Join 3,524 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

boy performing cunnilingus on cattle - NSFW!!
January 26, 2006 2:17 PM   Subscribe

Can we please stop pandering to idiots. [more inside]
posted by y6y6y6 to Etiquette/Policy at 2:17 PM (131 comments total)

I'm sure many will strongly disagree with my opinion in this matter, but I feel strongly enough that I need to say it - We weaken MetaFilter when we make it our policy to protect users from some of the obvious "bad things" found on the Internet.

Where will this stop? Isn't MetaFilter a better resource and community if we make stupidity a barrier for entry? Can't we agree that the World Wide Web is better for it's raw and dangerous nature? Do we really feel more comfortable knowing some administrator will protect us from ourselves?

The post is ostensibly about two pictures. The first picture is described as "a boy taking a shower in cow urine", and the image title (not hidden in any way) is "BNW-child-bathes-in-cow-urine.jpg". The second picture is described as "young boys perform cunnilingus on cattle", and the image title is "BNW-african-child-feeds-from-cow-s-anus.jpg".

And yet....... somehow...... we have a couple of dipsporks who immediately start complaining that there is no NSFW tag. And sure enough the admins add a NSFW tag.

Is this the level of hand holding we going to expect? Will posts soon be bracketed by disclaimers - "The following post contains frank discussions of sexuality. It may not be appropriate for younger readers."

Let me be blunt - If someone is browsing MetaFilter at work, and they're not shy about clicking on "young boys perform cunnilingus on cattle", then obviously they aren't very concerned about safe work browsing. And to claim that it's somehow our fault for not doing enough to protect them from such links is boldly outrageous. Indeed, isn't part of the value of MetaFilter it's anti Net-Nanny nature? Aren't we rather proud that our band of brothers and sisters is savvy and aware?

I can see adding NSFW tags to something where it's far from obvious. Fair is fair. But adding the tags for users who are willfully dumb, or worse yet, demand the privilege of being willfully dumb, is going too far.

Please stop molly-coddling users who should know better. Protecting us from our stupidity is a bad thing. It only makes us more stupid, and it's a slippery slope.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:18 PM on January 26, 2006


To be fair, I work at a cow anus factory and we see this kind of shit all the time.
posted by wakko at 2:19 PM on January 26, 2006


I was going to call out that entire thread with a giant bold WTF.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 2:21 PM on January 26, 2006


Hmmmm.
posted by Gator at 2:22 PM on January 26, 2006


Can we put a NSFW next to "molly-coddling"? I don't want my boss to know I visit a site that coddles Molly.
posted by Rothko at 2:22 PM on January 26, 2006


Won't someone PLEASE think of the children.
posted by Otis at 2:22 PM on January 26, 2006


Wasn't that thread enough of a trainwreck to post your missive over there?
posted by smackfu at 2:25 PM on January 26, 2006


You have been cranky all day mister! Do you need a time-out?
posted by ND¢ at 2:26 PM on January 26, 2006


We've been rather silly all day--can the rest of us get one, too?
posted by hototogisu at 2:30 PM on January 26, 2006


"Wasn't that thread enough of a trainwreck to post your missive over there?"

I'm sincerely interested in the policy behind this. I like MetaFilter raw. I like it savvy. I like to think we expect a certain level of intelligence. Should we really be taking things in this direction?

It's my hope that the admins would see the NSFW complaints and shake their heads. Perhaps giggle. But having them add (NSFW) to "young boys perform cunnilingus on cattle" is a bad sign.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:30 PM on January 26, 2006


I flagged the thread, but let me ask: I don't know much about monitoring software. Is there any chance that just loading the word "cunnilingus" on MetaFilter's front page could cause NSFW problems for people who don't click the links?
posted by cribcage at 2:30 PM on January 26, 2006


D'you know, I'd never made the connection between molly-coddling and molly houses until just now.
posted by flashboy at 2:33 PM on January 26, 2006


My reply to this thread is NSFW, and viewing it may result in deportation.
posted by jenovus at 2:33 PM on January 26, 2006


I'm swished and slightly spackled.
posted by mds35 at 2:37 PM on January 26, 2006


Ca we pander to clever people instead?






NSFW!!!! You bastards!
posted by lalochezia at 2:39 PM on January 26, 2006


LOL lalochezia your operands are faulty
posted by jenovus at 2:46 PM on January 26, 2006


...The Aristocrats!!!
posted by the shitty Baldwin at 2:49 PM on January 26, 2006


On a related note, I don't know if this is the right place to ask or not, but I had a comment deleted from Ask Metafilter, and I was wondering why it got deleted, and how I can find it? Excuuuuuse Me! Who deletes comments? What is NSFW!!!! You bastards!? What is Santorum? What is going on here? What is that child doing? What is molly-coddling? When I receive responses to these questions, how do I mark one as best answer?
posted by ND¢ at 2:50 PM on January 26, 2006


Man, I love this place.
posted by LarryC at 2:52 PM on January 26, 2006


idiots are the new mefi revenue stream. of course the admins will pander to them.
posted by quonsar at 2:52 PM on January 26, 2006


http://images.biafranigeriaworld.com/BNW-child-bathes-in-mefi-revenue-stream.jpg
posted by the shitty Baldwin at 2:56 PM on January 26, 2006


Is there any chance that just loading the word "cunnilingus" on MetaFilter's front page could cause NSFW problems for people who don't click the links?

