![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 111 to 135 of 412. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 14:45:25
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » JenStar, posted by Gabbix2 on March 8, 2006, at 14:04:19
> I felt it was like marketing hyperbole as well, and that the statement about leaving babble may read more as a threat than a need, perhaps because it's been used several times, over different issues.
I can't help but feel you're no longer talking to Jen.
My path has previously forked off from Babble, but it has also brought me back. Threat? The only threat I make is to me. I'm trying to make sense of something, right before your eyes. Strange as it may seem, right before my own, too.
In coming to terms with stressors on my life, with the pain I have, and now nine meds for that pain, without due relief, a re-evaluation was necessary. The only significant source of triggers in my life is Babble. It's change Babble or just leave. But you know me well enough to know that I give my best before I make my own decisions to change such an important aspect of my life. I don't want to go. I don't want to be another Silenced Sensitive. Shall I collect a list of them? Those that simply left? There are some stand-out names on that list.
Just in case you were wondering how I saw my path.
> And after I wrote about the trigger warnings not hurting anyone, I re-thought it, and too felt that it would become unweildy, and yet not make it really any safer for more people.
No different than assessing your posts for other civility issues. Why is this different from sh*t and f*ck and c*cks*cker (whoa, bob, that one's not on the automatic asterisk list)? Why is this lesser than that?
> And Larry, yes I *do* know, I know very well what it's like to be devasted emotionally, and so do I daresay, most of us here.I know. Yes, it is commonplace here. So, why isn't there any sanctuary here?
> I resent the implication that if I don't agree with you fully, somehow I'm being insensitive.
I expected different arguments to touch different people. The concept I am trying to present, I am trying to present as an all or nothing concept. A binary choice. I'm aghast that I have to argue it at all.
> This cannot be reduced to this one facet, there are many issues here that require sensitivity, and thought.
And discussion. And feelings. And more discussion. I'm trying to rouse some thinking here. I want this subject to obtain some attention. I'm rising from silence, after all.
> Right now I'm too angry to respond to any more of this, you might even say triggered.I'm sorry that I have inspired anger. I'm not sorry that I have inspired.
> I'm not saying that to be petty, it's true.
> And it's another reminder to me, that you can't protect everyone from everything that may disturb them.I don't seek protection from everything. I seek protection from a very special few things. I don't know how the one has become confused for the other.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 14:57:42
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Larry Hoover, posted by JenStar on March 8, 2006, at 14:39:55
> Would you be willing to compromise at all?
Compromise isn't even on the table in a binary decision. You got it, or you don't. Protection, I mean.
> Even if the rules weren't perfect for you, would you be partially satisfied (and stay here) if they were made at least somewhat better than they are?
No. That is a very calm decision, and I am very calm about this all, today. All day. I've been calm. I know the answer already.
It has to change, or I go. That is my path.
Lar
Posted by crazy teresa on March 8, 2006, at 14:59:28
In reply to Re: trigger warnings, posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2006, at 12:39:06
I'm so sorry Lar.
Is there anything I can do to help you with this?
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 8, 2006, at 15:00:26
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Gabbix2, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 14:45:25
The point wasn't so much the trigger warnings,
but the talk like this: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?
This is a board for people who need to discuss these things. To say they are sowing land-mines, judging from the fact that it hurts *you* and the "sensitized" infuriates me.
It may well help other people not feel so alone if they have the same feelings as those posters who are "sowing landmines"
I know, I know you're not asking them to stop, you're asking for trigger warnings.
Statements like that, make it more than that for meI can't say any more, because I can't be civil, or at this point, necessarily objective
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 15:16:35
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbix2 on March 8, 2006, at 15:00:26
> I know, I know you're not asking them to stop, you're asking for trigger warnings.
Correct. Bob's existing standard policy requires us to "be sensitive to the feelings of others". I am, and I am other. The former, perhaps reluctantly, but the latter, without any say in the matter.
Lar
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 8, 2006, at 15:27:02
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Gabbix2, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 15:16:35
I am, and I am other. The former, perhaps reluctantly, but the latter, without any say in the matter.
>>I'm sorry that I have inspired anger. I'm not sorry that I have inspired.
