Pam Anderson/KFC thread needs a NSFW tag May 3, 2005 4:30 PM   Subscribe

Slutfilter: I hate to sound like a prude, but the Pam Anderson/Kentucky Fried Cruelty ad isn't really SFW. I work in a tutoring lab and have had two students ask me what I'm lookin' at...
posted by notsnot to Etiquette/Policy at 4:30 PM (53 comments total)

Pamela Anderson vs. KFC? Just think of it as the battle of the big breasted chicks!
posted by jonmc at 4:37 PM on May 3, 2005


What are you talking about?
posted by nkyad at 4:52 PM on May 3, 2005


Maybe you should just be logged in at work? I mean, if you're going to be looking at metafilter at work and all...
posted by interrobang at 4:54 PM on May 3, 2005


Yet another example of why I say the NSFW tag should be dropped altogether. If you surf the web at work, youse takes youse chances, sweetheart.
posted by mischief at 5:04 PM on May 3, 2005


I disagree, mischief. Lots of us have jobs where it's fine to browse the web, but not fine to look at offensive stuff. Since MeFi is almost 99% worksafe, it really should be suggested that people include a NSFW tag or make sure the description is clear.

Of course, when in doubt, don't click! It's not as if Pam Anderson is known for being clothed.
posted by chaz at 5:37 PM on May 3, 2005


Seriously, what are we talking about here?
posted by Witty at 5:38 PM on May 3, 2005


it's called RIP dude. Use it.
posted by puke & cry at 5:47 PM on May 3, 2005


I've seen the billboard notsnot is talking about.

I have yet to find the thread this post is about, though.

The billboard really didn't look all that shocking. IIRC, she was wearing a tank top.
posted by Kellydamnit at 5:49 PM on May 3, 2005


She is wearing a tank top, yes; it still seems a bit over the top for a front-page ad.
posted by notsnot at 5:52 PM on May 3, 2005


NSFW


posted by felix betachat at 5:53 PM on May 3, 2005


I agree. It's a big ad, too.
posted by painquale at 6:18 PM on May 3, 2005


There is a blogad that features pamela anderson on it, and it's about KFC cruelty.

There have been numerous instances where this site has proven to be NSFW; if you're not able to handle the rare instance where that is the case, perhaps browsing at work is not an option for you.

As was previously said, it's also possible to just stay logged in while at school. This fixes that particular problem.
posted by dflemingdotorg at 6:47 PM on May 3, 2005


the place where i volunteer has something called "dan's guardian" that says mefi is pr0n. pfft.
posted by quonsar at 6:57 PM on May 3, 2005


And you are that porn.

...and time becomes a loop...
posted by loquacious at 8:03 PM on May 3, 2005


I agree.
posted by bingo at 8:15 PM on May 3, 2005


so... was the ad linked to from Metafilter or what? I just searched the front page for chickens, anderson, kfc... wtf?
posted by dobbs at 8:26 PM on May 3, 2005


There have been numerous instances where this site has proven to be NSFW; if you're not able to handle the rare instance where that is the case, perhaps browsing at work is not an option for you.
For many of us, browsing at work is fine, but we need to be informed in advance of what type of content we are visiting, because there is no way of knowing who is checking the logs (but we do know that everything is logged). The NSFW tag gives fair warning that the link is potentially a problem.

so... was the ad linked to from Metafilter or what? I just searched the front page for chickens, anderson, kfc... wtf?
The ads in question are only visible to the logged-in impaired. My guess is that notsnot can't stay logged in because s/he uses different computers. One solution for this was suggested here, which I have found to be very effective.
posted by dg at 8:43 PM on May 3, 2005


I just searched the front page for chickens, anderson, kfc... wtf?

Log out. Look at the main page while you are logged out.
posted by raedyn at 9:01 PM on May 3, 2005


Thanks, raedyn.
posted by dobbs at 9:12 PM on May 3, 2005


Ah, I see. I say huuuuge overreaction. Not much different from a fashion magazine cover. I'm with mischief. Drop the NSFW thing altogether, because if a busty clothed lady will elicit this kind of reaction, the tag won't help you when you click some apparently innocent link and it shows you the wrong add. You are still in the intrawebs, Janet Jackson body parts allowed anywhere, any time of the day.
posted by nkyad at 9:19 PM on May 3, 2005


Thanks raedyn, now I can say that this thread is really fucking stupid.

