![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 40. Go back in thread:
Posted by emilyp on July 4, 2010, at 15:53:29
In reply to Re: For what it's worth, posted by violette on July 4, 2010, at 15:34:51
It is obvious that you are looking for an apology from me. As I said in an earlier post, I sincerely apologize to anyone who I may offended, either with posts related to this thread or those in past.
I also took your comments seriously; in particular, I was concerned about your adamant belief that my prior posts have been harmful. So, I went back and looked at almost every post I made since 2009. And except for one, I strongly believe that I have stated my opinions in a civil manner. When I say civil, I mean that I am polite in my language but I do not shy away from expressing my opinion.
Do my posts often disagree with the others? Yes they do. But in no way are they harmful. And believe it or not, in some cases, others actually appreciated my point of view (even if they continued to disagree with me).
My prefacing of something such as "I don't mean to be critical" is my way (albeit perhaps not the best way) of signifying that I am disagreeing. But disagreement is clearly not a bad thing. And I don't think others think so either. No one else has called me a bully.
And if someone does think I am a bully, I would hope they would tactfully let me know that, but without diagnosing me or being rude. I am not perfect and I have never said I was. But I have thick skin and can take criticism. I would just hope that whatever criticism is given, it is made in a constructive manner.
Posted by Dinah on July 4, 2010, at 15:58:43
In reply to Re: For what it's worth, posted by violette on July 4, 2010, at 15:34:51
I recognized that at least three people felt hurt and tried to convey that. I apologize if that didn't come through in my posts.
Administrative recognition usually only comes if Dr. Bob perceives actual incivility. But that doesn't mean the community doesn't recognize that hurt can come sometimes even if it wasn't intended and even if the site rules aren't violated.
I am definitely concerned with how this might affect your own health. There is no denying that Babble can stir up a hornet's nest of issues at times. I've drowned in them myself, and credit my therapist with my ability to stay here long term. But there were times I couldn't, and if this is one of those times for you I can respect that.
If this is a time of stress for you, it's definitely a time when you should take extra good care of yourself. Do what you need to do to stay healthy.
Posted by Dinah on July 4, 2010, at 15:59:55
In reply to Re: For what it's worth » Dinah, posted by emilyp on July 4, 2010, at 14:18:04
Posted by violette on July 4, 2010, at 16:06:18
In reply to Re: For what it's worth » violette, posted by emilyp on July 4, 2010, at 15:53:29
Emily-Actually I wasn't looking for an apology from you, because I didn't see why that would be necessary, but thanks anyway.
It was the community behavior that concerned me. The couple of posts I found were people stating they were hurt (regardless of your intent). The lack of acknowledgement of others by the community...I had already been overly repetitive in my last post about what concerned me...so no need to repeat everything.
And I'm sorry for being less than tactful to you. I was triggered and acted out as that's something I'm trying to deal with now. Yes, I do see you can take criticism well-and i noticed that (which is one reason I didn't feel an apology to me was warranted). I see strengths and positive qualities in most everyone.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 4, 2010, at 16:34:28
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by violette on July 4, 2010, at 14:05:14
> There are a lot of triggers here for me--due to how it is managed and other things I already mentioned throughout different posts. It doesn't work well with my childhood abuse history.
>
> unfortunately, I am triggered by CBT therapy and it reminded me too much of that. A T I saw for 2 years tried to address my symptoms in similar ways-but it led to major panic attacks.
>
> it just occurred to me I'm progressing to a state of full blown PTSD> This is a good example of an unsafe environment-someone's repeated passive agressive behavior has led others to feel hurt ... but since no one ever came to sanction her, the person who pointed out the harmfulness (me) gets sanctioned, while the one upsetting others does not and is permitted to continue posting in a manner which is hurtful to others
Please don't refer to others as passive-aggressive or upsetting or hurtful. That could lead them to feel upset or hurt.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceI don't sanction people because others feel hurt, I sanction people because I consider them to have been uncivil. Others can feel hurt even if someone's been civil.
This focus on your behavior may remind you of CBT as well as of your family. If being sanctioned feels like being abused, this may in fact be an unsafe environment for you. OTOH, if you're willing to accept some anxiety, this could also be an environment in which to learn to be less easily triggered.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 4, 2010, at 16:36:26
In reply to Re: please be civil » violette, posted by Dr. Bob on July 4, 2010, at 16:34:28
Did you cross post with Violette's apology to Emily? I thought if a poster apologized, they didn't get pbc'd?
