If you go down to the woods today

February 10, 2007 10:03 AM

No fucking way is this bearable on MeFi.
posted by Civil_Disobedient to Etiquette/Policy at 10:03 AM (186 comments total)

Hahaha, bearable.

*I didn't follow the link
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:04 AM on February 10, 2007

"bearable"?
posted by phaedon at 10:04 AM on February 10, 2007

I thought it was an interesting link.
posted by Human Flesh at 10:06 AM on February 10, 2007

I'm with Human Flesh...yeah, it's porn, but when was the last time you saw porn that was that...well, whatever that was.
posted by awesomebrad at 10:08 AM on February 10, 2007

I am opposed to it in principle, but when I become dictator and systematically exterminate all the furries, links like that will be vital in convincing my subjects that I'm doing the right thing. So I'm glad that I am aware of it.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:08 AM on February 10, 2007

No, it sucks.

Banhammer.
posted by nathancaswell at 10:11 AM on February 10, 2007

ITS A SLIPPERY SLOPE PEOPLE.

Guy dressed up like Sherlock Holmes?
Guy in a Godzilla suit?
Famous celebrities fucking n nightvision?

All real. All interesting. None worthy of the blue.
posted by nathancaswell at 10:12 AM on February 10, 2007

No fucking way is this bearable on MeFi.

Oh no, you fucking didn't.
posted by loquacious at 10:14 AM on February 10, 2007

I removed it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:16 AM on February 10, 2007 [2 favorites]

Hey, good call. I mean, the cap was on the vodka bottle and there was no vodka in the bottle, a fake if I ever saw one.
posted by soundofsuburbia at 10:19 AM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

mathowie, that link doesn't, at least for me. 403.
posted by cgc373 at 10:19 AM on February 10, 2007

Okay, just delete it or ban me or whatever.

But I'm confused. Usually when I screw up on Metafilter, I'm confused, and people don't believe me. I get a lot of "Come ON! You knew this wasn't allowed!" And due to the reaction to this link, I'm sure I'll get that even more than usual. But I really AM confused.

It's a silly link. But there are tons of those here. Links to joke sites, silly videos, whatever. Some of these silly links are funny, some are juvenile, some are just ... silly. And, of course, that's all a matter of personal taste.

I don't get what's different about mine.

I mean I get that my link was to porn, but is THAT the big difference? If so, why is that wrong? Is MeFi really so conservative?

The history here is that I've been invited to a party with a porn theme. The hosts have asked the guest to bring outrageous examples of porn. My wife was searching the web for something to bring, and she found this. She thought it was funny. I thought it was funny. So I posted it here, thinking someone else might find it funny. I was wrong. Sorry.
posted by grumblebee at 10:19 AM on February 10, 2007

Didn't click, but as described no worse that that Jesus porn thing not so long back I'd have thought. I wouldn't sweat it, grumblebee.
posted by Abiezer at 10:23 AM on February 10, 2007

I thought it was funny, and it's Saturday where I am, and no, I didn't think it was gonna last very long on the front page of MetaFilter. A lark. A bear and a lark.
posted by cgc373 at 10:23 AM on February 10, 2007

Yeah, your wife found it.

Is she from Canada?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:23 AM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

...why is that wrong? Is MeFi really so conservative?

Dude, gay porn? Really? That's what you wanted to share with everyone today?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:25 AM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

grumblebee: Your mistake, as I see it, is to assume everyone on the Internet is just like you.

If anything, the assumption that everyone on the Internet is a 16-yr old boy is a much better assumption - both in their juvenile tastes, their lack of appreciation for subtlety, and the way their mind clouds up when the subject of sex is even mentioned.

That is, I thought it was funny. But I also knew that type of thing would not go well here.
posted by vacapinta at 10:26 AM on February 10, 2007

In short, hard core porn is NOT best of the web.

Dammit.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:27 AM on February 10, 2007

If you're having trouble with mathowie's link, once you get the 403, just go up to the address bar and hit enter. They're blocking based on referers, but going there directly works fine.

It's definitely worth it.
posted by Partial Law at 10:27 AM on February 10, 2007

I mean I get that my link was to porn, but is THAT the big difference? If so, why is that wrong? Is MeFi really so conservative?

I don't know why, but it is. I thought it was amusing, but the low-grade for-profit pr0n aspect of the site itself was just, meh.

And is it really conservative to say "Ok, this is point and laugh stuff. Yeah, some people get off on some goofy stuff. Big deal. But you're posting this to point and laugh, and that kind of sucks", which is really the stand I'll take on it when pressed, even if I can't help cracking wise about it.

So, I don't think that this is the conservatism that you think it is.
posted by loquacious at 10:28 AM on February 10, 2007

Cause if that was worthwhile and interesting then there are 100,000 other worthwhile porn videos on the internet to link to (OMG SHE FARTS DURING ANAL SEX) and the next thing you know it's stileproject.
posted by nathancaswell at 10:28 AM on February 10, 2007

hard core porn is NOT best of the web.

Wait... what? It's not?
posted by psmealey at 10:30 AM on February 10, 2007

In his defense.
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:30 AM on February 10, 2007

Oh and to be clear I think the link sucked (no pun intended)

It wasnt funny or interesting enough to overcome the 16-yr old boy factor. So, yeah some people at mefi are conservative. Others of us are just, well, discriminating?
posted by vacapinta at 10:31 AM on February 10, 2007

Can we turn this into a discussion about why this is inappropriate? I know, I know. To many people here it's screamingly obvious why it's inappropriate, and my claiming ignorance, I'm being passive-aggressive or whatever. But I'd be grateful if people would humor me. Maybe we'd all learn something about community standards.

What's the difference between my silly link and someone else's silly link to George Bush pulling his pants down, a wacky muppet video, etc.? I don't really want to go searching the archives for the dozens of silly, juvenile things I see here all the time, but if people really don't know what I'm talking about, I will.

Is it the fact that it's porn? If so, why is porn special (specially hated)? I mean I know why porn has its status to the public-at-large. People are uncomfortable with sexual matters -- particularly "deviant" ones. I'd assumed MeFi was less Victorian. Was that a stupid assumption?


Yeah, your wife found it.

If you knew my wife, this wouldn't surprise you.


Is she from Canada?

Huh?
posted by grumblebee at 10:31 AM on February 10, 2007

anotherpanacea, #1 isn't porn. #2 is about a piece of internet history and #3 is super controversial and much more likely to start a decent discussion than some guy getting a rimjob in a bear suit.
posted by nathancaswell at 10:32 AM on February 10, 2007

Wow. I hadn't seen that Jesus porn.

Re: the subject at hand: My complaint is that it was a single-link post. I like my plushie porn in quality.
posted by veggieboy at 10:33 AM on February 10, 2007

Er, quantity. Quality might be a little much to hope for.
posted by veggieboy at 10:33 AM on February 10, 2007

anotherpanacea: You can take those three links and place them next to grumblebee's post and play a tidy little game of "one of these things is not like the others" in that the others have links with, y'know, like text and information and meaty chunks and stuff, not a single link to a pay-for-porn account harvesting front-door.
posted by loquacious at 10:34 AM on February 10, 2007

and for the record i think #3 kind of sucks too
posted by nathancaswell at 10:34 AM on February 10, 2007

Can we turn this into a discussion about why this is inappropriate? I know, I know. To many people here it's screamingly obvious why it's inappropriate, and my claiming ignorance, I'm being passive-aggressive or whatever.

Um, yes.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:34 AM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

Cause if that was worthwhile and interesting then there are 100,000 other worthwhile porn videos on the internet to link to (OMG SHE FARTS DURING ANAL SEX) and the next thing you know it's stileproject.

