klang, klang, klang went the trolley.... September 29, 2008 8:53 PM   Subscribe

So, please, any other folks who wanna talk about NSFW, take me to MeTa.

The issue is etiquette, not the mores of the workplace. A reasonable comment suggested one of klangklangston's link should have been labeled with a NSFW. His response was to take it to MetaTalk. Such an arrogant response is fine here, but on the blue, I took it as particularly combative and rude. cortex stepped in and put an end to that part of the discussion, as he should have. Now, I'm bringing it up here. And 6 comments from klang out of 21? Dude, get a life.
posted by sluglicker to Etiquette/Policy at 8:53 PM (126 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

Well, at least he didn't use the word "twat" in a manner distressing to Americans.
posted by Artw at 8:58 PM on September 29, 2008 [3 favorites]


I like NSFW: WHen I'm reading MeFi in class or somewhere else where I really shouldn't be reading it, the tag lets me know what to avoid.

All other times it acts as a priority-banner.
posted by Navelgazer at 8:59 PM on September 29, 2008 [10 favorites]


"On top of that, it's perfectly safe at my work."

Most people work in the porn business right? So that's a perfectly good explanation.
posted by puke & cry at 8:59 PM on September 29, 2008




"Most people work in the porn business right? So that's a perfectly good explanation."

#1—Is it safe at my work?

Yes.

#2—Is it safe at your work?

I don't know. Maybe you could check on that and get back to me?
posted by klangklangston at 9:05 PM on September 29, 2008 [1 favorite]


And 6 comments from klang out of 21? Dude, get a life."

It's only 5900 shy of that Palin thread. I was doing my part. WHERE WERE YOU
posted by klangklangston at 9:09 PM on September 29, 2008


When klangklangston tells you to take it to MetaTalk he's not exactly being sincere. He does want you to, he is hoping you will and you did, so that is good.
posted by lee at 9:11 PM on September 29, 2008


Maybe you should just label everything with tits in as "tits".
posted by Artw at 9:13 PM on September 29, 2008


You know perfectly well naked tits aren't safe for most peoples work. You're being purposefully obtuse. Cut that shit out please.
posted by puke & cry at 9:15 PM on September 29, 2008


Yeah, I was kinda a dick about that twat thing. Sorry about that.

But now I will say "TITS" because that won't be boyzone.
posted by klangklangston at 9:16 PM on September 29, 2008


HOLD ON GUYS GOTTA GO WATCH A MOVIE CAN YOU WAIT
posted by klangklangston at 9:17 PM on September 29, 2008 [1 favorite]


tits!
posted by Artw at 9:17 PM on September 29, 2008


Actually, you know what? I think I'm going to take his lead and get drunk too.
posted by Artw at 9:19 PM on September 29, 2008


This isn't going to be any fun if you're drunk.
posted by sluglicker at 9:20 PM on September 29, 2008 [1 favorite]


#1—Is it safe at my work?

Yes.

#2—Is it safe at your work?

I don't know. Maybe you could check on that and get back to me?


Christ, what an asshole.
posted by mlis at 9:36 PM on September 29, 2008 [4 favorites]


#2—Is it safe at your work?

You know perfectly well that the meaning of "NSFW" is noncompositional, so don't try to be cute.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 9:45 PM on September 29, 2008


Can we get a "disingenuous" flag?
posted by GuyZero at 9:45 PM on September 29, 2008 [6 favorites]


Anything NSFW and not marked so is going to get flagged more anyway, no?

Also, when at work and I saw the NSFW-ish, I knew to wait until my cow orkers were not in screenview before I clicked. Were I more concerned that my worktime web-surfing was being paid any attention to, I wouldn't have clicked it at all if I saw the NSFW-ish caveat. (Was that caveat added after kk posted the FPP?)
posted by not_on_display at 9:48 PM on September 29, 2008


Throwing up a NSFW is just a common courtesy. I'm pretty sure a lot of mefites are on the kinkier side of life's spectrum, but we need to keep the Man happy during the day, keep him thinking "Well, there goes Joe Snarkerson, kind of a strange dude, loves to talk about his non-declawed cats and his bicycling group that blocks up traffic, but damn if I'm not convinced he has nothing but vanilla missionary lights-off heterosexual bonking going on in his apartment. Swell guy."

See klang, don't do it for the squares, DO IT SO WE CAN HAVE EVEN MORE HAWT FETISH SEXXXORS.
posted by bardic at 9:54 PM on September 29, 2008 [12 favorites]


Also, when at work and I saw the NSFW-ish

not on display: the NSFW-ish got added later. Until cortex intervened, none of the links gave the slightest suggestion that boobies or penises would be present anywhere.

Can we all just agree that nakedness of any kind, no matter how artistic, informational, or asexual, is NSFW? Really? Can we?
posted by Deathalicious at 9:57 PM on September 29, 2008


Well, at least he didn't use the word "twat" in a manner distressing to Americans.

I'm still learning to cope with your use of "maths". Please start with one math, before working your way up to two.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:01 PM on September 29, 2008 [6 favorites]


Oh, klang, we still love you!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:02 PM on September 29, 2008


Yeah, I've never quite gotten what people hate so much about adding an NSFW. NSFW does not mean porn. I'd have enjoyed a lot of posts considerably more if they'd said NSFW, as I'd have waited until an appropriate time to check them out.

