Argument over NSFW

September 15, 2006 3:34 PM

sgt.serenity seems a bit...hostile.
posted by scrump to Etiquette/Policy at 3:34 PM (243 comments total)

no, he's right. if you want nsfw tags, email matt or jessamyn, or take it to metatalk. shitting in a thread only because working for Puritans makes you uncomfortable and, OMFG, you've been exposed to black-and-white out-of-focus incorrectly-exposed BEWBS is, well, lame. you're so afraid of BEWBS, don't read MeFi at work. your employer will be grateful.

really, that thread is the goto example (one of many) of the reasons why posting on the front page has essentially become a waste of time
posted by matteo at 3:40 PM on September 15, 2006

As does everyone else. Geez, here's another situation where just one cool head might-a saved the day.

To recap: it was (I think) a post that would've been recieved with honors most days, with some extremely mild nudity that went untagged. Yeah, okay, nudity should have a "this is extremely mildly NSFW" or something, but nobody's really losing their jobs today. It really was frustrating how everybody came in to shit on it; I can understand sgt.'s reaction.

I think what we really need here is a "NSFW" flag. If we had that, the proper answer to derails like we saw here today would be "flag and move on." And it would be nice to be able to say that.
posted by koeselitz at 3:42 PM on September 15, 2006

The comment highlighted comes across as something more of an exasperated joke to me.

Certainly, a "nsfw" (thanks Jess) would be standard curtesy for nudity, but I can see sarge's perspective too - the content is clear in the thumbnails to the person visiting the site and isn't going to be clear to Mr "YouShouldn'tBeLookingAtThat" a desk or two away.
If you were worried about someone seeing nakedness on your work machine, I wouldn't click on one of those photos if I were you. Otherwise you're probably clear.
posted by NinjaTadpole at 3:42 PM on September 15, 2006

Let's stick to facts here. There was boobies and hairpie.
posted by bardic at 3:43 PM on September 15, 2006

And I love how our European contingent so helpfully turns this into "ZOMG Muricans are so uptight!!!"

I thought the photos were OK (certainly not that great -- poor person's Edward Weston) but I'm pretty sure we have mefites doing things outside of cubicles that would make this link problematic for a variety of reasons. A doctor's office? A teacher's office? A library? A home office with kids around?

Jesus, go have a Galois. If your links are precious little snowflakes that will melt under the strain of a simple [nsfw] tag then GYOBFW.
posted by bardic at 3:50 PM on September 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

There were boobies and hairpie.
And how.
posted by NinjaTadpole at 3:53 PM on September 15, 2006

Boobies on a harpy? Rilly?
posted by scody at 3:54 PM on September 15, 2006

Us Europeans smoke Gauloise and curse you Muricans for your "inappropriate" and goofing off at work.
posted by Joeforking at 3:56 PM on September 15, 2006

Precious Little Snowflakes(Possibly NSFW)
posted by Kwine at 4:03 PM on September 15, 2006

I'm sorry, but I don't buy any of the arguments about "ZOMG LOOSEN UP".

It is entirely unclear from the link context that the linked site contains substantial nudity. Not just "BEWBS", but in fact full frontal female nudity.

I work in the Internet industry, for Christ's sake. I used to have to surf porn for my work. Our resident furries sometimes come to work in costume when a con's happening nearby.

And, with all that, even I would have to explain myself if my executive management walked by and saw tits and ass on my monitor.

Everyone who has been on MeFi for more than twenty minutes knows that there's an unspoken convention of placing NSFW tags on things that can get people into trouble at work. This is not a case where if you look at it one way, it's two vases, and look at it another way, it's a naked lady. This is clear, unambiguous, unapologetic nude photography.

The convention is to put a NSFW tag on that kind of stuff, and no matter how many arguments are made to the contrary or how abrasively the opinions against that convention are put, it is the standard convention.

sgt.serenity chose to ignore that convention, and got some flak for it, and (as far as I can see) drastically overreacted to the flak by ranting. Gasoline onto a fire. And there's even more gasoline being thrown onto the fire here by people who are deeply confused on the difference between people expressing disappointment that a MeFi convention was ignored and people condemning the content of the post.

Please note that the entire substance of what I just wrote has zero to do with what I personally think of:

• sgt.serenity
• The linked site.
• The linked artist.
• Nudity.

posted by scrump at 4:07 PM on September 15, 2006 [5 favorites]

I agree with scrump. This is a simple question of etiquette. Take your screed about how everyone-else-should-accomodate-your-views-on-workplaces-and-nudity
to your own blog.
posted by vacapinta at 4:10 PM on September 15, 2006

Ya, goofing around aside, scrump has it.
posted by Kwine at 4:13 PM on September 15, 2006

Sgt. S seems to be willfully missing the point that the posters who are objecting to the lack of the NSFW tag are not prudes but might work for prudes.
posted by octothorpe at 4:15 PM on September 15, 2006

I have to agree with scrump also. I'm allowed to surf the web at work, but I think my religious employers would frown upon such things showing up on my screen. I wouldn't be fired, but I would have to explain myself, and why I'm viewing such things when their children are nearby.
posted by Holy foxy moxie batman! at 4:17 PM on September 15, 2006

It's in the FAQ, if your link has nudity/shock/sound, it's good to label it. If you don't, we generally will. People flagged this one, so I noticed it and added the nsfw addition. It's no big deal, but acting like it's not generally how we do things here is a bit disingenuous. That said, people should not have crapped in the thread about it, sarge or others.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:18 PM on September 15, 2006

What's up with sgt.serenity and the space he always puts before his question marks ?
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 4:22 PM on September 15, 2006

Because if there's any center of culture and taste, it's Scotland...
posted by crunchland at 4:23 PM on September 15, 2006

His questions tend to be pregnant with anticipation.
posted by bardic at 4:25 PM on September 15, 2006

"What's up with sgt.serenity and the space he always puts before his question marks ?"

It adds an extra touch of incoherence .
posted by majick at 4:29 PM on September 15, 2006

When is it due?
posted by TwelveTwo at 4:30 PM on September 15, 2006

Perhaps this is the key to the hostility in serenity.
posted by crunchland at 4:33 PM on September 15, 2006

oh, wait. maybe I should have linked to the google translation of that page.
posted by crunchland at 4:34 PM on September 15, 2006

bahookey is my new favorite word.
posted by scrump at 4:36 PM on September 15, 2006

There must be an entire generation of Scots who deep down in their tartan little hearts wish they were born Irvine Welsh.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 4:41 PM on September 15, 2006

First they came for those who post about scabrous art, and I said nothing, because I do not post about scabrous art.
Then they came for those with Puritan employers, and I said nothing, because I do not work for a Puritan employer.
Then they came for those who are afraid of boobies, and I said nothing, because I am not afraid of boobies.
Then they came for those who adhere to the French style of punctuation, and I said nothing, because I do not adhere to the French style of punctuation.

And now they're coming for those who smoke Gauloises, and there is no-one left to help me.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:45 PM on September 15, 2006 [2 favorites]

Boobies on a harpy? Rilly?

No, boobies on a hippie [NSFW].
posted by scrump at 4:46 PM on September 15, 2006

I regret my role in that thread. I really wasn't bothered by the link so much as the calling people taliban for being bothered by the link. And I should have just flagged that.
posted by scottreynen at 5:00 PM on September 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

What is it with this site and people with the last name Reynolds?

Seriously, WTF?
posted by Ryvar at 5:11 PM on September 15, 2006

There must be an entire generation of Scots who deep down in their tartan little hearts wish they were born Irvine Welsh.

Aye , mostly dead though.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:13 PM on September 15, 2006

Another vote for scrump's take on it. I'm willing to cut the sarge some slack (thanks for the link to that post, crunch), but a finger goes up to everyone else who's taking the "uptight Americans" line. And you know which finger that is.

For those not familiar with the oeuvre of Irvine Welsh or otherwise unacquainted with the speechways of the Scoti: in "youre greetin by three o'clock," greeting is 'weeping.'

And here's the OED draft entry for bahookie:

The buttocks, the rectum.

1939 A. HEPPLE Piper in Wind 32 The cat curled up in the warm depression Mr Peregrine's ‘bahootie’ had left in the arm-chair. 1985 A. BLAIR Tea at Miss Cranston's ii. 17 It [sc. a tunic] must've been down to my knees when I was five and well up my bahoochie and straining at the shoulder buttons when I was fifteen. 1998 Scotsman (Nexis) 27 July 10 My three young, university-educated and middle-class companions remained with their male behookies firmly in their seats. 2000 C. BROOKMYRE Boiling a Frog viii. 165 They got away with a member of the Scottish executive having a dildo jammed up his bahookie by a piece of telegenic jail-bait.

It gives me particular pleasure to see the Brookmyre quote in the august and formerly prudish pages of the OED.
posted by languagehat at 5:15 PM on September 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

I'm with scottreynen... it was the Taliban remark that got my attention...the sarg. should 1. pay attention to the norms of the community and respect them, and 2. acknowledge that he screwed up...

that is all
posted by HuronBob at 5:18 PM on September 15, 2006

Don't look at Metafilter at work.
posted by fire&wings at 5:18 PM on September 15, 2006

languagehat, you owe me a new keyboard.
posted by scrump at 5:18 PM on September 15, 2006

way to be a complete prick crunch , i spent 4 months crying every day last year , thanks for linking to it.
why not link to your own wee website , the one nobody visits ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:18 PM on September 15, 2006

way to be a complete prick crunch , i spent 4 months crying every day last year , thanks for linking to it.

You must be joking.

It wasn't crunchland who posted his deep inner feelings to a blog publically readable from the Internet.
posted by scrump at 5:24 PM on September 15, 2006

*warms up popcorn machine*
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 5:25 PM on September 15, 2006

You can access a person's blog through a hyperlink and actually read it?

Next you'll be telling me I can download pornographic video and images too.
posted by bardic at 5:26 PM on September 15, 2006

so youre crunchland , scrump ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:27 PM on September 15, 2006

... boobies and hairpie.

Mmmmm -- pub cuisine!
posted by rob511 at 5:29 PM on September 15, 2006

so youre crunchland , scrump ?

Tell me: the weather on your planet, it vibrates?
posted by scrump at 5:31 PM on September 15, 2006

Next you'll be telling me I can download pornographic video and images too.

Only if A, you've been good and B, quonsar isn't using it.
posted by scrump at 5:32 PM on September 15, 2006

keep working on the negative mental attitudes , laddie.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:32 PM on September 15, 2006

keep working on the negative mental attitudes , laddie.