Okay. That makes sense.
posted by grumblebee at 10:34 AM on February 10, 2007

One man's bear suit is another man's dead rotting whale carcass.
posted by hal9k at 10:35 AM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

ThePinkSuperhero, sometimes people -- even smart people -- get confused about something that genuinely seems obvious to many others. They're not necessarily being passive-aggressive.
posted by grumblebee at 10:35 AM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

grumblebee, the implication is that you're making up an imaginary wife and your cover story is "She's from Canada, you wouldn't know her."

kthxbi
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:36 AM on February 10, 2007

Interesting. I get the implication. I'd never heard the "Canada" thing before.
posted by grumblebee at 10:37 AM on February 10, 2007

Didn't you ever have an imaginary Canadian girlfriend in elementary school?
posted by nathancaswell at 10:38 AM on February 10, 2007

Or see The Breakfast Club?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:39 AM on February 10, 2007

If the objection is to the nature of the site (pay for porn,) then I've no trouble with the deletion. Frankly, I didn't watch much of the video... not my thing. But I skip a lot of things on the front page, so I'm not a good judge.

Some more.

The Internet is for Porn.
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:39 AM on February 10, 2007

Tubgirl for artists (SFW)
posted by growabrain at 10:40 AM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

No. Back in elementary school, the imaginary girls weren't into me.
posted by grumblebee at 10:40 AM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

I felt all funny after watching the video and had to cross my legs. Oh, the shame, the shame.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:42 AM on February 10, 2007

> Is she from Canada?

>> Huh?

It's an Avenue Q reference*, which I think is quite apropos considering we're talking about a gay plush post by someone from the theater. ;)

*where the Bert-type character who everyone thinks is gay sings "I wish you could meet my girlfriend, my girlfriend who lives in Canada!" -- who, as the song goes on, appears to be an imaginary one.

(On preview: someone beat me to it!)
posted by Lush at 10:50 AM on February 10, 2007

i have seen the face of sexy and it is tori spelling
posted by phaedon at 10:52 AM on February 10, 2007

TPS, that's like saying, "haven't most people read a book before, if I link to a site about a specific book." Is it really true that most people have seen this specific type of porn before? If so, then I'm wrong and I don't get around enough, because I hadn't.

I don't think my post was best of the web, and I'm not sorry to see it go, but I don't think the following are "best of the web" either (with the possible exception of "put down the ducky"). The best of the web -- in my opinion -- is, say, an amazing writer or artist posting some of his work for free.

But Metafilter has always been a mixture of really amazing stuff like that and silly/quirky/fun stuff, too.

I'm sure I could come up with better examples. but without leaving the front page, I came up with these. Some of them I love, some I'm so-so about, some I think are stupid. But they all seem to me to be as frivolous (and as silly) as what I linked to.

Fifteen hundred cat pictures.

I am so tired of being abducted by aliens.

Put Down the Duckie!


Cute five-year old breaks out moves, kicks out jams, etc. (Warning: Fun streaming video links.)
posted by grumblebee at 10:53 AM on February 10, 2007

You know what I saw the other day? A naked picture of prepubescent Brooke Shields. I was pretty pissed about that... the link said NSFW, but it didn't say "CHILD PORNOGRAPHY."
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:54 AM on February 10, 2007

. . . And sometimes they just play the fool to get as much mileage out of a shitroversial fpp as they can.

This link, and the resulting discussion will not teach you a damn thing if you didn't GET it before. (i.e. community standards.)

It smacks of the passive/aggressive for you to now take up the title of fighting censorship, defending your own low-brow sense of humor, or defending that you are merely "a student and not a gladiator". It is not up to us to inform you of what materials can be accepted by the lowest-common-denominator of this community. It is up to you to decide for yourself. But when you post a gay porn link right there on the front page, and then defend it by saying 'the rules, they are too fuzzy for me to understand, '(npi) I am doubly offended.
posted by isopraxis at 10:56 AM on February 10, 2007

when you post a gay porn link right there on the front page, and then defend it by saying 'the rules, they are too fuzzy for me to understand, '(npi)

Oh! Now I see.

Hetero porn = good
homo male porn = bad

Thanks!
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:00 AM on February 10, 2007

Hey guys let's head this giant derail that's coming off at the pass and remove "gay" before "porn" whenever we reference grumblebee's link.

On preview, FUCK. WE ARE SO FUCKED.
posted by nathancaswell at 11:01 AM on February 10, 2007

TPS- You keep making this distinction between 'porn' and 'about porn.' What do you mean? Clearly you're not distinguising 'porn' from 'links to porn,' and in all the cases I've already cited, there are 'links to porn.' (Except the colon cleansing link... about which, sorry, pet peeve, shouldn't have brought it up here.)

I'm fine with 'no porn.' I'm fine with 'no bad porn,' 'no pay porn,' or 'no violent porn.' But I'm not fine with 'no gay porn.'
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:07 AM on February 10, 2007

Metafilter is not for books

Are you saying that if, say, E.L. Doctorow, published his next book online, for free, it wouldn't be worth linking to? (I'm NOT comparing what I posted to that!). If so, then you or I am seriously confused about what MeFi is about!

TPS, if I saw a post about politics or football, I would feel exactly the same way you do. I'd feel like, "Do we really need ANOTHER post about Bush?" or "Do we really need ANOTHER post about the World Series?"

But that's because I hate politics and sports. Someone could point out to me that the post was about some unique nuance of sports or politics, and it still wouldn't mean anything to me.

I don't want to guess your psychology, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you just don't like porn.

There have been TONS of MeFi posts, over the years, about quirky people. My favorite thing on the web is coming across web eccentrics -- people who have built giant robots in their back yards, people who collect string, etc. And such posts have always been welcome here. THAT'S the spirit in which I posted, and I'm trying to figure out the difference between my post and those. Saying "it's not the best of the web" isn't really helpful, because to me, anything about Bush isn't the best of the web either, and that stuff is all over the front page.

So, again, maybe my post was bad because porn is inherently bad -- or (as you seem to be saying), it's has to be really really really amazing to be worth posting (but why is that not true about politics, sci-fi, etc.?)

I realize that in any community, there are not 100% logical rules as to what meets community standards. If it so happened that 99% of people here hated sci-fi, then all sci-fi related threads would get removed, even if -- by some objective standards -- sci-fi was as-good-as anything else.

So I'm just trying to understand community standards around here.
posted by grumblebee at 11:07 AM on February 10, 2007

I'm sorry. Did somebody just suggest that disinterest in gay porn indicates the mindset of a 16-year-old boy? 'Cause the irony meter just exploded.

I flagged your post, Grumblebee. I understand why you posted it, and no, I don't think you ought to be banned (in fact, I think it's kinda silly to bring that up) — but yeah, ultimately, porn is "special" (i.e., totally inappropriate) as you say and I don't think that's necessarily "Victorian."
posted by cribcage at 11:10 AM on February 10, 2007

But when you post a gay porn link right there on the front page, and then defend it by saying 'the rules, they are too fuzzy for me to understand, '(npi) I am doubly offended.

I'm genuinely sorry I offended you (twice). And I agree with you that "It is not up to us to inform you of what materials can be accepted...," but if you're saying that I don't have the right to ASK for clarification, then I disagree. Asking questions is a good thing. That's how we learn (if people are kind enough to answer.)
posted by grumblebee at 11:12 AM on February 10, 2007

but yeah, ultimately, porn is "special" (i.e., totally inappropriate).

Why? (A fair answer is "because that's just how the majority here feels." I'm just trying to figure out if there's another reason.)
posted by grumblebee at 11:14 AM on February 10, 2007

Yeah, the folks who keep mentioning the 'Gay' aspect as though that's the straw that broke the porn camel's back is sort of off-putting.

I'm not sure the comparison between this and the Jesus porn link is fair. If this had been a look behind the scenes of Plushie Swartz, then I would say that it was a legit FPP, just as I would say that an FPP linking solely to Jesus porn video clips would be innapropriate.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:14 AM on February 10, 2007

I think the appropriate response to that fpp is:

OMG.LOL.WTF. (in that order)
posted by ninjew at 11:17 AM on February 10, 2007

That's how we learn (if people are kind enough to answer.)

Except grumblebee...that there have been many posts by you in the past about "help me clarify the rules" and hundreds of posts back and forth and yet...here we still are.
posted by vacapinta at 11:18 AM on February 10, 2007

TPS, I apologize.

I didn't mean to imply that I was better or more open minded than anyone else, but I can see how it came across that way.

I am way more close-minded than most people here: I have an instant dislike of politics, sports, most music written after 1950, and about 30 other things I can think of. And in truth, while my wife was giggling at the video, I had to turn my head away at parts. I definitely have my "Victorian" streak.

