![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 79 to 103 of 412. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 15:20:14
In reply to Re: hurt feelings » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 14:05:34
You punish, to the fullest extent, with blocks of up to a year, for saying simple words like f*rt or sh*t. Why? Because it might upset somebody. Not in civil company.
However, you don't acknowledge the upset that is caused by people saying simple things like explicitly describing an assault, or an attempt on one's life.
Why isn't the latter uncivil?
You could not possible f*rt on me enough to make me really care, because it's such a minor slight. But, the other is stomach-turning upset, and you refuse to acknowledge it with the same civility protections afforded f*ck and sh*t.
I'm not asking people to not talk about it, but to acknowledge the sensibilities of members of the audience. To be civil with the content of their discourse.
I am baffled that you don't see what looks like a double standard from over here.
I repeat, I am not seeking censorship, as your existing language rule has in fact come to represent. People may say all that they've ever said, and sought all the comfort here that we've always offered. Just a little advertisement at the entrance to the arena. That's all I ask.
I can almost promise you, no one will ever end up blocked over this. We'll police it with an open mind and open heart. I can't understand your resistance to what is blatantly obvious to me.
I'll help you write the FAQ, Bob. We'll get this worded right.
This is one of those things where there is no half-way. You can't be a little bit pregnant, and you can't be a little bit protected from triggering. It's all or nothing. Your proposal is as good as nothing to me, and that is not me spitting out sour grapes. It just happens to be the way it is.
This is education, Bob. The disabled man calling you on your failure to treat me fairly. To treat the sensitized with the same empathy as those exposed to vulgar language. Just as there is a core group of words which are restricted, but not all words, I'm asking that a core form of language, the graphic or explicit description of violence, be similarly acknowledged as uncivil. But it doesn't even have to be sanitized, as your current language policies require. No, just acknowledged for what it is.
No surprises. Is that too much to ask?
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 15:26:26
In reply to The core issue, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 15:20:14
I feel like I'm all alone, out on a limb. Am I the only one to whom this makes any kind of a difference? I know there are dear souls no longer members of this board, to whom it would have mattered very very much.
You really have no idea how much it matters, folks. It really really matters, and it is so very hard to talk about.
Babble-break? No. Babble-broken.
:-(
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 6, 2006, at 15:38:18
In reply to Re: hurt feelings » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 14:05:34
> I'm talking about emotional landmines. You're suggesting we put a sign after it has blown my foot off. I want the minefield labelled, and both my feet as well.
What if others went first and labelled them?
Bob
Posted by Toph on March 6, 2006, at 15:49:05
In reply to Am I the only one?, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 15:26:26
I am not disagreeing with the idea that it is courteous to warn someone of a potentially harmful post, but I worry, Larry, about those of us who may identify with our victimization or traumas. What I mean is that it may be important for someone to talk about a traumatic dream or experience they had without shame or quilt. Isn't labeling it a trigger in some way attaching a stigma to it? Even if it is not, what if it is perceived that way by the poster who sees his trauma on a list of triggers? I raise these questions for discussion not to debate Lar.
Toph
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 16:01:29
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Larry Hoover, posted by Toph on March 6, 2006, at 15:49:05
> What I mean is that it may be important for someone to talk about a traumatic dream or experience they had without shame or quilt. Isn't labeling it a trigger in some way attaching a stigma to it?
Perhaps. But surely that is the lesser evil. In fact, recognizing where an experience fits into the continuum of all human experiences is a very big part of healing from it, by restoring a normalized context to an experience that is, by definition, a trauma.
Did you ever help a stranger in a wheelchair up a stair? Was there dignity, in that stranger's plight? Wouldn't a ramp have been a better idea, all along?
Keep building curbs, if that is what you will do. F*ck those people in wheelchairs. What a pain in the *ss those people are, always asking for ramps.
I'm done. See ya.
Lar
Posted by Toph on March 6, 2006, at 16:12:36
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Toph, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 16:01:29
We're all in this together Lar. We're all in chairs. You've built a lot of ramps for many here. I was only suggesting that maybe I might be offended if I had to put up warning sign every time I wanted to discuss my handicap. But I'm jumping in here late. I didn't mean to piss you off.
Toph
Posted by sdb on March 6, 2006, at 19:12:07
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 9:03:51
>Bush moves to stop bird flu, posted by Bobby on >March 2, 2006, at 21:53:20
>He has ordered carpet bombing of the Canary >Islands
I think it's very unlikely that the probably elected president is reading a joke on the pbabble and feels not respected to his views and feelings. Hello Mr. President are you here? -Actually I really don't want to see somebody bombing the Canary Islands but where, who and when is Mr. President bombing next? In reality he is bombing and shooting all the time.Newspapers publish jokes and drawings daily. It reminds me of an official dictatorship
if simple jokes about some unreachable individuals are no more allowed.I mean that somebody should learn not take it too personal if there's a joke about a political person. Otherwise I recommend not to read any newspapers, not to frequent internet and watching TV.
