![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 14 to 38 of 54. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on March 3, 2006, at 10:17:05
In reply to Re: Ok, let's move this to Admin. » gardenergirl, posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 23:16:21
I'm hoping that you didn't mean that if someone finds offense here that they are being irrational?
As a person with a mental illness, I'm quite sensitive to the suggestion that anything I say is irrational. Too often people I know use that argument to dismiss things I try to say.
--------------------
> So, in this case, being a US citizen, I might view myself as a person with nukes, through my citizenship of a country that has nukes. If I did view myself that way, I might feel put down by the term hypocritical.
You might...
Is it rational for you to do so?
Should people be blocked because you (could) view things this way?
Posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 1:48:57
In reply to Re: Ok, let's move this to Admin. » 5, posted by ClearSkies on March 3, 2006, at 7:25:04
> I uphold the rules and FAQs as stated. It has nothing to do with whether I took the post as a personal critique; I felt that the block was in keeping with applying the civility standards appropriately. That is what civility is all about, to me. To make certain that the standards are applied fairly and equally.
So it is a matter of principle?
Please point me to the relevant section of the FAQ's that says that if you critique a policy or ideal then that is against the rules of the forum because people who believe in the policy / ideal might feel accused or put down.
Did you see the block coming for that phrasing before it came?
Or are you trying to see the sense after the fact?
I'm real unclear on whether my error was the (fairly much a typo)use of the term 'people' rather than policy... (In which case I'd like to see the relevant section of the FAQ's where that is considered unaccceptable.
Or if it is that you can't critique an ideal / policy then where does it say that in the FAQ? I said that a couple times earlier up the thread and didn't get a PBC / blocking for the times I used the term 'policy' rather than 'people'.
But maybe the point is that the case seems analogous to my last political blocking...
Well... I'm not seeing the sense there either...
I am not.
But is it just a matter of consistency, do you think?
Or perhaps there is the greater project of changing my 'pervasive posting style'.
Posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 2:00:01
In reply to Re: A try at re-wording, please?? » 5, posted by AuntieMel on March 3, 2006, at 10:17:05
> --------------------
>
> > So, in this case, being a US citizen, I might view myself as a person with nukes, through my citizenship of a country that has nukes. If I did view myself that way, I might feel put down by the term hypocritical.
>
> You might...
> Is it rational for you to do so?
> Should people be blocked because you (could) view things this way?> I'm hoping that you didn't mean that if someone finds offense here that they are being irrational?
You mean in this particular case or across the board?
I would say that it is irrational to take offence if someone critiques your favourite book...
I would say that it is irrational to take offence if someone critiques your favourite brand of therapy...
I would say that it is irrational to take offence if someone critiques your political ideal...I would.
And now... I imagine I'll probably get blocked for that.
Consider this...
Are phobia's irrational beliefs? They are often referred to as such. Do you have irrational beliefs? I know I sure as hell do. But I sure as hell don't think other people should be blocked for saying something that it is irrational for me to take offence to. You see... Feelings can be rational / irrational. aka more or less appropriate.
There is a literature on that...
It is about whether they are representing the relevant portion of the world accurately or inaccurately (according to their function).
If I feel accused if someone critiques my favourite book I'd say that is pretty irrational in the sense that someone is taking things overly personally. That they need to stop reading or whatever. Not campaign for a blocking for the person who is critiquing their favourite book.
But sometimes the truth can be uncivil...
And sometimes people just aren't smart enough to do the relevant cognitive gymnastics...
In this case I said 'irrational' because I was thinking there is something contradictory about the policy (if we are allowed to build in some basic moral law such as 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you) then saying 'yes for me and no for you does seem to be contradictory. And to the best of my knowledge contradictons are irrational (because beliefs are supposed to be true and contradictory states of affairs cannot obtain) and because emotions are supposed to be fitting to the circumstances and to take things overly personlly isn't so rational with respect to your having time and energy to devote to alternative issues...Was someone offended by what I said?
No.
Yet... As I've been learning probabilities are hard to falsify... You could say that there is a probability of 1 that people will feel offended / put down... And yet nobody might actually feel offended or put down. So... Maybe it is 'likely' babblers will feel accused / put down even though no babblers actually feel accused / put down (or possibly one or two).
Whatever.
I'm getting sick of this...
> As a person with a mental illness, I'm quite sensitive to the suggestion that anything I say is irrational. Too often people I know use that argument to dismiss things I try to say.
>
Posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 2:28:32
In reply to Re: A try at re-wording, please?? » AuntieMel, posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 2:00:01
First of all, I'm sure you realize that on this forum or not, stating the truth is not always civil. I clearly weigh over the recommended weight for my height, yet it would be uncivil for anyone but my doctor to walk up and tell me I'm fat.
