![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 412. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 9:18:14
In reply to Re: red alert, posted by Dr. Bob on March 2, 2006, at 2:54:00
I sort of like the personal touch of adding trigger, and the various wordings that can be used, plus followups may still need it, if the original text is quoted.
Plus, I'd sort of hate for the simple lines of Babble to start looking busy.
But that's me.
Posted by sleepygirl on March 2, 2006, at 10:02:50
In reply to Re: red alert, posted by Dr. Bob on March 2, 2006, at 2:54:00
the klingons are attacking!!! Scotty, we need warp power!!
but yes I think it's a good idea, but maybe not with the phrase "red alert" - it's too terrorist threatish, star trekky, etc.
Posted by pseudoname on March 2, 2006, at 10:25:37
In reply to Re: red alert, posted by sleepygirl on March 2, 2006, at 10:02:50
Actually, I should withdraw my "vote". I never use the trigger warning. As long as it's going to be a VOLUNTARY courtesy, it should be decided by people who do use it or rely on it.
BUT... I do have an aesthetic opinion if it is used. As SG says...
> maybe not with the phrase "red alert" - it's too terrorist threatish, star trekky
...maybe a nice tiny icon? Instead of words or confusing abbrevs. Maybe a little caution light? Like this, but smaller http://www.merokee.com/sys-tmpl/nss-folder/scrapbook/Traffic%20Light%20Yellow.jpg or this http://apache.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/document/sources/httpd-2.0.45-html/source/srclib/apr/images/caution.gif maybe without the exclamation point...?
Posted by pseudoname on March 2, 2006, at 10:32:42
In reply to Re: I had to ask the same question... » pseudoname, posted by Phillipa on March 1, 2006, at 20:44:58
> > Maybe this could be added to the FAQs?
>
> isn't it?I couldn't find it. If I missed it, please let me know.
If the checkbox is offered, there should be some official guidelines for using it. But even if Bob doesn't make a checkbox, it would still be nice to have it in the FAQs.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2006, at 12:39:06
In reply to I had to ask the same question... » asmita, posted by pseudoname on March 1, 2006, at 10:18:55
> ...a few years ago.
>
> I was told that some topics (like descriptions of abuse, assault, self-mutilation, horrific events, etc) can trigger uncomfortable, disruptive memories, feelings, and desires (like self-mutilation) in some people. "Trigger" in the subject line is a warning to them.
>
> Maybe this could be added to the FAQs?This subject is so important to me, that I am almost speechless about it. I very much want to have some safety rules drafted, so that people like me can feel safe. As Babble is now, I am not safe.
For me, an ideal protection would be afforded by an outright ban of any mention of self-harm, or descriptions of assaults by others. My emotions can be so triggered into massive horrid pain and fear and.....
Words have meanings, and some strings of words are provocative and stimulating in ways that are most unpleasant and most unwelcome.
That is what is like, for me. If only I had a choice whether I might stumble across those evocative words. That's the problem I have, being here, as it is now.
Another site simply declares that any such posts are unwelcome, and if they do get posted anyway, they simply disappear....
That is a black and white solution to my problem. But, it doesn't address the fact that others need the forum to do just that. It seems that self-injury is an acceptable topic here, so I must consider a compromise solution. We can't and won't ban them outright, so....
...an alternative measure that improves the protection I seek, but which still addresses the needs of others, is to create a dedicated board for self injury. Failure to segregate such posts to that board, to be a blockable offense. Hmmm. Pretty unwieldy, right? Various threads move in different directions, sometimes simultaneously. It could come up anywhere. I think this solution is still not workable, so....
....I come to what I think is a workable solution, that affords protections not previously offered to me....a requirement that any post that deals with self-injury, suicidal ideation, or graphic portrayals of assault (list of trigger subjects certainly subject to debate) be required to carry an explicit subject line banner of some sort (TRIGGER seems to be a candidate, as does Bob's idea of a flag), and some context about the theme of the conversation, so that I can protect myself.
As it is now, Babble is a minefield. Each step I take, each post I open, could blow up on me. I can't help it. I have PTSD. I have a vivid imagination, and words can and do make me cringe, cry, scream, run, yell, ruin my day.
I've been evolving with Babble, as Babble evolves around me. And I've come to the conclusion that I need protection, or I must leave Babble. I care too much about the lives and feelings of other people, that I can't risk many more exposures to these triggers. I just can't.
