![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 88 to 112 of 412. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by AuntieMel on March 7, 2006, at 13:50:46
In reply to Triggers, etc., one last time, posted by Larry Hoover on March 7, 2006, at 11:33:56
If you will email me what things trigger you I will help keep an eye out.
Posted by littleone on March 7, 2006, at 20:40:44
In reply to Am I the only one?, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 15:26:26
No, you're not alone. There are others. I'm sorry I haven't stood up with you and added my voice. I find conflict very difficult and try to avoid it at all costs.
Dr Bob, I know that Larry's posts have been rather passionate and emotional, but that doesn't mean that his request isn't reasonable. To be honest, I simply can't understand why you *wouldn't* implement it.
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. But at least it gives you a better chance of being able to pick the time and place that you address your trigger issues. Instead of having it thrust upon you by someone who'll probably never know what hellhole they've just dropped you into.
I think just having one warning to cover everything is a bit redundant. So much stuff would be flagged that you'd probably end up reading it all anyway.
I think having descriptive flags are much better. I would suggest:
Suicide trigger
Self Injury trigger
Abuse trigger (includes sexual, physical, verbal, ritual abuse)
Violence trigger
Substance Abuse triggerI personally have other triggers, but I don't believe they would be common enough to warrent their own trigger warning.
I do think that people need to take responsibility for themselves and learn what triggers them in particular and learn ways to handle that. I don't think it is reasonable for Babble to protect everyone from everything. But by the same token, I do believe that the triggers I've listed above are common enough and harmful enough to warrent a warning system being in place.
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'm crawling back into my hole to hide now.
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 7, 2006, at 23:28:32
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Larry Hoover, posted by littleone on March 7, 2006, at 20:40:44
>> Dr Bob, I know that Larry's posts have been rather passionate and emotional, but that doesn't mean that his request isn't reasonable.
That's a good point Little 0ne. I'm glad you pointed it out.The emotional and passionate presentation was enough to just turn me off discussing anything about triggers. So thanks for the reality check, because that's not fair, it's the idea, that should be judged and whether it's a reasonable option not how it's put.
But hey you're right. Triggers are a fine idea.
No one is being censored, and if it helps those who need to be warned.. why not?
I kind of expect something I read somwhere to ruin my day, or make me think, or feel sad, but that's who I am.. and I'll find it anywhere.
(not that I'm looking for it)
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 7, 2006, at 23:36:17
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Larry Hoover, posted by littleone on March 7, 2006, at 20:40:44
> you would leave it up to us, the sensitive ones, I suppose, to flag, notify, or reply to that failure to 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> LarI 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.
Does it matter if the protection comes from me or other posters?
Some posters are already doing this job. Retroactively. Plus, as I mentioned before, retroactive flagging could in fact be an option.
It wouldn't be civil to be too much in someone else's face...
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.html
--
> 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. A little warning can indeed make a big difference. I agree, no system will guarantee safety. But probably posters are the best judges of whether particular posts need warnings?
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.
> I would suggest:
>
> Suicide trigger
> Self Injury trigger
> Abuse trigger (includes sexual, physical, verbal, ritual abuse)
> Violence trigger
> Substance Abuse trigger
>
> littleoneThanks for working on (2). Before, I mentioned:
> > Self-injury
> > suicidal intent
> > violenceWhat do others think?
Bob
Posted by sdb on March 8, 2006, at 0:12:11
In reply to Re: improvements, posted by Dr. Bob on March 7, 2006, at 23:36:17
http://www.dr-bob.org/disclaimer.h
"May be too intense for some
viewers"
"This is not an offer to sell
securities"
"This product is meant for educational purposes only"
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 7:59:02
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » littleone, posted by Gabbix2 on March 7, 2006, at 23:28:32
> >> Dr Bob, I know that Larry's posts have been rather passionate and emotional, but that doesn't mean that his request isn't reasonable.
>
>
> That's a good point Little 0ne. I'm glad you pointed it out.
>
> The emotional and passionate presentation was enough to just turn me off discussing anything about triggers. So thanks for the reality check, because that's not fair, it's the idea, that should be judged and whether it's a reasonable option not how it's put.Geez, I didn't think of that. Sorry.
