removes some of the personal quality from any disciplinary action, and forestalls a discussion of intent or overall feelings towards a race or religion, etc. The statements would be considered uncivil, not the poster.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2003, at 11:03:11
In reply to Re: More anti-Semitism from this person AGAIN « JenR, posted by Phil on January 13, 2003, at 6:42:34
Phil,
Thank you very much for posting your perspective about the post in question. You wrote,[If they were Christian, would he have said these two Christian guys...]
You see the crux of this and I appreciate your courage to stand up and say that [...you were offended and you are not even jewish...]
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2003, at 11:21:10
In reply to Re: -No room for racist remarks on Babble, posted by Noa on January 13, 2003, at 18:42:44
Noa,
Thank you very much for seeing the crux of the issue presented by the post that contained the phrase,[...2 jewish assholes..]and [...like a greedy jew], and [...a money worshiping abusive jew...]. You wrote that you [...are offended by the expressions...]. I am proud that you have the courage to write that they are offended by the type of statements that the poster in question has wrote. You wrote, [...there is no place for racism on this board...]. You wrote [...it is not necessary to generalise the hatred that you feel toward those individuals into a whole group of people...]. The point here is that you see the post in question as in the light that you have posted, and that shows that, at least, there are people that feel that the post in question can carry the import that you percieve. Now if the rules here are to not post ,[...what has the potential for others to feel offended or put down...] then the post in question violates that civility rule by the fact that you percieve it that way, and so do others.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2003, at 11:30:20
In reply to Re: anti-Semitism - Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 13, 2003, at 19:29:47
Dinah,
Thank you for taking the time to write your objection to the post in question when you wrote,[...I don't think it ficilitates the support of people...to allow statements that will likely offend others...thus reinforcing the feelings...]
This is a great obsevation for you indicate that there is [reinforcement], not [support]. This shows, at least, that there are posters here that do not think that Dr. Bob's position relevant to this issue "facilitates" "support".
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2003, at 11:35:14
In reply to Re: you can't just let this one go... » Dr. Bob, posted by wendy b. on January 13, 2003, at 21:58:36
Wendy,
Thank you very much for posting your perceptions about the post in question here. You wrote,[...called jews money grubbing...that is not the case here...he put down a whole culteral group...]
This shows, at least, that someone here does not agree that the post is in a "grey zone".
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2003, at 11:52:17
In reply to Re: anti-Semitism, posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2003, at 13:03:22
Dr. Bob,
I am requesting that you take the following action concering the post in question that uses the phrases, [...jewish assholes....greedy jews....abusive jews...]
The action that I would like to see taken here is to ask the writer of the post in question to post an apology to the board to any and all that he [may] have offended. As a member of any community, an apology is accepted by the others in the community to be an act of good faith and it restores the one to the community in good standing. As far as the suggestion to admonish the poster, I feel that it [goes without saying] that the poster in question knows that he/she is recieving an admonoishment by being askde to apologise to the board.
Lou
Posted by OddipusRex on January 14, 2003, at 12:00:43
In reply to Re: you can't just let this one go... » Dr. Bob, posted by wendy b. on January 13, 2003, at 21:58:36
What's that supposed to mean? What people are you referring to? Why does it look bad to you? What's being Asian got to do with it in your mind? I don't think Bob should base his decisions on how things might look to anyone especially someone who's basing his reasoning on racial/ethnic characteristics.
>
> I also don't think it's good to lay yourself open to criticism from people who might think you were being permissive toward Fuzzymind because he's Asian. Beyond all the other inconsistencies, it just looks bad.
>
>
Posted by OddipusRex on January 14, 2003, at 12:06:47
In reply to Huh????! » wendy b., posted by OddipusRex on January 14, 2003, at 12:00:43
Roundtrip fares for 228 dollars!! I hate arguments. And on behalf of Dr Bob may I remind myself to please keep it administrative.
Posted by wendy b. on January 14, 2003, at 14:41:38
In reply to Huh????! » wendy b., posted by OddipusRex on January 14, 2003, at 12:00:43
It means what I said it meant. "People" could be anyone here, or anyone looking at the board for the first time, or a book reviewer, or a peer of Dr. Bob's.
If you think I'm being covertly "reverse-racist," sorry, but I said it could give the *appearance* to others of some kind of favoritism. I just think it looks bad. That's all.
As for your less administrative post above, I hate arguments, too, so we agree on that at least!
Best,
Wendy
> What's that supposed to mean? What people are you referring to? Why does it look bad to you? What's being Asian got to do with it in your mind? I don't think Bob should base his decisions on how things might look to anyone especially someone who's basing his reasoning on racial/ethnic characteristics.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > I also don't think it's good to lay yourself open to criticism from people who might think you were being permissive toward Fuzzymind because he's Asian. Beyond all the other inconsistencies, it just looks bad.