I want formal protection. I want it in the FAQ.
I want to know beforehand that something might ring my bell. I don't want to open another bomb.
Please, please make Babble safe for me.Lar
Posted by zenhussy on March 2, 2006, at 13:02:26
In reply to Re: trigger warnings, posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2006, at 12:39:06
>>>As Babble is now, I am not safe.<<<
we would guess a large number of people join you in that feeling......however we don't have the stats available to make any conclusions...only a guess that your feelings are shared by more than anyone might ever know.
>>>I've been evolving with Babble, as Babble evolves around me. And I've come to the conclusion that I need protection, or I must leave Babble. I care too much about the lives and feelings of other people, that I can't risk many more exposures to these triggers. I just can't.
I want formal protection. I want it in the FAQ.
I want to know beforehand that something might ring my bell. I don't want to open another bomb.Please, please make Babble safe for me.
Lar<<<only you can make babble safe for yourself Lar. pls continue doing what you need for your protection. it sure would be interesting to watch PB evolve to the stage of including trigger icons on posts..........not holding our breath and not sure what would constitute triggers as this community is so varied in its makeup that what might trigger one person may be "nothing" to another and vice versa. oh the variables of this mutual support and education community!
we hope your years of involvement here and elsewhere have helped you to better understand your triggers and how to take care so that you're not >>>"...so triggered into massive horrid pain and fear and....."<<<
good luck Lar. keep on that path of learning and healing.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on March 2, 2006, at 16:36:01
In reply to Re: trigger warnings » Larry Hoover, posted by zenhussy on March 2, 2006, at 13:02:26
Wow...
I think this subject sort of goes along with the whole PBC thing. Is there actually a way to make this board completely safe, completely civil, but still effective?
I'm very sorry that you get triggered. I sometimes do too. When I think a subject might be a trigger, I try to warn people in the subject line. What makes it tough is that SO MANY things can be triggers for so many different people. I think it's impossible to identify all of them. What's worse is that things that some people might never imagine to be triggers might trigger others.
And then there are those who don't, or have never had a problem with SI, PTSD, or triggers in general. How can they be prepared to warn someone? Obviously, with talk of SI, or the obvious sensitive topics, they might understand, but there are some things that only through experience are obvious.
I think that for me, it's been fairly effective. A box to check for trigger might make it more obvious to posters that triggers are something to be considered. Perhaps the reminder that there are people here who do get triggered will help them in their wording, and to use a warning when difficult subjects come up that they can't word in a non-triggering fashion.Another thing that might help is for us to be aware of what things are triggers. I don't know if there might be a way to compile some sort of list, and perhaps add the more common ones to the faq. It might be difficult for some of us to compile though as talking about them, or writing them down could be a triggering process in itself. In any event, it's an interesting thing to think about.
I certainly don't have any answers.
--Dee
Posted by gardenergirl on March 2, 2006, at 22:03:29
In reply to Re: trigger warnings, posted by deirdrehbrt on March 2, 2006, at 16:36:01
I agree that finding a way to alert to triggers would be very helpful in keeping this a safe place. I'm sorry if by posting my joke about sound effects it appeared that I was making light of the issue itself.
I tend to blurt a lot. Sorry.
gg
Posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 22:14:49
In reply to Re: trigger warnings, posted by gardenergirl on March 2, 2006, at 22:03:29
It would be impossible to trigger warning everything. For example, gg is the only one who triggers barf posts for me. And I'm not joking about that.
But if the board were to come up with a list of things they think deserve triggers, and a threshold of when they deserve them.
For example, the statement "Clinicians frequently diagnose patients who SI as borderline" mentions self injury, but I wouldn't think it was triggery. But maybe that's just because it wouldn't trigger me.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2006, at 22:37:58
In reply to Re: trigger warnings, posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 22:14:49
> It would be impossible to trigger warning everything. For example, gg is the only one who triggers barf posts for me. And I'm not joking about that.
Of course. But I don't think it would be too hard to draw up a concise description of the issue, and how best to address it.
> But if the board were to come up with a list of things they think deserve triggers, and a threshold of when they deserve them.
>
> For example, the statement "Clinicians frequently diagnose patients who SI as borderline" mentions self injury, but I wouldn't think it was triggery. But maybe that's just because it wouldn't trigger me.Exactly the kind of conversation I was hoping to see.