Yes, a few times when my posts have been deleted (it really hasn't happed that often), I've questioned it. I thought that was a GOOD thing. To be honest, I still think it's a good thing, though I hate the idea of upsetting anyone.

I'm NOT claiming that I've been treated unfairly. And I'm a firm believer in (a) this is Matt's site, and he should delete anything he wants (and that trumps any "free speech" stuff), and (b) if the community dislikes it, it should go.

But UNDERSTANDING things is the most important thing for me, and that's something I'll never give up. I claim the right to ask questions.
posted by grumblebee at 11:20 AM on February 10, 2007

If you can find even ONE recent example where straight up porn of ANY kind, kink or flavor got a pass (and I'm talking about PORN, not content about porn), anotherpanacea, then you're allowed to make this about homophobia.

Whores of Warcraft does not mean this is about gay porn. Nor does the recent update. Neither post actually links to porn at the moment, though. The domain changed sometime between October and February and the most recent poster didn't check.
posted by sequential at 11:21 AM on February 10, 2007

Did somebody just suggest that disinterest in gay porn indicates the mindset of a 16-year-old boy?

I have no idea how you made that conclusion from my post where i never used the word 'disinterest' or 'gay porn' or any of their synonyms.
posted by vacapinta at 11:21 AM on February 10, 2007

All sites linked above contain links to porn in the context of the topic of the post.

Yeah, you're not going make this use/mention distinction fly in this case. The pornotube link and whorecraft link, especially, were excuses post porn, and you'll not persuade me otherwise. Look at the discussions in each thread.
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:21 AM on February 10, 2007

excuses TO post porn
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:21 AM on February 10, 2007

Except grumblebee...that there have been many posts by you in the past about "help me clarify the rules" and hundreds of posts back and forth and yet...here we still are.

But I don't think any were about posts of this type. If they were, then my bad. I'll search...
posted by grumblebee at 11:22 AM on February 10, 2007

Anyone who has paid attention to grumblebee's posting history would know that every word he's typed in this thread is absolutely sincere. He is not being passive-agressive, he is not being disingenuous. He is trying to understand why his post was inappropriate for MetaFilter. (Maybe people can try to work from that assumption in their further comments in this thread.)

When you think about it, why it's inappropiate for MetaFilter is a pretty hard question to answer, because it's pretty hard to put precise limits on what is past the boundaries of a concept as tenuous as "community standards". From what I can tell, the only thing that separates this post from a thousand other videos that I've seen scroll by on the blue is that it's porn. That's one of the community standards; okay. But no need to beat up on the guy.
posted by louigi at 11:24 AM on February 10, 2007 [3 favorites]

Neither post actually links to porn at the moment, though.

Eh? What's that you say?

For instance.
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:25 AM on February 10, 2007

Don't mask your immature "testing of the limits" mentality by claiming that you're free to ask questions. It's unbelievably disingenuous and obnoxiously childish. You've been here long enough to know that what you did was unbelievably stupid. So unless your motive was to have a 200+ comment MeTa thread all about you, you're being remarkably, and willfully, obtuse.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:27 AM on February 10, 2007

And here we have a fine example of the "three year old" technique of trolling.

T: "Why did X happen?"
M: "Because of Y."
T: "Why does Y happen?"
M: "Because of Z."
T: "Why does Z happen?"
M: "Because I said so."
T:"I don't understand. Why did X happen?"

Notice that T and M can either be "Toddler and Mother" or "Troll and Moderator".
posted by tkolar at 11:27 AM on February 10, 2007 [3 favorites]

Is it really true that most people have seen this specific type of porn before?

Of course. My first thought was 'Surely this is a double?'.
posted by jack_mo at 11:28 AM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

TPS- That's a fair assessment.
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:33 AM on February 10, 2007

Because that's just how the majority here feels, grumblebee.

Except grumblebee...that there have been many posts by you in the past about "help me clarify the rules" and hundreds of posts back and forth and yet...here we still are.

So, uh, one of those previous questions was the Last One, following which we came up with a complete and decisive set of answers?
posted by cortex at 11:36 AM on February 10, 2007

Well, thank you. I think it's one of Metafilter's strengths is that no topic is off-limits but it's very important that you do it right.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:36 AM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

Don't mask your immature "testing of the limits" mentality by claiming that you're free to ask questions.

I'm wasn't testing the limits. And I am free to ask questions.
posted by grumblebee at 11:37 AM on February 10, 2007

You aren't free to post shit on the blue, though. Had you come to MeTa prior to posting your link, I think your credibility might still be intact.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:38 AM on February 10, 2007

"ThePinkSuperhero, sometimes people -- even smart people -- get confused about something that genuinely seems obvious to many others. They're not necessarily being passive-aggressive."

I have to second this. I get accused of being intentionally offensive or weird pretty often, when the truth is I really did not mean it that way nor did I know it could be taken that way. Sometimes people have to explain to me why it's a no-no, once they've accepted that I really don't know something most people seem to think think are glaringly obvious. Maybe I'm stupid or autistic or just very dense.

But still in this case I don't understand why people must get so bloody HOSTILE about this link: maybe people should have been told it was GAY pr0n, but we were very clearly informed it was "VERY VERY VERY NSFW" and given a further clue with "I'm not gay". Maybe Metafilter needs an explicit "no linking to GAY pr0n" rule? Or maybe people need to learn to roll their eyes and go on. Note that if the explicit policy were simply "no linking to ANY pr0n" I won't complain, though censorship is not my objective here.

For the record I found it goofy and hilarious, not erotically arousing, but then I stopped the clip when it was clear that Plushie was gonna get orally consoled. (I don't need more proof I'm underendowed.)
posted by davy at 11:38 AM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

Had you come to MeTa prior to posting your link, I think your credibility might still be intact.

Please don't.
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:42 AM on February 10, 2007

And here we have a fine example of the "three year old" technique of trolling.

Fair enough. But what about someone who is actually trying to get a question answered?

By the way, there have been some very helpful answers here:

1) If one person gets away with posting porn, then there will be a flood of porn on MeFi (though I think you could substitute the word "politics" for porn, and come up with the same problem).

2) Porn-related links need a broader context, e.g. interviews with porn stars (because porn by itself is uninteresting?)

3) Grumblebee is wrong. Most people already knew about this. It's old news and might as well be a "double."

4) It offends community standards.
posted by grumblebee at 11:43 AM on February 10, 2007

But I don't think any were about posts of this type. If they were, then my bad. I'll search...

grumblebee, when vacapinta said we've had numerous posts from you in the past asking for clarification and hundreds of responses to no avail, he wasn't talking absolutely specifically about the subject of today's post, but about your behavior here in general.

I don't feel like digging them up, but I swear we had this same run around with you over ask metafilter, over the course of many months. You wanted to ask philosophical questions and didn't understand the loose guidelines we laid out that things have a definite answer or solve a problem. You asked us to explain that, and we did our best, but you would always ask for more explanation to the point of my own exhaustion.

Obviously, after this many responses in metatalk, if you don't understand why your post was deleted or deemed a bad idea by 99% of the members here, I don't know what I can say to explain it other than people really don't like racy porn or hardcore porn ads on the front page of mefi.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:44 AM on February 10, 2007

You aren't free to post shit on the blue, though. Had you come to MeTa prior to posting your link, I think your credibility might still be intact.

But if he didn't think it was shit, why would he have come to MeTa first? This presumption that grumblebee was baiting instead of posting with light-hearted good intent baffles the shit out of me, as it should anyone who is remotely familiar with his consistently earnest and well-meaning posting history.

There's a very forced blood-in-the-water feel to these vociferous condemnations that bugs me a lot more than a contentious porn post.
posted by cortex at 11:44 AM on February 10, 2007 [2 favorites]

You aren't free to post shit on the blue, though.

I am free -- like everyone else here -- to post things to the blue that I think are worthy to be there.

People who don't like my links are free to flag them, and they SHOULD flag them if they don't like them.

Matt is free to delete them, and he should if he feels like it.

I am free to ask questions about the deletion here.

