![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 74 to 98 of 98. Go back in thread:
Posted by Twinleaf on January 25, 2014, at 9:53:01
In reply to Re: strange goal, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2014, at 0:26:56
Babble has become so strange! A place where certain posters can say extremely destructive, harmful things, and the recipients of this abuse are apparently given a wonderful opportunity to "grow a shield". I think this is unfair to everyone, but particularly to the ones who are saying these destructive things. It's as if you were affirming that they were too impaired to be able to improve their behavior - a horrible message! Negative and traumatic for everyone.
I, on the other hand, am considered more competent, and so, almost alone of the people posting here, I am blocked, not for being uncivil to other posters, but for speaking honestly to Bob when I feel he has made a mistake that is harmful either to another poster (Dinah) or to the functioning of the site (objecting to the civility rules being applied unequally). I am not subscribing properly to the implicit principle that Babble is basically a dictatorship! I do this because I do not believe that dictatorships are compatible with good mental health - not for the dictator, and not for those under his control.
Scott is right. The old nag will never be able to make herself drink the water, because she believes it is contaminated.
Posted by jane d on January 25, 2014, at 22:13:05
In reply to Re: strange goal, posted by Twinleaf on January 25, 2014, at 9:53:01
I think you are confusing two separate issues and therefore coming to an incorrect conclusion. First there's the issue of what is or should be allowed and the relative severity or equivalence of different violations of the rules. I doubt anyone agrees about all of that. I know I don't agree with every call on that. I never have.
I don't think your interpretation of why certain recent posts were ignored is the only one. I personally found it impossible to take them seriously. I have no clue what Bob's reasoning was. I do think he should explain it. I don't expect it.
The second issue is whether you are treated more harshly for the same violations and I think you are wrong about that. If I said to you all the things you have said to Bob, particularly if I said them over and over and over again I have no doubt I would get blocked for it. Whether or not I thought those things were true or I thought you, or Babble, would be better off for my saying them. There are certain things you just can't say about other people here.* Try substituting my name and yours into the posts you got blocked for and see if they still sound the same to you.
*I'm not sure whether I think it's good or bad that you can't say those things here. I tend to think the rules are too strict but I'm less sure of that than I once was.
Posted by sleepygirl2 on January 26, 2014, at 0:26:00
In reply to Re: strange goal » Twinleaf, posted by jane d on January 25, 2014, at 22:13:05
Hi jane,
I agree with everything you said.
Happy New Year :-)
-sid
Posted by jane d on January 26, 2014, at 1:58:39
In reply to Re: strange goal » jane d, posted by sleepygirl2 on January 26, 2014, at 0:26:00
> Happy New Year :-)
> -sidAnd a happy new year to you too!
Posted by SLS on January 26, 2014, at 6:02:55
In reply to Re: strange goal » Twinleaf, posted by jane d on January 25, 2014, at 22:13:05
You make some good points. However, there is something about about "Equal treatment under the law" that has always appealed to me. Unfortunately, I see selective enforcement occurring here.
Do you see any phrasing by posters other than Twinleaf that refers to Dr. Bob in a clearly uncivil manner and that has not been sanctioned, despite repeat offenses?
If not, then we have nowhere to go.
I understand that this is not a republic democracy.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on January 26, 2014, at 6:28:44
In reply to Re: strange goal » jane d, posted by sleepygirl2 on January 26, 2014, at 0:26:00
> Hi jane,
> I agree with everything you said.
> Happy New Year :-)
> -sid
I see that Jane has made some technically valid observations.It is interesting how two people can view a third person in very different ways.
I have a bias towards Twinleaf because I like her, and I consider her to be a valuable poster on Psycho-Babble. Because I see kindness, generosity, careful deliberation, knowledge, and intelligent reasoning in her, I get upset when I see her blocked. So, when I see others saying uncivil things on a regular basis who are not being blocked, I look for justice and see none.
I like moderation in moderation.
