I dunno. I would get fired for having sexual content (displayed or saved) on my work computer, regardless of orientation.
I think NSFW warnings is a good (as in courteous) thing…
2.5 doesn’t have to be gay to care about gay rights, the question is, does he really give 2.5 shits about gays or gay rights?
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
I’m fortunate to have married an understanding woman—as I’ve aged, I’ve noticed an increasing difficulty maintaining my erection. Sometimes it goes down for an hour or two a day.
[/QUOTE]
Never mind. I’m sure she’d be the first to agree that, if it goes down for an hour or two, so can you.
I haven’t read this whole thread, my life has been extremely chaotic, but let me say that any picture of two naked or half-naked (shirtless would count) people would count as Not Workplace Safe, regardless of gender, race, or national origin.
No, we are not entirely consistent in monitoring this because we don’t check every freakin’ link. We generally only check those links that get reported. Once a link is reported, then, yes, we are consistent in moderating.
My own preference would be do disable ALL links, and then we wouldn’t have this problem, and people could cut-and-paste.
By requiring links be workplace-safe, we are NOT trying to censor any particular phobia or phonia (is that a word?), but we recognize that lots of our members read the boards during working time and we don’t want anyone inadvertently embarrassed. You want to go to a site deliberately, that’s fine, we’re not trying to prevent that, we’re only trying to protect against an accidental click on a link that turns out to be career-changing.
[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]
I haven’t read this whole thread, my life has been extremely chaotic, but let me say that any picture of two naked or half-naked (shirtless would count) people would count as Not Workplace Safe, regardless of gender, race, or national origin.
No, we are not entirely consistent in monitoring this because we don’t check every freakin’ link. We generally only check those links that get reported. Once a link is reported, then, yes, we are consistent in moderating.
My own preference would be do disable ALL links, and then we wouldn’t have this problem, and people could cut-and-paste.
By requiring links be workplace-safe, we are NOT trying to censor any particular phobia or phonia (is that a word?), but we recognize that lots of our members read the boards during working time and we don’t want anyone inadvertently embarrassed. You want to go to a site deliberately, that’s fine, we’re not trying to prevent that, we’re only trying to protect against an accidental click on a link that turns out to be career-changing.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t think you’re quite understanding the issue.
deleted.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
If this warning was added to a link that went to a website that had a black or interracial couple doing the same thing or discussed racial issues, nobody would be defending the warning regardless of the opinions of racist employers. Would you approve of a warning to Richard Dawkins’s website because of anti-atheist employers?
[/QUOTE]
Meaningful analogies aren’t really your thing, are they?
[QUOTE=KRM]
Meaningful analogies aren’t really your thing, are they?
[/QUOTE]
Whatever do you mean? Everyone knows that every oppressed/stereotyped/minority group is equivalent to every other oppressed/stereotyped/minority group.
[QUOTE=The Weird One]
Whatever do you mean? Everyone knows that every oppressed/stereotyped/minority group is equivalent to every other oppressed/stereotyped/minority group.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but I believe some are more equivalent than others.
[QUOTE=KRM]
Meaningful analogies aren’t really your thing, are they?
[/QUOTE]
Ah, you must’ve gotten one of the brochures with the printing error. His specialty is actually “mournful analingus.”
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
Ah, you must’ve gotten one of the brochures with the printing error. His specialty is actually “mournful analingus.”
[/QUOTE]
Just when I thought you’d lost your touch…