![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 45 to 69 of 125. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 9:35:24
In reply to Re: sorry, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 8:37:40
What you said was:
"and someone who has been stiring vs a moderator and potential moderator
surely i'll get blocked."Which to my reading (and I could be wrong) implies that if there is a difference of opinion between a deputy or a potential deputy and a poster who isn't a deputy or potential deputy, the poster is more likely to get blocked than if there is a difference of opinion between two posters who aren't deputies or potential deputies.
I've had considerable experience in this area, having felt offended on occasion and emailing Dr. Bob in no uncertain terms why I thought the other poster should get a PBC, to no avail.
I would contend that your chances of getting blocked depend solely on what you post, not on who you post it to.
And please don't call us moderators. We aren't moderators, but rather deputies. Dr. Bob is the only moderator or administrator.
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 9:41:07
In reply to Re: Two separate issues » special_k, posted by gardenergirl on April 15, 2006, at 9:32:08
> > but should blocking decisions be made because people choose to take things personally?
> When the FAQ says "please don't...post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down"that is an unobtainable standard.
i could say 'i don't like holdens' and someone who really loved that brand of car (or who had one of whatever) *could* feel accused (of having a crap car lets say) or put down. they *could* get offended (lets leave 'choice' out of it i agree). it is rather amazing the scope of things that people can and do take offence to.but that doesn't mean the world can or should be rearranged for every possibility.
it would be impossible to do so.
hence there must be a middle ground.
and bob has picked one...
but i think he could chill a little more.
'i'll show you differences'
if you can see differences then you tend not to feel put down... of course... some people always will be. my still being here probably offends a whole bunch of people. shall i just bug off then?
> > guess you could call it falling into line with the majority (seeing as the majority of posters to politics are from america)...
> Rather, I would call it falling in line with the site policies.
of not offending people on the assumption that people will take politics personally and respond by feeling offended? you don't think that assumption exhibits cultural bias? (no let me guess that is just the way things are all around the world...)
> > repeat after me: i am not my political parties legislation: i am so much more than that. and if people are opposed to the legislation that does not mean they are opposed to me.
> Um, that's a fair representation of how I view it. Why would feeling offended about a specific topic/incident resonate through my entire sense of self? You're right, I am so much more than any one interest or role. But that doesn't preclude feeling offended related to what someone might say about one aspect of myself, does it?and so that person should be blocked for two weeks.
sigh.
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 9:48:52
In reply to I must disagree » special_k, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 9:35:24
> "and someone who has been stiring vs a moderator and potential moderator
> surely i'll get blocked."you aren't a moderator and i'm not a stirrer.
(you weren't thinking i was stirring were you? i might choose to feel offended by taking your silence on that to me a mark of assent...)of course even if i didn't ACTUALLY feel offended by that...
i hope you can see that it is possible that i COULD feel offended by that...
and so my point is to show that it is impossible to rearrange the world to take care of all the things people could *possibly* feel offended to
(even if we are dealing with a very narrow kind of metaphysical possibility)> Which to my reading (and I could be wrong) implies that if there is a difference of opinion between a deputy or a potential deputy and a poster who isn't a deputy or potential deputy, the poster is more likely to get blocked than if there is a difference of opinion between two posters who aren't deputies or potential deputies.
my thought was that if people start getting upset... someone is going to be warned / blocked. and priming / confirmation bias will mean my posts will be scrutinised most closely. it's been noticed before. you don't want me to start hauling up instances of bob passing over incivilitiesBOB from posters who very rarely get warned / blocked where he blocks other posters for a very long time for the exact same thing (because he is reading their posts more carefully one must suppose).
it happens. thats life. do you want references for experiments?
Posted by verne on April 15, 2006, at 9:49:25
In reply to Re: Thank you Verne :) From me, too! (nm), posted by gardenergirl on April 15, 2006, at 9:34:33
I'm afraid to read my posts. My head hurts and my high horse is plumb wore out.
thanks for the kind words 10der, Dinah, and Gardengirl.
feeling veeble
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 9:57:20
In reply to Re: I must disagree » Dinah, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 9:48:52
I think we've discussed interpretation of those before, and at that time you didn't think that the arguments were persuasive.
