![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 51 to 75 of 89. Go back in thread:
Posted by sigismund on July 24, 2010, at 17:11:10
In reply to Re: the system here » Dr. Bob, posted by chujoe on July 23, 2010, at 6:09:38
>or B) that the definition of civility in use at Psychobabble is philosophically empty.
Either of course, but the above is interesting.
You don't have any more you want to say about that?
Posted by chujoe on July 25, 2010, at 5:51:44
In reply to Re: the system here » chujoe, posted by sigismund on July 24, 2010, at 17:11:10
Sig, I've talked about it before in other threads on this board, but in brief what I mean by "philosophically empty" is that "civility" at Psychobabble is enforced by a form of coercion that cloaks itself in the language of personal responsibility while denying the possibility of responsibility by enforcing what is really a language code, not an ethics. This system is, also, inherently arbitrary. Finally, limiting discussion of controversial issues to "I statements" that describe one's feelings rather than on'e knowledge (knowledge being infinitely and superficially relative) means that argument in any real sense is impossible.
Posted by fayeroe on July 25, 2010, at 13:11:50
In reply to Re: the system here » sigismund, posted by chujoe on July 25, 2010, at 5:51:44
> Sig, I've talked about it before in other threads on this board, but in brief what I mean by "philosophically empty" is that "civility" at Psychobabble is enforced by a form of coercion that cloaks itself in the language of personal responsibility while denying the possibility of responsibility by enforcing what is really a language code, not an ethics. This system is, also, inherently arbitrary. Finally, limiting discussion of controversial issues to "I statements" that describe one's feelings rather than on'e knowledge (knowledge being infinitely and superficially relative) means that argument in any real sense is impossible.
Chujoe, the Politics board was allowed to flourish and grow for a few years. No one paid us any attention and we had these fantastic conversations every day. I can't tell you how the beginning of the end came about without being uncivil but my take on it was that it was discovered that we were actually talking about ideas instead of feelings. Suddenly the PBCs started flying left and right.
Gradually the lifeblood was squeezed out of it and it became a place where you could not express a thought if it was the slightest bit negative towards a policy, a war, national spending, any other country..you get the idea.
The Politics board was a wonderful ride for a few years. We loved it dearly, like you would love a really smart kid.
The board got loaded onto the "civility" bandwagon and it dried us up.We had gone for ages without a PBC.
I do remember the one time that it did get very "uncivil" on the board. It came about due to the presence of someone who had very extreme ideas about separation of state and religion. Now watch someone go into archives to try and prove we were awful. I'll probably get censored for what I just typed. I'm sitting here trying to word this without a PBC and that is what I hate!!
I think you would have enjoyed the "coffee shop" atmosphere on the board. The ideas would flow and we could keep something going for hours at a time.
Posted by violette on July 25, 2010, at 13:20:30
In reply to Re: the system here » chujoe, posted by fayeroe on July 25, 2010, at 13:11:50
"I can't tell you how the beginning of the end came about without being uncivil but my take on it was that it was discovered that we were actually talking about ideas instead of feelings. Suddenly the PBCs started flying left and right."
What were you thinking talking about ideas instead of feelings???? (LMAO)
"The war is unjust" = "I feel the war is unjust"
"I do not like broccoli" = "I do not feel that broccoli tastes good"
Some added humor for my day, thanks. :)
Posted by fayeroe on July 25, 2010, at 13:32:06
In reply to Re: the system here » fayeroe, posted by violette on July 25, 2010, at 13:20:30
> "I can't tell you how the beginning of the end came about without being uncivil but my take on it was that it was discovered that we were actually talking about ideas instead of feelings. Suddenly the PBCs started flying left and right."
>
> What were you thinking talking about ideas instead of feelings???? (LMAO)
>
> "The war is unjust" = "I feel the war is unjust"
>
> "I do not like broccoli" = "I do not feel that broccoli tastes good"
>
> Some added humor for my day, thanks. :)I think someone actually said "I do not like Bush". :-)
Posted by violette on July 25, 2010, at 13:44:13
In reply to Re: the system here » violette, posted by fayeroe on July 25, 2010, at 13:32:06
> I think someone actually said "I do not like Bush".
How could you rephrase that and still keep the meaning of your message?
"I do not think Bush was an effective President"
or "I do not agree with Bush's policies"are not the same thing.
