![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 23 to 47 of 90. Go back in thread:
Posted by cloudydaze on August 2, 2006, at 20:12:19
In reply to Re: a right to not like others » cloudydaze, posted by Dinah on August 2, 2006, at 16:15:46
> So you think he was trying to explain why he found a joke about DR BOB'S DEPUTIES being (insert term here) by saying it was because he found many moderators on sites totally unrelated to DR BOB's as having had honesty/integrity bypass as an effort to make sure he hadn't offended, say, DR BOB's DEPUTIES, by finding a joke that found DR BOB's DEPUTIES to engage in sexual acts with DR BOB.
***He obviously feels that some moderators have a tendency to try too hard at their job, or try to throw their weight around,(which I have seen on other sites - forgive me if i broke any rules by saying).
>> And that explaining that he has found moderators ELSEWHERE to be lacking in integrity and honesty, that's why he found the joke about DR BOB's DEPUTIES to be so funny?
>
> And that his purpose was to make sure that no one was offended by his finding that funny, he made sure to mention about the honesty and integrity.****He made sure to mention that the reason he found the deputy joke funny was because of the way he found SOME moderators can be. Are you saying that all moderators are great people? I don't believe that you know every single moderator on the face of the earth, do you? How can you vouch for their character?
>
> Is that what you're trying to say, not once, but repeating again?
>
> You believe that Capricorn holds DR BOB's DEPUTIES in nothing but the highest esteem, but found the joke about DR BOB''s DEPUTIES funny because of his feeelings about the integrity of moderators on totally unrelated sites?
>
>
>
>What I am saying is that there was NOTHING in capricorn's wording that said or even implied that DR BOB's DEPUTIES were blah blah blah..
For instance...someone might find a joke about...say, police oficers funny, but that doesn't mean he hates all police officers. Some people just hate the IDEA of authority figures for various reasons....they may or may not hate any particular police officers...
Capricorn has a right to his/her sense of humor. The fact that capricorn did not tell the joke is relevant. And, the fact that capricorn tried to explain himself/herself is relevant too. The fact that the wording wasn't the best is unfortuante, but I don't think it's grounds for a block.
Sorry.
Posted by cloudydaze on August 2, 2006, at 20:17:05
In reply to Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 2, 2006, at 17:09:18
> I apologize for my post to cloudydaze. I should have walked away again. And I will now.
>
> But I would like my clarifying post answered, if you don't mind.An apology isn't necessary :)
Again, would like to make sure you know I am not trying to hurt or offend you or anyone else. Trying to keep this a friendly as possible, while fulfilling my urges to be heard...
It's nothing personal, really. It's about policy.
Posted by ClearSkies on August 2, 2006, at 21:32:41
In reply to Re: Blocked for a week, posted by cloudydaze on August 2, 2006, at 16:03:33
> > >
> > > IMO The person only stated that they found the joke funny - a personal opinion, not meant to condone real violence of any sort. I've heard the same joke millions of time, with different people in it. It's more about sexual favors than violence. Crude as it may be, it's not meant to be taken seriously.
> >
> >
> > Well, personally, I find it offensive; I find your implication above offensive, and neither of them the least bit funny.
> > ClearSkies
> >
> >
>
> I am sorry you find it offensive. I am however curious as to why. You can babblemail me if you wish, or just choose not to answer, but I would like to know!
>Sure - it's just that I find jokes with sexual themes or innuendos to be inappropriate here at Babble. There are entire websites for jokes like that.
Posted by gardenergirl on August 2, 2006, at 22:50:27
In reply to Re: Suggesting violence against women is humorous?, posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 9:35:29
I cannot let this issue go without trying to express how I feel about the original post, subsequent posts, and this discussion. I’ve chosen to use what some, including myself, might consider crude language in order to be as clear and direct as I can be.
I felt deeply offended after reading the original post in this thread, particularly within the context of recent off-board communication (which I cannot share). I can say without hesitation that essentially I felt accused of being a c*cksucker—specifically, of being in a position where one might envision me performing that act on Dr. Bob. In unpacking my feelings about this, I find traces of humiliation, shame, and embarrassment in addition to anger and shock. Cognitively, I can delineate to myself what is and what is not “rational” and adaptive in my reaction, and this reframing serves to reduce the intensity of my emotional response to the post. But doing so does not negate the shock and anger, which comprise the bulk of my reaction.
