![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 51 to 75 of 125. Go back in thread:
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 15, 2006, at 10:50:52
In reply to Re: I must disagree, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 10:06:36
Charitable always came across to me as
well I know that you're all wrong, but I'll let it go..
Somehow it sounds condescending and artificial to me.
"I know that they're awful, but I'm going to be charitible" The fact that you have to think about being chartible sort of means that yoú've already judged doesn't it?
Well.. anyway, that's the way it comes across to me.
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 15, 2006, at 11:54:09
In reply to Re: I must disagree, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 10:06:36
> before automated asterisking...
>
> some people would swear in their posts...
> with no comment.
> another person would swear in their post...
> and get blocked for it.
>
> why did the first person not get blocked / warned while the second person did?
>
When that was presented to you before, you always found a reason for it, a reason that justified the action by Dr. Bob You were emphatic about it.
I recall not being able to converse with another person about it, without you making a comment contrary to what had been said. Part of that was why my second D.N.P to you came about.It seems now that you've had something similar happen to you and you've changed your mind, you are just as emphatic, but in the opposite way.
I see a contradiction, if you feel you are provoking others to think, by what you say, why did it take a personal experience for you to consider the validity of what others were saying at that time?
And it makes me feel that any topic you are equally as firm and passionate about is likely to change once you've experienced what others are speaking of, or you've had a different experience yourself.
So there it is.
I don't really have anything else I want to say on this, and I don't want to bring up old quotes.
But there are many.
Posted by zeugma on April 15, 2006, at 13:05:31
In reply to Re: messages and methods » zeugma, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 8:25:12
> > some of us Babble alumni should join the diplomatic corps. but one should not always trust a diplomat either.
> >
> > of course, good diplomats are aware that they have an intrinsic credibility problem. it's a dirty trade.
> >
> > -z
>
> I do hope you're referring to political exigencies, and not to being civil and diplomatic in how they express themselves. And I would assume that you are referring to professional diplomats, not those Babble alumni who exhibit some of the same methods of expressing ourselves.
>
>
it was far better to settle the Cuban Missile Crisis by diplomacy than by nuclear war. so I am hardly critical of a profession to which we all may owe our lives, or of those Babblers who might qualify for that profession.still, I wonder if many diplomats are familiar with Sir Henry Wotton's famous definition: "A diplomat is an honest man sent abroad to lie for the good of his country."
-z
Posted by Racer on April 15, 2006, at 13:33:42
In reply to Re:, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:01:36
>
> owning ones own response as ones own response
>
> people getting blocked on politics are getting blocked because they *might* offend americans who seem to have this unfortunate tendancy of taking politics personally.
>
>Special K, I'm writing this to you both as an American and as a poster-in-deputy-training -- in other words, with no particular standing in this. :-)
While we all have to take responsibility for our reactions, I think we also have to take responsibility for our actions in making statements which are likely to offend others. Your statement above suggests that all Americans take politics personally, for instance, which many of us are likely to find offensive. You've also characterized that as an "unfortunate tendency." I won't ask what makes it unfortunate, I'll only point out that it does characterize a group of people, Americans, and can certainly be interpreted as a put down.
I'd also like to point out that the people who get blocked on Politics tend to be blocked because of something they've chosen to write. Just as we all have to take responsibility for our reactions, we also have to take responsibility for our actions. Part of responsibility is accepting the consequences, and blocking is a possible consequence here.
So, as a poster with no standing here, I ask you to consider the feelings of others, please follow that old Golden Rule, and please be civil here.
I hope that you can take this as a gentle warning that I see you skating too close to the edge, and don't want to see you go through the ice here. Please don't take it as a sign I don't like you, because it's not meant that way.
Posted by zeugma on April 15, 2006, at 13:35:15
In reply to Two separate issues, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 8:10:20
> For me at least.
>
> First is whether the post can be considered something that was putting down people of left/centrist (though centrist is usually defined differently by different people I've found) persuasion. I seriously doubt that given the posting history of this poster.>>agreed.