Oh, and the above comment was NSFW.
posted by eyeballkid at 9:21 PM on May 3, 2005


notsnot: Then don't look at MetaFilter at work.

Problem solved.
posted by xmutex at 9:23 PM on May 3, 2005


Oddly, I never noticed that the ads went away when I logged in. Must be the Adblock Syndrome... Not that I ever blocked ads on Metafilter, no sir. (As evidenced by the fact that I saw the ad in question when I logged out... it's not so much the visual as the text above it that caused me to double-take.)
posted by socratic at 9:33 PM on May 3, 2005


lofi, dude, lofi.

(that said, I'm still trying to work out how exactly to get greasemonkey to skin ask in a lofi manner -- well, I tried for about ten minutes. Anyone want to do it for me? I KNOW YOU DO)
posted by fishfucker at 12:05 AM on May 4, 2005


fishfucker: you can't view lofi anymore while logged out.

And in case people want to see the image without logging out: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/sbutler1/www/pamanderson.jpg. I don't see anything wrong with it, but then again I sometimes read jerkcity panels to my coworkers.
posted by sbutler at 12:22 AM on May 4, 2005


Or you could use Bloglines to read your MeFi. No ads, full linky goodness.
posted by furtive at 5:10 PM on May 4, 2005


To be honest, I was a bit surprised as well. PETA bought a three month ad slot and originally it had something about the canadian seal hunt when I approved it. (and their ad went up a week or so after my post about the same subject, it was coincidence, not marketing).

I guess the system at blogads.com lets you change an ad after it starts because I've seen the peta ad morph into a couple other campaigns, including the one about a new pamela video that is kind of racy.

I'm not saying it's NSFW exactly, but kinda racy, though I wouldn't call it Suicide Girls levels of raciness.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:49 PM on May 4, 2005


I've seen ads on Hotmail showing way more than that.
posted by mischief at 6:12 PM on May 4, 2005


Did you explain to your students that what they were asking about was an advertisement, much like FREE V!AGR4H SOFT TAB$, and you can't really speak for it one way or the other?

Kids are smart, and all... they understand that there's crazy stuff in the world, and that it can stand entirely on its own.
posted by odinsdream at 6:15 PM on May 4, 2005


felix betachat--Ah, so that's what stavros looks like.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:40 AM on May 5, 2005


Or just get Greasemonkey/MetaFilterButler.
posted by Heatwole at 5:42 AM on May 5, 2005


Just out of curiosity: what size of breasts are considered safe for work?
posted by spilon at 6:08 AM on May 5, 2005


This thread could use a little nudity.
posted by breezeway at 8:51 AM on May 5, 2005


Just for breezeway:


posted by deborah at 9:05 AM on May 5, 2005


Taking money from PETA is actually more repulsive to me than the whole SuicideGirls flap. Kee-rist, at least SG doesn't funnel money to the ALF last time I checked.

But I bet nobody'll call anyone a pimp for it.
posted by darukaru at 9:08 AM on May 5, 2005


Funny. Last night I saw nothing. Today, I see it.
And to it I say: meh.
Lofi indeed to eliminate this from happening.
posted by Busithoth at 9:23 AM on May 5, 2005


I'm not talking about you, notsnot, but as a general observation, it seems that the U.S. is becoming really alarmingly puritanistic.

I'm not a big fan of "boobs as advertising", in the least, but there is difference between intelligent resistance to commodified sex as a sales gimmick, and creepy, freaky "Salem morality", circa 1695.

Be careful, you guys; you are totally slipping into the twilight zone!
posted by taz at 9:58 AM on May 5, 2005


But aren't boobs effective as advertising because of our puritanical nature? It's the idea that things are naughty that makes people want them, at least in the U.S.

