Comments on: This Post is Not Safe For Work http://htmlgiant.com/web-hype/this-post-is-not-safe-for-work/ the internet literature magazine blog of the future Sun, 12 Feb 2012 03:45:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: It’s Friday and that means nude sunbathing! | Daily Helping http://htmlgiant.com/web-hype/this-post-is-not-safe-for-work/comment-page-1/#comment-91714 It’s Friday and that means nude sunbathing! | Daily Helping Fri, 03 Sep 2010 05:07:40 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=34299#comment-91714 [...] before a three-day weekend.  That deserves a little special something and that means it’s NSFW (not safe for work).  Below is a pictorial that should get everyone’s weekend underway. Sea [...] [...] before a three-day weekend.  That deserves a little special something and that means it’s NSFW (not safe for work).  Below is a pictorial that should get everyone’s weekend underway. Sea [...]

]]> By: You Should Read: White Apple by Nick Antosca « http://htmlgiant.com/web-hype/this-post-is-not-safe-for-work/comment-page-1/#comment-78359 You Should Read: White Apple by Nick Antosca « Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:13:11 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=34299#comment-78359 [...] found the story when it was featured in an HTML Giant post arguing that when one defines a piece as ‘not safe for work,’ one automatically judges [...] [...] found the story when it was featured in an HTML Giant post arguing that when one defines a piece as ‘not safe for work,’ one automatically judges [...]

]]> By: BBCDW: How Pleasure Works. | Annalemma Magazine http://htmlgiant.com/web-hype/this-post-is-not-safe-for-work/comment-page-1/#comment-76472 BBCDW: How Pleasure Works. | Annalemma Magazine Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:34:17 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=34299#comment-76472 [...] Apologies for not finding a bigger image for Paul Blooms’s How Pleasure Works, an exploration into the inner-workings of our desires. It’s really hard to use embellishments like the ones flanking the subtitle without it looking like you’re trying to cultivate a look of high falootin’-ness. The stark, empty space background is nothing new but the oyster with the pearl inside is provocative and the most interesting thing about this cover. There isn’t cover design in recent memory as overtly vaginal as this one, the designer pulling a double whammy of desirable imagery, albiet in a not-terribly-subtle fashion. If neither of these images is desirable to you then here’s the boring, cheesy SFW cover: [...] [...] Apologies for not finding a bigger image for Paul Blooms’s How Pleasure Works, an exploration into the inner-workings of our desires. It’s really hard to use embellishments like the ones flanking the subtitle without it looking like you’re trying to cultivate a look of high falootin’-ness. The stark, empty space background is nothing new but the oyster with the pearl inside is provocative and the most interesting thing about this cover. There isn’t cover design in recent memory as overtly vaginal as this one, the designer pulling a double whammy of desirable imagery, albiet in a not-terribly-subtle fashion. If neither of these images is desirable to you then here’s the boring, cheesy SFW cover: [...]

]]> By: Laryssa http://htmlgiant.com/web-hype/this-post-is-not-safe-for-work/comment-page-1/#comment-76270 Laryssa Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:43:25 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=34299#comment-76270 I just want to say that I've never read that Nick Antosca story before and just now fell in love with it. Thank you for sharing. I just want to say that I’ve never read that Nick Antosca story before and just now fell in love with it. Thank you for sharing.

]]> By: Laryssa http://htmlgiant.com/web-hype/this-post-is-not-safe-for-work/comment-page-1/#comment-155744 Laryssa Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:43:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=34299#comment-155744 I just want to say that I've never read that Nick Antosca story before and just now fell in love with it. Thank you for sharing. I just want to say that I’ve never read that Nick Antosca story before and just now fell in love with it. Thank you for sharing.

]]> By: Today I didn't even have to use my A.K. http://htmlgiant.com/web-hype/this-post-is-not-safe-for-work/comment-page-1/#comment-75971 Today I didn't even have to use my A.K. Wed, 02 Jun 2010 19:25:57 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=34299#comment-75971 In terms of writing anonymously in order to write without fear of one's words "being tainted by the character implied," isn't there always a character implied? If an author (or even a blog commenter) writes under a pseudonym, the connotations of that pseudonym shape the lens through which the text is viewed. For example, I am writing this comment using a pseudonym. You are probably aware that it is a pseudonym. You are probably taking this comment less seriously than you might otherwise (assuming that you take blog comments seriously) (probably not) (but maybe). Even if a writer writes anonymously, he or she is perceived as the type of writer to write anonymously. Perhaps that meaning varies from reader to reader, yet each reader brings to the table his or her own pre-conceived notions of an anonymous writer. As an aside, how much does writing anonymously / employing a pseudonym for self-protection, when grappling with fringe topics, push the envelope? Doesn't it reinforce the notion that certain topics are socially unacceptable, unsuitable for association with one's real name, and thus, taboo? I'm not discounting the importance of preserving one's own boundaries. I'm all for it. But it does recontextualize this blog post, when the content in question was originally penned under a pseudonym. In terms of writing anonymously in order to write without fear of one’s words “being tainted by the character implied,” isn’t there always a character implied? If an author (or even a blog commenter) writes under a pseudonym, the connotations of that pseudonym shape the lens through which the text is viewed.

For example, I am writing this comment using a pseudonym. You are probably aware that it is a pseudonym. You are probably taking this comment less seriously than you might otherwise (assuming that you take blog comments seriously) (probably not) (but maybe).

Even if a writer writes anonymously, he or she is perceived as the type of writer to write anonymously. Perhaps that meaning varies from reader to reader, yet each reader brings to the table his or her own pre-conceived notions of an anonymous writer.

