IF YOU ARE GOING TO POST GRAPHIC PICTURES PLEASE INCLUDE "GRAPHIC WARNING" IN THE THREAD TITLE!

[Le Taz Hot]

It just happened again! I pull up a post and there is a horrible, horrible picture that had NO WARNING in the thread title. Some people, such as myself, are hypersensitive to horrible graphic pictures and cannot stand to look at them. When we view them, they literally stay with us for the rest of our lives. For the first few days, we can't get the pictures out of our minds and we have a severe emotional reaction to them. These images never leave our minds.

Please, please, PLEASE, if you want to post some horrific picture, PLEASE include a "GRAPHIC WARNING" sign in your thread title.

I'm going to keep this kicked because too many people seem to get their ya-yas by doing this lately. I don't know if they're completely ignorant or they just don't care. Either way the psychological damage is incalculable.

For those of you with this condition the Thread: "Dog of the year helps 8-year-old boy with autism find his voice" contains one of these horrific pictures.

[LumosMaxima]

1. Agreed. Thanks for bringing this up.

I have the same problem & I really wish people would be more considerate.

[thecrow]

63. The "TRASH" feature (located in the My Account area at top of page) is your friend

When you auto-trash by keyword, threads which contain that keyword in their titles will be removed from your view when browsing DU. To add a keyword, enter it into the box below. You may enter a single word (eg. chicken) or a string of words (eg. corn flakes). Capitalization is not important.

[LumosMaxima]

73. I already use auto-trash.

It doesn't work if the thread title gives no clue that there will be graphic content, and it's not possible to predict every single word that might appear in such a thread and auto-trash it. It doesn't help when people use vague titles that don't even reflect the subject of the thread (things like "You won't believe this!&quot . And it should be obvious that overuse of auto-trash would mean missing content that would *not* have been triggering.

I really don't appreciate your talking down to me as if I have not already done my best to protect myself.

[thecrow]

75. I didn't "talk down" to you in any way.

I was trying to be helpful by posting DU's actual trash function.
If you don't need the help, then stop getting all defensive.
Some people you just can't help. Take it up with Skinner, then.
Sorry I tried.

[Eleanors38]

81. 'Hope we can all be friends. Le Taz has a point.

[Arkansas Granny]

2. k&r

[LeftofObama]

3. K & R! n/t

[DLevine]

4. You speak for me. Thank you. nt

[LuvNewcastle]

5. Nothing really bothers me, but I can sympathize with people who

are bothered by that. All it takes is a word or two of warning to keep from ruining someone's day. I hope everyone sees this and tries to be considerate in the future.

[scarletwoman]

6. I'm with you - totally!

Thank you for speaking up!

[ReRe]

7. K&R

[cactusfractal]

8. I suppose "Graphic" is relative...

While sad, the pic of the dog in extremis at the time of his rescue is not one I would classify as "graphic". It's certainly no worse than the images of starving children one can see on any number of charity commercials. And there IS a happy ending

Respect and sensitivity, of course, for those who cannot bear such pictures, and I appreciate knowing that some folks have such a low threshold. I'd hate to inadvertently freak someone out.

[Thor_MN]

13. Not trying to pick a fight, but you defined yourself as not normal.

By saying that you are hypersensitive to images, you said that you believe yourself to be extremely more affected by images than the normal person. I'm not certain, but I think there are browser settings that will prevent displaying images. It may be worth looking into.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

16. for someone so sensitive to imagery

i would think that would be the first option to set in a browser to not load images on a discussion board.

sP

[TexasProgresive]

26. BINGO! That's the best answer.

But then you don't get those incredibly cute pics from
SalmonChantedEvening

[ProdigalJunkMail]

15. that was fucking rude and uncalled for

it is not like they attacked you... but made a valid point.

holy shit... if it is that difficult for you to interact here perhaps you need a break.

ffs...


sP

[cactusfractal]

25. Thanks. n/t

[rtassi]

29. +1

[Myrina]

47. +2

... tends to be a habit, I've noticed.