Have you changed your mind now?
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 10:06:36
In reply to Re: I must disagree » special_k, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 9:57:20
before automated asterisking...
some people would swear in their posts...
with no comment.
another person would swear in their post...
and get blocked for it.why did the first person not get blocked / warned while the second person did?
and of course it still happens (though not with that 'cause of automated asterisking)
but it still happens.
in fact... sometimes someone gets blocked because bob reads an incivility that isn't even there.
i guess he was expecting him to be uncivil... and so that primes him to look for incivilities
priming...
confirmation bias...there is a literature.
i don't think i'm contradicting what i said before.
maybe i've changed my mind...
or maybe i'm worrying about another class of phenomena...
i'm not worried about the majority of warnings / blockings...
at this point i'm mostly worried about politics.
though i made a suggestion before (about the inconsistent ruling re whether we are responsible to pages linked to a page we cite)
people are welcome to haul up old arguments if they like...
maybe they'll persuade me ;-)
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 15, 2006, at 10:50:52
In reply to Re: I must disagree, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 10:06:36
Charitable always came across to me as
well I know that you're all wrong, but I'll let it go..
Somehow it sounds condescending and artificial to me.
"I know that they're awful, but I'm going to be charitible" The fact that you have to think about being chartible sort of means that yoú've already judged doesn't it?
Well.. anyway, that's the way it comes across to me.
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 15, 2006, at 11:54:09
In reply to Re: I must disagree, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 10:06:36
> before automated asterisking...
>
> some people would swear in their posts...
> with no comment.
> another person would swear in their post...
> and get blocked for it.
>
> why did the first person not get blocked / warned while the second person did?
>
When that was presented to you before, you always found a reason for it, a reason that justified the action by Dr. Bob You were emphatic about it.
I recall not being able to converse with another person about it, without you making a comment contrary to what had been said. Part of that was why my second D.N.P to you came about.It seems now that you've had something similar happen to you and you've changed your mind, you are just as emphatic, but in the opposite way.
I see a contradiction, if you feel you are provoking others to think, by what you say, why did it take a personal experience for you to consider the validity of what others were saying at that time?
And it makes me feel that any topic you are equally as firm and passionate about is likely to change once you've experienced what others are speaking of, or you've had a different experience yourself.
So there it is.
I don't really have anything else I want to say on this, and I don't want to bring up old quotes.
But there are many.
Posted by zeugma on April 15, 2006, at 13:05:31
In reply to Re: messages and methods » zeugma, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 8:25:12
> > 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
>
> I do hope you're referring to political exigencies, and not to being civil and diplomatic in how they express themselves. And I would assume that you are referring to professional diplomats, not those Babble alumni who exhibit some of the same methods of expressing ourselves.
>
>
it was far better to settle the Cuban Missile Crisis by diplomacy than by nuclear war. so I am hardly critical of a profession to which we all may owe our lives, or of those Babblers who might qualify for that profession.still, I wonder if many diplomats are familiar with Sir Henry Wotton's famous definition: "A diplomat is an honest man sent abroad to lie for the good of his country."
-z
Posted by Racer on April 15, 2006, at 13:33:42
In reply to Re:, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:01:36
>
> owning ones own response as ones own response
>
> people getting blocked on politics are getting blocked because they *might* offend americans who seem to have this unfortunate tendancy of taking politics personally.
>
>Special K, I'm writing this to you both as an American and as a poster-in-deputy-training -- in other words, with no particular standing in this. :-)
While we all have to take responsibility for our reactions, I think we also have to take responsibility for our actions in making statements which are likely to offend others. Your statement above suggests that all Americans take politics personally, for instance, which many of us are likely to find offensive. You've also characterized that as an "unfortunate tendency." I won't ask what makes it unfortunate, I'll only point out that it does characterize a group of people, Americans, and can certainly be interpreted as a put down.
I'd also like to point out that the people who get blocked on Politics tend to be blocked because of something they've chosen to write. Just as we all have to take responsibility for our reactions, we also have to take responsibility for our actions. Part of responsibility is accepting the consequences, and blocking is a possible consequence here.