You are free to answer my questions, ignore me, or insult me. (though I hope you won't do the latter.)
posted by grumblebee at 11:47 AM on February 10, 2007

That blood-in-the-water feeling comes from the dead-whale shark orgy, cortex. I thought that was obvious.
posted by cgc373 at 11:47 AM on February 10, 2007

Cute five-year old breaks out moves, kicks out jams, etc. (Warning: Fun streaming video links.)

Grumblebee, in the future, please:

1. Do not call out my post without a MetaTalk thread of its own
2. Send all your gay porn directly to me

Thanks,
BP
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:48 AM on February 10, 2007

There's a very forced blood-in-the-water feel to these vociferous condemnations that bugs me a lot more than a contentious porn post.

Please don't turn this around on me. I'm not the one who's been here six years and didn't know not to post porn (of any kind, gay or otherwise).
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:49 AM on February 10, 2007

I don't feel like digging them up, but I swear we had this same run around with you over ask metafilter, over the course of many months. You wanted to ask philosophical questions and didn't understand the loose guidelines we laid out that things have a definite answer or solve a problem. You asked us to explain that, and we did our best, but you would always ask for more explanation to the point of my own exhaustion.

Okay. It's your site and I respect that. I actually thought I was being a good citizen by bringing up stuff like this. I think people should always question things -- even to the point of exhaustion. (No one is forced to answer.) But I think I'm alone in feeling that way. In any case, I respect your authority.

So I make a promise to (a) quit posting in this thread; (b) never again question a deletion (of mine or anyone elses).

I'm not trying to stomp off. But as you've pointed out, I've made my feelings and confusions clear, and you've all attempted to answer them.

Thank you for putting up with me. And thank you for the answers.

Email in profile.
posted by grumblebee at 11:52 AM on February 10, 2007

grumblebee writes "People are uncomfortable with sexual matters -- particularly 'deviant' ones. I'd assumed MeFi was less Victorian. Was that a stupid assumption?"

No, but frankly your link was shit.
posted by clevershark at 11:58 AM on February 10, 2007

> I don't get what's different about mine.

It's plushies. The last minority it's OK to hate.
posted by jfuller at 11:59 AM on February 10, 2007

Nah, that'd be fat plushies.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:00 PM on February 10, 2007

Speaking of which, I did once see a video of a guy in a plush shark outfit humping a fat girl on a boat.

I wonder if I should post it.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:01 PM on February 10, 2007

E-mail's in profile, m_c_d.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:07 PM on February 10, 2007

"[N]ot to post porn (of any kind, gay or otherwise)."

If that's an explicit statement of a community standard it's a new one. WTFDYT "NSFW" means anyway? You think it's used for content that's politically "controversial"?

Maybe some Mefites really don't want to see ANY porn around here, but I don't see many complaints about "otherwise" porn. One solution would be for those folks who don't like ANY porn, even hetero porn between consenting adults, to yelp their little virtual heads off in MetaTalk whenever ANY porn is posted, especially straight folks bitching about straight porn. Otherwise I'll continue thinking this "community standard" is rather selective.

Note that I'm not saying the admins don't have a right to delete whatever they damn please for any reason; as was previously explained to me, Metafilter is NOT a democracy. I simply don't want to keep straining my eye-rolling muscles at the goofy rationalizations for homophobia the standard community insists on supplying.

So: I hereby propose that the Metafilter Community petition Matt and Jessamyn to explicitly make posting ANY "explicit" content to Metafilter a no-no. All in favor say "AYE"?
posted by davy at 12:19 PM on February 10, 2007

I'm late to this, but I wanted to point out what TPS was saying above, because I think it has merit. It's one thing to link to a book, movie or song on MeFi and say "I like this" or "this is weird" or "huh, how about that" but those posts are judged more on the basis of people saying/thinking "okay, I've seen a ton of books/movies/music, is there anything that makes this head and shoulders above all the rest?" The assumption is that we're already consumers of culture and don't need more raw data dropped in our laps.

Many of the best MeFi links are either commentaries on culture (including satire, opinion pieces, compilations) or weird and/or esoteric and/or truly strange movies/books/music and yes, porn.

It's a commentary on porn today that a guy in a bear suit getting a rim job does not nudge the strange-o-meter above "should I really post this to MetaFilter" levels, but that fact combined with the NSFWness of it -- we love NSFW here, but in moderation, so it's another hurdle, not just a cool attribute -- made it a less than great post. Truly awful? No. Inappropriate? Maybe? Worthy of censorship? No, but getting a post deleted is a different animal than censorship. That can certainly be debated, but it's an argument that is not going to go anyplace useful.

The guidelines are pretty fluid so while most hate site links don't stay in FPPs, some do. Many stupid one-link newsfilter posts don't stay, but some do. Some idiot youtube antics videos posts stay and some go. Some porn stays and some doesn't but the tipping point for this particular porn was that people didn't like it and you can't always know in advance what people will like. You gave it a shot, that's all you can do.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:21 PM on February 10, 2007 [2 favorites]

Anyone who has paid attention to grumblebee's posting history would know that every word he's typed in this thread is absolutely sincere. He is not being passive-agressive, he is not being disingenuous. He is trying to understand why his post was inappropriate for MetaFilter.

Absolutely. I can't believe people are being such shits; grumblebee's been around a long time and has been a fine member of the community, he's made it clear that he has trouble with social/emotional factors that tend to be obvious to others, and when he discovers he's overstepped the bounds he asks why and genuinely wants to learn. I'm particularly disappointed in mathowie, who really should know better, but at least he's just being dismissive; some of you are being complete assholes. Anyone who thinks grumblebee deliberately posted a link he knew was bad and would be deleted, and then came here to stir the shit some more, has poor reading skills and even worse people skills. Don't take the haters to heart, grumblebee; anyone with any sense knows who's nice and who's naughty in this thread.
posted by languagehat at 12:22 PM on February 10, 2007 [6 favorites]

Nay.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:22 PM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

i thought it was an okay post.

nathancaswell's argument is reasonable, but nevertheless a classic example of the slippery-slope fallacy.

also the notion that a porn post has to be cloaked in some way is repugnant along the lines that a single-link post is bad and ought to be fleshed out with "supporting links". people shouldn't be encouraged to post noise along with the interesting stuff.

if the porn is interesting enough to stand on its own, then it should, and if not, it probably shouldn't be posted for the usual reasons.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 12:23 PM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

It could've been turned into a better FPP. (I was going to say that the post should've been fleshed-out, but uh...)

Yes, I watched the whole thing. I liked that the non-furry dude was so amused by the whole thing.
posted by desuetude at 12:36 PM on February 10, 2007

"[Y]ou can't always know in advance what people will like."

But thanks to this thread we now know that, by Mefi community standards, GAY porn is Not Allowed. Not even when an example has more plot and characterization than most mainstream PG-13 Hollywood blockbusters and is intentionally funny to boot.
posted by davy at 12:38 PM on February 10, 2007

GAY porn is Not Allowed.

No one said that. In fact most people have said some variation of "Let's get this straight, this is just about porn, not specifically gay porn" Chill.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:47 PM on February 10, 2007

So I make a promise to (a) quit posting in this thread; (b) never again question a deletion (of mine or anyone elses).

grumblebee, I forgot to add to my response that I understand you're a smart person and a valued member here and frankly, I like having you around, but for some reason, I don't think text works for explaining loose community guidelines to you. Perhaps you're an auditory or visual learner -- I get the feeling if we were having a beer in NYC, I could explain why that post was deleted in 3 or 4 minutes, but text can be cumbersome and interpreted multiple ways and lead to resentment when people don't get the answers they seek.

My intention wasn't to shut you down and tell you not to ever ask about deletions again, just to express my and other members' frustration at trying to explain loose guidelines in the past and today.

You're a good guy, that post was shit, but do stick around, because we do genuinely like you.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:49 PM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

No one said that. In fact most people have said some variation of "Let's get this straight, this is just about porn, not specifically gay porn."

Actually, they did say that. Moreover, many have maintained that there is no porn to be found on the site, when in fact there is and often such links are only loosely cloaked in 'substance.' The lesson learned here is that grumblebee's post a) wasn't well written, and b) wasn't very good. Leave porn out of it, I should think.

