Love Minus Zero No Limit

June 17, 2011 4:18 PM

What is the gross out limit for an FPP. I came across a series of videos that I feel would make a great FPP. Much cultural and social connection. Unfortunately these NSFW videos are graphic beyond belief including many photographs of decapitations, burned bodies, and too many dead bodies to count. I could just go ahead and post it and face deletion but I wanted to be clear about what are limit here is advance. Is there a gross out limit?
posted by Xurando to Etiquette/Policy at 4:18 PM (123 comments total)

Just post it. The worst that can happen is a terrible conversation, much flagging, and a deletion of the post. Just don't put in more than 30 mins constructing the post and you won't be disappointed. You can help define the limits, I guess. Make sure to have clear nsfw and trigger warnings, and post bloody descriptions/foul language below the fold.

Or: frame it objectively and maturely, let the content speak for itself. and remember, this isn't something awful!
posted by kittensofthenight at 4:23 PM on June 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Please don't post it. I can't imagine a good reason why someone would want to post a graphic video of dead mutilated bodies. Does it tie into a massacre or story of some sort? Even then, I'd rather get the all-text version of the story without the maimed humans pictured and videoed.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:24 PM on June 17, 2011 [89 favorites]

I think if we're talking about gross-out stuff in general (and maybe documentary gore in particular) it comes down to the question of why it's worth posting. Gross for gross' sake is not a good idea; on the other hand, if there's a darned good reason for it and there's content to the post beyond just WOW GROSS and you frame it carefully with due warning, it may be a workable post.

The amount of care and consideration required needs to scale up with the provocative or disturbing nature of the material in question; "graphic beyond belief" and "too many dead bodies to count" sounds like you're scraping the stratosphere there, so it'd really need to be something exceptional and with some serious inherent cultural value to make sense, I think.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:26 PM on June 17, 2011 [12 favorites]

or, y'know, just listen to the mods.
posted by kittensofthenight at 4:30 PM on June 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

I'd also like to post a graphic video. Is it ok if two females share one drinking container?
posted by hal_c_on at 4:31 PM on June 17, 2011 [28 favorites]

I'm guessing based on the tag that this is an FPP about the Alarma! videos: Alarma! magazine catalogs crime and violence in Mexico City, a town where a cop is killed almost everyday.
posted by mykescipark at 4:31 PM on June 17, 2011

Alternatively, send it to an appreciative audience: rotten.com still exists, if you didn't get it from there, and if they don't have it already.
posted by jocelmeow at 4:31 PM on June 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

Please don't post it. I can't imagine a good reason why someone would want to post a graphic video of dead mutilated bodies. Does it tie into a massacre or story of some sort? Even then, I'd rather get the all-text version of the story without the maimed humans pictured and videoed.

I agree with Matt...but I DO see good reasons to post that kind of grossness. I just don't think it accomplishes what it was meant to...on metafilter. So I concur with the mods.

Merry christmas everybody!
posted by hal_c_on at 4:33 PM on June 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Some cursory Googling makes Alarma sound very interesting and FPP worthy if well handled.
posted by Bookhouse at 4:35 PM on June 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Without posting the vids/pics...what the hell is this about? Some one-off mass murder, or some kind of outrageous recent genocide that I haven't heard about?
posted by hal_c_on at 4:35 PM on June 17, 2011

Let's please not do the thing where we turn the MeTa into the post. Please.
posted by mintcake! at 4:36 PM on June 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

No disrespect, hal_c_on.
posted by mintcake! at 4:37 PM on June 17, 2011

(Sorry, I posted the link. Feel free to remove it.)
posted by mykescipark at 4:38 PM on June 17, 2011

This is a 45 minute video of the lives of tabloid photographers in Mexico City. Beyond the bodies it gets deep into Mexican culture particularly the Mexican relationship to violence and death. I was moved by it but I always take counsel from mathowie. I think I could frame it within cortex's "darned good reason" but should I?
posted by Xurando at 4:40 PM on June 17, 2011

I say post the video with a clear description of what they contain, and if people don't want to watch it, they don't have to.
posted by andoatnp at 4:55 PM on June 17, 2011

a cop is killed almost everyday

They let zombies be cops in Mexico?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:55 PM on June 17, 2011 [4 favorites]

I think I could frame it within cortex's "darned good reason" but should I?

Write up the post, then sleep on it, don't post it. In the morning, if you still feel it's something worth sharing in spite of the gross out and not because of it, then go ahead.

