Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 880382

Shown: posts 1 to 22 of 22. This is the beginning of the thread.

 

Civility

Posted by fayeroe on February 15, 2009, at 21:34:57

Why do we spend so damned much time on it?

 

Re: Civility » fayeroe

Posted by Sigismund on February 15, 2009, at 23:56:06

In reply to Civility, posted by fayeroe on February 15, 2009, at 21:34:57

We are allowed to be uncivil about Hitler, Stalin and (IIRC) Ceaucescu.

They must have no supporters here (or indeed any at all).

 

Correction

Posted by Sigismund on February 16, 2009, at 0:00:23

In reply to Re: Civility » fayeroe, posted by Sigismund on February 15, 2009, at 23:56:06

There are millions of people (though not on Babble) who support Stalin and would feel put down if he was.

Plenty for Mao Zedong too.

We need more non-native English speakers so as to make conversation on the Politics Board even more of a challenge.

 

Re: Correction

Posted by Sigismund on February 16, 2009, at 0:05:10

In reply to Correction, posted by Sigismund on February 16, 2009, at 0:00:23

Stalin, in his invasion of Poland, was responsible for the deaths of many people.

I can say that.

But we have to be careful not to attribute responsibility for the deaths in Iraq.

 

Re: Civility » fayeroe

Posted by SLS on February 16, 2009, at 7:29:23

In reply to Civility, posted by fayeroe on February 15, 2009, at 21:34:57

> Why do we spend so damned much time on it?

Rightly or wrongly, I think it is because we are denied freedom of speech here, and many people feel that they would like to express more of their thoughts and feelings than what they are allowed to. It is frustrating.

Many posters ask to be shown some detailed guideline to circumscribe the language allowed for the sake of understanding. Of course, it doesn't work that way. Language is just too big for such a prescription. Therefore, rulings of civility are made ad hoc and often seem unfair. I feel singled out sometimes when I am given a PBC, and sometimes when someone else is not. It is like receiving a slap on the wrist to be viewed around the world.

I remember how choked I felt when the civility thing was first implemented. I almost left.

Speech is a very personal thing. I would prefer if it were not judged and sanctioned by an authority. However, I know my capacity for incivility as it is defined here, and all in all, I think the restrictions have had a positive outcome.

I do sometimes lament my inability to take my tongue out for some exercise every now and then. Holding it has become an exercise in and of itself. I think I have learned more about an alternate use of language here that is often more effective than swinging a sharp object at people during a conflict of beliefs.


- Scott

 

Re: Correction » Sigismund

Posted by SLS on February 16, 2009, at 7:34:17

In reply to Re: Correction, posted by Sigismund on February 16, 2009, at 0:05:10

> Stalin, in his invasion of Poland, was responsible for the deaths of many people.
>
> I can say that.
>
> But we have to be careful not to attribute responsibility for the deaths in Iraq.


Confusing to say the least.

Is it possible that the judgment of civility on the Politics board is somewhat provincial because it is adjudicated by Americans?


- Scott

 

Re: Correction » SLS

Posted by SLS on February 16, 2009, at 7:43:38

In reply to Re: Correction » Sigismund, posted by SLS on February 16, 2009, at 7:34:17

> > Stalin, in his invasion of Poland, was responsible for the deaths of many people.
> >
> > I can say that.
> >
> > But we have to be careful not to attribute responsibility for the deaths in Iraq.

There has got to be some way of doing that. The English language is extremely versatile.

Is it okay to say that many Iraqis have been killed by American soldiers as directed by rules of engagement through a chain of command leading up to the Commander in Chief?

If it is not okay, then even facts must be prohibited in discussion. I don't go to the Politics board much, so I don't know if this is true about facts.

Generalizations are a different story altogether.


- Scott

 

Re: Correction

Posted by SLS on February 16, 2009, at 7:59:54

In reply to Re: Correction » SLS, posted by SLS on February 16, 2009, at 7:43:38

I can see how one type of fact can be squelched. I understand that it is uncivil to state the fact that a particular piece of literature exists and then point to it on the web or quote it or paraphrase it if the content is uncivil.


- Scott

 

Re: Civility

Posted by fayeroe on February 16, 2009, at 9:14:14

In reply to Re: Civility » fayeroe, posted by SLS on February 16, 2009, at 7:29:23

Hi, Scott.

I believe, as you do, that we don't have freedom of speech here. Sigh.

I am asking the question about civility as far as it pertains to every forum here.

I believe that if the PBCs were broken down forum by forum, we would see that Politics has had very few PBCs in it's history. And if we went one more step, we might see that they are generally given out concerning one subject.

