![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 54. Go back in thread:
Posted by zeugma on March 4, 2006, at 14:28:43
In reply to Re: Ok, let's move this to Admin. » zeugma, posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 13:24:24
Posted by Tamar on March 4, 2006, at 22:13:57
In reply to Re: 5, posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 3:34:20
I’m a bit confused here and haven’t been keeping track of developments. My mother-in-law is in hospital and this week all three kids were ill (the baby needed emergency surgery). So I apologise for my inability to keep track of things but I’ve had a lot going on.
5, I can’t help but think you might be in an impossible situation. Perhaps you want to discuss a critique of US foreign policy, but the difficulty is that many people in the US are probably still feeling very vulnerable. (I’m not in the US, as you might know.) I think until people in the US feel safer, it’ll be hard to have a very open and frank debate about US foreign policy. Maybe I’m being too pessimistic. But I do know that in Europe there’s a great deal of ambivalence about US foreign policy and perhaps that accords with perspectives from the Southern Hemisphere. And yet in the US I think there’s still a sense of being attacked.
I don’t think we can do much about it. It’s hard to accept how strongly people feel about it, especially if they live in different circumstances. I think a lot of water needs to pass under the bridge before the US can see itself as the face of crime control and retributive justice. Just my two cents…
Tamar
Posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 22:36:25
In reply to Re: 5 » 5, posted by Tamar on March 4, 2006, at 22:13:57
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 4, 2006, at 22:40:33
In reply to Re: 5 » 5, posted by Tamar on March 4, 2006, at 22:13:57
I appreciate that that is probably exactly the case.
However.. it's a politics board, if you can't critique a foreign policy on a politics board because people from that Country might be upset by it, that's assuming that there are no readers or posters who are from the Countries, where policy has been critiqued.
And there have been countries who have been criticized, just not as frequently.I've had my lifestyle critiqued on that board and was expected not to take it personally.
No one got blocked or P.B.C'd and if they had I wouldn't have thought it fair.
Though It's one of the 3 times on Babble I've been genuinely hurt.
(As opposed to just annoyed, my standard negative emotion : )
I accepted it as a critique though, and it was political. My hurt aside, It was perfectly appropriate topic to discuss on a politics board.
And I realize that. I can't suddenly start saying.. wahhhh "Don't discuss 'what you think gov't policy should be for those who aren't working cause it hurts my feelings.."
Every topic has the potential to hurt someone
No matter how it's put.Discussing politics upsets people, that's why some people make a vow not to discuss it, but it seems to me that foreign policy is about as removed from the personal as it is possible to get when discussing politics.
I didn't see a precedent for what happened to 5
I have understood the problems in previous posts But that post.. well its a mystery to me. And I don't think it's fair (if the block was because of the tone of previous posts) to make the leap that no more criticism of the U.S would be tolerated by the poster.. just well..cause people are getting tired of it from you.
Posted by Tamar on March 5, 2006, at 8:52:41
In reply to Re: 5 » Tamar, posted by Gabbix2 on March 4, 2006, at 22:40:33
Thanks for your comments, Gabbi.
> Every topic has the potential to hurt someone
> No matter how it's put.Yeah, that makes sense.
> Discussing politics upsets people, that's why some people make a vow not to discuss it, but it seems to me that foreign policy is about as removed from the personal as it is possible to get when discussing politics.
Fair enough.
> I didn't see a precedent for what happened to 5
> I have understood the problems in previous posts But that post.. well its a mystery to me. And I don't think it's fair (if the block was because of the tone of previous posts) to make the leap that no more criticism of the U.S would be tolerated by the poster.. just well..cause people are getting tired of it from you.Yeah, I think the issue of precedent is important. And I definitely think it should be possible to understand why a block has been given.
Sorry, I really shouldn’t have stuck my oar in on this one. Don’t know what came over me. I don’t have a leg to stand on, actually… My chief interest is in the question of what it might take to be able to critique US foreign policy without eliciting outrage. I am often astonished at how strongly people feel about it. But then, I regularly critique the foreign policy of my own government, so maybe I just don’t understand how it feels to support my country’s foreign policy wholeheartedly …
Right, I’ll stop now! I hope I haven’t upset or angered anyone… I really wasn’t trying to.