Just be sure and clearly label that the post has NSFW elements and put the links/title below the fold.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:56 PM on June 17, 2011

There's been some great long-form journalism pieces on the subject. A great piece was published here in Seattle about the cocaine trade that got into the violence in Mexico. Here's the first part, which doesn't delve into the violence in Mexico. The last part of the series did use some shock photos. I'm from San Diego and over the last 5-6 years the entire cities relationship with TJ has changed, completely gutting TJ's tourist industry. It's a huge topic of conversation and has significantly changed the cultural landscape along the border.

Anyway I'd love to see post on the subject. I don't think you want to make the video a centerpiece, but I'm really interested in seeing what Mefi has to say about the topic.
posted by kittensofthenight at 4:57 PM on June 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

I assume we're all mature enough to handle a little graphic content. Of course, I have seen those vile posters the anti-abortion people like to walk around with, so little shocks me at this point.
posted by reenum at 5:01 PM on June 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

What about the sex gross out limit? I'm asking for "a friend."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:06 PM on June 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

Write it up and send it to the mods for consideratiob. They'll tell you if it will fly.

Standards for gross out videos? Depends on the video and the context. I watched a group of people get machine gunned to death, but it was linked to the WikiLeaks story, and I don't think I could have fully appreciated the discussion withoyt at least having access to the video.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:07 PM on June 17, 2011

Sometimes the truth is "gross."
posted by psyche7 at 5:37 PM on June 17, 2011 [4 favorites]

Please don't, unless there is something so noteworthy that it will get over the instant revulsion people are likely to feel. "graphic beyond belief" is something that is likely to make a lot of people feel uncomfortable. That's not in and of itself a bad thing, but that can mean that a thread can go bad very very quickly unless it's handled carefully and respectfully. So, use your best judgment, but I'd advise no.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:43 PM on June 17, 2011

metafiter: or, y'know, just listen to the mods.

Wrong thread?
posted by cjorgensen at 5:53 PM on June 17, 2011

What about the sex gross out limit? I'm asking for "a friend."

I remember the last time your "friend" asked this question. I awoke in your basement after an unknown period of unconsciousness, wearing a "slave Leia" costume and shackled to a life size sculpture of Jabba the Hutt rendered in unsalted butter.
posted by loquacious at 6:00 PM on June 17, 2011 [8 favorites]

...speaking of being handled carefully and respectively.
posted by herbplarfegan at 6:07 PM on June 17, 2011

but I always take counsel from mathowie.

I can just you two hanging in Vegas, harassing cocktail waitresses, pushing pit bosses, matthowie drunk on peach schnapps yelling "As your attorney, I advise you to post that dink...ummmm link...drink that post...aww fuck it all. Lets get some blow."
posted by hal_c_on at 6:08 PM on June 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

No disrespect, hal_c_on.

None taken. Sorry for almost doing that.
posted by hal_c_on at 6:13 PM on June 17, 2011

What happens on Tatooine stays on Tatooine, loq.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:21 PM on June 17, 2011 [4 favorites]

"What about the sex gross out limit?"

Two words.

Monkey.

Spooge.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:37 PM on June 17, 2011

One word.

Sockpuppet.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:39 PM on June 17, 2011

Even though I wouldn't be interested in clicking on those kinds of videos, I know they have a worthwhile purpose when presented in a factual, non-sensationalized context, but the way the MeTa post is worded, it sounds like someone describing their morbid excitement at having discovered the Faces of Death series sitting on the dusty VHS shelves at the Goodwill.

I'm not casting aspersions on you personally, Xurando, just on the way the post comes across. I'm sure you have good intentions, but with this kind of subject matter it's better not to leave any room for doubt. If you do decide to post an FPP, my unsolicited advice would be for you to use more matter-of-fact language in describing the links.

If a post says "graphic beyond belief... too many dead bodies to count" it sounds like you're highlighting the gross-out factor, but if you say something more neutral like "warning: graphic violence/images" you're setting a better tone, letting people know that it's about a serious issue that includes some relevant visuals that might be disturbing, and not just a "Check out this decapitated head" kind of thing.
posted by amyms at 6:59 PM on June 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

I disagree with mathowie and agree with cortex. I'd be kind of disappointed if gross/disturbing alone were enough to make a post unsuitable for the site. If the post is good and the disturbing/gross stuff adds up to something interesting or even important, I'd like this place to be able to handle it. That said, it's really awful to subject people to stuff like that without ample warning, so, yeah, do that.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:45 PM on June 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

carbon freeze, yes!
posted by clavdivs at 7:47 PM on June 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

It's up
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:48 PM on June 17, 2011

I disagree with mathowie and agree with cortex.

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!

Actually, my vote is also with cortex over mathowie on this one. I think a cautiously-worded FPP showing the value of the piece (its discussion, for example, of the strong cultural fascination/semi-obsession with violence and death in Mexico) while being clear that the video has very graphic depictions of violence and its aftermath is reasonable.

