WORDS WORDS FUCKING WORDS January 20, 2010 4:06 PM   Subscribe

Let's have the "fuckity fuck fuck on the front page" discussion in here instead of here.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey to Etiquette/Policy at 4:06 PM (255 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

I was just talking about that post.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:10 PM on January 20, 2010


Great minds, &c.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 4:12 PM on January 20, 2010


If we're taking a vote, I guess I'd say that for me, there's a threshold somewhere. One fuck wouldn't make me minimize the window when someone walked by. But a "fuckin' dick" plus a "fuckin' cock" seems a little much, and is definitely hide-the-window material.

The problem is in where to draw the line, because it's going to be different for everyone. In a case like this, though, it doesn't seem like censorship to me -- or anything at all egregious -- to just heed the most cautious denominator and put the fuckin' dicks below the fold.
posted by mudpuppie at 4:20 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


Fuckity fuckity fuckity fuckity.

There. I feel better now.
posted by eyeballkid at 4:25 PM on January 20, 2010


fuck is the new dot
posted by found missing at 4:26 PM on January 20, 2010 [4 favorites]


FWIW, I went back and forth on it for a while and actually did some searching in the archives to see what precedent was, and I found a lot of posts going back a long time that were things like Watch porn. (sfw), Garry Linnell eats hot cock at a local Beijing penis restaurant [SFW], Bald Cock., things about cockrings, etc., and figured it was okay. Didn't mean to push any envelopes.
posted by shakespeherian at 4:27 PM on January 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


I'd prefer no fucks in the fucking title, because then it shows up in my fucking history...
posted by JoanArkham at 4:29 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


Didn't mean to push any envelopes.

I don't think you did. Nothing in your post is new to Metafilter.
posted by eyeballkid at 4:30 PM on January 20, 2010


I was going to chime in on the side that said "the tip of my fuckin' cock" was a bit much for the FP, but as there's precedent, whatever.
posted by jquinby at 4:30 PM on January 20, 2010


I didn't get the joke. I thought he was a real person until I happened upon the wikipedia link in the FPP's thread, partly because Andy Kaufman's humor never held much appeal for me.

Also, this isn't the first time profanity has appeared above the fold.
posted by zarq at 4:32 PM on January 20, 2010


fuck is the new dot

fuck is the the the.
posted by carsonb at 4:37 PM on January 20, 2010 [8 favorites]


On the one hand, I think context would have been cool for people who aren't huge Andy Kaufman freaks like I am. I can understand their concern, particularly not knowing the back story. For them, this link is not "best of the web" even if it was for me.

On the other, I can imagine Andy cracking up over people on the internet worrying about whether the words "I’m gonna rub the tip of my fuckin’ cock around the mouth of his glass" on some website are going to get them fired or not.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 4:37 PM on January 20, 2010 [9 favorites]


Am I being called out? ooohhh, I misheard. Ok, go about your business y'all.
posted by fuq at 4:38 PM on January 20, 2010 [6 favorites]


On the other, I can imagine Andy cracking up over people on the internet worrying about whether the words "I’m gonna rub the tip of my fuckin’ cock around the mouth of his glass" on some website are going to get them fired or not.

So he was an asshole, then. Got it.
posted by zarq at 4:39 PM on January 20, 2010 [4 favorites]


(shakesphereian, I sent my husband this article and he's loving it. He just turned to me and quoted: "I've had some wonderful fucking times with whores. Deep, passionate moments. They're real" and then broke out into squealing, giggly laughter. So thanks for the link!)
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 4:39 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


So he was an asshole, then. Got it.

Pretty much. There's a pretty good interview on the FPP with him telling Letterman about how the whole point of "foreign man" was to make people feel embarrassed and uncomfortable. Some of his humor is funny in its unhumor--stuff that would be at home on Adult Swim or the like nowadays, but was really weird then--and some of it is about knowing how to push people's buttons and do it shamelessly.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 4:42 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


Yeah, it was the "tip of my fucking cock" that put it over the edge for me. Swearing, eh, I don't care. That really gross mental image? Ew.
posted by sarcasticah at 4:45 PM on January 20, 2010


Pretty much. There's a pretty good interview on the FPP with him telling Letterman about how the whole point of "foreign man" was to make people feel embarrassed and uncomfortable. Some of his humor is funny in its unhumor--stuff that would be at home on Adult Swim or the like nowadays, but was really weird then--and some of it is about knowing how to push people's buttons and do it shamelessly.

Ahhhh... okay. He sounds a lot like Sasha Baron Cohen's Borat.

I was 11 when Kaufman died, and my only exposure to him was as Latka on Taxi reruns. This is pretty jarring in comparison! I can't remember his bits on SNL. Which says a lot I guess, 'cause I watched that show and its retrospectives religiously through high school.
posted by zarq at 4:49 PM on January 20, 2010


tip of my fucking cock

why does this sound like some kind of Irish greeting?
posted by found missing at 4:49 PM on January 20, 2010 [39 favorites]


What the fuck do these fucking complainers do for work? Why would anyone have a fucking job where you can't even READ the word "fuck"?

Must work at Goldman Sachs!
posted by R. Mutt at 4:56 PM on January 20, 2010


Yeah, I think there's a big difference between "cockring" and a graphic, gleeful description of sexual harassment. One of them is the name of a sex toy. The other is borderline pornography.

In other words, it's not about the words themselves, it's the context.
posted by muddgirl at 4:57 PM on January 20, 2010


(Don't get me wrong, I love Kaufman and I think Clifton's shtick is hilarious. But the fact that it's intentionally trying to get you fired shouldn't make it OK, should it?)
posted by muddgirl at 4:58 PM on January 20, 2010


it is not metafilter or the members of metafilter's responsibility to make the site SFW for you. it is your responsibility to browse appropriate pages that meet the standards your bosses have laid out. metafilter makes no claims of being sfw. i feel like we had this argument way back when goatse was allowed to stay on the front page almost 6 years ago.
posted by nadawi at 5:03 PM on January 20, 2010 [17 favorites]


I've been chewing on that post since it went up. I've always felt it's important that the presence of dirty language on the front page be okay, and like folks have pointed out there's not really any shocking new precedent being set here in terms of coarseness above the fold. I remember a thread about this a couple years back, and I'm sure there's been more than one.

This is definitely pushing it just in terms of it being a sort of blind quote that leaves the reader a little unclear what is up until they hit the end of the post text. But then that's sort of fitting with the Cliftonian focus. But then people may not get that if they don't know who/what Tony Clifton is.

Ultimately, the post doesn't quite cross my threshold of Do Something About This, personally, but I wouldn't have been bothered by a drop of the quote inside if we had decided to do that either.

Probably would have been good if the debate about it had come here sooner rather than later, but that cow is already out of the barn at this point.

He sounds a lot like Sasha Baron Cohen's Borat.

I'd say the big difference is that Cohen's pretty willing to wink at the audience, in a way that Andy seemed pretty hesitant to do; where Cohen's performances are framed with a shared joking understanding that he was fucking with whoever he was fucking with, Andy mostly didn't seem to publicly acknowledge that he wanted anybody to be in on the joke. The deadest of deadpans, on a large scale.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:03 PM on January 20, 2010 [5 favorites]


I was 11 when Kaufman died, and my only exposure to him was as Latka on Taxi reruns. This is pretty jarring in comparison! I can't remember his bits on SNL. Which says a lot I guess, 'cause I watched that show and its retrospectives religiously through high school.

That was my only early exposure to him, too (heh, I was born the year before he died), but I saw a documentary on him when I was about 16 and was fascinated, and quickly devoured two biographies on him. One was written by Bob Zmuda, who may, or may not, be Tony Clifton these days. They paint two very different, equally fascinating portraits, and I'd really recommend them.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 5:12 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


it is not metafilter or the members of metafilter's responsibility to make the site SFW for you. it is your responsibility to browse appropriate pages that meet the standards your bosses have laid out. metafilter makes no claims of being sfw. i feel like we had this argument way back when goatse was allowed to stay on the front page almost 6 years ago.

Profane language is different than a picture. If you're allowed to surf the net at your job, it's likely that you could view foul language (text) on the 'net. I'm guessing that viewing nudity of any kind is less okay for most employers. So the difference here is that if someone was to link to goatse, it's likely that they'd put an NSFW next to the link. And if they didn't, the mods probably would.

On the other hand, this article is just text and is less likely to need that kind of label.
posted by zarq at 5:18 PM on January 20, 2010


That was my only early exposure to him, too (heh, I was born the year before he died), but I saw a documentary on him when I was about 16 and was fascinated, and quickly devoured two biographies on him. One was written by Bob Zmuda, who may, or may not, be Tony Clifton these days. They paint two very different, equally fascinating portraits, and I'd really recommend them.

OK, I'll check them out. Thanks! :)
posted by zarq at 5:28 PM on January 20, 2010


I'd say the big difference is that Cohen's pretty willing to wink at the audience, in a way that Andy seemed pretty hesitant to do

That would be the difference between art and commerce?
posted by R. Mutt at 5:28 PM on January 20, 2010


It doesn't "push my buttons" so much as "threaten to make my children starve by making me lose my job".
posted by DU at 5:41 PM on January 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


cortex: “I've always felt it's important that the presence of dirty language on the front page be okay, and like folks have pointed out there's not really any shocking new precedent being set here in terms of coarseness above the fold... but I wouldn't have been bothered by a drop of the quote inside if we had decided to do that either.”

I feel pretty much the same.

I'm happy to have the chance to wave my shiny new hand-made "FREE SPEECH IN POSTS!" flag, but then I wonder if that's the particular pile of poo I really want to plant my pole in. Ultimately, though, I just shrug and figure that, if I was looking for a chance to defend freedom to use foul language, it's not like I was going to be handed Shakespeare or something. shakespeherian ain't bad, anyway, so it'll do.

So: let it stand!
posted by koeselitz at 5:41 PM on January 20, 2010


Again, it's not just the language, it's the context. But I guess if we want to allow the usage of swear words, we have to also allow graphic jokes about sexual harassment.
posted by muddgirl at 5:47 PM on January 20, 2010


Metafilter fucking killed my children.
posted by found missing at 5:49 PM on January 20, 2010


It doesn't "push my buttons" so much as "threaten to make my children starve by making me lose my job".

Do you watch YouTube videos at work? The comments on each video are plainly visible, would you be judged on them regardless of what else is on the page?

Honestly, if this is really an "I might be fired" issue for you, you should not be reading MetaFilter at work.
posted by hermitosis at 5:53 PM on January 20, 2010 [30 favorites]


It wouldn't be Tony Clifton if he didn't get tossed out the door head first.
posted by scalefree at 5:54 PM on January 20, 2010


I'd prefer no fucks in the fucking title, because then it shows up in my fucking history...

Actually, this is pretty relevant to me, as well. And I know there's a FUCKING in the title of this thread, but obviously I didn't check - so too late! But there has been times where I haven't clicked on threads to read at work because of words like fuck, rape or porn in the title.

I don't have a problem with any of these words in the text - even above the fold - but in the subject header so that it's in the URL? Yeah, it'd be nice if that didn't happen.
posted by crossoverman at 5:55 PM on January 20, 2010


There may be occasions where profanity above the fold is necessary for the post to work properly (eg not be cryptic, or worded strangely) but this wasn't one of them. IMO it was a pretty weak post anyway, but it would just have been considerate to all the people who have issues like those described upthread to put the fucks below the fold.

(My laptop sits around the house; I'd really rather not have to think about what might be on the front page of Metafilter if one of my kids opens it up to do something. In other words, I'd appreciate fucks below the fold. If you regard that as censorship or self-censorship, go nuts.)
posted by unSane at 6:09 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


My laptop sits around the house...

Again, I really don't understand why everyone else's behavior should change instead of yours in this case. They're your kids, after all.

I mean, I have taken the points here to heart, and I would certainly think twice before posting a lot of profanity on the front page, but if I decide it's worth it for some reason, I hardly think I'm responsible for what your kids or boss ends up reading.
posted by hermitosis at 6:13 PM on January 20, 2010 [16 favorites]


I, too, appreciate fucks below the fold.
posted by shothotbot at 6:14 PM on January 20, 2010 [4 favorites]


I don't have a problem with any of these words in the text - even above the fold - but in the subject header so that it's in the URL? Yeah, it'd be nice if that didn't happen.

Not specific to the post in question, but just in general, there's really no plan to try and keep urls from being dirty. I understand where people are coming from on the "my shitty, invasive IT whateverthehell might notice naughty words in urls" thing, but that's again just really not something mefi is going to be beholden to.