I felt offended not only in response to the sexual overtones to the message, but also in response to the suggestion of violence. I was shocked and disturbed at the visual image I experienced when reading the post. I experienced renewed anger and outrage when reading that others found humorous what can be interpreted as a suggestion of violence against the deputies.
I support the section of the civility guidelines which asks that others not “treat injury or death lightly, [nor] suggest that others harm …themselves or others. I believe it adds to the perceived safety of this site, and that sense of safety facilitates the giving and receiving of support on the boards. I believe that all posters here deserve this respect, including deputies.
I understand and accept that volunteering as a deputy can increase the likelihood of hearing criticism and being disliked.
I cannot and will not accept abuse for having chosen to help out here. This is my boundary, and I will continue to work hard to maintain it.
Regards,
gg
Posted by cloudydaze on August 2, 2006, at 23:41:24
In reply to Re: Blocked for a week, posted by ClearSkies on August 2, 2006, at 21:32:41
> > > >
> > > > IMO The person only stated that they found the joke funny - a personal opinion, not meant to condone real violence of any sort. I've heard the same joke millions of time, with different people in it. It's more about sexual favors than violence. Crude as it may be, it's not meant to be taken seriously.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, personally, I find it offensive; I find your implication above offensive, and neither of them the least bit funny.
> > > ClearSkies
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I am sorry you find it offensive. I am however curious as to why. You can babblemail me if you wish, or just choose not to answer, but I would like to know!
> >
>
> Sure - it's just that I find jokes with sexual themes or innuendos to be inappropriate here at Babble. There are entire websites for jokes like that.maybe you misunderstood what i was trying to say...i didn't mean to say that i thought the telling of the joke was appropriate, just that I thought thinking it was funny wasn't a ban-able offense...
I understand the joke should not have been posted - i agree with that much!
Posted by cloudydaze on August 2, 2006, at 23:54:00
In reply to Suggesting violence--**trigger: crude**, posted by gardenergirl on August 2, 2006, at 22:50:27
> I cannot let this issue go without trying to express how I feel about the original post, subsequent posts, and this discussion. I’ve chosen to use what some, including myself, might consider crude language in order to be as clear and direct as I can be.
>
> I felt deeply offended after reading the original post in this thread, particularly within the context of recent off-board communication (which I cannot share). I can say without hesitation that essentially I felt accused of being a c*cksucker—specifically, of being in a position where one might envision me performing that act on Dr. Bob. In unpacking my feelings about this, I find traces of humiliation, shame, and embarrassment in addition to anger and shock. Cognitively, I can delineate to myself what is and what is not “rational” and adaptive in my reaction, and this reframing serves to reduce the intensity of my emotional response to the post. But doing so does not negate the shock and anger, which comprise the bulk of my reaction.
>
> I felt offended not only in response to the sexual overtones to the message, but also in response to the suggestion of violence. I was shocked and disturbed at the visual image I experienced when reading the post. I experienced renewed anger and outrage when reading that others found humorous what can be interpreted as a suggestion of violence against the deputies.
>
> I support the section of the civility guidelines which asks that others not “treat injury or death lightly, [nor] suggest that others harm …themselves or others. I believe it adds to the perceived safety of this site, and that sense of safety facilitates the giving and receiving of support on the boards. I believe that all posters here deserve this respect, including deputies.
>
> I understand and accept that volunteering as a deputy can increase the likelihood of hearing criticism and being disliked.
>
> I cannot and will not accept abuse for having chosen to help out here. This is my boundary, and I will continue to work hard to maintain it.
>
> Regards,
> gg
>Maybe I've heard that joke a million times before, so it did not phase me - I figured others knew what it meant too.
Once again, it's not supposed to be about violence - heck, it's not even REALLY about sexual stuff. It's just about someone's attitude towards authority. It's unfortunate that you took it another way.
I must be a brick wall of emotion, because very few things offend me. Yet, I am offended when people speak of hurting themselves or commiting suicide - to me this is the biggest form of treating death lightly - or rather treating life lightly...
Why is it okay and acceptable here to talk about hurting ourselves, but not ok to make a reference to violence toward others (esp since it was not meant to be serious)? Is hurting oneself more acceptable....why?
Posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 0:23:54
In reply to Re: Suggesting violence--**trigger: crude**, posted by cloudydaze on August 2, 2006, at 23:54:00
Hey.
I understand about finding it funny...
But I also understand about people feeling offended.
Especially given the sexual theme.
I don't feel very good (I feel disgusted in fact) when someone makes a sexual joke at my expense.