There is that chance, yes. Any at-work browsers would be wise to familiarize themselves with the monitoring/filtering techniques employed by their employers.

However, are you suggesting that adding NSFW tags would in any way help folks in such a situation?
posted by cortex at 2:59 PM on January 26, 2006


also, thanks, i just got fired


i did not really get fired

posted by cortex at 3:00 PM on January 26, 2006


quonsar, sometimes your commentary really cuts to the heart of a topic on the blue and makes me think. Those times, I appreciate. A lot of the time on the grey, however, you just seem to pile hate onto Matt. If MeFi so damn terrible, and the admin sucks so damn much, why do you stick around? You don't seem to want to make it better, just bitch about how it's not good enough for you. That whole act is prety damn tiresome.
posted by raedyn at 3:02 PM on January 26, 2006


ND¢: What does "." mean?! I paid $5 and no one will answer my question! That's just rude.
posted by jenovus at 3:04 PM on January 26, 2006


You don't seem to want to make it better, just bitch about how it's not good enough for you. That whole act is prety damn tiresome.


posted by Rothko at 3:06 PM on January 26, 2006


Can we please stop listening to arrogant assholes?
posted by BobFrapples at 3:09 PM on January 26, 2006


[NSFY6Y6Y6]
posted by londonmark at 3:12 PM on January 26, 2006


raedyn, i am not responsible for your kneejerk reactions to the truth. the idiot ratio is going through the roof here, it's due to the $5 open registration, and my stating the fact in no way whatsoever piles hate on matt. i don't think mefi is so damn terrible, i don't think the admins suck too much, i don't just bitch about how it's not good enough for me, i make observations as most members do about what i perceive to be shortcomings. so kindly and gently fuck the fuck off.
posted by quonsar at 3:14 PM on January 26, 2006


oh, and if i were matt i'd pander to the idiots myself, since they are now my major source of income. fortunately, i'm not matt. NOW, kindly and gently fuck the fuck off.
posted by quonsar at 3:16 PM on January 26, 2006


I make a living by pandering to idiots. It's quite lucrative, and I'd highly recommend you look into it as a line of work, it's a growth industry with a bright long-term outlook.
posted by blue_beetle at 3:19 PM on January 26, 2006


y6 will not be surprised that I agree with him. Nasty or not-work-safe inline images aside, of course.

Coddling idiots muddies the intellectual gene pool. I recommend sterilization on first offence, crucifixion on second.

The next time someone starts a thread with 'how do I shot HTML?!?!', I'm going to get up out of this chair, walk over to the taxi rank, take a taxi to the local airport, fly to Seoul, take a bus to the international airport, fly to wherever they are according to their googlemap thingy, march into their computer room, and glare at them in a really condescending away, damn it.

Also, raedyn, I agree with you that q often seems to pick on Matt just for the pleasure of being a bastard, but as far as revenue stream analysis goes, I'd have to say that my recent field observations confirm his hypothesis.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:20 PM on January 26, 2006


pandering to idiots is very lucrative. most of the world does it for a living in one shape or form. however, apparently making the observation here is piling hatred upon matt.
posted by quonsar at 3:21 PM on January 26, 2006


Personally, I have the [more inside] tag. I mean, of course there is going to be more inside.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:22 PM on January 26, 2006


Sorry that would be "hate" not "have." I also hate the inclusion of the spell check feature.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:23 PM on January 26, 2006


idiot!
posted by quonsar at 3:24 PM on January 26, 2006


So, you're complaning about NSFW tags not being added? I'm sorry, but that just sounds like an idiotic complaint. You're actualy opposed to NSFW tags? Seriously, wtf!?
posted by delmoi at 3:25 PM on January 26, 2006


It's "how do I shot web?", goddammit.
posted by cortex at 3:25 PM on January 26, 2006


admin, please hope me.
posted by quonsar at 3:27 PM on January 26, 2006


This place hasn't changed appreciably in the last year. Nowhere else on the internet do I find people debating the potentially harmful side effects of adding "NSFW" to pictures of people showering in urine or orally pleasuring cattle (or whatever their parallels may be across the landscape of the internet--I do not wish to contemplate this further). There is something undeniably enjoyable about debating the finer points of altogether absurd situations, and this one is pretty rad.

