[TW: rape] Helping Sea Monkeys with triggers (at karaoke and otherwise), was: JCCC4 Post-Mortem

Bry

I'm splitting this discussion off from the JCCC4 Post-Mortem thread. The conversation started here: http://www.jonathancoulton.com/forums/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/83501#Comment_83501

To summarize briefly, the original topic of conversation was that one of the karaoke performances on JCCC4 used the song, "Blurred Lines", which some people in this community find triggering. (As referenced in the original thread, there is much discussion across the Internet about whether or not the song is about rape. I'm preemptively declaring that topic Too Hot for These Forums.)

To repeat what I said in the Post-Mortem thread, I'd like to stipulate a couple of things:

- It is documented that this is a song that many people find triggering.

- I do not believe it was the intent of the karaoke singer to hurt or offend anyone.

A few people in the previous thread had valuable suggestions about how we can avoid incidents like this in the future, and I'd like to pursue that topic a little further. I'll leave it to them to re-post as they wish.

I should also say that I post this with some trepidation -- I think there's value in figuring out how we can function as a community where people have different perspectives and find different things hurtful, but in so doing, I'm opening up a thread about a sensitive subject where people with different perspectives have the opportunity to post things others might find hurtful. Please be cognizant of others' feelings. Remember, I brought this thread into the world, and I can take it out.

-- your friendly forum mod

ETA: It's been brought to my attention that the title I originally, and hastily, chose for this thread had the potential to exacerbate matters. My apologies. I am very aware of how ignorant I am in discussions of this nature. I do appreciate very much my being informed of my blundering, and I hope every one of you will feel comfortable telling me when I am crossing any sort of line.

villicious

I'll repeat my suggestion from the earlier thread: Make sure the person hosting karaoke/open mic/whatever knows that this conversation has taken place and uses his or her best judgment. (And the conversation has also made at least some Sea Monkeys more aware, which may influence their choices as well.)

Pros: It's an easy and common-sense approach. It doesn't depend on anybody going through the thousands of songs on the list to decide which ones to exclude. It's also not "censoring" anything. It also ties right to the code of conduct for both "be excellent to each other" and "don't harass others."

Cons: It relies on some level of trust that everybody involved is going to do their best (although that may also be a pro). It also means that whoever is making the call may make a choice that still inadvertently causes problems ... although I think that would be the case no matter who was making those calls.

Maybe it might be worth adding a line to the code of conduct that it also applies to any material performed on the cruise, to shadow cruise events, etc. Not just to the standing-around-talking side of things.

SapphireMind

@villicious I think it is already obvious that the CoC applies throughout the cruise.  The issue is that what we are talking about does not violate the CoC logically.  It is something that someone would need to be psychic to know ahead of time that it would cause someone pain. 

Jennafyr

In my opinion it would be beneficial to announce the songs in advance; either before the music starts or in a posted list (if it is easy to locate). Or both.

stevendj

It may take psychic powers to know with absolute certainty that a particular song will trigger someone in a particular audience, but to know that a song like "Blurred Lines" might trigger someone only takes empathy, common sense, and a willingness to listen to people's concerns. Even if everyone makes a reasonable, good faith effort to avoid songs that are likely to traumatize people, there will still be occasional mistakes. But if we can get rid of 90% of the problem just by being thoughtful, that's a big deal.

SapphireMind

By that logic, Paul and Storm's song about breaking into someone's home and watching them sleep and them screaming in fear and horror should never exist. 

Now that it has been discussed, I know that someone specifically reacts to that song, it is easy to avoid, but it would never have occurred to me otherwise.  Nor would other songs that were originally listed. Why? because that is not my frame of reference and it is not how I interpret the songs so there is not a way for me to anticipate that it would be triggering.

Specifically mentioned by the OP were: Brown Sugar, Father Figure, Young Girl, and Don't Stand So Close To Me.  I don't know all those songs well, but some of them are very popular and common and catchy, despite their questionable lyrics.  I would not publicly call someone out for singing "don't stand so close to me", because it would never occur to me that it would be a trigger. 

It comes down to how people are interpreting the songs, and you are slyly calling those who do not interpret the music in the same way as callous, unempathetic people.  I really like some of Kanye West's music. Some of it can be very offensive, but also very thoughtful.

stevendj

If Paul and Storm had reason to believe someone in the audience had been traumatized by a home invasion or kidnapping, I'd expect them to avoid that song. (Even though a deliberately ridiculous scenario played for laughs is less likely to trigger people than a profanity-laden attempt at emotional realism.) In any audience containing dozens of women, it's pretty certain that one or more of them have been traumatized by rape or sketchy edge cases where there were "blurred lines" between consent and non-consent.