It is not triggery to me to talk about SI, or even to mention one such situation, e.g. cutting. (I don't presume to speak for others.) It's when the post takes on a graphic or explicit air that the problem arises. It goes from being a hypothetical or abstract idea to one of personal drama.
My proposal might be, "Graphic and explicit descriptions of self-injury, suicidal intent or other violence may provoke strong reactions in readers not expecting to read such content. In order to ensure that readers have the choice to read such content or not, all posts containing explicit content must carry a subject line warning." Normal warning blocking process, blah blah.
I just whipped that off, but I think something simple like that is quite adequate.
I don't think anybody would argue with me that the way we do things is not totally in accord with the literal reading of the FAQ. If we adopt this trigger-warning policy, then we can monitor just how we want it to be enforced by discussing specific cases. We can find a respectful balance.
It also occurs to me that self-injury, suicidal ideation and suicidal intent all have the initials SI. Maybe some clever person can work out a way to symbolize SI content within posts?
Lar
Posted by Dinah on March 2, 2006, at 22:42:58
In reply to Re: trigger warnings *Trigger* » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2006, at 22:37:58
Sometimes things might be triggery that are not especially graphic. Would reading that someone you care about just SI'd be considered a trigger? Or that they were considering suicide? Even if there was nothing graphic about the post?
What would graphic be? Would mentioning a location be graphic? A method?
I personally always mean SI as self injury.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 3, 2006, at 8:52:06
In reply to what does 'trigger' mean, posted by asmita on March 1, 2006, at 6:33:59
Did I over-post on this subject?
This whole thing has been growing in me for a long time, as an issue to discuss. And now it seems the issue has come up through the posts of others, including Dr. Bob. So, maybe I can not feel guilty asking for something (you didn't have my childhood, so....whatever), because I didn't start it.
I can't believe that we're so protective of individual sensitivities that a responsible and solid member of our community can get blocked for *implying* the word f*rt (something we all do, every day, by the way, f*rt f*rt f*rt), but there is no protection against insensitive or even intentional provocation of emotional distress through graphic expressions of SI, or threats of imminent self-harm.
I'm not asking for anything to change, other than a requirement for proper warnings. No censorship is involved.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on March 3, 2006, at 10:13:31
In reply to Re: what does 'trigger' mean, posted by Larry Hoover on March 3, 2006, at 8:52:06
?
I thought we were discussing it?
I doubt that insensitivity or intentional provocation are often involved. I think it's more a question of not knowing when it's appropriate.
I'm sure I frequently post unneccessary trigger warnings, and likely just as frequently don't post ones I should.
So I was trying for a dialog of when people would like it posted.
My own personal threshold is in describing the results of cutting, or in poetically describing the act of cutting.
As far as what triggers me to want to do the same thing.
Posted by Dinah on March 3, 2006, at 10:18:53
In reply to Re: what does 'trigger' mean, posted by Larry Hoover on March 3, 2006, at 8:52:06
Of course there are other types of posts that upset me in one way or another. And types of posts that I never respond to, even if I'm not aware of being upset (so I probably am upset on some level).
But for me those aren't standard enough to require a warning.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 3, 2006, at 11:49:41
In reply to Re: what does 'trigger' mean - Possible trigger » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on March 3, 2006, at 10:13:31
> I doubt that insensitivity or intentional provocation are often involved.
I've been trying to explain that insensitivity is in fact a very common occurrence. As to intent, I cannot address that while remaining civil.
> I think it's more a question of not knowing when it's appropriate.
It's high time that we sorted that all out.
> I'm sure I frequently post unneccessary trigger warnings, and likely just as frequently don't post ones I should.
Over-doing the trigger warnings doesn't bother me. Under-doing it most certainly does.
> So I was trying for a dialog of when people would like it posted.
>
> My own personal threshold is in describing the results of cutting, or in poetically describing the act of cutting.
>
> As far as what triggers me to want to do the same thing."Graphic or explicit" descriptions of such acts was exactly what I mentioned in my first draft for a FAQ rule.
If the description invokes an image.....it's a trigger. Or, it should be presumed to be one.