I have an extremely positive attitude.

For instance, I'm positive that you're crazier than a sack full of weasels soaked in liquid meth and ignited.
posted by scrump at 5:34 PM on September 15, 2006

Dang it! I just got fired for looking at that precious little snowflake picture.
posted by dog food sugar at 5:35 PM on September 15, 2006

what makes you think that then ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:35 PM on September 15, 2006

Crap, now I have to stay up all night to watch this.....

Is one bottle of wine going to be enough, or should I go to the store?
posted by HuronBob at 5:41 PM on September 15, 2006

Sarge is a great Mefite.
Scrump, knock it off.
posted by LarryC at 5:42 PM on September 15, 2006

So, is there a country where it's common practice to to put a space before a comma or is that just a little extra touch?
posted by bob sarabia at 5:42 PM on September 15, 2006

Its a stylistic thing - don't you put spaces before commas ?
I didn't know that actually - why did no one tell me ?There i was , comma spacing away thinking i was great , now i've been knocked right off my perch.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:45 PM on September 15, 2006

I wasn't trying to be snarky there, I've just always wondered. I think there's someone else that does that too.
posted by bob sarabia at 5:46 PM on September 15, 2006

aye knock it off scrump , we're at the makeup sex bit now.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:49 PM on September 15, 2006

Sarge is a great Mefite.

Seconded. A word of advice, sarge: go get some sleep and/or take a walk and try to forget all this nonsense. If you still want to set fire to MetaFilter when you get back, we'll be waiting.

*gets marshmallows*

*wonders if you can roast haggis over an open fire*
posted by languagehat at 5:52 PM on September 15, 2006

Damn, we're at the makeup sex bit already?

*throws marshmallows out window*
posted by languagehat at 5:53 PM on September 15, 2006

A word of advice, sarge: go get some sleep

Well so to my tartan bed , goodnight sweet crunch and his new friend, little scrump.
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:02 PM on September 15, 2006

I have an extremely positive attitude.


You seem to be enjoying your callout a little too much now that a few people have agreed with you. Personally I think that being bothered by boobies is pathetic but it doesn't begin to compare with being bothered by the seargent's comments in that thread. Why don't you give this a rest.
posted by scarabic at 6:07 PM on September 15, 2006

I guess you didn't read this thread or the original one scarabic, because nobody said the boobies bothered them. But it's nice of you to come along and tell someone to shut up while simultaneously letting us know how enlightened you are. No fuddy Puritanical streak in you, no sir.
posted by bardic at 6:20 PM on September 15, 2006

Dang it! I just got fired for looking at that precious little snowflake picture.

Hey, I tried to warn you. Some of those trees and buildings are definitely phallic. At my job we're not even allowed to use pencils or pens.
posted by Kwine at 6:41 PM on September 15, 2006

Why does it smell like buttsex in here?
posted by loquacious at 6:42 PM on September 15, 2006

Hostility is excellent.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:42 PM on September 15, 2006

ah, elpapacito was the other person I was thinking of.
posted by bob sarabia at 6:57 PM on September 15, 2006

I think we're missing the constructive lesson in all this. We should have a flag that says "NSFW," preferably one that will automatically put the NSFW right into the post without Matt or Jess having to do so. Set it up with some sort of arbitrary threshold, like 4 unique users have to flag a post as NSFW, then it is automatically labelled within minutes of being posted.
posted by MrZero at 6:58 PM on September 15, 2006 [2 favorites]

nobody's really losing their jobs today

I can't believe nobody has called bullshit on this yet.

People are still losing their jobs from stuff exactly like that.
posted by twiggy at 7:11 PM on September 15, 2006

OK, let's take a poll.

How many people here have ever been fired for looking at a Metafilter post?

Not me, but I'm self employed.
posted by Balisong at 7:14 PM on September 15, 2006

nobody said the boobies bothered them

I didn't say they did, but thanks for peeing yourself with condescension while attempting to criticize me for being condescending. That was really humbling.

I just find it irritating when people tiptoe cautiously in to post a callout, fearing a full beat-down in reprisal, but then loosen up and get cocky once a few people say "Yeah, I agree."

The point has been made here, the thread has been edited, and I agree with Jessamyn most when she says: "It's not a big deal."
posted by scarabic at 7:21 PM on September 15, 2006

How many people here have ever been fired for looking at a Metafilter post?

I don't know the exact answer to that, but it's definitely more than none.
posted by iconomy at 7:45 PM on September 15, 2006

posted by furtive at 7:46 PM on September 15, 2006

Booger-Wkcr
posted by Heatwole at 7:53 PM on September 15, 2006

Actually, I was shitting my drawers with condescension. Six of one, half-a-dozen yadda yadda.
posted by bardic at 8:10 PM on September 15, 2006

crunchland is almost as hostile as quonsar used to be...
posted by quonsar at 8:19 PM on September 15, 2006

I think it must be in the way you're reading it.
posted by crunchland at 8:32 PM on September 15, 2006

Hm. Sgt. Serenity has nothing in terms of hostility on Sgt. Rock.


posted by Astro Zombie at 8:33 PM on September 15, 2006

i would never write 'NSFW' next to a post. If you're looking at Metafilter at work (on company time) i have little sympathy for you. You want to be sheilded from nudity, check the context and the url of the link. I's your problem, not mine.
posted by dydecker at 8:34 PM on September 15, 2006

I love a happy ending, but think that trawling through someone's personal blog and posting it to the grey as a reason for the attitude is creepy.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 8:35 PM on September 15, 2006

Balisong : "How many people here have ever been fired for looking at a Metafilter post?"

Not me, but I don't think "NSFW" means "So extreme you'll be fired!!" as much as "This may well create problems at work".

For the folks who say "You shouldn't be looking at the web at work in the first place", I'd like to point out that the people for whom browsing at work itself is prohibited probably aren't complaining in the first place, because to them the presence or absence of "NSFW" is a non-issue. So the folks complaining are, in all likelihood, the people who can browse at work.
posted by Bugbread at 8:39 PM on September 15, 2006

Wow. So many assholes who can't be bothered with a simple heads-up. You're the guys Steve Buscemi was mocking in Reservoir Dogs with the no tipping scene, right?
posted by bardic at 8:39 PM on September 15, 2006

aye knock it off scrump , we're at the makeup sex bit now.

Okay, but you'll have to explain that whole thing with the wickets and who's "bowling" and who's "catching" again.

And as long as we get to have languagehat's marshmallows afterwards. IYKWIM AITYD.
posted by scrump at 8:40 PM on September 15, 2006

Actually, Wildman was the loose cannon in Easy Co. (As well as the inspiration for my boyhood dream to someday own and operate a kickass beard), but then, I've already said too much, haven't I?

/Hangs less-than-kickass-bearded head in shame
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:45 PM on September 15, 2006

CAUTION: THIS COMMENT NOT SAFE FOR:

[ ] Satan
[ ] crack whores
[ ] performance artists
[ ] Hell's Angels
[ ] frat boys
[ ] Crazy Homeless Guy
[ ] Vice President Dick Cheney
[ ] Gene Simmons
[ ] Andrew Dice Clay
[ ] Bob Packwood
[ ] Archie Bunker
[ ] An NYC Cabby
[ ] A Guy at the Beach
[ ] Your Former Math Teacher
[ ] Your roommate
[ ] Your cube-mate
[ ] An Ex-Girlfriend
[ ] Work
[ ] Current SO
[*] Your kids
[ ] Pope Benedict
[ ] Mother In Law
[ ] Mother Theresa
[ ] Doctor Ruth
[ ] The Little League World Series
[ ] Nancy Reagan
[ ] Yo momma

There is no Santa Claus.
posted by popechunk at 8:47 PM on September 15, 2006

dydecker : "If you're looking at Metafilter at work (on company time) i have little sympathy for you."

Even if your company allows you to?

dydecker : "You want to be sheilded from nudity, check the context and the url of the link."

Ah, yes. Clearly "Photographs By Francesca Woodman" (url: http://www.heenan.net/woodman/) should be a dead giveaway.

dydecker : "I's your problem, not mine."

Yes, but that's why people are requesting that others be nice. "I have this problem. Many other people have this problem. You can make the problem easier by typing 4 letters somewhere in a post." If typing 4 letters in a post in order to avoid a lot of people having a problem is so difficult for you, then you might want to consider whether a community site is a good place for you.

Don't get me wrong. I like you, dydecker, from what you've posted. But the "it's your problem, not mine" just reminds me ofsomeone who blasts music in an apartment with thin walls and tells the neighbor "If the sound keeps you awake and you're half-asleep at work, that's your problem, not mine. You could always move" or "I know you're old and have a bad leg and coming back from the hospital, and I know that my backpack is on the seat next to me on the train, and I know there are no seats empty, but that's your problem, not mine. I can't be bothered putting my backpack on my lap."
posted by Bugbread at 8:47 PM on September 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

If you're looking at Metafilter at work (on company time) i have little sympathy for you.

Christ, what an asshole.
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:49 PM on September 15, 2006

(Note: I am not making these arguments because those photos are NSFmyworkplace. They're fine. Spurting cocks and anal snowballing, not safe for my workplace, but the photos of Francesca Woodman, not a problem.)
posted by Bugbread at 8:49 PM on September 15, 2006

trawling through someone's personal blog

That's a misrepresentation. I looked at his user profile, I clicked on the link there to his blog, and that's what was staring me in the face. It's not like I hired a private detective or anything.
posted by crunchland at 8:51 PM on September 15, 2006

Metafilter: Spurting cocks and anal snowballing.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:54 PM on September 15, 2006

I looked at his user profile, I clicked on the link there to his blog, and that's what was staring me in the face.

and then someone put a gun to your head and made you tell all of us about it

that's about as disingenuous as sgt serenity's "taliban" comment
posted by pyramid termite at 9:01 PM on September 15, 2006

wow.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 9:03 PM on September 15, 2006

I really wasn't trying to embarrass him. People were wondering why he was acting hostile. I thought I provided an answer.

