![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 125. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dinah on April 14, 2006, at 22:17:02
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Declan, posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2006, at 1:54:58
I was told there would be no math...
Just kidding, Dr. Bob. I actually like it when you share your thinking processes.
Posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 22:17:03
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 14, 2006, at 7:18:53
this Politics board is about something called 'civility.'
Myself, I read too many newspapers to post here anymore. But this board is a fine place for an ostrich.
-z
Posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 22:17:03
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Declan, posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2006, at 1:54:58
the policy the policy...
he was calling the policy cluelessdoes the policy have feelings?
does it post to babble?what if i critique a novel?
what kind of logic is this?
talk about idiosyncratic....
if i spam the boards so his post gets archived then will he be shown more leniency?
wtf?????
Posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 22:17:03
In reply to not about support and education, posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 16:12:47
> this Politics board is about something called 'civility.'
> Myself, I read too many newspapers to post here anymore. But this board is a fine place for an ostrich.
hi z. i agree. civility is a rather idiosyncratic bobism.
i used to hope to extend lessons learned back to irl but not anymore...
but it is just that this is not the place.
i see.
why not just bring the board down
it is just a blocking trap
amusing for some i suppose...
but yeah we shouldn't forget this place is really here so things can be redirected off other boards.
if you don't acknowledge that there is something wrong with the way things are... then why would you try and find out a better way?
sigh.
i can't play here anymore.
it is bad for my mental health.
Posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 22:17:03
In reply to Re: not about support and education, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 20:34:03
maybe the difficulty z...
is that some of us thought bob was serious about the 'education' aspect to the boards...
Posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 22:17:03
In reply to Re: not about support and education, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 20:34:53
> maybe the difficulty z...
>
> is that some of us thought bob was serious about the 'education' aspect to the boards...
>>when he said that he was subordinating truth to civility.
i take people at their word.
-z
Posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 22:17:03
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 20:30:22
I dunno. I didn't take it as meaning the policy, because, as you say, policies can't feel, post, etc. People make policies and people make up the groups a poster might describe as, for one example, "the left/centre."
I took it as meaning that the *people* who make up what Declan considers the "left/centre" (and I have little idea who that is...but that's me showing my political ignorance and/or not quite following Declan's posts, as far as which countries or governments he's referring to soemtimes,etc.) - are clueless. Which I believe is what Dr. Bob is saying.
It's like....if I'm in a group of people who I hear discussing a problem/situation and I completely disagree with their ideas of what to do, or even what they believe about the thing, etc., and I really want to express myself, to get out all my opposite or different ideas, to tell them about my alternatives and hopefully, demonstrate through doing this, how their way isn't the best, well...would I move this potential dialog forward by inquiring of them at the outset why they were "so clueless?"
I can't imagine it. But I think you're saying we ought to be able to speak thay way here? Or am I missing your point? Perhaps I can't divorce a policy from the policymakers, or policy-supporters, at least in this context, and you definitely can? Is that it, maybe?
Wouldn't it just be so much easier to refrain from labeling? To say you don't agree, strongly oppose...whatever....that policy or stance or view, and then tell the board what you think xxx group *should* or *could* do *instead?*
This is so very frustrating. I hate that we can't seem to come to some understanding of this. I wish I had some brilliant way to fix it so *all* posters felt they could stay, remain civil, feel safe and be heard. I see it as so very possible. But I'm at a loss as to any way to help that happen.
argghhhhhh :-(
Posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 22:17:03
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » special_k, posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 21:39:20
This is so very frustrating. I hate that we can't seem to come to some understanding of this. I wish I had some brilliant way to fix it so *all* posters felt they could stay, remain civil, feel safe and be heard. I see it as so very possible. But I'm at a loss as to any way to help that happen.>>
It isn't your fault. Politics is an inherently nasty subject. At this moment we are making plans to nuke Iran to stop them from having nukes. This strange dilemma was the reason Bush, Sr. and Mr. Powell elected not to take Baghdad all those years ago- it is *convenient* to have people be most uncivil to each other, strange bedfellows and all that- shame about the Kurds.
Kissinger realpolitik looks like an idyll compared to what we are contemplating now. And that was bad enough.
-z
Posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 22:17:03
In reply to not about support and education, posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 16:12:47
> this Politics board is about something called 'civility.'