I know many people who are gone from Babble, maybe forever, because of this. Lots of occasional visitors, who come back only so long as it takes to be reminded of why they left in the first place. Babble is impoverished because of this insensitivity to triggering.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 3, 2006, at 11:52:03
In reply to Re: what does 'trigger' mean » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on March 3, 2006, at 10:18:53
> Of course there are other types of posts that upset me in one way or another. And types of posts that I never respond to, even if I'm not aware of being upset (so I probably am upset on some level).
>
> But for me those aren't standard enough to require a warning.I'm trying very very hard to not make this a rule that's all about me. My idiosyncracies are mine alone. But, I think there is a core issue, that supercedes any one individual's reaction. I think we can find common ground that is clearly definable.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on March 3, 2006, at 11:52:56
In reply to Re: what does 'trigger' mean - Possible trigger » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on March 3, 2006, at 11:49:41
I'm sorry, Lar. But I'm still not grasping the nuts and bolts specifics of what you're suggesting.
Maybe it'd be easier in email?
Tho I'm going to work today, so I won't be around for a bit.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on March 3, 2006, at 21:35:36
In reply to Re: what does 'trigger' mean - Possible trigger » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on March 3, 2006, at 11:52:56
Just catching up again.
What does it for me (as far as SI) is verbage that evokes a visual image of the act. When I can see it, in my mind, I get triggered.
Descriptions of ab*se do the same, along with romantic or detailed examples of suicidal ideation.
I agree that poetry, graphic descriptions, or verbal acting out are things that should be identified. If they sneak up on you, they can be hurtful.
Some way to identify this is a good idea.
Just my opinion.
--Dee
Posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 1:22:42
In reply to Re: what does 'trigger' mean - Possible trigger » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on March 3, 2006, at 11:52:56
Or not. Whatever.
Posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 1:42:06
In reply to Re: what does 'trigger' mean - Possible trigger, posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 1:22:42
Sorry, I'm clearly dyspeptic tonight in both meanings of the word. Naughty pasta sauce.
Posted by pseudoname on March 4, 2006, at 9:31:23
In reply to Re: trigger warnings, posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2006, at 12:39:06
Larry, your post was very moving. I had no idea of this about you.
I now realize the main reason I have never used “(poss trig)” in the subject line is that I've never posted about self-injury, suicide, etc.
However, after reading your post, I will earnestly be much more aware, and I will use warnings wherever called for, and I'm open to suggestions. Like ZH said, I'm sure you spoke for many others here. Thank you for writing what you did. I had no idea.
My reason for wanting warnings to be *voluntary* (as they are now) is that I fear the expansion of inadvertent, innocent rule infractions people will be PBC'd and blocked for. When the rule-breaking is clearly innocent or misunderstood or even impossible to predict, I experience these punishments as inhumane, abusive, arbitrary, authoritarian, autocratic, mindless, condescending, indifferent, frustrating, one-sided, suffocating... I can't even describe what they do to me. (I 100% knew what you meant when you said the trigger subject was so important to you that you were speechless about it.) I feel this way even though the punishments are always directed at *other* people – I've not yet been PBC'd.
These reactions stand in marked contrast to my other, strong, persistent very favorable thoughts and feelings about Bob and Babble. I think Bob's amazing commitment to creating a civil environment (especially free from personal attacks) makes Babble work.
But I literally lose sleep sometimes over other people's PBCs. So I was / am really leery of seeing more regulations I feel guaranteed to be powerless against, get punished for, and fail to understand. I'm not happy thinking THAT “minefield” is expanding.
But thanks to your post, I think the catastrophic reactions of people who are triggered by words & topics are clearly more serious than my reaction to punishment, which I see as a smaller and different sort of problem. I need better responses to it generally, and I can work on that.
So I'm willing to support an unavoidably displayed policy REQUIRING a warning (checkbox *or* personalized) for certain clearly specified content, even if I will sometimes be upset by its enforcement. I would appreciate it, however, if its enforcement never involved BLOCKS. Perhaps always just a PBC/PBS?
Despite feeling "speechless", Larry, you made an excellent post.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 4, 2006, at 14:56:34
In reply to Re: trigger warnings » Larry Hoover, posted by pseudoname on March 4, 2006, at 9:31:23
> Larry, your post was very moving. I had no idea of this about you.
>
> I now realize the main reason I have never used “(poss trig)” in the subject line is that I've never posted about self-injury, suicide, etc.
