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
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:614568
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/615904.html