(I now await the traffic hit on my websites from all you would-be vendetta-detectives, looking for something to embarrass me with. Here you go. They're all linked in the bottom of my profile.)
posted by crunchland at 9:13 PM on September 15, 2006

I know I have written about this here in the past but I am too lazy to find it. I think anyone posting on the front page ought to add NSFW on any remotely questionable post but I also think that if you work in an environment that would frown on NSFW posts you are a fool for looking at any site, like Meta, that does not pre-screen posts.
posted by arse_hat at 9:15 PM on September 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

It's the decline of civilized behaviour of which dydecker's contemptible and contemptuous attitude is a perfect example that bothers me. It's so modern and so American (and is a successful and popular export), when it comes to it, to say 'fuck you, I can't be bothered to go out of my way in the slightest to be helpful to you, because I don't think exactly the same way as you do about this particular issue and therefore your perspective is worthless; if you suffer any kind of negative consequences because of my refusal to take valuable time out of my day to type four fucking letters, that's tough shit, because it's all about me, you worthless anonymous internet cuntstain.'

It has become the default attitude, and it sucks. Courtesy, consideration, and kindness are for suckers, right?

That said, I actually don't give a shit about links to offsite stuff that may not be 'safe for work'. I'm willing to take responsibility for my own clicking.

Questionable inline images (on Metafilter) drive me into paroxysms of futile geek rage, though.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:19 PM on September 15, 2006 [2 favorites]

It seems to me like sgt.serenity did this AlexReynolds-style – if not on purpose, aware of the likely drama-filled aftermath.
posted by blasdelf at 9:25 PM on September 15, 2006

Arrrgh. Must. Not. Inline. Questionable. Image.

*chews knuckle until it bleeds, whimpers*
posted by loquacious at 9:31 PM on September 15, 2006

Questionable inline images (on Metafilter) drive me into paroxysms of futile geek rage, though.

Guilty as charged, for which I am sorry.
posted by scrump at 9:32 PM on September 15, 2006

posted by loquacious at 9:33 PM on September 15, 2006

Okay, so NSFW it is. Yep, I just like to make sure there's nothing dodgy on my work cache.* Nice photos, btw. Right on. Glad we got that all cleared up.

So how about a drink?
It's rainy and I'm tired, so I'll go ahead and do this:

1 Cup Tea, Black
1 Tsp Honey
1 Squeeze, Lemon (or a little chai masala)
1 Jigger Whiskey

Delicious. Would anyone like a cookie? I like the taste of distinctive buttery Chessmen cookies with my hot toddy. Hit this? Oh, "not at work" you say? Well, maybe next time.

*I, kosem, am in the fortunate position of not having to worry about this particular problem, but trust me: others really, really do. I have seen it happen repeatedly. US law, but more importantly, many US corporate internet use policies can be rather draconian on the [N]SFW point.
posted by kosem at 9:34 PM on September 15, 2006

There are people who can browse Metafilter at work but who are not supposed to be doing so; they're supposed to be accessing work-related sites. That is, they're breaking the rules, abusing their access, ripping off their employers, tantamount to Wallace Stevens composing pompous blank verse on Hartford Accident's time. For those folks "NSFW" is irrelevant.
posted by davy at 10:05 PM on September 15, 2006

Spurting cocks and anal snowballing, not safe for my workplace

Do you mean links to photos depicting those topics, or actually having spurting cocks & anal snowballing occur in your cubicle during work hours?
posted by jonson at 10:06 PM on September 15, 2006

tantamount to Wallace Stevens composing pompous blank verse on Hartford Accident's time.

I thought "Crazy Wally" (as he was called, because he tended to talk to himself) did most of his work during his walk to and from work.
posted by scrump at 10:09 PM on September 15, 2006

davy : "That is, they're breaking the rules, abusing their access, ripping off their employers, tantamount to Wallace Stevens composing pompous blank verse on Hartford Accident's time. For those folks 'NSFW' is irrelevant."

Perhaps for someone who fits all of those criteria, NSFW is irrelevant. However, if it really were irrelevant, I seriously doubt we'd be having this discussion in the first place. For folks like me, where only some of those criteria apply, it's relevant.
posted by Bugbread at 10:15 PM on September 15, 2006

That is, they're breaking the rules, abusing their access, ripping off their employers, tantamount to Wallace Stevens composing pompous blank verse on Hartford Accident's time.

since when do insurance executives get paid by the hour?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:23 PM on September 15, 2006

Wow... now THIS is what I call NSFW
posted by scarabic at 10:28 PM on September 15, 2006

oh, hell, i just looked at the paper and saw that our beloved friends from the westboro baptist church in topeka are making a special appearance here in kalamazoo at a soldier's funeral tomorrow at 10.15 am

not that it's got anything to do with the thread but i just thought i'd share ...
posted by pyramid termite at 10:31 PM on September 15, 2006

It's in the FAQ, if your link has nudity/shock/sound, it's good to label it.

Perhaps that should read in the FAQ, "you must label it." That might help nip the utterly moronic "fuck people who browse at work they're stealing from their bosses anyway" crap in the bud.
posted by mediareport at 10:34 PM on September 15, 2006

scarbic - you didn't link to the comment page ...

Drunken Nurse took a break from cooking dinner for all of our camp. To go naked wrestling and stick his hand up someone's ass. And then he went back to cooking dinner again.
Yum.

now all i have to do is get a clone machine, make about 10 of drunken nurse and then rent a suv to drive them down to drake road tomorrow morning and get all dirty with the phelps gang ...

oh, yeah ... i have to rent a video camera, too ... channel 3 would never show this on the news
posted by pyramid termite at 10:35 PM on September 15, 2006

"fuck people who browse at work they're stealing from their bosses anyway"

A fine effort at making extremists of everyone who's not raving mad for more labelling, but I think that's pretty much impossible after this comment, which was very even-handed and I think says everything very well:

I think anyone posting on the front page ought to add NSFW on any remotely questionable post but I also think that if you work in an environment that would frown on NSFW posts you are a fool for looking at any site, like Meta, that does not pre-screen posts.
posted by scarabic at 10:39 PM on September 15, 2006

From now on, we should add NSFW to all posts, regardless of content. Out of common courtesy. You know, for the kids.
posted by signal at 10:55 PM on September 15, 2006

NSFW
posted by signal at 10:56 PM on September 15, 2006

BREAKER, BREAKER. ASCII COCK ATTACK.

 ,,,
 | @        .-.
 \_c       /   )
   \_ ____/   /
    \`-._/   /
     \  /`- /
      \/   /
       \  /
       (\/
       | \
      /   |
VK   /_)  |_)

posted by Ferrari Blowjob at 10:56 PM on September 15, 2006

If typing 4 letters in a post in order to avoid a lot of people having a problem is so difficult for you, then you might want to consider whether a community site is a good place for you.

So utterly condescending. Maybe you should stop telling people what to do and think, no?

I don't care if people type NSFW. That's their decision. But it's not my style. I have no idea of the ins and outs of your company and shouldn't expect me to. Seems like a lot of companies let people browse whatever they want as long as it doesn't have a bum or penis or whatever, and good on them. But it's up to you to obey those rules, not me. I'm not getting paid.

Last week I was sitting behind a firewall which blocked all pages with swearwords. That was my problem, but I don't ask people not to type bad words just so I can access the site.

It's not a matter of courtesy. It's a matter of realising the internet is a big place with different people with all kinds of ways of thinking, and not everyone's got "what the company" might think on their mind.

My 2cents.
posted by dydecker at 10:56 PM on September 15, 2006

Your failed business model corporate relationship is not my problem. NSFW
posted by signal at 11:01 PM on September 15, 2006

Goddamnit, signal! Stop being so maliciously antieponysterical.

You're screwing up my future searches for smut.
posted by loquacious at 11:34 PM on September 15, 2006

dydecker : "So utterly condescending. Maybe you should stop telling people what to do and think, no?"

I'm not, or I was hoping I wasn't. I was requesting NSFW (not demanding, but in a "it would help others out, and it's really easy, so please..." way), and suggesting that you should reconsider participating in a community site if you find easy social niceties to be difficult or burdening. You don't have to, and you could certainly consider it and say "Fuck it. There's no reason to try to accomodate anyone who doesn't behave like I think they should." That's your call, and I didn't mean to say "Go away", just "Think about it".

As for condescending: well, yes, I guess it was. I think that avoiding doing something that a lot of people would like, almost nobody would be upset at, and takes little effort, to be a bad thing. In this aspect (and this aspect only; like I said, I generally like your comments), I find your attitude antisocial and selfish. I don't really know how I could avoid being condescending.

dydecker : "But it's up to you to obey those rules, not me. I'm not getting paid."

Right. And I was asking for your (and others) unpaid assistance. That's why it's not a demand, but a request. It's not in the rules that you have to, and you aren't posting things exclusively for me. I'm in no position to make demands. But it's the same thing as giving up your seat to the elderly, or avoiding talking on your phone during a movie: nobody's paying you to do those social niceties, but they're generally easy to do, and help a lot of other people out, so it would be nice if they were done. Perhaps the reason I'm being condescending is that I find the attitude of "there's no reason to do nice things for others unless I'm getting paid" to be an attitude worthy of condescension.

dydecker : "It's not a matter of courtesy. It's a matter of realising the internet is a big place with different people with all kinds of ways of thinking, and not everyone's got 'what the company' might think on their mind."

And putting "what the company might think" on one's mind is the matter of courtesy that's being discussed. Saying "it's not a matter of courtesy" (again) is tantamount to saying "Giving up one's seat to the elderly isn't a matter of courtesy. It's a matter of realizing that different people think different ways, and not everybody's got 'That old lady is about to fall over' on their mind."
posted by Bugbread at 11:34 PM on September 15, 2006

It's not a matter of courtesy. It's a matter of realising the internet is a big place with different people with all kinds of ways of thinking, and not everyone's got "what the company" might think on their mind.

I think you're right on this.

however, we're not talking about the internet as a whole--- MetaFilter is the venue in question. there are all types of people here, but they share one thing in common: membership of MetaFilter, a wonderful community website. at MetaFilter, it is suggested in the FAQ that--as a courtesy to fellow MeFites--one label objectionable content appropriately. it is a courtesy to this part of the large, disparate internets--MetaFilter.
posted by carsonb at 11:36 PM on September 15, 2006

MetaFilter.
posted by carsonb at 11:36 PM on September 15, 2006

i would never write 'NSFW' next to a post. If you're looking at Metafilter at work (on company time) i have little sympathy for you. You want to be sheilded from nudity, check the context and the url of the link. I's your problem, not mine.
posted by dydecker at 10:34 PM CST on September 15 [+] [!]

Did it ever occur to you that some people are allowed a certain amount of break time every day, and they might be surfing the 'net as a way to wind down on their break - choosing to spend it at their cubicle instead of somewhere else?

