![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 5 to 29 of 39. Go back in thread:
Posted by crazy teresa on March 9, 2006, at 8:41:27
In reply to Re: public figures, posted by Dr. Bob on March 8, 2006, at 23:06:00
> The issue isn't really the public figures themselves, it's the people here who support them.
>
> BobAnd that would be a boundry issue, would it not? If someone makes a Johnny Cash joke and I became upset because I am a huge fan, that's MY problem. Making more posting rules about Johnny Cash jokes is punishing (censoring) every poster on behalf of my bad boundries.
Plus, it would not be enouraging me to be reasonable. It would show me I can get into a snit and use manipulation to have more rules which only benefit me, the poster with the bad boundries.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 9, 2006, at 13:33:36
In reply to Re: public figures, posted by Dr. Bob on March 8, 2006, at 23:06:00
Hmmmm....
So, how about instead of saying "Bush....." we say <Insert public figure of your choice>.... and leave out the name?
Lots of them are the same jokes as Clinton jokes but with the name changed.
Posted by 838 on March 9, 2006, at 17:37:55
In reply to Re: public figures » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on March 9, 2006, at 13:33:36
Is it only public figures?
How about books?
Medications?
Varieties of therapy?
Posted by Jakeman on March 9, 2006, at 20:48:16
In reply to Re: public figures, posted by 838 on March 9, 2006, at 17:37:55
I wonder if it's ok just to post a quote by a political leader. Just the exact quote, with no personal comments. Just restate what was reported in the newspaper and nothing else. An example:
"I am mindful of the difference between the executive branch and the legislative branch. I assured all four of these leaders that I know the difference, and that difference is they pass the laws and I execute them." George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000
warm regards, Jake
Posted by Racer on March 9, 2006, at 21:08:53
In reply to Re: Can I just post a quote by a public figure? » 838, posted by Jakeman on March 9, 2006, at 20:48:16
Posted by gardenergirl on March 9, 2006, at 21:29:08
In reply to Re: Can I just post a quote by a public figure? » 838, posted by Jakeman on March 9, 2006, at 20:48:16
Posted by Jakeman on March 9, 2006, at 22:09:45
In reply to Oh my.... (nm) » Jakeman, posted by gardenergirl on March 9, 2006, at 21:29:08
I'm glad I may have provided some levity, which is sorely needed IMHO.
By the way, I'm not just talking about Bush. I'm wondering if I could post quotes by other public figures (again, with no comment) without getting PBC'ed.
For example:
"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine." - George Washington
I'm not trying to stir up anything. It's one thing to attack and hurt people's feelings. It's another thing to allow people to express their views on important issues of the day.
warm regards, Jake
Posted by sleepygirl on March 9, 2006, at 22:13:54
In reply to Re: Oh my.... » gardenergirl, posted by Jakeman on March 9, 2006, at 22:09:45
can we simply provide quotes? just restating what is said, and still be "civil"
the quotes then can speak for themselves right?
Posted by tealady on March 9, 2006, at 22:14:02
In reply to Re: public figures, posted by Dr. Bob on March 8, 2006, at 23:06:00
Briefly, the issue here IS not considering the people who don't support Bush, to the point of open discrimination causing many to be "offended"
Posted by sleepygirl on March 9, 2006, at 22:16:47
In reply to good question..., posted by sleepygirl on March 9, 2006, at 22:13:54
the news is sort of upsetting, just as it is right? without any viewpoints, just the "facts"?? as they are
I guess one has to know that though before they visit a politics board
Posted by tealady on March 9, 2006, at 22:19:53
In reply to good question..., posted by sleepygirl on March 9, 2006, at 22:13:54
Not be my understanding.
I think its like this...
If the quote is not pro-Bush and you post a link to anything that is not pro-Bush then that is considered uncivil. It doesn't matter if it was your words or not. If anything is in a link that is anti "Bush and supporters" it is uncivil...
as it may offend those who support BushI've been wondering if those who support Bush means "source of future board funding?