> >
> >
>
Posted by wendy b. on January 14, 2003, at 14:44:30
In reply to Re: you can't just let this one go... » wendy b., posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2003, at 11:35:14
Lou,
Trying to call a spade a spade without getting blocked around here is quite the challenge, no? I'm not Jewish except in spirit, but the comments from that thread are quite upsetting to me.
Best,
Wendy
> Wendy,
> Thank you very much for posting your perceptions about the post in question here. You wrote,[...called jews money grubbing...that is not the case here...he put down a whole culteral group...]
> This shows, at least, that someone here does not agree that the post is in a "grey zone".
> Lou
Posted by Noa on January 14, 2003, at 15:45:15
In reply to Re: anti-Semitism » Dr. Bob, posted by OddipusRex on January 14, 2003, at 9:51:36
To me it isn't an issue of labeling a person as an anti-semite or any label of any kind. I am speaking about setting limits on the language that is offensive. I think people need guidelines and limits to remind us of what is acceptable language on this board.
I have no doubt that Fuzzymind experience racism against him. That is not at issue. I think that I would like to support him in his pain at having experienced such bigotry. But I have also been the target of bigotry during my lifetime, and I surely do not see that as a reason to permit me to turn around and use racist or ethnic slurs toward others.
I have nothing against the poster here, but I did ask him to not use language that is offensive to me. And I think that Dr. Bob has a role as moderator in setting the tone, including communicating that racial or ethnic slurs should not be used by participants.
Posted by Noa on January 14, 2003, at 16:10:25
In reply to Re: anti-Semitism » OddipusRex, posted by Noa on January 14, 2003, at 15:45:15
I have revised the subject title, if that helps.
It is the behavior, not the person that is offensive to me.
I have no wish to vilify Fuzzy, and would not have felt a need to comment on this at all had Dr. Bob just set limits acc. to the board guidelines. To me, it probably would have been done at that--point out that these comments are offensive to some, please don't use them, etc. etc. Over and done with, everyone continues posting as normal.
To me, I am willing to give any poster the benefit of the doubt, and think of the comments as an error in judgement, an "oops" that with a reminder from Dr. Bob, would not be repeated. No big deal at that point.
But to me the bigger deal is Dr. Bob's error in judgment about the impact of the comments, or his assessment of them as being "gray area", which I disagree with, and that is where I felt I needed to comment. I think Dr. Bob miscalcuated this one big time, because although he was not uncomfortable with the comments, many of us were. Now, his decision to ignore is moot--this is getting way more attention than it would have had he just given a simple limit reminder.
I do not think it is helpful to a distressed poster to allow that poster, no matter how distressed, to post comments that contain slurs and are offensive to members of this online community. And it is not helpful to the community, either.
My beef now is not with Fuzzy, but with Dr. Bob, whom I admire and respect. So I am respectfully asking him to reconsider his decision, which I feel was a mistake.
As for Fuzzy, I hope he will come back to the board and feel welcome, as long as he leaves the slurs at the door.
Posted by Dinah on January 14, 2003, at 16:12:54
In reply to Re: anti-Semitic language--Rex, posted by Noa on January 14, 2003, at 16:10:25
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2003, at 16:14:24
In reply to Re: anti-Semitism » OddipusRex, posted by Noa on January 14, 2003, at 15:45:15
Noa,
Thank you for your post . You wrote,[ ...it is not the issue of {lableing a person as an anti-Semite}...]but,[...the language...] and that what he experianced ,[...is {not} a reason to permit racist or ethnic slurs toward others...]. Your post shows that, at least, one poster ,other than me, is cognizant of that point .
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by OddipusRex on January 14, 2003, at 16:55:48
In reply to Re: anti-Semitic language--Rex, posted by Noa on January 14, 2003, at 16:10:25
> I have revised the subject title, if that helps.
Yes it does. I think that's a lot clearer.
>
> To me, I am willing to give any poster the benefit of the doubt, and think of the comments as an error in judgement, an "oops" that with a reminder from Dr. Bob, would not be repeated. No big deal at that point.
>
> But to me the bigger deal is Dr. Bob's error in judgment about the impact of the comments, or his assessment of them as being "gray area", which I disagree with, and that is where I felt I needed to comment.~~~~I don't consider anti-Semitism civil, but at the same time I think there can be gray zones. For example, someone might put down particular members of a group without putting down that whole group...~~~~~~Quote from Bob
Noa do you think it is ever possible to put down particular members of a group without putting down the whole group? Should the phrases hypocritical Christian or pedophile priest or drunken Irishman or Black drug dealer or white lynch mob or treacherous female be forbidden too? How would you word a rule on forbidden phrases? Were you offended that his tormenters were identified as Jewish or just the particular insulting phrases used?