The only way I could think to rephrase that would be to state:
"I do not agree with Bush's beliefs, character, policies, decisions, family attitudes, the clothes he wears, the way he looks, or the way he talks....etc. etc."
Seems to make sense to say "I don't like Bush"
I am not even being serious as this just seems entertaining to me...I understand this is very disppointing to you and not funny in that aspect..but w/o the ability to do anything about the situation, sometimes I just laugh at it.
Posted by fayeroe on July 25, 2010, at 14:00:08
In reply to Re: the system here » fayeroe, posted by violette on July 25, 2010, at 13:44:13
> > I think someone actually said "I do not like Bush".
>
> How could you rephrase that and still keep the meaning of your message?
>
> "I do not think Bush was an effective President"
> or "I do not agree with Bush's policies"
>
> are not the same thing.
>
> The only way I could think to rephrase that would be to state:
>
> "I do not agree with Bush's beliefs, character, policies, decisions, family attitudes, the clothes he wears, the way he looks, or the way he talks....etc. etc."
>
> Seems to make sense to say "I don't like Bush"
>
> I am not even being serious as this just seems entertaining to me...I understand this is very disppointing to you and not funny in that aspect..but w/o the ability to do anything about the situation, sometimes I just laugh at it.We tried to stay under the radar after we were "admonished" but it was difficult. It is hard to talk about "ideas" without injecting something personal into it.
How about "I am offended by Bush's ignorance and his cheer leading background"? That would get me into trouble because someone here might love his lack of education AND his "Herkie" jumps. That is what I would be told when I got my PBC. I certainly didn't have a problem with someone saying they didn't like someone on the left. But.....the big dog snapped and we all rolled over and played dead. We learned to never look directly into it's eyes as that is a sure sign of feeling equal and will bring about an attack sooner than later.
For the many cheer leading aficionados here, I have information on the Herkie jump. :-)
Definition: A cheerleading jump where one leg (usually your weakest) is bent towards the ground and your other leg (usually your strongest) is out to the side as high as it will go in the toe touch position. This jump is very similar to the Side Hurdler except for the position of the bent leg. There are right Herkies and left Herkies. In a right Herkie your right leg is straight with your left leg bent and the opposite is true for a left Herkie. Sometimes called a hurkie. Named after Lawrence "Herkie" Herkimer.
Posted by Dinah on July 25, 2010, at 21:21:01
In reply to Re: the system here » chujoe, posted by fayeroe on July 25, 2010, at 13:11:50
As I recall, that idyll lasted only until someone with differing political beliefs came along.
I imagine it can be very peaceful to discuss politics as long as everyone agrees on the fundamentals. Maybe it's impossible on a place like Babble where Dr. Bob asks that we be sensitive to the feelings of posters of every political persuasion. I believe the Faith board suffers from the same tension.I know the board was important to you, and I'm sorry you are still distressed by its changing. Would it be impossible to reform the group somewhere where all would agree to agree on the fundamentals?
Posted by fayeroe on July 25, 2010, at 22:07:56
In reply to Re: the system here » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 25, 2010, at 21:21:01
> As I recall, that idyll lasted only until someone with differing political beliefs came along.
I recall that the problem was in the manner the opposite viewpoint was presented. Name calling commenced and very angry words were posted and since we had never had anything like happen before, we were understandably defensive. I don't think that any of us acted like the person with the opposing views.
Criticizing someone's choices doesn't work.
I also recall that no one from administration stepped in
when we really needed help. I thought that administration applied to all boards. That entire episode could have been prevented if someone had been watching the board.After that, as far as I am concerned, it was full-blown overkill. We could not talk about ideas after that.
> I imagine it can be very peaceful to discuss politics as long as everyone agrees on the fundamentals. Maybe it's impossible on a place like Babble where Dr. Bob asks that we be sensitive to the feelings of posters of every political persuasion. I believe the Faith board suffers from the same tension.
A person can be a member of the "purple party" as far as I am concerned. But don't try to ram it down my throat in a angry and arrogant manner. The majority of the board members were liberal but we weren't trying to convert anyone. You can't have politics without at least two differing parties and that means differences and no one had fought about that before. Suddenly we felt that we were expected to be of one mind.
