![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 18 to 42 of 75. Go back in thread:
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 2, 2004, at 21:22:15
In reply to Re: How about the people who will be hurt? » Dinah, posted by ace on December 2, 2004, at 21:00:40
I know you didn't ask me, but I suspect that Dinah was directing the "weak" comment sardonically to Dr. Bob, who in this case doesn't seem too concerned with opening another board which is quite likely IManyO to cause more friction, blocks and hurt feelings within the already sensitive population of Babble.
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 23:00:14
In reply to Re: How about the people who will be hurt? » Dinah, posted by ace on December 2, 2004, at 21:00:40
Gabbi's right. And I was referring to myself, not anyone else. Because I know what Dr. Bob's likely response will be. (Although I also know he won't use those exact words.)
I wanted to clarify as soon as I realized how what I had written might sound, but I had used up my three post allotment. I emailed Dr. Bob the intent of the post, since I couldn't post on the board until I got a reply, then forgot. Thanks for giving me the chance. :)
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 23:00:51
In reply to Re: How about the people who will be hurt? » Dinah » ace, posted by Gabbix2 on December 2, 2004, at 21:22:15
Posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2004, at 23:52:56
In reply to How about the people who will be hurt?, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 8:10:33
> Perhaps they're just too weak to be at PB anyway.
(((((Dinah))))) I am sorry that (after rereading it) my post seemed insensitive to your feelings about this.
From my understanding of the situation your feeling hurt by some of the things that have fairly recently been posted on politics is indeed understandable.
What hurt you was unacceptable, however, and people did get PBC'd / blocked as a result of what they had posted.
I repeat: that was understandable and I do not think that you are at all 'weak' to feel hurt in response. But people are being given the opportunity to discuss politics in a way that is more respectful and hopefully this is an opportunity for us to at least see whether it is possible to discuss political issues in a non-offensive way.
I do agree that I was hoping for a more general issues board rather than specifically politics.
Maybe see whether general issues are allowed to stay or whether they get redirected?
Posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 1:03:55
In reply to Dr. Bob...please read and reply, posted by ace on November 29, 2004, at 20:22:46
> First of all you have far too many boards.
>
> and now their is a politics board...what is the purpose of this??? I'm sure this will cause fights amongst us posters and be a catalyst for many anti-psychiatric sentiments, which, when exposed to vulnerable people, can do much harm.
>
> I was a Breggin and Szasz fan...I went off all meds, and then my life turned to a black hell...had to pull out of uni, and couldn't walk 10 meters from my house without an attack....
>
>
> Like I asked before, why politics?
>
> Acei agree wholeheartedly, ace. if we're going to be blocked for discussing politics, it doesn't make much sense to open a politics board, does it? :) there's been no discussion by dr. bob that he's going to ease up on the 'political' blocks, so i wouldn't even set foot in that place..
all right, i'm outta admin..i think my time is probably better spent elsewhere..
amy
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2004, at 1:18:30
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob...please read and reply » ace, posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 1:03:55
the civility rules for politics are the same as those for the rest of the boards.
I guess I kinda assumed that...
Posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 1:59:41
In reply to I certaintly hope that..., posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2004, at 1:18:30
> the civility rules for politics are the same as those for the rest of the boards.
>
> I guess I kinda assumed that...hi alex,:)
since you are addressing me, here's my opinion. (hope nobody's feelings are hurt..just IMO, okay?)
discussing politics civilly will get you blocked from this site if you say something using "negative words". as others have expressed in a previous thread written by panda, this approach makes no sense (see panda's last admin thread).
i was blocked simply for calling bush's policies destructive. i was not being "uncivil", i was discussing politics. i was not outrageous, i didn't put anyone down, etc. if we are not allowed to discuss anything "bad", then we cannot have a real political discussion. period. hence, unless dr. bob changes his concept of what is civil in a political discussion, that place will be a haven for land mines and blocks.
amy
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2004, at 4:27:05
In reply to Re: I certaintly hope that... » alexandra_k, posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 1:59:41
> I'm guessing faith has a higher average of blocks per post than any other board. And a fair number of people don't post there at all, because no substantial discussion can take place within the guidelines. And faith isn't nearly as hot an issue as politics.