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 4, 2010, at 16:57:51
In reply to Dr Bob?, posted by Dinah on July 4, 2010, at 16:36:26
Posted by violette on July 4, 2010, at 18:33:39
In reply to Re: For what it's worth » violette, posted by Dinah on July 4, 2010, at 15:58:43
Posted by violette on July 4, 2010, at 19:02:35
In reply to Re: please be civil » violette, posted by Dr. Bob on July 4, 2010, at 16:34:28
Dr. Bob,
Maybe what's deemed civil or uncivil by you could be related to personality characteristics or defense mechanisms you possibly identify more with as opposed to those you might understand less?
Weaker personality characteristics, like fearfulness (me), or for example, introversion or sensitivity, are sometimes viewed as more negative by our culture than, for example, extroversion or narcissitic traits.
That's all I can think of to possibly explain this confusion I have with moderation here-civil vs. uncivil determinations.
Posted by violette on July 4, 2010, at 22:29:55
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by violette on July 4, 2010, at 19:02:35
Never mind my question in my last post Dr. Bob.
I had seen someone write on another thread that posters here write hysterical threads, but no one seemed to mind that. I can go be fearful or hypervigilant or hysterical or anxious or whatever in a safer place with likeminded people until I meet with my doctor.
But please disregard the question-I think I already have a sense of the answer. I seem to have a habit of answering my own questions after I ask them so i probably just spoke too soon.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 6, 2010, at 11:36:21
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by violette on July 4, 2010, at 19:02:35
> Maybe what's deemed civil or uncivil by you could be related to personality characteristics or defense mechanisms you possibly identify more with as opposed to those you might understand less?
It could be. I don't claim to have any special gift for discerning the "true" degree of civility (let alone helpfulness) of anyone's comments.
> Weaker personality characteristics, like fearfulness (me), or for example, introversion or sensitivity, are sometimes viewed as more negative by our culture than, for example, extroversion or narcissitic traits.
I'd agree with that. Would you say the civility guidelines here favor the the narcissistic over the fearful and the extroverted over the introverted?
Bob
Posted by violette on July 7, 2010, at 2:16:57
In reply to Re: what's deemed civil or uncivil, posted by Dr. Bob on July 6, 2010, at 11:36:21
I'm glad you have the integrity to state you may have potential bias (who doesn't?).
Without going into specific 'traits' - it seems you tend to be a bit dismissive of more covert uncivility. I had seen it quite a few times on this forum, yet, it seems to me that you may be unaware of it or its implications.
While attributing negative traits to 'objects' is considered uncivil, (Effexor is poison) your perception of uncivility does not encompass covert uncivility that hurts actual 'people. The Effexor was not 'hurt'. Yet, when a person is directly hurt, you overlook it because you do not 'see' why. I think some of us over-perceiving, sensitives sense this; while someone who may have not had the background to develop that sense might not see it (or understand its implications).
I also think if a poster's intent is to be helpful, generally you would not have to worry about linguistical ideosyncracities of syntax as they will be more naturally interlaced with your words and thus, will be well taken whether or not the recipient agrees with what you said.
This is from some random place, but after experiencing this and 10 plus years of reading about it, it's a good synthesis which provides examples of covert uncivilty:
http://www.dailystrength.org/c/Physical_Emotional_Abuse/forum/3724789-covert-emotional-abuser-long
also
http://psychology.suite101.com/article.cfm/why_psychological_abuse_is_called_gaslighting
http://www.heart-2-heart.ca/sensitivity/
I wouldn't call anyone here an 'abuser'; however, the patterns of emotional abuse-laden language is very easy to detect if you have been exposed to it enough. It is common and predictable; but difficult to detect for those who have not had the experience.
This does not neceassirly mean that those who write a certain way are abusers; but when others react in certain ways, such as feeling belittled, that could indicate that the writer was using that tone-perhaps unknowingly. And, from my experience, if a sensitive someone's reaction ends up being evidently hurt, they are probably reacting to uncivil intent--or language written that way-rather than being 'too sensitive'.