[Eleanors38]

84. Well, I defended your point, only to see your verbal graphics. Sheesh.

[cactusfractal]

19. Wow. How very uncivil.

Here I was just contributing my POV - you know, the entire purpose of forums like these - in a respectful tone and that's what I get back? What part of

Respect and sensitivity, of course, for those who cannot bear such pictures, and I appreciate knowing that some folks have such a low threshold. I'd hate to inadvertently freak someone out.

did you miss?

I thought twice about it, having looked at the OP and found it not meeting my own standards for "graphic", and decided to reply anyway to provide perspective. And having been waaaay more of a lurker here for years than an active participant, I find it doesn't hurt to exhibit some class of deference to those with five-figure contributions to the DU discussion.

But, as you said, fuck it. Sometimes civil and deferential only gets you bitchy in return.

I won't belabor the fact that "normal" people don't see a picture of a starving dog and have it "literally stay with us for the rest of our lives". If that were the case, we'd all be whimpering in the fetal position at the first sound of Sarah McLachlan's voice and you'd have PTSD after a week working at SPCA, let alone after witnessing the horrors visited by man upon fellow humans.

PRO TIP: Stay away from liveleak.com

And I won't bother to expound on the fact that some of us participate in these conversations precisely for insight into the sensitivities, emotions and perspectives of our fellow humans and TRY to respect them, no matter how different those feelings might be. You know: trying to make the world a better place for everyone, not just those who feel the exact same way we do about everything. That liberal thing. The nerve, huh?

Hope you have a better day.

[rtassi]

31. +1

[Ms. Toad]

34. How about you self-delete this.

The response to your request was very civil. It merely pointed out that your request may be impossible for some people to comply with - even if they are graphic by your standards. That is a valid point, which you should be aware of.

It is like asking a color blind person to label every picture which has green in it "GREEN." No matter how sincere the intent to honor the request, if the person can't see green (or in the case of your request, doesn't recognize something as graphic by your standards), they will be unable to comply with your request.

Your response was as rude as posting graphic pictures without a warning, and I hope you'll delete it.

[Silent3]

42. That tame post was enough to get a "welcome to ignore" from you?

There's being especially sensitive, and then there's being a drama queen.

If my own post is also enough to get me ignored by you, let's see if you can simply ignore me quietly without making a public performance out of it.

[Are_grits_groceries]

10. I saw those photos and I would have posted it with a huge warning.

It ended up being a success story, but those first pictures upset me to no end. I have seen that type of photo before and don't need a reminder of the horror. It is etched in my memory.

Even if a story turns out to be positive, people should know there are graphic pics during the process.

[cactusfractal]

86. My only point was the relative nature of "graphic". n/t

[Go Vols]

66. I didn't see anything graphic either.

Nor did NBC that aired it on TV.

[CBHagman]

11. Any DUer who posts graphic content has that obligation...

...and I thought there was something listed under community standards in this regard.

[Le Taz Hot]

12. There is but it gets ignored.

I did a stupid thing the other day and ventured into the Lounge. Now, there are lots and lots of reasons I don't go in there and I don't know what made me do it that day but in went. Someone had posted a "cartoon" of a person who had hanged herself and a cat playing with the dead person's shoelace. I know in Frat Boy Land this is considered humorous. They never consider the possibility that someone who has known and loved someone who actually ended their lives in this way might click on that thread completely unaware.

I don't know if it's insensitivity at work or stupidity but there seems to be a lot of it here lately.

[rtassi]

39. Your response to #8 would indicate stupidity,

rudeness, and insensitivity is pretty much a part of your makeup also … before you throw edicts at anyone else … clean up your own act ...

[Le Taz Hot]

41. Oh look,

another new person saying exactly the same thing the other two are saying. What a coincidence.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

67. oh, so multiple people think you're being rude

and somehow that's a negative on THEM? interesting...

sP

[Gemini Cat]

68. He/she has been around for ten years.

The other poster for around five. Neither is new.

[RiffRandell]

14. I totally agree with you; I'm the same way.

Thanks for the heads up.