At least then we can judge the video in question on its merits rather than trying to weigh its whole value simply on a few hot-button descriptors.
posted by chimaera at 7:51 PM on June 17, 2011

Hmm. Weegee is one of my all-time hero photographers, and as a news shutterbug, he looked at it as his job to show it as it was, dead bodies and all.

The dead bodies made the story that much more real and visceral - and if you go back a ways, Frank Capra and Matthew Brady also didn't shy away from unpleasant reality. (Cue Matthew Brady staged-corpse controversy in 3... 2... 1... )

If the photos are actual and real journalism, and not just gross-out-for-gross-out's-sake, I say post it. It can make a real difference, as the uncensored photos from Viet Nam - of the monk self-immolating, of the summary execution of a suspected VC by a South Vietnamese officer, of the girl with the clothes burned off her body by napalm - made a difference in ending that stupid, senseless war.

We live in a society where we hold our representatives accountable for what the government does. If a government policy results in hell and horror for ordinary people in the nation next door, we have a right and and obligation to know.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:57 PM on June 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Yo is this the thread where I can see the blown up heads?
posted by nathancaswell at 7:57 PM on June 17, 2011

The FPP has like 10% of the nsfw-gore-warning that this post has. Dude, what?
posted by mendel at 8:07 PM on June 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

I've been there. I made a post about Ciudad Juárez and Bolaño a couple of years ago, and I came across a site with crime scene photographs. They were very, very horrifying. I still carry some of those images around with me in my head to this day. It is not pleasant.

These photos were so strong I figured that any other link I would share alongside it would get obliterated by the sheer emotional horror. So I had two options, not include the link or just post the link solo. Neither was ideal, but I figured that the former would maximize signal-to-noise, so I went with that.

Some things are so awful to face that no conversation is possible, yet one is forced to scream, to let out some of the horror. That makes for bad internet conversation, unfortunately.
posted by Kattullus at 8:13 PM on June 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

It's the god-damned internet, you ninnies.
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:23 PM on June 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Not wanting to see death and dismemberment in a video doesn't make someone a ninny.
posted by donnagirl at 8:27 PM on June 17, 2011 [8 favorites]

And just to be clear, I don't think "Here is their story of working in the midst of death." conveys the same message as "NSFW videos are graphic beyond belief including many photographs of decapitations, burned bodies, and too many dead bodies to count".
posted by donnagirl at 8:35 PM on June 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

DO NOT WANT.
posted by babbyʼ); Drop table users; -- at 8:36 PM on June 17, 2011

And who made you click that link, donnagirl? Were the words ugliest, kill, and mayhem not clear enough for you? Did this MetaTalk thread not provide enough warning?

Are you familiar with the term concern troll?
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:37 PM on June 17, 2011

It's the god-damned internet, you ninnies.

The internet is big, and contains plenty of venues that are not this one.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:38 PM on June 17, 2011

Indeed, it is, and it does, Sys Rq. Plenty of other things to click on, if you like.
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:40 PM on June 17, 2011

Whoa, ok, you couldn't possibly know whether I saw the thread first, or the MeTa first, so whether the MeTa was warning is wholly irrelevant. I actually haven't clicked the link, I have no intention of clicking the link, and it's ok for me to express my opinion here, where we talk about things, without you calling me a troll.
posted by donnagirl at 8:40 PM on June 17, 2011 [14 favorites]

Indeed, it is, and it does, Sys Rq. Plenty of other things to click on, if you like.

And link from.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:42 PM on June 17, 2011

Yes, there are many, many things on the internet, many things to link from, and click on, and look at. Not sure what your point is.
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:49 PM on June 17, 2011

My point is that there is no need to post that stuff here.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:54 PM on June 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

So here's the thing about NSFW. I avoid a lot of stuff at work. I wouldn't click on a picture of a naked person at work, for instance, even though I find such images inoffensive and would click through if I weren't at work. For me, the bar for NSFW is pretty low. So if you want to warn me that something has really graphic pictures of decapitated and disemboweled corpses, I would rather you say something like "this has really graphic pictures of mutilated corpses," rather than NSFW. NSFW is open-ended enough so that it's not clear to me that I might not want to click on it even if I'm at home.
posted by craichead at 8:55 PM on June 17, 2011 [5 favorites]

Could we all try being just a little bit meaner to one another?
posted by shakespeherian at 8:56 PM on June 17, 2011 [11 favorites]

I bet the mods were looking forward to going to bed rightt about now....
posted by wheelieman at 8:59 PM on June 17, 2011

Hmm. MoonPies certainly do taste good, but exchange a couple of words and you have a much more doubtful proposition.
posted by jamjam at 9:00 PM on June 17, 2011

Does anyone need to read MetaFilter at all? Does anyone need to post stories about Jon Stewart, or Lou Dobbs, or natural gas in tapwater, or Brazil's new water conservation campaign?

