Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
P is for Practical
 
PerlMonks  

Not Safe For Work threads [NSFW]

by Argel (Prior)
on Jan 05, 2010 at 00:42 UTC ( #815670=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

The meaning of =()= thread has some NSFW (Not Safe For Work) content in it, meaning that the thread itself and those individual posts should all be marked NSFW. Clearly there should be a better way to handling adult themes than hoping an edit Consideration passes and that an editor actually follows-up on it. Thoughts? And please keep this safe for work! Thanks!

Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

Comment on Not Safe For Work threads [NSFW]
Re: Not Safe For Work threads
by Anonymous Monk on Jan 05, 2010 at 01:17 UTC
    We have <spoiler></spoiler> tags

    maybe we can add <nsfw></nsfw>?

    This rarely comes up, and monks are usually kind enough to give a heads up.

      Update: On second thought, this is not a good idea, because one can see the content without confirmation if they view that reply directly from RAT or Super Search etc.

      If you really want to tag your own post as NSFW, try

      <readmore title="NSFW"> ... </readmore>

      Let's see an example of what it really looks like.

        I think the attributes get cleared from the readmore elements.

        Update: On the other hand, it looks like the title may get placed outside of the readmore tags. Hmm...

        --MidLifeXis

Re: Not Safe For Work threads
by creamygoodness (Curate) on Jan 05, 2010 at 01:31 UTC

    Nobody actually posted dirty pictures or anything in the thread itself. The thread itself is SFW, because you can click on view it and it won't embarrass you in the office. The word "goatse" itself is SFW. However, I recommend against googling it, because you'll likely come up with images that are NSFW.

    If there are any offlinks to NSFW content, those should be labeled. I'm content to rely on individual monks for that labeling, falling back to editors when individuals fail.

      The second post in that thread is decidedly NSFW which makes the thread NSFW. You seem to think NSFW requires naughty pictures, when anything that can be construed as sexual harassment will do. And that second post clearly falls into that category. Care to explain to a female HR representative why that post is not demeaning to women and is not creating a hostile work environment?

      Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

        It is not decidely (sic) NSWF, every child is familiar with this diving position.
        Who decides what's NSFW? Whose work? In some cultures (including "Western" subcultures), people find it shocking for women to wear pants. (They take Deuteronomy 22:5 seriously), does that mean you cannot write the "the women in jeans" without marking it NSFW?

        I'm not advocating anything goes, not at all. But there are limits on restraint - and furthermore, if you work at a company where you can get into trouble for reading the word "spread eagle", you should take some responsibility as well. Perhaps you should refrain reading a site that consists almost exclusively from uncensored posts.

        BTW, I live in a country which has a freedom of religion, and where carrying firearms is usually forbidden. Do you think that anyone thread that mentions 'gun' or 'god' should be marked "NSFW"?

        I've also a practical question. Say, I post an innocent question about arrays, should I mark the question NSFW just because someone may followup with a post that contains the words "spead eagle"? After all, if someone clicks on my post, (s)he might have to explain the followup to her/his (fe)male HR representative.

        Oh, and why is the gender of the HR representative relevant? Are you allowed to read more if your HR representative is male? Isn't it sexist to suggest female HR representatives are more draconian than male HR representatives? Heh, perhaps your HR representative has something to say to you tomorrow.

        If "... the spread eagle ?.... ;-)" is "decidedly NSFW", I presume because "spread eagle" can be used to describe some kind of sex act that some might consider "deviant", then I proclaim that 98% of the internet is "decidedly NSFW" and thus, at your place of work, you should just stay off the internet. There is little point in trying to cover the majority of the internet with "NSFW" stickers.

        "Spread Eagle" is the name of a city in Wisconsin. I guess there are no companies in Spread Eagle, Wisconsin. I'm sure that "BEARS DEN, MINI-GOLF and GO-KARTS, Highway US 2, Spread Eagle, Wisconsin 54121. (715)696-xxxx" doesn't allow innocent children into its environment of unsafe word usage that is demeaning to women.

        On the other hand, the very first google hit for Argel notes:

        As a personal name, Argel may refer to:
        • Argélico Fucks (born 1974), a Brazilian football (soccer) player

        which most certainly triggers more automated "NSFW" filters in large U.S. corporations than "spread eagle". Though, probably not because "Brazilian" is a term for a type of pubic hair style. (And I suspect "soccer" is a term for a deviant sexual act and am sure that it sounds demeaning to women.) So, you should petition the gods to change your login to "Argel (NSFW)" and should probably not use it from work (which would also solve your original problem).