To be clear: I'm not saying offensive but thoughtful material should not exist. I'm saying it shouldn't be performed before unsuspecting, possibly unwilling audiences. Anyone who signs up for karaoke ought to be very familiar with the song they chose, and have thought about whether it's likely to be a problem for anyone.

Also, I'm not suggesting we call anyone out. If it gets to the point of calling people out, it's too late. The goal is to avert bad choices before they're made.

SapphireMind

But what is obvious for one person is not obvious for another.  Again, without someone pointing it out, I would not have thought of blurred lines like that.  It just would never have occurred to me.  It's a popular pop song whose lyrics I interpret differently.

stevendj

There's always the option of asking a few friends what they think of your song choice. (And, like I said, despite everyone's best efforts, people will still accidentally push buttons they didn't realize were there. That's no reason to pooh-pooh the idea of trying not to.)

AngerMonkey

I'm sorry, I thought the point of this thread was to try to come to a reasoned consensus on how to handle problems like this in the future? @SapphireMind, you say you would "not have thought of blurred lines like that" (which... it is a song about plying ladies with booze and weed to get them to sleep with you when they think it's a bad idea, but... Okie doke) and that you're not psychic, well... Now you know. Now it's been made obvious to you that this song is a problem. Off the list it goes.

I get that it's hard to know EVERY SINGLE SONG that might be a trigger, but it takes, like, the barest touch of empathy to think "mmmaaaybe this song isn't a great choice? This one I want to sing at karaoke, and therefore ostensibly know all the words to?" And you don't even need empathy to figure out how to navigate this specific situation because a person said VERY CLEARLY "This song is harming, can we not do this one any more?"

Nobody is trying to censor anyone. Feel free to sing Blurred Lines around the dinner table with your kids instead of saying grace or whatever, I give ZERO craps. And I TOTALLY understand the fear of inadvertently offending people, which is why we've discussed perhaps culling songs people have said are an issue (not MAY be an issue to someone, ARE ACTIVELY AN ISSUE TO AN ACTUAL NAMED PERSON.) The beginnings of this discussion were not a philosophical debate on inappropriate songs, it was my friend, an actual human being and survivor of assault, asking that we rethink the songs that are explicitly about sexual assault.

Thalandor46

I would also like to repeat my suggestion and discuss it's pros and cons.

We implement a user defined blacklist for karaoke.
-Utilize the JCCC website and accounts for anonymous submissions.
-Draw attention to this process in an announcement email and other social media after the karaoke list is released.
-Heavy emphasis on the purpose of the blacklist.  Blacklisted songs should be identified to prevent personal triggers and avoid widespread controversy.  They should NOT be identified as "I don't like this song" or "I personally find this song offensive".  Honor system for proper use of blacklist submissions.
-Blacklisted songs are not called for karaoke events. Minimize (preferably none) attention drawn to the blacklist's existence while on board.  Blacklist is not public at any time.

Pros
-Spreads responsibility throughout the community.
-Objective list rather than subjective interpretations.
-Safe anonymous environment for those impacted by the matter.
-Steps taken to avoid general scrutiny.

Cons
-More work than other suggestions.
-Additional work for Home Office.
-Vulnerable to trolls and misuse.

SapphireMind

It isn't that I don't think people should try, but I don't want people getting crucified for their song choice as thoughtless assholes who have no empathy and care nothing for the pain of others, when there is no reasonable yardstick to know whether a song falls under a triggering category.  It has been inferred that if you are a thoughtful, kind person, you won't make the mistake on something that others might see as obvious. 

And i do enjoy listening to music that is 'offensive', and the line between offensive and triggering could be faint to non-existent.  JoCo, P&S and others have many songs that could be considered triggering to different events, but as much as I am sorry and feel terribly for others' pain, it isn't inherently bad and by requesting that we are constantly second-guessing if someone somewhere could feel pain from a song, it would dramatically change the type of entertainment that is provided on the cruise.  S

"rape me" by nirvana is easy to tell, it has the offending word in the title, but Sweet Caroline, in the mind of someone who has experienced a traumatic event, does not explicitly convey consent, so it could be triggering.  Or Sugar Sugar.  I'm on Fire by Springsteen. Many songs about love or sex could be interpreted poorly.