I'm clearly not helping any. So I'm going to stop trying, since my trying isn't being helpful.
I understand that you feel hurt and betrayed by Dr. Bob. And possibly by other Babblers who didn't protest your block. I hope you are able to know in your heart it's not because those who didn't protest your block don't like you or care about you, or that it's because Dr. Bob doesn't like you. I hope that not only for me, other Babblers, and Dr. Bob's sake, but also for your own. It must really hurt to feel the way you do right now.
But I know that nothing I can say will help much. I am sorry about that.
Best wishes,
Dinah
Posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 3:29:01
In reply to 5, posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 2:28:32
I'm not hurt that people didn't protest. Really. I'm not hurt about that at all. And I'm not hurt that people are trying to make sense of it either, I understand that one. I do.
Posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 3:34:20
In reply to Re: 5 » Dinah, posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 3:29:01
and as usual i hurt my case by going on too much.
yeah thats right dr bob
just ignore me
let me work myself up into a state
and then there will be an unambiguous blockable offense.anyway...
it doesn't matter anymore.
i've made my point.its not just that it hurt.
its that it hurt one hell of a lot.
and not even just that.
more than that.for someone whose main form of punishment was to be told i wasn't fit for human company and to be locked in my room for a week or two blocks... take me back.
a_k isn't dead.
shes still in the room
and she doesn't know how to get out.not anymore.
i guess she will come back eventually.
but i have no idea what to say to her either.maybe people should only be allowed to post here if they have a therapist.
or maybe...
it doesn't matter because i'll just work myself up into a state...
and get 6 weeks.
or something.and the result is ultimately the same
Posted by Bobby on March 4, 2006, at 9:30:12
In reply to Re: 5, posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 3:34:20
Please don't get worked up and get blocked. Some of us like you. I miss your posts on Politics also. I sure hope this blows over soon.
Posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 10:30:19
In reply to Re: 5, posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 3:34:20
You know, I really do understand. I wish you would let me talk to you about it.
Posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 10:31:08
In reply to Re: 5 » 5, posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 10:30:19
with you, I should say.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 4, 2006, at 12:06:20
In reply to Re: 5, posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 3:34:20
> it doesn't matter anymore.
> i've made my point.It *does* matter.
I don't know how to address you, in this new personna. You reject older names, and 5 seems impersonal. So, to you, I send:
{{{{{{{{{{{{{you}}}}}}}}}}}}}
I hug you, the one who feels it, today.
Lar
Posted by zeugma on March 4, 2006, at 13:19:20
In reply to Re: Ok, let's move this to Admin. » ClearSkies, posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 1:48:57
Or perhaps there is the greater project of changing my 'pervasive posting style'.>>
there you have it IMO.
That's why you didn't hear me protesting your block. Because such a project is beyond my capability to understand.
I have had experiences similasr to yours in therapy. I am boring everyone i know, but this is therapy, and therapy is a project- in "Gulliver's Travels", the projectors had their own island, where they tried to design an egg that would be perfectly oblong, and then make all other eggs fit this model. or something like that. The ancients had the myth of Procrustes which made a similar point.
I can't really say more. At the moment.
-z
Posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 13:24:24
In reply to Re: Ok, let's move this to Admin., posted by zeugma on March 4, 2006, at 13:19:20
Funny how people can interpret things so differently.
I've always thought that Dr. Bob liked 5's pervasive posting style. :) His style and 5's style have always seemed not dissimilar.
And while I get frustrated from time to time because of my own issues, I too like 5's posting style.
Posted by zeugma on March 4, 2006, at 14:28:43
In reply to Re: Ok, let's move this to Admin. » zeugma, posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 13:24:24
Posted by Tamar on March 4, 2006, at 22:13:57
In reply to Re: 5, posted by 5 on March 4, 2006, at 3:34:20
I’m a bit confused here and haven’t been keeping track of developments. My mother-in-law is in hospital and this week all three kids were ill (the baby needed emergency surgery). So I apologise for my inability to keep track of things but I’ve had a lot going on.
5, I can’t help but think you might be in an impossible situation. Perhaps you want to discuss a critique of US foreign policy, but the difficulty is that many people in the US are probably still feeling very vulnerable. (I’m not in the US, as you might know.) I think until people in the US feel safer, it’ll be hard to have a very open and frank debate about US foreign policy. Maybe I’m being too pessimistic. But I do know that in Europe there’s a great deal of ambivalence about US foreign policy and perhaps that accords with perspectives from the Southern Hemisphere. And yet in the US I think there’s still a sense of being attacked.