You don't think there's room for substantial discussion? Should the guidelines be relaxed?
> History has shown what happens here when politics is discussed.
IMO, the problem was incivility, not politics.
> even if the regulars decided to be respectful of each others ideas and believe that no one is good or evil, there are just different ways of thinking of problems and solutions - even if regulars do that, the chances that newcomers will also be so forbearing on a regular basis are not high enough to inspire me with confidence.
>
> DinahMaybe not, but if the regulars are forbearing, and help the newcomers out, I think that would at least help a lot...
--
> Begged 4 parents board but got politics
>
> sawSorry, I thought I'd start Parents not from scratch, but with the old Children, and that's turning out to be more complicated that I thought it would be... Thanks for your patience...
--
> the civility rules for politics are the same as those for the rest of the boards.
>
> I guess I kinda assumed that...
>
> alexandra_kRight, the usual rules will apply, but at Faith, there are extra rules, and that may happen at Politics, too, I don't know...
--
> discussing politics civilly will get you blocked from this site if you say something using "negative words".
If the words are too negative, then is it necessarily civil?
> i was blocked simply for calling bush's policies destructive... i was not outrageous, i didn't put anyone down, etc. if we are not allowed to discuss anything "bad", then we cannot have a real political discussion.
>
> amyIMO, calling them destructive puts down them and those who agree with them. How about a discussion about constructive, "good" policies?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on December 3, 2004, at 14:58:02
In reply to Re: How about the people who will be hurt? » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2004, at 23:52:56
I've been hurt here before, and it didn't cause quite this reaction. So what was it this time. And I figured it was the shock. I have a certain vision of the people here. I think of them as loving and tolerant, and able to look at many sides of an issue and be understanding of each.
When this last election happened, it was like life with my mother. This often wonderful woman who taught me all I know about being a decent human being would switch without warning into something that I didn't recognize and that scared me witless.
The intensity of anger here scared me witless and made me wonder if my perceptions were askew. And it threw me into self protective mode similar to what I'm with with my mother.
I don't know if it's fixable.
Anyway....
Dr. Bob will probably boot this non-admin stuff off.
But that's why unlike Dr. Bob, I blame politics more than incivility. Because it wasn't just people who tend to be uncivil who were scaring me. Therefore it must be the politics at fault, not the people. You know?
Posted by mair on December 3, 2004, at 16:34:56
In reply to Re: politics board, posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2004, at 4:27:05
" i was blocked simply for calling bush's policies destructive... i was not outrageous, i didn't put anyone down, etc. if we are not allowed to discuss anything "bad", then we cannot have a real political discussion.
> >
> > amy
>
> IMO, calling them destructive puts down them and those who agree with them. How about a discussion about constructive, "good" policies?
>
> Bob"
Since the only PBC I've ever gotten and my only block arose from political comments, I view the politics board as a potential minefield, and not necessarily the best board addition. Your response to Amy is an example of the pitfalls which I think will befall posters on that board. Comments like "I think George Bush is a war criminal," or "anyone who would support Bush is an idiot," are obvious examples of provocative name-calling which should be understood by everyone to fall outside the parameters of civil discourse. However it's simply unrealistic to assume that you can have a board where everyone only talks about constructive good policies. While I freely admit that much of the political discourse in this country borders on the uncivil, I also believe that much of the civil discourse concerns a discussion of negatives.
Making a remark like "I think the War in Iraq has been destructive because it's polarized the country, done great damage to the landscape of Iraq, resulted in the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, and alienated much of the civilized world, thereby diminishing our international standing," in my opinion, should be ok, even though it hardly focuses on the positive.
We're not asked to limit our remarks about insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies to a discussion of all the wonderful things they do, so it makes no sense that we should limit a discussion of politics to the constructively positive. (if that's what you meant). To do so would take any political discussions here far out of the realm of typical civil political discourse. My guess is that permissible discussions would be too stilted and the topics too limiting to be of any use to anyone.Mair
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2004, at 19:59:31
In reply to Thanks, dearest Gabbi Gabbi :) (nm), posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 23:00:51
Your welcome, I saw your 3 post limit was up, and I didn't give a second thought to what you meant. I must have missed the loophole about you being able replying to a reply after the third post. Of course then it would have been really awful had I been wrong, and you couldn't have posted again to say I was wrong... Gee I didn't think that through did I? :(
Good thing it worked out.
Posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 23:16:25
In reply to Re: politics board » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on December 3, 2004, at 16:34:56
mair, that was so well said..excellent response, IMO! :) (and thanks for saving me the trouble of replying to bob! lol.) i don't think it could've been said any better than that.
amy :)
Posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 23:38:00
In reply to Re: I've been thinking » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on December 3, 2004, at 14:58:02
> I don't know if it's fixable.i know exactly what you mean, only my scars are from admin, and they're very deep. they affect my relationships here to this day. but there's always hope..
btw, i've learned to avoid discussing politics (with people i like, hehe :-))
(((((dinah)))))
love,
amy
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 1:56:53
In reply to Re: politics board » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on December 3, 2004, at 16:34:56
> We're not asked to limit our remarks about insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies to a discussion of all the wonderful things they do
But politics get more emotional?
> [to] limit a discussion of politics to the constructively positive... would take any political discussions here far out of the realm of typical civil political discourse. My guess is that permissible discussions would be too stilted and the topics too limiting to be of any use to anyone.
Well, so maybe it would be far out... But too limiting? Good policies? That's not wide open?
Bob
Posted by TofuEmmy on December 4, 2004, at 9:36:08
In reply to Re: politics board, posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2004, at 4:27:05
>IMO, calling them destructive puts down them and those who agree with them. How about a discussion about constructive, "good" policies?
Bob
Bob - So, we're only supposed to talk about policies that 100% of US Citizens think are positive? Ooops...can't leave out our Canadian friends. Oh, and the UK...and...um. Well now, we have a problem. We can only talk about policies which benefit all mankind. And animals, and vegetables (for those fruitarians).It's sounds like you want the girls in Snow White outfits and the boys in Peter Pan tights! Not that I wouldn't wanna see that photo too, but jeepers, yes Bob, it does seem a wee bit limiting for a political forum.
Because I put down a policy, I am not putting down a person who supports it. I have friends of all political persuasions. The person and the policy are two separate things. IF the discussion is civil, and kind, if can be educational and interesting. IF people are unable to keep their emotions in check, and the dicussions get cruel, you have the power to simply shut down the board.
I also think if the Politics board is a place where only one political party feels welcome, it should not exist.
emmy
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 12:46:57
In reply to Re: politics board » Dr. Bob, posted by TofuEmmy on December 4, 2004, at 9:36:08
> > How about a discussion about constructive, "good" policies?
>
> So, we're only supposed to talk about policies that 100% of US Citizens think are positive? Ooops...can't leave out our Canadian friends. Oh, and the UK...and...Well, how about policies you think would be positive, at least?
Bob
Posted by TofuEmmy on December 4, 2004, at 14:27:09
In reply to Re: politics board, posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 12:46:57
Bob, I can't think of a positive way to discuss the policies surrounding the war in Iraq.
So I sought out alternatives for grumpy posters, like me who would have difficulty following the happy rule:
http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.com/Forum/http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/index.php
http://www.civilizeddebate.com/forums/
http://4forums.com/political/index.php
http://www.network54.com/Index/11317
http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/index.php
http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/index.php?s=730ed841a471483d9f76d61656427abf&;
I don't vouch for any of these sites. I just searched for sites offering political debate forums which appeared to have recent activty.
emmy
Posted by alesta on December 4, 2004, at 22:07:43
In reply to Re: politics board, posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 12:46:57
> > > How about a discussion about constructive, "good" policies?
> >
> > So, we're only supposed to talk about policies that 100% of US Citizens think are positive? Ooops...can't leave out our Canadian friends. Oh, and the UK...and...
>
> Well, how about policies you think would be positive, at least?
