Please! I ask a favor of those posting graphic violence titles--please don't.

[hyphenate]

I understand the need and urgency to inform people of some of the more disturbing things going on, but I can't take it anymore, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

There are many of us who have worked in animal rights and have seen so much pain, so much damage and horrific things, and we have seen more than we should have through the years, because we needed to know what we were facing. But now, I can't take anymore, and putting up post titles with salacious details starts me crying all over again.

Please, I ask people, if you will choose titles that tell of a problem, but no more titles that evoke horror or graphic violence.

I am sure you are all intelligent enough to do that--and my heart and soul will thank you.

[Judi Lynn]

1. Thank you, hyphenate. Rec. n/t

[alphafemale]

2. As long as everyone does everything "just so" everything will be "OK." nt

[murielm99]

3. I find the OP's request reasonable. n/t

[bobbolink]

28. Grow a heart.

[SammyWinstonJack]

40. +1

:thumbsup:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

34. Alpha, huh?

[Maru Kitteh]

37. error.

[Hepburn]

4. Join the request.

Thank you to those who would lessen the impact of some of the atrocities practiced against animals. I am extremely sensitive to violence to animals. Recently, I have had to hide a few threads because the topics displayed in the headlines were so upsetting to me...even when just glanced on a DU page.

Obviously no one meant to upset anyone else ~~ but I actually got sick reading some of what was displayed. Yes, I know I am overly sensitive ~~ but I thought it was just me. Now I realize I am not alone.

[TorchTheWitch]

6. No, you aren't alone - I can't stand it too

I don't think you're overly sensative... I think others are overly anesthetized. Graphic descriptions are MEANT to cause real reactions of disgust. The more grossed out people are the more outraged they'll be. I just don't see that it's appropriate to have very graphic language in thread titles... most of us are capable of being properly outraged without being made sick.

[Maru Kitteh]

17. You are not alone at all. I do the same.

[bobbolink]

30. Please. You're not overly anytning. You're a human being.

Let's not keep badmouthing sensitivity.

It's making us uglier.

Take pride in being sensitive. You're in good company.

Think of St. Francis and the birds. :)

[Hepburn]

52. Oh, what a very nice reply....

...thank you so much.

I am pretty senstive, tho: When I was a child, my mother had to restrict me from watching things like Lassie ~~ if the dog was hurt or could get hurt or was lost or in any kind of danger, I would cry the the point of throwing up.

I really, really am sensitive the anything about animals, particularly dogs.

:hi: :hug: Thanks again...!

[bobbolink]

59. You're very welcome! Now, please do me a favor....

Please at least consider NOT using "sensitive" in a negative way. It not only hurts all of us sensitive folks, but it's harming our society.

Please read The Highly Sensitive Person, by Dr. Elaine Aron. Some very important information there, to dispel the woeful ignorance in our society.

For one thing, sensitives are BORN, and it's the way we are. Approximately 15-20% of the population is Highly Sensitive. It's NOT A DFFECT. It is a very important trait that has benefitted the human race through the ages. When you understand how we improve our society, I think you will find more peace with your trait.

Other societies are smart enough to HONOR their sensitives, and it's time we do, too.

I'm pleased to meet another sensitive, and I hope this book helps you to have more respect for your trait.

:hug: :hi: :hug:

[hyphenate]

60. I would think that those who have been healers throughout history

were sensitives. You need to care about the people--and the animals--if you are going to help them, and it seems nowadays that the doctors in the present don't seem to have that compassion as much. Even my vet disturbs me--it doesn't matter how much an emergency might cost, or my poverty, or anything--"show me the money" is her motto.

I've always been more aware of how something affects me, but I reached my limit some time ago. It doesn't matter, though--you see a situation, you have to try to do something about it if you can. It's just important that some of us become advocates for those without voices of their own.

[bobbolink]

62. Dr. Aron calls us "Royal Advisors", to the Warrior Kings. We are the ones to pull back and look at

the consequences of the actions of the Warrior Kings. She calls this "pause to check", and that is what the OP is doing.

