Skip to main content

View Diary: Updates - Press release from Protest Groups. Nude people take over Speaker Boehner's office! (101 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  WTF are you talking about? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CuriousBoston

    I guess you don't ever view DKos on a computer screen that's subject to restrictions like in a work environment (fireable offense if you're looking at "inappropriate material, and nude bodies per the work policy is just that).  So anything must seem to you to be fair game to post and shove in people's faces.  That's the one and only time I've ever seen a nude picture here on DKos.  But I don't read every comment because I have to choose what I can do at work and what I can't.

    As for the various other videos you describe on DKos, I don't recall ever seeing pictures with graphic violence that weren't either labeled in the diary title with NSFW or (and here's a key point, since this was a commenter and not the diarist) the commenter would post a link rather than embedded the video for the exact reason in my comment above.  Even if they post a video, I don't recall the little window being as obvious about body parts strewn around as that lineup of nude people was.  And I would not click the link at work.

    Must suck to be so righteous about violence and all that you have the right to tell someone who's just asking for some consideration to sod off.  You must be so frustrated with the world.

    •  You lack of reading comprehension staggers me. (0+ / 0-)

      I covered the possibility you were at work in my final paragraph.

      I'll translate it for you:

      "You don't get to complain about people posting things that might get you fired from work... because you shouldn't be reading forums from work... and I don't personally care if you're fired because the pictures are of some naked protestors or Mallory's bloodied face".

      Now, if you happen to have a specifically permissive workplace in which you would not be fired for being caught reading forums displaying a womans swollen face but breasts a few pixel wide is a problem... then that just reinforces my point about the perverted way in which society (and you) judges anything sexual compared to anything violent.

      And, no, a lot of violent stuff is posted without NSFW warnings... even moreso on mainstream news sources.

      And, by the way, I'm not being righteous about violence. I'm highlighting the puerile hyprocrisy of those who have a fainting spell over a bit of nakedness... while, with helpings of cognitive dissonance so large that Pan looks over their shoulder and suggests they should indulge just a little less, fails to even once call out the way violence is readily displayed all around them.

      Unless you think the violence isn't nearly as bad as the nakedness, of course.

      tl;dr You were the one being righteous and got called out for the hypocrisy... I don't care about the niche excuse of the possibility of you get fired for doing what the majority of the world would get fired for doing whether there was nakedness or not.

      •  And my lack of spelling staggers me. (0+ / 0-)

        Sigh.

      •  You make a LOT of assumptions (0+ / 0-)

        here and below.  You assert that I must have visited the Pakistani fire and Mallory diaries and how dare I not complain about those if I dare to suggest a NSFW message with a link would have been better for those viewing from work.  Well I did not visit any of those other diaries from work (or from home) because they didn't happen to be as high on my interest list as a protest at Boehner's office.  News report viewing is allowed if they don't interfere with normal work.  I just don't want to have to explain why I was viewing nudity while reading the news, even if it was the point of the news article.  Onomastic explained why they didn't post links and I was just alerting Lefty Coaster, an honored member of DKos, that their comment (with YouTube link) could cause problems.

        As for your complaint below about how I didn't mention work as being the reason I was not pleased with the post, you do understand what NSFW stands for, don't you?

        •  You want us to believe not a single confronting (0+ / 0-)

          image, not involving nudity, has previously appeared on your screen in one SINGLE dairy/comment from whatever percentage of the those you read from work, while ignoring warning words (because if "naked" didn't stop you, I'm sure "violent" or "brutal" wouldn't have), while racking up 13,000+ comments.

          Not a single one.

          Ok then.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site