![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 103 to 127 of 412. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by crazy teresa on March 8, 2006, at 14:59:28
In reply to Re: trigger warnings, posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2006, at 12:39:06
I'm so sorry Lar.
Is there anything I can do to help you with this?
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 8, 2006, at 15:00:26
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Gabbix2, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 14:45:25
The point wasn't so much the trigger warnings,
but the talk like this: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?
This is a board for people who need to discuss these things. To say they are sowing land-mines, judging from the fact that it hurts *you* and the "sensitized" infuriates me.
It may well help other people not feel so alone if they have the same feelings as those posters who are "sowing landmines"
I know, I know you're not asking them to stop, you're asking for trigger warnings.
Statements like that, make it more than that for meI can't say any more, because I can't be civil, or at this point, necessarily objective
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 15:16:35
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbix2 on March 8, 2006, at 15:00:26
> I know, I know you're not asking them to stop, you're asking for trigger warnings.
Correct. Bob's existing standard policy requires us to "be sensitive to the feelings of others". I am, and I am other. The former, perhaps reluctantly, but the latter, without any say in the matter.
Lar
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 8, 2006, at 15:27:02
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Gabbix2, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 15:16:35
I am, and I am other. The former, perhaps reluctantly, but the latter, without any say in the matter.
>>I'm sorry that I have inspired anger. I'm not sorry that I have inspired.
Oh Good grief!
I feel like I'm in a Starwars movie.I'm going now. My path is leading me to the coffemaker
May the force be with you
Posted by JenStar on March 8, 2006, at 15:27:22
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » JenStar, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 14:57:42
Larry,
It's hard for me to feel that debating a change is worthwhile if my debate partner is not willing to compromise on a solution.Ultimatums are hard to address.
JenStar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 15:52:32
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Larry Hoover, posted by JenStar on March 8, 2006, at 15:27:22
> Larry,
> It's hard for me to feel that debating a change is worthwhile if my debate partner is not willing to compromise on a solution.
>
> Ultimatums are hard to address.
>
> JenStarIt's not an ultimatum. It's a binary decision. I'm being offered half, and solutions don't come in halves.
Dinah was just a wee bit ahead of us.....the compromises come in implementation. That's the only place they can be. Nonetheless, the binary decision is mandatory or nothing. There is no half way.
I didn't create the situation. I'm trying to describe the one we've got to consider. What you have been proposing as your idea of compromise is not of any impact in so far as bringing us closer to a solution. You are offering me "no effect" or "no effect". One of those is doing nothing, and the other is your idea of a solution, and I can't tell them apart.
The solution is mandatory trigger flags. The implementation is still barely discussed. I'm sure that you can see that I'm starting at the very bottom of the process, with that one issue. Some decisions really are black and white (binary), even though you've been taught to think otherwise.
Once that decision is made, then there's a lot more to talk about.
Lar
Posted by JenStar on March 8, 2006, at 16:06:16
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » JenStar, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 15:52:32
Larry,
the thing is, I just don't agree that mandatory trigger flags are the right thing for Babble. I know it's not my decision alone. But it's my opinion. I think we need compromise on the decision NOW, not just during implementation.I think a "binary decision" *is* an ultimatum, just with another name. If someone says, "If you don't do X, I will do Y" and leaves no room for compromise, I think it's an ultimatum regardless of whatever it's called.
I feel that I'm capable of looking at decisions and situations from different angles. I just think this is one that merits compromise so that it best fits the group AS A WHOLE.
I'm not sure we're going to get anywhere with this, though, if you're really not interested in a compromise and meet-halfway kind of solution.
My suggestion: I support VOLUNTARY red checkmarks and/or drop down arrows that highlight certain posts as triggers for things like SI, CSA, extreme violence. Obviously if these things become mandatory, I will follow the rules. But I personally feel that voluntary reporting is the best thing for the community as a whole.
Should we agree to disagree? I'm not sure that any more discussion between you and me is going to result in progress? Maybe we should both hold off and wait for more posters to join in with their ideas? I'll do that, at least. I've said my idea, and I will listen to what others think. thanks!
JenStar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 16:06:27
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » JenStar, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 15:52:32
There are many ways I've asked people to think of this, and I'm going to add another.
If I might enter Babble every day, knowing that *every* post around me has at least had the inkling of trigger considered, I can start my day in safety. I want that, because I've never had it before, and it would bring me closer to being unsensitized, like you. All day, I'm not safe, every day. I have to be a certain amount of awake, in the morning, before I come....and I hold my breath, and I start clicking on things, to see which gets me first, my interest, or a trigger. And I want to be like you.
Babble is the only source of triggers in my life, almost. It takes its toll.
