![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 14:23:30
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bigotry
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bigot
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=prejudice
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 15:14:00
In reply to Bigotry defined, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 14:23:30
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bigotry
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bigot
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=prejudiceThese links can provide a baseline for people who want to measure their tolerance or the tolerance of their associates. In an earlier version of the FAQ, Robert Hsiung encouraged posting such links for more information as an alternative to suggesting that anyone was thus described.
That part of the FAQ seems to have been deleted, though I don't know if it was deleted in the past 15 minutes, the past day, the past month or the past year. Nonetheless, I can presume that if referring people to more information about civil behavior was civil yesterday, it is still civil today.
It is unfortunate for me and for those who read my contributions that I am inclined to write convoluted, stilted and vague prose in an effort to avoid administrative sanction, when others are allowed to declare entire groups of people "creepy."
Posted by NikkiT2 on July 17, 2005, at 18:06:30
In reply to Re: Bigotry defined, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 15:14:00
My mind is elsewhere, else I would have posted this elsewhere.
But I just wanted you to know I also thing that allowing scientlogy to be called creepy is uncivil in my eyes, if it is not allowed to be said of Vhristianity et al..
Nikki
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 18:53:39
In reply to Re: Bigotry defined » so, posted by NikkiT2 on July 17, 2005, at 18:06:30
> My mind is elsewhere, else I would have posted this elsewhere.
>
> But I just wanted you to know I also thing that allowing scientlogy to be called creepy is uncivil in my eyes, if it is not allowed to be said of Vhristianity et al..
>
> NikkiWell, thank you for the support. I recall your do-not-post-to-me request, and appreciate the risk you take supporting me in this regardless the difficulty we've had elsewhere. Maybe I'll try to stay out of your way anyway, and if I don't, you're still free to push me back a little.
Posted by SLS on July 18, 2005, at 2:42:07
In reply to Re: Bigotry defined » so, posted by NikkiT2 on July 17, 2005, at 18:06:30
> My mind is elsewhere, else I would have posted this elsewhere.
>
> But I just wanted you to know I also thing that allowing scientlogy to be called creepy is uncivil in my eyes, if it is not allowed to be said of Vhristianity et al..
Just a thought.What if we were talking about a group of people for whom the affiliation was not a religion. For instance, what about the Nathan's Hot-Dog Eaters Club (who share the showers with an incredulous Polar Bear Club), an association that denies being a religion and whose main tenet is that hot-dogs are the most healthful of all available foods, and whose second tenet is that people who don't participate in Nathan's hot dog eating contests are creepy? Or better yet, how about hot-dog eaters in general who hate polar bears?
Would the following be civil?
1. Those Nathan's Hot-Dog Eaters Club people are creepy.
2. Hot-dog eaters who hate polar bears are creepy.
3. Those Polar Bear Club people are even creepier than the NHDEC people.
Does it make a difference that hot-dog eaters who hate polar bears are not a religion or even an affiliation?
How about relativists versus quantum mechanists?
How about evolutionists versus creationists?
How about people who follow this thread versus people who don't follow this thread?
"People who don't follow this thread are creepy"
Uh oh. I can actually feel the creepiness starting to set in.What happens when you take the focus off the person and place it on the object?
"That quantum mechanics sure is creepy."
"That creationism sure is creepy."Where do you draw the line? Should lines be drawn? Should political correctness be the driving force behind favoring protection of one phrase over another? Should quantum mechanics be protected with the same vigor as creationism?
When, if ever, does an exercise in logic and semantics lose its relevance to civility?
As I've said many times, I'm glad it is not my job to moderate Psycho-Babble.
By the way, I do eat hot-dogs, I think of them as junk-food, and I like polar bears, but refuse to become a Polar Bear. I think what they do is creepy.
- Scott
Posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 3:07:39
In reply to Re: Bigotry defined, posted by SLS on July 18, 2005, at 2:42:07
> Where do you draw the line? Should lines be drawn? Should political correctness be the driving force behind favoring protection of one phrase over another? Should quantum mechanics be protected with the same vigor as creationism?
