![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 39 to 63 of 412. Go back in thread:
Posted by verne on March 4, 2006, at 17:33:28
In reply to Re: what does 'trigger' mean **TRIGGER** » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on March 4, 2006, at 16:21:28
I can't count the times I've read a post that innocently talks about drinking - even in passing - "after the movie we enjoyed a couple martinis" and I wind up going on a beer run as soon as I leap from the chair.
Then again, that shouldn't be a surprise since drinking to excess is another form of self injury. Although in my case, talk about alcohol, seems to be my only self-destructive trigger.
I'm sorry if, while discussing my darker moments, I've triggered anyone else into less positive behavior. I don't know how we safely talk about certain topics.
I actually would like to see one more babble board that allows EVERYTHING - no rules, no civility guidelines, no warnings - where anything goes. This room would act like a safety valve and depressurize all the other rooms.
We could call it the "Pillow Room".
Verne
Posted by Tamar on March 4, 2006, at 19:42:26
In reply to Pillow Room, posted by verne on March 4, 2006, at 17:33:28
> I can't count the times I've read a post that innocently atalks about drinking - even in passing - "after the movie we enjoyed a couple martinis" and I wind up going on a beer run as soon as I leap from the chair.
Yeah, Verne; I know what you mean. And I think this demonstrates how difficult the issue of triggers is. I know people who find talk of adultery very triggering; I find the subject of sexual assault or domestic violence triggering. If I know about a particular person’s triggers I can usually remember to be sensitive, but it’s sometimes hard to know what will trigger people. I joked once about wanting trigger warnings for posts about slugs…
> Then again, that shouldn't be a surprise since drinking to excess is another form of self injury. Although in my case, talk about alcohol, seems to be my only self-destructive trigger.
I don’t know if you’re comfortable with cyberhugs, but if so I’d send some your way. I drink too… I agree that it can be very self-destructive.
> I'm sorry if, while discussing my darker moments, I've triggered anyone else into less positive behavior. I don't know how we safely talk about certain topics.
>
> I actually would like to see one more babble board that allows EVERYTHING - no rules, no civility guidelines, no warnings - where anything goes. This room would act like a safety valve and depressurize all the other rooms.
>
> We could call it the "Pillow Room".
>I actually rather like this idea. I suppose the danger is that people might post offensive things about other people there… I’m not sure how it would work in practice. I don’t feel triggered by posts about self-harm, suicidal ideation or drinking, even though I have problems with all those things. But the things that trigger me are rather idiosyncratic.
Still, I think it’s true that self injury and suicidal ideation are intensely triggering to a great many people. I think Larry has a good point. I don’t know if a red-coloured warning would solve the problem, because it still requires people to be aware of the triggering potential of their posts, which seems to be a complicated issue for some posters.
Maybe the answer is to insist that posts containing any reference to self harm or suicide be marked with a trigger warning or a red flag. And this could apply even if the references were ‘mild’. I suppose definitions could be listed in the FAQ, and drinking could perhaps be included. And although it’s not my issue, I suspect adultery could be on the list too because I’ve seen how upset people can be about it. And maybe it’s obvious, but I’d include CSA, sexual assault and domestic violence.
I do think it’s important for Babble to be safe, though of course the idea of safety differs from person to person. And it’s difficult to guarantee safety in any community. But maybe we can find ways to make it feel safer.
Tamar
Posted by Racer on March 4, 2006, at 21:35:43
In reply to Re: what does 'trigger' mean **TRIGGER** » Deneb, posted by Larry Hoover on March 4, 2006, at 17:31:30
I like the idea of a red-flag for trigger posts. I like it better than having the word trigger in the subject line, certainly, and I like the idea of warning others that it may contain something difficult to read about.
I know I've posted things here that could certainly trigger strong emotions for people. And I know that I'm more sensitive to it now, since the trigger warnings came around on the Psych board.