On a completely unrelated note (but this seems like the right place), some people don't like photographs of dead people. In the future, a warning that that's what you're going to see (unless it's obvious from the context) might be nice.
posted by roll truck roll at 10:04 PM on September 29, 2008


Again? This?
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 10:06 PM on September 29, 2008


That NSFWish went up five seconds after I was lucky enough not to get my ass fired from my dayjob.

klang, I think we're actually probably pretty closely aligned ideologically on the subject of what should be considered NSFW, as well as on the subject of whether or not your average internet surfer should be taking overall responsibility for their willingness to click at work. So I feel you. And if your response in thread had been "man, I didn't think it was an issue, but okay," you'd be pretty much unimpeachable here, but you were in fact kind of a dick about it in there and you've been a dick in here too. That's silly and unnecessary and does approximately zero to garner sympathy for the underlying principles.

sluglicker, all that said, this is a little overwrought, and maybe a little after-the-fact considering folks did flag the post and one of us did show up to tag the thing over. "This is a community consideration issue" would be one thing, but "Dude, get a life" is, again, blowing that whole sympathy thing out of the water.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:07 PM on September 29, 2008 [6 favorites]


Choose your own adventure comment!

A) Why is it that dude-nipple is safe for work but girl-nipple isn't? If that isn't sexist I don't know what is.

B) You're surfing a site known for it's anti-censorship views. Let the clicker beware. NSFW indications are a courtesy, not a right. It is not the internet-publisher's job to self-censor to protect your job because you've decided to take a break while on that job. In many if not most employment schemes, such activity is generally frowned upon unless it's related to research for work, or within a stated and given policy of allowed personal internet use or other lenient climate.

C) [image of loquacious' pale, hairy moobs here]
posted by loquacious at 10:08 PM on September 29, 2008 [1 favorite]


I wonder what would be NSFW for Klang. Playboy? The McCain campaign website? Porn addict chatboards?
posted by Bookhouse at 10:13 PM on September 29, 2008


It is not the internet-publisher's job to self-censor to protect your job because you've decided to take a break while on that job.

Nobody is suggesting self-censorship. Self-censorship would be voluntarily declining to make a post at all, rather than making a post with NSFW content.

Instead, people are just advocating allowing readers to make informed choices about what they view. It's unfortunate that the term "NSFW" carries so much etymological baggage, but it just refers to particular types of content--it's not a moral judgment.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 10:17 PM on September 29, 2008


Is it just me or is everyone being giant cocks on metafilter today?
posted by afu at 10:22 PM on September 29, 2008


"it's perfectly safe at my work."

Really? Are you five? I think you mean at your job. Or at the very least your place of work.
posted by Eideteker at 10:23 PM on September 29, 2008


I wonder what would be NSFW for Klang.

Snuff films.
posted by puke & cry at 10:24 PM on September 29, 2008


Can we all just agree that nakedness of any kind, no matter how artistic, informational, or asexual, is NSFW? Really? Can we?

Only if we can also just agree that employers who go apeshit over the least bit of nudity encountered while browsing are jackasses who deserve to have all their employees up and quit as one.

Ya probably shouldn't be browsing MeFi at work, especially if encountering Mature Subject Matter is an issue. And you probably shouldn't be snooping on your employees' web habits, let alone being shocked to find out there is, gasp, shocking stuff on the internet. Especially if you've ever used Google to search for a perfectly innocent image of, say, a kiwi. Or macaroon. Or even a California butternut.

The entire internet should be tagged NSFW.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:33 PM on September 29, 2008 [1 favorite]


sluglicker, all that said, this is a little overwrought, and maybe a little after-the-fact considering folks did flag the post and one of us did show up to tag the thing over. "This is a community consideration issue" would be one thing, but "Dude, get a life" is, again, blowing that whole sympathy thing out of the water.

The way you and others tip-toe around klang's negativity astounds me. Seriously, is he part of some organized crime family? Why does he get special treatment? I thought he was a writer for some CA rag. I guess that does give him some privilege. I am a little fearful after viewing his profile and that gun pointed at me [shivers].

folks did flag the post

I would have no idea who or how many flag a post.

klang said to take it here. I did. As was stated in my first sentence, this is not a discussion about morality. It is me calling out a fellow Mefite for being an asshole. You either agree or disagree.
posted by sluglicker at 10:35 PM on September 29, 2008 [3 favorites]


Is it just me or is everyone being giant cocks on metafilter today?

No, I'm pretty sure you're the only one.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:38 PM on September 29, 2008


I wonder what would be NSFW for Klang.

John Ashcroft in a Robocop suit.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:53 PM on September 29, 2008 [1 favorite]


I wonder what would be NSFW for Klang.

Snuff films.


Dude, have you met klang? Think of the kind of people that would hire klang. Now ask yourself if those people would care. DUDE.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:16 PM on September 29, 2008


klang, it's not the first time you've failed to label the nakies, is it? LABEL THE MOTHERFUCKING NAKIES. This helps me find them, you see. I loves the nakies.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 11:18 PM on September 29, 2008 [2 favorites]


How many times a year does this thread go down? I know I've seen it at least twice since I joined.
posted by Caduceus at 11:38 PM on September 29, 2008


Ya probably shouldn't be browsing MeFi at work, especially if encountering Mature Subject Matter is an issue. And you probably shouldn't be snooping on your employees' web habits, let alone being shocked to find out there is, gasp, shocking stuff on the internet.

Story time! I work in a popsicle store. I work by myself, and sometimes it gets pretty dead in there. The owners are very cool about computers and books, as long as you drop everything to help customers, so I often bring my laptop to work.

We don't have our own internet connection, and the town's free wireless is pretty weak in my store. In fact, sometimes the only place it works is right next to the door. The big, glass door next to the big, glass window. Anyone who walked by outside would be able to see my screen.

I browse Metafilter at work specifically BECAUSE I can choose whether to look at pictures, and nudity is usually labeled.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:41 PM on September 29, 2008


klang, it's not the first time you've failed to label the nakies, is it? LABEL THE MOTHERFUCKING NAKIES.

He does, didn't you see the posted by klangklangston?

