![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 54. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by zeugma on March 2, 2006, at 22:51:21
In reply to Re: For FIVE, posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 22:18:54
> I just don't think that the civility rules keep anyone from saying anything as long as they say it civilly.
>
> The only time it ties your hands is if you don't want to say it civilly.
>
> In which case, Babble might be a rather frustrating place to post, but the internet is full of places you can post extraordinarily uncivil things, then come back to Babble and post whatever else you want to say.>>
>
> I am of course using the global you.no offense taken.
even if the you had been local.
:-)
-z
Posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 22:51:22
In reply to Ok, let's move this to Admin., posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 22:20:51
I see.
Cognitive gymnastics.
I just didn't do the requisite cognitive gymnastics...
Hypocracy...
I guess teh trouble is when one is used to conversing with people who understand the difference between critiquing a policy and criticising a person...
And Bob.
I mean... no babblers took it personally (that I'm aware of)
Seems you and Clearskies thought I didn't do the relevant cognitive gymnastics
(were either of you feeling personally criticised?)
what is the point of the relevant cognitive gymnastics?
to prevent people taking it personally...
did anyone take it personally?
then consider an academic context...
would anyone take it personally?
i forget different standards apply to the mentally ill.
not in practice (babblers were offended)...
but in principle (babblers might feel offended)...
In principle in babbleland
according to dr bobinteresting...
and then lets just say auntiemel said 'i feel a little offended at your having called a policy i believe in hypocritical'
then think about me. as a poster. think about me.
would i have apologised and tried to make peace or not?
isn't it only the latter that deserves to be blocked?
Posted by gardenergirl on March 2, 2006, at 23:05:01
In reply to Re: Ok, let's move this to Admin., posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 22:43:31
In looking again at what Bob flagged in his post about the block, I wonder if it was because "people with nukes" were characterized, versus characterizing a policy or a behavior as hypocrisy. I'm just speculating. But one rule of thumb I use when I am trying to decide about a post is to look at whether the post in question is saying something about someONE or someTHING. I think that there is increased likelihood of someone feeling put down or accused if a post is about someONE, even a non-specific someONE.
So, in this case, being a US citizen, I might view myself as a person with nukes, through my citizenship of a country that has nukes. If I did view myself that way, I might feel put down by the term hypocritical.
I'm learning that some folks place a lot more personal meaning in identifying with a specific group than I once thought.
Just my tuppence...
gg
Posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 23:05:17
In reply to Re: Ok, let's move this to Admin., posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 22:43:31
I take it that means you don't wish to email me? :)
I can't say much more about this. I've said all I know how to say.
Other than to say that I have been distressed by anti-American sentiments expressed on the Politics board. Things that go beyond expressing one's views about a policy into talking about America or Americans. Yes. I have been distressed by that. It would seem to me that if you substituted another group of people for America or Americans, the statements would clearly not be allowed. I don't recall whether or not I was distressed by that particular statement. And the thing is that I and a few other posters *have* expressed distress at this. I just would prefer that nothing be said about America or Americans that you couldn't substitute (insert group here) for and think was ok.
It's not nationalism. I would, and have, object to similar statements being made about groups of which I am not a member.
I just don't understand the rationale behind thinking it's not ok to say something about one group, while it is ok to say it about America (or Americans).
Posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 23:16:21
In reply to Re: Ok, let's move this to Admin., posted by gardenergirl on March 2, 2006, at 23:05:01
> In looking again at what Bob flagged in his post about the block, I wonder if it was because "people with nukes" were characterized, versus characterizing a policy or a behavior as hypocrisy.
I think in context it was clear I was talking about the policy.
> So, in this case, being a US citizen, I might view myself as a person with nukes, through my citizenship of a country that has nukes. If I did view myself that way, I might feel put down by the term hypocritical.
You might...
Is it rational for you to do so?
Should people be blocked because you (could) view things this way?Hypocritical... Maybe that wasn't the best choice of phrases...
What I was getting at was the notion of logical inconsistency. Strictly speaking... I guess it isn't a logical inconsistency that was the issue either (there is nothing logically inconsistent about saying okay for me not okay for you). Didn't the context disambiguate things rather?
> I'm learning that some folks place a lot more personal meaning in identifying with a specific group than I once thought.No sh*t.