SapphireMind

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/30/robin-thicke-says-rapey-song-with-i-you-want-it-lyric-is-a-feminist-movement/  It is not explicitly about rape.  And I have no issue with that particular song being culled, but the original situation also called for all songs "like it" to be culled.  Which changes it from just one song that is a problem, to a much more nebulous definition that I am uncomfortable with.

chetman

Ok, fine. But where's the line? Should just poll all SeaMonkeys for songs they find offensive or upsetting, and make sure they're off the list. Enormous swaths of popular music are offensive on some level. Even more may be "triggering" if they are tied to some specific event in someone's mind. 

What I'm saying is: this seems like a questionable path to start down.

Thalandor46

I don't object to the spirit of @villicious's suggestion, but by itself, I don't believe the solution is simple nor reasonable.  At best, it is a bandaid.  What you're suggesting puts an unfair amount of responsibility on the karaoke host, to know the entire karaoke library, to be familiar with a monstrous number of songs, and to be familiar with common controversies and triggers associated with music (and that doesn't even cover the less than common spectrum).  I know for certain I would be terrified to have that responsibility, and I would unquestionably lean towards the deny side of the subjective spectrum for fear of screwing up.  That doesn't strike me as creating a positive karaoke experience for everyone, just shifting the negative side somewhere else.

AngerMonkey

Nobody has crucified anybody for their song choice. The person who sang Blurred Lines said he realizes now that it was probably not an appropriate choice. There's no bad blood there, as far as I can tell. It is not "crucifying" people to ask that they think about their choices. If it is, then we're all in trouble. And I never said Blurred LInes was about rape explicitly, but it IS about consent.

@thalandor46, I think that's a great way to defuse this situation (Your suggestion a few posts back.)

SapphireMind

And when people have tried to have reasoned, considered discussion, we've been called monsters that care nothing for others.  I understand the one song, take that one song out. It has never been anyone's contention that that song must remain. 

But it wasn't just that song requested to be removed.

Might I suggest that if they do not want to allow any public disagreement, they should bring the issue to the home office directly, instead of calling out the singer on facebook.

AngerMonkey

"Ok, fine. But where's the line? Should just poll all SeaMonkeys for
songs they find offensive or upsetting, and make sure they're off the
list. Enormous swaths of popular music are offensive on some level. Even
more may be "triggering" if they are tied to some specific event in
someone's mind. 

What I'm saying is: this seems like a questionable path to start down."

Real talk, though... how many songs do you think, realistically, this would cull? And how badly would it limit your ability to have fun if nobody ever did "Rape Me" again at Karaoke? I mean this as a serious question.

stevendj

I absolutely agree that we shouldn't crucify people for mistakenly hurting others. All the comments I've seen have been in favor of prevention, not castigation or blame.

AngerMonkey

"And when people have tried to have reasoned, considered discussion, we've been called monsters that care nothing for others."

Has this actually happened? because all I've seen is people asking other people to be thoughtful, and that is not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

SapphireMind

You have inferred it is about consent.  It is not objectively about that. It is subjectively.  Again, I don't care about that particular song, it is just convenient as an example of subjective versus objective. 

That singer may have taken it exceptionally well.  But many may not have.  Some could have been so humiliated and embarrassed that they leave the group.  Never cruise with us again.  Is that appropriate either? I don't think so.  A private word does a far lot more good than publicly calling people out.  If they didn't know the person, a private word to the HO would have taken care of it.  I would have thought anyone would recognize how emotionally cruel and damaging such actions had the potential of creating.

SapphireMind

Yes, we have been accused of being thoughtless, hurtful and other things because we politely and respectfully disagreed with the whole of the assertion.

chetman

Me, personally? I don't give a shit about karaoke, because I hate the very IDEA of karaoke. I never attend those events (which is great for me, because -- seriously -- cruise days were just PACKED). But I care about the issue, because (as I said) it seems like a really, really questionable path.

Somebody's favorite song is Rape Me. Somebody's favorite song is Blurred Lines. Somebody's favorite song is Every Breath You Take. And so on. Songs are produced for karaoke systems because people like to sing them, and sing along with them while others perform them. 

What I'm saying is that "gosh, that made me very uncomfortable/triggered me/I had to leave the room" is something that just happens sometimes, even among friends. It may take you by surprise. It may not. 

But every instance of that shouldn't be cause for a rule change.

AngerMonkey

@sapphiremind I... don't even know what to say. We are clearly not going to see eye to eye on this.