>
> I know the board was important to you, and I'm sorry you are still distressed by its changing. Would it be impossible to reform the group somewhere where all would agree to agree on the fundamentals?Thank you, Dinah, for discussing this with me. I do feel very sad about the board and what we don't have now.
I don't know where we could reform the group. This has been home for us for a long, long time.
Posted by Dinah on July 25, 2010, at 23:16:01
In reply to Re: the system here » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on July 25, 2010, at 22:07:56
I think we remember the same facts, but different stories. I think that's probably perfectly normal when two people are remembering the same events.
Might it be worthwhile to try? Babble's never been the ideal place to discuss politics. Which isn't to say I want you to go elsewhere for all your posting needs! More that I hate to see you missing something you loved, and wish you could have both.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2010, at 0:47:06
In reply to Re: the system here » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on July 25, 2010, at 22:07:56
> > Not many posters try to help other posters stay civil
>
> That might be because most posters do not think A) that a person has actually been uncivil, or B) that the definition of civility in use at Psychobabble is philosophically empty.
>
> chujoeSure, a poster could think A or B. But because of that they would let their friend be blocked?
--
> "civility" at Psychobabble is enforced by a form of coercion that cloaks itself in the language of personal responsibility while denying the possibility of responsibility by enforcing what is really a language code, not an ethics. This system is, also, inherently arbitrary. Finally, limiting discussion of controversial issues to "I statements" that describe one's feelings rather than on'e knowledge (knowledge being infinitely and superficially relative) means that argument in any real sense is impossible.
>
> chujoeI think language is important, and I see people as personally responsible for the language they choose to use. If you'd like to propose an alternative view of civility that you wouldn't consider arbitrary, and a system of enforcement that you wouldn't consider coercive, I'd be interested. It's fine to share many types of knowledge. The goal here is support and education, not argument.
--
> it became a place where you could not express a thought if it was the slightest bit negative
> Criticizing someone's choices doesn't work.
Exactly. :-)
> We could not talk about ideas after that.
>
> Suddenly we felt that we were expected to be of one mind.
>
> fayeroeIn fact, the assumption is that everyone won't be of one mind, and the expectation is that you respect those of other minds. Instead of being negative about ideas you want to criticize, just be positive about alternative ideas you support. And see if you get blocked. :-)
The desire to be negative reminds me of the Faceful of Cat Effect.
Bob
Posted by chujoe on July 26, 2010, at 7:33:29
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2010, at 0:47:06
I think language is very important, too. I'm a writer, after all. But because it is so important, as well as ambiguous in about fifty different ways, it is not amenable to rules that specify how one is allowed to speak. If I were going to propose an ethics of posting at Psychobabble, it would involve, at least, two features: 1) No ad hominem attacks; 2) The requirement that one post in good faith. The second requirement is harder to evaluate and moderate than the first, but not impossible. One would be considered to be posting in good faith by: A) observing the rule against ad hominem attacks, B) honestly trying to advance the discussion / argument toward greater understanding (this would include the current ban on wild over-generalizations), & C) being explicit when something someone posts pushes your buttons. In regard to this last point, one might say, for example, "That statement makes me angry," or "I can't help taking that statement personally," or even, perhaps, "I think that statement calls for an apology." (I'm uncertain about this last example.) Any of these responses gives the person addressed an opportunity to respond in a number of ways: With silence, which, while not ideal, would be considered acceptable; with clarification or apology, which would be the ideal; or with a screw-you statement, which would be evidence of bad faith. Finally, we might all try to be careful to be explicit when we are using sarcasm, irony, or other forms of expression that don't translate well from speech to print.
As an example of the sort of good faith discussion of a difficult subject, I'd point to the recent "toxic crap" thread on the Medication board. I think everyone behaved admirably there & I include Link's "I don't give a crap . . ." statement.
Posted by fayeroe on July 26, 2010, at 11:11:23
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2010, at 0:47:06
> > > Not many posters try to help other posters stay civil
> >
> > That might be because most posters do not think A) that a person has actually been uncivil, or B) that the definition of civility in use at Psychobabble is philosophically empty.
> >
> > chujoe
>
> Sure, a poster could think A or B. But because of that they would let their friend be blocked?
