![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 62 to 86 of 412. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 9:03:51
In reply to Re: please be civil » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2006, at 4:48:35
In response to a *joke* about George Bush (who I bet has never even heard of this place), you admonish the poster with a PBC:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060304/msgs/616456.html
And, in that admonishment, you specifically ask the poster to "be sensitive to their feelings".
Why on Earth am I having such a difficult time obtaining that same consideration, and protection?
Why?
I'm not hypothetical. I really do read posts here. I really do have my feelings hurt, over and over again. I'm not the only one, if you read this thread with even one eye open. Why are *you* not sensitive to the feelings of others, Dr. Bob? Why do I have to beg?
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2006, at 13:33:21
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 7:57:24
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2006, at 13:33:26
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 9:03:51
> I'm not hypothetical. I really do read posts here. I really do have my feelings hurt, over and over again.
I'm sorry if you feel I'm turning my back on you. Would you at least agree that this would be a step in the right direction?
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on March 6, 2006, at 14:04:20
In reply to Re: trigger warnings, posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2006, at 4:49:03
You are right that it is hard to predict.
Things don't usually bother (trigger) me, but on occasion I've been surprised at a reaction I've had to something. If there had been a warning I would have been prepared.
Granted it's hard to make mandatory, but at the same time if a given person does keep *not* warning people then shouldn't there be something?
Sure we can just ignore everything by that poster, but I don't think that is what the poster wants to happen. Wouldn't the person who keeps not warning people *want* to have others read?
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 14:05:34
In reply to Re: hurt feelings, posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2006, at 13:33:26
> > I'm not hypothetical. I really do read posts here. I really do have my feelings hurt, over and over again.
>
> I'm sorry if you feel I'm turning my back on you. Would you at least agree that this would be a step in the right direction?
>
> BobIt is insufficient to the point of making no difference whatsoever, if you leave this as an elective act.
Flagging a post after I've faced my barrier to participation is literally like shutting the gate after the horses have escaped.
Consider how different that scenario would be if you had shut the gate before the horses could escape. The sequence in time must be flag before decision. Nothing else works.
But the presence of these emotive, but unmarked "landmine" posts does more than restrict my participation. They wound me anew.
I'm talking about emotional landmines. You're suggesting we put a sign after it has blown my foot off. I want the minefield labelled, and both my feet as well.
The walking wounded have a place here, Bob. Or not. It's that simple.
I don't know how many ways I can the same thing.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 15:20:14
In reply to Re: hurt feelings » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 14:05:34
You punish, to the fullest extent, with blocks of up to a year, for saying simple words like f*rt or sh*t. Why? Because it might upset somebody. Not in civil company.
However, you don't acknowledge the upset that is caused by people saying simple things like explicitly describing an assault, or an attempt on one's life.
Why isn't the latter uncivil?
You could not possible f*rt on me enough to make me really care, because it's such a minor slight. But, the other is stomach-turning upset, and you refuse to acknowledge it with the same civility protections afforded f*ck and sh*t.
I'm not asking people to not talk about it, but to acknowledge the sensibilities of members of the audience. To be civil with the content of their discourse.
I am baffled that you don't see what looks like a double standard from over here.
I repeat, I am not seeking censorship, as your existing language rule has in fact come to represent. People may say all that they've ever said, and sought all the comfort here that we've always offered. Just a little advertisement at the entrance to the arena. That's all I ask.
I can almost promise you, no one will ever end up blocked over this. We'll police it with an open mind and open heart. I can't understand your resistance to what is blatantly obvious to me.
I'll help you write the FAQ, Bob. We'll get this worded right.
This is one of those things where there is no half-way. You can't be a little bit pregnant, and you can't be a little bit protected from triggering. It's all or nothing. Your proposal is as good as nothing to me, and that is not me spitting out sour grapes. It just happens to be the way it is.
This is education, Bob. The disabled man calling you on your failure to treat me fairly. To treat the sensitized with the same empathy as those exposed to vulgar language. Just as there is a core group of words which are restricted, but not all words, I'm asking that a core form of language, the graphic or explicit description of violence, be similarly acknowledged as uncivil. But it doesn't even have to be sanitized, as your current language policies require. No, just acknowledged for what it is.
