PerlMonks is normally considered a safe for work site, which is precisely why it is important to mark the aberrations as NSFW.
That's not something I disagree with. But I refuse to call the words
"spread eagle" to be an aberration.
that an Off-Topic section be created that people could avoid.
Suppose there was one. How's that supposed to work in the case being discussed? Someone asks a Perl question. Someone else replies spread eagle
. You cannot post a followup in a different section than the post that starts a thread - so the OP should have posted his question in the "off-topic" section. But how is he supposed to know?
But then all you are doing are taking extreme examples
You call me
extreme? You're the one that comes with a female HR representative taking offense (probably after doing some shoulder surfing -- how else is she to know?) of an employee reading
the words "spread eagle". It's not about an employee writing it - no, it's just about an employee reading a web page. I call that an extreme example.
Again, this is a site about Perl, so why not err on the side of caution??
The boy who called wolf. If people mark totally innocent words
as NSFW, people will think that NSFW isn't something unappropriate. And then the click on a topic marked NSFW which does contains something that really is not safe for work. Hollowing out the meaning of warnings is dangerous.
And there is no harm in trying to be considerate of others.
True, but I've different opinions on what's NSFW than you have. So, to come back to my question, who's going to decide what is NSFW and what is SFW?