Posted by ElaineM on December 29, 2006, at 11:19:58
In reply to Re: Would it be helpful or even possible/poss *tri » madeline, posted by Dinah on December 29, 2006, at 10:44:11
[I appreciate you voicing your understanding Farkus]
Dinah, I'm sorry you've been in such a state of mind before. You are a dear person, and I'd hate to think of you hurting so. I'd hate to think of anyone hurting so.
>>>> Not if you do this, I'll xxxx. More like when you did this, I want to xxxx, or I did xxxx.
Perhaps we are saying the same thing then, because to me, the first example is the one I have a bigger problem with. The second one, is sad to hear, but still slightly accusatory to post, in my point of view. It still implies that another’s actions are the cause for another's self-destructive behavior. And ultimately, it's not. But maybe your post is recognizing the difference. If not, (to use your example), what if I had said in an emotional post, "Dinah when you typed that response to me that I didn't agree with I tried to kill myself."
It just sounds accusatory to me somehow -- it suggests blame to me. I'd never want you to be at the end of that sort of thing. True, I'm more concerned with the "If you don't... I will..." structure, but I also don't think that people should be left to feel put down should someone connect them to the actions of someone outside themself. To me it contains a dangerous puppet string analogy. I'm all for people expressing themself, I just think that (especially concerning suicide) it should be done respectfully, and strictly enforced, to ensure that the rest of the community is protected.[as a side track, I remember once I had mistakenly typed out identifying information about myself before, and hit send, instantly having my eyes zone in on the part and my stomach lurch into my throat. But my computer, thank goodness, had a broken connection.]
>>>>>At least consciously. It wasn't to manipulate. It was more to say "I hurt so much. I want others to know how much I'm hurting."
Oh my goodness - I can totally appreciate that. And if that's lost in my other posts i'm sorry. I know everything that is posted on these boards is motivated from one emotion or another, usually strong, and usually very painful ones. But, to risk sounding harsh, I don't think that intent should be reason to allow something like threats to be posted or stand as civil. Most times intent is only clarified much later -- after the "damage has been done", so to speak. I sincerely support people's right to post the most heartbreaking, scary, angry, devastating things, but only if it doesn't interfere with the rights of the rest of the community to have a safe (civil) place. I do think that we are ultimately agreeing with eachother (though you can say if not), just that perhaps my posts don't equally emphasize what I *am* okay with and empathic for, as well as what I'm completely against.
>>>>>It is *very* hard to give up that way of communicating pain. Especially if it was the only way to be taken seriously as you were growing up.
I agree. I have many vices grown out of an abusive childhood, but I don't think that being symptomatic is a legitimate reason for leniency. Many other kinds of behavior that could be considered symptomatic have caused others to be blocked. I don't think the emotionality of a poster or their subject should preclude civility enforcement.
>>>>>it also just wasn't the best way to convey what I wanted to convey
This is probably just me too, but I'm less concerned about somebody finding the best way. Just a way that respects the rights of both the upset person and the readers. I realize, that everyone can be effected indirectly, but I'm not talking about difficult posts in general, just threat-containing/implying ones.
>>>>But I do try to keep in mind my own actions, and my own reasons, and Linehans words when I'm feeling frustrated with others who make the same choices I did, or at least that I almost did. I can't recall whether I did or didn't in actuality, and I don't think I want to remember.
Dinah, you sound so sad. It sounds like this is a painful subject for you. I do see what you mean. I'm always sorry when people are hurting. All people. I just think that theoretically I'd deserve the same amount of protection and care and support, whether I'm the person in crisis at the time, the responder, or "only" a silent reader.
I'm sorry if I'm sounding mean. I'm really just passionate about self-harm being used as a mechanism to influence another's online peers *when* its connected to threats/blame(both when suicidal intent is truly there, and when it's "not really") To me, it's too devastating a subject to be used that way.
For me:
Someone can "cry wolf" regarding suicide.
Someone can post when truly in immediate jeopardy.
But someone cannot post as a threat, or "cry wolf" as a threat to fellow members.I don't really have much else to add anymore - my brain is fried and I’ve rambled and repeated myself enough for now :) I think we do agree afterall. And I appreciate your sensitivity to both sides.
(((Dinah))) take care.
blove, EL
poster:ElaineM
thread:717121
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061228/msgs/717258.html