In other matters, I'm sure that no one here wants to step on anyone's first amendment rights, but avoiding things that are NSFW is really just common courtesy. If everyone who reads MeFi at work just stopped doing it, the place would look like it does on weekends, aka mostly empty. So exercise a bit of restraint out of a sense of community, if for no other reason. If you want to see boobs, I have it on good authority that there is no shortage of them on the Internet.
posted by anapestic at 10:17 AM on May 5, 2005


If that Pamela Anderson image is to racy for your work, than you not only need to stop reading metafilter, you need to unplug your computer and say goodbye to the internets forever.

Really.



Oh, and stop bugging us with your purtanical moral dilemmas.
posted by sic at 10:25 AM on May 5, 2005


Man, I should really spellcheck my posts, that is horrrble.
posted by sic at 10:26 AM on May 5, 2005


That Pamela Anderson ad isn't too bad, but those of you going off about puritanism, think of it this way: there's a difference between goofing off at work reading Maxim, and goofing off at work reading the Economist or the local paper... because one's goofing off, and the other's goofing off and throwing it in everyone's face. And what anapestic said about Mefi getting most of its stuff from people goofing off at work.
posted by furiousthought at 10:58 AM on May 5, 2005


horrrble indeed ; >
posted by amberglow at 11:00 AM on May 5, 2005


Be careful, you guys; you are totally slipping into the twilight zone!

Slipping into? You want to maybe change that from present to past tense? We invented the twilight zone. The US seems to quite enjoy it's weird self-denying, self-gratifying moral thrashings in the most perverse ways possible.

Mmm. Weird, perverse moral thrashings. Spankees form a line to the left, spankers to the right.
posted by loquacious at 11:23 AM on May 5, 2005


but those of you going off about puritanism,

I was actually trying to keep it down (my incredulity that is), because naked breasts in the media are seen here all the time (in a perfectly normal soap commercial, for example), and the idea that now, in the U.S., just the image of a dressed well-endowed woman is dangerous and naughty totally creeps me out.

The fact that so many are so meekly accepting this whole twisted "at work" thing creeps me out worse.


loquacious: :-)
posted by taz at 11:29 AM on May 5, 2005


Yeah, but NSFW isn't about discretion/suppression of sexuality as much as it's about discretion in goofing off, in my eyes, which is why the counter-POV is so... off: "we must be free and happy with the breasteses but NO GOOFING OFF AT WORK FOR YOU!" As moral thrashings go that's pretty fuckin' perverse, doncha think?
posted by furiousthought at 12:43 PM on May 5, 2005


I don't WANT to be exposed to your gaping thread.
posted by petebest at 1:05 PM on May 5, 2005


umm "slutfilter" whatever, I find that offensive. I suppose being sexual is what makes one a "slut"? Since apparently you get to be the one who decides who earns the slut label.
posted by yodelingisfun at 2:48 PM on May 5, 2005


I think you can call Pamela Anderson a slut. She'd probably pass under any defintion. Like we're talking textbook slut here.

Not that that's a bad thing.
posted by xmutex at 3:53 PM on May 5, 2005


# slattern: a dirty untidy woman
# adulteress: a woman adulterer

Well sorry I was unaware that Pam was an untidy adultress...seriously though the word slut seems a little extreme but I guess it's just me.
posted by yodelingisfun at 5:04 PM on May 5, 2005


I don't think she's a slut. She's sexy, and she makes money off her sexiness. So a video of her having sex with her husband came out. It happens.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:52 PM on May 5, 2005


I support equal-opportunity sluttitude.
posted by exlotuseater at 9:20 PM on May 5, 2005


Open minded people can be so self-righteous. The original poster is at work with kids, and it's not just a question of his/her prudery, but of getting backlash from The Man. So, in my opinion, what they are really saying is, "I share the same Mefi addiction that you all have, but I get freaked out by the occasional racy image."

I teach in a computer classroom, and I can't send my students to BoingBoing, a great source of good stuff, because it has become Pr0nified. It's not that I'm shocked by busty images of maladjusted NW goth girls, but that they're not appropriate in the classroom and detract from the site.

I don't understand why the 5% of the time that porn is supposedly empowering someone it overrides the 95% of the time that somebody is getting used.

/rant
posted by mecran01 at 7:40 AM on May 7, 2005


So, mecran, is that a vote for or against? ;-P
posted by mischief at 12:46 PM on May 7, 2005


« Older Tired old argument   |   Portland Meetup Newer »

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