![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 49 to 73 of 412. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 8:56:48
In reply to What I think?, posted by Tanzanite on March 5, 2006, at 1:23:55
> I just wouldn't to see anyone get blocked for expressing trauma.
That would be an extraordinary outcome, from anything I have proposed, and most certainly could not arise without clear notification and clarification of the proposed precaution.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 9:08:21
In reply to Re: Then I feel sad and unacceptable., posted by Poet on March 5, 2006, at 0:46:44
> Hi Dinah and everyone who feels sad and unaccepatable.
>
> What can trigger one person to cry can trigger another to laugh.So, let's make sure we don't include those sorts of things in the precaution rule.
Would you laugh at a depiction of self-mutilation? Of a hanging?
> We're all human, and no one can possibly know what will trigger feeling of sadness, joy or anything in between in another person. We only know ourselves as best as we can.
I think there is a common ground. My proposal, totally off the top of my head, and one I was desiring to debate, was:
"Graphic and explicit descriptions of self-injury, suicidal intent or other violence may provoke strong reactions in readers not expecting to read such content. In order to ensure that readers have the choice to read such content or not, all posts containing explicit content must carry a subject line warning." Normal warning/blocking process, blah blah.
> If I put trigger on a post, it's because it's triggering pain within me.I'm asking for more consideration than that. Are you refusing?
> Frankly, I avoid the admin board, and only come here because Toronto info. is here. Why I avoid it? That would be deemed uncivil.
>
> PoetI understand wanting to avoid this board. Unfortunately, this is where the rules get changed, if they're going to. I'm trying my best to avoid rules changing and the FAQ not getting changed along with it. I'm still smoking over getting blocked like that. Talk about being ambushed. We'll inform you of the rule when you break it, then. Perhaps you'll get blocked, even though your first warning just happened, and you desisted.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 9:15:19
In reply to Re: trigger warnings, posted by deirdrehbrt on March 2, 2006, at 16:36:01
Would people please stick to the topic? The topic is trigger warnings. You know, like those warnings you see on television: "The following program may contain scenes of graphic violence, and adult content, which may not be appropriate for all audiences. Viewer discretion is advised."
Instead, I want a little flag on the top of a post.
Okay?
Lar
Posted by TofuEmmy on March 5, 2006, at 9:24:35
In reply to Re: red alert, posted by Dr. Bob on March 2, 2006, at 2:54:00
I like the idea of the red flag too. That would give people more room in the subject field.
I would like it if people could use that space to explain what kind of trigger. For instance, "physical abuse" doesn't trigger me, so if I saw that in the subject line I would know it's safe for me to read. On the other hand, if it said "suicide" I might chose not to read it. Other may feel just the opposite, and be ok with opening a post on suicide.
I'm not asking to mandate this, just suggesting for those who are in the same pickle. I don't want to avoid ALL triggering topics - just those that trigger ME.
emmy
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 9:24:53
In reply to Re: Then I feel sad and unacceptable. » Poet, posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 9:08:21
> Would you laugh at a depiction of self-mutilation? Of a hanging?
I'm sorry. Done in by technology. I didn't know I could type text in the subject field that didn't copy over.....I am sure I had it in there.
I'm sorry.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 9:29:33
In reply to Re: red alert and use of subject line » Dr. Bob, posted by TofuEmmy on March 5, 2006, at 9:24:35
> I'm not asking to mandate this, just suggesting for those who are in the same pickle. I don't want to avoid ALL triggering topics - just those that trigger ME.
>
> emmyWhen I read these words, I hear what I am asking for, the opportunity to choose to continue or not, based on informed consent. It has nothing to do with censorship, and never did.
We have pornography warnings, and we're all familiar with those. Yet, we still have pornography. Nothing is to meant to be excluded here. Only properly described for those for whom the choices are not so inconsequential.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 10:11:56
In reply to Re: red alert and use of subject line, posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 9:29:33
I thought I could speak calmly about this topic, but I have discovered that it is too upsetting. I find myself taking on individual posters, instead of debating the merits. I am truly sorry.
I did not choose to become sensitized. If it was a simple as that, you can be sure I would choose anew. I have no control over what happens. Can you possibly comprehend what it is like to have that as part of your life? No control. Except abstinence.
I can't abstain from reading triggering material after the fact. I need forewarning. I need to avoid it.
I'm asking for Babblers to make it safe for sensitized people, to the extent that we are able to do so, with prudence and forethought. Not with the whip of blocking procedures, but with the charity of consideration.
Babble has been impoverished by the loss of the sensitive, the sensitized, for long enough. They're all over at PsychCentral, where a simple rule makes it safe for them.