I don’t think we can do much about it. It’s hard to accept how strongly people feel about it, especially if they live in different circumstances. I think a lot of water needs to pass under the bridge before the US can see itself as the face of crime control and retributive justice. Just my two cents…
Tamar
Posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 22:36:25
In reply to Re: 5 » 5, posted by Tamar on March 4, 2006, at 22:13:57
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 4, 2006, at 22:40:33
In reply to Re: 5 » 5, posted by Tamar on March 4, 2006, at 22:13:57
I appreciate that that is probably exactly the case.
However.. it's a politics board, if you can't critique a foreign policy on a politics board because people from that Country might be upset by it, that's assuming that there are no readers or posters who are from the Countries, where policy has been critiqued.
And there have been countries who have been criticized, just not as frequently.I've had my lifestyle critiqued on that board and was expected not to take it personally.
No one got blocked or P.B.C'd and if they had I wouldn't have thought it fair.
Though It's one of the 3 times on Babble I've been genuinely hurt.
(As opposed to just annoyed, my standard negative emotion : )
I accepted it as a critique though, and it was political. My hurt aside, It was perfectly appropriate topic to discuss on a politics board.
And I realize that. I can't suddenly start saying.. wahhhh "Don't discuss 'what you think gov't policy should be for those who aren't working cause it hurts my feelings.."
Every topic has the potential to hurt someone
No matter how it's put.Discussing politics upsets people, that's why some people make a vow not to discuss it, but it seems to me that foreign policy is about as removed from the personal as it is possible to get when discussing politics.
I didn't see a precedent for what happened to 5
I have understood the problems in previous posts But that post.. well its a mystery to me. And I don't think it's fair (if the block was because of the tone of previous posts) to make the leap that no more criticism of the U.S would be tolerated by the poster.. just well..cause people are getting tired of it from you.
Posted by Tamar on March 5, 2006, at 8:52:41
In reply to Re: 5 » Tamar, posted by Gabbix2 on March 4, 2006, at 22:40:33
Thanks for your comments, Gabbi.
> Every topic has the potential to hurt someone
> No matter how it's put.Yeah, that makes sense.
> Discussing politics upsets people, that's why some people make a vow not to discuss it, but it seems to me that foreign policy is about as removed from the personal as it is possible to get when discussing politics.
Fair enough.
> I didn't see a precedent for what happened to 5
> I have understood the problems in previous posts But that post.. well its a mystery to me. And I don't think it's fair (if the block was because of the tone of previous posts) to make the leap that no more criticism of the U.S would be tolerated by the poster.. just well..cause people are getting tired of it from you.Yeah, I think the issue of precedent is important. And I definitely think it should be possible to understand why a block has been given.
Sorry, I really shouldn’t have stuck my oar in on this one. Don’t know what came over me. I don’t have a leg to stand on, actually… My chief interest is in the question of what it might take to be able to critique US foreign policy without eliciting outrage. I am often astonished at how strongly people feel about it. But then, I regularly critique the foreign policy of my own government, so maybe I just don’t understand how it feels to support my country’s foreign policy wholeheartedly …
Right, I’ll stop now! I hope I haven’t upset or angered anyone… I really wasn’t trying to.
Tamar
Posted by zeugma on March 5, 2006, at 10:17:12
In reply to Re: 5 » Gabbix2, posted by Tamar on March 5, 2006, at 8:52:41
My chief interest is in the question of what it might take to be able to critique US foreign policy without eliciting outrage. I am often astonished at how strongly people feel about it. But then, I regularly critique the foreign policy of my own government, so maybe I just don’t understand how it feels to support my country’s foreign policy wholeheartedly …>>
I am a U.S. citizen, and it seems fundamental to my sense of being one that critiques of its foreign policy be as free as possible (right of free speech). It outrages me that such critiques be out of bounds. It is not a matter of my supporting or rejecting a given aspect of U.S. foreign policy, but the sense of respect that I have for the laws and way of life of this country.
-z
Posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 10:36:21
In reply to Re: 5 » Tamar, posted by zeugma on March 5, 2006, at 10:17:12
I've said this a few times and feel like I'm spitting in the wind a bit. But policy can always be critiqued. The problem comes in when you use negative words to describe countries or peoples, or if you say or strongly imply that anyone who believes in a certain policy is (insert negative comment here).