[TBF]

17. I like it when posts are marked graphic or satire in GD -

I expect to find serious discussion in this forum so just like a heads up if someone is putting up a graphic, toon or satire.

[KarenS]

18. Le Taz Hot, Thank you.

Those kinds of pictures stay with me as well.

"Graphic Warning" in the thread title is very considerate.

[Glitterati]

20. If it's an animal thread in GD, I trash it unread

always.

A few of the horror stories people around here call news are simply devastating to folks like me who are haunted by stories about injured/hurt/dead animals.

I just don't give these jerks the ability to do that to me.

TRASH. That's exactly where this garbage belongs - in the TRASH.

[GoCubsGo]

44. Me, too.

I really don't understand the need for some to post such things in the first place. It's not like people here need to be reminded that such things occur. I think we pretty much all know that it goes on, and we all know that it needs to be dealt with--without the need for reminders.

[Whisp]

62. I avoid animal threads, or dead babies or

limbs caught in machinery and all that. I see there are particular people that seem to enjoy posting horrifics like that for the attention and shock value.

I just can't take the horror. I don't need to see that, it burns me inside.

[Nitram]

21. Taz, I'm surprised that such a very sensitive person...

...would suddenly resort to obscenity in reply to a polite and decent post. Sounds like your issues may go a bit beyond sensitivity to graphic pictures?

[Le Taz Hot]

22. You're new.

You'll find that I "resort to obscenity" a lot. You might want to put me on Ignore. <flush>

[Blanks]

37. LOL

Sometimes prose without profanity sprinkled in just doesn't cut the mustard.

[Go Vols]

65. When are you not 'New"?

One poster you called new has been here for 10 years,the other 3.

[Nitram]

90. done

Mr. Sensitivity Tourrette.

[Duppers]

72. 2nd this observation

Taz is now on my ignore list.

[LiberalArkie]

23. As someone who was heavily verbally abused as a child, I try no to post anything on any board

because I am assured to get the same treatment as I got as a kid.

[TexasProgresive]

24. What do you do if it is a reply and not an OP?

There is no way I can see to do what you ask if not the OP. Well perhaps the poster can put it in the subject line and post the pic way down the page. But I think you will still see it when you scroll past.

Not a problem for me as I don't post graphic photos- but when I see them I can just ignore them or allow them to affect me and then think about that.

[Le Taz Hot]

27. What do *I* do?

I come across it inadvertently and have a terrible reaction -- for DAYS! What do posters do? Perhaps err on the side of caution and sensitivity?

". . . but when I see them I can just ignore them or allow them to affect me and then think about that." Good for you. Millions of people can drink one drink and be fine with just drinking one. I'm one of those people. However, I also recognize that alcoholics can't stop at one drink and, just because I don't have that problem I would never FORCE that drink down an alcoholic's throat.

It's like that.

[procon]

28. Yes!

The shock value of appalling image porn is irresistible to threads.

In that particular thread, the terrible image was completely unnecessary to the heartwarming story about a little boy and his dog, and a lovely photo of the two of them cuddling would have been terrific. The link was provided and the author could have simply noted that more graphics, some of a sensitive nature, could be viewed.

I was also deeply affected by that opening photo of the poor puppy near death. While I am cognizant that such evils exist, they are not permitted in my world, and I take some small satisfaction in knowing that my efforts help to mitigate such horrors.

I choose not to view vile images of atrocities and I especially do not want to be dragged into someone else's immature "gotcha!" trickery. Yes, perhaps I am overly sensitive, but the memory of seeing that poor, wretched dog still haunts me this morning, and for that, I hope the OP of that thread has an equally unpleasant day.

[Kahuna]

30. I agree 100%. I have no stomach for graphic images. Like you, it affects me long after

I have viewed them, and not in a good way.

[Javaman]

32. This post is completely useless without pictures...

Just kidding.

Good post.

[Le Taz Hot]

35. LOL!

Thanks for that.