It is me calling out a fellow Mefite for being an asshole. You either agree or disagree.

Once again, egregious discrimination against the apathetic. I'd have half a mind to file a formal complaint of indignation if only I so didn't give a shit.

His response was to take it to MetaTalk. Such an arrogant response is fine here, but on the blue, I took it as particularly combative and rude.


Not to pick nits, but that doesn't make sense. Why would you tell someone to take it to MetaTalk if you were already at MetaTalk? Yes, klangklangston is a prickly and prickish fellow, but even if he was being a jerk about it, it's a completely suitable response if he didn't want his FPP to derail into another round of:

"Hey! NSFW!"
"Oh suck it, you prude!"
"I'm not a prude, but this could get me in trouble at work!"
"Well, maybe you should be working at work, mmm?"
"Maybe you should mind your own business!"
"Sez the guy who's trying to enforce his office manager's morality on everyone!"
"I work at home, so it doesn't bother me..."
"No one asked you, and the majority of us don't have that luxury."
"'Us'? Oh, so now you're speaking for the great silent majority, Mister Prude?"
"I TOLD YOU I'M NOT A PRUDE!!!"
"... But one time my SO and I enjoyed some afternoon delight and the next day I had to give myself a seminar about appropriate touching in the workplace. Props and slides and everything. Unfortunately, things got out of hand - or maybe I should say, in hand - and now I'm in more trouble than before. If I don't turn things around, I may have to let myself go."
"..."
"..."
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:50 PM on September 29, 2008 [7 favorites]


Why would you tell someone to take it to MetaTalk if you were already at MetaTalk?

Well, because he was at MetaFilter. That's the problem. Prudishness is not a part of this discussion; Rudishness is.

For the record, it appears that apologies have been offered and accepted, and that's that. Public would have been better, but private is better than a sharp stick in the eye.
posted by sluglicker at 12:45 AM on September 30, 2008


Is it just me or is everyone being giant cocks on metafilter today?

If so, we're going to have to get people linking to today's FPPs to mark them all NSFW.

"Hey! NSFW!"
"Oh suck it, you prude!"


If he didn't want his thread to derail, he would have either put NSFW, or said "oops, sorry, mods please fix." Any other behavior is that of someone being childish.
posted by davejay at 12:51 AM on September 30, 2008


"Prudishness is not a part of this discussion; Rudishness is."

For some reason I thought of Sarah Palin when I read this.
posted by bardic at 12:52 AM on September 30, 2008


Why would you tell someone to take it to MetaTalk if you were already at MetaTalk?

Well, because he was at MetaFilter. That's the problem. Prudishness is not a part of this discussion; Rudishness is.


I'm sorry, I normally don't do this in text, but "um, duh!" 'Take it to MetaTalk' is an acceptable phrase for Metafilter. In MetaTalk it would be...odd.

it appears that apologies have been offered and accepted,

It appears that your circuitous phrasing is tortuously annoying. More active subjects would have been better, but excessively passive is better than lolspeak.
posted by jacalata at 1:33 AM on September 30, 2008


jacalata, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I have a 9th grade education and I don't know what active subjects are or what excessively passive means, though I think I have an idea of what lolspeak is. If I didn't know better, I 'd think you were making fun of me.
posted by sluglicker at 1:43 AM on September 30, 2008


Passive speech is where nothing in particular actually does anything, things just happen, eg: 'it rained', 'he was shot'. Active subjects of speech are the things that do something, eg: 'he ate an apple', 'I shot him'. Passive speech is often dry, long winded and unclear.

Your sentence should have been "For the record, klangklangston has apologised to me, I have accepted and that's that. I would have preferred public but private is good enough."

And if that's not what actually happened, then see 'passive speech is unclear'.
posted by jacalata at 1:52 AM on September 30, 2008


Safe For Work Porn
posted by clearly at 2:02 AM on September 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


jacalata, klangklangston had nothing to apologize to me for (did I construct that sentence wrong[ly]?). Maybe you're missing something?
posted by sluglicker at 2:03 AM on September 30, 2008


Only if we can also just agree that employers who go apeshit over the least bit of nudity encountered while browsing are jackasses who deserve to have all their employees up and quit as one.

Sure, I'll agree to that, but only if we can agree that not all the people who work for said employers want to exercise that option, nor do they deserve to be disciplined or fired for a little recreational browsing on a site that overwhelmingly links SFW content by the standards of the overwhelming majority of workplaces.

Your move, bubba.
posted by Riki tiki at 2:10 AM on September 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Well, then I am missing something. That's what I meant about passive speech being unclear - you never specified who was involved in the apology. Who else did you want him to apologise to, and what for?
posted by jacalata at 2:17 AM on September 30, 2008


Safe For Work Porn


That kind of rubbish ain't accepted round these parts.*


*And by "parts", I mean thick, juicy clavicles, and pink, sweaty labioids. THE PRECEDING SENTENCE WAS UNVIRTUOUS, AND ALL UNDERAGE READERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY AN ADULT.... BUT NOT IN THAT WAY.**

** The preceding pedo-innuendo was NSFW... as is this illicit picture of a donkey. jk lol everybody loves Shrek.

posted by fucker at 4:17 AM on September 30, 2008


The way you and others tip-toe around klang's negativity astounds me.

Ditto here. The dude seems incapable of disagreeing with somebody without resorting to egregious insults, yet he never seems to get called on it, especially not by the mods.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 4:22 AM on September 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


Man, you guys sound so stressed. I'll send you this story of a cab driver and a old lady. It'll make you so very hoppy!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:41 AM on September 30, 2008 [8 favorites]


It's your own responsibility to keep your job, not the other members of metafilter. If you think you might get sacked for what you look at on the internet then stay off the internet and get on with your work.
posted by fire&wings at 4:45 AM on September 30, 2008


klang gets a freeish pass because he is very funny and he has been around a while. That's all right with me.
posted by Kwine at 5:11 AM on September 30, 2008


The dude seems incapable of disagreeing with somebody without resorting to egregious insults, yet he never seems to get called on it, especially not by the mods.

