Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 9:58:46
In reply to Re: improvements, posted by Dr. Bob on March 7, 2006, at 23:36:17
I've decided to post to this thread. I have too much vested in this subject to stand away from it entirely. Otherwise, I am Babble-broken.
> I guess my idea was that the less sensitive ones would go first and the more sensitive ones would follow. The former would protect the latter. And the latter would allow themselves to be protected by being less spontaneous.
Translation: barrier to participation.
> Does it matter if the protection comes from me or other posters?
Yes, it matters. Backed by what really is your threat of hurting them, blocking power is indeed the threshold motivator on Babble. Otherwise, it's people fighting.
> Some posters are already doing this job. Retroactively.
Where? How? Putting a flag warning two posts down from the one that needed it is of no use at all. Protection is 100%, or what you have isn't protection.
It is estimated that less than .001% of the levee surrounding New Orleans failed, in the beginning. The outcome was pre-ordained, nonetheless. And we don't go around crowing that New Orleans was 99.999% protected against flooding, because it wasn't protected at all.
From your own life, Dr. Bob. Would you feel safe using latex gloves, designed to protect you from nasties such as HIV and SARS, if you knew that they were only 95% effective? A particular economy brand only leaks a little bit, once in a while, and these cheaper gloves save the hospital administration a bundle every year. Besides, we can treat HIV. And we have these lovely little biohazard stickers that you can stick on your locker, if you test positive.
Protection is 100%, or it is not protection at all. Protection is a threshold.
That said, I'm not wanting to get into an argument over the attainability of perfect protection. Having it as an ideal suits me fine. Just knowing that it is the policy that someone cares whether or not I get triggered, and backs that up with some kind of authority, is very supportive. It helps me bounce back. It doesn't help me in the moment of finding the land-mine, but it helps afterwards.
> Plus, as I mentioned before, retroactive flagging could in fact be an option.
And how do I know when that task has been completed, unless you also have a little flag that says, "Checked and found trigger free"? Any unflagged post remains unsafe, unless you can discriminate one from the other. And, even if that job is done perfectly, I remain a second-class Babbler.
You are talking about something unwieldy, that doesn't do any good at all. Partial protection is an illusion.
Here's how I see elective flagging. Please, wave any sense of incivility, because I want you to try on an idea.
**Incivility Warning** The next three paragraphs that you read might offend you:
Permitting elective trigger flagging will do nothing but assuage and mollify the guilt of the well, that they have done *something* for those poor sensitive souls, in recognition that they do have a duty to the sensitive, as equal community members. You do that for you, not for me.
Meanwhile, the sensitive get nothing for that effort. Nothing substantive, anyway, because partial protection does not exist. Protection is a threshold, not something lying on a continuum. Protection is an absolute entity. You can't be a little bit pregnant, and you can't be a little bit protected.
I'm asking for forethought, Bob. Not afterthought. Forethought is protective. Afterthought mollifies your guilt over not having had forethought.
Would it be reasonable to toss a box of condoms into the lap of a woman who was seeking treatment after having unprotected sex with an HIV-positive man, and send her on her way, confident that all was well?
Don't kid yourself that elective or retroactive flagging is any different than that.
> It wouldn't be civil to be too much in someone else's face...
Are you leaving me a practical option? When I say in someone's face, you are all the time. And quite civil, I might add. But that's your job. I don't want the job, as I said. I don't want to be the first black person in this school.
Like pooper-scooper laws. There are so many of these "enforced consideration" rules that we encounter every day of our lives. No one *wants* to pick up the sh*t, and it only *really* matters to the one who steps in it. The responsibility is properly attributed, though, when we answer the simple question: "How did it get there?"
Same question, here. Post content is attributed to the poster. Why would you make an **exception** for triggers? One that does nothing but let people off the hook for being insensitive?
Bob, you blocked an enthusiastic and inspired young man who aced a job interview, and came on here saying that he had "kicked *ss in there". I didn't need protection from *him*! Now, when I present evidence of a clear need for protection, you tell me that you'll leave it up to us????Common law says that once a hazard is identified (made overt), responsible parties have an absolute duty to protect. You are going against cultural mores, of ancient derivation.