Oh, and this "live preview" thing is sort of disconcerting. I wonder what other bells and whistles have been added, and if they, too, will make me feel like the first time I saw the new McDonald's in my old rural Canada hometown... (I'm just kidding. I look at myself in the mirror all the time--or in windows or reflective bodies of the water--so the "live preview" actually appeals to my delirious self obsessions)
posted by The God Complex at 3:27 PM on January 26, 2006


(I'm not even sure why I posted that, but I felt strangely compelled to say something, lest I feel I'm playing the role of the overwrought voyeur at the meta-window).
posted by The God Complex at 3:31 PM on January 26, 2006


I'm sorry. I didn't read your 1,500 word screed about something or other, because I was skimming, which is kind of the point.
posted by MarkAnd at 3:32 PM on January 26, 2006


Isn't there something more petty we can argue about?
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 3:32 PM on January 26, 2006


I don't oppose the addition of NSFW by the mods.

I do oppose BobF thinking he's got some sort of right to be protected from his own stupidity.

Seriously, you have to be beyond retarded to think clicking "cunnilingus on a cow" and expect to find anything that is even remotely safe for human eyes, let alone work.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:33 PM on January 26, 2006


"You're actualy opposed to NSFW tags?"

Yes. In this specific case, for the specific reasons I gave, which I feel I elaborated on enough to deserve more than your short dismissal, I'm actually opposed the admin's addition of the NSFW tags.

Additionally, I find your implication that such tags are *always* appropriate, if not required, to be idiotic. I'm sure you're equally comforted to find out about the following warnings:

"For external use only!" - On a curling iron.
"Do not drive with sunshield in place." - On a cardboard dashboard sunshield.
"Do not eat toner." - On a toner cartridge for a laser printer.

There. Your world is safe now. Carry on.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:38 PM on January 26, 2006


I just ended my last comment with a preposition. We can argue about that.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 3:38 PM on January 26, 2006


Yes?
posted by AwkwardPause at 3:39 PM on January 26, 2006


Cow-licking african kid stays; Jessie's bat mitzvah goes. Like sands in the hourglass, these are the days of our lives.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 3:43 PM on January 26, 2006


I agree with y6.
posted by eyeballkid at 3:46 PM on January 26, 2006


To be fair, I work at a cow anus factory and we see this kind of shit all the time.

can you get me a discount. I wanna open a hot dog stand.
posted by jonmc at 3:54 PM on January 26, 2006


The problem is the absence of Migs , that is the entire problem.
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:56 PM on January 26, 2006


It's "how do I shot web?", goddammit.

Whoops. Damn it. Posting before coffee again.

I'm actually opposed the admin's addition of the NSFW tags.

Oh. In that case, I don't agree entirely with y6, exactly. But on the general principle of mocking, ostracizing, and pelting the persistently dimwitted with rocks and garbage (on Metafilter)... yeah, that's OK by me.

Also: The God Complex! Howdy! (No such thing as an ex-Mefite, as many have said before....)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:00 PM on January 26, 2006


i agree with ebk.
posted by fishfucker at 4:04 PM on January 26, 2006


Speaking as an employer any web page is NSFW if I'm supposed to be paying you to look at it.
posted by Joeforking at 4:14 PM on January 26, 2006


I disagree.

[rant in middle deleted]

Find something important to get upset about.
posted by terrapin at 4:16 PM on January 26, 2006


I'm not in favor of pandering to idiots, but I'm not in favor of pandering to condescending assholes, either.

Thus, I am torn by this thread.

I wish people would knock off the personal attacks. Starting a thread on one of the web's most read websites just to call somebody an idiot is pretty fucked up, IMO.
posted by empath at 4:21 PM on January 26, 2006


I do oppose BobF thinking he's got some sort of right to be protected from his own stupidity.

Seriously, you have to be beyond retarded to think clicking "cunnilingus on a cow" and expect to find anything that is even remotely safe for human eyes, let alone work.


Ah... I know it's pointless to defend myself here, but here goes anyway...

AGAIN, I was not expecting actual pics of a boy with his face in a cow's vagina. The word "discuss" was included in the post, and I thought it might be the discussion part. Admittedly, I did not check the url of what I was clicking on. Why? Because I didn't think I had to... I'm used to most fpp's on MeFi having some pretty cool shit included in them... not ridiculous gross-out photos from Cumsumption Junction.com.

I mean c'mon... was there any reason to include those pics in that nonsense post, other than to gross people out? It was on purpose, and that's why I said something. I certainly don't feel the need to be "protected", and I'm not calling for NSFW (or other) tags for all questionable material or anything ridiculous like that. This was just one situation where someone had some gratuitous shit in their fpp, and I asked for them to make a note of it.

Well, since I'm the main "idiot" and "dunderhead" for today, I better get busy ruining MeFi for everyone else. Hi Ho, lots of work to do!
posted by BobFrapples at 4:21 PM on January 26, 2006


Unless the thread is about George Bush, then it's perfectly fine.
posted by empath at 4:22 PM on January 26, 2006


I wish people would knock off the personal attacks. Starting a thread on one of the web's most read websites just to call somebody an idiot is pretty fucked up, IMO.

Thanks, empath. I was a bit surprised by that as well.
posted by BobFrapples at 4:23 PM on January 26, 2006


First goatse, now this.