Actually I know klang well enough to know that public callouts don't work particularly well but emails that say "dude, temper that a little bit, please?" tend to. And he's gotten a few of them. Not every mod action needs to be public though it's a decent idea if most of them are, sez me.

And the NSFW thing... it's in the FAQ and that's pretty much how we feel about it. We'll add it to FPPs if it's warranted, sometime to comments, and that's unlikely to change.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:32 AM on September 30, 2008


It's your own responsibility to keep your job, not the other members of metafilter. If you think you might get sacked for what you look at on the internet then stay off the internet and get on with your work.

Well, duh. But that is a completely different and seperate issue from "You are some combination of stupid, disingenuous, rude and lazy if you link to content with nudity but don't warn people that the content is NSFW."
posted by 23skidoo at 5:41 AM on September 30, 2008


That makes a lot of sense, jessamyn. You are right that I hadn't considered private communications.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 5:51 AM on September 30, 2008


I'm just wondering, and I'm saying this without judgement--but I'm wondering, those of you who would get in trouble for artistic boobs at work...wouldn't you get in trouble for...reading a forum-style-site instead of working?

I mean, if I was your boss, I'd be more like "work you assholes" than "if you're going to get paid to gratuitously waste time, make sure there's no nipple involved!"

I mean, those of you who would get canned for a booby, do you facebook at work? Cuz, I mean, you shouldn't, right?
posted by TomMelee at 6:07 AM on September 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


You know what else is NSFW? Installing video games and drinkin'.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:13 AM on September 30, 2008


Metafilter: Not Suitable for Work.

Seriously, if your boss is going to get upset if you look at nekkid pictures, she's probably not going to be very happy to see you reading about the market for fish oil or anything else on MeFi.

I have tenure. My opinions on what is or is not NSFW have no value.
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:38 AM on September 30, 2008


I really hate the fact that any time a user says, "Those naked breasts that you linked to without any warning aren't actually SFW, could we get a 'NSFW' tag, thx," the group responses are always going to include:

1. If you think that's NSFW, you're a prude (never mind that you personally don't set the NSFW standards at your workplace).

2. If you think that's NSFW, you're an uneducated rube who can't appreciate art and/or beauty (never mind that you personally don't set the NSFW standards at your workplace).

3a. Oh yeah, well, then you shouldn't read ANY of MetaFilter. The internet's a scary imperfect place. Since not 100% of the world follows the rules, you deserve to view 0% of it.

3b. Looking at porn online is the same as any other waste of time online. By even being at MetaFilter, you are a slacker and terrible employee, so just kill yourself now.

4. You clearly work for oppressive, stupid assholes. The people where *I* work are far too cool to care about something so ridiculous.

Really?

Matt's on record with what he considers NSFW, and it's clearly a subjective gray area requiring a modicum of consideration, not a black line on the ground -- and there's also a position in the FAQ.

It's not a matter of morality, censorship or proving something to the corporate server administrators of the world. It's a matter of common courtesy to other site users. Believe it or not, you can secretly feel sorry for the people who can't look at porn at work while simultaneously not trying to shame or belittle anyone. I know that's a crazy thought, but you might give it a shot next time.
posted by pineapple at 6:48 AM on September 30, 2008 [22 favorites]


People are taking the words way too literally. 'NSFW' doesn't necessarily mean a heads up that's only relevant for people at work, and the term doesn't necessaily encompass only nudity, and the sole consequence of a NSFW page isn't necessarily trouble with an angry little boss, like a George Jetson cartoon. If you are in a public or semi-public place and you unexpectedly click on something with nudity in it, you can get in trouble, yes, but you can also just plain get embarrassed. Other people can get offended and other people can get the wrong idea, and, yes, even a paranoia about that can be embarrassing to a normal person. This is true for a number of places that have public computers, where what you are looking at will be conspicuous to some other people: schools, libraries, coffee shops.

And other things can be embarrassing too: a geo-site that unexpectedly starts blasting the hamster dance or Hit Me Baby One More Time in the school computer lab is embarrassing. So "NSFW: some nudity"; "NSFW: loud music loads"; "NSFW: large text swearing"; "NSFW: graphic surgery photos", are all common-sense courtesies for all the people who aren't necessarily in their house or on their own laptop somewhere, and have a bare minimum of normal social instincts and manners.

I'm very happy for all of you who purged all vestiges of shame years ago, and now walk around, proud chin tilted to the sky, with your beautiful, non-sinful, God's-image nutsack swinging out of a hole in your jeans ... the repressed public be damned. But many of us haven't been able to reach this level of Neo-like Enlightenment. Have mercy on us.
posted by dgaicun at 6:49 AM on September 30, 2008 [25 favorites]


But many of us haven't been able to reach this level of Neo-like Enlightenment. Have mercy on us.

Even if we have, have mercy on those that sit around us that haven't. Oh, and wash that thing once and a while too, please!
posted by Pollomacho at 7:14 AM on September 30, 2008


I really hate the fact that ... the group responses are always going to include:

Things that are true?
posted by five fresh fish at 7:15 AM on September 30, 2008


Klang = cock. This is well known.
posted by juiceCake at 7:17 AM on September 30, 2008


Things that are true? totally subjective, ergo there is no "truth"

There you go, fff. I helped.
posted by pineapple at 7:19 AM on September 30, 2008


Seriously, if your boss is going to get upset if you look at nekkid pictures, she's probably not going to be very happy to see you reading about the market for fish oil or anything else on MeFi.