I'm interested in some things you aren't. You (probably) like some things I don't like. The world is an amazingly large place.
posted by MrMoonPie at 9:00 PM on June 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

Xurando's MeTa wording had me going 'Uh, no way,' but their second comment did a great job of clarifying and the FPP's presentation is tasteful and considered.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:04 PM on June 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Just need someone to blow the cruft out of FPP's comments...
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:06 PM on June 17, 2011

Does anyone need to read MetaFilter at all? Does anyone need to post stories about Jon Stewart, or Lou Dobbs, or natural gas in tapwater, or Brazil's new water conservation campaign?

Yes.

YES, DAMMIT!!!
posted by Sys Rq at 9:09 PM on June 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

Seems like a fine post, though marking the "previously" link as the only NSFW one confused a lot of people and could have been an avoidable early-thread-derail.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:27 PM on June 17, 2011

Delete all the meta-discussion in the thread, or delete none.
posted by MrMoonPie at 9:35 PM on June 17, 2011

I left the comments where people were commenting on the content of the post. Other stuff needs to go here. Late Friday nights really isn't the most awesome time to try to manage something like this, my apologies.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:45 PM on June 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

I prefer it when you delete less stuff.
posted by MrMoonPie at 10:05 PM on June 17, 2011

One thing I would suggest is changing the above the fold post to be:

[graphic images and content Very NSFW and NSFC not safe for children]. (Previously).

It fixes the scanning of the article and the assumption that "previously" is the not safe for work/ graphic images vs every link. Even the first link contains a dead body, although you have to read the byline to notice it.

Also, since you (Xurando) had posted this meta in a way to ask for phrasing or how to present the alarma video, I might offer this copy editing:

Enrique Metinides artfully captured five decades of mayhem in Mexico City, including the graphic images of dead bodies. His successors keep his tradition alive. "David Alvarado is a quiet guy who does one of the ugliest jobs in this world but he will win your sympathy with his famous saying "se logró el objetivo" (the objective was accomplished). [Articles contain graphic images of death and/or violence]

[more inside]
The new generation of Mexican tabloid photographers carry on his tradition and the dangerous work of working the night shift in Mexico City. Here is their story of working in the midst of death. (NSFW). (Previously)

I realize that you had posted the article in good faith, but as craichead had pointed out, claiming images as "NSFW or NSFC" leaves a lot to be interpreted. If you were worried about grossing out or offending people in the future, you may want to include the more detailed comment that doesn't leave as much open to interpretation. The photos contain images of dead bodies, not everyone is really expecting to see those, so you might want to put the warning in the first sentence, etc.
posted by mrzarquon at 10:14 PM on June 17, 2011

Also, that being said, I think the post and subject matter is fascinating, I just wanted to point out some subtle changes to the framing that may (possibly) have avoided some of the complaints that came up here.
posted by mrzarquon at 10:16 PM on June 17, 2011

I prefer it when you delete less stuff.

You have every right to that preference, but we're still going to clean stuff up. Leaving a comment in the thread largely arguing with comments that aren't even in the thread at this point is not really helping the post on the blue get off to any better of a start.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:19 PM on June 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

what is it about Friday nights and mod-randomising activity? what a strange pattern.
posted by batmonkey at 11:35 PM on June 17, 2011

You have every right to that preference, but we're still going to clean stuff up. Leaving a comment in the thread largely arguing with comments that aren't even in the thread at this point is not really helping the post on the blue get off to any better of a start.

I disagree with what you are not eating right now.
posted by hal_c_on at 11:40 PM on June 17, 2011

Tell it to the Hut.
posted by clavdivs at 12:23 AM on June 18, 2011

What about the sex gross out limit?

Grumblebee took a bit of a beating for linking Plushie Schwartz.
posted by flabdablet at 1:56 AM on June 18, 2011

craichead: "would rather you say something like "this has really graphic pictures of mutilated corpses,""

I have seen NSFL used in these situations ("not safe for life" is what urban dictionary calls it, but "not safe for lunch" as in "may make you vomit" also works).
posted by idiopath at 2:45 AM on June 18, 2011

So, to recap, Metatalk inquiring if OP should post "NSFW videos [that] are graphic beyond belief including many photographs of decapitations, burned bodies, and too many dead bodies to count."