Tamar
Posted by zeugma on March 5, 2006, at 10:17:12
In reply to Re: 5 » Gabbix2, posted by Tamar on March 5, 2006, at 8:52:41
My chief interest is in the question of what it might take to be able to critique US foreign policy without eliciting outrage. I am often astonished at how strongly people feel about it. But then, I regularly critique the foreign policy of my own government, so maybe I just don’t understand how it feels to support my country’s foreign policy wholeheartedly …>>
I am a U.S. citizen, and it seems fundamental to my sense of being one that critiques of its foreign policy be as free as possible (right of free speech). It outrages me that such critiques be out of bounds. It is not a matter of my supporting or rejecting a given aspect of U.S. foreign policy, but the sense of respect that I have for the laws and way of life of this country.
-z
Posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 10:36:21
In reply to Re: 5 » Tamar, posted by zeugma on March 5, 2006, at 10:17:12
I've said this a few times and feel like I'm spitting in the wind a bit. But policy can always be critiqued. The problem comes in when you use negative words to describe countries or peoples, or if you say or strongly imply that anyone who believes in a certain policy is (insert negative comment here).
Posted by zeugma on March 5, 2006, at 11:00:49
In reply to Policy as opposed to people, posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 10:36:21
> I've said this a few times and feel like I'm spitting in the wind a bit. But policy can always be critiqued. The problem comes in when you use negative words to describe countries or peoples, or if you say or strongly imply that anyone who believes in a certain policy is (insert negative comment here).>>
ah yes. But policies are the actions of people, whether directly (through political figures' own actions) or indirectly (through voting). And if I say that political figure X is violating the Constitution, or repeatedly engaging in policies that are inhumane and serve no policy ends other than the self-interest of a narrow group of individuals who have investments in corporations that profit from such policies, I suppose it's allright to detail the truth of these assertions without implying anything negative about either the individuals performing the acts or the people who vote for them.
You're not spitting in the wind, this discussion is getting somewhere. My difficulty is this: that the above statement, in the last sentence of the above paragraph, is not really coherent.
Because it's hard to allege that policies are deeply and systematically misguided without implying something, if not outright saying, negative about the individual(s) performing the acts.
I agree that invective directed against countries as a whole is not a good thing, chiefly because of its extreme inaccuracy, much like religious and racial stereotypes are forms of erroneous speech whose main effect is to stir up trouble.
But those who engage in specific policies, they are identifying themselves through their policies, it is why politics has a moral dimension and is not simply a game of chess, where we can comment on moves as functions of the players' skills without implying anything, anything at all, about wisdom or lack thereof, respect for life or lack thereof, respect for its citizens or lack thereof.
-z
Posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 11:09:44
In reply to Re: Policy as opposed to people » Dinah, posted by zeugma on March 5, 2006, at 11:00:49
Well, as you know, it is against Babble policy to declare that those Babblers (known or unknown) who declare their core essence through their adherence to one policy or another to be lacking in wisdom, lack of respect for life or others. Any more than it would be in keeping with Babble policy to comment on someone's lack of wisdom, lack of respect for life or others, for any reason other than the policies they believe in.
No matter what you believe the truth to be.
And since reasonable people can disagree on perfectly good grounds about even the most heated of debate topics, why is it not possible to merely state what you believe and to express a lack of understanding for other beliefs.
But I am spitting in the wind. Because I distinctly remember saying tis over and over and over again, and I find I'm boring myself. :)
Posted by verne on March 5, 2006, at 11:16:28
In reply to Re: Policy as opposed to people, posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 11:09:44
Dinah,
I agree. I like what you be saying.
Verne
Posted by zeugma on March 5, 2006, at 11:55:39
In reply to Re: Policy as opposed to people, posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 11:09:44
> Well, as you know, it is against Babble policy to declare that those Babblers (known or unknown) who declare their core essence through their adherence to one policy or another to be lacking in wisdom, lack of respect for life or others. Any more than it would be in keeping with Babble policy to comment on someone's lack of wisdom, lack of respect for life or others, for any reason other than the policies they believe in.
>
> No matter what you believe the truth to be.