It'd be nice, in that specific sense of making some folks lives easier in that specific case, but it's not in the stars.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:14 PM on January 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


Is there a way to view the site so that the title is stripped out of the URL, so that only the posts' number ID is shown?
posted by hermitosis at 6:18 PM on January 20, 2010


if I decide it's worth it for some reason, I hardly think I'm responsible for what your kids or boss ends up reading.

I didn't say you would be responsible; I explained why it would be considerate to me and many others, and that if you disagreed in the case of a particular post, you should go nuts.
posted by unSane at 6:24 PM on January 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


I don't fucking care about fuck below the fucking fold, as long as I can still use the term Bucket of Cocks anywhere I want on the blue, gray, green and hold on a sec....... what the fuck is that BG color in *Music* forest green or dark verdant or ball sack fungus mold growth lichen??
posted by Skygazer at 6:24 PM on January 20, 2010


I love how, whenever a MeTa thread is started for discussion of the format of a post, in order to keep discussion of the post's subject in the Blue from being derailed, some of the discussion of the post's subject gets pulled into the MeTa thread anyway.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:27 PM on January 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


i would think the explicitness of things discussed on the green would keep anyone with kids from having this page left open if you were worried about words damaging them.
posted by nadawi at 6:32 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


Probability of succeeding in getting tens of thousands of people to modify their behaviour in order to prevent your kids from accidentally seeing 'fuck' on metafilter: Zero.

Probability of succeeding in preventing your kids from accidentally seeing 'fuck' on metafilter by closing the damn browser window when you walk away: Near certain, if you apply yourself.

Click the little X, for fuck's sake.
posted by CKmtl at 6:33 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


My laptop sits around the house; I'd really rather not have to think about what might be on the front page of Metafilter if one of my kids opens it up to do something.

Oh my various gods, I can't think of a better situation for exposing kids to the word "fuck" than something as bizarre and fascinating as Tony Clifton. When I have children, I'm gonna have to remember to leave Lenny Bruce CDs and Doris Wishman movies at the bottom of my sock drawer.
posted by Greg Nog at 6:33 PM on January 20, 2010 [11 favorites]


I'd really rather not have to think about what might be on the front page of Metafilter if one of my kids opens it up to do something.

If you're that worried about your children seeing the words "fuck" or "cock," then you shouldn't be letting them on the internets, period. AYou do realize that there is a game to see how many clicks (and only clicks, no typing) it takes to get from a benign or children's website to a porn site or a site with non-medical pictures of nudity? Kind of similar to the Kevin Bacon degrees of separation game.
posted by MaryDellamorte at 6:33 PM on January 20, 2010 [4 favorites]


Whoops, forgot to italicize the quote.
posted by MaryDellamorte at 6:34 PM on January 20, 2010


I understand it's never going to be a rule, and that Metafilter is at my own risk, but avoiding certain words in the URL would be great for those who can manage it.
posted by spaltavian at 6:37 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


Thanks for the adivice on bringing up my children, everyone. I certainly appreciate it and apologize for having politely suggested that it would be considerate to put fucks below the fold for me and other folks.
posted by unSane at 6:40 PM on January 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


what the fuck is that BG color in *Music*

It's the color that I painted my bedroom in high school when my mom told me I couldn't paint it black.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:40 PM on January 20, 2010 [6 favorites]


I'm really only here for swearing and cock stories so front page, whatever, saves me a fucking click.
posted by sanko at 6:41 PM on January 20, 2010


If some people have a strong preference for keeping this kind of language below the fold if it's on the site at all, and other people are pretty much indifferent, with almost no one having a strong need to have this kind of language on the front page, then I don't see why the mods can't just rearrange the occasional post like this. A bit of editing (which wouldn't even need to involve deleting any text) would be easy and would evidently make some people feel more comfortable using MeFi. I don't see the harm except maybe some extremely slight annoyance on the part of the person who posted it (and probably not even that).

I actually think the "I could lose my job!" idea, which people apparently love to pounce on, is mostly a red herring. The consequences don't have to be that dire for the concerns to be valid. No one is likely to lose their job over this, but I still don't think we should blithely dismiss those who feel that this kind of verbal assault on the front page hinders their enjoyment of the site more seriously than, say, the occasional frivolous newsfilter post.
posted by Jaltcoh at 6:48 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


It's the color that I painted my bedroom in high school when my mom told me I couldn't paint it black.

And with a satisfying click another piece of the puzzle fit into place.
posted by shothotbot at 6:50 PM on January 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


Thanks for the adivice on bringing up my children, everyone. I certainly appreciate it and apologize for having politely suggested that it would be considerate to put fucks below the fold for me and other folks.

Sorry, but I have kids who can read and what they see on my laptop screen is my problem, not yours or the rest of Metafilter's. You might consider setting up separate logins with parental controls if you really want to shelter your child from seeing profane words, and I do not say this to be unkind or judgmental, just, from experience, I know this is the easiest way to feel at ease about my children having a safe internet experience.
posted by padraigin at 6:53 PM on January 20, 2010


I don't want to make any extra work for mods (which would certainly result in lots of squawking about freedom of speech) and I certainly don't want to change any site policies. I'm just saying that I personally and perhaps a few others would appreciate folk putting the fucks below the fold if it doesn't harm their post to do so.

Obviously, you are absolutely free to ignore this if, for example, you think my reasons are specious or stupid or I'm bringing up my kids all wrong. More power to you.

It's just a polite request.
posted by unSane at 6:58 PM on January 20, 2010 [3 favorites]


The content of the post was basically gross 12 year old "humor" and the post itself was not much better. There is a place for bawdy posts on Mefi but this isn't the way to do it.
posted by caddis at 7:00 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


/pushes buttons.
posted by localhuman at 7:01 PM on January 20, 2010


Is there a way to view the site so that the title is stripped out of the URL, so that only the posts' number ID is shown?

You can manually strip the URL of all the words after the number ID and the slash - so I suppose I could copy and paste the URL and take out the offending words. That's one way around it.
posted by crossoverman at 7:04 PM on January 20, 2010


unSane - maybe you've had kids for so long that you've forgotten, but those of us without kids are often told passive aggressively to watch our behavior, dress, language, etc "for the children!" and it gets really fucking tiring. i think it would be considerate for people to not let their kids push carts, buy things at stores, scream, run up and down the stairs outside of my apartment, say rude things, wipe their slimy grossness everywhere, sneeze all over the produce, run out into the street, and about a million other things - but, sadly, "think of those of us who managed to not pop out a kitten!" just hasn't caught on in the same way.

also. 7 words
posted by nadawi at 7:05 PM on January 20, 2010 [16 favorites]


(incidentally, my kids do have separate logins with parental controls on their own laptop and their own computer but they sometimes open mine to Google something or play a Flash game. I am not paranoid about them seeing profanity at all... but something like the Tony post is probably a bit much for the six-year-old. If I was paranoid about it I would close all my browser windows every session, but I'm not that paranoid. I think the guys who browse at work have a much stronger point than I do, to be honest. My request is a really mild one. It would just be a bit nicer for me. That's all. I keep saying, feel free to ignore. Go nuts. If this is a problem, consider the request withdrawn).
posted by unSane at 7:05 PM on January 20, 2010


cortex: “It's the color that I painted my bedroom in high school when my mom told me I couldn't paint it black.”

"I see a red door, and I want it painted #333...."
posted by koeselitz at 7:06 PM on January 20, 2010 [6 favorites]


I've never told anyone to do any of those things and I'm not now.

My kids know the seven words and are not afraid of them.
posted by unSane at 7:08 PM on January 20, 2010


If some people have a strong preference for keeping this kind of language below the fold if it's on the site at all, and other people are pretty much indifferent,

Based on the incredibly polite and deferential assertions here on both sides, I think that most people's preferences are fairly mild, and I volunteer that no changes should be made, save for the raising of awareness which this thread has probably already accomplished.
posted by hermitosis at 7:09 PM on January 20, 2010 [3 favorites]


I volunteer that no changes should be made, save for the raising of awareness which this thread has probably already accomplished.

seconded
posted by unSane at 7:10 PM on January 20, 2010


I don't see why the mods can't just rearrange the occasional post like this.

It goes against our general policy of minimal moderation, especially in an editing context. Editing is something we very rarely do and only in very very specific contexts and bad language is pretty much not one of those contexts. We do not feel comfortable editing posts without the OPs okay, pretty much ever [typos excepted].

Since it's not an issue that any of us feel strongly about, we'd be pretty much guessing at what sorts of things other people might mind and I don't think there's even a strong consensus on that. So we'd likely screw it up anyhow, or over-correct because the line is unclear. And I think this would be worse.

Honestly, if there was a simple way to have moved the cock-tip talk below the fold [i.e. just moving the location of the fold, no editing necessary] we might have done it, but there wasn't and we had to make a judgment call. I think it's safe to say that this is the sort of thing you'll see on MeFi once a year-ish not once a week-ish which is another argument for not changing policy over it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:15 PM on January 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


But then people may not get that if they don't know who/what Tony Clifton is.

But Kaufman is dead and the FPP links to a contemporary AV Club article. Although I like Kaufman and love and appreciate his shtick, I can't understand what made the deleted post FPP-worthy material. Take Kaufman out of the equation (he's dead, right?), and it's just Andrew Dice Clay or Raw-era Eddie Murphy.

If someone could explain to me why the link in the FPP is funny, it would be great.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:20 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


I'm actually a big fan of labeling NSFW content as NSFW, but I don't think that extends to bad words.

If naughty *words* are enough to possibly get you fired, or even disciplined, you need to not read Metafilter at work. And I meant that in a very sincere, concerned for your future financial health sort of way, not a dismissive, you suck and you should just die in a fire kind of way. It's a moderated site, but it's moderated after the fact. There's simply no way for anyone to guarantee that your use of the site will be swear word free, not even if the mods make it a rule that it be so.

Similarly, but with less sincere concern, for the 'won't someone think of the children' argument. If you're concerned about your children being exposed to written swearwords (and unless they go to, like, Mormon school on a compound in Utah, by the time they can read the words, they've already been exposed to them anyway), you also need to not read MeFi near your children. Because, again, user submitted content, moderated after the fact. Even if it's a rule, it's never going to be 100%.

All a rule will do is give you a false sense of security, right up until you get fired or permanently scar your children.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:21 PM on January 20, 2010 [6 favorites]


I don't see why the mods can't just rearrange the occasional post like this.

Mods should *never* move curse words like "fuck" below the fold. Never. That would be a dramatic change in the way the site operates, and there's no good reason to do it. I can understand polite requests from other members to avoid profanity as much as possible on the front page, but there's been a loooong history of those words appearing "above the fold," and the risk that they will appear has always been part of the full experience of the site. I've never been a fan of "slippery slope" fallacies, but the day Mefi mods start moving "fuck" and "cock" below the fold will be a very sad day indeed.

If naughty *words* are enough to possibly get you fired, or even disciplined, you need to not read Metafilter at work.

Amen. I'm a big fan of respecting others with NSFW and SPOILER warnings, and don't often use "fuck," etc in posts, but if you're complaining about those adult words on the front page or in post titles or whatever, you need to change *your* behavior so it's not whatever kind of problem it is for you.
posted by mediareport at 7:30 PM on January 20, 2010 [4 favorites]


I am pretty much in the anti-editing camp, and anti-prude camp, but the OP really should have put the dick joke inside. Even given my bias against editing etc. if it were up to me I would have probably removed that joke to the inside. I hate it when the mods decide to modify my posts. (oh, too long, lets move stuff inside etc.) So the no editing policy seems to actually loosened over time. Nevertheless, dick jokes on the front page make the site look stupid, and insult a not insignificant portion of the readers. That is why I would think it should have gone inside. However, I don't have any issue with the decision to not do that. It was only mildly offensive and it would be good to see us go back to minimal editing.
posted by caddis at 7:33 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


I think the issue is not so much "Will Someone Please Guarantee No Swears On the Front Page" as it is "Could People Generally Use Better Judgment Than To Post Stuff About Cock Tips On The Front Page."

As this place is at least in part governed through self-policed norms (sometimes, sort of), I don't think it's an unreasonable thought that there might be a norm against posting over-the-top dick-joke stuff on the front page.

On preview: the mods move stuff "below the fold" all the time for other reasons, like when someone goes nuts and posts 10 paragraphs on the front page. Are those posts sacrosanct? If not, why is "fuck" any different? Who cares if its above or below the fold? Special snowflakes indeed!
posted by Mid at 7:35 PM on January 20, 2010 [3 favorites]


I already said my kids know the words. I use them! That's how they know them!