- Scott
Posted by HomelyCygnet on January 26, 2014, at 12:10:16
In reply to Re: strange goal, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2014, at 0:26:56
Bob a club is a voluntary association. Being put in a subcategory of posters by you for administrative purposes is not a club. Please be more precise in the future.As always
> 2. Are you saying you'd like to join Lou and Adorable's club?
>
Posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2014, at 16:32:39
In reply to Re: strange goal, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2014, at 0:26:56
> > You are just about the most reasonable, sober, deliberative, generous, and civil poster here
> >
> > - Scott
>
> That's actually one reason I'm not showing her leniency. Her posts are uncivil (IMO) more often than most posters'.can you explain more?
Posted by HomelyCygnet on January 27, 2014, at 7:22:08
In reply to Re: puhlease, posted by alexandra_k on January 23, 2014, at 15:24:58
nothing you say is interesting or useful to me......no it isn't
not at all
Posted by Twinleaf on January 27, 2014, at 7:46:45
In reply to Re: strange goal, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2014, at 0:26:56
There was no reason for you to think a comment I made to Alex about therapy was directed at you. I should not be expected to "clarify" something which is already completely clear.
There was also no reason to ask me whether I wanted to join a "club" consisting of Lou and Adorable. I have been requesting for months that there be no clubs - that everyone be treated equally.
Please be more careful in your statements to me.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 28, 2014, at 14:02:56
In reply to Re: strange goal » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on January 27, 2014, at 7:46:45
> There was no reason for you to think a comment I made to Alex about therapy was directed at you. I should not be expected to "clarify" something which is already completely clear.
>
> There was also no reason to ask me whether I wanted to join a "club" consisting of Lou and Adorable. I have been requesting for months that there be no clubs - that everyone be treated equally.
>
> Please be more careful in your statements to me.it astounds me that you think the phrases you were blocked for were ever tolerated as part of the rules here.
have you shown dinah the things you have been saying in your attempt to support her? what does she think? does she think the things you have been saying about (the way you have been saying things about) Bob is civil?
?
Posted by 10derheart on January 28, 2014, at 17:26:05
In reply to Re: strange goal, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2014, at 0:26:56
>....but I see it as relatively straightforward. Pay attention to the guidelines!
You mean TL has to and others have to (though I don't know who they are or when they have to) BUT HC and Lou do not have to....nor do I (sometimes), nor does SLS (sometimes)....nor does alex (sometimes) blah.... blah blah
And this is straightforward?
What guidelines? Not "could lead others to feel accused or put down" - obviously. Posts with language doing that litter the boards.
Could you find me a poster who understands what guidelines you are talking about? If so, maybe they could explain to me as I haven't understood your explanations for weeks/months.... (years?)
yowza.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2014, at 17:29:11
In reply to Re: strange goal » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2014, at 16:32:39
> I have a bias towards Twinleaf because I like her, and I consider her to be a valuable poster on Psycho-Babble. ... I see kindness, generosity, careful deliberation, knowledge, and intelligent reasoning in her
>
> - Scott> > > You are just about the most reasonable, sober, deliberative, generous, and civil poster here
> >
> > That's actually one reason I'm not showing her leniency. Her posts are uncivil (IMO) more often than most posters'.
>
> can you explain more?
>
> alexandra_kOne reason I'm not showing her leniency is to balance the bias that posters like Scott have. I see her as having lots of great qualities, but not as being just about the most civil poster here.
--
> The old nag will never be able to make herself drink the water, because she believes it is contaminated.
>
> TwinleafWhat does she believe would happen if she drank it?
--
> there is something about about "Equal treatment under the law" that has always appealed to me. Unfortunately, I see selective enforcement occurring here.
> I look for justice and see none.
>
> I like moderation in moderation.
>
> - ScottThe goal here is support, not justice.
One man's selectivity is another's moderation.