Lar
Posted by All Done on March 8, 2006, at 16:49:59
In reply to Re: Another tack, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 16:06:27
> If I might enter Babble every day, knowing that *every* post around me has at least had the inkling of trigger considered, I can start my day in safety.
Hi, Larry.
Can that be accomplished by simply asking the posters if they want to add a trigger warning prior to submitting their posts? It wouldn't be *manadatory* to add the warning, but it would ensure posters at least think about trigger possibilities and subsequenstly make decisions to add warnings or not.
I realize this doesn't ensure everyone will select to add a warning to something that may be triggering. I don't know if making this mandatory *would* ensure that, though. Not everyone follows the rules all the time. (Much to my chagrin. ;) )
Laurie
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 19:19:08
In reply to maybe we should get input from more people? » Larry Hoover, posted by JenStar on March 8, 2006, at 16:06:16
> I think a "binary decision" *is* an ultimatum, just with another name.
I urge you to reconsider that conclusion. It is not in accord with the only evidence you have.
> If someone says, "If you don't do X, I will do Y" and leaves no room for compromise, I think it's an ultimatum regardless of whatever it's called.
I'm sorry my multi-track mind has mangled the muse for you. My decision to stay (or not) is independent of my desire to sort this out, regardless of anything else that might be going on. I'm sorry if the two seemed wedded, to you.
You ought to place no weight on me in this decision. I can only speak of me, but the decision is not about me, and never was.
> I feel that I'm capable of looking at decisions and situations from different angles. I just think this is one that merits compromise so that it best fits the group AS A WHOLE.
I suggested my suggestion was a win-win. Have you explored that?
> I'm not sure we're going to get anywhere with this, though, if you're really not interested in a compromise and meet-halfway kind of solution.
Your compromise is not one, because if fails to meet any of my needs, only yours. You can understand why it is rejected, on that basis.
> My suggestion: I support VOLUNTARY red checkmarks and/or drop down arrows that highlight certain posts as triggers for things like SI, CSA, extreme violence. Obviously if these things become mandatory, I will follow the rules. But I personally feel that voluntary reporting is the best thing for the community as a whole.
No, because that permits and actually encourages inequalities. One rule for all, equally advanced. Be responsible for your own posts, just as before.
> Should we agree to disagree? I'm not sure that any more discussion between you and me is going to result in progress?
If you continue to hold our your suggestion as a compromise, you can be sure of that. It is zero to me. I gain nothing by it. I would appreciate a sensitive attempt at meeting my needs in some way, if you want to formalize the idea that an offer has even been made. So far, this negotiator has not received a counter-proposal to manditory flagging that meets even the simplest a prior criteria.
> Maybe we should both hold off and wait for more posters to join in with their ideas? I'll do that, at least. I've said my idea, and I will listen to what others think. thanks!
>
> JenStarSorry, I didn't see that statement until now, and I've already written what I wanted to.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 19:25:24
In reply to Re: Another tack » Larry Hoover, posted by All Done on March 8, 2006, at 16:49:59
> > If I might enter Babble every day, knowing that *every* post around me has at least had the inkling of trigger considered, I can start my day in safety.
>
> Hi, Larry.
>
> Can that be accomplished by simply asking the posters if they want to add a trigger warning prior to submitting their posts? It wouldn't be *manadatory* to add the warning, but it would ensure posters at least think about trigger possibilities and subsequenstly make decisions to add warnings or not.
>
> I realize this doesn't ensure everyone will select to add a warning to something that may be triggering. I don't know if making this mandatory *would* ensure that, though. Not everyone follows the rules all the time. (Much to my chagrin. ;) )
>
> LaurieIf I don't have faith in the process, I cannot have faith in the outcome. How can I possibly place my faith in a system which has no real rules of conduct?
You can glorify the current voluntary system, which I have described as inadequate. You can put a nice fancy flag out there, and tie it in a bow. If it isn't mandatory, it isn't worth.... forget it.
Even I, the man who never let a controversy go quietly into that dark of night, am weary.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 19:27:11
In reply to maybe we should get input from more people? » Larry Hoover, posted by JenStar on March 8, 2006, at 16:06:16
> Larry,
> If someone says, "If you don't do X, I will do Y" and leaves no room for compromise, I think it's an ultimatum regardless of whatever it's called.I should think that at this point, your greatest fear might instead be that I change my mind and stay. :-/
Lar
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 8, 2006, at 19:28:55
In reply to Re: Another tack, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 16:06:27
> There are many ways I've asked people to think of this, and I'm going to add another.
