Some kind of warning for this thread?

[Anonymous]

This thread is really disturbing. is there some kind of warning you can put in the subject line?

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/501037.page

[Anonymous]

OP, frankly, I'm glad you're disturbed. We all should be. This is a horrifying situation that needs to be brought to the attention of the American public.

Sensitive folks hiding behind "trigger warnings" will do nothing to help the state of this situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, frankly, I'm glad you're disturbed. We all should be. This is a horrifying situation that needs to be brought to the attention of the American public.

Sensitive folks hiding behind "trigger warnings" will do nothing to help the state of this situation.

I agree. I already posted to the thread. But it's not for everyone and there should be some way to opt out of disturbing subjects like that.

[jsteele]

I don't think I want to go down the road of trigger warnings. Everyone has different sensitivity levels and I would have no idea where to draw the line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, frankly, I'm glad you're disturbed. We all should be. This is a horrifying situation that needs to be brought to the attention of the American public.

Sensitive folks hiding behind "trigger warnings" will do nothing to help the state of this situation.

I agree. I already posted to the thread. But it's not for everyone and there should be some way to opt out of disturbing subjects like that.

The article is from the front page of the NY Times. If something is there, I hardly think a trigger warning is required here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, frankly, I'm glad you're disturbed. We all should be. This is a horrifying situation that needs to be brought to the attention of the American public.

Sensitive folks hiding behind "trigger warnings" will do nothing to help the state of this situation.

I agree. I already posted to the thread. But it's not for everyone and there should be some way to opt out of disturbing subjects like that.

Not to be snarky, but the way for people to opt out is to stop reading when they find the subject matter to be too much for them and choose not to participate in the discussion.
Life itself is "triggering". No further warning needed, imo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, frankly, I'm glad you're disturbed. We all should be. This is a horrifying situation that needs to be brought to the attention of the American public.

Sensitive folks hiding behind "trigger warnings" will do nothing to help the state of this situation.

I agree. I already posted to the thread. But it's not for everyone and there should be some way to opt out of disturbing subjects like that.

Not to be snarky, but the way for people to opt out is to stop reading when they find the subject matter to be too much for them and choose not to participate in the discussion.
Life itself is "triggering". No further warning needed, imo.

Life is itself is triggering? Not sure what you mean, but I disagree about opting out -- there is no way to back out once you read enough to realize what the post is about.

I didn't know it was from the front page of the NY Times, though. I wonder if there will be complaints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, frankly, I'm glad you're disturbed. We all should be. This is a horrifying situation that needs to be brought to the attention of the American public.

Sensitive folks hiding behind "trigger warnings" will do nothing to help the state of this situation.

I agree. I already posted to the thread. But it's not for everyone and there should be some way to opt out of disturbing subjects like that.

The article is from the front page of the NY Times. If something is there, I hardly think a trigger warning is required here.

While I think you have a point, the NYT headline is far more descriptive of the content than the DCUM post subject line. I think that is this OP's point. They clicked through hoping for some schadenfreude-laden article about trump or whatever, and instead got an article about sexual abuse of boys being covered up by their tax dollars.

Jeff, is it possible for you to edit subject lines of posts after the fact, or not? If not, ok, but if it is, I don't think it's some kind of slippery slope to add (child sexual abuse) to the subject line when someone directly asks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, frankly, I'm glad you're disturbed. We all should be. This is a horrifying situation that needs to be brought to the attention of the American public.

Sensitive folks hiding behind "trigger warnings" will do nothing to help the state of this situation.

I agree. I already posted to the thread. But it's not for everyone and there should be some way to opt out of disturbing subjects like that.

The article is from the front page of the NY Times. If something is there, I hardly think a trigger warning is required here.

I wish there had been a trigger warning on the front page NYT piece on the Auschwitz prison guard a few months back. I was useless the rest of the day at work after reading that and it will haunt my dreams forever. I'm not saying it shouldn't have been written but I wish I had been warned that it was not a good story to read at the office or really any public place.

(for those who didn't read it and are curious --- the second or third paragraph was about his fellow prison guards finding a baby girl hidden in the bushes and then beating her to death)

[Anonymous]

Can you change the title of the thread to NY Times article reports US soldiers to ignore man-boy sex abuse by Afghan allies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, frankly, I'm glad you're disturbed. We all should be. This is a horrifying situation that needs to be brought to the attention of the American public.

Sensitive folks hiding behind "trigger warnings" will do nothing to help the state of this situation.

I agree. I already posted to the thread. But it's not for everyone and there should be some way to opt out of disturbing subjects like that.

The article is from the front page of the NY Times. If something is there, I hardly think a trigger warning is required here.

I wish there had been a trigger warning on the front page NYT piece on the Auschwitz prison guard a few months back. I was useless the rest of the day at work after reading that and it will haunt my dreams forever. I'm not saying it shouldn't have been written but I wish I had been warned that it was not a good story to read at the office or really any public place.

(for those who didn't read it and are curious --- the second or third paragraph was about his fellow prison guards finding a baby girl hidden in the bushes and then beating her to death)

Why in the world did you include that when you yourself were traumatized by reading about it???!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, frankly, I'm glad you're disturbed. We all should be. This is a horrifying situation that needs to be brought to the attention of the American public.

Sensitive folks hiding behind "trigger warnings" will do nothing to help the state of this situation.

I agree. I already posted to the thread. But it's not for everyone and there should be some way to opt out of disturbing subjects like that.

The article is from the front page of the NY Times. If something is there, I hardly think a trigger warning is required here.

I wish there had been a trigger warning on the front page NYT piece on the Auschwitz prison guard a few months back. I was useless the rest of the day at work after reading that and it will haunt my dreams forever. I'm not saying it shouldn't have been written but I wish I had been warned that it was not a good story to read at the office or really any public place.

(for those who didn't read it and are curious --- the second or third paragraph was about his fellow prison guards finding a baby girl hidden in the bushes and then beating her to death)

Why in the world did you include that when you yourself were traumatized by reading about it???!!

"for those who didn't read it, and are curious"

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, is it possible for you to edit subject lines of posts after the fact, or not? If not, ok, but if it is, I don't think it's some kind of slippery slope to add (child sexual abuse) to the subject line when someone directly asks.

Yes, I can edit subject lines. But, then when do I agree do add trigger warnings? When you ask, when someone with whom you agree asks, or when any random person asks even if a trigger warning seems entirely unnecessary? If I add some trigger warnings but not others, that will generate complaints and unhappiness.

Then, what type of change do I make? I am sure that there are posters who would suggest that your proposed change of adding "child sexual abuse" to the subject line which will then appear in Recent Messages and be visible to Political Forum readers even if they don't click on the thread is a worse situation then what we have now.

BTW, this is the second thread about this child abuse case. The first one didn't generate similar concerns. I don't remember the subject line, but maybe that was the difference.


Edit: I looks like the earlier thread was on the same topic, but involved a different US solider:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/494227.page