Some people are tougher. I used to have a girlfriend that would feel kinda flattered and she would get a kick out of it. But not me.
I guess the idea is that we should be careful to be sensitive to how other people are likely to feel in response to what we post.
I wonder whether the poster was intending to make a joke at the expense of the moderators / whether the poster was intending to make the moderators feel embarrassed... No way of knowing I guess... But I'm glad other posters aren't allowed to make that joke at my expense...
Posted by Declan on August 3, 2006, at 3:10:45
In reply to Re: a right to not like others » cloudydaze, posted by Dinah on August 2, 2006, at 16:15:46
Don't you think this is a beat-up? The joke wasn't funny, but by pretending it is we make a point about the deputies? Doesn't this make anyone feel tired? And then talking about violence against women. Which I shall bore you by saying I am against.
Declan
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2006, at 7:31:28
In reply to Re: a right to not like others, posted by cloudydaze on August 2, 2006, at 20:12:19
> So, this all about a bad choice of words?
That's all that we have here, so I take seriously which ones are chosen.
> Are you saying that all moderators are great people? I don't believe that you know every single moderator on the face of the earth, do you?
The issue isn't moderators everywhere, it's people here. Deputies and also people who just post here, but moderate elsewhere. You have a right to think some of them aren't great people, but not to post that. Your freedom of speech is limited here.
> someone might find a joke about...say, police oficers funny, but that doesn't mean he hates all police officers. Some people just hate the IDEA of authority figures for various reasons....
Whether or not someone hates all police officers, it might not be considered civil here to post a joke about them, since there might be police officers here who might feel accused or put down.
OTOH, it's fine to post that one just hates the idea of authority figures.
> He obviously feels that some moderators have a tendency to try too hard at their job, or try to throw their weight around,(which I have seen on other sites - forgive me if i broke any rules by saying).
Please don't jump to conclusions about others or post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2006, at 7:32:27
In reply to Just to clarify » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 2, 2006, at 16:21:25
> 1) Is it ok for Poster A to post "I don't like Poster B".
>
> 2) Is it ok for poster A to post "I don't like Deputy X".
>
> 3) Is it ok for Deputy X to post "I don't like Poster A".
>
> 4) Is it ok for Poster A to post "I don't like deputies" (as long as Poster A doesn't specify which ones).
>
> 5) Is it ok for Poster A to post "I don't like Social Board posters" (as long as Poster A doesn't specify which ones)
>
> 6) Is it ok for Poster A to post "I don't like posters who post that they eat cheese" as long as more than one poster has recently admitting to eating cheese?Deputies need to be able to take some heat, so I guess my feeling right now would be that 2 and 4 would be OK, while the rest wouldn't. Since they are, after all, I-statements. What do you think?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on August 3, 2006, at 8:24:36
In reply to Re: not liking deputies, posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2006, at 7:32:27
Deputies are also posters.
If 2 and 4 are ok, I think all of them should be ok.
I would hope I'd never use the option, since personally I think none are ok, and I'd hate to break my own personal code of honor.
But we're posters, Dr. Bob. We're helping you out because we care about Babble. But that doesn't make a separate standard fair or appropriate.
To me, deputies being able to take heat means we should be able to refrain from posting in kind. To me, it doesn't mean that we deserve abuse just because we volunteered to help you out in a mentally stressful position that is difficult enough as it is without knowing that you think we deserve a special lack of protection.
If it's not ok for Poster A to tell Poster B that they don't like them, I don't think it's ok for Poster A to tell Poster B (who just happens to also have answered your request for volunteers) that they don't like them.
It's not fair under any definition of the word that I know of.
Posted by gardenergirl on August 3, 2006, at 12:40:29
In reply to Re: not liking deputies » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 3, 2006, at 8:24:36
I agree, Dinah. I think that when you agree to become a deputy, you accept that the *liklihood* of negative and/or disparaging comments will increase. That's how I interpret "taking heat" while remaining civil. But I do not think that makes the behavior acceptable just because it's expected that it will happen.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on August 3, 2006, at 12:54:58
In reply to Re: Suggesting violence--**trigger: crude**, posted by cloudydaze on August 2, 2006, at 23:54:00
> Once again, it's not supposed to be about violence - heck, it's not even REALLY about sexual stuff. It's just about someone's attitude towards authority. It's unfortunate that you took it another way.
I recognized the joke and understood very well what it was about from the very beginning. But words matter. And choosing a behavior in the light of a feeling and belief matters.