ETA: Why can we not get straight that this is not a "slippery slope" argument? We're talking about culling a handful of songs and acting like this is going to RUIN EVERYTHING ABOUT JCCC FOREVER. Can we all just take a breath here?

villicious

Nobody has called anybody a monster. Nobody has said anybody's interpretation of song lyrics is callous or unsympathetic. I have also seen zero people claim that thoughtful people never make mistakes. That's absurd. Everyone makes mistakes.

What people have said (me included) is that launching into a debate about whether a song should be considered offensive or triggery after a person specifically said they were triggered by it comes off as insensitive.

Note that I did not say the people who did so were insensitive. This is because I follow the wisdom of Jay Smooth. (But substitute "that sounded insensitive" for "that sounded racist.")

Back to my original point about making sure everyone knows the Code of Conduct applies to all material performed on karaoke and elsewhere: The Code of Conduct specifically says no calling slurs about race, gender or sexuality. "Blurred Lines" repeatedly calls women "bitches."

Thalandor46

@chetman A significant part of this conversation on all fronts has had misunderstandings behind the idea of triggers.  Triggers are steps beyond being offended, and offense is not the purpose of this topic.  I don't have any good sources on hand, but does anyone have any good links to explain triggers?

chetman

"launching into a debate about whether a song should be considered offensive or triggery after a person specifically said they were triggered by it comes off as insensitive. "

Just so we're clear: so if someone says they were triggered by a song, and we decide that triggering songs aren't allowed, then we have a situation where anyone can blacklist a song for any reason, and where no debate or discussion is allowed.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

As for the CoC and song lyrics: My guess is you want a really, really, really G-rated Karaoke, eh? Harsh language and words construable as slurs abound in plenty of songs. Are they all off limits per the CoC?

SapphireMind

"Real talk, though... how many songs do you think, realistically, this
would cull? And how badly would it limit your ability to have fun if
nobody ever did "Rape Me" again at Karaoke? I mean this as a serious
question."

I don't care about rape me either, I again agree that is an obvious one.  But Don't stand so close to me and young girl and who knows how many others are interpreted as to be about rape? 

I usually sing "everyone's a little bit racist" from Avenue Q at karaoke.  Clearly in this group, I could never do that.  I won't probably ever sign up for karaoke again, because if I was called out like the original singer was, I would not have taken it as well likely.  Maybe publicly I would have, but privately I would be sobbing and terrified to interact with monkeys again, thinking they were all judging me and thinking I was a shitty person and every time I didn't get to do anytjing or didn't get called for something or got inadvertently left out of something, I would be convinced it was because they all felt I was a terrible person and are doing it on purpose.  Hell, I'm afraid to interact with a bunch of people now because of that fear, but now that I'm there, I might as well be there, because there is no escape from the judgment anyway.

SapphireMind

It isn't about whether that song should be triggery, it's that it is a subjective observation,  If there's a different song you would like to use as an example, please feel free to use that.  Perhaps that is where some of the disconnect is - I have not seen anyone saying that that song should not be a trigger, but rather that there is no objective way to have predicted that and it could be interpreted differently.  Which is in defense of the person who chose the song.

We are just using it as an example that even if you take this song out, there are many ways of interpreting different songs and there is no good way to predict all reactions.

AngerMonkey

@sapphiremind True, but does that mean that we don't make an effort to be sensitive because it's just too hard? I know everybody is doing their best, but this is a group of people who PRIDE themselves on being thoughtful and inclusive. I get the impression that a handful of people have dismissed the idea of even trying out-of-hand, including you, which seems to be the source of friction. If I've misinterpreted, I apologize! I certainly know you don't want to hurt someone on purpose (and your concern for the original singer points to this, I know you're a good person!) but people dismissing the issue entirely as not worth the effort has actively been hurtful. Do you see what I'm trying to say?

SapphireMind

No, I have not, nor have I seen anyone reject anything out of hand, we've asked for more thoughtful discussion about this issues as a whole, not just one song.

It is being declared hurtful because people are not wanting to plunge down this road head first without thinking about it from all angles.  You ban one song because it is a trigger, fine, great.  They also said all songs about rape are triggers, while listing songs that are not objectively about rape.  Which then begs the question, can we comply with this request and how do we comply?  Should we comply, since it is not an objective observation? Should we instead find ways to warn people about the songs being sung instead of straight out culling a portion of the song library?  How will it be handled in the future if someone says something is a trigger?  What if they say the trigger was done on purpose? How can we define that? Especially with music that isn't objectively hurtful? Is it appropriate to single people out for perceived wrongs on facebook/this forum? Should people be going to THO instead, to protect both sides?  How much offensiveness are people willing to tolerate?  I will also be honest that I love "a lapdance is better"- I know all the lyrics and though they are incredibly offensive, they are hilarious and I would have expected monkeys to be the type of people who could appreciate that kind of humor.  Clearly that is wrong, but it is so obviously satire, I would have thought people would also find it hilarious.