>
> When, if ever, does an exercise in logic and semantics lose its relevance to civility?
Consideration of the question of whether creationism should be treated equally with prevailing scientific theories of evolution might not be instructive in this cirumstance. We are not talking about carriculums of public schools where best available scientific evidence, along with respect for cultural traditions should govern what youth are forcibly taught -- we are talking about a private web site, where the primary risk would be harm to individuals who might be vulnerable due to the nature of the site to attract emotionally vulnerable guests.In public administration, consistency is usually a preferred approach. Inconsistent administration of policies erodes confidence in policy.
However, other doctrines advocate arbitrary application of power. Sect. of State James Baker is said to have asserted the value of arbitrary application of power by a superpower as a means of keeping opponent wary in the face of unpredicatble power. I would imagine a Web site administrator with nobody but himself to answer to could be torn between the advantages of capricious administration that keeps a group wary of intervention, and consistent administration, which would tend to promote compliance by building confidence in policies. Arbitrary administration might be tempting as a means of protecting group cohesion, but it could as well be harmful to individuals how might be upset and feel victimized by policies intended to protect an inspecific group at the expense of any individual member.
In the case of calling members of a particular religion creepy in the context of this site, the looming question for a psychiatrist who said "so far I let those go" is "why?". Is it because members of that religion really are creepy? Am I creepy?
Or is it because the administrator has already determined that it is his opinion that members of that faith system lack social value?
If he holds a negative opinion of scientology because it routinely challenges his profession, and he values his own opinion more than he values consistent administration of policies he has established, perhaps he needs to re-evaluate how he values his own opinions versus the commitments he has made to a group through publication of administrative guidelines.
Posted by SLS on July 18, 2005, at 7:45:30
In reply to Re: Bigotry defined, posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 3:07:39
> > Where do you draw the line? Should lines be drawn? Should political correctness be the driving force behind favoring protection of one phrase over another? Should quantum mechanics be protected with the same vigor as creationism?
> >
> > When, if ever, does an exercise in logic and semantics lose its relevance to civility?> Consideration of the question of whether creationism should be treated equally with prevailing scientific theories of evolution might not be instructive in this cirumstance.
Why not?
> We are not talking about carriculums of public schools where best available scientific evidence, along with respect for cultural traditions should govern what youth are forcibly taught
Regardless of what is or is not taught in public schools, civility here is enforced in a manner that is general and not specific - most of the time. I do not yet understand the justification of the moderator to allow the "creepy" post remain unsanctioned, but a dichotomy of evolutionism versus creationism is really that of belief systems, and not of religion, despite the history of the synthesis of each. However, I would question whether posts involving creationism as being deemed creepy would be tolerated. Political correctness might influence a moderators choice to act quickly to sanction posts regarding creationism.
> -- we are talking about a private web site,
Of what import is the difference between public institutions and private websites?
> where the primary risk would be harm to individuals who might be vulnerable due to the nature of the site to attract emotionally vulnerable guests.
There are many different reasons why an individual would be vulnerable to suggestion. Ignorance and lack of experience leaves people vulnerable. I believe this is why so many young people find themselves indoctrinated into various cults. Scientology is often described as a cult, regardless of what the US court system has adjudicated so far. Law and Truth are very often in conflict, right? Dissent is what made the U.S. a viable nation and continues to do so. Of what import is the difference between public institutions and private websites?
Is scientology a cult or is it a religion? I don't know. At the moment, I don't much care. What does it matter? Calling a group of people creepy is either civil or it is not.
> In public administration, consistency is usually a preferred approach. Inconsistent administration of policies erodes confidence in policy.
Agreed.
This is not a public administration, remember? Erode away, Dr. Bob!
When attempting to assess consistency, it is necessary to compare two examples that are treated differently by the moderator. To what degree are these two samples similar? To what degree is there a consistency of moderation when treating these two posts when there differencies are considered?
> In the case of calling members of a particular religion creepy
Again, should the moderator's protocol for judging civility differentiate between groups that are considered religions versus those that are not. Perhaps the moderator does differentiate and adjudicates so. If the moderator does differentiate, and does not recognize scientology as a religion, your arguments remain moot. As you so eloquently reminded us, this is a private website.