That's typically the nature of any browsing I do at work.... it's my time and I'll do what i want with it, but I still don't want nudity coming up on my monitor there... warnings about NSFW posts have been an unwritten but understood rule on tons of sites ranging from MeFi to Fark. Don't be such a self centered condescending douchenozzle. 'k? 'k.
posted by twiggy at 11:50 PM on September 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

It's not a matter of courtesy.

Unless you have some radically-different, dydecker-only way of defining the word 'courtesy', it is precisely a matter of courtesy.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:58 PM on September 15, 2006

I was going to say the same thing, signal.
NSFW
posted by Chuckles at 12:05 AM on September 16, 2006

Then I thought, why don't I just create an account with username "NSFW"...

People around here can be real pedants about stuff like that though, so I just didn't bother saying anything..

But now I've said it..

*** NSFW ***
posted by Chuckles at 12:07 AM on September 16, 2006

douchenozzle

Now that's worth $5.00, all by itself.
posted by scrump at 12:14 AM on September 16, 2006

I'm also in the camp of the absolutely no sympathy for the NSFW begging crowd. Do your work, and it won't be a problem.
posted by scottymac at 12:19 AM on September 16, 2006

I'm probably not adding anything really new to the discussion but I can relate to people who feel a little bit queasy putting NSFW next to things that reasonable people agree is not obscene. I don't think it is about unwillingness to help other members of the community. I bet sarge would be glad to be of help in normal circumstances. But not adjusting your behavior for the sake of ignorant supervisors at someone else's work might sometimes be more important than being polite to your fellow community member, IMO. There's an old saying, "There's some shit I won't eat" and some folks have a broader definition of that and I just tend to like those people.
posted by Aghast. at 12:36 AM on September 16, 2006

scottymac : "Do your work, and it won't be a problem."

My work is emergency network support. I'm like a fireman for networks: no fire, no work. So when I'm browsing at work, it is because there is no work for me to be otherwise doing.
posted by Bugbread at 1:16 AM on September 16, 2006

1. Please, please, for the love of god, if I never see the word "hairpie" again, it would be really really good.
2. If people give you crap about going to a website that has some unexpected nudity on it, tell them "shit, I don't know, I just clicked on a link," because that is what you just did. If they cluck their tongue at you, roll your eyes at them. If they fire you, punch them in the face. Stand up for a lack of idiocy in the workplace.
3. Holy crap what the hell is going on in that Drunken Nurse picture.
4. What Aghast said.
posted by blacklite at 1:38 AM on September 16, 2006

3. Holy crap what the hell is going on in that Drunken Nurse picture.

Seriously. "THAT. HURT. That was irrational of you, not to mention unsportsmanlike."

4. What Aghast said.

You know, I guess it'd be real nice if everyone did a little better at describing what the link was, or otherwise used the NSFW tag in place of said description when appropriate, but the world is messy and it may be the last thing from any given poster's mindset.

It is indeed entirely possible to be so enthralled, distracted or in another mental space in this messy, messy world that even acknowledging that such a stilted, puritanical place such as the United States workplace even exists at all.

So, what Aghast said goes for me, too.

I'm sick of people just willingly bending over and taking it from soulraping, faceless gristmills of corporations (or other such catapillar piles) populated by mindless and endlessly wounded freaks who can't readily discern the difference between art and outright pornography. (However much I'm personally pleased when they do come together.)

That being said - as someone who has spent many an hour happily web surfing away on the company dime - you browsing-at-work folks should really, really consider that MeFi is generally and frequently not at all safe for work viewing - by whatever fucked up traditional US workplace standards we're using.

You should also consider and acknowledge that your vocal desire for a "work safe" version of MeFi colors and alters the character of MeFi itself.

I strongly and emphatically dislike the idea of MetaFilter being informed, instructed or altered by the frigid mores and hysterical sensibilities of the average mainstream workplace of the United States in any way, shape or form. Allowing, granting or promoting such undue influence can only be a travesty, defeat and a failure.

Remember: We're here to influence, instruct and inform these stodgy backasswards, not the other way around.
posted by loquacious at 2:05 AM on September 16, 2006

Holy crap what the hell is going on in that Drunken Nurse picture.

In wrestling circles, I believe that move i called checking the oil.
posted by the cuban at 2:39 AM on September 16, 2006

NSFW

NSFW

NSFW

NSFW
posted by bob sarabia at 3:00 AM on September 16, 2006

But not adjusting your behavior for the sake of ignorant supervisors at someone else's work

You would be adjusting your behaviour -- infinitesimally -- for other members of this community. If you would refuse to do this because it constitutes 'eating shit' to you, well, I'm not sure what to say to you. But then, I guess I was young once, too. I have since learned that one may be in the buttondown world without being of the buttondown world, and that one can hold on to one's soul without running it up a flagpole in hopes that people will stand back in awe at its beauty.

You should also consider and acknowledge that your vocal desire for a "work safe" version of MeFi colors and alters the character of MeFi itself.

Dude, what are you talking about?

Remember: We're here to influence, instruct and inform these stodgy backasswards, not the other way around.

Yeah, totally stick it to the man! Revolution, baby! We're changing the world, one thread at a time!


I've said already that I honestly don't care if people label their links or not. Taking personal responsibility is important. But declaring with pride how little respect you have for the wishes of others and wrapping it in manifestos, that's... disappointing.

This thread has been instructive, at least, showing us how many folks and who will blithely self-label themselves as people who don't give much of a damn about anyone but themselves. So not a waste entirely.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:20 AM on September 16, 2006 [2 favorites]

loquacious : "Remember: We're here to influence, instruct and inform these stodgy backasswards, not the other way around."

Maybe you are. I'm here to find interesting sites and engage in interesting discussion.
posted by Bugbread at 4:29 AM on September 16, 2006

This thread has been instructive, at least, showing us how many folks and who will blithely self-label themselves as people who don't give much of a damn about anyone but themselves.


The ones reading this instead of answering 911 calls, stav ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:44 AM on September 16, 2006

This is what the FAQ says about NSFW indicators. It seems fairly even-handed to me.

What does NSFW mean? Do I have to indicate if my link is Not Safe For Work?
Generally if what is behind a link is not safe for work (porn, nudity, shock sites, sound) a NSFW indicator is appreciated. Admins will sometimes add NSFW to links, especially front page posts, if the poster doesn't include them. Inline images that are NSFW may be placed behind a hyperlink.

Do not assume that all content that isn't safe for work browsing will be labeled as such. There are always instances where the NSFW indicator is missing, and the admins cannot be expected to catch every single one of them and fix it. When browsing, it is safest to consider the NSFW tag a favor performed by the admins and posters, rather than an expectation or obligation.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:52 AM on September 16, 2006

I think Aghast. makes the "no nsfw" case quite well. And without hostility.

Even so, there's a couple things which I think decide this matter in favor of using the label "nsfw". First, it's a fact that a large portion, perhaps the majority, of the MeFi membership reads the site from workplaces which at the least will frown on any webpage containing any nudity. Second, "nswf" is only four letters.

Personally, I do think that the label itself, "not safe for work", is part of the problem. Even though, because of what I mention above, it's literally and in the MeFi context true, it's connotes an accomodation of the value judgments which decide what things are "safe for work" and what things are not. "Mild nudity", on the other hand, is a neutrally descriptive label. Unfortunately, it's not as inconspicuous as "nsfw". How about just "[n]" for "nudity"?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:06 AM on September 16, 2006

Wow. So many assholes who can't be bothered with a simple heads-up. You're the guys Steve Buscemi was mocking in Reservoir Dogs with the no tipping scene, right?

Exactly.

I'm also in the camp of the absolutely no sympathy for the NSFW begging crowd. Do your work, and it won't be a problem.

Ah, another antisocial jerk raises his head above the parapets.
posted by languagehat at 5:11 AM on September 16, 2006

Yeah, I think the problem with putting nsfw on things like that is that nsfw basically translates to "this is filth". Not a label you want to be putting on tasteful nude photography.
posted by reklaw at 5:11 AM on September 16, 2006

It wasn't the content on the site that got me fired, it was the furious bout of self pleasure the images provoked. I was at the point of no return when I noticed I'd been noticed. Couldn't stop. Didn't stop. Just sat there staring helplessly at the VP, and finished off.
posted by econous at 5:14 AM on September 16, 2006 [2 favorites]

"Take this job and shove it
I ain't working here no more."

-Johnny Paycheck ~
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:16 AM on September 16, 2006

The ones reading this instead of answering 911 calls, stav ?

Aye, fair enough.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:26 AM on September 16, 2006

I've said already that I honestly don't care if people label their links or not.

As have I. In fact, I suggested that it might be nice if all posts were succinctly labeled.

Taking personal responsibility is important. But declaring with pride how little respect you have for the wishes of others and wrapping it in manifestos, that's... disappointing.

And what of the wishes of those that would rather see MetaFilter unsullied, ungraffitied or unaltered by what amounts to a very localized, purient, and overbearing reaction - one usually from a faceless institution? It's dissappointing we even have to have this conversation - much less for the nth time.

I split a pretty fine hair here, but, goddamnit:

A) Yeah, it's polite to give notice. People like to keep their jobs, not be unwillingly exposed to anus, or otherwise expose the delicate-minded around them to undesired shocks or horrors.

B) Art, freedom, and liberty are very important. Screw your mealy, pasty, outright vampiric and occulted HR department and all that bahooie.


This thread has been instructive, at least, showing us how many folks and who will blithely self-label themselves as people who don't give much of a damn about anyone but themselves. So not a waste entirely.

That better not be directed at me.

As some people - myself included - are frustratingly trying to point out is that there are very valid reasons to chafe at this yoke, and that some of us are indeed thinking in terms of "common good". While no where near as severe, it irks and stinks of censorship, self-censorship or otherwise.

On preview, what reklaw said.
posted by loquacious at 5:31 AM on September 16, 2006

i love it ... people who type paragraphs over why they shouldn't have to type 4 lousy letters

dydecker : So utterly condescending.

sometimes that's just society's little way of letting you know your manners are inferior

loquacious : "Remember: We're here to influence, instruct and inform these stodgy backasswards, not the other way around."


no, we're here to reassure each other how right we are and how the rest of the world is wrong ... the stodgy backasswards aren't paying any attention to us and never will
posted by pyramid termite at 6:03 AM on September 16, 2006

chafe at this yoke... it irks and stinks of censorship...

