![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 36. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Jakeman on April 3, 2006, at 19:26:54
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » zeugma, posted by Dr. Bob on April 3, 2006, at 13:45:29
> > President Bush is a liar.
>
> Sorry, but please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings. The last time you were blocked it was for 1 week, so this time it's for 2.
>Can I ask two hypothetical questions Dr. Bob as a clarification?
If someone posted, "Bush tells the truth" would it merit a block? Some people might be offended by that statement.
If the pending Congressional action passes which would censure Bush for lying about the reasons for going to war, then would a post like Zeugma's merit a block?
Personally I am not offended by those who post pro or anti Bush statements. It's just their opinion. No meaningful debate is possible without allowing people to express their views.
warm regards, Jake
Posted by Jakeman on April 3, 2006, at 19:43:38
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Jakeman on April 3, 2006, at 18:51:10
> > > President Bush is a liar.
> >
> > Sorry, but please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings. The last time you were blocked it was for 1 week, so this time it's for 2.
> >
>
> Can I ask two hypothetical questions Dr. Bob as a clarification?
>
> If someone posted, "Bush tells the truth" would it merit a block? Some people might be offended by that statement.
>
> If the pending Congressional action passes which would censure Bush for lying about the reasons for going to war, then would a post like Zeugma's merit a block?
>
> Personally I am not offended by those who post pro or anti Bush statements. It's just their opinion. No meaningful debate is possible without allowing people to express their views.
>
> warm regards, Jake
>Dr. Bob, I forgot to ask, for future reference. If he had used an "I" statement, would he have been blocked? Just trying to get clear on the rules. Thanks.
Jake
Posted by special_k on April 3, 2006, at 19:51:18
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Jakeman, posted by Jakeman on April 3, 2006, at 19:43:38
how about
i feel (lied to by bush)
me + z could have some fun with that :-)
Posted by Jakeman on April 3, 2006, at 20:30:55
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks, posted by special_k on April 3, 2006, at 19:51:18
> how about
>
> i feel (lied to by bush)
>
> me + z could have some fun with that :-)Fine with me but would that pass the moderaters?
The way I've seen the rules applied here is that you are not allowed to make negative comments about certain leaders. I probably could get away with disparaging comments about Osama Bin Laden but not Bush. It becomes quite a slippery slope. Can I criticize Dominique de Villepin (Prime minister of France)? The way off it is to allow people to criticize public figures, but not EACH OTHER. I statements don't seem to make a difference on politics.
warm regards, Jake
Posted by special_k on April 3, 2006, at 21:05:59
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Jakeman on April 3, 2006, at 18:51:10
i shall try...
(because i can be very trying)
;-)> If someone posted, "Bush tells the truth" would it merit a block? Some people might be offended by that statement.
no i don't think it would merit a block. same as if you said 'special_k is a liar' you would get warned / blocked but if you said 'special_k tells the truth' then you would probably get a hug :-) you get it in that case eh?
i think it is that...
people who support bush might feel offended by the liar thing...
and i guess you can say that people who don't support him might feel offended by the truth-telling thing...
well that comes back to what it is okay to say to me (as a poster on the board).
> If the pending Congressional action passes which would censure Bush for lying about the reasons for going to war, then would a post like Zeugma's merit a block?i think it might (if someone was upset or something)... might be a hard one... some truths are uncivil e.g., 'you are ugly and fat special_k' :-(
> Personally I am not offended by those who post pro or anti Bush statements. It's just their opinion. No meaningful debate is possible without allowing people to express their views.hmm.
i think dr bob's civility rules (ESPECIALLY on politics) are a little idiosyncratic... okay... more than a little... though to be fair i don't know of another mental health site that has a place for people's to discuss politics - do you? not that there can't be improvements etc. just that... he is trying i guess...but i think he is trying to help us get the hang of it... well have to believe that anyways...
er...
i think meaningful debate is possible. just HARD. it is HARD.
i have sympathy with that. i do.
> > how about
> i feel (lied to by bush)hmm. i'm thinking that might not go so well either...
how about
i feel (you are ugly and fat special_k)
:-(
> The way I've seen the rules applied here is that you are not allowed to make negative comments about certain leaders.
i think not supposed to be about any leaders... though i think it is about people who support those leaders might feel upset if people put them down (like i'd feel upset if someone put my friend muffled down) :-(
i guess osama and co don't have many supporters on these boards ;-)
though i think to be fair that should be equally enforced...
(i think some iraq peoples might be a little upset about some of the things that have been said about peoples in iraq.. I think we should be careful about that and about the 'opposition' too. though once someone has been labelled a 'terrorist'... wonder if it is uncivil to label someone a 'terrorist'? probably best not to...)
> The way off it is to allow people to criticize public figures, but not EACH OTHER. I statements don't seem to make a difference on politics.
yeah i was thinking that too.
but then maybe... it is good practice anyways?
learning mental gymnastics and co...
and maybe it will help things run smoother (once we all get the hang of it)
i wish z only got one week.
one week for political blockings
:-(
i wanna talk to z
wah!
Posted by Phillipa on April 3, 2006, at 22:51:30
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » special_k, posted by Jakeman on April 3, 2006, at 20:30:55
Now you know why I stay away from politics. Love Phillipa
Posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 0:58:56
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks, posted by special_k on April 3, 2006, at 19:51:18
That's not an allowable I statement. It's still about the other person.
On the other hand you can say "President Bush said xxx on 4/15/03 but on 5/15/03 he said yyyy, or did yyyy." You could probably add "I find it difficult to reconcile the two statements." Which is a true I statement. Because conceivably the two statements are perfectly reconcilable, but you just are having difficulty doing it.
Posted by special_k on April 4, 2006, at 4:40:43
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks, posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 0:58:56
> On the other hand you can say "President Bush said xxx on 4/15/03 but on 5/15/03 he said yyyy, or did yyyy." You could probably add "I find it difficult to reconcile the two statements." Which is a true I statement. Because conceivably the two statements are perfectly reconcilable, but you just are having difficulty doing it.lol.
yes. mental gymnastics...
still... there is a nice element of the understated in that and you allow people to draw their own conclusions.it can be really hard to think of these phrasings at the time :-(
Posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 9:34:11
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dinah, posted by special_k on April 4, 2006, at 4:40:43
I never think of it as mental gymnastics. Just as respect for others. If you can find a copy, I highly recommend "Choosing Civility". ClearSkies recommended it, and it does a wonderful job of conveying why civility is far more than merely a mental game or a surface politeness. I haven't gotten very far in the book, but I really like what I see so far. I admire Dr. Bob for trying to promote such a wonderful concept on the board. Think of the peace that could come if everyone embraced civility as a way of life, as a way of thinking about others.
Because that's really what it is. Sometimes things seem silly. Like I used to love Star and National Enquirer, and when I heard Dr. Laura fussing about gossip, I really didn't understand the big deal. I didn't know these people. I couldn't hurt them. But when I thought about the overall picture, I understood. I still have a very long way to go on that, because I'm frequently embarassed and ashamed about popping my mouth off about my mother and brother. I don't know what that's about because I'm always resolving to do better.
I'm tired of saying it about the politics board. But I just think of the world and how much better it would be if people would start out with a respect for their "opponent" or at least the assumption of respect, acknowledged mutual points of agreement, and then worked to resolve the differences. Or at least with the intention of concentrating on putting forth their own positive ideas about how the world should be best run, instead of concentrating on the awful ideas others have or the deficits in their characters.
Sometimes I think if we can't do it here on Babble where we supposedly care about one another (even Bush supporters - I don't consider myself one, but I care about posters who may consider themselves one), how can it be done in the world? And then I get very discouraged.
And yet, I still hold out hope for civility.
Really, if you can, try to find "Choosing Civility". I obviously don't say it well enough.
