![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 75. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on December 3, 2004, at 14:58:02
In reply to Re: How about the people who will be hurt? » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2004, at 23:52:56
I've been hurt here before, and it didn't cause quite this reaction. So what was it this time. And I figured it was the shock. I have a certain vision of the people here. I think of them as loving and tolerant, and able to look at many sides of an issue and be understanding of each.
When this last election happened, it was like life with my mother. This often wonderful woman who taught me all I know about being a decent human being would switch without warning into something that I didn't recognize and that scared me witless.
The intensity of anger here scared me witless and made me wonder if my perceptions were askew. And it threw me into self protective mode similar to what I'm with with my mother.
I don't know if it's fixable.
Anyway....
Dr. Bob will probably boot this non-admin stuff off.
But that's why unlike Dr. Bob, I blame politics more than incivility. Because it wasn't just people who tend to be uncivil who were scaring me. Therefore it must be the politics at fault, not the people. You know?
Posted by mair on December 3, 2004, at 16:34:56
In reply to Re: politics board, posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2004, at 4:27:05
" i was blocked simply for calling bush's policies destructive... i was not outrageous, i didn't put anyone down, etc. if we are not allowed to discuss anything "bad", then we cannot have a real political discussion.
> >
> > amy
>
> IMO, calling them destructive puts down them and those who agree with them. How about a discussion about constructive, "good" policies?
>
> Bob"
Since the only PBC I've ever gotten and my only block arose from political comments, I view the politics board as a potential minefield, and not necessarily the best board addition. Your response to Amy is an example of the pitfalls which I think will befall posters on that board. Comments like "I think George Bush is a war criminal," or "anyone who would support Bush is an idiot," are obvious examples of provocative name-calling which should be understood by everyone to fall outside the parameters of civil discourse. However it's simply unrealistic to assume that you can have a board where everyone only talks about constructive good policies. While I freely admit that much of the political discourse in this country borders on the uncivil, I also believe that much of the civil discourse concerns a discussion of negatives.
Making a remark like "I think the War in Iraq has been destructive because it's polarized the country, done great damage to the landscape of Iraq, resulted in the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, and alienated much of the civilized world, thereby diminishing our international standing," in my opinion, should be ok, even though it hardly focuses on the positive.
We're not asked to limit our remarks about insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies to a discussion of all the wonderful things they do, so it makes no sense that we should limit a discussion of politics to the constructively positive. (if that's what you meant). To do so would take any political discussions here far out of the realm of typical civil political discourse. My guess is that permissible discussions would be too stilted and the topics too limiting to be of any use to anyone.Mair
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2004, at 19:59:31
In reply to Thanks, dearest Gabbi Gabbi :) (nm), posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 23:00:51
Your welcome, I saw your 3 post limit was up, and I didn't give a second thought to what you meant. I must have missed the loophole about you being able replying to a reply after the third post. Of course then it would have been really awful had I been wrong, and you couldn't have posted again to say I was wrong... Gee I didn't think that through did I? :(
Good thing it worked out.
Posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 23:16:25
In reply to Re: politics board » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on December 3, 2004, at 16:34:56
mair, that was so well said..excellent response, IMO! :) (and thanks for saving me the trouble of replying to bob! lol.) i don't think it could've been said any better than that.
amy :)
Posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 23:38:00
In reply to Re: I've been thinking » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on December 3, 2004, at 14:58:02
> I don't know if it's fixable.i know exactly what you mean, only my scars are from admin, and they're very deep. they affect my relationships here to this day. but there's always hope..
btw, i've learned to avoid discussing politics (with people i like, hehe :-))
(((((dinah)))))
love,
amy
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 1:56:53
In reply to Re: politics board » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on December 3, 2004, at 16:34:56
> We're not asked to limit our remarks about insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies to a discussion of all the wonderful things they do
But politics get more emotional?
> [to] limit a discussion of politics to the constructively positive... would take any political discussions here far out of the realm of typical civil political discourse. My guess is that permissible discussions would be too stilted and the topics too limiting to be of any use to anyone.
Well, so maybe it would be far out... But too limiting? Good policies? That's not wide open?
Bob
Posted by TofuEmmy on December 4, 2004, at 9:36:08
In reply to Re: politics board, posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2004, at 4:27:05
>IMO, calling them destructive puts down them and those who agree with them. How about a discussion about constructive, "good" policies?
Bob
Bob - So, we're only supposed to talk about policies that 100% of US Citizens think are positive? Ooops...can't leave out our Canadian friends. Oh, and the UK...and...um. Well now, we have a problem. We can only talk about policies which benefit all mankind. And animals, and vegetables (for those fruitarians).It's sounds like you want the girls in Snow White outfits and the boys in Peter Pan tights! Not that I wouldn't wanna see that photo too, but jeepers, yes Bob, it does seem a wee bit limiting for a political forum.
Because I put down a policy, I am not putting down a person who supports it. I have friends of all political persuasions. The person and the policy are two separate things. IF the discussion is civil, and kind, if can be educational and interesting. IF people are unable to keep their emotions in check, and the dicussions get cruel, you have the power to simply shut down the board.
