This thread is a gut buster, made me laugh my ass off. Maybe we could get it nominated for Thread Spotting. With all proper warnings in place of course.
Una hit it in one.
if only Monica had swallowed.
It’s not the 40,000 blowjobs, it’s the staff they had to hire to count 40,000 blowjobs. That kind of recordkeeping doesn’t come cheap.
True, but, there is a difference between images (easily viewed from a distance and judgements made) and text (not so much).
It’s a balance. Personally I don’t want to click on a link that leads to farm porn at work, but softer stuff, eh. But, my old job, if NSFW images weren’t labeled I probably couldn’t come to the SDMB at all.
It’s consideration. That’s all.
I couldn’t agree more. And in fact, something along those lines was discussed not long ago with regard to thread titles and people reading over your shoulder. One thing I always do when my sister visits is make sure my browser’s not on this site. That’s more about me than my sister, though. I’m sure she would just laugh it off, but as eleven years her junior, I’ve always thought of her as a second mom, and that instinct is just too built in. But I know that a workplace can be different. Some bosses (and peers) are just so incredibly anal, and no matter how ridiculous that may be, it does be.
So, I can understand the apprehension someone may have about losing their livelihood. It would take at least a little more time to discern a nasty thread title than it would to discern a hot chick in a large gif with blazing color animation. One ill-advised click in front of the wrong person, and somebody could be looking for work. And so while Tuba has a point about how dumb society is, I would hope she could empathise with people who don’t have the luxury of assessing the matter quite so philosophically.
And she does.
Do we then have to cater to the most repressed and prudish work environment that might be out there, a lowest common denominator standard of propriety? Or do we only have to satisfy the code of the **Liberal ** Office, and no further?
I’d hit it.
FTR, I started the 2nd thread because I missed the first one. I started it because I was accessing the site from a military base library computer. That place has very strict rules on what this site calls NSFW.
And I thought Tuba’s comment added to the Weird Earl is hilarious. I agree with her on it. It’s a stupid rule and is obviously inconsistent as it merely addresses the image, not the text.
The photo to which she referred in the thread was of a summary execution during the Vietnam War. It is sad that a beautiful thing such as the human body is deemed offensive but a hideous action isn’t.
I’m confused. Is it TubaDiva giving out the blowjobs or what? Cos, y’know, all those years of playing, the gal must have some damn good skills.
Ah, there’s the rub. (sorry)
But seriously. We’ve been having this debate, on and off, for quite some time. There was Tuba’s infamous “raising the tone” way back when, and more recently an attempt or two in the pit to clean up thread titles in that forum. There have also been less notable threads in both the pit and ATMB here and there.
I think that if your employer allows you to surf at work, there’s a certain level of tolerance already displayed by that. Further, it seems to me that the majority of links posted on the boards are adequately explained in the post – cites for debates, pictures of one’s offspring, etc. Still further, hovering your mouse over the link and looking at the status bar frequently (though by no means always) provides some idea of where you’re going. Those two things didn’t apply to the Weird Earl’s link before the warning was added.
Also, my main concern wasn’t system administrators, but coworkers. Not everyone works in a building where they have their own office or even their own cubicle, and not everyone works someplace where they know every coworker. It’s also a lot easier to see that naked woman and read the word “blowjobs” from 20 feet away than it is to read thread titles (at least on my screen).
I don’t like prudishness about nudity any more than the next person, and I agree that there are a lot worse things in the world than a naked woman with angel wings lying there and tonguing a pencil. It’s an attitude I would like to see change in the world and in this country in particular, just like many of you (Tuba included). But face facts – in the grand scheme of things, we’re a relatively inconsequential message board, and we’re not going to be changing American social mores by not labeling a link NSFW, and not labeling it has the potential to do far more harm than good.
After reading Monty’s comment, I withdraw my criticism about dismissing his concerns. I stand by my comment that the link shows a naked woman offering blowjobs in bold text, and that any member would have been corrected if not chastised for posting it without a warning.
She was chastised, by the posters asking for a NSFW label. She immediately recognized, acknowledged, and rectified her error. What more do you want?
It was on the Straight Dope Home Page, anyway. Personally, I’ve never warned Cecil for any of his column subjects which I am loath to open at work.
How about someone warning Slug? He’s not safe for humanity, as we know it.
Well, it’s been NSFW mostly, except that time some mod wanted to put it on her resume and there was the big squeaky-cleaning effort.
Mmmm…blowjobs…
Wait-Tuba gave Clinton blowjobs to make her resume look better?
Well it didn’t look as good on her dress.
How can you be sure? It’s hard to empathise with someone when you think they live in a whole 'nuther world than you.
That’s very big of you, what with your criticism not having any validity in the first place. You would have seen that had you not been so busy upping your obsessional creepiness to 11. Make no bones about it, your staunch opposition to both basic reading skills and learning to let things go are much admired 'round these here parts.
Considering the front page is not the message board and doesn’t follow the same rules, your complaint here is irrelevant. And whiney, but mostly irrelevant.