I know the plural of anecdote is not data and all that, but I've worked at places where web browsing was not frowned upon as long as it didn't impact your work performance (and there were consequently no attempts at blocking/filtering whatsoever), but if you brought a company laptop in for service and the techs ran across porn on it, even (theoretically) in a browser cache, you would be terminated. Period.

Their rationale was that if they didn't have an absolute zero-tolerance-to-boobies policy, they would open themselves to hostile-workplace discrimination lawsuits. They were pants-shittingly afraid of this, or gave the appearances of it anyway.

While I was there several people were terminated under the policy, although I would argue that in reality the ultimate cause of their demise was in every case because they were assholes; the proximate cause only happened to be porn because it was a convenient way to get rid of them in a way that precluded them from having any recourse or appeal.

It was also described to me in training, completely deadpan, as the "if you're too stupid to avoid porn, you're too stupid to work here" policy.

I'm not sure how common attitudes like that are, but they exist.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:12 AM on September 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


you were in fact kind of a dick about it in there and you've been a dick in here too.

Yeah, I don't understand why klang, an intelligent and thoughtful guy, is unwilling or unable to curb his automatic dickishness. And jessamyn, I don't really think the fact that he apparently is nice to mods when they send him private e-mails about it makes it OK or means that people shouldn't call him on it in public because he doesn't take it well. I like the guy too, but he should stop being such a dick.
posted by languagehat at 8:13 AM on September 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


I failed to put a NSFW on a link to a video of a convicted paedo exposing himself once. Everyone was cool about it. MetaFilter is funny sometimes.
posted by jack_mo at 8:13 AM on September 30, 2008


Also, it's just plain idiotic to say "if you're at work, you should stay off the internet," and I wish people would stop doing it.
posted by languagehat at 8:14 AM on September 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


Yeah? You know what else is NSFW?

Goats.

Seriously, those little buggers can climb like crazy and they eat anything. You can't put stuff up high to get it away from them, and there is nothing worse than coming into your office and seeing one standing on your desk, calmly eating the report it took you four hours to compile.

They can get a bit aggressive as well; if they perceive you as a threat, you may find one whacking you in the knee with it's forehead, which is actually more painful than you would expect.

So, don't let goats into your office. It's just not safe.
posted by quin at 8:15 AM on September 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


And jessamyn, I don't really think the fact that he apparently is nice to mods when they send him private e-mails about it makes it OK or means that people shouldn't call him on it in public because he doesn't take it well.

It doesn't mean that. It means that people shouldn't call US out as doing nothing about klang and his fightiness.

So here you go: klang, please stop being so fighty, it's annoying and subverts your otherwise usually-decent arguments. Thank you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:22 AM on September 30, 2008


I failed to put a NSFW on a link to a video of a convicted paedo exposing himself once. Everyone was cool about it. MetaFilter is funny sometimes.

Apples and oranges. The situations that seem to be chafing people here are distinctly not "klangklangston failed to put a NSFW link on [NSFW material]."
posted by pineapple at 8:42 AM on September 30, 2008


> The way you and others tip-toe around klang's negativity astounds me.

Ditto here. The dude seems incapable of disagreeing with somebody without resorting to egregious insults, yet he never seems to get called on it, especially not by the mods.


In addition to Jess' key (and often I think maybe forgotten or just plain not considered) point that we talk to people behind the scenes on a pretty regular basis instead of doing everything as a public show in metatalk, what part of "klang ... you were in fact kind of a dick about it in there and you've been a dick in here too." strikes you as tiptoeing?
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:45 AM on September 30, 2008


I'm just wondering, and I'm saying this without judgement--but I'm wondering, those of you who would get in trouble for artistic boobs at work...wouldn't you get in trouble for...reading a forum-style-site instead of working?

Not necessarily? Obviously it's going to vary from workplace to workplace, but this isn't a clean equivalency. Getting in trouble for general surfing and getting in trouble for having naked people show up on your monitor aren't of a kind. The former is generally a very broad policy issue in the class of Unsanctioned Goofing-Off; the latter is hewing a lot closer, in those (many!) workplaces where it's an issue, to a Sexual Harrassment (or Unfriendly Work Environment) territory.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:50 AM on September 30, 2008


what part of "klang ... you were in fact kind of a dick about it in there and you've been a dick in here too." strikes you as tiptoeing?

Personally, I was thinking more of past klangups. But there was also all the "we support you in theory" stuff thrown in there and, especially, the bit where you also called sluglicker to task for posting the thread. All of which tends to overshadow "kind of a dick" which is used so often around these parts that it fades into background noise.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 9:02 AM on September 30, 2008


I'm just wondering, and I'm saying this without judgement--but I'm wondering, those of you who would get in trouble for artistic boobs at work...wouldn't you get in trouble for...reading a forum-style-site instead of working?

Lots of jobs have downtime. Some jobs have lots of downtime.
posted by Bookhouse at 9:16 AM on September 30, 2008


This is just the way klang rolls and I'm not sure that's ever going to change. You've been here five times longer than I have; how do you not know this?
posted by adamdschneider at 9:26 AM on September 30, 2008


I was thinking more of past klangups.

Every day is a brand new day/
Why not make today your brand new day/
Approach the day in a brand new way/
Because everyday is a
brand
new
daaaaaaaaaay!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:27 AM on September 30, 2008


But there was also all the "we support you in theory" stuff thrown in there

But that's not tiptoeing, that's agreeing. The NSFW argument is not a new one, and I'm not nor will I ever likely be a hardline "everything should be labeled NSFW always unless you're a bad person" believer. I think NSFW labeling is a good thing to do as a courtesy, though I'm obviously not against intervening to provide that courtesy myself if a poster on the front page fails to do so.

