![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 36. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by ClearSkies on October 31, 2005, at 21:09:01
When I was blocked, I decided to self educate so I wouldn't feel like I was having to contrive a dance of words in order to express myself with creating a disturbance.
What I found was "Choosing Civility" By P.M.Fouri, cofounder of the Johns Hopkins Civility Project.To quote from the Forward:
"What is civiity? What does it mean to be civil today, at the beginnings of the twenty-first century? Is civility in decline? How do we make it part of who are are? What are civilities' basic rules? How do we make it part of who we are? How does civility improve the quality of our lives? How do we practice it among friends, in the workplace, and among strangers? Does it have drawbacks? Are supposed to be always civil? How do we deal with the uncivil?"Answering these questions is what the book is all about, It is the book that I refer to when I am uncertain how to phrase a response to a post that has merit but I struggle to find acceptable civil words for the babble population.
This short book of 196 pages has wisdom that I now try to apply to my posts here, I proofread more carefully, and decide which posts to reply to much more carefully. My wits are far from being sharp enough to debate with most people here, I wait a little longer and say less.
The book just struck me a useful tool for all babble user, Newblies and Old-Timers alike, as a resource for writing our thoughts in a civil manner. I think it force us to me more creative and thoughtfull in the words we chose,
Posted by alexandra_k on October 31, 2005, at 21:18:29
In reply to I highly recommend this book on Civility, posted by ClearSkies on October 31, 2005, at 21:09:01
uh... is that where the notion of 'civility' came from?
Posted by Jen Star on October 31, 2005, at 22:47:33
In reply to I highly recommend this book on Civility, posted by ClearSkies on October 31, 2005, at 21:09:01
it sounds interesting...thanks for posting this!
JenStar
Posted by Dinah on October 31, 2005, at 23:14:18
In reply to I highly recommend this book on Civility, posted by ClearSkies on October 31, 2005, at 21:09:01
Posted by ClearSkies on November 1, 2005, at 5:16:07
In reply to Re: I highly recommend this book on Civility, posted by alexandra_k on October 31, 2005, at 21:18:29
Not that I know of, it's just something I came across when I was self help book searching on Amazon. I haven't the faintest idea how the rules on civility were formed here. I found the book to be a great help and reminder for me. This post was just a suggestion that other people might find it interesting too.
CS
Posted by alexandra_k on November 1, 2005, at 5:17:52
In reply to Re: I highly recommend this book on Civility » alexandra_k, posted by ClearSkies on November 1, 2005, at 5:16:07
hmm.
how many rules did they say?
lol.
;-)
Posted by Toph on November 1, 2005, at 7:17:55
In reply to I highly recommend this book on Civility, posted by ClearSkies on October 31, 2005, at 21:09:01
Is it one of Fouri's rules that civility should trump honesty?
Posted by Dinah on November 1, 2005, at 7:28:08
In reply to Re: I highly recommend this book on Civility » ClearSkies, posted by Toph on November 1, 2005, at 7:17:55
How about honesty expressed civilly?
Posted by ClearSkies on November 1, 2005, at 7:34:32
In reply to Re: I highly recommend this book on Civility » ClearSkies, posted by Toph on November 1, 2005, at 7:17:55
> Is it one of Fouri's rules that civility should trump honesty?
The book does not address truth, Toph. To quote:
"Civility's defining characteristic is its ties to "city" and "society". The word derives from the Latin"civitas", which means "city", especially in the sense of civic community.
"....Although we can describe the civil as courteous, polite, and well mannered, etymology reminds us that they are also supposed to be good citizens and good neighbours."It is all about HOW we express ourselves, not whether it is truth or not. Why don't you read the book if you are interested? It's probably in the library.
ClearSkies
Posted by Toph on November 1, 2005, at 9:57:53
In reply to Re: I highly recommend this book on Civility » Toph, posted by Dinah on November 1, 2005, at 7:28:08
I'm all in favor of using a civility filter when making judgements or direct comments about another person. If a forums are permitted for one's faith, political beliefs, artistic expression and the like then people should be allowed unfettered expression or there should be no such forums in my view.
Posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2005, at 10:09:01
In reply to Re: I highly recommend this book on Civility » Dinah, posted by Toph on November 1, 2005, at 9:57:53
> I'm all in favor of using a civility filter when making judgements or direct comments about another person. If a forums are permitted for one's faith, political beliefs, artistic expression and the like then people should be allowed unfettered expression or there should be no such forums in my view.
Why should certain boards on the same forum have different rules?
Unfettered expression would drive me away, very likely. I've seen unfettered expression on other forums. I'll pass. Thin-skinned and all.
gg
Posted by Toph on November 1, 2005, at 10:42:37
In reply to Re: I highly recommend this book on Civility » Toph, posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2005, at 10:09:01
The rules are a little fuzzy on those boards already. People pick the boards they frequent by interest and comfort level. I wouldn't mind a mosh pit where people could throw ideas around as long as it didn't get personal, but I suppose that would be the problem, now wouldn't it.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 1, 2005, at 13:28:09
In reply to Re: I highly recommend this book on Civility » Dinah, posted by Toph on November 1, 2005, at 9:57:53
I think the trouble comes when you have to define 'personal'. Because its not just about the individual. It is about the things the individiual cares about. If I went off on a rave about catholicism (just as an example) then people who are catholic may well take that as a personal affront. Just like how when you are driving... And someone cuts your car off... You take it as a personal affront because your car is perceived to be a part of you.
I do have sympathy.
I'm wary of censorship too.
But I have to say...I think... In general you can learn to express your feelings and your thoughts civily. You can say most of what you want to say in a civil manner, though it can be a bit tricky at times... But I think most of what you have to say really can be said.
> If a forums are permitted for one's faith, political beliefs, artistic expression and the like then people should be allowed unfettered expression or there should be no such forums in my view.
I dunno.
Surely there must be a middle way...
Posted by Toph on November 1, 2005, at 15:47:14
In reply to Re: I highly recommend this book on Civility » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on November 1, 2005, at 13:28:09
It's hard to argue against civility, after all, of benefit to its citizens is its very definition. But then, its hard to make a case against other positive values like freedom, openness, honesty, truth, and the like. The tension between constrained speech and free expression has sure kept the admin board very busy over the years.
Posted by Toph on November 2, 2005, at 11:00:24
In reply to Re: I highly recommend this book on Civility » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on November 1, 2005, at 13:28:09
>
> Surely there must be a middle way...
>Thinking some more about the topic it strikes me that as our country honors the passing of Rosa Parks whose courageous act of uncivil disobebience sparked monumental social change here, often much is sacrificed in the name of order. Rosa confronted a discriminatory system justified by history and cultural norms and supported by the now defunct constitutional principle of separate but equal. Yet some of best designs of government, the brightest scientific discoveries, the most important socio-political changes, the greatest works of art, music and design have been accomplished because of individuals willing to break the rules. What is most dangerous is when social order becomes a rigid end in itself, and those empowered to maintain order are blinded by their own self-sustaining ideology. I agree, alex, that there needs to be some middle ground between absolute civil control and civil unrest, either extreme turns away too many important people.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 13:21:35
In reply to Re: I highly recommend this book on Civility » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on November 1, 2005, at 15:47:14
> It's hard to argue against civility, after all, of benefit to its citizens is its very definition.
Hmm. Maybe people should have a right to being treated civilly just like people should have a right to freedom of speech etc. The trouble is that the more rights people have... The more there can be the problem of conflict of rights.
It can be hard to know which right should take priority... Thats what leads to 'ethical dilemmas' situations where it looks like there is a double bind, you are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't...
I mean... Some people think they have the right to carry a firearm. Thats fine, but it can lead to conflict of other peoples right to not be shot. People have a right to public information, but then individuals have a right to privacy and so on and so forth.
> The tension between constrained speech and free expression has sure kept the admin board very busy over the years.
Yeah. And politics too. That happens in politics too.
Posted by Dinah on November 2, 2005, at 13:24:54
In reply to on Civility » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on November 2, 2005, at 11:00:24
Actually I have never heard that Rosa Parks behavior was anything but civil. That's the power in it. It was a perfectly civil act of standing against an unjust law.
Had she been uncivil about her disobedience, I daresay it would not have been the watershed event it became.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 13:27:40
In reply to on Civility » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on November 2, 2005, at 11:00:24
Yeah, there is a danger in extremes...
I think...
