![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2002, at 9:50:07
I SEE, Dr. Bob. Perhaps Andy should have used the words condescending and judgemental instead. Then he would have been just fine. After all, you redirected Zo's post to me and therefore I know you saw it. But you didn't see anything uncivil about that one at all. And it was directed towards a single poster, ME. So next time Andy should say that he doesn't appreciate the condescending and judgemental responses to his post. That would be OK right?
Incidentally I found condescending and judgemental, especially combined with her scathing assessment of not only that one, but in fact all my posts to be a put down and more than a bit accusatory.
And while we're on civility, I don't think that post on PSB should have received a Please Be Civil for language alone. The content would have been just as hurtful if he hadn't used the word "fuck".
> > I really dont appriciate the stuck-up replies.
> > I have "know-it-alls" ... coming back with your snappy replies.
>
> Please don't post anything that others could take as accusatory or put them down:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
> PS: Follow-ups regarding posting policies, or complaints about posts, should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration.
Posted by Krazy Kat on March 28, 2002, at 10:03:47
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2002, at 9:50:07
Dr. Bob:
I agree wholeheartedly with Dinah. How can comments directed to a man, about the downfalls of being a man, not get a civility warning? If it were the other way around, i guarantee you there would be hell to pay.
Please reconsider how this is being handled. And please Dr. Bob, no humorous replies to this. I think it's a really serious issue. Some people aren't getting to say what they want to, and then some people are saying whatever they please. It's very frustrating.
- kk
Posted by mair on March 30, 2002, at 10:44:13
In reply to what's going on? civility inconsistencies cont., posted by Krazy Kat on March 28, 2002, at 10:03:47
Yes this has been very testing!
I went back over the thread in question to see if I could figure out what happened and I have to agree with Dinah and KK that Andy certainly didn't merit special attention for his uncivility.
I have a hard time seeing how anyone could find Andy's initial post offensive. He may not have said it as articulately as others on this Board, but he was simply making a point that has actually been discussed on the Board many times before - namely that people who come to this site need to be aware that we all respond to different drugs very idiosyncratically, and be forewarned that to some degree one person's miracle drug may be another's poison. We've discussed this not only in the context of new people who come to the Board looking for assistance, but also as a reminder to those already here that we need to be careful to convey that our advocacy for a particular drug is based primarily on our individual experience.
I found the response to Andy's post to be very "in your face" and unnecessarily so. I think he intended no offense by it. I remember an instance when i first came on the Board and apparently wrote something that could have been taken as insensitive by the person to whom it was directed. Another poster responded pretty quickly but did so nicely and in a way that assumed that my comment had been made in ignorance (it was) and without intent to offend (certainly). That was pretty much the end of it - no other participants in the thread felt that they had to jump in to "rub my nose" in my inadvertently insensitive remark. I think that would have been the end of my participation here if it had happened that way. Criticism always stings but the way that situation was handled simply made me a more careful poster, not a reviled poster, or, for that matter, an ex-poster.
Once attacked, Andy did defend himself in a way that may hve seemed accusatory, and maybe it wasn't inappropriate to point that out to him. However, that his post resulted in what you may perceive to be a less than civil discourse is, IMO, not his fault. He was not the first to sling arrows, and if Zo and Elizabeth thought that his remarks were insensitive, they could have pointed this out to him with significantly more tact.
Mair
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 30, 2002, at 13:09:37
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2002, at 9:50:07
> you redirected Zo's post to me and therefore I know you saw it. But you didn't see anything uncivil about that one at all. And it was directed towards a single poster, ME.
Was it part of that long string of posts I redirected? Maybe I still missed it somehow, sorry... Let me know the specific URL, and I'll take another look?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 30, 2002, at 13:29:19
In reply to what's going on? civility inconsistencies cont., posted by Krazy Kat on March 28, 2002, at 10:03:47
> I agree wholeheartedly with Dinah. How can comments directed to a man, about the downfalls of being a man, not get a civility warning?
Sorry, I'm confused. Were the comments directed to Dinah or to a man? A specific URL would make this a lot easier for me to follow...
> I think it's a really serious issue. Some people aren't getting to say what they want to, and then some people are saying whatever they please. It's very frustrating.
I understand. I'm trying to do my best...
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 30, 2002, at 13:49:52
In reply to Re: what's going on? ., posted by mair on March 30, 2002, at 10:44:13
> I found the response to Andy's post to be very "in your face" and unnecessarily so. I think he intended no offense by it.
Which response, Elizabeth's? I know, it would've been better if she had left out her "eye roll"...
