Psycho-Babble Social Thread 615038

Shown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.

 

For FIVE

Posted by Gabbix2 on March 2, 2006, at 16:23:35

Take it away Buffy ST. Marie

Hey, Baby I just got back from town
where the bribes are paid
Honey, they turned my offer down
they say the deal's already made
So now Igotta stand and watch
while it all comes down
and the buzzards and the hawks
and the judges and the mob
circle around
Now if I were the queen of all the world
I would 90 in chains just to see you free
of the ropes that bind you
and the role you play
and the pride that hooks you
while the big ones get away
Love junkies wanna change the world:
it quickly stays the same
Money junkies hire all the smart ones
Power junkies run the game
One step at a time
Polarity Hill
If the bad guys don't get you Baby
then the good guys will
With angels on the take
and the gangsters in the yard
Hey don't the wars come easy
Hey don't the peace come hard
Now if I had a way to reach the sky
I'd grab that crescent moon
wield it like a knife
save you from the lies
From the ropes that bind you
and the role you play
and the game that hooks you
while the big ones get away

 

Re: For FIVE Gabbix2

Posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 18:42:01

In reply to For FIVE, posted by Gabbix2 on March 2, 2006, at 16:23:35

This virtual model of the world had to have sense
Because if it didn't
Then it is more likely that the world doesn't have sense either.

And so that is important to me.
There has to be a sense
Otherwise there is just the brute indifference of the universe
And the existentialists had a point.

And so I tried to see the sense
And others thought I engaged in convoluted rationalisations
And maybe I did
Maybe I did
But it was important to me
Because if there isn't sense here
Then what hope for reality?
And I refuse to believe the world is that way...

And yeah, that led to conflict.
When others proclaim there is no sense
And I refuse to believe them
Engage in rationalisations
Justifications

But hurt...
I dealt with it before. Could see the sense.
But this time it is different.
The case might well be analogous to last time
(There was a thought that it was simply the same thing again)
And I can see the analogy
But instead of the justification (the rationalisation) transmitting from that case to this
The lack of justification for this case is transmitting back to the last case
And I don't see the sense there either.

And Larrys block...
I don't see the sense there either.
Now...
I do not.

And that might well be a good thing.
Because seeing the sense leads to conflict on the boards
Seeing the sense led to conflict
And conflict is bad because it interfeares with the supportive mission of this site
So it is good for me to not see the sense
To fall in line with the majority
Outliers result in conflict
Better to come into line or be curbed
Better for the supportive mission of this site.

But what cost to me?
First there was five...
Now there are six.
Because there has to be a sense you see...
There has to be a sense for my majority
Because otherwise...
Otherwise...
Kill me now
Because We can't handle the truth.

And that is about as big a battle as you can get.

And the big ones get away
Because they are beyond critique
Because critique is not supportive
And if you critique a political ideology
If you citique a government
Then it seems that people are entitled to take it personally...

What if someone critiques a medication?
What if someone critiques a brand of therapy?
What if someone critiques a famous person?
An ideology (not related to politics)?
Are people entitled to take it personally?
Aka... Will people be blocked?

American bias goes further than you think...
What you are entitled to take personally...
People take politics personally...
Is that warranted or should people learn not to?

Nationalism...

Interesting.

 

Re: For FIVE 5

Posted by Gabbix2 on March 2, 2006, at 19:24:14

In reply to Re: For FIVE Gabbix2, posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 18:42:01

> This virtual model of the world had to have sense
> Because if it didn't
> Then it is more likely that the world doesn't have sense either.
>

Well the virtual model is still not run by computers. It's still people.


> And so that is important to me.
> There has to be a sense

I know! It's important to so many
That's why I made jokes about not trying to find any, because sometimes it's easier to pretend it's a board game.

That's why there was so much anger about the blocks, that's why people would go kamikaze..
I think probably more than others, those of us who struggle with mental illness, need a sense of order, and a sense of fairness.
that's why the anger.
For instances just like this.
And you so wanted to believe it wasn't like that.
And it isn't--always.

You know I think I'll probably write about this because it's more personal.
And because I'm flipping tired today.

but people ARE missed
they are so missed.
I have a list of people who if they showed up at Babble again, I would probably cry.