I sure hope so. Politics, inspiring people's passions as it does and should, perhaps needs, demands, requires, civility, even more than the other boards.
Maybe I am just a big, dumb bird avoiding reality.
Maybe it's just my own issues that have me sometimes feeling it's more about sand being repeatedly kicked into my face, than any burying I could do on my own.
Maybe I need to figure out how to absorb the 'education" sent my way with some doses of offense, put downs and name-calling. Be good for me, right? Toughen me up or something?
Education on political topics and kindness to others (=civility) are mutually exclusive? Who woulda thunk it? :-(
I guess most everyone but me. I think I give up :-(
Posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 22:17:03
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » special_k, posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 21:39:20
Assuming that support and education are the goals here, they may simply be contradictory.
one may not like very much the lessons that are learned, but they may be most informative nonetheless.
-z
Posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 22:17:04
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » 10derHeart, posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 21:50:54
>>Politics is an inherently nasty subject
I couldn't disagree more. I don't see *any* subject as inherently nasty.
I choose *not* to be nasty, if I can possibly, humanly help it. And I believe mostly,I can.
Posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 22:17:04
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » zeugma, posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 22:03:24
> >>Politics is an inherently nasty subject
>
> I couldn't disagree more. I don't see *any* subject as inherently nasty.
>
> I choose *not* to be nasty, if I can possibly, humanly help it. And I believe mostly,I can.>>War is not nasty?
Do you really believe that?
-z
>
>
Posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 22:36:59
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » 10derHeart, posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 22:12:47
to clarify (unwelcome or not- ) *you* are not nasty- but politics- well, I will not detail scandals about leaks, hypocrisies, and lies, and statements by numerous retired generals, because they *are* quite nasty-I suppose the CIA is nasty, to prosecute the Federal government for its leak of an agent's identity- I suppose it's nasty to wonder why Saddam is in custody when we all thought Osama was behind 9/11- it is rude to ponder these questions-
-z
Posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 22:36:59
In reply to Re: not about support and education, posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 21:59:00
i can't read the last three posts because there is an 'error can't find post xxx' then the number of the post.
i think people are conflating civility (as it appears in the dictionary) with civility (as it appears in the FAQ). Similar mistake than conflating intelligence (as it appears in the dictionary) with intelligence (as measured by Weschler etc).
you need to tease them apart...
i don't have a problem with civility (as it appears in the dictionary)
i do have a problem with civility (and blockings as appear in the faq and also as appears on the boards more generally seeing as the FAQ's aren't up to date and all)btw you aren't allowed to say you are 'opposed' to anything that someone else might support (thought you might want to know that seeing as i have been blocked / warned can't remember which for being opposed to the american ideal before...)
context
contextget past the words... what was declan talking about? i took him to be drawing our attention to policy.
it is illogical to get upset when someone critiques your favourite book.
that is to say it is not appropriate.
why?
because they are talking about a book.it is illogical to get upset when someone critiques your favourite political party / politician / policy / ideal.
that is to say it is not appropriate.
why?
because they are talking about a political party / politician / policy / ideal.THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU>
and i think dr bob can hear the difference even though he seems to be teaching people on the boards that there is no difference
(people might generalise this back to real life and will that harm them or help them in their real world interactions do you think?)
he seems to be teaching people that there is no difference.
but there is a difference.
yeah stick your head in the sand dr bob...
go ahead.
the people getting blocked over here...
they don't accuse attack judge posters on these boards.
you are catering to peoples feelings too much...
you said before you didn't think it was a good idea to do that (re angelgirl)
so why are ya doing it over here?????
depends who complains eh?
Posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 22:37:34
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » special_k, posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 21:39:20
>I didn't take it as meaning the policy, because, as you say, policies can't feel, post, etc. People make policies and people make up the groups a poster might describe as, for one example, "the left/centre."
> I took it as meaning that the *people* who make up what Declan considers the "left/centre"you took it that way because you are trying to justify his block...
or you took it that way because you can't see the difference?> would I move this potential dialog forward by inquiring of them at the outset why they were "so clueless?"
he gave an example of what led him to that conclusion. come on... be charitable... look at the example. can't you see he was trying to draw your attention to that?