Lar
Posted by AuntieMel on March 8, 2006, at 9:34:50
In reply to Re: http://www.dr-bob.org/disclaimer.h, posted by sdb on March 8, 2006, at 0:12:11
"Do not iron while wearing"
"May contain peanuts"
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
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 10:00:16
In reply to Re: Triggers, etc., one last time » Larry Hoover, posted by AuntieMel on March 7, 2006, at 13:50:46
> If you will email me what things trigger you I will help keep an eye out.
Thanks, Mel. Thanks for caring. Please see my reply to Bob. Thanks.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 10:13:25
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Larry Hoover, posted by littleone on March 7, 2006, at 20:40:44
> No, you're not alone. There are others. I'm sorry I haven't stood up with you and added my voice.
Not sorry, I trust. Proud. Thank you for your courage. In the army, they give medals for this.
> I find conflict very difficult and try to avoid it at all costs.
And all the others see is silence.
> Dr Bob, I know that Larry's posts have been rather passionate and emotional, but that doesn't mean that his request isn't reasonable. To be honest, I simply can't understand why you *wouldn't* implement it.
:-)
> 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 that energy could well be put to other important aspects of existence. And it steals time from you. The calendar advances, and you're still occupied with regaining your footing.
> And all that can be avoided just by having a little warning.
Doesn't it seem so simple? A little warning. Choice. Informed choice. And consent. Informed consent.
> Obviously it won't make you perfectly safe, you'll probably encounter your triggers in other places as well. But at least it gives you a better chance of being able to pick the time and place that you address your trigger issues. Instead of having it thrust upon you by someone who'll probably never know what hellhole they've just dropped you into.
And they remain naive until we speak, right?
> I think just having one warning to cover everything is a bit redundant. So much stuff would be flagged that you'd probably end up reading it all anyway.And thus, the thematic clues in the subject line, to accompany the generic red flag.
I think it's hyperbole, though, to suggest that red flags will dominate the boards.
> I think having descriptive flags are much better. I would suggest:
>
> Suicide trigger
> Self Injury trigger
> Abuse trigger (includes sexual, physical, verbal, ritual abuse)Yes, something involving 'another' is good theme warning. Family of origin? <brainstorming>
> Violence trigger
> Substance Abuse trigger
>
> I personally have other triggers, but I don't believe they would be common enough to warrent their own trigger warning.I think that is a very important aspect that we do need to collectively understand. My other triggers are my business, and mine alone. I think there are generic triggers, however, and they are about humanity, about being human at its basic levels, like Maslow's needs hierarchy.
> I do think that people need to take responsibility for themselves and learn what triggers them in particular and learn ways to handle that. I don't think it is reasonable for Babble to protect everyone from everything. But by the same token, I do believe that the triggers I've listed above are common enough and harmful enough to warrent a warning system being in place.
Word.
> 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.
Yes, it is.
> 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'm crawling back into my hole to hide now.Thank you, littleone. Thank you for all that you say. I won't forget your courage.
Lar
Posted by JenStar on March 8, 2006, at 10:46:30
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » littleone, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 10:13:25
Larry, when I read mention of "medals being given in wars for this kind of bravery" I tend to wonder whether you see this as a battle with black/white and right/wrong? Or "evil" and "good" people?
I don't see it that way - I see it as a group of people trying to understand what you're saying, and debating what is the best way to make some improvements, if indeed improvements need to be made.
For me personally, I find it hard to identify with someone's root argument when I am faced with multiple empassioned similes and metaphors comparing the current situation to other situations which it does not, in my opinion, resemble.
To me, it feels like reading marketing hyperbole. And I'm sorry to say that, because you're clearly in pain, but it's how I feel. It makes me less likely to want to help someone when the method in which they present their argument doesn't appeal to me. I know it's important to get past that, as another poster commented, and I will try.
I'd be OK with red checkmarks for certain content: SI, CSA, abuse, extreme violence. But I think they should be mandatory. My reasoning is this: I like the atmosphere here. I like the fact that we are allowed to talk about topics that are considered "taboo" elsewhere, because in many cases, it seems to help people get better and to deal with their pain. I don't want to lose the spontaneity some people have when they post. And I don't want some poeple not to post at all because they're afraid that what they say might not be appropriate, or are not sure whether or not to use the checkmark. I would not want to see people blocked because they mistakenly did not use a checkmark.
I also worry that if people have to screen their work and find it "trigger-worthy" it might ceate emotional landmines for THEM. Someone whose main topics are always triggers, and MUST be triggered (or blocks may occur), could understandably become somewhat morose or down about it all, and might stop posting entirely. At least, that's how I see it.