That said, I agree with languagehat that people should stop picking on the guy. He's clearly a sweetheart:

No. Back in elementary school, the imaginary girls weren't into me.

posted by anotherpanacea at 12:55 PM on February 10, 2007

Let's be fair about something here: Back in the day, I used to follow the personalities around here in much greater detail than now. I used to create images of real people in my head (with their eccentricities in mind); I no longer have the time to do so. So I'm sorry if I don't "immediately recognize grumblebee as a model citizen" around here.

Quite frankly, I don't recognize a lot of "names" anymore; just the words I read on the screen. And perhaps that's my fault. I should pay more attention to who is posting these words. But in this particular case, a member of this community who has been here almost seven years should know better, which is why I became more judgmental than towards a person who just joined last month. Whether or not this person has problems with boundaries should make it that much more clear to him/her that they should be careful about what they post (especially as a front page post).
posted by SeizeTheDay at 12:57 PM on February 10, 2007

You're a good guy, that post was shit, but do stick around, because we do genuinely like you.

Indeed!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:02 PM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

"All we are saying is give fleece a chance!"
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 1:04 PM on February 10, 2007

Like I said Jessamyn, in my more than 2 years here I have not seen many of these kinds of threads about just ANY porn, which, as you and anotherpanacea admitted in this thread, does happen here. When people start bitching about ANY porn enough to establish a clear and fair No Porn standard I'll be persuaded otherwise; until then I'll just keep in mind that this is a mostly straight community that as a virtual entity clearly prefers straight porn, and clearly illustrates that straight community standard though it won't clearly explicate it.
posted by davy at 1:04 PM on February 10, 2007

Agreeing with anotherpanacea who was agreeing with languagehat. My favorite of my favorites is one of grumblebee's. He seems to be a real genuine guy.
posted by nelvana at 1:05 PM on February 10, 2007

does no one remember this?

metafilter, in general, does not take "omg pr0n" links very well.
posted by Stynxno at 1:07 PM on February 10, 2007

in my more than 2 years here I have not seen many of these kinds of threads about just ANY porn

There aren't many MetaTalk threads about porn generally, so your sample size would have to be pretty teeny. The OMGest porn thread that I can recall in MeT awas about the Suicide Girls which is mostly straight-oriented as near as I can tell. Gay porn has been defended here before actually.

Seriously, I read this entire thread and the MeFi thread before it was deleted. I see no implication that anyone who used the adj-noun construction "gay porn" was trying to make a distinction like "YOUR sort of porn isn't okay, OUR sort of porn is okay" I don't see it. If you see, it point me to it. I can't think of any "here is some porn" posts that haven't been deleted although I can't recall off the top of my head if that weird YouTube video with Uncle Sam having sex with the Statue of Liberty stayed or went.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:19 PM on February 10, 2007

does no one remember this?

Every night, as we cry ourselves to sleep. DAMN YOU, METAFILTER.
posted by cortex at 1:20 PM on February 10, 2007

I don't see it. If you see, it point me to it.

Here.

The deletion reason raised the question: is the problem GAY porn or gay PORN. A review of the last week of material indicated a number of porn sites: one was LOLXTIANS, one was LOLWARCRACK. Both were straight, and neither raised many eyebrows.

So the policy is not 'no porn.' The fear, however, is that the moderators (you!) find gay porn unsatisfying or disgusting, and that you are more likely to hit the delete key reflexively when confronted with a rimjob than when confronted with a bare vahjayjay. Thus, the accusation is of bias in execution, not in policy.

Personally, I don't believe that pornography enters into the question. I think that grumblebee's post was badly written, and when the deleter saw the link within, they saw nothing more than spam. This is substantially TPS's point, by the way. I don't blame the deleter... but I think that we should at least be honest that there's a real risk that hetero porn flies under the radar more easily than gay porn. This danger looms especially large when 'community standards' are invoked alongside the charge of obscenity. I maintain that it would be better to attack the structure of the post than the content... precisely because we're unable to distinguish our reaction to the 'gayness' of the porn from the question of what sorts of pornography are 'best of the web.' In a certain sense, grumblebee's post continued a recent theme: LOLGAYFURRIES.
posted by anotherpanacea at 1:37 PM on February 10, 2007

err.. fags touching. Gross.
posted by econous at 1:55 PM on February 10, 2007

Hey, remember that time we all saw Tony Danza's cock? Good times...
posted by ColdChef at 2:55 PM on February 10, 2007

Only you can prevent forest fires.
posted by breezeway at 2:56 PM on February 10, 2007

"I think that we should at least be honest that there's a real risk that hetero porn flies under the radar more easily than gay porn."

Thank you.

"In a certain sense, grumblebee's post continued a recent theme: LOLGAYFURRIES."

Yes. Which are sometimes actually funny.

As to the actual porn in the deleted FPP, I didn't find what I bothered to watch of it offensive: I don't get into that sort of thing but it was okay. I do find lots of things people post around here offensive, even some posts that get mostly praise, ut I seldom pitch a fit because most of y'all just ain't gonna get my rarefied taste. And I often see posts linking to things I don't object to that simply suck as FPPs, they're so badly written. So to answer anotherpanacea's "I maintain that it would be better to attack the structure of the post than the content", I simply don't think it's possible to separate them. Metafilter FPPs, especially shorter non-political ones, are basically pointing at something ("LOLGAYFURRIES!"), and how one points to something must matter less than that which one points. ("He gave me rather fluent and articulate directions that send me right off a cliff.") And for what little it's clearly worth, I think Mefites should be free to point to GAY pr0n at will, though it would be helpful all around if it's labelled such to spare the easily offended. (Another point is that, as an adjunct to "NSFW", I have a hunch that more employers would be put off by folks watching GAY pr0n at work than the "regular" kind, especially if said gay pr0n features two gay MEN.)

So: would it have been seen as so offensive, or so "badly done", had it pointed to straight pr0n? Or to gay pr0n with two WOMEN?

And Jessamyn, your one "counterexample" was from 2002.
posted by davy at 3:03 PM on February 10, 2007

"would it have been seen as so offensive, or so "badly done", had it pointed to straight pr0n? Or to gay pr0n with two WOMEN?"

It's definitely no rape haiku, for sure.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:08 PM on February 10, 2007

So: would it have been seen as so offensive, or so "badly done", had it pointed to straight pr0n? Or to gay pr0n with two WOMEN?

I deleted it the instant I saw it because it was clearly on a real porn site (not just a porn news site or blog that featured porn themes) with the video surrounded by hardcore porn ads featuring people fucking. It didn't matter that the people were men and not women. I would have deleted it just as fast if there were women in the pile o' fucking going on.

We cover porn here when it's interesting, when it's about the subject itself, or when it has some entirely new twist that has larger implications. When it's a link to a site that's pretty much nothing but people fucking each other, we take it down because there's nothing new or interesting there -- people fuck all the time going back to the dawn of civilization. Sites with people fucking each other don't have much to say or much to add -- it's just pure fucking.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:12 PM on February 10, 2007

Metafilter: people fuck all the time going back to the dawn of civilization.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:27 PM on February 10, 2007

Thank you mathowie. If I wanted to see people fucking I could go elsewhere easily enough, just as I could go to a news site to see about Barack, and I don't really care how it's deconstructed. If it's fucking or news, I can figure out where to go for either, so don't post it here.
posted by nj_subgenius at 3:36 PM on February 10, 2007

I kind of wonder if this whole thread would have gone different if the deletion reason had been "Dude, plushie porn? Really? That's what you wanted to share with everyone today?", instead of "Dude, gay porn? Really? That's what you wanted to share with everyone today?".
posted by advil at 3:36 PM on February 10, 2007

Thanks, nelvana, for pointing me to grumblebee's answer to the question "I live in my own head too much. I over-analyze my own feelings/thoughts as well as the actions of others. How do I overcome this?" I found this sentence in his comment apt to the current situation: "Someone posts something, and a zillion little Freuds just "KNOW" what he REALLY means. I hate, hate, HATE it. But I refuse to give into it."
posted by Kattullus at 3:39 PM on February 10, 2007

Most of you won't remember the year 1976. So I'll fill in a little background for you. It was hot. Long before any worries about climate change or global warming; it was hot. Damn hot. Back then my office was on the third floor of the only tall building erected over Archway tube station. The only tall building built in that part of London to this day. The washed out color of the room changed as she walked in... All six foot seven inches of fuck muscle in a red dress. If there were ever a time I was glad to have two hands it was then. Den Beste looked over, and with the slightest of nods gave me permission. It was all I ever asked for. Everything. She pulled up the offered chair, and told me her story. Interrupted only by

Cock sucking Jesus what a spastic/blind//lame/crippled callout.