Damn assholes, always causing trouble.
posted by jonmc at 4:24 PM on January 26, 2006


I don't ever click on a link without first mousing over it to see approximately what it is. On a few occasions, I have been tricked into entering #metachat, but that's because I was drunk and wanted some hot, hot, virtual sex. We don't need a special tag for pages that are not safe for work.
posted by interrobang at 4:31 PM on January 26, 2006


I agree with fishfucker.
posted by eyeballkid at 4:38 PM on January 26, 2006


I have been tricked into entering #metachat, but that's because I was drunk and wanted some hot, hot, virtual sex.

and yet you never write, you never call...

*throws whiskey bottle at wall, cries*
posted by jonmc at 4:38 PM on January 26, 2006


*gives jonmc some hot, hot, virtual whiskey*
posted by interrobang at 4:39 PM on January 26, 2006


First goatse, now this.

Damn assholes, always causing trouble.


**rimshot**
posted by Otis at 4:40 PM on January 26, 2006


Please keep in mind that just because not everyone is net-savvy doesn't mean they are stupid. Most people I know were not formally taught how to use web-browsers. There's a lot of stuff on the screen at one time; it's really easy not to notice the mouseover text if it shows up on the lower edge of your browser window.

But let me take this opportunity to thank quonsar for alerting me to mouseovers. After being stunned speechless at an image he linked to, a friend showed me what/where the mouseover text showed up. Quonsar, if it weren't for your link, I might never have learned about mouseover text. (until this thread, of course.)

(But dammit, quonsar, I thought your link was to a picture of your pet pug.)
posted by luneray at 4:47 PM on January 26, 2006


BobFrapples was completely justified in expecting descriptions of the pictures, rather than the pictures themselves, based on the poster's fucked-up/ambiguous syntax.

Yes, it's probably a good idea to use the mouseover function to check out links, but it's just common courtesy to use "NSFW." People get all lathered up when a poster neglects to indicate that a link is to a .pdf, so what's wrong with being annoyed when a poster leaves out "NSFW"?
posted by feathermeat at 5:19 PM on January 26, 2006


I for one do not think pandas are idiots.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:28 PM on January 26, 2006


People usually use NSFW here, so it's become an expectation. It's mentioned on the wiki as well, that you'll usually see NSFW by links to stuff that could get you in trouble at work.

This particular post was flagged so many times that adding the NSFW tag was probably a kindness done by mathowie so that the post could stay despite being seen as objectionable by a whole assload of people. The post isn't diminished by having the NSFW indicators there, we'll add pdf indicators or wmv indicators as well. Are those better because they're value-neutral? Is NSFW not value neutral?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:29 PM on January 26, 2006


assload of people

How many people is that?
posted by justgary at 5:44 PM on January 26, 2006


You know, the idiots being allegedly pandered to quite probably think that the people slandering unknown pixels in the dark as idiots, are in fact idiots themselves. I wish I was so secure in all facets of my life.

posted by peacay at 5:44 PM on January 26, 2006


"I like MetaFilter raw"

You're going to get bookworms.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:45 PM on January 26, 2006


halekon's post choice kind of freaks me out in general, honestly.

I still don't see how that post has any redeeming discussion/educational value whatsoever. I mean, seriously, best of the web? It's a thinly-veiled bit of gross-out racism.

We need an FPP with links to explicit pictures of female genital mutilation followed by "Gee golly, ain't you glad you live in America?" ...That'd surely be a discussion starter.
posted by spiderwire at 5:51 PM on January 26, 2006

assload of people

How many people is that?
Depends... Would that be Regular, Tall, Venti or Goatse ?
posted by y2karl at 6:34 PM on January 26, 2006


justgary said 'assload of people

'How many people is that?'


No people. Though I suppose some of the more elastic pornographic actors could get at least one slim midget up them, maybe a couple of malnourished babies.

I'm with Mr. Frapples, sort of - that post was ambiguously worded, and nude children with their faces buried in a cow's nethers re hardly MetaFilter's stock in trade, but then the words 'cunnilingus' and 'cow' ought really have made you more cautious than usual.


sgt.serenity said 'The problem is the absence of Migs , that is the entire problem.'

MetaTalk was certainly more readable in them days.
posted by jack_mo at 6:45 PM on January 26, 2006


Protecting us from our stupidity is a bad thing. It only makes us more stupid, and it's a slippery slope.

I appreciate your point, y6y6y6. You do realize that "slippery slope" is the name of a logical fallacy, though, right? Assuming that a little of something leads to a lot is a classic rhetorical disconnect. You can't pull out the "slippery slope" card as if it somehow makes your point. Arguing that your point is a slippery slope actually works against you, UNLESS you demonstrate the progression from thing A to thing B, C, and D with examples (or at least some other specific causal reasoning).