It seems that the place would become more about the nature of the posts than the content of the posts. I don't think it's possible to make this place 100% before-the-fact safe for everyone. And again, if we try, I worry that we will make rules so unwieldy that the spirit of the site will suffer.I'm sorry that words here are strewn with so many landmines for you. However, I don't think we should fix the problem with mandatory trigger warnings. I'm OK with voluntary ones.
JenStar
Posted by Dinah on March 8, 2006, at 11:34:15
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Larry Hoover, posted by JenStar on March 8, 2006, at 10:46:30
I think I'm ok with mandatory trigger warnings with a reasonably long phase in period. It's really not as intuitive as other subjects. I'd be inclined to put a trigger warning on any post where I type out SI or suicide, and I'm not sure that's the intent. While a newcomer to the site might not know when to post trigger warnings at all, and it may take a while to get the knack.
How about we save sanctions for people who've had the policy explained many times, and still don't comply? At least at the beginning.
It'd be an awful lot of extra work for Dr. Bob. Could we rely on other posters to remind or inform posters who don't comply of the rules?
Posted by verne on March 8, 2006, at 12:01:39
In reply to Re: Am I the only one?, posted by Dinah on March 8, 2006, at 11:34:15
Good points Larry, JenStar, Gabbix, Dinah, and others.
In the spirit of brainstorming this, it occured to me that an entire board could have a trigger warning. People could post about trigger topics in the appropriate room. Those sensitive to certain topics could steer clear of those rooms.
If finding room for more boards is a problem, perhaps, some could be consolidated.
Health/Eating,SubstanceUse, Politics/Faith, and Parents/Relationships could be combined. Withdrawal could be reabsorbed into the PsychoBabble main board.
just an idea.
verne
Posted by AuntieMel on March 8, 2006, at 12:07:31
In reply to Re: improvements **TRIGGER** » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 9:58:46
Lar has some really good points. As do Dinah and Jen.
Surely there is that 'core' group that everyone can agree on. There really are only a few of them.
Like Lar (and you, by the way) said: who knows better what is *inside* the post than the one posting it.
Just having the flag (and making it part of the 'confirm your message' process) would help remind people that it might be an issue. Otherwise people just might not think about it.
And just making it something to click on helps to protect those who need protection, but doesn't make the subjects taboo, which is also a good thing.
But - phasing it in is a good idea. People are used to the way things are and it would take a bit to change. Maybe new people would get "N" posts before it becomes mandatory, too, so they aren't faced with any sanctions right away.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 13:37:13
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Larry Hoover, posted by JenStar on March 8, 2006, at 10:46:30
> Larry, when I read mention of "medals being given in wars for this kind of bravery" I tend to wonder whether you see this as a battle with black/white and right/wrong? Or "evil" and "good" people?
Well, a person can be obviously disabled, visibly disabled, as in needing a wheelchair, or oxygen tank. Or, the disability can be invisible. The fact that the disability is not obvious and overt to others has no relevance of any kind, to the disabled party. Shall I wear a scarlet letter?
I have tried to characterize a particular kind of invisible disability. I have tried to show that there is a divide between those who have it, and those who have not. I have pointedly tried to elucidate that distinction, that distinctiveness that characterizes the disability. I see it as some success that you have recognized how important that particular distinction is. What I seem to not yet have achieved is a more empathetic understanding of why that distinction is so important.
If I have achieved that distinctiveness, please Ms. White, would you come look at it from Mr. Black's eyes? Would you listen only to my words, and banish your preconceptions about what it is to have what I have?
I, upon many hours of reflection, came upon a designation that suggested or symbolized this particular distinction. I called it "The Sensitized". Others before me have used that same root word, so I see it as being appropriate.
Rhetorical thought alone. What word would characterize not being sensitive? Insensitive?
If you haven't had this disability in your life, how can you learn of it, but through repeated attempts to understand what I can only describe in inferential terms? You don't know what it's like. You have no idea what it's like. And I pray to God that you never do.
The reason there is so much rhetoric and passion here is that words are not enough to convey what happens. There is no language for it. If I could channel one instant of one of those times to you, you would not question why this is necessary.
I am a wordsmith of some skill, and words are not enough.