See, I just don't get this. You're a smart and thoughtful guy, loquacious, and I wouldn't lump you in with the jerks who are taking the "who cares if you get fired" attitude, but I truly don't understand how politeness can be construed as a "yoke" or "censorship." You might as well refuse to say "Thank you" or help old ladies across the street because (if you look at it the way you're looking at this) you're damned if you're going to let The Man tell you how to behave. Nobody's forcing you to put NSFW on links to possibly offensive content—it's not a "yoke," it's not "censorship"—it's just a nice, helpful thing people are encouraged to do. Yes, people get bent out of shape when other people don't do it, but they get bent out of shape when people don't exhibit gratitude or help old ladies across streets too. That's the whole "self-policing" thing; social disapproval encourages the maintenance of helpful standards. But it's not a yoke unless you choose to perceive it as one.
posted by languagehat at 6:04 AM on September 16, 2006

Metafilter: Everybody's got 'That old lady is about to fall over' on their mind.
posted by blue_beetle at 6:10 AM on September 16, 2006

Jesus, they're still at it. Look, it's simple: You either give a shit about your fellow community members or you don't. And if you don't, why are you here?
posted by mediareport at 6:37 AM on September 16, 2006

It's just common courtesy. It alerts me to look at the address and decide for myself at that point if I want to click the link, otherwise I might take a look at the thread comments first. It's actually got nothing to do with work or the man or potential firing or the like, for me anyway. Sometimes I don't want to see 'stuff'.

It's merely telling people that the link goes to the types of material in the list Jessamyn has quoted. Social mores of Mefi. We like some things labelled and nsfw is easy, unobtrusive and helpful. This has been a right weird mountain-out-of-a-molehill thread. Go outside and scream at the weather.
posted by peacay at 6:54 AM on September 16, 2006

Yeah, I think the problem with putting nsfw on things like that is that nsfw basically translates to "this is filth". Not a label you want to be putting on tasteful nude photography.
posted by reklaw

Actually, no. nsfw means "not safe for work." It doesn't mean "filth."

As some people - myself included - are frustratingly trying to point out is that there are very valid reasons to chafe at this yoke, and that some of us are indeed thinking in terms of "common good". While no where near as severe, it irks and stinks of censorship, self-censorship or otherwise.
posted by loquacious

Wow. And I thought I had issues with hyperbole. Chafing at this yoke? Stinking of censorship?
Assuming that this is meant to be parody, it's pretty funny. If not, well, perhaps you might want to tone it down if you want people to take you seriously.
posted by leftcoastbob at 6:56 AM on September 16, 2006

it's just a nice, helpful thing people are encouraged to do.

My libertarian sympathies tended to side with the Sarge at first, as I'm damned if any one is gonna control what I click on. But it ain't about that, is it? Just as it ain't right to pull an enconous at work, an innocuous link which says - pretty pix here - but leads to some artful, striking but straighforward nudity (we all know theyre ain't nothing wrong with that) can inadvertently get someone in work to be, y'know, not. Through no fault of their own. Through the sensibilities of their bosses. Why would you want to facilitate that?

Maybe mefites should avoid all links which may , given any context, point at images - art, photos, cartoons - then we need a litle help: *this* is adult, *this* is general audience.

I agree with LH: why not be helpful?
posted by dash_slot- at 6:59 AM on September 16, 2006

But it's not a yoke unless you choose to perceive it as one.

While I wholeheartedly agree with everything you say about politeness and self-policing, for the sake of this argument I'm choosing to view it as a yoke or potential yoke.

Now, as a thoughtful person, why would I do that?

Again, I put too fine a point on it, I really do - at least when sticking to the specific topic of voluntary warnings or descriptions.

But there's actually a point there.

Where did Mondo2000 fail where Wired suceeded? (Well, Wired also "failed" really, but why is it alive and making money? What relationships are there between Mondo2000's attitude and Wired's? How did each attract or repel ad revenue? Etc.)

I think that one of the reasons why there's so much hostility aroused by this issue on both sides is that it is at least an indicatation of cultural climate when people feel the need to request that supposedly potentially offensive stuff be labeled at all - for any reason - but especially for work, especially under the threat and stress of job security.

I know I don't like to have to analyze what I say and do on the internet because it might get someone fired. That's not stating that I don't care for said person or their job security at all - but that I disagree with their employer's blanketed, zero-tolerance, context-free policies. Probably as much or more than the actual employee themselves.

And I know I don't like to have to be worried about what might actually pop up on my screen (or in my logs) while I'm at work, either. It's stressful. My solution was to browse only if I knew that I wasn't be logged, and that my screen wasn't immediately viewable.

Additionally, MetaFilter is soaking in neophytes, noophiles, weirdos, artists, technophiles and more. Everything gets discussed here, from drugs and body-hacking to alternative sexualties. There's a rather high density of weirdness here. Sure, a handful of you are rolling your eyes at this. "What is he talking about? This place is so mundane!" Which would only argues my point. You're here.


Lastly, let's look at it another way.

A common feature request at MeFi is an ignore user command. Matt won't implement it. Why? Because it's a server-side modification to a client-side problem.

I kind of feel that way about MetaFilter and the 'net in general.

If someone is surfing from workplace with restrictive policies - strike that, if surfing from anywhere that requires prudence or else consesquences - it's not the 'nets responsibility to fulfill whatever level of discretion or disclosure one deems suitable.

There are dozens of readily available client-side filtering options. Workplaces frequently use them. Many can be implemented on desktops. One can also wait and check the comments before viewing links. If someone's job is that important and recreational surfing is that important to that someone, perhaps they should consider employing such tactics - I know I did.
posted by loquacious at 7:01 AM on September 16, 2006

Yeah, I think the problem with putting nsfw on things like that is that nsfw basically translates to "this is filth to many conservative employers, who have the right in some states to fire my ass at will without explanation or apology". Not a label you want to be putting on tasteful nude photography.

Fixed that for ya, mate.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:04 AM on September 16, 2006

Wow. And I thought I had issues with hyperbole. ... If not, well, perhaps you might want to tone it down if you want people to take you seriously.

The limit-modifying component of that sentence was "While no where near as severe". Now please go away and shut your hairpie-hole, 'cause I've got a million things to do, a million miles to go and "right now" is two days too late.
posted by loquacious at 7:10 AM on September 16, 2006

Yikes. All an overreaction as I see it. I mean the comment in the thread was:

Nice, but how about an NSFW tag?

I mean, he complemented the post and just suggested a NSFW tag. That's it.
posted by Stauf at 7:13 AM on September 16, 2006

Quick, someone self-link something in the blue so we can argue about something else!
posted by loquacious at 7:20 AM on September 16, 2006

Some many children, so few babysitters.

If you are not sure a site is appropriate for your workplace, act accordingly. Perhaps it is a prototypical thought of the modern American, but maybe you should take responsibility for your own actions instead of prescribing everyone else's actions. More likely, it is the urge to police every action and every thought that is prototypical of modern Americans. Somebody think of the children!

Otherwise, popechunk's got it. It is not a matter of being helpful or courteous. Some folks don't want to be your babysitter.
posted by McGuillicuddy at 7:29 AM on September 16, 2006

loquacious writes "it's not the 'nets responsibility to fulfill whatever level of discretion or disclosure one deems suitable."

Right, which I think this should all be phrased clearly as a request for a favor. It isn't your responsibility to make sure that some guy doesn't get fired for clicking on Bob's Gallery of Shitting-While-Cumming. It's his responsibility. But it would sure be nice of you if you could help him out.
posted by Bugbread at 7:37 AM on September 16, 2006

23skidoo writes "A lack of a NSFW tag does not imply SFW tag. Someone properly tagging something as NSFW is doing a positive thing. Someone tagging something as SFW that contains questionable content, that person is doing a negative thing."

I'd never really thought of that. A "SFW" tag. I post almost nothing to the blue, but from now on if/when I do, I'm going to use that tag when appropriate.
posted by Bugbread at 7:40 AM on September 16, 2006

fish, pants. SMOCK.
posted by quonsar at 7:52 AM on September 16, 2006

MetaFilter: McNasty Weblog
posted by Smart Dalek at 8:01 AM on September 16, 2006

Have you all forgotten this cautionary tale? (QT video)
posted by madamjujujive at 8:02 AM on September 16, 2006

Thanks a lot, I just got fired.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:05 AM on September 16, 2006

NSFW isn't censorship. It gives people the opportunity for self-censorship, which is their right. Not everybody wants to see everything posted to the front page, and not every job will be okay with everything posted, and if people can't be certain what they're linking to, they may choose not to click.

I mean, Jesus, are we going to also cry censorship over letting people know that a site has flash and makes a lot of noise when they go to it?
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:05 AM on September 16, 2006

fish, pants. SMOCK.

I don't like the sound of that. I don't know what the smock is for, and that frightens me.
posted by loquacious at 8:19 AM on September 16, 2006

"since when do insurance executives get paid by the hour?"

Warning, simple point alert: whether you're paid by the hour, the week, or per each boll of cotton picked, for most Mefites "participating in the 'online community' at www.metafilter.com" is not part of the job description, it is not on that list of tasks the employer specifies must be performed during the workday. That is, most likely you are NOT PAID TO READ METAFILTER. Got that yet?

Now, I don't particularly care one way or the other; y'all can stick it to the Man any way you feel strong enough. I see for most Mefites fucking off at work is as daring and rebellious as you get, far be it for me to discourage that. However one should do such things wittingly, as (further up the scale) it's better for one to rob a bank or assassinate the President mindful that the Powers That Be frown on such activity. So as a courtesy, a piece of revolutionary noblesse oblige if you will, I'm simply pointing out that one might do well to "look both ways" while doing so -- and one should not need somebody wiser holding your hand while you daringly rebel.

To sum up: "When browsing, it is safest to consider the NSFW tag a favor performed by the admins and posters, rather than an expectation or obligation." - Jessamyn West.
posted by davy at 8:21 AM on September 16, 2006

I can relate to people who feel a little bit queasy putting NSFW next to things that reasonable people agree is not obscene.

This is a simple fix. For anything that isn't clearcut at-a-glance hardcore double-penetration, qualify your tag thus:

"NSFW if you work for complete fucking pansies"
posted by cortex at 8:22 AM on September 16, 2006

Warning, simple point alert: whether you're paid by the hour, the week, or per each boll of cotton picked, for most Mefites "participating in the 'online community' at www.metafilter.com" is not part of the job description, it is not on that list of tasks the employer specifies must be performed during the workday. That is, most likely you are NOT PAID TO READ METAFILTER. Got that yet?