I have no problem with this being expressed, though. I'm all for high bars and such. I just don't see as much downside as you do in inserting the NSFW labels. This example should be pretty clear to anyone. But others will definitely fall into a grey area. Look up old arguments about what constitutes NSFW and you'll see people don't always agree. What you call molly-coddling on the part of the mods I call erring on the safe side, setting an example that EVERYTHING must be labelled just to be safe for everyone. I see a lot more downside in exposing those "grey area" posts than occasionally stepping in to insert a label for someone.
posted by scarabic at 6:49 PM on January 26, 2006


I'd just like to mention that I'm also an idiot, at least part of the time.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:53 PM on January 26, 2006


Mr. McGuire: I want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Benjamin: Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Benjamin: Yes, I am.
Mr. McGuire: Idiots.
posted by TimeFactor at 7:17 PM on January 26, 2006


disclosure: I think the NSFW tag is stupid for the reason Joeforking mentioned above: With certain rare exceptions, there isn't much browsing at work that is safe. Certainly the entirety of Metafilter isn't safe, since it's personal browsing being done at work. See, NSFW was originally designed to help people doing illicit web browsing during working hours. It was meant to say "there's no way you'll convince your boss that the pic of an elephant pissing behind this link is part of your normal operating procedure, so DON'T CLICK IT." It wasn't meant to say "This post violates your workplace's policy," because it was assumed that all personal browsing does that. It was acknowledgement that illicit browsing happened, and was a sign of cameraderie between the poster and the audience, a kind of hip wink for the in-the-know to say "hey, I don't judge how you waste your company's money. I just want you to know that this one link cannot be disguised as work. beware." So if you get caught clicking ANYTHING at work, it's your own fault, in my opinion. We are not your safeguards, we're just shumcks on the internet and NSFW is a FAVOR. It's us doing you a solid during your tomfoolery. It is certainly NOT any sort of obligation, and if you think it is, you need to pull your head out of your ass.

that being said, I agree with y6, if not his tone, for the following reasons:

1. there is no reason to believe you'd be safe clicking a link labeled as a boy showering in cow urine at work. none. you thought it was a description? no, the link was the description. there might have been reasons to believe it MIGHT have been safe, but not to assume it was. There was every reason to think it wouldn't be.

2. I strongly suspect that people who cry out for NSFW tags, BobF included, don't actually care about what's safe to look at at work. I strongly suspect that they just see material like what was posted as objectionable regardless of viewing circumstance, and that NSFW is about as far as those people felt they could come to crying for deletion without getting shit on by the general community. I suspect that objection to this post is nothing more or less than prudish nonsense, and I (for one) reject it wholeheartedly.

3. No amount of adding NSFW to that post is going to calm the people who hated it. They hated the post for what it was, and appeasing them with four letters isn't actually going to change anything. If NSFW had been on the post, it still would have been flagged an assload of times. It doesn't actually help anyone or stem any tides or appease anyone to make this gesture.

at least, that's my $.02
posted by shmegegge at 7:18 PM on January 26, 2006


my last thing: if the metafilter wiki actually says that NSFW will be put next to questionable material in posts, FOR GOD'S SAKE, CHANGE THAT. Fuck it. I'll do it myself.
posted by shmegegge at 7:23 PM on January 26, 2006


Metafilter: we're just shumcks on the internet
posted by TimeFactor at 7:32 PM on January 26, 2006


Some of us don't WANT to be exposed to anus. Or other unmentionable cow parts.
posted by konolia at 7:58 PM on January 26, 2006


Panders are certainly not idiots. They've managed to become a moderatly powerful "Clan" in only 50 years, and are becoming stronger daily, through the use of good sense and a loyalty to the Sabbat. Don't dis the Panders, man.
posted by Snyder at 8:03 PM on January 26, 2006


panders are such cute bears.
posted by quonsar at 8:05 PM on January 26, 2006


90% of the stuff that gets (annoyingly) marked NSFW is perfectly safe for where I work. Now this (NSFW) is not safe for work.
posted by sfenders at 8:26 PM on January 26, 2006


Badgers, however, are rather smelly. In fact, the ones I have at the moment stink. Does anyone need any?
posted by yhbc at 8:26 PM on January 26, 2006


AGAIN, I was not expecting actual pics of a boy with his face in a cow's vagina. The word "discuss" was included in the post, and I thought it might be the discussion part.

I apologize. Calling you an idiot is a bit much.

I am, however, utterly astounded that you could click any one of those links -- which by their context and by their own titles spoke of perversity -- and even momentarily expect to not come across something unsafe for the human psyche, let alone unsafe for work.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:28 PM on January 26, 2006


panders aren't bears.
posted by interrobang at 8:32 PM on January 26, 2006


NSFW was originally designed to help people doing illicit web browsing during working hours. It was meant to say "there's no way you'll convince your boss that the pic of an elephant pissing behind this link is part of your normal operating procedure, so DON'T CLICK IT." It wasn't isn't meant to say "This post violates your workplace's policy," because it was is assumed that all personal browsing does that.

