Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 09:07 AM Jul 2013

A Plea to DUers to use the GRAPHIC WARNING sign

when starting a thread having a disturbing picture. There are DUers here, me included, who cannot look at pictures depicting things like dead people or animals, people or animals suffering, abused children, etc. without having serious consequences. I can't speak for anyone else but those images stay with me FOREVER. It's like a haunting that I can't get out of my mind and it can actually take over for several days. I'm not trying to censor anyone here but PLEASE, if you want to include graphic pictures like dead rhino's, PLEASE put a GRAPHIC WARNING on your Thread Title.

Thank you for your understanding.

28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A Plea to DUers to use the GRAPHIC WARNING sign (Original Post) Le Taz Hot Jul 2013 OP
That rhino thread did say disgusting bigwillq Jul 2013 #1
That was too vague. Le Taz Hot Jul 2013 #3
One could easily argue that a picture of Bachmann is also "disturbing" VWolf Jul 2013 #9
"Disgusting" is a picture of Michelle Bachmann. dusty trails Jul 2013 #14
Michelle Bachmann sucking on a corn dog at the carny - trying to be one of the people. geckosfeet Jul 2013 #23
I'm with you madokie Jul 2013 #2
Some DUers already do that, MineralMan Jul 2013 #4
I don't think anyone is asking for some sort of absolute solution. Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #21
Yes. Frankly, I wouldn't post such pictures anyhow. MineralMan Jul 2013 #22
You have posted pictures without a warning OhioChick Jul 2013 #25
Yes, and I edited the title almost immediately. MineralMan Jul 2013 #27
I agree with you. Putting "graphic" in the title would be much appreciated. nt DLevine Jul 2013 #5
I totally agree! I can't stand descriptive titles of child or animal abuse either! Happyhippychick Jul 2013 #6
Yes heaven05 Jul 2013 #7
Totally pipi_k Jul 2013 #8
highly sensitive people NJCher Jul 2013 #10
I'm with you, and le taz hot, and others who identify Bertha Venation Jul 2013 #11
the book is... gblady Jul 2013 #13
thank you, gblady Bertha Venation Jul 2013 #15
Here's the book I read NJCher Jul 2013 #18
I totally agree about the 'Graphic' warning. Stonepounder Jul 2013 #24
+ 1,000 Bertha Venation Jul 2013 #12
Agreed! JNelson6563 Jul 2013 #16
This includes close-ups of Bachmann, Palin, and McCain please. AtheistCrusader Jul 2013 #17
Agree. Many DUers would appreciate such a warning. femmocrat Jul 2013 #19
It would only take a second and it wouldn't hurt. Thanks, good post. mountain grammy Jul 2013 #20
I clicked the "disgusting" link. Archaic Jul 2013 #26
Agree, such images have more visceral effect and 'cannot be unseen.' I've seen them used on mixed freshwest Jul 2013 #28


(72,790 posts)
1. That rhino thread did say disgusting
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 09:10 AM
Jul 2013

Which, to me, meant that is was probably something graphic.

I can't get behind you for that thread.

But I do agree folks should post a warning.

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
3. That was too vague.
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 09:12 AM
Jul 2013

"Disgusting" is a picture of Michelle Bachmann. Disturbing is something else. I don't want to argue with anyone here, I'm just trying to make people aware that this condition does exist and I'm asking for cooperation from other DUer, that's all.


(146,409 posts)
4. Some DUers already do that,
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 09:19 AM
Jul 2013

but there will always be photos posted of things that might disturb someone without a warning. There's no way that won't happen. So, I'm not sure what to suggest for those who are disturbed by some kinds of photos. About the only way to prevent coming across a disturbing photo is to shut off the display of images in your browser.

Even if there are no images in the OP, any DUer posting a reply might also include a photo that might disturb some DUer somewhere. Accommodating everyone's sensitivities is always going to be impossible on an open discussion forum that allows image posting, I'm afraid.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
21. I don't think anyone is asking for some sort of absolute solution.
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 11:30 AM
Jul 2013

It's a matter of reduction, not elimination, of trauma triggers.

A bit of thoughtfulness can go a long way here in making the site more comfortable for those who have been sensitized to such materials.


(146,409 posts)
22. Yes. Frankly, I wouldn't post such pictures anyhow.
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 11:35 AM
Jul 2013

If I did post something, I'd include a warning. My point is that not everyone will do that, so people with sensitivities need to take their own measures, here and elsewhere, since not everyone will refrain from such surprises in posting.

It's a difficult world for many people, sadly.


(146,409 posts)
27. Yes, and I edited the title almost immediately.
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 01:20 PM
Jul 2013

Last edited Fri Jul 26, 2013, 02:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Everyone slips sometimes.

The thread shows how quickly I made the change. Further, that link is from 2011 and from DU2. I learn as I go.



