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
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:614568
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/617514.html