What he said. In triplicate. Note the corrections: I feel NSFW maintains the original meaning.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:32 PM on January 26, 2006


In the future, when aliens dig up our ruined planet and discover piles of improperly erased hard drives filling our waste sites, they will recover the data and assume that we worshipped elephant piss and that Goatse was our god.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:38 PM on January 26, 2006


"there's no way you'll convince your boss that the pic of an elephant pissing behind this link is part of your normal operating procedure"

If your boss still knows so little about the web that he mistakes metafilter for "work", odds are pretty good that you can convince him that the elephant pissing is part of your study of fluid dynamics that you're going to use to improve the diffusion characteristics of the office coffee machine.
posted by sfenders at 8:40 PM on January 26, 2006


quonsar : "kindly and gently fuck the fuck off."

Not kindly. Slowly.
posted by graventy at 9:40 PM on January 26, 2006


I, for one, am astounded by the fact that apparently there weren't idiots on MetaFilter until Mad Matt rolled out $5 registration.
What are the odds of that?
(No seriously, I'm one of the morons who dropped a finsky, sos I cant do maths gud... carry the ought...)

Oh, and:
MetaFilter: I don't think the admins suck too much.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:45 PM on January 26, 2006


I suspect that objection to this post is nothing more or less than prudish nonsense

Heh... I can assure you that this is definitely NOT the case, for my part. I'm an improviser... I stick my face in a mimed cow's vagina PRACTICALLY EVERY SHOW.
posted by BobFrapples at 10:41 PM on January 26, 2006


Oh, christ. The issue here is that the FPP sucks. That's the only problem. I claims, somewhat disingenuously, that we should be considering other country's sexual practices (although it sounds more like sanitation and animal husbandry to me) and exhorts us to feel good about not having to do those things. There's a link with no substantiation, and two pieces of shock imagery.

Now really -- if I wanted to put up an FPP on a non-Western sexual practice that we might find disturbing, I'd go find some papers about Female Genital Mutilation in Africa, for and against, and ask people to consider how different their social morees are here in this country and to start a discussion there.

I SURE AS HELL wouldn't post two links to FGM operation (you know, the surgery removing the clitoris -- hey, they do that in society) followed by a "aren't you sure glad you live here"? NOT A USEFUL DISCUSSION. This isn't the best of the web and it has nothing to do with the 'NSFW' tags, and everything to do with the fact that it's a crappy Howards Stern style shock jocking and here we are wringing our hands oh whatever shall we do?

DELETE IT.

We have no problems having reasonable discussiosn about different cultures' sexual practices, but this FPP doesn't do this. All this is such an unbelievably ham-handed trolltrap that it just makes me want to scream.
posted by spiderwire at 11:19 PM on January 26, 2006


discussion does not a good post make. lack of discussion does not a bad post make.

sometimes we just want to see something we haven't seen before.

chill.
posted by shmegegge at 11:22 PM on January 26, 2006


correction: discussion does not NECESSARILY a good post make.
posted by shmegegge at 11:22 PM on January 26, 2006


I'll jump of the "a link named BNW-african-child-feeds-from-cow-s-anus.jpg is clearly NSFW" bandwagon.

also, cow porn is so 1991.
posted by matteo at 12:18 AM on January 27, 2006


Nothing clever or snarky to say, just, like several others here, I'm having problems seeing how this makes a good FPP.
posted by johnny novak at 12:26 AM on January 27, 2006


Matt! Jessamyn!!!!!!!

I'm appealing to you in this thread, rather than start a whole new one, but do you see what is actually going on in that post?

1) links to photos that are claimed to be bizarre or disgusting "sexual" practices, that are not. They are images of children in abject poverty. The images are from articles at the website Biafra Nigeria World.

2) A claim that these photos are discussed as sexual practices at the site Growing up Sexually, a site about child sexual growth. There is no link to any discussion of these photos on that site (and I can't find any myself), and I don't believe it exists.

If this post doesn't deserve deletion, then nothing deserves deletion. Goatse and tubgirl are more worthy, and that's not hyperbole - those are interesting web memes designed to shock, and they are what they are, upfront.

This is just pulling heartbreakingly sad photos and trying to put a kinky, porny spin on them.

Please, please delete.
posted by taz at 1:33 AM on January 27, 2006


Well, fuck. I didn't even bother clicking through to the thread in question.

Oh dear.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:06 AM on January 27, 2006


for what it's worth, though it's all been said already, just want to add I agree with y6 and shmegegge on the NSFW issue, but also with taz and spiderwire (and others in the post itself) on the reasons why it should be deleted.

And I really don't like to call for deletions in general, but this seems like such an obvious case, it's baffling it's still there. Honestly, I just don't understand why a post like that should be given a pass.

What's the content value? entertainment value? discussion value? fear that some people will interpret deletion as uncool prudish censorship? but that'd be validating the "oh look kinky child sex with cows in backwards cultures!" reaction that is only a mix of stupidity and projection (and it takes a lot to see those as sexual practices). The post doesn't have any point whatsoever except what taz said: pulling heartbreakingly sad photos and trying to put a kinky, porny spin on them.

How is the addition of a couple of totally redundant NSFW tags enough to make it a valid post worth keeping for posterity?
posted by funambulist at 2:52 AM on January 27, 2006


Some of us don't WANT to be exposed to anus. Or other unmentionable cow parts.
posted by konolia at 7:58 PM PST on January 26


You should probably stop using the internet, then.