I also think if the Politics board is a place where only one political party feels welcome, it should not exist.
emmy
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 12:46:57
In reply to Re: politics board » Dr. Bob, posted by TofuEmmy on December 4, 2004, at 9:36:08
> > How about a discussion about constructive, "good" policies?
>
> So, we're only supposed to talk about policies that 100% of US Citizens think are positive? Ooops...can't leave out our Canadian friends. Oh, and the UK...and...Well, how about policies you think would be positive, at least?
Bob
Posted by TofuEmmy on December 4, 2004, at 14:27:09
In reply to Re: politics board, posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 12:46:57
Bob, I can't think of a positive way to discuss the policies surrounding the war in Iraq.
So I sought out alternatives for grumpy posters, like me who would have difficulty following the happy rule:
http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.com/Forum/http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/index.php
http://www.civilizeddebate.com/forums/
http://4forums.com/political/index.php
http://www.network54.com/Index/11317
http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/index.php
http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/index.php?s=730ed841a471483d9f76d61656427abf&;
I don't vouch for any of these sites. I just searched for sites offering political debate forums which appeared to have recent activty.
emmy
Posted by alesta on December 4, 2004, at 22:07:43
In reply to Re: politics board, posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 12:46:57
> > > How about a discussion about constructive, "good" policies?
> >
> > So, we're only supposed to talk about policies that 100% of US Citizens think are positive? Ooops...can't leave out our Canadian friends. Oh, and the UK...and...
>
> Well, how about policies you think would be positive, at least?
>
> Bob> Well, how about policies you think would be positive, at least?
dr. bob, you are just rephrasing the question! (see your two comments above.) well, we can't make you get it, so this is my final attempt. i simply don't have the time to keep writing essays in response to your quick, redundant one-liners.
dr. bob, you're missing the point..
for example, someone who's happy w/ the job president bush is doing can talk about how wonderful he is or what a great job he did with such and such. and they get the opportunity to get their point across as much as they please.
but then the ppl who aren't satisfied with bush (nearly half of the u.s., and i think more in other countries) basically have to just sit there and say nothing. this is not fair. one side gets heard all they want and the other doesn't. the democrats are basically not allowed to reply. whereas the republicans are. not fair one bit.
amy
Posted by alesta on December 4, 2004, at 22:15:23
In reply to Re: politics board » Dr. Bob, posted by TofuEmmy on December 4, 2004, at 9:36:08
very well done tofu! good job, girl. :) thanks much for your involvement here!> It's sounds like you want the girls in Snow White outfits and the boys in Peter Pan tights!
heh heh heh. very amusing! :-)
aimy
Posted by gardenergirl on December 4, 2004, at 23:30:46
In reply to Re: politics board » Dr. Bob, posted by TofuEmmy on December 4, 2004, at 9:36:08
>
> It's sounds like you want the girls in Snow White outfits and the boys in Peter Pan tights! Not that I wouldn't wanna see that photo too,Way to slip that one in, Em! ROFL
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on December 4, 2004, at 23:31:15
In reply to Re: politics board, posted by gardenergirl on December 4, 2004, at 23:30:46
Posted by gardenergirl on December 4, 2004, at 23:35:52
In reply to Re: politics board, posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 1:56:53
>
> > [to] limit a discussion of politics to the constructively positive... would take any political discussions here far out of the realm of typical civil political discourse. My guess is that permissible discussions would be too stilted and the topics too limiting to be of any use to anyone.
>
> Well, so maybe it would be far out... But too limiting? Good policies? That's not wide open?
>
> BobDr. Bob,
A proper analysis of any policy requires assessing the good and the bad. The world is not all sweetness and light. I think it's damaging to encourage that we ignore the negative here on Babble. Because that's not the reality.Now there is value in reinforcing what's positive. But how about allowing a whole picture context as long as it's policies and procedures we are talking about and not people?
For example, we often point out what we don't like about your policies. You seem to have good boundaries in not assuming that our dislike of a decision of yours does not generalize to dislike of you. Now, I'm a sensitive person, and I struggle to avoid taking criticism as a rejection. But instead of making this a place where I might never have to face that, wouldn't it be better to create a more realistic Babble world that also gives me the opportunity to process my reactions and gain support?
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on December 5, 2004, at 1:07:29
In reply to Re: politics board » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on December 4, 2004, at 23:35:52
the positivist sees the glass half full
the negativist sees it half empty.
if we put a child in seclusion as a consequence of an unacceptable behaviour
is it a removal of a positive reinforcer (company)
or the deliverance of something negative (isolation)?They are just two different ways of looking at the same thing.
Most things you can say one way
You can say the other.Instead of saying you are unhappy with the way things are being done currently (e.g., with Bush)
How about saying what you think could be a good thing to do to make an even better USA or world or whatever?I am struggling to come to grips with the problem here...