It really does make a lot of sense. Any society needs the assertiveness and energy of the Warrior Kings, but left unchecked, it creates chaos, as we have seen. Societies used to respect and honor the thoughtful and intuitive Royal Advisors, to caution against aggression, etc. As we saw with the shrub, without that pause-to-check, we're royally screwn.

Of course you are right about healers.....also spiritual leaders, etc. As Aron says, tho, so many of these vocations that used to be solely held by Royal Advisors are now the province of Warrior Kings. Which explains your vet. :(

Sadly, aggression and domination have become such prime values in this society that even "progressives" copy the mode, and dismiss us sensitives. (To their own detriment, and that of the society.) If we truly want to make peace.... with ourselves, with each other, and with the rest of the world, we must once again honor the Sensitives.

It really isn't a small thing.

It really is a book worth your time.

[Mimosa]

66. I agree with the OP

Bobbolink, thank you for mentioning the book The Highly Sensitive Person, by Dr. Elaine Aron. I wouldn't have heard of it if you hadn't. When I was just a tot, I was termed hypersensitive. I was not whiney or temperamental, rather quiet and shy. But I do have some psychic ability.


Anyhow, progressives should become part of the healing instead of adding to the ugliness and tensions in the world.

[bobbolink]

68. Whiney and tempermental? That has NOTHING to do with sensitivity!

So, that is where people get this crap of vilifying sensitive people? Thank y0ou for clarifying that.....I thought it was just that we're all supposed to be tough Scwartzenfuckers all the time.

Quiet and shy describes the majority of sensitive people. I'm in the minority... being outgoing and extravert. It's just that much harder.

I'm very happy to recommend the book, and hhope that you will read it. Actually, you can take the online "test" and see how much applies to you. It could be eyeopening.

I wish that ALL progressives would educate themselves about this and it's MANDATORY for those who work with people. It really is a pathway to peace.

It goes along with Alexis de Tocqueville saying, in the 1800s, that the downfall of the U.S. would be it's overemphasis on rugged individualism, and part of that is this whole worship of "toughness".

Yes, absolutely, some of us are painfully sensitive to noise, to violent pictures, etc., and there is no reason why others can understand and accept that. We're part of this society, also.

[hyphenate]

69. Do you have a link for the test?

I'm sure some of us might like to take it. :)

[bobbolink]

70. Here ya go....the website including the test:

http://www.hsperson.com/pages/test.htm

Let me know what you find out, eh?

This is something that needs a LOT more awareness!

I hope this helps. :hi:

[northernlights]

58. you are not overly sensitive

and I thank the OP. I have days when it just breaks me down o where I honestly don't want to breathe the same air the sick thugs do or share the same planet.

[EFerrari]

5. Kick

:(

[anniebelle]

7. Agreed wholeheartedly.

I help with disabled children and also help at the local shelters for animals. I know the horrors are everywhere we turn, but it is inappropriate to try to sensationalize these events on DU. There are many, many forums to address these topics elsewhere.

[eShirl]

8. AGREED! If their intent is to make me scramble to click "hide thread," they succeed.

If their intent is to make me want to read their post, they fail.

[magellan]

35. +1 n/t

[spiderpig]

9. Thank you for posting this. I fully agree.

Here's a dumb question. Can you hide a thread without opening it? I see some of these disturbing subject lines over and over while scanning LBN and GD, and it upsets me no end each time I have to look at them. I don't want to accidentally see any gory details while using the "hide" option.

[Princess Turandot]

10. Yes, just click the 'x' to the right of the thread's name on the forum page..nt

[spiderpig]

71. I'm a little late with the response, but thanks so much for the tip!

:fistbump:

[Sukie]

11. Gosh, I am so happy someone brought this up.

There was the story about the kitten and it contained what happened to it in the title and I literally physically hurt after reading it just the title. Thanks so much for the request. I ditto it.

[Berry Cool]

12. The kitten story was awful enough, but the tabloid writer's description was also designed to get a

sensationalistic, emotional response. When people posting the story also posted that, it made things worse.