But I will say that that FPP sucked harder than a vacuum pump on the surface of Jupiter.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:57 AM on January 27, 2006


Headline: the best of the web is often crap. so what?
posted by bluesky43 at 5:47 AM on January 27, 2006


You know, unless a poster is being deliberately ambiguous or misleading about the content of post, I think most adults can figure out on their own whether something is "NSFW." (That being said, adding the NSFW tags doesn't hurt anything). What really annoyed me about the post was the: "Be glad that you live in the culture that you live in, others are not as fortunate as you."

Made me think of my parents telling me to eat my broccoli because children were starving in Africa.
posted by Otis at 6:31 AM on January 27, 2006


Well said taz. I can't think of a single possible reason why that post has been allowed to remain.
posted by jack_mo at 7:12 AM on January 27, 2006


I agree with taz as well. The post is double bad. I sort of figured I'd missed the point since the admins edited it to make it safe for Bob rather than delete it.

But taken in that light my original issue is even worse. The admins didn't even take the time to evaluate the post. They just reacted blindly to a user's plea for redundant warning labels.
posted by y6y6y6 at 7:27 AM on January 27, 2006


y6, not everybody is web-savvy. This doesn't make them stupid, it makes them not web-savvy. Please grow up.

Also, in the future, if you feel the desire to rant about how mefi users are too dumb to use a browser and admin hand-holding and molly-coddling, please don't. mathowie and jessamyn have enough common sense to figure out when a post needs a NSFW tag and when it doesn't.

That said, I'll second taz. I really can't imagine why that thread has been allowed to remain. It has a lot of problems and it's really just totally incoherent.
posted by nixerman at 7:28 AM on January 27, 2006


I agree with y6 and shmegegge on the NSFW issue, but also with taz and spiderwire (and others in the post itself) on the reasons why it should be deleted.

Me too. If anything, the addition of "(NSFW)" makes it all the more worthy of deletion, emphasising as it does the fact that the poster added these pictures simply for their shock value, or perhaps because of a fetish for cows. The primary link is sort of interesting. Implying that these pictures are what it's about is idiotic.

So when flagging this post, which "reason" to pick? Does that count more as noise, derail, or does it "break the guidelines"? I wonder whether people were flagging it for the wrong reasons (dirty pictures!) or whether jessamyn was incorrect in assuming that they were (and they were really upset by the moronic abuse of those pictures to provide misleading context and vacantly provocative opinion).
posted by sfenders at 7:36 AM on January 27, 2006


good morning, I removed the post. taz has some good "this article doesn't show these pictures" cites if anyone really wants to take a look at them.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:37 AM on January 27, 2006


Thanks, jessamyn. That post was an embarassment.
posted by eddydamascene at 7:42 AM on January 27, 2006


Thanks, jessamyn.

So, is halekon a sock puppet, or what? S/he seems to like to post controversial topics and then disappear. Even with all the confustion in the thread, and the minor furor over it here, s/he hasn't seen fit to shed any light on his/her intentions or what we were supposed to glean from the post. Is it just here to mess with us?
posted by raedyn at 7:47 AM on January 27, 2006


I'm piping in to say that "What does [.] mean?" - when one full well knows what is means - is the new "teh." As such, please stop.

Also, cool people know that "the" is the new "teh." Pass it on.
posted by frecklefaerie at 8:16 AM on January 27, 2006


S/he seems to like to post controversial topics and then disappear. Even with all the confustion in the thread, and the minor furor over it here, s/he hasn't seen fit to shed any light on his/her intentions or what we were supposed to glean from the post.

Another victory for opt-in justice!
posted by darukaru at 8:22 AM on January 27, 2006


davebug didn't need NSFW.
posted by rxrfrx at 8:22 AM on January 27, 2006


...since the admins edited it to make it safe for Bob rather than delete it.

Heh... you never miss a chance, do you?
posted by BobFrapples at 8:24 AM on January 27, 2006


Nicely put taz. Thanks jessamyn!
posted by OmieWise at 8:38 AM on January 27, 2006


Thanks, jessamyn.

So, is halekon a sock puppet, or what? S/he seems to like to post controversial topics and then disappear. Even with all the confustion in the thread, and the minor furor over it here, s/he hasn't seen fit to shed any light on his/her intentions or what we were supposed to glean from the post. Is it just here to mess with us?


"The love by men for younger, beautiful males, who are called halekon, is
even enshrined in
Pashtun literature. A popular poem by Syed Abdul Khaliq
Agha, who died last
year, notes
Kandahar's special reputation.

"Kandahar has beautiful halekon," the poem goes. "They have black eyes and
white cheeks."

When asked directly, few deny that a significant percentage of men in this
region have sex
with men and boys."


- la times article.

Thats the result i got from googling 'halekon'.
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:16 AM on January 27, 2006


Now that the admins have deleted the post, can we please give up the pretense that choosing whether to click on the words "Growing Up Sexually," "cow urine," and "cunnilingus" are in any way related to whether one is "web savvy?"