IMHO I wouldn't bother being charitable to dr bob because he really isn't charitable to us.
try reading declans post charitably.
if you want to teach people to be charitable (which is likely to have them feel a lot happier than if they go around seeing people as hurting and accusing and attacking and judging them all the time) then... read charitably.
> I can't imagine it. But I think you're saying we ought to be able to speak thay way here?read charitably...
not what do you think?> Or am I missing your point? Perhaps I can't divorce a policy from the policymakers, or policy-supporters, at least in this context, and you definitely can? Is that it, maybe?
can't you?
you didn't make the policy did you now?
how is it attacking, accusing, judging you?
would you feel hurt and accused if i said i critiqued your favourite book? should i get blocked because you can't get the distinction?> Wouldn't it just be so much easier to refrain from labeling?
i made a similar point over on relationships...
> To say you don't agree, strongly oppose...whatever....that policy or stance or view, and then tell the board what you think xxx group *should* or *could* do *instead?*
sure. thats how i see it going. i get warned / blocked for expressing opposition. declan gets blocked for attempting to draw peoples attention to something that is problematic (need to see the problem to get motivated to improve the situation)
>
Posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 22:39:26
In reply to Re:, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 22:26:51
war is nasty
but people who go to war aren't nasty...
the latter isn't ruled out by the former...
Posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 22:44:26
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » 10derHeart, posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 22:12:47
No, I don't.
But do I have to be *nasty* in the *way* I discuss disturbing things - like war - with others?
That's what I meant. That it's never a given (inherent) that we are somehow forced to abandon civility in order to talk about certain things. Sorry if I was unclear. It's not about the message, it's the method. The attitude of the messenger can make or break any communication from minute-one, IMO.
It's not that I'm moved to 'kill' the messenger because of the message, but that I can't even begin to try to see or hear the message for all the sand in my eyes and ears.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 14, 2006, at 22:50:45
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » special_k, posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 21:39:20
I'm with 10derheart on this one, and I formed this interpretation upon intial reading of Declan's post, before Dr. Bob blocked him.
The terms "liberal left", "left/center", "Christian right", "moderate right", etc. are used to identify groups of people who hold similar political ideology--groups of people. As a member of the "liberal left" and the US Democratic party, I would and do feel put down by being called "clueless".
I didn't participate in writing the party platform, and I'm not a Democratic strategist. But I identify myself with this group. I believe that concerns about the strength of the Democratic party and/or "left/center" opposition can be addressed without labelling the group as "clueless".
sigh
gg
Posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 22:51:52
In reply to Re: messages and methods » zeugma, posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 22:44:26
> But do I have to be *nasty* in the *way* I discuss disturbing things - like war - with others?> That's what I meant. That it's never a given (inherent) that we are somehow forced to abandon civility in order to talk about certain things.
so people who break the civility rules are *nasty* in the *way* they discuss things...
that is what is meant by 'abandoning civility'?
you really think the civility rules latch on to that?
you really think Declan's comment was *nasty*?i'm not asking you to say whether you agree or not
(that might be nasty)
i'm asking you to think about the implications of what you have said for people who get blockedi think you don't want to say that at all...
i think you might want to distinguish between
1) civility (dictionary definition)
2) civility (bob's definition)you might just want to...
after all...
Posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 22:53:25
In reply to I interpreted it the same way » 10derHeart, posted by gardenergirl on April 14, 2006, at 22:50:45
> I'm with 10derheart on this one, and I formed this interpretation upon intial reading of Declan's post, before Dr. Bob blocked him.
>
> The terms "liberal left", "left/center", "Christian right", "moderate right", etc. are used to identify groups of people who hold similar political ideology--groups of people. As a member of the "liberal left" and the US Democratic party, I would and do feel put down by being called "clueless".
>
> I didn't participate in writing the party platform, and I'm not a Democratic strategist. But I identify myself with this group. I believe that concerns about the strength of the Democratic party and/or "left/center" opposition can be addressed without labelling the group as "clueless".OMG.
i'm tempted to say 'only in america...'
(hence the trouble declan, damos, and myself are having...)
but z is in america too...
interesting...
Posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:01:36
In reply to Re:, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 22:26:51
dennett talks about how sometimes people enlarge their boundaries...
so someone who is really into cars might take it as a personal insult if someone were to say they have a crappy car.
i guess similarly someone who is really into politics might take it as a personal insult if someone were to say their favourite party had a crappy policy.
but...
there is something a little silly...
