On Tue, 28 May 2002, Dan Minette wrote: > > I'm not questioning the value of boundaries in mental health. You've > > misunderstood me. I'm questioning our competency to determine whether or > > not applying a ban in response for Mark's behavior constitutes a "setting > > of boundaries" that might in some way improve his mental health. > > But, the evidence is that, in general, it is a good thing to do with someone > who is acting in this manner. One doesn't need a DSM-4 diagnosis in order to > do this. There may be rare occurances, I suppose, when it is not best, but > if one does it all the time, one does net good. > > > Now, if we need to set a boundary to preserve the social health of Brin-L, > > that's one thing, but we shouldn't pretend that we've made the decision > > based on a sage evaluation of Mark's personality or that we're doing it > > for his own good. > > Why is the mental health community wrong, then, when they say it is > generally the right thing to do, not only for the community, but the person > exibiting the undesired behavior?
What I object to -- and I can see how one may say I'm just arguing a technicality -- is the business of invoking the "mental health community." It suggests we have a clinical understanding of someone whom we hardly know, and that we have in our hands a justification that arguably meets some clinical standard. To my mind this is laughably absurd. Analogy: some guy tries to get rough with me in a bar. In self-defense I punch his lights out. In my opinion, the guy is better off for the lesson I've just given him, and I'm better off for having done it, and the patrons of the bar are better of for having his obnoxious self removed from the "community." But there's no medical, clinical analysis at stake, and if I tried to justify my self-defense in clinical psychological terms any listener would (I hope) consider me a nut for trying to do so. So, I agree that people need to be taught when their behavior is unwelcome. I agree that we, as individuals and as a community have to take reponsibility for establishing "boundaries" for our own protection. I'm even willing to agree that you can draw a strong comparison between what the mental health community says and what happens on line. I don't believe it's sound to use the language of mental health to justify the kind of decision we're discussing, however, because I don't believe we have enough knowledge about Mark, or about one another generally, to apply any kind of reliable clinical standard. To act as though we do have that knowledge is, IMO, overly familiar and insulting to the person being discussed. What I do think is a good idea is to discuss what Brin-L needs and whether or not Mark on the face of things needs to be banned for the collective good. Having a discussion about our principles and needs and about how to apply them is a good thing, IMO. Taking an ad hoc vote on whether to ban him, IMO, is a bad thing. And, like punching someone out, I think that banning a listmember should only be done if there's no other choice. I'm also convinced that being exposed to the occasional bit of profanity or sexually explicit reference doesn't actually harm anybody. > > IMO, if we boot Mark at this point, we will not have done ourselves any > > favors. > > Right now, its a close call. But, Mark's post this morning bascially told > us that he will continue to push until we do set boundaries. Here I agree with you, and (nod to Jefferey) Mark's increased use of artless profanity over the last day or so is starting to make me think twice. That is, despite some interesting non-profane comments by Mark, the increasingly steady stream of "f*cks" is starting to tip the balance for me from curiosity and patience to boredom and irritation. To Mark: IMHO it's perfectly fine to be cryptic and rather verbose and occasionally naughty. But you need to be entertaining if you're not to become an utter bore. And you're starting to repeat yourself. Marvin Long Austin, Texas "Never flay a live Episiarch." -- Galactic Proverbs 7563:34(j)
