Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Not Safe For Work threads

by creamygoodness (Curate)
on Jan 05, 2010 at 01:31 UTC ( #815672=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Not Safe For Work threads [NSFW]

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.


Comment on Re: Not Safe For Work threads
Re^2: Not Safe For Work threads
by Argel (Prior) on Jan 05, 2010 at 19:53 UTC
    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.
        I'm also curious who decides.


        holli

        You can lead your users to water, but alas, you cannot drown them.
        And anyone reading that thread will know that that was not the intent. Sexual harassment is for better or worse defined by the one being offended, and that would not pass muster in an HR department, down votes and false explanations otherwise.

        Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

      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.

        As far as hostile work environments go, "play it safe" and "when in doubt don't do/say it" are good guidelines (especially in large corporate environments). It's not hard to apply that here -- if you're not sure, then mark it NSFW.

        PerlMonks is normally considered a safe for work site, which is precisely why it is important to mark the aberrations as NSFW. In that sense you have the responsibility thing backwards. If this type of thing was common then you would have a point, but the reality is that the NSFW content goes against the nature and spirit of this site. Update: Though it really comes down to Monks being considerate of other Monks, something sorely lacking in this thread.

        Religion is a red herring because the religious motif of the site would present problems. But if that wasn't there, then I would not be opposed to marking them NSFW or suggest (for the one millionth time) that an Off-Topic section be created that people could avoid. It's really simple -- this is a site about Perl, so off-topic stuff like that doesn't really have a place on here.

        But then all you are doing are taking extreme examples and using that as an excuse to justify the NSFW items and the juvenile and unprofessional behavior that has taken place in the thread I linked to and this thread. Maybe you should re-read that other thread and look at e.g. ikegami's post for an example of a professional, considerate answer.

        There is a difference between random trolling/spam, where downvotes + reaping will likely take care of it. I'm not sure if I would rush to mark a thread like that as NSFW. But then there are threads like this one where the juvenile, unprofessional behavior is by other Monks and will likely not be reaped. In that context, I think it's appropriate to go ahead and mark the thread as NSFW (like I did for my OP). Again, this is a site about Perl, so why not err on the side of caution?? All it does is serve as a warning to others -- it doesn't prevent them from looking at it if they want to. And there is no harm in trying to be considerate of others.

        Regarding gender, both of these threads have certainly had the stereotypical male locker-room feel to them which is why I did mention it. I cannot help but wonder what kind of responses we would have seen if e.g. ELISHEVA had asked the question or have been the first one to post a reply.

        Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

      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

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://815672]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others surveying the Monastery: (11)
As of 2014-07-22 20:32 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (127 votes), past polls