ZombieBender

Thinking of the music I know we all listen to about black women with large asses and a ship full of men ejaculating everywhere this conversation just seems silly.

Icemage

As the person that performed "Blurred Lines" I'll add what little I can to this discussion.

* I've said it previously on the FB group and elsewhere here, but my intent when I pick a song at karaoke is always to entertain, not to offend (or worse in this case).  It never occurred to me that anyone in the audience would trigger to the song.  In two months of on-again-off-again practice at my local karaoke bar (a situation where one might conceivably run into someone who might be offended or worse by it) I never once had anyone react to the song in that fashion.  If I had, I would have picked something else. It's that simple.  There's tons of songs to do at karaoke; the tricky bit is finding something that's entertaining that you can perform.

* I disagree with the interpretation that some people have of the song, but people are entitled to their opinions. In the specific - and separate - context of trauma triggers, logic has little to do with it.  People trigger to whatever they're going to trigger to, and that can't be helped.

* This discussion hasn't soured me on the cruise, or Sea Monkeys in general, but I will say it has definitely given me some very sad moments in the past few days.  Not because of the things people are saying, but because I did something (even unintentionally) that upset people in the audience.  

* I'm a bit unhappy with the direction the discussion has turned, where we start dictating what people can or can't do.  It seems to me like there are two competing issues here.

(A) People have triggers and/or songs they detest/are offended by to the point where they stop enjoying an event if it is performed.

(B) People like popular songs, some of which may coincide with point (A), which is what happened in this case.

I mentioned it on FB but it got a bit buried in the discussion.

My offer for a solution would be (since we typically do have multiple karaoke sessions on JCCC), we set up one session with an unrestricted (within reason) setlist - preferably one late in the evening, and leave the others G-rated (so no swearing / non-family friendly stuff).

+ That way "most" people who could be triggered / offended can avoid the session where they're more likely to not have a good time.

+ No one needs to vet a song list, and no one ends up being responsible if something goes pretzel-shaped.

+ No songs get outright banned because now you have appropriate audiences.

This still doesn't solve the problem of some lyrics being very subtle, of course.  You've got songs like "Every Breath You Take" which everyone knows and could potentially cause a problem, but I think if we're at the point where someone has so many triggers that even something that innocuous is an issue, then my response would be - why are you showing up to a karaoke event in the first place?

Fizzgig

Ok, woah, hold on a sec...  Icemage, I'm part of the group that has triggers, and I was honest to goodness shocked by your performance of Blurred Lines.  I walked away from the front of the dance floor with my jaw dropped and a hand covering my mouth and my eyes wide.  I was vastly amused by the women AND the man dancing to your performance.  Blurred Lines was an offensive song (for me) prior to your
performance. Ned's dancing to your performance completely ruined that
reaction, frankly.  Now when I hear the music, I giggle, because I
remember how non-serious that situation was.

I also met you the next morning when you set up your PS3 for us all to play in the Game Room and realized the facade you portrayed was all schlock.  You are a really, really nice guy!  And you putting this thread in place is a continuation of the set of actions that show what a really nice guy you are.  Your previous explanation of the choice of this song being technically hard to perform rang true for me.

I think we've reached the point where this board is dissecting an issue until it no longer resembles the original situation
description.  Are some songs tacky?  Heck yeah!  Does your choice of song mean I can't walk off the dance floor?  Didn't seem to stop me. 

And for those with triggers... walk.  Turn off the news.  CHOOSE to remove yourself from the situation, and remember you have the right to choose to remove yourself from the situation. 

/gotta go get groceries now

Bry

Brief forum note: It's been brought to my attention that the title I originally, and hastily, chose for this thread had the potential to exacerbate matters. My apologies. I am very aware of how ignorant I am in discussions of this nature. I do appreciate very much my being informed of my blundering, and I hope every one of you will feel comfortable telling me when I am crossing any sort of line.

(ETA: I am working on a reply to things in the thread, not that anyone needs to hear from me, but I've been away from computer for some time now.)