Site owner tells you, "Please don't post it." OP posts it anyway. Awesome.
posted by mlis at 3:38 AM on June 18, 2011 [5 favorites]

"NSFW" is what you write if you want as many people as possible to click on your links.
posted by John Cohen at 3:43 AM on June 18, 2011

Yeah, Mathowie said don't post it but it remains and it is well within his power to delete it.
posted by josher71 at 5:30 AM on June 18, 2011 [1 favorite]

I won't be clicking the links or reading the thread. I'm disappointed it's here. I fail to see how "photographs of decapitations, burned bodies, and too many dead bodies to count" will enlighten me in any way. How do you feel after you've seen them? I know how I will feel. Why is this a great FPP? Does this post make MeFi a better, more interesting place?
posted by rain at 5:36 AM on June 18, 2011

Does this post make MeFi a better, more interesting place?

Yes, much more so than yet another fanboy Pixar post. It's not a rotten.com-style gross-out video; it's a documentary about a particular kind of journalism in Mexico City. No one is requiring you to open the "more inside," much less click on any of the links.
posted by Forktine at 5:42 AM on June 18, 2011 [10 favorites]

I'm not clicking on it, either, rain, and I think it would have been better if the warnings on the FPP were a little clearer, but it sounds like a good post to me. It's about the Mexican tabloid press and how that press reflects (or maybe contributes to) attitudes towards death and violence in Mexican culture, right? That's a perfectly fascinating topic, as far as I'm concerned. I just don't personally want to see a lot of graphic pictures in order to learn about it.
posted by craichead at 5:42 AM on June 18, 2011 [1 favorite]

Yes, much more so than yet another fanboy Pixar post.

So, to be clear, our only choices are "photographs of decapitations, burned bodies, and too many dead bodies to count" or "fanboy Pixar post(s)"?
posted by rain at 5:51 AM on June 18, 2011 [1 favorite]

So, to be clear, our only choices are "photographs of decapitations, burned bodies, and too many dead bodies to count" or "fanboy Pixar post(s)"?

No, plenty of middle ground. However edge cases are not immediately excluded.
posted by josher71 at 5:55 AM on June 18, 2011

Last year, I posted a video of some people in Florida watching the ill-fated launch of the space shuttle Challenger from their backyard...all you could see of the shuttle was the contrail and the subsequent larger cloud from the explosion, nothing even remotely graphic at all, and not even what was shown over and over on TV. And I caught a ration of shit because I posted a video in which people were killed. Gauge your actions accordingly.
posted by briank at 6:16 AM on June 18, 2011

So, to be clear, our only choices are "photographs of decapitations, burned bodies, and too many dead bodies to count" or "fanboy Pixar post(s)"?

Yes, that's definitely the point I was making, thanks for the hard work you put into clarifying that.

Seriously, people post all kinds of shit here. Some of it I like, most of it I'm neutral on, and some small fraction irritates me. That's a good thing, really, and I'm free to pick and choose what I spend my time reading and commenting on.

Selfishly, I'd rather see a lot more odd and interesting posts like this one (because how many of us are intimately familiar with Mexico City tabloid crime reporting?) in place of the "OMG new ipad released!!!!" and "Wow, Toy Story 12 preview!" kinds of FPPs. But since those posts do a much better job of driving eyeballs (and one assumes, ad revenue), they are good for the site in a different way -- less interesting to me personally, but an integral part of what makes this place function.

I do think that the use of heavy flagging as a driver of deletions has the potential to function like the local school board when I was a kid, where a loud minority of parents could easily get books removed from the library because their outrage was taken to be reflective of the community's standards. I'm glad that this isn't happening in this case, but I have been repeatedly surprised at how strong those voices can be here.
posted by Forktine at 6:17 AM on June 18, 2011 [7 favorites]

Yes, that's definitely the point I was making, thanks for the hard work you put into clarifying that.

Your response to me opened with a testy straw man argument. What did you expect, and why are you so hostile?
posted by rain at 6:38 AM on June 18, 2011

From the posting: The only reason I posted this is for someone to tell me how David Alvarado can drive his Volkswagen at 60 mph on the streets of Mexico City with that blue thing on his windshield and not get killed himself. What is that blue thing on his windshield anyway?

We've misunderstood the poster's intent/interest.
posted by Houstonian at 6:55 AM on June 18, 2011 [1 favorite]

I will preface this by saying that I have not yet checked the link out. I may not check the link out: I can watch horror movies all day long, but it is incredibly upsetting to me to see the effects of violence on innocents in the real world. However...

I think that these are things that people outside of Mexico probably need to know. There is a part of me that is disgusted to think that seeing these things is an option for most of us. The people in this environment certainly could not choose to opt out of seeing them.