To be a bit more precise, what bugged me about this post was not so much the words themselves but the way they were used. It's one thing to say 'fuck' or 'cock' or 'cunt' but the above-the-fold portion of this post was really much more than that. It wasn't just the words themselves and I probably mis-focused on that aspect. I'm kind of a fan of Kaufman's Clifton but this didn't seem like Kaufman's Clifton... it was describing and act and it just seemed like a bunch of gratuitous obscenity that didn't really have a whole lot of redeeming qualities and was piggybacking off Kaufman.

I was having a hard time thinking how I would explain it to the six year-old. And as I say I'm not afraid of them seeing dirty words but this seemed at least a notch above that.

So, yeah, if this was a regular thing on MeFi it would bother me and I would have to do something about it. But it was probably as Jessamyn says just a once-a-year kind of thing.

Like I said, I honestly do not have incredibly strong feelings about this and I think my reaction to this post was not so much about the words as about the act they described.
posted by unSane at 7:35 PM on January 20, 2010


(also from a MeFi mail I got I realize I gave a false impression above... my kids have access to Flash and Google on their own computers but sometimes my laptop is closer).
posted by unSane at 7:51 PM on January 20, 2010


It's one thing to say 'fuck' or 'cock' or 'cunt'

*ears prick up*
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:54 PM on January 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


yeah, I was kinda surprised at that first comment, which seemed to be implying that curses below a [more inside] was some kind of mefi policy when it clearly isn't. please let's not change that.

Honestly, if this is really an "I might be fired" issue for you, you should not be reading MetaFilter at work.

hear hear. we've discussed this before. labeling stuff NSFW is a courtesy, not an obligation. avoiding cursing or mentioning genitalia in the fpp title isn't even that. we take the courtesy pretty seriously here, and bully for that, but nevertheless we are not and cannot be the guardians of your gainful employment.

If some people have a strong preference for keeping this kind of language below the fold if it's on the site at all, and other people are pretty much indifferent, with almost no one having a strong need to have this kind of language on the front page, then I don't see why the mods can't just rearrange the occasional post like this.

a couple of reasons:

1. that does not accurately describe the layout of the differences of opinion on this topic.
2. you're fucking with your polling statistics a bit by dividing almost all the answers between "strong preference for no cussing" and "pretty much indifferent."
3. that the extreme ends of your spectrum, there, are given equal weight is kinda bullshit since one is "strong preference" which is apparently weighty enough, but the other has to be "a strong need" to be counted as something other than indifference.
4. mefi's not a graph, and it's not a democracy. the fact that we're adults and can handle a curse or a dick joke is all the reason we need not to make a hard and fast rule against vulgarity on the front page. the mods are always capable of deleting anything over the line when they see it as being so. people who don't like vulgarity are capable of and welcome to handle their distaste with maturity and don't need nannies to protect their eyes on the site.
posted by shmegegge at 7:57 PM on January 20, 2010 [3 favorites]


On preview: the mods move stuff "below the fold" all the time for other reasons, like when someone goes nuts and posts 10 paragraphs on the front page. Are those posts sacrosanct? If not, why is "fuck" any different? Who cares if its above or below the fold? Special snowflakes indeed!

Ten paragraph text dumps are easy to edit. Copy the first paragraph, html included, and slap that in the above-the-fold part. Slap everything else below the fold. It's not really editing so much as it is typesetting.

Fuck doesn't always occur at a convenient point in the text for slicing. How would you slice up the post Look At This Fucking Hipster (bold as the linked text)? Look At This // Fucking Hipster? This Hipster // Fucking Look At It?
posted by CKmtl at 8:19 PM on January 20, 2010


"It doesn't "push my buttons" so much as "threaten to make my children starve by making me lose my job"."

And you have absolutely no agency in this? Matt should really stop holding a gun to your head and making you read MetaFilter.
posted by klangklangston at 8:20 PM on January 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


"Nevertheless, dick jokes on the front page make the site look stupid, and insult a not insignificant portion of the readers. That is why I would think it should have gone inside."

Jonmc is dead and gone, long live jonmc. Because good ol' Jon'd remind you that stupid humor doesn't make you stupid, and that some of the best comedy in the history of humanity is just dick jokes.

But I'm really glad to see the mods standing their ground on this.
posted by klangklangston at 8:23 PM on January 20, 2010


On preview: the mods move stuff "below the fold" all the time for other reasons, like when someone goes nuts and posts 10 paragraphs on the front page. Are those posts sacrosanct? If not, why is "fuck" any different? Who cares if its above or below the fold?

To be clear: if there's a post that's a lot bigger on the outside than it should be, like a mega paragraph or multiple paragraphs or something like that, and there's a clear way to shorten it by just literally moving the cutoff point of the [more inside] break up, we'll sometimes do that without explicitly contacting the poster for permission first. And that's sort of the weird exception and it gets slightly up people's shirts sometimes when it happens.

We pretty much won't rearrange the content, period, though; we don't reformat people's posts outside of that specific, narrow, and not-very-often exception, and I'm not really comfortable with trying to change that for any reason. If there's more of a problem with a post, it's gonna come down to deleting or not unless the poster actively clears it with us.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:26 PM on January 20, 2010


Jonmc is dead and gone, long live jonmc.

what
posted by unSane at 8:29 PM on January 20, 2010


To be a bit more precise, what bugged me about this post was not so much the words themselves but the way they were used. It's one thing to say 'fuck' or 'cock' or 'cunt' but the above-the-fold portion of this post was really much more than that. It wasn't just the words themselves and I probably mis-focused on that aspect. I'm kind of a fan of Kaufman's Clifton but this didn't seem like Kaufman's Clifton... it was describing and act and it just seemed like a bunch of gratuitous obscenity that didn't really have a whole lot of redeeming qualities and was piggybacking off Kaufman.

I really think you need to take a second look at Kaufman's Clifton act, which seemed intent on not having redeeming qualities.

I was having a hard time thinking how I would explain it to the six year-old. And as I say I'm not afraid of them seeing dirty words but this seemed at least a notch above that.

Honestly, I think most six year olds would know what's icky/gross/funny about rubbing your penis on someone's cup. I don't think they'd need you to explain it.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:31 PM on January 20, 2010 [6 favorites]


A moment's silence for unSane, who apparently is under the impression that everyone owes him and his children a safe, curse-word free world.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:31 PM on January 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


On preview: the mods move stuff "below the fold" all the time for other reasons, like when someone goes nuts and posts 10 paragraphs on the front page. Are those posts sacrosanct? If not, why is "fuck" any different? Who cares if its above or below the fold?

Yeah, like cortex said, your understandings of "all the time" and "for other reasons" don't match what's really been happening. Space and format considerations (de-linking whole paragraphs, e.g.) on the front page are a clear and obvious exception to the "mods don't edit posts" rule. Defining which words should be verboten is also a fool's game. Asking them to start playing it is ridiculous.
posted by mediareport at 8:32 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


Fuck...fuck...FUCK!
WILLIAMSON! Open this fuckin' door post!


Above-the-fold grossouts are a bit tacky, and keeping this stuff [more inside] is good form IMO.
posted by porn in the woods at 8:33 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


PhoBWanKenobi: On the one hand, I think context would have been cool for people who aren't huge Andy Kaufman freaks like I am

I'm a big Andy Kaufman fan. One of the formative moments in my personal humor was seeing Kaufman's Mighty Mouse bit on SNL when I was a kid. I spent untold hours in the early 90s hunting down everything I could find on the man and his humor. Living on a rock in the middle of the Atlantic made that hard, but I persevered. I love Kaufman, I love his Clifton persona and I thought the posted article was a terrible. Andy Kaufman as Tony Clifton is hilarious. Whoever supplied the quotes in the article isn't. It's like the difference between Cartman on South Park and a random guy doing the Cartman voice expecting everything that comes out of his mouth being funny. I have no problem with the words "fuck" or "dick" on front page, but that article makes me so angry. That's not Tony Clifton, that's just some unfunny dick.
posted by Kattullus at 8:34 PM on January 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


A moment's silence for unSane, who apparently is under the impression that everyone owes him and his children a safe, curse-word free world.

That is deliberate fucking misreading of how this thread has evolved.
posted by shothotbot at 8:35 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


Mid: “I think the issue is not so much ‘Will Someone Please Guarantee No Swears On the Front Page” as it is ‘Could People Generally Use Better Judgment Than To Post Stuff About Cock Tips On The Front Page.””

And a fair request it is, indeed. If somebody's looking for suggestions regarding "Cock tips," it shouldn't be on the front page – they should post it to ask.metafilter.

Under "Cooking."
posted by koeselitz at 8:35 PM on January 20, 2010 [3 favorites]


And you have absolutely no agency in this? Matt should really stop holding a gun to your head and making you read MetaFilter.

This is a really unfair characterisation of his point. Clearly, not reading Metafilter at work solves the problem in the same sense that death cures everything. I have not seen anyone arguing for anything in this thread except an awareness that people may occasionally read Metafilter in contexts where obscenity is problematic, and so avoiding gratuitous obscenity above the fold makes their lives slightly easier.
posted by unSane at 8:36 PM on January 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


I really think you need to take a second look at Kaufman's Clifton act, which seemed intent on not having redeeming qualities.

Its main redeeming quality was that it was funny, which the interview wasn't.
posted by unSane at 8:38 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


That is deliberate fucking misreading of how this thread has evolved.

heh, don't worry, he's still sulking from the Andrew Sullivan thing
posted by unSane at 8:40 PM on January 20, 2010


What have I learned from this?

-- Linking to an interview with Tony Clifton may involve nasty words and that some people will try to lead the Metatalk thread into a GRAR discussion of why it shouldn't be on the front page of Metafilter.

What has unSane learned from this, including being explicitly told by everyone that this is not a big deal?

*crickets*
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:41 PM on January 20, 2010


heh, don't worry, he's still sulking from the Andrew Sullivan thing

*snicker* How many comments do you have in this thread alone?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:42 PM on January 20, 2010


unSane, BP, give it a fucking rest.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:43 PM on January 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


Motherfuck anyone over the age of twelve who's squeamish about cussing.

Seriously, people, there are places you can go, like the children's section of the fucking library or some shit.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 8:44 PM on January 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


Its main redeeming quality was that it was funny, which the interview wasn't.

See, maybe I'm weird, but while I've always appreciated the Clifton schtick for its meta qualities, I've always found it pretty unfunny and grating, too. Which I thought was the point? (Which, in a circular way, is precisely what's funny about it. But that's just as true for this interview.)
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:45 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


What have I learned from this?

-- Linking to an interview with Tony Clifton may involve nasty words


But it's not Tony Clifton. The article is not even as funny as some nerd endlessly reciting Monty Python snippets (But I don't like spam!) with a fake, shrill British accent.

So suck my balls.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:51 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


See, maybe I'm weird, but while I've always appreciated the Clifton schtick for its meta qualities, I've always found it pretty unfunny and grating, too. Which I thought was the point? (Which, in a circular way, is precisely what's funny about it. But that's just as true for this interview.)

I guess this really belongs back in the main thread but that version of Clifton seemed like a fairly cheap imitation of what I think of as the Kaufman Clifton. It's all in the eye of the beholder I guess. If you think AK might really be alive I suppose it's delicious. If not, it sort of falls flat.
posted by unSane at 8:53 PM on January 20, 2010


Seriously, people, there are places you can go, like the children's section of the fucking library or some shit.

you know, this and the thread about "like" have reminded me of some of my favorite colloquialisms that I will use because I like their sound:

-or some shit. I love ending stuff with this. "I'm a go get lunch or some shit." there are few reasons to use it legimately and a million reasons to use it for decoration. it's amazing. likewise:

-dem shits. I recall precisely the first time I heard this phrase, and it has stuck with me. I fucking love it. You have to be careful how you use it, because it seems to work best in a retail customer type of situation and it can start the transaction off on the wrong foot. but if you're hanging around with friends and you're like "gimme one a dem shits," awesome. I don't even think it's ironic. I think I just love the way it sounds. "gimme one a dem shits or some shit." "oh shit! american spirits? i love dem shits."
posted by shmegegge at 8:58 PM on January 20, 2010 [3 favorites]


I don't know, man. It seems really nerdy and pedantic to insist that Andy's version was the "real" version when Zmuda's existed simultaneously with Andy's, when it had Andy's blessing, and (by golly!) Andy always insisted he wasn't Tony at all, anyway.

I mean, I'm a big Trekkie, and I'm not up in arms over Zachery Quinto not being the real Spock. It's a character. And more, in Tony Clifton's case it's a character whose entire premise was based around being grating and offensive.