BigNed

@SapphireMind I empathize with your feelings of crucifixion in this discussion.  I have first hand experience in being confronted with the reality that I've deeply hurt people through actions I never would have imagined harmful.  I know how much that hurts and how strong the desire can be to make sure that my intentions are taken into consideration.  But I have also seen how that continues to wound people I care about because it prevents me from truly acknowledging their pain in favor of my own.

You are not a monster.  In fact, I applaud you for staying involved in a discussion where you feel tarred as "the bad guy" without making personal attacks.  Clearly, to me, you do care.  But I think you've missed what is behind the request to ban songs because of your fear of being called out in the future.

I think this whole discussion may have started off on the wrong foot and instead of looking for how we can take care of each other we've been trying to protect ourselves - either from future triggers (including those caused by comments) or from condemnation.  I hope we can all take a moment as some have suggested and remind ourselves that we are a community and that if we're going to remain a community we need to presume the best in each other.  That means that when we are hurt, we assume that harm was unintentional and when we are told that community actions have harmed people, we assume that the intent of the declaration is a call for compassion not public crucifixion.  Otherwise we spend our time defending ourselves instead of growing as a community.

AngerMonkey

You're a good dude, @BigNed. Well said.

BigNed

I would like to put my support behind the suggestion of @Thalandor46 - set up a simple list of songs that are specifically related to personal triggers.

We'll also need to make personal decisions to trust each other - on the one side that triggering songs are respected and removed from rotation, and on the other that a trigger list will not become a tool of censorship.

If we can't do that, then I suggest we choose the simplest solution that is guaranteed to be effective - discontinuing Sea Monkey karaoke.

Jennafyr

I'm going to reiterate that it would be helpful to announce the songs before they start.

Having the song announced means those of us with triggers can choose not to be present and should be the easiest to implement.

Icemage

Even announcing songs ahead of time might not work in Studio B, which was the venue for the first session.  If you're on the main floor of Studio B, it takes quite a while to work your way all the way to an exit even if you aren't accidentally blockaded by someone standing around/talking/visiting in the aisles.

It's a good thought, but not practical unless the songs are announced one whole performer ahead of time (were these even chosen that far in advance? It didn't seem so to me.).

@Fizzgig

Thank you for the kind words. And yes, when I'm on a stage doing karaoke, it's really just an act.  I like being "in character" on stage, but the facade drops as soon as I leave the microphone behind.

SapphireMind

@bigned to some extent, I agree with your observation, but in this case a - I wasn't directly involved at the time b- there were some fairly harsh words thrown around towards anyone who didn't immediately give carte blanche agreement.

I do think you have hit on some of the underlying issues though, one of which perhaps unintentionally.  No one's trauma and issues should be more important than another person's.  Many of the people here have social issues and being called out in that way should have been just as unacceptable - moreso because it was done on purpose.  Someone sang a popular pop song at karaoke that a person (who wasn't there at the time) said would have greatly upset her.  In response, she calls that person out in front of a group of 500+ people about how they would have given her a panic attack if she had been there.  He says he has felt very bad about causing this person pain - except he didn't - she wasn't even there. 

And the more obvious one is the trust issue - that's probably where I have the biggest concern.  I do NOT have that sort of blind trust in this group.  I have seen people here behave just like any other social group with popular kids and weirdos and everything between.  I've experienced things that come just short of bullying.  That has seriously scarred and disillusioned my innate trust in this group as a whole.  I still love most monkeys, but I do not trust they are all going to be kind to me.  I expect the cool kids to rule the roost and hurt anyone who, in their mind, no matter how true it is or not, threatens their position in the group.  And I feel it is disingenuous to pretend we are a group outside of those group dynamics because I know I was hurt by that assumption - other people have been and will be in the future too.  Additionally, I've been online for far too long with far too many munchausen's by internet and drama queens (not saying the original person is, or anyone else necessarily - just that I've been burned by too many people who pull some pretty horrific stunts to get their way to innately trust.)

I personally think the list of songs should be announced at the beginning of the event.  If someone wants to leave, that gives them time.  If someone is going to sing, that gives them time to prepare mentally. 

Either way I can't imagine wanting to participate in karaoke unless it is live band ever again with this group.  I would be terrified of the potential for something like this to happen.  Not that it matters, as in 2 years I've still never gotten to do it.  *chuckle*  I doubt that would ever change.

Doctor_E

I hope you guys figure this out. Things I said got misinterpreted, and I got told I had contributed to people feeling hurt, which was the exact opposite of my intent.