But then again -- if this is something that people outside of Mexico need to know, but also something that people outside of Mexico could choose not to know if the images are just too yucky for words, then should the images be set aside in favor of getting the information out as many people as possible? Is there not a worry that the only people who will explore this story will do so not out of concern or interest for the people of Mexico, but because they want to see some gore and violence from a safe remove?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:57 AM on June 18, 2011

Kattullus: Some things are so awful to face that no conversation is possible, yet one is forced to scream, to let out some of the horror. That makes for bad internet conversation, unfortunately.

I thnk if a decade plus of Metafilter proves anything, it's that people can have an intelligent conversation about almost any topic. As horrible as the stories covered in these Mexican news reports are, and as graphic as the photos may be, far, FAR worse things have been examined and raked over and beanplated here before. And yet nothing bad happened to anyone viewing those posts, so far as I know.

This is one of the more frustrating effects of Metafilter's overwhelmingly US membership - the squeamishness around real death (as opposed to shoot 'em up violence), the body's decay, gore. This is something most people naturally find abhorrent, but a healthy culture finds ways to deal with that reality - it doesn't hide all the bodies away and use personal discomfort as an excuse to look away.

This is not to say everyone *must* look. If someone has something to show me though, and I'd like to look, the option should be there; that's the entire reason we describe the content of links, right? So people know what they're about to see, and have a choice whether to look or not.
posted by stinkycheese at 7:46 AM on June 18, 2011 [3 favorites]

El Nuevo Alarma isn't really serious journalism. It's an old rag that sells photos of dead people. They aren't interested in bringing into focus the crime problems of Mexico -- they make money with gruesome pictures. It's current editor explains it this way:

"People are interested in the kind of thing we publish. I don’t think it’s an illness—I think it’s curiosity. People like to see what we’re made of inside. We have millions of photographs of cadavers with their intestines hanging out. There’s kilos and kilos of intestines stuffed in there. It’s really strange, and lots of people love to see that. Plus, if we don’t publish enough dead bodies in an issue we get emails telling us that we were too conservative."

posted by Houstonian at 8:07 AM on June 18, 2011 [3 favorites]

This is one of the more frustrating effects of Metafilter's overwhelmingly US membership - the squeamishness around real death (as opposed to shoot 'em up violence), the body's decay, gore.

I'm pretty sure that Kattullus is from Iceland.
posted by craichead at 8:29 AM on June 18, 2011

This is one of the more frustrating effects of Metafilter's overwhelmingly US membership - the squeamishness around real death (as opposed to shoot 'em up violence), the body's decay, gore. This is something most people naturally find abhorrent, but a healthy culture finds ways to deal with that reality - it doesn't hide all the bodies away and use personal discomfort as an excuse to look away.


What
posted by nathancaswell at 8:34 AM on June 18, 2011 [2 favorites]

I think it's a Canadian thing. The go-to way to discredit any other point of view is to attribute it to America's sick culture, whether that's in any way relevant to the situation or not.
posted by craichead at 8:36 AM on June 18, 2011 [3 favorites]

What

Yeah, I mean, what culture are we talking about here exactly? The culture that's totally okay with death and is so healthy that it doesn't register personal discomfort at gore and decay? Because I'm pretty sure that's actually not a sign of good health at all.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:52 AM on June 18, 2011

Little known fact: when American hunters kill a deer they always make sure to have a Canadian around to field-dress it cause eeeeeeeeeeewwwww naaaasssssstaaaay.
posted by nathancaswell at 9:12 AM on June 18, 2011

We know about American culture and death:
In March 2003, on the eve of war in Iraq, the Pentagon ordered an end to all media coverage of ceremonies for the returning remains of soldiers killed overseas. One year of censorship and denial.
posted by adamvasco at 9:36 AM on June 18, 2011 [1 favorite]

That's a blatant example of a politically expedient decision. That should be obvious. The point wasn't one to shelter the delicate American psyche from our Achilles heel of seeing guts. It was to pre-empt opposition to the war.
posted by nathancaswell at 10:08 AM on June 18, 2011 [1 favorite]

How the fuck we managed to turn this MeTa on gruesome deaths in Mexico into a referendum on how sick American culture is and the Iraq war is fucking asinine.
posted by nathancaswell at 10:10 AM on June 18, 2011 [3 favorites]

The post is fine. Quit being ninnies.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 10:15 AM on June 18, 2011

I'm a blatantly political person.
posted by adamvasco at 10:26 AM on June 18, 2011

Citing a Bush-era policy to critique "American culture" is lazy. Try harder.
posted by the young rope-rider at 11:12 AM on June 18, 2011 [1 favorite]

Well, I quat being a ninny and watched it. On the one hand I guess this sort of thing is about the real world, and pretending this shit doesn't exist would be wrong. On the other hand, by having watched it I feel like I'm contributing to a sort of torture porn culture. No, the journalists didn't commit the murders, but they sure as hell helped turn them into entartainment.