You wrote that it's "unfortunate" that I took the joke as I did. I have to ask--unfortunate for whom? I feel quite fortunate whenever I experience an authentic feeling and feel confident enough to express it when I choose to.
> Why is it okay and acceptable here to talk about hurting ourselves, but not ok to make a reference to violence toward others (esp since it was not meant to be serious)? Is hurting oneself more acceptable....why?
Here's how I view it. The former is an inward, self-contained behavior or urge that does not infringe on anyone else's rights or safety. The latter is an outward behavior directed towards others. It does infringe on others rights and safety regardless of whether it's a serious threat or not.
gg
Posted by henrietta on August 3, 2006, at 15:23:48
In reply to Re: Suggesting violence--**trigger: crude** » cloudydaze, posted by gardenergirl on August 3, 2006, at 12:54:58
I'll be kicking myself later for posting, but I can't help but comment again on one of the main reasons I find this site upsetting: inconsistency.
Back on February 6 Bobby told a "joke" about planting mines along the border. I was (I think) the only person who protested the "joke", and several others made comments that indicated they seemed to find the joke acceptable. Suggesting violence, mutilation, and death (the inevitable consequences of minefields) in that case passed without censure because, as it was kindly explained to me, it was a JOKE. Can someone explain that to me?
Posted by Deneb on August 3, 2006, at 17:48:52
In reply to Suggesting violence--**trigger: crude**, posted by gardenergirl on August 2, 2006, at 22:50:27
Wow, I must be really dumb or really innocent because I didn't get that joke at all! It left me confused.
Deneb*
Posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 18:39:44
In reply to Re: not liking deputies » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 3, 2006, at 8:24:36
I don't think he said that deputies deserve abuse...
Posted by Dinah on August 3, 2006, at 19:06:42
In reply to Re: not liking deputies, posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 18:39:44
ok then, incivility.
I think if something is uncivil if said to you, it's also uncivil if said to me.
I don't think that's unreasonable, and I'm rather perplexed and disheartened that Dr. Bob would believe otherwise.
But perhaps not overly surprised.
Posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 19:25:17
In reply to Re: not liking deputies » Estella, posted by Dinah on August 3, 2006, at 19:06:42
> ok then, incivility.
I don't think he said that deputies deserve incivility either.
Maybe distinguish between... Uncivil behaviour and admin action?
Bob puts up with more incivilities directed his way than incivilities direceted towards other posters.
Do you think that helps or harms the boards?
What are some of the benefits of his doing that?(Oh I've meaning to ask...
Civil / Incivil? / Uncivil?
It is incivil... Isn't it?)
Posted by Declan on August 3, 2006, at 19:32:16
In reply to Re: inconsistencies, posted by henrietta on August 3, 2006, at 15:23:48
IMO humour always(?) involves transgression. I'm all in favour of humour, cruel though it is. I don't understand why we laugh, but isn't it because we see through something into something else? Then there are 'jokes' that are simply provocations. This thread has been much funnier than the original joke. Everyone coming here, lining up, for this. But that's just personal...I can't stand conflict.
Declan
Posted by Declan on August 3, 2006, at 19:33:24
In reply to Re: Suggesting violence--**trigger: crude**, posted by Deneb on August 3, 2006, at 17:48:52
Oh Sweetie, good on you. That's much funnier than the joke was.
Posted by henrietta on August 3, 2006, at 19:40:46
In reply to Re: not liking deputies » Estella, posted by Dinah on August 3, 2006, at 19:06:42
A Meditation, John Donne, that powerfully affected me as a child, and still resonates. Google the subject line, you'll get the meat.
Present policies seem to suggest that it is more offensive to make violent jokes about moderaters than to make violent jokes about impoverished families risking their lives to provide their children with any life at all.
Present policies seem to suggest that babble moderators are more valuable humans than impoverished humans from the south who seek a better life for their families. Not even a "please be sensitive" to Mr. Bobby.....
I admire those who avoid the temptation to see unfairness and favoritism and elitism and smug self-satisfaction.
Now, that's a positive note to end on, eh? before what I hope is a lifetime block.
And "inconsistency" was a cowardly word. I meant: unfairness, injustice, elitist smugness, and any other string of words the thesaurus can provide .
Posted by henrietta on August 3, 2006, at 19:45:58
In reply to Jokes, posted by Declan on August 3, 2006, at 19:32:16
well and good. then apply it equally. a hostile joke against one is a hostile joke against all, and should either be permitted or not.