It's too bad the yellow journalists seemed to pounce on that story almost with glee, because it gave them a clear-cut monster to write about (there is nothing tabloid journalists love better than obvious heroes and villains), while the more respectable news outlets had little to do with it. The respectable news outlets wouldn't have written about it the same way. They would have taken the same terrible facts and at least dealt with them straightforwardly.

[Hepburn]

13. Delete ~~ dupe.

[Starry Messenger]

14. Thank you.

I try to hide those as fast as possible but the titles themselves have been horrible. If I want to read those things (and I don't) I'd go to rotten.com.

[hyphenate]

15. Thank you, everyone

I just wanted to kick this so more people can read it.

It takes a lot out of me, too, when I see those kinds of headlines. I've gotten to the point where I donate money to different groups, and don't read the snail mail they send simply because I know I'll be crying if I did so. I get emails that I send to a folder without reading them. And after thirty some odd years later, after you've "concluded" you've seen it all, something else happens and you realize you haven't. I can't even go to the shelter to see the pets, because I would be bawling my eyes out, knowing I can't save them all. I have this heart that has been so broken before that I've given up on it healing.

I might sound melodramatic, but if you have worked in this area, you know it's no exaggeration.

Again, thanks to those who will modify their posting titles, as it will mean quite a lot to those of us who have been in the abyss.

[lukasahero]

19. For you (dial-up warning)

The little black dog is a rescue. Don't ever forget, while we can't save all of them, this is what it looks like when we save one. :hug:

[hyphenate]

32. And dogs are so eager to please! And there are so many

who would do anything for their masters or mistresses, and how they are often treated makes me want to kill those humans who are not so humane.

I've been accused of choosing animals over humans, a charge I do not deny--animals are just so much more worthy than some people.

The two dogs look great together. I agree--to those we can rescue so much the better. There is a very short little anecdote that I read some years back: a little girl is on a beach, and she is picking up jellyfish, and throwing them back into the water. An old, miserly man stops nearby, and asks her why she is throwing them back into the water, and she says she is giving them another chance to live. The old man says she should forget it, that it's not going to do much good at all because there were just too many of them. And the little girl says to the old man: "It mattered to that one," she pointed to one she threw back into the water. "And all the others that have a second chance. I can't save them all, but I can help some."

In my former "life" we kind of knew we couldn't look at the whole picture because it became too much of a hopeless task if we did. We had to keep our sights on those who we could help out. And it's partly why I got into politics in the first place, working on state-wide campaigns in Calif that actually would make a major difference.

PETA might look a little full of themselves on a regular basis, but with them, it's not so much what they do, but how they manage to make more people aware of different issues. Public awareness is the key, because everyone who hears about an issue might understand it more and judge for themselves.

Thanks for caring for the animals--they deserve our love and respect.

[Maru Kitteh]

16. I agree. I think we can just say "abused kitten" or even "shocking crime befalls beloved pet"

instead of the most graphic stuff.

I cry at just the post titles sometimes too.

Animal abuse just makes me fall apart.

[lukasahero]

18. Thank you!

You've said it all for me. Thanks.

Hopefully some will listen.

[rd_kent]

20. Sometimes the truth is brutal......

trying to downplay the truth can only hurt in the long run. I feel the pain you express, but how does one know what you find too graphic? Others see the same thing and don't think twice about it. I guess I'm confused as to why we would suppress an actual event to save someones feelings. I really am not a cold-hearted SOB, but quite the contrary.
OK, flame away.....just because I disagree.......

[TorchTheWitch]

21. We're talking about the post title

Graphic details don't need to be in the post title where the people who don't want to read these graphic details can't avoid them. The graphic details can go in the post itself so if you click on the post to read it and are grossed out it's your own fault. We put warnings in post titles that contain graphic photos for the benefit of the sensative, why not have the same curtesy with graphic text? There isn't any need to put graphic details in a post title when they can be detailed in the post itself. Nothing is being suppressed since all the gory details can be laid bare within the post itself that way those of us who are sickened by such things and don't want to see them aren't subjected to them. It's a simple curtesy.