((((5)))

 

Re: For FIVE Gabbix2

Posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 20:36:31

In reply to Re: For FIVE 5, posted by Gabbix2 on March 2, 2006, at 19:24:14

> Well the virtual model is still not run by computers. It's still people.

I know. And I know people aren't perfect and sometimes people make mistakes. But... I guess there may be conflict between admitting a mistake has been made (which can lead to people feeling angry) and justifying them (which can also lead to people feeling angry). I don't know. I guess I thought decisions would likely make more sense here because there is more of an awareness that things need to make sense to people. That things would be different here because moderation is supposed to be about the good of the community rather than Dr Bob acting from his own needs / desires. But even so... There can be conflict between the good of the individual and the good of the group I suppose. And there is room for disagreement as to what is best for the group. But when one is blocked... One loses ones voice. Larry didn't get a chance to say 'I see how my comment could be taken that way and I'm sorry that wasn't what I intended and I'll be more careful in the future'. Instead he gets blocked. He doesn't get to say anything until his block is up. And even when he comes back... It isn't worked through. It isn't worked through whether similar reduction in block will happen next time or not. Guess it didn't apply in my case. Maybe because people seemed to think I understood the block the time before. But I didn't understand. I just really really wanted to. But blocks hurt. Blocks can be retraumatising. Really very badly retraumatising. And is the point to get me to stop posting to politics altogether (or I'll be blocked) because I think that that is about the best sense I can make of this... Or that I have to stop with critiquing altogether?

Is it okay to critique a book?
Won't people who liked the book feel put down?

How is politics any different?

And if it is different then is this a rational difference (that people should be blocked for not understanding / respecting
Or is it an irrational difference and thus people need to learn the distinction (and they will find their lives go much easier if they grasp it)

> For instances just like this.
> And you so wanted to believe it wasn't like that.
> And it isn't--always.

I know it isn't always.
Most of the blocks... I really think I do see the sense in.
Larrys... I predicted it.
But... 6 weeks was way harsh.
IMO it should have been processed.
He should have had the chance to put things right.
Or... One week.

What got me was that the biggest defenders of Larry not being blocked... Were people saying (fairly much) that Deneb deserved it. That is not a good reason. People should have been PBC'd for that. But the point that Larry isn't malevolent and he was trying to help... I think that really should count for something.

And me... I intended to critique a policy yes.
I did not intend to attack / accuse / judge an individual.

Wasn't that obvious?

To everyone apart from Dr Bob apparantly...

And so I lose my voice for 2 weeks.

While there may be similarity...

I assure you that voice is gone

RIP A_K

:-(

>
>
>
>

 

Re: For FIVE 5

Posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 20:48:53

In reply to Re: For FIVE Gabbix2, posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 20:36:31

If I didn't protest more, it wasn't because I didn't want you here or on Politics. It wasn't even because I thought the comment you made was particularly block-worthy. It's more because it seemed to fall under that most global of Babble blocking rules, and I guessed that that was Bob's rationale. Not that he confides in me or anything. But I rarely if ever protest blocks that fall under that rule.

I *am* sorry you're feeling so hurt. I must confess that I didn't realize that, and I apologize for my lack of sensitivity for not realizing that. I wish you had emailed me while you were blocked, and we could have talked.

I really do enjoy our conversations here.

Dinah

 

Re: For FIVE

Posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 21:11:07

In reply to Re: For FIVE 5, posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 20:48:53

> It's more because it seemed to fall under that most global of Babble blocking rules...

?

I don't understand.

 

Re: For FIVE

Posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 21:12:01

In reply to Re: For FIVE, posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 21:11:07

If it is that you can't critique...

Then how about critiquing a therapy / medication / book?

I don't understand :-(

 

Re: For FIVE

Posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 21:13:48

In reply to Re: For FIVE, posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 21:12:01

I figure people might well think this is funny...
Or so very ironic.

That I am having trouble with understanding...
When others have long given up.

But the fact is...
That we can't stay here.
Not like this.
It hurts too much.
Of course that is irrelevant...
But the fact is it hurts too much.

 

Re: For FIVE

Posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 21:14:36

In reply to Re: For FIVE, posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 21:11:07

Hadn't you just been blocked for saying something about America or Americans? The global rule is that after you do that, you're supposed to go out of your way not to do anything that looks like what you've just been told not to do. You have to at least let a decent interval of months go by for Dr. Bob to forget, or to assume you've forgotten.