~sdb
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 22:10:53
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Larry Hoover, posted by Toph on March 6, 2006, at 16:12:36
> We're all in this together Lar. We're all in chairs. You've built a lot of ramps for many here. I was only suggesting that maybe I might be offended if I had to put up warning sign every time I wanted to discuss my handicap. But I'm jumping in here late. I didn't mean to piss you off.
> TophI'm sorry Toph. The last paragraph was me bellowing. Sorry that it was in your vicinity. I'm not sure which is more draining, in the end. Carrying around what I have been, or trying to explain it. Recognizing full well that this is my true burden, but that gaining community support also requires substantial effort. And trusting that there really are those silent supporters out there. The sensitized.
I am going now. Bye.
Lar
Posted by MidnightBlue on March 6, 2006, at 22:40:10
In reply to Am I the only one?, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 15:26:26
There have been many times I have stumbled into a post that has filled my mind with images I didn't want there.
I have tried to stop reading all of those posts even if that means not reading everything a person posts.
Maybe there should be a board where trigger subjects can be freely discussed, but I don't think that needs to be on the main med board or health or social. There should be trigger free zones.
Just my humble, uninformed opinion. I apologize if anyone finds this post offensive.
MB
> I feel like I'm all alone, out on a limb. Am I the only one to whom this makes any kind of a difference? I know there are dear souls no longer members of this board, to whom it would have mattered very very much.
>
> You really have no idea how much it matters, folks. It really really matters, and it is so very hard to talk about.
>
> Babble-break? No. Babble-broken.
>
> :-(
>
> Lar
Posted by James K on March 6, 2006, at 23:31:54
In reply to Re: Am I the only one?, posted by MidnightBlue on March 6, 2006, at 22:40:10
I'm going to speak on this, based upon the original question, and what I remember was Dr. Bob's question as well.
First off, I am one of the posters who has put extremely graphic and sensitive information on this site. I have been guilty of not warning potential readers ahead of time. I apologize for that. I didn't know it could and/or was affecting people to the extent described.
This is a place of mental health. I assumed that everyone here was either a patient, a student, a professional, or an uninterested observer. My only other exposure to people with mental illness has been in mental health facilities. I never had to ask people to leave the room before I talked in group, so it didn't occur to me that it was as big a deal as it obviously is.
My whole life is a trigger. Childhood physical and sexual abuse, violence, substance abuse, cutting, suicidal ideation, gestures, and attempts. Axis 1 through 7. Past present and future. There isn't a single part of having dual diagnosis that is pretty or pleasant. I have desensitized myself to the point of dangerousness.
I didn't know other people couldn't handle this stuff. I cry when I read posts. I cry when I write posts. I use trigger warnings when I realize I should, and have had people step in and give me trigger warnings after the fact. I promise to do better on this. I would be supportive of a check box if Dr. Bob feels this is the way to go. But, there is no way I'm going to vote yes on a system that is likely to increase my likelihood of being blocked. Voting isn't actually an option, but input was requested by multiple parties.
I am not in remission right now. I am in full fledged mental illness and this is my only support and social contact until I figure out my next step. I couldn't support something that would jeopardize that for me.
I will be watching my step, because I don't want to get blocked over the solid and fair rules that already exist. I will also be more aware of the issues and feelings of my fellow babblers. That's the best I can offer.
Thank you for reading,
James K
Posted by AuntieMel on March 7, 2006, at 11:05:32
In reply to Am I the only one?, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 15:26:26
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 7, 2006, at 11:10:22
In reply to Re: You're not the only one (nm) » Larry Hoover, posted by AuntieMel on March 7, 2006, at 11:05:32
Oh Mel. I was wracked with sobs by such a simple statement. One less sob stored in me. Bless your soul.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 7, 2006, at 11:33:56
In reply to Am I the only one?, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 15:26:26
I just sent an email to His Bobness, and it occurred to me that it might best be copied to the boards as well.
I know I've been saying stuff about taking a Babble-break, and then, there I am. Still posting. But after writing this, I am at the turning point. So, this may be my last post ever.
I have to decide: Babble-break or Babble-broken.
Which am I? Time will tell.
I can tell you that I am healing. I can tell you that I have certainty. I am on a healing path. I can speak of it. That is an accomplishment of some merit, and I am very proud.
To triggers, again, one last time.
