Posted by Tamar on July 14, 2005, at 12:43:47
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamar-othralt » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 11:39:45
Hi Lou,
I’ve thought about your questions and here are my answers:
> You wrote,[...in my view...Dr. Bob's remarks...comes to the attention of the reader that he/she may choose not to read a person's posts if he/she is likely to reply in am uncivil manner...].
> I am requesting that if anyone is going to reply to this thread that they consider the following:
> A. Is it civil for Dr. Hsiung to suggest to others on this forum that they [...not read...] anyone's posts, or just my posts, because the content of the posts could cause them to reply to be uncivil here?I think it is civil. It doesn’t seem rude to me. It doesn’t seem to accuse anyone of anything or to put anyone down.
> B. How does one determine for themselves if a post will cause them to reply and be uncivil here?
Probably by trial and error, I would think. Errors would likely be met with a PBC!
> C. Could Dr. Hsiung's "remarks",([...do not read...]} have been left out in his statement in question and perhaps replaced by:
> 1.when you read someone's post that you have determined to be of content that you do not agree with, I am reminding , or suggesting, that you consider that different points of view here are encouraged and that your reply is to be in accordance with the guidlines of the forum even if your views are different...]?
> 2. when you read someone's posts here, that if you have a strong feeling against that person's name being the poster, could you remember that the guidlines of the forum ask you to respect the views of others here even if they are different from yours?...].
> 3. please do not boycott any poster's posts here, for they could contain support or education to you, unbeknowing to you, unless you read them...]
> 4. if you see a poster's name as the poster, that you think will have a content that will upset you in some way, before you reply, could you read it several times so that if you have a conclusion about what is written that could trigger something in you, that you babblemail the poster and have a discussion about it off-board so that you do not post something that is not acceptable here?
> 5. other good and just alternatives to suggesting that one [...not read...].I think you make a lot of good points here, particularly about encouraging discussion of differing views. So I agree with the sentiments you express.
Although I agree that your suggestions are useful, where I differ is that I still see a place for not reading posts. I know your point number 4 is a suggestion of a way to get around the trigger problem, but I find the difficulty with triggers is that once I’m triggered I lose all ability to think rationally. My response is very emotional when I’m triggered and I could in a blind rage post something to someone that I’d later regret.
So if I think something could trigger me, especially if I might respond in anger, I tend to feel it’s better to avoid the potential trigger rather than seek advice as to whether there is in fact a potential trigger. It’s not a terribly rational way to approach things, but that’s the nature of triggers, as far as I can tell.
I think it’s interesting that you use the word boycotting, because I don’t see it like that. I see not reading posts as self-censorship. I see it as a way of protecting myself from triggers. And it would also protect the other person from my rude response, which would be hurtful.
I think you are right that not reading posts might mean missing out on something educational or supportive. That’s a source of sadness to me. It is an unfortunate consequence of a measure that simultaneously protects the reader from triggers and protects the poster from the reader’s uncivil response. I suppose that’s why ultimately I see it as self-censorship rather than boycotting. To me, boycotting is an action taken against a person or organisation, whereas self-censorship is an action taken to protect oneself.
I hope that makes sense.
Best wishes,
Tamar
poster:Tamar
thread:525619
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/527517.html