None of you know me well enough to know how much I care for people, and this discussion completely put me off of the whole group at this point. I feel sad that I ever said anything at all about the matter

Bry

@everyone: I posted earlier that I'd revised the wording of the thread title, but I was vague about my specific emendations. In brief, it was helpful to me to be reminded that "offense", a word I'd ignorantly chosen in hopes it was neutral, is sadly inadequate to describe the effects of a triggering experience. I'm posting this because I do like to be transparent but also because perhaps it will help others avoid making the same mistake I've made.

@Icemage: I believe I said this in person on the boat, but I thought you gave a fantastic performance at karaoke, and I enjoyed your rendition far more than the original. Y'know, for what that's worth, at this point. This must've been hard for you, I know, and I wanted to thank you for stopping by -- I appreciated your input.

On the subject of trust and welcoming: as a person in this community, I am sorry for anything that happens in this community that makes anyone feel unwelcome. I know I have a long way to go; I am trying my best, and I am gladdened by those I see around me who are likewise trying their best.

But at the same time, with admin hat on, I don't want to pursue this line of thought too far, in this particular thread, right now. I don't want to silence anyone, and I'm glad the topic's been broached, and I hope we continue to think about it, but I fear we're drifting away from what this thread was meant to discuss.

(With admin hat back off, let me also say that I am not the most perceptive when it comes to group dynamics, and so I have not personally noticed a lot of the behavior that @SapphireMind describes; I'm also not on the Facebook group, which may/may not be where much of the behavior occurred, I'm not sure. I want to be enlightened, but I think that's a bigger discussion, and I don't want it to overshadow this one.)

Bry

Re: suggestions: Thanks to everyone for their input here. I know there's no real way to eliminate the possibility of hurting someone inadvertently (short of discontinuing all karaoke and open-mic events -- which would be sad, but it is an acceptable solution to me), but I think adopting some of these suggestions will help to make this a safer space, at least a little.

- Choosing the performers in advance and pre-announcing what songs are going to be performed would be helpful in a lot of ways, really -- even outside the context of this conversation, it'd be nice to know if you're going to be called or if you have time to go take a nap I understand @Icemage's concern that announcing the song when introducing the performer may not be sufficient in practice. I've never run a karaoke event, so I'm not sure how impossible it would be to decide the performers a little ahead of time and give some advance notice.

- Aside from that, please correct me if I'm mischaracterizing, but several of the other proposals are kinda on two ends of the spectrum:

-- On one side, we could leave it up to the discretion of the host and performers (which can be risky, but as @villicious points out, now that we've had this discussion, we'll all hopefully be more alert).

-- On the other side, we could institute some kind of banned or restricted list, which would give performers a little more confidence that they won't be inadvertently choosing something triggering (or even just offensive), but it does mean that we have to get into the business of restricting people's choices. (There's also questions of abuse of the system and a slippery-slope argument. My sense is that we're talking about, practically speaking, a handful of songs, but I'm also privileged enough to be ignorant, if you will, and I don't mean to dismiss the possibility that any trigger list will contain a sizable fraction of the songbook.)

@Icemage suggests having designated family-friendly / unrestricted karaoke events, but without a banned list (the discretion-of-the-performers side of the spectrum). There's a certain elegance to that solution, but I wonder if we could combine this suggestion with @Thalandor46's proposal of a trigger list, so that we permit certain songs to be performed only during the unrestricted events. That way, if you're really excited about singing a song that is potentially problematic, there's an event at which you'll have that opportunity, but if you know you've got certain triggers, you can know there are events that have, to a first-order approximation, been vetted for hurtful content.

What would you think?

[Finally: Not to be glib, but let's do something fun after this. Again, not to silence anyone, but I don't think this can be a thread where people have a lot of fun.]

villicious

I'm one of the admins on the Facebook group, and I didn't notice a lot of that behavior in the group, either. There were definitely posts that sounded frustrated or upset on both sides, but there was very, very little I'd classify as "fairly harsh words." Overall people were assertive and direct. I shut it down more because it was completely going in circles in a way that was becoming hurtful to people of many perspectives than because of anything anybody in particular was saying.

autojim

Here's the thing, as seen from the bleacher seats:

- Unfortunately, some of our community have suffered some pretty heinous abuse in their personal histories. We can't fix that.

- For folks who have suffered that kind of trauma, certain things - words, songs, actions, images - will trigger a flashback to that trauma.

- This is absolutely NOT "being offended" -- this is a physical and psychological reaction that can be very vivid and almost as bad as the original hurt. The brain does this without conscious effort (most likely as a protection method), so it's not something that can just be "willed away", even after years of therapy and oodles of support.