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on January 28, 2014, at 19:55:13
In reply to Re: strange goal, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2014, at 17:29:11
The reason she won't drink the water is that she thinks the civility rules are biased excessively against reasonable freedom of speech as well as reasonable standards of communication. The moderator can decide that anything he does not wish to hear constitutes a civility violation; he may also misunderstand or misinterpret what has been said. None of that ever matters; the community member is invariably punished even though he/she may honestly not understand what is wrong. To object to the fairness or reasonableness of a PBC means incurring progressively severe punishments.
This type of arbitrary punishment, unmodified by anything resembling a clarifying discussion, is very similiar to what people who have been traumatized have already experienced in their past lives. Part of becoming healthier in therapy is learning what is and is not compatible with good mental health, as well as learning what behaviors ( one's own and others') are to be avoided. I feel that acceding, without speaking up, to arbitrary, dictatorial punishments which one does not always understand or feel to be appropriate does not meet the standards one needs for healthy self-confidence and self- esteem.
The fact that these civility standards are now purposely and arbitrarily applied differently to each person is a separate distressing issue.
Almost everyone who felt as I do has left Babble by now; the few who remain appear to subscribe to the civility guidelines as they understand them.
The old nag will probably get so thirsty that she will have to go elsewhere in search of safe, clear water.
Posted by SLS on January 28, 2014, at 20:12:32
In reply to Re: strange goal » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on January 28, 2014, at 19:55:13
Drop me a line if you are so inclined via Babblemail.
I won't take it personally if you decline.
:-)
http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/settings.pl
- Scott
Posted by Twinleaf on January 28, 2014, at 20:38:12
In reply to Re: strange goal » Twinleaf, posted by SLS on January 28, 2014, at 20:12:32
I always love talking to you, Scott, but I have purposely not used Babblemail, because I feel, perhaps wrongly, that my job security will be at risk even more than it already is with Babble on Facebook and Twitter.
Can you discuss it here in a careful fashion?
Posted by SLS on January 28, 2014, at 21:17:53
In reply to Re: strange goal » SLS, posted by Twinleaf on January 28, 2014, at 20:38:12
> I always love talking to you, Scott, but I have purposely not used Babblemail, because I feel, perhaps wrongly, that my job security will be at risk even more than it already is with Babble on Facebook and Twitter.
>
> Can you discuss it here in a careful fashion?I didn't have anything in particular to discuss with you right now.
:-)
You know, I am reluctant to share any aspects of my personal life on Psycho-Babble anymore. Certain people are quick to use all of the biographical information that they have collected about me over the years to launch personal attacks.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2014, at 3:46:52
In reply to Re: strange goal » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on January 28, 2014, at 19:55:13
> The reason she won't drink the water is that she thinks the civility rules are biased excessively against reasonable freedom of speech as well as reasonable standards of communication. The moderator can decide that anything he does not wish to hear constitutes a civility violation; he may also misunderstand or misinterpret what has been said. None of that ever matters; the community member is invariably punished even though he/she may honestly not understand what is wrong. To object to the fairness or reasonableness of a PBC means incurring progressively severe punishments.
>
> This type of arbitrary punishment, unmodified by anything resembling a clarifying discussion, is very similiar to what people who have been traumatized have already experienced in their past lives. Part of becoming healthier in therapy is learning what is and is not compatible with good mental health, as well as learning what behaviors ( one's own and others') are to be avoided. I feel that acceding, without speaking up, to arbitrary, dictatorial punishments which one does not always understand or feel to be appropriate does not meet the standards one needs for healthy self-confidence and self- esteem.
>
> The old nag will probably get so thirsty that she will have to go elsewhere in search of safe, clear water.Of course reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder and misunderstandings and misinterpretations are always possible. I think the old nag's reasoning is sound, but she's starting from extreme premises:
1. The moderator can decide that anything constitutes a civility violation. Punishment is arbitrary.
2. The community member is punished even if she does not understand what is wrong.
3. To object means incurring progressively severe punishments.
4. Nothing resembles a clarifying discussion.
I agree, that sounds like a recipe for trauma. People who have been traumatized may be hypervigilant. Part of becoming healthier is learning what does and does not need to be avoided, what's poisoned and what's safe.