>
> However, after reading your post, I will earnestly be much more aware, and I will use warnings wherever called for, and I'm open to suggestions. Like ZH said, I'm sure you spoke for many others here. Thank you for writing what you did. I had no idea.Thank you. Thank you, very much.
You had no idea because it is so hard to speak.
> My reason for wanting warnings to be *voluntary* (as they are now) is that I fear the expansion of inadvertent, innocent rule infractions people will be PBC'd and blocked for. When the rule-breaking is clearly innocent or misunderstood or even impossible to predict, I experience these punishments as inhumane, abusive, arbitrary, authoritarian, autocratic, mindless, condescending, indifferent, frustrating, one-sided, suffocating... I can't even describe what they do to me. (I 100% knew what you meant when you said the trigger subject was so important to you that you were speechless about it.) I feel this way even though the punishments are always directed at *other* people – I've not yet been PBC'd.
I'm not asking for a transformation, instantly. I'm asking that we begin the transformation.
Certainly, there will be innocent transgressions. And I don't expect blocks over this. PBCs will do the job. People didn't know. People don't know. But we will make sure it becomes known.
> These reactions stand in marked contrast to my other, strong, persistent very favorable thoughts and feelings about Bob and Babble. I think Bob's amazing commitment to creating a civil environment (especially free from personal attacks) makes Babble work.
Let's expand that Babble. Let's make it safe for more sensitive sensitized people to walk these paths without fearing emotional land mines.
> But I literally lose sleep sometimes over other people's PBCs. So I was / am really leery of seeing more regulations I feel guaranteed to be powerless against, get punished for, and fail to understand. I'm not happy thinking THAT “minefield” is expanding.If I was going to compare those two landmines, my PTSD would strongly tip the balance the other way.
> But thanks to your post, I think the catastrophic reactions of people who are triggered by words & topics are clearly more serious than my reaction to punishment, which I see as a smaller and different sort of problem.
No. No comparisons. Please. The battle to reform the blocking process must proceed on another front. Your PBC-related emotions deserve audience, as well. I just want to keep this discussion on one issue alone. Thanks.
> I need better responses to it generally, and I can work on that.
Thank you.
> So I'm willing to support an unavoidably displayed policy REQUIRING a warning (checkbox *or* personalized) for certain clearly specified content, even if I will sometimes be upset by its enforcement. I would appreciate it, however, if its enforcement never involved BLOCKS. Perhaps always just a PBC/PBS?
We need protection with teeth, even if no biting occurs. I think blocking is consistent with existing structures. It's still always going to be a judgment call.
> Despite feeling "speechless", Larry, you made an excellent post.
Thank you, once again.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 4, 2006, at 14:57:40
In reply to Re: what does 'trigger' mean, posted by Larry Hoover on March 3, 2006, at 8:52:06
"She saw me crying, she heard my death threats, she knew about me buying a rope."
Here's an example that I just stumbled onto, in an unmarked thread, on the Social Board.
I bring it up because it's not a prime example of what triggers me, but because it is on the fringe. In my ideal world, that post would require a trigger warning, because it explicitly describes a suicidal mechanism. I know someone who used to post here, and he was the one that found his mother, in a rope. He told me that he had been triggered by a similar post, that he naively stumbled onto. Just as I did, a moment ago. I haven't seen him since.
I guess I want to speak for perhaps the most vulnerable people who post here. The sensitized. The ones with wounds that haven't yet healed. May not ever heal.
We were forced, by wilful people, to design public buildings to accomodate wheelchairs. So that a whole class of people would not be denied full public participation because of their history.
I am a wilful person, asking for more than courtesy to be extended to the sensitized people who would love to share in the warmth of the Babble community. As it is now, the structure has been built so as to exclude a whole class of people, because of their history.
Let's fix that.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 15:53:29
In reply to Re: what does 'trigger' mean **TRIGGER**, posted by Larry Hoover on March 4, 2006, at 14:57:40
Ok, so that was what I was trying to get at. For you mentioning a method would be a trigger?
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 4, 2006, at 16:21:28
In reply to Re: what does 'trigger' mean **TRIGGER** » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 15:53:29
> Ok, so that was what I was trying to get at. For you mentioning a method would be a trigger?
Yes. The detail is what does it. If it's easy to picture, it's a trigger.
Thanks for working so hard with me.
I hope other voices join me, here. I want a communal understanding, not one based on me alone.
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.