![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on June 22, 2009, at 17:04:03
In reply to Re: Please be civil, posted by Sigismund on June 16, 2009, at 17:22:08
> When people say 'but the white race(sic) may become extinct', I think 'if only'.
> Present company excepted of course.
Sigismund, do you think it would be civil for someone to post that same sentence with a race other than white? Do you think it would be ok if you substituted "black" or "jewish" and excepted black people or Jewish people who are posting?
I'm not personally hurt by this. I never even understood the concept of race. Isn't ethnicity a better term? I had a friend from, oh goodness, I'm terrible at geography, but somewhere in South America. She never could figure out the emphasis on race here because she, and most of her neighbors where she came from, had a heritage of all sorts of people so that she would not know where to begin to list her race. I thought that was a pretty cool notion.
I think it perfectly likely that that's what you meant. But the civility guidelines can't say you can make that statement about one "race" and not another. And I as deputy, for ethical reasons of my own, can either allow it for all races, or disallow it for all races. I cannot in good conscience decide which races that it would be ok to wish extinction for.
With this in mind, do you think you could rephrase your retraction to cover more than the white people on this board?
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Sigismund on June 22, 2009, at 20:20:06
In reply to Please rephrase » Sigismund, posted by Deputy Dinah on June 22, 2009, at 17:04:03
>I think it perfectly likely that that's what you meant.
Unfortunately it wasn't just that. I was thinking of the terrible history of the white races. I'm embarrassed to use such a loaded (and in my view ignorant) term, of course. So, apart from wishing that the universe did not exist, I'm not sure where this leaves me to go. Maybe this? That we should never forget the terrible history that is our heritage and resolve to learn from it and repeat it as little as possible?
Posted by Sigismund on June 22, 2009, at 20:26:45
In reply to Please rephrase » Sigismund, posted by Deputy Dinah on June 22, 2009, at 17:04:03
>With this in mind, do you think you could rephrase your retraction to cover more than the white people on this board?
I see that I have missed the point. 'Present company excepted' meant that I didn't mean it personally.
There have not been too many people from non-Anglo backgrounds here. There was a (Chinese) chap from Beijing recently, and we have had a couple of Babblers from the Indian subcontinent and Latin America, and I hope we have more. Of course I wish them well.
Posted by SLS on June 22, 2009, at 21:38:08
In reply to Re: Please rephrase, posted by Sigismund on June 22, 2009, at 20:26:45
> >With this in mind, do you think you could rephrase your retraction to cover more than the white people on this board?
>
> I see that I have missed the point. 'Present company excepted' meant that I didn't mean it personally.
>
> There have not been too many people from non-Anglo backgrounds here. There was a (Chinese) chap from Beijing recently, and we have had a couple of Babblers from the Indian subcontinent and Latin America, and I hope we have more. Of course I wish them well.
This might be one of those instances where less is more. I think it might be undesirable, if not uncivil, to make such generalizations about a specific race or culture or group of people. Besides, I'm not sure that anyone has a monopoly on crimes against humanity.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on June 22, 2009, at 21:47:36
In reply to Re: Please rephrase, posted by SLS on June 22, 2009, at 21:38:08
I apologize. My comments were unnecessary.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on June 22, 2009, at 22:55:36
In reply to Re: Please rephrase, posted by Sigismund on June 22, 2009, at 20:20:06
> I'm embarrassed to use such a loaded (and in my view ignorant) term, of course.
I didn't mean my question to imply that. I was indicating my lack of assurance as to what the term "race" meant, and did in no way mean to imply that the use was ignorant. It is so widely in use that I could never mean it that way. I was merely musing on my own ignorance of the scientific significance.
I do apologize Sigismund, if my word choice caused you any distress.
Posted by Sigismund on June 23, 2009, at 16:36:18
In reply to I'm sorry » Sigismund, posted by Dinah on June 22, 2009, at 22:55:36
No problem.
You were just quoting me and I was quoting someone else.
Scott said that less is more and then apologised.
So in that spirit I might apologise too.
Posted by Dinah on June 23, 2009, at 17:08:54
In reply to Re: I'm sorry » Dinah, posted by Sigismund on June 23, 2009, at 16:36:18
> So in that spirit I might apologise too.
I thank you for that.
Just for the record, the spirit of my apology was abject horror that I had said something I did not in any way think or mean to say.
Posted by Dinah on June 23, 2009, at 18:29:23
In reply to Re: I'm sorry » Sigismund, posted by Dinah on June 23, 2009, at 17:08:54
Sigh. I think I'm being too earnest. Please ignore the last post.
Posted by Sigismund on June 23, 2009, at 22:54:06
In reply to Re: I'm sorry, posted by Dinah on June 23, 2009, at 18:29:23
I should follow the sound advice in Godot, which is
'Let us not speak ill of the dead. Let us not speak well of them either. Let us not speak of them at all.'
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.