Also, I don't think anyone really thinks Andy's alive. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy the game, though.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:00 PM on January 20, 2010


See, maybe I'm weird, but while I've always appreciated the Clifton schtick for its meta qualities, I've always found it pretty unfunny and grating, too. Which I thought was the point?

at this point so few people have actually seen a tony clifton bit actually performed that it doesn't matter. you can watch youtube video, knowing what to expect, and it's not the same. the whole point was that you didn't know it was a gag, so in retrospect what most of us love about clifton gags (myself included) is hearing about it afterward... quickly. You watch that classic kaufman documentary and see quick snippets and hear the basic gist of it, and yeah, it's funny in a meta way. if you're there in a letterman audience, maybe it's funny in the way Neil Hamburger is because if you get it then you laugh at how bothered everyone else is. But the idea of just liking to listen to Clifton gags 30 years after the character's total irrelevance set in seems... off to me. I suspect most of the time people like the idea of Clifton, as in "yeah, I can't believe he did that. that's pretty brilliant." but the overwhelming majority of clifton's routine was performed for private audiences against their will off camera, and none of us were privy to that. I suspect we'd have gotten as tired of it, even knowing the joke, as those people did.

which is why that onion article is almost completely worthless. it's tired old bait for kaufman fans and the idea that Kaufman would find that amusing after 30 years is rabid speculation at best.
posted by shmegegge at 9:04 PM on January 20, 2010


PhoBWanKenobi: I've always found it pretty unfunny and grating, too

Really? Here's Tony Clifton on The Fantastic Miss Piggy Show. The artistry of Kaufman's Clifton routine is more apparent in the family friendly context of the Muppets: the terrible tap-dancing, the ridiculous audience participation, that beautiful moment Clifton's brought a stool to sit on... anyway... Tony Clifton's a hilarious riot. Here's Tony Clifton being more obnoxious on Dinah! but he's still funny. That duet with Dinah Shore at the end is just beautifully funny. Anyway... Kaufman as Clifton is funny.

I don't know, man. It seems really nerdy and pedantic to insist that Andy's version was the "real" version when Zmuda's existed simultaneously with Andy's, when it had Andy's blessing, and (by golly!) Andy always insisted he wasn't Tony at all, anyway.

Zmuda (if that was Zmuda) should let Clifton retire if that's the best he can come up with now.
posted by Kattullus at 9:12 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


See, shmegegge, I can't help but hear echoes of the reaction to the article in your guess as to people's reactions to the original routine (which I agree with)--"performed for private audiences against their will" etc. Was this ever a character meant to be consumed in digestible, youtube-ish bites? Or was he meant to be genuinely unsettling and upsetting--was the joke supposed to be pushed just a hair or two too far? You're right: who knows how Andy would have seen this character today. But, if nothing else, the character still seems to be working. And thats interesting, and makes the interview interesting--and, for me, the reaction to it interesting, too.

But, as I said on the FPP, any friend of Miss Piggy's . . .
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:15 PM on January 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


Kattulus, I'm aware of those links. I'm a pretty big Kaufman fan; as I said on the FPP, I saw Clifton with Miss Piggy as a kid and was flabbergasted. As part of the intended audience, it didn't seem funny--it seemed bizarre and inscrutable. Likewise, I'm sure, the people watching the Dinah Shore show. The humor's a lot harder to see if you're not aware that a joke is going on, and even the, well, if can be hard to see at times.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure we'll have to agree to disagree. Deep down, my feeling is this: the character is (I'm pretty sure) Zmuda's now, to do with as he pleases and with Andy's blessing. I'm glad he's still using it to push buttons.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:20 PM on January 20, 2010


unSane said: My laptop sits around the house; I'd really rather not have to think about what might be on the front page of Metafilter if one of my kids opens it up to do something.

That's why I click Start > Log Off > Switch User whenever I'm going to be away from the computer (it doesn't actually log you off or close any of your open pages, it just puts you in suspended animation until you come back). That way, anyone who happens along (kid or adult) doesn't have the opportunity to be on my user account at all. If they want to use the computer, they can sign into another account (or the guest account) and do their own thing without being subjected to anything I was reading or looking at.
posted by amyms at 9:22 PM on January 20, 2010


"This is a really unfair characterisation of his point. Clearly, not reading Metafilter at work solves the problem in the same sense that death cures everything. I have not seen anyone arguing for anything in this thread except an awareness that people may occasionally read Metafilter in contexts where obscenity is problematic, and so avoiding gratuitous obscenity above the fold makes their lives slightly easier."

It's really not. DU's comment was in total fucking passive voice, asserting that it was the thread that was—hyperbolically—going to kill his children. Like there were no other actions between someone else posting to the front page of MetaFilter and him getting fired, like, you know, maybe opening the page, reading it at work when he knows there's a risk…

I got that you didn't care about this nearly as much as folks seem to think you do, and you've totally been taken out of context, but that doesn't mean that his comment shouldn't get a great big, "Come the fuck on!"

And that since the number of swears per FPP on the front page is pretty infinitesimal, you might do better praising all of the posts without rather than worrying that once per year MetaFilter might cause an uncomfortable moment with your kid. (Not a dig at you or your kids, just, like, you know, I tend to believe that there are worse places for your kids to learn that rubbing their dicks on things is only funny when daddies do it).
posted by klangklangston at 9:25 PM on January 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


Well, this all seems about as fun as an intravenous injection of rabid monkey diarrhea.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:31 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


PhoBWanKenobi: Anyway, I'm pretty sure we'll have to agree to disagree.

Oh yeah, totally. What this disagreement boils down to is whether we think the interview is funny, which is a completely subjective thing. I'm just confused by your earlier statement which I quoted that Clifton's "unfunny." Yeah, I've never not been in on the Clifton joke, but when you're in on the joke Clifton's uproarious. I'm besides myself with happy glee watching Clifton routines. The linked interview's just not funny to me. Humor's subjective but I'm a firm believer in the idea that if you're funny enough you can just about get away with everything, e.g. Maria Bamford, Billy Connolly, Stephen Colbert, Chris Rock, all of these people can be terribly offensive but they're so funny that you don't notice (humor-is-subjective disclaimer).
posted by Kattullus at 9:32 PM on January 20, 2010


Oh, and as a weird side note: I've met Zmuda (as Clifton). I'm not at all sure that funny/not funny is the question to ask. His "character" is an alcoholic; he downed about half a handle of Jack while in our office. Zmuda's Clifton is kamikaze humor. If he's not desperate and pathetic, the portrayal is so frighteningly accurate that the distance is erased.

The tragedy is that Kaufman had ideas and could move on; Zmuda doesn't seem to have any other ideas and so is making up for it by being a perfect acolyte and martyr for humor performance. That may be reading too much into it, but one of the parts of being a "character" is that when the "character" meets the public, the public gets to interpret; Zmuda's intentions are irrelevant.

Still, he was more cogent than Blowfly.
posted by klangklangston at 9:33 PM on January 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


My kids aren't old enough to read yet. When they can read, I'm going to be restricting their internet access until I judge they're ready to be exposed to sites that aren't strictly kid-friendly.

However, I'm a parent who was born in the 70's. I now have children (toddlers) who are growing up in the internet age -- a time which is so foreign to my own childhood experiences that I might as well have grown up in the Byzantine Empire, It's pretty daunting to think of just how many influences my kids are going to be exposed to which I will likely be unable to control or manage.

I suppose that's okay and I'm going to have to get used to it. You can't raise your children in a bubble and expect them to be well-adjusted, after all. You do what you can and hope you won't fuck 'em up too badly.

I grew up during a time when folks generally respected that parents might not want their children to be exposed to certain things. Respect was shown for the innocence of youth. It used to be considered polite. So even rebellious teenagers would likely refrain from cursing around a 4 year old. Now it's the parents who are considered "passive aggressive" for trying to raise their kids in a civilized society. And people today seem to think nothing of talking about graphic sex acts in front of other people's children.

To be clear, here, I strongly disagree with unSane that Metafilter should be censored for the sake of children who might happen across it. I'll keep mine off of MeFi. That won't be hard. And if they happen across it, well... c'est la vie. It was bound to happen sooner or later.

But....

nadawi, I read your comment above: "unSane - maybe you've had kids for so long that you've forgotten, but those of us without kids are often told passive aggressively to watch our behavior, dress, language, etc "for the children!" and it gets really fucking tiring."

I find your attitude frustrating. Because you're not talking about the internet anymore, are you? You're talking in a more abstract way about parental entitlement in modern culture. So being polite and respectful of a parent's desire not to expose the impressionable young minds of their charges to adult concepts and profanity is "fucking tiring"? That sort of passive aggressive attitude from random strangers makes my job as a well-meaning parent a hell of a lot harder.
posted by zarq at 9:40 PM on January 20, 2010 [4 favorites]


A moment's silence for unSane, who apparently is under the impression that everyone owes him and his children a safe, curse-word free world.

No he isn't. And neither am I.
posted by zarq at 9:41 PM on January 20, 2010


I have never even remotely suggested that Metafilter be censored. Please just go back and read what I wrote. I just said that it would make my life a tiny bit easier if profanity, and in particular graphic descriptions, voluntarily moved below the fold, but that if it didn't, I was totally OK with that. I also said that I was against any kind of policy change, and against mods editing posts to move obscenity below the fold. I was just making a mild request. I've said this over and over and over again. It's really disheartening to continually be misrepresented.
posted by unSane at 9:46 PM on January 20, 2010 [4 favorites]


As mentioned earlier in the thread I suspect the specific words used are less uncomfortable for some people than the remote idea of a male person subjecting surreptitiously another male to a faint taste of his genitals, to be soon washed away by beer anyways. The specific words have been used many times before, so I can't explain the outrage here otherwise. Then... come on people, this is a *common* prank that most male and female teenagers are exposed to at least once, and has nothing to do with pornography nor sexual assault!

Then here this innocuous idea is straightforwardly described in a FPP with the very same words that people like you and me would use in real life with other real people to describe it. No big deal, and kids will get acquainted to the idea and words with or without MeFi.

What is it that make some of us grow old and forget what's it's like to be uninhibited?
posted by knz at 9:47 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


I have never even remotely suggested that Metafilter be censored. Please just go back and read what I wrote. I just said that it would make my life a tiny bit easier if profanity, and in particular graphic descriptions, voluntarily moved below the fold, but that if it didn't, I was totally OK with that. I also said that I was against any kind of policy change, and against mods editing posts to move obscenity below the fold. I was just making a mild request. I've said this over and over and over again. It's really disheartening to continually be misrepresented.

I re-read the thread, and you're right. I mischaracterized your position. I apologize.
posted by zarq at 9:51 PM on January 20, 2010


I re-read the thread, and you're right. I mischaracterized your position. I apologize.

God damn motherfucking cocksucking bitch-ass shit-dick cockpunching hemorrhoidal Santorum-shake hugs for everyone.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 10:11 PM on January 20, 2010


I think swear words above the fold are fine because it lures the kids into reading Metafilter. Lure them in with that and then hit them with
Starting from first principles and general assumptions Newton's law of gravitation is shown to arise naturally and unavoidably in a theory in which space is emergent through a holographic scenario. Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies. A relativistic generalization of the presented arguments directly leads to the Einstein equations. When space is emergent even Newton's law of inertia needs to be explained. The equivalence principle leads us to conclude that it is actually this law of inertia whose origin is entropic.
That way some day they can explain it to me.
posted by vapidave at 10:13 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


Yeah, true dat, and the sad/great thing is my kids are more likely to be interested in the gravitation than the fucking (as am I, if I'm honest).
posted by unSane at 10:18 PM on January 20, 2010


KlangKlangston: Still, he was more cogent than Blowfly.

Now, there is a man who can curse. I saw him perform a month or so ago a the Knitting Factory, and he left no doubt whatsoever what he was talkin' about. Right to people's faces, and women and the whole audience. He would have CUNT, PUSSY, COCK, above the fold and below the fold and underneath the fold and maybe squeezed right between the top and the bottom of the fold. Hell, the fold would be come the folds of a pussy and he'd whip out his dick and fuck the folds of that CUnty fold up and down and all over the place.

I'm just channeling the man here, so don't get all up in face, Cept if you have a nice pussy. with lots O' folds on the top and the bottom, above and below etc....
posted by Skygazer at 10:23 PM on January 20, 2010


Can someone please explain to someone who has neither a computer-related job or children why cussin' is preferable below the fold? I understand how profanity in a URL could be problematic, but there is a hell of a fuckton more objectionable language in the comments of FPPs than there are in the summaries; if there is some sort of filter/detector thing that scans the text on your screen or some nosy-posy in the cube next to you, isn't the language just as detectable under the fold as it is over it? And if your children are smart enough to read, odds are they are probably smart enough to click a mouse and thereby be exposed to the horrors within, no?