Oh Good grief!
I feel like I'm in a Starwars movie.I'm going now. My path is leading me to the coffemaker
May the force be with you
Posted by JenStar on March 8, 2006, at 15:27:22
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » JenStar, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 14:57:42
Larry,
It's hard for me to feel that debating a change is worthwhile if my debate partner is not willing to compromise on a solution.Ultimatums are hard to address.
JenStar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 15:52:32
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Larry Hoover, posted by JenStar on March 8, 2006, at 15:27:22
> Larry,
> It's hard for me to feel that debating a change is worthwhile if my debate partner is not willing to compromise on a solution.
>
> Ultimatums are hard to address.
>
> JenStarIt's not an ultimatum. It's a binary decision. I'm being offered half, and solutions don't come in halves.
Dinah was just a wee bit ahead of us.....the compromises come in implementation. That's the only place they can be. Nonetheless, the binary decision is mandatory or nothing. There is no half way.
I didn't create the situation. I'm trying to describe the one we've got to consider. What you have been proposing as your idea of compromise is not of any impact in so far as bringing us closer to a solution. You are offering me "no effect" or "no effect". One of those is doing nothing, and the other is your idea of a solution, and I can't tell them apart.
The solution is mandatory trigger flags. The implementation is still barely discussed. I'm sure that you can see that I'm starting at the very bottom of the process, with that one issue. Some decisions really are black and white (binary), even though you've been taught to think otherwise.
Once that decision is made, then there's a lot more to talk about.
Lar
Posted by JenStar on March 8, 2006, at 16:06:16
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » JenStar, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 15:52:32
Larry,
the thing is, I just don't agree that mandatory trigger flags are the right thing for Babble. I know it's not my decision alone. But it's my opinion. I think we need compromise on the decision NOW, not just during implementation.I think a "binary decision" *is* an ultimatum, just with another name. If someone says, "If you don't do X, I will do Y" and leaves no room for compromise, I think it's an ultimatum regardless of whatever it's called.
I feel that I'm capable of looking at decisions and situations from different angles. I just think this is one that merits compromise so that it best fits the group AS A WHOLE.
I'm not sure we're going to get anywhere with this, though, if you're really not interested in a compromise and meet-halfway kind of solution.
My suggestion: I support VOLUNTARY red checkmarks and/or drop down arrows that highlight certain posts as triggers for things like SI, CSA, extreme violence. Obviously if these things become mandatory, I will follow the rules. But I personally feel that voluntary reporting is the best thing for the community as a whole.
Should we agree to disagree? I'm not sure that any more discussion between you and me is going to result in progress? Maybe we should both hold off and wait for more posters to join in with their ideas? I'll do that, at least. I've said my idea, and I will listen to what others think. thanks!
JenStar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 16:06:27
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » JenStar, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 15:52:32
There are many ways I've asked people to think of this, and I'm going to add another.
If I might enter Babble every day, knowing that *every* post around me has at least had the inkling of trigger considered, I can start my day in safety. I want that, because I've never had it before, and it would bring me closer to being unsensitized, like you. All day, I'm not safe, every day. I have to be a certain amount of awake, in the morning, before I come....and I hold my breath, and I start clicking on things, to see which gets me first, my interest, or a trigger. And I want to be like you.
Babble is the only source of triggers in my life, almost. It takes its toll.
Lar
Posted by All Done on March 8, 2006, at 16:49:59
In reply to Re: Another tack, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 16:06:27
> If I might enter Babble every day, knowing that *every* post around me has at least had the inkling of trigger considered, I can start my day in safety.
Hi, Larry.
Can that be accomplished by simply asking the posters if they want to add a trigger warning prior to submitting their posts? It wouldn't be *manadatory* to add the warning, but it would ensure posters at least think about trigger possibilities and subsequenstly make decisions to add warnings or not.
I realize this doesn't ensure everyone will select to add a warning to something that may be triggering. I don't know if making this mandatory *would* ensure that, though. Not everyone follows the rules all the time. (Much to my chagrin. ;) )
Laurie
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 19:19:08
In reply to maybe we should get input from more people? » Larry Hoover, posted by JenStar on March 8, 2006, at 16:06:16
> I think a "binary decision" *is* an ultimatum, just with another name.