If a friend or relative of mine died in a car crash or was murdered, that would be bad enough. If pictures of their mutilated bodies were then spread all over the Internet and glossy magazines for entertainment value (while pretending to be in the service of some higher goal), well, fuck that shit.
posted by Dumsnill at 11:22 AM on June 18, 2011 [3 favorites]

Citing a Bush-era policy to critique "American culture" is lazy. Try harder.
Let's see here; Bush Era - 8 years. Post WWII was +/- 60 years ago so that makes it about 13 % influence. If you add in Regan and the great conservatism of the USA I would say valid comment but then I am outside the goldfish bowl.
posted by adamvasco at 11:29 AM on June 18, 2011

In this case I think the MeFi system worked as it should. I posted on MeTa first and got feedback and suggestions on my proposed post. based on those suggestions I crafted the post and the mods approved it. I'd like to know what their behind the scenes discussion looked like but I probably never will. In the end we got "the post is fine" and "fuck that shit'. MetaFilter is working perfectly.
posted by Xurando at 12:15 PM on June 18, 2011

I'm glad this MeTa is here because the difference in framing between this & what ended up on the front page is such that I might actually have clicked through some of the links. No, thanks.
posted by Space Kitty at 12:16 PM on June 18, 2011 [3 favorites]

I'm sorry I contributed to the NSFW derail in the thread but I'm thankful to the person who actually let people know that all the links were NSFW. The subject matter may be worthy of a post but the way it was framed and worded was poorly done. From first reading it seemed only the previous link was NSFW. I think the post could have been improved with some actual history of what these magazines are about and maybe some text that didn't include graphic images as well.

And I don't think I'm a ninny for not clicking through. I just find that graphic images get lodged in my head and give me nightmares for weeks. That doesn't mean I'm unaware of death happening in the world or violence in cultures.
posted by kanata at 12:36 PM on June 18, 2011 [2 favorites]

Grumblebee took a bit of a beating for linking Plushie Schwartz.

I still go back and check out Plushie from time to time after seeing that link here. I'm always disappointed that he hasn't made a new film since I last checked.

He's like the Homestar Runner of drunken gay furryporn.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:20 PM on June 18, 2011

nathancaswell: "That's a blatant example of a politically expedient decision. That should be obvious. The point wasn't one to shelter the delicate American psyche from our Achilles heel of seeing guts. It was to pre-empt opposition to the war."

Yes, and heaven forbid that anyone be allowed to openly speak out against an ill-conceived, badly planned, stupidly executed war. Perhaps if the American people had seen their neighbors' children returning home in body bags, we wouldn't have had to endure an endless stream of "Do What I Say Or The Terrorists Win! 9/11! 9/11!" horse shit from Republicans while Bush was in power, nor the eventual rise of the Tea Party's hyperbolic, nationalistic racism and jingoism.

We went to war in Iraq under false pretenses. We were lied to by the Bush administration. And the Pentagon and the military worked to squash media coverage by invoking security where it should have never been applied. If the families didn't want coverage, they should have been given the option of privacy, not have an edict ban it from on high.

Hiding our dead may have been politically expedient, but it was just one more morally bankrupt act, from a political administration that covered their asses through manipulation, subterfuge and lies.
posted by zarq at 1:46 PM on June 18, 2011 [1 favorite]

I crafted the post and the mods approved it.

We didn't approve it. We didn't delete it. We made some suggestions on how it could be made decently. We then had to go in and edit it because not all those suggestions were followed. We also deleted a ton of comments by people who were confused about the phrasing of your post. Which is fine, yes, that's how MetaFilter is supposed to work but it's more drama than I usually care to deal with late on a Friday night.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:56 PM on June 18, 2011 [11 favorites]

Perhaps this isn't the thread for ya'll to rehash the Bush Administration and Iraqi War.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:29 PM on June 18, 2011

I think your right BB.

Perhaps if the American people had seen their neighbors' children returning home in body bags, we wouldn't have had to endure an endless stream of "Do What I Say Or The Terrorists Win! 9/11! 9/11!" horse shit from Republicans while Bush was in power, nor the eventual rise of the Tea Party's hyperbolic, nationalistic racism and jingoism.

Friday night around my house was murderous. One murder on my street and I believe the other shooting was, well not sure on that one. Both occurred around midnight in a 3 block radius.
People are seeing the body bags everyday filled with loved ones, sometimes children, here.
The social decay in my neighborhood has been accelerated in the last two years, everyone agrees there but no one mentions the president, he is trying to help. The mayor is just plain doing nothing...well, he could do more, which might led to this city being taken over by the state….again. How the F$@& could a bunch of Dems consider the city being taken over by the state is a good thing.