Hmm, the old nag may already be in a club with Lou and Ahab.
Bob
Posted by HomelyCygnet on January 30, 2014, at 7:47:03
In reply to Re: people who have been traumatized, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2014, at 3:46:52
Why are you calling posters names?
> Hmm, the old nag may already be in a club with ... and Ahab.
>
> Bob
Posted by Willful on January 30, 2014, at 15:12:49
In reply to Re: strange goal » sleepygirl2, posted by SLS on January 26, 2014, at 6:28:44
I don't know if I have a bias for Twinleaf, but I certainly have been startled and even displeased by several of Bob's threats and acts of blocking her for periods of time.
I have always found her posts to be some of the most thoughtful, constructive, and illuminating on babble. In every instance that I recall, while she has sometimes been highly critical of some of Bob's actions, and has questioned his approach, and mode of response, what she writes always appeared to be in the service of the large purpose of strengthening babble. For this reason alone, I would have expected Bob to grant her greater latitude, not less. And especially when it came to himself. There were indeed many posts that were infintely more offensive in attacking Bob during some of the War of Dissemination, than ever were expressed by Twinleaf.
The earlier more rigidly moralisitc regime was not to my taste, personally, although I was able to apprecaite some of its strengths, even as I deeply questioned some overall rules and in particular individual decisions to ban people for long periods of time, that were made.
And I am quite surprised, really, to see some of your responses to her contributions. I would be most interested in being pointed toward posts that jane d and sleepygirl consider uncivil, since none of what she write struck me as uncivil, especially in the current climate.
Willful
Posted by Twinleaf on January 30, 2014, at 18:50:02
In reply to Re: strange goal, posted by Willful on January 30, 2014, at 15:12:49
Thanks so much for your support, HC and Willful!
In this icy new world of Babble, taunting and name-calling, even by the administrator, just seem par for the course - nothing worth taking personally.
Posted by Twinleaf on January 30, 2014, at 19:02:56
In reply to Re: strange goal » Twinleaf, posted by SLS on January 28, 2014, at 21:17:53
Yes, I agree. Ever since I was "discovered" by a family member on Facebook, I have not been able to share personal details in the spontaneous way I used to. It seems almost everyone is much more careful now. There has been a loss of vitality and trust. In fairness, much of this change has probably been due to all of us becoming more sophisticated about the risks of the internet - and not just Babble.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 21, 2014, at 11:15:06
In reply to Re: strange goal, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2014, at 0:26:56
> > I was startled that you seemed to think that I wanted to replicate my therapeutic relationship in discussions with you - that seemed to me to be a very inappropriate comment, and is not evenly remotely the case.
> >
> > Twinleaf
>
> I didn't know, so I asked. Thanks for clarifying.
>
> --
>
> > I perhaps have not paid enough attention to what the civility guidelines here actually are.
> >
> > Twinleaf
>
> > Perhaps the best way to prevent being blocked from posting is to beg Dr. Bob to be blocked and write grossly uncivil things.
> >
> > - Scott
>
> You're welcome to try reverse psychology, but I see it as relatively straightforward. Pay attention to the guidelines!
>
> I do realize that's easier said than done.
>
> --
>
> > The only thing that is truly unacceptable to me is that the civility rules are not applied equally. While I am punished for every little thing, others are able to say things ... and nothing happens.
> >
> > Twinleaf
>
> 1. I wouldn't say nothing happens.
>
> 2. Are you saying you'd like to join Lou and Adorable's club?
>
> > You are just about the most reasonable, sober, deliberative, generous, and civil poster here
> >
> > - Scott
>
> That's actually one reason I'm not showing her leniency. Her posts are uncivil (IMO) more often than most posters'.
>
> --
>
> > I was hoping that Dr. Bob could function as a shield to protect everyone equally. I don't know.