> Am I creepy?
I haven't yet decided. However, you are smarter than the average bear, even when polar bears are introduced into the equation.
- Scott
Posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 12:01:22
In reply to Re: Bigotry defined » so, posted by SLS on July 18, 2005, at 7:45:30
> > Consideration of the question of whether creationism should be treated equally with prevailing scientific theories of evolution might not be instructive in this cirumstance.
>
> Why not?Because in this forum, education is provided by members. If students of public schools provided education, school boards would have no need to decide what carriculum they teach and would instead spend their time creating a functional environment to foster mutual education. If patterned after this site, the board's doctrine would be that the group will effectively sort out useful information from less useful.
> I do not yet understand the justification of the moderator to allow the "creepy" post remain unsanctioned,
Don't bust a neural network trying. We have yet no evidence he has a reason for the tendency, and circumstantial evidence would suggest he has chosen selective enforcement that excludes on group from the concept of "others", a position which, linguisticly, fails to include that group among a generalized reference to humanity. On face value, the interpretation would fail a test for linguistic coherence, because in his usage, the commonly understood meaning would not cohere to the term "others".
>
> > -- we are talking about a private web site,
>
> Of what import is the difference between public institutions and private websites?
>Public institutions are governed by constitutionally established systems. Private sites are governed by individuals, or companies in some cases. In this case, it is an individual whose only commitment is to his own word and to the group. If he decides to create a micro-language where "others" includes members of Al Queda but not Scientologists, there is no Supreme Court to correct him. Scientologists could certainly make hay of it, in Freedom magazine, which has exposed the prominant role of psychiatrists in the leadership of Al Queda. But locally, it comes down to the tenacity of vigilant members of the group versus his will and his underlying moods.
How 'bout that current picture? Lens paralax gives it an artsy look, but his pictures usuually reveal more tonus in his facial musclature.
> > where the primary risk would be harm to individuals who might be vulnerable due to the nature of the site to attract emotionally vulnerable guests.
>
> There are many different reasons why an individual would be vulnerable to suggestion. Ignorance and lack of experience leaves people vulnerable. I believe this is why so many young people find themselves indoctrinated into various cults. Scientology is often described as a cult, regardless of what the US court system has adjudicated so far. Law and Truth are very often in conflict, right?>Yup.
> Is scientology a cult or is it a religion? I don't know. At the moment, I don't much care. What does it matter? Calling a group of people creepy is either civil or it is not.I can handle the cult or religion question, but your conclusion tends to render the question moot. But I would take a different position. Calling a group of people creepy is either consistent with the terms of service of this site or its not. The administrator has represented terms of service as a local definition of civility. But think about a community where deeply entrenched prejudices prevail. Compliance with local rules might be deemed civil by local leaders, but is it? What about if the prejudices are codified as law? That's where the concept of civil disobedience arose. Codes and administration of codes don't always define civility, at least not according to the widely appreciated understandings of what is civil.
>
> > In public administration, consistency is usually a preferred approach. Inconsistent administration of policies erodes confidence in policy.
>
> Agreed.
>
> This is not a public administration, remember? Erode away, Dr. Bob!But the understanding of how people react to public policy developed from experience with group administration. Purposes of groups vary, but group perceptions of administration are likely to be consistent among private and public collectivities.
>
> When attempting to assess consistency, it is necessary to compare two examples that are treated differently by the moderator. To what degree are these two samples similar? To what degree is there a consistency of moderation when treating these two posts when there differencies are considered?If we had any other post where anything other than a spider or snake was called creepy, we could address that question. Centipedes are creepy. Scientologists are different and sometimes controversial, but most walk on two legs, so the term tends to compare them with things unappreciated by most people. But we all know that.
>
> Again, should the moderator's protocol for judging civility differentiate between groups that are considered religions versus those that are not.>This gets back to the secret rules thing. Careful readers might know the secrets, but we can find occassions where the administrator has touted consistency of enforcement over private understandings between familiar members because he says readers could reach faulty conclusions about private understandings. His doctrine of public sanctions is touted in a professional journal as a means of informing the group about policy. If his notion is that the group should know and understand policies, and if he publishes a FAQ explaining the policies, for the sake of mental stability among members of the group, and to resolve potential dissonance among the group, he would do best to pattern his administrative behavior after policies he has published. Others is others unless someone has a unique definition of humanity.