We're pretty laid back on POlitics.

I feel that we spend much time gnawing bones and beating our chests over civility as it applies to most of the forums. (there is an Elvis song that talks about "little less talking" (all you Elvis fans will know this one) and ?????. :-)

Pat

p.s. thank you for the other posts. your self-disclosure is very important in this discussion. we can't talk about "civility" without talking about how much it applies to us. (obviously Sigismund and i have a dog in the hunt when it comes to the Politics board. we live on there. but and we both drift around to other forums and contribute..)

 

Re: Civility » Sigismund

Posted by fayeroe on February 16, 2009, at 9:20:10

In reply to Re: Civility » fayeroe, posted by Sigismund on February 15, 2009, at 23:56:06

> We are allowed to be uncivil about Hitler, Stalin and (IIRC) Ceaucescu.
>
> They must have no supporters here (or indeed any at all).

I know.....

I guess if there isn't a clear overview of the purpose of a board, then it is easier to worry about other's perceptions. And as someone stated, no one can fully understand how another individual feels.

My goal isn't to discuss Politics exclusively.

I'd like to know why we throw ourselves into the lengthy and windy threads about civility. It reminds me of the childhood game "dog pile". Someone started it and we couldn't be satisfied until we had all jumped into the action.

 

Re: Correction

Posted by fayeroe on February 16, 2009, at 9:25:11

In reply to Correction, posted by Sigismund on February 16, 2009, at 0:00:23

> There are millions of people (though not on Babble) who support Stalin and would feel put down if he was.
>
> Plenty for Mao Zedong too.
>
> We need more non-native English speakers so as to make conversation on the Politics Board even more of a challenge.

First, Sigismund is my friend. I feel that the threads are enriched by discussions about Australia and the United States. I learn from Sigismund every day.

It would be lovely if more people, from other cultures, joined in on the board.

 

Re: Correction » SLS

Posted by fayeroe on February 16, 2009, at 9:31:13

In reply to Re: Correction » Sigismund, posted by SLS on February 16, 2009, at 7:34:17

> > Stalin, in his invasion of Poland, was responsible for the deaths of many people.
> >
> > I can say that.
> >
> > But we have to be careful not to attribute responsibility for the deaths in Iraq.
>
>
> Confusing to say the least.
>
> Is it possible that the judgment of civility on the Politics board is somewhat provincial because it is adjudicated by Americans?
>
>
> - Scott

I am not sure I understand you.
>

 

Re: Correction » SLS

Posted by fayeroe on February 16, 2009, at 9:41:54

In reply to Re: Correction » SLS, posted by SLS on February 16, 2009, at 7:43:38

> > > Stalin, in his invasion of Poland, was responsible for the deaths of many people.
> > >
> > > I can say that.
> > >
> > > But we have to be careful not to attribute responsibility for the deaths in Iraq.
>
> There has got to be some way of doing that. The English language is extremely versatile.
>
> Is it okay to say that many Iraqis have been killed by American soldiers as directed by rules of engagement through a chain of command leading up to the Commander in Chief?

I doubt it. Maybe. The English language does provide leeway in any discussion. I wonder if someone who is excited about a discussion would be willing to work that hard. :-)
>
> If it is not okay, then even facts must be prohibited in discussion.

You nailed it.

And I've seen many a post on other boards where someone stated something as if it were carved in stone and got away with it. An example would be a person who goes to the Medication board and posts that "*&^%$" is a sorry drug. Would a PBC be issues because a drug salesman could feel hurt or whatever?

I don't go to the Politics board much, so I don't know if this is true about facts.

It isn't just Politics where someone's intentions are misunderstood and they received a PBC.


>
> Generalizations are a different story altogether.

Of course they are and they should be avoided.
>
>
> - Scott

 

Re: Correction » fayeroe

Posted by SLS on February 16, 2009, at 10:08:01

In reply to Re: Correction » SLS, posted by fayeroe on February 16, 2009, at 9:31:13

Hi Fay.

> > Is it possible that the judgment of civility on the Politics board is somewhat provincial because it is adjudicated by Americans?

> I am not sure I understand you.


I guess what I was trying to say is that perhaps statements involving America are more heavily scrutinized for the sake of protecting Americans. I was just asking a question, really. I don't know if it is in any way true.

After reading your posts here, I don't think I have a good idea as to what you folks over at Politics discuss.