>
> Bob> Well, how about policies you think would be positive, at least?
dr. bob, you are just rephrasing the question! (see your two comments above.) well, we can't make you get it, so this is my final attempt. i simply don't have the time to keep writing essays in response to your quick, redundant one-liners.
dr. bob, you're missing the point..
for example, someone who's happy w/ the job president bush is doing can talk about how wonderful he is or what a great job he did with such and such. and they get the opportunity to get their point across as much as they please.
but then the ppl who aren't satisfied with bush (nearly half of the u.s., and i think more in other countries) basically have to just sit there and say nothing. this is not fair. one side gets heard all they want and the other doesn't. the democrats are basically not allowed to reply. whereas the republicans are. not fair one bit.
amy
Posted by alesta on December 4, 2004, at 22:15:23
In reply to Re: politics board » Dr. Bob, posted by TofuEmmy on December 4, 2004, at 9:36:08
very well done tofu! good job, girl. :) thanks much for your involvement here!> It's sounds like you want the girls in Snow White outfits and the boys in Peter Pan tights!
heh heh heh. very amusing! :-)
aimy
Posted by gardenergirl on December 4, 2004, at 23:30:46
In reply to Re: politics board » Dr. Bob, posted by TofuEmmy on December 4, 2004, at 9:36:08
>
> It's sounds like you want the girls in Snow White outfits and the boys in Peter Pan tights! Not that I wouldn't wanna see that photo too,Way to slip that one in, Em! ROFL
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on December 4, 2004, at 23:31:15
In reply to Re: politics board, posted by gardenergirl on December 4, 2004, at 23:30:46
Posted by gardenergirl on December 4, 2004, at 23:35:52
In reply to Re: politics board, posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 1:56:53
>
> > [to] limit a discussion of politics to the constructively positive... would take any political discussions here far out of the realm of typical civil political discourse. My guess is that permissible discussions would be too stilted and the topics too limiting to be of any use to anyone.
>
> Well, so maybe it would be far out... But too limiting? Good policies? That's not wide open?
>
> BobDr. Bob,
A proper analysis of any policy requires assessing the good and the bad. The world is not all sweetness and light. I think it's damaging to encourage that we ignore the negative here on Babble. Because that's not the reality.Now there is value in reinforcing what's positive. But how about allowing a whole picture context as long as it's policies and procedures we are talking about and not people?
For example, we often point out what we don't like about your policies. You seem to have good boundaries in not assuming that our dislike of a decision of yours does not generalize to dislike of you. Now, I'm a sensitive person, and I struggle to avoid taking criticism as a rejection. But instead of making this a place where I might never have to face that, wouldn't it be better to create a more realistic Babble world that also gives me the opportunity to process my reactions and gain support?
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on December 5, 2004, at 1:07:29
In reply to Re: politics board » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on December 4, 2004, at 23:35:52
the positivist sees the glass half full
the negativist sees it half empty.
if we put a child in seclusion as a consequence of an unacceptable behaviour
is it a removal of a positive reinforcer (company)
or the deliverance of something negative (isolation)?They are just two different ways of looking at the same thing.
Most things you can say one way
You can say the other.Instead of saying you are unhappy with the way things are being done currently (e.g., with Bush)
How about saying what you think could be a good thing to do to make an even better USA or world or whatever?I am struggling to come to grips with the problem here...
Posted by alexandra_k on December 5, 2004, at 1:14:08
In reply to Re: politics board, posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 1:56:53
> We're not asked to limit our remarks about insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies to a discussion of all the wonderful things they do
> But politics get more emotional?How about because a 'company' isn't likely to feel offended or accused as a result. Whereas if you are talking about politics some people identify so strongly with their political ideology that they see criticisms of the ideology as personal attacks.
Instead of putting down and criticising certain ideologies (which can lead to hurting particular people) perhaps one could just focus on promoting ones own view. Focus on the positive. I like it.
Maybe if there was somebody here who was high up in an insurance / pharmacutical company and they complained of feeling hurt and / or accused then Dr. B would knuckle down on those kinds of claims...
I am starting to think that what is considered uncivil may (in some cases) have more to do with being a function of whether somebody actually does take offence.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 5, 2004, at 1:14:51
In reply to Re: politics board » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on December 5, 2004, at 1:14:08
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.