Is it civil, to knowingly ignore the provocative nature of your posts? Even when you know what happens because of it? Is it civil to sow emotional land-mines on the Boards of Babble? And, what is your harvest?
I ask you, is it civil? You can't any longer say that you didn't know.
I am on Babble-break until further notice. It may be permanent. I know what I need to do, but I'll let you decide.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 10:33:25
In reply to My apologies, fellow Babblers, posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 10:11:56
Lar, Dr. Bob hasn't even been on board yet. I wouldn't assume that anything has been settled.
I hope you didn't think that I was disagreeing with you. I have no objection to a red flag, if it would help people. I would also agree with Emmy that more detail in the subject line would be nice. Because sometimes posts are triggery as opposed to outright triggers, or sometimes they're triggers for one topic, but not another.
This is just a process of hashing out details and presenting a proposal to Dr. Bob.
If you don't feel up to participating in it, that's fine and pefectly understandable. But I hope you're not coming to any conclusions about the outcome.
And yes, tangents ocme up from time to time in a thread like this as people brainstorm and react, but that doesn't mean anyone wasn't taking the original topic seriously.
And my post wasn't as unrelated as it might seem. Perhaps with red flags, people wouldn't say the sort of things they sometimes say about posting about S or SI, and I'd feel less uncomfortable posting about my own struggles.
(((((Lar)))))
I care about you very much, and wouldn't want to see you hurt. If I did anything to hurt you, I apologize.
To my knowledge, you have nothing to apologize for.
Posted by verne on March 5, 2006, at 11:08:49
In reply to Re: My apologies, fellow Babblers » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 10:33:25
Perhaps we could have a box or boxes for triggers that we could check on the "Enter Post" screen.
[] self injury
[] physical abuse
[] alcohol or drug use
Perhaps one universal box for triggers on the Enter screen and more specific boxes on the Revise and Submit Post screen.
These additional boxes would be activated if the trigger box on the Enter Post screen were checked, in the same way movie and book links are created on the Submit Post screen with double quotes.
Verne
Posted by verne on March 5, 2006, at 11:14:25
In reply to Re: My apologies, fellow Babblers, posted by verne on March 5, 2006, at 11:08:49
to above post.
What boxes we check would then be conveyed in the subject line automatically.
Example subject line: "What I Did Last Summer" [SI] [AD]
(AD = Alcohol Drug Use and PV could indicate physcial violence, and SI, of course, self injury)
Posted by Tanzanite on March 5, 2006, at 12:02:03
In reply to Re: What I think? » Tanzanite, posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 8:56:48
I can also see that, and do not disagree with you. As you have proposed, with appropriate safeguards as have been described by you and others in different ways of course, there has got to be a better way to warn people of triggering material. If something such as a warning system was added, or what not, what would be the best way to notify users how the system works. That is another thing to consider.
I mean where would it be put I guess is what I am asking. Please do not leave. I think you don't need to apologize. I think you are trying to help. Everyone may have different opinions on how this should take place, but being civil should include considering triggering material and topics that are potentially in that type of category. I think making in clear somehow before a person reads the whole thing is a good idea, just how the best way to do it would be of course have to be decided by those who know what they are doing (and that is not me)
Peace and blessings
Tanzanite
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 12:07:17
In reply to My apologies, fellow Babblers, posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 10:11:56
I'd like to try and explain to you what the difficulty is, that I and the sensitized face, within the Babble domain.
Imagine that a community meeting has been called to discuss something very important, and that the meeting will be held at city hall. And you are in a wheelchair. You trundle off to city hall, wanting very much to have your voice heard, your arguments considered, and you arrive at the appointed time and place. To your horror, you find a staircase between you and the entrance to the building.
You are excluded. You are silenced. You are denied. Because of your history. Because your life is limited by your being disabled. The people inside don't even know you can't get in. They don't know what it's like. But you face a barrier to participation. A barrier to participation, because other people didn't consider what it's like for you.
So you sue. You protest. You force them to build a ramp. You force them to make rules that require them to build ramps wherever they're needed, so that wheelchair-people can exercise their full rights of being alive. Yes, you inconvenience people who do not need wheelchairs, by adding to their cost, to force them to build a ramp they don't even need. But, before this protest is made, they never even thought about this barrier to participation. So, you make them think about it. You make them do it. You make them make rules.
You can't even go to a movie that hasn't been screened by a rating committee. You know what to expect in a G-rated movie. You really don't have much of an excuse if you went to an R-rated movie, and you were shocked.