Acknowledged, but as you state yourself, your point is simple. Overly simple, even—what is in a job description and what a job is are two different things, and the cleanest and simplest counterexample is this: many folks are hired to get shit done. How they accomplish this is less of an issue; in what timeframe, with how much freely managed downtime is not something about which their employer worries, so long as the job gets done, well, without any ethical dalliances.

I'm pretty sure "talking to your coworkers about last night's Lost" isn't in anyone's job description. Nor is "using the restroom and reading the paper". Or "taking an extra coffee break because man do you need one today".
posted by cortex at 8:27 AM on September 16, 2006

Some many children, so few babysitters.... More likely, it is the urge to police every action and every thought that is prototypical of modern Americans. Somebody think of the children!.... Some folks don't want to be your babysitter.

See, now that's an asshole. Also, you should avoid using big words you don't understand.
posted by languagehat at 8:28 AM on September 16, 2006

McGuillicuddy: It is not a matter of being helpful or courteous.

Actually, it is a matter of being helpful or courteous (these are, of course, optional). That's the point. The rest of your comment is just a strawman.
posted by Stauf at 8:48 AM on September 16, 2006

Who was it that lost their job again ? - thought it was beth but i could be wrong.
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:06 AM on September 16, 2006

'I'm pretty sure "talking to your coworkers about last night's Lost" isn't in anyone's job description. Nor is "using the restroom and reading the paper". Or "taking an extra coffee break because man do you need one today".'

So you argue by conceding my point? Mind you I'm not saying reading Metafilter will or should get one fired, only that, say, most folks'll think it's silly for y'all to go on strike because they block this domain. It's an extra, an unintended perk, an amenity provided in most cases accidentally rather than by contract or statute. That said, those who feel they need "NSFW" are those for whom "X-TR33M cycling" is taking off one training wheel.
posted by davy at 9:11 AM on September 16, 2006

"Who was it that lost their job again?"

It was Krrrlson who said that. I just emailed the gmail addy in his profile to ask if he was serious.
posted by davy at 9:21 AM on September 16, 2006

Believe it or not, I have actually shown MetaFilter to people AT work as PART of work. Still, I don't expect people to take my need into account, especially. My coworkers know it's a community site and random offensive things will slip through.

Once upon a time I was in a meeting, watching someone give a PowerPoint presentation, and he'd forgotten to turn off his Outlook in the background. He got a meeting reminder popup early on but just dismissed it quickly and moved on. Later on, however, he got some underage-donkey-fisting spam or some such thing, and a little popup appeared in the lower right corner with the subject line: "MMMMM MMMM UNDERAGE DONKEY FISTING YOU KNOW YOU LOVE IT CLICK HERE."

It faded from view after three seconds, but everyone saw it, and the presenter's reaction was this:

"NICE!!!"
posted by scarabic at 9:28 AM on September 16, 2006

I think he was only kidding. And I already mentioned who actually did get fired, upthread. Pay attention, sarge.
posted by iconomy at 9:30 AM on September 16, 2006

That was in response to davy's comment.
posted by iconomy at 9:31 AM on September 16, 2006

Seems like a lot of companies let people browse whatever they want as long as it doesn't have a bum or penis or whatever, and good on them. But it's up to you to obey those rules, not me. I'm not getting paid.

How can I obey those rules if I don't know where the bums and penises are? It's up to me to obey them, but it's up to you to make it possible.
posted by kenko at 9:36 AM on September 16, 2006

But declaring with pride how little respect you have for the wishes of others

If someone said, "I have a problem with that", and I told them to go to hell, that would show lack of respect.

The argument, however, is transferring responsibility for the opinion to a third party, Boss. Only my conversation partner can speak to Boss, to understand her requirements, but Boss trumps all points, no matter how rational, and Boss has the power of work or unemployment over.. somebody.

Invoking Boss is the ultimate hyperbole, really. Not to mention that it is a manipulative and disingenuous form of argument.

"Mild nudity", on the other hand, is a neutrally descriptive label. Unfortunately, it's not as inconspicuous as "nsfw". How about just "[n]" for "nudity"?

How about (.)(.) ? Or is that already NSFW, and hence not suitable as a NSFW label? If it isn't, is that because ASCII art is exempt from this problem with pictures that Boss has?

Hmm, I think I'm begining to get it, if I cover her up, it's okay..

.(N)SF(W).

You either give a shit about your fellow community members or you don't.

Yes mediareport, we get it.. You either believe in Boss, or you are with the terrorists.
posted by Chuckles at 9:38 AM on September 16, 2006

So you argue by conceding my point?

No, I argue that your statement that people aren't paid to read metafilter is, for many people, only true in the most pedantic, literal "what is on the HR job description document" sense. It is true only in the sense that neither are they paid to take a shit, or to make idle conversation with coworkers, or to daydream or doodle or relax with a cup of coffee. These things may be very strictly perks for some folks, but for many others they may be quite simply Things That Are Fine If You're Getting The Job Done. That is, things that the employer is happy to pay the employee to do, so long as the employee does the other things as well.

Looking at the naked ladies (etc) may, however, be strictly not on that list. So there is some wholly ethically justified argument for the deployment of NSFW tags. I don't feel too strongly about them one way or the other, personally, but the suggestion that surfing from work is an automatic no-no , that You Don't Get Paid To Surf Mefi is a defense of NSFW omission, is untenable.

So we might be arguing over the specific meaning of the phrase "paid to read metafilter", but the assertions that folks are or not are both equally defensible in a lot of jobs.
posted by cortex at 9:39 AM on September 16, 2006

dydecker: So utterly condescending.
And utterly warranted in your case.

This is not your blog. If you can't cooperate with the community on a basic, internet-wide point of etiquette that requires about a second of your time, what are you doing here?
posted by spaltavian at 9:54 AM on September 16, 2006

This is familiar. (via metachat)
posted by disclaimer at 10:03 AM on September 16, 2006

"How can I obey those rules if I don't know where the bums and penises are? It's up to me to obey them, but it's up to you to make it possible."

Again, it is NOT up to anyone else, if we do it's a COURTESY. More like saying "Bless you!" after you sneeze than not crushing you with a truck. If you need your hand held to read Metafilter at work maybe you'd better save this site for home: "If you can't run with the big dogs stay on the porch."

And spaltavian, it's attitudes like yours that ensure our continued domination by the sorts who own the MD State Legislature. To paraphrase, "If you can't Sieg Heil till your arm drops off, what are you doing here?"
posted by davy at 10:13 AM on September 16, 2006

Arguing on the internet...still retarded.
posted by McGuillicuddy at 10:15 AM on September 16, 2006

Cortex, again. nowhere did I say it's an automatic booboo. Please reread, and see my comment of 1:13 PM EST. I think you'll see when you do that you and I are not really disagreeing.
posted by davy at 10:16 AM on September 16, 2006

"Arguing on the internet...still retarded."

Guilty, so shoot me.
posted by davy at 10:17 AM on September 16, 2006

Well, if you can't Sieg Heil until your arm drops off, what ARE you doing here?

SIEG HEIL
posted by jenovus at 10:18 AM on September 16, 2006

For Pete's sake, it's four fucking letters.
It's in the FAQ.
It's simple goddamned courtesy, just like an [Embedded audio] label(Or is not enjoying being ambushed by the Peanut Butter Jelly Time song turned up to 11 also a sign of being The Man's prudish bitch?).

The folks who're trying to turn this into either a battle against Puritanism or The Capitalist Death Machine should put down their copies of More Enlightened Than Thou Monthly, pick up a dictionary, and look up the definition of community.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:22 AM on September 16, 2006

It had never occured to me that giving people helpful information in order to facilitate decision making constituted censorship. My knee is already jerking in anticipation of all the shrill advocacy and querulous argument to be had in light of this new knowledge.
posted by oneirodynia at 10:31 AM on September 16, 2006

I would probably follow cortex and write NSFW or "NSFW if you work for complete fucking pansies." For me, the request from some members of the community (who do seem as though they're exaggerating a little in this case as to the actual link with small fuzzy-ish photos some with nudity) would trump other values for me.

But I can completely relate to comments such as those posted by blacklite, loquacious, Aghast. There are situations in which I would not honor a request from a member of a community -- even if easy to do -- because it would conflict with a value that I felt I couldn't compromise on. I personally don't have that here, but I can understand why people are commenting and expressing themselves about their views and values. I think it's unfair to label these posts as evidence that the posters are discourteous or assholes or uncaring, or simply "unwilling to type four letters." Labels placed on content are often contested, controversial, and in many communities. Saying, it's just a label, it's only typing four letters, damn you are so uncaring that you aren't willing to type four letters for me -- I don't think that somehow ends the discussion.

It's worth mentioning that in this community, the label NSFW is not required as part of the groundrules. It's left up to the individual to add as a "favor." Meaning that there is a space for people to describe why they might not do this favor, or might feel uneasy with complying with this request, and that does not mean they are anti-community or violating the rules of this community.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 10:36 AM on September 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

this is filth to many conservative employers, who have the right in some states to fire my ass at will without explanation or apology

This argument is really stupid. You can't expect the Internet to change because America has completely fucked-up employment laws (and they are very fucked-up, as AskMe frequently demonstrates). I'm forever mystified as to why people don't move to states where employment law, rental laws and the like are at least somewhat in their favour... but hey.
posted by reklaw at 10:41 AM on September 16, 2006

NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION FOR BROWSING METAFILTER AT WORK!!
posted by pyramid termite at 10:46 AM on September 16, 2006

This will go down as The Great Mefi War Between The Courteous and The Principled 2006.

From now on, all those who favor posting NSFW and other types of content warnings as a courtesy, post IFPNSFW&OTOCWAAC after your post.

Those of you who do NOT favor posting NSFW and other types of content warnings due to free speech principles, post IDNFPNSFW&OCWDTFSP after your post.

That way, we can all figure out who falls where and everyone wins. Simple.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:09 AM on September 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

davy, I think we do disagree at a hair-splitting level on specifically the point of what it means to be paid or not paid to read metafilter, which was all I was objecting to. I am a bit rambly this morning, however, and do not feel I've made my argument as well as I could have.