I urge you to reconsider that conclusion. It is not in accord with the only evidence you have.
> If someone says, "If you don't do X, I will do Y" and leaves no room for compromise, I think it's an ultimatum regardless of whatever it's called.
I'm sorry my multi-track mind has mangled the muse for you. My decision to stay (or not) is independent of my desire to sort this out, regardless of anything else that might be going on. I'm sorry if the two seemed wedded, to you.
You ought to place no weight on me in this decision. I can only speak of me, but the decision is not about me, and never was.
> I feel that I'm capable of looking at decisions and situations from different angles. I just think this is one that merits compromise so that it best fits the group AS A WHOLE.
I suggested my suggestion was a win-win. Have you explored that?
> I'm not sure we're going to get anywhere with this, though, if you're really not interested in a compromise and meet-halfway kind of solution.
Your compromise is not one, because if fails to meet any of my needs, only yours. You can understand why it is rejected, on that basis.
> My suggestion: I support VOLUNTARY red checkmarks and/or drop down arrows that highlight certain posts as triggers for things like SI, CSA, extreme violence. Obviously if these things become mandatory, I will follow the rules. But I personally feel that voluntary reporting is the best thing for the community as a whole.
No, because that permits and actually encourages inequalities. One rule for all, equally advanced. Be responsible for your own posts, just as before.
> Should we agree to disagree? I'm not sure that any more discussion between you and me is going to result in progress?
If you continue to hold our your suggestion as a compromise, you can be sure of that. It is zero to me. I gain nothing by it. I would appreciate a sensitive attempt at meeting my needs in some way, if you want to formalize the idea that an offer has even been made. So far, this negotiator has not received a counter-proposal to manditory flagging that meets even the simplest a prior criteria.
> Maybe we should both hold off and wait for more posters to join in with their ideas? I'll do that, at least. I've said my idea, and I will listen to what others think. thanks!
>
> JenStarSorry, I didn't see that statement until now, and I've already written what I wanted to.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 19:25:24
In reply to Re: Another tack » Larry Hoover, posted by All Done on March 8, 2006, at 16:49:59
> > If I might enter Babble every day, knowing that *every* post around me has at least had the inkling of trigger considered, I can start my day in safety.
>
> Hi, Larry.
>
> Can that be accomplished by simply asking the posters if they want to add a trigger warning prior to submitting their posts? It wouldn't be *manadatory* to add the warning, but it would ensure posters at least think about trigger possibilities and subsequenstly make decisions to add warnings or not.
>
> I realize this doesn't ensure everyone will select to add a warning to something that may be triggering. I don't know if making this mandatory *would* ensure that, though. Not everyone follows the rules all the time. (Much to my chagrin. ;) )
>
> LaurieIf I don't have faith in the process, I cannot have faith in the outcome. How can I possibly place my faith in a system which has no real rules of conduct?
You can glorify the current voluntary system, which I have described as inadequate. You can put a nice fancy flag out there, and tie it in a bow. If it isn't mandatory, it isn't worth.... forget it.
Even I, the man who never let a controversy go quietly into that dark of night, am weary.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 19:27:11
In reply to maybe we should get input from more people? » Larry Hoover, posted by JenStar on March 8, 2006, at 16:06:16
> Larry,
> If someone says, "If you don't do X, I will do Y" and leaves no room for compromise, I think it's an ultimatum regardless of whatever it's called.I should think that at this point, your greatest fear might instead be that I change my mind and stay. :-/
Lar
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 8, 2006, at 19:28:55
In reply to Re: Another tack, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 16:06:27
> There are many ways I've asked people to think of this, and I'm going to add another.
>
> If I might enter Babble every day, knowing that *every* post around me has at least had the inkling of trigger considered, I can start my day in safety. I want that, because I've never had it before, and it would bring me closer to being unsensitized, like you. All day, I'm not safe, every day. I have to be a certain amount of awake, in the morning, before I come....and I hold my breath, and I start clicking on things, to see which gets me first, my interest, or a trigger. And I want to be like you.
>
> Babble is the only source of triggers in my life, almost. It takes its toll.