I have no issue with the admins adding NSFW to these links to protect the willfully clueless from the consequences of their precious naivete, but let's be clear: while a total n00b could be forgiven for having never heard of goatse, the choice made by some to go ahead and see what was at the cunnil-angus link has nothing whatsoever to do with their web skills. In fact, if websavviocity was really at issue, it's frankly less likely that the freshly minted iNgenue would know what "NSFW" stands for than that they couldn't figure out to stay way the hell away from the intersection of Bo, Boy, and Blowvine.

They rolled the dice, and they crapped out. Can we mooove on, now, please?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:32 AM on January 27, 2006


idiots are the new mefi revenue stream. of course the admins will pander to them.

Maybe that $5 could be a sliding scale, based on one's idiot factor.




[reaches for wallet]
posted by mecran01 at 9:40 AM on January 27, 2006


I'd like to propose that from now on, NSFW should be read as "Not Safe For Wal-Mart." That way it doesn't make any unwarranted assumptions about the diversity of workplaces around the world, and it makes fun of Wal-Mart's notoriously picky exclusion of everything that might possibly offend their target market. Better still if you could all use "NSFW-M" from now on, just to make it slightly clear that you agree that this is a manifestly superiour initialism.
posted by sfenders at 10:46 AM on January 27, 2006


sgt. serenity - somehow I think that might cast a certain light on that post. One that makes me more pleased about the deletion.
posted by raedyn at 11:14 AM on January 27, 2006


taz' post > mine... should have known better than to post so late at night.

For the record, I tend to agree about the NSFW thing, but it seems like a special case. 'NSFW' is a warning for links that someone might consider benign based on their description (I don't think that URL preview counts), which clearly wasn't the case here. But that doesn't mean that it's not important for its intended purpose.
posted by spiderwire at 12:50 PM on January 27, 2006


"Heh... you never miss a chance, do you?"

My wife and I were down at the local taco shop for lunch and we had a good laugh about this. We decided "Safe for Bob" is our new phrase for situations where people are so clueless they actually *need* to be protected from themselves. For example -

One assumes that Mennin Speedstick needs to carry a warning advising people not to eat it because some people actually *are* dumb enough to eat it. Thus, the warning label makes the deodorant "safe for Bob."

You enrich my life Bob. And I really mean that.

But just two more points - Why would a standup comedian need such a workplace warning? The clubs you perform in are really that uptight? They might fire you for telling jokes about sex with cows? I'm very confused. Secondly - From the description of your act I'm having a hard time understanding how you can get upset about me being snarky and ad hominem.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:46 PM on January 27, 2006


Mennonite Speedstick is twice as tasty.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:38 PM on January 27, 2006


good morning, I removed the post. taz has some good "this article doesn't show these pictures" cites if anyone really wants to take a look at them.

Longest time before deletion, ever? Actually you probably deleted it correctly but for the wrong reasons, as taz probably (or perhaps) isn't right in some of his main criticisms.

1) links to photos that are claimed to be bizarre or disgusting "sexual" practices, that are not. They are images of children in abject poverty. The images are from articles at the website Biafra Nigeria World.

Actually, both the main link and the Biafra websites seem a bit shady to me. but the Biafra one where the pictures are linked seems even more questionable, as "searching for food" in a cow's anus makes no sense. As user StephenB pointed out, a message sources the image to a Dutch book called 'The Nile' that gives halekon's original explanation that the cow is actually being orally stimulated (though even if true, if this relates to human sexuality seems highly debatable). Whether the picture and the description actually come from that book is a mystery because it wasn't at my library.

2) A claim that these photos are discussed as sexual practices at the site Growing up Sexually, a site about child sexual growth. There is no link to any discussion of these photos on that site (and I can't find any myself), and I don't believe it exists

Right, the post was terrible, but the site actually does mention at least the cunny photo and in that context. Halekon appears to have lied about the photos being on the website as he links to another one (but perhaps they were there and then removed?)

This is just pulling heartbreakingly sad photos and trying to put a kinky, porny spin on them.

It's doubtful the pictures represent anything sad, probably just different cultural practices. They probably don't represent anything "sexual" either, especially the one with the piss, which I couldn't even find discussion of on the 'growing up' site. I'm not going to read the original link in depth, but the material seems iffy from what I could scan. Halekon's post was just shite shock fare though. If the site does have something of worth, he should have done a better job selling it.
posted by dgaicun at 5:01 PM on January 27, 2006


taz is a lady.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:21 PM on January 27, 2006


We are all ladies now.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:34 PM on January 27, 2006


Can we have a pink and blue names applet? Or ones with the little disco gender symbols? Or would that make MetaFilter's sausage fest even more egregiously obvious?
posted by dgaicun at 6:02 PM on January 27, 2006


Links or patties?
posted by y2karl at 7:00 PM on January 29, 2006


Links.
posted by Gator at 7:14 PM on January 29, 2006


« Older Why is an answer in AskMe dele...  |  Maybe this has been discussed,... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments