Posted by laima on July 28, 2006, at 11:08:21
In reply to Re: finally..., posted by gardenergirl on July 28, 2006, at 9:21:10
On this very page, and on the previous (didn't look further back), within the current threads, there appear to be discussions about some genuine, obvious offenses, but also a few that appear dubious, trivial- or just plain confusing. I gather from the comments that some others have a few concerns, too. I hesitate to point out precise examples of course, but many of the threads I am bothered by are on this very page, in plain view.
> I don't see how giving a PBC or block for *behavior* precludes understanding about a person's *state* or need for compassion.
? Not sure if I understand this comment, in practice, for some cases.
>I think it's possible to admonish a behavior while still maintaining empathy, compassion, and positive regard for the person as a whole.
Of course, though...perhaps it's a matter of tone and what sort of emphasis is used then? In some of the cases I read about, I sincerely wonder which was more highly valued: punishment, or education/correction/guidance?
In at least one case discussed right above this thread- more attention is paid to a term casually used by the poster, than to considering what sort of self-image *difficulty* might have caused that person to use that particular term (a common though unfortunate one, tossed around all over the media, in lots of conversations in many places, etc.) in the first place.
Another case looks to involve someone looking in on a conversation between two people who were joking with each other, misunderstanding them?
> If someone IRL feels justifiably angry about something, and you can understand and relate to their anger,
Justifiably- of course!
>does that mean you should excuse or overlook a problematic behavior related to the anger?
Of course not. It is, again, trivial and ultra-zealous cases that are of concern. What's to stop, theoretically speaking, someone from zipping all over the site, being offended by everything, and turning everyone in? They'd get a lot of attention, I gather.
> > I personally would prefer Dr. Bob to stick to behavior and not try to figure out who is a "real sufferer".
I hope he has the time to examine and carefully consider each and every post then, on this massive website. Is the website his full-time job? Or did I gather he has other important appointments, too?
My main point was meant to be- I am concerned that some people, who might post a plea for help or while obviously in trouble, might either disparage themselves or inadvertently (or purposefully), use questionable or vague phrases, (words open to various readings), attract enourmous attention about whether or not there was a real infraction of rules-even if no one speaks up to honestly say, "I was genuinely offended and upset by what I read", and meanwhile, the original poster's core concern gets ignored, and plausabley, this person ends up feeling even worse, perhaps at a loss as to where to turn, should they end up lacking adequate mental health care or outside support system. Meanwhile, anyone, even if only mildly offended, can be rewarded for their behavior-that is-discovering a rule that technically was broken.
Which leads to next point: I gather, from all that is posted around the site, plenty of folks are expressing that they feel skittish to post, lest they accidently break a rule or accidently offend someone. So, contructive discussions that try to (even politely) explore more *controversial*, yet very valid topics--such as the ups and down of the pharmaceuitical industry, the vageries of diagnosises --can't happen--because yes, of course, someone is guarenteed to take offense, or even if no one does, punishments might be doled out freely anyway.
None of us are perfect, we all say things that require more clarification, and written texts are notoriously very open for interpretation and various readings- witness grad schools, philosophy classes, etc. Anyone looking to be offended, likely will be.
Perhaps there could be an area for dicier discussions, "use at your own risk", where people promise to be on their best behavior, yet acknowledge someone could end up offended?
-But no, it's not my site-
...and I choose to not spend any more of my time trying to be a "good" rule follower anymore. I just don't think reality is so clear and simple, and rule adherence does not equal ethics.
poster:laima
thread:670602
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060622/msgs/671404.html