Here is what I sent to Bob. (slight edits (I always see places for improvements))
Dear Bob,
It is so hard for me to not speak with passion, if I can speak at all, about what it is like to have PTSD and to be a member of the Babble community. I am grateful for your tolerance of me. I look forward to meeting you in Toronto. I want to shake your hand.
Assuming that you do set up a red-flag trigger warning system, I want you to think about the difference between mandatory and elective trigger warnings. What those two different worlds might be like.
In the elective world, I can guarantee that there will be posts that fail to meet the trigger protection guidelines, and sensitive people will feel that uncontrolled escalation of emotion. And you would leave it up to us, the sensitive ones, I suppose, to flag, notify, or reply to that failure to warn? Well, if that's what you want. I suppose I could post a civil but pointed reminder that not all people reading on these boards can manage unannounced graphic or explicit descriptions of human horror, and ask that future posts of that nature be flagged, in consideration of the sensitive.
In the other instance, everything is exactly the same. Up to the point where the warning comes in, everything is as it would be in the elective realm. (I really think that all any one individual will ever need is one such warning, but I may be wrong.) The only difference is that the reminder about being sensitive to triggering depictions would come from you, and/or your deputies. And, hopefully, deputies would be empowered to add the missing flag to the suspect post.
Two worlds. I warn, or you warn. It won't be pretty if I'm the one warning others. I don't want the job. But I'll do it. I'll be in there, in their face. Or you, with your boilerplate "please be sensitive", refer to the FAQ, standard notice. I would try to emulate your template, but it would be different coming from me, instead of you.
I know I've made much of the wheelchair metaphor. I carry my emotions around in a wheelchair. There are some places I dare not go. What a difference it would make, to have signs up, to guide my journey. You've seen them. Blue and white wheelchair signs. You've seen the curbs, older ones installed before the wheelchair activists got the ear of the able public, which have been cut down with a diamond-toothed concrete saw. Newer curbs always have ramps integral to their structure. Turning barriers into paths for wheelchair-bound people. It's a lot easier if you plan for that. Wet concrete is easy to form. Fixing it afterwards is a big job.
Do you want me to be the one putting up all those wheelchair signs? Do you want to make me cut new ramps all the time?
We're already responsible for aspects of our posts that we don't necessarily think about. You block based on what *could* be read, when a post's words are interpreted. You and I have fought about that aspect more than any other. How is it so different to make a poster consider one more aspect about their own post? Who could better know the content, than the poster himself? If you don't make flagging mandatory, you reverse the onus. It would be unique, in all that Babble regulates, to have the onus not on the poster himself, but on the reader.
Instead of self-flagging, you have proposed that I have someone maybe go ahead of me, and screen all the possible posts that I might read? How does that change the barrier to my participation in any substantive way? At the very least, I couldn't be spontaneous, as I'd have to wait until my posts were screened for me. And who wants that job, anyway? Your proposal is
unworkable, on its face. And why should the job be mine, in the beginning? It's not my job to screen posts for vulgar language. Why should it fall on me to screen for triggers?Perhaps you dislike any comparisons to Dr. Grohol's work. I don't know, there seems to be something in that. But Dr. Grohol didn't even flinch when he set up his guidelines for his own site. Some content is simply banned outright, deleted if it sneaks in, and other less triggering content must be flagged. It is simple. It works great.
Your site does not permit retroactive flagging. If the first post in a thread is triggering, but has no flag, how can the warning on that post's content even be given? It will always come too late. Always too late. Always. A sensitive soul viewing the archives a decade hence would still not see the flag in time.
The practical solution is also the one that works best. Make trigger issues the responsibility of the generating poster, and we will manage *that* with sensitivity. It is so easy to manage, up front, in the mind of the poster himself. I trust in the hearts of Babble posters. We can do this so that it works for everyone, without undue burden falling upon any individual. Just one extra thought per post, compared to generating horrors.
The alternative will be poster to poster confrontation, unless you administrate triggers, too.
I will not be posting to Babble any more, at least for the time being. I have exposed my most intimate vulnerability to the world. If that is not enough for you, then, in the fullness of time, it will be up to me.
PTSD afflicts up to 10% of the American population (and many of those don't even know they have it). It is associated with, and exacerbates, problems such as mood disorders, anxiety disorders, sleep disorders, substance abuse, psychosis, relationship problems, difficulties in therapy, poor response or abnormal response to medication, and declining health in more general terms. The elephant has been in the Babble rooms all this time, Bob. Isn't it time we started talking elephants?
This is not about censorship. Content will remain unchanged. I know and love cutters who post here. I know and love people who have been traumatized by others. I know and love posters who dwell intimately upon their very existence. I know how valuable this forum is for them. I simply cannot accompany them everywhere, on their journey. The trigger flags would be like
having a map. Right now, I am blind.Your humble friend,
Lar
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?
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.