And as for the rest of it, I tend to agree with those who have sounded in for voluntary red flags, and personal responsibility, and guidelines that won't necessarily result in a block for failing to flag a post. I say that, though, knowing full well that people will be reminded, if they don't flag a suspect post; and that ignoring those reminders will eventually lead to a PBC and a block, simply because at some point it becomes clear that it's no longer accidental. In other words, I think that there would be blocks for not flagging posts if it becomes a regular occurrence.
Also, I think that the group dynamics here would prevent a lot of non-flagged posts. I think there are a lot of people here who are working on their boundaries and learning to say, "Hey -- that upset me, couldja warn us next time?" This might be an interesting view of how that translates into compliance?
The other thing that I think of, by the way, is a stronger system of civility buddy. (This just struck me while reading this thread...) Maybe, before it gets to a block, someone who had difficulty figuring out when to flag something, could request a Civility Buddy -- and the post wouldn't appear until approved by that Civility Buddy. What I'm actually thinking, now that I am thinking about it, is maybe like a deputy system, only it's the CBs. Volunteers who could get into the system and read the posts waiting to be posted, and approve them -- which would post them -- or disapprove, which would send them back for revision. OK, I admit. That's off the cuff stuff, and it's a system that would get quickly unwieldy, but in the case of someone who genuinely wants to learn, and wants to avoid both upsetting others and getting blocked, something like that might be a tool. It would have to be voluntary -- maybe at the PBC level they could be offered a chance to join the CB system, rather than risk a block for another infringment? Something like that?
Regardless -- I like the red flag idea. Hope to see it implemented.
Posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 21:45:46
In reply to Chiming in (got longish, no shock there), posted by Racer on March 4, 2006, at 21:35:43
There are things I wonder about having a prechecker of posts, though.
If a post is approved, yet found uncivil, who would get the PBC? Even I can't always figure out what Dr. Bob will and won't think crosses the line. I wouldn't want to vouch for someone else's posts if I were going to get in trouble if they're found to be uncivil. Yet if you say both people are off the hook as long as they follow the system (as with autoasterisking) is that fair either?
Would precheckers have to be approved? Would there be any preapproval qualifications needed? If not, would the prechecker have a necessarily greater understanding of the civility policy than the person asking? Would a prechecker get disapproved if enough uncivil posts slipped through? How would posters and checkers be matched? Would a poster ask for volunteers to check their posts, and choose from those who volunteer?
Posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 22:38:39
In reply to Re: Chiming in (got longish, no shock there), posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 21:45:46
There are times I don't talk about things here, or talk around things here so that no one will understand, because of feelings that people have expressed about the sort of things I'd like to talk about.
Yet Dr. Bob has expressly said that he doesn't want to stifle people from talking about the sort of things I want to talk about.
Yet I still don't feel I can.
Posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 22:40:24
In reply to Triggers, posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 22:38:39
Posted by Deneb on March 5, 2006, at 0:05:09
In reply to Then I feel sad and unacceptable. (nm), posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 22:40:24
(((((((((Dinah))))))))))
I know exactly what you mean.
Deneb
Posted by Poet on March 5, 2006, at 0:46:44
In reply to Then I feel sad and unacceptable. (nm), posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 22:40:24
Hi Dinah and everyone who feels sad and unaccepatable.
What can trigger one person to cry can trigger another to laugh. We're all human, and no one can possibly know what will trigger feeling of sadness, joy or anything in between in another person. We only know ourselves as best as we can.
If I put trigger on a post, it's because it's triggering pain within me.
Frankly, I avoid the admin board, and only come here because Toronto info. is here. Why I avoid it? That would be deemed uncivil.
Poet
Posted by Tanzanite on March 5, 2006, at 1:23:55
In reply to Re: Then I feel sad and unacceptable., posted by Poet on March 5, 2006, at 0:46:44
Relatively new here after a long hiatus. I have put trigger in things that I didn't even know if they counted as triggers or not. I don't think people should get blocked for expressing their feelings so long as they are civil. Actually, I like the idea of a separate board for trigger posts and have something in the faq for what those should include and then maybe have it marked for the type of pose(what it is about wheter it be SI, or suicide, drinking, etc. Or maybe the warning system proposed if done the right way would work too. I just wouldn't to see anyone get blocked for expressing trauma. But, that is just my opinion.