I think there is a core group of posts, ones which graphically or explicitly describe violent situations (many flavours in there, both violence to self or others), which need an R-rating. The content can be anything we've always talked about here. Graphic and explicit descriptions of human experience have always been accepted here, and I'm not trying to change that in any way. I want a warning of that content. Surely we can come to a simple
description that expresses the idea that it's the stimulation of an image of violence in a sensitized person's mind that is the problem. I can talk about cutting without describing it. Describing the act, though, is too much for me. Do you see the difference? For me, the difference is HUGE. It is a barrier to participation. Your small step is my barrier to participation.Lar
Posted by Tanzanite on March 5, 2006, at 12:14:44
In reply to I'm sorry, one more post, posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 12:07:17
Very well put and a good explanation that I hope many will understand. In the end, I hope you are all right and hopefully the admin on the board and Dr. Bob will really consider this. Peace
Tanzanite
Posted by Phillipa on March 5, 2006, at 12:33:17
In reply to Re: Larry, posted by Tanzanite on March 5, 2006, at 12:02:03
Just me but I like the red flag then it's up to me whether to read a post or not. Just like the green for a new babbler or yellow for a new post. I think that's the color coded anyway. Love Phillipa
Posted by JenStar on March 5, 2006, at 12:53:27
In reply to My apologies, fellow Babblers, posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 10:11:56
hi Lar,
I checked out psych central one time but didn't like it much, so I don't know much about how it works. You said that they have something there about posts that makes it easier to see triggers? Is that where you got the checkbox idea? Whatever they do there about posting titles - can you describe it in more detail?
thanks,
JenStar
Posted by zenhussy on March 5, 2006, at 12:53:46
In reply to I'm sorry, one more post, posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 12:07:17
Lar,
search SPOW (sensitive posters of the world) in the babble search box and you'll come up with posts from 2002 and on showing very similar issues being discussed way back then. seeing as a poster began one such thread in April 2002 we're not going to hold our breath for change to occur anytime in the near future.....four years later and still no policy or entry to the FAQ....
good luck with this current round of discussions!
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 13:40:30
In reply to Re: My apologies, fellow Babblers » Larry Hoover, posted by JenStar on March 5, 2006, at 12:53:27
> hi Lar,
>
> I checked out psych central one time but didn't like it much, so I don't know much about how it works. You said that they have something there about posts that makes it easier to see triggers? Is that where you got the checkbox idea? Whatever they do there about posting titles - can you describe it in more detail?
>
> thanks,
> JenStarFrom the PsychCentral Community Guidelines, with heavy ellipsis:
"Specifically prohibited from our community:
* Flames or messages meant to intimidate or harass others
* Threatening or profane messages
* Messages containing suicidal threats or suicidal actions
* Triggering material without the use of the Trigger Icon"I have deleted any passages not directly relevent to this discussion. Just so you know how it works, if a person makes a suicidal threat, the post simply disappears. The poster is directly warned, privately. If they persist, they can be blocked for life.
The trigger icon is one of many icons at the site, and in my opinion, that dilutes the power of having a flag of this importance. However, they do have a requirement that triggering posts are so identified.
That is my understanding of how things work, over yonder. I certainly could be wrong about the details, but I think I have been accurate.
Lar
Posted by Poet on March 5, 2006, at 17:49:13
In reply to Re: Then I feel sad and unacceptable. » Poet, posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 9:08:21
Ya know what, Larry, I have NEVER gotten a please be civil in over two years of posting. I would have appreciated it if you had read some of my posts prior to your conclusion jumping, which may I point out is very uncivil.
> If I put trigger on a post, it's because it's triggering pain within me.
I'm asking for more consideration than that. Are you refusing?
No, I am not refusing. I fully agree that there needs to be a way to let other posters know that content may be upsetting. Though again, I can only put trigger or a red flag symbol on my own posts. Which I faithfully do. What I was trying to say in my original post is that what triggers me is not necessarily what triggers others. CSA triggers me. SI does not. Should both subjects be red flagged. Absolutely. Will I follow the babble rules. Absolutely. See paragraph one.
<< I understand wanting to avoid this board. Unfortunately, this is where the rules get changed, if they're going to. I'm trying my best to avoid rules changing and the FAQ not getting changed along with it. I'm still smoking over getting blocked like that. Talk about being ambushed. We'll inform you of the rule when you break it, then. Perhaps you'll get blocked, even though your first warning just happened, and you desisted.
See paragraph one.
Poet
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 5, 2006, at 18:43:03
In reply to I had **TRIGGER** in the header, bit it truncat, posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 9:24:53
I didn't know I could type text in the subject field that didn't copy over.....I am sure I had it in there.
>You can't. It will stop automatically just like it did at *truncat*
Lar, you really don't sound so good.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 19:09:09
In reply to Poet's Very Civil Response to Larry » Larry Hoover, posted by Poet on March 5, 2006, at 17:49:13
> Should both subjects be red flagged. Absolutely.