>
> Second, is whether politics can and should be discussed with civility and caritas on this site, in the world at large, and in diplomatic circles. And to that issue I am greatly disillusioned. I see no reason why politics shouldn't be discussed with the same civility (by any definition) and caritas as any other topic. I agree with 10der that there are two separate issues, the topic and the method of discussion. And I feel saddened and disheartened and alienated when people assume that feeling passionately about a subject somehow equates with how they express that their feelings about that subject.>>well, I feel passionately about music, and yet I have never expressed myself uncivilly about the subject.
But I disagree that politics can be made a matter of taste like music. Saying that politician x brought us into an "invented war that is unwinnable" is very different from saying that politician x is fat and stupid. It seems to me a different set of conventions should regulate what we say to sokeone who has bought an unflattering dress and someone who may have violated the public trust.
and caritas- little evident in politics these days, should we pretend it's there when it's MIA?
>
> I wish Dr. Bob would simply outlaw politics as a topic, as is done on other boards. I value his position that all topics are ok topics as long as they are discussed civilly. But the topic has the potential to change one's feelings about other posters. And that doesn't seem conducive to the overall mission of this site.
>
> Not that I think outlawing it would have any positive effect. People would just then argue over Please Do Not Discuss Politics, and the importance of politics to mental health, and draconian censorship, and those arguments may not show a lot of civility either.
>i am inclined to agree that politics not be discussed here. But politics can be more easily declared off limits to everyone than given a narrow range to squirm around in.
-z
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 15, 2006, at 13:56:45
In reply to Re:, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:01:36
people getting blocked on politics are getting blocked because they *might* offend americans who seem to have this unfortunate tendancy of taking politics personally.
***Yes and women have the unfortunate tendancy to being over emotional and histrionic
***And them black folk sho' can dance..
(thank you Trouble..)
you want everyone in the world to learn to take politics personally too?
Uhh.
***There are quite a few places where you wouldn't want to be questioning politics anywhere but in your own head..
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 15, 2006, at 13:57:49
In reply to Please consider the feelings of others » special_k, posted by Racer on April 15, 2006, at 13:33:42
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 14:03:32
In reply to Re: Two separate issues » Dinah, posted by zeugma on April 15, 2006, at 13:35:15
I was referring to caritas on the board.
I would prefer that it not have to be pretended here.
Posted by verne on April 15, 2006, at 14:47:25
In reply to Please consider the feelings of others » special_k, posted by Racer on April 15, 2006, at 13:33:42
Posted by zeugma on April 15, 2006, at 14:50:23
In reply to Re: Two separate issues » zeugma, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 14:03:32
> I was referring to caritas on the board.
>
> I would prefer that it not have to be pretended here.>>Caritas (Latin) is a term in Christian theology (one of the three theological virtues), meaning loving kindness towards others; it is held to be the ultimate perfection of the human spirit, because it is said to both glorify and reflect the nature of God. In its most extreme form charity can be self-sacrificial. It was used in the Vulgate Bible as the translation of the Greek term agape, and was translated in the earliest English bibles as charity. Recent translations, however, prefer to use love for this concept, as the meaning of "charity" has changed in the last few centuries. (Please see the entry for Charity). Scholars, however, will continue to refer to caritas or charity when talking about medieval and early modern social relations, as the concept was very important to the people of that time. (Wikipedia)
charity, where have I heard that word before?
Idle rumination.
-z
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 15, 2006, at 15:32:42
In reply to thanks Racer, my thoughts too (nm) » Racer, posted by verne on April 15, 2006, at 14:47:25
from a Canadian yet!
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 16:44:48
In reply to caritas » Dinah, posted by zeugma on April 15, 2006, at 14:50:23
?
Did you think I was unfamiliar with a term I used?