>Perhaps the moderator does differentiate and adjudicates so. If the moderator does differentiate, and does not recognize scientology as a religion, your arguments remain moot. As you so eloquently reminded us, this is a private website.
Well, no the arguments are not moot. As I stated above, the FAQ is the published corpus of policy for this site. The FAQ makes no policy regarding the establishment of a religion, but clearly refers to how members treat others. If the administrator chooses to exclude a group from the classification of "others" because of their race, creed or religion, he needs to review his assessment of humanity, perhaps with some expansive attention toward inclusiveness. Or revise his written policy to declare open season on members of selected religions. Whereupon, I can still protest, and if he shows no concern for my protest, I can review other venues.
> > Am I creepy?
>
> I haven't yet decided. However, you are smarter than the average bear, even when polar bears are introduced into the equation.Some people don't like smart bears. Other smart bears can be especially wary of another smart bear when it encroaches on their territory.
>
>
> - Scott
Posted by SLS on July 18, 2005, at 20:09:41
In reply to Re: Bigotry defined » SLS, posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 12:01:22
> Some people don't like smart bears. Other smart bears can be especially wary of another smart bear when it encroaches on their territory.
Have I encroached on your territory or have you encroached on mine?
I never considered Psycho-Babble to be my territory, so I guess I must be encroaching upon yours. Exactly what territory would that be?
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on July 18, 2005, at 20:18:10
In reply to Re: Bigotry defined » so, posted by SLS on July 18, 2005, at 20:09:41
I had to block so, Scott.
Posted by SLS on July 18, 2005, at 21:01:15
In reply to Re: Bigotry defined » SLS, posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 12:01:22
> > > Consideration of the question of whether creationism should be treated equally with prevailing scientific theories of evolution might not be instructive in this cirumstance.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because in this forum, education is provided by members.So?
> If students of public schools provided education, school boards would have no need to decide what carriculum they teach and would instead spend their time creating a functional environment to foster mutual education.
Ah, I see. You deem children in public schools to be quite capable of moderating themselves. They are also educated enough in advance of choosing their own curriculum so as to be able to address their own ignorance. Nice paradox.
> If patterned after this site, the board's doctrine would be that the group will effectively sort out useful information from less useful.
If patterned after this site, the behaviors of the children would be monitored such that each individual has an opportunity to interact in an environment that is safe for them to express themselves. Those whose behaviors jeopardize this safety are sanctioned.
> > I do not yet understand the justification of the moderator to allow the "creepy" post remain unsanctioned,
> Don't bust a neural network trying.That is for me to decide.
> We have yet no evidence he has a reason for the tendency, and circumstantial evidence would suggest he has chosen selective enforcement
I have seen this claim made in the past. I guess I've been too busy with other things to have noticed. If it is as circumstantial as you say, I have yet to encounter a circumstance for which selective enforcement was evident. I am still impressed with the objectivity with which Dr. Bob enforces his guidelines of civility. I think he has done a remarkably good job.
> > > -- we are talking about a private web site,
> > Of what import is the difference between public institutions and private websites?
> Public institutions are governed by constitutionally established systems. Private sites are governed by individuals, or companies in some cases. In this case, it is an individual whose only commitment is to his own word and to the group.I believe you have the RIGHT to not participate in a forum that you don't like. Whatever his commitments are, if you don't want to live within the cyberworld of Robert Hsiung, MD, you are free to be anywhere else that better suits you. You are even free to be here, despite your verbalizations against the doctor. If you ask me, that he has not yet blocked you at this juncture demonstrates to me an intact ego.
> > As you so eloquently reminded us, this is a private website.
> Well, no the arguments are not moot.
Sure they are.
> As I stated above, the FAQ is the published corpus of policy for this site.
It is something that a doctor wrote as a suggested guideline for communication, nothing more.