(18,124 posts)
7. Yes
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 10:24 AM
Jul 2013

you're right of course. But after decades of dealing with human cruelty toward animals and each other, I really do just try to avoid such fare. What's the use of going there? To keep affirming my understanding of underlying evil in the hearts of a lot of people? Nah, just don't need it. I drive past accidents and dead animals in the road and make every effort NOT to look. That's my solution. And some of the garbage on this damn web is really desensitizing human for the coming..........?????


(21,020 posts)
8. Totally
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 10:29 AM
Jul 2013


I saw the word "disgusting" in the title of that thread but didn't suspect it would be a dead animal.

My mind works the same way yours does regarding photos or descriptions of dead or suffering beings that couldn't fight back (elderly...animals...children)

The images take a long time to go away, and sometimes they even pop up in my sleep...or that time in between sleeping and waking up.

I've even gone so far as to include certain words or phrases in my "Trash thread by keyword" list...like animal abuse...child abuse...etc.

PS...along similar lines, if there's anything I truly HATE about Facebook, it's that I'll be scrolling down my newsfeed and come upon some pretty graphic photos of kids or animals. For me, it's like a kick to the stomach.


(36,081 posts)
10. highly sensitive people
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 10:32 AM
Jul 2013

There's a book out about it. People should understand that about 15 per cent of the population is highly sensitive.

I didn't see the rhino thread and I'm glad I didn't. I thank you, Le Taz Hot, for bringing this subject up. I, too, am sensitive and I find I have to hide threads that deal with animal cruelty.

I also cannot read threads by people who have had to put their pet to sleep or who have lost a pet to an accident or some other means. I will sit there and cry my heart out along with them. I have to bypass these threads or I'd be a weeping mess every day.

Those of you who have expressed doubts about whether OP's suggestion can be done should think of this: we have minorities that number 15 per cent of the population and (some) people have learned not to discriminate against them based on their skin color. While the sensitive issue is far more intangible, it is worth thinking about whether another would be upset. By merely adding a word, a person can be saved a day of ugly images flashing through one's head.

Adding the word "graphic warning" is a small thing to ask.


Bertha Venation

(21,484 posts)
11. I'm with you, and le taz hot, and others who identify
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 10:40 AM
Jul 2013

Any chance you can remember the name of the book?


(3,541 posts)
13. the book is...
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 10:54 AM
Jul 2013

The Highly Sensitive Person by Elaine Aron.

I agree with the need for a graphic warning...images, and even verbal descriptions can haunt me for days.


(36,081 posts)
18. Here's the book I read
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 11:08 AM
Jul 2013

Hi, Bertha

Aron was the originator, however, since that time, many books have come out. If you check Amazon under "highly sensitive people," you will get a long list, and one that gets high marks is here:


The comments alone will tell you much about the experience of others who are highly sensitive.

In addition, there's a dvd on the subject, which I have ordered:

Highly sensitive people : [videorecording (DVD)] an introduction to the trait of high sensitivity / Jim Hallowes.



(4,033 posts)
24. I totally agree about the 'Graphic' warning.
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 12:14 PM
Jul 2013

I thought I was the only one who bawled over animal cruelty, or losing pets. And some pictures that have popped up on FB, or other places, have given me nightmares and haunted me for days, or months.

Thanks for bringing this up.


(28,394 posts)
19. Agree. Many DUers would appreciate such a warning.
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 11:20 AM
Jul 2013

Thanks for the warning on the rhino post. I'm glad I missed it and will watch out for it!

mountain grammy

(26,772 posts)
20. It would only take a second and it wouldn't hurt. Thanks, good post.
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 11:23 AM
Jul 2013

If I ever learn how to post pictures, I'll remember this, although I doubt I would ever post anything so graphic.

That said, I remember the very graphic picture of the young Vietnamese girl running down the road with other children, screaming after her clothes were burned off by napalm Sometimes a graphic picture can turn the tide of history and wake up people of conscience.


(273 posts)
26. I clicked the "disgusting" link.
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 12:37 PM
Jul 2013

I figured it was another picture showing homelessness next to opulence. Or bankers dancing with politicians.

I didn't expect to see that picture, and it depressed the hell out of me.

I don't know what the appropriate warning is.

But then again, I don't understand the perpetual rage machine that makes people post everything they see and drive traffic and adviews to those sites.


(53,661 posts)
28. Agree, such images have more visceral effect and 'cannot be unseen.' I've seen them used on mixed
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 06:32 PM
Jul 2013
websites by conservatives to hurt or disgust, but they were used intentionally drive away liberals and women. It was efective, the emotional impact was enough to make people avoid the sites.

Not sure anyone here is simply clueless when they post them here, or if they are something else. Thanks for the suggestion for all DUers of good intent.

The TOS may have a statement on shock images, or at least it used to...
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A Plea to DUers to use th...