The only reason I meme this is that I am still amazed reading the above stuff, that’s right zarq, it’s hyperbole and it makes me oblivious to who is to blame for war and it’s consequences/scapegoat.
Of course I am aware this is a myopic event in the larger frame of world events but if history taught me one thing is to recognize patterns not for the sake of casualty but to look at how others dealt with similar circumstances to find soultions.
posted by clavdivs at 2:48 PM on June 18, 2011 [1 favorite]

Brandon, if you don't want to talk about it, don't. But I'm not censoring myself for you.
posted by zarq at 5:02 PM on June 18, 2011

From Xurando, in the thread:

The only reason I posted this is for someone to tell me how David Alvarado can drive his Volkswagen at 60 mph on the streets of Mexico City with that blue thing on his windshield and not get killed himself. What is that blue thing on his windshield anyway?

Well, I'm glad we finally got to THE ONLY REASON YOU POSTED THIS! Thanks, Xurando.
posted by crossoverman at 6:45 PM on June 18, 2011 [1 favorite]

But I'm not censoring myself for you.

You are a brave and courageous man. No wonder the bards sing your name.

I will not try to take that stick from your hands.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:54 PM on June 18, 2011 [1 favorite]

*chuckles*

Why Brandon, that was actually witty. Didn't know you had it in you.
posted by zarq at 8:05 PM on June 18, 2011

Ah, then it's true what the comedians say of your intelligence!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:07 PM on June 18, 2011

Two fat guys oiled up and wrestling naked.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 9:14 PM on June 18, 2011

No, I have googles on.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:21 PM on June 18, 2011 [1 favorite]

Brandon Blatcher: "112Ah, then it's true what the comedians say of your intelligence!"

Goodbye, Brandon.
posted by zarq at 9:47 PM on June 18, 2011

clavdivs: " Of course I am aware this is a myopic event in the larger frame of world events but if history taught me one thing is to recognize patterns not for the sake of casualty but to look at how others dealt with similar circumstances to find soultions."

In my experience, they nearly always address what affects them directly, or what they perceive does, anyway. It's a rare thing to find people being purely altruistic. I think you'll find that the solutions you're looking for are tied up in motivations.
posted by zarq at 9:54 PM on June 18, 2011

I'm squeamish, but I appereciate MeFi's discussion and would rather read about stuff here than anywhere else. Even without seeing the videos the discussions is facisinating.
And sometimes the gore is the story, like with the live animal exports story.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 4:00 AM on June 19, 2011

As a Dylan fan, though, I am offended by the title of this post.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 4:01 AM on June 19, 2011

loquacious: "What about the sex gross out limit? I'm asking for "a friend."

I remember the last time your "friend" asked this question. I awoke in your basement after an unknown period of unconsciousness, wearing a "slave Leia" costume and shackled to a life size sculpture of Jabba the Hutt rendered in unsalted butter."

How did you know it was unsalted? Was there a label... or um... didja' lick it? Hmmmmm?
posted by Splunge at 5:42 AM on June 19, 2011

I think you'll find that the solutions you're looking for are tied up in motivations.

I tend to agree zarq though motivations are part of causalty pertaining certain situations or events.

A partial solution is to be a fire arm which I thought i would not have to do because i can handle myself like alot of others. But when Ms. clav suggests it, motivation is confused with neccissity or te perception as you say.
posted by clavdivs at 12:11 PM on June 19, 2011

The only reason I posted this is for someone to tell me how David Alvarado can drive his Volkswagen at 60 mph on the streets of Mexico City with that blue thing on his windshield and not get killed himself. What is that blue thing on his windshield anyway?

In other words, "What's that blue thing... DOING HERE?!?"
posted by Jpfed at 6:15 AM on June 20, 2011

Something grabbed ahold of my hand. I didn't know what held my hand, and that's when all my troubles began.
posted by owtytrof at 12:43 PM on June 20, 2011

cortex: "I think if we're talking about gross-out stuff in general (and maybe documentary gore in particular) it comes down to the question of why it's worth posting. Gross for gross' sake is not a good idea; on the other hand, if there's a darned good reason for it and there's content to the post beyond just WOW GROSS and you frame it carefully with due warning, it may be a workable post.

The amount of care and consideration required needs to scale up with the provocative or disturbing nature of the material in question; "graphic beyond belief" and "too many dead bodies to count" sounds like you're scraping the stratosphere there, so it'd really need to be something exceptional and with some serious inherent cultural value to make sense, I think."

~75% sure this is cortex's 20,000th MetaTalk comment. The non-chronological comment view on profiles makes it hard to tell though. Mazel tov! Maybe.
posted by Rhaomi at 7:22 PM on June 28, 2011