..in which case.. why run a politics board??
Posted by tealady on March 10, 2006, at 0:26:16
In reply to but...., posted by sleepygirl on March 9, 2006, at 22:16:47
> the news is sort of upsetting, just as it is right? without any viewpoints, just the "facts"?? as they are
> I guess one has to know that though before they visit a politics boardyes very.. especially if you are living in it or know those who are.
And yes, I think there should be warning on the top of the board.
It's about life, death, torture, the destruction of thre environment, even the future possiblility that this planet may no longer be viable for humans .. even maybe your grandkids.
If you vist there you should be allowed to state your feeling in a polite and decent way of course.. but it should not be one sided or it is actually harmful.. both to those who cannot express their view and are hurt or concerned, as well as those who may be better off not knowing of any opposing point of view or fact or what may be happening .. so why go there?What's it doing on a forum that I thought was to help people? It has caused a lot of distress in people who are well enough too to be able to put forward and discuss rationally and reasonably a point of view if it was somewhere that was moderated without the bias, and allowed all viewpoints to be discussed. It should also allow ALL facts or comments written in other links to be discussed.. provided they are not porn etc, and pass prime time TV of course!
Posted by AuntieMel on March 10, 2006, at 9:11:16
In reply to Re: but...., posted by tealady on March 10, 2006, at 0:26:16
What is the difference, Dr. Bob?
I would think that if someone quotes Bush himself that it would be ok. And if someone quotes another person bashing him then it wouldn't?
But quoting someone explaining the FISA law and how wiretapping without a warrant might (or might not) violate is ok as long as it didn't get personal? I would think it is ok, but it's a bit greyer.
Posted by Dinah on March 10, 2006, at 18:30:44
In reply to Re: public figures » Dr. Bob, posted by tealady on March 9, 2006, at 22:14:02
The issue is not Bush. The same rules would apply for anyone. It just hasn't happened to come up recently. I'm sure the rules would be the same for, say, Hilary Clinton. It's just that no one's chosen to go there.
Posted by Racer on March 11, 2006, at 13:25:12
In reply to Re: good question about quotes, posted by AuntieMel on March 10, 2006, at 9:11:16
I'm wondering about quoting others, too. In fact, there's something I would very much like to post in response to something already posted there, but I'm afraid of crossing the civility lines. (I've sent it to a deputy, asking whether it's OK. I'll abide by what she tells me, and either let it go or try to edit the post to make it acceptable.)
Actually, though, it does bother me. This is the only part of the civility guidelines that I've ever been bothered by, too. Politics is a subject that brings out strong feelings, and it is difficult for that reason. Since there is a Politics board, it seems as though we should be able to express our beliefs there.
When I was a kid, I learned that there are several subjects NEVER to be discussed in company: money and politics were at the top of the list. There's good reason for that.
Personally, I think that the civility guidelines for the Politics board should be pretty simple: expression of any political beliefs should be OK, including criticism of any and all public figures -- AS LONG AS THERE ARE NO PERSONAL ATTACKS, either against the public figure, or especially against other posters. For instance, I should be able to say something like, "I believe that Politician A is a criminal, and I think the fact that he's under indictment supports my belief." But I should never be able to follow that up with anything that resembles, "And everyone who voted for him is either an idiot or another criminal." Does that make sense? Or am I just hoping to crawl under the radar?
{sigh} Politics is a difficult subject, no question. So is the whole issue of civility, of how to get along when we disagree, and all the rest of it. I don't envy Dr Bob in having to come up with policies about this matter.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 11, 2006, at 15:45:21
In reply to Re: public figures, posted by 838 on March 9, 2006, at 17:37:55
> Is it only public figures?
>
> How about books?
>
> Medications?
>
> Varieties of therapy?The issue isn't public figures, it's respecting the views of others and being sensitive to their feelings.