>
> And since reasonable people can disagree on perfectly good grounds about even the most heated of debate topics, why is it not possible to merely state what you believe and to express a lack of understanding for other beliefs.>>because stating what i believe, on certain topics, would be uncivil, by the criteria of this site. So would most of the utterances found in my local newspapers that are of an editorial nature, or those of newspapers from different locales. Now you've said previously that politics blocks result from people misunderstanding its nature, or as I will charitably put it, understanding its nature but saying things not suited to its nature regardless of the consequences.
To write on the Politics board really does require an approach more like that expressed in the Chess section of my local newspaper (that is currently suing the Federal government, a fact that has me upset, angry, and inclined to say uncivil things about the way the -, but I won't, because I understand too well the nature of the forum I am in) than the editorial page.
Rather unnatural.
Well, I'm not only boring myself and others, I'm getting very upset, as well.
By the way (and maybe I'm reading too much into it) but it was gracious of you not to put my name in the subject of your second reply to me. It was courteous.
The little things matter so much.
but anyway, the issue is not my own problems here, but 5's, or 8's, or 7 of 9's <sudden starry-eyed look>. I can't help thinking that the gracious things you've said... (ellipsis is there because neither you nor I are optimists, no other reason).
-z
>
> But I am spitting in the wind. Because I distinctly remember saying tis over and over and over again, and I find I'm boring myself. :)
Posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 12:13:57
In reply to Re: Policy as opposed to people, posted by zeugma on March 5, 2006, at 11:55:39
I do believe little things matter a lot.
And so I wanted to clarify that while I may be boring myself, I in no way find others' continued discussion of this boring.
:)
Posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 12:18:35
In reply to Re: Policy as opposed to people, posted by zeugma on March 5, 2006, at 11:55:39
And I also want to add that I've found your discussions of your frustrations over not being able to post freely on the Politics board while following the civility guidelines to be wonderfully civil, and yes, gracious.
Which leads me to have confidence that you could do the same with the actual policies.
But perhaps I'm missing the point somewhere along the line. I often have that problem.
Posted by JenStar on March 5, 2006, at 13:03:06
In reply to Re: Policy as opposed to people, posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 11:09:44
Dinah,
you're right! -- but I think that in the heat of the moment, it's hard for people in general to grasp the difference between the two ways of stating something. It's a huge difference, but it's also subtle in a way -- and it takes practice to really "get" the difference (I think.)And it takes some time to be able to still *feel* your argument with the same passion when it's worded in the more civil way - I think one has to develop a love of the civil argument style to be able to do it regularly without slipping up. And for some people it might just feel more personally satisfying to make personalized attacks against a country or leader because they are so angry at that country/leader, and because it feels more satisfying, they are not that invested in learning to use the more civil argumentation style. Especially if elsewhere in the "real world" they are accustomed to using the more personal style.
so you are sort of spitting in the wind, I guess. Just duck so the spit doesn't get back on you. :) And know that there are people who get it and are starting to get it, even if we don't always do it perfectly. So - some of the spit is getting to where you want it!
JenStar
Posted by zeugma on March 5, 2006, at 13:15:45
In reply to Re: Policy as opposed to people » zeugma, posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 12:18:35
> And I also want to add that I've found your discussions of your frustrations over not being able to post freely on the Politics board while following the civility guidelines to be wonderfully civil, and yes, gracious.>>
I am flattered by that. Because I consider you to be the model of graciousness :-)
>
> Which leads me to have confidence that you could do the same with the actual policies. >well, your confidence may be misplaced, but the fact that you are one of its representatives (in your role as deputy to Dr. Bob) does, genuinely, help to alleviate some of my spleen when I direct my thought to political matters (sorry for using the old-fashioned expression, it does sound better than 'ill temper') and so more productive of civil discourse as defined here.
The high quality of conversation at this site, as well as the value that I think it has in others' lives, not just mine, is why I get most upset: that others get blocked, rightly or not, who are valuable contributors as well as valuable people.
what was my point? Yes, now I remember. Tamar said that she didn't understand why politicial matters seem to inflame sensitivities so much here. I think we are in as polarized an atmosphere as the U.S. has had since the Vietnam war and the social unrest of those times. That's just my interpretation. I've been avoiding the Politics board and not reading the news before going to sleep, and it's lowered my anxiety considerably.
not sure what my point is anymore. But damn, this coffee is good.