Posted by Jost on August 3, 2006, at 20:18:44
In reply to Re: not liking deputies, posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2006, at 7:32:27
> > 1) Is it ok for Poster A to post "I don't like Poster B".
> >
> > 2) Is it ok for poster A to post "I don't like Deputy X".
> >
> > 3) Is it ok for Deputy X to post "I don't like Poster A".
> >
> > 4) Is it ok for Poster A to post "I don't like deputies" (as long as Poster A doesn't specify which ones).
> >
> > 5) Is it ok for Poster A to post "I don't like Social Board posters" (as long as Poster A doesn't specify which ones)
> >
> > 6) Is it ok for Poster A to post "I don't like posters who post that they eat cheese" as long as more than one poster has recently admitting to eating cheese?
>
"> Deputies need to be able to take some heat, so I guess my feeling right now would be that 2 and 4 would be OK, while the rest wouldn't. Since they are, after all, I-statements. What do you think?
>
> BobJust taking (what I think is) Bob's attempt to capture the rules in terms of logic (which I don't really think works--but that's me), I'd ask:
what's the distinction between Propositions 2 and 4 and the others?
On one level, all six statements have the form,
"I don't like person(s) x."
On the other hand, the person(s) designated in 2 and 4 is (are) a Deputy.
So you have,
1. "I don't like person x, who is a deputy." and
2. "I don't like deputies."
I see some difference between #2 here (which is #4 in the original list) and 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, since it could potentially be making a more abstract point, ie that I don't like authority figures (or making some protest against authority). The person would be personifying the idea of Power (presumably abused power, which is often what people mean when they say Power), or Authoritanianism in the word "deputies."
The other category words (posters on the social board and posters who eat cheese, when someone has talked about eating cheese) seem to define groups of people who, in fact, do things here. They refer more to specific people than to an idea --so I don't include them separately.
So at one level, only one type of meaning for No. 4 doesn't seem quite the same as all the others, and seems to qualify for different consideration from that perspective.
....
I'd like to add that I personally wouldn't reject the idea that attacks on (or personal statements criticizing) the deputies were acceptable, within limits. This could be within Bob's idea of "taking some heat." That would be because the deputies have power, and are secure in their roles, acceptance, respect, and personas on the board. Beyond certain limits, though, it would be unacceptable.If I were a deputy, I would give posters much more latitude for making personal statements against my actions or even myself, because of that position.
But if the deputies are uncomfortable with that, their feelings matter. I don't think it's necessarily a matter of fundamental fairness, though, because of the power and position differences. It's more a practical thing right now.
I generally don't like absolute bright-line rules, because the meanings of situations are so context-dependent, and I prefer there to be lots of room for judgments that respond to that. But again, that's me and I'm not a deputy.
(Sorry this is so long and hard to follow.)
Jost
Posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 20:36:17
In reply to Re: not liking deputies, posted by Jost on August 3, 2006, at 20:18:44
> IMO humour always(?) involves transgression.
I don't think it always does...
But it is true that it is much easier to laugh *at* some group of people or other than it is to come up with jokes that aren't at the expense of a person / a group of people...Humour is an interesting topic...
There has been quite a lot written on it in psychology...
Posted by Dinah on August 3, 2006, at 21:19:01
In reply to Re: incivilities and deputies » Dinah, posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 19:25:17
We aren't Dr. Bob.
It's a different role. We're posters first. We interact with other posters. We see ourselves as one of the group of Babblers, which makes us more vulnerable to incivilities from the group we consider ourself part of.
Dr. Bob has a purely administrative role.
We don't.
I liked it better when the escalating situation provision was in place. I volunteered to be a deputy. I have never wanted to be a moderator.
Yeah, it does hurt when fellow Babblers say they don't like me. Especially the ones I haven't shielded myself from, based on prior experience. It hurts that I know I can't really be myself here because what I post may be used against me and many people, not all, hold me to a different standard. I feel increasingly estranged.
If Dr. Bob wants deputies from among group members, as opposed to hiring professionals, I think he ought to extend the protection offered to the rest of the group to deputies as well.
There are inherent risks in volunteering. I don't think he needs to add to our feelings of hurt by refusing to extend the same protection given to other group members to us.
I think "I don't like Dinah" should be treated the same as "I don't like Estella". It hurts me that Dr. Bob and at least some posters apparently don't think so.
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.