Peace
Tanzanite
Posted by Racer on March 5, 2006, at 3:02:09
In reply to Re: Chiming in (got longish, no shock there), posted by Dinah on March 4, 2006, at 21:45:46
> There are things I wonder about having a prechecker of posts, though.
>
> If a post is approved, yet found uncivil, who would get the PBC? Even I can't always figure out what Dr. Bob will and won't think crosses the line. I wouldn't want to vouch for someone else's posts if I were going to get in trouble if they're found to be uncivil. Yet if you say both people are off the hook as long as they follow the system (as with autoasterisking) is that fair either?
That's a good point. I really hadn't thought through -- what is coming to my mind now, though, other than it's past my bedtime and I shouldn't get into this now, is that we could have something similar to what deputies do: if unsure, you pass it up the food chain.
>
> Would precheckers have to be approved? Would there be any preapproval qualifications needed? If not, would the prechecker have a necessarily greater understanding of the civility policy than the person asking? Would a prechecker get disapproved if enough uncivil posts slipped through? How would posters and checkers be matched? Would a poster ask for volunteers to check their posts, and choose from those who volunteer?Actually, since it would frustrated the bejaybers out of most of us if there were too long a delay, I was thinking of having a secured site that the CBs could log into when they had time, and just check as many posts as possible. With some sort of anonymity, maybe, so that everyone would know that this week X, Y, and Z were CBs, but you wouldn't know who had checked what. But there could be a flag showing that it had been checked.
OK. I really am going to bed now. More tomorrow. I've had this thing lately, where I'm dreading going ot bed. I know I'm having nightmares when that happens, and it's playing havoc with my life. Gotta get better about it.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 8:56:48
In reply to What I think?, posted by Tanzanite on March 5, 2006, at 1:23:55
> I just wouldn't to see anyone get blocked for expressing trauma.
That would be an extraordinary outcome, from anything I have proposed, and most certainly could not arise without clear notification and clarification of the proposed precaution.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 9:08:21
In reply to Re: Then I feel sad and unacceptable., posted by Poet on March 5, 2006, at 0:46:44
> Hi Dinah and everyone who feels sad and unaccepatable.
>
> What can trigger one person to cry can trigger another to laugh.So, let's make sure we don't include those sorts of things in the precaution rule.
Would you laugh at a depiction of self-mutilation? Of a hanging?
> We're all human, and no one can possibly know what will trigger feeling of sadness, joy or anything in between in another person. We only know ourselves as best as we can.
I think there is a common ground. My proposal, totally off the top of my head, and one I was desiring to debate, was:
"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.
> If I put trigger on a post, it's because it's triggering pain within me.I'm asking for more consideration than that. Are you refusing?
> Frankly, I avoid the admin board, and only come here because Toronto info. is here. Why I avoid it? That would be deemed uncivil.
>
> PoetI understand wanting to avoid this board. Unfortunately, this is where the rules get changed, if they're going to. I'm trying my best to avoid rules changing and the FAQ not getting changed along with it. I'm still smoking over getting blocked like that. Talk about being ambushed. We'll inform you of the rule when you break it, then. Perhaps you'll get blocked, even though your first warning just happened, and you desisted.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 9:15:19
In reply to Re: trigger warnings, posted by deirdrehbrt on March 2, 2006, at 16:36:01
Would people please stick to the topic? The topic is trigger warnings. You know, like those warnings you see on television: "The following program may contain scenes of graphic violence, and adult content, which may not be appropriate for all audiences. Viewer discretion is advised."
Instead, I want a little flag on the top of a post.
Okay?
Lar
Posted by TofuEmmy on March 5, 2006, at 9:24:35
In reply to Re: red alert, posted by Dr. Bob on March 2, 2006, at 2:54:00
I like the idea of the red flag too. That would give people more room in the subject field.