You do not notice this--and this is not a safe place for those who do. I have been thru every type of abuse, and this kind-by far-is the most damaging when it comes to personal relationships. Relationships on a forum don't capture that damage, but allowing it to happen here can hurt people when it is overlooked or dismissed by adminstration.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 8, 2010, at 4:31:50
In reply to Re: what's deemed civil or uncivil » Dr. Bob, posted by violette on July 7, 2010, at 2:16:57
> your perception of uncivility does not encompass covert uncivility that hurts actual 'people. ... when a person is directly hurt, you overlook it because you do not 'see' why.
Are you saying I should consider more posts uncivil?
> when others react in certain ways, such as feeling belittled, that could indicate that the writer was using that tone-perhaps unknowingly. And, from my experience, if a sensitive someone's reaction ends up being evidently hurt, they are probably reacting to uncivil intent--or language written that way-rather than being 'too sensitive'.
>
> You do not notice this--and this is not a safe place for those who do.No system can prevent all hurt. How might a community respond when members inevitably feel hurt?
Bob
Posted by Willful on July 8, 2010, at 17:25:56
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt, posted by Dr. Bob on July 8, 2010, at 4:31:50
Using violette;s reasoning, the most easily hurt person is the standard for civility--- and easily hurt people are somehow more capable of discerning "covert" -- ie not obvious-- abuse or incivility in other people.
I don't see why this would be so. They might just as likely see hurtfulness where it isn't-- because they have a tendency to feel hurt. In most cases, there's some standard of reasonableness, not hyper-sensitivity, when you're trying to analyze a transaction. That seems more reliable and flexible for us too.
Bob doesn't have any special reasonableness maybe-- but it seems like a better thing to aim for in defining civility.
Willful
Posted by violette on July 10, 2010, at 11:51:59
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt, posted by Dr. Bob on July 8, 2010, at 4:31:50
Posted by violette on July 10, 2010, at 12:19:51
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt, posted by Willful on July 8, 2010, at 17:25:56
Posted by ron1953 on July 10, 2010, at 17:37:26
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt, posted by Willful on July 8, 2010, at 17:25:56
> Using violette;s reasoning, the most easily hurt person is the standard for civility--- and easily hurt people are somehow more capable of discerning "covert" -- ie not obvious-- abuse or incivility in other people.
>
> I don't see why this would be so. They might just as likely see hurtfulness where it isn't-- because they have a tendency to feel hurt. In most cases, there's some standard of reasonableness, not hyper-sensitivity, when you're trying to analyze a transaction. That seems more reliable and flexible for us too.
>
> Bob doesn't have any special reasonableness maybe-- but it seems like a better thing to aim for in defining civility.
>
> Willful
>
>
>
>
I applaud your insight and logic. I have noticed that there seem to be folks who are not only hurt easily, but have a way of actually finding hurt in otherwise innocuous exchanges, they seem to have hurt RADAR. And while it may seem reasonable and compassionate to set the bar for the most sensitive, it dumbs things down to an absurd point. Do the tough get softer? Do the soft get tougher? Ah - perhaps BOTH.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on July 10, 2010, at 19:20:41
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt, posted by ron1953 on July 10, 2010, at 17:37:26
> > Using violette;s reasoning, the most easily hurt person is the standard for civility--- and easily hurt people are somehow more capable of discerning "covert" -- ie not obvious-- abuse or incivility in other people.
> >
> > I don't see why this would be so. They might just as likely see hurtfulness where it isn't-- because they have a tendency to feel hurt. In most cases, there's some standard of reasonableness, not hyper-sensitivity, when you're trying to analyze a transaction. That seems more reliable and flexible for us too.
> >
> > Bob doesn't have any special reasonableness maybe-- but it seems like a better thing to aim for in defining civility.
> >
> > Willful
> >
> >
> >
> >
> I applaud your insight and logic. I have noticed that there seem to be folks who are not only hurt easily, but have a way of actually finding hurt in otherwise innocuous exchanges, they seem to have hurt RADAR. And while it may seem reasonable and compassionate to set the bar for the most sensitive, it dumbs things down to an absurd point. Do the tough get softer? Do the soft get tougher? Ah - perhaps BOTH.Er, is RADAR like spidey sense, Ron? Just curious; because I don't consider myself someone to be easily hurt. I do though, consider myself a good lay student of people. And when I follow my intuition, it does not lead me in the wrong direction.
Posted by violette on July 10, 2010, at 19:46:10
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt, posted by ron1953 on July 10, 2010, at 17:37:26
Ron,
Partly Cloudy reinforced my point (though perhaps unknowingly).
Similar to PC, I also don't necessarily get hurt more easily than another. In many ways, less so than others.
Imo, there is a big difference with being hurt in terms of an apostrophe vs being hurt when someone says something directly about one's character. While its understandable that someone may feel offended or if their beliefs or opinions were knocked down somehow--and this isn't necessarily the case for me--I just see a difference between personal insults/criticism about a PERSON and pesonal insults/criticism about an OBJECT or CONCEPT, such as a medication or how one feels about an apostrophy:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20040820/msgs/382165.html
That's where the radar comes in. Some people pick up on this difference while others don't see it.
If someone seemingly insults my belief about science, for example, I'm usually ok with that because I feel it represents the other person's beliefs rather than me as a person, but if someone were to seemingly insult my character, it would be more personal and cruel in some way.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on July 10, 2010, at 20:05:15
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt » ron1953, posted by violette on July 10, 2010, at 19:46:10
> Ron,
>
> Partly Cloudy reinforced my point (though perhaps unknowingly).
>
> Similar to PC, I also don't necessarily get hurt more easily than another. In many ways, less so than others.
>
> Imo, there is a big difference with being hurt in terms of an apostrophe vs being hurt when someone says something directly about one's character. While its understandable that someone may feel offended or if their beliefs or opinions were knocked down somehow--and this isn't necessarily the case for me--I just see a difference between personal insults/criticism about a PERSON and pesonal insults/criticism about an OBJECT or CONCEPT, such as a medication or how one feels about an apostrophy:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20040820/msgs/382165.html
>Wow, that was some thread. Almost 6 years ago and still fresh reading - as pungent as a fresh pile of doggy doo.
> That's where the radar comes in. Some people pick up on this difference while others don't see it.
>
> If someone seemingly insults my belief about science, for example, I'm usually ok with that because I feel it represents the other person's beliefs rather than me as a person, but if someone were to seemingly insult my character, it would be more personal and cruel in some way.
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2010, at 0:46:58
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt » ron1953, posted by violette on July 10, 2010, at 19:46:10
> Imo, there is a big difference with being hurt in terms of an apostrophe vs being hurt when someone says something directly about one's character. While its understandable that someone may feel offended or if their beliefs or opinions were knocked down somehow--and this isn't necessarily the case for me--I just see a difference between personal insults/criticism about a PERSON and pesonal insults/criticism about an OBJECT or CONCEPT, such as a medication or how one feels about an apostrophy
I agree, there can be a big difference, but there can be overlap, too. Misuse of apostrophes may be an object/concept, for example, but criticizing it may lead someone who misuses them to feel insulted.
Bob
Posted by SLS on July 11, 2010, at 4:35:50
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2010, at 0:46:58
'
Posted by ron1953 on July 11, 2010, at 11:50:06
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt » violette, posted by PartlyCloudy on July 10, 2010, at 20:05:15
If you're a good lay student of people, let me ask you a question. Do you think most people deserve to be, or appreciate being discredited in the present for something they did or said six years ago? I think not. While I applaud your memory, I disdain your use of the mainstream media "gotcha" technique.
FYI, at the time, I was going throuh a devastating divorce after a 27-year marriage, struggling with severe depression, and poorly prescribed medication which ultimately led to a 7-year roller coaster ride Benzo addiction.
And thank you for your support.
Posted by ron1953 on July 11, 2010, at 12:34:13
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt » ron1953, posted by PartlyCloudy on July 10, 2010, at 19:20:41
By the way, PC, I feel your deliberate dredging up the ancient past could easily be perceived as uncivil, as it served only one purpose: to discredit my integrity, and was not a response to my current comments.
Posted by Willful on July 11, 2010, at 12:48:49
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt, posted by ron1953 on July 11, 2010, at 12:34:13
I do have to wonder about why that particular thread was brought out of the distant past, when it seems relevant to nothing in the discussion and the analogy seems strained at best.
However, violette is the one who originally cited it directly after ron1953 disagreed with her. Was that a coincidence?
Willful
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.