There's an elephant in the room, Bob, and you keep talking about peanuts. Your basic PBC has already morphed into PBS, "please be sensitive to the feelings of others", but not those PTSD people and rape victims and muggees and the suicidal and other sensitized folk. Nope. You reserve that protection for hypothetical George Bush supporters, and happy graduates who found a job. The Sensitive? We're on our own.
> Regarding other sites:
>
> > I can see why the different forums are suited to different people.
> > And I can see why some people who don't do so well at one can do much much better at another.
> > I think the diversity is good.
> > People have more options.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/526583.htmlThe argument was that another site had both adequately and comfortably dealt with the issue before us today. Unless your point is to simply distract attention towards other meaningless differences, I don't see your reason for going on that tangent, at all. Inferences are of no use here. Speak your mind, please.
>
> > It's already something many of us do out of consideration of others. And when people don't put warnings on and you stumble across your trigger unexpectedly, well it just destroys you. I guess destroy is the wrong word because you do eventually get back up again, but that's what it feels like at the time. And getting back up again is so hard and emotional and draining and ... well it's just awful.
> >
> > And all that can be avoided just by having a little warning.
> >
> > Obviously it won't make you perfectly safe, you'll probably encounter your triggers in other places as well.
> >
> > And also, to be honest, your suggestion of leaving it up to other readers to flag triggering posts is kind of a kick in the guts. a) it's what happens now, Larry is asking for the warning system to be improved, and b) like Larry says, it's too late to flag a post once it's already dropped you into your hellhole.
> I think it's great that you and others are taking care of each other. I'm sorry you get hurt in the process. But I'm glad you're not destroyed.I quote: "And when people don't put warnings on and you stumble across your trigger unexpectedly, well it just destroys you."
The fact that her immediate feeling is later proven false by dint of cognitive processing and exhaustive effort, does not invalidate the immediate feeling, Bob. I'm surprised that you would take that tactic.
The keyword is "unexpected", Bob, not "trigger".
> A little warning can indeed make a big difference.
Not a 'little warning', Bob, unless you're actually intending to describe the small effort made in any one instance of considering the content of a single post, in the context of such a warning. It really is a small effort, by any one poster. You're quite right. Mandatory flagging would require little individual effort.
What you ought to have said, to be accurate, is:
"A *real* warning can indeed make a big difference." That is, if I read into your words what I think you really meant. You *could* have meant the right thing. ;-)> I agree, no system will guarantee safety.
I'm not looking for a guarantee of safety. I'm looking for a guarantee of support. With the latter, I can deal with the former. Without it, well, I've already told you what that's like.
> But probably posters are the best judges of whether particular posts need warnings?
**HOOT** **HOOT** Bob wins the prize! Tell the posters what Bob has won today!
The individual posting the message knows what he said.
To all others, 'tis a mystery, 'til read.That even rhymes, but the meter is wrong.
> The particular improvements I'd like to focus on right now are (1) the red alert idea and (2) some consensus on what in general should be flagged.
Those are mechanics. I can see why you'd find that less of a challenge to deal with.Let's deal with the mechanics afterwards, okay? You don't build the ship until you know something about its intended cargo.
> > I would suggest:
> >
> > Suicide trigger
> > Self Injury trigger
> > Abuse trigger (includes sexual, physical, verbal, ritual abuse)
> > Violence trigger
> > Substance Abuse trigger
> >
> > littleone
>
> Thanks for working on (2). Before, I mentioned:
>
> > > Self-injury
> > > suicidal intent
> > > violence
>
> What do others think?
>
> BobWe could even make the substance abuse flag board-specific, i.e. knowing that the theme of the board Substance Use can involve some detailed descriptions of substance use/abuse, and that triggering to use is a theme in recovery processes, we could have a header on that board making mandatory flagging of that issue, on that board. James mentioned this as an issue for him. I am more than happy to do that, with him. Now I know that it matters.
I'm brain-storming with you. Just putting it out there.
I'm glad to see that you accept the idea of a core list of trigger subjects. That's big progress already.
Partial protection is an illusion. There is no moderate solution. Afterthought is no substitute for forethought. The elective option feels like an insult, that you just can't be bothered. Half a ramp is no ramp at all, and wastes resources. If you're going to put a ramp in place, it must meet the needs of the intended users. Not your needs. Mine. And those of my peers.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:614568
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/617426.html