I would like it if people could use that space to explain what kind of trigger. For instance, "physical abuse" doesn't trigger me, so if I saw that in the subject line I would know it's safe for me to read. On the other hand, if it said "suicide" I might chose not to read it. Other may feel just the opposite, and be ok with opening a post on suicide.
I'm not asking to mandate this, just suggesting for those who are in the same pickle. I don't want to avoid ALL triggering topics - just those that trigger ME.
emmy
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 9:24:53
In reply to Re: Then I feel sad and unacceptable. » Poet, posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 9:08:21
> Would you laugh at a depiction of self-mutilation? Of a hanging?
I'm sorry. Done in by technology. I didn't know I could type text in the subject field that didn't copy over.....I am sure I had it in there.
I'm sorry.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 9:29:33
In reply to Re: red alert and use of subject line » Dr. Bob, posted by TofuEmmy on March 5, 2006, at 9:24:35
> I'm not asking to mandate this, just suggesting for those who are in the same pickle. I don't want to avoid ALL triggering topics - just those that trigger ME.
>
> emmyWhen I read these words, I hear what I am asking for, the opportunity to choose to continue or not, based on informed consent. It has nothing to do with censorship, and never did.
We have pornography warnings, and we're all familiar with those. Yet, we still have pornography. Nothing is to meant to be excluded here. Only properly described for those for whom the choices are not so inconsequential.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 10:11:56
In reply to Re: red alert and use of subject line, posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 9:29:33
I thought I could speak calmly about this topic, but I have discovered that it is too upsetting. I find myself taking on individual posters, instead of debating the merits. I am truly sorry.
I did not choose to become sensitized. If it was a simple as that, you can be sure I would choose anew. I have no control over what happens. Can you possibly comprehend what it is like to have that as part of your life? No control. Except abstinence.
I can't abstain from reading triggering material after the fact. I need forewarning. I need to avoid it.
I'm asking for Babblers to make it safe for sensitized people, to the extent that we are able to do so, with prudence and forethought. Not with the whip of blocking procedures, but with the charity of consideration.
Babble has been impoverished by the loss of the sensitive, the sensitized, for long enough. They're all over at PsychCentral, where a simple rule makes it safe for them.
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?
I ask you, is it civil? You can't any longer say that you didn't know.
I am on Babble-break until further notice. It may be permanent. I know what I need to do, but I'll let you decide.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 10:33:25
In reply to My apologies, fellow Babblers, posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 10:11:56
Lar, Dr. Bob hasn't even been on board yet. I wouldn't assume that anything has been settled.
I hope you didn't think that I was disagreeing with you. I have no objection to a red flag, if it would help people. I would also agree with Emmy that more detail in the subject line would be nice. Because sometimes posts are triggery as opposed to outright triggers, or sometimes they're triggers for one topic, but not another.
This is just a process of hashing out details and presenting a proposal to Dr. Bob.
If you don't feel up to participating in it, that's fine and pefectly understandable. But I hope you're not coming to any conclusions about the outcome.
And yes, tangents ocme up from time to time in a thread like this as people brainstorm and react, but that doesn't mean anyone wasn't taking the original topic seriously.
And my post wasn't as unrelated as it might seem. Perhaps with red flags, people wouldn't say the sort of things they sometimes say about posting about S or SI, and I'd feel less uncomfortable posting about my own struggles.
(((((Lar)))))
I care about you very much, and wouldn't want to see you hurt. If I did anything to hurt you, I apologize.
To my knowledge, you have nothing to apologize for.
Posted by verne on March 5, 2006, at 11:08:49
In reply to Re: My apologies, fellow Babblers » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on March 5, 2006, at 10:33:25
Perhaps we could have a box or boxes for triggers that we could check on the "Enter Post" screen.
[] self injury
[] physical abuse
[] alcohol or drug use
Perhaps one universal box for triggers on the Enter screen and more specific boxes on the Revise and Submit Post screen.
These additional boxes would be activated if the trigger box on the Enter Post screen were checked, in the same way movie and book links are created on the Submit Post screen with double quotes.