>
> LarI feel manipulated by this.
It's not all about you.
I feel like the my pain and my needs and that of others is being ignored in order to bring the focus to your own. And it's becoming progressively more dramatic as the thread goes on, without your desired resolution.
WE couldn't be in as much pain as you, or we'd agree with you.
No one could feel as strongly about something, and react in a different way.
No according to you they'd be thinking "F*ck those people in wheelchairs"You've said yourself that you post on Alt.Depression.medication..
There is not even the most remote form of moderation there, it's a free for all I can't go there, it makes me sick to my stomach.It's personal, I know, however what you've said here however indirectly has been very personal, and worded very strongly.
You claim that people couldn't know how you feel.
Do you know how everyone else feels?I don't understand this.
Posted by verne on March 8, 2006, at 19:52:58
In reply to Re: Jen? » JenStar, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 19:27:11
Larry,
I've always been one of your biggest fans. You and PsychoBabble are synomynous.
I'm not sure though I can agree with your comment to JenStar: "I should think that at this point, your greatest fear might instead be that I change my mind and stay."
Or earlier when you said others didn't "know".
Even if we could read minds, I'm not sure it's polite to tell others what they are thinking and feeling.
I think you're the best. I would rather read Larry Hoover's comments on the alternative board than a book on the subject any day. I hope it works out so you can stay.
Meanwhile, all this emotional wrangling, the ultimatums, and brinkmanship, has "triggered" me into drinking. (maybe a little anyway)
Verne
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 20:06:56
In reply to Re: Another tack » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbix2 on March 8, 2006, at 19:28:55
> I feel manipulated by this.
I'm sick and tired of being manipulated by people who put their desire to speak their minds ahead of my desire to clear the area first. Maybe we're on a more even keel right now.
> It's not all about you.
Feel free to speak about you. I happen to be an expert about me.
> I feel like the my pain and my needs and that of others is being ignored in order to bring the focus to your own. And it's becoming progressively more dramatic as the thread goes on, without your desired resolution.
If you wanna debate, I've given you years' worth. Drum me out if you must, but I'm not going to be taken for granted in this way any more. I am not a selfish person. I seldom even speak of my own needs. It's part and parcel with my disorder, though. And though there be good and better ways to get across what I'm trying to get across, I know that I *have* gotten across.
So, I'm done, unless somebody wants to take some more cracks at me, instead of the ideas.
> WE couldn't be in as much pain as you, or we'd agree with you.I asked for a witness to a special view into the dynamic of one word, protection, as it applies to triggers. I am stubborn to make that point.
I don't profess expert status on such matters. But I can tell you I have been studying advocacy with local experts, and I have attended dozens of hours of special workshops on similar issues. A solution must originate from the perspective of the one in need. Must do so. Nothing else is within the dignity of the need itself, except by chance. Unless you don't care to meet the need at all, which can lead to much ado going nowhere. I'm trying to avoid that wasted effort.
> No one could feel as strongly about something, and react in a different way.
I dare say you're reading many things in, that I didn't place there.
> No according to you they'd be thinking "F*ck those people in wheelchairs"
Got your attention, huh. That was a quote, by the way. Not my words, but a quote, from a public meeting I attended. And, if you read that paragraph again, you can hear the dripping sarcasm, swim in it.
> You've said yourself that you post on Alt.Depression.medication..
> There is not even the most remote form of moderation there, it's a free for all I can't go there, it makes me sick to my stomach.I do post to a.s.d.m., but only in an advisory capacity any more. Got rid of the last neanderthal, and things are smooth, for the last while.
> It's personal, I know, however what you've said here however indirectly has been very personal, and worded very strongly.Yes.
> You claim that people couldn't know how you feel.
Not without listening precisely to my answers, not even a chance. Voluntary flagging does not address the special needs which I have been discussing. Needs which are not unique to me. I just know mine best, so I use them in discussion. I, from the get-go, made this about the sensitized, not me. 10% of the mentally ill, give or take. Not sure about Babble, because of the distortion imposed by years' of not addressing what no other moderated site I know has failed to address. Didn't want to put it like that, but it's not just PsychCentral that I compare it to.
