![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 5 to 29 of 34. Go back in thread:
Posted by teejay on June 26, 2006, at 7:38:29
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Declan, posted by Dr. Bob on June 25, 2006, at 22:32:55
Sorry Dr Bob, I think your banning protocols are becomming more erratic and bizarre with each passing week.
I also see the politics board STILL appears to have more controls on freedom of speech than china!
See you soon declan.
Posted by llrrrpp on June 26, 2006, at 8:31:15
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks, posted by teejay on June 26, 2006, at 7:38:29
I'll miss you too Declan,
Enjoy your classical music and sushi.I don't even know who those guys are? politicians?
I wonder if you had substituted in the names of known alQaeda operatives for John Howard and such.
Well, Dr. Bob's blocks not completely logical. The human mind makes judgements based on broader context, some of which is explicit, and some of which is beyond conscious awareness. And we should be grateful for that. If all it took were logic, a computer could be programmed to perform Dr. Bob's role, and then we'd miss out on the "human touch"
Ciao,
-ll
Posted by wildcardII on June 26, 2006, at 10:45:01
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Declan, posted by Dr. Bob on June 25, 2006, at 22:32:55
~i took it as a definite compliment from Declan?!! I LOVE PENGUINS!!
Posted by gardenergirl on June 26, 2006, at 14:48:55
In reply to yikes, posted by wildcardII on June 26, 2006, at 10:45:01
I wondered if he meant Burgess Meredith or Danny Devito. I always thought there was a certain debonair quality to Burgess Meredith in that role, which could make it a bit of a compliment. But Danny Devito....ummmmm....yeah. His Penguin was scary.
I was surprised by this block, but then provincial ol' me doesn't even know who he was referring to. (A PM perhaps???)
gg
Posted by 10derHeart on June 26, 2006, at 17:30:02
In reply to Re: yikes, posted by gardenergirl on June 26, 2006, at 14:48:55
I had about the same thoughts about the two penguins that you did :-)
and yeah, John Howard is the PM of Australia.
Posted by Jakeman on June 27, 2006, at 21:46:41
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Declan, posted by Dr. Bob on June 25, 2006, at 22:32:55
> > I notice from the papers that John Howard is looking more and more like the Penguin from Batman.
>
> Please be sensitive to the feelings of others (such as supporters of John Howard).Dr. Bob does your ruling mean we can not be critical of any heads of state? China, Mexico, N.Korea, Cuba, etc.
Thanks in advance, Jake
Posted by teejay on June 27, 2006, at 21:54:21
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks- clarification needed plea » Dr. Bob, posted by Jakeman on June 27, 2006, at 21:46:41
I fear you are wasting your breath jakeman :-(
I made some derogatory remarks about saddams sons which were ignored despite the fact I drew ttention to them on numerous occasions.
Its clear to me now that you can say what you want about what the world as a whole considers evil men but on world leaders you better have nothing but praise to laud upon them!
Great to see a post of yours jakeman :-)
Posted by llrrrpp on June 27, 2006, at 22:17:48
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks- clarification needed plea, posted by teejay on June 27, 2006, at 21:54:21
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 likely to step on toes than by critiquing a political leader appointed by his father, or by God, or by guns, bloodshed, or bankrolls.
Just a though, why perhaps George w Bush gets the benefit of the doubt more than, say, Kim Jong Il. Although my reasoning fails miserably when it comes to the election of the popular Adolf Hitler, but that's a fault of the Weimar constitution, and beyond the scope of the current discussion on the nature of political correctness and it's implications for civility.
penguins are stinky. smell like rotten fish. but the movie March of the Penguins was awfully poignant. I don't see them as a negative or positive animal.
-ll
Posted by Jakeman on June 27, 2006, at 22:30:46
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks- clarification needed plea, posted by teejay on June 27, 2006, at 21:54:21
Glad to see your post too!
I need to stay off this board. But I just have this crazy idea about being logical. And the leaders I mentioned I don't all consider to be bad guys. That's not for me to say anyway. Yes I am wasting my breath. Or am I Dr. Bob?
Jake
> I fear you are wasting your breath jakeman :-(
>
> I made some derogatory remarks about saddams sons which were ignored despite the fact I drew ttention to them on numerous occasions.
>
> Its clear to me now that you can say what you want about what the world as a whole considers evil men but on world leaders you better have nothing but praise to laud upon them!
>
> Great to see a post of yours jakeman :-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2006, at 1:54:25
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks- clarification needed plea » teejay, posted by Jakeman on June 27, 2006, at 22:30:46
> Yes I am wasting my breath. Or am I Dr. Bob?
What do you think about the point that llrrrpp made above?