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 19:21:31
In reply to Re: caritas » zeugma, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 16:44:48
i don't appreciate the tone.
changing ones mind does not mean one endorses contradiction (properties / beliefs can change over time)
there is no shame in learning from experience.
racer.
you took what i said out of context. there was a rumination about how perhaps it was an american tendency to take politics personally but then i noted z was from america. so there is an exception.
my thought was that there is more of a tendancy.
what i'm getting from gabbi isn't so much that politics offends her it seems to be more that i offend her in some way.
i don't appreciate the way you characterise my views. i guess it isn't intentional... but i feel they are being caricatured and without reference to what i actually said.
but we are getting diverted from the topic...
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 19:25:57
In reply to Please consider the feelings of others » special_k, posted by Racer on April 15, 2006, at 13:33:42
it is an unfortunate tendancy the way having a tendancy to bake in the sun would be an unfortunate tendancy: it is likely to lead to the experience of pain. There is no judgement in the 'unfortunate' it is just that seeing as the consequences aren't so well it might be better to rethink things...
please don't forget i have feelings too...
context...
was it that hard to see my comment in context?
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 19:26:22
In reply to Re: Please consider the feelings of others, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 19:25:57
oh i see...
been warned...
primed for the blocking.
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 19:41:09
In reply to Re: caritas » zeugma, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 16:44:48
> ?
> Did you think I was unfamiliar with a term I used?I don't know the origins of hardly any of the words I use...
I think z was digging up an interesting fact (that is hardly a-priori)
aka...
I think he meant well.
interesting z i didn't know that. i have heard of charity mostly in a davidsonian context...
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 19:46:20
In reply to Re: caritas » Dinah, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 19:41:09
I just didn't understand what he was trying to tell me, so I was asking for clarification.
My brain is weary.
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 20:08:18
In reply to Re: caritas » special_k, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 19:46:20
i'm sorry dinah i didn't mean for things to get hostile... really... i don't understand why that happens (it will probably be pointed out to me as i get blocked for a very long time)
would you like to go see whether my last block is archived? i think people get more leniency if it is...
sigh.
small changes...
but imho something needs to be done.
those kindsa blockings imho should be capped at one week.
and not only that... people don't understand. they don't.
bob says they do... that he's been blocked for that before... but persisting in incivility...
does bob really think declan is purposely trying to hurt accuse attack others?
why can't bob be charitable?
declan doesn't go around teh other boards riling people up...
why can't bob be charitable?
(a two week block is a two week block cause i think i hear bob about now saying 'but i *was* being charitable).
no. he wasn't. i don't think that meritd a block.
Posted by Racer on April 15, 2006, at 20:56:18
In reply to Re: Please consider the feelings of others, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 19:26:22
> oh i see...
>
> been warned...
>
> primed for the blocking.
I have taken personal responsibility for having posted a warning to you that you might not have considered how your post could hurt someone's feelings, lead to someone feeling accused, or feeling put down. I did not do that as any sort of "priming for blocking," and I have to admit I felt a strong twinge of anger at what I took as an accusation.That twinge was my reaction, and I take personal responsibility for that reaction, as nothing is explicitely stated in your post, nor can I know your intention in writing it.
Everyone here is responsible for abiding by the rules of this site, whether or not we agree with them. In the real world, there are laws, and it's not legal to break those we disagree with. Here, one possible consequence of breaking a rule is to be blocked for a period of time. The rules are available, and many people manage to communicate within those rules.
Please be civil, according to the guidelines for this site, which can be found in the FAQ: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
As for whether or not the request to be civil has any weight when it comes from another poster is up to Dr Bob. Please address any further comments regarding the issues of blocking and what constitutes a warning, which comments according to site policiy should also be civil, to Dr Bob.
Posted by zeugma on April 15, 2006, at 21:49:51
In reply to Re: caritas » zeugma, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 16:44:48
> ?
>
> Did you think I was unfamiliar with a term I used?>>no, of course not.