> I don't see it that way - I see it as a group of people trying to understand what you're saying, and debating what is the best way to make some improvements, if indeed improvements need to be made.
Thank you.
The improvement sought must be appropriate to the disability itself. If someone needs a wheelchair, oxygen won't do.
What the sensitive need from you, the insensitive (used in that rhetorical sense implied above), is forethought. What has been offered is not forethought. Ergo, it does not address the disability, no matter how well-intentioned your efforts might be.
But forethought is nothing new! I'm not asking for something that you don't already give every post you submit. There is a part of me that is aghast that we even need to have this discussion. You can't f*rt, but you can drop a rape imagery bomb? I applaud the sensitivity in these guidelines. <sarcasm>
If you want to know if the solution is going to work, you need to listen to the answer you receive from the disabled person himself. Your preconceptions about what a solution might be may be totally inappropriate. In this case, they are inappropriate.
There is no substitute for forethought, here. Afterthought, as you might discover in reading the post from littleone, is an insult. It could be seen as a slap in the face, and as she said, a kick in the gut. All symbolic descriptions, you might note. The sensitive are very symbolic people.
> For me personally, I find it hard to identify with someone's root argument when I am faced with multiple empassioned similes and metaphors comparing the current situation to other situations which it does not, in my opinion, resemble.
I think the germane opinion, your interest notwithstanding, is the one expressed by the person seeking aid.
I've tried to show how important this subject is. I have tried to show that protection after the fact is no protection at all.
If the Babble process that arises from these discussions does not require mandatory consideration for one more thing that we've already been mandated to be sensitive about, then the process has failed utterly to address the needs of the sensitive. Instead, you wish to designate an exception. One you know is very highly sensitive to some people (if you accept my word and littleone's and others' as truth), and you wish only to be conditionally sensitive towards it. Elective sensitivity! How, uhhhh, sensitive of you.
I have to reiterate, to restate what to me is obvious.
Partial protection is an illusion. And I do not accept your illusion as a valid measure to protect me from triggers. It doesn't address the need. Are you listening?
> To me, it feels like reading marketing hyperbole. And I'm sorry to say that, because you're clearly in pain, but it's how I feel. It makes me less likely to want to help someone when the method in which they present their argument doesn't appeal to me. I know it's important to get past that, as another poster commented, and I will try.
I've never before considered the impact of being too articulate.
I don't know what to say to that, other than to ask you to read my posts again, more slowly, point by point.
> I'd be OK with red checkmarks for certain content: SI, CSA, abuse, extreme violence. But I think they should be mandatory.I think you mis-spoke, considering your later conclusion.
> My reasoning is this: I like the atmosphere here. I like the fact that we are allowed to talk about topics that are considered "taboo" elsewhere, because in many cases, it seems to help people get better and to deal with their pain.
I totally support that. This is not about censorship.
> I don't want to lose the spontaneity some people have when they post. And I don't want some poeple not to post at all because they're afraid that what they say might not be appropriate, or are not sure whether or not to use the checkmark.
Everything, every topic, is appropriate here. Just think about the content, as Bob already asks you to do.
Maybe going to automatic asterisking for vulgar language was a really bad idea. It reverted responsibility to some unseen entity, so people can f*rt or f*ck or sh*t wherever they want to.
> I would not want to see people blocked because they mistakenly did not use a checkmark.
How could your foresee it ever getting to that point?
Can we not bring this in gently, rather than with a Draconian fist?
I know we can.
When we get to implementation, I guarantee you, I have given that a great deal of thought also. There will be many ideas to consider, at implementation. Changes to the FAQ. A "new" flag on the FAQ button, to draw people to read about the change. Further discussion arising therefrom. Let's not worry about that, yet.
Let's leave implementation, and fears arising from that, to a separate discussion. When that time comes, okay?
You're feeling protective about a hypothetical risk. I'm trying to get you to understand something real, that's happening already, every day. You're worried about hurting somebody's feelings, hypothetically, and I'm telling you that you (collectively, and not accusatively) already have hurt mine. And the sensitive. And you've silenced us, and you didn't know. It's high time that you did.
Would you have built a wheelchair ramp, before an advocate for disabled rights visited your store? Would you have given it any thought at all?
> I also worry that if people have to screen their work and find it "trigger-worthy" it might ceate emotional landmines for THEM.