- Scott

 

Re: Correction » SLS

Posted by fayeroe on February 16, 2009, at 11:14:02

In reply to Re: Correction » fayeroe, posted by SLS on February 16, 2009, at 10:08:01

> Hi Fay.
>
> > > Is it possible that the judgment of civility on the Politics board is somewhat provincial because it is adjudicated by Americans?
>
> > I am not sure I understand you.
>
>
> I guess what I was trying to say is that perhaps statements involving America are more heavily scrutinized for the sake of protecting Americans.

I don't know about that. If you are talking about administration, I would have to say no. I can definitely say that if we disparage any country, we're usually asked to be sensitive.

If we are talking about someone who lives outside of the United States, it can create problems with posters who live here. Sometimes those posts do get a PBS..


I was just asking a question, really. I don't know if it is in any way true.


>
> After reading your posts here, I don't think I have a good idea as to what you folks over at Politics discuss.

We discuss current events. We also work to understand how events in history could have anything to do with us now.

An example of a thread could be a comparison between leaders of other countries. For instance discussing Howard and Bush and their ways of handling their country's problems. Since we don't live in a fairytale world we have tried to talk about the pros and the cons of different styles of leadership. That can get sticky because we're posting the facts (such as a news link) and we get into trouble because we might be hurting someone who believes differently. It would be nice if we knew who those people are.

Really, I don't understand this sudden flare-up concerning the Politics Board. It could be due to the face that we don't have many posters over there.It could be pretty boring to some posters. :-) I guess that quantity over quality might be behind it. I really don't know.
>
>
> - Scott

 

Re: Correction » SLS

Posted by Sigismund on February 16, 2009, at 19:10:52

In reply to Re: Correction » Sigismund, posted by SLS on February 16, 2009, at 7:34:17

>Is it possible that the judgment of civility on the Politics board is somewhat provincial because it is adjudicated by Americans?

Perhaps also because Americans are most of Babble, and perhaps because the two party system tends to validate the contenders?

 

Re: Correction

Posted by Sigismund on February 16, 2009, at 19:14:23

In reply to Re: Correction » fayeroe, posted by SLS on February 16, 2009, at 10:08:01

Imagine if there were Russians (from Russia) on Babble.
Such interesting nuanced discussions of the Great Patriotic War, Stalin.
It would be great fun.
This is an appalling world, but is also fascinating and beautiful.

 

Re: Correction

Posted by Sigismund on February 16, 2009, at 19:21:57

In reply to Re: Correction » SLS, posted by fayeroe on February 16, 2009, at 11:14:02

For a taste of a non-American perspective let me quote my shrink of the time who, early after the towers went down, when there was doubt over bin Laden's involvement, said to me
'Well, he said he had nothing to do with it, and I think he's an honourable man',
a view which I imagine became more nuanced over the passage of time.
It is precisely the national differences here which are so interesting.
Different peoples do think differently, IMO, and it has been one of my chief pleasures here to see how that plays out.

 

Re: Correction

Posted by Sigismund on February 16, 2009, at 19:24:38

In reply to Re: Correction » SLS, posted by SLS on February 16, 2009, at 7:43:38

>Is it okay to say that many Iraqis have been killed by American soldiers as directed by rules of engagement through a chain of command leading up to the Commander in Chief?

If you can say that, you have got to Abu Ghraib.

It's the whole box and dice, isn't it?

 

Re: Correction » Sigismund

Posted by fayeroe on February 17, 2009, at 9:17:23

In reply to Re: Correction, posted by Sigismund on February 16, 2009, at 19:21:57

> For a taste of a non-American perspective let me quote my shrink of the time who, early after the towers went down, when there was doubt over bin Laden's involvement, said to me
> 'Well, he said he had nothing to do with it, and I think he's an honourable man',
> a view which I imagine became more nuanced over the passage of time.

I'm confused. Was your P talking about Bush or Bin Laden? (honourable)
> It is precisely the national differences here which are so interesting.
> Different peoples do think differently, IMO, and it has been one of my chief pleasures here to see how that plays out.

 

Re: Correction » fayeroe

Posted by Sigismund on February 17, 2009, at 16:45:35

In reply to Re: Correction » Sigismund, posted by fayeroe on February 17, 2009, at 9:17:23

He was talking about bin Laden, before it became known that bin Laden was definitely responsible, the point being that when your average person trusts the word of bin Laden over that of the President of the USA, something is seriously wrong.

 

Re: Correction » Sigismund

Posted by fayeroe on February 17, 2009, at 16:55:43

In reply to Re: Correction » fayeroe, posted by Sigismund on February 17, 2009, at 16:45:35

Gotcha. You betcha!

Pat


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | 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.