I'm sorry, Poet. If your original post had said something like this excerpt from your second one, I'd not now be wondering what you were trying to communicate in the first instance, because it was apparently right over my head.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 19:30:16
In reply to Re: I had **TRIGGER** in the header, bit it truncat » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbix2 on March 5, 2006, at 18:43:03
> I didn't know I could type text in the subject field that didn't copy over.....I am sure I had it in there.
> >
>
> You can't. It will stop automatically just like it did at *truncat*
> Lar, you really don't sound so good.I was sure I had put it in the subject line, wanting to follow my own guidelines, after all....I did type it in. I know I did, but I don't see any evidence of it now.
I'm deeply involved in this, Gabbster hon, but I think I'm doing okay. It's really hard to talk about, because I think the most common effect is to be silenced (although I might just be too stubborn to keep quiet). I'm probably discussing my own deepest vulnerability, so I am grateful for consideration thereof.
The multifaceted Zenster pointed out that some years ago, the very same descriptor had been put to use, in a similar plea for consideration.....the Sensitized, or variant thereof. Perhaps there is no such thing as a new idea, but I thought I had coined the concept myself. It is reassuring that I am somewhere close to the mark, and that I do not raise my voice alone.
So far, I hear support for a red flag icon. Similar to the yellow new icon or the green newbie icon, but red, a standard warning hue. And, I hear support for some topical information being included in the subject line. We can standardize those in many different ways, but I can see that a number of those suggestions have been really good ones. By moving the **TRIGGER** part out of the subject line (replaced by the red flag), there is surely ample room in the existing subject field to designate the theme of the content. Suggested content labels include:
[Substance Abuse]
[Childhood Sexual Abuse]...or simply
[Sexual Abuse] or [Sexual Assault]
[Cutting]? or the broader [Self Injury]?
[Suicidal Concern]? or simply [Suicide]?
[Physical Violence]? or just [Violence]?I pose this initial list as a starting point for the content descriptors we might list. Initials don't work....too many first letters in common, too important to get it wrong.
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2006, at 4:48:35
In reply to My apologies, fellow Babblers, posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 10:11:56
> I thought I could speak calmly about this topic, but I have discovered that it is too upsetting. I find myself taking on individual posters, instead of debating the merits. I am truly sorry.
I'm glad you see that happening. However:
> Is it civil, to knowingly ignore the provocative nature of your posts? Even when you know what happens because of it? Is it civil to sow emotional land-mines on the Boards of Babble? And, what is your harvest?
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
But please also don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
One possibility is to ask another poster to be your "civility buddy" and preview posts before you submit them.
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2006, at 4:49:03
In reply to Re: trigger warnings » Larry Hoover, posted by JenStar on March 4, 2006, at 16:28:47
> > It would be impossible to trigger warning everything.
>
> Of course. But I don't think it would be too hard to draw up a concise description of the issue, and how best to address it.
>
> My proposal might be, "Graphic and explicit descriptions of self-injury, suicidal intent or other violence may provoke strong reactions in readers not expecting to read such content. In order to ensure that readers have the choice to read such content or not, all posts containing explicit content must carry a subject line warning."
>
> Lar> I'm not sure I agree that we should have a ban on certain content, or make it a ban-able offense if a 'trigger' warning is left off.
>
> JenStarI agree, it's impossible to predict exactly what will trigger someone else. Still, I think it would help to identify what the most common triggers are. Self-injury, suicidal intent, and violence? Let's see if we can come to some consensus.
My inclination is to make the alerts voluntary. Because someone else can always add one to the thread later. Which happens already and is a nice example of working together and taking care of each other.
I know, in that case, the alert doesn't flag the specific post with the potential trigger, but maybe the subject line could also include "above" or "^" or something? Or should there just be a way to add an alert to a previous post?
Thanks, everyone, for thinking this through with me,
Bob
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 7:56:43
In reply to Re: trigger warnings, posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2006, at 4:49:03
> My inclination is to make the alerts voluntary. Because someone else can always add one to the thread later.
Later is too late, Bob. If you're not going to listen to that critical detail of the experience of the sensitized, then this whole discussion is pointless.
Tell you what. I'll volunteer to put up all the trigger warnings. And I'll give you a graphic and explicit account of how my spirit and soul and humanity have been thrashed about, because you don't think my feelings are worth protecting. But you'll block gg for f*rting.
Later is too late. You can't unring the bell.
Lar
P.S. The other site simply bans it, because the damage takes place in silence. The damage is too big to make words. Why is this so hard to grasp?
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 7:57:24
In reply to Re: please be civil » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2006, at 4:48:35
I shall. Thanks, Bob.
Lar
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.