So, as a poster with no standing here, I ask you to consider the feelings of others, please follow that old Golden Rule, and please be civil here.
I hope that you can take this as a gentle warning that I see you skating too close to the edge, and don't want to see you go through the ice here. Please don't take it as a sign I don't like you, because it's not meant that way.
Posted by zeugma on April 15, 2006, at 13:35:15
In reply to Two separate issues, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 8:10:20
> For me at least.
>
> First is whether the post can be considered something that was putting down people of left/centrist (though centrist is usually defined differently by different people I've found) persuasion. I seriously doubt that given the posting history of this poster.>>agreed.
>
> Second, is whether politics can and should be discussed with civility and caritas on this site, in the world at large, and in diplomatic circles. And to that issue I am greatly disillusioned. I see no reason why politics shouldn't be discussed with the same civility (by any definition) and caritas as any other topic. I agree with 10der that there are two separate issues, the topic and the method of discussion. And I feel saddened and disheartened and alienated when people assume that feeling passionately about a subject somehow equates with how they express that their feelings about that subject.>>well, I feel passionately about music, and yet I have never expressed myself uncivilly about the subject.
But I disagree that politics can be made a matter of taste like music. Saying that politician x brought us into an "invented war that is unwinnable" is very different from saying that politician x is fat and stupid. It seems to me a different set of conventions should regulate what we say to sokeone who has bought an unflattering dress and someone who may have violated the public trust.
and caritas- little evident in politics these days, should we pretend it's there when it's MIA?
>
> I wish Dr. Bob would simply outlaw politics as a topic, as is done on other boards. I value his position that all topics are ok topics as long as they are discussed civilly. But the topic has the potential to change one's feelings about other posters. And that doesn't seem conducive to the overall mission of this site.
>
> Not that I think outlawing it would have any positive effect. People would just then argue over Please Do Not Discuss Politics, and the importance of politics to mental health, and draconian censorship, and those arguments may not show a lot of civility either.
>i am inclined to agree that politics not be discussed here. But politics can be more easily declared off limits to everyone than given a narrow range to squirm around in.
-z
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 15, 2006, at 13:56:45
In reply to Re:, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:01:36
people getting blocked on politics are getting blocked because they *might* offend americans who seem to have this unfortunate tendancy of taking politics personally.
***Yes and women have the unfortunate tendancy to being over emotional and histrionic
***And them black folk sho' can dance..
(thank you Trouble..)
you want everyone in the world to learn to take politics personally too?
Uhh.
***There are quite a few places where you wouldn't want to be questioning politics anywhere but in your own head..
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 15, 2006, at 13:57:49
In reply to Please consider the feelings of others » special_k, posted by Racer on April 15, 2006, at 13:33:42
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 14:03:32
In reply to Re: Two separate issues » Dinah, posted by zeugma on April 15, 2006, at 13:35:15
I was referring to caritas on the board.
I would prefer that it not have to be pretended here.
Posted by verne on April 15, 2006, at 14:47:25
In reply to Please consider the feelings of others » special_k, posted by Racer on April 15, 2006, at 13:33:42
Posted by zeugma on April 15, 2006, at 14:50:23
In reply to Re: Two separate issues » zeugma, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 14:03:32
> I was referring to caritas on the board.
>
> I would prefer that it not have to be pretended here.>>Caritas (Latin) is a term in Christian theology (one of the three theological virtues), meaning loving kindness towards others; it is held to be the ultimate perfection of the human spirit, because it is said to both glorify and reflect the nature of God. In its most extreme form charity can be self-sacrificial. It was used in the Vulgate Bible as the translation of the Greek term agape, and was translated in the earliest English bibles as charity. Recent translations, however, prefer to use love for this concept, as the meaning of "charity" has changed in the last few centuries. (Please see the entry for Charity). Scholars, however, will continue to refer to caritas or charity when talking about medieval and early modern social relations, as the concept was very important to the people of that time. (Wikipedia)
charity, where have I heard that word before?
Idle rumination.
