Posted by Dr. Bob on March 14, 2006, at 21:45:30
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings » Dr. Bob, posted by Tamar on March 14, 2006, at 15:35:49
> > I think "mandatory" trigger warnings may sound like a good idea because it would be great if you could rely on triggering posts to be flagged. Like you can rely on all posts to be civil.
>
> Er… not sure I’m following. Can we in fact rely on all posts to be civil? ... Or have I missed your point?That was partly my point, just because something's mandatory doesn't mean you can rely on it.
> > But some of you, at least, have seen how hard it is to make civility mandatory. And that's after years of refining the guidelines.
>
> Indeed. And I suppose if we had mandatory trigger warnings we’d also have to refine the guidelines. But that’s no reason to put it off, in my opinion.I do think it's a reason to put off making them mandatory, but it's not a reason to put off starting on guidelines...
> > > suicide
> > > self injury
> > > abuse
> > > violence
> > > substance abuse
>
> I favour the second list here. But ‘abuse’ would have to be defined, I reckon.The original suggestion, by littleone, did specify:
> includes sexual, physical, verbal, ritual abuse
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/617252.html
> I’d suggest that any post containing words such as suicide, self-injury, rape, incest, child sexual abuse, and alcohol might be subject to mandatory trigger warnings. Maybe other people have other words. I’m not sure it should be a case of everyone listing their most-hated words, but with any luck we should be able to agree on it as a community.
OK, that's progress... :-)
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:614568
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/620391.html