>
> --
>
> > "civility" at Psychobabble is enforced by a form of coercion that cloaks itself in the language of personal responsibility while denying the possibility of responsibility by enforcing what is really a language code, not an ethics. This system is, also, inherently arbitrary. Finally, limiting discussion of controversial issues to "I statements" that describe one's feelings rather than on'e knowledge (knowledge being infinitely and superficially relative) means that argument in any real sense is impossible.
> >
> > chujoe
>
> I think language is important, and I see people as personally responsible for the language they choose to use. If you'd like to propose an alternative view of civility that you wouldn't consider arbitrary, and a system of enforcement that you wouldn't consider coercive, I'd be interested. It's fine to share many types of knowledge. The goal here is support and education, not argument.
>
> --
>
> > it became a place where you could not express a thought if it was the slightest bit negative
>
> > Criticizing someone's choices doesn't work.
>
> Exactly. :-)
>
> > We could not talk about ideas after that.
> >
> > Suddenly we felt that we were expected to be of one mind.
> >
> > fayeroe
>
> In fact, the assumption is that everyone won't be of one mind, and the expectation is that you respect those of other minds. Instead of being negative about ideas you want to criticize, just be positive about alternative ideas you support. And see if you get blocked. :-)
>
> The desire to be negative reminds me of the Faceful of Cat Effect.
>
> Bob1. I did not say that I wanted to be negative about anyone's comments or ideas and I am offended that you think I wanted that. I do not have a desire to be negative.
2.I am offended when you read a post and take out what you want to and then admonish a poster for that one sentence. I feel offended when anyone's statement is taken out of context and used against them.
3. I am so very sorry that I said what I said about that poster. I hope her feelings weren't hurt.
4. Bob, I really hope your feelings weren't hurt.
5. I want to speak to the idea that the posters have to help someone keep from being blocked. I am responsible for what I say here. Poster A is responsible for what she says. I hardly ever see poster A post and I have no idea who she is. I do not like being told that she will get blocked/PBC if I don't help her. Not jumping in doesn't mean (as you say repeatedly) that I don't care if she is blocked. I am offended by your statement. I wish you would quit using it because it feels like manipulation to me.
Nothing came up after your post earlier and I answered it and it says something about "answering post" in the subject line.
"Instead of being negative about ideas you want to criticize, "just be positive about alternative ideas you support." And see if you get blocked. :-)"
The discussion is about torture.
""just be positive about alternative ideas you support."
Can you show us what you would say?
Posted by PartlyCloudy on July 26, 2010, at 11:15:31
In reply to Re: the system here » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on July 26, 2010, at 11:11:23
I'm interested in seeing Bob's response.
btw
It feels very liberating to refer to the administrator of this site as Bob as opposed to Dr. Bob; I do this purposefully. It definitely is more appropriate for me to do so.
PartlyCloudy
Posted by violette on July 26, 2010, at 12:25:36
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2010, at 0:47:06
> "Instead of being negative about ideas you want to criticize, just be positive about alternative ideas you support. And see if you get blocked."
If support is a goal of the forum, then a poster who is 'being negative' about ideas through a critical post with the purpose of promoting a supportive environment, is, in fact, being positive.
Posted by fayeroe on July 26, 2010, at 13:08:18
In reply to negative posts about ideas, posted by violette on July 26, 2010, at 12:25:36
I feel that I could not have said it better, Violette!! Thank you!
Posted by fayeroe on July 26, 2010, at 13:14:03
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2010, at 0:47:06
Bob, what DOES a face full of cat feel like? Is it furry? Is it warm? Do you hear a purr? Do you feel claws? Does it land on it's feet on your face like the urban legions says it can? Do you get fur in your mouth? Does the cat dander cause you any sneezing, itching, twitching and headaches? Do you have to have a professional remove said cat from your face?
Do you like it?
Posted by fayeroe on July 26, 2010, at 13:18:39
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2010, at 0:47:06
Bob, is there anything else I need to say or apologize for? I've posted two heartfelt messages but I may have missed a threat to "block again" that is hidden away somewhere.
I need to go grocery shopping and I don't want to leave if I've overlooked the possibility of another apology or a speech.