> The FAQ makes no policy regarding the establishment of a religion, but clearly refers to how members treat others.
Ok. So far so good.
> If the administrator chooses to exclude a group from the classification of "others" because of their race, creed or religion, he needs to review his assessment of humanity, perhaps with some expansive attention toward inclusiveness.
He needs to do no such thing. No one needs to do anything.
Again and again, this is his website. You have the privelege to post here and the right to avoid the site entirely.
> Or revise his written policy to declare open season on members of selected religions.
Yes. I believe that would improve the site greatly.
> Whereupon, I can still protest,
You have been. Thusfar, you have been granted quite a bit of freedom to post here.
> and if he shows no concern for my protest, I can review other venues.
Yup. That's the idea.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on July 18, 2005, at 21:05:22
In reply to Re: Bigotry defined » SLS, posted by Dinah on July 18, 2005, at 20:18:10
> I had to block so, Scott.
Thanks for the advisory.
It is too bad that he or she couldn't reply to my last post along this thread. I was curious to see the response I would get.
If I may ask, was it a block for civility or a block for posting under a different name?
Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on July 18, 2005, at 21:14:38
In reply to Re: Bigotry defined, posted by SLS on July 18, 2005, at 21:05:22
civility.
Posted by thuso on July 18, 2005, at 21:26:38
In reply to Re: Bigotry defined, posted by SLS on July 18, 2005, at 21:05:22
> If I may ask, was it a block for civility or a block for posting under a different name?
>Do you really have to ask? hahaha! ;-)
Posted by SLS on July 19, 2005, at 8:54:34
In reply to Re: Bigotry defined » SLS, posted by thuso on July 18, 2005, at 21:26:38
> > If I may ask, was it a block for civility or a block for posting under a different name?
> >
>
> Do you really have to ask? hahaha! ;-)
>I genuinely don't know who it might be. I was hoping that it was a civility problem simply because I wouldn't want to see the threads containing his posts deleted. I think there is much to learn by those that already exist.
Personally, I don't believe that SO was a scientologist. I think he was just using scientology as a vehicle to bash Dr. Bob. I would have prefered that he be a scientologist to bring to these forums an opportunity to debate that belief system. Obviously, he had no interest in doing that, as he so stated.
Oh, well. Dr. Bob is bound to attract more detractors. It happens from time to time. Fortunately, the doctor remains free to continue running this website. I really do appreciate this place. I don't think I would bother looking for another site to participate on.
- Scott
Posted by AuntieMel on July 19, 2005, at 9:27:05
In reply to Re: Bigotry defined, posted by SLS on July 19, 2005, at 8:54:34
Nope, if this place had to shut down I'd just go back to trying to muddle through alone.
And - I agree - it would have been interesting to hear from someone truly knowledgeable about scientology.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2005, at 14:56:33
In reply to Re: Bigotry defined, posted by SLS on July 19, 2005, at 8:54:34
> I think he was just using scientology as a vehicle to bash Dr. Bob.
Please don't jump to conclusions about others or post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by SLS on July 22, 2005, at 16:12:54
In reply to Re: please be civil » SLS, posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2005, at 14:56:33
> > I think he was just using scientology as a vehicle to bash Dr. Bob.
I apologize to Dr. Bob, So, and Lou.
I think I see what I did here. I am still having difficulty understanding what I did wrong well enough to be sure that I wouldn't do it again. The more I think about it, however, the more I can process it. I'm sure you're right, I just need more time to discover why and internalize it. I guess it is easier for me to spot this type of infraction when I see someone else doing it than when I do it myself.
I think that if I spoke the same way of Lou Pilder, it would make more sense to me what I did wrong. I guess I was doing a little mind reading here. Of course, no one can really read minds, right? Anyway, it helps to make the name substitution in order for me to be more apt to catch myself the next time. Whatever it takes I guess.
I think with a little more practice, I'll get it right. Thanks for giving me the opportunity.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2005, at 17:13:58
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on July 22, 2005, at 16:12:54
> I guess I was doing a little mind reading here. Of course, no one can really read minds, right?
Right!
Bob
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.