Of Tough Love and the Enablers

'Twas sad and a wee bit upsetting here on DS today. It is sad to see so much infighting on the boards.  Frightening, to an extent.  We like to call it drama, but drama is really just a kind word for it. There is, somewhere underlying every major conflict, an opinion held by someone that they are right and there is no room for debate.  In some areas, this is undeniably true.  The earth revolves around the sun...it isn't flat...it is about 13 billion years old.  These are demonstratable facts, and we know these things as solidly as we can know anything at all. In areas involving the human mind, however?  Rarely are things quite so clear cut.  While it is plain that some are clinically psychopathic and should be locked up for the good of society, most of psychology is a gray zone.  What works with one will not work with another.  There are principles which are demonstratably better than others, but there are few psychologists who would suggest that these principles work the same in every situation. Tough love?  It sounds like something workable in principle by it does not work well in practice.  NIH noted that "get tough treatments do not work and there is some evidence that they may make the problem worse".  Bluntness is acceptable, but bluntness without tact will fall on deaf ears. And bluntness is worse than useless unless the person being blunt is absolutely sure that they are correct.  Who among us can provide a clear resume supporting the right to that kind of certainty?  Being cruel to be kind more often then not just turns out to be cruel sans kindness. Then there is "enabling behaviors".  Psychology is clearer on this...enabling is bad for both the enabler and the enably.  But, seriously, can we of DS really "enable" someone in the true sense of the word?  According to Wikipedia: A common theme of enabling...is that third parties take responsibility, blame, or make accommodations for a person's harmful conduct (often with the best of intentions, or from fear or insecurity which inhibits action). The practical effect is that the person themselves does not have to do so, and is shielded from awareness of the harm it may do, and the need or pressure to change. Enabling, in other words, is more than just giving verbal support to someone.  It is a behavior in oneself that allows a negative behavior in another to continue.  Usually this is seen with spouse or parents of drug or alcohol dependent individules.  The enabler makes the behavior of the other person possible.  Is this really possible through DS?  Maybe in the most general psychological sense, but even then it would be a very innefective. Instead, it seems that this psychology is misinterpreted and misused by people as an excuse to say hurtful things. So, what is the purpose of this journal post?  It is little but a passive agressive attack at those hurt others on the boards today--those who are patting themselves on the back for winning a battle where none existed.  I wonder if Daily Strength, the lives of ANY of the parties involved, or indeed the world in general has been in any way improved by this little "victory" that they this day claim? And if not, what, then, was the purpose of it all? Sigh,Alphonsus