In this case... It seems Bob does.
I don't think that is rational...
I wouldn't have thought that was something that should be generalised back to real life...
But then it isn't about that...Nice try at a rationalisation.
Posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 23:20:33
In reply to Re: Ok, let's move this to Admin. » 5, posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 23:05:17
> I take it that means you don't wish to email me? :)
I've already said... RIP A_K
> Other than to say that I have been distressed by anti-American sentiments expressed on the Politics board.I see.
> Things that go beyond expressing one's views about a policy into talking about America or Americans.
Have I done this? I never meant to...
Or where I have... I thought I had been prepared to back track and try to put things right...> It would seem to me that if you substituted another group of people for America or Americans, the statements would clearly not be allowed.
LOL!!! I was thinking it was the other way around. Try putting in my saying that Iran's policy, or Russia's policy was hypocritical (I don't think I said it WAS hypocritical I thought I said that I was having trouble seeing how it wasn't).
Try putting in New Zealand. I would have thought that would have been less problematic on this forum than talking about the US of A.
> It's not nationalism. I would, and have, object to similar statements being made about groups of which I am not a member.
mmm hmm.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 2, 2006, at 23:26:26
In reply to Re: Ok, let's move this to Admin. » gardenergirl, posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 23:16:21
...stepping away
....hands in view at all times
> > Nice try at a rationalisation.
>Take care of yourself,
gg
Posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 23:26:27
In reply to Re: Ok, let's move this to Admin. » Dinah, posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 23:20:33
but all this is just a diversion really...
rationalisations... interesting.
yeah. i said 'people' as a shorthand for 'policy'
so slap my hand.i can take that.
consider it is better for the forum as a whole for me to be blocked for two weeks...
nope.
sorry bob.
if you are right... then that hurts... and i'm not sticking around.
if you are wrong... then that hurts...
and i've tried to be charitable to you...
i've really really tried.and seems that posters were charitable to me
were able to bebut not you.
okay.
fine.but don't expect me to stick around
in terror of when the next blocking is goign to come at me
curbing my thoughts because they don't fit your definition of civility
which is (arguably) better for the group as a whole
which is (as a matter of fact) incredibly harmful for me.i didn't get away from my mother because i was afraid
i'm not afraid of you.
Posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 23:26:39
In reply to Re: Ok, let's move this to Admin. » gardenergirl, posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 23:16:21
I don't think gg was trying to rationalize anything. :(
I know you're hurt. But gg wasn't trying to hurt you.
I do know you're hurt. And I think I really do understand why. I wish I could do something to take the hurt away. But I can't. It's something I struggle with with my son as well. I think sometimes I try too hard to take the hurt away. When maybe I should just sit with someone while they hurt.
Posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 23:29:45
In reply to Re: Ok, let's move this to Admin. » Dinah, posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 23:20:33
> I've already said... RIP A_K
Tis a shame, that.
You know where I am if you ever want to contact me.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 2, 2006, at 23:56:57
In reply to Re: Ok, let's move this to Admin. » 5, posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 23:29:45
> > I've already said... RIP A_K
>
> Tis a shame, that.I agree. And I trust that my personal contact information will remain at rest as well?
> You know where I am if you ever want to contact me.
Same goes for me.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on March 3, 2006, at 0:58:54
In reply to 5, posted by gardenergirl on March 2, 2006, at 23:56:57
It was unneccessary of me to remind you to keep my stuff private. I have no reason to believe you would do anything but continue to keep it safeguarded.
Thanks.
gg
Posted by ClearSkies on March 3, 2006, at 7:25:04
In reply to Re: Ok, let's move this to Admin., posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 22:43:31
>
> I guess teh trouble is when one is used to conversing with people who understand the difference between critiquing a policy and criticising a person...
>
> And Bob.
>
> I mean... no babblers took it personally (that I'm aware of)
>
> Seems you and Clearskies thought I didn't do the relevant cognitive gymnastics
>
> (were either of you feeling personally criticised?)
>
> what is the point of the relevant cognitive gymnastics?
>
> to prevent people taking it personally...
>
> did anyone take it personally?
>
> then consider an academic context...
>
> would anyone take it personally?