Actually I cringed when I read the post too but I've cringed at other things posted on Babble too.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2003, at 17:59:50
In reply to Re: anti-Semitic language--Rex, posted by Noa on January 14, 2003, at 16:10:25
Noa,
Thank you again in this revised post of yours for writing, [...I do not think that it is helpfull to a distressed poster to allow that poster...to post comments that contain slurs and are offensive to menbers of this...community.And it is not helpfull to the community either...]
The parts that I appreciate are that:
1) you write that you think that the poster in question is not being helped by allowing the slurs
2) you write that the community is also not being helped by allowing the slurs.
I believe that this is important , for if the slurs are allowed, then others can come to this community and write things that import that particular ethnic groups are the cause of their distress. This could lead to the community becoming a venue for hate.
You wrote that you think that the slurs should not be allowed to be posted in this on-line community. I base this on when you wrote,[...as long as he leaves the slurs at the door...].
I agree with you wholeheartedly that when the Gate to this community is opened to all, that the restraint to "leave the slurs at the Gate...]should be self-evident, for this is a mental-health community and ethnic slurs, as you have just pointed out, are not {helpfull}, even to the poster of them.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by Noa on January 14, 2003, at 18:53:15
In reply to Re: anti-Semitic language--Rex » Noa, posted by OddipusRex on January 14, 2003, at 16:55:48
Rex, to answer your question--I don't think any of that kind of language is appropriate to a board like this. This community requires a certain amount of safety for all members, and the use of negative stereotypes puts that safety at risk. If one is describing a person in one's life, and the person happens to have certain traits that coincide with a sterotypes associated with their ethnic or racial group, and especially if that stereotype is often used as an ethnic or racial slur, then I think it is the civil thing to do to refrain from using that kind of language here on this board because of its propensity to hurt others here.
In any event, by saying in the post,
"I am a racist myself"
I think that Fuzzy himself was acknowledging that the language was racist and that should be enough to make one stop and think about how it will affect others.
What one says in private speech is another matter.
Posted by Noa on January 14, 2003, at 18:53:57
In reply to Re: anti-Semitic language--Rex » Noa, posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2003, at 17:59:50
Posted by IsoM on January 14, 2003, at 19:53:41
In reply to Re: anti-Semitic language-- » OddipusRex, posted by Noa on January 14, 2003, at 18:53:15
Jumping in with a quick remark & then trying to stay out of it.
The older generation grew up with many bigoted expressions that were just taken as everyday words with little thought to how many were hurt. Expressions like "in a coon's age" or "Chinaman" instead of Chinese. Nigger was once thought acceptable (I've heard that it comes from nigre, the Spanish word for black, but I'm not positive). Even my Mom (who's 80 years old) uses words that I cringe at.
Often those who are older will use expressions that aren't suitable now. I'm glad that many words are being dropped from polite speech. If we were the ones these were directed at, we'd feel hurt too. But the lengths to which some have gone to keep things politically correct is ridiculous & many can see that. I'm never sure whether the correct term is "handicapped" or "impaired" or "disadvantaged" or what now is the preferred term. It's changed too often.
Perhaps becasue the extent of this new political correctness, some think there's no need to stop using older slang expressions that hurt. But if we make the change to a new manner of expression that considers feelings, cultures, & backgrounds of everyone, hopefully over time, most will be spoken of in a respectful manner, even if they're not always thought of with respect.
I'm all for keeping all prejudiced expressions out of our speech. Instead of saying "greedy Jews" why not say a greedy guy? Does the fact one is Jewish help our understanding of the situation? Did it clear up anything we needed to know about? If not, then it shouldn't be mentioned. There's as many greedy people in almost all cultures. If, however, this person was to steal from a synagogue then the fact he was Jewish might matter. Identifying a person by his/her culture or background rather than qualitites does little to enlighten any one.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2003, at 19:58:08
In reply to Re: anti-Semitic language--, posted by IsoM on January 14, 2003, at 19:53:41
IsoM,
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by jane d on January 14, 2003, at 20:24:34
In reply to Re: you can't just let this one go... » Dr. Bob, posted by wendy b. on January 13, 2003, at 21:58:36
> I also don't think it's good to lay yourself open to criticism from people who might think you were being permissive toward Fuzzymind because he's Asian. Beyond all the other inconsistencies, it just looks bad.Wendy,
I'm sure you didn't mean to say this since I know that you are not yourself racist. But, automatically concluding, without any evidence, that a decision was made on racial lines could in itself be construed as a form of racism. Perhaps there are some people out there who might come across the site and come to that conclusion but I think that they are rare and I don't see why their biases should be taken into account.