Posted by alexandra_k on December 5, 2004, at 1:14:08
In reply to Re: politics board, posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2004, at 1:56:53
> We're not asked to limit our remarks about insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies to a discussion of all the wonderful things they do
> But politics get more emotional?How about because a 'company' isn't likely to feel offended or accused as a result. Whereas if you are talking about politics some people identify so strongly with their political ideology that they see criticisms of the ideology as personal attacks.
Instead of putting down and criticising certain ideologies (which can lead to hurting particular people) perhaps one could just focus on promoting ones own view. Focus on the positive. I like it.
Maybe if there was somebody here who was high up in an insurance / pharmacutical company and they complained of feeling hurt and / or accused then Dr. B would knuckle down on those kinds of claims...
I am starting to think that what is considered uncivil may (in some cases) have more to do with being a function of whether somebody actually does take offence.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 5, 2004, at 1:14:51
In reply to Re: politics board » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on December 5, 2004, at 1:14:08
Posted by alexandra_k on December 5, 2004, at 1:16:24
In reply to sorry, above for TofuEmmy (nm), posted by alexandra_k on December 5, 2004, at 1:14:51
Posted by alexandra_k on December 5, 2004, at 1:18:56
In reply to nope - for alesta (sorry) (nm), posted by alexandra_k on December 5, 2004, at 1:16:24
Anyone who cares, I guess :-)
Posted by alesta on December 5, 2004, at 3:40:27
In reply to Re: politics board » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on December 5, 2004, at 1:14:08
> > We're not asked to limit our remarks about insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies to a discussion of all the wonderful things they do
>
> > But politics get more emotional?hi again alex :)
i didn't write that comment. might've been tophu or mair..
:-)
(i'd comment anyway, but need a rest from this.)
take care sweetie,
amy
Posted by mair on December 5, 2004, at 10:32:56
In reply to Re: politics board » Dr. Bob, posted by alesta on December 4, 2004, at 22:07:43
I don't think Bob can let only one side be heard on this board. My very sensitive son used to take the favorable things I said about his friends, as criticism of him. Frankly, I could see me reacting the same way. Gushing can be a way putting down those who don't feel the same way, particularly when you know those people are out there and are reading what you're posting.
The more I review this thread, the more I think the politics board is not a good idea - at least for the way Dr. Bob polices things. Most people (certainly me) prefer discussing politics with people who agree with them alot more than they disagree and thus can empathize with their opinions, or at least they only want to talk with people who are not at some other far end of their political spectrum. People who were fervently against Bush are not going to feel supported by people who were ardent supporters.
If I reflect back to the discussions we had here after the election, I honestly thought Dinah was pretty much the only person participating in those discussions who was able to remain totally civil in exchanges with people who obviously disagreed with her. I thought she was making a sincere attempt to unemotionally explain a different point of view to people who clearly didn't share her opinions. Frankly, I think she's the exception and not the rule.
How about 2 different politics boards?
Mair
Posted by alesta on December 5, 2004, at 11:31:39
In reply to Re: politics board - more than one?, posted by mair on December 5, 2004, at 10:32:56
that's an interesting idea, mair. i wonder what ppl think.
i guess the only problem might be how we would separate the boards. one for republicans and one for democrats? but then, there are some republicans that are very anti-bush, and might be very unhappy on the "republican" board. maybe a better division would be pro-bush and anti-bush? but that would just look weird, lol..and we have to take other countries' political denominations and leaders into account maybe.
perhaps there's a simpler way to divide the boards than this? i don't know. maybe someone else can come up with something, or give some more input to this topic.
amie :-)
Posted by mair on December 5, 2004, at 12:03:17
In reply to Re: politics board - more than one? » mair, posted by alesta on December 5, 2004, at 11:31:39
I think it's ok to divide them up by party with the note that these designations are not absolute. In my state, we're not required to state a party when we register to vote so party affiliations aren't as strong anyway. I'm assuming threads would be subject specific, so there's nothing to prevent an anti-Bush republican from participating in threads on the other board about positions with which he or she identifies.
Mair
Posted by alesta on December 5, 2004, at 12:28:14
In reply to Re: politics board - more than one? » alesta, posted by mair on December 5, 2004, at 12:03:17
> I think it's ok to divide them up by party with the note that these designations are not absolute. In my state, we're not required to state a party when we register to vote so party affiliations aren't as strong anyway. I'm assuming threads would be subject specific, so there's nothing to prevent an anti-Bush republican from participating in threads on the other board about positions with which he or she identifies.
>
> Mairwell that sounds like it'll work! :-)
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 5, 2004, at 22:20:50
In reply to Re: politics board, posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2004, at 4:27:05
I personally refrain from posting and reading ANY boards or posts that I feel I cannot handle. But for those who want the Political boards I think that is fine it is Dr. Bob's site and anyone posting on the site unless they are VERY new knows there are civility rules...I would raise Dr Bob's blood pressure and get a permanete block if I were to post there <g> so I don't...As an adult I avoid it. It to me is a matter of self restraint as well as respect of someone else's site. That is just my opinion on it.
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.