horror forum - to get the "shock porn" threads off of OT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if I agree with censorship, but I don't understand why a new forum cannot be created for these types of stories. As far as how to make the distinction between newsworthy and shock-porn, The Smoking Gun manages to do it day after day. I like to think that Jeff has at least equal expertise in editing.

Please post links to all the shock porn threads that have been started in the last four days. I am pretty sure there isn't enough to warrant an entire forum. I also can't believe you are still talking about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if I agree with censorship, but I don't understand why a new forum cannot be created for these types of stories. As far as how to make the distinction between newsworthy and shock-porn, The Smoking Gun manages to do it day after day. I like to think that Jeff has at least equal expertise in editing.

Please post links to all the shock porn threads that have been started in the last four days. I am pretty sure there isn't enough to warrant an entire forum. I also can't believe you are still talking about this.

I'm beginning to think it's one person, who maybe has some bad PTSD over something that happened to them or to someone close to them. Unfortunate as that may be, it's really not the responsibility of everyone else to step with extreme caution when posting things. We're all ultimately responsible for ourselves and knowing our own limits. But being incredibly upset over a title/headline is beyond the realm of reasonable or normal. I think they said in Off Topics that they were going to start their own website/forum. That's the only way you can create your own individual boundaries. Though as with any administrator, I'm sure they'll have to deal with reading WAY worse things than just a sad headline in the news.

[Anonymous]

Another user chiming in against a "shock and horror" forum. No one has to click on a thread. And if some users are SO sensitive that even a thread title sends them into a panic, then that is a personal issue and not one to be addressed by filtering a website.

I don't view the disturbing links as "entertainment" or tourism through someone else's misery. When I read a story about an abused child, or an accident, or another awful event, what I think about is how did we as a society fail that child, and what could be do differently so it doesn't happen again? In the imaginary "baby cut in pieces while father films" story, there is likely to be something along the lines of "mother was previously diagnosed with XYZ mental illness and had not been taking medication" - or something else that hints as why the event occurred. If we understand what causes these awful events then maybe we can do better at preventing the next. Simply pretending they don't happen doesn't help.

[Anonymous]

No, it's not one person. I haven't posted frequently and am not any of the really recent PPs on this thread, but I too find these shocky posts unnecessary. No, I'm not scarred for life by the titles, but they create intrusive thoughts and can harm vulnerable new moms. Nobody is pretendeding these things don't happen, but don't pretend on the other hand that these things are posted for their altruistic / humanitarian value. They are posted by people looking to shock and entertain others nearly 100 percent of the time - I guarantee it. I know people in real life who trade on this kind of tragedy. It's what they fill their day with. My grandmother and her friends at the beauty salon eat this stuff for dinner and they think they "care" about it. What they want is to be privvy to very kind of human failing and malady. Don't kid yourself that there is extensive nobility here. Maybe your take away is noble - I cannot dispute that - but it is not why these things are posted most of the time. Come on now - can you not admit that?

[Anonymous]

So question PP. The one recently about the child who was molested during a field trip when he used the men's bathroom. I'm sure some could qualify that as "shock porn", but in my opinion, it has created an interesting conversation. And as a FTM of a 6 month old boy, it is interesting for me to read the different opinions and different ways people handle their opposite sex children in these situations.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, that should say...can you not admit that some of these "shock porn" articles are meant to induce conversation and are not simply meant to rattle people?

[Anonymous]

i have not seen that particular story. Some posts, like the mauling of the two year old in Pgh zoo, have driven compelling conversations...but at the same time, I still believe that many of these posts and their responses are not prompted by the desire for genuine discourse or learning, but by morbid curiosity. And I think it tends to distort our thinking in a harmful way. I'm not 100 percent rigid on "never post a sad story" by any means. I agree that there is gray area. But I do think it's not that hard to decide between a compelling conversation and something that "needs" to be read and rubbernecking or shock tourism.

This is an interesting read.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli

[Anonymous]

Also (PP again, now it IS me blowing up the forum, because I'm talking to one person) reddit has a subreddit on it:

http://www.reddit.com/r/morbidcuriosity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i have not seen that particular story. Some posts, like the mauling of the two year old in Pgh zoo, have driven compelling conversations...but at the same time, I still believe that many of these posts and their responses are not prompted by the desire for genuine discourse or learning, but by morbid curiosity. And I think it tends to distort our thinking in a harmful way. I'm not 100 percent rigid on "never post a sad story" by any means. I agree that there is gray area. But I do think it's not that hard to decide between a compelling conversation and something that "needs" to be read and rubbernecking or shock tourism.

This is an interesting read.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli

Does it say on the heading: DCUM forum: for compelling discourse and humanitarian topics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, it's not one person. I haven't posted frequently and am not any of the really recent PPs on this thread, but I too find these shocky posts unnecessary. No, I'm not scarred for life by the titles, but they create intrusive thoughts and can harm vulnerable new moms. Nobody is pretendeding these things don't happen, but don't pretend on the other hand that these things are posted for their altruistic / humanitarian value. They are posted by people looking to shock and entertain others nearly 100 percent of the time - I guarantee it. I know people in real life who trade on this kind of tragedy. It's what they fill their day with. My grandmother and her friends at the beauty salon eat this stuff for dinner and they think they "care" about it. What they want is to be privvy to very kind of human failing and malady. Don't kid yourself that there is extensive nobility here. Maybe your take away is noble - I cannot dispute that - but it is not why these things are posted most of the time. Come on now - can you not admit that?

This entire post is written very intelligently.

I'm right on with this - for most people, the posts aren't going to scar you, but they do create intrusive thoughts. Most people are not actually capable of setting limits for themselves.

I also agree that the people posting these messages are looking to shock and entertain. Very well put.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i have not seen that particular story. Some posts, like the mauling of the two year old in Pgh zoo, have driven compelling conversations...but at the same time, I still believe that many of these posts and their responses are not prompted by the desire for genuine discourse or learning, but by morbid curiosity. And I think it tends to distort our thinking in a harmful way. I'm not 100 percent rigid on "never post a sad story" by any means. I agree that there is gray area. But I do think it's not that hard to decide between a compelling conversation and something that "needs" to be read and rubbernecking or shock tourism.

This is an interesting read.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli

Does it say on the heading: DCUM forum: for compelling discourse and humanitarian topics?

No, but as you can see some thoughtful, intelligent people are attempting to have compelling discourse here. Go back to cnn.com or babycenter or people.com if you want to be around people like yourself.