*yawn*
posted by econous at 3:42 PM on February 10, 2007

More lesbian porn. kthxbye
posted by graventy at 3:46 PM on February 10, 2007

The deletion reason raised the question: is the problem GAY porn or gay PORN.

there's a really easy way to settle this whole argument ... someone find a decent set of links about the gay porn industry and build an fpp around it
posted by pyramid termite at 3:58 PM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

Hetero porn = good
homo male porn = bad

This is your conclusion, not mine.

I don't care if it is gay, straight, space, fuzzy, animal, geriatric or morgue porn. What you wank off to (or with whom) is entirely your own business. But IMHO it doesn't belong in the blue, and I'm within my rights to say why I feel it doesn't belong in the blue.

And I think that you could find a much stronger 'Stonewall' than this original fpp, on which to bring about honest discourse on the subject of porn, gay, straight or whatever. If that is indeed your intention.
posted by isopraxis at 4:20 PM on February 10, 2007

I'm within my rights to say why I feel it doesn't belong in the blue.

I didn't see you here protesting Bare Maidens, buddy.
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:33 PM on February 10, 2007

I didn't see the Bare Maidens fpp.
posted by isopraxis at 4:35 PM on February 10, 2007

Here it is. Does it disgust you? I bet not. But I bet you're a little pissed that the moderators didn't delete this one: lifesized animal dildos, including dragons?!?
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:48 PM on February 10, 2007

I think jessamyn's comments in this thread are superb and anyone interested in this should read them each, twice.

One thing that I think that people don't really think about is that "community standards" are inherently expressive, contributory, and evolving standards. Matt had some biases built in when he started the site, but a whole hell of a lot of the standards we consider "obvious" were discovered.

What this means is that when something touches upon an area of "community standards" that hasn't been extensively explored, these standards are revealed by people's participation. And what a lot of these folks don't consider is that even if the claim that something is unacceptable is obvious to 75% of the community, that it was obviously unacceptable to 75% wasn't itself obvious until it actually happened.

This thread shows a sort of minor consensus that this post just wasn't very good. You'll also note that almost no one wants to say it wasn't any good merely because it was porn. You'll also note that most everyone thinks that porn somehow nevertheless has something to do with it, though explanations differ. Well, for the people that don't find it obvious, there's something immediately available: the post isn't acceptable to most.

It's not wrong to argue about whether it should be or not, but that shouldn't happen without the awareness of the primacy of the consensus (well, and ultimately Matt). We're all free to try to convince the community to adopt this or that view as normative for some rational reason—those of us who keep arguing about NewsFilter are doing exactly that. In that case, nevertheless, a moderate and continual amount of NewsFilter is quite obviously acceptable to the community, and, similarly, it's also obvious that posts to porn have a built-in strike against them. Is that such a surprise? A crap post that is otherwise harmless and doesn't offend anyone and not likely to be a harbinger of things to come if ignored is less likely to be deleted, even if on the basis of its inherent interest to the community it's worthless.

In my opinion, porn is one of those things that is offensive to a large portion of the community and therefore a post to it requires extra-quality to make up for it. Conservative political posts are similarly handicapped. YouTube posts, too. It's valid to make an attempt to argue that, as a community, we'd be improved if we eliminated one or more of these biases. But it's foolhardy to want to eliminate biases entirely.

This was a crap post about a subject that annoys a considerable number of people. Even a great many of the people who aren't annoyed by it sense the taint of the subject matter. Does this make MeFi either sex-negative or homophobic? I don't think so. We might be these things and the bias against this post might be a function of that. But I don't really think so.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:57 PM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

If you can't tell the difference between a one video link to a furry gay rimjob and the dragon dildo post, I don't know what to tell you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:01 PM on February 10, 2007 [2 favorites]

Of course I can tell the difference. I remember that post because it was so... uniquely memorable. :-) But remember, the original subject of the callout was grumblebee... and I think isopraxis was out of line... not you or the deletion. I'm siding with Ethereal Bligh's excellent summation: "we'd be improved if we eliminated one or more of these biases."
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:06 PM on February 10, 2007

I don't care to look panacea.

Instead I'm going to revisit your Kierkegaard post from last july to remind me about 'best of the web'.

cheers.
posted by isopraxis at 5:11 PM on February 10, 2007

I think the deletion was right, and here's the best way I could come up with to explain it:

There are a lot of places on the web to go for porn, and there are a lot of places to go if you want to have horrifying or extremely outré porn and stuff held up to your attention for the purpose of public mockery.

There are relatively fewer, at least in my experience, places to go on the web for thoughtful and interesting links and commentary, MeFi being on the short list. And while the plush gay bear is unusual and horrifying, there's not much thoughtful or interesting to say about it, or if there is, it sure didn't get said in that link.

So it makes sense to me to keep the two things segregated, because I don't see any point in turning MeFi into a big gallery of OMG DISGUSTING PORN HERE!!!!1 when you can get that everywhere else and you can't get what MeFi has to offer just any old place.
posted by ikkyu2 at 5:19 PM on February 10, 2007

very long thread. if grumblebee is still reading this, I hope this helps to clear things up just a bit.

1. there's nothing wrong with pornography, but a post to the blue has to be more than JUST pornography just like any post should ideally be more than JUST any medium or message. people aren't free to just post "i like this book a lot. here is this book i like." there has to be more for the community to sink their teeth into or you might as well just start your own blog to share your thoughts. now, one could say that teddy bear gay porn is more than JUST porn, but that really only works if one accepts the premise that alternative sexual practice is "weird" and "other" and in some way entertaining in a fashion that shames those who legitimately enjoy that sort of thing. that's not the kind of thing we likt to see, because it slights a group of people, however unintentionally.

2. sometimes it's okay to post a link or series of links to one extraordinary creative work, if there's something truly extraordinary about its existence or existence on the web. see that recent post with a link to a picture of a comet falling in between a fireworks display and a lightning storm. That picture is unique in our history and we will all die without anyone ever taking a picture of an event like that again, or even compositing one from 3 photos taken live at the event (as was the case with that picture). that's extraordinary. we'll all have opportunities to see bear plushie porn again many times in our lives if we're the kind of person who's open to those opportunities. it's not extraordinary in any sense except that most of us close ourselves off to that lifestyle. it's not some exceptionally well shot and directed plushie porn. it's just plushie porn.

3. if people think you're being disingenuous or passive agressive, don't take it too hard. It's just very hard for most people to encounter a personality so direct and forthright without any trace of affectation without wondering if it's an act, or even assuming it is. When you see someone say "I do not get this thing you think is obvious," any reasonable person will say "cool. let me explain it." and not give it much thought. but when repeated and reworded explanation doesn't still meets resistance, and the person misses commonly understood phrases, social cues, cultural references and expressions then you start to think that either the person is being disingenuous or suffers from asperger's. Since most people don't leap to think "joe suffers from asperger's," they just assume it's disingenuousness. (is that a word?) this isn't to say that you suffer from asperger's. the point is, sometimes people just can't imagine that your way of interacting with them is naturally so very different from everyone else they've ever met. It sucks, and they'll make assumptions (and if i'd joined this conversation earlier, I might have made a lot of assumptions myself), but that's life. you don't seem to be taking it too hard, but on the off chance that appearances continue to deceive, I hope that you stick around and realize that nobody hates you. This is just what happens when two very different social styles encounter each other. There's a certain amount of head-butting until some common ground is discovered.