Verne
Posted by verne on March 5, 2006, at 11:14:25
In reply to Re: My apologies, fellow Babblers, posted by verne on March 5, 2006, at 11:08:49
to above post.
What boxes we check would then be conveyed in the subject line automatically.
Example subject line: "What I Did Last Summer" [SI] [AD]
(AD = Alcohol Drug Use and PV could indicate physcial violence, and SI, of course, self injury)
Posted by Tanzanite on March 5, 2006, at 12:02:03
In reply to Re: What I think? » Tanzanite, posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 8:56:48
I can also see that, and do not disagree with you. As you have proposed, with appropriate safeguards as have been described by you and others in different ways of course, there has got to be a better way to warn people of triggering material. If something such as a warning system was added, or what not, what would be the best way to notify users how the system works. That is another thing to consider.
I mean where would it be put I guess is what I am asking. Please do not leave. I think you don't need to apologize. I think you are trying to help. Everyone may have different opinions on how this should take place, but being civil should include considering triggering material and topics that are potentially in that type of category. I think making in clear somehow before a person reads the whole thing is a good idea, just how the best way to do it would be of course have to be decided by those who know what they are doing (and that is not me)
Peace and blessings
Tanzanite
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 12:07:17
In reply to My apologies, fellow Babblers, posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 10:11:56
I'd like to try and explain to you what the difficulty is, that I and the sensitized face, within the Babble domain.
Imagine that a community meeting has been called to discuss something very important, and that the meeting will be held at city hall. And you are in a wheelchair. You trundle off to city hall, wanting very much to have your voice heard, your arguments considered, and you arrive at the appointed time and place. To your horror, you find a staircase between you and the entrance to the building.
You are excluded. You are silenced. You are denied. Because of your history. Because your life is limited by your being disabled. The people inside don't even know you can't get in. They don't know what it's like. But you face a barrier to participation. A barrier to participation, because other people didn't consider what it's like for you.
So you sue. You protest. You force them to build a ramp. You force them to make rules that require them to build ramps wherever they're needed, so that wheelchair-people can exercise their full rights of being alive. Yes, you inconvenience people who do not need wheelchairs, by adding to their cost, to force them to build a ramp they don't even need. But, before this protest is made, they never even thought about this barrier to participation. So, you make them think about it. You make them do it. You make them make rules.
You can't even go to a movie that hasn't been screened by a rating committee. You know what to expect in a G-rated movie. You really don't have much of an excuse if you went to an R-rated movie, and you were shocked.
I think there is a core group of posts, ones which graphically or explicitly describe violent situations (many flavours in there, both violence to self or others), which need an R-rating. The content can be anything we've always talked about here. Graphic and explicit descriptions of human experience have always been accepted here, and I'm not trying to change that in any way. I want a warning of that content. Surely we can come to a simple
description that expresses the idea that it's the stimulation of an image of violence in a sensitized person's mind that is the problem. I can talk about cutting without describing it. Describing the act, though, is too much for me. Do you see the difference? For me, the difference is HUGE. It is a barrier to participation. Your small step is my barrier to participation.Lar
Posted by Tanzanite on March 5, 2006, at 12:14:44
In reply to I'm sorry, one more post, posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 12:07:17
Very well put and a good explanation that I hope many will understand. In the end, I hope you are all right and hopefully the admin on the board and Dr. Bob will really consider this. Peace
Tanzanite
Posted by Phillipa on March 5, 2006, at 12:33:17
In reply to Re: Larry, posted by Tanzanite on March 5, 2006, at 12:02:03
Just me but I like the red flag then it's up to me whether to read a post or not. Just like the green for a new babbler or yellow for a new post. I think that's the color coded anyway. Love Phillipa
Posted by JenStar on March 5, 2006, at 12:53:27
In reply to My apologies, fellow Babblers, posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 10:11:56
hi Lar,
I checked out psych central one time but didn't like it much, so I don't know much about how it works. You said that they have something there about posts that makes it easier to see triggers? Is that where you got the checkbox idea? Whatever they do there about posting titles - can you describe it in more detail?
thanks,
JenStar
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.