People will unthinkingly or mistakenly post unlabeled-but-arguably-NSFW stuff without malice, though, and I think that's perfectly understandable and forgiveable when it's e.g. art or photography that involves nudity as opposed to like a graphic goat-fucking video. That's why I said that a quick "oops, my bad" from klang would have been a nice non-dick move, and why I called him a dick for failing to go there.

and, especially, the bit where you also called sluglicker to task for posting the thread.

klang doing something bad doesn't make sluglicker automatically perfect. I believe I understand where he's coming from and I sympathize with that impetus, but his tag on the end of his own post was a stupid distraction from whatever merit his callout had.

I'm okay with moving on to the dispensing of hugs at this point, but it'd be comforting to have it acknowledged that there's a big difference betweeen coddling someone and merely not yelling at him enough or ignoring the problems with the things other people are saying.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:35 AM on September 30, 2008


hugs!
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:39 AM on September 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


"Dude, get a life." is simply not comparable to some of the shit klang has said without (public) comment from the mods. Talking with klang via memail or whatever is dandy, but it *is* special treatment. I'll acknowledge yours if you acknowledge mine.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 9:48 AM on September 30, 2008


I'll acknowledge yours if you acknowledge mine.

You know, that's not really how things work here.

Long time users who have made a lot of good contributions to the site get more leeway, sure, because we're sure they know the rules. As far as that goes, almost everyone who has been here for several years gets "special" treatment because we're more inclined to presume that people understand the rules which we dont assume for newer users.

Additionally, a lot of klang's acting out is in Metatalk which is nearly unmoderated. klang's antics here do cause us to revisit whether that approach to MetaTalk is always a good idea because he is one of the short list of people who seems to abuse the lack of comment deletion that happens here.

No one is drawing equivalencies between sluglicker's little tag line and the general fightiness that klang seems to bring with him places. However, it's worth nothing that callouts are more effective the less they come with barbs or digs at the subject of the callout. Just because we say there are two things needing improvement doesn't mean that those thigns are in any way equivalent or even similar.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:59 AM on September 30, 2008


Dude, get a life." is simply not comparable to some of the shit klang has said without (public) comment from the mods.

And yet, it's still a shitty thing to say. And I can't travel back in time to make sure klang got sufficiently dicksmacked every time he got his grrr-arg on, but this is definitely not the first time I've told him he was acting like a jerk.

Talking with klang via memail or whatever is dandy, but it *is* special treatment.

The thing is, it's not. We talk to users every day via email/mefimail. It's actually a huge part of our job. It's how 90% of the user problems here get handled, and it's a big part of the reason that (cue wailing of popcorn-munching crowds, I know) Metatalk isn't an insufferable twenty-posts-a-day bog of interpersonal dramarama bullshit. Knowing that we can help resolve an issue behind the scenes is good for everybody save the folks angling for a public shaming.

I will happily acknowledge that I'm not trying to equate sluglicker's behavior in this callout with klang's behavior in that thread and this'n. I have problems with both, but they are different problems, and while I don't think this is a great way to frame these things, I acknowledge that klang Started It.

I cannot acknowledge the special treatment thing because it's fundamentally missing the point of how we do our jobs, but I do appreciate where you're coming from as far as the perception of special treatment, so I hear you there and hope you understand more where we're coming from on that front.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:01 AM on September 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Also: hugs.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:03 AM on September 30, 2008


Hey, Brainscan was pretty good. Mid-'90s technophobe horror (the game is gonna be sweet—it's on a CD-ROM!).

Regarding the actual substance of the call out, here's what I said in the thread:

I honestly didn't even think of it. It's got some art nudes, no sex, and a fairly sophisticated presentation. On top of that, it's perfectly safe at my work.

Meaning: I honestly didn't even think about the photos being not safe for work. Just not on my radar.

Regarding the "Take me to MeTa": Like Alvy mentions above, I didn't want the thread to turn into a giant mass of back and forth about what I saw (and still see) as a quibbling issue.

Then Cortex added the NSFWish, I figured we were done, no big deal. I mentioned that in a memail to Jokeefe, where I apologized for coming across as prickly. I didn't do that in the thread because, again, I didn't want the thread to be a referendum on NSFW.

So, then, what, like eight hours later or something, I see this MeTa tossed up. Given that I already thought the issue had been resolved, and that I was enjoying my post-dinner endrunkening, and that the call out itself was more crap from a user with a history of crappy MeTa posts and crappy deleted FPPs, I didn't take it seriously, well, really at all. My positions on NSFW are pretty well stated, and I knew that if people really wanted to hash this out again, that folks like Five Fresh Fish would say pretty much what I was going to say anyways, with the benefit of not being personally involved in the call out.

Other, ancillary points—What's NSFW at my job is videos (and games, sometimes). So I don't watch 'em at work. Is every video labeled? Nope. Likewise, loud sound, etc. I roll with it, because it's not a big deal.

I have never had a job where artistic nudity was not safe (with a caveat I'll explain in a moment), and I kind of feel that folks arguing that any nudity at all is NSFW are being silly, and folks that are implying that there's no difference between this and porn are being silly. I realize that my work experience isn't the same as many of the rest of yours, but again, I don't work where you work, and I don't really feel all that much responsibility toward making sure that you aren't violating your workplace dicta. I feel even less responsibility toward those who would be embarrassed by the nudity on that site, and the chances that I will be convinced by that argument are vanishingly small. Especially when it's less explicit than an Italian billboard.

