Psycho-Babble Politics Thread 428695

Shown: posts 1 to 9 of 9. This is the beginning of the thread.

 

Babble Politics

Posted by alexandra_k on December 13, 2004, at 0:17:42

What do people on the politics board have to say about whether Babble should be more of a democracy???

 

Re: Babble Politics

Posted by Bling Bling on December 13, 2004, at 4:31:15

In reply to Babble Politics, posted by alexandra_k on December 13, 2004, at 0:17:42

> What do people on the politics board have to say about whether Babble should be more of a democracy???
>
>

It probably should stay like it is. If it was to be changed to something democratic it would be more like other chat boards & a lot less like Dr. Bob's.

 

Re: Babble Politics

Posted by AuntieMel on December 13, 2004, at 14:34:25

In reply to Babble Politics, posted by alexandra_k on December 13, 2004, at 0:17:42

Online democracy has the potential to turn into online anarchy. In my opinion.

 

Re: Babble Politics

Posted by alexandra_k on December 14, 2004, at 23:19:27

In reply to Re: Babble Politics, posted by AuntieMel on December 13, 2004, at 14:34:25

So what is it about the 'democratic' structure of other boards that you don't like?

I mean, it seems to me that there are indefinately many different systems which may be construed as being democratic in one way or another. Dr B seemed to have some fairly particular ideas in mind when he asked about it on admin, but I was wondering whether people might have some alternative views on the kinds of things that babble could usefully be democratic about. Such issues might include (for example)

- which words are considered offensive / inoffensive to the babble community.
- which ideas should be implemented and which ideas should not.

And then there is the further issue of whether a vote (by interested parties) should decide the issue, or whether there needs to be a certain majority to swing it, or whether everyone needs to agree...

Just some thoughts...
If babble is a social group
and a social group is a society
Then maybe the social group should take a more active role in determining the limits of what is and is not acceptable to the group.

Or maybe we should just say: 'its a volountary society and so if you don't like it then you can just b*gg*r off'.

Or maybe we just say 'oh well, who cares?'.

I am just interested in peoples thoughts...
not planning a revolution or anything...

 

Re: Babble Politics » alexandra_k

Posted by AuntieMel on December 15, 2004, at 8:51:09

In reply to Re: Babble Politics, posted by alexandra_k on December 14, 2004, at 23:19:27

Well, then maybe I should define what I mean by "democracy."

To me, democracy means majority rule. Period. Without protections for the minority. Anything can get passed on as policy as long as it gets one more yes vote than no votes.

We are a society, as you say, and more input from the society members would be wonderful. And the two particular issues you mention would be high on my list of things to discuss. <I for one would have never thought b*gg*r would be a banned word>

So - yes I think making it a democracy = by my definition of democracy = could lead to anarchy.

Maybe we could elect representatives???

 

Re: Babble Politics » AuntieMel

Posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2004, at 14:08:58

In reply to Re: Babble Politics » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on December 15, 2004, at 8:51:09

Do you think we would need to decide between
ALL issues should be decided in that manner and
NO issues should be decided in that manner?

Couldn't we be democratic about some things, but not others?

Not sure what you have in mind with respect to 'Anarchy'. I think it is actually quite a nice political ideal, however maybe in practice, and maybe what you are thinking of is
ANARCHY=CHAOS?

Not sure....

Maybe we could develop a variation on 'democracy'. Don't let the name put you off by thinking it implies many things by association.

Thanks for your response

 

PS » AuntieMel

Posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2004, at 14:14:03

In reply to Re: Babble Politics » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on December 15, 2004, at 8:51:09

There was an add in NZ TV a while back for Toyota four wheel drives. The add involved various things that go wrong. The farmer looks at the camera and says 'B*gg*r' after each incident. The add was on prime time slots.

There were complaints.

There were complaints about the complaints.
Some people argued (fairly convincingly) that the word has become an everyday part of kiwi slang.
Other people replied (rightly) that it is still used (offensively) to refer to sodomy.

The add wasn't allowed to be screened before 8.30.
So I do have sympathy.
@ss, on the other hand, even p*ss don't strike me as offensive in any way. But maybe because the context in which I am thinking of the latter is in terms of being p*ss*d or p*ss*d off (mad / angry).

 

Re: Babble Politics » alexandra_k

Posted by AuntieMel on December 15, 2004, at 16:00:59

In reply to Re: Babble Politics » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2004, at 14:08:58

Therin lies the catch-22, right? How to decide which things to democratically decide?

And I think I mean anarchy as in "political disorder" or "absence of order" as in the dictionary. A state like often occurs on admin when people disagree. It doesn't much bother me when that happens, but it does disturb a fair number of people here.

I think discussion and consensus would be extremely helpful. I just don't know how to go about it without it becoming the internet version of a shouting match. Ideas are welcome, for sure.

Maybe a facilitator of sorts? To make sure that actual issues are addressed and that people aren't saying the same thing, only louder.

Anyway, while I love the idea, I'm fearful that in practice it could cause hurt and problems.

 

Re: Babble Politics

Posted by alexandra_k on December 17, 2004, at 15:32:19

In reply to Re: Babble Politics » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on December 15, 2004, at 16:00:59

> Therin lies the catch-22, right? How to decide which things to democratically decide?

Yes indeed!

> And I think I mean anarchy as in "political disorder" or "absence of order" as in the dictionary. A state like often occurs on admin when people disagree. It doesn't much bother me when that happens, but it does disturb a fair number of people here.

I think that what bothers people is when people express their opinion in an uncivil way.

> I think discussion and consensus would be extremely helpful. I just don't know how to go about it without it becoming the internet version of a shouting match. Ideas are welcome, for sure.

> Maybe a facilitator of sorts? To make sure that actual issues are addressed and that people aren't saying the same thing, only louder.

I guess Dr. B does that. Well, you can shout, so long as you are civil.

I guess that my real motivation for the thread (the thing that bugs me the most) is when everyone (except Dr. B) seems to be in agreement about something or other. But Dr. B can just ignore us as the mood takes him.

It is in those cases where we do have consensus, and where there isn't a reason (such as being too hard to implement or whatever) that really annoy me.

Anyways.

http://dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/430904.html

Maybe a poll is the idea...


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.