No surprises. Is that too much to ask?
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 15:26:26
In reply to The core issue, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 15:20:14
I feel like I'm all alone, out on a limb. Am I the only one to whom this makes any kind of a difference? I know there are dear souls no longer members of this board, to whom it would have mattered very very much.
You really have no idea how much it matters, folks. It really really matters, and it is so very hard to talk about.
Babble-break? No. Babble-broken.
:-(
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2006, at 15:38:18
In reply to Re: hurt feelings » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 14:05:34
> I'm talking about emotional landmines. You're suggesting we put a sign after it has blown my foot off. I want the minefield labelled, and both my feet as well.
What if others went first and labelled them?
Bob
Posted by Toph on March 6, 2006, at 15:49:05
In reply to Am I the only one?, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 15:26:26
I am not disagreeing with the idea that it is courteous to warn someone of a potentially harmful post, but I worry, Larry, about those of us who may identify with our victimization or traumas. What I mean is that it may be important for someone to talk about a traumatic dream or experience they had without shame or quilt. Isn't labeling it a trigger in some way attaching a stigma to it? Even if it is not, what if it is perceived that way by the poster who sees his trauma on a list of triggers? I raise these questions for discussion not to debate Lar.
Toph
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 16:01:29
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Larry Hoover, posted by Toph on March 6, 2006, at 15:49:05
> What I mean is that it may be important for someone to talk about a traumatic dream or experience they had without shame or quilt. Isn't labeling it a trigger in some way attaching a stigma to it?
Perhaps. But surely that is the lesser evil. In fact, recognizing where an experience fits into the continuum of all human experiences is a very big part of healing from it, by restoring a normalized context to an experience that is, by definition, a trauma.
Did you ever help a stranger in a wheelchair up a stair? Was there dignity, in that stranger's plight? Wouldn't a ramp have been a better idea, all along?
Keep building curbs, if that is what you will do. F*ck those people in wheelchairs. What a pain in the *ss those people are, always asking for ramps.
I'm done. See ya.
Lar
Posted by Toph on March 6, 2006, at 16:12:36
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Toph, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 16:01:29
We're all in this together Lar. We're all in chairs. You've built a lot of ramps for many here. I was only suggesting that maybe I might be offended if I had to put up warning sign every time I wanted to discuss my handicap. But I'm jumping in here late. I didn't mean to piss you off.
Toph
Posted by sdb on March 6, 2006, at 19:12:07
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 9:03:51
>Bush moves to stop bird flu, posted by Bobby on >March 2, 2006, at 21:53:20
>He has ordered carpet bombing of the Canary >Islands
I think it's very unlikely that the probably elected president is reading a joke on the pbabble and feels not respected to his views and feelings. Hello Mr. President are you here? -Actually I really don't want to see somebody bombing the Canary Islands but where, who and when is Mr. President bombing next? In reality he is bombing and shooting all the time.Newspapers publish jokes and drawings daily. It reminds me of an official dictatorship
if simple jokes about some unreachable individuals are no more allowed.I mean that somebody should learn not take it too personal if there's a joke about a political person. Otherwise I recommend not to read any newspapers, not to frequent internet and watching TV.
~sdb
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 22:10:53
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Larry Hoover, posted by Toph on March 6, 2006, at 16:12:36
> We're all in this together Lar. We're all in chairs. You've built a lot of ramps for many here. I was only suggesting that maybe I might be offended if I had to put up warning sign every time I wanted to discuss my handicap. But I'm jumping in here late. I didn't mean to piss you off.
> TophI'm sorry Toph. The last paragraph was me bellowing. Sorry that it was in your vicinity. I'm not sure which is more draining, in the end. Carrying around what I have been, or trying to explain it. Recognizing full well that this is my true burden, but that gaining community support also requires substantial effort. And trusting that there really are those silent supporters out there. The sensitized.
I am going now. Bye.
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.