[JNelson6563]

33. Agreed! Good post!

[Le Taz Hot]

36. Thanks, friend.

[hobbit709]

38. I've seen way too much in real life to freak over a photo.

[Le Taz Hot]

40. As have I . . .

See Post #27 for a better explanation.

[hobbit709]

43. Then why the freak out?

Maybe you should talk to a professional about this.

It's not images of what I've seen that haunt my dreams, it's the smells.

[Le Taz Hot]

45. I think post #27

spells it out pretty clearly. Condescending terminology notwithstanding, there are many millions who suffer this condition. You and others can CHOOSE to respect that or you and others can CHOOSE not to respect it. If you and others CHOOSE not to respect that then just know that OTHERS will pay the price for that insensitivity.

[Myrina]

50. Yes because a discussion board of over 10,000 users is all about keeping you happy.

[madinmaryland]

78. It's her discussion board.

Next thing you know they will be telling me to stop using the Fuck word, eating at the Olive Garden, asking how much is a brazillion, and suggesting that someone in the lounge is a dumbass!!

[pipi_k]

61. If I were to decide which

side of this problem needed therapeutic intervention, it would be the side that can't understand why adding three words...

"Graphic photo warning"

to a post title seems to be too much trouble.


Yeah, smells might haunt your dreams, but unless your computer is something special, you're not being assaulted by disturbing odors from DU posts.

[hunter]

60. I've seen "way too much in real life" which is probably *why* I freak over these photos...

My sister is a fire department paramedic, so I guess she went the other way, putting herself directly into situations where she sees more of it. My wife has a similar constitution.

I'm fairly competent in the midst of a gory situation, but it takes me a long time to recover and I suffer nightmares. I don't seem to become "desensitized" to it.

I would much prefer people label "graphic content."

[liberalmuse]

88. I've seen horrible things, too.

But some of us still freak the fuck out when we see something like this. It can't hurt to post a warning, or even a link to the pic with a warning.

[snooper2]

46. I guess this is how you get kicked out of your own thread-

At Mon Nov 25, 2013, 06:29 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Yeah, I really don't give a shit what YOU
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4089335

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Over the top incivility. This is the type of unprovoked rudeness that makes DU suck.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Nov 25, 2013, 06:39 AM, and the Jury voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Agree with alerter., jesus x. christ I was trying to figure out the post times to see if it was a late night drinking blunder or what...PWPO, is that an acronym?
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Ms. Toad]

59. I'm actually surprised that 2 voted to let it stay.

(I didn't alert, nor was I on the jury - but I did find it an offensively rude overreaction.)

[B2G]

48. GRAPHIC WARNING!

[cactusfractal]

57. OMGZ I R OFFENDEDED

[MoonRiver]

49. I so agree.

The pain from such pictures stays with me for a log time.

[MineralMan]

51. I'm very sorry that you are so affected by such images.

That must be a very difficult thing, since horrifying images are so common. I wouldn't post such images in a public forum, myself, since I see no need for them in almost any circumstance.

I did look at the thread you mentioned, and the first image in the OP was, indeed, disturbing. The rest of the images were of the same animal after it recovered. Apparently, the poster believed that the contrast warranted the posting of the photo. I wouldn't have, if I had posted that same story.

Still, despite pleas not to post what you are calling graphic images, they will probably continue to appear in threads on DU, and often without a warning in the thread title. What one person finds horrifying, another will find an example of recovery from a horrifying thing, as was the case in the story of this animal. For everyone who is deeply affected by the first image in that thread, there are dozens who found the thread a story of recovery.

I'm not sure what to suggest. As I said, I wouldn't post such images, myself. I find them disturbing, too, but not on the same level as you apparently do. But, I also know that people will continue to post images that some find distasteful, horrifying, disturbing or otherwise inappropriate. Posts on DU are not examined by anyone before appearing in public here. If something doesn't meet community standards, it may be hidden by a jury, but that doesn't solve the problem, nor does it keep the image from appearing on DU. There is no review of posts before they appear.

