Re: How old are we? ***VERY*** OLD !!

On Jul 27, 2006, at 11:40 PM, Judy Seigel wrote:

>
> And good for them, I say. Very possibly all to the good... it made
> EVERYBODY human, not just letters on a screen. Some behavior SHOULD
> be addressed. (I add here, which will probably convince you that
> I'm a nut case... be my guest... that I once scolded a man who had
> NOT cleaned up after his dog on our block, scolding him out loud
> all the way to the subway, which was several blocks-- we have a
> pooper scooper law here which, in the neighborhood, where the
> neighbors do watch -- keeps the area inhabitable, because there are
> almost more dogs than people, and most folks do comply... and then
> as this fellow was about to duck with relief into the subway, I
> asked, '"If you knew that every time you DIDN'T clean up you were
> going to be scolded in public like that, would you then clean up?"
> He rolled his eyes, and said fervently, "Oh, yes."
>
> In other words generally speaking social pressure is effective.
> Except where it feeds the pathology, or a certain sado-masochism...
> As a shrink I know put it, "Even the man being flogged in the
> village square, is THE CENTER OF ATTENTION !." Still, it makes the
> folks who've been offended feel less helpless. They've at least
> made a gesture of disapproval. And improved their blood pressure by
> ventilating.

As Judy says, it depends which direction the social pressure is
directed, whether it's likely to be effective. There are those who
always reserve to themselves the pleasure of attacking others, but
the notion of the benefits of social pressure would carry more
credibility with me if the benefits of social pressure were equally
valued when brought to bear in other directions. We like it,
apparently, when people gang up on our enemies, but in order to be
credible, the advocacy for "social pressure" must be equally valued
when that social pressure (defined here as unprofessional and
disrespectful comments ) is brought against us and our friends.
Which is exactly why this "social pressure" idea is a bad idea; it
just turns the list into a free-for-all, and most of us simply
wouldn't stick around for it, in fact we've lost a lot of good people
exactly because of this kind of stuff. It's true that Camden lost
credibility with me from the get-go when she came on here and
lectured us all about how she didn't see any problem with people
posting from nabble without joining the list, but in this case,
while perhaps presumptuous, she does happen to be right: there's
nothing to be gained by this kind of behavior.

The last time Judy told us about how good it is for the list for
people (her side, not the other side) to just indulge themselves in
telling everyone what they think (about U.S. politics it was, that
time) and how much better it makes "everyone" feel to do that, we
lost at least two good people. We lost Dave Rose because he just
utterly, totally, lost it and had to be removed from the list. I
wish he had been able to keep his cool; I miss him. And I'm afraid
we also lost someone else. I've been listening and listening for his
voice, and I don't think I've heard it since then. He spoke up and
said that the political comments were making him feel unwelcome here,
as someone who, like Dave, has a different political view than those
who were indulging themselves by expressing their political opinions.
He was shouted down, very rudely as I recall. He was a longtime
member of the list, and a valuable one. No, I'm sorry, I just can't
agree with this idea that the list heals itself by the exertion of
"social pressure;" or by any airing of personal pique and self-
indulgence. That's certainly never been my experience, in fact quite
the opposite. My 2cents,
Katharine.
  
Received on 07/28/06-10:17:45 AM Z