It doesn't "push my buttons" so much as "threaten to make my children starve by making me lose my job".

Maybe you could mitigate the risks posed by carousing on the internet at work by finding some way to increase your productivity. Danged if I can think of a way to do that though.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:01 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


I don't watch youtube videos at work because youtube is blocked. Even though I am ok with "just some text" on the front page and pretty competent at avoiding nsfw links, I would prefer that MeFi not end up on the block list at work. Can you guys maybe help me and possibly others in the same situation out with that? I don't think it would really harm MeFi much to be considerate like that, as much as "If naughty *words* are enough to possibly get [me] fired, or even disciplined, [I] need to not read Metafilter at work."

It's not going to get me fired or disciplined. It may get MeFi blocked. It's not really the word "cock" for instance, it's that some busy IT person scanning over the hits is going to ignore the odd curse word (or even lots of them) but be a little more nonplussed about tips of cocks as subject matter.

Oddly enough, my account got mysteriously disabled today. Nobody could figure out why, so they turned it back on. Had to be unrelated, though, since I didn't even see the post until I got home.
posted by ctmf at 11:15 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


The naughty words in the post or on the frontpage aren't an issue, but those in the URL potentially are problematic. Not just for work web usage monitoring, but in case you wanted to pass a link along. I know people don't pay much attention to the small print on the Post page, but perhaps the addition of a few words might cause some to consider their titles more carefully, if they choose.

Something like:

"Keep it short and descriptive. Required. It will be displayed on comment pages, not the main page of MeFi, and will form part of the permanent URL for your post".

Again, people don't always pay attention to that small print, and this is not telling people to not use swear words. It's just a bit of clarification for its own sake.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:24 PM on January 20, 2010 [3 favorites]


Tip of my youth spent off my face in various fields.
posted by Abiezer at 11:37 PM on January 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


I, too, appreciate fucks below the fold.

And with the lights off, presumably.
posted by rokusan at 11:51 PM on January 20, 2010


frack.
posted by iamabot at 12:06 AM on January 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


This is different than the "7 words" - profanity alone isn't that big a deal in the workplace. Lord knows I drop the F-bomb on a regular basis, to my boss' boss' boss, and he tells me to keep an eye on my shitty language in a department wide memo. Not a big deal.

This ain't Data going "Oh, shit!" when the Enterprise crashes. If that FPP post had used the terms "winkie" and "hot dog", it would still be massively not-ok-for-coworkers-to-see. It's a graphic description of a sexual act. It's letters-to-Penthouse raunch... which in and of itself, I have no inherent problem with. I just want some heads up that what I'm going to be reading is letters-to-Penthouse-raunch, and I don't want either my management or our proxy vendor to decide "OK, Enuff is Enuff. This site's going in the same bin as Nerve and The Onion before we get sued."

And, yes, I don't want my female coworkers to see abusive cock humor on my PC when they pop by the cube. It's called a "hostile workplace", and it would break my heart if Metafiler contributes to it.

I'm not saying not to avoid linking to this stuff, I appreciated reading the article... once I got on the train home, on my Droid. I am saying to treat the front page... and those who read it regularly... with some respect.
posted by Slap*Happy at 2:31 AM on January 21, 2010


And, yes, I don't want my female coworkers to see abusive cock humor on my PC when they pop by the cube. It's called a "hostile workplace", and it would break my heart if Metafiler contributes to it.


Then don't browse the internet, what is this internet nanny shit? Take responsibility for your browsing in the work place, don't expect the Internet to interpret your HR rules, orientation of your desk or what is allowed. I'm all for keeping posts on the right side of reasonable, but this is a stretch of the argument from my perspective.

You run a reasonable risk when you browse the internet at large from your work space (regardless of how careful you are), if you feel that it may place your job in jeopardy because of it, don't do it. While MetaFilter is generally always work appropriate and indeed goes to some length through moderation to be so, clamping down on language in a post with some context would have a chilling effect on the conversation and the content.
posted by iamabot at 3:01 AM on January 21, 2010 [12 favorites]


1. it is not the rest of the world's responsibility to enable you to goof off at work and look at websites you're not supposed to be looking at anyway. If you're not allowed to browse non-work websites and it's that important to you, then get another job.
2. If you're so unskilled and expendable that you'd be immediately booted because someone read the word "fuck" on your monitor, that's kind of your problem.
posted by DecemberBoy at 3:50 AM on January 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


frack.

Frak?
posted by rtha at 4:25 AM on January 21, 2010


frack.

Frak?


Fuck.
posted by iamabot at 4:33 AM on January 21, 2010


frack.
Frak?
Fuck.


Frell.
posted by zarq at 4:44 AM on January 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


As mentioned earlier in the thread I suspect the specific words used are less uncomfortable for some people than the remote idea of a male person subjecting surreptitiously another male to a faint taste of his genitals, to be soon washed away by beer anyways. The specific words have been used many times before, so I can't explain the outrage here otherwise. Then... come on people, this is a *common* prank that most male and female teenagers are exposed to at least once, and has nothing to do with pornography nor sexual assault!

Yeah, this is where I start to have problems with this request, too. Slap*Happy calls it a "graphic description of a sexual act" but the fact that an act involves genitals doesn't mean it's necessarily sexual. I mean, it's not like he said he was going to whack off and jizz in the guy's beer.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 5:23 AM on January 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


I am saying to treat the front page... and those who read it regularly... with some respect.

I am confused as to why you think that I didn't?
posted by shakespeherian at 5:36 AM on January 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


I do not WANT to be exposed to cock in me ale! (If I wanted that taste, I'll buy a bag of pork scratchings.)
posted by Abiezer at 5:38 AM on January 21, 2010


I don't think many (any?) people here are arguing that there should be some rule against all swear words on the front page, or that mods should spend their time enforcing a rule like that.

The point, I think, is whether users should/could use judgment when posting to the front page, in recognition of the fact that people read MeFi in all kinds of contexts, that some people aren't into Cock Tip Jokes and don't want them thrown in their face (so to speak), and that, generally, the level of discourse around here is not helped by a bunch of obscenity on the front page (be it funny obscenity or not). In my view, putting the cock jokes above the fold was on the wrong side of that judgment line and, if lots of people starting doing the same, I would like this place less. So, we have conversations like this, to see if there is some community sense as to where the line of judgment should be. Mind you, we're not talking about "banning" stuff, we're talking about whether it would be better for all if this particular stuff was in a [more inside] -- not a Constitutional Issue.

So, all of the people with the "I don't owe you any duty to protect you and your kids from bad words and keep you from getting fired from your unskilled job!!!," really, come on.
posted by Mid at 5:46 AM on January 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


The naughty words in the post or on the frontpage aren't an issue, but those in the URL potentially are problematic.

Agree, that very neatly sums up my concerns, too.
posted by gimonca at 6:18 AM on January 21, 2010


How many times have we had this same exact argument? "I will do whatever I want" vs. "Please be considerate." See also: spoilers, untagged NSFW, sexist language, etc.

Anyways, if people are concerned about URLs, that seems like it should be a pretty easy Greasemonkey script to replace them with the non-titled version.
posted by smackfu at 6:27 AM on January 21, 2010


Anyways, if people are concerned about URLs, that seems like it should be a pretty easy Greasemonkey script to replace them with the non-titled version.

To be fair, many who would be concerned also don't have administrator privileges on their PCs to be able to install anything. But, that can easily be remedied by not surfing the web at work. Terror though that may be!
posted by Burhanistan at 6:36 AM on January 21, 2010


I don't think you need admin access to install Firefox add-ons or userscripts (I don't have admin access at my work computer, and I've installed both Firefox and then Chrome and plenty of extensions for each).
posted by shakespeherian at 6:39 AM on January 21, 2010


If that FPP post had used the terms "winkie" and "hot dog", it would still be massively not-ok-for-coworkers-to-see. It's a graphic description of a sexual act.

Yeah, what was described was filthy but it was not a sexual act.

I am saying to treat the front page... and those who read it regularly... with some respect.

Many have chimed in here, including the mods, to say that while much is done to maintain the integrity of the front page, there is not a way to significantly enforce this without drastically changing the character of the site and the way it's moderated. Not to mention, as someone else pointed out, that almost all moderation is done after the fact, which means there is always the chance of being exposed to content that the mods haven't even seen yet.

I am beating this dead horse because you apparently didn't read all this upthread. That's the only explanation I can think of for why you imagine that it's anyone's responsibility but your own to control what your co-workers might see on your monitor.
posted by hermitosis at 6:39 AM on January 21, 2010


It doesn't "push my buttons" so much as "threaten to make my children starve by making me lose my job".
posted by DU at 5:41 PM on January 20


If you are going to lose your job because the word "fuck" is on your screen, you either need to browse different sites or quit reading non-work-related things on the Internet at work. You could be on a newspaper's website and see a tirade of "fuck"s in unmoderated comments. A website could be malicious and forward you to something even worse than Tony Clifton.

I'm not trying to make this something idiotic like "WE DON'T HAVE TO DO SHIT FUCK FUCK BLARGLE" but you should know that a million years ago beth got canned because she was reading this thread. Adult subject matter, but not prurient at all.

TO CONCLUDE: If one is truly on the knife's edge or has a boss or supervisor or wife or husband or dog who will flip out at these sorts of things, it's really best that you police yourself.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:39 AM on January 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Take responsibility for your browsing in the work place, don't expect the Internet to interpret your HR rules, orientation of your desk or what is allowed.

Ok, this is both true and reasonable.

While MetaFilter is generally always work appropriate...

Play him off, Keyboard Cat. Epic fail.

I mean seriously, what are you arguing for or against? It's pretty damn contradictory from where I'm sitting. It seems like you're arguing that it's a good thing to be rude and inconsiderate to the needs and preferences of the other MeFites. Or are you saying it's an act of political liberation to force obscene raunch into the faces of those who'd rather not deal with it? Either viewpoint is something I have to take exception with.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:15 AM on January 21, 2010


The other consideration is if that too many net nanny filters block Metafilter from corporate networks, then click revenues may start to fall off.
posted by Burhanistan at 7:19 AM on January 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Optimus - The knife's edge is pretty blunt. We're not talking about following NSFW threads. We're talking about a NSFW Metafilter front page. Not a rated-R NSFW, but a NC-17 NSFW.

Accd. to the vendor, NSFW tagging is what keeps FARK on the good list, and the Onion on the naughty list on our proxy.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:21 AM on January 21, 2010


Yeah, what was described was filthy but it was not a sexual act.

Taking your cock out and rubbing it on something that someone else will drink from just to get a rise out of them later is sexual harassment. It's worse than a sexual act.
posted by muddgirl at 7:32 AM on January 21, 2010


Even though I am ok with "just some text" on the front page and pretty competent at avoiding nsfw links, I would prefer that MeFi not end up on the block list at work. Can you guys maybe help me and possibly others in the same situation out with that? I don't think it would really harm MeFi much to be considerate like that, as much as "If naughty *words* are enough to possibly get [me] fired, or even disciplined, [I] need to not read Metafilter at work."

I know I'm basically repeating myself at this point, but here's the thing:

1. There is no general rule against profanity or dirty language or etc on the front page.

2. There's also not a whole lot of it; if the slippery-slope type thing folks have mentioned ever started manifesting itself as some giant daily cascade of filthiness-qua-filthiness on the front page, we'd talk about it then, but that seems deeply unlikely what with Metafilter being Metafilter.

3. Moving from "not much dirty language on the front page" to "not any dirty language on the front page" is not distance that will ever be covered by asking people to be voluntarily considerate. The message won't get to everybody; not everybody it gets to will agree that it's a meritorious request; not everybody who thinks it has merit will think that's sufficient reason for them not to use strong language in a post they think requires it. So it's fine to ask for consideration, but you have to do so knowing you're making conversation with the folks in this thread and little more.

4. The only practicable path from not-much to none is for us to start enforcing it as a fiat moderation rule. We are absolutely, positively not going to do that.

I'm not going over this to be like Nyah Nyah or something. I understand the dilemma. When I first started working part-time for Metafilter, I did so in large part from my desk at my dayjob, at a large corporation with shitty locked down workstations and a fully-functional nannyfilter. There were lots of things I couldn't get at, and other things I didn't look at because I didn't want to risk it. (Which led to things like emailing Matt and Jess to ask them to tell me wtf someone just linked to).

Metafilter wasn't one of those blocked things, fortunately. And I took it as a calculated risk that that might get me into some kind of trouble eventually, whether it was (a) mefi ending up blocked or (b) my internet privileges getting fucked in general or (c) fired. So I've been there, and as someone had been actually working for the site in that weird situation for a year and a half I had more at stake on the would-mefi's-content-cause-an-employment problem than the average joe, even. But that's not a good reason to change how the site works or how moderation functions here.