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020322/msgs/100460.html
> Once attacked, Andy did defend himself in a way that may hve seemed accusatory, and maybe it wasn't inappropriate to point that out to him. However, that his post resulted in what you may perceive to be a less than civil discourse is, IMO, not his fault. He was not the first to sling arrows
I did think he was the first to cross the line. Which is of course subjective, inconsistent, etc.
> if Zo and Elizabeth thought that his remarks were insensitive, they could have pointed this out to him with significantly more tact.
Ah, I think I see now, maybe another issue is what Zo posted:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020327/msgs/100703.html
I agree, that's over the line, too, and I should've said something about that. Well, better late than never?
Bob
Posted by shelliR on March 31, 2002, at 12:02:47
In reply to Re: what's going on, posted by Dr. Bob on March 30, 2002, at 13:49:52
Actually, I also reread the thread and I don't think that what either Zo or Elizabeth said was insulting. (I admit,the eyeroll was unnecessary) I found it a civil response to something that perhaps they (and others) are sensitive to.
All Zoe said was: "One of the rules of civility here is not to post anything that others could take as a put down."
and
Elizabeth pointed out the problem of stereotyping the reactions of someone with this illnesss.
But I don't think either of them was insulting or demeaning to Andy. And I think it would have died there.
On the other hand, I feel that Dinah just fueled a little smoke into a full blown fire when she said,
"Unfortunately, many people appear to have problems with good intentions and take offense where none is meant while offering plenty of offense in return. I don't understand it, but there it is."
This was a direct putdown of Elizabeth and Zo. It basically said that their opinions were prompted by their need to take offense. How can Dinah possibly know what others intent was? And then the battle got bigger and bigger after that. I know that Dinah was trying to be supportive to Andy; but what good does it do if it's at the price of hurting two other people, who I felt were honest, and not trying to be hurtful, just state their opinions.
Anyway, that's when I stopped reading the thread, but I wanted to go on record as saying if too much was made of Andy's post; more was made of Eliz's and Zo's.
Shelli
Posted by Dinah on March 31, 2002, at 13:15:13
In reply to Re: what's going on, posted by shelliR on March 31, 2002, at 12:02:47
>
> On the other hand, I feel that Dinah just fueled a little smoke into a full blown fire when she said,
>
> "Unfortunately, many people appear to have problems with good intentions and take offense where none is meant while offering plenty of offense in return. I don't understand it, but there it is."Oops. I apparently typed that in wrong. What I meant to say was that many people appear to have problems with RECOGNIZING good intentions...
>
> This was a direct putdown of Elizabeth and Zo. It basically said that their opinions were prompted by their need to take offense. How can Dinah possibly know what others intent was?Well, precisely. And how could you possibly know what my intent was? Admittedly my inadvertantly omitted word made my post less clear, but my intent was not to say that their opinions were prompted by their need to take offense. That actually never occurred to me, and never would. I was merely surprised that no one seemed to recognize that Andy had meant no offense and no one had taken that into account when responding to his post. Especially since I didn't recognize Andy's name and wasn't sure how long he had been posting. And ESPECIALLY since by the time I had posted Andy had made several posts that made it clear that he HAD taken offense at the replies made to his post, and I understood his point. It's not as if I made my statement in reply to posts (not just Zo's and Elizabeth's but everyone's) made to Andy. I was also responding to Andy's obvious hurt.
I do however have a problem with trying to be protective and helpful of others whether or not they wish or need me to be. I'll try to do better not to rush to anyone's defense.
Posted by Krazy Kat on March 31, 2002, at 13:35:34
In reply to Re: what's going on, posted by shelliR on March 31, 2002, at 12:02:47
that's why it seems sometimes it's better to read further through, though I'm often guilty of not doing that as well. Please see:
Posted by IsoM on March 31, 2002, at 13:40:30
In reply to Re: what's going on - Oops » shelliR, posted by Dinah on March 31, 2002, at 13:15:13
Judy1 posted in PB Social, asking if others had noticed a change in tone & atmosphere. I haven't been around long, just since November but I've noticed a difference. Everyone seems a little more touchy & prickly, myself included on occasion too.
How about if we all simply agree to view other's posts as good intentioned & not even respond to what are perceived as slights when probably no slight was ever intended.
When I had read Andyboy's post, immediately the hairs on the nape of my neck started to rise but I caught myself & realised he meant well so I held my mouth (or fingers in this case).
