Posted by zeugma on January 8, 2006, at 14:32:40
In reply to Re: Larry's Block and a civil atmosphere, posted by alexandra_k on January 8, 2006, at 14:10:46
the group starts to feel frustrated with a poster...
one person says something uncivil to them
(and then that can lead to a torrent of that)
dr-bob steps in with a blocking...
the group turns on dr-bob
over and over
is that what you honestly see happening here? People turning on Dr.Bob because he's done something in their eyes *insert civil word here*, and wanting to make him the scapegoat? or people upset for a good reason? because their sense of decency is offended (and i am not using decency in which it is legal for a man to go topless in my state but a woman cannot, that is what many think of when they think of 'decent', but that's not what i mean)?
maybe the civility rules do not accomplish what they are intended to do.
but i don't see people turning on Dr.Bob. i see people questioning the validity of the enterprise itself, the therapeutic principles behind it.
and i also disagree with your definition of uncivil. when i read the thread through in which larry made his 'uncivil' remarks, i commented that reading it through caused symapthetic nervous activation. stomach tightness. heart racing. perhaps larry felt those very same things as he wrote what he wrote? and for the same reason? because things were being said that provoke such reactions? and note that this is a physical reaction and not a judgement. there is a difference. a big difference.
this is why Thorazine came in so handy for pdocs the world over. those autonomic reactions are an obstacle to civil behavior. perhaps when prescribed in the massive dosages favored by American psychiatrists until fairly recently, these drugs ceased to be 'neuroleptics', 'antipsychotics', or whatever other terms were used to describe them perhaps in such massive dosages they were- 'civility-inducers'?
Oh yes, they were major tranquillizers.