I can never be familiar enough with the terms I myself use,though, especially when they seem integral to the conversation.
and understanding can sometimes seem so evanescent- the entry created a frame of reference that was useful for me, at least.
-z
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 21:59:43
In reply to Personal responsibility » special_k, posted by Racer on April 15, 2006, at 20:56:18
yeah you pointed out how you were taking the post (to refer to ALL americans) and you pointed out that that wasn't very sensitive.
if i had been making a claim about ALL americans... i would agree with you.
i clarified my post: i was not talking about ALL americans. i also referred you to the context that showed i wasn't referring to ALL americans.
so that misunderstanding should be cleared up.
i'm feeling a little upset that you didn't consider the CONTEXT before interpreting my words as a personal accusation.
but seems doing that is okay on these boards...
please be charitable racer
(don't worry... that request really has no consequences for admin action whatsoever)
Posted by zeugma on April 15, 2006, at 22:02:10
In reply to Re: caritas » Dinah, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 19:41:09
interesting z i didn't know that. i have heard of charity mostly in a davidsonian context...
yes, i thought it was interesting.my brain does feel weary. not enough sleep.
-z
Posted by gardenergirl on April 15, 2006, at 22:10:53
In reply to Re: Two separate issues » gardenergirl, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 9:41:07
> that is an unobtainable standard.
> i could say 'i don't like holdens' and someone who really loved that brand of car (or who had one of whatever) *could* feel accused (of having a crap car lets say) or put down. they *could* get offended (lets leave 'choice' out of it i agree).I could be wrong, but saying "I don't like... XXX" does not seem uncivil to me. Neither does saying "I oppose XXXXX". You stated above somewhere that you were not allowed to say that you oppose the American ideal. Of course, without context, I'm going by the actual words here. But were you really and truly blocked or PBC'd for saying exactly that...that you oppose the American ideal? Are you sure it was not phrased differently? (don't have the post handy).
> but that doesn't mean the world can or should be rearranged for every possibility.
>
> it would be impossible to do so.Yep. Dr. Bob seems to have a pretty good idea about what is and is not within his locus of control, from what I've observed.
>
> but i think he could chill a little more.I know. And it appears to me that he's open to discussing this constructively.
> my still being here probably offends a whole bunch of people. shall i just bug off then?
I hope not.
> > Rather, I would call it falling in line with the site policies.
>
> of not offending people on the assumption that people will take politics personally and respond by feeling offended?Why should politics be any different from any other subject when it comes to whether someone is offended or not?
> you don't think that assumption exhibits cultural bias?
This assumption?: "that people will take politics personally and respond by feeling offended?"
I don't know. You made the assumption. I think it's fair to assume that making statements which could lead to others feeling accused or put down could lead to hurt feelings whatever the topic. Is it culturally biased? I have no idea. Not my area of study. But it appears to me that Dr. Bob is interested in protecting as many Babblers from as much potential harm from posts here as possible. (Of course I may not be correct in this interpretation). With that standard in play, and assuming that among cultures there is a continuum of "how likely one might be offended by others' words", I think that in order to achieve the ideal, the policies must naturally gravitate towards the "most likely to be offended" end of the continuum, in order to protect the most. I'm sure I could express that better. It might help if you could see me talking with my hands. I'm much better non-verbally. :)
>(no let me guess that is just the way things are all around the world...)
I would be this is quite unlikely, even with my own limited global experience.
>
> > > repeat after me: i am not my political parties legislation: i am so much more than that. and if people are opposed to the legislation that does not mean they are opposed to me.
>
> > Um, that's a fair representation of how I view it. Why would feeling offended about a specific topic/incident resonate through my entire sense of self? You're right, I am so much more than any one interest or role. But that doesn't preclude feeling offended related to what someone might say about one aspect of myself, does it?
>
> and so that person should be blocked for two weeks.My feeling offended has nothing to do with whether the person gets blocked. My feeling offended has nothing to do with whether I agree with the current system.