For instance, what are your thoughts on pancakes?
posted by shmegegge at 5:33 PM on February 10, 2007

but when repeated and reworded explanation doesn't still meets resistance,
posted by shmegegge at 5:36 PM on February 10, 2007

MetaFilter: we do genuinely like you.
posted by Duncan at 5:41 PM on February 10, 2007

Except eyeballkid, who hates us all, Duncan.
posted by cgc373 at 5:48 PM on February 10, 2007

this isn't to say that you suffer from asperger's

grumblebee himself says "I suspect I may have Aspergers, though I've never been diagnosed." (I recommend that comment to anyone who thinks grumblebee is any kind of a jerk: "...in these threads I always notice a bunch of people coming forward, admitting that they are shy. And yet most of you sound like really intelligent, thoughtful people. I would love to hear more about you, your lives and interests.")
posted by languagehat at 5:56 PM on February 10, 2007

almost no one wants to say it wasn't any good merely because it was porn.

It wasn't any good (for mefi) because it was porn.

The rest is rationalization. Perfectly good rationalization, but still.
posted by scheptech at 6:10 PM on February 10, 2007

Ap what the hell is your point? That a majority of readers find a minority porn taste unappealing? Er, so?
posted by bonaldi at 6:55 PM on February 10, 2007

God that was funny.
posted by delmoi at 7:10 PM on February 10, 2007

You know who else liked to rim furries?

That's right, Kierkegaard.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:15 PM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

"I kind of wonder if this whole thread would have gone different if the deletion reason had been 'Dude, plushie porn? Really? That's what you wanted to share with everyone today?'"

That would've gotten mathowie off the hook, but not all these (straight) people bitching about (straight) community standards.

How about a nice straightforward standard? "No Porn At All On Metafilter! (Not even h4wt grrl-on-grrl action!)" I won't quarrel with that standard; I'm not saying Metafilter ought to be a h4wt pr0n site, not even for fuzzy faggy rimjobs.

But again, the point of the deleted FPP was quite obviously "Hey everybody, I found this really goofy FURRY porno on the Web! It's Gay and/or/but it's really silly! Let's all have a chuckle!" It's strange how, er, perverted that turned out.
posted by davy at 7:37 PM on February 10, 2007

For what it's worth:
1) I knew it would be deleted. That was obvious to me.
2) I have absolutely no problem with the fact that it got deleted. None. Fine by me.
3) However, I'm right there with grumblebee about not quite knowing why it would be deleted.

I knew that the community would say "no way", and I knew Matt would say "no way", and I knew that because I have gotten a feel for the place and how people think about things, but in this case, I can't put my finger in why they/y'all feel that it should be deleted. I'm not disagreeing, or agreeing. Just very curious.

Thanks to some of the folks later in the thread who actually gave some answers to that question. No thanks to the folks who ignored that question and just harped on about "you should know, and if you don't know, I won't tell you, but I will insult you!"
posted by Bugbread at 7:39 PM on February 10, 2007 [2 favorites]

Smutty links have always had a place at Mefi. Outright porn, not so much.

That said, I'm amazed this is only the second comment in this thread to mention the googly eyes. Come on people, THE PORNO HAD GOOGLY EYES!!! MORE PORNO WITH GOOGLY EYES, PLEASE!
posted by mediareport at 7:47 PM on February 10, 2007

The longer this thread goes on, the more affection I have for fuzzy faggy rimjobs.
posted by desuetude at 7:48 PM on February 10, 2007

Davy,

I wonder how much of that phrasing (the whole "gay porn" thing) is just a matter of social conditioning. That is, it jumped out at me as well ("Gay porn? That's what you wanted to post on Mefi?" -- what, as opposed to straight porn?!), but the more I think about it, the more I think it's just that the expression "gay porn" has embedded itself into the language, due to homophobes, to the point where non-homophobes use it as well, not because they have a problem with gays, but because it's its own little phonemic meme.

Like saying "PIN number" or "ATM machine"...

Or talking about how a band is "gay" (NOT HOMOPHOBIC), meaning "lame" (NOT PHOBIC OF PEOPLE WHO CANNOT WALK), meaning "dumb" (NOT PHOBIC OF PEOPLE WHO CAN'T SPEAK), meaning "bad"...

Or this older American guy I know who used to be involved in the whole civil rights movement back in the 1950's (when it would get you on the FBI's watchlist), and who doesn't have a racist bone in his body, but nonetheless uses the expression "this black guy at my office" when talking about a black guy at his office, but "this guy at my office" when talking about a white guy at his office.

I could be totally wrong, that's just a guess, not one made with any conviction.
posted by Bugbread at 7:50 PM on February 10, 2007

Fuzzy faggy rimjobs never go out of style, or fall into desue ... hey, wait a minute!
posted by cgc373 at 7:52 PM on February 10, 2007

Holy fuck, I can't stop laughing at that clip. It's not just the googly eyes. It's the banjo loop *and* the googly eyes. This is the funniest pomo commentary about porn and orgasm EVAR.
posted by mediareport at 8:02 PM on February 10, 2007

Why do you hate gay bears so much? I thought it was funny but I did not watch past the foreplay part.
posted by Iron Rat at 8:11 PM on February 10, 2007

I did not watch past the foreplay part.

Sweetie, you don't know what you're missing. Get to the point about a third of the way in where the bear's giving a blowjob, googly eyes a-wigglin'. It's a total hoot. The post-coital cuddle in the last 20 seconds, too.

Ok, I'm done talking about the plushie sex video now.
posted by mediareport at 8:25 PM on February 10, 2007

Ok, no I'm not. Have y'all seen the clips where Plushie Schwartz gets blitzed on K and fucks a squid on the beach? Please tell me you're at least laughing at that.
posted by mediareport at 8:40 PM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

I might find it uncomfortable to watch furries fucking each other in the ass, but many other people might find it interesting and hilarious and eye opening. So I can simply CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT. Bingo, everyone's happy. Bad deletion.
posted by petsounds at 8:51 PM on February 10, 2007

Bad deletion.

I don't think so. Admittedly I looked at it for about three seconds before closing it. "Ha ha look at the porn" is just not something I think improves the site. Porn is repulsive and just like posts about born-again-Christians-LOL there has to be some intelligence added to it, some discussion, some context, for it to earn its keep. It's not just neutral and innocent, to many or, I think, most people. I realize for some people it is. But just because it could make you gawk or guffaw (as I did at the lame car-accident-horoscope crap I posted and got deleted WWIT) is not enough. That is my impression as a newbie around here, and I think better posts raise the bar a wee bit from the LOL-standard.
posted by Listener at 9:02 PM on February 10, 2007

Grumblebee, you posted a porn link, with no NSFW warning. It might be mildly amusing to you. Yes, there are a lot of not very good front page posts. This was a pretty bad post. to porn.

It seems an out of character post for you.
posted by theora55 at 9:24 PM on February 10, 2007

Look again, theora55- he did not forget the NSFW tag.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:28 PM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

theora55 : "Grumblebee, you posted a porn link, with no NSFW warning."

What, "VERY VERY VERY NSFW" no longer counts as an NSFW warning?
posted by Bugbread at 9:40 PM on February 10, 2007

I saw this thread before I went to work and thought "Yep. Glad I didn't watch the furry porn." I came back from work six hours later and was still glad I hadn't watched the furry porn.

And then someone referenced the bear video in the cat-spanking thread and finally, curiousity got the better of me and I just had to see what the fuck (so to speak) all the fuss was about.

And now, I may never have sex again.

Lesson learned: Never return to MetaFilter. Ever.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 10:28 PM on February 10, 2007

What's a rimjob?

/ curious.
posted by vronsky at 10:32 PM on February 10, 2007

vronsky, do you really want to know the answer to that? ... you might not

but wikipedia has an entry on it

if you click and don't like, don't blame me, i warned you
posted by pyramid termite at 10:40 PM on February 10, 2007

It's like a rimshot, only you get paid for it.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:43 PM on February 10, 2007

wow, i just realized that eb's been gone for months until about feb 3 or so.

whatup, eb?
posted by shmegegge at 10:50 PM on February 10, 2007

Lame attempt at humor pt - but thanks for the link brother. E. coli, intestinal parasites, oh my!

And I wanted to add that I don't MeTa much, but I was surprised at the grumblebee bashing. I always thought of him, like l-hat, as one of mefi's grey eminences. And I always liked the dude. (but the "my wife found it" was kinda weak).
posted by vronsky at 10:54 PM on February 10, 2007

What's a rimjob?