That's possible, absolutely. But consider, it's only trigger-worthy because of the inherent triggering capacity. That is already in play, whether the person gave it forethought or not. It's a trait of the content itself, not of the decisions made about it.
> Someone whose main topics are always triggers, and MUST be triggered (or blocks may occur), could understandably become somewhat morose or down about it all, and might stop posting entirely. At least, that's how I see it.
You are trying to understand something you know nothing about. I am grateful for the effort. More than you know. But, please, let's not forget, you don't KNOW.
Listen to the answers of those for whom it is not hypothetical. That is where the truth lies. My rhetoric is drafted to open your mind, and get you to listen to me.
Part of healing from such an emotional vulnerability is simply comprehending the scope of the vulnerability itself. Punching a trigger button on a website page is simply one way that the realities touch and interact. I know I have triggers, ferchr*sake. For those who don't yet recognize that, this is the path. This is the way from here to there. I'm ready to be there, for those who discover it matters. That is, if the needed change comes to pass.
Seriously, I am aghast that there is any debate here at all.
What is civil about surprising sensitive people? Please tell me. What?
> It seems that the place would become more about the nature of the posts than the content of the posts.
We already are to pre-screen our posts for an abundance of concerns, ones that even just *could* be true, not what you even meant. What is hard about recognizing graphic or explicit imagery? Bob asks you to pause at the "submit post" page, and reflect a moment. I ask no more.
> I don't think it's possible to make this place 100% before-the-fact safe for everyone.
I reiterate. I am not asking for safety, I am asking for support.
> And again, if we try, I worry that we will make rules so unwieldy that the spirit of the site will suffer.
What is unwieldy about it? Some of us are already doing it, without prompting. I'm asking for mandatory prompting. It matters that much to me, to make you do that for me. It matters that much that I am asking exactly for that from you. I suspect that you will carry little burden, if ever. Each of us, a little contribution, so that more people feel safe here than before.
Your life is impoverished if the sensitive are silenced. Trust me on that, and we'll show you. This is a win-win situation, although that might be a hard sell at this point in time.
> I'm sorry that words here are strewn with so many landmines for you. However, I don't think we should fix the problem with mandatory trigger warnings. I'm OK with voluntary ones.
>
> JenStarI'm sure that will satisfy your impression of my needs. What it will fail to do is to satisfy my needs.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 13:42:43
In reply to Re: Am I the only one?, posted by Dinah on March 8, 2006, at 11:34:15
> I think I'm ok with mandatory trigger warnings with a reasonably long phase in period. It's really not as intuitive as other subjects. I'd be inclined to put a trigger warning on any post where I type out SI or suicide, and I'm not sure that's the intent. While a newcomer to the site might not know when to post trigger warnings at all, and it may take a while to get the knack.
I propose helping write a rather detailed analysis for the FAQ. I hadn't got to making that point very explicitly, as of yet. It's buried in one of my, errr, novels.
> How about we save sanctions for people who've had the policy explained many times, and still don't comply? At least at the beginning.
That sounds Babble-like to me.
> It'd be an awful lot of extra work for Dr. Bob. Could we rely on other posters to remind or inform posters who don't comply of the rules?I would be pleased to offer my support. I may have made it sound like I was looking for a fight. What I want is recognition. Conciliation. Healing, instead of having those wounds torn open yet again.
Lar
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 8, 2006, at 14:04:19
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Larry Hoover, posted by JenStar on March 8, 2006, at 10:46:30
Thanks Jen
You nailed just about every feeling I had while reading these posts.
I felt it was like marketing hyperbole as well, and that the statement about leaving babble may read more as a threat than a need, perhaps because it's been used several times, over different issues.
And after I wrote about the trigger warnings not hurting anyone, I re-thought it, and too felt that it would become unweildy, and yet not make it really any safer for more people.And Larry, yes I *do* know, I know very well what it's like to be devasted emotionally, and so do I daresay, most of us here.
I resent the implication that if I don't agree with you fully, somehow I'm being insensitive.
This cannot be reduced to this one facet, there are many issues here that require sensitivity, and thought.Right now I'm too angry to respond to any more of this, you might even say triggered.
I'm not saying that to be petty, it's true.
And it's another reminder to me, that you can't protect everyone from everything that may disturb them.