I shared my personal feelings related to the post because I did indeed have the feeling, and I am not embarrassed about it. But it's my feeling. It's mine to cope with, (frankly, it's already passed), and it's mine to fit into the greater schema of who I am. I'm quite happy with how I'm doing with this and where I think I'm headed.
But then perhaps I'm taking some of your statements a bit personally. In fact, I'm sure I am.
>
> sigh.Yeah.
Take care,
gg
>
>
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 22:36:10
In reply to Re: Two separate issues » special_k, posted by gardenergirl on April 15, 2006, at 22:10:53
> I could be wrong, but saying "I don't like... XXX" does not seem uncivil to me.
but it is *possible* for someone to respond by feeling offended. and according to the faq if it is *possible* for someone to respond by feeling offended then the comment is uncivil. my point is... people could *possibly* feel offended in response to pretty much anything. but clearly pretty much anything is not uncivil. i'm just saying that bringing modality into it (the notion of possibility) doesn't help. that criteria doesn't work.
> You stated above somewhere that you were not allowed to say that you oppose the American ideal. Of course, without context, I'm going by the actual words here. But were you really and truly blocked or PBC'd for saying exactly that...that you oppose the American ideal? Are you sure it was not phrased differently? (don't have the post handy).
yeah. either pbc'd or blocked for saying i was opposed to it. you aren't allowed to be opposed to anything on politics. no sorry, you are probably allowed to be opposed but you aren't allowed to express opposition.
> Dr. Bob seems to have a pretty good idea about what is and is not within his locus of control, from what I've observed.well... he has his ideas. i'm not sure that he is consistent with applying them. i'm not sure that his ideas are all that coherant. going on about modality in the faq's doesn't help things... even if he has a good idea... i'd like to give him a better one. one that doesn't involve people being blocked when they are clearly not trolling and where they are trying to discuss politics because people can't view their words charitably...
> I know. And it appears to me that he's open to discussing this constructively.
good. perhaps he will join on in. my guess will be not, though.
political party... poster on this board... they are all the same to him... and i think he wants to keep it that way.
> > of not offending people on the assumption that people will take politics personally and respond by feeling offended?
> Why should politics be any different from any other subject when it comes to whether someone is offended or not?exactly my point!!!!!!!!!
if i critique your favourite book should i be blocked because you might possibly be offended?
my guess is NO!
ditto for cars...
ditto for political parties...
> This assumption?: "that people will take politics personally and respond by feeling offended?"yes. i think some cultures tend to do that more than others (and of course there is variation within cultures too but i'm talking about tendencies here)
> I don't know. You made the assumption.
no. bob's making the assumption because he is blocking people on the assumption of what he thinks they are likely to feel.
(and what do you know people start feeling that way)> it appears to me that Dr. Bob is interested in protecting as many Babblers from as much potential harm from posts here as possible.
if he was then he would delete posts people find hurtful. balancing... balancing support and education...
my cultural bias notion...
if you guys started poking fun at helen (nz prime minister who i like very much indeed) i wouldn't feel offended. i'd prefer you not to mudsling. but if you talk about some of her crappy politices ideas or implementing of those... i wouldn't feel offended. i can't think of a single person in nz who would.
bush on the other hand...
if you guys started poking fun of this tin pot country in the south pacific. where teh sheep outnumber the people i won't feel offended either. don't know anyone in nz who would. they'd likely laugh and join in.
the usa on the other hand...
so i guess there are cultural differences in how likely people are to feel offended.
who is getting blocked off politics?
maybe i'm wrong... but looks like a lot of aussies to me...
maybe.. australasians just don't get it.
(and that isn't a joke about the intelligence of aussies... though in other contexts ;-) )
> > and so that person should be blocked for two weeks.
