![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 67 to 91 of 412. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by MidnightBlue on March 6, 2006, at 22:40:10
In reply to Am I the only one?, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 15:26:26
There have been many times I have stumbled into a post that has filled my mind with images I didn't want there.
I have tried to stop reading all of those posts even if that means not reading everything a person posts.
Maybe there should be a board where trigger subjects can be freely discussed, but I don't think that needs to be on the main med board or health or social. There should be trigger free zones.
Just my humble, uninformed opinion. I apologize if anyone finds this post offensive.
MB
> 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 James K on March 6, 2006, at 23:31:54
In reply to Re: Am I the only one?, posted by MidnightBlue on March 6, 2006, at 22:40:10
I'm going to speak on this, based upon the original question, and what I remember was Dr. Bob's question as well.
First off, I am one of the posters who has put extremely graphic and sensitive information on this site. I have been guilty of not warning potential readers ahead of time. I apologize for that. I didn't know it could and/or was affecting people to the extent described.
This is a place of mental health. I assumed that everyone here was either a patient, a student, a professional, or an uninterested observer. My only other exposure to people with mental illness has been in mental health facilities. I never had to ask people to leave the room before I talked in group, so it didn't occur to me that it was as big a deal as it obviously is.
My whole life is a trigger. Childhood physical and sexual abuse, violence, substance abuse, cutting, suicidal ideation, gestures, and attempts. Axis 1 through 7. Past present and future. There isn't a single part of having dual diagnosis that is pretty or pleasant. I have desensitized myself to the point of dangerousness.
I didn't know other people couldn't handle this stuff. I cry when I read posts. I cry when I write posts. I use trigger warnings when I realize I should, and have had people step in and give me trigger warnings after the fact. I promise to do better on this. I would be supportive of a check box if Dr. Bob feels this is the way to go. But, there is no way I'm going to vote yes on a system that is likely to increase my likelihood of being blocked. Voting isn't actually an option, but input was requested by multiple parties.
I am not in remission right now. I am in full fledged mental illness and this is my only support and social contact until I figure out my next step. I couldn't support something that would jeopardize that for me.
I will be watching my step, because I don't want to get blocked over the solid and fair rules that already exist. I will also be more aware of the issues and feelings of my fellow babblers. That's the best I can offer.
Thank you for reading,
James K
Posted by AuntieMel on March 7, 2006, at 11:05:32
In reply to Am I the only one?, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 15:26:26
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 7, 2006, at 11:10:22
In reply to Re: You're not the only one (nm) » Larry Hoover, posted by AuntieMel on March 7, 2006, at 11:05:32
Oh Mel. I was wracked with sobs by such a simple statement. One less sob stored in me. Bless your soul.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 7, 2006, at 11:33:56
In reply to Am I the only one?, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 15:26:26
I just sent an email to His Bobness, and it occurred to me that it might best be copied to the boards as well.
I know I've been saying stuff about taking a Babble-break, and then, there I am. Still posting. But after writing this, I am at the turning point. So, this may be my last post ever.
I have to decide: Babble-break or Babble-broken.
Which am I? Time will tell.
I can tell you that I am healing. I can tell you that I have certainty. I am on a healing path. I can speak of it. That is an accomplishment of some merit, and I am very proud.
To triggers, again, one last time.
Here is what I sent to Bob. (slight edits (I always see places for improvements))
Dear Bob,
It is so hard for me to not speak with passion, if I can speak at all, about what it is like to have PTSD and to be a member of the Babble community. I am grateful for your tolerance of me. I look forward to meeting you in Toronto. I want to shake your hand.
Assuming that you do set up a red-flag trigger warning system, I want you to think about the difference between mandatory and elective trigger warnings. What those two different worlds might be like.
In the elective world, I can guarantee that there will be posts that fail to meet the trigger protection guidelines, and sensitive people will feel that uncontrolled escalation of emotion. And you would leave it up to us, the sensitive ones, I suppose, to flag, notify, or reply to that failure to warn? Well, if that's what you want. I suppose I could post a civil but pointed reminder that not all people reading on these boards can manage unannounced graphic or explicit descriptions of human horror, and ask that future posts of that nature be flagged, in consideration of the sensitive.