-z
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 15, 2006, at 15:32:42
In reply to thanks Racer, my thoughts too (nm) » Racer, posted by verne on April 15, 2006, at 14:47:25
from a Canadian yet!
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 16:44:48
In reply to caritas » Dinah, posted by zeugma on April 15, 2006, at 14:50:23
?
Did you think I was unfamiliar with a term I used?
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 19:21:31
In reply to Re: caritas » zeugma, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 16:44:48
i don't appreciate the tone.
changing ones mind does not mean one endorses contradiction (properties / beliefs can change over time)
there is no shame in learning from experience.
racer.
you took what i said out of context. there was a rumination about how perhaps it was an american tendency to take politics personally but then i noted z was from america. so there is an exception.
my thought was that there is more of a tendancy.
what i'm getting from gabbi isn't so much that politics offends her it seems to be more that i offend her in some way.
i don't appreciate the way you characterise my views. i guess it isn't intentional... but i feel they are being caricatured and without reference to what i actually said.
but we are getting diverted from the topic...
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 19:25:57
In reply to Please consider the feelings of others » special_k, posted by Racer on April 15, 2006, at 13:33:42
it is an unfortunate tendancy the way having a tendancy to bake in the sun would be an unfortunate tendancy: it is likely to lead to the experience of pain. There is no judgement in the 'unfortunate' it is just that seeing as the consequences aren't so well it might be better to rethink things...
please don't forget i have feelings too...
context...
was it that hard to see my comment in context?
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 19:26:22
In reply to Re: Please consider the feelings of others, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 19:25:57
oh i see...
been warned...
primed for the blocking.
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 19:41:09
In reply to Re: caritas » zeugma, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 16:44:48
> ?
> Did you think I was unfamiliar with a term I used?I don't know the origins of hardly any of the words I use...
I think z was digging up an interesting fact (that is hardly a-priori)
aka...
I think he meant well.
interesting z i didn't know that. i have heard of charity mostly in a davidsonian context...
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 19:46:20
In reply to Re: caritas » Dinah, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 19:41:09
I just didn't understand what he was trying to tell me, so I was asking for clarification.
My brain is weary.
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 20:08:18
In reply to Re: caritas » special_k, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 19:46:20
i'm sorry dinah i didn't mean for things to get hostile... really... i don't understand why that happens (it will probably be pointed out to me as i get blocked for a very long time)
would you like to go see whether my last block is archived? i think people get more leniency if it is...
sigh.
small changes...
but imho something needs to be done.
those kindsa blockings imho should be capped at one week.
and not only that... people don't understand. they don't.
bob says they do... that he's been blocked for that before... but persisting in incivility...
does bob really think declan is purposely trying to hurt accuse attack others?
why can't bob be charitable?
declan doesn't go around teh other boards riling people up...
why can't bob be charitable?
(a two week block is a two week block cause i think i hear bob about now saying 'but i *was* being charitable).
no. he wasn't. i don't think that meritd a block.
Posted by Racer on April 15, 2006, at 20:56:18
In reply to Re: Please consider the feelings of others, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 19:26:22
> oh i see...
>
> been warned...
>
> primed for the blocking.
I have taken personal responsibility for having posted a warning to you that you might not have considered how your post could hurt someone's feelings, lead to someone feeling accused, or feeling put down. I did not do that as any sort of "priming for blocking," and I have to admit I felt a strong twinge of anger at what I took as an accusation.That twinge was my reaction, and I take personal responsibility for that reaction, as nothing is explicitely stated in your post, nor can I know your intention in writing it.
Everyone here is responsible for abiding by the rules of this site, whether or not we agree with them. In the real world, there are laws, and it's not legal to break those we disagree with. Here, one possible consequence of breaking a rule is to be blocked for a period of time. The rules are available, and many people manage to communicate within those rules.
Please be civil, according to the guidelines for this site, which can be found in the FAQ: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
As for whether or not the request to be civil has any weight when it comes from another poster is up to Dr Bob. Please address any further comments regarding the issues of blocking and what constitutes a warning, which comments according to site policiy should also be civil, to Dr Bob.
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.