[waiting for hope]

22. K&R hyphenate -

Common courtesy is a thing of the past I'm afraid. Bad enough having to stand in a check out line and have my eyes glazed over the tabloids ... ick.

[waiting for hope]

23. K&R hyphenate -

Common courtesy is a thing of the past I'm afraid. Bad enough having to stand in a check out line and have my eyes glazed over the tabloids ... ick.

[Tim01]

24. Very much agree. nt

[mithnanthy]

25. Thank you for bringing this up...

It's extremely upsetting.

[kiva]

26. K&R for the evening crew.

I agree, hyphenate, my imagination is more than sufficient for these horrors.

[Hekate]

27. "Hide thread" is my response these days. Thanks a bunch for bringing this up. KnR.

Just don't read ANYthing to do with animal or child abuse when the title alone provokes that response. I mean it.

Hekate

[bobbolink]

29. Thank you. Those aren't the things that bother me, but I have compassion for what is disturbing to

others.

I hope that is returned.

Best to you, delivered with a REC.

[kiva]

31. Kick

[Maru Kitteh]

33. Kicking this

[Vidar]

36. K&R

[TorchTheWitch]

38. Kick

[Scout]

39. K & R n/t

[jules1962]

41. Thank you hyphenate

Very valid and reasonable request.

[cwydro]

42. K and R

I hide those threads immediately, but I wish people would not do that.

[aikoaiko]

43. I don't think I understand what a "graphic violent title" is?

:shrug:

[TorchTheWitch]

46. The devil is in the details

Surely you understand what the term "graphic" means?

It's fine to put in the thread title that an animal or person was abused, but we don't need in the thread title the DETAILS of the abuse.

[aikoaiko]

47. I generally don't find the details in titles of abuse or tragedy to be overly "graphic"

At least not gratuitous.

[TorchTheWitch]

49. That's you - obviously a lot of us DO

As a simple courtesy to those of us that are sensative to grphic violent details in the titles of threads is there some reason that SIMPLE CURTESY should be avoided because other people don't have a problem with it? Why do such graphic details need to be in the thread title where it can't be avoided by those of us who are sensative to such graphic descriptions of violence when those descriptions can by put in the post itself so a person has to click on it to be subjected to it?

As a simple curtesy people post a warning in threads where there will be graphic photos in the post or where there will be many photos in a post that may be a problem for dialup users. Is there some reason why details of graphic violence in thread titles should not also be avoided as a simple curtesy for those of us that DO have a problem with it and CAN'T AVOID IT without that simple curtesy?

It it were possible to put graphic photos in a thread title where it CAN'T BE AVOIDED by the people who are sensative to such things do you think it would be appropriate to do so just because you and others wouldn't have a problem with it knowing full well that others are?

Is simple curtesy to others some kind of problem for you?

[aikoaiko]

51. In any of my posts did I say I wouldn't honor the request?

I was asking what was meant by graphic violent titles.

So no, simple courtesy is not a problem for you.

But since we've gone sarcastic, why are simple words in title a problem for you?

[TorchTheWitch]

55. I'm not being sarcastic

Both of your posts indicated that you don't think the request has merit... as does this one.

In none of your posts did you express sympathy with those of us that would appreciate a simple curtesy nor have they expressed that you intend to extend that simple curtesy.

Your first post disengeniously asked what "graphic" meant - "Well how are we supposed to know what text will bother you?"

Your second did nothing more than indicate that stuff doesn't bother you - "Doesn't bother me, so it shouldn't bother you."

This one is nothing but an attempt to disparage those of us that don't want to be forced to read unnecessary graphic abuse in thread titles - "You're just a wuss if something bothers you that doesn't bother me."



Now I have no use for you for anything here.

[aikoaiko]

56. Self-deleted.

No need to point out the obvious.