Unless we're in someone else's head, how do we know what's meant? Let's assume they meant well - they probably have. Obvious insults are just that - obvious. Please don't think I'm getting all condescending & preachy; I don't want to come across that way.
I'd just love to see the forums get more supportive of each other again. I know it's so trite to say & I hated hearing it when I was young but my Mom (& I'm sure others have heard this too) used to say "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all".
Posted by Krazy Kat on March 31, 2002, at 13:42:19
In reply to Re: what's going on, posted by shelliR on March 31, 2002, at 12:02:47
Elizabeth mentioned that it is not fair (or good) to stereotype to Andy.
"It's okay if this sort of thing happened to you, it doesn't make you any less of a man."
That's from trouble to Andy - what could be More stereotyping than "less of a man"?
Also,
..."and I'm like there there baby whatever's gotten into you isn't about me then handed him the phone book to watch him tear in half, tho I'm really gonna MISS that phonebook, dagnabbit, by now the 2 of us might die laughing, depending on whether he sees the joke in these ironman standards men are held to, you can get lost in there and I don't like losing what's rightfully mine to some dehumanizing standard of masculinity that's done nothing for him but fuck with his heart."
If we're going to use a broad cencept of what others might take offensively, this Has to fit in there. I'm sure some men prefer "ironman standards" and some women prefer using their "womenly wiles." How in heavens name is a man acting manly, dehumanizing?
- KK
Posted by shelliR on March 31, 2002, at 14:14:44
In reply to further observations and i'm through..., posted by Krazy Kat on March 31, 2002, at 13:42:19
> that's why it seems sometimes it's better to read further through, though I'm often guilty of not doing that as well. Please see:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020322/msgs/100473.html
Hi Krazy Kat,I don't feel at all that I should have read the rest of the thread. I saw no need to go on, as the thread had started to be about blame (as I saw it), not about substance.
And if Dinah hadn't brought it up on PBA that she had experienced herself as an innocent, I would have simply let it go.
That's it for me also,
Shelli
Posted by trouble on March 31, 2002, at 15:48:21
In reply to Re: further observations and i'm through... » Krazy Kat , posted by shelliR on March 31, 2002, at 14:14:44
The true way goes over a rope which
is not stretched at any great height
but just above the ground. It seems
more designed to make people stumble
than to be walked upon.Franz Kafka
Posted by beardedlady on March 31, 2002, at 17:19:09
In reply to further observations and i'm through..., posted by Krazy Kat on March 31, 2002, at 13:42:19
Andy's first post--the one in which he commented about people being suggestible--was fine. There was nothing wrong with it. He meant no harm; it was an observation! (And it was a good one, though it doesn't apply to EVERYONE.) So argue with it, discuss it, disagree. But finger shaking and eye rolling are not necessary. They're just not.
So when Andy responded, I felt his frustration. Maybe "stuck up" and "know-it-alls" were not appropriate comments, but neither were those before his.
Anyway, I don't understand how the following can be a rule: "Don't post anything that might be offensive to others." That could be anything! Some people cry if you say boo! Do I really have to sit here and think about whether I should say I'm about to eat a ribeye steak, for fear that a vegetarian might be offended? If we had to police our own speech that way, no one would ever say anything.
Dr. Bob, people should be able to debate on either board. All it means is that people post different opinions. We are people, and we are not the same. It's perfectly okay. It's perfectly perfect. What a dull, drab, nasty, icky world we would live in if we all liked the same flavor ice cream. (And it would be a drag if that flavor were mint chocolate chip, as I would have even more trouble finding it.) What a rotten place it would be if we were all republican. (Ooops. I offended someone, even though I was joking.) What a crappy, expensive place it would be if we were all lawyers. (Ooops. Did it again, even though--wait, I wasn't kidding!) (Just kidding.)
I mean, c'mon! C'mon, people, now! Smile on your brother! Everybody--get together. Try to love one another right now.
Blech.
Have an ice day.
alotta beardy : )>>
"Let us agree to differ/we'll consume the competition."
Gang of Four
Posted by Mair on April 1, 2002, at 8:20:49
In reply to Please!! Everyone read, posted by IsoM on March 31, 2002, at 13:40:30
Here's my deal about this. I think that when Zo recited a rule of civility to Andy, she was suggesting to him that he had broken one. I found that suggestion to be pretty incredible because I thought Andy made a very generic comment, directed to no one in particular, and although inarticulately stated, one that contained more than a grain of truth. Like Dinah, I assumed that Andy was a relatively new poster, and I thought he deserved alot better than to have people take what he said as indicating a lack of civilityl
There's been alot of discussion lately about the rules of civility stifling discourse and I agree that it's sometimes difficult to figure out the parameters, but i also agree with IsoM, that if we assumed the good intentions of others (absent the proverbial smoking gun of course), these debates might not even be necessary.