I swear, again, I cannot believe I have to debate the merits.
> Do you know how everyone else feels?
Nope. Wouldn't be so presumptuous.
> I don't understand this.Sorry. Shall I try again?
<joke/silly/not serious>Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 20:14:50
In reply to Re: Another tack » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbix2 on March 8, 2006, at 19:28:55
without me.
I'll look in in a few weeks'/months' time. I'll leave babblemail on.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on March 8, 2006, at 20:19:40
In reply to Re: Jen? » JenStar, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 19:27:11
I don't think that Jenstar was in any way trying to be disrespectful or unkind?
Posted by Sobriquet Style on March 8, 2006, at 20:22:13
In reply to I'll go away, and let you all mull it over, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 20:14:50
I really don't understand Administration threads so well, I don't know what it is exactly, but sometimes I find it hard to reach a conclusion when reading them.
Other times, I feel the answer is right there in front of me.
~
Posted by Emme on March 8, 2006, at 20:43:44
In reply to Am I the only one?, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 15:26:26
Wow. I poke in on admin and holee cow. I haven't read every post in this thread, but I think I've got the gist. I'm not too easily triggered, so the issue doesn't affect me greatly. But if other people say they would benefit from some sort of formalized alarm system, then why not? If it's easy to do (check a box, or write *T* for trigger), then I would imagine people would be willing to do it. That, and enough info in the subject line to know the category of trigger, and it should give sensitive people some extra roadsigns.
I see there's been some debate over voluntary vs. involuntary. And I admit I haven't given this deep thought. But if there's a policy on swe*r w*rds, maybe there's room for a policy on triggers.
emme
Posted by verne on March 8, 2006, at 22:13:27
In reply to I'll go away, and let you all mull it over, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 20:14:50
My last "crack" at you was showering you with praise. I don't really know you but I have the greatest respect for you.
Perhaps, Bob, or to use another metaphor, a HORSE, let's say, was unwilling to drink from the purest stream of watered logic at an exact little riverside bank under a low hanging branch (trout look up and smile the way trout do, at this spot).
Let's say this horse, and even the herd, gets spooked by the repeated, and determined, efforts of a lone horse to force the entire herd to drink at this spot. Perhaps they don't know that spot or they have already drunk their full. Maybe they are on the other side of the stream and just not thirsty.
The only thing binary at the stream is whether Uncle Bob grabs me from behind. (grabs me- doesn't grab me)
you're still the best.
Verne
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 8, 2006, at 22:52:33
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » JenStar, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 13:37:13
> 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.
It can be important to feel cared about by someone with authority. I understand that. I'm sorry you don't feel that here.
> > Plus, as I mentioned before, retroactive flagging could in fact be an option.
>
> And how do I know when that task has been completedYou can't know for sure, but on a busy board, give it a day?
> 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?
Would it have been reasonable, if condoms had been available, for her not to have used them because she considered them, um, barriers to participation?
> I don't want the job, as I said.
That's OK, others are willing to do it.
> I'm glad to see that you accept the idea of a core list of trigger subjects. That's big progress already.
Thanks, one step at a time...
> you, the insensitive (used in that rhetorical sense implied above)
Keeping in mind that the idea here is not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, even if rhetorical, could you please rephrase that?
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by verne on March 9, 2006, at 0:11:53
In reply to I'll go away, and let you all mull it over, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 20:14:50
Thing is, Larry, you triggered me.
Verne
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 9, 2006, at 0:35:15
In reply to Good Luck, posted by verne on March 9, 2006, at 0:11:53
As I mentioned before, you triggered me, twice. And I'm not triggered often. Nor would I normally even mention it, but I feel I have to here.
No it wasn't your suggestion but the methods used to get your point across.I'm not saying that to be cruel, or to play t*t-for tat. I'm saying it because it's the absolute truth. People don't always know what will trigger. We can't cover all of them.
And mine may be different from yours, but they cause me just as much pain, or discomfort.
The inference that I am somehow less sensitive because of this, is well I've said it before- triggering..
I'm ranting.
This whole thing.. just really got to me.I'm sorry this is just after Verne's but I was going to post it regardless, and I wasn't going to let unfortunate timing stop me.
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.