(Figured it would be better to change the subject line.)
Posted by Toph on April 4, 2006, at 10:34:43
In reply to Civility » special_k, posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 9:34:11
Hi Dinah. As Bob puts it he can do what he pleases here. He has chosen to strive for a civil site. Civility can be a good thing. It's the rule here. Many people like the limits here and unquestionably Babble would be different if conduct were less civil. I have heard differing subjective arguments here as to which is better - more or less civility on Babble. I happen to think it would be much worse for the most vulnerable among us if it were more open here. My only suggestion here is that civilility is not a universally good thing. As on Babble, in life people lie, steal and injure others. History is replete with examples involving individuals and social structures where more harm was done by not calling a spade a spade. But then, that is the trouble with universal principals, it may not always be good to be civil just as it may not always be good to tell the truth.
Posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 11:44:27
In reply to Re: Civility » Dinah, posted by Toph on April 4, 2006, at 10:34:43
But...
You can punish people who break the law... civilly.
You can tell the truth... civilly.
Civility isn't a matter of what. It's a matter of how. And the how defines us as much as the what.
IMHO.
Dinah
Posted by wildcard11 on April 4, 2006, at 13:49:43
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Jakeman on April 3, 2006, at 18:51:10
I would be HIGHLY offended if someone said Bush tells the truth...politics is grey and on here it is supposed to stay black and white...VERY HARD to do! Miss you z!
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 4, 2006, at 16:20:32
In reply to Re: Civility » Toph, posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 11:44:27
I'm going to read that book. What you said about it not being superficial politeness has sold me.
I've told you many times that I can't express how much I admire your ability to say what you think, and stay true to your beliefs, but still be unfailingly polite.I think it's also kind of interesting to see how it would be if politics discussion wasn't assumed to be no holds barred.
Posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 17:22:50
In reply to Civility-Dinah, posted by gabbi~1 on April 4, 2006, at 16:20:32
> I'm going to read that book. What you said about it not being superficial politeness has sold me.
> I've told you many times that I can't express how much I admire your ability to say what you think, and stay true to your beliefs, but still be unfailingly polite.Well, maybe not *unfailingly*. But that's the general idea. :) Thank you, Gabbi. That's a wonderful thing to read about oneself.
>
> I think it's also kind of interesting to see how it would be if politics discussion wasn't assumed to be no holds barred.Yeah. Me too. I even posted there for a while when it seemed a possible goal.
Posted by Toph on April 4, 2006, at 21:12:53
In reply to Re: Civility » Toph, posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 11:44:27
>
> You can tell the truth... civilly.
>Some would argue that any communication that is anything less than the simplest, most direct expression of reality is something less than the truth. So that attempts to be civil often compromise the absolute truth and could be viewed as something less than honest.
A sort of clash of absolutes - pure civility v. pure honesty.
But I know what you are driving at, the method matters. A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.
Posted by Jakeman on April 4, 2006, at 21:34:52
In reply to Jakeman » Jakeman, posted by wildcard11 on April 4, 2006, at 13:49:43
> I would be HIGHLY offended if someone said Bush tells the truth...politics is grey and on here it is supposed to stay black and white...VERY HARD to do! Miss you z!
Good point wildcard. It's hard to point out corruption if we're only supposed to say nice things.
Posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 22:42:17
In reply to Re: Civility, posted by Toph on April 4, 2006, at 21:12:53
What I'm saying is actually more than that. It's a philosophy of life.
It is true that civility is useful in discourse. It facilitates productive discussion.
I mean, if someone does something you don't like and you say "Hey stupid! Watch it!", the outcome would likely be less positive than if you said "Excuse me, but would you mind..."
But it's more than that. It's... more than that.
Posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 22:53:35
In reply to Re: Jakeman » wildcard11, posted by Jakeman on April 4, 2006, at 21:34:52
Why?