> > 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.
Bob
Posted by teejay on June 28, 2006, at 7:22:19
In reply to Re: clarification, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2006, at 1:54:25
> > Yes I am wasting my breath. Or am I Dr. Bob?
>
> What do you think about the point that llrrrpp made above?
>
> > > 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.
>
> Bob
Given the scandal surrounding GWB's election victory I think you are on pretty thin ice! ;-)
Posted by llrrrpp on June 28, 2006, at 7:36:33
In reply to Re: clarification, posted by teejay on June 28, 2006, at 7:22:19
Regardless of the scandal surrounding the majority and the electoral college system, one cannot deny that a lot of people voted for Bush.
In parliamentary systems it's even more complicated, because one votes for a party, with the understanding that the party will support a certain candidate. But regardless of whether the candidate wins or barely wins or barely loses, political leaders in democratic governments are leaders by vitue of having popular support. And popular support suggests that real people might take it personally if we criticize their decision to support a particular candidate.
I think that this is an important distinction, in terms of the application of civility. Criticizing a political leader (who is only one person, kind of like me criticizing my T, or my pdoc, or my unruly neighbor- getting some steam off, in the interests of getting some support from p-babble community) vs. criticizing the choices of people who support a political leader (for example a statement like: everyone who voted for ____ must be ___[insert uncivil word]). I'm not sure that the former is equivalent to the latter. It's possible to support a candidate for political office without thinking that everything they do is 100% golden and peachy.
To the extent that political figures make decisions which affect us personally, we DO need to have the opportunity to rant about them a bit, and it would be great if we could do so without offending the people who happened to vote for them in the last election.
-ll
Posted by AuntieMel on June 28, 2006, at 8:51:42
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks- clarification needed plea » teejay, posted by llrrrpp on June 27, 2006, at 22:17:48
"Although my reasoning fails miserably when it comes to the election of the popular Adolf Hitler"
Maybe it makes a difference if the leader is still alive???
or maybe I'm grasping at straws....
Posted by llrrrpp on June 28, 2006, at 9:22:08
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks- clarification needed plea » llrrrpp, posted by AuntieMel on June 28, 2006, at 8:51:42
AuntieMel writes:
> "Although my reasoning fails miserably when it comes to the election of the popular Adolf Hitler"
>
> Maybe it makes a difference if the leader is still alive???
>
> or maybe I'm grasping at straws....No, I think that's a good point, because in this case, the people who elected Adolf Hitler are mostly gone, so we needn't concern ourselves too much with offending them via critiquing their choice for the NAZI party to lead Germany.
Dr. Bob,
Am I getting close to understanding your reasoning? At psycho-babble we concern ourselves with incivility towards the common generic person, as well as specific psycho-babblers. So, when we say things like people who vote for ___ are ____, this is more likely to be considered uncivil than person X has done this bad thing, where person X is a political leader with widespread popular support. Is it possible to say bad things about person X without offending the populace who elected him or her? When would this be possible?For instance say that person X carries the brunt of responsibility for a policy that affects me personally, and i feel really bad about that decision, and I want to get some support from p-babble because I am hurting due to the policy enacted by person X.
Can I criticize person X?
Can I say that this policy is an example of person X's philosophy of ... and cite other historical evidence?
Can I evoke some personality characterisic of person X (i.e. s/he is racist) when trying to understand why person X has done this bad thing that affects me?
Do the answers to these questions depend on whether person X is currently vs. historically in a position of power?thanks for your attention,
I'm just trying to sort out this issue of what constitutes civil vs. less-than-civil discourse in political matters.yours,
-ll
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2006, at 11:56:56
In reply to Dr. Bob? political criticisms question, posted by llrrrpp on June 28, 2006, at 9:22:08
> Is it possible to say bad things about person X without offending the populace who elected him or her?
I'm not sure it is.
> For instance say that person X carries the brunt of responsibility for a policy that affects me personally, and i feel really bad about that decision, and I want to get some support from p-babble because I am hurting due to the policy enacted by person X.
What if you just said you were hurting due to that policy? Or, since it tends to be more constructive if you put things in terms of what could be better rather than what's "bad", if you suggested a better one?
Bob
Posted by llrrrpp on June 28, 2006, at 12:04:44
In reply to Re: saying bad things, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2006, at 11:56:56
> > Is it possible to say bad things about person X without offending the populace who elected him or her?
>
> I'm not sure it is.
>
> > For instance say that person X carries the brunt of responsibility for a policy that affects me personally, and i feel really bad about that decision, and I want to get some support from p-babble because I am hurting due to the policy enacted by person X.