And, yes, I think we are otherwise more or less in agreement on the general issue. Courtesy is good, and by its nature not guaranteed or required. Self-awareness and caution in at-work net usage, likewise; and in the madding collisions of these two principles are born threads such as this. Woe to mankind.
posted by cortex at 11:11 AM on September 16, 2006

Employers who frown on employees looking at nudity aren't necessarily "pansies" or "conservatives," and their existence isn't necessarily evidence of "disfavorable" employment law.

There's a good reason that sane, enlightened, and decent employers don't want their employees looking at nudity. Sometimes, such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. Such environments lead to lawsuits, which even when unjustified, are expensive to defend.

The Man isn't oppressing you. He isn't parenting you. And he isn't making moral judgments. He is (rightfully, in my opinion) covering his ass.
posted by Kwantsar at 11:34 AM on September 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

Those of you who do NOT favor posting NSFW and other types of content warnings due to free speech principles, post IDNFPNSFW&OCWDTFSP after your post.


On the Revolutionary Cred Scale:

sticking it to the American Stupid Workplace Rule Overlords by refusing to post any warning regarding potentially sketchy content: +1.3

Cedeing control of how a post is labelled to the Admins: -6

Rock on with your bad selves.
posted by oneirodynia at 11:34 AM on September 16, 2006

...and in the madding collisions of these two principles are born threads such as this. Woe to mankind.
posted by cortex

The wisest thing said since this debacle began.
posted by leftcoastbob at 11:39 AM on September 16, 2006

Unless you have some radically-different, dydecker-only way of defining the word 'courtesy', it is precisely a matter of courtesy.

I pretty much agree, but it's not such a black and white "how-could-you-possibly-be-so-discourteous" issue as is being made out by some parties.

Plenty of us have no love for the culture of "Parental Advisory - Explicit Lyrics," in fact, I venture to say almost none of us have any love for that.

What's being asked is that people engage in that culture for the sake of ignorant employers like beth's, who will fire them without paying any attention to the content of the post, or giving the question any real consideration.

And all of this so people can read MeFi at work, which some feel is not a god-given right anyway.

It's not bending over backward to offer a label, but I'd be more more inclined to show courtesy if jackasses like mediareport didn't pretend it's an open-and-shut, either-you're-a-asshole-or-you're-not kind of thing.

If you work somewhere puritannical and irrational, like Beth did, and you still want to read a community-driven site with limited admin capacity on work time, I think the onus is on you to politely ask others for their courtesy, and be responsible for protecting yourself in the event that courtesy fails.

I don't want to see wack-job employers with puritannical standards and zero critical thinking skills become some kind of major influence around here.

A NSFW label isn't going to make the difference for someone who's got an employer as irrational as Beth's former one. Let's stop pretending that her case proves anything.
posted by scarabic at 11:57 AM on September 16, 2006

What's being asked is that people engage in that culture for the sake of ignorant employers like beth's, who will fire them without paying any attention to the content of the post, or giving the question any real consideration.

And all of this so people can read MeFi at work, which some feel is not a god-given right anyway.

Huh? That sounds completely self-contradictory. "We shouldn't cater to asshole fascist employers... and what are you doing slacking off at work anyway??"

Again: nobody's asking anybody to "participate" in any "culture"; people are asking other people to do them a favor. Sure, nobody's obliged to do anyone a favor, but come on, you can't expect everyone to just nod and smile at people who say "fuck you, nobody can make me do any favors, I'm a free spirit!" Furthermore, when people take that attitude and whine about other people not being nice to them, well, it's a wonder, is what it is. (That's not directed at you, scarabic, I'm just 'splainin'.)
posted by languagehat at 12:26 PM on September 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

2 cents: bascially part of the courtesy crowd. I've been there and appreciated the flags. Where "NSFW" begins to creep me out is when it's applied to paintings, or articles with curse words. You can't tell me looking at a fuckin' Botticelli creates a hostile work environment. The term's application has spread, and that bugs me.
posted by furiousthought at 12:42 PM on September 16, 2006

You can't tell me looking at a fuckin' Botticelli creates a hostile work environment. The term's application has spread, and that bugs me.

Well, it bugs me, too. But risk aversion isn't puritanism, as scarabic contends.
posted by Kwantsar at 12:46 PM on September 16, 2006

If it were me cruising the tubes at a job where this is a significant issue, I wouldn't depend on the "nsfw" being there. My tactics would be to mouseover urls, read the comments, watch out for certain kinds of posts, especially art posts, because there's lots of nudity in art, and to create my own mental roster of "safer"users who are historically likely to be very careful about posting with warnings.

There's a lot of passion about the whole thing in this thread, but it seems to me essentially meaningless; we have thousands of posters, and it's never going to happen that they will all recognize exactly the same convention in exactly the same way. Lots of people from other countries are accustomed to seeing casual nudity in everyday media, and won't even comprehend that there is an issue.

So much heat and slinging of accusations seems silly over something that's not ever, ever going to be Kevlar against what any individual's workplace deems to be unfit material.
posted by taz at 12:57 PM on September 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

Note that I'm not against adding "NSFW" and I do agree it's courteous and helpful for those who can't do better than work for nitpicking martinets. It's just that "NSFW" is not required nor should it be. Instead I'd suggest changing or replacing the socio-economic-political order so that "NSFW" is no longer necessary; with that in mind, imposing further restrictions on ourselves to make knuckling under to The Man easier and more palatable is back-asswards, like suggesting that Blacks fight racism by bleaching their skin.
posted by davy at 1:08 PM on September 16, 2006

What taz said.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:10 PM on September 16, 2006

If it were me cruising the tubes at a job where this is a significant issue, I wouldn't depend on the "nsfw" being there. My tactics would be to mouseover urls, read the comments, watch out for certain kinds of posts, especially art posts, because there's lots of nudity in art, and to create my own mental roster of "safer"users who are historically likely to be very careful about posting with warnings.

What taz said indeed. That up there? That's the practical day to day guide that will get you by.

Instead I'd suggest changing or replacing the socio-economic-political order so that "NSFW" is no longer necessary...

...and also I'd like a pony.
posted by cortex at 1:25 PM on September 16, 2006

It was Krrrlson who said that. I just emailed the gmail addy in his profile to ask if he was serious.

If Metafilter starts taking me seriously, we're all in grave trouble indeed.
posted by Krrrlson at 1:27 PM on September 16, 2006

We could label pretty much every thread on metafilter as not being safe for a certain kind of workplace - wouldnt it be better to have some sort of generalised warning when people sign up - you can't expect me to label a fine art photographer like francesca woodman as nsfw - you know , i don't have any problem doing it with terry richardson or whoever - thats a fairly obvious nsfw because he's setting out to be offensive , but labelling something as offensive where there's no offensive content or intent around it detracts from the post.
I mean, the poor lassie ended up throwing herself out of a window, She's a blur in 90% of her photos- she's hardly some siren luring hard-working metafilterians to their doom is she ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:21 PM on September 16, 2006

But then, I guess I was young once, too. I have since learned that one may be in the buttondown world without being of the buttondown world, and that one can hold on to one's soul without running it up a flagpole in hopes that people will stand back in awe at its beauty.

- This needs repeating and gives me hope that my life hasn't taken on faustian proportions, thanks Stav.

What madamjujujive said.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 3:35 PM on September 16, 2006

This thread was more interesting when I was posting in it. Quite drunkenly.
posted by bardic at 3:53 PM on September 16, 2006

but labelling something as offensive where there's no offensive content or intent around it detracts from the post.

You must have missed the several comments that pointed out that NSFW does not necessarily mean something is offensive.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 4:12 PM on September 16, 2006

Oh, it's only a little gold star and pink triangle! Comon, just wear it. It's just a label. Everyone already knows you're a butt-raiding Jew homo! Just wear them!
posted by loquacious at 5:23 PM on September 16, 2006

Long ago, I worked in a theatre on a lighting crew. There was a very simple rule for anyone working in the rigging or on the catwalks - if you dropped something - or saw someone drop something - you yelled "HEADS!" to give the people below a bit of warning that something might soon be crushing their crania.

Putting NSFW on a post is precisely the same thing - a simple heads up alert. Common simple courtesy.

Is it an obligation to so tag a post? No. Everyone has a right to be a jackass.
posted by John Smallberries at 5:28 PM on September 16, 2006

A simple heads up alert for what, precisely ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:30 PM on September 16, 2006

By the way, Sgt. That email you sent me last night was NSFW.
posted by crunchland at 5:47 PM on September 16, 2006

.
posted by Duncan at 5:50 PM on September 16, 2006

Taking that as a real question, it is a polite way of merely giving notice that the site in question might get one in hot water with his or her employers, if they are so small minded as to consider simple nudity - or whatever may be contained on the site - offensive.
Clearly, you think such a pinheaded attitude is despicable. So do I. But we both know that such people do exist, and they can be in a position to cause others serious grief. NSFW is just a warning that the content ahead might put in a bee in some stupid boss's bonnet. Nothing more.
posted by John Smallberries at 5:55 PM on September 16, 2006

...and Godwin for the finish.

Can we close this thread?
posted by LarryC at 6:17 PM on September 16, 2006

As someone who works at a place where NSFW notes are very helpful to me perusing Metafilter in the brief moments I have to myself on the internet, I had a couple of thoughts. It never occurred to me that NSFW = filth, more like "Enter at your own risk," and I appreciate the heads-up. Also, to appease those who see NSFW as some kind of horrid censorship, couldn't we just call adding NSFW "tagging a post" so that we're all Web 2.0 and cool like that?
posted by Lynsey at 6:17 PM on September 16, 2006

"Also, to appease those who see NSFW as some kind of horrid censorship, couldn't we just call adding NSFW "tagging a post" so that we're all Web 2.0 and cool like that?
"

I guess we could use a substitute for "NSFW" in that case.

Dangr, maybe?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:21 PM on September 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

"It never occurred to me that NSFW = filth"

So maybe we need a FILTH alert too then, eh?

Was the doggie dildo post of a couple years back marked "NSFW"? I'm way too busy now to find it, and soon I'll be too tired to remember how. (TIA.)
posted by davy at 6:24 PM on September 16, 2006

By the way, Sgt. That email you sent me last night was NSFW.
posted by crunchland at 1:47 AM GMT on September 17 [+] [!]

Aye, it's a real fuckin shame for you when you push somebody and you get a reaction eh ? Why don't you google 'karpman drama triangle' and give us all a fucking break crunch.
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:31 PM on September 16, 2006

kenko : "It's up to me to obey them, but it's up to you to make it possible."