IMHO.
people 'might' be offended for all sorts of reasons.
owning ones own response as ones own response
looking upon others charitably...doesn't apply here huh.
this is crazymaking.
i've talked about cultural bias before...
people getting blocked on politics are getting blocked because they *might* offend americans who seem to have this unfortunate tendancy of taking politics personally.
i don't take politics personally.
nope.
i used to have a crappy bike.
i did.
i didn't take that personally either.i am not my bike. i am so much more than my bike.
and i am not my favourite parties ideology or policy either. i am so much more than my favourite parties ideology or policy.of course if i wasn't...
if i really thought there was nothing more to my political beliefs than those represented by the current state of my favourite political parties... then i might take things overly personally.there is a cultural bias...
you want everyone in the world to learn to take politics personally too?and of course in all this...
innocent people die
tick
tick
tickunbelievable.
Posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 23:09:13
In reply to Re: messages and methods » zeugma, posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 22:44:26
> No, I don't.
>
> But do I have to be *nasty* in the *way* I discuss disturbing things - like war - with others?
>
>
It's not about the message, it's the method. The attitude of the messenger can make or break any communication from minute-one, IMO. >>true, true. that is why we have diplomats.
>
> It's not that I'm moved to 'kill' the messenger because of the message, but that I can't even begin to try to see or hear the message for all the sand in my eyes and ears.>>some of us Babble alumni should join the diplomatic corps. but one should not always trust a diplomat either.
of course, good diplomats are aware that they have an intrinsic credibility problem. it's a dirty trade.
-z
Posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 23:09:27
In reply to Re: messages and methods, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 22:51:52
I apologize to anyone who now feels I have called you nasty if you violate the civility rules.
That was not my intention and I don't think that.
I picked up on the adjective z. used to describe war and just recycled it poorly. I just thought..I just thought I was being told that if an issue is generally disturbing - war in this case - that here (and IRL, too?) we should suspend the civility rules and speak about those kinds of things, well, any way we want? I was trying to explain how I don't agree with that.
Sorry. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm sorry you even had to ask me that, but you were right to do it.
While I'm posting here, I'm always operating under Dr. Bob's definitions. I'm pretty much okay with his brand of civility...but you probably know that just as I know you are not okay with a lot of it.
I'm sorry.
Posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:15:13
In reply to Re:, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:01:36
and i'll get blocked for something no doubt...
and the message will get lost...
but there is a distinction
(there are many distinctions)
there is an important distinction
(there are many important distinctions)
of course you *can* take whatever you like personally... and the boards *can* (and do on politics especially) seem to warn / block on the assumption that people are *entitled* to take things personally. and of course you are entitled. you can go around taking things personally if you like. i think you will suffer more because of it but it is your perogative i guess.
i wonder if people can hear the distinction but they ignore it because they know the rules ignore it.
i think there is danger in considering there to be 'civility rules' on the boards.
there is a danger because people lose the distinction between what civility means in the dictionary (and of course that sense of civility is a terrific idea) and bob's notion of civility / what he judges to merit a PBC / PBS / blocking.
and the latter... well... that is dr bob's idiosyncratic notion. experts disagree. they don't think the latter is the best way to achieve the former.
that is up for debate.
but IMHO what is happening... is that people are seeing the rules as arbitrary again... seeing it as burying ones head in the sand because it fails to capture a distinction that is there between
hurting / accusing / attacking / judging another poster
and critiquing something that posters may have come to care about.
the trouble with the latter is that people may well have come to care about a lot of things.
so...how do you decide what things you are going to block for and what things you aren't?
depends who complains?
maybe this place is more similar to psychcentral's way of doing things than i had supposed...
and IMHO it is only going to get worse.
it is.
Posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 23:19:04
In reply to sorry » special_k, posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 23:09:27
I picked up on the adjective z. used. I just thought..I just thought I was being told that if an issue is generally disturbing - war in this case - that here (and IRL, too?) we should suspend the civility rules and speak about those kinds of things, well, any way we want? I was trying to explain how I don't agree with that.>>
i feel unutterably sad.
kindness. you are a kind person.
-z
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.