Posted by sigismund on July 26, 2010, at 15:25:12
In reply to Re: the system here » sigismund, posted by chujoe on July 25, 2010, at 5:51:44
>Sig, I've talked about it before in other threads on this board, but in brief what I mean by "philosophically empty" is that "civility" at Psychobabble is enforced by a form of coercion that cloaks itself in the language of personal responsibility while denying the possibility of responsibility by enforcing what is really a language code, not an ethics. This system is, also, inherently arbitrary. Finally, limiting discussion of controversial issues to "I statements" that describe one's feelings rather than on'e knowledge (knowledge being infinitely and superficially relative) means that argument in any real sense is impossible.
I've never been very impressed by civility as such. I prefer friendliness, which you can't legislate for. The effect of the manners which the civility rules encourage is to make me feel at home in a situation in which I read meaning into people's posts. With people I know I most often feel I know how they are feeling, so naturally it feels quite paranoid.
Thanks
Posted by sigismund on July 26, 2010, at 15:27:27
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2010, at 0:47:06
>The desire to be negative reminds me of the Faceful of Cat Effect.
Back to the cat.
Posted by fayeroe on July 26, 2010, at 15:34:54
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by sigismund on July 26, 2010, at 15:27:27
> >The desire to be negative reminds me of the Faceful of Cat Effect.
>
> Back to the cat.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100714/msgs/955990.html:-)
Posted by fayeroe on July 26, 2010, at 15:36:40
In reply to Re: the system here » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on July 26, 2010, at 13:14:03
Urban legion should be urban legends.
Posted by chujoe on July 26, 2010, at 20:34:30
In reply to Re: the system here » violette, posted by fayeroe on July 25, 2010, at 13:32:06
I still hate Nixon and he's been dead for 20 years. Is that uncivil of me?
Posted by fayeroe on July 26, 2010, at 21:32:54
In reply to Re: the system here » fayeroe, posted by chujoe on July 26, 2010, at 20:34:30
> I still hate Nixon and he's been dead for 20 years. Is that uncivil of me?
I don't know what the rules are on dead Presidents but if it is uncivil, both of us can wait for our PBC!
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 27, 2010, at 0:24:40
In reply to Re: the system here » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on July 26, 2010, at 11:11:23
> If I were going to propose an ethics of posting at Psychobabble, it would involve, at least, two features: 1) No ad hominem attacks; 2) The requirement that one post in good faith. ... One would be considered to be posting in good faith by: A) observing the rule against ad hominem attacks, B) honestly trying to advance the discussion / argument toward greater understanding (this would include the current ban on wild over-generalizations), & C) being explicit when something someone posts pushes your buttons. In regard to this last point, one might say, for example, "That statement makes me angry," or "I can't help taking that statement personally," or even, perhaps, "I think that statement calls for an apology." (I'm uncertain about this last example.) Any of these responses gives the person addressed an opportunity to respond in a number of ways: With silence, which, while not ideal, would be considered acceptable; with clarification or apology, which would be the ideal; or with a screw-you statement, which would be evidence of bad faith. Finally, we might all try to be careful to be explicit when we are using sarcasm, irony, or other forms of expression that don't translate well from speech to print.
Thanks for offering an alternative. I agree with your principles. Maybe an alternative to that last example might be:
> > I'd appreciate an apology.
> As an example of the sort of good faith discussion of a difficult subject, I'd point to the recent "toxic crap" thread on the Medication board. I think everyone behaved admirably there & I include Link's "I don't give a crap . . ." statement.
>
> chujoeI think that's been a good discussion, too. You wouldn't consider "I don't give a crap what you think" a screw-you statement?
--
> 5. I want to speak to the idea that the posters have to help someone keep from being blocked. I am responsible for what I say here. Poster A is responsible for what she says. I hardly ever see poster A post and I have no idea who she is. I do not like being told that she will get blocked/PBC if I don't help her. Not jumping in doesn't mean (as you say repeatedly) that I don't care if she is blocked.
No one *has* to help anyone else keep from being blocked. I haven't meant to imply that not jumping in means not caring. I do think it would feel more supportive here if people did try to help each other in this way. People are more likely to help friends than strangers, but it's nice to help strangers, too.
> > Instead of being negative about ideas you want to criticize, just be positive about alternative ideas you support.
>
> The discussion is about torture.
>
> Can you show us what you would say?
>
> fayeroeOne possibility might be:
> > I believe people are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. I believe they should at all times be humanely treated and protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. I believe women should be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. I believe all people should be treated with the same consideration, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion.
Bob
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.