As an aside, how much does writing anonymously / employing a pseudonym for self-protection, when grappling with fringe topics, push the envelope? Doesn’t it reinforce the notion that certain topics are socially unacceptable, unsuitable for association with one’s real name, and thus, taboo?

I’m not discounting the importance of preserving one’s own boundaries. I’m all for it. But it does recontextualize this blog post, when the content in question was originally penned under a pseudonym.

]]> By: Today I didn't even have to us http://htmlgiant.com/web-hype/this-post-is-not-safe-for-work/comment-page-1/#comment-155743 Today I didn't even have to us Wed, 02 Jun 2010 19:25:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=34299#comment-155743 In terms of writing anonymously in order to write without fear of one's words "being tainted by the character implied," isn't there always a character implied? If an author (or even a blog commenter) writes under a pseudonym, the connotations of that pseudonym shape the lens through which the text is viewed. For example, I am writing this comment using a pseudonym. You are probably aware that it is a pseudonym. You are probably taking this comment less seriously than you might otherwise (assuming that you take blog comments seriously) (probably not) (but maybe). Even if a writer writes anonymously, he or she is perceived as the type of writer to write anonymously. Perhaps that meaning varies from reader to reader, yet each reader brings to the table his or her own pre-conceived notions of an anonymous writer. As an aside, how much does writing anonymously / employing a pseudonym for self-protection, when grappling with fringe topics, push the envelope? Doesn't it reinforce the notion that certain topics are socially unacceptable, unsuitable for association with one's real name, and thus, taboo? I'm not discounting the importance of preserving one's own boundaries. I'm all for it. But it does recontextualize this blog post, when the content in question was originally penned under a pseudonym. In terms of writing anonymously in order to write without fear of one’s words “being tainted by the character implied,” isn’t there always a character implied? If an author (or even a blog commenter) writes under a pseudonym, the connotations of that pseudonym shape the lens through which the text is viewed.

For example, I am writing this comment using a pseudonym. You are probably aware that it is a pseudonym. You are probably taking this comment less seriously than you might otherwise (assuming that you take blog comments seriously) (probably not) (but maybe).

Even if a writer writes anonymously, he or she is perceived as the type of writer to write anonymously. Perhaps that meaning varies from reader to reader, yet each reader brings to the table his or her own pre-conceived notions of an anonymous writer.

As an aside, how much does writing anonymously / employing a pseudonym for self-protection, when grappling with fringe topics, push the envelope? Doesn’t it reinforce the notion that certain topics are socially unacceptable, unsuitable for association with one’s real name, and thus, taboo?

I’m not discounting the importance of preserving one’s own boundaries. I’m all for it. But it does recontextualize this blog post, when the content in question was originally penned under a pseudonym.

]]> By: Brian Spears http://htmlgiant.com/web-hype/this-post-is-not-safe-for-work/comment-page-1/#comment-75931 Brian Spears Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:28:51 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=34299#comment-75931 It's especially less relative when you consider the possibility of a sexual harassment claim for creating a hostile work environment by having something pop up on your screen unexpectedly. It’s especially less relative when you consider the possibility of a sexual harassment claim for creating a hostile work environment by having something pop up on your screen unexpectedly.

]]> By: Brian Spears http://htmlgiant.com/web-hype/this-post-is-not-safe-for-work/comment-page-1/#comment-155742 Brian Spears Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:28:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=34299#comment-155742 It's especially less relative when you consider the possibility of a sexual harassment claim for creating a hostile work environment by having something pop up on your screen unexpectedly. It’s especially less relative when you consider the possibility of a sexual harassment claim for creating a hostile work environment by having something pop up on your screen unexpectedly.

]]> By: Joel Bass http://htmlgiant.com/web-hype/this-post-is-not-safe-for-work/comment-page-1/#comment-75919 Joel Bass Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:45:12 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=34299#comment-75919 I agree with most people here that NSFW is far from censorship, and is just a way to give potential readers a heads-up that clicking on a link may cause a picture of naked people to displayed on their computer. If you've ever worked in a corporate environment, you can probably imagine that most bosses frown on such things. On the other hand, when I see "NSFW", I am in no way prohibited, by my boss, by the blogger who typed that acronym, or anyone else, from clicking on the link. NSFW has absolutely no effect on me unless I want it to. No one asks my age or asks to see my I.D. when I click on an NSFW link. And no one is assuming anything about me. Comparing a NSFW tag to censorship of great literature just seems silly to me. I can (and occasionally do) read great literature during work, and the question of "appropriateness" never even enters into it. But yeah, if clicking on a link is going to plaster porn all over my very-visible computer screen, I'd at least like to a little warning ahead of time, so I can make a choice. I agree with most people here that NSFW is far from censorship, and is just a way to give potential readers a heads-up that clicking on a link may cause a picture of naked people to displayed on their computer. If you’ve ever worked in a corporate environment, you can probably imagine that most bosses frown on such things. On the other hand, when I see “NSFW”, I am in no way prohibited, by my boss, by the blogger who typed that acronym, or anyone else, from clicking on the link. NSFW has absolutely no effect on me unless I want it to. No one asks my age or asks to see my I.D. when I click on an NSFW link. And no one is assuming anything about me.

Comparing a NSFW tag to censorship of great literature just seems silly to me. I can (and occasionally do) read great literature during work, and the question of “appropriateness” never even enters into it. But yeah, if clicking on a link is going to plaster porn all over my very-visible computer screen, I’d at least like to a little warning ahead of time, so I can make a choice.

]]>