>
> My feeling offended has nothing to do with whether the person gets blocked.your likely feeling offended.
bob blocks on the basis of the liklihood of people feeling offended.
like my last block and auntiemel (the actual person i was talking to) wasn't offended at all.
bob said people might *possibly* feel offended at what i said.
people might *possibly* feel offended by looking at his picture (aka they might *possibly* feel offended about anything at all)never mind the possible people
actual people have actual feelings
and even if someone does feel offended
doesn't mean the person did anything wrong
anything worthy of being banished for 2 wks.so...
was anyone offended by declans remark?
i'm serious.
can you read charitably and feel offended by his remark
(note this only applies to people who consider themselves to be left or left of centre or whatever... no feeling offended on behalf of people who's views you disagree with anyways...)
> >
> >
>
>
Posted by tealady on April 16, 2006, at 20:01:50
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » special_k, posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 21:39:20
> I dunno. I didn't take it as meaning the policy, because, as you say, policies can't feel, post, etc. People make policies and people make up the groups a poster might describe as, for one example, "the left/centre."
>
> I took it as meaning that the *people* who make up what Declan considers the "left/centre" (and I have little idea who that is...but that's me showing my political ignorance and/or not quite following Declan's posts, as far as which countries or governments he's referring to soemtimes,etc.) - are clueless. Which I believe is what Dr. Bob is saying.
>
> It's like....if I'm in a group of people who I hear discussing a problem/situation and I completely disagree with their ideas of what to do, or even what they believe about the thing, etc., and I really want to express myself, to get out all my opposite or different ideas, to tell them about my alternatives and hopefully, demonstrate through doing this, how their way isn't the best, well...would I move this potential dialog forward by inquiring of them at the outset why they were "so clueless?"
>
> I can't imagine it. But I think you're saying we ought to be able to speak thay way here? Or am I missing your point? Perhaps I can't divorce a policy from the policymakers, or policy-supporters, at least in this context, and you definitely can? Is that it, maybe?
>
> Wouldn't it just be so much easier to refrain from labeling? To say you don't agree, strongly oppose...whatever....that policy or stance or view, and then tell the board what you think xxx group *should* or *could* do *instead?*
>
> This is so very frustrating. I hate that we can't seem to come to some understanding of this. I wish I had some brilliant way to fix it so *all* posters felt they could stay, remain civil, feel safe and be heard. I see it as so very possible. But I'm at a loss as to any way to help that happen.
>
> argghhhhhh :-(
He was talking mainly of Oz politics I'd guess. What he said was the truth in a very kind and civil way:) It's our tradegy.. it was a question often asked if not aloud... and one which we have no answer to, other than maybe everyone who might have been able to contribute just doesn't feel it is worth the effort, and are not corrupt enough to be lured.. maybe they'd not be centre-left if they were more corrupt? I don't know..
Other than that, it's my leaning too.. there wasn't that much of a diff in the past 30 yrs or so to make anyone feel much except apathy about who got in..and no real issues. Just recently I've had a few feelings that sumthin should be doen.. but still not the energy to actually try to do anything. Maybe my idealism is gone... maybe the paperwork and red tape around ahs overwhelmed me..I wish people would try to understand a post before critising it.. or ya know, question the poster for more clarity about what he is saying.. or even do some independant research, get to know where the poster comes from ..and try to reason out why he has these views?
Someone suggested having 2 boards.. based on IS parties? Huh??BTW, I've posted a no of times against bans.. and against the potics board.. just google on my nick and politics etc.
I've always been against people dobbing on others or crying out offended rather tha trying to work out some common ground , comprehension, and even help first... same in society as on ths board.
Used to make IMO a good neighbourhood or community. I realise it's frowned upon these days, and keeping out of others business and dobbin is encouraged. If you feel somethin is not wuite right we now have an abundance of police an relevant autghorities to handle it. No need to act friendly or try to be helpful.
saddened and feel a real lack of community, exasperated by the bans. I feel noone much is left out of the community that was here a couple of years ago on alter is there, at least maybe the more mature part? Maybe its just time and people moving on?
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.