In the other instance, everything is exactly the same. Up to the point where the warning comes in, everything is as it would be in the elective realm. (I really think that all any one individual will ever need is one such warning, but I may be wrong.) The only difference is that the reminder about being sensitive to triggering depictions would come from you, and/or your deputies. And, hopefully, deputies would be empowered to add the missing flag to the suspect post.
Two worlds. I warn, or you warn. It won't be pretty if I'm the one warning others. I don't want the job. But I'll do it. I'll be in there, in their face. Or you, with your boilerplate "please be sensitive", refer to the FAQ, standard notice. I would try to emulate your template, but it would be different coming from me, instead of you.
I know I've made much of the wheelchair metaphor. I carry my emotions around in a wheelchair. There are some places I dare not go. What a difference it would make, to have signs up, to guide my journey. You've seen them. Blue and white wheelchair signs. You've seen the curbs, older ones installed before the wheelchair activists got the ear of the able public, which have been cut down with a diamond-toothed concrete saw. Newer curbs always have ramps integral to their structure. Turning barriers into paths for wheelchair-bound people. It's a lot easier if you plan for that. Wet concrete is easy to form. Fixing it afterwards is a big job.
Do you want me to be the one putting up all those wheelchair signs? Do you want to make me cut new ramps all the time?
We're already responsible for aspects of our posts that we don't necessarily think about. You block based on what *could* be read, when a post's words are interpreted. You and I have fought about that aspect more than any other. How is it so different to make a poster consider one more aspect about their own post? Who could better know the content, than the poster himself? If you don't make flagging mandatory, you reverse the onus. It would be unique, in all that Babble regulates, to have the onus not on the poster himself, but on the reader.
Instead of self-flagging, you have proposed that I have someone maybe go ahead of me, and screen all the possible posts that I might read? How does that change the barrier to my participation in any substantive way? At the very least, I couldn't be spontaneous, as I'd have to wait until my posts were screened for me. And who wants that job, anyway? Your proposal is
unworkable, on its face. And why should the job be mine, in the beginning? It's not my job to screen posts for vulgar language. Why should it fall on me to screen for triggers?Perhaps you dislike any comparisons to Dr. Grohol's work. I don't know, there seems to be something in that. But Dr. Grohol didn't even flinch when he set up his guidelines for his own site. Some content is simply banned outright, deleted if it sneaks in, and other less triggering content must be flagged. It is simple. It works great.
Your site does not permit retroactive flagging. If the first post in a thread is triggering, but has no flag, how can the warning on that post's content even be given? It will always come too late. Always too late. Always. A sensitive soul viewing the archives a decade hence would still not see the flag in time.
The practical solution is also the one that works best. Make trigger issues the responsibility of the generating poster, and we will manage *that* with sensitivity. It is so easy to manage, up front, in the mind of the poster himself. I trust in the hearts of Babble posters. We can do this so that it works for everyone, without undue burden falling upon any individual. Just one extra thought per post, compared to generating horrors.
The alternative will be poster to poster confrontation, unless you administrate triggers, too.
I will not be posting to Babble any more, at least for the time being. I have exposed my most intimate vulnerability to the world. If that is not enough for you, then, in the fullness of time, it will be up to me.
PTSD afflicts up to 10% of the American population (and many of those don't even know they have it). It is associated with, and exacerbates, problems such as mood disorders, anxiety disorders, sleep disorders, substance abuse, psychosis, relationship problems, difficulties in therapy, poor response or abnormal response to medication, and declining health in more general terms. The elephant has been in the Babble rooms all this time, Bob. Isn't it time we started talking elephants?
This is not about censorship. Content will remain unchanged. I know and love cutters who post here. I know and love people who have been traumatized by others. I know and love posters who dwell intimately upon their very existence. I know how valuable this forum is for them. I simply cannot accompany them everywhere, on their journey. The trigger flags would be like
having a map. Right now, I am blind.Your humble friend,
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.