Twenty bucks, same as in town.

god, you people are falling down on the job here
posted by taz at 11:35 PM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

Lame attempt at humor pt

answer a question seriously and people think you're joking ...
posted by pyramid termite at 11:35 PM on February 10, 2007

Now this is just an aside, but is it really necessary to make a wikipedia link just to explain what a rimjob is? What's a rimjob? It's licking the anus, Vronsky. No HTML tags required.

I think there are a couple of obvious problems here, and I can see how Grumblebee ran afoul of them.

I would think anyone can see that if you are linking to a porn site there has got to be some significant added features that make the site special. That's an obvious, trivial observation, right? So then the real point of disagreement is whether the material at hand is special enough to merit inclusion. Here's where I think things went wrong.

First problem, a slow start. Basically you've got a guy in a bear suit drinking hard liquor straight out of a (jumbo) bottle, with a muddy sort of bass backbeat. There's no action (to my jaded, internet-honed microattention span for online hijinx). So the rest of the page intrudes on me and the rest of the page is ads of the "frat boys get sucked off in the toilet" variety. Leaving an overall impression of more "nasty porn" than "funny weird."

And then again, even without that, the basic funny is the dude is in a bear suit. Okay, as mediareport points out it goes considerably further than that but I don't know that from grumblebee's link. I think where a critical disconnect occurred is that grumblebee is, by his own admission, leading a bit of a sheltered life.

In my world, sadly, the fact that there is a small but solid contingent of self-made porn stars who wear animal costumes is just one of those things I'm aware of and have been for years. This is not the first or (god help me) even the fifth video of someone getting fucked in a fur suit I've seen and I don't even like that sort of thing. So the novelty factor on it is relatively low.

If that ketamine squid (hey, I just found my new band name!) video mediareport found had been the link it might even have survived, well probably not but it would have been a less one sided debate. But as it was it just boils down to a dick in a mouth, which really is so not the best of the web, and the fact that it involves an alcoholic bear and a banjo track just isn't interesting enough to cover that up.

I hope that helps Grumblebee understand. I really want him to stay around, he's the only atheist here who doesn't think I'm some kind of crazy dumbass just because I believe that a two thousand year old space jew is going to fly downand whisk me away to heaven right before his Dad starts kicking all of your heathen asses. Which reminds me, I was DEEPLY offended by that "Cumming of Jizzus" post.
posted by nanojath at 1:24 AM on February 11, 2007

a one video link to a furry gay rimjob

Am I the only person who started singing "it's a furry gay rimbjob post" to the tune of Robyn Hitchcock's "Furry Green Atom Bowl" after reading that?

...

I, uh, I am, aren't I.
posted by nanojath at 1:32 AM on February 11, 2007

What if it were Hitler's vagina?
posted by team lowkey at 1:34 AM on February 11, 2007

nanojath : "Now this is just an aside, but is it really necessary to make a wikipedia link just to explain what a rimjob is?"

I'd link you to the answer to that question, but, unfortunately, while there's a page on Wikipedia explaining the word "yes", the only page about "no" is a disambiguation page.
posted by Bugbread at 1:59 AM on February 11, 2007

Thanks, mediareport. I am now blinking the tears of laughter from my eyes after 15 seconds of the squid video. It's the expression on Plushie's face that seals it.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 2:47 AM on February 11, 2007

Also, it's a pretty special squid costume which not only has a special love-hole like that, it has a special embroidered orifice. We are dealing with professionals here.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 2:50 AM on February 11, 2007

"whatup, eb?"

MeFi vacation --> big life disruption --> serious illness --> resettled and some health recovery --> tentative return to MeFi. :)
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:49 AM on February 11, 2007

All best, EB.
posted by Wolof at 3:54 AM on February 11, 2007

And I think that you could find a much stronger 'Stonewall' than this original fpp.

Actually, the 'Stonewall' people could probably have found a much stronger Stonewall than the one that that set off the original riots. It was a mob-connected bar with no liquor license where drag queens gathered to watch Go-Go boys dancing.

You takes your opportunities where you finds 'em.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:28 AM on February 11, 2007

If you can't tell the difference between a one video link to a furry gay rimjob and the dragon dildo post, I don't know what to tell you.

Man, I love the time we live in.
posted by slimepuppy at 5:53 AM on February 11, 2007

I like grumblebee's hat.

And nice to see you back, EB.
posted by flabdablet at 6:50 AM on February 11, 2007

he's the only atheist here who doesn't think I'm some kind of crazy dumbass just because I believe that a two thousand year old space jew is going to fly downand whisk me away to heaven right before his Dad starts kicking all of your heathen asses.

Nah, I'm another. And this comment makes the thread:

This is not the first or (god help me) even the fifth video of someone getting fucked in a fur suit I've seen and I don't even like that sort of thing.

So rave on, you crazy Christ-dude!

And welcome back, EB!
posted by languagehat at 7:53 AM on February 11, 2007

Nanojath: Not all atheists are inconsiderate jerks to believers. They just tend to stay away from the kinds of threads that draw the RELIGIONISTHEGREATESTEVILEVOR crowd like moths to a flame. We're more the cuddly woodland critters that shy away from fire, gambol in the freshly fallen snow and wait for the birth of the Antichrist.

Also, this sentence: This is not the first or (god help me) even the fifth video of someone getting fucked in a fur suit I've seen and I don't even like that sort of thing reminded me of this classic Onion op-ed.
posted by Kattullus at 8:57 AM on February 11, 2007

Seconding what nanojath said. And what languagehat said about what nanojath said.
posted by vacapinta at 10:13 AM on February 11, 2007

Unlike some of you, I was a plushie pr0n virgin until now. And I think it was a great post. Not only did it have googly eyes and the best soundtrack ever, but the really cute guy had a great laugh. When was the last time you saw more-or-less genuine laughter in porn? Usually, everyone is so bloody serious.

Also, bonus points for a rim job performed with a giant plastic tongue.

Thanks Grumblebee. After the week I had, I really needed something so amazingly silly.

Actually, now that I think about it, this was the second time I've seen plushie porn. The first time was also on Metafilter. When the image tag was still available, someone posted a gif of someone in a plush dolphin outfit, screwing some 300 pound girl. Definitely some eye bleach needed. Not nearly as good as the bear.
posted by pandaharma at 10:31 AM on February 11, 2007

No link to the dolphin, pandaharma? For shame!
posted by cgc373 at 10:55 AM on February 11, 2007

i also don't think nanojath is crazy, but i'm an agnostic. does that count? i also avoid the religious threads like the plague.

how does one avoid the plague? you can't exactly see it coming. i suppose you could avoid a town full of inexplicably dead people, but other than that, you just get lucky i think.
posted by shmegegge at 1:47 PM on February 11, 2007

What vacapinta said. And welcome back, EB!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 2:03 PM on February 11, 2007

Not all atheists are inconsiderate jerks to believers. They just tend to stay away from the kinds of threads that draw the RELIGIONISTHEGREATESTEVILEVOR crowd like moths to a flame.

Seconding that.

--Another Atheist Dude
posted by jason's_planet at 3:26 PM on February 11, 2007

Was somebody here seeking dolphin plushie pushin'? (click all sizes for ani gif, via courtsiem)
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 6:57 PM on February 11, 2007

Thanks, dano!
posted by blasdelf at 7:02 PM on February 11, 2007

Ok, no I'm not. Have y'all seen the clips where Plushie Schwartz gets blitzed on K and fucks a squid on the beach? Please tell me you're at least laughing at that.

If the post had linked to those two clips, I bet it would've stayed. Genius. (Though the K-hole bit reminded me of Clara The Dancing Chicken, which reminded me of all that unpleasantness with Alig and Auster and the dismembered winged drug dealer in a cardboard box, which rather took the shine off the giggle.)
posted by jack_mo at 7:27 PM on February 11, 2007

"Was somebody here seeking dolphin plushie pushin'?"

Fine. Here's the mpeg format.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:06 PM on February 11, 2007

Schweet!
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 8:42 PM on February 11, 2007

nathancaswell's argument is reasonable, but nevertheless a classic example of the slippery-slope fallacy.

Whoah, cowboy. The slippery slope fallacy??

Somebody has some reading to do.
posted by dreamsign at 4:56 AM on February 13, 2007