Posted by zeugma on March 5, 2006, at 11:00:49
In reply to Policy as opposed to people, posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 10:36:21
> I've said this a few times and feel like I'm spitting in the wind a bit. But policy can always be critiqued. The problem comes in when you use negative words to describe countries or peoples, or if you say or strongly imply that anyone who believes in a certain policy is (insert negative comment here).>>
ah yes. But policies are the actions of people, whether directly (through political figures' own actions) or indirectly (through voting). And if I say that political figure X is violating the Constitution, or repeatedly engaging in policies that are inhumane and serve no policy ends other than the self-interest of a narrow group of individuals who have investments in corporations that profit from such policies, I suppose it's allright to detail the truth of these assertions without implying anything negative about either the individuals performing the acts or the people who vote for them.
You're not spitting in the wind, this discussion is getting somewhere. My difficulty is this: that the above statement, in the last sentence of the above paragraph, is not really coherent.
Because it's hard to allege that policies are deeply and systematically misguided without implying something, if not outright saying, negative about the individual(s) performing the acts.
I agree that invective directed against countries as a whole is not a good thing, chiefly because of its extreme inaccuracy, much like religious and racial stereotypes are forms of erroneous speech whose main effect is to stir up trouble.
But those who engage in specific policies, they are identifying themselves through their policies, it is why politics has a moral dimension and is not simply a game of chess, where we can comment on moves as functions of the players' skills without implying anything, anything at all, about wisdom or lack thereof, respect for life or lack thereof, respect for its citizens or lack thereof.
-z
Posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 11:09:44
In reply to Re: Policy as opposed to people » Dinah, posted by zeugma on March 5, 2006, at 11:00:49
Well, as you know, it is against Babble policy to declare that those Babblers (known or unknown) who declare their core essence through their adherence to one policy or another to be lacking in wisdom, lack of respect for life or others. Any more than it would be in keeping with Babble policy to comment on someone's lack of wisdom, lack of respect for life or others, for any reason other than the policies they believe in.
No matter what you believe the truth to be.
And since reasonable people can disagree on perfectly good grounds about even the most heated of debate topics, why is it not possible to merely state what you believe and to express a lack of understanding for other beliefs.
But I am spitting in the wind. Because I distinctly remember saying tis over and over and over again, and I find I'm boring myself. :)
Posted by verne on March 5, 2006, at 11:16:28
In reply to Re: Policy as opposed to people, posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 11:09:44
Dinah,
I agree. I like what you be saying.
Verne
Posted by zeugma on March 5, 2006, at 11:55:39
In reply to Re: Policy as opposed to people, posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 11:09:44
> Well, as you know, it is against Babble policy to declare that those Babblers (known or unknown) who declare their core essence through their adherence to one policy or another to be lacking in wisdom, lack of respect for life or others. Any more than it would be in keeping with Babble policy to comment on someone's lack of wisdom, lack of respect for life or others, for any reason other than the policies they believe in.
>
> No matter what you believe the truth to be.
>
> And since reasonable people can disagree on perfectly good grounds about even the most heated of debate topics, why is it not possible to merely state what you believe and to express a lack of understanding for other beliefs.>>because stating what i believe, on certain topics, would be uncivil, by the criteria of this site. So would most of the utterances found in my local newspapers that are of an editorial nature, or those of newspapers from different locales. Now you've said previously that politics blocks result from people misunderstanding its nature, or as I will charitably put it, understanding its nature but saying things not suited to its nature regardless of the consequences.
To write on the Politics board really does require an approach more like that expressed in the Chess section of my local newspaper (that is currently suing the Federal government, a fact that has me upset, angry, and inclined to say uncivil things about the way the -, but I won't, because I understand too well the nature of the forum I am in) than the editorial page.
Rather unnatural.
Well, I'm not only boring myself and others, I'm getting very upset, as well.
By the way (and maybe I'm reading too much into it) but it was gracious of you not to put my name in the subject of your second reply to me. It was courteous.
The little things matter so much.
but anyway, the issue is not my own problems here, but 5's, or 8's, or 7 of 9's <sudden starry-eyed look>. I can't help thinking that the gracious things you've said... (ellipsis is there because neither you nor I are optimists, no other reason).
-z
>
> But I am spitting in the wind. Because I distinctly remember saying tis over and over and over again, and I find I'm boring myself. :)
Posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 12:13:57
In reply to Re: Policy as opposed to people, posted by zeugma on March 5, 2006, at 11:55:39
I do believe little things matter a lot.
And so I wanted to clarify that while I may be boring myself, I in no way find others' continued discussion of this boring.
:)
Posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 12:18:35
In reply to Re: Policy as opposed to people, posted by zeugma on March 5, 2006, at 11:55:39
And I also want to add that I've found your discussions of your frustrations over not being able to post freely on the Politics board while following the civility guidelines to be wonderfully civil, and yes, gracious.
Which leads me to have confidence that you could do the same with the actual policies.
But perhaps I'm missing the point somewhere along the line. I often have that problem.
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.