You can always point out facts. And allow people to reach their own conclusions. You don't need to label anything negatively to point out facts.
If you said, "The police are looking into the disappearance of $50,000 from XYZ Corp. Fred was in charge of the funds and Fred recently fled the country" wouldn't that be pointing out corruption? Would it be necessary to say that Fred is a lying cowardly thief?
Of course, it would be best if there was substantial evidence for the facts. I mean, if Allan just made up the story about Fred, that would be different. Or if Allan just heard about the story from his second cousin's plumber, perhaps he should put "I heard from my second cousin's plumber that..."
Posted by Jakeman on April 4, 2006, at 23:30:03
In reply to Re: Jakeman » Jakeman, posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 22:53:35
> Why?
>
> You can always point out facts. And allow people to reach their own conclusions.Dinah,
I can cite dozens of references from reputable magazines and newspapers, as well quotes from top high level administration officials-- that Bush lied about our reasons for going to war with Iraq. Do you think I would get blocked for such a statement? I think so (I'll leave out Tom Delay for now).
There always will be someone who is offended by the facts. Sometime's it's me.
Thanks for your response, Jake
Posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 23:32:22
In reply to Re: Jakeman » Dinah, posted by Jakeman on April 4, 2006, at 23:30:03
If you don't characterize it as lying you can point out all the facts you want. People may be offended, but you won't be being uncivil.
Posted by special_k on April 4, 2006, at 23:53:30
In reply to Civility » special_k, posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 9:34:11
> I never think of it as mental gymnastics. Just as respect for others.
once upon a time... i would have agreed. i used to think it was fairly much 'common sense' too - until i started seeing some of the things people got warned / blocked for.
in my better moments... i've been known to say similar things myself (similar to the things you are saying now). but lets just say it comes and goes, it comes and goes...
i don't have a problem with 'civility'
i don't have a problem with 'intelligence'
but dr bob has a 'unique' brand of 'civility'
like weschler has a 'unique' brand of 'intelligence'operationalising the concepts... therein lies the difficulty...
> I'm tired of saying it about the politics board. But I just think of the world and how much better it would be if people would start out with a respect for their "opponent" or at least the assumption of respect, acknowledged mutual points of agreement, and then worked to resolve the differences. Or at least with the intention of concentrating on putting forth their own positive ideas about how the world should be best run, instead of concentrating on the awful ideas others have or the deficits in their characters.
sure ok.
but dr bob still has a unique notion of what people should / should not be warned / blocked for in implementing that ideal...and it is also fairly standard practice... to point out problems / critique BEFORE going on with ones own theory / view.
why?
because if it ain't broke why waste time / energy on the matter?
need to point out it's broke IN ORDER to get people on board sometimes.
as people have been known to say in philosophy (in the cases when people don't point out problems first)
WHO CARES.
aka
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?> Really, if you can, try to find "Choosing Civility". I obviously don't say it well enough.
i don't have a problem with 'choosing civility'
i have a problem with defining the civility that is being 'chosen'sigh.
i get the ideal...
just having trouble with the practice...
and the blocks.
always the blocks.
:-(
Posted by Toph on April 5, 2006, at 11:03:25
In reply to Re: Civility » Toph, posted by Dinah on April 4, 2006, at 22:42:17
I guess what I'm pondering is that maybe there is a hierarchy of ideals. And if there is, truth, for me, would be the ultimate ideal. Civility, though a noble ideal, would have to be trumped by the truth where there were a conflict. Honesty made the top ten on the list of commandments. Civility apparently was a mere after thought. We are compelled to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the pursuit of justice. And Colonel Jessup rationalized (wrongly) that he should withhold the truth in the interest of civility and because we (the people) "can't handle the truth."
It is comforting that people who injure others here without remorse are punished. It's disillusioning to me when someone is punished for telling the truth.
Truthfulness is a philosophy of life also.
