Posted by Jost on June 29, 2006, at 11:55:40
In reply to Re: clarification » Dr. Bob, posted by Jakeman on June 28, 2006, at 20:14:42
> > > > I guess one could argue that in a democracy, a political leader has the vote of a majority, or at least the most votes. So, by critiquing a political leader in a democratic world one is perhaps [more] likely to step on toes than by critiquing a political leader appointed by his father, or by God, or by guns, bloodshed, or bankrolls.
> > What do you think about the point that llrrrpp made above?
> > Bob
> Well I don't agree. Following that logic I could be blocked for criticizing Bush (because he was democratically elected) while it would be ok to criticize a monarch like the king of Bhutan (Jigme Wangchuckor) or the exiled king of Tibet (Dailai Lama), or the Pope (another head of state).
> Why should we be trying to determine who is good or who is bad?
> The simple way out of this quandry is to just let people criticize any leaders. But if posters start acting uncivilly toward each other as a result of those criticizms, THEN block or PBC them.
> warm regards, Jake
My feeling or view is that if we're going to have a politics board, it ought to be all right to criticize political leaders. That's such a huge part of the topic of "politics" that I can't really comprehend having political discussions if you can't do that.
I do think if people can't stand the heat, they shouldn't go to that board. I mean you don't have to go there if you can't bear hearing your leader criticized. Because you don't like political discussion, if it's that painful.
I guess I also am surprised that it's assumed that allegiance or love of a leader is thought to be such a matter of deep self-esteem or equilibrium. I can kind of understand the religion thing, because the emotions involved in religion are deeply personal. But political leaders?
I know the feelings can be intense, but it's not really a spiritual thing.
Also, given the way I feel about certain political leaders, I would feel just as offended to hear them praised as anyone could be to hear them criticized, so it seems pretty equivalent. The religion thing doesn't seem so equivalent, although even there, I could see an argument in the other direction.
Kim Jong Il may well be loved by many N. Koreans-- Bob's (or anyone's) idea that no one could support him may arise because we are too detached from the life of N Koreans to see it from their point of view. And there are those who deeply love Hitler and are supportive of his policies, even now, in the USA and other countries. So If you were really going to be entirely consistent, you really couldn't allow criticism of him, or Saddam, or Saddam's sons. Unless you go by some algorithm about likelihood of those people being above a certain percentage of Pbabble readers.
Then the algorithm would be something in Bob's head, which he couldn't reify for us, only exemplify in what he does or doesn't block over time--which is his method.
By the way Jake, you do communicate to others on Pbabble when you write to "Bob"-- even if he doesn't respond. And even if he doesn't respond, your comments might affect him--also even if he doesn't change his policy obviously. The algorithm might shift even without his knowing it.