>Dear 5,
I uphold the rules and FAQs as stated. It has nothing to do with whether I took the post as a personal critique; I felt that the block was in keeping with applying the civility standards appropriately. That is what civility is all about, to me. To make certain that the standards are applied fairly and equally.ClearSkies
Posted by AuntieMel on March 3, 2006, at 10:17:05
In reply to Re: Ok, let's move this to Admin. » gardenergirl, posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 23:16:21
I'm hoping that you didn't mean that if someone finds offense here that they are being irrational?
As a person with a mental illness, I'm quite sensitive to the suggestion that anything I say is irrational. Too often people I know use that argument to dismiss things I try to say.
--------------------
> So, in this case, being a US citizen, I might view myself as a person with nukes, through my citizenship of a country that has nukes. If I did view myself that way, I might feel put down by the term hypocritical.
You might...
Is it rational for you to do so?
Should people be blocked because you (could) view things this way?
Posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 1:48:57
In reply to Re: Ok, let's move this to Admin. » 5, posted by ClearSkies on March 3, 2006, at 7:25:04
> I uphold the rules and FAQs as stated. It has nothing to do with whether I took the post as a personal critique; I felt that the block was in keeping with applying the civility standards appropriately. That is what civility is all about, to me. To make certain that the standards are applied fairly and equally.
So it is a matter of principle?
Please point me to the relevant section of the FAQ's that says that if you critique a policy or ideal then that is against the rules of the forum because people who believe in the policy / ideal might feel accused or put down.
Did you see the block coming for that phrasing before it came?
Or are you trying to see the sense after the fact?
I'm real unclear on whether my error was the (fairly much a typo)use of the term 'people' rather than policy... (In which case I'd like to see the relevant section of the FAQ's where that is considered unaccceptable.
Or if it is that you can't critique an ideal / policy then where does it say that in the FAQ? I said that a couple times earlier up the thread and didn't get a PBC / blocking for the times I used the term 'policy' rather than 'people'.
But maybe the point is that the case seems analogous to my last political blocking...
Well... I'm not seeing the sense there either...
I am not.
But is it just a matter of consistency, do you think?
Or perhaps there is the greater project of changing my 'pervasive posting style'.
Posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 2:00:01
In reply to Re: A try at re-wording, please?? » 5, posted by AuntieMel on March 3, 2006, at 10:17:05
> --------------------
>
> > So, in this case, being a US citizen, I might view myself as a person with nukes, through my citizenship of a country that has nukes. If I did view myself that way, I might feel put down by the term hypocritical.
>
> You might...
> Is it rational for you to do so?
> Should people be blocked because you (could) view things this way?> I'm hoping that you didn't mean that if someone finds offense here that they are being irrational?
You mean in this particular case or across the board?
I would say that it is irrational to take offence if someone critiques your favourite book...
I would say that it is irrational to take offence if someone critiques your favourite brand of therapy...
I would say that it is irrational to take offence if someone critiques your political ideal...I would.
And now... I imagine I'll probably get blocked for that.
Consider this...
Are phobia's irrational beliefs? They are often referred to as such. Do you have irrational beliefs? I know I sure as hell do. But I sure as hell don't think other people should be blocked for saying something that it is irrational for me to take offence to. You see... Feelings can be rational / irrational. aka more or less appropriate.
There is a literature on that...
It is about whether they are representing the relevant portion of the world accurately or inaccurately (according to their function).
If I feel accused if someone critiques my favourite book I'd say that is pretty irrational in the sense that someone is taking things overly personally. That they need to stop reading or whatever. Not campaign for a blocking for the person who is critiquing their favourite book.
But sometimes the truth can be uncivil...
And sometimes people just aren't smart enough to do the relevant cognitive gymnastics...
In this case I said 'irrational' because I was thinking there is something contradictory about the policy (if we are allowed to build in some basic moral law such as 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you) then saying 'yes for me and no for you does seem to be contradictory. And to the best of my knowledge contradictons are irrational (because beliefs are supposed to be true and contradictory states of affairs cannot obtain) and because emotions are supposed to be fitting to the circumstances and to take things overly personlly isn't so rational with respect to your having time and energy to devote to alternative issues...Was someone offended by what I said?
No.