Due to the extreme reaction you have to such images, I fear that you will have to take some initiative to prevent yourself from being exposed to them on DU. The reason is that different things affect different people in different ways. What is horrifying to you may be a positive thing to the person who posts it, as in the thread you're talking about. It wouldn't occur to the poster, necessarily, that the thread title should include a warning. So, I suppose you'll have to be on your guard to protect yourself on this and other public forums where posts are not reviewed before appearing.

I hope you find a way to keep yourself from seeing images that disturb you deeply.

[laundry_queen]

56. Someone upthread mentioned

you can turn off picture loading in your browser. Perhaps the OP should consider that.

[MineralMan]

71. That's pretty drastic, though. The Internet would be

pretty bleak without graphic images. They're used everywhere.

Forum-style websites are prone to unpleasant postings, I think.

[MH1]

52. I totally agree. Very often the inclusion of horrible, graphic photos is completely unnecessary.

When it is deemed truly necessary to the thread,the "GRAPHIC" warning should always be included in the thread title.

For what it's worth: It probably doesn't stay with me as long, but I get upset at images even tamer than what I think you're referring to (but I did not look at the thread you referenced). Heck, I won't even click on a thread with "zombie" in the subject line any more. I even know it's not real but it doesn't help. I never did get the fascination of so many people for "horror" films and stuff like that. Just spend some time in a truly poor country or an area that's been devastated by natural disaster; hell, just think about images from New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Isn't that enough horror? Who wants to see fake horror when there is far too much of the real thing in this world?

Anyway, thanks for the thread.

[Blue Diadem]

53. That one shocked me too. First picture was not at all what I was expecting.

I'm glad the dog was saved and the story has a happy ending but that first picture took my breath away. Considering I'm normally not as reactive to those types of pictures, maybe it was the headline and then the placement of the picture that made it worse. I can only imagine how it would make you and others feel who are hypersensitive.

[Lifelong Protester]

54. I agree, because I take a little break here at work

to look at the stories on DU and I'm in a school!!

[peace13]

55. I'm sorry that you saw something upsetting.

I agree with you, images can be upsetting, more so to some of us than others. Peace and love to you and....have a Happy Thanksgiving. Don't let the turkeys get you down. : )

[pipi_k]

58. Yep, there is no reason

for not doing that.

I run into that problem a lot on Facebook where someone will post disturbing images and I'm scrolling down and there's absolutely NO warning whatsoever (which can't be helped, really...but if it happens too often with certain people, I choose the option to hide them from appearing on my newsfeed).

Here, there's no excuse.

Well, except maybe what's graphic for some might not be graphic for others. But it would be nice if people would stop for a few seconds to ask themselves if they would post such a photo to a group of kids. Because when it comes to some things, that's how my mind reacts. Exactly like yours...I can't get rid of the image and often find myself physically ill.

[kcr]

69. That happens to me, too. I block people that do that on Facebook.

I agree with you. It's not that hard to post a warning, and to apologize and add one if requested.

[FreakinDJ]

64. Sorry - I posted some links

To Dogs being shot by police - but I did warn in the title - "it will Break your Heart"

I guess Graffic Content would have been more appropriate

[libertypirate]

70. Thank you! That dog thread was horrible! n/t

[demmiblue]

74. I agree... it is just common courtesy to do so. n/t

[phil89]

76. if

you're hypersensitive you can't reasonably expect people to know your limitations.

[ogradda]

77. I hear you.

I'm the same way.

[Skittles]

80. I agree with this assessment

[madinmaryland]

82. This thread is worthless without a link. nt

[AngryOldDem]

83. Agreed.

I could have used a warning last night when that image came up on NBC.

Totally sickening. So, so, so glad that pup found a good, loving home with a little boy who desperately needs him.

[Voice for Peace]

85. I've trained myself to look away very quickly but it's still awful

I am completely sympathetic. A lot of threads I just don't
even open because of that risk.

[liberalmuse]

87. Even though we know this dog ended up healthy, happy and loved...

That was probably one of the most disturbing and haunting pictures I've ever seen and agree that it should have been accompanied with a warning. It's just that you think of all the dogs like this that have not been saved.

[Aerows]

89. Amen n/t