[frogmarch]

44. I'm with you! nt

[xultar]

45. +2

[cwydro]

48. kick

[pipi_k]

50. Ordinarily I would agree with you, but...

how else do people know which threads to NOT read?

I have to admit that the kitty one was disturbing (even the title) and, as a result, I used the "hide" option so I wouldn't have to see it, but I'm wondering how do OPs word these things so that people who don't want to read about certain types of violence (I can tolerate reading about some types better than others) avoid opening a thread and getting an eyeful of something we really really didn't want to read....


It's happened a few times on other discussion boards where people didn't specify in the title what the subject matter was, and I've been sickened when I realized halfway through what it was.

How do we avoid that?

[kiva]

53. I've seen OP titles that have 'warning', with a note about why -

graphic photos or violent language, for example - or posters who say something like 'really nasty story about abused child'; I suspect that's all most of us would need to make the choice about whether or not to open the thread.

You make a good point about the discussion. Last night I was reading a thread about some guy who attacked a cat, but the cat lived - OK, I can handle that - then someone posted in the thread a photo and story about a different animal abuse case that I've been avoiding for the last couple of weeks. Yes, I'm a wimp and overly sensitive about animal abuse. I'm sure the person that posted just thought it added to the discussion, and I shouldn't have been surprised that someone connected the two situations - my fault for opening the thread.

So I guess this is a convoluted way of saying that I think it's fairly easy - and a kind gesture to some members - to make it clear in an OP title if a story contains violence or torture; on the other hand, if that's the topic we shouldn't be surprised to see posts that expand on the subject, so we read at our own risk.

[NashVegas]

61. "how else do people know which threads to NOT read?" - AGREED

I never opened the kitty killer thread, and for the most part, I avoid threads with sensationalist titles, in general.

The admins gave us the ignore feature for a reason.

[shadowknows69]

54. Agree in theory but it's a fine line. I don't think we should have established rules about it

Except for the obvious. Something like "All fucking <racial stereotype>s must die.". but a headline like "Four US troops killed in IED blast" is just as graphic to me because I have a super fast imagination that instantly gives my brain a little movie of any horror I read or even think about.

That said. We all agreed when we signed up here that we were adults and adult subjects haven't been verboten, except the obvious offending distortions of them. I agree we should police ourselves though and, as you said, try to tone down the language in the Header anyway. With a graphic content warning for the body if possible. It has been my experience here that most are pretty good about that. There is a way to convey the horror of a situation without making people too upset. It is the writer's language skills that determine the effectiveness of that.

[iris27]

57. I'd prefer that the cleaned-up titles have a warning about what's inside, though.

I clicked on a thread the other day (on another message board) that was titled something like "How can people do something like this?" Well, that could be anything. When I clicked on the link, the first post was a horrific story of animal cruelty committed by the poster's neighbor. That was...haunting. I'd have preferred a bare-bones description as the thread title to what I read there. Obviously "How can people do something like this? (Warning: extreme animal cruelty)" would have been the ideal because I could've avoided it altogether.

[hyphenate]

63. You are correct

That any thread about animal abuse (or child abuse) should be prefaced with some sort of a warning about the contents. Sometimes, in the regular news, they will say something to the effect that sensitive people should be warned about content. Things like beheadings, or medical procedures, or anything with blood and detail. And that's fine--we could ALL use a break from sensationalistic information. We have become inured from exposure to such information, and sadly, we've come to expect it and no longer are horrified from the most grisly information. To me, a simple "graphic" in a title would be enough. Just enough of a warning to know the content is more than I need to know about.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

65. You seem lost.

Here's the link for the AOL message boards:

http://peopleconnection.aol.com/messageboards

[Lisa0825]

67. Thank you. Everytime I see an animal cruelty title, I have to hide the thread

so I don't see it come up every time I load the page for the day. I volunteer at a shelter, and I can only take so much.

I also feel the same about horrendous cruelty toward humans. I hid many threads when a baby was microwaved and when an Hispanic teen was brutally attacked here in the Houston area.

I think people think sensational topic titles get them clicks. I wish they would tone it down.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.