Jane
Posted by OddipusRex on January 14, 2003, at 21:18:07
In reply to Re: anti-Semitic language--, posted by IsoM on January 14, 2003, at 19:53:41
> Expressions like "in a coon's age" or "Chinaman" instead of Chinese. Nigger was once thought acceptable (I've heard that it comes from nigre, the Spanish word for black, but I'm not positive). Even my Mom (who's 80 years old) uses words that I cringe at.
>
Doesn't in a coon's age refer to raccoons? (This reminds me of the controversy over using the word niggardly and the occasional pronouncement that "calling a spade a spade" is a racist expression. ) I agree it's better to not hurt people but I don't think we should all have to walk on eggshells for fear of being accused of bigotry. That just puts even more distance between people.
Posted by IsoM on January 15, 2003, at 0:45:06
In reply to Re: anti-Semitic language-- » IsoM, posted by OddipusRex on January 14, 2003, at 21:18:07
Yeah, I thought it referred to raccoons too. But once when I used that term, I was drawn aside by a knowing person & explained that it meant black people. They used to be called coons, but not just blacks but other people like Australian aborigines.
That's what I mean about not walking on egg shells around people, but thinking of how we'd feel if we were one of the people being put down gives us pause before we write or speak. And if we did offend accidently, we should be quick to apologise & the apology should be accepted graciously.
Posted by IsoM on January 15, 2003, at 0:51:29
In reply to Re: anti-Semitic language-- » IsoM, posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2003, at 19:58:08
It upsets me to see any group of people put down especially with no cause whatsoever. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be honest about wrongs committed & be afraid to speak up about a certain group if what's happening is wrong - e.g. the Talibun in Afghanistan, the SS in Germany during WWII, the Hutu & Tsutsi to each other in Burundi & Rwanda, the Iraqi to Kurds, the atrocities committed on the people in East Timor, etc. But that doesn't mean every last person should be grouped with the other wrong doers.
You're more than welcome in your thanks, Lou.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2003, at 1:35:04
In reply to Re: anti-Semitic language-- » IsoM, posted by OddipusRex on January 14, 2003, at 21:18:07
> > At the destination, he then told me how he would become successful and his life calling , making lots of money like a greedy jew, was better than my life calling.Sorry, but that is what he is ..a moeny worshipping abusive jew. I am a racist myself I guess.
I was referring to a different post before... The above one:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20021230/msgs/2184.html
I did let go, partly because of what Oddipus pointed out:
> > I am seriouly considering going to my local Holoaust remebrance center, and trying to locate a Holocaust victim to find out how they were able to mentally survive their abuses.
But Noa (and others of you) also make a good point:
> this board is not safe if people are allowed to make racial and ethnic slurs without some intervention.
And my policy has in fact been that why someone posts something doesn't necessarily excuse posting it, so I do think I should've addressed this. However:
> I know that Fuzzy mind is in great pain and I, too, want him to be able to get support, but I think limit setting is important. I don't want you to block him, but I do want you to give him some guidelines for posting in a non-racist manner.
>
> NoaBut how does someone with racist feelings post in a non-racist manner?
Alternative 1:
> Instead of saying "greedy Jews" why not say a greedy guy?
>
> IsoM1. Guys might feel offended. :-)
2. The person's feelings aren't just about greed, they're also about a particular group of people:> > At the destination, he then told me how he would become successful and his life calling , making lots of money like a greedy person, was better than my life calling.Sorry, but that is what he is ..a moeny worshipping abusive person. I am a racist myself I guess.
That way, the last sentence doesn't really follow...
Alternative 2:
> > At the destination, he then told me how he would become successful and his life calling , making lots of money like a greedy member of a particular ethnic group, was better than my life calling.Sorry, but that is what he is ..a moeny worshipping abusive member of a particular ethnic group. I am a racist myself I guess.
1. The wording gets kind of convoluted.
2. People might still wonder if their ethnic group is being referred to.Other suggestions?
There's also the issue of other situations:
> Should the phrases hypocritical Christian or pedophile priest or drunken Irishman or Black drug dealer or white lynch mob or treacherous female [or incompetent psychiatrist] be forbidden too? How would you word a rule on forbidden phrases?
> I agree it's better to not hurt people but I don't think we should all have to walk on eggshells for fear of being accused of bigotry. That just puts even more distance between people.
>
> OddipusRex> the lengths to which some have gone to keep things politically correct is ridiculous & many can see that.
>
> IsoMI wonder, maybe an open community just isn't the place to deal with angry feelings about particular groups of people. Since that community might include members of those groups. I'd like people who feel angry to be able to receive support here, but maybe there are limits to that. I need to remember, this board isn't for everyone...
Thanks, everyone, for your input -- and your patience. It really helps with difficult issues like this.
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.