Yet... As I've been learning probabilities are hard to falsify... You could say that there is a probability of 1 that people will feel offended / put down... And yet nobody might actually feel offended or put down. So... Maybe it is 'likely' babblers will feel accused / put down even though no babblers actually feel accused / put down (or possibly one or two).
Whatever.
I'm getting sick of this...
> As a person with a mental illness, I'm quite sensitive to the suggestion that anything I say is irrational. Too often people I know use that argument to dismiss things I try to say.
>
Posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 2:28:32
In reply to Re: A try at re-wording, please?? » AuntieMel, posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 2:00:01
First of all, I'm sure you realize that on this forum or not, stating the truth is not always civil. I clearly weigh over the recommended weight for my height, yet it would be uncivil for anyone but my doctor to walk up and tell me I'm fat.
I'm clearly not helping any. So I'm going to stop trying, since my trying isn't being helpful.
I understand that you feel hurt and betrayed by Dr. Bob. And possibly by other Babblers who didn't protest your block. I hope you are able to know in your heart it's not because those who didn't protest your block don't like you or care about you, or that it's because Dr. Bob doesn't like you. I hope that not only for me, other Babblers, and Dr. Bob's sake, but also for your own. It must really hurt to feel the way you do right now.
But I know that nothing I can say will help much. I am sorry about that.
Best wishes,
Dinah
Posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 3:29:01
In reply to 5, posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 2:28:32
I'm not hurt that people didn't protest. Really. I'm not hurt about that at all. And I'm not hurt that people are trying to make sense of it either, I understand that one. I do.
Posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 3:34:20
In reply to Re: 5 » Dinah, posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 3:29:01
and as usual i hurt my case by going on too much.
yeah thats right dr bob
just ignore me
let me work myself up into a state
and then there will be an unambiguous blockable offense.anyway...
it doesn't matter anymore.
i've made my point.its not just that it hurt.
its that it hurt one hell of a lot.
and not even just that.
more than that.for someone whose main form of punishment was to be told i wasn't fit for human company and to be locked in my room for a week or two blocks... take me back.
a_k isn't dead.
shes still in the room
and she doesn't know how to get out.not anymore.
i guess she will come back eventually.
but i have no idea what to say to her either.maybe people should only be allowed to post here if they have a therapist.
or maybe...
it doesn't matter because i'll just work myself up into a state...
and get 6 weeks.
or something.and the result is ultimately the same
Posted by Bobby on March 4, 2006, at 9:30:12
In reply to Re: 5, posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 3:34:20
Please don't get worked up and get blocked. Some of us like you. I miss your posts on Politics also. I sure hope this blows over soon.
Posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 10:30:19
In reply to Re: 5, posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 3:34:20
You know, I really do understand. I wish you would let me talk to you about it.
Posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 10:31:08
In reply to Re: 5 » 5, posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 10:30:19
with you, I should say.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 4, 2006, at 12:06:20
In reply to Re: 5, posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 3:34:20
> it doesn't matter anymore.
> i've made my point.It *does* matter.
I don't know how to address you, in this new personna. You reject older names, and 5 seems impersonal. So, to you, I send:
{{{{{{{{{{{{{you}}}}}}}}}}}}}
I hug you, the one who feels it, today.
Lar
Posted by zeugma on March 4, 2006, at 13:19:20
In reply to Re: Ok, let's move this to Admin. » ClearSkies, posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 1:48:57
Or perhaps there is the greater project of changing my 'pervasive posting style'.>>
there you have it IMO.
That's why you didn't hear me protesting your block. Because such a project is beyond my capability to understand.
I have had experiences similasr to yours in therapy. I am boring everyone i know, but this is therapy, and therapy is a project- in "Gulliver's Travels", the projectors had their own island, where they tried to design an egg that would be perfectly oblong, and then make all other eggs fit this model. or something like that. The ancients had the myth of Procrustes which made a similar point.
I can't really say more. At the moment.
-z
Posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 13:24:24
In reply to Re: Ok, let's move this to Admin., posted by zeugma on March 4, 2006, at 13:19:20
Funny how people can interpret things so differently.
I've always thought that Dr. Bob liked 5's pervasive posting style. :) His style and 5's style have always seemed not dissimilar.
And while I get frustrated from time to time because of my own issues, I too like 5's posting style.
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.