-z
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 5, 2006, at 13:24:56
In reply to Re: 5 » Gabbix2, posted by Tamar on March 5, 2006, at 8:52:41
> Thanks for your comments, Gabbi.
> > Right, I’ll stop now! I hope I haven’t upset or angered anyone… I really wasn’t trying to.
Well, You didn't anger or upset me in the least.
I'm always impressed by how thoughtfully you word things. I took it as you offering some food for thought.Of course now Dinah has come in and also said something perfectly reasonable, and well..
I'm thinking again.I JUST HATE THAT.. ; )
Posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 14:59:37
In reply to Re: Policy as opposed to people » Dinah, posted by zeugma on March 5, 2006, at 13:15:45
I really appreciate that. Thank you. It means a lot.
(Old fashioned expressions have a special appeal for me. They so often capture the nuance of what I'm trying to say better than modern ones.)
Posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 15:10:20
In reply to Re: Policy as opposed to people » zeugma, posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 14:59:37
In fact, my husband has this whole comedy bit where he announces a football game using my characteristic expressions. It really is hilarious. I'll have to have him post it sometime.
But I guess this is purely social. :)
Posted by AuntieMel on March 5, 2006, at 15:22:48
In reply to Re: 5 » Gabbix2, posted by Tamar on March 5, 2006, at 8:52:41
I can easily discuss, and disagree on a logical level any policy, foriegn or otherwise.
Sometimes it's hard to tell if someone (no one in particular here, it's just because you asked the difference) - if someone is criticizing just a policy or is being anti-American.
Not that this has anything to do with this particular case, it's just that you asked.
Posted by Phillipa on March 6, 2006, at 1:03:32
In reply to Here's a link, posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 22:53:21
Is 5 a new poster? You all seem to know him/her. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2006, at 14:55:08
In reply to Re: 5 » Gabbix2, posted by Tamar on March 5, 2006, at 8:52:41
> i didn't get away from my mother because i was afraid
>
> 5Fear is hard. Sometimes the thing to do is to listen and get away, sometimes to resist and stay.
> My chief interest is in the question of what it might take to be able to critique US foreign policy without eliciting outrage.
>
> TamarHow about constructive criticism? It tends to be more constructive if you put things in terms of how a policy might be improved rather than what's "wrong" with it. For example:
> i think it would set a good example if countries that say other countries can't have nukes give them up themselves.
And it tends to be more civil to talk about how you feel, for example, to use I-statements like:
> i feel incensed when countries with nukes say another country can't have them.
Bob
Posted by 838 on March 6, 2006, at 17:18:59
In reply to Re: critiques, posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2006, at 14:55:08
> How about constructive criticism? It tends to be more constructive if you put things in terms of how a policy might be improved rather than what's "wrong" with it...
If you don't think there is anything 'wrong' with it then why would you be motivated to look to improve it?
There is a reason why phil papers typically start with getting people to think about problems with the current view.
If it ain't broke... Why bother trying to figure out how to fix it?
Posted by zeugma on March 7, 2006, at 17:01:15
In reply to Re: critiques » Dr. Bob, posted by 838 on March 6, 2006, at 17:18:59
If it ain't broke... Why bother trying to figure out how to fix it?>>
Or as I like to say, Why was John McCain interested in getting a bill passed that specifically outlawed torture by American government agencies?
To speak supportively: I admired Mr. McCain's resolution, although it seems rather redundant given that the U.S. is one of the signatories to the Geneva Convention. But his heart was in the right place, bless him.
-z
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 8, 2006, at 0:00:42
In reply to Re: critiques » 838, posted by zeugma on March 7, 2006, at 17:01:15
> Why was John McCain interested in getting a bill passed that specifically outlawed torture by American government agencies?
Sorry to interrupt, but I'd like to redirect follow-ups regarding government agencies to Psycho-Babble Politics. Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060304/msgs/617327.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by 838 on March 8, 2006, at 4:08:20
In reply to Redirect: government agencies, posted by Dr. Bob on March 8, 2006, at 0:00:42
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.