![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 40. Go back in thread:
Posted by europerep on July 22, 2010, at 16:44:55
In reply to Re: being blocked again » Dr. Bob, posted by chujoe on July 20, 2010, at 14:40:28
> Jade did NOT say she found the person who posted offensive, but a statement. To me that is perfectly legitimate & needs no apology.
I'd actually agree with that. also, I don't even know what "pesky" means, but to me it doesn't sound like a civil adjective, especially if attributed to kids.. and it might undoubtedly be hurtful for a person whose children take ritalin (whether this is the case here I do not know, but that shouldn't matter).
shouldn't the question be whether there might be a certain legitimacy in using a word, rather than whether one uses a word or not?
p.s.: not to steer the thread off track, but jade, you have already been blocked? wow, you're a wilder chick than I thought ;-)..
I hope you don't mind that comment, it's just that you seemed so profoundly peaceful to me.. and I'm sure you are..
Posted by chujoe on July 22, 2010, at 16:44:56
In reply to Re: being blocked again, posted by europerep on July 20, 2010, at 15:01:43
Well, you know, statements themselves can be offensive & to retreat into "I FEEL offended" language actually seems sort of slippery & dishonest to me. I mean, say someone posted "English professors are idiots" -- would I be allowed to say that this statement is offensive, or would I simply have to say "I feel offended" by the statement? There is a considerable difference.
Posted by jade k on July 22, 2010, at 16:44:56
In reply to Re: being blocked again » europerep, posted by chujoe on July 20, 2010, at 15:49:10
Everything about this place is starting to feel slippery and dishonest. At least he gave me time to answer a few posters...wonder why. Thanks guys
~Jade
Posted by gardenergirl on July 22, 2010, at 16:44:56
In reply to Re: being blocked again » europerep, posted by chujoe on July 20, 2010, at 15:49:10
> Well, you know, statements themselves can be offensive & to retreat into "I FEEL offended" language actually seems sort of slippery & dishonest to me.
I disagree. I think it's more honest, because it's "closer" to the source, i.e. the source of the feeling of being offended is within the person who feels it, not within what triggers the feelings.
> I mean, say someone posted "English professors are idiots" -- would I be allowed to say that this statement is offensive, or would I simply have to say "I feel offended" by the statement? There is a considerable difference.
There is a difference, you're right. Saying a statement is offensive is passing judgment or criticism on another, and that is not considered civil here. Reporting your response to a statement as in, "I feel offended", is only a reflection of your response to it, and is not an explicit judgment or criticism of another's words/behavior.
gg
Posted by chujoe on July 22, 2010, at 17:01:30
In reply to Re: being blocked again, posted by gardenergirl on July 22, 2010, at 16:44:56
If we can only report what we feel here, that means there really can be no ethical standards of behavior. It's pure solipsism. Imagine a historian writing, not "Hitler was a monster," but "I feel Hitler was a monster." It's laughable. Have you ever had a discussion with someone -- an argument -- and had the person retreat into, "Well, that's the way I feel." There is no arguing with that; and if there is a rule against argument, there is a rule against thinking. I think a mental health support forum ought to support thinking, as well as feeling.
Posted by ron1953 on July 22, 2010, at 17:05:20
In reply to Re: being blocked again, posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2010, at 16:44:55
> > I find this remark to be particularly offensive.
>
> Would anyone be willing to try to show jade how she might rephrase the above or to encourage her to apologize? You may have the power to help her avoid being blocked again. Thanks,
>
> BobThat would be condescending to a 4-year-old, let alone an adult. Un-fricken-believable.
Posted by ron1953 on July 22, 2010, at 17:09:56
In reply to Re: being blocked again » chujoe, posted by jade k on July 22, 2010, at 16:44:56
> Everything about this place is starting to feel slippery and dishonest. At least he gave me time to answer a few posters...wonder why. Thanks guys
>
> ~JadeIt IS slippery and dishonest. When people are DELIBERATELY cloaking their words with "civil" contrivances in some ill-advised attempt at internet politically correct Utopia, how could they possibly be sincere.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2010, at 3:08:03
In reply to Re: being blocked again, posted by chujoe on July 22, 2010, at 17:01:30
> if there is a rule against argument, there is a rule against thinking. I think a mental health support forum ought to support thinking, as well as feeling.
The rule is against incivility, not argument, or thinking.
Bob
Posted by chujoe on July 23, 2010, at 6:22:10
In reply to Re: argument, posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2010, at 3:08:03
The EFFECT of the rule is to shut down argument. Specifically, forcing people to talk in terms of their feelings only, rather than making evaluative statements or judgments about other people's STATEMENTS means that the discussion remains emotional rather than intellectual. To criticize someone's statement is not to criticize the person. Isn't this distinction the very basis of intellectual exchange?
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2010, at 7:19:05
In reply to Re: argument » Dr. Bob, posted by chujoe on July 23, 2010, at 6:22:10
Isn't it possible to have discussion, and even argument, without criticizing statements? For example, if you think something is incorrect, you can post what you think *is* correct. It's possible to disagree and be civil. It's also possible to be angry and civil. It's possible to convey anything you might wish to convey while still being civil.
I don't even see how it shuts down discussion. I'd think disrespect would shut down discussion much more effectively.
Posted by chujoe on July 23, 2010, at 7:42:36
In reply to Re: argument, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2010, at 7:19:05
>>Isn't it possible to have discussion, and even argument, without criticizing statements?<<
No. That statement is wrong, at least if you accept 2000 years of rhetorical theory going back to Aristotle. The prohibition has always been against ad hominem arguments. For instance, if I said, "Anyone who thinks that is an idiot," that would clearly be out of bounds. Beside, if we followed your suggested procedure and merely posted what we think is correct, two consequences would follow, both of which lead to intellectual sloppiness: 1) We are prevented from making global judgments about right and wrong; 2) In reality, all we'd be doing is covering our judgment with a PC fig leaf because by posting what we believe is right we'd be implying anyway that the previous position was wrong.
I am in favor of friendly, supportive discussion and fair argumentation; but the current system of social control at Psychobabble leads to (often unintentional) forms of dishonesty. The great French psychoanalyst Jacques Lecan pointed out that all communities impose various forms of social control in the form of rules and regulations and customs, etc., but that some of those systems are transparent, so that people know that they are submitting to coercion in a given instance, while in other systems people internalize the rules to such an extent that the coercion becomes invisible to them. I like my coercion straight, no chaser.
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2010, at 9:54:42
In reply to Re: argument, posted by chujoe on July 23, 2010, at 7:42:36
See?
You were perfectly civil.
You pointed out that my statement was, in your opinion, incorrect. You provided facts to back up your position.
You didn't call my statement idiotic.
I never have any problem whatsoever in making whatever point I wish to make. Well, I suppose there are times that I wish to call someone names and then I have to restrain myself and say it all to my civility buddy instead. But what would it help if I did do that? Or if I called their post a bunch of drivel? Would it really add to the discourse? Overall I find it more helpful to think a moment and find another way of saying something if I wish to say it.
I can and do point out if I think something is factually incorrect. Although I may personally may be more likely to say something like "I had always read that xxx..." or "Didn't that study refer to yyyy...." or "That's not how I see that." rather than "That statement is incorrect." But that's a matter of style and I do that in real life too. Either way is civil, I think.
I can and do get angry or hurt at things people say too, and I have no trouble saying I'm hurt or angry, or posting with a hurt or angry tone. I'm conveying my emotions in those cases. And depending on circumstances, emotions can be totally legitimate arguments at times.
If something is posted that I think is morally wrong, like negatively characterizing a group of people, I contact the Administration. It may take some time and sometimes some argument with Dr. Bob, but that sort of thing isn't allowed on Babble. However, I don't have the power to stop it, and any attempt I make will likely draw forth more of the same. Or so I've found, at least. It becomes an argument, and arguments bring forth more rhetoric. If I feel compelled to say anything I could always say "I've never found (group X) to be yyyy, and I don't know why you'd say that." Of course that mainly leads to an explanation of exactly why the poster says that and perhaps even a catalog of other beliefs. Dr. Bob does have the power to stop it before it degenerates into what I sadly see on my newspaper's online comment pages. Boy, that can get nasty. Which is strange because New Orleans is a quite civil city in person.
Honestly, you seem smart enough and good enough with words to manage to say what you wish without running afoul of the civility rules. And polite enough not to call people's statements idiotic even if you think they are wrong - at least in the common course of events.
As you just proved. :)
Posted by chujoe on July 23, 2010, at 10:16:12
In reply to Re: argument » chujoe, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2010, at 9:54:42
I'm not actually worried about running afoul of the civility rules, unless I decide to do so intentionally. (I'm a professional writer.) That's not the point. I just think it is perfectly civil, under some circumstances, to say, "That statement is offensive." I would never say "You are an offensive person," though there might be a situation in which I would want to ask someone, "Are you trying to be offensive?" And I don't want to go looking for a fight -- I'd much rather enjoy the lively back and forth of conversations & arguments conducted in good faith. It's in the nature of good faith, of course, that it's not always obvious who is & who isn't arguing in good faith. If I'm unsure, I'd want to err on the side of generosity. I'm the last one who would want to make Babble safe for insult & trash talk. As I said, though, I like my social coercion straight, no chaser.
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2010, at 10:46:38
In reply to Re: argument » Dinah, posted by chujoe on July 23, 2010, at 10:16:12
Well, maybe you could think of it more as situational expectations? Most places have behavioral expectations. These are the ones at Babble. There are places to say that a statement is offensive, and this isn't one of them.
I don't like all the rules here. By my own standards, the three post rule is almost insulting. But I live by them because if I wish to post here, I have to live with them.
Which is not to say I don't post a reply to someone who obviously has more to say, so that they can continue. :)
It's worth it to me, because the people here do seem to be intelligent, and interesting to be with. If it wasn't, I'd move on.
I argue with Dr. Bob before something is enacted, though my arguments are rarely successful. After something is enacted, I either live with it or I don't because arguing with Dr. Bob can sometimes feel like bashing my head against a brick wall to me. But my father, for example, would have thoroughly enjoyed arguing with him forever. If you feel more that way, I apologize for interrupting. :)
Posted by chujoe on July 23, 2010, at 14:05:01
In reply to Re: argument » chujoe, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2010, at 10:46:38
I certainly agree that every forum & every community has its rules and customs. I'm finding, though, that the cultural climate around here is less to my liking than I thought. There is a lot of useful information & some good support & occasional intelligent discussion of issues surrounding mental health; but at the same time there is this climate of emotional monitoring that I've been trying to describe now for some time & it just feels phony to me. That's not to say it's not great for other folks. I'm not making any proclamations, either, such as I'M LEAVING & NEVER COMING BACK!! I'm just less inclined to hang around now that I have gotten the feel of the place. A rating system might push me out for good. We'll see.
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2010, at 14:11:04
In reply to Re: argument » Dinah, posted by chujoe on July 23, 2010, at 14:05:01
I understand.
I do hope you decide to contribute at least occasionally, and that Dr. Bob doesn't make it too difficult for you to do it.
Posted by fayeroe on July 23, 2010, at 15:51:11
In reply to Re: being blocked again » jade k, posted by ron1953 on July 22, 2010, at 17:09:56
> > Everything about this place is starting to feel slippery and dishonest. At least he gave me time to answer a few posters...wonder why. Thanks guys
> >
> > ~Jade
>
> It IS slippery and dishonest. When people are DELIBERATELY cloaking their words with "civil" contrivances in some ill-advised attempt at internet politically correct Utopia, how could they possibly be sincere.We've had members who were champions of saying something rude to someone while staying under Bob's radar.
There is one in particular who even came right out and admitted it. This poster said very hurtful things. Talked down to posters and always got away with it.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2010, at 0:56:49
In reply to Re: being blocked again » ron1953, posted by fayeroe on July 23, 2010, at 15:51:11
> This poster said very hurtful things. Talked down to posters
Would anyone be willing to try to show fayeroe how she might rephrase the above or to encourage her to apologize? You may have the power to help her avoid being blocked again. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by fayeroe on July 26, 2010, at 12:07:52
In reply to Re: being blocked again » ron1953, posted by fayeroe on July 23, 2010, at 15:51:11
> > > Everything about this place is starting to feel slippery and dishonest. At least he gave me time to answer a few posters...wonder why. Thanks guys
> > >
> > > ~Jade
> >
> > It IS slippery and dishonest. When people are DELIBERATELY cloaking their words with "civil" contrivances in some ill-advised attempt at internet politically correct Utopia, how could they possibly be sincere.
>
> We've had members who were champions of saying something rude to someone while staying under Bob's radar.
>
> There is one in particular who even came right out and admitted it. This poster said very hurtful things. Talked down to posters and always got away with it.I apologize for the way I said that the poster talked down to us and got away with it.
I can re-phrase.....I had an experience with a poster that caused me to believe that she was talking down to me and others. I also felt that she wasn't held responsible by administration for her words.
>
Posted by PartlyCloudy on July 26, 2010, at 12:12:09
In reply to Re: being blocked again, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2010, at 0:56:49
> > This poster said very hurtful things. Talked down to posters
>
> Would anyone be willing to try to show fayeroe how she might rephrase the above or to encourage her to apologize? You may have the power to help her avoid being blocked again. Thanks,
>
> BobSure, I'd be happy to.
Just click on the "include above post" button, and type in the text box something like,
"I'm sorry if I offended anyone when I posted this. It was not my intention to do so."
and maybe sign your posting name.
Then, "submit your post"
and you're off.Hope this helps.
Partly Cloudy.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on July 26, 2010, at 12:15:18
In reply to Re: being blocked again » Dr. Bob, posted by PartlyCloudy on July 26, 2010, at 12:12:09
> > > This poster said very hurtful things. Talked down to posters
> >
> > Would anyone be willing to try to show fayeroe how she might rephrase the above or to encourage her to apologize? You may have the power to help her avoid being blocked again. Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
>
> Sure, I'd be happy to.
>
> Just click on the "include above post" button, and type in the text box something like,
>
> "I'm sorry if I offended anyone when I posted this. It was not my intention to do so."
>
> and maybe sign your posting name.
> Then, "submit your post"
> and you're off.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Partly Cloudy.
>
>
Posted by fayeroe on July 26, 2010, at 13:05:58
In reply to Re: being blocked again » Dr. Bob, posted by PartlyCloudy on July 26, 2010, at 12:12:09
Your kindness warms my heart and I don't feel offended by your generosity.
Posted by BayLeaf on July 26, 2010, at 18:45:29
In reply to Re: being blocked again » ron1953, posted by fayeroe on July 23, 2010, at 15:51:11
there was this one time at band camp when this poster did this thing...., huh??
Posted by BayLeaf on July 26, 2010, at 18:46:17
In reply to Re: being blocked - who the heck did she offend?? » fayeroe, posted by BayLeaf on July 26, 2010, at 18:45:29
Posted by violette on July 26, 2010, at 19:18:55
In reply to Re: being blocked - who the heck did she offend?? » fayeroe, posted by BayLeaf on July 26, 2010, at 18:45:29
I am unsure if this will meet the criteria, but I will try to help my fellow poster Fayeroe.
Instead of:
> This poster said very hurtful things. Talked down to posters
Maybe:
"I feel a poster might have, but perhaps mistakenly, possibly unknowingly, or maybe accidentally, said things that I feel could have been or might have been possibly taken as potentially hurtful to the feelings of others; or though it could have been others may have possibly, though unintentionally, perceived it as hurtful and perhaps unknowingly, though possibly with good intentions, did not take (as I feel I perceive the possibility) responsibility for their own emotions, though I feel not purposely. I feel this person, who I feel may have done this perhaps by accident or who I feel may have done this unintentionally, seemed to have appeared, or how I perceived it or felt it, talked to posters in what I felt could have been a less than favorable manner as expressed, I mean how I felt was conveyed, by the posters who may have been felt put down."
Maybe you could find a better way to say that, Fayeroe? Just an idea...
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.