![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 75. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2004, at 0:20:51
In reply to Rich Source of Blocks, posted by verne on December 1, 2004, at 23:07:13
Instead of trying to protect us from one of the realities of everyday life you allow us to face it head on and provide an opportunity for us to learn how to discuss emotionally charged issues in a way that does not offend and put down others.
Perhaps there will be many blocks.
Perhaps people will insist on learning the hard way.But thankyou for not trying to protect us.
If we don't like it, we can simply stay away.
But some people appreciate this opportunity
And I am one of them
Posted by saw on December 2, 2004, at 1:19:27
In reply to Dr. Bob...please read and reply, posted by ace on November 29, 2004, at 20:22:46
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 8:10:33
In reply to Thanks Dr B, posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2004, at 0:20:51
Perhaps they're just too weak to be at PB anyway.
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 8:12:17
In reply to I actually think better of you than that, Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 1, 2004, at 9:53:06
I find that it would be extremely difficult for me to care less. And if past experience is a predictor of the future, I will probably never care again.
That makes me very sad.
But at least I'm helping lots of people by giving them plenty of room to help others.
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 8:14:52
In reply to Rich Source of Blocks, posted by verne on December 1, 2004, at 23:07:13
I still don't think Dr. Bob does it on purpose, for whatever that's worth.
Thank you for the kind words. I really did make a hobby of studying the workings of this site there for a while.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 2, 2004, at 9:26:42
In reply to I actually think better of you than that, Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 1, 2004, at 9:53:06
I think the name "politics" isn't descriptive enough for what *I* had in mind when I said I was for it.
The word "politics" to me denotes a republican vs democrat vs libertarian attitude - kind of an us against them thing. I agree that this would be a minefield.
I had in mind more of a "current events" or "issues" board where folks could talk about some of the issues of the day - deficit, public education, mental health parity - things like that that aren't "social" and don't fit into any other board.
And I think it *is* possible for people to talk about these types of things without it getting too hot. It just might take a bit of practice. :)
Posted by yoshimi on December 2, 2004, at 12:55:01
In reply to Never mind, Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 8:12:17
hey Dinah,
I think there are quite a few posters here
who like the idea of having the board. How about
just give it a chance and see where it goes.I am sorry that you think it is such a terrible idea and that it is making you so upset.
However maybe it is like me and the faith board. I don't read that board because i don't have an interest in it. So there is no point to me going over there.
If you are worried about negativity from Politics, maybe just steer clear of that board?
Hope you are hanging in there,
Yoshimi
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 13:59:18
In reply to Re: Never mind, Dr. Bob » Dinah, posted by yoshimi on December 2, 2004, at 12:55:01
I'm staying clear of most of the site.
Go at it.
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 14:11:46
In reply to It's no big deal » yoshimi, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 13:59:18
It's just that the last election pretty much finished the process of emotional divorce from the site of Babble that's been ongoing for a while, and I'm sad/angry over that. I sometimes go days now without even peeking in at Babble. I'm still interested in therapy, so I'll still check in there. There are still people here that I care about. But not Babble itself. I've lost a valuable source of support and comfort.
But I should try to remember that it wasn't *just* the election. The election's aftermath was just the topper. There were a lot of other factors at play.
And I don't want anyone else to be so alienated by political talk that they lose their connection to such a helpful place.
But it's really none of my business. If people want it, that's fine with me. Most people who post here feel the same way anyway. It probably won't cause too much alienation - quite the contrary in fact.
Posted by yoshimi on December 2, 2004, at 17:51:13
In reply to Sorry if I was snippy, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 14:11:46
I understand. Im sorry that you feel that you have lost Babble. It isn't just the election though, you are right.
Maybe the politics board will work out all right. It might be good because it is really tough to find a place to talk about politics where it isnt a mess. Maybe it will be a mess here too, I don't know. But i am happy to have a place to try it and know that people can't post vile things without a retrimand.
I do understand your not wanting it though, because you are right, politics do get people riled up. Im just hoping this will be one where we can talk about the issues and see where the other sides are coming from and try to put ourselves in each others shoes and understand it better. I mean we probably all do want the same things no matter what box we checked on the registration for voting. Pretty much anyway.
We want good healthcare adn good schools and nice communities and safety and peacefulness and all that I would imagine. So we are all not so different after all.
HOpe you are feeling better Dinah. And hope that i did not hurt you any.
Yoshimi
Posted by ace on December 2, 2004, at 21:00:40
In reply to How about the people who will be hurt?, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 8:10:33
> Perhaps they're just too weak to be at PB anyway.
What do you define as weak?
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 2, 2004, at 21:22:15
In reply to Re: How about the people who will be hurt? » Dinah, posted by ace on December 2, 2004, at 21:00:40
I know you didn't ask me, but I suspect that Dinah was directing the "weak" comment sardonically to Dr. Bob, who in this case doesn't seem too concerned with opening another board which is quite likely IManyO to cause more friction, blocks and hurt feelings within the already sensitive population of Babble.