The actual work policy of my office now is that any personal use of computers at all is verboten. At my previous job at the newspaper, there was no policy except that you couldn't be actively distracting your coworkers (basically, wear headphones), and folks regularly had artistic nudity up. At my magazine job, the same was true. At the grocery store I worked at prior to that, the break-room computer had a regular hippy nude screen-saver. I would have to go back to the employment policy at Kinko's, which still only prohibited "sexually explicit" content, and only then for staff (not customers). So, while I realize that my employment history is pretty atypical, it's never been an issue and isn't one I think about at all.

So, will I try to be more courteous regarding the puritan working conditions of my countrymen? Sure, but since the number of NSFW posts I make is pretty small and it's never going to be a front-of-the-brain sort of consideration, I'll still probably miss them here and there. Am I going to continue to be a dick when admonished to "get a life" by folks truly concerned about my lack of contrition on a policy sub-site? Yeah, probably.
posted by klangklangston at 10:06 AM on September 30, 2008


AARGH WHY ARE PEOPLE TOUCHING ME STOP THAT.
posted by loquacious at 10:11 AM on September 30, 2008


Just because we say there are two things needing improvement doesn't mean that those thigns are in any way equivalent or even similar.

I do appreciate where you're coming from as far as the perception of special treatment so I hear you there and hope you understand more where we're coming from on that front.


Cool.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 10:19 AM on September 30, 2008


I work from home. Even if I weren't, we're allowed to surf while things load/process/render/etc., so my only concern is the filter system we have on our network. I avoid anything that could set those filters off; it helps mightily to have posters self-indicate so I can look after I've logged off from work.

The other thing: it's not always a roomful of free-minded adults in the room when one is online...some folks here have kids or other less worldly people around when they're online. It's a huge help to more easily avoid controversial clicks by a clear identifier that the content may not necessarily be PG.

Much thanks to those who remember to use those simple little letters. They make being on MetaFilter one of the least stressful ways to fend off isolation, stay informed, and remain continuously amused.
posted by batmonkey at 10:58 AM on September 30, 2008


I have never had a job where artistic nudity was not safe (with a caveat I'll explain in a moment), and I kind of feel that folks arguing that any nudity at all is NSFW are being silly

This is not about your employment history, klang. You know perfectly well what NSFW means, people are not "being silly," and the only salient point is that the issue "isn't one I think about at all." (Despite the fact it's come up here repeatedly, but let that go.) It's great that you're going to try to be more courteous, and I truly appreciate it, but please quit with the I WORK IN PORN SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR SILLY NSFW nonsense.
posted by languagehat at 11:12 AM on September 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


roll truck roll: "23Yeah, I've never quite gotten what people hate so much about adding an NSFW. NSFW does not mean porn."

Not to derail, but could you all start using a "NSFW porn" tag where appropriate? Because it would really make it SO much easier when I am searching for quality porn um, objectionable material to avoid.
posted by misha at 11:37 AM on September 30, 2008


sluglicker: I am a little fearful after viewing his profile and that gun pointed at me [shivers].

Here -- SFW klangklangston.

posted by not_on_display at 11:48 AM on September 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


"It's great that you're going to try to be more courteous, and I truly appreciate it, but please quit with the I WORK IN PORN SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR SILLY NSFW nonsense."

Boy, for someone who's quick to admonish on dickery, you sure don't seem to abstain. Like, y'know, if I point out that it's not just this job, but every job for the last ten years, where seeing female nipples is as SFW as going on Metafilter itself, and when I acknowledge that I know that this isn't necessarily typical, then you go off on the shouty-caps and misconstrue what I just said? Kinda just makes me wanna say, "Fuck you. READ MOAR."
posted by klangklangston at 12:01 PM on September 30, 2008


Kinda just makes me wanna say, "Fuck you. READ MOAR."

Well maybe you could hold off on that in the interest of this not turning into yet another MetaTalk thread that ends with two dudes shouting at each other?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:10 PM on September 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


cue wailing of popcorn-munching crowds

I would prefer the whaling of popcorn-munching crowds. Could you cue that up as well?
posted by SpiffyRob at 12:22 PM on September 30, 2008


Yeah, hold off for a bit. I need to print the tickets first.
posted by adamdschneider at 12:28 PM on September 30, 2008


Boy, for someone who's quick to admonish on dickery, you sure don't seem to abstain.

Fair enough, but hey, it takes one to know one!
posted by languagehat at 12:29 PM on September 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


It's flameout season on MetaTalk!

*secures loan to buy popcorn futures*
posted by GuyZero at 12:36 PM on September 30, 2008


WOULD YOU TWO PLEASE JUST HAVE SEX ALREADY
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:41 PM on September 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


it takes one to know one

Er, I just realized that was ambiguous. It could be read as directed at klang, in which case I would have been unconscionably adding to the General Dickishness Quotient, but in fact it was directed at myself, in an attempt to up the Hug Index. I have foiled myself!

*has sex, flames out*
posted by languagehat at 12:50 PM on September 30, 2008


Shit, GDQ is down. Better short DTMFA.
posted by adamdschneider at 1:07 PM on September 30, 2008


Yes, kids, there will always be teachers' pets, even after you finish school, and they'll always be able to get away with saying things that would get you a time-out detention, because the teacher thinks they're so cute.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 2:10 PM on September 30, 2008


I bet that somewhere someone is reading this thread and feeling nostalgic.
"I remember back in days", this person is thinking. "If I wanted to look at porn I could just close the door and reach for that special 5 1/4 floppy *hehe* disc labelled "budget report". Sure, the naked bodies were in ASCII and they were green on black, but still. They were naked. Plop that disc into my 486 and I could look how much I wanted. The bosses, none the wiser. Kids today, they make one false click on the internet and they're toast. Man, they've got it rough."
posted by soundofsuburbia at 3:34 PM on September 30, 2008



Boy, for someone who's quick to admonish on dickery, you sure don't seem to abstain.