Mair
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 1, 2002, at 9:46:06
In reply to Re: Please!! Everyone read, posted by Mair on April 1, 2002, at 8:20:49
i like this concept as well. it won't always work, b/c some of us (myself included) don't take that walk before posting. :) but it seems like a good guideline.
maybe if one feels the poster absolutely is not well intended, there is a gentle way to say so, with a specific example. or, just a question to the poster "am i interpretting this correctly?". questions usually provoke less hostility than absolute statements.
- kk
Posted by IsoM on April 1, 2002, at 13:38:26
In reply to good intentions, posted by Krazy Kat on April 1, 2002, at 9:46:06
KK, your comment "just a question to the poster "am i interpretting this correctly?". questions usually provoke less hostility than absolute statements"
...so , so true! Clear up any misunderstandings before they even arise.Sometimes I'll think of my choice of words before I post, choosing a gentler way of saying something: e.g. saying "about your comment" sounds less confrontational to me than "regarding your statement".
...or maybe I'm just loopy :-)
Posted by Zo on April 4, 2002, at 21:08:34
In reply to Re: good intentions » Krazy Kat , posted by IsoM on April 1, 2002, at 13:38:26
I have an inkling what--or shall I say who-- sparked the recent concern about Negativity and "Attacks." I certainly went over the line in my post to Andyboy. . .but you never really know the Why. Why someone posts the things they do. Since I've been back on the board this spring, I don't recall seeing any *real* attacks such as happened last fall. Maybe someone can point me to a link?
Here's the skinny on my "negative" post. I write a lot on on speaking truth to power as a woman. The night I posted to Andyboy, I was tired, and without realizing it, drifted at a certain point from posting into Writing, which is meant for the general reader.
Of course it reads on the page as if I were talking to Andyboy. . .and of course that is not civil. But I thought you might like to know what was actually going on with this "attacker."
I am guilty of and sorry for going off on one of my rants in the wrong venue, for not attending to the rules and honoring the real person, Andyboy. Writing is largely a matter of Going Into The Flow.
A difficult part of my illness is attending mindfully to that flow. Hard to explain, but I hope my overall record here shows me not to be a "negative" poster.
It is also my hope that a distinction be made between "negative" and "outspoken as a woman." I'm not talking about incivility, of course a post is supposed to be civil. I'm talking about any possible upset that may be stemming from a confusion among women (by and large) about women.
Thinking about the words Negative and Attack used here, I wonder--do they really apply? Or might it be truer to say, Some women feel uncomfortable when others step out of the perceived role of women.
There are those of us who, by nature, don't fit that role, never wanted to, have other fish to fry---who nonetheless know ourselves, even as we challenge established ideas, to be positive non-attackers of persons.
Zo
(Parts of this post previously appeared on Social in somewhat different form.)**Q: why is this funny?
Posted by Elizabeth on April 5, 2002, at 10:49:06
In reply to Re: what's going on, posted by shelliR on March 31, 2002, at 12:02:47
> (I admit,the eyeroll was unnecessary)
I'm the one who should be admitting this! But I really did roll my eyes when I read in Andy's post that
> a great majority of individuals who read these posts are suffering from depression and/or anxiety, and therefore are prone to suggestibility
I frequently hear people saying stuff like this, or making jokes based on this kind of assumption -- assumptions that mentally ill people are generally irrational, easily fooled, childish, hysterical. It's a stereotype; it's not accurate; and stereotypes of this sort perpetuate discrimination. As long as people -- even people who actually are mentally ill, who presumably should know better -- assume this kind of thing about us, we're not going to be treated fairly and decently. I think this is a very real and serious issue, not something trivial to be brushed aside.
I don't think that Andy made this remark because of bad intentions; I'm sure his intentions were good. Rather, I think he probably didn't even consider the implications of what he was saying (this is why I asked him to be more "considerate" in the future), and I'm quite certain that he didn't consider *why* he believes it. He got this idea about mental illness being associated with suggestibility from somewhere, and he never thought to question it. That's is just a guess, of course, but I think this is often the case with stereotypes and prejudices -- people keep believing something about a group of people because they've always believed it, even though they don't really have a good reason to think it's true.
Good intentions don't make a false statement true, or a derogatory one neutral. In this case the statement was both false and derogatory.
-elizabeth
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.