Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Don't ask to ask, just ask

Re^5: Not Safe For Work threads

by creamygoodness (Curate)
on Jan 08, 2010 at 18:45 UTC ( #816385=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re^4: Not Safe For Work threads
in thread Not Safe For Work threads [NSFW]

I'd actually be somewhat uncomfortable with the use of "goatse" as a joking reference in sample code, as in that whiteboard anecdote.

Not personally -- in the pub you should expect far fouler than that from me. ;) But since "goatse" refers unambiguously to something sexually explicit, I'd be hesitant to use it in a professional context except in a sort of antiseptic explanatory way: "Well, you should probably know that that's sometimes called the 'goatse operator', which refers to a brutally explicit image on the net."

I'd expect my colleagues, regardless of background, to be adult enough to handle discussing the topic in the abstract. But other usages are dicey. Here in the US, they're also legally hazardous... but I'd go beyond that and say that I believe in the reasons those laws were passed, and that our industry, with its dreadful gender diversity ratio, has a long way to go making our workplace environments welcoming to all.

Avoiding the word "goatse" on workplace whiteboards is very different from avoiding it on some random website you clicked to.

Comment on Re^5: Not Safe For Work threads
Re^6: Not Safe For Work threads
by Your Mother (Canon) on Jan 08, 2010 at 20:51 UTC

    Not like this could get any more afield but pornography can be in the eyes of the beholder. The Image Which Cannot Be Named might be an acceptable presentation point for a proctology class. Sidenote: I would tend to label any medically graphic images NSFW myself.

Re^6: Not Safe For Work threads
by Jenda (Abbot) on Jan 11, 2010 at 14:03 UTC

    "Diversity". "Welcoming to all". Agrrrr. What a ... nonsense. Your "dreadful gender diversity ratio" has got nothing to do whatsoever with the workplace environment dude. Males and females are different! Which doesn't mean there can't be (good) female developers, but it does mean that females IN GENERAL do not TEND TO WANT to be developers. Just like males do not tend to want to go to some other careers. With exceptions of course. You'd have to FORCE females to choose the career if you wanted to have "good" diversity. There's nothing preventing a female from choosing the career and some silly word on some whiteboard will not change that.

    All this diversity quota stuff is racism and sexism at its worst.

    Enoch was right!
    Enjoy the last years of Rome.

      Oh my god, you are so right! Women were born to breed children (it's in the name, WOmen comes from womb), and they don't like to do anything else. If they need to work they can be nurses, fashion designers or cooks, jobs no normal man would take. Women who work in IT are subverting the Lord's will, it's not natural! Clearly, the 28% of women who currently work in IT and engineering in the US were forced to do so against their will! Probably their parents were communists! Another proof: in Malaysia there are as many women as men in IT, and it is an overwhelmingly Islamic country, which makes Jesus cry. Don't force women to take an IT job by not being a total jerk!

        When it comes to intentional misunderstanding you must have tried really really hard.

        And yes, they were born to breed children. Among milions of other things. They can work as anything they want sweetheart. They just tend to choose different jobs. THEMSELVES! And no, there would not be 28% of women in IT, if it was not for years' long "oh my gawd, we don't have enough women in IT" campaigns. And if companies were not compelled to watch their "diversity". There would be some women in IT. There would be some great women in IT. Actually all the good and great women that are in IT would be in IT even without the campaigns. And would get jobs even without the "jeeesus, we've got only 13.717% of women in the workforce, we've got to hire some. And since we are also short on blacks (go to hell with the afroamerican newspeak!) they've got to be black. And we've got to hire them now, before the SaRQ officers find out!"

        The Diversion and Inclusion laws are racist and sexist!

        Enoch was right!
        Enjoy the last years of Rome.

      Thank goodness you didn't call it "reverse-racism" or "reverse-sexism" or you would have triggered me to rant. Racism is racism, no matter who is discriminating against who.

      While it is pretty clear that men and women are different, it is not clear how much of the difference is cultural vs biological. To the extent that we culturally exclude people from desirable work, we are failing to support individual liberty.

      If a career is seen as female only (say nursing), a man may not be actively excluded in training or recruitment programs. However, if all his co-workers are women, then you will naturally be excluded. Many people will move on to a more welcoming work site or career. If you can get a small group of men working in that same position, then the exclusion effect is lessened. It becomes easier to recruit and retain men into that role.

      It works the same way with primarily male or racially monolithic work environments.

      There may be nothing (except perception) preventing a woman from choosing to work in IT, but there are plenty of things encouraging them to move on to another profession.

      Quotas and affirmative action are difficult subjects. Racism and sexism in any form is offensive. Yet, if a career is seen as exclusively male or white, it can be extremely difficult to overturn those notions so that the *ist inequality (the cultural component of the disparity) is addressed. Mechanisms like social proof and in and out group biases help to keep mostly single race/gender occupations segregated. To overcome these forces some sort of blunt instrument is needed.

      So, while affirmative action rankles, I don't know a better solution. I'd love to hear one suggested, actually.

      But this topic isn't even about AA, its about what is NSFW and why. Some people are over-sensitive. If I had to explain what the `goatse` operator was to someone who I thought would be easily offended, I would say:

      It is named after a disgusting shock image that was commonly posted to internet sites in the late 90s. If you want to know more I suggest you google it on your own time, but be warned that it is very shocking and is of a sexual nature.

      If you work someplace with a strict filtering policy, and they churn alarms at you for stumbling upon a naughty word in a post at PM, as long as you have a good work related reason to be here, then you will be fine. I'd go so far as to mention the incident to my supervisor. However, if you jump up and down and make unwelcome, sexually explicit comments about the goatse operator and spread-eagle to your coworkers (whatever their gender), then you have a problem.

      It's amazing how much of what troubles people can be solved by mere politeness. Name calling and exclusionary tactics (such as standard, PC nonsense) don't solve anything.

      TGI says moo

Re^6: The NSFW Operator
by LanX (Canon) on Jan 12, 2010 at 12:53 UTC
    > I'd actually be somewhat uncomfortable with the use of "goatse" as a joking reference in sample code, as in that whiteboard anecdote.

    Actually my problem is that only a minority knows the original meaning of "goatse", old inside jokes are hard to preserve...

    A good name must be easy to remember... (also in the sense that it doesn't cause unease)!

    Names like Saturn or Propeller or Biplane for =( )= are much better to understand for someone who only safesearches at google.

    If someone wants a joking a reference, one may call it NSFW-Operator... ;-)

    Cheers Rolf

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://816385]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chanting in the Monastery: (16)
As of 2014-07-31 13:51 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:

    Results (248 votes), past polls