There are limits on what constitutes justified civil disobedience. But that sometimes it is warranted yes. Rosa Parks seems like a case of warranted civil disobedience to me. I suppose it is good to remember the people who went before her too, the ones who didn't get remembered in such a positive light.Same with the civility rules I suppose. I think they would be rare... But I think it could be conceivable that there may be cases where one is justified in breaking the civility rules. I don't think they would happen very often though. I really don't think... It is so very hard to say what you want to say within civility guidelines. But then... Depends on what you want to say I guess.
It is just that to keep the boards functioning within a supportive environment... There have to be limits to maintain that.
But nobody likes to feel that one of their rights is being infringed on (freedom of speech).
I just think that sometimes its justified (ie to attempt to provide a supportive environment).
> Thinking some more about the topic it strikes me that as our country honors the passing of Rosa Parks whose courageous act of uncivil disobebience sparked monumental social change here, often much is sacrificed in the name of order. Rosa confronted a discriminatory system justified by history and cultural norms and supported by the now defunct constitutional principle of separate but equal. Yet some of best designs of government, the brightest scientific discoveries, the most important socio-political changes, the greatest works of art, music and design have been accomplished because of individuals willing to break the rules. What is most dangerous is when social order becomes a rigid end in itself, and those empowered to maintain order are blinded by their own self-sustaining ideology. I agree, alex, that there needs to be some middle ground between absolute civil control and civil unrest, either extreme turns away too many important people.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 13:31:45
In reply to Re: on Civility » Toph, posted by Dinah on November 2, 2005, at 13:24:54
LOL. I think it depends on what you mean by 'civility'.
> Actually I have never heard that Rosa Parks behavior was anything but civil. That's the power in it. It was a perfectly civil act of standing against an unjust law.
I think it is the act of breaking the law that counts as 'civil disobedience'. In the same way that breaking one of the civility rules counts as an act of 'civil disobedience'. But there can be times where one is justified in an act of civil disobedience (if, for example, one is protesting against an unjust law. Or if one is attempting to interveane to stop logging of a rainforest or something like that ONLY WHEN alternative (legal) channels would take too long to be effective.
> Had she been uncivil about her disobedience, I daresay it would not have been the watershed event it became.Yeah. I get what you mean. In the same way that if someone chained themselves to a tree to prevent the forest being logged that is one thing...
If they blew up the logging machinery that would be unjustified (as there are more peaceful alternatives) etc.
Polite refusal...
Is definately more appropriate than a big 'f*ck you' and pulling out a gun or something like that...
Posted by Toph on November 2, 2005, at 17:04:34
In reply to Re: on Civility » Toph, posted by Dinah on November 2, 2005, at 13:24:54
> Actually I have never heard that Rosa Parks behavior was anything but civil...
>
It depends on your point of view. The authorities of the time arrrested her and fined her for breaking a city ordinance written to preserve order for the benefit of its citizens.
Posted by Dinah on November 2, 2005, at 18:40:50
In reply to Re: on Civility » Dinah, posted by Toph on November 2, 2005, at 17:04:34
I do believe we're talking different definitions of civil.
Posted by Toph on November 2, 2005, at 19:37:22
In reply to Re: on Civility » Toph, posted by Dinah on November 2, 2005, at 18:40:50
My point exactly.
Posted by Dinah on November 2, 2005, at 21:30:33
In reply to Re: on Civility » Dinah, posted by Toph on November 2, 2005, at 19:37:22
I don't understand.
But that's ok.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 21:39:15
In reply to Re: on Civility » Toph, posted by Dinah on November 2, 2005, at 21:30:33
i think all three of us were saying the same thing:
depends on what you mean by civility...
(with respect to whether rosa parks committed an act of civil disobedience or not)
Posted by Toph on November 2, 2005, at 21:53:52
In reply to Re: on Civility » Toph, posted by Dinah on November 2, 2005, at 21:30:33
I'm not sure either except that I'm thinking that if one becomes consumed with civility it can supplant/undermine/compromise the goal of support in much the same way that laws designed to preserve a social order can impinge on civil liberties. Perhaps they are not analagous, but it has always bothered me that a site that purports to be a supportive place for people struggling with mental illness could justify blocking someone under the premise of civility for weeks on end for something as assinine as an individual who utters a self-deprecating statement such as, " I feel like such an *ss."
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.