Fair enough, but hey, it takes one to know one!


Although I have not been involved up to this point, I would also like to sign up for the dick team.
posted by Meatbomb at 3:46 PM on September 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


THIS is totally NSFW. Or maybe it is. I just don't know anymore.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 3:50 PM on September 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


I bet that somewhere someone is reading this thread and feeling nostalgic.

So, back in the day I was a co-op student at Corel. I had a classmate who was a co-op there a few years later. People may remember Corel's flamboyant founder-CEO.

When I was there there was no network - we had to copy any code changes to disk and hand them to the guy who merged everything by hand. By the time my friend got there they had a LANMAN-era network. Or Windows for Workgroups or something of that ilk.

Anyway, as co-op students are prone to do he was crawling through shared drives one night looking for software to copy or whatever. What he found, among other things, were digital copies of photos of the CEO's wife in lingerie. Remember that this was back in the days before digital cameras so someone had to actually scan this stuff in. He had no ides whose machine the files were on.

Anyway the second it came up on his screen he panicked. He didn't know if his access to the files could be tracked. The CEO's wife was on his screen, half-naked. NSFW indeed. He closed the picture viewer app, disconnected the network share and deleted anything that seemed non-essential on his computer.

In retrospect, he figures he should have kept copies.
posted by GuyZero at 4:02 PM on September 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


I guess should have checked Metatalk yesterday. This explains some of the Memail I received, anyway.

For what it's worth, klang wrote to me shortly after making his post which complained about my NSFW request and apologized for being "prickly", so I wrote back to him and figured all was well in Metaland. Just to add my perspective here.
posted by jokeefe at 4:48 PM on September 30, 2008


Instead, people are just advocating allowing readers to make informed choices about what they view. It's unfortunate that the term "NSFW" carries so much etymological baggage, but it just refers to particular types of content--it's not a moral judgment.

I just agreed with MPDSEA. I feel soiled, somehow.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:49 PM on September 30, 2008


goddamn preview

Although I have not been involved up to this point, I would also like to sign up for the dick team.

It's easier than you think. Find a large concentration of well dressed men with great hair and floppy wrists, and take off your clothes.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:51 PM on September 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


fighty?
posted by jonmc at 5:09 PM on September 30, 2008


"'klang ... you were in fact kind of a dick about it in there and you've been a dick in here too.' strikes you as tiptoeing?"

Stop, or I'll say stop again!
posted by terrapin at 5:23 PM on September 30, 2008


MetaFilter: ends with two dudes shouting at each other.
posted by loquacious at 5:33 PM on September 30, 2008


*shouts*
*shouts*
*knocks self out*
posted by jonmc at 5:40 PM on September 30, 2008


*shout*
*shout*
*let it all out*
*these are the things i can do without*
*come on*
*i'm talking to you*
*come on*

Thread rating: Needs more p0rn.

what a tragedy, the loss of the img tag...
posted by five fresh fish at 7:12 PM on September 30, 2008


*shakes it up, baby*
*twists*
*shouts*
posted by jonmc at 7:19 PM on September 30, 2008


I used to be a switch hitter for the dick team. Those twats traded me to the New York Tits. What a bunch of assholes.
posted by Sailormom at 9:50 PM on September 30, 2008


Those twats traded me to the New York Tits. What a bunch of assholes.

Well at least you went to New York. I played a few seasons for the Hartford All-Around Goodguys, got injured and then released, and ended up playing for whoever would sign me, which happened to be the double-A Memphis Goatfuckers.
posted by not_on_display at 5:25 AM on October 1, 2008


Hey, at least you were in double-A. I wound up on the single-A Wasilla Goatse. You should have seen their mascot.
posted by languagehat at 7:35 AM on October 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


OMG DO NOT CLICK WILL MELT MIND
posted by Artw at 10:09 AM on October 1, 2008


Oh yeah. I was drafted by the Tennessee Tubgirls. No mascot, but good grief, that fountain in the lobby...
posted by jonmc at 4:57 PM on October 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Given that I already thought the issue had been resolved

I would have no idea that it was; it wasn't done in-thread.

the call out itself was more crap from a user with a history of crappy MeTa posts and crappy deleted FPPs, I didn't take it seriously, well, really at all.

You're not the only one who thinks that way. I post things that I think others would enjoy or appreciate in some way. Obviously, you don't see any value in what I contribute here, and that's OK. My perception of you, based on your interaction with other members, is that you are often rude and exceedingly insulting. I don't think I've ever read anything you've wrote that has made my life better or made me happy. Maybe you are successful at insulting and bullying people here and in real life, and I guess that makes you feel good about yourself; maybe others respect you for it.

cortex and jessamyn: Sorry, but I've been away for a few days, so I haven't been keeping current here. I appreciate what you've written and I'll refrain from similar behavior in the future.
posted by sluglicker at 9:30 PM on October 1, 2008


Dude, way to kill a thread that had moved on to Minor League Internet Memes.

(I'd go to more Chatsworth Serious Business games if they didn't punch that girl in the stomach every seventh-inning stretch.)
posted by klangklangston at 3:15 PM on October 2, 2008


I went to a Main Screen Turn On game once and those bastards stole every single base in the game.
posted by GuyZero at 3:33 PM on October 2, 2008


So i herd u liek Toledo Mudkips
posted by klangklangston at 5:05 PM on October 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


Probably wouldn't have looked at the post at all if there hadn't been a NSFW warning.

[NSFW] is the best advertisement for your post imaginable, I don't know why people don't use it on every post they make.
posted by voltairemodern at 7:16 AM on October 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


« Older Travelfilter DOA?   |   They're in ur browzer, refrrring your sitez! Newer »

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