People are generally pretty considerate already. But the imperfect work/child/etc-safety of the front page is a known feature of the site, and compensating for that or otherwise managing risk is the responsibility of the reader, not the site. Caveat lector.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:37 AM on January 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


I said in the spoiler thread I thought spoiler tagging was a courtesy, not a right, and ditto NSFW tagging. While I don't think the mods should change the way they run the site to censor NSFW material on the front page, same as with spoilers, I'd definitely class it as rude to put profanity in the post title/URL and NSFW humor above the fold.

My feeling about spoilers is that people who don't want to read them should avoid discussions where they're likely to be spoiled. By way of analogy, it's kind of hard to avoid the NSFW stuff when it's on the front page and not hidden by the [more inside]. I don't mind NSFW posts; I don't have kids to hide it from and I don't have an employer issue to worry about. (I didn't find the Clifton joke funny, either, but I closed it and moved on. Maybe I should have flagged it, but I found it through this thread so the mods were already aware of it.)

It's possible to say "hey, this was rude, let's not do it again" without demanding censorship from the mods or expecting MeFi to be completely childsafe and worksafe. Sure, we all have a right to be rude, but that doesn't mean we should exercise it.
posted by immlass at 7:43 AM on January 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


"If that FPP post had used the terms "winkie" and "hot dog", it would still be massively not-ok-for-coworkers-to-see. It's a graphic description of a sexual act. It's letters-to-Penthouse raunch"

Bullshit. And claiming it as such makes you look ridiculous. So stop whipping this into something it's not, stop arguing from the slippery slope fallacy, and stop trying to do your office censor's work for him.
posted by klangklangston at 7:49 AM on January 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


Which led to things like emailing Matt and Jess to ask them to tell me wtf someone just linked to

These conversations were predictably hilarious.

And yeah I think cortex laid it out okay. This happens rarely but it happens. Since the site is moderated after-the-fact there's really no way to change the incidence rate to zero without doing things we're not willing or going to do. Asking people politely to be considerate is reasonable. In our real-life world, some people are eithe rnot going to do this, or have different definitions of reasonable than you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:50 AM on January 21, 2010


"Taking your cock out and rubbing it on something that someone else will drink from just to get a rise out of them later is sexual harassment. It's worse than a sexual act."

It can be. It is not inherently—harassment depends on the victim feeling harassed.

Further, a graphic description of sexual harassment does not endorse said harassment.

Finally, Clifton's graphic description of harassment does not mean that he actually did the act he claimed.

So, I know you're squicked out by this, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to share that feeling, nor that your characterizations are the only reasonable ones.
posted by klangklangston at 7:55 AM on January 21, 2010 [4 favorites]


Taking your cock out and rubbing it on something that someone else will drink from just to get a rise out of them later is sexual harassment. It's worse than a sexual act.

I have logged in - at work no less - to say that i think this is entirely untrue, and if it isn't, it should be
posted by criticalbill at 7:57 AM on January 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Hell, back where I come from it's rude to not rub your penis on the rim of a guest's drink. Don't try to cram your social mores down my throat!
posted by Burhanistan at 7:57 AM on January 21, 2010 [8 favorites]


harassment depends on the victim feeling harassed

Nope. Or, more specifically, Nathan Rabin is not the only target.

a graphic description of sexual harassment does not endorse said harassment

A gleefully graphic description? A glowing description? Yeah, I don't think Clifton was condoning such behavior at all.

Clifton's graphic description of harassment does not mean that he actually did the act he claimed

Ah, but making such a determination would require context, which the Front Page Text did not provide.

Again, I'm a huge Kaufman fan and I think Clifton's shtick is funny, but that doesn't mean I walk around spouting off quotes out of context. I have consideration for people who aren't in on the joke.
posted by muddgirl at 8:00 AM on January 21, 2010


Taking your cock out and rubbing it on something that someone else will drink from just to get a rise out of them later is sexual harassment. It's worse than a sexual act.

I don't know about that. The idea of Tony Clifton masturbating into my beer is far worse than him putting his dick on my cup. Of course, your level of squick may vary.

But the insistence that this is a "sexual act", and thus would be offensive to children, is really, really bizarre to me. Because kids make jokes involving genitals and poop and farts all the time (I mean, what about that terrible, racist joke from my childhood about "putting pee pee in your coke"? Isn't that essentially the same thing, but, well, worse?) and, though the entirety of the article has genuinely ribald and raunchy humor, that's not in the quoted bit. The quoted bit has nothing to do with the birds or the bees, and wouldn't require any sort of explanation of sexuality. It's gross out humor. Can gross out humor be construed as harassing? Sure. But like klang says, it's individual- and context- specific.

Mostly, though, the fact that people thing the bit described is a raunchy sexual act makes me wonder what kind of sex they're having.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:02 AM on January 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


Dear MetaTalk,

I am at a swingin' party. There is mad hoop-la up in this piece. Someone has left unattended several mason jars filled with mashed potatoes. Any advice?
posted by Mister_A at 8:04 AM on January 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


Those are creamed taters, Mister_A. Do what thou wilt.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:08 AM on January 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


Anyway, I'm not grokking why it would be a big deal to add a couple of words to the Posting page, irrespective of any of the words that a person might use in the post.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:18 AM on January 21, 2010


... fuckin’ dick ... fuckin’ cock

I just choose to believe that he was talking about a man named Richard and his rooster who both live in this small Austrian town.
posted by quin at 8:19 AM on January 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


Nope. Or, more specifically, Nathan Rabin is not the only target.

in the article, yes he is. we are not targets for reading it if that's what you're getting at. klang's right, here.

A gleefully graphic description? A glowing description? Yeah, I don't think Clifton was condoning such behavior at all.

what glee? the guy was acting like a depraved, depressed and pathetic drunk with a vulgar streak. there's nothing gleeful in anything said in that entire article.

Ah, but making such a determination would require context, which the Front Page Text did not provide.

that's what a link's job is. I'm sorry if the language bothered you, and if it didn't then I guess that doesn't matter, but at this point you're shifting the goal posts and redefining words to blow what happened way out of proportion.
posted by shmegegge at 8:22 AM on January 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Sooo... no one's explained why the distinction between front page swears and in-thread swears matters? Did they all get fired and are busy training their kids to work as bobbin chasers and Yorkshire pitboys? I'
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:24 AM on January 21, 2010


harassment depends on the victim feeling harassed

From a legal standpoint, yes, it does. A person must make a claim for it to be harassment. However from a non-legal, cultural standpoint, an intent to disturb or offend can be harassment.
posted by zarq at 8:26 AM on January 21, 2010


an intent to disturb or offend can be harassment.

the operative word being "can," in that sentence. otherwise lenny bruce's trial was justice served, and nearly all blue comedy is harassment. that we're talking about a comedian in an interview is kind of precisely the point, here.
posted by shmegegge at 8:30 AM on January 21, 2010


I have consideration for people who aren't in on the joke.

Then you are doing it wrong, and the spirit of Andy sheds a single tear.
posted by Meatbomb at 8:35 AM on January 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Sure, we all have a right to be rude, but that doesn't mean we should exercise it.

If you don't exercise it, or at least occasionally stretch it, you are more likely to really pull something later on.
posted by hermitosis at 8:35 AM on January 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


the operative word being "can," in that sentence. otherwise lenny bruce's trial was justice served, and nearly all blue comedy is harassment.

Yes, of course.


that we're talking about a comedian in an interview is kind of precisely the point, here.

Well, to be perfectly clear, we're talking about a made-up interview with a comedian who doesn't exist.

But if it wasn't and he did, then the physical act of deliberately sticking one's genitals in another person's beer would be a hell of a lot closer to sexual harassment than saying "cocksucker" to a crowd of people.
posted by zarq at 8:36 AM on January 21, 2010


Frell.

I would be up for a filter that automatically replaces the word "fuck" with "frell", but only if it also automatically replaces photos of mathowie with Rygel.
posted by Greg Nog at 8:38 AM on January 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


Then you are doing it wrong, and the spirit of Andy sheds a single tear.

Yeah, but I'm not a performance artist, and I don't particularly want to be. Is shakespeherian an artist? Is his context-less quotation on the front page all just part of his act? Is he trying to make us look like total squares who aren't in on the joke?

I suspect he's just a regular old white guy who thinks that the word "cock" sounds funny.
posted by muddgirl at 8:39 AM on January 21, 2010


My kids post their own expletive-laden comments and FPP's to Metafilter.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:41 AM on January 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


White guy, eh?
posted by Burhanistan at 8:41 AM on January 21, 2010


I would be up for a filter that automatically replaces the word "fuck" with "frell", but only if it also automatically replaces photos of mathowie with Rygel.

With Cortex as Ka D'argo, Jessamyn as Aeryn, pb as Pilot and vacapinta as Crichton?



I'll be in my bunk.
posted by zarq at 8:41 AM on January 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


I suspect he's just a regular old white guy who thinks that the word "cock" sounds funny.

White guy?
posted by zarq at 8:44 AM on January 21, 2010


Oh, I fully agree with you, cortex. I'm just trying to counter the portrayal that all of us who would rather not see that kind of thing on the front page must be either ridiculous prudes or MeFi addicts risking being fired.

I know it will never work 100% to ask this... favor, I guess you'd call it. I think fewer people would be all "fuck you, just don't read MeFi then" and more "I guess there's really no compelling reason it has to be above the jump." Just "raising awareness," I guess.

Dicks will be dicks, regardless, and that's kind of how I see the "I absolutely refuse to even consider that concern except in ridicule - in fact I am making a NSFW post on the front page right now just to spite you" attitude.

Again, I have no problem with whatever content and my admins seem pretty common-sensical about people not getting in trouble for silly stuff. I'd just be disappointed if MeFi ended up in the US DoD's block list, is all. I'd rather keep off the "Is there any business reason to allow this site?" radar, because the answer will be no. That would be true even without NSFW content because, to be honest, nobody could really claim to need MeFi at work here.
posted by ctmf at 8:44 AM on January 21, 2010


Frell.

I actually use "Frelling" and "Frack" pretty regularly in my day-to-day speech. So much so, in fact, that people never even remark on it. Either they get the reference (unlikely), they think I'm being weird (more likely), or they assume I'm it's an actual obscenity that they are unfamiliar with.

The funny thing is that I don't think I use them as a form of self-censor, it's just that they act as nice gradients for fuck; "frelling" being a bit softer and "frack" being wonderfully more angry (because I always hear Tigh in my head when I'm saying it.)
posted by quin at 8:54 AM on January 21, 2010


I'm not grokking why it would be a big deal to add a couple of words to the Posting page

Because it's not something we're going to enforce. I really appreciate where people are coming from, but we're not going to police URLs for language. That said, yeah it would be nice if people would consider that the URLs will have the title words in them.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:01 AM on January 21, 2010


Well, to be perfectly clear, we're talking about a made-up interview with a comedian who doesn't exist.

Well actually, and I suppose I could be wrong here, I'm pretty sure Nathan Rabin actually sat down with the guy who is currently touring under the name 'Tony Clifton,' and that the linked interview is an actual transcription of what was recorded on Rabin's tape recorder. Whether 'Tony Clifton' doesn't exist is sort of up to interpretation, really-- I mean, is he any less real than someone named Eminem or Lady Gaga?

I suspect he's just a regular old white guy who thinks that the word "cock" sounds funny.

I'm right here. You can ask me.

I don't think the word 'cock' sounds funny. I don't even think Tony Clifton is funny. I posted the interview because I thought it was interesting, because while I was reading it it made me think about celebrity (Why do people go see Tony Clifton, especially since Kaufman is dead?), persona (Is this less authentic than Kaufman doing Clifton?), and even a little conspiracy (Maybe Kaufman didn't die and just started doing Clifton full-time!), and I thought those things were interesting. I worded the FPP (again, after consideration for site standards, what would be considered rude or over-the-line) the way I did because I thought the quoted bit got right to the heart of the Clifton character (as well as that of the interview), but I also thought that explaining 'He's not real and he's really Andy Kaufman but now Andy Kaufman is dead and what's the deal yo' would shortchange a lot of what is interesting about Clifton as explained above.

I'm awfully sorry that I managed to offend people with graphic language, but, as I've said, I was under the impression that there was precedent for this on the front page, and I was also (quite mistakenly) under the impression that Andy Kaufman was fairly well-known around here, and thus that people would know who Tony Clifton was, and that those who didn't know would find out pretty quickly by reading the introduction to the interview in the link.