        But, let us not neglect the context for the "spread eagle" remark. I find that "=()=" is not an unreasonable ASCII stick figure representation for a position, such as used in figure skating (though ">()<" might be a better choice, especially in some fonts and because the idealized placement of the four limbs in a "=()=" arrangement is rarely achieved). Now, I strongly suspect that there are people who find figure skating demeaning to women, but I'm also sure that it is mainstream enough that I won't get in trouble with HR for mentioning in.

        Care to explain to a female HR representative why that post is not demeaning to women and is not creating a hostile work environment?

        That's trivially done. You see, I honestly don't jump to any off-color conclusions when seeing "=()=" juxtaposed to "spread eagle". I would ask the HR rep1 what is NSFW about a stick figure representation of a mainstream figure skating technique. If they tried to "explain" to me, I'd likely interrupt fairly soon and ask them to keep their interest in and knowledge of deviant sexual acts (or however they were describing it) to themselves and to especially not foist them upon me during business hours.

        1 Your characterization of the rep as "female" seems worryingly sexist. Are you trying to imply that HR reps are typically female? Or are you trying to imply that male HR reps don't properly appreciate what is demeaning to women? Or are you implying that female HR reps are unreasonably sensitive to things that they unreasonably consider demeaning to women? Or are you saying that female HR reps are particularly hard to "explain" things to?

        So, I personally find your contribution on this to be the one that I would find making a hostile (unpleasant, anyway) work environment if I were to consider your posting part of my work environment. Your personal knowledge of certainly sexual acts that I was previously unaware of was foisted upon me because I had to try to understand why you had such a strong reaction to "spread eagle".

        And yet, the one item here that pushes this into an unfortunate context for me (and, as you say, "Sexual harassment is for better or worse defined by the one being offended") was not marked "NSFW" by the person proposing that this needs to be done. I notice that you did mark the root node as "NSFW" but there is nothing in Re^2: Not Safe For Work threads that tells me not to visit your offensive node. So not even you, on your own nodes, are capable of carrying out your own proposal successfully.

        The proposal is hopelessly doomed to failure, of course. Introducing a process of arguing over where "NSFW" stickers need to be applied would just add a lot of arguing and noise and ultimately interfere with the discussing of Perl (as it already has).

        (And your chosen nick and your own contributions and your mind appear to be less "safe for work" than the node you are complaining about.)

        - tye        

        Sheesh, it's not like they suggested calling it the WOB (Wide Open ... - if you don't know what I mean, go read Breakfast of Champions, all will be made clear. And so on).

        As to creating a hostile work environment, did you dance around your cube chanting, "Spread-eagle, spread-eagle, spread-eagle--Unh" with a manly thrust accompanying the final grunt? Did you post a print out, highlighted in a coworkers' cube? That's the sort of crap that creates a hostile environment. And it does happen. All too often.

        The explanation for hypothetical HR perosn is simple. "I read a technical website related to my work. Because it is composed of user submitted content, sophomoric and inappropriate comments show up from time to time. The vast majority of posts to this site are free of this sort of content. I would be hampered in my work if I were unable to visit this website." No sweat, I don't see how the HR person's genital configuration has anything to do with the explanation.


        TGI says moo

Re: Not Safe For Work threads
by JavaFan (Canon) on Jan 05, 2010 at 11:11 UTC
    I doubt anyone has a work related reason to read about the meaning of =()=. So I'd say anyone reading that thread isn't surfing the web in the bosses time anyway.
      Anyone inheriting code that contains it could easily innocently ask about it, not knowing that racy background it has. Maybe that's why someone asked about it in meaning of =()=. It's pretty silly to say that no one will ever be asking about it for legitimate reasons because that assumes everyone knows about it. I certainly didn't know about its colorful past.

      Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

        irony


        holli

        You can lead your users to water, but alas, you cannot drown them.
        You sound as if you think it's normal to find =()= in serious code.
Re: Not Safe For Work threads
by zentara (Archbishop) on Jan 05, 2010 at 12:14 UTC
    And please keep this safe for work!

    Argel..... the grafitti written by high schoolers is alot worse than =()=

    By suppressing the exchange of ideas, because they offend your sexual barriers, results in women ending up in full burkas

    Honest to God.... I previously did not know what a goatse was in slang..... but I'm gonna remember it now, thanks to your complaining about it's discussion here :-)


    I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
    Old Perl Programmer Haiku

      I don't think it's "a goatse." It's just an allusion to the image that was the splash page for goatse.cx, read together ("goatsecx operator" is less funny). It was something of a rite of passage for online life 10 years ago. The original and much more potent Rickroll. Sadly, for the sake of Internet history, the original site has been gone for quite awhile. I see someone else has renewed it with currently safe content. I'm sure you can still find the original image. I, myself, would never look for it again. :)

      update: corrected a stupid typo that's too embarrassing to name.
      By suppressing the exchange of ideas
      If the posts were removed it would be suppressing the exchange of ideas. I'm just asking for a warning. And PerlMonks is supposed to be about the free exchange of ideas pertaining to Perl.

      Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

        =()= is a valid Perl construct which is useful for getting the count of items in a list under certain (admittedly rare) circumstances in which doing so would otherwise require the use of a pointless temporary variable.

        The common name for the =()= construct in most Perl communities I have encountered is "the goatse operator" and information about it can be easily located by googling it under that name, unlike searching for "=()=", since most search engines ignore punctuation.

        What part of this is not "pertaining to Perl"?

Re: Not Safe For Work threads
by holli (Monsignor) on Jan 05, 2010 at 14:32 UTC
    Americans…


    holli

    You can lead your users to water, but alas, you cannot drown them.
      No, large corporate environments.

      Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

        C'mon; recall the famous observation, '(t)he only thing we have to fear is fear itself.'

        Or worry about the sky falling if someone commits a syntax error that borks a nuke.

        use Sex; use Acme::Pr0n;
        There. Now this thread isn't SFW anymore. Or is it?
        xD


        holli

        You can lead your users to water, but alas, you cannot drown them.
        tell me Argel is this photo suitable for large corporate environments?...... there is no sex organs shown at all, just maybe the truth about corporations

        I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
        Old Perl Programmer Haiku
        I read (and write) perlmonks in a large corporate environment. The words "spread eagle" are safe for work here. Without further context, I'd assume that it was referring to a pub (it's a not particularly common pub name, which I believe refers to some particular heraldic version of an eagle).
        > No, large corporate environments.

        Alas, we have no large corporate environments in Europe ... ;)

        Cheers Rolf

        PS: /me googled the goatse image yesterday just before wanting to go to bed and spontaneously decided instead to start looking a movie, just to keep this picture out of his night(mares) ...

        NSFD= Not Safe For Dreams xD

Re: Not Safe For Work threads
by kennethk (Monsignor) on Jan 05, 2010 at 18:32 UTC
    I think there is some cause for concern in that there are terms in used in nodes 815610, 815615 and 815619 which may be used in an industrial setting for the purpose of content filtering (two different terms). I realize the discussion itself is not racy but triggering network security alarms is a pain even if the content is innocent. A spoiler-like <nsfw> tag wouldn't seem terribly out of line (says a guy who never contributes to the code base) if only to save some monks a few headaches.

    For the record, I refuse to type either term since I would hate to corrupt innocent electrons and will henceforth refer to the operator as the flying lentil, as per 815648. Plus now I have that stupid image in my brain again.

Re: Not Safe For Work threads
by teabag (Pilgrim) on Jan 05, 2010 at 22:08 UTC
    I have not been at PM for a while, but even using the Supersearch I'm having a hard time finding them 'naughty nodes'. And believe me, I looked.

    I might have been the only one grinning at Zentara's comment, being dutch I'm probably partially corrupted by evil already.
    We seem to have completely different ideas about whats NSFW. Zentara's comment might have been a bit cheeky,
    but even my female co-worker laughed at this 'typical display of nerd humor'.

    Then again, you might actually be a vicar?

    As for the <nfsw> tags, any really offensive comments by trolls are always edited or handled by he-who-can-not-be-named-but-reaps-a-lot.
    There's a time and a place to use warnings.

    Beware fellow monks; When humor goes, there goes civilization. - Erma Bombeck


    teabag
    Blessed is the end user who expects nothing, for he/she will not be disappointed.
      This post's parent node... would the author's nick make this thread (and thus all they participate in) NSFW?
Re: Not Safe For Work threads [NSFW]
by IBlowGoatsSucker (Beadle) on Jan 06, 2010 at 12:06 UTC
    Argel makes an excellent point, and his contributions to the discussion have been well-reasoned and thoughtful. We should do our utmost to comply with the sensibilities of the American corporate establishment. After all, we all know that corporations are the epitome of good sense and responsibility. The corporate top floor has developed a culture of caring and respect unlike any other on the planet. So please, even if your own preferences and habits run contrary to these high standards, show some consideration and mark yourself NSFW.
      Now there's irony!
        Dear Gavin, thank you for your contribution. I believe however that "irony", both as a technique and a term, is not suitable for the work environments of some monks. In the spirit of this discussion, could you please clearly mark that section of your post?

        Thanking you in advance, yours respectfully,

        Dick

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://815670]
Approved by toolic
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others imbibing at the Monastery: (5)
As of 2014-11-26 21:42 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My preferred Perl binaries come from:














    Results (174 votes), past polls