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 23:00:14
In reply to Re: How about the people who will be hurt? » Dinah, posted by ace on December 2, 2004, at 21:00:40
Gabbi's right. And I was referring to myself, not anyone else. Because I know what Dr. Bob's likely response will be. (Although I also know he won't use those exact words.)
I wanted to clarify as soon as I realized how what I had written might sound, but I had used up my three post allotment. I emailed Dr. Bob the intent of the post, since I couldn't post on the board until I got a reply, then forgot. Thanks for giving me the chance. :)
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 23:00:51
In reply to Re: How about the people who will be hurt? » Dinah » ace, posted by Gabbix2 on December 2, 2004, at 21:22:15
Posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2004, at 23:52:56
In reply to How about the people who will be hurt?, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 8:10:33
> Perhaps they're just too weak to be at PB anyway.
(((((Dinah))))) I am sorry that (after rereading it) my post seemed insensitive to your feelings about this.
From my understanding of the situation your feeling hurt by some of the things that have fairly recently been posted on politics is indeed understandable.
What hurt you was unacceptable, however, and people did get PBC'd / blocked as a result of what they had posted.
I repeat: that was understandable and I do not think that you are at all 'weak' to feel hurt in response. But people are being given the opportunity to discuss politics in a way that is more respectful and hopefully this is an opportunity for us to at least see whether it is possible to discuss political issues in a non-offensive way.
I do agree that I was hoping for a more general issues board rather than specifically politics.
Maybe see whether general issues are allowed to stay or whether they get redirected?
Posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 1:03:55
In reply to Dr. Bob...please read and reply, posted by ace on November 29, 2004, at 20:22:46
> First of all you have far too many boards.
>
> and now their is a politics board...what is the purpose of this??? I'm sure this will cause fights amongst us posters and be a catalyst for many anti-psychiatric sentiments, which, when exposed to vulnerable people, can do much harm.
>
> I was a Breggin and Szasz fan...I went off all meds, and then my life turned to a black hell...had to pull out of uni, and couldn't walk 10 meters from my house without an attack....
>
>
> Like I asked before, why politics?
>
> Acei agree wholeheartedly, ace. if we're going to be blocked for discussing politics, it doesn't make much sense to open a politics board, does it? :) there's been no discussion by dr. bob that he's going to ease up on the 'political' blocks, so i wouldn't even set foot in that place..
all right, i'm outta admin..i think my time is probably better spent elsewhere..
amy
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2004, at 1:18:30
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob...please read and reply » ace, posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 1:03:55
the civility rules for politics are the same as those for the rest of the boards.
I guess I kinda assumed that...
Posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 1:59:41
In reply to I certaintly hope that..., posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2004, at 1:18:30
> the civility rules for politics are the same as those for the rest of the boards.
>
> I guess I kinda assumed that...hi alex,:)
since you are addressing me, here's my opinion. (hope nobody's feelings are hurt..just IMO, okay?)
discussing politics civilly will get you blocked from this site if you say something using "negative words". as others have expressed in a previous thread written by panda, this approach makes no sense (see panda's last admin thread).
i was blocked simply for calling bush's policies destructive. i was not being "uncivil", i was discussing politics. 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. period. hence, unless dr. bob changes his concept of what is civil in a political discussion, that place will be a haven for land mines and blocks.
amy
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2004, at 4:27:05
In reply to Re: I certaintly hope that... » alexandra_k, posted by alesta on December 3, 2004, at 1:59:41
> I'm guessing faith has a higher average of blocks per post than any other board. And a fair number of people don't post there at all, because no substantial discussion can take place within the guidelines. And faith isn't nearly as hot an issue as politics.
You don't think there's room for substantial discussion? Should the guidelines be relaxed?
> History has shown what happens here when politics is discussed.
IMO, the problem was incivility, not politics.
> even if the regulars decided to be respectful of each others ideas and believe that no one is good or evil, there are just different ways of thinking of problems and solutions - even if regulars do that, the chances that newcomers will also be so forbearing on a regular basis are not high enough to inspire me with confidence.
>
> DinahMaybe not, but if the regulars are forbearing, and help the newcomers out, I think that would at least help a lot...
--
> Begged 4 parents board but got politics
>
> sawSorry, I thought I'd start Parents not from scratch, but with the old Children, and that's turning out to be more complicated that I thought it would be... Thanks for your patience...
--
> the civility rules for politics are the same as those for the rest of the boards.
>
> I guess I kinda assumed that...
>
> alexandra_kRight, the usual rules will apply, but at Faith, there are extra rules, and that may happen at Politics, too, I don't know...
--
> discussing politics civilly will get you blocked from this site if you say something using "negative words".
If the words are too negative, then is it necessarily civil?
> 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.
>
> amyIMO, calling them destructive puts down them and those who agree with them. How about a discussion about constructive, "good" policies?
Bob
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
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.