Bob
Posted by agent858 on March 12, 2006, at 19:18:36
In reply to Re: public figures, posted by Dr. Bob on March 11, 2006, at 15:45:21
There is a difference between unsubstantiated remarks...
And substantiated remarks.
I think people should be allowed to state the facts.
I think that people should be allowed to express their opinions / interpretations of the facts.
People can disagree... But they should provide reasons for their claims too.
IMO people need to learn not to take politics personally...
Maybe some people will find the politics board too hard.
Well thats okay. Some people find R18 movies too hard.
Nobody forces them to read politics...
Nobody forces them to watch the movies...People can take responsibility for that themselves.
I remember you saying at some point...
That you didn't block people on the basis of peoples feelings.
Remember Angelgirl and how upset she was over a word appearing in the subject header next to her name...
You said something about 'sorry but I don't think it would work to base admin decisions on peoples feelings'
Well... This is a change in tune.
And I agreed with you before... I don't think that would work.
And... I don't think it is working.
And... I don't think its consistent.
Feelings can be like that.
I mean.... One person says 'I don't think the US ideal is working'
And some people feel upset...
But then One person can say 'I think the US ideal is working'
And someone else can feel upset...(Because some people support it but others don't - see and so people have different feelings on that. And if you try and do this on the basis of feelings then you are going to align yourself with who? The most vocal objectors? Currently... The bush supporters. I see... How upset are those who are opposed to bush going to feel in the face of people supporting bush?)
This is crazy making.
I have to say.
The only way I can see to make it work...
Would be to have people thinking about things logically rather than emotionally.
And that means... People need to learn not to take it personally.I don't think there is consistency in admin decisions.
I don't think they are predictable over there.I dont think it is safe :-(
Posted by agent858 on March 12, 2006, at 19:21:46
In reply to I agree with Racer..., posted by agent858 on March 12, 2006, at 19:18:36
> I don't think there is consistency in admin decisions.
> I don't think they are predictable over there.and now are the people who support bob going to feel upset...
and am i going to get blocked as a result?
can people see how this is crazymaking?
i don't get it bob. sorry... i really tried... but i don't get it.
i mean... in hindsight i could see how your suggested rephrasings were nicer. but fact is... you would need to rewrite the whole politics board in order to get people into that... it is jolly hard. really very. maybe the community can get there in time... maybe you will get more pepole internalising those rules... but at this point... nobody seems to get it except you. and unless you are going to teach us how (instead of just punishing people out of existence) then... crazymaking :-(
Posted by Dinah on March 12, 2006, at 23:08:15
In reply to I agree with Racer..., posted by agent858 on March 12, 2006, at 19:18:36
I see nothing wrong with discussing politics rationally and civilly. It's not a character flaw. Indeed, I consider it a virtue. How could wars ever end otherwise? How can they be averted?
Dr. Bob isn't taking sides or supporting the US. He's upholding the rules of this *site*, which are not different just because it's the politics board. Any more than it's different on the Religion Board.
Posted by agent858 on March 13, 2006, at 0:14:20
In reply to *, posted by Dinah on March 12, 2006, at 23:08:15
> I see nothing wrong with discussing politics rationally and civilly.
No. I don't see how anybody could have a problem with that...
> Dr. Bob isn't taking sides or supporting the US.
I don't think he means to take sides...
But I think he is weighing in how people feel...
And the trouble with that (especially when politics is involved) is that there can be strong feeling either way...
And hence when there is a clash of the feeling then what to do?Go with the strongest feeling...
Or go back to rationality...
> He's upholding the rules of this *site*, which are not different just because it's the politics board. Any more than it's different on the Religion Board.
Ah. So my blocking was consistent with the 'rules of this site'?
You can't critique a political ideology.
Can you critique a book? I have. Didn't get blocked for that...
Can you critique a variety of therapy? I have. Didn't get blocked for that...
I don't think there is consistency between the politics boards and the other boards.