>
> If I might enter Babble every day, knowing that *every* post around me has at least had the inkling of trigger considered, I can start my day in safety. I want that, because I've never had it before, and it would bring me closer to being unsensitized, like you. All day, I'm not safe, every day. I have to be a certain amount of awake, in the morning, before I come....and I hold my breath, and I start clicking on things, to see which gets me first, my interest, or a trigger. And I want to be like you.
>
> Babble is the only source of triggers in my life, almost. It takes its toll.
>
> LarI feel manipulated by this.
It's not all about you.
I feel like the my pain and my needs and that of others is being ignored in order to bring the focus to your own. And it's becoming progressively more dramatic as the thread goes on, without your desired resolution.
WE couldn't be in as much pain as you, or we'd agree with you.
No one could feel as strongly about something, and react in a different way.
No according to you they'd be thinking "F*ck those people in wheelchairs"You've said yourself that you post on Alt.Depression.medication..
There is not even the most remote form of moderation there, it's a free for all I can't go there, it makes me sick to my stomach.It's personal, I know, however what you've said here however indirectly has been very personal, and worded very strongly.
You claim that people couldn't know how you feel.
Do you know how everyone else feels?I don't understand this.
Posted by verne on March 8, 2006, at 19:52:58
In reply to Re: Jen? » JenStar, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 19:27:11
Larry,
I've always been one of your biggest fans. You and PsychoBabble are synomynous.
I'm not sure though I can agree with your comment to JenStar: "I should think that at this point, your greatest fear might instead be that I change my mind and stay."
Or earlier when you said others didn't "know".
Even if we could read minds, I'm not sure it's polite to tell others what they are thinking and feeling.
I think you're the best. I would rather read Larry Hoover's comments on the alternative board than a book on the subject any day. I hope it works out so you can stay.
Meanwhile, all this emotional wrangling, the ultimatums, and brinkmanship, has "triggered" me into drinking. (maybe a little anyway)
Verne
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 20:06:56
In reply to Re: Another tack » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbix2 on March 8, 2006, at 19:28:55
> I feel manipulated by this.
I'm sick and tired of being manipulated by people who put their desire to speak their minds ahead of my desire to clear the area first. Maybe we're on a more even keel right now.
> It's not all about you.
Feel free to speak about you. I happen to be an expert about me.
> I feel like the my pain and my needs and that of others is being ignored in order to bring the focus to your own. And it's becoming progressively more dramatic as the thread goes on, without your desired resolution.
If you wanna debate, I've given you years' worth. Drum me out if you must, but I'm not going to be taken for granted in this way any more. I am not a selfish person. I seldom even speak of my own needs. It's part and parcel with my disorder, though. And though there be good and better ways to get across what I'm trying to get across, I know that I *have* gotten across.
So, I'm done, unless somebody wants to take some more cracks at me, instead of the ideas.
> WE couldn't be in as much pain as you, or we'd agree with you.I asked for a witness to a special view into the dynamic of one word, protection, as it applies to triggers. I am stubborn to make that point.
I don't profess expert status on such matters. But I can tell you I have been studying advocacy with local experts, and I have attended dozens of hours of special workshops on similar issues. A solution must originate from the perspective of the one in need. Must do so. Nothing else is within the dignity of the need itself, except by chance. Unless you don't care to meet the need at all, which can lead to much ado going nowhere. I'm trying to avoid that wasted effort.
> No one could feel as strongly about something, and react in a different way.
I dare say you're reading many things in, that I didn't place there.
> No according to you they'd be thinking "F*ck those people in wheelchairs"
Got your attention, huh. That was a quote, by the way. Not my words, but a quote, from a public meeting I attended. And, if you read that paragraph again, you can hear the dripping sarcasm, swim in it.
> You've said yourself that you post on Alt.Depression.medication..
> There is not even the most remote form of moderation there, it's a free for all I can't go there, it makes me sick to my stomach.I do post to a.s.d.m., but only in an advisory capacity any more. Got rid of the last neanderthal, and things are smooth, for the last while.
> It's personal, I know, however what you've said here however indirectly has been very personal, and worded very strongly.Yes.
> You claim that people couldn't know how you feel.
Not without listening precisely to my answers, not even a chance. Voluntary flagging does not address the special needs which I have been discussing. Needs which are not unique to me. I just know mine best, so I use them in discussion. I, from the get-go, made this about the sensitized, not me. 10% of the mentally ill, give or take. Not sure about Babble, because of the distortion imposed by years' of not addressing what no other moderated site I know has failed to address. Didn't want to put it like that, but it's not just PsychCentral that I compare it to.
I swear, again, I cannot believe I have to debate the merits.
> Do you know how everyone else feels?
Nope. Wouldn't be so presumptuous.
> I don't understand this.Sorry. Shall I try again?
<joke/silly/not serious>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.