Posted by JenStar on March 8, 2006, at 14:39:55
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » JenStar, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 13:37:13
hi Larry,
I understand that what I'm coming out in favor of -- voluntary red checkmarks or voluntary dropdown arrows to select trigger topis - might not completely address all of your needs/preferences. I wasn't trying to imply that voluntary reporting could or should satisfy you entirely.I guess I'm thinking of what would be a fair balance between YOUR preferences (the preferences of the "Sensitive People") and the preferences of the rest of the community. And of course since I *don't* know what it's like to be anyone but me, I'm hazarding my own best guess based on my thoughts and ideas about this place. My ideas might not match up with the majority or even the minority here, I know.
I know that it will be impossible to get it perfect for everyone. To me, voluntary use of a red check might be a good balance between the needs of the two groups.
It's not that I don't care about you and the way you are triggered. I do care. But when I, as a mere user, think about changing rules of this Babble place, I think about it in terms of what would be best for the community as a whole. That may be why my recommendations don't match up with what you'd really like to see done.
Even if I don't agree with what you want, I am still sympathetic to you. Would you be willing to compromise at all? Even if the rules weren't perfect for you, would you be partially satisfied (and stay here) if they were made at least somewhat better than they are?
JenStar
Posted by AuntieMel on March 8, 2006, at 14:42:34
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » JenStar, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 13:37:13
First, please calm down. I don't want you to get into any trouble.
At first I didn't 'get it' - didn't understand how reading someone could really stir up old, horrible feelings. Then I read the one about looking over a cliff.
My good friend's sister ...
Well, I don't have to go further.
But - oh the feelings that stirred up. And the shock at seeing it. I 'get it' now, but I can also see why it's hard to explain.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 14:45:25
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » JenStar, posted by Gabbix2 on March 8, 2006, at 14:04:19
> I felt it was like marketing hyperbole as well, and that the statement about leaving babble may read more as a threat than a need, perhaps because it's been used several times, over different issues.
I can't help but feel you're no longer talking to Jen.
My path has previously forked off from Babble, but it has also brought me back. Threat? The only threat I make is to me. I'm trying to make sense of something, right before your eyes. Strange as it may seem, right before my own, too.
In coming to terms with stressors on my life, with the pain I have, and now nine meds for that pain, without due relief, a re-evaluation was necessary. The only significant source of triggers in my life is Babble. It's change Babble or just leave. But you know me well enough to know that I give my best before I make my own decisions to change such an important aspect of my life. I don't want to go. I don't want to be another Silenced Sensitive. Shall I collect a list of them? Those that simply left? There are some stand-out names on that list.
Just in case you were wondering how I saw my path.
> And after I wrote about the trigger warnings not hurting anyone, I re-thought it, and too felt that it would become unweildy, and yet not make it really any safer for more people.
No different than assessing your posts for other civility issues. Why is this different from sh*t and f*ck and c*cks*cker (whoa, bob, that one's not on the automatic asterisk list)? Why is this lesser than that?
> And Larry, yes I *do* know, I know very well what it's like to be devasted emotionally, and so do I daresay, most of us here.I know. Yes, it is commonplace here. So, why isn't there any sanctuary here?
> I resent the implication that if I don't agree with you fully, somehow I'm being insensitive.
I expected different arguments to touch different people. The concept I am trying to present, I am trying to present as an all or nothing concept. A binary choice. I'm aghast that I have to argue it at all.
> This cannot be reduced to this one facet, there are many issues here that require sensitivity, and thought.
And discussion. And feelings. And more discussion. I'm trying to rouse some thinking here. I want this subject to obtain some attention. I'm rising from silence, after all.
> Right now I'm too angry to respond to any more of this, you might even say triggered.I'm sorry that I have inspired anger. I'm not sorry that I have inspired.
> I'm not saying that to be petty, it's true.
> And it's another reminder to me, that you can't protect everyone from everything that may disturb them.I don't seek protection from everything. I seek protection from a very special few things. I don't know how the one has become confused for the other.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 14:57:42
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Larry Hoover, posted by JenStar on March 8, 2006, at 14:39:55
> Would you be willing to compromise at all?
Compromise isn't even on the table in a binary decision. You got it, or you don't. Protection, I mean.
> Even if the rules weren't perfect for you, would you be partially satisfied (and stay here) if they were made at least somewhat better than they are?
No. That is a very calm decision, and I am very calm about this all, today. All day. I've been calm. I know the answer already.
It has to change, or I go. That is my path.
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.