Posted by Dinah on April 5, 2006, at 13:43:15
In reply to Re: Civility » Dinah, posted by Toph on April 5, 2006, at 11:03:25
I'm afraid not. :) The greatest of these is...
That's what civility is all about.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 5, 2006, at 15:46:56
In reply to Re: Civility » Dinah, posted by Toph on April 5, 2006, at 11:03:25
> I guess what I'm pondering is that maybe there is a hierarchy of ideals. And if there is, truth, for me, would be the ultimate ideal. Civility, though a noble ideal, would have to be trumped by the truth where there were a conflict.
I'm not sure I agree, although I admit I'm not thinking through every possible truth to be told. But I think many truths can be told civilly. Telling them without apparent judgement would go a long way, as Dinah I think said earlier. Unless what you are trying to convey is your judgement about something. It's true I believe X about Y, and that is my judgement about it. It's a fact that I believe that, but it's not a universal fact. It's subjective. But not everyone may feel the same way. So is that really truth? Or is it a belief?
If someone asks, "Do I look fat in this?" a horrible question to be faced with, I might add...it may very well be true that the outfit is not flattering and does indeed emphasize the person's weight. Is the absolute truth the answer, "Yes, you look fat in that"? Or can it be expressed equally well by saying, "I think X style would be more flattering" or "That outfit does call my attention to your hips (or whatever)." I know that's a simple example. But are the latter messages diminished in any way by the way they are stated? Maybe this is a poor example, actually, because "fat" is a subjective term.
> It's disillusioning to me when someone is punished for telling the truth.
See, I don't quite feel that way, because I do think that the way you say something is as important as the content. And it may not come as easily. It can take a lot of extra effort sometimes, but I think unless you are stating a judgement, you can state truth in a civil manner. Heck, maybe you can even state things you judge to be true, that are more subjective in a civil way if you identify and own the judgement. But that's trickier here, probably, but IRL I think it goes a long way towards civility when discussing issues with someone who believes differently than you do.
>
> Truthfulness is a philosophy of life also.Yes, I agree. In many cases, maybe even most, I prefer direct truth versus indirect, vague, or even cryptic statements. But if we took that as they only operator in deciding what to express, we'd go around saying a lot of hurtful things as well, wouldn't we? Perhaps some feel that framing statements to meet the guidelines here make them more indirect, vague, or somehow changes their meaning. But I would ask what the person is really and truly trying to communicate. Is it the fact? Or is it their judgement about the fact that they want to express? There's a difference. I may feel everyone should be outraged at X statement by Y person. So I may say, "I am outraged by this" and go on to give the information. I may find I have to do the cognitive gymnastics to say this civilly. But maybe I just want to bring X statement by Y person out, to inform people about what was said. What is the truth I'm trying to convey with the message? Am I truly wishing to convey the information, regardless of how anyone else might judge the situation? Or am I trying to convey what I believe about it? What's my real message, that Y saying X is wrong or outrageous, or that Y said X? Which is the truth I want to express? In the former, I think there is more potential for truth and civility to conflict, because there is a judgement involved. In the latter, assuming that Y did indeed say X, it is a fact presented without judgement, a more objective truth, which I think reduces the conflict between truth and civility.
Okay, enough of my own cognitive gynmastics with this for now. These concepts are certainly not simple, not superficial, though, and it's no wonder that they can evoke strong feelings and opinions.
gg
Posted by Toph on April 5, 2006, at 18:58:11
In reply to Re: Civility » Toph, posted by Dinah on April 5, 2006, at 13:43:15
> I'm afraid not. :) The greatest of these is...
>Got me there. Love trumps truth... True love that is (and I thought for sure you'd mention the golden rule which I consider a civility concept). :)
> That's what civility is all about.
Not so fast my friend, I always thought confronting rabbis, a most uncivil act at the time, was done out of love. But surely I'm out of my realm here.
I'm off to fish for a week in Kentucky so I'm going to have to let things rest here. I enjoy discussing these things with you Dinah. I appreciate how much you care about this place.
Toph
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.