- It's frankly impossible to be able to prevent encountering all possible triggers -- for starters, new stuff is being created all the time, plus until a trigger is encountered, it's tough to say that X is a trigger.

- That said, once a trigger is encountered, it's only common courtesy to our fellows -- our friends, our brothers and sisters in this family of choice -- to make a note of this and strive to avoid repeating it going forward.

- Yes, free expression. We're all about that. But in any society, the limit of one's rights is where the exercise of that right begins to infringe on another's.

- Culling a very short list of known-trigger songs from karaoke doesn't ruin it for everyone, as some have suggested. If anything, it improves the experience by not subjecting our friends to things that cause them to revisit the worst time they've ever had in their life.

- It is *never* the responsibility of the victim to remove themselves from being blindsided. By its very nature, getting blindsided means you didn't see it coming.

- We are a community of tolerant, understanding, accepting, compassionate, and intelligent people. We strive to follow Wheaton's Law and Stepto's Corollary: Don't Be a Dick, and Be Excellent to Each Other. In keeping with those basic tenets, this shouldn't be something subject to debate: once we learn something provokes revisiting a horrible trauma in some of our family, we should a) apologize (which Jim T has done admirably: he's the kind of person who hurts that he caused pain to anyone, even inadvertently), and b) learn so that we can prevent recurrence.

- The only segregation that needs to be done in cruise karaoke is the very short list of known-trigger songs. There are thousands of other songs to choose from that don't cause problems. Pick one of those to sing.

Because, at the end, the people matter far more than any song does.

Madeleine

I think I now understand the arguments well enough to vote. I would like to cast my vote in favor of making the list and officially disallowing the songs on that list.

CamannWordsmith

Very well said. Thank you, @autojim.

mikesphar

A couple of things:

While it's obviously clear no harm or offense was intended, performing any song a number of times and receiving no complaints doesn't mean nobody was triggered/traumatized by it. It can also mean there was no safe mechanism for voicing that concern, and it can also mean nobody was able to work up the courage to say something about it. Because...

Standing in front of a group and publicly announcing a thing that triggers a traumatic response often itself triggers a traumatic response, and is often extremely difficult to do. Discussing that trauma requires revisiting that trauma. (There are events from my childhood 30+ years ago that don't come close to the level of a rape or other assault that I still can't talk openly about without my chest tightening and my heart racing and tears starting. It is the act of putting voice to those events that creates this response.) And while someone is remembering something like being raped, some types of phrases that often get said to actual rape victims, things like "Why don't/didn't you just leave?" can exacerbate those feelings even when that phrase wasn't used in reference to the assault. Rape victims often endure a ton of implied blame for all the things they allegedly could or should have done to avoid being assaulted. It requires significant delicacy of language to suggest to a trauma victim that they should just get up and leave situations that re-traumatize them without inadvertently sending that same message, that their trauma is their fault and their responsibility.

Basically, "tone arguments" with trauma victims are not appropriate. Their tone will often be emotional--legitimately emotional because they are experiencing strong emotion and that does not in any way de-legitimize their points. (And it doesn't matter if you yourself have experience similar trauma, if you are not *actively feeling traumatized* at that moment, you're not the victim right now.)

I mean, look at this whole contentious debate across multiple social media outlets in response to one person raising this issue about one song. If you were feeling traumatized by a song and hadn't said anything yet, and you saw this resulting response, would you feel safe coming forward and being the focus of all this? Not to put too fine a point on it, but a lot of this is exactly why victims often don't come forward, especially not right away.

Separately, what a paid performer does on a stage is an entirely different matter with different avenues of feedback and frankly different responsibilities, and outside the scope of a discussion of a handful of items on a list of thousands of karaoke songs arranged for what is purely a public community event that is essentially organized by us for us under the auspices of home office.

And as I have typed this, I just saw autojim's last response, which I think also expresses my feelings very well. It's not our responsibility to know in advance everything that might traumatize someone, and it doesn't make us a bad person if we inadvertently cause that trauma, but how we react when we learn what does traumatize someone *is* our responsibility.

chetman

Are we voting? If so, what Madeleine describes sounds a bit simplistic. 

Given that there is apparently hostility to the idea of pushing back on anyone's stated trigger, just "making a list" will become a way for anyone to strike any song for any reason. Saying "but this is a great group and nobody will do that" isn't very convincing to me. 

Madeleine

You're right, @chetman. What I meant to cast my vote for was what autojim proposed. I was trying for brevity and am sorry I oversimplified things.