I'm on the "pro-NSFW-labeling" side, but I don't agree with this. It's not up to the other party to make it possible for me to browse at work, it would just be nice. I think it's an important difference.

sgt.serenity : "We could label pretty much every thread on metafilter as not being safe for a certain kind of workplace - wouldnt it be better to have some sort of generalised warning when people sign up"

Yes, we could, but people wouldn't find that useful. The point here is expedience. Having no NSFW notices at all is inconvenient for quite a few people (note: I'm not implying it's anyone's duty, responsibility, or job to make things convenient, just nice). Having NSFW notices for everything is also inconvenient for pretty much the same amount of people. So, yeah, where NSFW lies is a grey zone, but it's pretty clear that, if we're talking about convenience, and not principles, it should be obvious that the two extremes are not the most convenient for the most people.

loquacious : "Oh, it's only a little gold star and pink triangle! Comon, just wear it. It's just a label. Everyone already knows you're a butt-raiding Jew homo! Just wear them!"

Eh? Helping people in oppressive environments out is the equivalent to capitulating to the Nazis? "Mr. Rosenberg, you'd like me to hide you in my closet, because the SS is going to put you into a train and ship you to the camps? No, I'm sorry. I'm not Jewish, I don't have to worry about the SS, I find the SS policies despicable, and therefore I don't want to take part of that whole Final Solution culture, so I won't help you out. You're free to flee the country, but I'm not going to provide any assitance if for whatever reason you can't/don't. That's your problem, not mine."

Note: The previous was not meant to imply that not labelling things as NSFW is the equivalent to turning away a Jewish person avoiding being murdered. It was just a counterexample to loq's silly comment, and thus was in itself silly.
posted by Bugbread at 6:38 PM on September 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

And spaltavian, it's attitudes like yours that ensure our continued domination by the sorts who own the MD State Legislature. To paraphrase, "If you can't Sieg Heil till your arm drops off, what are you doing here?"

It's not just the godwinning, but it's that the analogy doesn't fucking work that makes this really, really stupid.
posted by spaltavian at 6:44 PM on September 16, 2006

davy : "Was the doggie dildo post of a couple years back marked 'NSFW'?"

Yes.
posted by Bugbread at 7:00 PM on September 16, 2006

Well spaltavian, what can I say; if you ever seriously believed I was 100% SuperGenius I'm sorry you're disappointed.

And thanks bugbread for the research.
posted by davy at 8:30 PM on September 16, 2006

No problem.
posted by Bugbread at 9:32 PM on September 16, 2006

I am sorely tempted to post a link to tubgirl without warning what that link is, and then telling people who complain that they're censors, they are Nazis, I am not their mommy, and they should fuck off.

Instead, here's a monkey wearing Harry Potter glasses.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:56 PM on September 16, 2006

Harry Potter glasses? Maybe to a 12-year-old. Those are George Burns glasses. The monkey is supposed to look like George Burns. geez.
posted by bob sarabia at 11:32 PM on September 16, 2006

Astro Zombie: I echo your artfully articulated sentiment.
posted by kosem at 11:40 PM on September 16, 2006

Yeah, I'm the one who got fired. And the post was all text, too. And I got accused of downloading kiddie porn. Oh, joy.

Seriously, people, you're really going to be pricks about this to stick it to The Man, and it's *other* people who pay the consequences of innocently clicking on your link? That's really nice of you.

Taking risks of putting nudity on your monitor when it's only your *own* job on the line is fine with me, who fucking cares. Be a rebel, show your coworkers that you don't give a shit about common American sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace conventions. Good luck with that.

Krrrlson had it right here - the employer is covering his ass. How can they do elsewise, really? You never know when someone is going to be made so uncomfortable by nudity that they'll fire off a lawsuit. Even if it doesn't really bother them, it gives them ammunition to cause a great stir over whatever petty grievance is *really* at the heart of their complaint.

So, let me sum up:
1. You don't have to mark it nsfw, but doing so is a nice thing to do.
2. The rest of us are allowed to call you assholes for not bothering to label obvious nudity, however "artistic" it might be.

So yeah, you don't have to. But don't pretend that you should be unassailable by criticism for violating a community standard and yes, putting people's jobs at risk.

Yeah, I'm bitter. I lost a fucking job. I was accused of doing something horrifying I didn't do on top of it.

Anyway, to those who worry: I suggest doing as I normally do, and read the comments before you click on the links. Sometimes I don't click on the links at all, anyway. :P
posted by beth at 11:42 PM on September 16, 2006

That was Kwantsar, not me. Although IIRC he's supposed to be my sockpuppet. Or maybe I his, I forgot.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:58 PM on September 16, 2006

If that monkey is supposed to look like George Burns, then Fred Astair looks like J.K. Simmons.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:15 AM on September 17, 2006

This comment contains profanity, and references to sex acts, and may not be entirely serious.

I take it that the new nsfw guideline has been defined as: "Fuck you for working amongst pansies. Also fuck your mother." Or: "I'm too fucking involved in the contrarian arsehole union to bother with your fucking labeling woes wanker."

Let me assure the anti-nsfw-label boys that labeling is not 'the ghey'. It's actually kinda cool. Like not farting at dinner is cool. Your not still farting at dinner and thinking it means something are you?
posted by econous at 1:48 AM on September 17, 2006

thought we'd established that Fred Astair looked like Lou Reed.
posted by the cuban at 3:04 AM on September 17, 2006

I can't wait until someone posts something really naughty without any description of the content or a NSFW tag, and someone gets fired for clicking the link, and then they hunt down the poster and brutally murder them in their home. Only because the thread about it on here will be HUGE.

Seriously. It will be awesome.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 3:35 AM on September 17, 2006

Beth, did your firing have something to do with the Woodman photos thread or am I totally confused again?
posted by davy at 7:40 AM on September 17, 2006

thought we'd established that Fred Astair looked like Lou Reed.

Yes, I believe that was established, but now where's that e on the end of Fred's last name gotten off to? Anyway, I bet old Fred would've added NSFWs on his posts, and without all this baloney about freedom and censorship and whatnot. A real stand-up guy, that Freddy A. I wonder what George Burns would've done?.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:44 AM on September 17, 2006

Eaten a banana and fund his poo, of course.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:56 AM on September 17, 2006

Eaten a banana and flung his poo, of course.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:57 AM on September 17, 2006

George Bush funds his poo.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:58 AM on September 17, 2006

Poofund revelations shocked the nation this morning, as...
posted by cortex at 8:01 AM on September 17, 2006

Fling.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:09 AM on September 17, 2006

sgt.serenity writes "We could label pretty much every thread on metafilter as not being safe for a certain kind of workplace "

* tries to imagine the workplace where my last post would be unsafe for*

sgt.serenity writes "A simple heads up alert for what, precisely ?"

That something may not be appropriate for all audiences.

I think we're a little hung up on the "W" in NSFW. Think it more as an indicator that someone say, surfing in a public library with 7 year olds (and their parents) passing by might want to avoid. We use work because the consequences are potentially most dire but there are lots of places, public and quasi public, where the warning is appreciated. Internet cafes, coffee shops, parks, airports, train stations etc. The wide spread availability of open hot spots make the NSFW warning more appreciated then ever. When everyone was bent over their 10" screen surfing at 9600 it wasn't necessary. Not everyone is surfing in a windowless basement all by themselves anymore though.
posted by Mitheral at 9:28 AM on September 17, 2006

I don't know how network admins actually monitor this stuff, but a real easy way that they could monitor for porn would be to just browse all the images that people are pulling up on their browsers. Porn and nudity is real easy to discriminate and I wouldn't count on a tasteful photographic nude being taken for what it is, and not porn, out of context.

But, anyway, as Mitheral just pointed out, it's not just "work" that is important. There's a variety of people and situations where viewing nudes or sexual content is unacceptable. Taz mentions other countries. Well, what she means is "a number of other countries, primarily European". On the other hand, there are other other countries where bare breasts are taboo, period.

One of the previous times this was argued, I'm pretty sure that I was on the other side. I'm as annoyed/angry as anyone at American culture's puritanism, even as it's been translated into sexual harrassment laws (which I otherwise favor). I especially find infuriating the fact that a bunch of idiots will get upset at artful photographic and painted nudes.

But the bottom line is that a large portion of the MeFi membership has demonstrated that they believe a warning tag might mean the difference between losing a job, or not. And it's only four letters. There are far, far more important places to fight and make a stand than on this relatively trivial matter that is otherwise nothing more than about community standards and courtesy.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:02 AM on September 17, 2006

The wide spread availability of open hot spots make the NSFW warning more appreciated then ever. When everyone was bent over

That's the most pornographic request for a "NSFW" tag I've ever read...
posted by Jon Mitchell at 10:21 AM on September 17, 2006

If that monkey is supposed to look like George Burns, then Fred Astair looks like J.K. Simmons.

While I concede that although Lou Reed looks more like Fred Astaire than JK Simmons does, there's still a resemblance.


Plus I like the thought of Verne Schillinger doing a pas de deux with a Dirt Devil. Amongst other things.

And at least I can spell Astaire.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:02 AM on September 17, 2006

Harry Potter glasses? Maybe to a 12-year-old. Those are George Burns glasses.

Tell that to Dominick Dunne.


posted by ericb at 1:01 PM on September 17, 2006

Those are Philip Johnson glasses.

posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 1:09 PM on September 17, 2006

Lest we forget Carrie Donovan ...


posted by ericb at 2:42 PM on September 17, 2006

some British musician...

posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 2:58 PM on September 17, 2006

Seriously, people, you're really going to be pricks about this to stick it to The Man, and it's *other* people who pay the consequences of innocently clicking on your link? That's really nice of you.

I don't want to sound like I don't appreciate the shittiness of what you went through, beth. But would a NSFW label have made a difference in your case? It sounds like your employer was willing to can you over any use of the word "pedophile," in a web page, whether it was actually NSFW or not.

Courtesy is nice, courtesy is easy, courtesy is fine. I'm just wondering if it would even have helped you. With all the stuff on MeFi which is, technically, SFW, was it just a matter of time?
posted by scarabic at 11:24 PM on September 17, 2006

Johnson stole them (cause that's what he did) from Le Corbusier:

posted by DenOfSizer at 4:10 PM on September 18, 2006

"Bar's closed."

"We are -hehe- not thirsty."
posted by Kwine at 4:26 PM on September 18, 2006