> >
> > - Scott
>
> > Learning to "wear a shield" against abuse is of course something we must all do occasionally in our daily lives; it seems like a strange goal to have in a board devoted to mental health. A reasonable degree of moderation would allow a much better goal: the increasing development of mutual trust, understanding and compromise - a goal that leads to better mental health. The present goal seems to me to lead to excessive anxiety, watchfulness and suppressed anger - signs of persons who are coping with trauma. Why would one visit a mental health site for that?
> >
> > Twinleaf
>
> I see having a refuge and being out in the world both as valuable goals. Even for persons coping with trauma. The focus at Babble has shifted from the former (when I functioned as a shield to protect everyone equally) to the latter.
>
> Also, there isn't much sustained interest in a refuge now.
>
> This has been a nice discussion, I hope I don't derail it by chiming in.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
I just saw,[...Are you saying that you would like to join Lou and Adorable's club?...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here and if you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or false:
A. I did not specify what kind of club it is, Lou, because by me not specifying, a subset of readers could think in a way to see you in a false light by thinking something about the club that defames you as being a member of the club.
Fill in:
B. I used the name {Adorable} wityhout specifying who that is because:________________(and who is that?)
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 26, 2014, at 18:29:31
In reply to Re: strange goal, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2014, at 17:29:11
> > I have a bias towards Twinleaf because I like her, and I consider her to be a valuable poster on Psycho-Babble. ... I see kindness, generosity, careful deliberation, knowledge, and intelligent reasoning in her
> >
> > - Scott
>
> > > > You are just about the most reasonable, sober, deliberative, generous, and civil poster here
> > >
> > > That's actually one reason I'm not showing her leniency. Her posts are uncivil (IMO) more often than most posters'.
> >
> > can you explain more?
> >
> > alexandra_k
>
> One reason I'm not showing her leniency is to balance the bias that posters like Scott have. I see her as having lots of great qualities, but not as being just about the most civil poster here.
>
> --
>
> > The old nag will never be able to make herself drink the water, because she believes it is contaminated.
> >
> > Twinleaf
>
> What does she believe would happen if she drank it?
>
> --
>
> > there is something about about "Equal treatment under the law" that has always appealed to me. Unfortunately, I see selective enforcement occurring here.
>
> > I look for justice and see none.
> >
> > I like moderation in moderation.
> >
> > - Scott
>
> The goal here is support, not justice.
>
> One man's selectivity is another's moderation.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...the goal here is support, not justice...].
Then can injustice be supportive? And to whom could you lead to accept that there could be support without justice? For support comes out of your TOS that this could have people to be led to believe is to have fairness and the Golden Rule to be implemented here by you. And those readers that understand the golden rule could think that without justice, three is no support. They could have a rational basis to think that because injustice could harm those that are victims of injustice, and harm coming to others is not supportive in those reader's thinking. What good will come to this community in your thinking as long as you say that the site is for support, not justice, which could mean that support can exist without justice?
Injustice can stigmatize those that are victims of injustice. They could feel put down or accused and be seen as inferior here if they are allowed to be considered to be devalued and ridiculed and be made targets of contempt or even blamed for real or imagined ills of members or the community. But if there was justice, then the stigmatization could not be put on those here that are victims of injustice. And equality could replace hate being seen as supportive where it is originally posted.
And when Jefferson added to {The Declaration} that we hold these truths self-evident that all men are created equal, he later stood by his word and wrote the {equal protection clause} into the Constitution where other countries emulated his work. He saw that without justice, there was no freedom and the entitlement to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He envisioned, like you, ahead in as to what would be good for the country as a whole. And I have a vision ahead as to what will be good for this community as a whole. And I have studied the countries and communities where anti-Semitism and injustice were considered supportive and would be good for their community as a whole. And I have read where the world condemned those countries and destroyed them. They saw those countries as a crime against humanity. For they did not say that they hold the truths as self-evident that all men are created equal, for they said that equality and justice could be overruled by them, if in their thinking the country would be improved, even by committing mass-murder.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2014, at 20:28:56
In reply to Lou's response-suprt/justc » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 26, 2014, at 18:29:31
> > > I have a bias towards Twinleaf because I like her, and I consider her to be a valuable poster on Psycho-Babble. ... I see kindness, generosity, careful deliberation, knowledge, and intelligent reasoning in her
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > > > > You are just about the most reasonable, sober, deliberative, generous, and civil poster here
> > > >
> > > > That's actually one reason I'm not showing her leniency. Her posts are uncivil (IMO) more often than most posters'.