Whether all this makes me a regular old white guy, I suppose, is open to interpretation.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:01 AM on January 21, 2010 [5 favorites]


Metafilter: Fucks below the folds.
posted by mccarty.tim at 9:01 AM on January 21, 2010


"I absolutely refuse to even consider that concern except in ridicule - in fact I am making a NSFW post on the front page right now just to spite you"

I don't see very much of that in this thread. Mostly I think it seems that the point has been taken, with a reminder offered in return that this isn't going to be officially enforced and that you are your own best moderator as to internet viewing at work. I don't know what more you want.
posted by hermitosis at 9:02 AM on January 21, 2010


If you don't exercise it, or at least occasionally stretch it, you are more likely to really pull something later on.

A lame, gross, Tony Clifton joke above the fold on a FPP is not the hill I'm willing to stretch that metaphor to death on.
posted by immlass at 9:02 AM on January 21, 2010


Because it's not something we're going to enforce. I really appreciate where people are coming from, but we're not going to police URLs for language.

Well, my suggestion didn't at all call for any kind of enforcement or moderation, just a simple and neutral note to remind that whatever clever title someone is coming up with will also be in the URL.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:07 AM on January 21, 2010


Burhanistan, my take on it is that the contents of a url, like the contents above the fold on a post, are going to be worth comment only a vanishingly small portion of the time in any case.

So we're talking about adding an unenforced suggestion to be mindful to maybe not do something (create potentially-objectionable urls by using blue language in a title) that people overwhelmingly already don't do. It'd be adding more footprint to the posting page for the sake of an outlier case that we're already on record as not intending to overrule in the cases where it does occur anyway.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:15 AM on January 21, 2010


Well actually, and I suppose I could be wrong here, I'm pretty sure Nathan Rabin actually sat down with the guy who is currently touring under the name 'Tony Clifton,' and that the linked interview is an actual transcription of what was recorded on Rabin's tape recorder. Whether 'Tony Clifton' doesn't exist is sort of up to interpretation, really-- I mean, is he any less real than someone named Eminem or Lady Gaga?

This thread is giving me a headache.

Someone is really touring as Clifton? Seriously?
posted by zarq at 9:24 AM on January 21, 2010


frack.
Frak?
Fuck.

Frell.


Faff.
posted by Skygazer at 9:24 AM on January 21, 2010

I don't see very much of that in this thread. Mostly I think it seems that the point has been taken, with a reminder offered in return that this isn't going to be officially enforced and that you are your own best moderator as to internet viewing at work.
There's not so much of the "and I will post something NSFW" stuff in this thread, but there is a lot of mockery that anyone might have a valid reason to ask posters to voluntarily moderate their language. It's in the "don't make me raise your kids" and the "if you're job is soooooo precarious, why are you here in the first place" commentary.
...why the distinction between front page swears and in-thread swears matters?
Because swear words in the thread title wind up in the URL, and thus hang around in browsing history for quite a while. Less seriously, swear words above the fold hang out on the main page and are more likely to get seen accidentally or picked up by an auto-filter. Swearing below the fold or in comments will only be seen if someone opens the thread, and thus a user can easily avoid it by not visiting threads that are likely to be problematic or are ambiguous.

I agree that this doesn't require mod intervention. On the other hand, the way to maintain the community norms that keep NSFW language at a non-problem level is to point out incidences with "Hey - would you mind not doing that?"

On a personal level, I'm not worried about being fired. I'm worried about front page language reaching the invisible and arbitrary threshhold that will get MetaFilter picked up by one of the big corporate blacklist providers (like WebSense), which would inconvenience me. We're not there yet, but I'd like us to never get there.
posted by Karmakaze at 9:28 AM on January 21, 2010


Someone is really touring as Clifton? Seriously?

From the linked article: The A.V. Club met the eccentric show-business lifer at Chicago’s legendary Pump Room two days after a Clifton performance in the city.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:33 AM on January 21, 2010


THERE ARE PEOPLE DYING AND STARVING RIGHT NOW.
posted by gman at 9:34 AM on January 21, 2010


And yet here you are.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:43 AM on January 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


It occurs to me that my last comment could be taken as a swipe at shakespeherian and his motives for posting. I didn't mean it that way. I'm sorry if it came off as suggesting that he deliberately posted something offensive. I don't think that at all and I don't want anyone to think I do (particularly shakespeherian, who's under enough fire for the post).

Having said that, I'm old enough to vaguely remember Kaufman and Clifton from Kaufman's prime, and I find his brand of abusive anti-comedy extremely unfunny. It punches a lot of the same kind of buttons that racist and sexist humor do for me, in that it relies on negative (or stereotyped negative) assumptions about a group--in Clifton's case, frequently, the audience--who may or may not be present for its humor value. Clifton is laughing at me, and to the extent that he's not, it's because I'm on the inside, in kind of the same way it's "OK" for white people to make racist jokes in my presence because I'm obviously going to share their racist assumptions because I'm white. My response to that is: fuck that noise, 'cos I don't need that shit in my life. The idea that I should endorse it being on the front page because it's somehow good for me that rudeness is on the front page or because my more-sophisticated betters approve is pretty annoying.

So shakespeherian made a controversial post and I didn't like it, but that doesn't make him a bad guy or the post bad or the thread, which I have not read, bad. More power to you folks who liked the post and enjoy that comedy, but it's really not my cuppa. I mostly wanted to weigh in to add to the civil requests to the membership to keep the front page and post titles a little cleaner than the [more inside] and the comments.
posted by immlass at 9:44 AM on January 21, 2010


From the linked article: The A.V. Club met the eccentric show-business lifer at Chicago’s legendary Pump Room two days after a Clifton performance in the city.

This means nothing. You're still not sure if the content of the article is fake.
posted by zarq at 9:48 AM on January 21, 2010


I did my own research.

Bob Zmuda did a series of performances as Tony Clifton in August '08 for Comic Relief, which was covered by the Chicago Tribune and PopMatters. He did another performance in October of that year.

I couldn't find any listings for performances in '09 or '10. Doesn't mean they didn't happen though.

So the question remains: did the Onion AV Club interview Zmuda or not?
posted by zarq at 9:53 AM on January 21, 2010


And yet here you are.

Even aid workers get a lunch break, my man.
posted by gman at 9:54 AM on January 21, 2010


frack.
Frak?
Fuck.
Frell.
Faff.


...fapfapfapfapfapfap...
posted by zarq at 9:57 AM on January 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


I couldn't find any listings for performances in '09 or '10. Doesn't mean they didn't happen though.

So the question remains: did the Onion AV Club interview Zmuda or not?


In August 08, Tony Clifton performed at the Chopin Theatre in Chicago. This performance was given an extensive write-up in the AV Club, which is linked at the head of the interview in the sentence 'The A.V. Club met the eccentric show-business lifer at Chicago’s legendary Pump Room two days after a Clifton performance in the city.' The next sentence in the interview into begins, 'In a conversation deemed too dangerous to release until now.' All of this leads me to believe that the interview was conducted two days after the performance in August of 08.

I do not see why any of this indicates that the interview is fabricated. Furthermore, I was responding to someone questioning whether someone was touring as Clifton-- I don't see why you would respond to evidence that the touring, in fact, occurred with 'You don't know that the interview wasn't faked.'
posted by shakespeherian at 10:05 AM on January 21, 2010


1. Setup an SSH server at home
2. Open SSH connection to home and use lynx.

No more URL history on your work PC.
posted by nomisxid at 10:05 AM on January 21, 2010


ftarf
posted by shmegegge at 10:09 AM on January 21, 2010


fnord
posted by Burhanistan at 10:10 AM on January 21, 2010


Fuuuuuuuck
posted by Mister_A at 10:15 AM on January 21, 2010


Mister_A, you just found a way around the web proxies!
posted by Burhanistan at 10:19 AM on January 21, 2010


In August 08, Tony Clifton performed at the Chopin Theatre in Chicago. This performance was given an extensive write-up in the AV Club, which is linked at the head of the interview in the sentence 'The A.V. Club met the eccentric show-business lifer at Chicago’s legendary Pump Room two days after a Clifton performance in the city.' The next sentence in the interview into begins, 'In a conversation deemed too dangerous to release until now.' All of this leads me to believe that the interview was conducted two days after the performance in August of 08.

Ah! I missed that. Thank you for clarifying.

Furthermore, I was responding to someone questioning whether someone was touring as Clifton

Yes. That "someone" was me.

I don't see why you would respond to evidence that the touring, in fact, occurred with 'You don't know that the interview wasn't faked.'

It's moot now. But you had replied to me earlier that: "Well actually, and I suppose I could be wrong here, I'm pretty sure Nathan Rabin actually sat down with the guy who is currently touring under the name 'Tony Clifton,' and that the linked interview is an actual transcription of what was recorded on Rabin's tape recorder."

It seemed clear to me from this comment that there was still some ambiguity. It all makes more sense now.
posted by zarq at 10:22 AM on January 21, 2010


The blue introduced me to bestiality, rule 34, you tube for adults, goatse (all sfw) and so much more. I forgive, but never forget. A couple of "bad words" on the front page do not bother me after that.
posted by kudzu at 10:24 AM on January 21, 2010


Well. Very late to this thead. My $.02: it would be nice if, instead of the occasional thread, my worksite didn't decide to block Metafilter as a whole. Granted, this is my problem and no one else's, and it would probably be a win from the employer's standpoint. But I would still be sad. I thought the whole point of "nsfw" was to confine potentially objectionable content to threads so that people could choose to visit or not visit them, not that you choose by visiting or not visiting Metafilter. Yes, the work filters are draconian. No, I will not go find another job as a result of this.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:28 AM on January 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


/flames out
posted by shakespeherian at 10:38 AM on January 21, 2010


The idea that I should endorse it being on the front page because it's somehow good for me that rudeness is on the front page or because my more-sophisticated betters approve is pretty annoying.

No one is asking you to endorse it. You're not even required to acknowledge it.
posted by hermitosis at 10:40 AM on January 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


I thought the whole point of "nsfw" was to confine potentially objectionable content to threads so that people could choose to visit or not visit them, not that you choose by visiting or not visiting Metafilter.

It's more like this:

- Metafilter is not "safe for work", in the broad sense of the term. Much of the content is, but not all of it.

- Some of the content broadly understood to be not safe for work gets labeled with NSFW as a courtesy. Usually by the poster, occasionally after the fact by a moderator.

- That warning is not compulsory, and what qualifies for it in the first place is a matter of debate.

- Pictures of naked humans are more likely to be so disclaimed than anything else, for reasons of general convention rather than moral weight.

- Insofar as the labeling that does occur helps people who are worried about NSFW content more amicably navigate their metafiltering-at-work experience worry-free, that's cool and I'm glad their lives are a little bit easier.

- But worry-free is probably not the right attitude (worry-mitigated, maybe, instead?), because, again, Metafilter is not safe for work.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:40 AM on January 21, 2010 [7 favorites]


I will go forward with that understanding, cortex. Though I will say that labelling certain threads as "nsfw" is a bit misleading, then, as it implies what is not labelled is sfw. (not that you are doing the labelling, though from what I understand, occasionally you are)

Of course, I'm also talking about a workplace that will not permit me to view the wikipedia page on swimming because of "Objectionable content: 'breast'" [stroke], FWIW.

Yeah. I know.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:45 AM on January 21, 2010


THERE ARE PEOPLE DYING AND STARVING RIGHT NOW.

They were probably fired for reading Metafilter at work.
posted by rocket88 at 10:50 AM on January 21, 2010 [12 favorites]


Though I will say that labelling certain threads as "nsfw" is a bit misleading

Agreed. This is why we have the FAQ. There is no internet-wide consensus on what NSFW means and when it is indicated. The things we're likely to add it for here include nudity [in photos or ads on the page linked to] or loud noises. I think it's good that we have a MeTa occasionally to sort of reinforce and explain what we do. This is actually one of the rare cases where the mods are completely consistent, even if the consistency is just around the idea that we try but do not always succeed to add NSFW indicators. Usually if people request them for the reasons listed above, we'll add them. If no one requests them or mentions it, we're likely not to know.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:54 AM on January 21, 2010


They were probably fired for reading Metafilter at work.

tl;dr -- I am a murderer.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:14 AM on January 21, 2010


I will go forward with that understanding, cortex. Though I will say that labelling certain threads as "nsfw" is a bit misleading, then, as it implies what is not labelled is sfw.

The part of my brain that likes solving problems by making far too simple decisions and damn the consequences would actually see that as a justification for removing/discouraging NSFW indicators altogether on the site, so as to avoid encouraging that kind of misinterpretation of NSFW-indicator-as-guarantee-of-SFWness in the first place. It'd certainly be a much brighter line.