Or maybe I'm totally wrong, but that was how I thought of it at the time.

 

Re: For FIVE

Posted by zeugma on March 2, 2006, at 21:18:02

In reply to Re: For FIVE, posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 21:12:01

> If it is that you can't critique...
>
> Then how about critiquing a therapy / medication / book?
>
> I don't understand :-(


me neither.

The country that makes the least sense to me is the one I live in.

I suppose I can say that, because of the oblique and self-referential nature of the comment.

It shames me enormously that such discourse is necessary.

It shames me that this is the best we can do- it is not like this is a harmless activity, this twisting of discourse.

((5))

the starkness of a number.

-z

 

Re: For FIVE

Posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 21:55:31

In reply to Re: For FIVE, posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 21:14:36

> Hadn't you just been blocked for saying something about America or Americans?

ah.

so now i can't say anything about america or americans?

well then i guess i've just done it again...

i mentioned us and uk

but my point was more general...

if a policy says that 'it is okay for this country to have nukes but it is not okay for that country to have nukes'

then isn't that hypocritical?

that was my point.

still waiting for someone to find a relevant difference.

but this topic is off limits.

i guess i mentioned the us again (in this post)

so i'm now officially blocking myself

(to save other people the bother)

rip 5

 

Re: For FIVE 5

Posted by LegWarmers on March 2, 2006, at 21:56:56

In reply to Re: For FIVE, posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 21:55:31

(((5)))

: (

 

Re: For FIVE

Posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 22:00:01

In reply to Re: For FIVE, posted by 5 on March 2, 2006, at 21:55:31

Why don't you try restating it without using a word like hypocritical.

For example, couldn't you say the same thing by saying "The US has nuclear weapons, but they don't want other countries to have nuclear weapons. I don't understand the rationale behind that. If one country has them, every country should be able to have them. How does the US government explain their position?"

Point made, no words used that Dr. Bob would flag.

 

Re: For FIVE Dinah

Posted by zeugma on March 2, 2006, at 22:15:34

In reply to Re: For FIVE, posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 22:00:01

For example, couldn't you say the same thing by saying "The US has nuclear weapons, but they don't want other countries to have nuclear weapons. I don't understand the rationale behind that. >>

the rationale behind that is all too easy tonderstand. so i, personally, wouldn't take it as a valid paraphrase.

regrettably, words are getting eroded, just like our environment.

not dr. bob's fault. still. still.

there is no such thing as tact, IMO, without candor. i value tact. and candor.

but separate the two, and conversation loses its value.

-z

 

Re: For FIVE

Posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 22:18:54

In reply to Re: For FIVE Dinah, posted by zeugma on March 2, 2006, at 22:15:34

I just don't think that the civility rules keep anyone from saying anything as long as they say it civilly.

The only time it ties your hands is if you don't want to say it civilly.

In which case, Babble might be a rather frustrating place to post, but the internet is full of places you can post extraordinarily uncivil things, then come back to Babble and post whatever else you want to say.

I am of course using the global you.

 

Re: For FIVE

Posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 22:20:04

In reply to Re: For FIVE, posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 22:18:54

Hmmm... Except for the faith board.

 

Ok, let's move this to Admin.

Posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 22:20:51

In reply to Re: For FIVE, posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 22:20:04

Sorry to have been derelict in my duties. :)

 

Re: For FIVE Dinah

Posted by zeugma on March 2, 2006, at 22:39:33

In reply to Re: For FIVE, posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 22:18:54

> I just don't think that the civility rules keep anyone from saying anything as long as they say it civilly.
>
> The only time it ties your hands is if you don't want to say it civilly.
>
> In which case, Babble might be a rather frustrating place to post, but the internet is full of places you can post extraordinarily uncivil things, then come back to Babble and post whatever else you want to say.>>
>
> I am of course using the global you.

no offense taken.

even if the you had been local.

:-)

-z

 

Here's a link

Posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 22:53:21

In reply to Re: For FIVE Dinah, posted by zeugma on March 2, 2006, at 22:39:33

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/615250.html


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Social | 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.