Posted by 10derHeart on March 13, 2006, at 0:36:50
In reply to *, posted by Dinah on March 12, 2006, at 23:08:15
That's how I thought it was and is.
But several posters are writing posts that say, no, since it's Politics, it's different. Politics in the real world is full of negatives. And also that postive comments, praising certain officials or policies, are offending them.
I wish I could respond helpfully to that issue, but I'm at a loss right now. I've not heard posters being distressed on other boards like this.
For example, say I posted 'I love psychodynamic psychotherapy! I think for me it's the best type of therapy I've ever experienced' Then, others who passionately believed it wasn't a good method, and that another therapy they preferred was better, became truly upset and insisted I was uncivil, and should be warned/blocked, etc.
To me that would be the same thing, and that sort of upset seems such a new *wrinkle* here, I don't know what to say about it. My mistake seems to be not *getting* how the Politics board *should* be different. I seem to keep missing some obvious point, though I am sincerely trying to get it and I have no doubt the people saying that are completely sincere and serious.
I see all the boards the same when it comes to civility. This doesn't mean I've agreed with every single PBC/PBS or block on Politics (or anywhere, for that matter) - I haven't. But for the most part, I see evenhandedness. If it wouldn't draw a warning, I'm tempted to delibrately post something pro-President Bush, but using phrases, sarcastic tone, links to uncivil articles, etc., to show Dr. Bob would PBC me and that post in a New York minute. I'm quite confident that would happen.
I'm fairly sure I won't, just tempted. I'm not fond of resorting to putting anyone 'to the test' like that.
Dang, this is frustrating.
Posted by Dinah on March 13, 2006, at 1:11:50
In reply to I agree with Racer..., posted by agent858 on March 12, 2006, at 19:18:36
> The only way I can see to make it work...
> Would be to have people thinking about things logically rather than emotionally.
> And that means... People need to learn not to take it personally.I was responding mostly to this. I would certainly not come to the same conclusion about those who advocate civility in the discussion of politics. That they weren't thinking logically.
Nor is Dr. Bob the only person who understands the civility guidelines in regard to politics. I might not grasp any particular ruling any more than I do on any of the other boards. Reasonable people can differ in how they interpret things. But I grasp the concept easily enough.
If I am impassioned about anything, it's not about one policy or another or one political agenda or another. But I do feel passionately about mutual respect and tolerance and civility. About speaking of others as you would wish to be spoken of yourself. I feel very very impassioned about that.
I'm passionate about Eracism, about the Ulster Project, about the ecumenical movement, about bipartisanism, about that Phil Donahue show near the end of the Cold War where citizens of the USSR met with citizens of the US and found that they weren't so different. And I'm passionate about civility on Babble. Perhaps even more so on Religion and Politics. Because, to me, the civility rules aren't all that different from those other things I love so well.
Posted by Dinah on March 13, 2006, at 1:16:30
In reply to Re: * » Dinah, posted by 10derHeart on March 13, 2006, at 0:36:50
I'm frustrated too.
To me there is a huge difference. And I'm rather stymied to explain it, because to me it seems so fundamental.
I had best just avoid these threads entirely.
I honor Dr. Bob for trying to make Babble a place where everything can be discussed, as long as it is done so in accordance with the civility regulations. But maybe it just can't be done.
Posted by Dinah on March 13, 2006, at 1:18:59
In reply to Re: * » 10derHeart, posted by Dinah on March 13, 2006, at 1:16:30
I really ought to just avoid these threads. All I do is get upset, and I don't do any good.
I have to learn when to just walk away.
Posted by agent858 on March 13, 2006, at 1:46:59
In reply to *, posted by Dinah on March 13, 2006, at 1:11:50
> I do feel passionately about mutual respect and tolerance and civility. About speaking of others as you would wish to be spoken of yourself.
And you think I didn't do this and that was why I was blocked?
I'm not saying I have a problem with ALL the blocks over there...
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.