This job involves a lot of me ignoring that part of my brain. The compromise of having some NSFW for some stuff but not making it compulsory or applicable to a much broader range of content than it is in practice here seems like a pretty good one, even if it does have that problem of being fodder for misunderstandings.

The things we're likely to add it for here include nudity [in photos or ads on the page linked to] or loud noises.

I'd clarify that by saying that we may add it for situations where there's some really surprising, unaccountable Loud Noises, not that anything loud is likely to get it. Links to videos are common around here, and they certainly do not get general disclaimers even though in some workplaces playing videos at all or at relatively high volume could be a problem.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:17 AM on January 21, 2010


I suppose this is as good a time to bring this up as any: I am planning to create a sort of comprehensive, best-of-the-web 'Rule 34' post later this week, which I'm hoping will cover the surprising, (and unexpected!) rise of sites on the internet which make pornography freely available to everyone. It will include a list of various "unusual fetish" categories (Gay elves! The Men and Women of Metafilter! HAMBURGER PORN! who knew?!) supported by full-length, uncensored, hardcore video links.

Should I put all that above the fold, or under it? :D


I'd like my HAMBURGER with Cheesecake, please.
posted by zarq at 12:06 PM on January 21, 2010


No one is asking you to endorse it. You're not even required to acknowledge it.

You're the one endorsing being rude as a good thing or a right that needs to be exercised, aren't you, hermitosis? Nobody required you to acknowledge or reply to my comment about rudeness being a right you don't have to exercise either. It's MeTa, I'm allowed to have an opinion. Sorry you don't like mine, only not.
posted by immlass at 12:13 PM on January 21, 2010


Nobody required you to acknowledge or reply to my comment about rudeness being a right you don't have to exercise either. It's MeTa, I'm allowed to have an opinion. Sorry you don't like mine, only not.

Nobody required you to acknowledge or reply to his acknowledgment and reply to your comment. Nor did anyone require me to acknowledge or reply to your acknowledgment and reply to his comment which was an acknowledgment and reply to your comment. But here they are.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:51 PM on January 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


The use of profanity in this establishment is fucking frowned upon.
posted by Juffo-Wup at 1:14 PM on January 21, 2010


I'm not endorsing being rude, I just don't consider the post in question to be rudely constructed. I do think that it's sometimes necessary to risk coming across as rude in order to talk freely about adult matters, which is why I don't feel shakespeherian owes anyone an apology for the Tony Clifton post, though it's unfortunate some people didn't like it.

I merely pointed out to you that you were free to ignore the post -- if anything, the text on the main page was quite effective in repelling people from clicking the link and being inundated with even more (and worse) of the same. It was like those pot-holes I see out here in Brooklyn that are so deep, the road crew has actually stuffed an orange traffic cone inside the hole. "That's how bad," is what that cone signals to me, and I dodge the hell out of it.
posted by hermitosis at 1:16 PM on January 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


And while we're on this topic...
posted by iamabot at 2:05 PM on January 21, 2010


I just don't consider the post in question to be rudely constructed

And I don't think it was intentionally rudely constructed. But profanity and grossness (dicks on your cup or whatever) on the front page is rude, just like spoilers on the front page are rude, sorry. The rudeness is assuming that the construction of the post in a particularly clever way is more important than the nicety of allowing readers not to read foul-mouthed dick jokes on the front page without clicking through.

Neither of us is the sole arbiter of community standards on the blue. We're all free not to read it for any value of "it". But the logic that shakespeherian spared readers who don't like profanity and dick jokes from reading them by posting them on the front page doesn't compute for me. Like cortex, I like consistent standards, and I'm in favor of the same one for cursing and dick jokes that I am for spoilers.
posted by immlass at 2:43 PM on January 21, 2010


Neither of us is the sole arbiter of community standards on the blue.

And yet...

profanity and grossness (dicks on your cup or whatever) on the front page is rude, just like spoilers on the front page are rude, sorry.
posted by CKmtl at 3:04 PM on January 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


He accurately represented the contents of his post.

Just because you take offense at something does not mean it was rude, whether intentionally or otherwise. The mods have already explained the official rules for cases like these, which, as they've pointed out, come up fairly infrequently, so I don't get what the BFD is.

When I make a post, I am surely tailoring it to the general MetaFilter reading audience, or at least a healthy subset thereof, and if I spare extra consideration to those who may have a problem with graphic language on the front page, that's pretty thoughtful of me -- but neglecting to do so is not "rude". It is just part of the incredibly varied experience we share here. Feature, not bug.
posted by hermitosis at 3:11 PM on January 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Also, if you look at my own (extremely dubious) posting history, you'll see that I have kept things pretty clean on the main page even when posting about dirty things, so it's not like I'm trying to rationalize my own posting agenda here. Is there mod-pressure to do things a certain way here? Sure. Is there social pressure from other users to do things a certain way here? Naturally. But there are too many snowflakes reading from too many computers in too many countries to lose sleep over who will bridle at something that is, essentially, fair play. Getting smut on your clothes is just one possible consequence of going outside to toss the ball around. YMMV.
posted by hermitosis at 3:16 PM on January 21, 2010


Note: Everybody needs the tip of my fuckin’ cock rubbed around the mouth of their glass.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:50 PM on January 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Kattullus: "That's not Tony Clifton, that's just some unfunny dick"

...

in your drink!
posted by idiopath at 4:00 PM on January 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


I love you people.

No, that's the vicodin.
posted by jonmc at 4:03 PM on January 21, 2010 [4 favorites]


The 7 words you can't say on metafilter:

declaw, fattie, circumcision, jesus, rape, cunt, and fuck
posted by tehloki at 5:42 PM on January 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


declaw, fattie, circumcision, jesus, rape, cunt, and fuck Andrew Sullivan
posted by unSane at 5:45 PM on January 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


dude, come on.
posted by shmegegge at 5:50 PM on January 21, 2010


because talking about community standards is exactly the same as the FCC fining you a bazallion dollars for showing a tit on tv.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:53 PM on January 21, 2010


j/k
posted by unSane at 5:54 PM on January 21, 2010


I love you people.

No, that's the vicodin.
posted by jonmc at 7:03 PM on January 21 [1 favorite +] [!]


That reminds me of this thing that happened to me once. About a decade ago, I had an impacted wisdom tooth yanked out and in spite of all the fancy letters an oral surgeon gets to put after his last name and the fancy shiny techmonologically advanced electronic wizbangers and chisel-buzzers, at the end of the day getting a bad tooth out is still about a guy wearing a white smock using his muscles to pull a Gawd blasted impacted fucker the hell out your mouth and he's pulling and you're groaning in pain and discomfort, not to mention embarrassment, and I swear the guy was this close to putting his foot on the back of the dentist chair I was sitting in to get more leverage, which you know, would've basically been a Vaudeville.

Anyhow tooth pops out, my face became swollen and I was in a serious world of pain.

So I got an Rx for Vicodin. The big fat kind that look like swollen snowy bumble bees and within a night or two I was not only free of pain, but also, that somehow unrelated to the Vicodin I'd made some sort of huge and tremendous advancement in my life. Everything made sense, everything was right, the world was an excellent and kind place, that couldn't be any better, and I an intrepid brilliant and unstoppable explorer of the human condition who would delight in all its good things and people and feel wonderful, splendid forever. I even told people I'd made a "HUGE breakthrough."

Anyhow, once my Rx ran out and the Vic hangover kicked in, I felt like I'd been stabbed in the head with an ice pick. My skull bones felt like they were forming 90 degree angles of nausea and daylight was mean mean mean.
posted by Skygazer at 6:01 PM on January 21, 2010 [6 favorites]


Anyhow, once my Rx ran out and the Vic hangover kicked in, I felt like I'd been stabbed in the head with an ice pick. My skull bones felt like they were forming 90 degree angles of nausea and daylight was mean mean mean.

I hate monday mornings.
posted by iamabot at 6:37 PM on January 21, 2010


Am I too late for the fucking?

I'm always too late for the fucking.
posted by loquacious at 8:32 PM on January 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


SERIOUSLY WHAT'S THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SWEARS ON THE FRONT PAGE AND WITHIN COMMENTS? YOU ANTISWEARISTS ARE FULL OF CRAP. AND I WILL BE MAKING FPPS ABOUT SPOTTED DICKS AND TITMICE IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:34 PM on January 21, 2010


Fuckin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus
posted by Abiezer at 9:43 PM on January 21, 2010


Fargin iceholes.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:58 PM on January 21, 2010


Sunny beaches, fuck Ryan out loud.
posted by carsonb at 10:10 PM on January 21, 2010


I know this Italian lady (okay, she's my mom) who speaks with an accent and when she gets mad she says Salami de beach.
posted by Skygazer at 11:14 PM on January 21, 2010


So this is the thread where we interject random swear words?

Twatwaffles.
posted by Pronoiac at 1:14 AM on January 22, 2010


Metafilter: I’m gonna rub the tip of my fuckin’ hardcore tater around the mouth of his glass.
posted by ersatz at 5:09 AM on January 22, 2010


Fargin iceholes.

wow, two threads, two johnny dangerously references in a handful of hours. metafiler is a little awesomer today.
posted by shmegegge at 8:22 AM on January 22, 2010


jessamyn it was a joke, a joke, a joke

a joke is not a vicious argument a joke is a way of making light of something serious

a joke

a joke
posted by tehloki at 10:20 AM on January 22, 2010


tehloki, I have no idea what you're talking about.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:53 AM on January 22, 2010


jessamyn, it is customary to offer an image with that observation.
posted by idiopath at 3:07 PM on January 22, 2010 [4 favorites]


OOLONG!

*sniff*
posted by Kattullus at 2:35 PM on January 23, 2010


No, you're doing it wrong.

You're supposed to steep it in near-boiling water for 2-3 minutes.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:44 PM on January 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


Yes you do
posted by tehloki at 11:40 AM on January 24, 2010


Is tehloki creeping anybody else out?
posted by Pronoiac at 5:53 PM on January 24, 2010 [1 favorite]


Yes.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:55 PM on January 24, 2010


It's like a flame-out written one sentence at a time on post cards mailed every few days.

Postmarked from the moon.
posted by Mid at 7:19 PM on January 24, 2010 [2 favorites]


I'm getting scared now guys.
posted by Meatbomb at 9:08 PM on January 24, 2010


you know, i had no idea what jessamyn was talking about, there.

i mean, i get the point, but i have no idea who or what she was specifically responding to.

tehloki seems to assume it was directed at him, but it's no more relevant to what he had written than it is to anything else in that immediate vicinity.

posted by UbuRoivas at 10:26 PM on January 24, 2010


I've been making a lot of stupid offensive comments in the blue the mods don't like lately so I assumed it was directed against me
posted by tehloki at 10:28 AM on January 26, 2010


We are all plotting against you in another thread.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:15 AM on January 26, 2010 [3 favorites]


I'm pretty sure this is still my callout thread so why isn't everyone piling shit on me.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:16 AM on January 26, 2010


Hey shakespeherian you totally suck and i hate your sweater might consider using quotes or italics or some other sort of markup on future posts that use a pull-quote + link format, especially in cases where the content of the quote is in a personal voice that presents some first-blush ambiguity about whether the words are in fact those of the user making the post.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:31 AM on January 26, 2010


Fine I'll give it a try but only because I suspect that you have nothing but love for my sweater.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:32 AM on January 26, 2010


well, ok.

*piles shit*
posted by shmegegge at 11:33 AM on January 26, 2010


Hey shakespeherian I appreciate your due diligence in figuring out what is and is not approrpiate for the front page by looking for other examples and while this was basically okay it has now pretty much defined the outer limits of what we like to see on the front page so if you were planning to do this sort of thing again that means you're "that guy who posts the bad language on the front page" so I sort of hope this is an isolated incident.

Plus what cortex said about the pullquotes.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:56 PM on January 26, 2010


They were probably fired for reading Metafilter at work.

For years, I've worked from home so I've never really had to think about this, but at the moment I'm seconded to a project that works out of a local authority's Social Services Dept. offices.

Yesterday, I'm avoiding working and browsing Metafilter when I came upon that post about the Heretical Two. I was half way through their article on Negrophilia, when it occurred to me what I was looking at and where I was looking at it from.

I'll be expecting my termination letter any day now, and there wasn't a fuck or a NSFW anywhere in sight.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:35 AM on January 27, 2010


so I sort of hope this is an isolated incident.

I don't think this will be a problem.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:48 AM on January 27, 2010


« Older deleted post question   |   Enjoy A Dr. Nut and a Hot Dog From Paradise Newer »

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