>
> What if you just said you were hurting due to that policy? Or, since it tends to be more constructive if you put things in terms of what could be better rather than what's "bad", if you suggested a better one?
>
> BobOkay, I think I can handle this. Thanks, I'll just use my brother's blog to argue about political missteps and travesties, and stick to psycho stuff in this place. And thank you for your prompt reply :o)
-ll
Posted by Jakeman on June 28, 2006, at 20:14:42
In reply to Re: clarification, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2006, at 1:54:25
> > > 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?
>
> BobWell 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
Posted by teejay on June 28, 2006, at 20:37:41
In reply to Re: clarification » Dr. Bob, posted by Jakeman on June 28, 2006, at 20:14:42
On other boards there is a policy of 'play the ball not the man'. I'm not sure even that kind of policy exists here as DR Bob seems to deem it ok if you criticise a person he might consider bad (such as saddam or his sons) but doesnt deem it ok to criticise the war in iraq (despite the fact its playing the ball not the man) in case we upset the flag wavers who support GWB.
All far too messy for me which is why I dont post on the politics board anymore. Seems like others are taking similar action and voting with their feet.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2006, at 22:39:35
In reply to Re: clarification » Dr. Bob, posted by Jakeman on June 28, 2006, at 20:14:42
> Thanks, I'll just use my brother's blog to argue about political missteps and travesties
>
> llrrrppYou're welcome. Is your blog interactive? Could others use it, too? :-)
--
> 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.
>
> JakeWe're not trying to determine who's good, we're trying to determine what to consider sensitive to the feelings of others.
It's also simple just to support rather than criticize...
Bob
Posted by teejay on June 28, 2006, at 23:04:56
In reply to Re: clarification, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2006, at 22:39:35
> We're not trying to determine who's good, we're trying to determine what to consider sensitive to the feelings of others.
>
> It's also simple just to support rather than criticize...
>
> BobIf only that were true, if only that were true........
......anyway, I've had my fill of banging my head against the brick wall that is Dr Bobs sense of democracy and freedom of expression so I'll bid you all G'night.
TJ (who has finally learned what pi**ing in the wind is all about)
Posted by Jakeman on June 28, 2006, at 23:40:41
In reply to Re: clarification, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2006, at 22:39:35
> We're not trying to determine who's good, we're trying to determine what to consider sensitive to the feelings of others.
>
> It's also simple just to support rather than criticize...
>
> BobJHC! So the message I'm getting is to always be positive. Why not give people the opportunity to disagree?
To repeat, 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.
This discussion yet again has evolved into the dog chasing its tail. You may be right TJ.
Jake
Posted by Jakeman on June 28, 2006, at 23:47:31
In reply to Re: clarification » Dr. Bob, posted by Jakeman on June 28, 2006, at 23:40:41
I offered a possible solution but it's obvious that you are not receptive. So I won't waste my time on this discussion any more.
warm regards, Jake.
>
> JHC! So the message I'm getting is to always be positive. Why not give people the opportunity to disagree?
>
> To repeat, 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.
>
> This discussion yet again has evolved into the dog chasing its tail. You may be right TJ.
>
> Jake
Posted by AuntieMel on June 29, 2006, at 11:07:42
In reply to Re: clarification, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2006, at 22:39:35
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Jake
>
> We're not trying to determine who's good, we're trying to determine what to consider sensitive to the feelings of others.
>
> It's also simple just to support rather than criticize...
>
> BobSorry, Dr. Bob. I'm not trying to be obnoxious, its just that my 'logical' brain always needs to understand.
What would happen if I were to post a long missive on - say hitler, just to keep with prior examples - and say nothing but what a good leader he was and how much I support his thinking, etc, etc, blah, blah.
It's 'supportive', but don't you think it might upaset some people?
By what you just said, about not determining who is good and who is bad (or who is worthy of support) that hypothetical post would be ok.
That said, I bet there are also people present here who would be just as offended by a long post praising just about *anyone*. Except you, of course.
Again, I would think that - at least on a 'politics' board - critical things should be considered civil, as long as the critical things are about policies and actions and not about people.
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, JakeMy 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.
Jost
Posted by AuntieMel on June 29, 2006, at 13:06:33
In reply to Re: clarification, posted by Jost on June 29, 2006, at 11:55:40
Well, I still think we can limit it to being critical of policies, without saying anything about the leader him/herself.
It's just really difficult for some to get the language right and it sounds as if they are criticizing the person instead of the person's actions.
It's a subtle, but important distinction, I think. But I also feel that since it is so subtle that some more leeway should be given those who step over that line.
It's hard to do, really, to know when someone *means* the policy, even if that wasn't what was said.
Just as it's hard to do for some to get the nuances of the grammar correct to make that clear.
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.