> > >
> > > can you explain more?
> > >
> > > alexandra_k
> >
> > One reason I'm not showing her leniency is to balance the bias that posters like Scott have. I see her as having lots of great qualities, but not as being just about the most civil poster here.
> >
> > --
> >
> > > The old nag will never be able to make herself drink the water, because she believes it is contaminated.
> > >
> > > Twinleaf
> >
> > What does she believe would happen if she drank it?
> >
> > --
> >
> > > there is something about about "Equal treatment under the law" that has always appealed to me. Unfortunately, I see selective enforcement occurring here.
> >
> > > I look for justice and see none.
> > >
> > > I like moderation in moderation.
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > The goal here is support, not justice.
> >
> > One man's selectivity is another's moderation.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...the goal here is support, not justice...].
> Then can injustice be supportive? And to whom could you lead to accept that there could be support without justice? For support comes out of your TOS that this could have people to be led to believe is to have fairness and the Golden Rule to be implemented here by you. And those readers that understand the golden rule could think that without justice, three is no support. They could have a rational basis to think that because injustice could harm those that are victims of injustice, and harm coming to others is not supportive in those reader's thinking. What good will come to this community in your thinking as long as you say that the site is for support, not justice, which could mean that support can exist without justice?
> Injustice can stigmatize those that are victims of injustice. They could feel put down or accused and be seen as inferior here if they are allowed to be considered to be devalued and ridiculed and be made targets of contempt or even blamed for real or imagined ills of members or the community. But if there was justice, then the stigmatization could not be put on those here that are victims of injustice. And equality could replace hate being seen as supportive where it is originally posted.
> And when Jefferson added to {The Declaration} that we hold these truths self-evident that all men are created equal, he later stood by his word and wrote the {equal protection clause} into the Constitution where other countries emulated his work. He saw that without justice, there was no freedom and the entitlement to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He envisioned, like you, ahead in as to what would be good for the country as a whole. And I have a vision ahead as to what will be good for this community as a whole. And I have studied the countries and communities where anti-Semitism and injustice were considered supportive and would be good for their community as a whole. And I have read where the world condemned those countries and destroyed them. They saw those countries as a crime against humanity. For they did not say that they hold the truths as self-evident that all men are created equal, for they said that equality and justice could be overruled by them, if in their thinking the country would be improved, even by committing mass-murder.
> Lou Pilder
>
Friends,
The historical record shows that communities that fostered anti-Semitism by allowing anti-Semitism to be considered to be supportive, or even making antisemitic policies, is not something new, but an old way of thinking that blames the Jews for the ills either real or imagined of the country/community/state. Those ignorant of how anti-Semitism works can be persuaded easily by those using the fascist concept of {the common good}, which could be anlaogous to {doing what will be good for the country as a whole}. The Jews become the {enemies} and could be allowed to be used as targets of hate. All the leaders have to do for the furnace of hate to be stoked is to do nothing and allow the Jews to be made scapegoats and be stereotyped as enemies of the community as well as making laws against the Jews that deny them equal protection of the laws and place a badge of shame and stigmatization upon them as being inferior to those that the laws do protect.
Here is a video that I would like for interested readers to view as to how members of a community can be easily persuaded to hate Jews. After seeing this video, ask yourself if a man did that today, what would happen?
Lou
To see this video:
Go to Google and type in:
[ youtube, Ut6P3Rm2GCg ]
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.